Janet’s display may cause aftermath

By Jimi Wilson
Staff Writer

Lately you can’t throw a pretzel without hitting somebody who has an opinion about Janet Jackson’s exposure on national television. I’m no different. Though I’m of the opinion that Americans are too prudish, I must admit that it was likely an intentional act and, as such, a clear violation of the Federal Communications Commission’s current obscenity regulations.

While Americans have been obsessing on Jackson’s right breast, House Republicans have been quietly pushing forward the Clean Airwaves Act [H.R. 3687], legislation intended to increase the FCC’s powers. The bill, introduced last December by Representatives Doug Ose (R-Calif.) and Lamar Smith (R-Texas), will tighten enforcement of current profanity and obscenity regulations, and allow the FCC to levy stiffer fines.

Sounds good, right?

But in my opinion it’s overbroad.

Take, for instance, Rep. Smith’s recent appearance on National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered.” Asked whether the legislation would affect a closed, subscriber-based radio program geared toward a more mature audience, Smith replied, “Even though this may be an alternative radio station, it’s probably just as easy for a child to click on the radio or push the button that turns on the radio and listen to it s any other station.”

In other words, the mere possibility that a child might access subscriber-based programming means broadcasts are barred even to adults. And this is not, as Smith claims, limited to use of certain words. The precedents the FCC uses to decide what is “obscene” are more encompassing and have even been used to fine stations which air “clean” edited versions of songs and material which only obliquely reference sexual activity.

The new legislation will also exacerbate the already problematic “one-size its all” approach to fines. It raises amounts levied, but, as Smith said, “I don’t think you can sort of get into, you know, one fine for one kind of station and another fine for another kind of station, either on the basis of, you know, the kind of programs they carry or on the basis of their size.”

Large media conglomerates will still be able to absorb fines as, in the words of chairman Michael Powell, “a cost of doing business-albeit at a greater loss. Smaller broadcasters, though, will be crushed.

Take the Portland, Ore. Radio station KBOO, for instance. It faced a $7,000 fine for airing “Your Revolution,” Sarah Jones’ feminist critique of male rappers’ attempts to “equate political revolution with promiscuous sex.”

Though the song employed a series of double entendres, it was not, as the FCC claimed, “designed to pander and shock.” In a close case, the commission later reversed its decision, but under the Clean Airways Act, however, the commission likely would have upheld the fine.

The proposed Clean Airways Act is deeply flawed. But think about it: with the recent superbowl “outrage” fresh in their minds, and with Powell and their constituencies shaking their fists, what legislator is going to risk holding back such a hot potato bill?