Thoughts on Dirty Words: FCC v. Fox

There's been a lot of discussion of the oral argument in FCC v. Fox, the case that poses the constitutional validity of the FCC's ban on indecent words -- like f*** and s*** -- on the over-the-air broadcast media.  Lyle Denniston, at SCOTUSblog, has an excellent summary of the oral argument.  I don't want to go over that ground again; rather, it seems to me that the basic problem is a cultural one.  We live in an increasingly coarse and vulgar age, probably the result of our willing conversion to the post-modern notion that there are no fixed standards about much of anything.  So if you like to use F-bombs as oral punctuation, by all means do so.  It's the inevitable result of the brain-dead slogans of the 60s -- "Let it all hang out," "If it feels good, do it."  One wonders why we ever let these witless fools take control of our culture.  But it has largely happened.  Against that background, it's difficult to carve out a haven from this vulgarity on broadcast television, and yet tolerate it (and much worse) in virtually any other media setting.  And to proscribe dirty words everywhere is plainly unacceptable; Cohen v. California shredded that idea.  So, what are we to do?  Law has its limits, and it has hit its limits here.  We either accept censorship here (and open the door to other and more pernicious forms of censorship later), or we surrender to the pressure of our post-modern culture.  The latter course can produce a short opinion, of course.  "F*** it; just let it all hang out."  We need cultural limits, not legal limits.   

Comments

[James Grimmelmann]

Post-modernism? Really?

What is the "fixed standard" according to which the word "fuck" could be judged unacceptable? I'll agree that "fuck" was profoundly vulgar and offensive according to the cultural norms of the United States as of several decades ago. Are you really prepared to argue that those norms are a universal "fixed standard" of propriety transcending time and place?

[Calvin Massey]

Thanks, James; you have illustrated my point.

[Larry Catá Backer]

Well put Calvin, though I make no judgement about the quality or character of this age (something I leave to doctoral students a century from now. . .and our grandchildren). The point, though is right on. As many industry titans (and our churches) have recently rediscovered--it is the control of the mechanisms that produce cultural and social norms, not those that produce law, that ultimately have the greatest bite. Social engineering through law, the positivist turn in law, of the rightist or leftist variety, without a strong foundation in social norms, may have powerful effect (e.g., Prohibition as a good example) but hardly in the direction intended.

[James Grimmelmann]

Is it self-evident that this is a "coarse and vulgar age," or is there some specific standard of universal validity by which the age's vulgarity can be shown? If so, what is it?