Artistry Versus Censorship: the FCC and You

1

Lee

Justin Lee

English 102:048

Melissa Keith

04/03/09

Artistry Versus Censorship: The FCC and You

Creation is a concept completely integrated and inherent to the very core of all existence. From a mother’s love bringing a blank slate of wide-eyed wonder into a doctor’s waiting arms, to that same blank slate years later conducting his first symphony or penning her first novel, the spectrum of life is completely shaded in by the very notion of taking nothing but intentions and a rudimentary concept, and just going for it. Seeing as the act of creation spans so widely across our families and broad concept of cultures, its diversity is the only truly reliable characteristic that you can hang your hat on. Now, looking at our histories collectively and honestly, diversity has always been a scary and dynamic-shifting word, polarizing generally level-minded average human beings to the point of hysteria. Empires fall, movements are created and destroyed, and the world reshapes and rethinks itself, all on the power of the common word. This is the very backbone, the very life blood of our self-definition. Yet, it seems, as the years have rolled on, our fear of that power has become paralyzing to the point of abject sterilization.

As the twentieth century kicked into gear, monsters and ghosts seemed to be lurking on the other side of every closed door. After World War I hammered its’ way into and through the American consciousness by the end of 1918, the times they were a-changing. Radio broadcasting was in its infancy, a startling new technology whose power was yet unknown. Now with the tumult of the “Great War” dying down, a culture rapidly mutating in response to such, and a new technology with unlimited potential looming over it all, what would be the next evil to threaten the very existence of the “traditional” American family? Even with our extreme maltreatment of women, minorities, and the like, the real problem seemed to be the poison of dirty words sifting through the speakers of American homes. It is there, where the federal government had to step in. The Radio Act of 1927 was the main salvo in that battle, setting the stage for a future of federal speech regulation. In the words of researcher Milagros Rivera-Sanchez, “The act's prohibition of obscene, indecent, or profane language survived the act itself and has evolved into a criminal statute that is currently used to penalize broadcasters that air indecent material.” (24) As time rolled along, and the FCC locked its claws in, the very definition of indecent became the property of the very few. It would take a rebellion of satire and directed anger to make any sort of counterattack (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: A satirical response to federal censorship.Ministry of Homeland Security. “Quiet!” Digital image. David’s Design Blog.19 Mar. 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2009

As the years rolled by, the FCC became completely enthralled with the scope of it’s own malarkey. After becoming an official body in 1934, they would beginto strengthen their hold on the American public and its ability to receive and transmit unfiltered material over the airwaves. The FCC came up with a three-pronged test, which each broadcast would be judged upon in order to determined indecency. Paraphrasing the FCC’s actual guidelines, to be obscene, a broadcast has to offend the sensibilities of the average person, depict sexuality in an offensive manner, and the material must lack serious artistic value (fcc.gov). These are bold words that, although intending to give a voracious definition of what a broadcast has to do to be indecent, fail in one critical area. The definitions of the words offensive, artistic, and sensible are not concrete, and are not translatable into an all encompassing whole. Within different cultures and different backgrounds, what one finds to be sick and depraved, could be a portal to divinity for another. Why do we give a select few the power to tell us what we should and should not see or hear? As humans, we are instilled with the power to reason and sift through the static to find what appeals to our interest. Allowing a faceless entity to hold that power of reason hostage, creating a process to dilute the content that we are allowed to take into account, is a blatant violation and disregard of our First Amendment rights. In respect to challenging that infringement, no public figure has taken a bolder stance, and paid for it as much, than the late, great comedian George Carlin (see fig. 2).

Figure 2: The price of indecency, paid by George Carlin. Themakeupgalleryblogger. “George Carlin Mug Shot.” Digital image. Themakeupgallery blog. 26 June 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2009.

George Carlin’s life was rife with conflict, mostly created by his own mouth. From his early days as a straight-laced comedian on the Johnny Carson show, to his later years of direct social commentary and satire, his career was a direct challenge of the very statutes of common indecency that the FCC prides itself on defending. In his early years, he took brash measures to attack the monolith of the determinably obscene, culminating in his arrest for indecency in 1972 (see fig. 3).

Figure 3: A copy of the arrest warrant issued for George's use of "indecent" language. Feidt, Dan. “George Carlin Arrest Warrant.” Digital image. Hongpong.com. 24 June 2008. Web. 3 Apr. 2009.

The arrest in question took place, after a live performance at a festival called “Summerfest,” which wasn’t even within the scope of the FCC’s powers. However, the “dirty words” he used in his bit were so offensive to the upstanding citizenship that the definition of obscene and indecent material so defined by the commission still held sway in putting George behind bars. This, naturally, did not sit well with Mr. Carlin, and during the last 30 years of his life, he committed himself to intellectually challenging every contemporary and accepted standard, which cheapens the experience of living for the common, educated human being. Of course, this included the parameters and constrictions implemented by the FCC. In his 1990 recording of his comedy album “Parental Advisory,” George takes the FCC to task for being “an appointed body, not elected, answerable only to the president” that came to the wildly troublesome conclusion that “radio and television are the only two parts of American life not protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.” (Carlin).

