Skip to main content

After watching the right double down on their denial that escalation of violent, racist, bigoted and theocratic rhetoric has any connection to the shooting, I have come to realize we need to push back, and push back hard.

In the US, profanity is considered indecent for public broadcast.  The Supreme Court sides with the FCC position that fleeting profanity can be punished.  Clearly we still do have strong support for decency standards in place today, despite a lower court ruling otherwise:

CERT. GRANTED 3/17/2008

Whether the court of appeals erred in striking down the Federal Communications
Commission’s determination that the broadcast of vulgar expletives may violate
federal restrictions on the broadcast of "any obscene, indecent, or profane
language," 18 U.S.C. 1464; see 47 C.F.R. 73.3999, when the expletives are not
LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 06-1760-ag, 06-2750-ag, 06-5358-ag

How is it we find it reasonable to fine somebody hundreds of thousands of dollars for the fleeting word, "fuck", yet we permit inciting violence, bigotry, racism, and theocracy to be done for profit?

The idea that we can just pollute the popular discourse, and lexicon with a ongoing escalation of violent, bigoted, theocratic and racist commentary without suffering a social cost is laughable, particularly when a single instance of profanity aired at the wrong time can cost somebody their job!

This incident is a national wake up call.  It is time we decide that inciting violence, racism, bigotry and theocracy are not acceptable in American Politics.  These things are indecent, and nearly always wrong.  Violence, sadly, cannot always be avoided, but racism, theocracy and bigotry CAN.  There is no excuse for promoting those things, when our founding ideas are based on equal protection under the law.

The rationale behind the harsh punishment of fleeting profanity is that younger people, innocents, are harmed when they are exposed to indecent speech, and that our popular media is a commons, powerful, able to set and establish strong norms.  We must live with the product of those norms as well.

Are we really going to continue to say it's ok to promote racism, violence, bigotry and theocracy in popular media today?  What about the targets of those things?

Are those the norms we want to establish as decent in our politics?  Here at Dkos, advocating violence is cause for somebody to be banned, or at the least warned for it.  The same is true for racism, theocracy, and bigotry to various degrees too.

How come it's ok to put it on the radio, or the TV for profit then?

There is another element in play here too.  The strong norms that popular media establish are pervasive things.  When a violent, racist, bigoted, or theocratic person can tune in and hear media speaking to them each day, they feel none of the social pressure to grow up and socialize with their peers necessary to keep these things at bay.

Worse, what about the beaten wife, or the black person, gay person, or Hindu, Muslim, or other religious person who hears their media condemn them for basic freedom of belief, or for who they are, or what they look like?  That battered wife, or person who has seen violence in their daily life might be seen as extreme or cowardly for expressing views that are anti-violence too.

Are these the norms we really believe are decent?  Do we really think it's ok for people to express openly hateful and violent thoughts on our media, when they can't even say, "fuck" on the air?

I think not!

In our history, the acceptable rhetoric in politics and media was far more tame than we experience today.  When a event like this happens, NOBODY questioned whether or not the media was the influence, because the media was keeping it's house in order, insuring that the norms it set were good for EVERYBODY.

The influences that led to violence, or racism, theocracy, bigotry were easily labeled extreme, or non-mainstream, because the higher standards of conduct insured that was the case.

Today that is no longer true, and shouldn't it be?

Everybody with any power at all to influence, to broadcast, write online and in general contribute to the discourse has a civic duty, a social contract to basically say, "Not on my watch!" lest they be associated with clearly destructive behavior.

Today that's not true.  Today it's ok to do those things for profit, because the NORM we've established says it's ok, even though we all know racism, violence, theocracy and bigotry are clearly NOT OK.

So what gives?

Do we continue to pollute our discourse with ever escalating violent and hateful rhetoric for profit, ignoring the clear social and political impact of that, or do we do something about it?

I say it's time for the left to push this issue and push it hard.  We've got a winner in that we do not condone violence, we don't tolerate racism, bigotry and theocracy, because we know those things are either harmful or discriminatory and there is no excuse for them.

Isn't that the same decency problem we value at hundreds of thousands of dollars for the fleeting word, "fuck" or "shit", which isn't even on the same scale harm wise?

Yes, and it's time to act on that.

Of all the political commentators out there, it's clear the Right has far more to lose than the Left does, and that's a fight we need to pick, because it's a fight that we will in the end win, because the majority of Americans know damn well that it's not ok, not decent to promote violence, racism, bigotry and theocracy for profit.

Wake up call time.  Instead of doing the fairness doctrine bit they want us to do, just declare this to be a decency problem and move to act to clean up our civic discourse, so that our politics are not those of fear and ignorance, and they are about policy and progress.

Originally posted to You can call me spud on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 01:04 PM PST.


Violence, bigotry, theocracy, racism decent?

11%2 votes
88%16 votes

| 18 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (3+ / 0-)


    by potatohead on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 01:04:07 PM PST

  •  not too sure about this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    you know the whole laundry list of questions-like who decides what is allowable and what isn't?  
    Also-what do you consider to be a theocracy?  How is that in any way related to violence?
    Does this apply only to Christians, or to non-Christians as well?

    Democratic lies hurt alot more than Republican lies

    by 50licks on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 01:17:09 PM PST

  •  to answer your questions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Do we really think it's ok for people to express openly hateful and violent thoughts on our media

    Are we really going to continue to say it's ok to promote racism, violence, bigotry and theocracy in popular media today?


    Freedom of speech is too important.  The answer to hate speech is more speech, not censorship.

    Unlike Elvis Costello, I used to be amused and now I'm disgusted.

    by nightsweat on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 01:18:19 PM PST

    •  I would agree with you on the first one. (0+ / 0-)

      Not on the second.

      On Public airwaves, we should not be discriminating against people.

      If they want to be racists, bigots and theocrats, let them do it subscription.


      by potatohead on Mon Jan 10, 2011 at 03:22:54 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  The way I think about these things (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Here are some related descriptions I've been known to use:

    We have a lack-of-grown-ups problem.

    We have a disconnect from the real universe problem.

    We have an inability to anticipate likely consequences problem.

    We have an inability to perceive harm problem.

    We have a lack of insight problem.

    We have a social norm of domination, exploitation, and aggression problem.

    We have a widespread mental health problem.

    We have a cultural problem.

    I think of all those as different aspects of the same problem, actually. We could describe it as a lack of decency problem, too.

    Applying social influence to encourage more folks to behave in healthy mature ways seems like a good framework to think about solutions.  It's not clear to me whether you're calling for particular rules or legislation. (Perhaps I read too quickly.) I'm not sure rules and legislation would work. Promoting effective social influence seems like a good approach, though.

    Thanks for contributing your perspective.


  •  This is an excellent argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    for letting people say Fuck on TV

  •  Inciting theocracy... (0+ / 0-) just threw that in there for shits and giggles, right?

    What the hell does that even mean?

  •  Too late for the Joe McCarthy shame defense. (0+ / 0-)

    Senator Joseph McCarthy was finally driven from office by the communal disgust of his fellow Senators, finally appalled by the raging excesses of his despicable and dishonest pogrom against "Communists". He was famously smacked down in public with the comment "Have you no decency sir? Have you no decency at all?" by a fellow legislator.

    Unfortunately today's Republican party is completely beyond shame. They are the party of Tom Delay and Jack Abramoff, of Marianas sweat shops and arsenic in the drinking water. They are quite literally shameless. The notion of public shaming and disgrace has no power over them; they don't even understand the concept.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site