remotecontrol.jpgIn 2004 the FCC decided that any use of profanity on Broadcast television or radio was unacceptable. However satellite and cable channels are not held to the same standards. The networks responded by suing on the grounds of creative expression. Groups like the Parents Television Council continue to file complaints against networks for indecent or offensive programming.

The FCC increased its standard in response to declining moral standards. FCC officials believe it is necessary to protect the public and ensure quality or at least non-offensive programming is aired. Another reason for the increased standards is to protect children and teens.

Personally, I do not choose to watch certain programming or even channels because of the programming. We also have TVs with V-Chips programmed to block R rated and higher programs. Yes, we can enter the code but it does prevent seeing some offensive things while flipping channels. The V-Chip does not always work properly, so it can be quite humorous at time. Especially, when a violent movie will be allowed but the weather will be blocked when describing “violent thunderstorms.”

I agree with the FCC and the Parents Television Council wanting to protect children and teens. However, for teens the internet is more of a threat than TV. It is possible to access just about anything on the internet. I am not supporting or even suggesting the FCC should regulate the internet. However, I do think that it is the parents’ responsibility to train children and teens what is appropriate. Not just regulate access to media but rather provide explanation, instruction, and guidance about what is acceptable or unacceptable and why.

So what to do think about the FCC’s increased standards? It is it a good thing? Should networks be given complete access?

Source: WashingtonPost

4 thoughts on “FCC’s Regulation of Morality to be Reviewed by the Supreme Court

  1. I agree with you, Dee. It is the responsibility of parents to safeguard – and more importantly to instruct – their children when it comes to offensive programming.

    The problem as I see it is that the government wants to be a nanny, and legislate morality. Truthfully, I get annoyed by some commercials I see – especially the “Girls Gone Wild” commercials which show on WGN during South Park and Reno 911, between 11pm and 1am – but at the same time I do have a choice to not watch those shows. Anyone who might be negatively effected by those commercials, such as children, probably shouldn’t be up that late anyway.

    My opinion is that there is far more in real life which might be inappropriate for children. The internet would fall under real life, since it is not predesigned content, and anyone can jump in at will.

    It is the responsibility of parents, not the government, to ensure that children are not exposed to inappropriate content, and to explain what is and is not appropriate according to their own moral standards. I don’t want the government telling me what’s moral, simply because I don’t trust the government to have that kind of power. Today it’s broadcast material, tomorrow it’s the internet, the next day, who knows. Once the government gets a power, they won’t let it go. For that reason, it’s far better to not give them that power in the first place.


  2. I don’t like the idea of the government regulating morality either. Once they start deciding what is offensive when do they stop. I certainly don’t want the internet regulated. I’m sure that some people consider that my postings about my religious views offensive but I still have the privilege to write about it.


What's on your mind?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s