Free Speech, Censorship, and the FCC

Recently the Supreme Court upheld the FCC's right to fine television networks in violation of standards and practices, even if said violation is "fleeting" (meaning, it was said at a live event without a broadcast delay). The Courts only ruled on the FCC's authority to enact punishments, however; they did not address the "free speech" angle of the cases in question.

I'm generally against censorship. The very first amendment to the US Constitution grants us the right to free speech. Government shouldn't decide what I can and can't say. Sometimes, government has a hard enough time deciding what it should say itself. But I think it bears mention that Constitutional free speech isn't just a blanket that lets you say whatever the heck you want, without consequence.

Let's say, for instance, that I falsely shout "fire" in a crowded movie theater. In the resulting chaos, people will be hurt and property will be damaged. In this instance, my exercise of free speech has impeded on someone else's right to safety and property. Because of such a possibility, the Courts created the "clear and present danger" litmus test for whether speech is considered lawful or not.

Naturally, profanity, violence, and sexually explicit material on television has little to do with the "clear and present danger" argument (well, some ultra-right wingers probably think that showing a woman's breasts on television might cause riots). But that doesn't mean that free speech does mean you can do and say whatever you want.

I think the real issue is that most people don't understand the concept of free speech. When the constitution was written, they were concerned about protecting speech--as in "the communication of ideas." They weren't trying to protect your ability to use any particular word in public. If I choose to buy airtime on ABC and make commercials for the Communist party, I'm well within my constitutional rights (as is the station in airing such a commercial, even if it is in poor taste). I have the right to communicate my ideas. But that doesn't mean that I can drop a few "f bombs" in the commercial for impact. Why? Because I have a right to share my thoughts, but I *don't* have a right to force my crass language on you.

The same applies for sexually explicit material, violent material, drug references, etc. Simply put, network television is a "public" forum; it travels over publical airwaves and is freely available to anyone. If someone doesn't want this material in their homes, they shouldn't have to choose between putting up with it or just not having a television. And lets face it, bad words don't make bad tv shows good.

Why Politics and Faith Just Don't Mix

As you've probably figured out by now, I don't think terribly well of those who mix faith and politics. I don't care which political party you identify with, none of them are "Christian" in nature. Read my first post if you want to see why.

But even if there were a party that didn't compromise the message of Christ, where you could always vote that party and know you were voting for Christian values, politics would still be inherently secular. Here's why:

Back when this country was founded, shortly after it was determined that the Articles of Confederation had failed, the Constitution was written. The idea behind the whole system was people looking out for their own self-interests at the expense of others: the house of representatives favored the poor while the senate favored wealthy, the executive branch was originally designed to protect against a "tyranny of the masses," etc. The system has changed since then; senators are no longer elected by state legislatures but by the people, the president is more or less chosen by the people rather than state legislatures, and so on. But, the basic principle of balancing self-interests out remains; it is accomplished now via PACs, lobbyists, voter blocs, etc.

It goes without saying, but this system is fundamentally anti-Christian. As Christians, we are supposed to serve, not be served: "whoever wants to be first, he must be the very last, and the servant of all" (Mk. 9:35). Now granted, if our system were based on servant-leadership, it wouldn't work. You can pretty much guarantee the success of a system based on greed, and likewise, you can pretty much guarantee the failure of a system based on selflessness. But that doesn't change the fact that, as Christians, we are called to a higher standard than the world around us.

So how should you vote? I'm afraid I don't have a good answer for that. Vote your conscience. Pick the candidate whose position and values most closely match your own. Ultimately, this country is going to be run by selfish people looking out for themselves; its just how the system was designed.

But while I don't have a good answer for how to vote, I do have a terrific answer for how to handle the worldly nature of our country: "For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil. 3:20). Christ will return, and when He does, we will finally see the ultimate system of justice, fairness, and peace, because our leaders will be replaced by the ultimate leader, Jesus Christ.