Corporate America and Obscenity Laws: Are Corporate Media Executives Above Our Laws?

By Scotty Reid, August 10, 2007

Ever since the Don Imus flap where he refered to the members of the Rutger’s ladies basketball team as “nappy headed hoes”, the attention given to obscene lyrics in some forms of rap music has been revived. Rap music isn’t the only music that has obscene lyrics but since the majority of the players on the Rugter’s team were black, rap music has been the main focus of the public outcry. Some will argued that to restrict the content of lyrics would amount to a violation of the artist’s First Amendment rights of free speech but according to Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code, obscene language is not Constitutionally protected speech. So if obscene language is not protected speech, how is that the corporate media is permitted to flood the public airwaves with music recordings and videos laced with lyrical obscenities and sexually explicit content?

In April of this year, an excellent article appeared on the website Playahata.com. The article titled Thug Life, Right-Wing News and the Iraq War: How Big Media Manufactures Consent, cites the abandonment of the Fairness Doctrine giving rise to the bias opinions of right wing commentators and other right wing media outlets thinly disguised as journalism. Interestingly at the same time, the public airwaves were invaded by obscene material on television, cable and radio. The modern Republican party has always served corporate interest and in turn corporate media supports the Republican party by broadcasting propagandized programming known as right wing media. When President Ronald Reagan appointed a broadcast lawyer to chair the FCC, it wasn’t long before the FCC started serving the interest of media corporations and not that of the general public as they are charged to do. Right wing Judges in the courts also began to decide that the Fairness Doctrine no longer needed to be enforced and coupled with laws allowing a few individuals to monopolize the broadcast industry, the right wing takeover of the public airwaves was complete.

While there are several criminal laws on the books specifically prohibiting the sale, the broadcast and the distribution of obscene material, the highly politicized Justice Department is very selective about enforcing these existing laws and only in a few cases have they handed out fines to offending radio stations. This is not unlike the failure of the US Government to enforce current immigration laws with the chief benefactor once again being corporate America and its stock holders who increased their profits using low paid illegal labor.

Media broadcasters found that a large portion of the public had an appetite for violence and sex and since they are in business to make money, it wasn’t long before the interests of corporate stock holders out weighed the interests of the general public in areas of public safety and health nor did they care about adhering to ethical and moral principals. Television and radio programming became more sex and violence infused than ever before in American broadcast history and over the past two decades we have seen the effects on our society. What is ironic is that the political party that marketed itself to voters as the guardian of Family Values is the same party that abolished or disabled policies and practices designed to uphold those values giving in to corporate lobbyist. In order to meet the demands of this newly created market, media corporations needed the countries chief law enforcement officers to look the other way while they produced and distributed the degenerate and blatantly obscene programming we see and hear on the public airwaves.

The article also hints at a political and social agenda along with corporate greed. The article cites Professor Akilah Folami who wrote,

“The Telecommunications Act of 1996 has strengthened corporate control of radio stations and has allowed for the commodification of Hip Hop music. Corporate control of radio has stifled social commentary and diversity present in “old-school” Rap and Hip Hop. Instead, corporate control has encouraged the proliferation of Gangsta Rap and the Gangsta Image, which has become the defacto voice of contemporary Hip Hop culture.”

In layman terms, what Professor Folami is saying is that artists that produced music with lyrics that inspired people to participate in political and social activism for the empowerment and fair treatment of minorities was not encouraged or rewarded by the corporate media executives who instead sought to promote and reward artists that produced music with lyrics that promote negative, criminal and other harmful lifestyles. If one examines the music lyrics of the sixties during the civil rights struggle and anti-war Vietnam protest, one would find music being produced with lyrics that had messages urging people to question the status quo of government sponsored social injustice and illegal and ill conceived wars of choice. The music inspired masses of young people to become part of the struggle and directly challenged the political forces behind the policies. The government recognizing the powerful influences of music and artist and under the direction of the criminal and disgraced former President Nixon, the FBI was ordered to collect and maintain files on former Beatle John Lennon to build a case in support of government efforts to deport him because he was a increasingly vocal critic of the Vietnam war. Due to the recent release of declassified files from the CIA, we know the government engaged in illegal spying on a number of individuals and social organizations opposed to the Vietnam war or engaged in the civil rights struggle of minorities.

