Slashdot Log In
FCC Indecency Rules Don't Apply to Satellite Radio
Posted by
CmdrTaco
on Sun Dec 19, 2004 11:48 AM
from the making-the-right-choice dept.
from the making-the-right-choice dept.
SirTwitchALot writes "The FCC has announced that Satellite radio services
do not have to comply with the same indecency requirements as traditional broadcasters. Apparently this decision was brought forth by the complaint of a traditional radio station owner, stating that the FCC needs to "level the playing field." Chalk up a win for continued freedom on subscription services."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
"Privately owned" (Score:2)
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:4, Interesting)
Maybe this could be settled by opening a new market for television and radios where you have to call and pay a slight fee to activate the "uncensored" channels.
Or just turn on the V-chip (and put them in radios) and allow the conscious act of turning it off (and to protect kids have a PIN system like
The whole Janet Jackson debacle should have been left to the free market. MTV/NFL pissed off a whole boatload of people and that was their fault for not understanding their market. If people had to make decisions based on the history of broadcasters instead of using the FCC as a lobby against the entertainment industry, shows would lose viewers (instead they often create "grudge viewers" who watch just to get mad) and the markets would right the boat while viewers would be more intelligent with their watching habits.
The FCC should be for regulating signals and criminal activity. Subjectively "indecent" content should not be able to be punished in a pseudo-criminal manner by an organization that is not representational of their constituency.
Parent
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:3, Insightful)
They have this already. Perhaps you've heard of cable and satellite services?
On occasion, Comedy Central plays the South Park movie, uncut, including the Saddam/Satan bedroom scene and all of the swear words. The run this after 10pm just in case, but it's still there.
Of course, you can still occasionally see some nudity on PBS stations, though
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:5, Funny)
Well, they don't call this station Mountain Lake PBS for nothing. The transmitter is in a pretty remote location and could only be reached by snowmobile at this time of year. So, the image lasted quite a long time (12 hours, IIRC) before it got fixed. As silly as it sounds, the incident made national news. Just thought I'd share.
Parent
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:5, Insightful)
But you're forgetting the "Won't somebody think of the children" rule. If I buy a TV just so I can watch Pat Robertson warn me about the evil that gays and *shudder* liberals pose to my existence, what's to prevent my theoretical 5-year old child from turning on the tube and being assaulted by some tripe-spewing volcano of depravity (or an NBA game) coming over the "free" airwaves.
And v-chips? Pshaw I say. I can barely be counted on to form my own opinion when it comes to presidential elections. How am I supposed to regulate what my children watch?
Parent
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe you can explain to the rest of us what's so bad about a human body that your children would be harmed by some images of Janet Jackson? They didn't nurse with a blindfold after all. Or is it just a control thing?
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:4, Insightful)
No, MTV/NFL pissed off about three people, the rest were whipped up into a frenzy by the press. No-one really cared until the media told them they should.
Over here in the UK, more overt nudity is used to advertise kitchen appliances and motor oil.
Parent
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly to me, while there was more sexuality on overseas there were less crime dramas and less violence overall in those areas. I know which of the two I would rather a developing mind see.
Parent
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:5, Insightful)
Jack Nicholson
Parent
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:4, Informative)
What Powell did not reveal--apparently because he was unaware--was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003--99.8 percent--were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.
This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.
Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints--aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS-- were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners' statements.)
A small fundamentalist group is, with Bush and Powell's avid help, bringing down a blanket of censorship on America.
Parent
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:3, Interesting)
Not exactly. The airwaves are public property. The idea is that one should be able to purchase a radio and access these public broadcasts without having to resort to extraordinary efforts to avoid (for example) profanity. In the "olden days" there was no way to go to 97.3FM from 100.7FM without passing by 99.1FM due to the nature of the analog tuning dial (and TV was similar). This being the case,
So why can't free media have freedom of expression (Score:4, Insightful)
You PAY for satellite radio (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:You PAY for satellite radio (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:You PAY for satellite radio (Score:5, Interesting)
This is why MTV is so tame. MTV could allow uncensored rap/nudity/etc, but the advertisers are too conservative to alow such a thing. It's just capitalism at work.
Parent
TV is subscription too (Score:5, Funny)
Re:TV is subscription too (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:TV is subscription too (Score:2)
Re:TV is subscription too (Score:3, Informative)
Cable TV subscribers often forget that many people in the US don't have cable, and rely on over the air broadcasts.
The FCC controls the process that TV stations follow to obtain a broascast license.
The bigger question is how did the FCC evolve from a technical organization to a decency enforcer?
So... (Score:4, Insightful)
Again.
I can't decide whether I find it comforting these kinds of rulings keep showing up so often or worrisome these kinds of rulings are even being CONSIDERED.
kind of funny (Score:4, Insightful)
Level the playing field? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes! Once the playing field is leveled, to the ground, charred, smoking, apocalyptic, barren of expression... the public interest will have been protected.
