Copyright, 2002

Dr. Janet McMullen

Last Updated: Friday, May 03, 2002                     

What are some types of morally offensive content?

• Pornography:
• Graphic news content : soldier dragged naked in the street
• Bodies lying bloated in Jonestown or Rwanda?
• Blasphemous content: Last Temptation of Christ
• Irreverent content: Noah's Ark
• Racial content:
• Sexist:
• Politically Correct:
• Tabloid exploitation: Jerry Springer
• Violent content in films, television, video games

Which of the above are protected by the First Amendment? (Most all of them)

Pornography, indecency and moral responsibility:

1957: Roth decision -- no real definition of obscenity

1973: Miller v. California -- (see text for complete definition)

• average person applying contemporary community standards finds that the work, taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest
• work depicts in a patently offensive way sexual conduct specifically defined by state law (usually involves sexual or excretory functions)
• and the work in question lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

What is the reason for this? (Why place limits on obscene or indecent content?)

• Obscenity harms society
• Adversely affects quality of life
• Concern for community's ethical standards

What are some of the issues we're likely to face with obscenity or immoral content?

• Do you sell "those" magazines?
• What type of programming do you put on?
• Radio station content (lyrics, morning personalities)
• Television station (do you clear NYPD BLUE? -- Is it immoral? What about Howard Stern's program?)
• Cable system (what about the Playboy channel? Blue access channels?)

What about nudity :

• In a newscast?
• In entertainment programming?
• In documentary?   

In recent months a number of groups and individuals have been alarmed about the increasingly sexually graphic nature of headlines and covers of mainstream consumer magazines like Glamour, Redbook, or even Good Housekeeping.  In an 1999 article, Rebecca Wyatt wrote an article entitled "Grossin' Out in the Grocery" in which she lists several groups protesting what some would classify as soft porn.  Not the least of the offenders is Cosmo with the headline, "Cosmo's Kama Sutra-2: Twelve Naughty New Sex Positions, including our personal favority -- The Dragon" and "The Bedroom Trick that will Blow Him Away (All You Need is A Hair Scrunchie."  Ah, yes, I can only imagine how much fun it is now to go to Wal-Mart with your 10 or 11-year old son!    If you'd like to see the article, you can find it at http://www.findarticles.com     It is copyrighted by New World Communications, Inc. (2000)  

Broadcast indecency is an issue which is getting more and more attention.

• November, 2001, ABC aired a Victoria Secret fashion show in prime time.  While the models' breasts and backsides were electronically blurred when they were  wearing transparent bras and thongs, the program generated hundreds of complaints to the FCC via email and twenty formal complaints.  The FCC dismissed those complaints in March, 2002. (McConnell, 3/25/02)

Current FCC commissioners, Michael J. Copps foremost among them, are concerned that the FCC hasn't been enforcing its own indecency standards (see link below).  You can see an excellent site which documents that failure at the Culture and Family Web Site.  Be sure to read:

Martha Kleder. "The FCC: A Failure of Enforcement"  CFI Report, Jan., 2002 at http://cultureandfamily.org/library/2002-01/cfi-23sr001.shtml   

In recent months, there have been indecency complaints filed against Boston Public, The Shield, and other network and cable programs. 

One group said in a letter to the FCC that Boston Public has had plot lines involving teacher-student affairs and a female candidate for a class office trying to win the support of a male opponent by performing oral sex on him. (McConnell, 2/11/02) However, Brent Bozell III, of Parents Television Council, notes that in recent months, Boston Public has cleaned up its act, dealing with meaningful and sensitive topic, and steering clear of the lechery.  Bozell, one of the shows loudest critics, praised the show for changing its direction (Bozell, 4/2/02)

The April 26, 2002 PTC E-Alert reported on a column on the Zap2it.com site which revealed some of the thinking of some network  programming executives.  Danny Zucker, exec. producer of Off Centre on WB was quoted as saying, "This is the first network I've been associated with where the higher-ups want more risqué material."  The series creator added, " It's sort of Faustian bargain for them.  They really want us to push the envelope....After our first meeting [WB President] Jordan Levin said, 'Don't let us soften this up."  Creators of the show seem to be cooperating.  The April 21 episode had as its primary focus the genitals of one of the characters and comically considered circumcision.  (PTC, 4/26/02) 

Reality shows have drawn considerable concern as well.  Fear Factor pushed new limits with electronically blurred contestants parading before the camera for several minutes each completely naked.  

