Last night I ended up spending two hours debating a friend over the the concept of decency and of the goverment's ability and right to regulate speech.
I can explain my point easily, but it's difficult for me to defend my friend's point of view since (to me) it was contradictory and illogical.
I contend that the FCC should have no authority to regulate speech based on the concept of decency. Decency is a vague social concept that is constantly changing. There is no reliable scale or measure for decency. That which one person considers crude or profane may for another person be normal acceptable speech. So how can we expect the government to decide what construes indecent speech?
I assert that there can be no logical defense of regulating speech. Arguments supporting decency standards are undermined by the logical fallacy of argument by appeal to popularity. If we rely on general consensus to determine what is or isn't decent we're purposefully infringing on the free speech rights of the minority.
Fifty years ago is was considered indecent to mention bathroom functions on the radio, but in modern day America such a thing is no big deal. In fact sex is regularly mentioned by radio DJ's, but there are limits to what can be described.
I also believe that the FCC shows bias in applying its regulatory authority. Recent history has demonstrated that they are more willing to fine broadcasters that are critical of the current administration, but I believe my argument can be made without having to drag in government mismanagement.
I can explain my point easily, but it's difficult for me to defend my friend's point of view since (to me) it was contradictory and illogical.
I contend that the FCC should have no authority to regulate speech based on the concept of decency. Decency is a vague social concept that is constantly changing. There is no reliable scale or measure for decency. That which one person considers crude or profane may for another person be normal acceptable speech. So how can we expect the government to decide what construes indecent speech?
I assert that there can be no logical defense of regulating speech. Arguments supporting decency standards are undermined by the logical fallacy of argument by appeal to popularity. If we rely on general consensus to determine what is or isn't decent we're purposefully infringing on the free speech rights of the minority.
Fifty years ago is was considered indecent to mention bathroom functions on the radio, but in modern day America such a thing is no big deal. In fact sex is regularly mentioned by radio DJ's, but there are limits to what can be described.
I also believe that the FCC shows bias in applying its regulatory authority. Recent history has demonstrated that they are more willing to fine broadcasters that are critical of the current administration, but I believe my argument can be made without having to drag in government mismanagement.
