FCC to Fine Curses More Than Nuke Violations 634
DiZNoG writes "With Congress debating new higher fines for broadcast indecency in the wake
of last year's 'wardrobe malfunction' and Howard Stern's antics, Rolling
Stone has published
an interesting perspective on things. Rolling Stone did a review of fines
levied by other federal regulatory bodies, and has found the new indecency fines
disproportionately large compared to other fines. According to the article,
if the bill passes then 'for the price of Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction'
during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient
in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps
at two nuclear reactors.' The article further states the largest fine the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission levied last year was $60,000, this new bill would
allow broadcast indecency fines up to $500,000. Glad I keep my broadcast cursing
to a minimum, now if I could only get a handle on those pesky dangerous nuclear
mishaps."
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:2, Insightful)
Wrong dept. (Score:5, Insightful)
from the punishment-fits-the-crime dept.
You mean the punishment-fits-the-bra dept.? I think this says a lot, though, about the hypocrisy of our country--we bomb others who have nukes, we punish nuclear gaffes for a lot, but we allow violence over sex and must punish boob-revelations and the like for 4* as much? *sigh*...I apologize, I just still don't get it.
Benjamins (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just an example of proportionate fines. Like charging a person for speeding based on their income. Why should someone not fear the penalty if they can easily afford the fine? I see no problem with this practice.
Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
The best thing WE can do is to contact the FCC [afa.net] and let them know that we disagree (yes, use the American Family Association's website against them). The bulk of the feedback they get tells them that showing a naked breast on TV or speaking a certain word is the most horrific thing that could happen to the populus.
-S
Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Apples v. Oranges (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:3, Insightful)
It's like, if the only punishment for speeding was a $50 fine... It would probably still keep me from doing it, because I'm a poor bastard, but Bill Gates in his V12 armchair wouldn't care, because to him, $50 is well worth the enjoyment derived from driving fast.
And the nuclear thing... So what if that was the biggest fine issued last year... Maybe there weren't any violation deserving of their bigger fines.
Rolling Stone Magazine (Score:2, Insightful)
Blame in the wrong place (Score:5, Insightful)
Congress is pushing the stepped-up enforcement.
Congress is responsible for the raise in fines.
If you've got a problem with this, write your two senators, and representative.
Furthermore, there is one group [parentstv.org] who are responsible for 99.9% of the FCC indecency complaints. Perhaps there's a problem not with the government, but with some ninnies who have nothing better to do than worry about what people are watching on TV, or listening to on the radio.
(Yes, I am a broadcaster, no I'm not speaking on behalf of my employer, yadda, yadda, yadda).
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Benjamins (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, a nuclear accident could cost MORE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:2, Insightful)
We vote with our conscience because we cannot stomach the neo-fascist posturing and legislating done by Bush, Ashcroft, Cheny, Kerry, Liberman, Clinton, etc.
It's about risk (Score:5, Insightful)
I also tend to feel that just because something didn't happen yet doesn't mean it's not going to happen in the future.
Finally, I'm not anti-nuclear power by any means. France has done a great job keeping it clean and safe over the years. I also feel that the cost of coal and oil powerplants don't reflect their true cost in pollution, deaths from respiratory disease, and contribution to global climate change.
BBC (Score:1, Insightful)
It's things like this that make me appreciate the BBC all the more
RikF
Re:They have the money (Score:4, Insightful)
General corruption of the U.S. government (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just part of the general corruption of the U.S. government.
From the article: Free expression and First Amendment rights are the real target of this legislation," declared Rep. Bernie Sanders (Ind-Vt.) during the debate over the bill. "This is not what America is about."
A better description is that the real target is anyone who might say things that are not accepted by those who control the government.
Also, large fines for using negative words gets votes from those who think they are superior because of their religion. Such people and their anger are easily manipulated.
The government is being sold to anyone who has the money. Huge amounts of money are being borrowed and transferred to the pockets of those in power. The U.S. government is now far more in debt than ever before: Debt Clock [brillig.com]. If you are a U.S. citizen, you are expected to pay. Those who want corruption in the U.S. government [hevanet.com] want the government to borrow. The corrupters find ways to transfer the money to their pockets.
