[Media-watch] US poll - 20% say negative war reporting and editorials should not be allowed - Chicago Tribune - 4 July 2004

[Julie-ann Davies]

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/perspective/chi-0407030292jul04,1,304700.story

Free speech: Do Americans really believe in it?

By Charles M. Madigan
Perspective editor
Published July 4, 2004

Undoubtedly, the Founding Fathers had no idea that a Howard Stern would come
along, making his fortune in a strange, electrically powered world that, of
all things, sends ideas through the air via invisible waves to entertain and
inform "listeners" wherever they may go.

Neither could they have anticipated that he would be, to be frank, a potty
mouth.

His humor is built on observations about a collection of bodily functions
ranging from sexual intercourse in its many variations to all things
excreta. He delights in describing women in the process of removing their
clothing in his studio.

For some, it is scandalous, upsetting noise, a torrid and gross cacophony
polluting the airwaves. Either that, or it is quality entertainment,
laugh-a-minute radio full of provocative characters, witty observations and
an unprecedented measure of hilarity.

The beauty or the beast of it, then, depends on who is hearing it.

At this time in the history of a nation built, in part, on the assumption
that free speech and criticizing government were premier rights, Stern and
his compatriots in shock radio stand squarely at the center of a great
debate over some simple questions.

Congress is considering proposals that could lead to millions of dollars a
day in Federal Communications Commission fines for radio outlets that
violate standards on broadcasting sexually explicit content.

And the Supreme Court last week blocked, once again, a federal law that
would set up penalties for Internet transmission of pornography.

Both of these actions touch on questions close to a key assumption in the
America envisioned by the Founding Fathers through the Constitution, that it
should be very difficult to clamp down on free speech.

To be sure, they could not have anticipated the broadcasting and Internet
content of the 21st Century.

But then again, they knew that.

It was why they made restriction of any kind so difficult.

Should you really be able to say whatever you want?

Should the government be able to limit what you can read, hear and watch?

The Chicago Tribune set out to measure some attitudes about those questions
across America.

The results of the Tribune poll of 1,000 adults, taken from June 23 to 27
and presented in this Perspective, are remarkable not for the support they
display for 1st Amendment rights, which was anticipated, but for the size of
the group that would choose to muzzle all kinds of expression, from Stern's
vulgarities to news reports on the prisoner abuse scandal in Iraq to
criticism of a wartime government.

>From the Internet to the radio networks to cable television and newspapers,
substantial minorities would opt for an array of controls aimed at whittling
away free expression, criticism and, yes, even political commentary.

It does not mean, of course, that freedom of speech is in direct jeopardy.

What it means is that those who would aggressively move to limit expression,
however innocent or offensive, can depend on the support of a substantial
audience.

Freedom of speech, then, is a right that could be diminished by ever-so-thin
slices, a move that would apparently win the support of a lot of Americans
as long as Howard Stern and his shock jock buddies were the characters being
silenced.

The Tribune poll shows that majorities actually support limitations in some
areas. Generally, they involve sexual expression on radio or violence and
sex on cable TV or on the Internet.

The poll suggests that 76 percent of adults across the nation have access to
the Internet, where content and access range from simple e-mail and
scholarly documents and advertising to raw pornography.

It is the commercial hunting ground of saint and scoundrel alike, as
comfortable for con experts offering Nigerian fortunes in exchange for a
bank account number as it is for the well-intentioned who only want us all
to be happier, thinner, bigger, prettier or whatever else might be packaged
and sold.

There are signs in the Tribune poll that people are beginning to tire of the
purple nature of some of the Internet's content.

Just over half of the respondents in the Tribune poll said the government
should impose restrictions on it. Only 38 percent said there should be no
restriction. Republicans and people in the Midwest were the strongest
backers of restrictions on content, but even a slight majority of Democrats
said there should be controls.

Cable television, now something of a national theater of whatever anyone
wants to broadcast that has some commercial value, is another target for
government regulation, with 55 percent saying the government should restrict
sex and violence programming on cable TV.

The strongest support for restriction, however, comes in that very area that
is the target of so much attention now, the shock jocks and their dependence
on sexual references. A full 64 percent of those questioned said "radio
personalities who use implicit or explicit sexual expressions" should simply
not be allowed on the air. Only one in three people said they should.

Almost 6 in 10 support heavy FCC fines of radio stations that broadcast that
kind of content. Just 33 percent disapproved.

Shifting into politics, the poll also discovered that the nation is split on
whether there should have been restrictions on coverage of the Iraqi
prisoner scandal. That means one in two people think there should have been
some kind of restraint on coverage.

Almost everyone believes people should be allowed to protest the war. About
6 in 10 think it should be OK to allow people to call for the overthrow of
the U.S. government.

But almost 4 in 10 say that should not be allowed.

Twenty percent say negative reporting on the war should not be allowed.
Twenty percent say critical editorials against a war should not be allowed.
About the same number feel that the 1st Amendment itself goes too far. A
little over 10 percent say the Patriot Act, which expanded government search
and surveillance powers, didn't go far enough.

Put those numbers together and think about a nation as a roomful of, say, 10
people.

The poll indicates that at least two of those people, and in some cases as
many as five or six of them, would embrace government controls of some kind
on free speech, particularly when it has sexual content or is heard as
unpatriotic.

- - -

A TRIBUNE POLL ON THE 1ST AMENDMENT

Should radio personalities who use implicit or explicit sexual expressions
be allowed on the air?

64% NO

Should groups opposed to the war be allowed to demonstrate and protest
against the war?

84% YES

Should the government impose restrictions on information and content that
appears on the Internet?

52% YES

38% NO

7% DON'T KNOW

3% UNFAMILIAR WITH INTERNET

Should the government restrict violence and sexual content that appears on
cable TV?

55% YES

40% NO

5% DON'T KNOW

1% UNFAMILIAR WITH CABLE TV

Should radio personalities who use implicit or explicit sexual expressions
be allowed on the air?

64% NO

30% YES

5% DON'T KNOW

Do you approve of heavy FCC fines of radio stations due to broadcasts they
considered indecent?

58% YES

33% NO

9% DON'T KNOW

----------

How the survey was conducted

Market Shares Corp. of Mt. Prospect conducted the Tribune's 1st Amendment
poll June 23-27. The results are based on telephone interviews with a random
sample of 1,000 adults age 18 and older who live in the contiguous United
States. In samples of this size, the margin of error is plus or minus 3
percentage points.