In that one vitriolic and directed attack, I gained my most powerful line of reasoning against the censorship purveyed by the FCC. Allowing an entity that doesn’t even answer to us as the public interest, to make up rules redefining and disregarding our supposedly unassailable rights to freedom is inherently against all we were supposed to stand for as a free nation in the first place. Yet, sadly enough, we as citizens play a great role in that assault (see fig. 4)

Figure 4: Indecent complaints (in thousands) by quarter from 2002-2007. Center For Public Integrity. A record year for indecency. Digital chart. Well Connected- The Center For Public Integrity.30 June 2005. Web. 4 Apr. 2009

With thousands and thousands of complaints being filed by citizens about things they find to be obscene, it is easy to think that artists who believe in the boundless free nature of creation are in the minority. Books such as Patrick M. Garry’s “Rediscovering a Lost Freedom: The First Amendment Right to Censor Unwanted Speech,” are written to show people to embrace their standing within a censored culture. Yet, as reviewer Stephen Bates concluded in his review from Journalism and Mass Communications Quarterly, it’s not the notion of protecting ourselves from unwanted speech that is the issue, it’s the sneaking suspicion that guys like Garry are “trying to insulate us from what he thinks we shouldn’t want.” (464-466) That is the overarching point I am trying to convey. Censorship from such a faceless and select few dilutes everything to fit into the mold of their special interests. In the shadow that those interests create, other opportunities at distilling and bastardizing our creative culture start creeping in from all fronts.

In recent years, a disturbing trend has mirrored the FCC’s model of a small amount of people controlling the communication of the public majority. Since the mid 1980s, the amount of corporations that control the majority of United States media outlets has shrunk dramatically (see fig. 5).

Figure 5: The sharp decline in the number of corporations controlling major U.S. media outlets. MediaReformInformationCenter. Number of corporations that control a majority of U.S. media... Digital chart. Speak Truth 2 Power.21 Nov. 2007. Web. 2 Apr. 2009.

As evidenced by the graph above, the number of corporations controlling the vast diversity of interests of artists who want to broadcast through traditional mediums has shrunk by 90% since 1983. Media critic and noted research professor Robert McChesney adds this:

Media sectors that were once more competitive and open have seen the most dramatic consolidation in the past decade. In cable television systems, six firms now possess effective monopolistic control over more that 80 percent of the nation, and seven firms control nearly 75 percent of cable channels and programming. (62)

With less conglomerations owning more content, the FCC has an easy road to keeping to its strange hold over the major American communications mediums. Less corporations to work with, means less diversity, which in turn strains the FCC’s watchful eye less. That will only serve to handcuff artists even further, forcing them to compromise their muses just to fit into a very boxed-in vision of what is good and tasteful. However, with all of this doom and gloom, some artists are using censorship as a benefit to their work and to their notoriety.

In 1993, the ABC series “NYPD Blue” was set for its premiere over the national television airwaves. This, as Frank Miller states in his expose on censorship Censored Hollywood; Sex, Sin, & Violence on Screen, would be no ordinary bang-bang cop drama. “As originally announced, the program will be television’s first R-rated series, redefining limitations in language, nudity, sex, and violence.” Of course, in our reactionary culture, this set off a firestorm of controversy. “Although a sample episode is highly praised by advertisers, almost a quarter of ABC’ affiliates (fifty-seven stations) refuse to carry the show.”(268) This is emblematic of the problems of censorship, and the scared stiff culture it promotes. A show like NYPD Blue, whose artistic merit was rewarded with loads of awards during its tenure, was shut down in a quarter of markets, solely due to the very notion of “R-rated.” These people who made these decision, probably didn’t even give the show a peripheral glance. As soon as the subject of “obscene” material was even broached, the suits at these 57 stations played the knee-jerk reaction game, dropping it before the calls could come in. Yet, where lesser shows would fall to dust, NYPD Blue thrived in response to this, becoming a seminal piece of television history during the 1990s. This story shows that, if you bring the goods as an artist and aren’t afraid to weather the tsunami of outrage, you can reshape and rebalance the vagaries of the obscene and indecent. In response to that rebalancing effect that artists and protestors are enacting, even the FCC is, as of just very recently, starting to change its tune, if only by a little.

As the Obama administration has settled into its new digs in Washington, many changes have already been made to alter the course of American life dramatically. One of those giant changes was Julias Genachowski’s appointment as the new head of the FCC (see fig. 6)

Figure 6: All smiles: the new man in charge at the FCC. Karr, Timothy. Genachowski. Digital image. MediaCitizen. 04 Mar. 2009. Web. 3 Apr. 2009

While implementation of obscenity laws over the major broadcast mediums of television and radio is still alive and well, one of Genachowski’s first actions as head of the FCC might serve as a light at the end of the tunnel. Genochowski was the main author behind this administration’s “comprehensive media policy agenda.” This agenda “promotes fast and neutral Internet connections, and more competitive choices for the consumer,” (Karr) as stated in Timothy Karr’s blog on his media advocate site “MediaCitizen.” This whole idea, termed net neutrality, is an essential coup for the anti-censorship movement. Genachwoski’s position would keep content on the Net free of restrictions imposed from a federal level. This will give artists the ability to showcase themselves in unfiltered form, while forgoing the dinosaur mediums that persecute their freedoms. As the Internet continues its assent to the forefront of mass entertainment, this will be an essential win for First Amendment rights, human choice, and most importantly, common sense.

In all truth, creation is the closest we can get to human beings to becoming deities. We can take nothing but words and indecipherable intentions and build skyscrapers, paint masterpieces, and stop horrible diseases from spreading. However, with that awesome power, comes a huge responsibility. The FCC has come into prominence, taking the fear we have of such enormous responsibility, and using it against us to determine what we should be determining ourselves; the very definition of right and wrong. It is my firm belief that, despite everything the scary monsters have to say before we go to sleep at night, it is our duty to stand up and look the so-called “obscene and indecent” material face to face, making our own conclusions. For, if we are ever to succeed as artists and functioning members of society, we must be able to make the hard decisions on our own accord and not allow the privileged few to make them for us. That is the only way to resist the sterilization of ourselves as a whole, and inject pure vibrancy into the mediums of communication we utilize on a daily basis.

WORD COUNT: 2210