Data Bases • Custom Term Papers • Free Term Papers • Free Research Papers • Free Essays • Free Book Reports • Plagiarism? Links • Top 100 Term Paper Sites • Top 25 Essay Sites • Top 50 Essay Sites • Search 97,000 Papers @ DirectEssays.com • Search 101,000 Papers @ ExampleEssays.com • Search 90,000 Papers @ MegaEssays.com Free Essays • Term Paper Sites • Chuck III's Free Essays • Free College Essays • TermPaperSites.com • My Term Papers • Get Free Essays • Essay World • Planet Papers	Search Lots of Essays Back to Subjects - Miscellaneous George Carlin and Radio Censorship George Carlin and Radio Censorship Americans hate the word censorship. It puts fire into the eyes of any self proclaimed, speaker of the people. but is censorship that bad, or that wrong? Censorship is an enormous part of the stability of society. One of the many types of censorship takes place on the airwaves. Comedians, George Carlin, Howard Stern, and Mncow Muller had an enormous effect on the ideals of censorship in this era, trying to prove that the FCC had no right to censor radio airwaves. They questioned why words we all hear at home cannot be spoken on the radio if listeners are given a proper warning. However, there is no need for young children to be exposed to such lude material and the American people must be more reasonable about morals and stop worrying about our “First Amendment” rights. 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 took place 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) Pacifica believed that this was enough warning to give people who would be offended, but placing a warning in front of something is like placing chocolate cake in front of a fat guy. Humans thirst for the unknown, and at this time, sexual perversion was a big unknown. 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 or (dialect): 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 sh*t, p*ss, f*ck, c*nt, c*cks*cker, m*therf*cker, and t*ts. 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 censorship 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, 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 speak to 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 get George Carlin's album for entertainment. This decision might not seem like a fair one to people 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 understand that regulating indecent speech would effect many other important 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 a 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 disagree with this point of view but did object to the way was expressed. Many people in the United States do not consider 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 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 obscene 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 obscene material was clearly stated and understood since the Pacifica case. To say broadcasters could not say anything "offensive to your community" just helped 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, wrote 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 . Mr. Wildmon's organization still pushed 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 show 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 vrs. 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. Another, more recent staple in American broadcasting has been Mancow Muller, and his “Free Speech Radio Network” (Q101) Mancow and his self proclaimed “Mancow millitia” is taking the Chicagoland area by storm with its vile attempts to challenge the FCC and the citizens of the US. No cases have been brought up against him, though many have tried. His show features cast members with names such as “Turd, Prison Bitch and Whipping boy” intended to spark humor in citizens, while most are disgusted. The show features obscene and sexual content, rude and distructive behavior, and many other previously banned FCC topics. It show truthfully states an opinion, but it is a singled out opinion of one man and certainly not the opinion of others, even people actually working on the show. Mancow, who is releasing a CD and book both titled “Pink Panties” states, “ Any Nazi, communist, bunch of *ssholes who want to take away my rights as a citizen will answer to me and my glock.”(Q101) A glock is a gun, and in light of recent scool shootings, sparked more cotroversy in the radio world. So, should only words be banned, or can they ban violent ideas aswell? Shouldn’t we as people know right from wrong? Chicago citizens have recently formed, “Pam”, “People against Mancow” in order to get the FCC involved in the matter. The FCC stillrefuses to cut corners in order not to step on peoples toes? When did the FCC lose control? The FCC is now a public mockery of government lawmakers. It stands on the sidelines proclaiming that it was built to save the innocence of youth in America. This is a shame and it should be dealt with. The FCC is simply around to make people believe that they have some say in what crosses our airways. People like Stern and Mancow are around to tell citizens that it is okay to be offensive and we should by all means go out of our way to hurt people. This is ludicrous, but human beings also possess the common sense to turn something off themselves. The government should not even need to censor radio broadcasts. 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’s 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 four letter words that were assigned to bad intentions and bad thoughts. Is it moral that we let our government decide what we hear or say? We as God believing, naturally good, human beings should know the difference between what is good, and what is bad. I believe that's the greatest immoral act of all. Bibliography: TAKING CONTROL Adam Veness Essay College Prep English Bolton A3 Americans hate the word censorship. It puts fire into the eyes of any self proclaimed, speaker of the people. but is censorship that bad, or that wrong? Censorship is an enormous part of the stability of society. One of the many types of censorship takes place on the airwaves. Comedians, George Carlin, Howard Stern, and Mancow Muller had an enormous effect on the ideals of censorship in this era, trying to prove that the FCC had no right to censor radio airwaves. They questioned why words we all hear at home cannot be spoken on the radio if listeners are given a proper warning. However, there is no need for young children to be exposed to such vile material and the American people must be more reasonable about morals and stop worrying about our “First Amendment” rights. 