BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


The Indecency Wars

 
 
ibis the being
14:22 / 14.04.05
In 2004 Janet Jackson's little nip slip at the Superbowl brought the issue of "indecency" or obscenity in the media to center stage. There was well-publicized friction between radio star Howard Stern and then-head of the FCC Michael Powell. More recently there was that silly flap about the Terrell Owens / Nicollette Sheridan TV ad.

2004 is long gone, but the Indecency Wars, it seems, are not going anywhere anytime soon. Congress is looking at reforming indecency laws to be much tougher on transgressors. Now the Judiciary Committee chairman is proposing criminal charges against offenders. What's perhaps most frightening is these measures have strong bipartisan support. Should we really give up free speech to protect the kiddies' innocence? Dissenters say "parent your own kids, not me," but that argument is beginning to sound like the cry of a drowning man in the current climate.

I think it's time to start composing some stronger arguments against "regulation" of free speech, but then again it doesn't seem any argument can stem so hearty a movement. I'm wondering what American pop culture will look like if all sexual content and innuendo is scrubbed out. This isn't mere speculation about Thought Police, this is for contemplation of the direction our country is heading - rather inevitably, it seems.
 
 
sleazenation
14:58 / 14.04.05
I'm hoping that the success of Frank Miller's Sin City underlines the economic arguement for freedom of expression - it would appear to be the primary consideration of the media industry...
 
 
ibis the being
15:29 / 14.04.05
Well, but - mind you, I haven't seen Sin City yet, so I may be missing the point - the hoopla is all about sexual content, not violence. For those who missed the Nicollette Sheridan TV ad, what it actually showed was Sheridan viewed from the back and from the waist up while she dropped her towel. It was a naked back we could see in a soap commercial, but because of the sexual innuendo it caused a firestorm. Meanwhile, murder investigation shows are the hottest thing on PrimeTime, featuring graphic descriptions of torture and murder and depictions of mutilated corpses. And that's only network television. Proponents of "regulation" would also desperately like to regulate cable networks as well, but they're focusing entirely on sexual content and curse words.

Also, movies don't really fall under the scrutiny of these indecency watchdogs (at least while in the theater), presumably because there is a greater degree of "choice" about whether you go to see them. (As though the TV turns itself on, but whatever - no use arguing rationally about that.)
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
15:50 / 14.04.05
What a strange, strange land.
 
 
alejandrodelloco
20:35 / 14.04.05
It is because the FCC is like a very lonely fat child inside. It still makes me laugh when they think they can somehow control radio waves.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
11:38 / 15.04.05
[bad Marlon Brando voice]They train a man to drop fire on people... but they won't allow him to write FUCK on his aeroplane... because it's obscene.[/bad Marlon Brando voice]
 
 
Axolotl
09:54 / 16.04.05
I think the American attitude to this is very contradictory, I mean after all the constitution places free speech right at the very top of the list, a multi-million dollr pornography industry, and yet recently the "anti-indecency" lobby seems to be going to ridiculous lengths. Didn't they pixellate scenes in E.R post nipplegate?
 
 
ericb
15:28 / 16.04.05
Here in the States we have the conservative group, The Parents Television Council - a group which monitors all television programming (broadcast and cable) and posts their Worst of the Week Clips Gallery in an attempt to police and draw attention to "indecency" on the public airwaves (and private "pay-for" cable channels).

What is amusing is that they are aggregating and "re-broadcasting” that which they abhor! Who will think of the children? Oh, the titillation!
 
 
mistress_swank
17:23 / 16.04.05
What irritates me about this is that although there are dozens of shootings in schools (or perpetrated by children) every year, perpetrated by children, instead of going after violence, the FCC considers sexual mores as the more virulent "scourge."

I can only imagine that the sexual fascism will only exacerbate the level of violence currently seen in the US.

Personally, I'd much rather be sworn at and shown a wang than be fatally shot.

Oh, copplestobs. I sound like a bleeding hippie.
 
 
Hieronymus
19:00 / 16.04.05
What irritates me about this is that although there are dozens of shootings in schools every year, perpetrated by children, instead of going after violence, the FCC considers sexual mores as the more virulent "scourge."

I can only imagine that the sexual fascism will only exacerbate the level of violence currently seen in the US.

Dozens of school shootings every year? Hardly. They do happen but they're rare and infrequent abberations focused on ad nauseaum by 24 hour news media because they feed the ratings. School shootings AND youth violence are not epidemic nor on the rise. I find it strange that you percieve the level of violence in the US to be so high when those levels have in fact been steadily declining in the last 30 some odd years. As for what 'violence as recreation' reaps, not one study has put to rest the theory that violence in entertainment and violent crime are connected. And there will likely never be one, given that violence has played a part in our storytelling from the very beginning.

I hate to say it, but the level of violence in American culture reaps what it sows. Violence as recreation devalues safety and life.

This, I think, irritates me more than anything. Hyperbolic and unproven statements like the above seem like a very short hop to advocating censorship to me. One in the name of protecting us from the indecency of violence, the other in the name of protecting us from the indecency of nakedness and sex. Can I please stop being protected already by moralists and crusaders who think they have my best interests at heart?

Now.. getting back to the topic... I do find it strangely ironic that the Howard Sterns and Janet Jacksons of this country are getting their knuckles rapped... but when a conservative commentator breaks those same rules, you can pretty much bet the FCC will turn a blind eye.