The origin of the present problems was in the 40s and 50s, when U.S. government leaders made two decisions. It is likely that those in power then did not understand that their decisions would eventually corrupt the entire government. At the time, the decisions seemed logical.
First, the government decided that it could act in other countries in secret. Second, the U.S. government decided it could act in secret to protect U.S. businesses in other countries.
What probably no one realized then was how much that would come to be a corrupting influence on the government. Probably no one realized then how much additional profit big multinational businesses could make by arranging, in secret, for U.S. taxpayers to pay for the security arrangements needed by U.S. multinational businesses.
Soon huge businesses were arguing that the U.S. government should subvert democratically elected leaders, as the government did in Iran in the 70s. Soon U.S. businesses would arrange unfair contracts with corrupt leaders, and when there was a protest, call for U.S. government intervention in the name of patriotism.
That's partly how we got to the present situation, where two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government, even though there is conflict of interest in such an arrangement.
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?
Since the Salem Witch trials?
Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people?
Since the Crusades?
Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate [wikipedia.org] body parts of children?
Since the Inquisition?
Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals?
Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)?
Since mostly [jewishvirtuallibrary.org] looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?
Since
When does following a worldview or belief system which is responsible for such acts become ethically and moraly indefensible? Those are some pretty bad things if you ask me. It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
Broadcast violations are intentional (Score:2, Insightful)
Why shouldn't the punishment for a deliberate action be higher than for an accidental one?
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
People can use anything as their cause and taint that cause, but it doesn't necessarily make that cause a bad thing.
Re:Benjamins (Score:2, Insightful)
But punitive fines/damages levied by a judge will take into account the financial resources of the entity being fined to make sure the fine actually represents a punishment. Similarly, bail is also influenced by a person's financial resources.
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you missed the "wronful death" comment...
The FP author compared the two because they both exist as government regulatory agencies, and, in a more abstract sense, they both act to protect the public from what they oversee.
Now, if you consider what they actually protect us from, you'll understand why the fines levied appear vastly disproportionate to the public risk of the violation....
Janet's breast, no public risk ("But think of the kids!" Yeah, the same kids that started life sucking on a pair of the same things) - $550,000 fine.
Three mile island, by comparison, did release quite a bit of radiation into the nearboy Middletown area, and came within half an hour of rendering half of Pennsylvania uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years - $155,000 fine.
Howard stern discusses topics with the maturity of a group of 3rd-grade boys. Fined $495,000 and, on the bigger issue of immature radio hosts, Clear Channel gets whacked for 1.75 MILLION dollars.
The Hanford site in Washington, which had a rather lengthy history of very serious "accidents", releases 25,000 gallons of water contaminated with plutonium in 1997. Fined? $140,625.
Things like THAT leads us to wonder just how far the FCC has its head stuck up its netherregion. "Turn the earth to sand, and still commit no crime", but don't you dare use any colorful four-letter words, or show any perfectly natural humal parts not shared by both genders...
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:3, Insightful)
True, but the FCC is actually a part of the Executive Branch and is therefore ultimately responsible to Bush and his staff. I'm sure Powell knows which way the wind blows.
The problem isn't soley Bush nor is soley Powell. They're just lightning rods because they're easily identifiable. The problem is the whole puritanical attitude of the entire administration. While Bush has real power, in many cases he's also a figure head because one doesn't get elected President of the United States by himself; it's a massive team effort. The Prez is only one person out of many that is guiding this administration and setting priorities. It's reasonable to assume that if Gore had been elected, the FCC's marching orders might have been a bit different.
Re:Broadcast violations are intentional (Score:3, Insightful)
You can affect the frequency of accidents with safety and preventive measures. We want that frequency to be low enough so that they basically don't occur, and we want companies to make the necessary investments to achieve such a low frequency.
Why shouldn't the punishment for a deliberate action be higher than for an accidental one?
They are both deliberate actions, and the nuclear and medical ones have far more severe consequences. Therefore, the fines for the nuclear and medical violations should be higher.
