WGBH Journal; Sound Port; Charles

🙏 Good afternoon and welcome. This is GBH Journal and I'm Bill Caffness. Today, as one in our series of sound portraits of Boston communities, we'll hear about the community of inmates in the Charles Street jail. Then we'll turn to the media and the Supreme Court, and here a report on the words which the Federal Communications Commission has ruled cannot be aired on radio or television, and the clothes we'll hear is yet concerning those seven words edited, of course, for Radio Broadcast. The Suffolk County jail has been the focus of much attention and controversy in Boston City

politics during the past few months. The jail, which is located on Charles Street in Boston, has been declared to be in violation of the constitutional rights of the inmates because of the poor conditions which exist in the prison itself. Meanwhile, the Boston City Council, which is responsible for taking action on the jail, has been unable to decide whether to appropriate funds to renovate the jail or to build a new prison at a new site. We have been following the political events surrounding the jail on other reports on our show, but today we take a different kind of look at the Charles Street jail. As one part of our series of sound portraits of communities in Boston, we look at life in this involuntary community of 300 inmates housed in the Charles Street jail. David Friedberg put together this report. Hello, you've been in here. Oh, eight days. How's it feel?

Hello, kind of cooped up. That's the raw anguish of a man, as yet unconvicted, speaking from a small cell at the Charles Street jail in Boston that would induce claustrophobia in anyone. Each year, the prison shuttles in and out about 5,000 people, many awaiting trial, some presumably are in fact innocent. Menorities comprise half the inmate population, a good deal of whom are poor people. On the night we recorded there recently, the Charles Street jail was holding one man who couldn't raise a bail of $50. There appears to be less hostility between prisoners and guards there than at some other state facilities, although tension exists. Everyone seems to agree on one thing, that the jail building, now over 125 years old, is outdated, or as one prisoner told me, not fit for an animal. Here's a candid appraisal of life at the jail from a 24-year-old guard, Larry Higgin-Batham, who works at Charles Street to pay for his schooling.

I went down to Syria to apply for a job and they sent me down here. Did you have some reservations or some qualms about becoming a prison guard? No, I didn't bother because most of the people here are from my neighborhood, Roxbury, Dorchester, and Medepen, so for the most part, it's just like on the streets. The only thing, you know, I have a little bit more power, so to speak. And what kind of a job is it? First of all, it's your job. I have a baby. Why? Because, first of all, you bring your own pressures here, and then at the same time, you have to be open-minded whereby you don't take out your frustration unlike the people who are here. Have you done that sometimes? Sometimes, but I'm always constantly reminding myself that that's not my job. It's not my job to judge these people. Even though if I feel that they are guilty, I try to be very subjective, you know, open-minded, and sometimes, you know, it's difficult because, like, sometimes you come in here and you don't want to be bothered with nobody else's problems, you know.

And sometimes a guy might have had a hard day at quarter, or he might be falsely accused of doing something. You know, he might be in here, like, he needs some time to talk to. Sometimes you can be the different between him actually trying to hurt himself, or just, you know, being an outlet which he can speak, you know. But, like, I find out at all, you know, that it's a very hard job, and I think that, you know, I think God should be evaluated, you know, every six months, so that they can speak out verbally. But I'm sick of this, I'm tired of this, you know, because they're human. And there's no way that you can, uh, go yearn, y'all. And now I was certain, you know, you start looking at these people like, hey, man, I don't care what happened to them. Just animals, you know, doesn't faze me. And I think that our God's also should be evaluated. Part of a guard's duty at Charles Street is to inspect the long and inescapably depressing cell blocks, lined with lonely faces. The prisoners who live there haven't very much to do, except to contemplate their misfortunes, maybe read or write a little. One inmate said he

had been carefully studying a manual for assembly of electronics parts, which seemed a constructive use of time, except that he had no access to electronics parts. Many prisoners are allowed radios and TVs for diversion and different stations echo relentlessly through the halls. Being in jail, you try to cope. You just wait for the day to get out, you know, it's a slow system, you know, the, uh, the system is still backed up, you know, with, uh, different cases and everything. You just, you know, you've got to, got to cope with it, you know, uh, the visits really, you know, they, they stink because they got a, you know, they got a big screen and, uh, you really can't, all you can do is really talk to your visit, like, say, like, my girl comes up and, uh, I talk to her through the screen and everything and it gets frustrated, you know, it's really frustrating. And like, up and walk with a different, they contact

