Once again, the topic of the day for the Senate Commerce Committee today was indecency on TV. Following up on two forums late last year on the topic, today’s hearing featured a raft of witnesses–ranging from the cable and satellite TV execs to former superlobbyist for Hollywood Jack Valenti.
The quote of the day, however, must go to anti-indecency crusader Brent Bozell, who has long championed more and bigger FCC fines for broadcast indecency. But, how is indecency to be defined? As another witness asked, should Michaelangelo’s David be clothed? Bozell argued that its a simple matter of making distinctions, saying: “[w]e need to define the difference between “offensive” and “really offensive.”
Of course. Finally, a clear answer to what should be banned. A simple test–is it “offensive” or is it “really offensive.” Maybe the test could be expanded a little, to include a category for “really, really offensive” stuff, and maybe “really, really, super-offensive” stuff. Certainly, that finally provides certainty.
Bozell’s comment, of course, underscores the inherent difficultly in defining the scope of censorship. And to be fair, Bozell declined to endorse expanding the flawed system to cable TV. Instead, he argued that cable providers with a la carte choice. Of course, he didn’t call for regulation, he just “suggested” that providers do this. (See Adam Thierer’s excellent piece on the implicit threat in such jawboning.) There is, of course, an option besides suggestion and regulation–that’s competition. Let others into the video business. AT&T and BellSouth said they’d like to provide a la carte service–but regulations are slowing their entry into the market. But Bozell–nor any of the others at today’s hearing–mentioned that option. Perhaps that isn’t offensive, but it is certainly disappointing.
The Technology Liberation Front is the tech policy blog dedicated to keeping politicians' hands off the 'net and everything else related to technology.
Comments on this entry are closed.