Offense is in the eye of the beholder


My delayed reaction to the FCC rules
Ever since last week when President Bush signed the legislation raising the fines for broadcasting "indecency," I've tried to write about it.

Honestly, I have a hard time taking it seriously.

If it was Janet Jackson's nipple that sparked this puritanical streak, somebody missed the boat.

"Protect the children," they say. But didn't many of those children suckle nipples before they said their first word? Why are nipples inherently indecent?

The sexual uses of a lady's nipple are secondary, after all.

Why aren't the same standards applied to men's nipples? They have a fair amount of sexual use as well.

And why oh why isn't anyone talking about the lyrics of the song from that Superbowl that sparked this whole thing? It was about rape, just in case you didn't notice.

Do people really believe that a glimpse of a breast will turn ten year old boys into ravening rapists? Or eight year old girls into lesbian nymphomaniacs? Did they really raise their own children that badly?

Since the infamous Superbowl incident, have breast exposures on national television increased? Does the evening news end with a blood-spattered orgy?

What made this necessary?

The answer is that most Americans aren't concerned by it, certainly not enough to justify a ten-fold increase in fines.

But I want the same standards applied to the things I find indecent.

Personal injury lawyers. I want every one of them fined when they do a television commercial.

Al Gore talking about global warming. That last Larry King Show should account for about ten million in fines right there.

Certain obnoxious television evangelists.

Barney the Dinosaur.

Ann Coulter.

Al Sharpton.

Conne Chung for that silly goodbye song. That was really offensive.

Get the point?

Someone's offensive is someone else's cutting edge.

It's not like there are not other television choices out there. If you don't like what you are seeing, change the channel. The advertisers will do more to get "smut" off the air than any government could.

What's more, that is pretty much what happened without the government taking a hand.

Executives at PepsiCo, historically one of the largest and most successful Super Bowl advertisers, are threatening to pull out of next year's Super Bowl if they're not given clear assurances that such an incident won't happen again. "We're very serious about this," PepsiCo spokesman Mark Dollins said.

PepsiCo executives also were disappointed that viewers were talking more about the Jackson incident than the commercials. "It speaks to our extreme disappointment that all that quality work has been overshadowed," Dollins said. The various PepsiCo brands, including Frito-Lay, Sierra Mist and Pepsi, aired six commercials on Sunday's broadcast.

So why change the law? I think it's because the incumbent Congressmen are trying to build up good will for the election. Never mind the long term consequences to freedom, they are standing up for "decency" in hopes that you won't pay attention to their corruption.

Don't fall for it.

The way I look at it, just being in office these days is a good enough reason to vote them out.

— NeoWayland

Posted: Sat - June 24, 2006 at 07:22 PM  Tag


 ◊  ◊   ◊  ◊ 

Random selections from NeoWayland's library


Pagan Vigil "Because LIBERTY demands more than just black or white"
© 2005 - 2009 All Rights Reserved