Many of you are aware of the current legislation about indecency fines that is making its way to the Senate. The bill already passed the House with only 22 representatives voting against it. It is truly a monumental piece of legislation. Monumentally bad, I should say. The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, or AFTRA, is the union that represents on air talent. In a letter to Senators, AFTRA's President and Executive Director wrote that the bill should be voted down.
Now, this is really a big deal. The FCC, up until this point, had held corporations responsible for indecent material that made it over public airwaves. But that is all changing.
Two provisions of the bill as drafted represent particularly egregious assaults on freedom of expression. The first such provision eliminates the due process protections of the current rule by eliminating the requirement that the performer be given a warning and opportunity to hearing before forfeiture. The second increases the existing fines on individual performers or announcers by 500% (from $11,000 to $500,000) for an initial indecency violation, without any regard for ability to pay. Incredibly, this amount is almost double the fine that can be levied against a corporation that holds a broadcast license ($275,000).
So what do we have here? It's an election year, and this legislation has made it on the fast track. But what is really interesting is the part that goes after the indiviuals. Why would you increase the fines that much for individual performers? Because it is a way to appease voters without going after the corporations that own the licenses.
Big media spent a lot of money last year to lobby the FCC for changes in market ownership rules. Big media also spend a lot of money on Republican election campaigns (specifically Clear Channel). Persecuting performers is a way to get at the "problem" without going after big media.
Performers and announcers who appear on the air or before the microphone are rarely, if ever, responsible for making programming decisions. Rather, they are asked to produce content. It is the broadcast licensees and networks who not only determine whether and when that content will be aired, but also reap the financial reward of airing such content. In many instances – because of tape delay or voice tracking – the programming isn’t even aired live.
Most people don't realize that almost all of what they hear on the radio nowadays is pre-recorded. Only Howard Stern and other nationally syndicated radio hosts are live. The second to last paragraph of the AFTRA letter really underscores my big issue with this legislation.
Moreover, with the move away from localism and towards corporate programming created by deregulation, community standards unfortunately no longer enter into the broadcast licensee’s content debate.
How can there be community standards without local communities?