So, if an accident does occur at a nuclear power plant or in a nursing home, that is clear evidence that the operator intentionally chose to skimp on investing in safety and supervision in order to save money.
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the relative severity of the punishments meted out gives us a good idea of how seriously those crimes are perceived by the government.
Re:A matter of proportion (Score:3, Insightful)
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
'nuff said...
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you think would fly better:
"I want to ban gay marriage because I don't like them"
"I want to ban gay marriage because it says so in the bible"
There's nothing wrong with religion, but the world would be a much better place if it were not organized.
Re:Nothing really new. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot rule #13: if the government does anything bad, make it degenerate into a republican/democrat mudslinging match.
It the same government folks, no matter which figurehead is trying to run it this year.
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:2, Insightful)
A couple of those and they won't have quite so many customers eager to soak up that energy, either.
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
OK, apples and oranges you may say, but since these are just words...simple words over the airwaves. Words in and of themselves are harmless. No word has ever physically harmed anyone in the history of mankind. Actions taken by people against or because of words, that's a different matter. But simply seeing a naked boob or refering to that boob as a "tit" on the airwaves means nothing.
But yet, this goverment (granted, two different offices that have nothing to do with each other, but still, under the umbrella of "the goverment") wants to put a fine up to (and when they say "up to" they really are going to use the max for the first couple of slobs that try to challenge this) 500,000 bucks. 500,000 bucks for saying words. That's all they're doing, talking and speaking certain words or certain subjects and getting whacked for half a million PER INCIDENT.
On the flip side, the fines handed out by this same government (see above about both agencies under same government blah blah) to nuclear mishaps, which CAN be deadly, which CAN harm others, is relatively low.
So in essence...you know, I'm not going to sum it up, I mean utlemming, you KNOW all this. You can't seriously not understand this. It's not a red herring (which by the way, is a term that's misused here).
It boils down to this, there shouldn't be ANY fines from the FCC. The FCC should just be there to hand out broadcast license and SHUT THE FUCK UP! If you don't like Howard Stearn or Rush Limbaugh, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM! Case closed. Go change the channel. But no, we have to fine everyone...how DARE they say tit on the radio!
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:2, Insightful)
While the vast majority of human beings have differing beliefs and viewpoints on almost everything, the one thing that they all have in common is that they believe in or practice a religion. When you don't understand the real reason for something, it is easy to blame religion because it is so widespread and diverse. Maybe the death of religion would be a good thing because it would (hopefully) force us to look at the real issues of the world.
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:5, Insightful)
Disproportionately wealthy? Do you have any idea how much money the "energy" industry pulls in? From CNN, "Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, just missed $300 billion in sales for the year". By comparison, from the Motley Fool, "Few if any Wall Street watchers believe that AOL Time Warner will make its aggressive $40 billion sales goal and $11 billion EBITDA goal this year". Yeah, I'll agree that seems fairly disproportionate, but I think you have the balance off by just a tad.
Even ignoring how much they make, though, what about how much damage they can cause?. Outraged parents and Christians aside, most otherwise-sane people would agree that a 1.5 second nipple shot doesn't cause all that much "damage" to anyone, not even to uber-horny early-teens males.
On the other side of that, would you consider turning half of PA into an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland as some pretty serious damage? Would you consider Bhopal (not in the US, but the same thing COULD happen here) as something worth some pretty hefty "preventative" fines to avoid?
Judge should be put in prison for public safety. (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if it was my car I'd settle for a _new_ car + damages + pay for my transport costs (till I get the car), in lieu of jail for him. If I really was pissed off - car had sentimental value etc. I'd just be happy with a max 1 year jail time (coz jail time often means a bigger mark in your record).
I don't see how it benefits anyone to send him to jail for 22 years 8 months. Even the min 7 years is rather long.
If you set fire to 3 people, to me that'll be really different. But 3 SUVs?
While random damage to property should be discouraged, I think the judge is doing a lot more damage than Jeff did to the SUVs and the owners.
If the judge can't tell the difference between the seriousness of damaging cars and directly damaging people, I think the judge should be put in prison to keep the public safe from him.
