FCC Indecency Rules Don't Apply to Satellite Radio 330
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."
And (Score:0, Insightful)
So why can't free media have freedom of expression (Score:4, Insightful)
You PAY for satellite radio (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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
Free market regulates it (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
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 they get away with it because it's artful and tastefully done, and some of the darker TV shows on the main three after 10pm would push the lines a bit before the whole Super Bowl incident.
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?
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.
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?
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Subscriptions, Privacy and Indencency (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
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.
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
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:Indecency? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:WTF!?! this is totally stupid (Score:5, Insightful)
Spectrum management. Period.
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.
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:5, Insightful)
Jack Nicholson
Re:And (Score:3, Insightful)
Paid Free Speech Zone... (Score:4, Insightful)
At least until Howard Stern starts on satellite (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:"Privately owned" (Score:2, Insightful)
It's really not *that* hard to control a kid's access to media, it just takes a modicum of discipline on the part of the parent. (Speaking from experience as a parent with reasonably high standards about what constitutes acceptable viewing material.)
Re:Sweet (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I know why this problem exists (Score:2, 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.
It's really strange to me... (Score:2, Insightful)
Can we say, "Misguided?"
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?