The Bachelor involved a single, eligible  man selecting a potential wife from 24 beautiful contestants, some of whom were more than willing to do "anything" to win his favor.  In the final week, the show provided a single "suite" where the bachelor and his prospective fiancée could spend the night together.  Some of the women accepted the invitation, one did not.  While the cameras were mercifully turned off, we were privy to  more details than we might have wanted including a room service delivery of  a plastic sheet, and huge bowls of ice cream, chocolate syrup and whipped cream.  The young lady in question quipped to the bachelor, "Next time, dessert is on me!"  Hmmmm.  

Aside from the sexual content, the trivialization of marriage, these shows make the statement that it's okay to do anything--from eating cockroaches to having sex-- for money.  

Probably the most negative press so far in 2002 has been directed at the FX program, The Shield.  While this show does not appear on broadcast television, it is on basic cable, and the content includes material more often found on the pay cable channels.  The Parents' Television Council and other groups have urged advertisers to bail the show, and they have done so in droves. 

REQUIRED READING:  The Shield page at Parents Television Council.   Find it at http://www.parentstv.org/main/theshield/main.asp  

Another area of concern has been the casual attitude toward pornography in network series television.  In just one night in November, 2001, I personally witnessed extensive, positive discussions about using porn by protagonists in both Friends and Will and Grace.  Obviously, there an agenda by someone associated with these programs to "main-stream" pornography.  What better way to do so, than to target the young, twenty-something (and younger) audience for those shows and make using pornography something beautiful, socially acceptable people do on a regular basis without shame?

If you want to see the kind of thing that passes for radio programming these days, go to the FCC site (FCC.gov) and type "indecency" in the search box.  Read some of the statements of former commissioner Gloria Tristani.  Those statements include quotations from offending programs -- words, phrases and sentences I couldn't possibly type into this page.  One of the milder examples can be found at http://ftp.fcc.gov/Speeches/Tristani/Statements/2001/stgt147.html (Not required but illustrative.)  Another example was provided in a Broadcasting and Cable article.  The FCC determined that "Roadkill Contest" sponsored by Bubba the Love Sponge in February, 2001 was was not indecent, even though the complaint included charges that the disc jockey 

• "compared the texture of squirrel meat to a man's penis
• referred to bestiality
• slaughtered a wild boar" (McConnell, 3/25/02)

Of course, all of this occurred on the air in either morning or afternoon drive time.  (No kids in the car then!!)

The FCC released a new policy statement on indecency on April 6, 2001.  While obscenity rests on community standards, the FCC is the arbiter of of indecency and the chief criterion is the potential impact of the content on children. You can read about it in the 4/16/01 issue Broadcasting and Cable (p. 30) and at the FCC site at http://www.fcc.gov and http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html . 

What are the public's attitudes toward indecency, pornography, obscenity: (discuss)

• feminists
• traditionalists
• religious community (Jewish, Christian, -- all most all denominations were represented in a meeting in New York to support Meese Commission, but it was not covered by the press!

Be sure you know the difference between indecency, pornography and obscenity.

Attorney General's Commission on Pornography is erroneously reported in the text, in my opinion. I have the report, have read it all, and it does make a clear statement that violent pornography IS harmful and should be a concern for policy makers. Specific recommendations were made, primarily the enforcement of obscenity laws ALREADY on the books! The commission was much maligned in the press.

WHY? What ethical issues were involved in the coverage?

ALL COMMISSION members agreed that violent pornography was harmful and should be controlled. Their research discovered that:

• industry controlled by organized crime
• social science research strong but limited
• circumstantial research very strong, especially FBI studies which showed that pornography was on site in a very large number of crimes, especially sex crimes.

Those opposing the commission and its conclusion? They found no problem with pornography despite the harms. The most important thing was the marketplace of ideas.

Any restriction of pornography is based on an assumption that it is harmful to society, but in what ways is it harmful?

• harm to others -- pornographers hurt the women they use
• porn consumers hurt the women in their lives
• used as cookbook for rape and other sexual abuse (read Andrea Dworkin's testimony.... in Commission Report.
• Pornography is often used as a "cookbook" for sexual predators.

