"All books can be indecent books, though recent books are bolder.
For filth, I'm glad to say, is in the mind of the beholder.
When correctly viewed, everything is lewd.
I could tell you things about Peter Pan,
And the Wizard of OZ, there's a dirty old man!"
- Tom Lehrer

FCC Chairman Kevin J. Martin is on a mission to, according to a recent Salon article (via Donkelphant), change the television landscape by extending the FCC's reach to include cable and satellite services.

Martin told activists that he is privately reaching out to industry leaders to address racy content on basic cable and satellite television, says Rick Schatz, the president of the National Coalition for the Protection of Children and Families, a Christian ministry. “He said the free rein of cable and satellite and satellite radio is not acceptable,” says Schatz, who sat in on the meeting. “He’s committed to seeing something is done during his tenure.”

Martin has asked media companies to offer a new “family-friendly” tier of cable programming, a package that would likely exclude channels like MTV and Spike TV. “If cable and satellite operators continue to refuse to offer parents more tools, basic indecency and profanity restrictions may be a viable alternative[.]”

This is irritating on so many levels. Forget the fact that the FCC chairman and right-wing religious activists are trying to impose on the rest of us their particular version of what is decent. If you look at this just from a consumer's standpoint it represents a misuse of government power that should outrage liberals and conservatives alike.

Television and radio broadcasts are regulated because they are transmitted freely through the air. Anyone with basic equipment (a television or radio) can pick them up and view their contents. So if the government wants to regulate a product that is being freely distributed, they have that right. But satellite and cable broadcasts are viewed on a subscription basis. They are paid for directly by the consumer, and that consumer has the right to cancel the service at any time. If that consumer decides to purchase material that may be offensive to some sectors of society, it is quite frankly none of the government's business.

Two things about this article caught my attention. The first was the mention that Martin would like to "give the FCC the power to fine basic cable programs, like MTV's "Real World" and Comedy Central's "Daily Show," for crude and lewd content." I'm usually reluctant to take a hardline stance on ambiguous political issues, but if you start messing with the Daily Show, one of the only reasons I pay for cable service, then you've gone too far.

The second attention-grabbing quote in the article came from Patrick Trueman, legal director of the Family Research Council. Speaking about what he called hardcore pornography shown late at night on cable channels like Showtime, Trueman said: "I don't have cable just for this reason. If I had cable, I would not want my children viewing that."

Trueman should stop his activism and lobbying because he has already found the solution to his problem. If you don't like what is being shown on cable television, then simply don't buy it. There's no need to bring the government into the situation and trample on the first amendment.

Some may argue that this isn't a first amendment issue. But it is not just pornography that Martin is targeting, it is anything he finds offensive, including speech. "Certainly broadcasters and cable operators have significant First Amendment rights, but these rights are not without boundaries," Martin has said. "They are limited by law. They also should be limited by good taste." And if he is willing to censor material on subscriber services like cable and satellite that don't agree with his good tastes, one has to wonder how long it will be until he sets his sights on the Internet.