Judging rights versus responsibilities

STEVE SMITH

There was a lot of love in last Wednesday’s Daily Pilot, not from the

ads for all the romantic gifts and restaurants we should be involved

with today, Valentine’s Day, but because four out of the five letters

about last week’s not-so-Super Bowl halftime show were in favor of my

comments.

I’m not used to that, so it was refreshing to read the letter from

George Lampinen of Newport Beach who brought me back down to Earth by

writing, “ ... it’s time to extricate yourself from your high moral

soapbox ... “ Now that’s more like it.

Lampinen, who also wrote that he “used to enjoy my column all the

time,” may not have been reading it regularly enough, or else he’d

know the “high moral soapbox” is my shtick. Lampinen added that he

thought I was a good writer, which qualifies him as one of the

smartest people in the community.

What I find really ironic is that not too long ago my high moral

soapbox used to be the norm in this country. It used to be that no

one dared showed the level of nudity we see, and no one talked about

or showed sexuality the way it’s done now with television shows such

as “The ‘L’ Word” and “Sex and the City.”

No one dared do these things because the images and references

would have been judged to be inappropriate and the creators would

have been ostracized. But now, the images are widely accepted and the

creators are hailed as “cutting edge.”

Or so it would seem. I believe that most folks, particularly those

of us with young children, still think that envelope has been pushed

way too far.

The challenge is that the people who are creating and approving

this objectionable material don’t understand that not everyone thinks

they’re the hottest thing since Velcro or that we’re all going to

give a standing ovation to this trash. They don’t understand this

because they’ve never known any other way of conveying a message.

In that Super Bowl column, I referred to the new batch of creative

minds as part of the “cable generation.” This is a segment of our

society that for their entire lives has had free access to the words

and images that others find repulsive. To this new force, these

images are not out of bounds, they’re hot. And everyone around them

is telling them that they’re a genius.

The promotion of inappropriate material is not limited to the

young and restless. In a letter to members published in this week in

the Los Angeles Times, Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences

President Frank Pierson wrote about whether future Academy Awards

shows would be aired with a five-second delay in an effort to

eliminate foul language from being broadcast.

“But our resolve is absolute,” he wrote. “A ‘live’ show is either

live or it is not. Free speech is free or it is not. Viewers are free

to use their remote or Tivo. Parents are responsible or they are

not.”

In that paragraph, Pierson states that the show will be what it

will be because that is our right and if you’re worried about seeing

or hearing something that offends you, don’t watch. And I’m OK with

that part of it. In fact, I agree with him because we really do have

a choice.

That, however, is not the problem. The problem is the last line,

“Parents are responsible or they are not.”

I consider myself a responsible parent. Not perfect by any means,

as my kids will be only too quick to tell you, but responsible. Among

other things my wife and I monitor the movies they watch and the

books they read. But nothing we do can protect -- and it is a matter

of protection -- our kids from words and images we deem inappropriate

coming from places we do not expect them or in places, such as

billboards, where we have no defense against them.

There isn’t a parent on this planet who would have expected Janet

Jackson to bare one of her breasts during the Super Bowl half-time

show. Given some warning, however, the parents of younger kids could

have had the opportunity to turn off the TV. That, in accordance with

Pierson’s statement, would have been the responsible thing to do.

Increasingly, however, we are not given that option. That option

was removed during the Super Bowl, and a nation’s parents’ right to

determine what is inappropriate for their kids was eliminated because

there was no warning, all because the career of one washed-up singer

needed a boost.

Surprise attacks do not qualify as a right to free speech. That

right, as with all the others we enjoy, comes with a responsibility

to respect the wishes of those who disagree with your point of view.

Oh, and happy Valentine’s Day!

* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and a freelance writer.

Readers may leave a message for him on the Daily Pilot hotline at

(949) 642-6086.