Liberty Counsel files complaint over television performance
Related Info
A nonprofit legal organization affiliated with Liberty University has filed a complaint over singer Adam Lambert’s controversial performance during Sunday’s American Music Awards.
Lambert, a former American Idol contestant, engaged in simulated sex acts and kissed another man during the awards show that the American Broadcasting Company aired.
Liberty Counsel, which provides free legal assistance in defense of “Christian religious liberty, sanctity of human life and the traditional family,” sent a letter Tuesday to the Federal Communication Commission urging action against ABC for the incident.
Founder and Chairman Mathew Staver, who also serves as dean of the Liberty University School of Law, said the group doesn’t often file FCC complaints but Lambert’s actions were “shocking to the point that it crossed the line.”
“It’s indecent and completely inappropriate to have this kind of sexually provocative performance on television with children watching,” Staver said. “I think it assaulted the senses and common decencies of families watching.”
The performance has been a hot topic online and on television shows. ABC has received more than 1,500 complaints, according to the Associated Press.
Lambert said Wednesday on “The Early Show” on CBS that he did not believe there would be as much controversy if he weren’t openly homosexual.
“I admit I did get carried away but I don’t see anything wrong with it,” Lambert said on the show. “I do see how people got offended and that was not my intention. My intention was to interpret the lyrics of my song and have a good time with it.”
According to a news release from Liberty Counsel, ABC promoted Lambert’s acts to boost its ratings.
“Now ABC should have to pay a hefty penalty to the FCC for assaulting its viewers,” Liberty Counsel President Anita Staver said in the release.
Broadcasting “indecent conduct” is prohibited between 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., according to the Nov. 24 letter signed by Anita Staver.
The letter claimed Lambert’s performance was aired on an ABC affiliate in the Central time zone prior to 10 p.m. and “is clearly indecent under the FCC standards.”
Mathew Staver said the performance by Lambert was more serious than a controversial halftime show during the 2004 Super Bowl in Houston when Janet Jackson’s breast was exposed in what was later termed a “wardrobe malfunction.”
“It wasn’t an isolated activity,” Staver said in regard to Lambert. “It was repeated over and over throughout the entire performance and was meant only for shock value.”
Tim Todd, a second-year law student at LU who helped write the complaint, said he was shocked when he watched the show.
“The whole night they were touting that the Adam Lambert performance was what everyone would be talking about tomorrow,” said Todd. “And they were right … it was disgusting and appalling. I was surprised that ABC would air it.”
Staver said the organization might consider taking steps to urge a boycott against ABC if no action results from the complaint.
“They’re not the only network to watch,” he said. “People do have alternatives.”
The Associated Press contributed
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
I can’t say I’m surprised that the religious right is freaking out over the Lambert performance, but I can agree with them that it was not very pleasing to see. But it is not because I find homosexuality offensive, which I do not, but it was more racy than I would have wanted to see, generally speaking. It was an awards show, I think that a show potentially seen by a younger audience needs to hold a little higher standard. I get the whole shock value thing, and judging from Liberty Counsels’ reaction, I think ABC achieved their objective, by twerking up the people they expected to be twerked up. But I do see a boycott a fool’s errand. ABC is just a piece of a vast empire (much like LU/TRBC). Disney is ABC’s parent company, so a boycott would need to be focused not just on ABC, but that means no Sleeping Beauty or Snow White or Hanna Montana. And of course that means no ESPN for the sports junkies at LU since ESPN is a part of Disney/ABC, and I do know that there are quite a few sports fans at LU. Bottom line, there aren’t enough Christian conservatives in the world that could bring down Disney by boycotting. And those of you with short memories… do you remember the Southern Baptist Convention? Ten years ago they tried, and failed. Just do with ABC what I do with Fox News… TURN THE CHANNEL!
Are you going to ground all of your thinking in one verse where Jesus more or less concedes to the “nevertheless” of “because of your hardness of heart” type of thinking?
Are you basing your thought in western law?
Is the Christian ideal of forgiveness and reconciliation merely lip service?