In closely examining timelines of several seemingly related events in the 1980’s, you will find correlations between the broadcasting and promotion of degenerate and obscene gangster rap music which glorified and encouraged criminal behavior, government sponsored importation of cocaine with a substantial amount of the proceeds funding the illegal covert actions of the CIA in South America (Iran/Contra) and an increase in the highly disproportionate rates of incarceration of minorities (Hispanics and Blacks). All of these things either started or increased substantially during the Reagan/Bush administrations in the 80’s and early 90’s. It was Reagan’s FCC corporate media connected chairman that stopped enforcing obscenity laws and cleared the path for media corporations who to capitalize financially by designing media that appeals to the darker inclinations of the human psyche.

One can not simply dismiss the power of the media in dictating perceived realities, in influencing public opinion and in influencing lifestyle choices. The American Academy of Pediatrics (A.A.P), has a web page titled “Understanding the Impact of Media on Children and Teens”. In one section, “Media messages: good or bad?”, which discusses the media promotion of violence, cigarettes and alcohol:

“Use of cigarettes and alcohol
Messages about tobacco and alcohol are everywhere in media. Kids see characters on screen smoking and drinking. They see signs for tobacco and alcohol products at concerts and sporting events. Advertising and movies send kids the message that smoking and drinking make a person sexy or cool and that "everyone does it." Advertising also sways teens to smoke and drink. Teens who see a lot of ads for beer, wine, liquor, and cigarettes admit that it influences them to want to drink and smoke. It is not by chance that the three most advertised cigarette brands are also the most popular ones smoked by teens.

Violence
Children learn their attitudes about violence at a very young age and these attitudes tend to last. Although TV violence has been studied the most, researchers are finding that violence in other media impacts children and teens in many of the same harmful ways. From media violence children learn to behave aggressively toward others. They are taught to use violence instead of self-control to take care of problems or conflicts. Violence in the "media world" may make children more accepting of real-world violence and less caring toward others. Children who see a lot of violence from movies, TV shows, or video games may become more fearful and look at the real world as a mean and scary place. Although the effects of media on children might not be apparent right away, children are being negatively affected. Sometimes children may not act out violently until their teen or young-adult years.”

While this section may not specifically mention drugs like cocaine, marijuana or other illicit illegal/legal addictive pills, you can logically apply the same principles. In the case of degenerate rap music, you have the promotion of not only descriptive explicit sexual acts, but you also have the promotion of drug dealing with rappers bragging about how much cake they have (crack cocaine) or guidelines giving pointers on how to run a drug distribution network and how to deal with competitors (murder). The rampant rise of violent drug crimes we experience daily in the United States as discussed previously, can be traced back to the deregulation of the media and the non-enforcement of obscenity laws by the FCC and other branches of law enforcement. We are now in the second generation of people growing up exposed to the blatantly negative promotion of criminal lifestyles and drug use which has continued to contribute to an explosion in prison incarceration rates. There is a connection and anyone who is aware of the facts and examines the timelines but yet denies the connection is being disingenuous at best.

The main argument in defense of corporate profits is to solely blame individuals for their personal choices and those of their children. While there is some validation for this view, one would have to live in a bubble insulated from the outside world in order to escape all negative influences. One can only hope to limit their impact on us and our children and unfortunately some people have no business being parents as they pass their negative traits on to their children. The argument of personal choices becomes invalid when one wants to totally dismiss or excuse the choices of corporate executives more concerned about profits than they are about the damage their products inflict on society. The argument becomes invalid when one wants to excuse the personal choices of politicians carrying out corporate agendas by not enforcing laws and policies enacted for public health and safety concerns. Parents can not control everything their children are exposed to when a few individuals through their media empires are constantly targeting and bombarding the public with these negative messages and images. A parent can not control everything their child does. It is a fact of parenting that children will sometimes do things they have been expressly told not to do out of curiosity and peer pressure. Acknowledging that some people are not cut out to be parents and simply do not monitor their children’s activity, it is up to society in general to fill that gap when and if at all possible. Reality dictates the need for others to be advocates for these children and to put pressure on politicians and law enforcement to enforce policies and laws enacted to protect them from undue negative influences.

