Author: Kastil

Pam is a slave to the corporate engine, toiling away in the labors of retail sales for the military. In her spare time, and away from the constraints of her master’s whip, she finds pleasure in writing anything from fantasy to romance; which sometimes parallels each other. When the writing bug isn't firmly gnawing on her hide, she takes the time to let her artistic side come out. Her work can be found on J.A. Belfield's debut novel Darkness & Light.
Random Musings

Verum Esse Subiectivum

Kastil

Over the course of American history, what has been allowed to be broadcasted by media outlets have constantly evolved. Obscenity, for the most part, is a subjective matter. What one opines as illicit behavior is another person’s casual shrug of indifference. Contemporary community standards, after all, vary depending on the person polled as to what they might find objectionable. Pornographic material is certainly is part of that disagreeable argument along with the language and increasing nudity on television programs. These points will be a point of contention for generations to come. Where does the line exactly fall?

Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497 (1987) provides an unusual picture into this determination of what is or is not obscene. The three-pronged Miller test was not followed in this case to the letter in that the third part of the test—whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value—was ignored in favor of the two parts that uphold contemporary community standards as the rules to follow. With Pope v. Illinois, the argument that the Illinois statute that held the two men accountable was unconstitutional has some merit by that standard of the Miller test. However, that wasn’t the case.

The Illinois obscenity statute used to convict Richard Pope and Charles Morrison, Ill.Rev.Stat., ch. 38, section 11-20 (1983), states as the elements of the offense are a person commits obscenity when, with knowledge of the nature or content thereof, or recklessly failing to exercise reasonable inspection which would have disclosed the nature or content thereof when he or she, among other reasons, Sells, delivers or provides, or offers or agrees to sell, deliver or provide any obscene writing, picture, record or other representation of embodiment of the obscene. What I find questionable about the outcome of this case is the fact that no one forced the police detectives to buy the materials in the duly named adult bookshop. One would think the connotation of the shop alone would entail what lay within. The fact that erotic romance novels with explicit content can be found in a regular bookstore or readily available on Amazon with no apparent age restrictions and nothing regulates their sale. Nudity in art was a mainstay in Renaissance period in history at as well. Could the very fact that the increasing nudity and vulgar language employed on television and publications can be held up as a citation to new contemporary community standards? Do government entities have the right to limit an adult to consensual purchasing of legitimate explicit materials?

The Seal of Good Practice, created in 1952, symbolized the Code of Practices for Television Broadcasters and it restricted every show in TV (Edwards, 2018). This emblem emblazoned before and after television shows marked that the content restricted subjects such as swearing, sexual tension, and dysfunctional families to name a few. It took until 1983 to tear this code down. More risqué content blossomed in the period following this decision. On June 20, 2001 South Park aired an episode titled “It Hits the Fan” where a particular swear word was repeated a total of 162 times with a counter displayed prominently on the television screen. In fact South Park as an animated show has been known to use pictorial or verbal profanity, show dysfunctional families as a normative state in the community, and portrays several religions on every spectrum between good and bad. This pushes the boundaries further, especially when cartoons where an exclusive genre for children. Saturday morning cartoons are a thing of the past now.

The truth is subjective. Even the Miller Test could be challenged as its processor the Roth test had been changed. As the blurred lines of what one person deems unsuitable wars with those who believe the content should be protected as free speech under the First Amendment, we must consider where the limits should be. Even the language of our leaders leans toward offensive further defining what is permissible. Accountability seems to be teetering into obscurity and there seems to be no solid line to hold everyone to the same standards.

References:

  1. Citizen’s Guide To U.S. Federal Law On Obscenity. (2020a, May 28). Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ceos/citizens-guide-us-federal-law-obscenity
Random Musings

The Delicate Balance of the Fairness Doctrine

Kastil

Another Communications Law paper.

____________________

The Radio Act of 1912 managed by the Department of Commerce helped determine what was for public use and what was for commercial use. However, the country’s growth in radio needs demanded a more complex system and with that, more regulation to make sure there was equal representation on the airwave platform. Its replacement—the Radio Act of 1927—further regulated radio transmissions within the United States and adopted the standard that radio stations must be in the public interest in their broadcasting content. In this period of United States history, the radio was the main source of entertainment and information beyond newspapers. Since the first electric television wasn’t invented until 1927 and a majority of households did not own one, the radio was an important part of everyday life. The ever-expanding platform needed more direction. Therefore the Communications Act of 1934 established the Federal Communications Commission. This agency has attempted to keep up with the technology since its inception to keep opportunities for all. In 1949, the controversial Fairness Doctrine was born.