visits, you know, where, uh, you can sit out in, you know, on the grass and, you know, hold hands, kiss, stuff like that. And I think that's very important with a relationship with your girl, you know, and, uh, you know, she, uh, because there's really nothing to talk about, you know, you know, I mean, you're in jail and there's really nothing happening, but, uh, you know, it's same old routine, you know, you get up in the morning, you walk around, you go to bed. So there's really nothing to talk about. How about the guards here? A lot of them are, uh, I think really too petty. You know, they get that petty, um, efficiency, you know, where you don't have to really be, uh, authoritative over the guy, you know, you, you know, you can talk to the guys, you human being just like you and I, you know, I've been in for quite a few times, this state, other states. And I have nothing to cope with it. So I don't let it get onto my skin. I go in and, if I get some time, if I have to do it, I do it. And I don't have no problems. I don't let

it worry me. I come in, I forget about the outside and just like about the inside. If you do have to fall, come in and just buy your business and do what you told and you'll make it all right. Now, you say mind your business. If you don't mind your business, what happens? Well, if you don't mind, your business, a lot of things can happen. Well, you can, you simply, simply get killed in the end, make it. If you don't mind your business or nothing, make a take out of here. You take care of your business and lead the other person alone and you make it. Inmate, take care of your own business. He got his hand full anyway. I come by myself. I leave by myself, you know, I did enough time to know how to make time. And I do what I'm supposed to do. If I don't, if I'm not sure that I'm not supposed to do these things and I would ask a fisherman, if it's okay for me to do this or not. Ask the guard. Ask the guard. And if he said don't do it, then I don't do it. But if I go in, if I'm not sure, if I do something, if I knew it's wrong, then I'm looking

to get punished. Inmate's at the Charles Street jail. Many of those we talked with, objected to the drastic shortage of opportunities for inmates to cultivate real skills that are needed back out on the street. And Larry Higginbatham, the guard, points out that the problems of prisoners are undeniably connected to general economic conditions. For the most I might, they want to get into some kind of career whereby they can progress as a person, you know, something that's, you know, stimulating me water. And like, you know, like the way the economy going now, from a majority of people, that's just not the case. You gotta take jobs, if you don't even care to be working, but, you know, do the circumstances, you have to, you have to be working there. And then for persons figured that hey, I can go out here and get my hustle going. If I can get it going right, you know, I can make 40 times that amount. And one day, true to chances are great, risk is great sometimes. But the return is very high, you know. So a lot of people they think on that line. And like, that's, that's just be for real. They has money in crime.

There's no doubt about that. You know, I mean, everybody is here. I, two, we got like 300 some inmates here, right? We just think about the thousands, thousands that are not here. You know, and if you took, if you count that in terms of money, it's the millions of dollars that are being made, right? It's very instant, you know? So I think we have a long way to go. I think all boys down to say what's happening economically for the majority of these people. I mean, two, you have some people they get it, they are here because they personal grievances. And for the most people, I think three out of five cases would be due to some kind of economic reason that people are here. What struck me most about life at the Charles Street jail was that the men in this dreary prison aren't doing anything. And until Suffolk County provides real programs and services for the prisoners, they won't be making progress as individuals. And Boston's crime rate will be up. For G.B.H. Journal, I'm David Freudberg. By the time the Supreme Court ends its current session, it will have reviewed a case which

will determine the constitutionality of airing certain words on the broadcast media. The issue in the so-called Carlin case focuses on seven words which can't be aired on radio or television. The words were the subject of a George Carlin satiric routine which was broadcast on W.B.A.I. the Pacifica Station in New York. As a result of a complaint against the broadcast, the Federal Communications Commission ruled that W.B.A.I. was in violation of its indecency standard. The case raises many important media issues. There is a question of whether a government agency, such as the FCC, has the right to censor language. There is also the issue of whether different guidelines concerning language can be applied to the broadcast and print media. Many people, both in and out of the broadcast industry, are awaiting the Supreme Court's decision on the Carlin case. John Friedenberg reviews some of the issues under discussion in this report. There's a conservative person on the issue of journalistic responsibility. I would like

government in all of its faces to stay away from my newsroom. A lot of these words which parents do object to Jerry's fun. They are words which the kids themselves hear out on the street of in school every day. Four years ago, Pacifica Foundation's radio station W.B.A.I. in New York aired comedian George Carlin's recorded monologue, Dirty Words. The piece which aired during the lunch hour begins with Carlin saying that he'd been thinking about words that definitely couldn't be said over the public airwaves, and then he proceeds to say them. In the background, Carlin's audience laughed broiously, but unfortunately for W.B.A.I. in the foreground, the Federal Communications Commission did not. In response to an official complaint filed by a parent who heard the broadcast while driving his child home from school, the FCC produced a list of seven specific words that from then on were to be banned from the public airwaves. Civil libertarians immediately accused the FCC of censorship,

