Most Popular
Reader's PicksTop RecommendationsA short list of Denver's most popular hot spots.
Recent Blog Posts
National Features >
Obscene and HeardWhat can you get in trouble for saying on the radio these days? Not much.By Michael RobertsPublished on December 04, 1997Click. Click. Click. Click. Occasionally, a routine is widely regarded as having been more repugnant than riotous. For instance, Stillwell, Kramer and White were briefly suspended by KALC-FM in July for remarks made about a Fort Collins man who suffered an epileptic seizure and drowned in clear view of his two children, ages 4 and 6. (Stillwell reportedly suggested that the kids could have made a "seizure salad" had they been armed with some lettuce.) But the FCC seldom gets involved in such matters, leaving listeners to mete out adequate revenge. The agency still makes the news on occasion, especially when levying fines against nationally syndicated DJ Howard Stern. (In September 1995, Infinity Broadcasting Corp., which owned the rights to Stern's broadcasts at the time, paid a fine of $1.715 million to settle dozens of FCC rulings over several years.) But it has been mostly silent in regard to the Stern-like gags that can be heard daily in Denver and dozens of other major cities. Why? There are plenty of hypotheses offered up by Denver radio professionals about how far is too far, but no concrete answers. That's true, also, of the FCC, which insists that there's been no watering-down of guidelines over the past decade even as it acknowledges that material that was previously impermissible may currently be unobjectionable from its viewpoint. This contradictory message apparently has made the FCC rather skittish. A representative in the Complaints and Political Programming branch of the Washington, D.C.-based commission offers responses on this topic to Westword only after requesting that his name not appear in print. He then quotes a release titled "Obscenity and Indecency in Broadcasting" in an attempt to explain where the FCC stands today. According to the document, U.S. courts "have found that, under the First Amendment, the government may 'channel' the broadcast by radio of indecent speech to times of day when children are not likely to be in the audience." Hence, Congress has given the FCC power to supervise programming heard between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. Conversely, the eight hours between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. are designated as a "safe harbor"--a period when so-called indecent programming can be aired. Shows heard in the latter slot are still subject to rules in regard to obscenity, which is not protected by the First Amendment. But if a broadcaster could prove that his material was not wholly lacking in "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value" (one of the three keys to the obscenity judgment handed down by the Supreme Court in the 1973 case Miller v. California), he could conceivably put on a program called The Motherfucker Hour and the bureaucrats at the FCC wouldn't bat an eye. The FCC source specifically denies that his organization has turned a blind eye to its principles during the Nineties. Indecency, he says, continues to be defined as "language or material that, in context, describes or depicts, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual, excretory activities or organs"--and this definition has not been altered in recent memory. But while "there's no change in policy," he declares that "what has changed are community standards."
write your comment
|