The FCC and Profanity Regulation

I recently read an article that seemed like a complete blast from the past in the sense that I thought, “Didn’t we go through this in the 70’s?” Apparently, a U.S. appeals court struck down a proposed FCC policy that would ban networks from broadcasting profanity. Does this policy sound a little 1950’s to anyone else? Do you remember in I Love Lucy or Dick Van Dyke that the couples slept in separate beds? This was because a single bed referred too much to sex. Or in the Brady Bunch, the kids had that big ol’ bathroom, but you never saw a toilet? Toilets were considered profane.  Now, it seems like the court was also having these flashbacks because it claimed that the policy was unconstitutional and that the banning of all offensive material (not just swear words, but references to things like sex or toilet time) without a clear definition of what is meant by offensive would essentially limit what broadcasters would feel safe to talk about on-air. Good news for toilets.

While media outlets were thrilled, the FCC claimed that the ruling was, get this, “anti-family.” Say what? Does that mean the FCC wants TV to go back to the days when all programming was family appropriate? Because I think we can all agree that a revival of The Brady Bunch and My Mother the Car would be a bad idea. Also, since when has the “family unit” been the only demographic taken into consideration in these matters? People are staying single longer, not having kids, getting divorced, etc. It’s a very arcane idea that TV is for the family. The FCC also creepily added that they intended to, “Clarify and strengthen its indecency framework.” Who are these people? And why are they waging a culture was against mature programming?

Now, maybe all this is a bit harsh or overdramatic, after all this wasn’t really about toilets, but about being able to fine broadcasters for “fleeting expletives” or lone utterances (think Bono at the 2003 golden globe awards). Still, the issue could easily reopen bigger decency discussions or curtail program content. The thing is, this isn’t just about wanting to ensure the rights of South Park, it’s about maintaining plurality. If broadcasters were afraid of running into federal trouble (or incurring fines) they would avoid any controversial material and we really would start seeing shows like I Dream of Jeanie. Even family sitcoms would get watered down because discussions of real life topics like sex or pregnancy wouldn’t be tolerated. One of TVs greatest strengths is that it can take important topics and make it ok to talk about them, it sort of sets a tone. And not talking about certain subjects or avoiding them doesn’t make the subject go away, it just makes it less easy to talk about and come to terms with.

It quite frankly scares me that a government body like the FCC was even thinking about trying to pass profanity regulation, let alone that they feel so strongly about it that they’re preparing to mount another attack. I’ve love to know the reasoning behind it. Why this, why now?