Indecency and TV Programs

* In response to “A Cultural Task, Not a Court Duty,” editorial, Nov. 28:

Television and radio programming--that’s what’s wrong with our society? It isn’t drugs, or disease, or overpopulation, just Beavis and Butt-head? The editorial discussed forcing programming deemed “indecent” to the wee hours of the morning. I fail to see how this protects our young people and helps our ailing society back to the road of “decent “ behavior.

Who exactly would decide what is improper for my eyes? Some committee of three, or five or 10, forced to tear themselves away from “Masterpiece Theatre” and pass judgment on the creative endeavors of thousands of producers, writers, and actors? What if my view of “indecency” isn’t as narrow as theirs? What if it’s even more narrow? I have the ability to think for myself. I have a state-of-the-art remote control that allows me to move on if a program is becoming, dare I say it, vulgar.

Case in point: Two sports commentators were recently lamenting on how utterly unprofessional it was when two gladiatorial combat troops (football teams) broke out into a full-fledged brawl in the middle of a game. As if they’re covered head to toe in padding to go out there and play chess. To me, their distinction of having a proper time to pound one another to a pulp, was vulgar. Many millions of sports fans would disagree, which is their choice. I can only cherish the fact that the choice is there for all of us to make.

Television is a powerful, powerful thing. Not always a tool, not always a burden, it is something that has become integral to our society in the last half of the 20th Century. Families have the right to choose for themselves what is proper and improper. Having someone make choices for us all is the most improper and indecent act I have seen.

DEREK CHATWOOD

Lawndale

* Your editorial concludes with the admonition that “the government cannot protect American society from the nation’s own cultural decline. This is a job the citizens must do for themselves.”

Hopefully, this represents a watershed point in your editorial policy. I look forward to The Times’ espousal of this philosophy of individual responsibility with regard to many other of our society’s problems. This would constitute a giant step toward their solution.

JACK ISKEN

Encino

* It’s understandable that journalists could develop an idolatrous relationship with the First Amendment but the court did decide you can’t yell “fire” just any place you please.

The court has a place and a role to play in cultural questions because neither church, parents or education can defend the young mind against the naked onslaught of market pressures.

Profit-making is the function of markets--civilizing a human mind is not. The ability to discriminate is drawn from years of what we see, hear, experience and imagine. It’s not a “new wave of indecency”--it’s the chickens coming home to roost.

BARBARA BURBY

Garden Grove