When I hear those that say it is not the governments job to control what the media disseminates, I have to question their logic and reasoning. If they believe that the media has a right to broadcast whatever they choose then do they also believe that the local corner store has the right to sell alcohol and cigarettes to minors? Should the government abolish or not enforce laws enacted to protect children from these harmful products? Should parents be solely responsible in making sure that their teens are not purchasing pornography or guns? No rational thinking person is going to advocate the repeal of those laws that prevent this so how is it that some people advocate corporate media’s non-right to openly broadcast a obscene product deemed by medical and mental health professionals to be harmful to the psychological health of children and teens? How is it that web sites like Myspace.Com, owned by right wing corporate media magnate Rupert Murdoch, able to freely make sexually explicit and other psychological harmful music videos available to minors? One could also put forth a valid argument that the mass broadcast of music lyrics/videos containing explicit sexual content openly promoting promiscuity, helped contribute to the Aids Epidemic and the explosion of Teen Pregnancy during the 1980’s.

I logged into my 15 year old daughter's Myspace.com account to see if it would allow her access to videos containing harmful lyrics that promoted sexual promiscuity, drug dealing and violent behavior. I entered the search term “Hood Figga, Gorilla Zoe” (product of Bad Boy Records/Warner Music Group), my search turned up 17 instances of this video being uploaded by members but only four of them were playable. I clicked on the first one which was uploaded by a 17 year old boy in Georgia who goes by the screen name “Jordan (Fast Like A Nascar)”. The video contained all the negative elements (sexually explicit lyrics and images, promoting drug dealing and threats of violence) which are deemed harmful by the A.A.P. There was no prompt asking me to verify I was at least 18 years of age not that it would stop a teen intent on seeing it. Although I was logged into an account designating the account holder as a minor, I had free access to this video and others promoting the same negative behaviors and lifestyles. There were also comments left under the video by both black and white teens calling themselves “hood niggas” and at least one teen female indicated that her “man” was a “hood nigga” as if this was a desirable trait she should look for in a boyfriend. I can only hope she doesn’t engage in the acts of oral sex that “Gorilla Zoe" is explicitly describing in his lyrics. Myspacetv.com allowed 17 year old “Jordan (Fast Like A Nascar)” to create and broadcast his own “channel” on www.myspacetv.com servers and he had over 4,000 subscribers with over 7 million views of his sixty uploaded pirated video’s which also included another extremely obscene video, “Shawty” by “artist” Plies featuring T-Pain (Slip-N-Slide Records/Atlantic Records/Big Gates Records). The lyrics of “Shawty” describe acts of prostitution and talks about training “Shawty” as if she is a sex slave, to perform sexually explicit acts.

It is a fact that the same sex acts promoted in this music led to the conviction of college bound teen Genarlow Wilson, a high school football player who was charged with rape but convicted of Aggravated Child Molestation after a 15 year old girl voluntarily performed oral sex on him and some other teens at a hotel party involving drugs, alcohol and rap music. The girl claimed that she was raped but the acts were videotaped and the jury must have found that she was not forced to commit the sex acts. It is possible that the young girl was afraid the tape would surface so she came up with the rape story to tell her mother who interestingly picked the girl up from the hotel the next morning after the party. It was a video tape surfacing that led to the child pornography charges that Hip Hop artist R. Kelley, known for his sexually laced lyrics, will be facing in court on Sept 17th. Another hip hop artist known as Akon recently ran into trouble when he committed obscene acts on stage with a 14 year old girl who frankly had no business at the concert and was scantily dressed. I question the website Hollywoodgrind.com and others decisions to broadcast the footage from their websites.