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 took place 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) Pacifica believed that this was enough warning to give people who would be offended, but placing a warning in front of something is like placing chocolate cake in front of a fat guy. Humans thirst for the unknown, and at this time, sexual perversion was a big unknown. 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 or (dialect): 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 sh*t, p*ss, f*ck, c*nt, c*cks*cker, m*therf*cker, and t*ts. 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 censorship 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, 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 speak to 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? This decision might not seem like a fair one to people who agree with Carlin's message, Must adults now go out and get George Carlin's album for entertainment.? 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 understand that regulating indecent speech would effect many other important 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 a 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 disagree with this point of view but did object to the way was expressed. Many people in the United States do not consider 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 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 obscene 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 had put it’s foot down but the seemingly outnumbered people of good taste would soon be fought and beaten in “First Ammendment” cases to come. 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 obscene material was clearly stated and understood since the Pacifica case. To say broadcasters could not say anything "offensive to your community" just helped the idea that the government want's to conform people to their way of thinking, acting and speaking. Many communities are dissimilar and are 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, wrote 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 . Mr. Wildmon's organization still pushed 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 show 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 vrs. Pacifica Foundation gave the FCC "the power to regulate radio broadcasts that are indecent but not obscene."(Gunther,1991) This power given to the FCC could be looked at 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 , however, if a certain amount of regulation are 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, 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) The fact still remains that if one person finds something offensive then there are probably others out there who agree. The thought of infringment of our rights is a frightening one but one must look at the rights of our children to grow up in a clean and healthy environment. Another, more recent staple in American broadcasting has been Mancow Muller, and his “Free Speech Radio Network” (Q101) Mancow and his self proclaimed “Mancow militia” is taking the Chicagoland area by storm with its vile attempts to challenge the FCC and the citizens of the US. No cases have been brought up against him, though many have tried. His show features cast members with names such as “Turd, Prison Bitch and Whipping boy” intended to spark humor in citizens, while most are disgusted. The show features obscene and sexual content, rude and destructive behavior, and many other previously banned FCC topics. The Mancow show truthfully states an opinion, but it is a singled out opinion of one man and certainly not the opinion of others, even people actually working on the show. Mancow, who is releasing a CD and book both titled “White Cotton Panties” states, “ Any Nazi, communist, bunch of *ssholes who want to take away my rights as a citizen will answer to me and my glock.”(Q101) A glock is a gun, and in light of recent school shootings, sparked more controversy in the radio world. So, should only words be banned, or can they ban violent ideas as well? Shouldn’t we as people know right from wrong? Chicago citizens have recently formed, “PAM”, “People against Mancow” in order to get the FCC involved in the matter. The FCC still refuses to cut corners in order not to step on peoples toes? When did the FCC lose control? The FCC is now a public mockery of government lawmakers. It stands on the sidelines proclaiming that it was built to save the innocence of youth in America. This is a shame and it should be dealt with. The FCC is simply around to make people believe that they have some say in what crosses our airways. People like Stern and Mancow are around to tell citizens that it is okay to be offensive and we should by all means go out of our way to hurt people. This is ludicrous, but human beings also possess the common sense to turn something off themselves. The government should not even need to censor radio broadcasts. “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’s 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.” States “PAM” leader, Gary Morgan.(Q101) Society has 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. These words do not have anything to do with morality. These are just four letter words that were assigned to bad intentions and bad thoughts. Is it moral that we let our government decide what we hear or say? God fearing, naturally good, human beings should know the difference between what is good, and what is bad. That is the greatest immoral act of all. Work Cited 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. Stern, H. (1996). Private Parts. Paramount pictures Ltd. www.Q101.com Mancow Show Word Count: 2795
Copyright © 1998-2008 College Term Papers, INC All Rights Reserved. DMCA Notifications and Requests