NP: A Perfect Circle, eMOTIVe

Speaking of arbitrary arbiters, FCC Chairman Michael Powell opines in today's New York Times about indecency. Judging by the first line, it's not just superfluous indecency he wants to eliminate, but also unnecessary nouns. On the one hand, he claims that cable and the Internet are off-limits according to the Constitution -- not that it would be beyond the drunk-on-power Republicans from fixing that. On the other, he says:

Words or actions might be acceptable as part of a news program, or as an indispensable component of a dramatic film, but be nothing more than sexual pandering in another context.

Powell is pretty much conceding that he and his FCC cohorts get to decide dramatic intent. Granted, a NYT op-ed piece doesn't set precedent, but this practically codifies the Howard Stern vs. Oprah issue, despite the notion that talking about sex is much more an "indispensible component" of Stern's show than Oprah's.

As a political appointee, rather than an elected official, this seems like dangerous territory in the extreme. This whole thing is pushing me hard into the "abolish the FCC" camp. I'm sure Jeff Jarvis is going to have a field day, although I haven't seen his reaction yet.