There is no denying that this obscene material is contributing to the delinquency of children that grow into adults who continue this negative behavior that has been programmed into their minds. The A.A.P on its websites talks about the power of influence contained in Media messages:

“The power of media messages
Sometimes you can see the impact of media right away, such as when your child watches superheros fighting and then copies their moves during play. But most of the time the impact is not so immediate or obvious. It occurs slowly as children see and hear certain messages over and over, such as the following:
Fighting and other violence used as a way to "handle" conflict
Cigarettes and alcohol shown as cool and attractive, not unhealthy and deadly
Sexual action with no negative results, such as disease or unintended pregnancy”

While much of the attention and blame has been rightly placed on these so called “artist” who write the lyrics and perform this obscene material, not enough attention has been placed on the corporations that mass produced, distribute and broadcast the obscene material. The writer Ryan Ford writes in his article titled “Hip-Hop White Wash: The Impact of Eminem on Rap Music and Music Industry Economics” :

“It is important to remember that white executives, artists and producers have been instrumental in the evolution of hip-hop music and culture. Since its inception, hip-hop has never been solely black. One must make note of the contributions that those other than blacks and Latinos have made to rap music and hip-hop culture. As Nelson George duly notes in his Hip Hop America, "without white entrepreneurial involvement hip-hop culture wouldn't have survived its first decade on vinyl.”

You can always be sure that the corporations will always defend their unethical capitalistic ways by blaming parents for not monitoring their children’s activities and limiting their exposure to their obscene products. While there exist some truth to that, again, a parent can not keep track of every thing their children are doing every minute of the day when any teen with access to radio or television can literally grab this material from the airwaves. A parent can block adult websites on their computer but many children are more computer literate than their parents and can easily disable the parental controls. Also, parental controls don’t work on website like Myspace.com that appears to be innocent enough from the home page but it readily makes this type of obscene material available to minors as shown earlier. Just as the parent has a responsibility to their child, so does media corporations who are in fact breaking numerous laws. Politicians also have a responsibility to see that the applicable laws are being enforced but as discussed earlier, they have shown themselves to be more interested in protecting the ill gotten profits of the corporations than they are in protecting the general public, the people they are supposed to be representing. At least one presidential candidate is aware of the harmful effects of this material on young minds. Barack Obama gave his view on rap music to Vibe Magazine in which he stated:

"There's no doubt that hip-hop culture moves our young people powerfully. And some of it is not just a reflection of reality," he told the magazine. "It also creates reality. I think that if all our kids see is a glorification of materialism and bling and casual sex and kids are never seeing themselves reflected as hitting the books and being responsible and delaying gratification, then they are getting an unrealistic picture of what the world is like."

Obama’s views are in line with the studies of the A.A.P but an associated press article states:

“Still, Obama seemed unwilling to use raunchy rap as a rallying cry in his campaign: "My priority as a U.S. senator is dealing with poverty and educational opportunity and adequate health care. If I'm ignoring those issues and spending all my time worrying about rap lyrics, then I'm wasting my time.”

It appears that Barack Obama is not making the connection about how the promotion of obscene material that in his words, “moves our young people powerfully”, contributes in part to poverty, education and health issues by giving children “an unrealistic picture of what the world is like”. In the case of politicians, it is a fact that corporate campaign donations moves them powerfully to act or not act on certain issues. Politicians are adept at talking out of both sides of their mouths and both the major political parties have contributed to the increased power and influence of corporations. The 1996 Telecommunications Act Professor Akilah Folami wrote about was signed into law by President Bill Clinton a Democrat. On the issue of healthcare, commenting on Michael Moore’s new film “Sicko”, Roger Moore in The Orlando Sentinel writes about another Democrat running for President:

“Moore can blow a kiss to Hillary Clinton’s efforts to create universal health care in the early 1990s, irking the Moore-haters. But then he shows how big campaign donations have nearly silenced Clinton on the subject.”

Former NC Senator John Edwards has criticized his opponents for the Democratic nomination by stating that they should give back corporate media donations with Hillary Clinton being the candidate that has received the most but he also mentioned Obama and Dodd. All three refused to respond to Edward’s request.

Besides the ability to reap massive illegal profits from the production, transport and distribution of obscene material, what else are media and retail corporations getting from politicians in exchange for their campaign dollars and other goodies delievered through lobbyist? The most blatant unethical service they obtain from politicians who control law enforcement through their political appointments of the country’s chief law enforcement officers and US Attorneys, is a blind eye towards violations of established Obscenity Laws.

