In 1978, the Supreme Court defined the power of the Federal Communications Commission over indecent material as applied to broadcasting in the case Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation.
This case came about after a father complained to the FCC that his son heard George Carlin, one of the most influential comedians of our time, perform his “Filthy Words” routine on prime-time radio. On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments for the second time in three years regarding a regulation that allows the government agency to punish broadcasters for fleeting use of “vulgar language.”
This agency is fundamentally repugnant to our liberty, and students and media consumers nationwide should reject its authority.
The ruling on the 1978 case was justified in the court’s opinion because “Carlin's ‘Filthy Words’ broadcast, though not obscene, was indecent, and subject to restriction.”
One of the most prevalent and defining points that make up arguments in favor for airwave regulations is the worry that children will be exposed to “indecent” material. This begs the question of whether indecent material would rule the airwaves if the government didn't intervene.
Anyone who understands the benefits of the free market knows that consumer demands dictate the products and actions of enterprise. Broadcasters and media conglomerates create shows, channels and even whole networks that are geared toward family entertainment without government mandates. The belief that without government we would all be doomed to 800 channels of unregulated, obscene broadcasts is founded on great ignorance of the workings of economics. It also gives those who think they know what is best for you a great opportunity to dictate expression and restrict freedom.
Americans live much different lives than any other society in history. It is the recognition that people own their own lives and can make decisions for themselves that gave birth to our values and set up constraints on government power.
The FCC operates against the notion of individual liberty by setting punishments for expression that it sees as harmful. We have to ask ourselves: How do they know it's harmful? Do they have some sort of superhuman ability to judge “good” and “bad” words and expressions? This is just another extension of the nanny state.
Though the FCC has functions besides “looking out for what's best for you” in broadcasting, it has very little justification for being as powerful as it is. Some people might see the issues with the FCC as small and not worth fighting, but small, persistent steps will be what will lead to a large loss of liberty in our personal lives.
Responsibility lies with each individual. There is no need for a nanny of the airwaves. It is time to mature as a people and defend the free exchange of expression. It is time to abolish the FCC.
Reach the columnist at calfaro2@asu.edu
Click here to subscribe to the daily State Press newsletter.
