Michael Klein argues that media censorship of explicit sexual content on radio and television is justified, but censorship of coarse language deserves reexamination. While the FCC regulates broadcast content, their methods for determining censorship are inefficient and in need of updating. Additionally, claims that media violence influences real-life violence are not backed by credible evidence. The author questions who has the right to determine what behaviors or morals are appropriate for public consumption.

1. Klein 1
Michael Klein
Professor Vanessa Gonzales
English 122
22 December 2014
On Media Censorship in Modern Times
Media censorship, as it relates to radio and prime-time TV is justified when it comes to explicit
sexual content, but filtering language based on popular opinion of what the definition of 'coarse'
language is deserves a second look to see what can be done differently.
Censorship is defined as the practice of supervision over behavior and morality. (Sullivan,
2009) This statement alone may be frightening to some, as one may think 'who has the right to say
which behaviors or morals are the correct ones for the masses?' Many of the censorship issues stem
from overbearing parents who think that TV and radio influences their children about the difference
between right and wrong. Hence the dilemma: what is forbidden to say at home becomes common-play
words when among their peers at school or otherwise. Eventually, one realizes that to emphasize a
point, a stronger word should be used such as 'fuck'. If all of the dirty words, including the one for a
dirty vagina, were taken at literal value. In the case of the 'F' word, which means to have sex, a lot of
the contexts we use it in would not make much sense.
On the other hand, if one were to see naked people on prime-time TV all the time having sex,
then we would become even more desensitized to nudity and there just may be more sexual assaults
due to the flippant action of broadcasting the explicit content on the television for all to see.
The choice is more clear when it comes to parenting. How does one decide at which age a child
should be before the child is seen and treated like an adult, holding them responsible for their own

2. Klein 2
actions. One should not be a hypocrite when enforcing self-censorship at home. For example, if you
say dirty words around your child, do not expect him/her to follow a rule forbidding it. If a radio station
starts using dirty words in its broadcast, or allows explicit lyrics in the songs that are played, one
simply has to flip the dial to the next station. Radio listener-ship has gone down dramatically with the
rise of the information age, and the choices are numerous to what other types of media one can enjoy at
home or in the car.
Another valid point is that if one overuses strong language, it may be perceived as a lack of
intelligence. As if writers could not come up with any other words in the English language to use for
their TV program. Under the first amendment, they should be given the choice. However, they are at
the mercy of the networks, who are at the mercy of the sponsors (same goes with radio), who pay the
advertising dollars to try and reach whichever audience is tuning in during that time. (Merelman, 1984)
In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in FCC v Pacifica Foundation that of all forms of
communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection. "Among the reasons
for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of
expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home, and it is
impossible completely to avoid those that are patently offensive. Broadcasting, moreover, is uniquely
accessible to children…even to those too young to read." The court further held that "The
government's interest in the ‘well-being of its youth' and in supporting ‘parents' claim to authority in
their own household' justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression."
Obscene speech is not granted First Amendment protection. Beyond that, the FCC has the
authority to sanction TV and radio stations that engage in obscene, indecent, or profane
broadcasting, and that authority has been upheld by the Supreme Court. (Parentstv.org, 2003)
The FCC regulates interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire,

3. Klein 3
satellite and cable in all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. territories. An independent U.S.
government agency overseen by Congress, the commission is the United States' primary authority for
communications law, regulation and technological innovation. In its work facing economic
opportunities and challenges associated with rapidly evolving advances in global communications, the
agency capitalizes on its competencies in:
•Promoting competition, innovation and investment in broadband services and facilities
•Supporting the nation's economy by ensuring an appropriate competitive framework for the
unfolding of the communications revolution
•Encouraging the highest and best use of spectrum domestically and internationally
•Revising media regulations so that new technologies flourish alongside diversity and localism
•Providing leadership in strengthening the defense of the nation's communications infrastructure
As you can see, the job of the FCC is not simply just to set the standards for censorship. It has
been noted that their methods for determining censorship, however, have been perceived as inefficient
and in dire need of updating. The Commission lost a major Supreme Court case in 2012 when the
Court ruled in favor of broadcasters and told the agency that its stated rules and regulations on what
was considered too “indecent” for prime time television were unconstitutionally vague. Apparently, this
caused the agency to take a hard look at its work on resolving reported claims of indecency, primarily
by eliminating all the claims that were too old or poorly reported, which eliminated 70% of their
backlog. (Polo, 2013) This led to setting up a website where the public could comment and leave their
opinions on what was considered decent or not.
The argument against violence on TV and it's influence on young people is not backed by
credible evidence. In, fact, to the contrary, studies have shown no correlation between predisposition to

4. Klein 4
violent behavior and the playing of video games. (Penn & Teller 2010) This extends into the realm of
prime-time TV. The argument goes like this: “The connection between media violence and real life
violence has been well documented. The consensus of the scientific and mental health communities is
that children are profoundly influenced by the violent images they see on television and in films.
Constant exposure to media violence can result in aggressive, anti-social behavior, and even violent
outbursts.” (parentstv.org 2003) As you can see, the author gives no supporting scientific evidence or
data to back up this claim, just stating “has been well documented” but does not lead anyone to see
where these documents exist, if at all.
Mental illness does not stem from what one watches or hears on any type of media outlet.
Predisposition to violent acts is not triggered by what everyone knows is real and what is not. This
extends to video game censorship, as well as in musical recordings and literature. There is no credible
evidence out there that leads to the conclusion or correlation between lack of censorship and aggressive
behavior. The ones who are imposing these 'moral standards' of broadcasting have an agenda, and I ask
how they are qualified in the first place to deem what is acceptable or not for the masses.
Works Cited
Sullivan, L. (2009). The SAGE glossary of the social and behavioral sciences (p. 66). London: SAGE.
Research on profanity on TV - The Blue Tube: Foul Language on Prime Time Network TV - A PTC
State of the Television Industry Report. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from
http://www.parentstv.org/ptc/publications/reports/stateindustrylanguage/main.asp
What We Do. (n.d.). Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.fcc.gov/what-we-do

5. Klein 5
Polo, S. (2013, April 2). FCC Isn’t Sure How to Censor Television Anymore, Wants Our Advice.
Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.themarysue.com/fcc-comments/
Merelman, Richard M. "Television: Structure vs Culture." Making Something of Ourselves: On Culture
and Politics in the United States. Berkeley: U of California, 1984. 84. Print.
"Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Violent Video Games." YouTube. YouTube. Web. 22 Dec. 2014.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SgM_acEsqw>.

6. Klein 5
Polo, S. (2013, April 2). FCC Isn’t Sure How to Censor Television Anymore, Wants Our Advice.
Retrieved December 10, 2014, from http://www.themarysue.com/fcc-comments/
Merelman, Richard M. "Television: Structure vs Culture." Making Something of Ourselves: On Culture
and Politics in the United States. Berkeley: U of California, 1984. 84. Print.
"Penn and Teller: Bullshit! Violent Video Games." YouTube. YouTube. Web. 22 Dec. 2014.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SgM_acEsqw>.