Gordon Robinson | The essence of confusion

The ink hadn’t dried on my column for Tuesday, October 11 (Law in Society) where I postulated morals can’t be legislated when the Broadcasting Commission imposed a blanket ban on its version of immoral lyrics.

According to Loop News “the Commission said in a release that it requires an immediate halt to the transmission of:

• any audio or video recording, live song, or speech which promotes and/or glorifies scamming, illegal use or abuse of drugs (for example ‘Molly’), illegal or harmful use of guns or other offensive weapons, ‘jungle justice’ or any other form of illegal or criminal activity.

• any edited song which directly or indirectly promotes [the same activities]. This includes live editing and original edits….as well

as the use of near-sounding words as substitutes for offensive lyrics, expletives, or profanities.

“To be clear, the broadcast of a sampling of any song which promotes or glorifies [the offensive activities] is strictly prohibited”

Under the Broadcasting Act (section 16) the Commission’s duties, boiled down to gravy, are to:

• advise the Minister regarding license conditions; conduct surveys to assess licensees’ geographical coverage;

• undertake, sponsor, or assist in research of licensees’ operations;

• establish a system for monitoring licensees’ transmissions (including requiring licensees to keep tapes and logs); and

• receive and investigate complaints in relation to any matter under the Act (my emphasis).

Issuing detailed blanket prohibitions on content ain’t one of them.

Subsidiary Regulations focus interminably on payment of licence fees, but also restricts advertising of alcohol, tobacco, etc, and admonishes licensees not to permit certain transmissions, including anything contravening Jamaica’s Laws; any abusive reference to race, creed or colour; any indecency or profanity; and, my personal favourite, “any portrayal of violence that offends taste, decency or public morality”.

So, what’s new (by Linda Ronstadt) about the recently redundant edict? The Commission is now every licensee’s CEO? In any event, the Regulations do not and cannot give the Commission authority to issue this or any diktat; to legislate morals; or act as moral police.

CONTENTION

Its contention that it’s protecting children from immoral free-to-air content is just plain bollocks. Assuming our children need protection, or even that protection from evidence of societal decay is desirable, that’s fundamentally the responsibility of parents and government (through education). What’s REALLY happening now is societal chickens let loose for 60 years by Governments refusing to include civics, comprehensive sex education or proper parenting in syllabi have come home and are roosting everywhere, including on free-to-air broadcasts.

This blanket ban is historically ineffective, but also likely to be the death of many marginal stations already gasping for market share of RJR’s what lef’. It won’t turn any child into a model of piety, or lift music’s moral tone!

In fantasyland, Apocrypha, Information Minister Brightbert (‘Messenger of Morality’) Morals consulted Oma D’unn with a similar regulatory dilemma after explicitly lewd radio/TV music and viral videos crudely critical of the PM attracted a comparable ban. Oma, like a moon, bright only in the dark, was a retired politician who solved political problems by parable. He advised Brightbert to buy a Q&A primer. Brightbert looked quizzical, so Oma told him the story of the confused detective.

“A detective named Frank, who had a tiger named Hank, was investigating an early-morning murder in a sleepy village. No, this isn’t a story of what happened to Frank when he tried to put Hank in his tank. That’s for another day. Frank, a Lieutenant Colombo fan, decided to question the deceased’s spouse as the main suspect.

‘Where were you between four and five?’ Frank asked.

‘In Kindergarten’ was the spouse’s swift reply.”

Brightbert still wasn’t getting it, so Oma explained Government was asking the wrong question. Instead, Government should ask itself a chicken-and-egg question. Which came first? Societal decay or songs about it? Oma advised Brightbert to fix society. Songs would follow.

But Governments have always suffered from responsibility deficits and prefer to deflect rather than reform.

But deflection brings further complication. Who decides what’s “promotion’, ‘glorification’, or ‘commentary’? Broadcasting Commission’s moral police? Banning even edited artistic expression that offends you from free-to-air platforms only ensures increased popularity and wider distribution of ‘banned’ material. So, what’s the Commission’s purpose? How does this further that purpose better than acting on complaints about specific violations, as the Commission has always done?

Is this just putrid, populist, political propaganda? Or the thin edge of the wedge that opens the door to banning ‘offensive’ political critique?

Peace and Love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.