and although the commission has always had the right to regulate the airwaves until the B.A.I. case, no moves had been made to censor any specific dialogue. This is because most broadcasters subscribe to the National Association of Broadcasting Code, which specifically states profanity will not be used over the air. After four years and much discussion, the case has been granted a hearing by the Supreme Court, which will ultimately decide how well the FCC's ban sits in terms of the First Amendment. The court will be grappling with two main issues. First, are the words in question indecent, especially if broadcast during hours that children are likely to listen? And second, is the broadcast media so different from print that indecency should be prohibited when unsupervised children may be listening? Although a U.S. District Court of Appeals in Washington has already ruled the ban as vague and unconstitutional, the FCC has appealed the argument on the grounds

that a broadcaster, unlike the owner of an adult bookstore or theater, can't rely on parents to keep their children away from offensive material. In reply, lawyers for the Pacific of Foundation have said that the net result of the FCC order will be to limit the adult population's listening and viewing choices to those programs only fit for children. In Boston, I spoke to two broadcasters and one print journalist, Judy Stoyer, assistant news director for the 10 o'clock news here at WGBH, was asked if she thinks there's a trend to create a double standard between print and broadcast media. Well, there always has been to a certain extent. As you probably know, the broadcast industry is regulated by the FCC in this case. And newspapers aren't on the theory that everyone can presumably start up a newspaper. There are no limits on that, but that the laws of physics limit

how many television stations or radio stations can exist, therefore the airways belong to the public and the government can regulate it. The problem is, of course, that the first amendment applies to both newspapers and broadcasting, freedom of speech. And where the line is drawn is very, it's unfortunate to draw it much more tightly for broadcasting than for newspapers because we're essentially in the same business of communication and to make the rules stricter for broadcasting than for newspapers seems to me to be a double standard in a trend that's very unfortunate and probably dangerous. Once you start drawing up a list of words it cannot be used, the list can always be added to. And it can become, as you suggested, very political. It can become a means by which if a television reporter cannot call a president a jughead if he wants to, if, you know, fantasy can range anywhere, if that word is added to the list, it becomes a means, a tool of

possible repression. Bill Aver, news director at WBZ Television was also asked his opinion. I think things can be cooler in print than they are in broadcasting. I would understand the argument of someone saying that a violent word or a sexual word appearing in print is somehow less assaulting than perhaps hearing that word come blasting out of the speaker of your television. I would understand that argument. In terms of general programming and entertainment and that kind of thing, I, as a parent or as a citizen might agree with that concept. As a journalist, however, you know, our responsibility always has to be directed more toward portraying the reality of a situation and not necessarily just a situation as we would like it to be or making it more comfortable. And while

it does not come up every day, it probably comes up three times a year where we find ourselves in a situation where a particularly vile or violent word is used in a discussion takes place. I still like the idea of that being my call as an editor, as a news manager. And I'm not ever prepared to turn over to the government or to the courts or anyone outside journalism, my editorial responsibility. Bringing the situation closer to home, I spoke with veteran newspaperman Charlie Whipple of the Boston Globe. We talked about the recent Chelsea School District controversy, which involved banning a book of poems written by high school students, four high school students. One poem in particular, which we discussed, involves a fairly graphic account of a 15-year-old's view of herself as a woman in contemporary society. I remember that we and others did print every word in that poem simply because it was

relevant to the news stories. I don't know of any case in which a radio or TV station used or be read out on the, I think if they have done so in a particular way at a time or a prime time, there would have been a lot of protests and maybe even an FCC, a quarter of a court case, and God knows what. But I don't see how the general public could pass judgment on a story like that unless they had access to the full poem. Of course, always there has to be a certain amount of judiciousness in the use of judgment. But I think there are times when you have to say these things and say them in the right way. There are cases in the Chelsea poem as an example of a very hefty user. They're relevant to the story.

