factbat.com

This is is an article intending to address the opinions being proffered by this nation's Supreme Court, and the fact that some of the judges do not even understand the true implications and importance of the first amendment. One can read about the FCC's latest ruling on profanity in television, and the response of various judges who were charged with adjudicating the case brought by broadcasters, claiming violation of "freedom of speech" at <http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20090428/tv_nm/us_usa_television_indecency>. Although the FCC ruling for decency was upheld, some of the comments by Justice Paul Stevens and Media Access Project's Jay Schwarzman are somewhat ignorant and semantical, with a bent toward profit at the expense of public morality.

In the world of television and silver screen, “shock value” has, far too often, replaced inspiration and creativity. In an entertainment industry rife with seductive savagery and morbid fallacy it is clearly not the first amendment which allows this fetid environment to exist. But rather the proliferation of fame and fortune demanding that dialogues wreak daily havoc in the lives of the vassals it inundates with balkanizing deformities and salacious mind games.

For what reason does the “F”-word need to be spoken, and just what form of free speech does the FCC violate by prohibiting its use on television? Profanity is not a form of free speech. The “F”-word is merely a slang expletive which has been introduced into the English language by inhospitable religious fundamentalists who saw fit to publicly castigate those who committed infractions of fornication and marital infidelity. The word originates from the acronym produced by the label which was written on placards attached to offenders when they were placed in stocks in the town square as punishment. The placards read “For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge”…hence the word F- - K, and of course, as brevity permits, these people were soon termed F- - Kers.

However, allowing various forms of profanity on television, especially during hours when children are likely to be viewing, is not a right extolled by the first amendment’s “freedom of speech” code of ethics. The first amendment was specifically added to the United States Constitution in order to guarantee, and at times demand through dissenting voices, truth in printed word, public speech and governance. This law is intended to create transparency in a democratic nation which indelibly requires a very high level of veracity in its leaders, and ethical disclosure in its elections.

Moreover, the first amendment does not ensconce people with some privilege, per se. It actually is a requirement of the citizens in this nation to speak up and be heard. Partly because the true identity of humanity is intrinsically moral, inured by a logical sense of preservation, and the founding fathers appear to have noticed this proclivity. Unfortunately, they could not have foreseen the advent of television, and thus did not attempt to make provisions for such an instantaneously pervasive and manipulative audacity.

When it comes to the subject of censorship in media, invariably the broadcast companies incessantly intend to attack the FCC for attempting to prohibit indecency by claiming it is a breech of their first amendment rights. However, if anyone wants to see some form of explicit sexuality, profanity or violence, often they only need walk out of their front door. To posit that prohibiting gratuitous sex, violence and depravity on television is some assault on free speech is ludicrous.

What is most disconcerting is that the television lies constantly, and omits incredible amounts of extremely critical information relative to societal health and consumer welfare. The censorship of news agencies and journalists in this nation is appalling, however, few media executives, if any, are saying anything about it.

The truth is that much of the members on the board of directors for various media giants such as Disney, FOX, ABC and NBC, are also members on multiple boards of directors for major consumer product corporations. This of course, presents incredibly tenacious conflicts of interest, since those who are charged with investigating and reporting on the activities of major corporations are essentially those who control those corporations. Thus, if a product is injuring or killing consumers, and at the same time has a vested interest in the media company, the offense typically will not be reported on, or can be downplayed and mitigated in the public eye.

In the early 90’s Florida was experiencing an increase in senior citizen death rates, with few indications as to just why. Eventually, a husband and wife journalism team, employed by a local news broadcasting company, discovered that the deaths were being caused by the hormonally inundated milk supply being shipped into the state by unscrupulous and money hungry dairy producers and distributors. As the expose was coming to fruition, just days before it was scheduled to air, it was canned by the company executives.

The couple began to protest and eventually were fired. Their superiors actually had the gall to put in writing the fact that these journalists were terminated because they demanded to be afforded their freedom of speech, and could put the media company and vested interests at risk of losing money. Not on the list was the fact that various executives could be indicted for altering test results given to the FDA. A lawsuit by the couple was settled out of court for about $200,000 and they then used that money to further investigate the story, only to discover that members on the board of directors for the media company were also on the boards for the dairy companies.

A sinister plot is thickening in this nation, where citizens are constantly told that their first amendment rights are being protected and defended by media executives who, in truth, intend to deceptively extort the wealth of an increasingly hypnotized public by saturating print and screen with salacious trinkets, profanity laced rags and sadistic baubles one can certainly find anywhere. While simultaneously relegating far too many important facts, critical for the continued freedom of this democratic republic, to the back pages and cutting room floors.