FCC Censorship Haunts Freedom of Speech

Re “Beyond Foul Words,” editorial, April 28: The Times believes that Federal Communications Commission Chairman Michael Powell deserves credit for advising the National Assn. of Broadcasters to develop a voluntary code of conduct. First, it is not a code of conduct. It is a code of speech, which, unlike conduct, is protected. Second, every dictatorship has been accompanied by a voluntary code of conduct: It is called self-censorship, due to fear. So, please explain to those of us who are too slow in giving up our freedom of speech: Why does he deserve credit?

The government and Powell should be forced to write down the code of speech so that we can all feel silly about the need to protect ourselves from speech. Pretty soon, if we say the F-word, we will be at a loss to decide whether we mean “free” or something worse. And, before too long, that K-word (“know”) will be banned, because of how it is used in the Old Testament.

D.A. Papanastassiou

San Marino

*

Your editorial is profoundly shortsighted. While Powell espouses a voluntary code of ethics, he is practicing the very worst form of censorship: selective censorship. Recently the FCC was presented with two absolutely identical statements, one made on “The Oprah Winfrey Show” and one made on Howard Stern’s show. Though Powell acknowledged that the context and content were the same, he agreed with the commission that Oprah is a national treasure. They imposed fines for the Stern show and not the Oprah show.

This is where people get confused. You may hate Stern and love Oprah, and applaud the decision; however, that is incredibly naive. All despots known to man have risen to power by silencing their critics. Students of history know all too well how quickly something like freedom of speech can evaporate. Your argument for more-civil discourse is also late, as Congress has “hot-lined” through HR 3717, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, 391 to 22, with little debate.

Mark Kummrow

Santa Monica