Obama’s Federal Communications Commission Considering Allowing Obscenities, Nudity

IS “COMPROMISE” IN ORDER, OR STANDING ON PRINCIPLE?

by Sharon Rondeau

(Apr. 9, 2013) — A 30-day public comment period commenced on April 1, 2013, during which consumers can contact the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about whether or not to allow “isolated expletives” and “isolated nudity” in programming which would be broadcast while young children could be watching, according to a press release from the organization “One Million Moms.”

Since June 2009, the FCC hass been chaired by Julius Genachowsky, who announced in late March that he would leave the department.  Genachowski reportedly has known Obama for more than a quarter-century and acted as a bundler for him in 2008.

One Million Moms is a division of the American Family Association (AFA) and is active on Facebook and Twitter.  Its press release reads:

April 8, 2013

Dear Member,

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) announced it is considering dropping current broadcast decency standards that ban explicit profanity and “non-sexual” nudity.

You can read the press release from the FCC here.

Specifically, if enacted, the new FCC policy would allow network television and local radio stations to air the f-word, the s-word and to allow programs to show frontal female nudity, even during hours when they know children will be watching and listening.

It is accepting comments on the proposal from the viewing public until the end of April.

Current broadcast decency law prohibits expletives and nudity, even if brief or “fleeting.” The Supreme Court has upheld the law as constitutionally enforceable by the FCC, despite lawsuit attempts by networks NBC and FOX to overturn it.

TAKE ACTION

Submit your comments to the FCC, urging it to reject any changes to the current policy.

The FCC will not accept general email comments. To be valid, you are required to file a formal comment via the FCC’s website.

Please follow these instruction carefully, to insure your comment is accepted by the FCC:

1. Go to http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/upload/begin?procName=&filedFrom=X.
2. Enter the code “13-86” in the “Proceeding Number” box and fill out the few remaining required fields.
3. Enter your comment in the text box provided and click “Continue.”
4. From there, review your comment and click “Confirm.”

Here is a sample comment you may submit:

I oppose any changes to the current FCC indecency standards that would allow television and radio stations to broadcast expletives and nudity on the public airwaves, even if brief or “fleeting.”

The Supreme Court has confirmed the FCC’s authority to enforce policies regarding expletives and nudity, especially during times when children are likely to be watching or listening.

Relaxing the current policy would not serve the public interest and I urge the FCC to reject all proposals that would allow for the broadcast of expletives and nudity on FCC-licensed stations.

Sincerely,

Monica Cole, Director
OneMillionMoms.com

Alternative contact information for the FCC can be found here.

A case brought by the FCC and heard by the U.S. Supreme Court against Fox Television last year was abandoned because the court ruled that the FCC did not provide adequate or clear notice to Fox as to what would constitute “prohibited” material on the air.  Therefore, the FCC is considering changing its standards to allow for similar instances of what is considered by many to be “indecency.”

One Million Moms conducts media campaigns to keep vulgarities, nudity, Christian-bashing, and other offensive material off the air and asks advertisers of programs containing such content to consider spending their dollars elsewhere.  At the end of each year, the group issues a summary of its successes, which have been considerable on both fronts.

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has identified the American Family Association as “anti-gay” in its “Intelligence Files.” The SPLC advocates for “LGBT rights.”  Television programming including “alternative lifestyles” has become more prevalent over the last several years.

The SPLC is reportedly also responsible for supplying a slide with talking points stating that Christians are potential domestic terrorists to the U.S. Army made public in recent days.  Fox News reported that the slide has been removed by the Army after an outcry and defined it as “an isolated incident.”  However, the Army has ordered Christian symbols to be removed or obliterated in Afghanistan after a soldier who declared himself an atheist filed a complaint that “Christianity is seemingly officially endorsed by” his Army base.  One Million Moms has worked to stop the ridicule of Christians which has taken place on television in recent years.

The Parents Television Council has researched connections between profanity on television and violence, declaring them “well documented.”  “The consensus of the scientific and mental health communities is that children are profoundly influenced by the violent images they see on television and in films.  Constant exposure to media violence can result in aggressive, anti-social behavior, and even violent outbursts,” said a report of the PTC containing references only as recent as 2003 and dating back to 1998.  Its conclusion at that time was that the FCC was not enforcing its published standards, and its conclusion stated, in part:

The findings of this study point to one obvious conclusion: the broadcast networks have made little or no effort to curb foul language during the prime time hours in the last five years.  While there were qualitative minor improvements here and there, overwhelmingly foul language became coarser and more frequent over time across the broadcast networks, and unless checked, we can surely expect this trend to continue well into the future.

A 2010 PTC report which referenced the appellate court’s ruling on the case which ultimately reached the U.S. Supreme Court against Fox stated that the use of profanity on television rose by 69% between 2005 and 2010.

As the Obama regime pushes for stricter gun regulations with the purported purpose of protecting society, particularly children, virtually nothing has been done to curb violent movies, television scenes, and foul language.  Following the murders at Sandy Hook Elementary School on December 14, 2012, some Connecticut children voluntarily gave away violent video games which their parents had allowed them to play.  The perpetrator of the crime was reportedly “motivated” and “inspired” by an addiction to violent online games and real-life violence, respectively, with violent videos found throughout the home by police following the atrocity.

Are violent video games necessary for any child, much less a one with neurological or psychological challenges?

The FCC recently divested itself of approximately 70% of its pending complaints for having exceeded the statute of limitations and other reasons.  Profanity and other offensive material are not limited on the internet except by individual website standards.

Some live by the mantra that there cannot be compromise in setting an example for the rest of the world.  Perhaps ceasing showing indecent and inappropriate scenes, particularly while teenagers are watching, would prevent certain behaviors which can end in turmoil, physical anguish, and emotional suffering for life.  While devices to block objectionable material are available, why are they necessary?

The American government has been making compromises since its inception in 1787.

Were they necessary during the 1950s?  Did “conventional values” produce better young people equipped to function in a free society?  There were differences in the apparel worn then and now, and provocative advertising pervades the internet.

The Post & Email has never, and will never, allow suggestive material, advertising, obscenities or “isolated expletives” in its reporting or comments to articles.  We believe that a clear message can be delivered with decency and integrity while honoring freedom of speech and fulfilling the mission of government oversight under the First Amendment.