```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 177 (Thursday, November 20, 2008)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10728-S10729]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                        TRIBUTE TO PETER CHERNIN

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I yield to no one in my support of the 
freedoms set out in the first amendment to the Constitution, and I have 
devoted considerable time and energy to their protection and 
preservation. On October 21, 2008, I enjoyed a very special evening 
honoring Peter Chernin, the CEO of Fox News, and a man who shares my 
belief in the need to vigorously defend the first amendment. That 
night, I congratulated Peter on receiving the Media Institute's First 
Amendment Award, an award that he richly deserved for his stand against 
rigid and unyielding application of so-called indecency rules at the 
Federal Communications Commission. I believe that his words in defense 
of the first amendment should be heard and heeded by all Americans, not 
just by those who were fortunate enough to attend that event.
  I ask unanimous consent that the statement of Peter Chernin from 
October 21, 2008, be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

              Politics, Indecency, and the First Amendment

       Thank you so much for that introduction, Senator Leahy. 
     Your strong and unambiguous support for the First Amendment 
     is legendary on Capitol Hill, and I could not be more pleased 
     to have you, a former recipient of this award, as my 
     presenter tonight. And thank you to the Media Institute for 
     bestowing this honor on me. As the head of a media company, I 
     am at times painfully aware of how important the First 
     Amendment is to our ability to create thought-provoking and 
     controversial content. And as a citizen of this country, I am 
     thankful every day for the freedoms that we too often take 
     for granted: the freedom to speak freely, the freedom to 
     pursue our religious beliefs without persecution, and the 
     freedom of the press to criticize our government.
       We live in a pluralistic society. One where diversity 
     rules, where disagreement is a constant, and where there is 
     more than one right answer for every question. It's messy. 
     And for creators of content, if we're doing our jobs right, 
     we sometimes offend people. It's that simple. And, believe 
     me, we wrestle with that fact. We struggle with complex 
     issues every day. Are we guilty of contributing to the 
     vulgarization of our society or simply of mirroring it? Is it 
     our responsibility to be the arbiters of good taste, or is it 
     our duty to push boundaries? Is it even possible to create 
     innovative programming for a mass audience that is diverse on 
     every level--from age, to religious affiliation, to 
     ethnicity?
       We don't take these issues lightly. We are constantly 
     thinking about the important role we play in shaping our 
     culture. Whether we're creating television shows, making 
     films, or working at a newspaper or publishing house. 
     Certainly, we must entertain, we must inform and we must 
     provoke. But, at the same time, we must take very seriously 
     the power we have to affect millions through our work. That's 
     why we stress the importance of individual editorial 
     responsibility across all of our businesses. But, yes, 
     sometimes we do make mistakes. Everyone does. The 
     alternative? Well, it's chilling. If the media is ruled by 
     fear of crossing an ambiguous line, our product will be less 
     vital and more homogenous. Our ability to create news and 
     entertainment that is thoughtful, provocative, and accurately 
     reflects our society will be compromised. And Americans will 
     have far fewer choices. That's why it's so critical that we 
     don't chip away at the First Amendment until it becomes 
     toothless. It must remain absolute in its protections.
       Two weeks from today the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing 
     arguments in FCC v. Fox Television Stations, the first 
     indecency case it has heard since the ``7 Dirty Words'' case 
     was decided in 1978. At issue is whether Fox violated the 
     indecency law when it aired two live award programs in which 
     actresses blurted out one or two so-called ``fleeting 
     expletives.'' While a case with Cher and Nicole Richie at its 
     center is probably not one we would have chosen to argue 
     before the Supreme Court, the truth is, we don't get to

[[Page S10729]]

     pick our cases. In fact, if anyone had told me that my 
     company would be before the U.S. Supreme Court defending 
     inane comments by Cher and Nicole Ritchie, I would have 
     said you're crazy. But I would contend that the nature of 
     this speech, and who said it, makes absolutely no 
     difference. Because at the core of this case is an 
     absolute threat to the First Amendment. It hinges on 
     utterances that were unscripted on live television. If we 
     are found in violation, just think about the radical 
     ramifications for live programming--from news, to 
     politics, to sports. In fact, to every live broadcast 
     television event. The effect would be appalling.