Rush Limbaugh, in a fit of “unbridled passion,” used his self-described “pouty lips” to utter the words “blow jobs” on his April 12 show. The incident occurred during a diatribe about former Vice President Al Gore’s new cable TV network. Limbaugh was responding to a statement made by Gore that his new venture would "reflect the point of view of young people."

What the hell is that, Al?" Limbaugh asked. "What the hell is the point of view of young people? Blow jobs, that's what they're doing out there. They're out there getting oral sex all day long, that's what they're talking about."

Limbaugh went on to blame former President Bill Clinton for making oral sex "the number one sport in high school today. " He also referred to Gore's venture as "a BJ network" and "the oral sex channel."
 
 
ericb
19:20 / 16.04.05
BTW - school massacres are not limited to the United States.
 
 
Joetheneophyte
15:34 / 17.04.05
Ibis you make a good point

but then again, how can you indoctrinate the youth with sex, when you should be filling their minds with violence and murder..........let's just look at FOX/SKY, every two minutes an advert is on for some new military game that is showing the most graphic violence and demonising any enemy of the heroic US soldiers

It makes me sick how this brainwashing is played out

Full Spectrum this and God knows what else Metal Jacket

Yet if you show a nipple for a nanosecond, the watchdogs and censors come into force

hypocrisy and brainwashing

and no sadly, this is not a US phenomona.....unfortunately the moral and hypocritical watchdogs have crossed the pond to Europe and elsewhere, with their message that:

Violence = Good

Sex = Bad
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
15:43 / 17.04.05
Not entirely sure that it's as black and white as that.

Here in the UK a few years back we had to put up with the lionisation by the right-wing press of Tony Martin, who used an illegal shotgun to fatally shoot an underaged felon in the back. Apparently, judging by recent tabloid headlines, it's no longer about defending your own property, it's about having the right to kill burglars. The end result may well be the same, but it's the shift in emphasis I find worrying- it's not "are we going to be looked on leniently bu the judiciary if we take necessary steps to protect our stuff" anymore... somehow it's become "can we kill burglars? Please? Can we? Find me some burglars- I feel like killing something".

Whereas something like Big Brother, initially touted as a valuable social experiment, which in reality is "who's gonna fuck first and will we get to actually see the naughty bits?"

I offer both of these points merely to indicate that the argument doesn't really just come down to violence being good to sex's bad, or vice versa. There are a lot more issues at play here- sex and violence are just easy concepts to latch on to for the sake of an argument.
 
 
ibis the being
16:21 / 17.04.05
Well, I want to make it clear that the only reason I mentioned the issue of TV violence is to indicate that the flap about "indecency" is rather arbitrary. I don't think violence should be censored either. As DM quite rightly points out, TV violence has never been linked to real life violence, in as many studies as they've done. Also, conventional wisdom has it that a nation's pop culture media tends to fixate on that which is least expressed in the life of the people. That is to say, violent urges are sublimated by television, not encouraged by it.

But all that is beside the point - the point is, there really is no way to "regulate" - certainly not to criminally prosecute - sexual (or violent) content in the American media in a way that does not violate free speech rights. Obscenity or indecency laws in the US are based on "community standards," and I would posit that a community standard cannot be determined for the entirety of the nation. It's too big and diverse a group. If Boston, Massachusetts or Hillbilly, Tennessee wants to levy fines against a broadcast within that municipality, there is a legal basis for that (however much I disagree in principle). But nationwide regulation is unconstitutional any way you slice it.
 
 
Joetheneophyte
17:04 / 17.04.05
I'm sorry for misunderstanding the argument (made worse by my laziness in reading all the posts due to quite limited time on my computer due to other life issues.....too boring to go into)


Anyway, sorry for digressing and for misquoting and misunderstanding you


as a sideline, I also think that censorship acceptance is the 'thin end of the wedge'
but I do believe that computer game violence does de-sensitize the player. I have nothing but my own bias to back that up but I do find myself feeling highly uncomfortable watching FULL SPECTRUM WARRIOR adverts on Sky (FOX) repeatedly being shown, then turning to Sky news and watching some homogenised version of an incident in Iraq, where people on either side have been blown to smithereens in some 'insurgent' incident

But I freely admit, I haven't eh scientific training, methodology or mindset to successfully or scientifically argue my point......just a gut feeling that our youth are being played and brainwashed on some level

I will now skulk away and leave you all to the initial reason for this thread and hope my diversion hasn't been too distracting
 
 
lord henry strikes back
08:55 / 18.04.05
Over here on this side of the big pond in Britain we have just had our own latest TV controversy regarding 'Jerry Springer the Opera'. It recorded the largest ever number of complaints, mostly in reference to its depictions of Jesus, and many before the programme aired. The issue was compounded because the broadcast went out on the BBC, a state-owned nework funded by the licence fee, basically a tax on TV owners. The argument being that, as we pay for it, they have to listen to us.

Fair enought, but as a few commentators pointed out the BBC also puts out a raft of religiously grounded broadcasts. I, and many other licence-fee payers, could just as easily claim that we find this offensive, and call for it to be removed. The point is that if we strive for an end where nothing that is broadcast could possibly offend anyone, then everyone looses out.
 
 
Simulacra
16:02 / 20.04.05
After reading through this thread, I keep wondering: what are you yankees up to? You seem to live in such a moralistic society, up to par with Saudi Arabia. Don't you think religious ideologies have anything to do with this? I find it very hard not to think about US family values as anything else than fundamentalism (the belief that there are fundamental values to be protected at any cost).

Copy this wikipedia article to a word processor, then search and replace "religious" with "ideological" and "religion" with "ideological". See what you see.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
 
  
Add Your Reply