DUH (Score:2, Informative)
LK
Re:DUH (Score:5, Interesting)
Had the FCC actually decided that satellite radio had to be `decent', then this would not only put a stop to bad language on Comedy Central, but also to PPV porn on Direct TV or Dish Network, for example. Of course, it doesn't have to be just porn -- any show with nudity would be prohibited.
(It's odd how violence is ok, but the slightest view of a nipple and people go nuts.)
In any event, it's refreshing to see the FCC make a good decision once in a while.
Parent
Level the playing field? (Score:3, Interesting)
Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency (Score:5, Insightful)
I think the whole state of affairs is flawed.
1) If I am a well-off under-18 I likely have access to some form of credit account (even if it is just my debit card attached to my allowance). I can subscribe to one of these services much easier than I can to a satellite TV service because I don't need to deal with an installer.
Is it likely? No, and even then most parents aren't going to care as much. Doesn't change the lack of validity in the presumption.
Plus it doesn't stop me from listening to the music / talk / whatever being played by my friends and simply put satellite radio is a lot more portable than the Playboy channel.
2) I can get access to whatever content I want on the Internet
3) It should be up to the adult or a parent and no one else what is indecent. I personally would MUCH rather have a teenage boy listening to Howard Stern enact boyish fantasies than to have that same teenage boy listening to a radical fundamentalist preacher telling him his thoughts are evil (and I know that the reverse is true for many). I may not consider the preacher indecent (though it gets close sometimes), but that just highlights the point AFAIK.
Point is
Re:Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Cheapest shot I've heard: (Score:2)
Re:Cheapest shot I've heard: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the same way, HBO is currently broadcast to millions of hotel guests who aren't directly subscribing to HBO, but who have access to that service due to arrangements that the hotel has made for them.
I guess that when you're getting desperate, every crackpot theory seems pretty reasonable.
Indecency? (Score:2, Interesting)
We may not censor anything for whatever reason, i though America had similar laws.
But now that i think of it, i remember all the "bleeps" in imported shows from America, i think indencency laws are oretty dumb, because who has the right to determine what is decent and what is not?
That guy that complained... (Score:5, Insightful)
Listening to Satellite radio is a CHOICE. You can't "accidentally" listen to it. You have to actively and willfully make an attempt to listen to it, and thus the FCC has absolutely NO grounds to censor it.
That guy is just a chump and can't compete in the market place, so he wants big brother to step in and fight his battles for him. People like that need to be removed from the gene pool.
I'm so SICK AND TIRED of being told what I can and can't watch/hear by other people. I wish there was someplace left on this earth I could go start my own nation.
Hey FCC, that's good but for an encore... (Score:4, Insightful)
...how about laying off cable TV? I've never understood why the Comedy Channel has to edit their damn movies. They're not broadcast transmissions. You have to pay to get them, you can't stick a coathanger antenna out your window and receive them - so what's the problem?
Sponsors (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunately, sponsor censorship is just a fact of life. If you want to pay for all of your own programming, subscribe to HBO (it's well worth it, IMHO), and get all the sex and swearing you can handle. If you want Proctor & Gamble to pay for your programming, you have to let them dictate what will not be part of it.
aQazaQA
Parent
pornography and satellite TV (Score:4, Informative)
There are two major types of satellite in the US. One is TVRO, or "BUD" which uses a large dish and receives mostly on the C band (although I believe it can do ku band) - it uses fairly open standards. The other is DBS (Direct Broadcast System) which uses a mini-dish and receives I believe exclusively on the Ku band - it uses very closed standards. Originally TVRO was more popular, but DBS has become more popular over the years. DirecTV, Echostar's DISH network and a new service called Voom are three American DBS companies.
Looking at broadcast maps, it occurred to me that signals seem to be confined to a continent. European porn channels are mostly confined to Europe, American porn channels are mostly confined to North America. I didn't see any satellite that spanned the Atlantic with its signal. Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah or Tennessee and the City of Cincinatti, Ohio have laws against the content of American porn satellite channels, so satellite companies won't sell to subscribers there (or will limit what they can get). Southern states legislatures probably have an effect on the rest of the country, European satellite TV can show a lot of content that American TV can not. But the adult content Americans can get from Europe is limited, if any, at least from what I could see - correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyhow, I'll look up some specifics about the various channels (like TEN, Playboy etc.) and post it as a reply to this message a little later.
Re:pornography and satellite TV (Score:3, Informative)
Pablum... (Score:4, Interesting)
Childproofing is the task of running around your house to make it "safe" for an unmonitored child so they can't start fires, can get at poisons (which they will eat) and can break things.
This is what you get when people utterly refuse to raise their children. Parents today want the schools to do it for them. And, want the government to help. And anybody else they can get - as long as they are left out of the process. So, we end up with a society that has been "childproofed". That is really what we are talking about here, isn't it?
