SCOTT MILLER
News Assistant
Many things greet one upon entering my dorm room — namely the two shelves almost completely full of DVDs next to my desk. On that shelf there are several television show seasons, including the quintessential “The Office.” However, there are two different versions of “The Office.” The American version, and the original version, which aired on the BBC in England.
What is the difference between the two? A little thing called the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). You see, in Britain, the FCC does not exist, therefore, the BBC version of “The Office” is free to make light of subjects that would make the FCC censors cringe, such as playing with erotic gag gifts.
While watching the seasons side-by-side, one notices that the ribald humor in the BBC version is just flat out funnier than the American counterpart. However, because of the FCC, that humor is banned and the punishment being heavy fines. This got me thinking about the usefulness, if any, of the FCC.
Ever since the “wardrobe malfunction” incident during Super Bowl XXXVIII’s halftime show, the FCC has tightened restrictions on broadcasting companies across the United States. This kind of action is prudish, sophomoric, and simply ridiculous.
First, it is wrong for the government to needlessly censor or regulate a private industry. In a capitalist country (yes, like the United States), consumer dissatisfaction is handled by the company that has wronged the consumer. For some reason the FCC officials feel it is their job to oversee and even levee their own fines. Even worse, in the wake of the nipple scandal, Congress encouraged the FCC by allowing it to raise its maximum fine for an offense from $27,500 to $500,000.
This segues me nicely to the second portion of my assault on the FCC: legislation of morality. It will come as no surprise to some of my past readers that I have nothing but contempt for the act of legislating morality. It simply is not the job of any government to create and enforce laws based on a set definition of morality. The government’s job should be to keep its citizens safe from domestic and foreign threats, not worry about whether a few thousand fans saw Janet Jackson’s nipple-shield-clad breast.
The FCC is not only an affront to freedom of expression but a huge waste of taxpayer dollars. As part of the overgrown federal bureaucracy, the FCC is receiving too much taxpayer money to enforce unrealistic and priggish rules. The FCC’s archaic conservatism is no longer the societal norm that it used to be, and we should not tolerate it like we once did.
02-01-2007
