经济学人:对粗鄙行为的管制过时了么?

IT WAS not that noticeable amid all the razzmatazz. Many viewers missed it. But on February 5th, during the half-time show of the Super Bowl, the apogee of both the sporting and broadcasting year, MIA, a British pop star, unexpectedly sang “I don’t give a shit” and raised a middle finger to the cameras. NBC, the network airing the show, swiftly apologised for her “inappropriate gesture”. But that, said the Parents Television Council (PTC), which campaigns for more wholesome programming, was an inadequate response to what its members felt was a “slap in the face” to families across America.
在令人眼花缭乱的舞台上，可能不那么明显。很多观众都没看到。但是，在2月5号超级杯橄榄球赛的中场表演时，英国流行歌手MIA在这个体育与广播双高峰的舞台上出人意料地唱了《我他妈的不在乎》这首歌曲，并向镜头竖起中指。美国全国广播公司当时正在播放这场演出，即刻为她“失宜的手势”而道歉。但是倡导健康电视节目的美国电视家长协会认为这种行为对全美国的家长相当于“打了一巴掌”，而此道歉对于其成员来说是一个不恰当的回应。

Whether any Supreme Court justices were watching, or considered themselves slapped, is unknown. As it happens, however, they are currently mulling over just this sort of incident. Last month they heard arguments in cases involving two other broadcast networks, Fox and ABC, which are challenging the Federal Communications Commission’s restrictions on indecency. The broadcasters think their output should be free from any form of censorship, just as cable television and the internet are. In particular, they object to the FCC’s rules about “fleeting expletives” (isolated, and in many cases, unscripted swearing) and brief glimpses of titillating body parts, which are subject to heavy fines. Those rules, in turn, were adopted in part thanks to the uproar prompted by the half-time show of a previous Super Bowl, in which the breast of another wayward pop star was momentarily bared, supposedly due to a “wardrobe malfunction”.
究竟有没有最高法院的法官当时在看电视，或者会认为他们被打了一巴掌，都是不可知的。然而，当这种事情发生的时候，他们肯定是在思考这类事件。就在上个月，他们刚听审完针对其他两个广播网络公司福克斯和美国广播公司的控诉，指责他们触犯美国联邦通信委员会对粗鄙行为的禁令。该广播公司们认为他们播出什么内容，应该像有线电视和网络一样自由。他们特别反对美国联邦通信委员会关于“短暂粗口”（偶尔出现的，在某些情况下，是脱口而出的粗口）和短暂走光的禁令，这两者都会招致巨额罚款。这些禁令依次在某种程度上都被实施了，因为在前一个超级杯橄榄球赛的中场表演上，另一位不守规则的流行歌手瞬间露乳，据称是因为“服装故障”。

The FCC has long barred profanity and nudity during waking hours, although it used to take a laxer attitude towards isolated incidents. The Supreme Court upheld its rules in 1978, despite their impingement on free speech, on the basis of a law banning smut on the radio. But the broadcasters complain that the FCC’s drive for decency is inconsistent, unnecessary and increasingly quixotic. Why, they ask, should swearing be permissible in some circumstances (broadcasts of “Saving Private Ryan”, a gritty war film) but not in others (awards shows populated by foul-mouthed celebrities)? Is it really necessary to protect the public from swear words, when viewers can so easily vote with their remotes? Above all, while the court allowed the airwaves to be policed in 1978 because they were a scarce, publicly owned resource, does that still make sense in an era of cable, satellite and YouTube? After all, some 85% of households in America now subscribe to some sort of pay television, and almost 70% have broadband and thus face constant exposure to cursing and smut.
美国联邦通信委员会长久以来一直禁止在清醒的时候说脏话和裸露身体，虽然它过去经常对偶发性事件抱有宽容的态度。最高法院在1978年根据一部禁止广播中出现淫秽内容的法律，表示支持该委员会的禁令，尽管这些禁令侵犯了言论自由。但是广播公司抱怨称委员会对体面的追求前后矛盾，多余而且越来越不切实际。为什么，他们质疑到，粗口在某些情况下（如《拯救大兵瑞恩》，一部坚毅的战争片）是被允许的，但在其他场合（多由满嘴脏话的名流参加的颁奖晚会）上是不被允许的？在观众有权利选择想看的频道的情况下，真的有这个必要使公众免受粗口的干扰么？尤其是，法院在1978年决定电视广播需要接受监管时，是因为他们是一种稀缺的，公有的资源，而如今在这种有线电视，卫星和YouTube充斥的时代，这些监管还有必要么？毕竟，美国大约85%的家庭现在都订阅了某种方式的付费电视；几乎70%的家庭拥有宽带，从而不断的接触粗口和淫秽内容。

Judging by their questions to the broadcasters’ lawyers, however, not all the justices are convinced. All the government is asking for, said John Roberts, the chief justice, “is a few channels where you…are not going to hear the s-word, the f-word”. Moreover, as the PTC points out, in spite of the proliferation of viewing options, broadcasters remain pre-eminent. Of the 100 most popular shows last year, 89 were on broadcast networks, not cable. Some 114m people watched this year’s half-time show, making it—swearing, middle finger and all—the most widely seen television programme in American history.
可是，从法官们向广播公司的律师们提的问题来看，不是所有的法官都信服上述理由。首席法官约翰•罗伯茨说，政府所要求的是“几个不会传播脏话的渠道”。此外，正如美国电视家长协会指出的那样，尽管现在观众有更多的观看选择，广播公司们还是首选。在去年选出的100个最受欢迎的节目中，有89个来自广播网络，而不是有线电视。大约1.14亿人观看了今年的中场演出，这无疑使得演出上出现的粗鄙行为成为美国历史上传播最广的电视节目。