The latest outburst about the US cartoon character SpongeBob SquarePants and later public more tempered criticism of the US Public Broadcasting Service by US education secretary Margaret Spellings of one of its "Postcards From Buster" cartoons indicates to us that there is reasoned cause for concern about the current climate in the US. (A search on the web should bring up plenty of results relating to both cases.)

Fortunately there is no serious suggestion that the US Supreme Court is likely to take up calls to extend censorship to subscription services that require a conscious decision to opt in and are in general enjoyed in private, although we could see a cause at times for public order prosecutions of individuals who insensitively blast the audio from their receivers in a manner that others in the area can't avoid and sometimes include content that those around may reasonably find objectionable.

That of course is the nub of the issue - for programming that people choose for themselves and that are suitable flagged we see no justification at all for prohibitions, direct or indirect, from politicians or lawmakers: As for others like Dr James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family and, in this instance his followers in the American Family Association who have been attacking Spongebob because a leaflet being issues with a video includes homosexuals in those towards whom tolerance should be shown our view is that it is a public duty to push them to fully justify the implications and effects of their comments and deride or mock them when they cannot.

In many ways, Michael Powell notwithstanding, we think it might be valuable to push them and the regulators along the path of the Seven Dirty Words [The words formerly banned by the FCC and mocked by George Carlin in his song].

Should they win the public argument then the power goes to them but they have no right to expect to be given an easy ride by opponents although we hope the opponents might, like Carling, display a little more honesty in their attacks than these self-described family friendly organizations.

As with so many things, there is no straightforward answer for those who are not prejudiced and our view is that the best compromise is likely to come from reasoned public discussion of issues as opposed to the glib sloganeering and propaganda that so often seems to be what exists nowadays.

Yes, Dobson and his fellows have every right to argue their morality and to try and persuade others to their viewpoint but we think it is a sad society whose values allows to loudly-proclaimed opinions greater value than considered evaluation of the best way to achieve aims and even sadder if any arguments based on faith are allowed to over-ride evidence that exists and can be tested.

Those arguments, of course, can only be made in the public sphere and broadcasters are a very important part of allowing discourse.

We accept that this may cause embarrassment to some even serious disturbance to others, but if they're grown-ups they ought to be able to handle this and if they're infantile the more that is said publicly the better.

The ultimate answer, we would suggest, in almost all cases is a simple device - it allows owners to turn off or change the content: In other words tune in, tune away, tune out, or turn off for yourself but not for others.

The broadcasting bigots all depend ultimately on their audiences and in a sense are automatically regulated thereby in ways pressure groups, which do not need significant general support to keep them going, are not.

That of itself in our view should lead us to be very cautious about formal censorship because in almost all cases the censorship cure is likely to be worse than the free speech disease, a phrase we use because it is clear that disease is exactly the way in which many groups regard speech and argument they do not agree with.

Those attitudes are widely, and in our view, rightly condemned when they come from authoritarian bodies in authoritarian states and it doesn't take much historical reading so find that they have existed at times in states where almost any religion has held significant earthly sway or where, as with the former Soviet Union, a religion of anti-religion did.

However taking this attitude means we can rightly be asked what we would do about excesses and in this area we have to respond that it is a matter of balance and the balance if dynamic.

The first sanction, it seems to us, is the right to complain and if enough complaints are made organizations frequently impose their own sanctions as Miss Jones and crew found out over their parody tsunami song, a tasteless and not particularly (in a musical sense) well constructed item.

That sanction can, however, over-emphasize the views of a few with strong opinions and due respect should be given to organizations that do not bow to such pressures when they feel they are ill-judged or disproportionate: The respect, of course, does not apply if a business simply goes along on the lines that it just finds easiest or judges likely to be its most profitable course of action.

The second level of sanction is one that only has effect if there is overwhelming condemnation from the public of material being broadcast. It is, of course, the tune elsewhere or turn-off sanction that has devastating effect in such cases and virtually none if only a few hundred people -however well organized their pressure group may be - consider something both objectionable and important.

The final level of sanction left is the law and this is one we feel needs to be applied sparingly, in a proportionate manner, and according to principles that have been clearly thought through and subjected to thorough public discussion.
So on what basis do we think there should be any form of legal sanction on broadcasters?