The only reason why the FCC has control over the VHF/UHF television (network airwaves) as well as AM/FM radio is because it is a limited public resources. There are a limited number of waves where signals can be broadcast, so the government took control over them to control and distribute how they are being done…. accordingly, one of the ancillary powers the FCC has is to regulate indecency over public airwaves. The First Amendment argument will probably won’t work—well, it never did.

This is why they have no control over cable, satellite tv and radio, and other media because the ‘resource’ is not limited.

One more point, the FCC has no control over media on the internet because Congress did not give them that authority. So, your contention should be with Congress, not with the FCC.

Anyways, enough of FCC 101 and let’s get back to moral grandstanding here…

However, as mentioned in my blog, the Parents Television Council (www.parentstv.org) accounts for an disproportionate amount of total complaints made to the FCC about television content. In fact, 540,000 complaints were written about that Super Bowl halftime show incident. This was in 2004, where the PTC made up 99.9% of all complaints.

In a discussion like this, I would not use the number of complaints as a reliable measure of how many people were sufficiently outraged by an perceived moment of indecency. One special interest group is driving most of this effort, and is clearly not representative of American viewers.

A boob. On TV for all of 1.7 seconds. Oh no. Our children must be shielded from that via million-dollar fines.

The second article is interesting. I agree with it; we should certainly take action to make sure our children are not underserved; that they are encouraged to reach their full potential. What that article fails to do, however, is make a connection between profane language on television and a failed approach to childrearing.

I do not want my future children to be exposed to violent scenes or heavily profane language. That is why I would not allow them to watch HBO or cable television late at night. That is my responsibility as a parent.

However, having the government punish network television for an incident such as a blurted “S” word by a guest on a live show (where producers do not have that much control) is going too far.

The American Psychiatric Association (and not the PTC) has research that proves that exposure to mass media *significantly increases* aberrant and aggressive behavior in kids. Hello???!

And with that said, I think that the opinions of people, including myself, who aren’t parents or guardians ought to be taken with a grain of salt.

The government steps in if the child is in physical danger (abusive parents, failure to provide food/shelter, etc). But should they avert our children’s eyes and ears from bad words?

Profanity doesn’t harm children; are any of us harmed by knowing inappropriate language? It’s part of navigating today’s world…whether we like it or not.

Devil’s advocate: You’re very religious and you really screen everything that your kids watch because you don’t want them exposed to unnecessary filth. Well, other parents could be just concerned- about the possibility of your children telling their kids (on the playground) “fairy tales about imaginary Biblical characters”. Their concerns are just as legitimate as yours. Would you want them to fight to ban your children’s access to the Bible?

You don’t get the answers through monitoring or censoring; it’s all about choosing wisely.