Will the FCC let them be?

Warning: The FCC has no jurisdiction over what you are about to read.\nI never thought I'd find myself siding with Rush Limbaugh and President Bush against an alliance consisting of Hillary Clinton and Rick Santorum, but alas, I suppose hell has frozen over.\nThe Parents Television Council is waging a war that has even C-SPAN considering taped delay. They feel cable programming should be subject to the same decency standards as networks on public airwaves. And, wanting to compete with cable programming, the powerful network owners agree, because, as Time magazine said in the Mar. 28 issue, "most executives would rather lose freedom than money." But the worst part is the government is listening and introducing new bills by the truckload. \nThe PTC points out that 85 percent of people have cable programming, hardly anyone uses the V-chip, and the "offensive" show "CSI" is the highest rated program on the air, sometimes getting over 30 million viewers for a single episode. To these advocates of "the nanny state to the extreme," that means that we need more governmentally legislated censorship, not parent-child talks about TV versus reality. \nIronically, in May 2004, the PTC wrote a press release condemning Target for "censoring" its opinions. You'd think they'd see the irony themselves, but apparently, censorship is good when they're the censors and bad when they're the censored.\nBut above all things, they don't advocate boycotts. With supposedly more than a million members, one would think they'd be able to make a difference by canceling their cable subscriptions and boycotting products advertised on so-called "offensive" programs. But obviously, that would be too difficult for a group of people who'd rather abdicate basic parental responsibility to the government. Instead, they want to give more money and power to the FCC, and that's dangerous.\nDon't get me wrong; I love the way the FCC ensures that some nut job is not interfering with the frequencies used by air traffic controllers. It's comforting to know that my pilot will not fly us directly into a dangerous situation because he or she is listening to a broadcast about how peanuts are part of a vast government conspiracy. \nI also like that they are supposed to protect the public interest in matters of publicly-owned resources, such as airwaves. But I don't like the idea of a straight, rich white male deciding what is appropriate for me to watch on the cable I choose to pay for any more than I would have a government official telling me how many calories I am allowed to eat on a given day.\nAs Rush Limbaugh (I wonder if Hitler brought his snowsuit) told Time Magazine in 2004, "indecency could be defined any number of ways, depending on who's in power. So it's a red flag to me." \nIn a country as big and diverse as the United States, we will never reach a consensus on what is indecent. Certainly, on local programming, we must make some compromise, since airwaves are mutually owned by every taxpayer. The public speaks volumes about what we consider appropriate via what we watch and the products we buy, so if you think "CSI" is inappropriate, don't watch it. It's a lot easier to "vote" for television shows than to go to the polls and vote for your elected officials. \nStill, it's sad when C-SPAN is concerned about indecent programming. Bring me a C-SPAN-watching 10-year-old, and I will give him/her an honorary citizenship award. \nThe Supreme Court defines indecency as I-know-it-when-I-see-it. Well, so do I, and I know it's indecent that irresponsible parents want to choose what I can watch on TV.