An Open (and Still Unanswered) Letter to the FCC

This correspondence is in regards to the level of scrutiny placed on the performances of those who participated in the Super Bowl Half Time Show on Sunday Feb 1, 2004.
I was one of the millions who watched the Half Time Show and I was utterly disgusted with the amount of negative publicity surrounding the performances, namely the performance by entertainer Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake. The investigation by the FCC in regards to their performance is a complete misuse of tax payer's money. I took the time to review the FCC's website for information regarding the regulations and mandates for material displayed on broadcast television and found the information to be misleading.

The prohibition, Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. § 1464) states: "To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value".
(1) As an average person of which this prohibition is to be based, I did not find any of the performances from the Half Time Show to contain material which would be considered prurient or of an unwholesome sexual interest.
(2) The performances by all of the scheduled participants, namely Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake, can not possibly be considered obscene under this mandate because the performances were of an artistic nature in which it was to coincide with the songs created and/or performed by the featured artists. Therefore, none of the performances lacked artistic value.

The indecency policy of Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. § 1464) states: "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." "Indecent programming contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity." "The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."
(1) Am I to understand as an average broadcast viewer of which this is based that anything synonymous with sexual or excretory references is considered indecent but my own sensible judgments on if I am or am not offended or even choose to be exposed to any broadcasted material, does not hold any weight in the eyes of the FCC? As an adult over the age of 21, I find myself perfectly capable of choosing what I want to watch or expose myself to.
(2) If this policy is to be strictly enforced with fines and license revocation to be allocated, then any broadcasted talk show, local and international news program, commercial, made-for-television movie, sitcom, soap opera and documentary which makes references to, features information on or depicts sexual health, birth control, consensual intercourse, sexual assaults, molestation, breast feeding and child birth should be considered indecent programming as well. This includes breaking news stories of an escaped serial rapist, commercials for birth control pills and impotency, talk shows with guest panelist who speak of their child birth experiences, sitcoms which make references to sexual situations, etc. Exactly how many television programs and commercials will be left if this was to come to fruition?

(3) Basic anatomy and physiology states excretory organs are organs which remove bodily produced waste. Based on what was broadcasted, no excretory organs were displayed with the exception of any and every person who was in attendance of and/or participated in the Super Bowl who were not completely covered from head to toe in fabric (and of course, the world renowned streaker, Mark Roberts).

A breast was exposed on national television, the nation is in an uproar and now an investigation to determine if this exposure is considered indecent, offensive or obscene is in full swing. The badly bloated dead bodies of Uday and Qusay Hussein were paraded across television screens and the front pages of almost every newspaper throughout the United States yet this glorification of death is not considered obscene, offensive or indecent?! Where was the FCC then? Was there an investigation as to the integrity of the television stations which displayed this grotesque picture? The entertainer, Kid Rock, wore a parka with the print of the American flag during his performance (it was obvious to see that it was not an actual flag) and people complained. Yet they failed to see the actual American flag being waved behind him and they failed to listen to his words during the performance which stated his pride for the United States. How many athletes proudly wrap the American flag around their shoulders as they run their victory lap or wave to their fans? Should this be investigated when it's displayed on television? Is this also considered obscene or indecent? Was there an indecent or obscene investigation by the FCC into the infamous kiss between Madonna, Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera during the MTV Video Music Awards?

With the immense scrutiny of Janet Jackson and Justin Timberlake's performance, the most important messages were ignored. During her performance of Rhythm Nation, Janet Jackson incorporated a drum line which added to the intensity of the lyrics which were shouted loud and clear:
"Ignorance-No!"

"Prejudice-No!"

"Bigotry-No!"

"Illiteracy-No!"

But I suppose I am only 1 person out of a few others who actually saw that part of the show and understood it's context.

If the nation and the FCC can be offended by a breast, a part the female anatomy which is natural and is also used to nurture and feed a child yet find nothing wrong with 2 groups of over paid men pummeling each other to get a ball from 1 side of the field to the next, then we all need to re-evaluate our morals and our mindset. How is it possible that we are in 2004 and yet we still find the human body controversial, threatening and so intimidating that we think our kids will go blind if they actually see a breast? And our government wants to dictate to other countries how to create "democracy" and "equality for women"?! With everything children are exposed to via the internet, video games, music videos, television news and yes, sports, would it be too much to ask if parents actually took the time to communicate with their children about the things they may one day see or have already been exposed to so they may actually have a HEALTHY understanding of what's out there? That would mean the parents would have to do their job instead of blaming celebrities, video games and even the peers of their child for the exposure and reactions of their child. Maybe then the kids can keep the parents calm if someone else displays another breast on national television.

Due to this "Weapon of Mass Distraction", the wrong people are under a federal investigation. Something is seriously wrong with this picture.

I hope to receive a response from you in regards to this matter as it certainly concerns me, an average broadcast viewer.