I think they ought to be used both on the print and on the air. How the Supreme Court will rule on the WBAI case is still uncertain, but I asked Judy Stoy if she had any predictions. I don't know. The Supreme Court is considered unpredictable, some ways swaying the last one, so this court is not an easy one to guess. But although it is not clear how this specific case will run, one thing is certain. The problems involved in the WBAI case are not unique. The Tennessee Board of Education requested that the Public Broadcasting Service in Washington adopt a language usage code that would ensure programs contain language not offensive to large segments of the public television audience. The Board cited that an increase in nudity and profanity in recent months had brought about this decision. In response, Lawrence Grossman, president of PBS, said that the

service was committed to tasteful national programming, but ultimately, individual stations must decide what to air, for GBH Journal and Joan Friedenberg. Get which raised the controversy with George Collins himself. Again, the piece has been edited for this broadcast. I want to tell you something about words that I think is important. I love, as I say, my work, my play, my passion, words are all we have, really. We have thoughts, but thoughts are fluid, you know. And then we assign a word to a thought, and we're stuck with that word for that thought. So be careful with words. I like to think, yeah, the same words,

you know, that hurt can heal. It's a matter of how you pick them. There are some people that aren't into all the words. There are some people that would have you not used certain words. Yeah, there are 400,000 words in English language, and there are seven of them. You can't say on television. What a ratio that is. 399,993 to seven. They must really be bad. They'd have to be outrageous to be separated from a group that large. All of you over here, you seven. Bad words. That's what they told us they were. Remember, that's a bad word. No bad words, bad thoughts, bad intentions, and words. You know the seven, don't you, that you can't say on television? Those are the heavy seven. Those are the ones that'll infect your soul, curve your spine, and keep the country from winning the war.

Wow, and it doesn't even belong on the list, you know. It's such a friendly sounding word. Sounds like a nickname, right? It sounds like a snack, doesn't it? Yes, I know it is, right? But I don't mean your sexist snack. I mean, no, Nabisco, the new cheese, corn, pizza, sesame, onion, tater, yeah. Betcha can't eat just one. That's true, I usually switch off. But I mean, that word does not belong on the list. Actually,

none of the words belong on the list, but you can understand why some of them are there. I mean, I'm not completely insensitive to people's feelings, you know, I can dig by some of those words got on the list. Like, those are heavyweight words, you know. There's a lot going on there, yeah? Besides the literal translation and the emotional feeling, I mean, they're just busy words. There's a lot of syllables to contend with. In those caves, those are aggressive sounds. They jump out at you, me. It's like an assault on you, you know. It's like in dig, man. Now, we mentioned earlier, of course, and two of the other four-letter Anglo-Saxon words are, which go together, of course, but forget that. The accidental humor I throw

there. The reason the **** are on the list is that a long time ago, certain ladies said, those are the two I'm not going to say. I don't mind ****, a P and C are out. P and C are out. Which led to such stupid sentences is, okay, I'm going to take on now. Of course, the word ****. The word, I don't really, well, there's some more accidental humor. I don't really want to get into that now. Because I think it takes too long. But I do mean that. I mean, I think the word **** is a very important word. It's beginning of life, and yet it's a word we use

to hurt one another quite often. And people much wiser than I have said, I'd rather have my son watch a film with two people making love than two people trying to kill one another. And I, of course, can agree. It's a great sentiment. I wish I knew who said it first and I agree with that. But I'd like to take it a step further. I'd like to substitute the word **** for the word kill in all those movie cliches we grew up with, right? Okay, Sheriff, we're going to **** you now. So maybe next year I'll have a whole crap on that word and I hope so. There are two way words, those are the seven you can never say on television. Under any circumstances, you just cannot say them ever, ever, ever, not even clinically. You cannot weave them in on the panel with Doc and Ed and Johnny. I mean, it's just impossible. Forget those seven, they're out. But there are some

two way words. There's double meaning words. Remember the ones you giggled at in sixth grade? And the cock crowed three times. Say the cock crowed three times. Hey, it's in the Bible. There are some two way words like it's okay for Kirk Gaudi to say Roberto Clonetti has two balls on them. But he can't say I think he heard a **** on that play Tony. Don't you? He's holding them. He must have hurt them by that. And the other two way word that goes with that one is ****. It's okay if it happens to your finger. Yes, you can prick your finger, but don't finger your finger. I'll comment. Bleep.

And for Tuesday, the 13th of June, 1978, that's GBH Journal. A regional news magazine heard Monday through Friday at 4.30, producer, editor for the journalist, Marsha Hertz, today's engineer, Perry Carter and I'm Bill Cavness. Strike the timbrel for a titivated Tuesday, but watch out for Triggercans and Triggerpans.