F***ing Private Ryan II

F***ing Private Ryan II

: Newspapers are editorializing over some stations’ decision not to air “Saving Private Ryan” for fear of being fined by the ever-more-obscenely-unconstitutional FCC…. coming too damned late to the party to protect our First Amendment. (See my complaint to the FCC below.)

The Chicago Tribune gets it right:

Much has been made of the foul-mouthed Howard Stern’s coming move to satellite radio to escape the Federal Communications Commission’s increasingly Draconian interpretation of its indecency rules. And of the FCC’s overkill in fining CBS Television parent Viacom Inc. $550,000 for the infamous Janet Jackson Super Bowl halftime show. And of its loopy finding that rock star Bono’s use of an expletive on a televised awards show was indecent and profane.

Some have argued that such behavior deserves to be singled out for punishment. But the reality is that in setting its sights on curbing a few fleeting and isolated instances of excess, the FCC’s crackdown is chilling all broadcasters. It’s threatening to scrub powerful programming from the air in favor of pablum that takes no chances in offending anyone.

And viewers will lose the most….

With the prospect of FCC fines hanging over their heads–and Congress still deciding about whether to dramatically increase those fines–some broadcasters are playing it safe. They’re guessing what the FCC may do. They’re running scared.

There’s only one word for this: censorship. And it needs to stop.

The FCC–and Congress–have to back off.

Amen and well said, Tribune.

The New York Times gets it way wrong, blaming the stations when they should be blaming the f***ing FCC:

But the pre-emptive timidity of a score of them was a sorry spectacle last Thursday when they decided not to show “Saving Private Ryan” on Veterans Day because they were afraid of the Federal Communications Commission.

You fools, you: The fault lies strictly with the FCC, which made it clear that “fuck” is illegal on TV, even though it refused to advise these stations that in this case it would not be — in other words, it refused to make its rules clear. The stations are actually brave, in my view, calling the FCC’s bluff, showing its regulation for what it is: senseless censorship. Shame on you, Times, for not understanding that. You whine about the chill on Judith Miller brought by a subpoena involving knowledge of an illegal act, but you do not see the chill that the FCC and government regulation bring to all media and all speech. For shame, Times.

The LA Times gets it mostly right:

Sure, the movie is violent and reveals that soldiers are known to use unpleasant language while under fire. But at a time when thousands of Americans are engaged in another conflict, reminding their compatriots back home that war is hell is not such a bad thing.

Moreover, the prudish desire to keep any profanity off the air, regardless of its context, is misguided…. The ABC affiliates that refrained from airing the movie could have shown more valor, but they are as much a victim of the FCC’s arbitrary and capricious regulation as they are villains in this tale. Their fear of the jihad is understandable, and their surrender Thursday serves to highlight just how destructive the FCC’s crackdown on indecency has become.

The commission has been targeting the broadcast industry for the last year or so, prodded on by such Taliban-like zealots as the American Family Assn. and the Parents TV Council (which did issue a ruling exempting “Private Ryan” from its campaigns) and their allies in Congress….

Rather unhelpfully, the commission has pledged to judge the airing of supposed profanity on a case-by-case basis. This, coupled with the FCC’s refusal to provide advance guarantees to affiliates that it wouldn’t take action if they aired “Saving Private Ryan,” makes it look as if the commission’s main priority is to tailor its response to whatever level of pressure it feels from self-appointed morality guardians. This is not only cowardly on the part of FCC Chairman Michael Powell and his fellow commissioners, it’s probably unconstitutional.

But in the end, all these editorial pages are chicken-stupid. You waited to defend the First Amendment and your and our free speech… you waited until they went after Steven Spielberg and Private Ryan. You should have protested when they went after Howard Stern and Janet Jackson and Bono, you fools. But you waited. For shame.

21 responses to “F***ing Private Ryan II”

  1. Glenn Fleishman Avatar

    The FCC is de facto forcing challenging content to move to protected cable channels while allowing puerile titillating content that doesn’t include swear words or naked parts generally to remain on broadcast.
    This must serve some agenda, not just a religious right’s moralizing one. I’m having a hard time figuring out who benefits. Are the cable companies and satellite companies behind this?
    I do think the public airwaves should be fit for general public consumption. But there are times and places and parental involvement. The Superbowl was no place for unannounced nudity; Private Ryan deserved to be aired.

  2. Richard Moriarty Avatar

    I didn’t realize that shaming articles and opinions that we don’t agree with is standard practice in the blogosphere. “To each their own,” I suppose.

