Debate on 'indecency'

[bluecell]

There was an intriguing thread on the O&A/WNEW Radio Discussion Board (http://musicradio.computer.net/newboard/wwwboard), the subject was "who defines indecency?". It's an issue that I've been debating myself, even before the Sex For Sam 3 incident. It seems to me that the only people who really decide what's 'decent' in our society is Conservative America, the majority of the media being a large part of that faction. The situation with O&A being targeted by (conservative) groups like the Catholic League and Morality In Media is a perfect example of who defines these terms.

[BostonBackDoor]

I think its those who speak up... The C.L. was 'disgusted' at the SFS3 event, and they spoke up... Those of us who generally find no problem with content, don't say so... and I don't just mean about O&A being cancelled, but normally during there show. Its simply that those who like what they hear don't complain.

[cringeradio]

isn;t the debate here about the contest being illegal? not just indecent. the illlegal part is why everyones in trouble.

[bluecell]

No, I agree. But this is an issue that's repeatedly brought up. Here's part of the initial statement made by the FCC after the incident...

Congress passed laws limiting the broadcast of "obscene, indecent or profane" language and charged the FCC with the enforcement of these laws. The FCC has a responsibility to ensure that the indecency laws of the United States are being vigorously enforced. I take this responsibility with the utmost seriousness.

[drunkturkey]

I was reading through the FCC contest regulations, and I don’t see anything specifically stating that the contest must be legal. And, although I would think that this is a common sense statement, I think * legally * that since it’s not explicitly stated in the regulation, then they cannot go after WNEW for this contest. Here is the text of the contest regulation from the FCC site (http://www.fcc.gov/eb/broadcast/contests.html):


The Commission's requirements governing the broadcast of licensee-conducted contests are set forth at Section 73.1216 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1216.

This rule requires that a licensee that broadcasts or advertises information about a contest it conducts shall fully and accurately disclose the material terms of the contest, and shall conduct the contest substantially as announced or advertised. No contest description shall be false, misleading or deceptive with respect to any material term.

For purposes of this rule, the term ``contest'' is defined as a scheme in which a prize is offered or awarded, based upon chance, diligence, knowledge or skill, to members of the public. ``Material terms'' include those factors which define the operation of the contest and which affect participation therein. Although the material terms may vary widely depending upon the exact nature of the contest, they will generally include: (1) how to enter or participate; (2) eligibility restrictions; (3) entry deadline dates; (4) whether prizes can be won; (5) when prizes can be won; (6) the extent, nature, and value of the prizes; (7) the basis for valuation of prizes; (8) time and means of selection of winners; and/or (9) tie-breaking procedures.

In general, the time and manner of disclosure of the material terms of a contest are within the licensee's discretion. However, the obligation to disclose the material terms arises at the time the audience is first told how to enter or participate and continues thereafter. The material terms should be disclosed periodically by announcements broadcast on the station conducting the contest, but need not be enumerated each time an announcement promoting the contest is broadcast. Disclosure of material terms in a reasonable number of announcements is sufficient. In addition to the required broadcast announcements, disclosure of the material terms may be made in a non-broadcast manner.

This rule is not applicable to: (1) licensee-conducted contests not broadcast or advertised to the general public or to a substantial segment thereof; (2) contests in which the general public is not requested or permitted to participate; (3) the commercial advertisement of non-licensee-conducted contests; or (4) a contest conducted by a non-broadcast division of the licensee or by a non-broadcast company related to the licensee.


That’s about it. I don’t think the FCC will be able to nail these guys unless they change their own rules, and smack ‘em down on something new. Which, of course, would never hold up in court, if challenged. Watch the FCC to really drag their feet on this one, as I think them announcing right now that there was no infraction would cause another uproar.

[bluecell]

That’s about it. I don’t think the FCC will be able to nail these guys unless they change their own rules, and smack ‘em down on something new. Which, of course, would never hold up in court, if challenged. Watch the FCC to really drag their feet on this one, as I think them announcing right now that there was no infraction would cause another uproar.
I agree with you, but I'm really tired of hearing about what's decent and what shouldn't be broadcasted. I think that the FCC backed themselves into a corner with their initial statements.

[FITZ382]

i want O&A back on as much as anyone, but lets not be stupid. what happened in the cathedral WAS indecent, no matter which group is saying so.

[drunkturkey]

Originally posted by FITZ382
i want O&A back on as much as anyone, but lets not be stupid. what happened in the cathedral WAS indecent, no matter which group is saying so.

But the broadcast of the incident was not.

The FCC has no say in what happened in the church, but just what happened on the airwaves.

[bluecell]

Originally posted by FITZ382
i want O&A back on as much as anyone, but lets not be stupid. what happened in the cathedral WAS indecent, no matter which group is saying so. Right, maybe you've missed the point. The REAL issue is 'illegal activity', in this case it was lewd conduct in a public place. It's not a serious crime. The current FCC Commissioner, Michael Copps, is on a crusade against "indecency in broadcasting". It wasn't a play-by-play broadcast, as some in the media have put it. The FCC's job is to be objective about what is actually broadcast.

[rottwielerinpa]

Originally posted by bluecell
There was an intriguing thread on the O&A/WNEW Radio Discussion Board (http://musicradio.computer.net/newboard/wwwboard), the subject was "who defines indecency?". It's an issue that I've been debating myself, even before the Sex For Sam 3 incident. It seems to me that the only people who really decide what's 'decent' in our society is Conservative America, the majority of the media being a large part of that faction. The situation with O&A being targeted by (conservative) groups like the Catholic League and Morality In Media is a perfect example of who defines these terms.


Last Night I was thinking of this . While on the road around 10 pm I was listening to Drudge on WABC Talk . He was Talking about an upcoming interveiw this week on Primetime Live . Its with the mistress of Saddam Hussen (spelling ?). I guess this interveiw goes into great detail about his sex life and the use of Viagra . Well Drudge was reading parts of the interview and it came to a point where I was thinking Why do we need to know about the sex life of a mad man . Then about the same moment Drudge was reading details (wish I had a transcript of his comments) he says "and they canceled Opie and Anthony for what they did" ? From the way he said it he implied that this interview was much worse then what they did . In a way sticking up for them .
But I guess my point here is , I really dont know what my point is !( I STINK!!!) I just thought this was a good thread to add what I listened to last night . I have some other thoughts for this thread , but will take some time and think it out before I post anymore . The last time I spoke up about something it got real ugly very quick and will use a little more tact in what I say this time around . :)

[BOUGHTONII]

why is it that every time some radical religious fanatic stands up to make noise the conservitives are blamed.. we defend the constitution...........all of it. it is the liberal establishment that does not allow anything thinking that is not politicaly correct.............it is the liberal that belives in revisionist history.............it is the liberal who belives searching you without cause and if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear.................but it is the religious fanatic.........that altered my skyline..........NO MATTER WHO HE CALLS GOD!!!!!!

[bluecell]

Originally posted by BOUGHTONII
why is it that every time some radical religious fanatic stands up to make noise the conservitives are blamed.. we defend the constitution...........all of it. it is the liberal establishment that does not allow anything thinking that is not politicaly correct.............it is the liberal that belives in revisionist history.............it is the liberal who belives searching you without cause and if your not doing anything wrong you have nothing to fear.................but it is the religious fanatic.........that altered my skyline..........NO MATTER WHO HE CALLS GOD!!!!!! Well, in this case the conservatives are to blame. I agree, the liberal groups do their part as well, but both the Catholic League and Morality In Media are conservative organizations.

[bluecell]

...And how can I forget to mention the majority of the media, which makes up a huge conservative base.