| by Jeffrey M. McCall, Professor of Communication at DePauw University in Greencastle, Indiana, and author of Viewer Discretion Advised: Taking Control of Mass Media Influences.
 Viewers of ABC's chatty, soft-news program "Good Morning America" got a jolt from a source other than coffee recently when actress Diane Keaton blurted out a particular f-word during an interview with host Diane Sawyer. The women had a good on-air laugh and then moved ahead with the interview. An ABC executive called the incident unfortunate and proudly proclaimed that the network bleeped out the word for later feeds to Western time zones. Keaton said the word "just flew out of the mouth."
Given the nature of the word, it would seem the Federal Communications Commission would move quickly to sanction the network. After all, it is against the law to broadcast obscene, indecent or profane language. Because of a federal appeals court ruling last summer, however, the FCC currently feels powerless to punish even blatant examples of foul language. FCC Chairman Kevin Martin told reporters after the Keaton incident that the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision complicated efforts to enforce broadcast indecency law.
The ruling stemmed from live music awards broadcasts in 2002 and 2003 on Fox network television. In those broadcasts, entertainers Cher and Nicole Richie used language similar to Keaton's. The FCC ruled the broadcasts indecent but didn't even fine the offending stations. The appeals court, however, ruled against the FCC's efforts to control indecency, saying the FCC's policy of penalizing broadcasters for fleeting expletives was "arbitrary and capricious."
The court pointed out that the FCC's attempt to halt fleeting expletives was a  departure from prior enforcement practices. That's generally true but doesn't explain why the FCC's failure to enforce indecency law in the 1980s and '90s necessitates that the commission should continue in its neglect.
The court also claimed that certain expletives are "often used in everyday conversation" in ways that don't suggest sexual or excretory functions and thus are outside of FCC enforcement. But it is the literal sexual and excretory meanings that cause these words to have offensive effects in the first place. One must wonder about the everyday conversations of these judges, if they think those words are so common. Those words are not used in the everyday conversation of business, education, politics, the courtroom or elsewhere in the public sphere.
The broadcast industry and its media allies have celebrated the appeals court ruling, calling it a victory for creative expression. Regular citizens, of course, wonder how blabbing a foul word on live television has anything to do with creativity. The New York Times helped lead the cheers last summer, editorializing that the FCC setback was a "very welcome decision" and that the FCC should focus on "more important issues."
The FCC doesn't intend to drop this case quietly and is appealing to the Supreme Court. The FCC's leading Republican, Martin, and the leading Democrat, Michael Copps, each issued strong statements of protest after the appellate ruling. There is also strong bipartisan support in Congress to restrict indecent material on broadcast airwaves, and legislation has been introduced to specifically empower the FCC to fine broadcasters for fleeting expletives.
Technology is now fully available to delay live broadcasts by a few seconds to bleep out the "creative" bon mots of celebrities. The FCC and the courts should expect that technology to be used. Fox television successfully bleeped Sally Field during a live broadcast of the Emmy Awards last fall when Field went off the cuff to deliver a profanity. Even Keaton later said she assumed her lousy word choice would be bleeped out by ABC engineers.
 In spite of the Times' assertion, the FCC's effort to confront broadcast indecency is, indeed, an important issue. A recent survey indicates that nearly three-fourths of Americans believe the entertainment media are contributing to a cultural decline in the nation. The FCC is trying to do its duty as trustee of the public airwaves, while adhering to constitutional requirements. That isn't easy.
As legal wrangling continues, the media industry does society a disservice by wasting its First Amendment efforts on behalf of celebrities' foul mouths and defending those remarks as artistic expression. We should recall the words of former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, a powerful defender of free speech, who wrote in 1957, "it is apparent that the unconditional phrasing of the First Amendment was not intended to protect every utterance."
--
Jeff McCall appeared on FOX News Channel's O'Reilly Factor on January 31. A summary of the segment -- including video and audio clips -- can be found in this previous story. |