These laws have been the basis by which some local and state governments have drafted legislation banning or restricting obscene lyrics and some have proposed making it a criminal offense for merchants to sell these products to minors. However, just as it is noted in the illegal immigration debate, we don’t need new laws, we only need to demand that the federal government enforce the existing laws already on the books instead of ignoring laws which benefit their corporate donors. America has one of the highest prison populations among all nations. It is filled with young people for committing the same crimes that are promoted and one could say encouraged by the corporate media. The medical community has study the effects of the influence of media on people in general and on minors specifically and notes that these minors grow up to become adults that hang on to these false realities of acceptable behavior. How ethical or fair is it to prosecute and lock up common citizens while ignoring the crimes of wealthy corporate executives in disseminating obscene material that is contributing to and some could say inspiring criminal behavior?

There are several laws on the books pertaining to obscene material. As pointed out earlier, they are found in Title 18 of the U.S. Crimes and Criminal Procedure Code. Considering the practice of some prosecutors to pile on several charges related to one incident, corporations and their employees including the artists and distribution chains and other media outlets and sources such as websites that make obscene material available to minors, could find themselves charged under several current laws. For the purpose of this article I will only highlight those laws which relate to obscene material.

“CHAPTER 71—OBSCENITY
§ 1460. Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property
§ 1461. Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter
§ 1462. Importation or transportation of obscene matters
§ 1463. Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes
§ 1464. Broadcasting obscene language
§ 1465. Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution
§ 1466. Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter
§ 1466A. Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
§ 1467. Criminal forfeiture
§ 1468. Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television
§ 1469. Presumptions
§ 1470. Transfer of obscene material to minors”

The laws are very clear and legislators and law enforcement already have the tools needed to combat the problem of obscene lyrics found in rap and other forms of music. As mentioned, since many legislators are in the hip pockets of the corporations that are illegally profiting from their obscene products, it is left up to voters who far outnumber corporate executives to take action. Perhaps the victims of violent crimes should inquire about the media influences of their attackers and sue those invloved in producing the material. Perhaps criminal defense attorney’s should start raising these questions to jurors since the medical community has provided evidence about the power of negative media on their young clients. Retail chains that sell obscene music that is not clearly labeled should feel the brunt of lawsuits as well as those websites that give children access to these recordings and videos. Concerned citizens should not think that they are powerless to affect positive changes that will be a benefit to us all. Even if it is not clear that a certain song can be determined to be obscene, it certainly could fall under the category of indecent or profane. The FCC has broadcasting rules that are clearly not being adhered to by radio, television and cable stations. Part of that problem is that parents and other concerned parties are not filing complaints. On the FCC website you can find related information on its Consumer Facts Page on filing complaints. It clearly states that:

“It is a violation of federal law to air obscene programming at any time. It is also a violation of federal law to air indecent programming or profane language during certain hours. Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) the responsibility for administratively enforcing these laws. The FCC may revoke a station license, impose a monetary forfeiture, or issue a warning if a station airs obscene, indecent, or profane material.”

In the case of indecent and or profane language clearly used in the recordings these stations broadcast, the FCC states:

“Indecent Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC 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.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.
Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

"Profane Broadcast Restrictions
The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”
Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.”

While searching for the play list for one of my local radio stations, which I found none, I did find a play list for a Detroit Michigan station that was clearly planning to broadcast music that could be considered obscene but could also be labeled as profane and or indecent. Two of the songs I listed earlier, were included in the list on the website so that listeners could vote for what they wanted to hear in the http://www.1059jamz.com/playlist.asp broadcast that falls within the 6a.m and 10 p.m. range set by the FCC. The website is owned by Radio One Inc and states that it is intended for users 13 years old and above so again this illustrates how these corporations are targeting teens and not adhering to broadcast rules.

If concerned citizens, parents, community leaders and children’s advocacy organizations do not take action, it is reasonable to assume that corporations will not be held liable for their actions and the only people held accountable will be those common citizens who act out on the images and messages being broadcast to them daily. It is not unreasonable to ask that all parties, corporate executives down to the common street thug, be held to the same standards in adhering to our laws. It is unethical and against the law to not hold all criminals responsible for their personal actions.

Editor's Note: Take The Survey and express your viewpoint on this issue. Thank You!