Posted on 08/29/2005 8:11:56 AM PDT by Restorer
Petty Penny Persecution Smut peddlers go after the FCC’s newest adviser.
By Anne Morse
"Penny Nance frightens me," D.C. shock jock Elliot of Elliot in the Morning declared.
Penny Nance has been frightening a lot of people lately, which is strange when you consider that she's a beautiful young wife and mother with a charming Tennessee accent and no history of violent crime. But mention her name to certain people and they'll suddenly begin to resemble Linda Blair in some of her more outlandish scenes in The Exorcist.
This reaction has to do with the fact that Nance has just been hired by Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin to serve as an adviser on consumer and social issues related to the cable and broadcast industry. That's bad news for those who make a living dumping untreated sewage into our homes via television and "shock jock" radio shows because when it comes to fighting filth, Nance is not afraid to get her hands dirty. She's the founder of the Kids First Coalition, which vigorously lobbies against pornography. She's served on the board of Concerned Women for America, which — among other things — lobbies against pornography. She has testified before Congress about the dangers to children of Internet porn, and was a signatory last spring on a letter to President Bush calling for stricter enforcement of indecency laws — including the use of "repeated and expanded" fines "until broadcasters understand they are not above the law."
Nance wants to bring back television's family hour, a mild move that would not eliminate the trashier programs but simply push them into later time slots. She'd also like to see pressure applied to currently unregulated cable channels which, she says, have a "huge indecency problem."
Outraged smut merchants and their supporters find Nance's views positively indecent. "Is the FCC headquartered in f***ing Peyton Place?" spluttered one angry blogger. Another accused Nance of wanting "to make her interpretation of the Bible the law of the land, a la the Taliban." CNN, Reuters, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times have all weighed in on the qualifications of the woman they "outed" as a right-wing Christian conservative activist.
As news of Nance's views became public, the nastier critics began a vicious campaign of harassment. One malevolent blogger posted Nance's address and home telephone number on the Internet, forcing her to change her number; obscene calls and e-mails continue to arrive daily at her office. Howard Stern took some on-air shots at Nance; shock-jock Elliot called Nance a "bitch" on the air and threatened to send strippers to the Virginia home Nance shares with her husband and two small children. Many bloggers are urging people to contact the FCC to demand Nance's firing.
None of this has dissuaded Nance from her determination to do everything she can to lesson the grip pornography has on our society. She points to the links between the consumption of pornography and sexual assaults on women and children. A few years ago Nance herself was the victim of an attempted rape by a man addicted to porn; which is why she takes a dim view of those who say — as one of her blogger critics put it, "Don't like what's on the channel? Change it!"
Nance plans to change the culture. She knows that when others produce or consume obscene or pornographic materials, we all have to live with the corrosive consequences. Today we're no longer shocked to hear of twelve-year-old girls engaging in oral sex, or of even younger girls being kidnapped, raped, and murdered — victims of men addicted to violent sexual imagery.
This is unacceptable to Penny Nance, who sees herself as the representative of "the millions of American mothers who are sickened by the constant diet of cultural sewage that's being fed to their children — despite their best efforts to the contrary."
Hitting smut merchants hard is something Americans overwhelmingly support. In a poll last March, the Pew Research Center found that 75 percent of adults would like to see tighter enforcement of government rules on broadcast content, particularly when children are likely to be watching. Sixty percent want broadcast indecency standards extended to cable TV and 69 percent want higher fines for media companies.
The good news is that the attacks on Nance may backfire; the publicity they are generating is giving her a chance to remind Americans of how easy it is to go after those who pollute the airwaves. The FCC can only enforce the law by reacting to complaints. And in order for the FCC to do its job, Nance says, "People of conscience need to pay attention and complain when they see something that violates community standards. If you see something offensive on TV, or hear offensive language on the radio, all you have to do is visit the website of the FCC and fill out a form."
Nance and her colleagues will evaluate these complaints — -and maybe issue some serious fines. If that frightens cultural polluters, too bad. This American mother is among the cheering section.
— Anne Morse is a freelance writer in Virginia.
Few people would argue that hard-core porn should be broadcast. Which means a line must be drawn somewhere between The Donna Reed Show and Debbie Does Dallas.
Anywhere you attempt to draw that line, it is very easy to point out the minimal difference between the two sides of the line. Historically, this has resulted in the line constantly moving in a less-restrictive direction. Such a trend, over the long haul, can only wind up with Debbie on at 7:30.
Instead of reasoned discussion of where as a society we wish to put this line, we get dishonest claims of prudery and Talibanism. Almost everybody agrees we need a line.