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:2, Insightful)
You didn't answer the question at all. The OP asked what's wrong with being religious.
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?
Religious fanaticism is not "being religious" any more than liking sex makes you a pedophile.
Since the Salem Witch trials? Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people? Since the Crusades? Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children? Since the Inquisition? Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals? Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)? Since mostly looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?
Again, this completely avoids the question. Nobody claims that groups of people don't make mistakes. Why would religious groups be any different? Look at the horrors committed under Stalin in the name of atheism... how is that any different--or better?
When you talk about religion you're missing something very important. The word "religion" has two separate definitions: religion as a system of beliefs and religion as an institution, which consists of fallible men. Judging Christians on the basis of immoral actions of the institution of Catholicism is like you accountable for the actions of the United States under George W. Bush.
Are all religions (as systems of beliefs) are equal? No. Obviously some are better than others. And some are undeniably evil. But to group them all into a single group called "religion" and classify it as "morally indefensible" is unfair.
It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
And living in despair without purpose or reason isn't?
-Grym
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
Living in your incredible arrogance is pretty bad. I am agnostic - I do not believe that in the absense of any evidence in either direction that we can make statements about a deity or deities. Of course, many people try to spin scientific discovery (or lack thereof) to suit their own interpretation of the facts but the bottom line is that no one has ever proven or disproven the validity of any religion. To do so would really cheapen the whole thing, because it's not about fact but about faith.
Some people seem to need something to cling to, and there is always a religion around waiting to take advantage of and profit from that particular element of the human condition. In return the religion offers the sheeple a support network and a sense of well-being. Basically every organization exists to fulfill this purpose. The thing I find amusing about religion is that it asks you to accept something unprovable. In other words it operates on the irrational side of existence which makes it particularly attractive to those who are experiencing a life crisis.
However, every time someone engineers some system like this, there are people who are taken advantage of. And, of course, there is stratification. If the goal of Catholicism were as stated, to save souls and help people, then there wouldn't need to be a pope dressed up in gold and silk. You might still have a pope but he could be in an office building for all that matters. The most important realization to come to about religion is that it is not about spirituality when it is wrapped up in complex trappings. It's about control, and the people on top getting what they want. You don't need all that shit to make a statement about spirituality. I'm not sure what's so special about gold and jewels that they should adorn religious icons anyway; they're pretty but most precious metals have only specialty uses. Using them for corrosion protection seems a bit excessive and, well, arrogant.
Even religions which do not amass wealth like the Catholic church are still about controlling people and making them behave in the way the founder(s) desire(d). Do you really need someone else to tell you how to connect with your spiritual self?
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:1, Insightful)
Profane political speech is very potent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wrong dept. (Score:4, Insightful)
It's the new Bible-thumper version of Political Correctness. It's just as senseless, counterproductive, hypocrical and self-destructive as the old lefty version, but it's an all-new flavor!
Re:Wrong dept. (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, what country do you live in? I'm here in the US, which only bombs countries that don't have nukes.
Has any government ever attacked another that has nukes? Terrorists have, of course, but nuclear weapons do seem to be a good deterrent against other governments.
Granted, the sample size isn't all that large. And the US did bomb a Chinese embassy a few years ago.
Re:Benjamins (Score:5, Insightful)
Howard Stern != the entertainment industry.
Howard Stern got fined $495,000, and the Three Mile Island plant was fined $155,000, according to this post [slashdot.org]. Howard Stern doesn't make as much as a powerstation, I'm pretty sure. The whole entertainment industry wasn't fined, just him.
Needless to say (I thought), while the entertainment industry may make more than one power plant, the energy industry makes an order of magnitude or two more than the entertainment industry, if you want to compare apples to apples...
/.'ers: THINK for a minute! (Score:1, Insightful)
All these complaints about the FCC and "freedom of expression" on /. are completely bogus. Ask yourself: who's freedom of expression is the FCC curtailing? Yours? No, you are just the boob sitting in front of the tube. You aren't expressing anything. Janet Jackson's? Justin Timberlake's? Howard Stern's? No, they aren't the ones that the FCC is fining.
