At the risk of beating a dead horse, America needs to revisit the shock and moral outrage that swirled around the Super Bowl halftime show in January. I do not remember which teams played or which team finally won, but I (and everyone else who has even minimal contact with the media in the western world) knew that Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during a \wardrobe malfunction,"" and that led to incessant news commentary, class-action lawsuits and, most importantly, proposed federal legislation to raise penalties on indecency and obscenity.
Personally, the outrage of seeing a brief shot of Janet Jackson's sunburst nipple broach during the Super Bowl seemed odd, considering the advertising sponsors paraded out commercials of horse farts and Mike Ditka shilling for four-hour ""erectile dysfunction"" pills (announcing the particulars of Da Bears' Coach Ditka's sexual problems ought to have caused much more discomfort and offense than a brief nipple shot, but I digress). But in our legal system, showing a female nipple is patently offensive to community standards, while describing impotence or a lack of male genital girth (albeit by euphemism) is not.
The relevance for today is that the Republican-controlled Senate is trying very hard to limit debate on a bill that would automatically fine individuals up to $500,000 if they are indecent on radio or television, and fine companies $275,000 to $500,000 for each act of indecency broadcasted. The Federal Communications Commission (and its chairman, Colin Powell's son Michael Powell) have already suspended Clear Channel Communications' infamous radio shock-jock Howard Stern from at least six radio stations. The first to be subject to the outraged and wounded good taste of the nation.
The argument today is not whether obscenity and indecency ought to be limited; at the very least, clear instances of obscenity and indecency ought to be the first to be censored. But the inherent vagueness and contradictions of federal obscenity law aside (after all, ""patently offensive by community standards"" can and is interpreted very widely), the trouble with this recent aggressive action undertaken by the government is that its objective-the preservation of good taste and moral decency on television and radio-can never be adequately achieved.
Take Bono and Britney, for example. Bono dropped the F-bomb on live national television, but somehow sufficient loopholes were found to exempt the lead singer of U2 and social activist, as apparently the F-word, when used in a way that does not refer to sex, is grudgingly acceptable. While Clear Channel Communications' Howard Stern was pulled from markets because of his comments, Clear Channel is still allowed to sponsor Britney Spears' Onyx Hotel Tour, where The New York Times reports the act includes silhouettes of men and women miming sex with each other while Britney Spears writhes in bed with two men in front of her underage audience. ""Crank Yankers"" and ""Chappelle's Show,"" two of Comedy Central's most popular shows, have male puppets exposing their penises. Indecent speech on broadcast is punishable up until 10 p.m., but not after.
So, Britney Spears and the heads of Comedy Central are not being raked over the coals for threatening the purity of America's sexually innocent youth, but Howard Stern and Janet Jackson are. The answer and the dilemma has already been provided: the law states that smut is in the eye of the beholder. Oprah can hold hour-long shows where sex is somewhat freely discussed, but Howard Stern cannot. Puppet penises are shown in reruns on television, but a brief, blurry shot of a nipple is anathema to the viewing audience.
The point is not that obscenity and indecency should not be pursued because of the subjective nature of the law, but rather that these attempts to intensify the pursuit will exacerbate, not correct, the inconsistencies and the inabilities inherent in the law. Instead of clarifying and redefining the vague definitions of filth, the government is running with their old definition. The current legislation will amount to nothing more than an election-year paper tiger to show the masses that their politicians are defenders of morality and (Christian) values, with the hopes that their constituents ignore the records of their elected officials and their own moral shades of gray.
