ChristiansUnite Forums

New bill takes aim at indecency, violence on TV

The Parents Television Council is blasting a New York appeals court for ruling that the Federal Communications Commission cannot impose fines for so-called "fleeting expletives" on television. At the same time, the media watchdog is promoting a new bill that's designed to help parents protect their children from indecent and violent material on television through consumer choice options, such as a family tier of programming, indecency standards, or a la carte programming.



Two congressmen will be joined by FCC chairman Kevin Martin today at a Capitol Hill press conference to announce the introduction of the "Family Choice Act." The bill is designed to help parents protect their children from indecent and violent material on television through those programming options. It comes in the wake of a recent federal appeals court ruling against the FCC which accuses the agency of leveling "arbitrary and capricious" fines against Fox Entertainment for airing profanities during awards shows.

The ruling concerned utterance of two profanities -- the "F word" and "S word" -- during the Billboard Music Awards broadcasts in 2002 an 2003. The Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled use of those words was not indecent. FCC chairman Martin disagreed, and said so in a press release last week.

"I find it hard to believe that the New York court would tell American families that [the two profanities] are fine to say on broadcast television during the hours when children are most likely to be in the audience," Martin stated. "If ever there was an appropriate time for Commission action, this was it. If we can't restrict the use of [those words] during prime time, Hollywood will be able to say anything they want, whenever they want."

Dan Isett, director of corporate and government affairs at the Parents Television Council, says the Second Circuit is out of touch with the American people.

"The court is trying to say that maybe one 'F' word is okay, but if you had multiple it might not break the law," he contends. "What we're saying is that even a single utterance of language as offensive as the 'F' word and the 'S' word meet the standard of being patently offensive according to contemporary community standards, as they clearly do."

Isett contends in the Fox Broadcasting case, the FCC showed that it understood the difference between "meaningful and artistic" uses of profanity in limited circumstances as opposed to "gratuitous and titillating" uses of such language.

Meanwhile, the Family Choice Act being introduced as an alternative. Isett says the status quo on cable television is not working for children and families.

"The cable television industry is the only one that forces its own customers to pay for an enormous amount of product that it doesn't want, doesn't watch, and will often find offensive just to get access to the types of things that customers do want to see," he explains.

Isett asks: "Why should people be forced to subsidize truly graphic and explicit sexual and violent content on expanded basic cable just to be able to get the Disney Channel and maybe watch a football game on Saturday afternoon, for example?"

The PTC spokesman says Congress needs to clarify broadcast decency law to extend to so-called "fleeting" instances of profanity.