OCR Text |
Show Friday, January lb, 2004 The Signpost Page 4 cut o rial H Phone: 626-7121 VIEWPOINT -V V v 1 r nusr -s xtS WB Congress oversteps bounds On Tuesday, Federal Communication Commission Chairman Michael K. Powell made an about-face on an October FCC decision that the 'T-word" was not in violation of regulations when used by U2's Bono during the Golden Globe Awards and aired by NBC, because it was used as a metaphorical adjective and not as a sexual or excretory reference. He recommended the four other comissioners overturn the interpretation, and called for substantial increases in the amount of the fines the FCC is allowed to issue - currently, $27,500 per infraction, which is, said Powell, "peanuts" to conglomerate television and radio networks. "They're just a cost of doing business," he added. "This has to change." . It appears that is exactly what will happen. Rep. Fred Upton. R-Mich., drafted a bill to increase the fines, which have not been adjusted in decades. A case micht be made for an increase in corporations' incentive to keep the airwaves decent between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. when children are likely to be watching or listening - even though, as Powell himself has expressed, the most effective censorship tool of individuals is the "off switch, and in a free-market system, that action is as good as a vote; and if the public does not object in this way, then the FCC would not be serving the public interest (its foremost obligation in regulating the airwaves) by objecting in their behalf. While there may be debate about how far a federally appointed commission should go in censoring broadcasts, there is no doubt that another move by the House, pushed by Reps. Doug Ose, R-Calif., and Lamar Smith, R-Texas - specifically, to override the FCC altogether and forbid the "seven dirty words" (think George Carlin) from being aired on television or radio for any reason whatsoever regardless of context is a bad idea. The FCC was created to provide for the maximum use of publicly owned airwaves; to serve the needs and interests of the public. The reason a simple, hard-and-fast set of rules wouldn't have done the job is because these standards, along with societal standards of decency and propriety, change over time. Thus, there needs to be a living body to take on the formidable task of deciding what conforms to these standards. The FCC speaks for the people at least in theory and thus has the right at least in theory to detail acceptable abridgements of speech. The government at large, and especially the legislature, has no such right, and is specifically held in check from doing so by the First Amendment. Seven words may not seem like a lot, but it is in fact a usurpation of jurisdiction from an agency which exists as an advocate for the people, to maximize the use of their property: the airwaves. The FCC is already taking steps to acknowledge that its blunder did not adequately represent the voice of the people. Congress should step back and let the commission continue to do what it was designed for. The Signpost Editorial Board Islam might be answer to Middle East turmoil oThe St Editor in Chief Wendy Leonard 626-7121 Managing Editor Paul Garcia 626-7614 News Editor Natalie Cutler 626-7655 Sports Editor Travis Clemens 626-7983 Sports Editor Danielle Blaisdell 626-7983 Copy Editor William Hampton 626-7659 Features Editor Colleen Coleman 626-7621 Entertainment Editor . Kendra Allred 626-7105 Business Editor Beth Payne-Rhoades 625-7624 Graphics Editor Amanda Pace 626-7661 Photo Editor Jennifer Larson 626-6358 Advert.s.nq Manager Devon Cms 626-6359 Online EdUcr phii Ludlow 626-6358 Distribution WiHiam Hampton 626-7974 Office Manager Georgia Edwards 626-7974 Advisor Allison Hess 626-7499 Publisher r Randy Scott 626-6464 Signpost Fax: 626-7401 The Signpost is published every Monday. Wednesday, and Friday during the semester. Subscription is S9 a semester. The first copy of The Signpost is free, each additional copy is S .50. The Signpost is a student publication, written, edited and drafted by Weber State University students. Student fees partially fund the printing of this publication. Opinions or positions voiced are not necessarily endorsed by the university. The Signpost welcomes letters to the editor. Letters must include name, address, telephone number and the writer's signature. Anonymous letters will not be printed The Signpost reserves the right to edit letters for reasons of space and libel and also reserves the right to refuse to print any letter. Letters should not exceed 3o0 words. Bring letters to'fhe editorial office in SUB 267, mail to: The Signpost, Weber State University. Ogden. Utah 84408-2110. AttmWendv Leonard, or e-mdil: wondyleondrd-S nidil.webor.edu. Bv Schaun Wheeler J columnist On Sunday, the Guardian Council, Iran's religious authority, banned more 4.000 candidates from running for the Iranian parliament, including 80 individuals who had already been elected to the parliament and were seeking re-election, because the council decided they would not promote the ideals of the Islamic Republic. Governors all over the country have now threatened to resign over the matter. This poses something of a legitimacy problem for Iran, because no one can come out of this battle unscathed. Ayatollah Khomcnci. the supreme religious leader, could theoretically overturn the council's decision, although he has made it clear that he won't intervene unless he absolutely has to; however, he appointed all of the Guardian Council himself. A standoff between the two religion authorities could send some very mixed signals to the Iranian population. Iranian president Mohammad Khatami is trying to mediate, but he can hardly be seen as neutral in the mailer: his brother was one of the 80 parliamentarians to be disqualified from running. Add lo all this the fact that many of the candidates were key ligures in the Islamic Revolution, some of them even having spent lime in jail with the Ayatollah himself. The situation just doesn't look good. Especially for the United States. During preparations tor the invasion of Iraq, several members of the Bush administration said that they were targeting Iraq instead of Iran, also a member of the "axis' of ev il."' because they figured the internal forces (if we define "internal forces" as "a whole bunch of angry students and reformers who are sick of restrictions on their personal freedoms") would take care of the problem. Our problem is that his might actually be the case. While America invaded Iraq to establish a Middle Eastern democracy a bold, and, in many ways, very smart idea Iran has tried a different solution to the totalitarian problems of that region. Despite all the militant rhetoric and actions of fundamentalists, Islam might actually be the answer, or at least one of the answers, to the Middle East's problems. Iran created a hard-line Islamic government in the early 80s. In the years between then and now, Iran has seen a steady increase in freedom and political participation, and this current crisis could supply even more of that. If Iran can get over its latest obstacle, the world could actually sec a full-fledged democracy come out of fundamentalist Islam. If that happens, the world, especially the Muslim world, would have something to compare to the Iraq experiment. If Iran succeeds in producing an open society out of the Islamic Revolution. Iraq will look bad. even if things arc going well there. Iran and Iraq both seem to be headed toward democracy. If American-style democracv succeeds in Iraq, the rest of the Middle East could follow sun and America could conic out looking pretty good. II Iranian-style democracy succeeds, the United Slates could face a whole region of the world thai, while democratic-, believes we started a war to make sure something happened that was going to happen anyway. We started this war because we thought Islam could create a democracy by itselt. Iran might prove us wrong. |