Rethinking Freedom of Speech ...or how we interpret it

Recently I've been rethinking how our First Amendment Right to Freedom of Speech applies, or rather, how the FCC makes determinations on censorship.  It is easy to get around censorship these days...go cable/satellite and you can pretty much say whatever you want!

This past week I was watching a new legal series (yes, even those of us who went to law school enjoy legal series!) called Harry's Law.  This series on NBC features Kathy Bates as a tough, yet passionate attorney who got bored with patent law and is looking for a change.  Opening up an office in a tough part of the city begins her adventure with clients and courtrooms.  While I really liked the pilot, something surprised me.  Kathy Bates' character said "asshole" on national television...and it wasn't bleeped out.

This caused me to pause, and stayed with me the rest of the episode.  The use of the word fit perfectly in the scene, and it wasn't referring to a body part.  Yet, when did we allow the use of that word on a network television show?  This surprised me--and since the show airs after 9:00pm central time, I felt it was probably OK.  Still...it stayed with me.

When I was in college, one of my advertising professors showed us a video he took of advertisements running on network television in Paris.  This was in the mid-80's and what our class saw shocked and embarrassed us.  The one that stuck with me had men and women wearing nothing but underwear, dancing with lighted tubes on a stage.  This was an advertisement for underwear.  We gasped, hid our faces, and laughed.  NEVER would this get on American TV!  Fast forward to 2010 and HELLO BOMBSHELL!

Victoria's Secret has broken the mold when it comes to what you can and cannot show on television...by the way, what can't you show? It's all just about there.  Conversations with my teen boys comes to a halt whenever one of VS' commercials come on...and I try to change the channel.

And yet...lyrics are still censored.  This became even more evident to me when I watched a recent Saturday Night Live episode with Gwyneth Paltrow & Cee Lo Green.  I had not heard of Cee Lo Green until recently when I wanted to hear the original version of "Forget You" that I liked on Glee.  You can imagine my surprise.  And yet, it all came together in Saturday Night Live's episode. 

My undergraduate program taught me the value of the First Amendment, particularly as it pertained to the rights of journalists.  I worked for the National Center for Freedom of Information Studies for two years as a research assistant (an organization that was based at Loyola University of Chicago and seems to have disappeared from what I can tell).  It was there I met many influential members of the media, as well as Justice Anton Scalia, who encouraged me to "go to law school and change the world" when I spoke with him about gag orders and the media.  So I come to the table with more than just my "mom-sense" when it comes to censorship.  And yet...I do have teen boys who are quite impressionable, regardless how independent-thinking they are.

There I learned about the FCC's definition of "obscene, indecent and profane broadcasts," which still holds true today. So it isn't so much what the government decides...it is what our average citizens decide.  And it appears that America's average citizen is not concerned with what I call "swear words" on television, but apparently we don't want those words broadcasted on the radio.  Since the FCC considers "broadcast" to apply to both television and radio, why the difference? 

In thinking about this, I came across a post by Sara Bibel regarding the new MTV series, Skins. I had seen advertisements for this show and vowed never to have my boys watch it. Actually, I don't think it would truly interest them.  On one side, there is a claim that the show depicts child pornography, showing the actors (who almost all are teens under the age of 18) engaging in some form of sexual activity.  While the actors are truly that age, the level of sexual activity seems to be minimally shown (does that matter?).  Bibel correctly points out that this new series is not all that different from what many teens already see in TV and film, specifically referring to television shows Glee, Gossip Girls, and Degrassi; and movies such as American Pie and SuperBad. That said, those movies were rated R and Skins is rated M...but with the advent of cable/satellite television, these movies are available to those under the age of 17, in households where parents don't always monitor what their kids watch.  As for Bibel's comments, I believe the argument here fails with regard to violating child pornography laws in Skins, because the truth is that the actors in all of the TV series and movies she referred to are over the age of 18--simply portraying teens. Still, beyond that issue, I have to agree with her points.


