should hate speech be regulated by the FCC?

[kasia]

e.g., should the FCC take action against stations like hot97? what about 1st amendment considerations? as an asian american, what are your feelings on this?

please discuss.

[My Name Is...]

Freedom comes with responsibility. I think hate speech should be allowed as free speech as long as it does not incite violence. But now that I think about it, hate speech will no doubt cause the people being attacked to 'react'.

I think the FCC should regulate hate speech on radio stations. It'll help break the cycle of ignorance, at the least, no?

[Emperor_Mike]

I think hate speech *should* be regulated. My constitutional law professor back in England held an entire seminar last year on the 1st Amendment and what she deemed to be its extraordinary, bordering on unreasonable scope of application. The example she used was "American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut" to illustrate her point and contrasted that with an ECHR case "Otto-Preminger Institut v. Austria." Both involved pornography, but the difference was that the ECHR ruling made a clear distinction between upholding freedom of expression and the extent that such a right can (should?) be enforced.

Personally, I think the scope for the 1st Amendment is too large. It *seems* to allow people to get away with a lot of things that would never pass for freedom of speech/expression in ECHR signatory states.

Of course, if anyone knows of a US case where the 1st Amendment failed as a defence for hate speech (or other objectional forms of expression) and it's online, can you kindly point me in that direction? It is of pure academic interest. :smile:

[>:^|]

Lots of speech is regulated. You can't libel somebody, and there are very specific restrictions on commercial speech. So why not hate speech? I think part of the difficulty is the line between freedom of expression and incitement. So what do you do then? Do you create a bright line rule? Can you reasonably anticipate every conceivable situation? Probably not. So perhaps a bright line rule might only encompass acknowledged racial slurs. My thought is that human beings are endlessly creative. :^P

Mari Matsuda argues that because hate speech intimidates, it goes against the intention of the First Amendment, which was to create the freedom for discourse.

[YuheiCarreau]

I don't think hate speech should be regulated, if only because my observation has been that this is an issue mostly discussed by White Liberals and White Conservatives, and should the White Liberals win the argument I don't want them deciding what I will find offensive. Also, I think it's dumb that someone can say, "Yuhei is a douchebag", but they would have to say "Yuhei is an Asian douchebag" to be using 'hate speech'. I think it's OK for the FCC to regulate slander, but you can't expect a bureaucracy to determine what is and isn't in good taste.

[achtungbaby]

So why does the FCC allow for hate speech but not obscenity and indecency? Is there some legal rationale for making the distinction?

[BigLew]

I agree I think it should be regulated. If you can't say fuck you shouldn't be alt to say chink or gook.

[Faithless]

So why does the FCC allow for hate speech but not obscenity and indecency? Is there some legal rationale for making the distinction?
Regulating obsenity and indecency follows their idealogical bent. It allows them to attack the thing that bothers them most sexuality.

I don't think their idealogy gives a shit about hate speech.

Interesting article from the Heritage Foundation, of all groups -- this conservative think tank that thinks that there's too much regulation in the media coming down.

They site the desire for some to go further in the current evironment of regulating indecency by going after hate speech as well. They think it borders on "political correctness".

When you think about it, there's no reason why "hate speech" shouldn't fall under the current guidelines about indecency. If we're heading in that direction, why not go that extra step and guard against what is really obscene -- the kind of speech that makes people think they've got carte blanche to hurt others physically because of it.

It's also ironic, because I think the push was there, first, to ask for the regulation of "hate speech". The opposition has always felt that this was a violation of freedom of speech.

.
Broadcast Indecency: More Regulation Not the Answer (http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm666.cfm)
by James L. Gattuso. WebMemo #666. February 15, 2005

The halftime show at the Super Bowl game earlier this month went off without a hitch. Despite the nervous fears of network executives, there was no replay of the Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” that shocked so many viewers last year. Nevertheless, the nationwide debate over on-air indecency continued unabated: two days after the Super Bowl, the House Commerce Committee overwhelmingly approved legislation enhancing penalties for broadcast indecency. A vote by the full House is expected soon.

Lawmakers are responding to a genuine concern, shared by many Americans, that television and radio broadcasts are becoming more offensive. However, the proposed solution, increased government restrictions on speech, is fundamentally misguided. Conservatives – who have long been the targets of politically correct speech codes on college campuses and elsewhere – should be particularly wary of this approach.

In the year since the Super Bowl shocker, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has undertaken a well-publicized campaign against indecency on the airwaves. For Jackson’s revealing performance, the Commission slapped 20 stations owned by CBS with fines totaling $550,000. Last October, the FCC fined 169 Fox Broadcasting affiliates a whopping $1.2 million, in total, for certain scenes on its short-lived “Married by America” show. In November, Viacom agreed to a $3.5 million settlement with the FCC for a number of broadcasts by radio “shock jocks.”