The side effect of this is until our society is completely childproofed, we have abberations where children are incompletely raised. The result of this is rampent welfare ("The government OWES me, man!"), theft ("I want, I want NOW!") and vandalism. So, shops put in expensive theft-prevention equipment and police end up dealing with 20-year-old children that never grew up.
How many older or adult children killed their parents this year? How many killed their parents before 1960? How about adjusting this as a percentage of the population and seeing if there is any growth? This is a sure sign of parental abdication.
WTF!?! this is totally stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Now could someone please explain why a V-Chip like system (that either blocks out the audio/video when it gets the signal OR unblocks a scrambled audio/video when it gets the signal) has not been standardised to solve this stupid problem? All the FCC needs to do is find out how many people oppose censorship vs how many are in favour and then decide which system to use and therefore who has to buy new radios/tvs or adaptors if they want to take advantage of it, it really is that simple. Or just do what the rest of the world does and not get so anal about hearing people swear.
Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Spectrum management. Period.
Parent
What the FCC does (Score:3, Informative)
I was unclear on what the bounds of the FCC's mandate actually are, so I did some checking. According to the FCC [fcc.gov]:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the Distri
Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid (Score:4, Funny)
That's the problem. Too many here on SlashDot are self righteous idiots who think their opinion is the majority one because its obviously right. Well guess what - its not.
Parent
Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid (Score:5, Informative)
Incorrect. 98% of all complaints to the FCC come from ONE single lobbying organization. [mediaweek.com]
That's not the majority. That's a lobbying group with an agenda they want to push.
Parent
So What's the Big Difference? (Score:3, Interesting)
Is it mainly technology (satellite vs. land-based), or is it that one is pay-based, and the other is free? This is important.
If it turns out that pay-based is the criterion, then would we start to see some land-based broadcasting systems encrypting their signals and then charging a subscription fee, in order to skirt FCC rules? Or would we start to see the FCC clamp down on any free satellite-based broadcasting companies?
If it's technology-based, what's to stop the FCC (other than Congress) from saying later on, "You know what? We got the satellite stuff too. STFU Howard Stern."
Perfectly sensible (Score:4, Interesting)
A child can buy an AM/FM radio - there is no contract involved. That is the fundamental difference.
That is also true of TVs, but they're significantly more expensive, making it much more likely a parent would know if his child had a personal TV set.
TVs now must, because of type acceptance rules, have ratings enforcement mechanisms (the so-called "V" chip). The reason that the rules have not been loosened significantly is that those rules do not apply universally - TVs smaller than a certain size are exempt. If we *knew* that every TV had a parental control mechanism, then TV-MA programming *should* have no decency rules at all.
The first ammendment does not allow content based censorship unless it is the least intrusive means available to achieve the end of allowing parents to keep offensive programming away from their children. We are rapidly approaching the time when it won't be anymore. I'm looking forward to it.
And by the way, before anyone brings up Cable / Satellite TV channels... I believe that they actually do *not* have to abide by the same decency standards. I believe they do voluntarily (except for the premium tiers, of course, like HBO, Showtime, etc).
And here's why the end is nigh... (Score:3, Interesting)
Our freedoms shouldn't be contingent on an ability to pay...
I know why this problem exists (Score:3, Insightful)
On both sides.
On one side are those who would just make every other word in a script a four letter one. South Park did a great parody of this in their "shit" episode. It started as one network show saying the word "shit" once, to an episode of Drew Carrey where people just yammered "Shit shit shitty shitter shit shit..."
And on the other side there's the people whose heads explode if someone uses the word "hell" even in an academic context, or the letters c, o, n, d, o and m are used in close proximity to one another.
So you have to find some balance. It seemed like we had it for a long time. I'm not entirely sure what happened to make it all start resonating.
You don't don't want to censor to the point where only two year olds are served by the airwaves, and you don't want zero restraint that allows the airwaves to degrade into a river of shit. Neither state serves the public interest. Both cases are catering to a lowest common denominator, albeit different types- idiots who are idiots because they are 2 years old, or idiots who are idiots because they are dumbfuck asshats.
The solution is to kill more people.
Paid Free Speech Zone... (Score:4, Insightful)
higher frequency heavenly photons (Score:3, Funny)
But that's not true if the antenna is located in the heavens and the photons are in microwave bands. In such case, those considerations of a public good and civil discourse go to hell.
Sure, it all makes perfect sense.
If American culture is coarse and vulgar then broadcasts to the American public should reflect this on both terrestrial and satellite broadcasts. The FCC should be consistent, applying one standard to the AM & FM and satellite bands.
If the resultant content is coarse and vulgar, that reflects the marketplace's demand for corruption. Don't like it? Improve yourself and those around you. Not enough? It tells you you're failing at the job of being salt and light.
Re:And (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Sweet (Score:3, Insightful)
It doesn't mean that I like him. It just means that he and I both understand: he has a right to exist, and I have a right to dislike him. And both of us will defend each other's rights, because if I let the (capital R) Right take him then I know I'll be next.