  3. Refuge of the Imaginative Avatar
    Refuge of the Imaginative

    You really should find something better to do than hate the FCC, Jeff. Their task is far more of a thankless job than you would know.
    Obviously, they do not intend to fine stations or networks from broadcasting “Ryan” because it is a serious work of art about a worthy subject.
    At the same time, however, they realize that many people do not approve of its anachronistic profanity (most Americans did not swear during that time period). By not fining ABC or its stations but not explicitly saying that they will allow it, they send the desirable message that profanity is permissible for respectable art but not for its own sake.
    This distinction is long-standing within all world communities (recall, for instance Potter Stewart’s remark about obscenity) and is one reason why society tolerates and even encourages the work of artists who paint nudes while frowning upon those who sell videos of people pretending to enjoy having sex.
    I would sincerely hope that you are able to differentiate between “Ryan” and “Schindler’s List” on the one hand and Bono’s “that is fucking brilliant” remark on the other.
    To even imply that they are the same is to embrace the consistency of fools.

  4. Ryan Booth Avatar
    Ryan Booth

    You seem to think that we should be exposed to profanity as much as possible through public media. If any censorship of profanity is a trampling of freedom of speech, why does your policy say that you will delete those who use it in your comments?

  5. Tom O. Avatar

    It’s as if the FCC found a cockroach under the refrigerator, and decided to get rid of the threat by detonating a nuke in the kitchen. There has to be a better way; the question is whether Powell & Co. are up to the task. Based on their past track record, I am doubtful. Reactionary forces at high levels of government are ruining this country. When we the people becomes us vs. them, disaster is rarely far behind.
    (OK, so I’m a little cranky today – I’ll try to tone it down a bit.)

  6. tony Avatar

    refuge (aka coward who wont leave his/her real name, email, url),
    it’s easy to hate the fcc and jeff is right on target for his complaints.
    you’re made-up line in the sand of “a serious work of art about a worthy subject” is entirely yours. it’s not part of any fcc policy, and it couldnt be since it’s entirely subjective.
    and to defend potter stewart’s laziness doesnt help either.
    michael powell deserves criticism because like stewart he refuses to define the standards clearly AND he refuses to consistantly fine those who break the law.
    howard stern discusses anal/oral sex and gets fined, oprah discusses anal/oral sex and doesnt get fined.
    pre-super bowl bono says the f-word and doesnt get fined (because it wasnt used as an adjective, powell says), post super bowl powell goes back in time and fines bono.
    all powell has to do is set up groundrules and judge based on those rules. but he wont do it because he knows that he wont be able to fine guys like howard stern at will.
    it really is that simple.
    if powell was the sherrif of a town, he wouldnt have speed limit signs posted, he wouldnt have parking meters, and he wouldnt have stop signs at intersections. he would give tickets whenever those who pulled his strings said, “get that guy, he was bad.”
    and you would defend him. and if you could you would do it anonymously. like a punk.

  7. Howad L. Ruth Avatar
    Howad L. Ruth

    Are you going to call bullshit on James Wolcott’s smear against Glen Reynold’s, Jeff, or are you going to continue making excuses for that insane hack who phones in his Vanity Fair pieces?

  8. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Refuge: Who’s to make those judgements? I don’t want the government doing it. Neither did the founding fathers.
    Howard: To quote a famous line of late: I’m not your monkey.

  9. Howard L. Ruth Avatar
    Howard L. Ruth

    Perhaps not. But you do seem to be Wolcott’s.

  10. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    No, Howard, I simply think that Glenn’s a big boy and it quite capable of taking on Wolcott on his own. Glenn barely bothered to flick it off. But you expect me to say what you want me to say. This isn’t a monkey’s blog. It’s my blog. Get your own blog and say what you want to say there.

  11. Howard Avatar

    Oh, please. That’s “brave” of you.

  12. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    Howard: Glenn is the first person to object to people who tell him what he should be writing about. You write about what you want to write about; I’ll write about what I want to write about. That’s what’s so wonderful about this new medium; we can all have a printing press.

  13. thecapitalwire.com Avatar

    A distinction NEEDS to be made between short-term consumer loss and long-term consumer gain. Referring to a comment I made on Jeff

  14. John Thacker Avatar
    John Thacker

    Mr. Jarvis:
    In this case, they didn’t give assurances that showing Pvt. Ryan would be ok, but there will be no fine. It seems so easy to then claim that therefore the FCC should give definite assurances. Unfortunately, such reasoning has a problem.
    The FCC is forbidden from imposing prior restraint. They cannot ban something from being shown; they can only fine after the fact. (This after taking into account public reaction and complaints, among other things.) If the FCC were to give specific reassurances to everything that could be shown, then the very lack of reassurance on any show would indicate that fines were forthcoming, and would be a form of prior restraint. They cannot comment on specific shows before they are shown; to do so would violate various Constitutional rulings on viewpoint neutrality. There exist guidelines which the FCC has promulgated and must follow; under those, it was indeed obvious that Saving Private Ryan was in no danger.
    Some of the talk of a “new regime” is quite overheated, considering that incidents like the Janet Jackson one were hardly common or even had occurred on prime-time network TV before. It’s not as though there were a parade of breast at half-time shows that was rudely interrupted. And certainly Howard Stern had been fined before by the FCC, many times.
    All that said, I join you in opposing the FCC’s role in censorship. Luckily, it’s purview only applies to broadcast networks and stations (and it has that only due to the pernicious doctrine of the airwaves being public); I hope it stays that way. It’s rapidly becoming obsolete anyway.

