The Verdict
The CBSC's Ontario Regional Council considered the complaint under the Voluntary Code Relating to Violence in Television Programming of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters (CAB). Clause 3 of that Code reads as follows:
3.0 Scheduling
3.1 Programming
3.1.1 Programming which contains scenes of violence intended for adult audiences shall not be telecast before the late evening viewing period, defined as 9 pm to 6 am.
3.1.2 Accepting that there are older children watching television after 9 pm, broadcasters shall adhere to the provisions of article 5.1 below (viewer advisories), enabling parents to make an informed decision as to the suitability of the programming for their family members.
5.0 Viewer Advisories
5.1 To assist consumers in making their viewing choices, broadcasters shall provide a viewer advisory, at the beginning of, and during, the first hour of programming telecast in late evening hours which contains scenes of violence intended for adult audiences.
5.2 Broadcasters shall provide a viewer advisory at the beginning of, and during, programming telecast outside of late evening hours, which contains scenes of violence not suitable for children.
5.3 Suggested language for suitable viewer advisories is outlined in Appendix A
Conclusion
The Regional Council members viewed a tape of the film in question and reviewed all of the correspondence. The members consider that the broadcaster was not in breach of the Code.
The Content of the Program
The Council was entirely in agreement with the complainant that the language was coarse, even incessantly so, for at least the first half hour of the film. The Council also agreed that the language used was that of the streets of California, as it was portrayed in the motion picture. The Council referred to a previous decision about this issue, where at that time, the Council ruled:
There is no doubt that the host used the words "damn" and "Goddammit" during the course of his broadcast on the morning in question. It is equally clear that the complainant was offended by the use of those words. The use or misuse of these would, in the view of the Council, fall under Clause 6(3) of the Code of Ethics as an example of the proper or improper presentation of comment or opinion. The Council has also frequently felt it appropriate to look for guidance in determining acceptable standards of broadcaster actions to the Radio Regulations or the Television Broadcasting Regulations. In this case, it is section 3(c) of the Radio Regulations, which refers to language. It provides that "A licensee shall not broadcast ... (c) any obscene or profane language." In its determination of what constitutes "obscene or profane language," Council considered that current broad social norms must be applied. The Council also had to face the fact that some language which may at another time have been broadly considered obscene or profane had now slipped into common and marginally acceptable usage. Terms formerly considered blasphemous or irreligious are today non-religious and inoffensive to the population as a whole (although they might be considered to be in poor taste). In general, the Regional Council concluded that there may be words which ought not to be used in the medium, but whose use could not be raised to the level of profanity or obscenity. While the word "damn" gave the Council no difficulty by current standards, this was a case which fell into that middle ground insofar as the word "Goddammit" was concerned. In their view, the host used the term as an epithetic expression of frustration, but not in an intentionally irreverent, blasphemous or irreligious way.
While it is not the same language that was used in this film, the Council decided that the same principles were applicable, and that it couldn't interfere with the broadcaster's choice to air the film. In this case, the Council adopted the conclusion of the ruling stated above, that "while good taste and judgement might have dictated the non-use of the expression on the public airwaves, it was not a sanctionable usage."
The Watershed Hour
The question of the timing that the film was aired also came into play. The Council referred once again to a previous ruling, where the watershed hour was described in the following manner:
Since this is the Council's first decision dealing in any significant way with the "watershed" hour, it is worth noting what it is and what purpose it serves. In its literal sense, it, of course, denotes the line separating waters flowing into different rivers or river basins. Popularly, the term has been applied to threshold issues but the literal meaning of the word gives the best visual sense of programming falling on one side or the other of a defined line, in this case a time line. Programming seen as suitable for children and families falls on the early side of the line; programming targeted primarily for adults falls on the late side of the line. It should be noted that the definition of that time line varies from country to country, from 8:30 p.m. in New Zealand to 10:30 p.m. in France. (Great Britain, Finland, South Africa and Australia all share the Canadian choice of 9:00 p.m. as the watershed.)
In Canada, the watershed was developed as a principal component of the 1993 Violence Code, establishing the hour before which no violent programming intended for adult audiences would be shown. Despite the establishment of the watershed for that purpose, the Council has reason to believe that broadcasters regularly consider this hour as a rough threshold for other types of adult programming.
This was, in fact, the position taken by the station's Vice-President in his response, and the Council agreed that, provided viewers were alerted to the program content in accordance with the terms of Article 5 of the Violence Code, the airing of the film at 9:00 pm did not violate the Code. This was indeed the case here; the viewer advisories were ample.
The Issue of Broadcaster Responsiveness
In addition to its primary responsibility of measuring the complaint against the Code in question, the CBSC Regional Council always evaluates the responsiveness of the broadcaster to the complainant. This requirement to be responsive to audience complaints is a responsibility of membership in the CBSC. In this case, the Regional Council considers that the Vice-President and Station Manager of CJOH-TV sent an extremely thorough, thoughtful and appropriate reply to the complainant. Nothing more is required.