• harm to self --
• concern in the literature that porn is psychologically addictive
• desensitizing
• dehumanizes users and women -- For the overall benefit of society, people need to be protected from this. (deliver me from temptation --- does a society have the responsibility to do that?)

According to Dr. Victor Cline, pornography has four effects on the habitual user:

• Addiction
• Escalation
• Desensitizatioon
• Acting Out

REQUIRED READING: See Dr. Cline's web site: "Healing Sexual and Pornography Addictions" at http://pw2.netcom.com/~mimnyc.clineart.htm (Linked from the Morality in Media site if this link does not work for some reason.)

REQUIRED READING: "Anerican Porn" Frontline 2/7/02 (PBS) at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/porn/   Be sure to pay special attention to  the sections entitled "The Business of Porn" and "Inside the Porn Business."  This is some of the best and most current material I have ever seen on this topic. The entire broadcast is available on the web, if you'd like to watch it.  The site above is the home page for the program.

Ted Bundy describes how he went through this process and wound up killing over 20 young women and girls.

We will view the interview with Ted Bundy in class. What responsibilities does society have to protect its citizens from the potential harms he believes modern pornography holds for us?    If you are an Internet student or did not see the video, I have ordered an audio tape which includes most of the interview.  It will be on reserve at the Collier Library.  The title is "Pornography Kills".  Be SURE you hear it before the final.

In a society which reports that one in five boys will be sexually abused (Associated Press, 1998) we have to seriously consider the effects of this material. Studies found that 1/3 of juvenile delinquents, 40% of sexual offenders, and 76% of rapists were sexually abused as children. The suicide rate among boys who were sexually abused was between 1.5 to 14 times higher and drug or alcohol abuse by sixth graders who had been sexually abused was 12 to 40% higher.

Among girls, studies show that between 25 and 35% will experience sexual abuse. (Associated Press, 1998).

• harm to society
• controls establish rules consistent with societal norms and preserves healthy social environment
• offends community standards

• harm to others in that it offends others
• embarrasses
• causes discomfort
• attacks non-consenting adults with offensive material ( especially true for broadcasting )

If you would like more information or help for someone with a pornography or sex addiction problem, you can find help at two specific sites at the Focus on the Family website.  Each offers additional links.  See the site on sexual addiction at http://www.family.org/topics/a0018141.cfm  and the site on pornography at http://www.family.org/topics/a0018139.cfm 

Why do people argue against moral limits?

The often contend that there is...

• no scientific evidence that morally offensive material harms people (ask Andrea Dworkin about that?)
• no consensus on community standards -- how do you decide? 
• doubt that the harms should justify limiting Freedom of Speech
  

How do you respond to those arguments?

WHAT OTHER KINDS OF CONTENT ARE MORALLY OFFENSIVE ?

• Blasphemy: Used to be a crime, but that hasn't happened since 1937.

Film censorship issue: THE MIRACLE: 1952

• sacrilegious
• simple-minded woman believed she was impregnated by St. Joseph
• Supreme court struck down prior restraint ruling of New York court

Most recently: The Last Temptation of Christ

See The Last Temptation of Hollywood by Larry Poland p. 44 and 83 (excerpt read in class)

The Universal film had scenes in the script in which Jesus was a house of prostitution while Magdalene was servicing a customer, Jesus and John the Baptist "tongue-kissed", and a dream sequence in which Jesus had a graphic sexual fantasy about Mary Magdalene.

In class, we viewed the video with Michael Medved: Hollywood vs. Religion. Be sure you can discuss this issue.  (Internet students are encouraged to see Mr. Medved's book of the same name, or seek out reviews of the book on the web.  Check the FOF web site and search their radio archives for the program dealing with the book at http://www.family.org .  You can listen to the program on your computer.  (4/25/01 -- I just checked the site and those programs are no longer on their server.  Internet students : I have ordered a tape "Hollywood's Three Lies" which I will place on reserve at the library no later than Monday.  You can listen to it there.

