First Amendment Wins One

As a follow-up to my earlier post regarding our constitutional victory over the FCC, I found this very well constructed article. The author, Jeff Jarvis, makes many of the same points I made in my post, namely that societal mores have changed to the point that such indecent language is indeed more common than it may have been previously. But he also makes the point that some programs and some people seem to be permitted certain ... license, where others are not.

Clearly this is discriminatory and unconstitutional. No speech should be censored, regardless of who is uttering the speech or in what context it is uttered, because the value of the speech is subjective, and not for government to decide. Only the individual can make these determinations, to which I have already suggested that if TV programming--any TV programming--offends you, change the channel or turn it off. Just as they have the right to utter the speech you might find offensive, you have the right not to hear it.

But before you go off on me for sputtering absolutes, let me say this: I believe that market pressures will ultimately prevail. If the networks begin peppering programs with rude language and overtly sexual or titillating (I just wanted to use that word!) images, then in all probability people will begin flocking away from them. The lack of viewership will cause lack of sponsorship, and this will cause lack of broadcastership. Or whatever. Ultimately, we will get the TV we want and deserve.

Now, if I could just figure out why we deserve Survivor and American Idol, we'll be all set.