The Fairness Doctrine’s purpose was to ensure both points of view were heard on any issue. This meant that a subject of an editorial piece would have the opportunity to issue a rebuttal. To do otherwise was nonnegotiable. Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) involves this exact subject matter. A local radio station in Pennsylvania allowed Reverend Billy James Hargis to discuss a book authored by Fred J. Cook. In the 15-minute piece, Hargis claimed several alleged untruths about Cook including the he supported the Communist sympathizer Alger Hiss. When Cook demanded equal time to refute these claims, the radio station refused. This prompted the aforementioned lawsuit in which Cook won unanimously.

Photo by Eric Smart on Pexels.com

However In 1987, the Fairness Doctrine was formerly appealed by the FCC citing that it interfered with free speech and in 2011, it was nonexistent. Considering the case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, where does the line between free speech infringement and slander begin? The Fairness Doctrine certainly aided in preventing misrepresentation by one side by allowing a rebuttal from the accused. In the political arena, it allowed candidates equal airtime. Considering the current landscape, should the FCC revive the Fairness Doctrine?

In Sasso’s (2014) article for the Atlantic titled Is the FCC Trying to Revive the ‘Fairness Doctrine’. He writes:

Pai expressed alarm that the FCC could soon start questioning why Fox spends so much time covering the attacks in Benghazi, or why NBC has focused on the controversy over lane closures in New Jersey. (p. 3)

The Fairness Doctrine as it was used when in effect regulated that equal time for both sides to be heard. The importance of this fact is that both sides have a voice and one side cannot get sensationalized over the other. What the Fairness Doctrine aided in was a counterargument for the spread of false or slanderous information on television. Of course this doesn’t mean that the reverse couldn’t be true as well. Pai’s example from the article is a misrepresentation of what the doctrine attempted to do. Regulation should be about an equal playing field for all. In a way Sasso’s (2014) article is using the spirit of the doctrine without needed its presence to do so by counterpointing Pai’s remarks. However, the comparative nature is only in the article because Sasso (2014) provided the basis for his counterpoint within his article. Again, it’s the spirit of the doctrine but not the purpose which would have had both sides debating on an equal stage instead their own platforms.

We are a society that needs both positions to be on display with the bias of the media outlet promoting agenda that are often self-serving or no more than an attention grabbing technique. What the Fairness Doctrine did was enhance free speech by affording opposing views to have a shared platform. How can we have critical thinking if we continue to have bias in the media? The mere fact that the argument would be made that it infringes on free speech is weak with no substance and court cases like Red Lion Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) show precedence of the opposite. Without the Fairness Doctrine being reborn, we will continue to see journalist integrity erode and our information sources representing skewed views. We need to have balance in reporting no matter what side the view is presenting.

References:

  1. Fairness Doctrine. (n.d.). Retrieved May 3, 2020, from https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/955/fairness-doctrine
Random Musings

Writer’s Block and the Binge Game

Kastil

Oops.

In my procrastination and just plain writer’s block, I forgot to throw up a college paper blog post. Good grief. In the course of a couple of months I’ve gone from a successful book release to imposter syndrome. I had my chalkboard loaded with the next book to write and set off on the writer’s journey. I even took the time to make a playlist. Having the right music help the flow usually.

Photo by Todoran Bogdan on Pexels.com

It started out well and fizzled quick. I’ve always been a pantster but I tried doing micro outlines to help but I ended up staring at the garbled words on the screen. I believe my greatest flaw in technique is that I don’t make a true rough draft anymore. The arch of the story and dialogue has always been the way I wrote. Filling in the details like action was completed in the first draft. How did I turn away from this?

My first instinct was that the writer’s retreat in July would turn things around. Instead of working on my brain-blocked manuscript, I would pick five uncompleted drafts and pick one to go with. For the most part it worked. I got some of one polished and got some great information for my gritty young adult novel from a fellow writer. Was the spark back? Not really. While I’ve written some words, it’s not nearly enough to count as true progress in my book. Couple that with the fact I’ve been binging a lot of shows lately.

I have to really evaluated my time spent. A schedule isn’t going to work because my ADHD neurodivergent grey matter will revolt. I have to constantly come up with new techniques to get anything accomplished. I will say my house is finally coming in order and isn’t as cluttered. I always take the small victories because some days taking a whole day to do nothing isn’t a time sink—it’s a recharge.

Will I get these manuscripts completed? Sure. I just have to remember that sometimes an hour is good enough and if only a paragraph get completed, it’s okay. Writing should be a marathon, not a sprint. My readers, thankfully, seem to be patient. They waited over three years for a book thanks to college. I’ll get there.

On a good note, I have planned to start the next two Beowulf Hollow books for NaNo this year. Crotchy Janis will return. Her daughter comes home from college and trouble follows. The Lycans, of course, have not disappeared. It should be wild and I’ll be mixing a bit of horror in again. Until next time.