       There is a certain symmetry to the fact that the oral 
     argument in this case and the election of the 44th President 
     of the United States are taking place on the same day: The 
     Fox case, if successful, is an affirmation of the First 
     Amendment. The election is an affirmation of our democratic 
     process. And the two are inextricably intertwined. The First 
     Amendment is central to our democratic process because it 
     ensures a full and open dialogue about the candidates for 
     office. Without the First Amendment, our democracy could not 
     be sustained.
       But the truth is, people don't think about defending 
     broadcasters' right to utter expletives in the same way they 
     think about defending one's right to speak critically of our 
     government. But they should. The First Amendment is at stake 
     in both cases. As a media company, we have not just a right 
     but a responsibility to stand up to the government when it 
     crosses that First Amendment line in the sand--even if the 
     content we are defending is in bad taste. And in the 
     indecency context, that line has not only been crossed, it 
     has been obliterated. That is why Fox is fighting the FCC in 
     this and several other indecency cases.
       I'll admit: some of the content we are defending is not 
     particularly tasteful: the expletives, the brief nudity, the 
     carefully placed whipped cream and, of course, the pixels. I 
     would not have allowed my own children, when they were 
     younger, to watch some of these shows. But, I vow to fight to 
     the end for our ability to put occasionally controversial, 
     offensive, and even tasteless content on the air.
       Why? Because, if the government gets its foot in the 
     censorship door with respect to unpopular entertainment 
     content, it is the beginning of the steep slide toward 
     censoring unpopular political content. And we have seen the 
     beginnings of this downward slide in a recent case where the 
     FCC initially found indecent content in a news program. If we 
     allow our government to intrude into the creative process to 
     censor the ``bad words'' at issue in the Fox case, I am 
     afraid we will soon reach the bottom of the slide--to 
     America's detriment.
       Groups that claim to be interested in ``protecting 
     children'' are helping the government along in its attempts 
     to censor television. While I don't agree with these groups, 
     I do fully support their right to criticize what's on 
     television. But the job of protecting children is far too 
     important to leave to government bureaucrats or so-called 
     public interest groups. The job of protecting children lies 
     with parents. The job of the government is to resist the 
     views of interest groups with particular agendas and instead 
     to enforce the law in a way that is consistent, fair, and 
     constitutional. So I don't blame these groups for the 
     degradation of the First Amendment. I blame our government, 
     which has succumbed to the views of a particularly vocal 
     minority.
       Look, I am not insensitive to the fact that young children 
     need to be protected. And that's difficult in an era of 
     single parent, or two working parent households. But the 
     protection of children must be considered in a Twenty-First 
     Century light. Nearly every TV set sold today includes a V-
     Chip, which allows parents to block content they think may be 
     inappropriate for their children. Cable, satellite, and telco 
     video providers have finely-tuned, comprehensive parental 
     controls. And let's not forget the most powerful technology 
     available to parents: the on-off switch. These tools allow 
     adults to protect their kids while still being able to access 
     shows they love.
       We as media companies also have a responsibility: to rate 
     shows accurately and consistently so the V-Chip works as it 
     should. And, as I said earlier, we need to be responsible 
     with our creative output. This is something we do on a daily 
     basis through our Standards and Practices departments, not 
     only by exercising editorial judgment but by constantly fine-
     tuning and improving our internal controls.
       Let's step back for a minute and get some perspective on 
     this issue. The indecency law applies only to broadcast TV: 
     that's a handful of channels. Over 85 percent of the country 
     receives their broadcast channels through a cable, telco 
     line, or satellite signal. Sitting right next to the 
     broadcast channels on these multichannel systems are hundreds 
     of other channels that are not subject to the indecency law.
       And those other channels are just a click away on the 
     remote control. Nor does the indecency law apply to video-on-
     demand, pay per view, DVDs, or the mother of all content 
     providers: the Internet. Does it really make sense to 
     continue government censorship of the occasional bad word, 
     brief nudity, or sexual innuendo on a handful of broadcast 
     channels when we live in an environment of infinitely 
     unregulated choices? In the media-rich world we live in, 
     singling out a few channels for indecency enforcement is not 
     legally sustainable.
       Quite simply, it is time for the government to get out of 
     the business of regulating ``indecent'' speech on broadcast 
     TV. The threat it poses to core First Amendment values cannot 
     be justified in our technologically diverse world. Parents 
     have the tools to decide what is appropriate for their 
     children. Let's let parents do their job and fire the 
     government from the job of censoring speech. The First 
     Amendment is too important to our democratic society--in this 
     and future elections--to allow any encroachments to threaten 
     our country's critical freedoms.
       Thank you.

                          ____________________
```