Thank you so much for that introduction, Senator Leahy. Your strong and
unambiguous support for the First Amendment is legendary on Capitol Hill,
and I could not be more pleased to have you, a former recipient of this
award, as my presenter tonight. And thank you to the Media Institute for
bestowing this honor on me. As the head of a media company, I am at times
painfully aware of how important the First Amendment is to our ability to
create thought-provoking and controversial content. And as a citizen of this
country, I am thankful every day for the freedoms that we too often take for
granted: the freedom to speak freely, the freedom to pursue our religious
beliefs without persecution, and the freedom of the press to criticize our
government.
We live in a pluralistic society. One where diversity rules, where
disagreement is a constant, and where there is more than one right answer
for every question. It’s messy. And for creators of content, if we’re doing
our jobs right, we sometimes offend people. It’s that simple. And, believe
me, we wrestle with that fact. We struggle with complex issues every day.
Are we guilty of contributing to the vulgarization of our society or simply
of mirroring it? Is it our responsibility to be the arbiters of good taste,
or is it our duty to push boundaries? Is it even possible to create
innovative programming for a mass audience that is diverse on every level –
from age, to religious affiliation, to ethnicity?
We don’t take these issues lightly. We are constantly thinking about the
important role we play in shaping our culture. Whether we’re creating
television shows, making films, or working at a newspaper or publishing
house. Certainly, we must entertain, we must inform and we must provoke.
But, at the same time, we must take very seriously the power we have to
affect millions through our work. That’s why we stress the importance of
individual editorial responsibility across all of our businesses. But, yes,
sometimes we do make mistakes. Everyone does. The alternative? Well, it’s
chilling. If the media is ruled by fear of crossing an ambiguous line, our
product will be less vital and more homogenous. Our ability to create news
and entertainment that is thoughtful, provocative and accurately reflects
our society will be compromised. And Americans will have far fewer choices.
That’s why it’s so critical that we don’t chip away at the First Amendment
until it becomes toothless. It must remain absolute in its protections.
Two weeks from today the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments in FCC v.
Fox Television Stations, the first indecency case it has heard since the “7
Dirty Words” case was decided in 1978. At issue is whether Fox violated the
indecency law when it aired two live award programs in which actresses
blurted out one or two so-called “fleeting expletives.” While a case with
Cher and Nicole Richie at its center is probably not one we would have
chosen to argue before the Supreme Court, the truth is, we don’t get to pick
our cases. In fact, if anyone had told me that my company would be before
the U.S. Supreme Court defending inane comments by Cher and Nicole Richie, I
would have said you’re crazy. But I would contend that the nature of this
speech, and who said it, makes absolutely no difference. Because at the core
of this case is an absolute threat to the First Amendment. It hinges on
utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we are found in
violation, just think about the radical ramifications for live programming –
from news, to politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast
television event. The effect would be appalling.
There is a certain symmetry to the fact that the oral argument in this case
and the election of the 44th President of the United States are taking place
on the same day: The Fox case, if successful, is an affirmation of the First
Amendment. The election is an affirmation of our democratic process. And the
two are inextricably intertwined. The First Amendment is central to our
democratic process because it ensures a full and open dialogue about the
candidates for office. Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not
be sustained.
But the truth is, people don’t think about defending broadcasters’ right to
utter expletives in the same way they think about defending one’s right to
speak critically of our government. But they should. The First Amendment is
at stake in both cases. As a media company, we have not just a right but a
responsibility to stand up to the government when it crosses that First
Amendment line in the sand – even if the content we are defending is in bad
taste. And in the indecency context, that line has not only been crossed, it
has been obliterated. That is why Fox is fighting the FCC in this and
several other indecency cases.
I’ll admit: some of the content we are defending is not particularly
tasteful: the expletives, the brief nudity, the carefully placed whipped
cream and, of course, the pixels. I would not have allowed my own children,
when they were younger, to watch some of these shows. But, I vow to fight to
the end for our ability to put occasionally controversial, offensive, and
even tasteless content on the air.
Why? Because, if the government gets its foot in the censorship door with
respect to unpopular entertainment content, it is the beginning of the steep
slide toward censoring unpopular political content. And we have seen the
beginnings of this downward slide in a recent case where the FCC initially
found indecent content in a news program. If we allow our government to
intrude into the creative process to censor the “bad words” at issue in the
Fox case, I am afraid we will soon reach the bottom of the slide -- to
America’s detriment.
Groups that claim to be interested in “protecting children” are helping the
government along in its attempts to censor television. While I don’t agree
with these groups, I do fully support their right to criticize what’s on
television. But the job of protecting children is far too important to leave
to government bureaucrats or so-called public interest groups. The job of
protecting children lies with PARENTS. The job of the GOVERNMENT is to
resist the views of interest groups with particular agendas and instead to
enforce the law in a way that is consistent, fair and constitutional. So I
don’t blame these groups for the degradation of the First Amendment. I blame
our government, which has succumbed to the views of a particularly vocal
minority.
Look, I am not insensitive to the fact that young children need to be
protected. And that’s difficult in an era of single parent, or two working
parent households. But the protection of children must be considered in a
Twenty-First Century light. Nearly every TV set sold today includes a
V-Chip, which allows parents to block content they think may be
inappropriate for their children. Cable, satellite and telco video providers
have finely-tuned, comprehensive parental controls. And let’s not forget the
most powerful technology available to parents: the on-off switch. These
tools allow adults to protect their kids while still being able to access
shows they love.
We as media companies also have a responsibility: to rate shows accurately
and consistently so the V-Chip works as it should. And, as I said earlier,
we need to be responsible with our creative output. This is something we do
on a daily basis through our Standards and Practices departments, not only
by exercising editorial judgment but by constantly fine-tuning and improving
our internal controls.
Let’s step back for a minute and get some perspective on this issue. The
indecency law applies only to broadcast TV: that’s a handful of channels.
Over 85% of the country receives their broadcast channels through a cable,
telco line or satellite signal. Sitting right next to the broadcast channels
on these multichannel systems are hundreds of other channels that are not
subject to the indecency law.
And those other channels are just a click away on the remote control. Nor
does the indecency law apply to video-on-demand, pay per view, DVDs, or the
mother of all content providers: the Internet. Does it really make sense to
continue government censorship of the occasional bad word, brief nudity, or
sexual innuendo on a handful of broadcast channels when we live in an
environment of infinitely unregulated choices? In the media-rich world we
live in, singling out a few channels for indecency enforcement is not
legally sustainable.
Quite simply, it is time for the government to get out of the business of
regulating ‘indecent” speech on broadcast TV. The threat it poses to core
First Amendment values cannot be justified in our technologically diverse
world. Parents have the tools to decide what is appropriate for their
children. Let’s let parents do their job and fire the government from the
job of censoring speech. The First Amendment is too important to our
democratic society – in this and future elections – to allow any
encroachments to threaten our country’s critical freedoms.
Thank you.