Debate between Bryan Reece and Dennis Falcon about Congressional Partisanship

FALCON: Hello. My name is Professor Dennis Falcon. I am joined by Professor Bryan Reece. And today we're going to talk about censorship and the FCC. Bryan, do you think the FCC is doing too much to clean up the air waves?  REECE: No. I don't think they're doing enough. I mean, we have filth going on in a lot of our media. And I know we'll get into this. But this idea of censorship -- whenever we cover this idea of censorship and the FCC, everyone gets all crazy about it. But there are good reasons to censor, because it's affecting children in society.  FALCON: Now, don't you think that any censorship has a chilling effect on free speech in the United States?  REECE: Yeah, sometimes. But we have different types of competing needs in society that we've got to weigh, here. I mean, for example, the Internet. FALCON: But before we go into this competing-needs thing -- because I want to establish this first -- would you agree that the First Amendment and free speech is probably the most important freedom that we have as Americans?  REECE: I think all the freedoms that we have are important. That's one of the important freedoms. I don't know if I would say it's the most. But it can cause some problems. I mean, look at how wide open the Internet is. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about, where I think the FCC should step in. If I was -- let's say one of your kids -- let's say you and I were relatives. I am your brother, and you send one of your kids over to my house to babysit, all right? Let's say you have an 8-year-old son, and your 8-year-old son says to me, "Hey, Uncle Bryan, can I watch some ***?" or something. And I say "sure." And I'm off in the other room. Your 8-year-old is watching ***. When we get together -- when you come to pick your kid up, you're going to be pissed at me, aren't you?  FALCON: Actually, I should have known that about you before I took my kid over there for you to babysit.  REECE: This does not happen at my house, by the way. But this is the kind of thing that can irreparably damage our relationship, right? Your kid gets on the Internet and starts typing, and it's one click, and they're into a *** site. Why aren't you pissed at that person?  FALCON: My argument is that there is too much censorship. The FCC -- the government in general --  REECE: There's not enough censorship on the Internet.  FALCON: There are less intrusive -- there are other ways to solve those problems besides limiting the free speech and the exposure of other Americans, all Americans --  REECE: Why doesn't it make you angry?  FALCON: That's a parenting issue. That's a social issue.  REECE: That's one of the base issues here. Why doesn't it make you angry that your kids can get to *** and massive violence and wrong things on the Internet so easily?  FALCON: But rather than have the government try to solve that problem for me, why don't I just do a better job of communicating with my kids so that they won't do stuff like that? They won't be interested in looking up stuff like that.  REECE: Because some parents don't do a good job there, but you and I, collectively, as society want --  FALCON: Because some people don't do a good job, you're going to infringe on what I get exposed to, what I have access to, which to me is what violates the spirit of the First Amendment.  REECE: No. We do it all the time. We got movies: G, PG, PG-13, R, X. We’ve got all these ratings, and we enforce it because we don't want kids in there.  FALCON: And just to keep it clear between us, that's a voluntary step that the motion picture industry is taking. They chose to do that. It's not the government enforcing sanctions. It's not people being fined.  REECE: I never hear you complaining about the PG rating, the G rating, R rating and how it violates your civil liberties. But suddenly, when you get on the Internet -- "Oh, this is violating all our civil liberties. Why let the government get involved?" Why not?  FALCON: The FCC is thinking about expanding its regulations, not just from broadcast and not just from radio and television, but to cable as well. Eventually, they are going to start going again after the Internet, after cable, after satellite -- after all the other technologies that we now have to be exposed to more ideas. Democracy is all about the marketplace of ideas -- pluralism, diversity. Everything that the FCC does to chill that, to slow that, violates my rights as an American citizen.  REECE: Well, I'm going to be right behind the FCC as they're moving down that road. I want to see them go down that road, because of this idea that we have children in this marketplace. I'm not saying we have to eliminate this speech. What I'm saying is we have to make it more difficult for children to get access to this type of content like we do in the motion picture industry.  