And while MTV gives the show an M rating, the reality is that "many of MTV’s viewers are in middle and high school. According to the Nielsen Company, the first episode drew 1.2 million people younger than 18." [A Racy Show with Teenagers Steps Back from a Boundary, by Brian Stelter, New York Times, January 19, 2011] 


The NYT January 19th article discusses how MTV executives have "ordered the producers to make changes to tone down some of the most explicit content" for fears of violating the Child Pornography laws.  So MTV got the message and is pulling back...we'll see how far.

And I have to ask again...what do we want to allow on television and the radio?  I believe that for each family, the answer to this question is different.  I may not agree with your answer, but you are entitled to that--and we all can control what our kids are exposed to, if we want to.  Sure, they go to friends' houses and can watch things we may not approve of...but do we approve of those friends?  I suggest we use this as an opportunity for conversation...choosing wisely what works for our own families. 

Leadership and character begin at home.  I may not want my kids exposed to certain things, but hopefully I've raised them well enough so far to make the right decisions, when they are out there making their own.

Why Glorify him any more?

The shooting and tragic results that occurred in Arizona last week leave us all questioning how something like this can happen.  We mourn the loss of life and have hope for the recovery of those healing.  My question is, can't we just leave it at that? More specifically, why is anyone glorifying the name and photograph of the killer? I refuse to mention his name here because this just gives him the additional power he was seeking.

Clearly, everyone wants to know the answer to "why."  And even more clearly, this person was very ill.  Isn't that enough? Seeing his deranged photograph with his head shaved and that spooky smile on his face is enough. All the media outlets are asking, "why," and I say, enough is enough.

Let those who lost their life rest in peace.  Let those who are on the road to recovery, both in hospitals and their family and friends, rest in peace.  Do we really need to remind everyone what he looks like and continue to question why?  I suggest we do not...and I also suggest that we do not use this tragedy to stir up more political crap about who is to blame on either the conservative or liberal front.  Please. This was a horrible tragedy and the murderer needs no more public glorification.  I respectfully request that his photo and story STOP being told...those families directly impacted do NOT need to see or hear about him any longer.  Neither do we, and neither do his own parents. 

Then again...I'm just a bresboysmom...I have no power...but I can turn off my television, radio, and stop watching Internet news...

Since when do Bloggers get a bad rap???

According to Toyota...they don't make cars for bloggers...and so ends my relationship with Toyota as I am currently searching for a new car!

When I first heard the Toyota commercial, I figured I must have heard it wrong. Then one of my favorite bloggers, BloggyMoms, addressed this situation directly. Check out the Toyota ad yourself at the BloggyMoms' site and see what you think.

I am a mom of two teen boys and a ginormous Great Pyrenees, otherwise known as Maximus the Great...or Big Max, Pain in the A#*, or Francis...depending on our mood for the day.  In this role I find myself often participating in carpools for the boys' sports.  In addition, I travel throughout the Midwest for hockey...and so in order to fit five or six teenage boys, one or two huge hockey bags, and/or my mighty Max, I'm pretty stuck with buying a new minivan.  While a large SUV is enticing, my mighty Max cannot quite make it up to the height of an SUV...and me lifting his large backside into the minivan alone is hard enough.  Sure, there are new "pet ramps" available as an addition on to your new vehicle...for a price tag!

I really did like the Toyota Sienna.  Sad, but true.  Looks like the Dodge Grand Caravan or Honda Odyssey will be my two top choices at this point...but the search goes on. Just disappointed that Toyota doesn't make a car I can drive...since I do consider myself a blogger.

A little too late to the party, Toyota has issued an apology for their outspoken ad...which again, BloggyMoms has posted (she is fair and balanced!).  Unfortunately, it might be a little too late for apologies.

"Whoever guards his mouth and tongue keeps his soul from troubles."

Proverbs 21:23