On the drive home yesterday, I happened to catch a portion of the Sean Hannity show that got me thinking. His guest was a woman who had been kicked off a Southwest Airlines flight because of her shirt. The shirt in question had a picture of the Bush cabinet and the caption "Meet The F*ckers." Hannity, while berating the woman for wearing such a shirt, said that he would fully defend her right to be able to wear it.

Of course that brings up the question of where do we draw the line? This isn't a new question by any means. In the Fifties, parents wanted Rock & Roll banned for its "evil influence" on kids (and nowadays I'm beginning to think they may have been right!). And for as long as most of us can remember, the courts have been struggling to define pornography. And I think most of the answers end up being "if it pleases me, then it's not pornography." But in our culturally diverse society, that can leave a lot open to interpretation. The sight of a woman's leg could be offensive to a Muslim, while some perverted individuals might not be offended by women having sex with animals. Certainly the reaction to Janet Jackson's breast, even amongst Conservatives, ran the entire spectrum. So, defining what is offensive and what is not in a court is going to be next to impossible. Of course I have always been taught that the extent of my rights is always where they cross over someone else's rights. That, however, leaves the question "do we have a right not to be offended?" Which, of course, seems to be the key question in a number of court battles lately. And there seems to be no clearly defined answer from either end of the political spectrum. Certainly the liberal left doesn't make much sense with some of them screaming that they're offended by everything and everything they're offended by must be removed and others screaming about violation of their first amendment rights. But then the far right doesn't necessarily have it together either with some wanting the government to control everything we hear and see while others don't want them touching anything. Our biggest mistake as a society is to pay too much attention to any of these extremes. We need to realize that while the first amendment may give you the right to piss in a cup and call it art, it does not mean that anyone else has to look at it. Or that any private entity even has to show it.

Most of the liberal first amendment crowd needs a good civics lesson. The restrictions set down by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are restrictions on what the government can and cannot do. They have no bearing on what a private business can do. So if a newspaper decides not to publish your letter to the editor, it's not abridging your first amendment rights. If an art gallery decides not to show your sexual works, they aren't stomping on the Constitution.

But does this mean that we can rely on business to enforce standards of decency? It has been proven time and again (see Janet Jackson) that the media, left to their own devices, will push the envelope as far as they can. Left without regulation, Howard Stern would be pumping out pornographic radio 24 hours a day. And there's simply no telling what would come of of daytime TV. Soaps are racy enough now to almost be declared softcore porn. Without regulation, I'm fairly sure they'd completely cross the line.

So what's the answer? In a pre-modern world, the answer was simple. Each community could decide for themselves what standards they wished to live by. But with electronic communication of one form or another in every home nowdays, enforcing community standards becomes impossible. Are the standards enforced where the broadcast is received, or at its origin? And with the international nature of the Internet, things are even worse. How can you enforce standards on someone whose content resides in a country that doesn't even have an extradition treaty for more serious crimes?

Of course I know the answer that some of you come up with. "If you don't want to watch it, then don't watch it. If you don't want your kids to watch it, then don't let them." While I fully believe that I'm in charge of my kids and I'm ultimately responsible for their behavior, I think it's a little naive to think that I can control what they see and hear 24 hours a day.

So again, what is the answer? On this particular problem, I'm not sure I have a "good" answer. I do think there has to be some government regulation or there would be no standard. And with the state of communications nowdays, I believe this enforcement, unfortunately, must come from the federal government. Beyond that, I'm not certain. If we allow the government to censor everything based on someone being offended, then we open the door to having the things we believe in, such as Christmas, censored because they are offensive to someone else. I guess what it boils down to is "are you willing to give up some of your freedom to keep from being offended, or are you willing to take the chance on being offended to ensure your freedoms?"

Posted by: Drew at 07:51 AM | Comments (13) | Add Comment
Post contains 909 words, total size 5 kb.