The following is a blog post from Altyris intern Eunhee Lee. As part of the internship, we have set up a blog at interns.altyrianview.com. I shamelessly stole her post because more people should be able to read it. Well done, Eunhee!

I recently read an article about the court’s decision on FCC’s charge on CBS for “indecent exposure” during Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake’s halftime performance during the 2004 Super Bowl. The court overruled 2-to-1 the fines and charges made by the FCC on the basis that Jackson and Timberlake are not CBS employees but independent contractors and certain “fleeting” incidents are hard to prevent no matter what measures are taken, especially on live programming like the Super Bowl. And while I believe that the FCC has good intentions and several of their regulations are beneficial, I have to agree with the court and side with the broadcasters. Couple reasons for this:

1) Some things can’t be controlled. Let’s be real. CBS could have done everything within their powers to prevent incidents, but in a live program where they don’t have authority over the people on air, Janet’s exposure couldn’t be censored.

2) If the FCC won the case and starts charging broadcasters for “fleeting” incidents, who knows what they’ll try to control next. Again, I agree with some of their regulations like disallowing targeting tobacco products to minors and no underage persons on alcohol advertisments. I even agree with regulations against targeting very young children (fast-food companies shouldn’t lure toddlers in with toys. Childhood obesity in America is a growing problem and if I had children, I wouldn’t want them watching Elmo or Pokemon trying to sell them a 1,000-calorie kid’s meal). But what if eventually a beach vacation ad isn’t allowed to show a family in swimsuits (which if you really think about it, swimsuits are like quick-drying underwear) because young audiences don’t need to see “half-naked” people on ads? Hanes, Jockee, Fruit of the Loom and any other underwear manufacturer will have to find new strategies for promoting their “intimate apparel.” What if you couldn’t find out about Wendy’s dollar menu because companies aren’t allowed to promote anything that doesn’t follow the food pyramid? Admittedly, this is a bit of a stretch, but the point is that censorship has its limits.

We wouldn’t be America without freedom of speech (though I suppose we wouldn’t be America without people wanting to regulate and challenge our freedoms either). Television broadcasters don’t put up programs that people don’t want to watch; they put up programs that people do. And while I don’t think children should be exposed to vulgar languages and images on television or anywhere else, I believe it’s up to parents to regulate what their children watch.