FALCON: What about the fact that the FCC is too open to political manipulation? That depending on whoever's placed as chairperson at the FCC, depending on the president or whoever appoints them, these people can have agendas that don't truly represent the interests of the American people.  REECE: Well, if you think democracy is too manipulative, I don't know what to tell you. It is a commission established in the 1930's. It is controlled by the government, which is controlled by the voters. If we don't like the FCC, we can change up the government, just like the democratic process works in other commissions and in other agencies throughout the United States.  FALCON: My fear is that with the power of censorship that they now exercise, their ability to regulate what we hear, what we see, they could get to a point, eventually, where we won't be able to question what they're doing. We won't even know what our rights are, because they've done a good enough job to throw the blanket over our eyes.  REECE: This is a tired argument. It basically goes back to this argument: "If we start censoring, where will we stop?" Like we are some kind of out-of-control animal –  FALCON: It’s a good argument.  REECE: No, it’s not a good argument. We'll stop when we decide to stop.  FALCON: If there's something on TV you don't want to see, turn it off, change the station, and avert your eyes. That doesn't damage the Constitution, but it protects your sensibilities.  REECE: Why can't we have something that's more accurate and more assertive with respect to that? When I go to a movie, I know ahead of time -- it is loud and clear -- what that rating is on that movie. It's not real clear on TV. It's not clear on radio.  FALCON: It's probably worth exploring. But I would bet you if we looked at movies over the last 20 years and how these ratings have been applied, I bet you what passes as PG or PG-13 today -- I bet you that there would be a blurred line, and it is not a clear as you making sound.  REECE: It's pretty clear between G and R.  FALCON: Well, there's a big difference there.  REECE: That's the point. There is a big difference.  FALCON: There are still other ways for parents to manage to control the information, the images that children have access to. Same thing with libraries, schools, universities, adults in general. We should give people the benefit of the doubt, the ability to choose for themselves. And if that means that sometimes they'll be exposed to something that they don't want to see or hear, the damage will be less than the damage we suffer because of censorship.  REECE: Look. We've got two competing interests here. Now, one, we have adults who want to consume this crap in our pop culture. I'm one of them. I'm not trying to say adults should not be there. I like some mindless entertainment on a regular basis. I'll admit that, all right? But some of it is overly *** in content. Some of it is too violent. Some of it just tries to bring about values that only an adult can understand and distinguish between. On the other side, we have children who do not need to be exposed to that.  FALCON: But the irony is that your solution is to make the government and the FCC the adult in this case. And what I'm saying is that there is too much.  REECE: Do you how many times I have been in the car -- I'm listening to talk radio, I'm laughing, and, suddenly, it goes too far, and my kids are in the back seat, and I got to turn it off. Too late. They heard it. And I didn't know that was coming.  FALCON: I'm saying that might happen on occasion. But like I said earlier, to throw a blanket over our eyes is not the solution. I'm saying that the censorship, the FCC, that the chilling effect that is created in our society when Americans don't know for themselves anymore what's acceptable and what's not. We are taking that away from us, and we're giving it to government officials.  REECE: We’re restricting it to adults.  FALCON: Parents need to hold on to that responsibility. Being a citizen is a responsibility, and sometimes that responsibility comes with a price.  REECE: Look, if this whole country was just 18 years and older -- if every single person in this country was adult, then we could have the air waves be wide open. We could have television be wide open. We could get rid of all censorship on film. We could have the Internet stay like it is. But it's not. It is not that simple. And it's only adults that have a voice. Children don't get to go there. Somebody's got to stand up and fight for them, for their right to innocence.  FALCON: It’ll never get to that point if we try to spoon-feed our society. The way to make our society more --  REECE: What do you mean by spoon-feed? I'm not following.  FALCON: The way to make our society more responsible -- better prepared to deal with whatever dangers you're afraid of -- is to give them more information, more exposure and not less. And I'm going to have to take the last word on that one. So it's a good debate. We'll probably continue it in the future.  So, does the FCC exercise too much power? Are we losing our right to free speech in the United States? We'll let you make up your mind.