|
Women's Rights
What's New? - Archive
WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide.
Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Women's Rights Archives page.
Since Women's Rights is in many ways an umbrella issue, WomenMatter will highlight related updates from other Life Issue areas here:
Legislating Janet: Congress’ Response to the Super Bowl Mayhem
The Justin Timberlake/Janet Jackson performance in the Super Bowl halftime show has caused more than just media frenzy. A fury swept through Congress as well, expressing itself through legislation that hopes to clean up network television.
Government responds to Justin and Janet
Michigan Republican Fred Upton introduced the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act more than a week before Super Bowl audiences watched Timberlake rip off part of Jackson’s outfit, exposing her. But the incident gave the bill momentum, carrying it through the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
The government response to the scandal was immediate. Directly following the episode, forty more Representatives signed up to cosponsor the bill, a Senate subcommittee hearing was scheduled, and fifty Congresswomen and men wrote to CBS condemning the performance.
If the legislation passes through the House and Senate, networks will pay higher fines for airing “lewd" programming. The bill raises the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) penalty to $275,000, up from $27,500 for one program with “indecent" content, and multiple offensives could cost networks up to $3 million.
Will the bill clean up TV?
It’s possible that the increased fines will not dissuade networks from provocative programming. Networks are having an increasingly difficult time competing with cable channels, which are not regulated by the FCC. Paying $275,000 for a publicity-generating stunt may be worth it; in this case, the fine is dwarfed by the $2.3 million that the network earns for every 30-second ad during the Super Bowl.
Some argue that revoking a network’s broadcasting license would be more effective, but doing so would raise the censorship debate.
First Amendment
Revoking a network’s broadcasting license may violate the First Amendment right to free speech; such a punishment would silence the network and inhibit free expression.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argues that the FCC fines violate free speech as well. From their point of view, government should not be able to draw lines through expression, using arbitrary criteria to name speech “decent" or “indecent."
The law
According to Congressional Quarterly, the FCC law prohibits "any material that references sexual or excretory activities or organs." Networks argue that the law is vague, and indeed it raises many questions: Are all references to sexual activity equally transgressive, or are some acts more offensive than others? Is there a scale to weigh offenses, and do the more offensive acts get the highest fines?
If there are greater and lesser offenses, are bodies more offensive than language? In the case of Justin and Janet, a sexualized body part seems to have caused the wave of controversy. Yet, popular sitcoms regularly use language to reference sex and get little to no reaction, except some laughs from the audience.
Why is sex regulated, but not violence? The FCC does not dole out fines for excessive violence, though lawmakers have been fighting to control it for years. Since 1993, Senator Ernest F. Hollings (D-SC) has introduced and reintroduced a bill that would direct the FCC to study violence safeguards and create a family hour in which violence is banned. Although Hollings has introduced the bill five times, it has never passed in Congress.
Clearly, current FCC law demands interpretation, but who gets to interpret, who gets to determine decency?
The parents
From a parent’s point of view, it is getting increasingly difficult to police against inappropriate material. Among radio, cable television, the Internet, and now network television, parents may not be able to keep up, even with the long list of censoring gadgetry available.
The Super Bowl stunt seemed to be the last straw for many parents; the FCC got more than 200,000 complaints. And a Tennessee woman has filed a lawsuit on behalf of viewers who were “injured" by the sight of Jackson’s body, a grievance that may be hard to prove in court. These responses counter Universal marketing executive Kirk Harding’s point of view; he told Rolling Stone that the public is becoming more and more desensitized.
The investigation
But the public certainly seems sensitive to nudity during a Super Bowl halftime show. The FCC is investigating the incident to find out who is to blame, MTV, CBS, Virgin Records, or Timberlake and Jackson. But perhaps more in-depth investigation needs to take place. How are attitudes about sex, race, gender, and violence at play here? How do we talk to our children about such topics? And what are the implications of censorship?
Discuss these questions with other WomenMatter readers in one of our online forums. Read more about Women’s Rights and contact your representatives to let them know what you think.
Article Posted on: 2/27/2004
click here to go to next section
return
to top
|
