F-Bombs OK? FCC Asks If It Should Ease Swearing, Nudity Ban

Should the Federal Communications Commission lighten up on enforcing its ban on swear words and nudity on broadcast media?

The agency has proposed doing just that—letting "fleeting" violations slide and enforcing its rules only for "egregious" offenses.

The FCC invited comments for 60 days on the enforcement change in an April 1 announcement (click on PDF thumnail).

Two Mill Valley residents have weighed in so far, with Phillip Conner commenting on April 9 and Susan Shaver on April 15. They submitted identical comments:

"I oppose any changes to the current FCC indecency standards that would allow television and radio stations to broadcast expletives and nudity on the public airwaves, even if brief or 'fleeting.'

The Supreme Court has confirmed the FCC's authority to enforce policies regarding expletives and nudity, especially during times when children are likely to be watching or listening.

Relaxing the current policy would not serve the public interest and I urge the FCC to reject allproposals that would allow for the broadcast of expletives and nudity on FCC-licensed stations."

San Anselmo resident Alex Montgomery has weighed in to support the proposal with this comment:

"I would like to add my support to loosening the FCC broadcast standards, especially in regards to nudity and language. I believe our country greatly over-estimates the dangers of language and nudity while underestimating the dangers of violence.

Since we are a country that promotes freedom, surely the only point of censorship in modern times is to protect our children. Children are born and spend a great deal of their early childhood nude. Nudity (especially non-sexual nudity) is natural and harmless; naked is "how God made us" after all. I also believe that language censorship is practically pointless, since children grow up around adults that occasionally swear. It's unrealistic to try to shelter children from "bad language," and I think that history has shown swearing to be relatively harmless. I certainly remember being a child and hearing an occasional "fuck" or "shit" escape the mouths of my uncles and aunts, didn't you? I don't think children are any worse for it.

To me, the only point of censoring media is to protect children from harm, and we must be realistic as to what we can realistically shelter them from. I don't believe nudity is harmful, and it's so natural and abundant that it is unrealistic to try and hide it away. Language, too, is so omnipresent that it obviously doesn't have much of an effect on our children, and if it did, we couldn't do much about it. If the FCC is truly concerned about protecting our children from media, they could tighten a few regulations on television violence. I couldn't (and shouldn't) prevent my children from seeing a naked body until they reach adulthood, but I bet the only murders they'll witness will be from movies and thegood ol' boob tube."

Comments submitted to the FCC are public. You can see them by searching a comment database at the FCC website.

Click on the YouTube thumbnail (or visit YouTube.com) for an example of the "fleeting expletives" behind the U.S. Supreme Court case cited by the FCC. It's Cher at the 2002 Billboard Music Awards (6:00 mark—profanity warning).

See more on Novato Patch:

• Convicted Murderer Justin Helzer Found Dead at San Quentin of Apparent Suicide
• Driven by Latinos, Catholic Population Surges in Marin
• High School Graduation Rate Remains High Throughout Marin
• African Experience Hits Home for Rotary Member
• Novato’s Heather Gordon Revels in Video Game Glory

Stay Patched in! Follow Novato Patch on Twitter | “Like” Novato Patch on Facebook | Sign up for the daily e-mail with links to the latest news.