The Definition of Indecent Could Become Ridiculous

By: Judy Fox, CIS Senior Compliance Manager
judyfox@cis-partners.com

On April 29, 2009 State Representative James P. Moran of Virginia introduced a bill – H.R. 2175 into the House of Representatives with the official title, “To prohibit as indecent the broadcasting of any advertisement for a medication for the treatment of erectile dysfunction[ED], and for other purposes.” The short title for the bill as it was introduced is the “Families for ED Advertising Decency Act.” The bill is co-sponsored by Representative Robert A. Brady of Pennsylvania. The title of the bill alone sounded a little ridiculous, but I had to read it to make sure. The bill is not lengthy or wordy, nor does it contain a lot of legal terminology, yet to me, the content is just as confusing.

The bill asks that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) revise the enforcement policies relating to indecent material so that radio and television stations would be prohibited from broadcasting any advertisements for ED any day between 6am and 10 pm. The bill asks that stations treat all advertisements for ED medication as indecent. Yup, that’s right, INDECENT. The restriction would not include product placement, or the mention of the trademarked or generic name for an ED medication.

There is a possibility that I am missing something, but is the reason why all ads for ED medications are being deemed indecent is because ED is a medical condition that has to do with male genitalia? Or is it because the only reason to take the medication is to have sex? Either way, I find it ridiculous to define indecent in this way.

I tried to recall the ads I have seen for these products and could not remember ever seeing one that I felt was even inappropriate, let alone indecent. I did recall some that were confusing. I remember one in particular where a couple was sitting in separate outdoor bathtubs overlooking the beach. I found it a bit silly, but certainly not indecent. I didn’t want to rely on my memory alone, so I did a little unscientific research. The ads I found showed what appeared to be monogamous couples, usually appearing to be in their 50’s, smiling at each other, dancing, and, in general, enjoying each other. I couldn’t find a single ad that featured people having sex. None of the ads I viewed (in my very unscientific research) did more than imply the indication of the medication. There was the often joked about four hour erection warning, but most direct to consumer (DTC) advertising can cause one to cringe when the possible side effects are rattled off anyway.

The only thing I could conclude was that the indication for these medications must be the cause behind labeling the ads as ‘indecent’. It may be news to Representatives Moran and Brady, but I think I can speak for most couples when I say that sex is a healthy part of a relationship. I can’t find anything indecent about the fact that there are plenty of men who have a medical condition that keep them from being able to enjoy sex with their partners. Many sufferers are embarrassed to seek help for the condition, and labeling the advertisements offering them help as indecent could make them feel even worse. Removing the stigma associated with the problem has made it easier for men to seek help from their doctors and avoid purchasing knock-offs and questionable products through mail order companies.

Furthermore, pharmaceutical marketing teams work hard to target DTC advertising to the appropriate audiences, and place their advertisements during programs that appeal to those target audiences. As such, ED ads are not aired during children’s programming, or during programs that target teen audiences. If the representatives are worried about decency, they should concentrate on ad placement in general, or, and this is a novel concept, on the content of the programming itself. For example, when my sons were young, I remember actually getting angry at the commercials for R-rated movies that were aired during family programming. I would consider that inappropriate, not indecent mind you, just inappropriate and possibly worth looking into. I think we have so many more important issues to worry about before we should target happy, dancing couples.

The way the bill reads, it would be acceptable for a television program to make Viagra® jokes, have Cialis® logos plastered all over the side of a car, or feature Levitra® as a sponsor, but there couldn’t be a commercial for those products during the same program. Ridiculous. What’s next? Banning ads for birth-control pills? After all, these politicians might erroneously reason, only women who have sex need the Pill.

Sources:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:14:./temp/~bdQWzr:@@@T
www.viagra.com
www.levitra.com
www.cialis.com