6-20-13
What is and what isn't an indecent broadcast these days? The FCC has demonstrated it's not clear on how to enforce the indecency rules which leads to the question of how the government can expect broadcasters to know. For sure, for now, broadcasters are airing on the side of caution. Who needs a big fine at a time when revenues are flat? On behalf of broadcasters, the NAB has submitted comments regarding the FCC's review of indecency policy. In the 42-page document, the NAB asks the commission to put an end to the vagueness of the indecency rule and act in a more timely and transparent manner when dealing with indecency complaints. The NAB also says technology should be a factor regarding a rule that has, "crumbled under the weight of changes in technology and media consumption." And the NAB wants the commission to clearly state that it will no longer treat fleeting or isolated expletives and images as actionably indecent.
The NAB says broadcasters cannot be the only group held accountable to protect children when they are getting content from so many different devices these days. "Specifically, with regard to the government?s concern that children may be exposed to adult-oriented or otherwise inappropriate material, there is no principled way to focus solely on broadcast content. Children in particular enjoy unfettered access to content via devices that they carry in their pockets and backpacks?access that usually involves no subscription or special parental involvement. In this environment, the constitutionality of a broadcast-only prohibition on indecent material is increasingly in doubt. Parents in the 21st century are clearly concerned about their children?s access to online content, not just broadcast material. Many parents of young children even fear that their children may become 'addicted' to mobile devices such as smartphones and tablets."
On the vague regulations, the NAB says the Commission must draw a clear line in the sand. "In revising its indecency standards, the Commission must use language that is as precise as possible and provide relevant examples and context in its policies and decisions. If the Commission cannot establish sufficiently clear indecency regulations so that broadcasters know what is expected of them, then broadcasters cannot be subject to liability for alleged violations of those standards."
And, the NAB believes when the Commission decides on editorial content it's an attack on free speech. "In an environment of inconsistent and arbitrary regulation, where the Commission repeatedly substitutes its own editorial judgment for that of program producers and broadcasters, the inevitable impact is chilled speech. This is not just a hypothetical concern. Broadcasters and the courts have cited multiple examples of broadcasters choosing to abandon certain material over uncertainty about application of the indecency rules. Rather than impose penalties based on its fluctuating disagreements with broadcasters?/programmers? artistic and editorial judgments, the FCC should decline to act absent a significant abuse of licensee discretion."
Read the NAB document HERE and, of course, the infamous Pacifica desision HERE
(6/20/2013 2:04:23 PM)
I have to wonder why the NAB even makes an attempt by going through the motions to ask for clarity, especially since none is available. With the exception of those calling to incite, it seems to me the only people sweating "indecency" anywhere, including on-the-air have suspicious, arbitrary motives and a questionable agenda.
Besides, what, I also wonder, would be the point of picking on radio while other media are running roughshod over any guidelines that some organization might supply or attempt to adjudicate and police.
Such an organization would be erring by making arbitrary judgments about what is airing, so to speak & spell. :)
Writers seem to be erring by skipping high school English class.
"broadcasters are airing on the side of caution"
Add a Comment | View All Comments Send This Story To A Friend
