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.