HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ 1/HaCKeRz Kr0nlcKLeZ.iso/anarchy/essays/schoolsucks/carlin.txt

Text File | 1996-04-27 | 14.8 KB | 246 lines

ARTS
How George Carlin's "Filthy Words" Gave the Government the Power to Regulate
What We Hear on the Radio

                            The FCC v. Pacifica Foundation:
                GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS ON RADIO BROADCASTING
    In 1978 a radio station owned by Pacifica Foundation Broadcasting out of New
York City was doing a program on contemporary attitudes toward the use of
language.  This broadcast occurred on a mid-afternoon weekday.  Immediately
before the broadcast the station announced a disclaimer telling listeners
that the program would include "sensitive language which might be regarded as
offensive to some."(Gunther, 1991)   As a part of the program the station
decided to air a 12 minute monologue called "Filthy Words" by comedian George
Carlin.  The introduction of Carlin's "routine" consisted of, according to
Carlin, "words you couldn't say on the public air waves."(Carlin, 1977)  The
introduction to Carlin's monologue  listed those words and repeated them in a
variety of colloquialisms:

I was thinking about the curse words and the swear words, the cuss words and
the words that you can't say, that you're not supposed to say all the time.
 I was thinking one night about the words you couldn't say on the public, ah,
airwaves, um, the ones you definitely wouldn't say, ever.  Bastard you can
say, and hell and damn so I have to figure out which ones you couldn't and
ever and it came down to seven but the list is open to amendment, and in
fact, has been changed, uh, by now.  The original seven words were shit,
piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.  Those are the ones
that will curve your spine, grow hair on your hands and maybe, even bring us,
God help us, peace without honor, and a bourbon. (Carlin, 1977)

    A man driving with his young son heard this broadcast and reported it to the
Federal Communications Commission [FCC].  This broadcast of Carlin's "Filthy
Words"  monologue caused one of the greatest and most controversial cases in
the history of broadcasting.  The case of the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation.
 The outcome of this case has had a lasting effect on what we hear on the
radio.

    This landmark case gave the FCC the "power to regulate radio broadcasts that
are indecent but not obscene." (Gunther, 1991)  What does that mean, exactly?
 According to the government it means that the FCC can only regulate
broadcasts.  They can not censor broadcasts, that is determine what is
offensive in the matters of speech.
    Before this case occurred there were certain laws already in place that
prohibited obscenity over radio.  One of these laws was the "law of
nuisance".  This law "generally speaks to channeling behavior more than
actually prohibiting it."(Simones, 1995)  The law in essence meant that
certain words depicting a sexual nature were limited to certain times of the
day when children would not likely be exposed.  Broadcasters were trusted to
regulate themselves and what they broadcast over the airwaves.  There were no
specific laws or surveillance by regulatory groups to assure that indecent
and obscene material would not be broadcast.  Therefore, when the case of the
FCC vs. Pacifica made its way to the Supreme Court it was a dangerous
decision for the Supreme Court to make.  Could the government regulate the
freedom of speech?  That was the ultimate question.
    Carlin's monologue was speech according to the first amendment.(Simones,
1995)  Because of this Pacifica argued that "the first amendment prohibits
all governmental regulation that depends on the content of speech."(Gunther,
1991)  "However there is no such absolute rule mandated by the constitution,"
according to the Supreme Court.(Gunther, 1991)  Therefore the question is
"whether a broadcast of patently offensive words dealing with sex and
excretion may be regulated because of its content.  The fact that society may
find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing
it."(Gunther, 1991)  The Supreme Court deemed that these words offend for the
same reasons that obscenity offends.  They also state that "these words, even
though they had no literary meaning or value, were still protected by the
first amendment."(Gunther, 1991)   So what does this mean to the American
public?  This decision gave government the power to regulate, whereas it did
not before.

