If there's one thing in 2004 I'm already sick of (other thanthat damn Outkast song), it's the phrase "the decay of moraldecency."
The country goes through periods of stricter "morality" every somany years, but I guess this is the first time it's happened duringmy lifetime. And I don't like it.
The House of Representatives passed legislation last Thursday tosubstantially increase the maximum fine for radio and TV"indecency," and similar legislation is pending in the Senate.
"I am tired of hearing parents tell me how they have to covertheir children's ears,'' Rep. Joseph Pitts, R-Pa., said duringdebate on the measure, according to the New York Times. "Today,we're saying enough is enough.''
It seems strange to me that parents have to cover theirchildren's eyes or ears when we have hundreds of television andradio stations. Did these parents ever think of turning thedial?
It also seems strange to me that because these parents have tocover their children's ears, I'm also not allowed to listen to orsee "indecency."
The renewed interest in "decency" comes after the Americanpublic caught a split of a split-second of Janet Jackson's breastduring the Super Bowl Halftime Show and after Clear Channel removedHoward Stern's broadcast from six of its major markets.
During one of the most-watched network television programs ofthe year wasn't the best time for Jackson to flash her jewelry, butis it really worth all this? I didn't see the much-discussed nipple... because I blinked. I'm guessing most of the people who were sooutraged by this event, which she said was an accident, also missedthe nipple.
The children everyone is so worried about probably didn't evennotice. The young ones are too young to know -- or care about --what they saw, and the older ones have seen it before. Anyone naiveenough to believe that a child even as young as 10 hasn't eversneaked a look at a friend's older brother's Playboy or peaked atthe soft porn on Cinemax after the parents are in bed should wakeup.
With Stern, the issue is even more ridiculous. The program isbroadcast in the early morning. If children are listening, they'reprobably in their parents' car on the way to school.
Stern always says, and I think it's true, that he has two kindsof listeners. Those who love him and those who hate him. And thosewho hate him are probably going to get their way, at last. He sayshe knows he'll most likely be taken off the air soon. But why?
Why can't people change the channel if they don't like what theyhear? Why can't people have enough trust in their parenting skillsto know that even if their children do listen to Stern or seeJackson's breast, it won't have lasting, scarring, perverseeffects? Why can't these people respect the First Amendment?
I understand that there are moralists out there and that theyfeel the need to preach on Beale Street about going to hell. I knowit makes them happy to protest outside movie theatres.
But I'd like these "moralists" to understand me. I don't careabout nudity. I don't care if people talk about sex. I don't careif I hear every curse word known to mankind before 7 a.m. Why?Because I'm comfortable enough with myself, my intelligence and mysurroundings to know that these things don't truly affect me.
So I'm asking these moralists to give it a rest. If they're soconcerned about their children, they should get involved. Get these"impressionable" kids away from the television and radio, and theywon't have a problem. And neither will I.
