FCC ruling spurs debate on language

Whatever you think of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling last week regarding the use of certain profanities on television, at least it's still up for debate.

Frankly, there is so much vulgar and profane language on "over-the-airwaves" TV these days that I had begun to think it was just a matter of time before the few forbidden words might start to show up — so that "Law & Order" and "CSI" would begin to sound like "The Sopranos" and "Deadwood."

The difference, of course, is that the latter two shows are pay-cable offerings, where anything goes, while the former are on major networks, where certain words are still censored. But not many.

Some of us still hope week to week that the latest episode of "The Big Bang Theory" or "Castle" — or whatever your favorite show might be — will forego the occasional lapse into wheezy, sleazy, all too-easy vulgarisms.

The court's decision was with regard to the Federal Communications Commission's "fleeting expletives" rule and whether a network should be fined if certain words are uttered once — an issue after the usage on two live TV broadcasts of specific words spoken by, respectively, Bono and Cher.

Acting FCC Chairman Michael J. Copps told the Associated Press that the high-court decision is "a big win for America's families." Adding that it "should reassure parents that their children can still be protected from indecent material on the nation's airwaves."

Well, that may be overstating it. Mr. Copps has apparently not seen recent episodes of "Two and a Half Men" or "Law & Order: SVU" or "The Simpsons."

Actually, it would be a much shorter list to name prime-time shows that don't play the "indecent" card from time to time. So, here goes: Ummm, sorry. Can't think of any.

To me, the most surprising aspect of this decision is the reaction of the media — with some TV, newspaper and blog commentators suggesting that foul language is protected by the First Amendment. That there's nothing wrong with allowing these last few unsanctioned obscenities to make it into regular prime-time programming. That Americans should grow up and accept such language as part of everyday life.

As if foul language signals mature, adult behavior.

In reality, most swearing or sexual innuendo on TV is simply an easy tool used by lazy writers so they won't have to exert themselves trying to think of dialogue that is smarter or more clever.

And at the risk of sounding naive, I believe there are a still lot of viewers out there — young and old — who would enjoy TV a lot more if they didn't have to worry about the language that might come pouring out during the programs they watch.

Ever been watching TV after putting the children to bed, and when some profane word is blurted out, you hope they didn't hear it?

Or have you answered the phone when the TV's on, and, as you're talking, an obscenity is shouted on the program, causing embarrassment if the caller hears it?

Or have you watched something as a family — or say, with your parents or grandparents — and heard a word that made you wonder if this show was the best choice?

This kind of language was once thought to be ill-mannered and low-class, and some of us would still prefer to keep such words out of our homes.

E-MAIL: hicks@desnews.com