Besides, what idiot thinks all divorces are grounded in adultery?
I don’t think the one day celebrity marriages got broken up over adultery. Probably a bunch of the “I was drunk then” marriage divorces were not about adultery either.
“... ‘til death us do part.“
The point still remains: all the religious side-stepping about the reasons given in the original debates. Since people are sooooo concerned for the “sanctity of marriage” and “taking traditional marriage seriously,“ I’m sure they’ll be all for passing the proposed legislation in CA to ban divorce, I’m sure. After all, that would be THE ultimate “defense of marriage” act, and if they’re serious, then they’ll have no problem whatsoever with the proposition. The Catholic Church and Mormon Church, given their interest in protecting marriage should likewise jump right in and contribute to this “defense of marriage” proposal.
Punto di vista, adultery is grounds for divorce Biblically and legally. If your spouse cheats on you, you are free to marry someone else. Why would any idiot argue to outlaw divorce?
Here’s something LU and Liberty Counsel should hop right onto, since it joins together two “concerns”: the whole “gay” thing, and supporting the “sanctity of marriage”:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_banning_divorce
Movement under way in California to ban divorce
After all, if “California voters outlawed gay marriage in 2008, largely on the argument that a ban is needed to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage ..., then Marcotte reasons voters should have no problem banning divorce.“
Funny, but I would like to live in a country where some magical thinking wizard in the sky worshippers don’t have the authority to tell me what is ok to read, or what art is ok for me to view. Much like the Taliban, some religous groups in this country would like to limit our personal freedoms to satisfy their own twisted belief systems.
No thanks!!!
As for the laws, I understand what the FCC is there for, it’s unfortunate the nutters on the right try to use the law for every little thing they get their panties in a wad over. Personally I don’t find kissing someone indecent. But then again I am not some tightly wound sexually frustrated wingnut or a homophobe. I am so glad the counsel has solved so many of the other problems in the world they can spend time focusing on this oh so important matter.
Res Publica… I checked out your web site. It’s all clear to me now.
You are out of your cotton-picking mind.
Cleocat,
Let’s examine your statement. You can “judge for yourself what is distasteful.“
Well, that is true, but America’s structure of representative government has lawmakers, elected by the people to also do that on our behalf in certain situations. Congress created the FCC to ensure that certain content was within the boundaries of decency in areas of broadcasting that reach more individuals further than those crowded around your television.
The better question is, why do people like you seem to think the earth is ending when the law is actually enforced.
It is interesting that you mentioned the Taliban. How about you ponder this: what would happen to Adam Lambert if he had performed in a country like Iran?
You should be happy that we live in a country that is free to voice opinion whether you agree or disagree in a safe and lawful manner. Perhaps you should re-examine whether or not filing a complaint is actually as earth shattering and apocalyptic as you hail it to be.
I suggest it is even more earth shattering that society has seemly developed to a point where no one seems to care about anything taking place unless it affects them personally.
“We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human
passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made
only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the
government of any other.“ - John Adams
Why The Hat,
Cute. For some scientific analysis on Noah’s ark, you can go here:
http://www.biblediscoveries.com/content/view/17/34/
GibsonJ45,
Yes, context is important. Without context… words lose their meaning.
Look, I don’t know what happened with you and your neighbors. But, from your words I can see that they rubbed you the wrong way and that you now have a bad impression of Christianity and I’m sorry for that.
True Christianity is this: 2009 years ago a man named Jesus was born, when He was 33 He gave his life for you; he did this because he loves you Gibson and He accepts you as you are. I can tell you that He wants to have a relationship with you. I can tell you that that relationship has made a big difference in my life and that it can for you as well.
Can someone please explain to me why it is always the Christians doing this type of thing? I don’t see any other religous groups filing complaints.
Not content with their own lives they feel the need to live my life for me as well!! Thanks, but I think I can judge for myself whats distasteful.
What a bunch of loons. Geesh, if we let these magical thinkers take over we’ll be living like the Afghans under the Taliban soon enough!
Advertisement