    Broadcasting, out of all forms of communication, has received the most
limited protection of the first amendment.  There are two main reasons why.
 First,  "the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence
in the lives of all Americans."(Gunther, 1991)  Airwaves not only confront
the public but also the citizen.  They can come into our homes uninvited or,
you never know what to expect when they are invited in.  In this case the
Court decided that "because the broadcast audience is constantly tuning in
and out, prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener or viewer from
unexpected program content."(Gunther, 1991)  So here's the simple solution,
turn off the radio.  How hard can that be?  It's not too difficult but the
Supreme Court decided  "to say that one may avoid further offense by turning
off the radio...is like saying that the remedy for assault is run away after
the first blow."(Gunther, 1991)
    The second reason why broadcasting has received limited first amendment
protection is because "broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even
those too young to read."(Gunther, 1991)  Even though children at a young age
can't read obscene messages, the Carlin broadcast could have enlarged a
child's vocabulary in a matter of seconds.  These two important factors of
broadcasting gave the Supreme Court the push they needed for regulation.  The
Court decides that "the ease with which children may obtain access to
broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recognized, amply justify
special treatment of indecent broadcasting."(Gunther, 1991)    But does that
mean that adults have to listen to what is fit for children's ears?  Must
adults now go out and purchase George Carlin's album for entertainment?  This
decision might not seem a fair one to most who agree with Carlin's message,
but according to the Supreme Court it "does not violate anyones first
amendment rights."(Gunther, 1991)
    If the government could allow this type of speech to be regulated then they
must also take into account that regulating indecent speech would effect many
other integral parts of broadcasting.  For instance, "these rationales could
justify the banning from radio a myriad of literary works...they could
support the suppression of a good deal of political speech, such as the Nixon
tapes; and they could even provide the basis for imposing sanctions for the
broadcast of certain portions of the bible."(Gunther, 1991)  Carlin's
monologue was speech, there is no doubt about that, and it does present a
point of view.  Carlin tried to show that "the words it uses are "harmless"
and that our attitudes toward them are essentially silly."(Gunther, 1991)
 They did not object to this point of view but did object to the way in which
it is expressed.
    Many people in the United States do not deem these words as offensive.  In
fact many people use these words daily and as a part of conversation.  "In
this context the Court's decision could be seen as another of the dominant
culture's inevitable efforts to force those groups who do not share its mores
to conform to it's way of thinking, acting, and speaking."(Gunther, 1991)
 Therefore, the Supreme Court looked upon Carlin's monologue as indecent but
not obscene.
    The FCC was given the power to regulate the airwaves and prohibit
broadcasters from promoting "indecent" material over the radio.  After the
Pacifica case the FCC has also extended the ban of indecent as well as
obscene materials to 24 hours per day.  Because of the 24 hour ban the
previous "law of nuisance" allowing for indecent material to be "channeled"
at certain times of the day was abolished.  To promote strong regulation
against indecent material the FCC has the authority to issue fines on
broadcasters, whether it be fines in the terms of money or suspension of air
time.  The FCC, or the government, was given the ultimate power. The power to
regulate what we hear.

    Recently the FCC's authority to regulate broadcasts had been challenged once
again.  Howard Stern, self proclaimed "king of all media"  and morning show
"loudmouth" has given the FCC plenty of headaches.  In 1987, the FCC
introduced a new regulation to broadcasters.  The regulation stated that
"broadcasters could not say anything patently indecent or offensive to your
community."(Stern, 1994)    Before this broadcasters only had to worry about
the "seven dirty words".  This new rule seemed to lack a specific meaning.
 The broadcasting of indecent material was clearly stated and understood
since the Pacifica case.  To say broadcasters could not say anything
"offensive to your community"  just reinforced the idea that the government
want's to conform people to their way of thinking, acting and speaking.
    As most of us are aware, many communities are dissimilar and comprised of
many people who might have different outlooks on what indecent material would
consist of.  This new regulation sparked much protest against Howard Stern
from many communities and individuals because the FCC essentially made the
"citizen"  the watchdog.  If one person in a community heard Howard Stern, or
any broadcaster, say something that was offensive to them and reported it to
the FCC, the FCC was required to take action and administer penalties.
    With this new regulation many watchdog groups and campaigns formed with the
soul purpose to "remove the obscene and indecent Howard Stern from the
airwaves."(Stern, 1995)  One with great influence in particular was the
"Morality in America Campaign" headed by a minister from Mississippi named
Donald E. Wildmon.  Mr. Wildmon, famous for these types of protests,
orchestrated a heavily promoted national letter writing campaign to the FCC
by sending out flyers to communities across the nation.  Because of this
action the chairman of the FCC, Alfred Sikes, took a closer look at Howard
Stern and decided that his show was indecent and issued the corporation that
represents Stern, Infinity Broadcasting, a warning.  This warning brought
publicity to Infinity Broadcasting.  Ratings soared and revenue was high.
 Stern became such a center of attention that Infinity decided to keep The
Howard Stern Show running just as it was.  Mr. Wildmon's organization still pr
essed on for "morality in America" and caused Howard Stern and Infinity
Broadcasting to receive more fines than anyone in the history of radio, 1.7
million dollars worth.  After years of protest and behind the scenes disputes
Infinity Broadcasting paid the 1.7 million dollars in fines to the FCC on
September 3, 1995.   The FCC's authority was boldly challenged by Howard
Stern and the fines sent a clear message to other broadcasters that the FCC
would not tolerate indecent material over the airwaves.  Even though Stern's
material  was considered indecent by the FCC, they could not stop it.  The
FCC can only regulate it.  Howard Stern's message might be indecent ,however,
 it is still protected by the first amendment.