  15. John Thacker Avatar
    John Thacker

    As for modern dangers, hate-speech laws are still a burgeoning threat. For example, see here:

    Later, I learned that the Rotterdam police had destroyed a street mural featuring the words, “Thou shalt not kill,” a picture of an angel, and the date of Mr. van Gogh’s murder because the leader of a nearby mosque reportedly considered it racist.
    Wim Nottroth, a news cameraman who tried to protect it, was arrested, and a camerawoman who filmed its destruction was forced to erase part of her videotape, according to Dutch news reports.

    A cameraman arrested, and the videotape erased? Now that’s danger.

  16. John Thacker Avatar
    John Thacker

    I find it highly amusing that once again Mr. Jarvis calls upon the FCC to do something unConstitutional– in this case impose prior restraint by commenting on Saving Private Ryan before it was shown. Once again he shows himself to be unfamiliar with First Amendment caselaw. Have you not even heard of the Pentagon Papers case? Reassurances are not Constitutional. They violate the First Amendment, very strongly. Even one of the articles you linked to in your previous post pointed this out.
    It’s just hard to take you seriously when you always get the facts wrong or show your ignorance, even when I agree with your eventual policy prescription, like I do now. The FCC should not police the airwaves.

  17. Jeff Jarvis Avatar

    No, it’s not “prior restraint.” The stations were asking a simple question: Is it or is it not a violation to say the “f” word? The FCC has been inconsistent and vague — which, by the way, is in itself unconstitutional — and so the stations are quite right to demand a simple answer to the question of what is against the law in the FCC’s inconsistent enforcement.

  18. Eileen Avatar

    Jeff,
    It would be impossible to sort all this out in only a few short paragraphs. I am a J.D. (Loyola Law School at Los Angeles, 1981). I wish to review only a few points of general law. First amendment free speech issues comprise a veritable ocean of law which includes not only federal constitutional analysis, but also common law, case law precedents, legislative history (both constitutional and legislative), as well as – particularly in this case – precedents (historical rulings) by the FCC itself.
    Inasmuch as you are dealing with a federal agency, administrative law – that related specifically to the FCC – is the primary body of law one would look to for guidance with respect to the agency’s action or ‘inaction’. This would include not only the basic rules or laws governing the administration of the FCC itself (i.e., it’s charter/purpose, rules of governance, purview/scope of action, ‘police powers’ – for example, it’s ability to fine but not pursue criminal actions, etc.), and also prior FCC administrative rulings specifically related to 1st amendment issues.
    All of the above may be working in tandem to explain why the FCC is acting – or not – with respect to any particular television or radio broadcast over the public airways. As John Thacker pointed out, the issue of ‘prior restraint’ IS not only a valid tenet of 1st amendment free speech law, but also helps to explain why the FCC may have acted against Stern and Jackson, et. al., after the fact, but not provide guidance in advance of a particular broadcast.
    BTW, it is possible to ask for administrative ‘advisory rulings’, as one would formally request of the IRS related to innovative, undefined or unchartered tax issues.
    Moreover, if you wish to file a formal and official complaint with the FCC, I’m sure there is a specifically defined manner for doing so within it’s body of administrative law.
    As to the apparent ‘inconsistent’ manner in which the FCC is promulgating its rulings, that might in fact be a valid basis for a more formal complaint against the agency.
    If you really want to fight this, I suggest you hire a lawyer and take appropriate action. Sorry.
    It just ain’t that simple.

  19. A.W. Avatar

    I personally think this is a little posturing on the part of the stations balking. They are doing this not because they are actually afraid of fines, but because they are trying to say to the american people that this is out of control. and frankly i have always been extremely dubious of the “chilling effect” of regulation–the notion that enforcing some rules will suddenly terrify others into being overly timid. I think this phenomenon is at best exaggerated.
    But don’t take that as an apology for the FCC. Any speech regulation is automatically unconstitutional in my mind. I just don’t like bullsh–. But i will say this, too, jeff. You focus so much on stern and all that, and nothing at all at the speech suppression done in campaign finance. Far more than gagging stern, this is the threat to our democracy, and it needs to be resisted more strenuously.