Kevin Aylward tells us that on Monday, Jeff Jarvis took the FCC to task for fining the Fox network for its April 7, 2003, episode of "Married By America."

With not much original reporting, I discovered that the latest big fine by the FCC against a TV network -- a record $1.2 million against Fox for its "sexually suggestive" Married by America -- was brought about by a mere three people who actually composed letters of complaint. Yes, just three people.

Jeff steps us through his calculation that the FCC's cited 159 complaints can be whittled down to 90, then to 23, and ultimately to just three letters. But I think he's making the wrong argument.

The FCC received some number of complaints about that program, which spent about six minutes on bachelor and bachelorette parties which were too sexually suggestive for airing before 10 pm. In their Notice of Apparent Liability for Forfeiture, the FCC in typical fashion steps through the Bill of Rights, United States Code as passed by Congress and their own regulations to outline what's permissible and what isn't.

They then describe the potentially offending part of the program, then provide their analysis of what was broadcast in light of the Constitution, US law and FCC regulations. While I'm not big on censorship, I'm apparently more tolerant of it in the protection of decency over the public airwaves than Jeff or Kevin.

Even with Fox’s editing, the episode includes scenes in which party-goers lick whipped cream from strippers’ bodies in a sexually suggestive manner. Another scene features a man on all fours in his underwear as two female strippers playfully spank him. Although the episode electronically obscures any nudity, the sexual nature of the scenes is inescapable, as the strippers attempt to lure party-goers into sexually compromising situations. Accordingly, we conclude that the broadcast satisfies the first prong of our indecency analysis and warrants further scrutiny to determine whether it was patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.

...

These scenes show, for example, partially clothed strippers, such as a topless woman with her breasts pixilated, straddling a man in a sexually suggestive manner; two partially clothed female strippers kissing each other above a male; two partially clothed strippers rubbing a man's stomach; a male stripper about to put a woman's hand down the front of his pants; and a man in his underwear on all fours being spanked by two topless strippers. The scenes also show one of the bachelorettes straddling and touching a topless female stripper and then licking whipped cream off the stripper's stomach and bare chest while the stripper holds her own breasts. Although the nudity was pixilated, even a child would have known that the strippers were topless and that sexual activity was being shown.

There's more, but that description satisfies me that the FCC is acting properly.

But Jeff (and by extension, Kevin) doesn't argue against the FCC's rationale in making their determination. His proclamation of "the tyranny of the few" is based on the "fact" that only three people complained.

So Jeff, how many people have to complain before the FCC is allowed to declare indecent material is, in their judgment, indecent? Five? Fifty? A hundred? If a program is indecent, but only one person complains, it's ipso facto not indecent?

I'm sorry, guys, but your logic seems to me to have some gaping holes in it. If only one person complains, but the FCC then evaluates for itself whether the material is indecent, the number of complaints is immaterial. It's indecent.

Argue with the Commission's rationale, dispute the regulatory limits on free speech over the public airwaves, show us where the FCC misapplied the laws and regulations, but quibbling over the number of complaints strikes me as grasping at straws. You're falling prey to the logical fallacy of argumentum ad numerum.

Update: Steve Verdon, posting at Outside the Beltway™, concurs with Jeff and Kevin and builds on that idea by proposing dissolution of the FCC, among other things. While I may disagree with some (much) of what Steve has to say, at least he doesn't limit himself to a logical fallacy.