    The outcome of the FCC v. Pacifica Foundation gave the FCC "the power to
regulate radio broadcasts that are indecent but not obscene."(Gunther, 1991)
 We could look at this power given to the FCC as an infringement of our first
amendment rights.  Should Americans let the government regulate what we here
or say on our public airways?  Or should we place "the responsibility and the
right to weed worthless and offensive communications from the public airways
in a public free to choose those communications worthy of its attention from
a marketplace unsullied by the censor's hand."(Gunther, 1991)
    One could interpret this to mean the government might feel that we are not
responsible enough to do this for ourselves.   But I believe ,however, that
if a certain amount of regulation is not applied things could very easily get
out of control.  If the "seven dirty words" were allowed to be said on the
airwaves at any time of the day then others might find reason for openness in
many other regulated activities such as pornography, or nudity and open
language policies on television.  A step in this direction for our society is
the wrong step.  We have had these regulations in place for a number of years
now and it would be devastating in this day and age to allow this type of
openness, especially with the problems we are facing in our communities with
violence and children.       However, I also think that the "seven dirty words"
are just in fact what they are, words.  "Carlin is not mouthing obscenities,
he is merely using words to satirize as harmless and essentially silly our
attitudes towards those words."(Gunther, 1991)  I do understand that words
that are common in one setting might be offensive in another.  Because I hear
these words often I do not take offense to them.  Although, if I had children
I would not want them to hear these words over public airways or repeat them.
 It is important though that the parents, not the government, have the right
to raise their children.
    I believe that the government should have let the "law of nuisance" stand.
 Channeling this type of material in hours where children are not exposed
would be the right decision.  We have created an even stronger taboo
concerning these words by letting them be regulated and now we are stuck with
that.  Freedom of speech is an important thing and even the slightest bit of
regulation could have drastic results.  People wanting to see morality in
America is fine, but what is this morality?  Who set the standards for
morality?  Our morality has changed over the years and is still changing
daily.  I do not think these words have anything to do with morality.  These
are just words that were assigned to bad intentions and bad thoughts.  Is it
moral that we let our government decide what we hear or say.  I believe
that's the greatest immoral act of all.

References

Gunther, G.  (1991).  Constitutional Law.  Twelfth Edition.  New York:  The
    Foundation Press, Inc.  pp.  1154-1161.
Carlin, G.  (1977).  Class Clown.  "Filthy Words" monologue.  Atlantic
    Records, Inc.
Simones, A.  (1995).  Lecture on FCC v. Pacifica Foundation.  October 27,
    1995.  Constitutional Law, Southwest Missouri State University.
Stern, H.  (1994).  Private Parts.  New York:  Simon & Schuster Inc.
Stern, H.  (1995).  Miss America.  New York:  Regan Books.


Authors Note:
This recieved an "A" for a media class.  Please not there are some typo's
that were pointed out in this paper and have not been corrected.  What?
 should I do everything for you.
Enjoy, Good Luck, and Your Welcome