The House legislation, H.R. 310, sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI), would raise the maximum fine for indecent broadcasts to as much as $500,000 per violation. (The limit under FCC guidelines today is $32,500.) It also would expand the FCC’s authority to fine individuals responsible for on-air indecency, regardless of whether they hold licenses; allow the FCC to require broadcasters to air “educational” and “informational” programming (presumably approved by regulators) as a penalty for violations; and require the FCC to begin license revocation proceedings when a broadcaster has been fined three times or more.

H.R. 310 is expected to move quickly to the full House of Representative for a final vote. (The House approved similar legislation in 2004.)

Indecency legislation is also pending in the Senate: S. 193, sponsored by Sam Brownback (R-KS), would increase per-incident fines to $325,000, with a maximum fine for indecency of $3,000,000.

Such proposals have broad support in Congress. Millions of Americans were outraged by the Janet Jackson incident, and lawmakers are looking for some way to express their own concern about diminishing standards of propriety on radio and television. And of course, no politician wants to be seen as soft on indecency.

Considered more carefully, however, this regulatory approach is flawed and perhaps even dangerous. “Indecency” is a notoriously hard term to define. Content need not be obscene to be indecent, but it must be more that merely offensive or inappropriate. The FCC defines indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” This definition is as clear as mud.



In practice, the FCC determines whether particular content is indecent on a case-by-case basis. In the Super Bowl case, Janet Jackson’s nudity made the cut. But what about the Monday Night Football ad for Fox’s “Desperate Housewives” program, in which a woman dropped her towel to reveal her bare back, implying more than actually shown? Certain obscene words would seem clearly off-limits. But does it depend on context? Recently, a number of TV stations refused to show the movie “Saving Private Ryan” for fear that the FCC would take action due to the language used in the film. The FCC even received complaints about nudity during the opening of the Olympic games in Athens.



These fears may seem far-fetched but are very real to broadcasters who want to avoid fines and stand to lose their licenses. The chilling effect that results is very real, keeping much non-offensive—and valuable—material off the air.

Even more dangerously, the push for restrictions on indecency will, almost inevitably, lead to calls for restrictions on other types of content. Who could, for instance, oppose restrictions on “hate speech”—as, of course, defined by regulators. And what about content deemed “insensitive” to others in society? The path to politically correct speech codes is a clear one. Even controls on political speech are possible. There is already talk of re-imposing the “fairness doctrine,” which required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial issues. The doctrine’s effect was to discourage controversial issue-oriented programming. It was not until this rule was repealed in the 1980s that talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh found a place on the radio dial.

The good—or bad—news is that any restrictions are likely to be ineffective. The FCC’s restrictions apply only to television and radio stations that have licenses to broadcast over the airwaves. They do not apply, however, to TV or radio signals transmitted via cable or satellite. This means a majority of television programming and – with the advent of satellite radio – an increasing share of radio programming is out of regulators’ reach. Increased broadcast restrictions would only accelerate the growth of these non-controlled media at the expense of the regulated ones: witness, for example, Howard Stern’s jump to the Sirius satellite radio network.

Recognizing this, some propose extending the FCC’s rules to non-broadcast media. But such a move would almost certainly be unconstitutional. The current rules are made possible only by the presumed scarcity of broadcast frequencies, which courts have ruled justifies more extensive government involvement in content that otherwise would be allowed. Cable and satellite providers face no such scarcity. And if these providers were to be regulated, why wouldn’t traditional print media such as newspapers and magazines be vulnerable, as well? What about the Internet, over which audio and video are already “broadcast” today? Such comprehensive government control of the media would likely be too much for the courts—or even lawmakers—to contemplate.

Rather than impose ever-stricter limits on media content, lawmakers concerned about the quality of programming should instead promote policies that would expand the choices available to consumers. Already, cable programmers such as the Family Channel and Disney Channel offer family-oriented television. Many more are available on satellite television. And Sirius—despite its Howard Stern deal—recently announced it would offer several channels of children’s radio on its satellite network.

By reducing governmental barriers to new outlets, policymakers could further increase the number of choices available. Such steps could include freeing up underused radio spectrum, reducing regulations that discourage investment in new telecommunications systems, and reducing taxes on providers.

Ultimately, the solution to offensive programming lies not with policymakers but with individual consumers and families. Parents and others unhappy with what they see on the television have available to them weapons more powerful than has any congressman. Like other businesses, broadcasters respond to their customers. Complaints to broadcasters and to the advertisers that support them can be effective. But the most powerful weapons consumers wield are their own remote controls. As conservatives know well, the best regulation comes not from government but from individuals making choices for themselves. Rather than look to Washington for answers, we should look to our own thumbs.
.

