The House just passed HR 310, the so-called "Indecency Act," which, if approved by the Senate, will increase fines for broadcasters found to have "violated...the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent and profane material." This is a farce and a disgrace. In principle, it shows a blatant disregard for the First Amendment, the single most important bulwark of our free society. And in practice, it's the worst sort of knee-jerk, scaremongering, Mommy-state politics. People, if you don't like what they're broadcasting, then don't watch it, don't listen to it, and keep a closer eye on your kids. But keep your hands off my First Amendment rights.
Thanks to Jeff Jarvis for his invaluable coverage on this issue, including a list of the 38 brave members of the House who voted against this travesty--and for the First Amendment. And how disappointing that Nancy Pelosi, darling of the left and my own representative, isn't on the list. But this isn't a Left vs. Right issue, so perhaps it shouldn't be surprising to see Bay Area liberals like Pelosi and Anna Eshoo (a co-sponsor!) making common cause with rock-ribbed conservatives like John Abney Culberson of Texas (who recently co-sponsored a bill seeking to repeal the federal income tax). Strange bedfellows, and all that--but when so many pols of such divergent views agree on something, some healthy skepticism is called for.
(By the way, there are some great online resources that allow you to keep tabs on Capitol Hill, including the House's Office of the Clerk, and the Library of Congress' "Thomas" directory of legislative info.)
UPDATE: Thanks to a tip from my wife, I just read this speech by Rep. Ron Paul of Texas criticizing HR 310. The money quotes:
This atrocious piece of legislation should be defeated. It cannot improve the moral behavior of U.S. citizens, but it can do irreparable harm to our cherished right to freedom of speech.
This attempt at regulating and punishing indecent and sexually provocative language suggests a comparison to the Wahhabi religious police of Saudi Arabia, who control the "Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice." Though both may be motivated by the good intentions of improving moral behavior, using government force to do so is fraught with great danger and has no chance of success.
Regulating speech is a dangerous notion, and not compatible with the principles of a free society. The Founders recognized this, and thus explicitly prohibited Congress from making any laws that might abridge freedom of speech or of the press.
But we have in recent decades seen a steady erosion of this protection of free speech...We should not ignore the smut and trash that has invaded our society, but laws like this will not achieve the goals that many seek. If a moral society could be created by law, we would have had one a long time ago. The religious fundamentalists in control of other countries would have led the way. Instead, authoritarian violence reigns in those countries.
If it is not recognized that this is the wrong approach to improve the quality of the airways, a heavy price will be paid. The solution to decaying moral standards has to be voluntary, through setting examples in our families, churches, and communities- never by government coercion. It just doesn’t work.
Rep. Paul and I likely have different ideas about what constitutes "smut and trash," but we agree that the right way to express our objections and exert our influence involves moral suasion and leading by example, not government intervention and threats of fines. We also agree on the fundamental importance of defending the First Amendment from those who would undermine it in the name of decency. It's indecent speech that needs to be protected--otherwise, "freedom of speech" is an empty promise.