The FCC is fining corporations, not individuals. Do corporations have a right to freedom of expression? Of course not. They don't even have a right to broadcast. What (a few) corporations do have is a license to broadcast. Licensing of broadcasters is absolutely necessary, because the broadcast spectrum is limited. Licensing broadcasters in a controlled way is what allows broadcast to work in the first place.
You may argue (you corporation-lover you) that, even though licensing is necessary, the FCC should not include regulate content in any way. But the broadcast spectrrum is a public trust, no different that any other public trust. As such, it must be controlled so that the public - the entire public - retains safe and effective use of it. You can not dynamite Mount Rushmore, you cannot erect a sculture in the middle of a highway, and you cannot broadcast just anything you want. "Won't somebody think of the children?" Do you think that it'd be okay to broadcast a cartoon about a team of White Supremicist superheros making the world safe for whitey? Maybe it'd be funny to create a show telling children about the tasty flavors of the cleaners stored under the kitchen sink! Or, since you are a corporate shill and all, maybe you think that all cartoons should be 30 minute ads for toys or cereal with no educational content whatsoever?
Or perhaps you're really shedding all your tears over poor Howard Stern (or Janet Jackson and Justin Timerblake, who will never get another shot at a superbowl half-time show). Well, dry your eyes, bucko - the FCC didn't fine or censor those folks, the corporation did. And that is really the point, isn't it. Because in the end, nobody has ever had the right to say whatever they want on the broadcast channels - the content of the broadcast channel is completely under the control of the corporate licensee! If you don't believe me, try to get a few minutes on the CBS evening news some time based on your "freedom of expression". Good luck! Howard Stern does not and should not have any more rights than you have, so neither of you has a right to be broadcast.
Now what's left over for you to complain about? I suppose there's always the specifics of the FCC regulations themselves. Perhaps you think there should be more ads, or maybe more violence, or more profanity. Good for you! I happen to disagree, but I believe in democracy - let's vote on it.
Oops, too bad. Sorry that didn't work out for you - maybe next time! In the meantime, I feel just awful that there is nowhere you can go to get all the ads and porn that your heart desires. Maybe If we just sit here and think a while, maybe just maybe we can think of somewhere....
Re:Nothing really new. (Score:5, Insightful)
However, like many things in life, it wasn't that simple, was it? He was burning the cars as a form of political protest. Had they been cars that he bought (and had he gotten the appropriate permits and had safety precautions in place), it would have been free speech. However, he chose to use other people's property! When you set fire to another person's property, that is arson. He was not jailed for his politics - he was jailed because he's an arsonist... imagine if everyone used his tactic of "protest". Can I set his car on fire because I think he's wrong? As long as no one dies or gets hurt, it's all Kosher, right?
C'mon, there are real political prisoners out there - people who are arrested for what they say and believe. Don't waste your time rallying around this particular moron.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:1, Insightful)
Grandparent poster seems to live under the "us and them" delusion that anyone who does not share his unprovable beliefs must be a sad, sorry wretch. Parent poster puts him firmly but politely in his place.
oh, please (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it is. There's Liberman and the guy on the FCC. How many other Democrats can you name that are luddites? Here's some Republicans I can name off the top of my head: Powell, Santorum, Fallwell, Bennett, Hatch, Coburn. Want to take any bets on the political affiliation of groups like the Parents Television Council? Next I suppose you'll imply that Democrats are as much to blame for the gay marriage hysteria because there are a couple of Democrats who supported the bans.
Luddites are now the dominant wing in the dominant Republican party. Take away those few Democrats, and nothing would change - you'd still have Republicans in Congress trying to pass huge fines. Take away the Republicans, and this issue goes nowhere.
Does this mean I excuse Liberman for being a luddite? No, of course not. But I do have a sense of proportion and know where to put most of the blame.
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:2, Insightful)
Yup, you do. The above senario - speaking out of your ass to explain things you don't understand - is the basis for every religion.
You want to know why people of some religions think the way they do? Research it.
And your point is...what? They're all variations on thunderbolts and mammoths.