James L. Gattuso is Research Fellow in Regulatory Policy in the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the Heritage Foundation.

[ism]

I would prefer the FCC regulate nothing regarding speech in my perfect Constitutional state. I place freedom of all before egalitarianism, as I consider freedom of all the basis of egalitarianism.

The system as it stands allows regulation of obscenity and indecency, and I believe that racial slurs should be considered at least indecent. Go to your local restaurant and say something like "fucking shit" within someone's earshot and then say "nigger kike" and see which gets you the worse glare. Taken with a big enough sample I'd say it'd be about even in most communities, and in NY metro, the slurs would get you more evil eye. On that basis, slurs are obscene and can fit under the existing law.

The problem I find with the term hate speech is that it's fairly vague. Start regulating that and that opens the door to regulating criticism of any group -- Christians, Atheists, Democrats, Republicans, Liberals, Conservatives, etc.. How can you legally define hate speech any better than obscenity and indeceny, without triggering community standards, and creating a situation where unpopular speech would be risky?

[Hiroshi2]

Yeah, it should be.



1st Amendment is freedom of speech.........................that's not really true. It's freedom of expression. And if you hate somebody, you can express your hate for them without using a few particular offensive words that stand out as "hate speech" which should not be heard on the radio, where little kids can hear that. We don't allow cussing on the radio, why should we allow n*****, f*****, c****, etc.?

Is the issue regarding censoring just a few particular words which everybody knows to be offensive, or is this regulating hate speech in general, regardless of how carefully worded the person says his little rant.


BTW, when you say hate speech is it just race-related, or is it gender-related to? Like saying "bitch" on the radio to refer to a female.

[John0101]

I don't believe "hate speech" should be regulated.

"Hate speech" imo is defined by cultural norms which is subjective and thus if the FCC regulate "hate speech" they will be regulating cultural norms. However there is a serious problem when "hate speech" impairs on another person's freedoms or is an attack on another individual and then action should be taken to stop the "hate speech" by the law.

Another issue involved is what is considered to be "hate speech"? If a vague meaning is attached to "hate speech" then any voice can be silence.

[Hiroshi2]

^ That's why I say I think they're talking about regulating certain offensive words - which is what I think they should be doing it. In other words, if you're going to talk about how much you hate a certain group, at least choose your words/euphemisms carefully, and don't use any of the select words that everybody knows to be strong, offensive language that should NOT be heard on a radio station that little kids can hear. I guess if it's something like HBO it doesn't really matter.....................but on a radio station, they need to regulate that a little bit.

[Seamus]

When I voted on the poll, I thought it was referring to ALL speech, not just speech on the airwaves. Of course, hate speech in general should not (and could not) be regulated, unless it's speech that is directly intended to incite a riot and actual violence is committed as result of it (which is hard to prove).

But the airwaves belong to the government, and is only licensed out to radio/television stations under certain conditions. Once it leases or auctions out bandwidth, the government cannot regulate the viewpoints expressed on the air. However, obscenity, lewdness and patently offensive speech on over-the-air broadcast are not covered by the First Amendment because it can be heard by everybody (unlike cable). You are (and should be) allowed to say racist things over the air, for example; you just can't use offensive words. Materially, any kind of racist speech is repugnant, but that's my opinion, and we have a First Amendment for a good reason.

[BigLew]

When I voted on the poll, I thought it was referring to ALL speech, not just speech on the airwaves. Of course, hate speech in general should not (and could not) be regulated, unless it's speech that is directly intended to incite a riot and actual violence is committed as result of it (which is hard to prove).

But the airwaves belong to the government, and is only licensed out to radio/television stations under certain conditions. Once it leases or auctions out bandwidth, the government cannot regulate the viewpoints expressed on the air. However, obscenity, lewdness and patently offensive speech on over-the-air broadcast are not covered by the First Amendment because it can be heard by everybody (unlike cable). You are (and should be) allowed to say racist things over the air, for example; you just can't use offensive words. Materially, any kind of racist speech is repugnant, but that's my opinion, and we have a First Amendment for a good reason.Okay then how about the use of racial slurs specifically? I think I might be inclined to agree about hate speech then, but I still think that since profanity is not allowed racial slurs shouldn't be allowed either, it should be treated as profanity.

[Seamus]

That is what I meant. The government tends to use a 'community standards' test for which words can be uttered on OTA. If a particular word is deemed offensive by community standards (and, presumably is not necessary for free expression of an opinion), the FCC can ban it.

I'm not sure which racial slurs (if any) the FCC has banned, but I hear a lot of hip hop in which the word "nigga" is beeped out. I presume this is the decision of the radio station, and is not required by law.

Also, now that Commissioner Powell is gone, I wonder whether they're going to get more or less strict in their enforcement.

