Flibbertigibbet

I Keep Forgetting that I Live in a Land of Puritanical Hypocrites

I don't have cable television. I only use my TV to watch movies from Netflix these days, so I don't really get to see all the "hot and steamy" things that FCC chair Michael Powell recently referenced as quoted in this CNN.com article:

The opening, which has generated complaints to ABC and the FCC, featured actress Nicollette Sheridan in the locker room, supposedly dressed only in a white towel. She drops the towel and jumps into the arms of Philadelphia Eagles star Terrell Owens. Sheridan was shown only from behind and above the waist after dropping the towel.

Apparently, some people complained about this.

They complained about seeing less creamy, female skin than they've seen on Rose McGowan and even John Kerry's eldest daughter. They complained, because they saw her back.

There are two things that really irritate me about this whole deal: 1) the FCC's charter to regulate broadcasts to ensure that they do not cross the bounds of decency. (Where are those things anyway?) and 2) that ABC apologized.

On the first item, I really shouldn't have to go on at any length at all about how it is not a legitimate function of government to safeguard our decency. The government is not here to make sure we're all 'good' people. The government is here to make sure that you're only bad on me when I give you permission to do so and at no other time.

This quotation from Powell is very telling, however:

"It would seem to me that while we get a lot of broadcasting companies complaining about indecency enforcement, they seem to be continuing to be willing to keep the issue at the forefront, keep it hot and steamy in order to get financial gains and the free advertising it provides," Powell said during an interview on CNBC.

In essence, he is saying, "If you cooperate with us, you will have no reason to complain about us." Isn't that a classic line from the Handbook of Thuggery? It's in the chapter about extortion.

The second item is really what galls me, though.

ABC quickly apologized for the locker room intro. And the NFL called it "inappropriate and unsuitable for our 'Monday Night Football' audience."

There is no reason to apologize for that.

Also, though I am not part of the Monday Night Football audience, I think I speak for a majority of them when I say that it was not inappropriate or unsuitable for them.

Not that it should matter to the government whether or not it was inappropriate or unsuitable for any of them at all.

And though obscenity is not a concern for the government, there is certainly a moral question here: Is it moral or immoral to apologize when one did nothing wrong?

The FCC and the tiny, little tyrants and bullies all over this country rely on apologies like this. As Ayn Rand would put it, they rely on the sanction of their victims and ABC is giving them just what they want.

ABC has something to be sorry for now: that apology.

I am reminded of Hank Rearden's trial in Atlas Shrugged.

One of the judges, acting as prosecutor, had read the charges. "You may now offer whatever plea you wish to make in your own defense," he announced.

Facing the platform, his voice inflectionless and peculiarly clear, Hank Rearden answered:

"I have no defense."

""Do you-" The judge stumbled; he had not expected it to be that easy. "Do you throw yourself upon the mercy of this court?"

"I do not recognize this court's right to try me"."

"What?"

"I do not recognize this court's right to try me."

"But, Mr. Rearden, this is the legally appointed court to try this particular category of crime."

"I do not recognize my action as a crime."

"But you have admitted that you have broken our regulations controlling the sale of your Metal."

"I do not recognize your right to control the sale of my Metal."

"Is it necessary for me to point out that your recognition was not required?"

"No, I am fully aware of it and I am acting accordingly."

He noted the stillness of the room. By the rules of the complicated pretense which all those people played for one another's benefit, they should have considered his stand as incomprehensible folly; there should have been rustles of astonishment and derision; there were none; they sat still; they understood.

Do you mean that you are refusing to obey the law?" asked the judge.

"No. I am complying with the law - to the letter. Your law holds that my life, my work and my property may be disposed of without my consent. Very well, you may now dispose of me without my participation in the matter. I will not play the part of defending myself, where no defense is possible, and I will not simulate the illusion of dealing with a tribunal of justice."