Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Indecency Policies

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Indecency PoliciesThe Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is the position in the United States tasked with the regulation of interstate and international communications carried out via radio, satellite, television, wire and c adequate. The agency was licenced by the Communications Act of 1934, and its scope of authority extends throughout the 50 US states, the District of Colombia and only the US territories (Commission).The FCC has the responsibility of prohibiting the display of obscene programming at any time between 6 am and 10pm. In the event of a breach of this rule, the FCC indemnity requires that the license granted to the put severance this rule be revoked, or a monetary fine be imposed. Also, it can give the station a warning with regard to its breach of rule (Commission). Ever since its institution, the FCC has sanctioned companies for brief curse wrangling aired, or accidental nudity on live award shows. A particular case in point is the 2004 Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction saga, which cost CBS a whopping $550,000 in fines though it was appealed to an appellate court (Calver, p. 1-29).The FCC policy requires it to take appropriate punitive action, in respect of any media outlet, following authenticated complaints received from the public about any obscene, profane, or adverse material aired to viewers. Following such complaints, the FCC conducts a review to determine whether there has been a breach of the ban, indecency, or obscenity laws. In cases where it is base that a broadcast station has violated the law, investigations into the claims are carried out. In this regard, the FCC policy requires complainants to follow a three-step process, sooner the act being complained about can be labeled as obscene, profane, or indecent. First, the average someone must find that the content is appealing to the prurient interest, or an excessive interest in informal matters. Following this stage, th e material must be found to be depicted in a personal manner that is patently offensive and sexually explicit, and falls within the confines of the applicable law, in the particular case. In the third and last step, the content of the material must be determined to lack, in one way, or another, educational, artistic, scientific, or political value. In other words, it adds no value to the viewer. However, one crucial aspect of the full process is putting the content of the material in context to determine its obscenity, indecency, or profanity (Commission).My opinion, in regard to the FCC policy, is that it is not doing much when it comes to censoring inappropriate content. One major(ip) reason is that the policy requires claims of obscenity, profanity or indecency, to pass the three steps before they can be so labeled. This process makes it highly difficult to successfully censor, or prosecute, media outlets for airing inappropriate content. Therefore, the FCC should make the proc ess less constrictive, to be able to accommodate more punishable cases of indecency. Indecency is defined by the FCC as, Language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms of patently offensive as measured by contemporary connection standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities (Commission). Putting this statement in context, indecent programming basically comprises sexual or excretory references that are patently offensive in character however, they do not reach the obscenity level. Hence, courts hold on to these indecent materials, as protected by the runner amendment to the constitution, and do not ban them completely. Hence, viewers are left with the same initial caper of indecent material being aired. However, this indecent material can be restricted to avoid propagation when children are the primary audience. The FCC should make a policy that stipulates zero tolerance for any form of indecency, kind of of having courts ba ck them up with loopholes, such as by arguing that they are protected by the first amendment which upholds the right of free speech (Courts). An example is Nicole Richies 2003 speech at the Billboard Awards, where she categorically stated, make believe you ever tried to get cow st out of a Prada purse? Its not so fing naive (CNN). The statement is a clear example of an indecent speech. The case brought up issues to do with the constitution and administration. The courts argued that FCCs policy on the case violated the first amendment and, therefore, it was unconstitutional. The courts argued that the policy restricted free speech.Another major issue that the FCC should look into is amending its policy to include monitoring broadcasts for violation of its laws. This will make it more restrictive by broadening the scope of its mandate. . Currently, the FCC only responds to claims from the general public. Though this is a safe move to prohibit pressuring a media outlet the FCC might be at loggerheads with, it is also a disadvantage. The FCC only investigates cases brought in by the viewers, and at times, not all the issues are given attention, although a significant number is analyzed. The major puzzle arises when specific viewers bear a grudge with a particular station, or individual, which is broadcasted. Such a scenario defeats the reason for the establishment of the FCC and makes it look like a platform, where personal grudges people hold can be settled. By being able to monitor broadcasts on their own, they can identify reasonable claims of a violation, sort of of allowing individuals to act as if they own the FCC. A good example is Al Wescot, who is well known as a self- do watchdog. His grudge with Howard Stern is well recorded. He has on several occasions do it his job to file complaints with the FCC, with regard to Howard Sterns conduct (Mintzer, p25).In conclusion, the FCC should maintain its broadcast indecency policies. However, they should be m ade more stringent. Isolated expletives, or non-sexual nudity, should be treated the same they are indecent. Furthermore, it should consider having a policy to be able to scrutinize broadcasts, instead of waiting for the viewers to file complaints. In this manner, broadcasters will be more aware of a watchdog that is the overriding authority. This will minimize cases of indecency in broadcasting. whole shebang CitedCalver, C. Imus, Indecency, Violence (and) Vulgarity Why the FCC Must Not Expand Its Authority Over Content. 30 battle of Hastings Comm. Ent. Law Journal (2007) 1-29.CNN. Justices tackle free speech dispute over broadcast TV indecency. 6 January 2012. 24 February 2015 http//edition.cnn.com.Commission, Federal Communications. Federal Communications Commission. 14 August 2014. 24 February 2015 http//www.fcc.gov.Courts, United States. United States Courts. 24 February 2015. 24 February 2015 http//www.uscourts.gov.Mintzer, Rich. Howard Stern A Biography. United Kingdom Simo n Schuster Publishing, 2010.