![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
richardf8I am not a consumer of pornography, and I never have been. But back in the 80's when Larry Flynt was under fire, I was content to take his side. Not because I have any taste for his product (I once looked at a Penthouse and found it . . . disturbing), but rather because I understood what few Americans understood at the time - that ANY restriction on speech is EVERY restriction on speech.
Larry Flynt was an excellent choice for an attack on free speech. The right didn't like him because he was Im-MOE-ral, the left didn't like him because his portrayals of women perpetuated a rape culture. In short he was someone that you could love to hate regardless of your political persuasion, and to many on both sides of the fence, restricting his press freedom seemed a good idea at the time.
But it wasn't.
It was the groundwork for the actions of the moral majority, giving the FCC ever greater enforcement power over what was said on the airwaves. It was the bedrock of rules regarding Indecent and Obscene speech. And there is a VERY fine line between enforcement and retribution. And where government retribution becomes a possibility, basic freedoms are lost.
We are approaching the final stages of this game. Our media is useless. I will refrain from arguing whether it is "liberal" or "conservative." Truth is, it doesn't matter any more because primarily the media are a)Greedy and b)Fearful. The result is this:
CBS and UPN have refused to air an ad from the United Church of Christ that states that it welcomes gays and lesbians. Here is the reason they give:
"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."
Contemplate that for a moment: The federal government has proposed an amendment to the constitution, and rather than engage in speech that would foster discussion, major networks are prattling about "controversy."
The problem can be summed up in this one single event: Janet Jackson's Boob. That event set the stage for the FCC levying unreasonable fines for something over which the network had no control, and this was followed swiftly by fines for Howard Stern's material, at which they had looked askance for decades.
The message, of course, is that the Federal Government has retributive powers over broadcast media. Because sex sell and because obscenity rules or vague, if a broadcaster publishes a message that runs afoul of the government, it may be subject to the government's arbitrary punishment.
The result is a media that is, in essence, the executive's mouthpiece, afraid, by its own admission, to run afoul of that executive's mouthpiece, both because of the threat of fines and because of the carrot of increased market share.
With such a media, the most important fundamental of democracy, a population well informed about all sides of the issues, is destroyed.
Larry Flynt was an excellent choice for an attack on free speech. The right didn't like him because he was Im-MOE-ral, the left didn't like him because his portrayals of women perpetuated a rape culture. In short he was someone that you could love to hate regardless of your political persuasion, and to many on both sides of the fence, restricting his press freedom seemed a good idea at the time.
But it wasn't.
It was the groundwork for the actions of the moral majority, giving the FCC ever greater enforcement power over what was said on the airwaves. It was the bedrock of rules regarding Indecent and Obscene speech. And there is a VERY fine line between enforcement and retribution. And where government retribution becomes a possibility, basic freedoms are lost.
We are approaching the final stages of this game. Our media is useless. I will refrain from arguing whether it is "liberal" or "conservative." Truth is, it doesn't matter any more because primarily the media are a)Greedy and b)Fearful. The result is this:
CBS and UPN have refused to air an ad from the United Church of Christ that states that it welcomes gays and lesbians. Here is the reason they give:
"Because this commercial touches on the exclusion of gay couples and other minority groups by other individuals and organizations," reads an explanation from CBS, "and the fact the Executive Branch has recently proposed a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, this spot is unacceptable for broadcast on the [CBS and UPN] networks."
Contemplate that for a moment: The federal government has proposed an amendment to the constitution, and rather than engage in speech that would foster discussion, major networks are prattling about "controversy."
The problem can be summed up in this one single event: Janet Jackson's Boob. That event set the stage for the FCC levying unreasonable fines for something over which the network had no control, and this was followed swiftly by fines for Howard Stern's material, at which they had looked askance for decades.
The message, of course, is that the Federal Government has retributive powers over broadcast media. Because sex sell and because obscenity rules or vague, if a broadcaster publishes a message that runs afoul of the government, it may be subject to the government's arbitrary punishment.
The result is a media that is, in essence, the executive's mouthpiece, afraid, by its own admission, to run afoul of that executive's mouthpiece, both because of the threat of fines and because of the carrot of increased market share.
With such a media, the most important fundamental of democracy, a population well informed about all sides of the issues, is destroyed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 05:15 pm (UTC)I'm sure that the asshats at the FCC were just looking for something like this, and Jackson gave it to them.
As for Stern, when he was on Letterman the other week, he mentioned that the FCC is going back through his material over the years and fining him for that as well. He talked about how he can't do the type of show he was doing even a year ago, and he's surprised that people still listen to him.
You're very correct on your observation of the media, and I'm surprsed that more people aren't making the connection and realizing that our government is basically moving in and taking over the media. Sure, they're not telling them what to say at gunpoint yet, but does it really have to get to that extreme to make people sit up and take notice?
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 07:40 pm (UTC)There isn't anything special to the Religious Right (RR) about Larry Flynt, he was just an easy mark. He was visible, vocal, insanely rich and came off really creepy on camera, especially after he was shot. If there were no Larry Flynt they would have found somebody else.
But there is definitely an air of repression emanating from the FCC right now. My own local TV station refused to air Saving Private Ryan on Veteran's Day because of fear of an FCC fine for the profanity in the film. The early morning DJ on the local Community Radio station was fired (if a volunteer can be fired) for playing songs containing the "F" word during the FCC’s “relaxed” hours. They can hardly be blamed, Unlike Clearchannel, one hefty FCC fine would close them down.
By the time he renews his oath of office, Bush will have near-dictatorial power and the way he is achieving it is by threatening less than enthusiastic party members with retribution. The fear of retribution is trickling down to the news media, prior to this they were willing mouthpieces but now they are afraid not to be. This is just a god-awful situation.
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 08:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 10:34 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-02 04:58 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-12-02 07:28 pm (UTC)