Why can't we discuss honestly where that line should be drawn?
Why can't individuals draw their own line?
there is no "line". stations just keep stepping towards where they think that line is, and when they don't find it, someone takes another step. ever since we first heard "damn" in a movie, (1939) its been a slow spiral down, to where a few years ago, mtv got away with full frontal nudity on air.
Since when is MTV on over-the-air broadcasts? They're a cable network.
I agree with decency regulations for regular TV. The radio spectrum is public property. We don't need to put up with filth on the airwaves any more than we need to allow nude centerfolds hanging on the walls at City Hall.
However, cable TV is another matter. You pay for it, you can watch what you like.
-ccm
Because children can't draw the line.
Liberal broadcasters refer to this process as "pushing the envelope." Hollywood just loves to go a little further with each show, and if they are not fined, then that becomes the new "norm," and they can start to push a little further. If they are fined, they back off, whining and bitching about tyrannical government violating their freedom of speech, and a few weeks later step across the line again, daring the regulators to fine them.
There are two points to be made here. One is that nobody has a right to air sleaze and porn on the airwaves, especially when children are watching. The second is that porn is addictive and destructive. It's hard to argue that it should be prevented entirely, even in the privacy of an adult's home, but in point of fact it does lead to rape and other destructive and demeaning behavior.
The problem with the libertarian view on matters like drugs and pornography is that not everyone is strong enough to deal with these issues. But that's another question. The question of whether pornography should be on the airwaves in prime time and in the supermarket checkout racks for every child to see should be a no-brainer.
Saturday night I was surfing my cable channels (I have no extra beyond the "expanded" basic)...it was around 11:30 p.m. I came through the FX channel and got sick to my stomach. They were showing a porno film--two guys making it with one gal. Total nudity and "getting it on--big time!" I couldn't believe it. I called my local cable company this a.m. and was advised that I would need to register my complaint with the network--that the local company had no control over what was shown. It was bad enough I had to see this--even for only a few seconds, but the thought of my 15 year old innocently coming across this just sickened me.
Libertarians also do not take into account that we do not live in vacuums. Our behavior affects those in society around us. If the moral values of individuals decline, society as a whole goes down the toilet with them, whether they want to or not.
You might have an argument in the case of unencrypted OTA broadcasting. But why should the government have any say over what private providers and private consumers sell and buy on cable?
And the fedgov is authorized to save us from immorality... where? I don't see that written into the constitution.
There are governments that have properly authorized national morality police. Should we be more like them?
"Because children can't draw the line."
Isn't that what parents are for?
Learn to use the V-chip programming, and the programming control that comes with most any cable/satellite provider's set-top-box.
Top sends
Until a cable company offers programming ala carte, this is not a reality.
I understand you do not have to pay for cable if you do not want the junk in your house but there is a great deal of good programming on cable that you cannot disect out without "paying" for junk. I mean, if I want the History Channel why do I have to pay for MTV as well?
An Ala carte cable offering would allow much of the "junk" on cable to fall into the sewer where it belongs or at the very least allow people who wish to view it, the option of paying for it.
Might I suggest that she concentrate on getting the mA$$ media to TELL THE TRUTH!
Then she can worry about the rest.
Can't their parents?
IMHO, the best solution is to get over one's repressed attitude toward nudity. The Europeans don't seem to have much problem with it (at least compared to us) and their 'line' has been pretty stable for quite some time. There's no risk to speak of that Debbie Does Dallas is gonna get broadcast over there anytime soon.
If Janet Jackson had popped her tits out in Europe everyone would've shrugged and life would've rolled on without a problem. I don't generally favor Europe over America, but this is one area where they win hands down in my view.
PS. Their attitude towards alcohol is another..
Corrupting society in the name of so-called "freedom of speech" is the work of people who think only of themselves and do not care if America is relegated to the dustbin of history.
Yes, let's become like the Godless Eurotrash!
Ah, a chance for ConLaw!
The XVIII Amendment did not ban alcohol sales.
It delegated the power to Congress to ban alcohol sales, which Congress then did by passing the Volstead Act.
What's interesting about this is that no one, in 1917-1918, thought that Congress had this power to begin with, even to the extent of banning interstate commerce in alcohol under the Commerce Clause.
It was therefore necessary for the Constitution to be amended to grant such a power.
By 1971-72, no one questioned that Congress had extensive powers to ban other intoxicants, creating rafts of Federal offenses and staring a "war" on the sale of intoxicants.
I do not recall anyone, at that time, questioning whether it was necessary to amend the Constitution to confer such a power, although our ancestors obvioulsly thought so.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.