Editorial: FCC silences free speech with new media rules

When one nipple generates more media attention ““ and
government scrutiny ““ than President Bush’s proposed
U.S. budget, you know the country has misplaced priorities.

The “Nipplegate” involving Janet Jackson and Justin
Timberlake generated 60 times more Internet searches than any other
event in human history. The nipple affair was 30 times more popular
than the Super Bowl itself.

Even more significant is how the display gave steam to a Federal
Communications Commission crackdown on so-called media indecency.
The immediate FCC response to Jackson and Timberlake’s
display included plans to fine everyone involved and hearings to
determine responsibility for the outrage.

Since then, new regulations and laws have been proposed by
conservative politicians and FCC Chairman Michael Powell, ranging
from a $275,000 (up from $27,500) fine to license revocation for
violators of decency regulations.

Most recently, Sen. Zell Miller, D-Georgia, proposed new
legislation that, had it been in effect at the time of the Super
Bowl, would have resulted in a $22.5 million fine for all parties
involved. He told The Associated Press his proposal “is not a
little Red Ryder BB gun like most of the proposals (he’s)
seen. It is a double-barreled 10-gauge shotgun loaded with buckshot
that will hit all of those involved when its trigger is
pulled.”

Apparently Miller does not understand the irony of a decency law
that is described in violent, murderous terms.

Unfortunately, the politicians and regulators proposing these
new restrictions on speech all seem equally dense.

No one wants young children to be exposed to sexual content or
other indecent material. But the new laws and regulations in
Washington do not make sense. Decency rules create a climate of
fear where TV and radio stations try so hard to comply with rules
that they self-limit their content beyond the requirements.

TV and radio have become crucial culture and political discourse
forums. When the media constantly have to worry about government
oversight, free speech is imperiled. Although a nipple on live TV
arguably has no inherent political or cultural value, the right to
show the nipple does.

And sometimes when people know they are being watched, it is
enough to change their actions. During the Oscars on Sunday, it was
apparent people were aware of the five-second broadcast delay, and
presenters were on their best behavior. Similarly, Clear Channel
Communications Inc. decided to head off government involvement and
took Howard Stern off its airwaves Wednesday. There was no
certainty that keeping Stern would have resulted in a fine, but,
given the recent $755,000 fine the company received for
“indecent material” on the “Bubba the Love
Sponge” program, the network wasn’t willing to take the
chance.

Free speech depends on a sense of freedom. If TV and radio
networks are overly paranoid of unjustified fines, creative freedom
and political discussion could become threatened. People have a
right to be offended when they see or hear unexpected material. But
the government’s role is to discipline isolated infractions,
not to throw around excessive fines as a scare tactic. The latter
is tantamount to censorship, especially as there is no epidemic of
indecency in this country.