Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.
The issue of obscenity has generated different reactions since the Supreme Court first dealt with the issue in the case of Cohen v. California in 1971. The decision to convict the accused was reversed by the court on the ground that his speech was protected under the First Amendment. Justice Harlan, who presided over the case, triggered a deep debate in his argument that the issue of using obscene language differs from one person to another. This issue of obscenity later came under scrutiny in the two celebrated landmark cases in United States. The decisions upheld in both the Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Federal Communications Commission v. Fox Television News, 566 U.S. (2009), served as a stepping stone to the issue of expletives on the airwaves (Overbeck and Belmas 248).
In the Pacifica case, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received a complaint from a concerned father. The complainant claimed that his son had been subjected to the filthy words uttered by George Carlin during his popular program that was aired in the afternoon. The Pacifica Foundation radio station, which broadcasted the program, was reprimanded by FCC for allegedly breaching its regulations that barred any broadcast of indecent materials. The Supreme Court upheld the decision by FCC to censure the radio station by arguing that FCC acted in its best interest to protect children from accessing indecent materials through broadcast. However, the court was quick to point out that a clear distinction between indecency and obscenity should be established. Though indecency speech unlike an obscene speech is protected, the usage of the same should also be regulated. This means that the particular hour that the program was broadcasted was critical as the audience at that time comprised of children. This was the rationale behind the decision in this case. This particular case has had a great impact on broadcasting as it was further evidenced in the Fox Television News case (Zelezny 556). Justice Scalia pointed out that the Public Telecommunications Act of 1992 clearly stipulated the hours that an indecent speech could be aired either on television or radio. In this particular case, the issue arose out of two Billboard Music Awards that saw the presenters use obscene language when the shows were aired live on Fox Television Network. This prompted the FCC to change its policy regarding the objectivity of fleeting or isolated expletives on the airwaves. Before the Fox Television Network case, FCC operated on the policy of repetitive expletives rather than single expletives but later held that single expletives were also actionable.
It is therefore evident that the content available to the society has changed over the last fifty years. This is attributed to the fact that most television or radio shows are becoming even more salacious as a ploy to attract more viewers. A broadcast material that was seen as unfit for broadcast fifty years ago is now freely televised. Expletives on the airwaves have become the norm and the children have not been spared either. Justice Scalia bases her argument on two very basic principles. It is not clear whether our children are already exposed to the explicit language hence rendering the policies by the FCC useless, or whether the FCC should be stricter on the use of explicit language on the airwaves.
It can be argued that the standards of the society did not transform overnight thereby directing much of the blame to the FCC. The laxity by the FCC has ended up deregulating the broadcasting industry hence exposing the children to indecent and obscene materials. FCC should therefore stand its ground and embrace its role as the enforcer of public decency in all the broadcasting stations. Only then will we be able to protect our children’s viewing rights and further shield them from such explicit materials that have become so rampant on the airwaves.
Works Cited
Overbeck, Wayne and Belmas, Genelle. Major Principles of Media Law, 2011 Edition. New York: Cengage Brain, 2011.
Zelezny, John. Communications Law: Liberties, Restraints, and the Modern Media. New York: Cengage Brain, 2010.
Do you need this or any other assignment done for you from scratch?
We have qualified writers to help you.
We assure you a quality paper that is 100% free from plagiarism and AI.
You can choose either format of your choice ( Apa, Mla, Havard, Chicago, or any other)
NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.
NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.