Indecent means offensive to good taste or public moral values. But, many things are offensive and we allow them to be broadcast on the TV, radio and other media. So, the question becomes, why was Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction at the Super Bowl such a traumatic event that it resulted in increased fines by the FCC by such large amounts, but the FCC made no effort to increase fines for disguised advertisements masquerading as news pieces? These Video News Releases (VNRs) are surely more destructive to our society than a revealed breast on national TV.
The crux of this argument tends to come down to the effect of indecency on children. This argument does not hold water in my opinion. Let's take the 2004 Super Bowl incident and examine what Miss Jackson's indiscretion had in my household.
Our family actually was watching the Super Bowl, as we normally do each year if we happen to get the TV station on which it is broadcast. Our family does not subscribe to satellite or cable TV, so we are limited whatever our TV antenna is able to pick up, which isn't very much. Since we have four children, the six of us were watching the game. When half time started people were moving around, watching TV, getting snacks etc... My wife looked at the TV and the performance happening on TV. My daughter claimed that they were poor excuses for dancers, and the choreography was lame. Halftime finished and the game started and we went back to watching the game. No one in my family even noticed any indecency performed on stage at the Super Bowl. It wasn't until the next day in the newspaper that I even heard mention of it.
The point of my story is that the effect of a naked breast broadcast on national TV into my home had absolutely no effect on my family or me. Well, perhaps the video that was put on the Internet with all of the still shots magnified the event to something larger, but that was something else. The actual broadcast event had absolutely no effect.
Let's imagine that the TV station had used their instant reply technology, which they did not, in order to point out what most people didn't see. Would that have been an issue? Of course it would be an issue with the FCC law, but I am pretty sure that it still wouldn't have been an issue in my family. The point is how is a naked female breast actually indecent? How is it offensive? It may not be in good taste, but like I have already said, there are many things broadcast on network TV that are not in good taste.
Let us look at the harm to children argument and try to find the harm. If a child of any age sees a female breast on TV, what harm has happened? If a young girl sees a female breast exposed in a locker room while someone is undressing the mother is certainly not going to be running to the police or suing the person for harm, right. So, I am guessing that the only harm may occur when males are exposed to the female breast. So, I still don't understand what this harm might be, so I can only deduce that it must be derived from something sexual in nature. So, we could rule out any harm to prepubescent children, because they have no sexual interest, only curiosity. So, I am guessing that the harm must somehow be related to teenaged boys who may get a glimpse of an actual female breast. But, I am still confused as to how this glimpse may somehow harm these teenagers, especially if one considers how these children talk among themselves about these things.
If someone knows of any real harm derived from a child viewing a female breast, I am certainly open to your comments, but at this point I see no harm at all. Instead, I am guessing that the entire problem with this issue is derived from societal taboos. The culture has created a taboo of disliking the exposure of female breasts, therefore culture demands that it doesn't happen. The rarity of the occurrence makes every incident more unusual. Therefore, the weight of the Janet Jackson event became so immense because of the rarity of such an event. If, for example, American culture did not have such a strong taboo against this, then the Janet Jackson incident would have been irrelevant. If, as is the case in Europe, women sunbathed topless on the beach or even played volleyball topless in the park the occasion to see a topless woman would not be so rare and a little flash at the 2004 Super Bowl would have gone unnoticed.
So, it is my conjecture that the taboo itself has created its own cultural notion of offensive. There is nothing harmful to children about this, but perhaps there is more. Why would we have such a cultural taboo in the first place? Some might argue that the existence of topless women somehow objectifies women. But some women go out of their way to objectify themselves in other ways, and we don't have taboos against these things. Rather, the American culture tends to praise this sort of objectification. Maybe it all comes down to a much simpler explanation. I am guessing that adults that have children are the people effected by the potential bare breasted women showing themselves in public. Imagine a dad with his child in the park and a topless woman walks by. The child turns to his dad and says: "Why do women have big chests and men don't?" The possibility of embarrassment from being asked this question in public may actually be the root of the taboo. The historical origin of the taboo may have come out of Puritan American history, but the fear of being asked this question in public may have been the main reason for keeping this taboo. And, because of this fear of embarrassment the FCC raised fines on indecency, but did not do anything on the fines for using VNRs as undocumented news stories.
-----------------------------------------------------
Don't forget what Stephen Colbert said, "Reality has a well-known liberal bias."
Cross Posted @ Bring It On, tblog, Blogger and BlogSpirit