If you do that, you're bypassing the scientific method and coming to a conclusion you cannot uphold.
What, like buying a bunch of crap that was made up by people living thousands of years ago?
My faith comes from not knowing all the answers. I hope nobody claims that position, because if you do, I can guarantee that you are dead wrong.
I don't know if you noticed, but your faith (Baptist) is all about telling people what the answers are. That's what religion does.
I felt this was appropriate (Score:3, Insightful)
By Luke Green
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
Grow Up Slashdot! (Score:4, Insightful)
Fines for "indecency," raise 'em! Provide incentive to develop meangingful programming... Socially valuable content renders expletives useless, and if you like p(.)rn there's no shortage. Educational content and thoughtful social commentary doesn't usually appeal to stupid consumers? Good.
Focus on governmental agency tactics for a minute. Fines are the poor man's control "schtick." Seems like it should work, but it's past facto and even the death penalty doesn't serve as a deterrent for those who can't see past their hormones or the next 5 minutes.
That having been said, negative incentives work best when they are levied upon the correct individuals and proportionate to the wealth of the violator. See that happening anywhere? In the U.S., we don't fine the shareholders. Without that ability NRC's fines would be little more than token bones to public perception because they would be passed through to consumers as a price increase.
(Witness the multiplier effect of an increase in the cost of energy. Cost of consumption is going up people! Of course if you are heavily diversifled enough you don't take the hit.)
The only reasonable way to get at the problems of nuclear power, without a revolution, is to make clean alternatives financially viable while requiring enforcement of health, safety and environmental law.
IN the mean time focusing on such trivial conversation, just like network programming does, you serve only to deflect focus from more important issues.
Grow Up Slashdot
You will first have to define indecent. (Score:2, Insightful)
In some circles you cant even make a very bleak curse while in some you are completely ignored even if you are expressing yourself that may cause most people to turn their heads.
From my point of view I find the censoring that occurs in some TV shows more indecent than it they had been showing the real thing or broadcasting the real expression instead of a -beep-...
Some examples: The OCC(Orange County Choppers) has a poster on their wall, which is blurred by somebody because it is indecent or something. Same goes with some blurring of soda cans in the Mythbusters series. So what if they are using Pepsi or Coke... I wouldn't care less. The Janet Jackson incident isn't worth more than a yawn from me... So if some kids were watching, well they can probably see more in some magazines. It seems to me that some naked bodyparts are more annoying to some people than cutting someones throat during dinner.
Parents Television Council (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Benjamins (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you on drugs? First, comparing the entire entertainment industry to a single powerstation is ingenuine. Secondly, the power industry dwarfs the entertainment industry. Your entire argument is misleading and faulty.
Re:Useful Terms (Score:3, Insightful)
Show a tit on TV and get fined. Say shit on the radio and get fined.
But send thousands of 18 year old kids to foriegn country to die horrible deaths for lie, and the fucking country relects you for president.
Morality my ass. This is just fucking stupid.
~X~
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:2, Insightful)
It's a pity it's breasts and swear words, not violence, which is being regulated then. I would rather see a nipple for a couple seconds than be exposed to the violence that is allowed on TV everyday. That said, I'm not about to complain about it, because changing the channel, choosing not to watch TV is, in fact, quite easy. Want to know how my parents prevented me from watching unwholesome television as a child? They encouraged me to be more amused by things other than television. They encouraged me to read, play outside, play games with my friends.
Re:Profane political speech is very potent (Score:3, Insightful)
No, instead I am saying that profanity is an integral part of True Speech, of Real Speech. Not ALL True Speech contains profanity, nor should it. But True Speech requires profanity SOMETIMES. When needed. So by removing profanity from the mass media (the main channel of political communication), True Speech rarely occurs in Ameican politics. Ross Perot came out of nowhere because he managed to use some True Speech by not using the standard political diction and vocabulary.
And then add in other neutering aspects of American politics....
This is a complicated subject, more deserving of an entire book, than of a slashdot post. I just do my best to communicate my ideas as best I can in the limited time I have to devote to them....