The Lincoln Plawg - the blog with footnotes
Tuesday, May 25, 2004
FCC Censorship: Wall Street Journal sees the risk to free speech
The op-ed operation of the WSJ is, of course, notable as being a respectable home for neocon fire-eaters. (The news operation one hears great things of; but, since it's pay-only, its reputation, for most, is moot.)
But the op-ed section provides a useful article (May 24) on the concerns of talk radio - a trade seminar on the subject last weekend - over the impact on its freedom of the FCC crackdown on smut.
Nothing strikingly new; but perhaps some momentum building.
(Of the two areas of censorship, indecency and profanity, the more troubling is the latter: indecency has become identified with sex in FCC enforcement, but profanity has not been used recently, and stretching its meaning to cover political speech may be easier to justify.)
The clear need, as I've stated before, is for litigation to be set in train with a view to killing FCC censorship on indecency and profanity at the root by getting 18 USC 1464 declared unconstitutional in relation to their censorship.
Some action is in train, in relation to the Bono Golden Globes decision; the last time I looked, it had yet to get anywhere.
(For the numerous previous pieces on the subject here, search on FCC.)
TV broadcasters have been bellyaching to Time about the difficulties of scheduling programming attractive to the young male demo in the post-Jackson climate of fear.
Here's a clue, guys: 1464 delenda est! (See above for details.)
free website counter