Thank you for allowing me to testify before this august panel on the topic of broadcast indecency. I would like to start by posing a question to all of you:
Are you out of your goddamn minds?
I think it goes without saying that the Distinguished Lady from New Mexico is. She was weeping- almost blubbering- as she recounted how her 4th grade son saw Janet Jackson's breast. She was angry and accusatory as she told us how he and his little friends talked about it and agreed she'd get into trouble for it. Ma'am, excuse me, but what IS your problem? Your kid wasn't harmed. In fact, he and his friends seem to have a good handle on it. So what's the deal with the tears? I'm pretty sure impeachment proceedings ought to be instituted. I'm also pretty sure you shouldn't be allowed to operate a car.
And you, sir, in the back, yes, the one who tried to make Janet's nipple a racial issue by claiming Justin Timberlake is getting off too lightly for this. First, what the HELL does that have to do with broadcast indecency punishments? Janet and Justin are NOT licensees. And second, Janet admitted she engineered the whole thing, and it was her nipple, so of course she's going to take more of the blame, whatever her race. And third, shut up.
Listen, all of you, before you start to talk about lifting licenses and regulating even cable and everything else, you owe it to the constitution to tell us what harm will befall even a child when indecent shows are on. And while you're at it, since the fact that 200,000 people complained about Janet's Nipple is so important to you, how about telling me what percentage that is of the overall Super Bowl audience? Go ahead, I'll wait.
That's it?
And that's the percentage of your constituents to whom you're pandering. Feels good, huh? Of COURSE people who were NOT offended didn't write or call you. Why WOULD they? And since when is "I'm offended" enough to demand that the offender get fined or worse? You're offended by a nipple or a DJ's sex talk? Poor baby! Turn the channel, schmuck.
(Speaking of which, that's always the case, isn't it? The FCC is pushed to act by one loser who always says "I was driving in my car with my 15 year old son when I heard (Howard Stern, Bubba the Love Sponge, Paul Harvey) talk about (sex, sex, the history of lettuce) and I was just appalled so much that I had to listen to the whole show and tape it and take a detailed transcription just to make sure." Should policy be determined by some guy too prudish to stand sex talk who's also TOO STUPID TO TURN THE STATION EVEN THOUGH HIS PRECIOUS PROGENY IS SITTING NEXT TO HIM?)
Meanwhile, some of you geniuses are thinking of extending indecency regulations to cable. Let me help you out here- the only reason indecency regulation of radio and TV was held constitutional by the Supreme Court is that broadcasting is not only pervasive but scarce- there aren't enough outlets for anyone to gain access. Cable has way more channels and a federally mandated access requirement, so it might be tough- and unconstitutional- to try to regulate its content. Besides, who said people HAVE to take cable? You don't want your kids to watch USA or FX or HGTV? Block 'em out, or, better yet, stop subscribing. Isn't that supposed to be better for kids anyway, make 'em read?
So, that's where we are- simultaneous hearings in the Senate and Congress demanding action because some washed-up pop diva popped her throwing-star-adorned boobie out of her costume on TV. The First Amendment? What, you've never heard of it? You might want to check it out sometime.
And allow me to leave you with words I believe are ascribed to Socrates, or Plato, or some old Greek guy like that:
Go (slang term for sexual intercourse) yourselves.
Thank you.
I'll show myself out.
Share