...besides reading all that Brent Bozell/MRC mail. Why should they have all the fun?
And more to the point: why should the FCC get thousands of letters about 'wardrobe malfunctions' and other nonsense when we are daily being abused by much more dangerous messages?
Follow me over the flip...
Reading the indispensable Glenn Greenwald, I bristled anew - plenty of opportunities to get a-bristlin' there! - at the fact that so much sulfurous spew by the lunatic fringe pours from our airwaves. And I wondered why we tolerate it.
Here is a lovely snippet from Glenn Beck's May 17 broadcast (actually from Media Matters):
BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
I wondered, just what exactly are the FCC rules about obscenity, profanity and the like? I know we can't have our tender eyeballs subjected to the obscenity that is a pastie on Janet Jackson's boob. But really, what would the FCC's position be regarding, say, a non-ironic discussion, in fairly graphic detail, killing another human being?
So I decided to look it up.
From the FCC's website:
Profane Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC has defined profanity as "including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance."
Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
Here's the link:
http://www.fcc.gov/...
So I thought, I'm going to write to the FCC and complain about it. Yessiree Bob, without delay. Now granted, I normally wouldn't start wading into the treacherous waters of First Amendment protections against the infringement of free speech and all that good stuff.
But why should there be absolutely no hue and cry about the daily, drip-drip erosion of standards of decency and civility by the right? I mean, I know there are dozens of violators spewing forth all sorts of incendiary, eliminationist, violence-inciting rhetoric all day long. And that's a lot of stamps! (I understand that actual letters are more effective than e-mails. But I digress.)
But folks, we have to start somewhere.
Glenn Beck, I call you profane! And I welcome you to join me in my Crazy Cat Lady Crusade.
So, Crazy Cat Lady (you're thinking), how do you square this with your love of Mom, apple pie, and the Constitution? Do you really want to - gasp! - go there?
If writing the FCC about (pseudo-) political speech gives you pause, here's another try.
First, let's take a gander at the FCC's definition of Obscenity:
Obscenity Broadcast Restrictions
Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times
Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:
An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.
I have two words for you: JonBenet Ramsey.
Is the news coverage of this business not Obscene? Or at least the FCC's version Obscene Lite: Indecent?
Now you might argue that there is a legitimate news reason for broadcasting such stories. Not the volume of stories, just that the public has a legitimate interest in hearing about an arrest 10 years after the girl was killed. Sure, we all shudder when looking at all that endless footage of the girl parading around with her six-year-old's version of Come Hither, but where do we draw the line...
Bollocks.
I have not once seen a news story - not 10 years ago, not last week, not today - that featured an image of JonBenet Ramsey sans costume or makeup. Have you? Let that sink in for a minute. Were there absolutely no pictures of the girl available that didn't involve mascara, lipstick, wigs and fake tan? Posing suggestively? Prancing around with simulated adult sexual poses? How unsavory is that? But I think we know: they looooove showing the creepazoid endless loops of JonBenet as sexy cowgirl, JonBenet as sexy Bond girl...
All News Outlets: I dub thee Obscene! For how can you not argue that there wasn't a prurient display - since they didn't show anything else?
I think they have some 'splainin to do.
Yup - I'm writing the FCC about that one too! (If you industrious/time-wasting Kossacks visit the FCC site, you'll notice that you have to supply specific instances of specific broadcasts in order for them to consider your complaint. In other words, you'll have to flip on the channel any time of day or night, note the channel number and time, and write away.)
Federal Communications Commission
Enforcement Bureau
Investigations and Hearings Division
Room 4-C330
445 12th St., SW
Washington, DC 20554