In 1999, The Brooklyn Museum of Art came under fire because of an art exhibit which featured a portrait of Mary, the mother of Jesus, which was decorated with elephant dung.  In early 2001, the museum was on the hot seat again, this time with a work called "Yo Mama's Last Supper."  This was a work depicting the scene of the last supper much like Michelangelo's painting.  Only in this work, Jesus is portrayed as a completely nude female.  The photographer, Renee Cox, who herself posed as the female Jesus, couldn't understand the fuss....  Mayor Guilani and a variety of clergy were outraged.  In Chicago, another exhibit is causing a similar, not quite so vocal a stir.  The Chicago Athenaeum has received more than 100 calls of protest since it opened a display called "The Last Pancake Breakfast".  In this work Jesus is at the Michelangelo-type setting with breakfast cereal characters like Capt'n Crunch and Toucan Sam.  Mrs. Butterworth is there too.  This painting is part of an exhibit called "Corporate Sacrilege" which also has a Wheaties' box with Jesus on it and the Garden of Eden populated by Minnie and Mickey Mouse.  To top it off, there's the Pillsbury Doughboy on a cross and who is poking him in the stomach? God..... Artist Rick Detzner, said he's not trying to offend religous people, but rather to say that corporate images have become as important to us as religious icons.......

• Foul language:

Recently there have been concerns about comments made by athletes on camera during games and in news conferences.

In the last year, some wrestling programs have been criticized for not only language but sexual content and violence as well. An Indiana University content analysis found in 50 WWF RAW episodes in 1998 included:

• 1,658 instances of crotch grabbing (approximately 8/half hour)
• 157 instances of obscene gestures
• 434 times a sexual slogan was said
• 609 instances of individuals being struck with garbage cans, night ticks, or similar objects.
• 128 instances of simulated sexual activity
• 47 references to Satanic activity including the "drinking" of blood from a "dead" wrestler. (Bauder, 1998)  

If you want to learn a little more specifics about the content in WWF, check out the Parents' Television Council site at http://www.ptc.org   It's a great resource.

The XFL tends to stretch these limits even further with players on mic throughout the game, occasionally the guy responsible for bleeping the "words" isn't fast enough -- or doesn't care enough.  Lip reading isn't that much of a challenge to kids either, so even with the words bleeped or blanked out, kids know exactly what was said if the camera angle was right.

• Matter of Taste: Shocking and disturbing Visuals

• Budd Dwyer: Treasurer of Pennsylvania put gun in mouth and blew his brains out on live TV? Do you run the tape?
• We discussed in class the L.A. Freeway suicide.
• Nudity in new story .
• Charred bodies of hostages?
• Battered body of murdered soldier?
• The live coverage of the Littleton, Colorado school shooting?

In 2001, there has been a question about whether or not Timothy McVeigh's execution should be televised.  Permission was given for closed-circuit television pictures of the execution to a location where only families of the victims would be allowed.  A request was made my an Internet company to broadcast the execution over the Internet on a pay-per-view basis.  The court refused.  

• Violence always wrong?

What are the influences of violence in films? Video games? Television?

HOW DO YOU DECIDE?

• What is the purpose of the creator of the content?
• Does the piece show respect for other persons?
• What are the effects?
• Should a middle ground be determined?

Discuss:

Consider the purpose and intent of Howard Stern, who at the 1998 NATPE Convention where he was the keynote speaker, he did the following:

• He proudly announced the foul words that can now be said on the air because of his influence as the "king of all media" and his "taboo breaking impact."
• He listed people he had known through his life, elementary school teachers and others and shout obscenities at them by name as he "put them down."
• He also listed the women who had appeared on television when he was a teenager and described how he had lusted after them, describing in graphic detail how he "stimulated" himself....

Combine that with his suggestion that the two teenaged shooters at Columbine High School should have raped some of the "good looking girls" in that school, and I have to question why ANYONE could look a woman or child in the face after having placed his program on the air or even watched it!!

My question to you students is this: HOW BAD DOES IT HAVE TO GET before YOU say ENOUGH?? If it is this bad now, what kind of content will be there for your children? You can watch it yourself now and then whine in 20 years when things are even worse. You will have contributed to the problem.  Or if you choose not to watch it, but say nothing, you may still have the same problem in 20 years.

Visual and supportive aides

• Attorney General's Report on Pornography
• Fatal Addiction: Dobson Interview with Ted Bundy.
• The Last Temptation of Hollywood, by Larry Poland.
• In library: The Mind Pollutors. Letter from Larry Poland, Master Media International, 3/15/99 after he attended the NATPE Convention.
• Bauder, David. "Profanity Found in TV Wrestling." Associated Press AOL News. 2/22/99