Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Censorship

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7047694/fcc_censorship

The article starts with describing an incident in which Howard Stern was fined $27,500 for 18 incidences of "indecent material" through his radio show in 2004. In comparison to the bill that Bush was trying to get passed, this amount seems like "chump change." The bill that Bush was trying to push through increased the maximum fine to $500,000 PER violation. As the article goes on, it describes the cost of other various "indecent" incidences by other artists as equal to the cost of completely inhumane and ridiculous actions such as "illegally testing pesticides on human subjects." Others of these comparisons include "wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home," "nuke malfunctions," dumping toxic waste in New York's drinking water," and "willfully placing an employee at risk of injury or death." The point of contention that the author is making is that he believes the government is making way to big of a deal about censorship. The author is expressing that it is completely unreasonable for Bono from U2 to be fined up to $500,000 for saying "f***ing brilliant" on the radio, while the biggest fine paid for by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year for a "nuke malfunction" was $60,000. I think this author was highly effective in his argument against the proposed plans of censorship. He uses hard evidence (ethos) and uses powerful comparisons (pathos). Personally, I'm in favor of censorship, but in moderation. There are some things that I know I won't want my future children to hear, but at the same time this bill places absolutely horrendous fines on simple swear words that are more expensive than the fines for testing poisons on human subjects. It just doesn't make sense.

2 comments:

  1. hey guys sorry this is so late! my internet at my apartment is terrible and I guess it shut down as I was trying to post this the first time, and I just noticed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I absolutely agree with the author of this article. Although media should be held to a certain standard, it seems ridiculous to compare profanity or crass language with some of the large-scale criminal activity mentioned in the post. I think the government needs to find a happy medium between not regulating offensive material and slapping artists with a $500,000 fine for using a swear word.

    ReplyDelete