[YuheiCarreau]

Okay then how about the use of racial slurs specifically? I think I might be inclined to agree about hate speech then, but I still think that since profanity is not allowed racial slurs shouldn't be allowed either, it should be treated as profanity.

But what's the point of banning the word "chink" when someone can do just as much damage by doing a ching-chong accent? If you make a list of words people can't say, DJs will just develop codewords.

[rotrab]

I don't want people telling me what I should offensive but I sure as hell don't want assholes telling me what I should NOT find offensive. Asians fall far more into the latter. I'm sick to death of taking offense to racial slurs of Asians only to be told that I'm being "too PC" as though decency is a political partisan issue rather than one of ethics. I'd rather see hate speech regulated than justified by such tripe. If that is the best defense of not regulating hate speech that can be offered then it is clear that it SHOULD be regulated.

But what's the point of banning the word "chink" when someone can do just as much damage by doing a ching-chong accent? If you make a list of words people can't say, DJs will just develop codewords.

Nothing wrong with that. Make them take it underground. Since the majority of the listening public won't know what those words mean, who cares?

As for accents, you get in trouble for those. Ask Al D'mato.

[Martino]

e.g., should the FCC take action against stations like hot97? what about 1st amendment considerations? as an asian american, what are your feelings on this?

please discuss.

What IS the FCC?

[BigLew]

But what's the point of banning the word "chink" when someone can do just as much damage by doing a ching-chong accent? If you make a list of words people can't say, DJs will just develop codewords.The point is it's an equality issue. If fuck is bad enough to sensor then so should chink. This in essence is saying the racial slur is alright to call an asian person since it is not bad enough to warrant a censor. Do you want people to think it's worse to call someone asshole then it is to call an asian person a chink?

[nola]

Federal Communications Commission?

[pikachupacabra]

I agree with lew. If the FCC is going to censor "lewd" and "offensive" language like "dick/pussy" and "fuck/shit", then there's no reason why speech that is used in a hateful or offensive way to a group of people should not be censored as well.

I'm more of a libertarian, but I believe in equality for all, and if we're going to censor some bad words, then we either run the full gamut or none at all.

[ism]

What IS the FCC?Federal Communications Commision, an independent U.S. government agency that is supposed to regulate the airwaves (radio, television) and interstate telecom. This originally meant figuring out how to allocate the bandwidth. Since the 1979 FCC vs Pacifica decision, the FCC solidified its power to regulate the content of broadcasts; the Supreme Court defining indecent and obscene, and prohibiting it during certain hours of the day (when children are likely to be listening). The material in question was George Carlin's "Flithy Words" routine (a transcript is in the decision (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=726#751)).

[YuheiCarreau]

What IS the FCC?

The FCC is the Federal Communications Commission. In the US, radio and broadcast television is regulated by the FCC - mostly, they dictate how the various bandwidths can be used, and broadcast TV stations, radio stations, ham radio operators, etc. must obtain an FCC liscence in order to broadcast. They also have rules governing decency, and can fine stations for violating them, though many feel that the fines they impose are little more than a slap on the wrist. Basically, they govern any kind of media you can pick up for free - cable television and satellite radio are self-regulating when it comes to censoring content. One major difference between the FCC and the BBC is that the FCC does not levy a yearly tax on TV owners.

[asvenus]

to be a tad controversial...
in another of kasia's posts she highlighted the (sad/real) fact that many of our community fail to act preemptively/pro-actively(whatever) so in a sickish way i think when we are confronted with ignorant morons like this, is serves to mobilise us and force us to become aware that we are not living in some utopian 'model minority' bubble, immune from prejudice and racism...
too often i think to myself that we have become lazy in the way we think and attack certain issues because we feel there is no longer a problem with racism etc so sometimes situations like this are the kick up the backside we need...

although of course i do not condone racist/sexist behaviour in our media and find it disgusting and offensive... :rolleyes:

[kasia]

i understand that we are upset over the recent use of the slur "chink" on Hot97 - and we've probably had other encounters with that and other such slurs in our lives. so i understand, for those of you who voted that it should be regulated, where you're coming from.

but freedom of speech is something that should be something that we, as a minority and oppressed community, should hold onto and protect, because often times speech is all we have. when we lack the resources and funds to effect change, we turn to the internet and emails and forums such as YW and form petitions and education the public. imagine if that were regulated or taken away. we have the right to protest even government events, we can hold public rallies, we can disburse information.

by allowing more and more regulation, could we possibly be harming our own community in the end?

[kasia]

That is what I meant. The government tends to use a 'community standards' test for which words can be uttered on OTA. If a particular word is deemed offensive by community standards (and, presumably is not necessary for free expression of an opinion), the FCC can ban it.

would you say community standards are based more on local standards or national standards?