Attempt to Apply Decency Standards to Cable/Satellite Television 709
bigtallmofo writes "Reuters is reporting that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (Senator from Alaska) is pushing for decency standards to apply to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio. You may recall Senator Stevens for voting against a measure to criticize the FCC in 2003 for loosening its broadcast ownership restrictions. Maybe he thinks profanity provides an unfair advantage to his broadcast-company constituents?" We touched on this last year, in the attempt to apply decency standards to satellite radio.
Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
No constitutional basis, no public airwaves (Score:5, Insightful)
I was hoping we would all just move to cable and dump the government along the way.
Re:Discount? (Score:2, Insightful)
Go all the way (Score:5, Insightful)
I thought they already had this... (Score:3, Insightful)
And that was 10 years ago.
Now if you mean enforcing all tv producers to say "This movie is rated R" and use some blocking, I agree.
After all, kids watch cable, too, don't they?
Land of the Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:4, Insightful)
Big difference (Score:5, Insightful)
If you find cable indecent, you don't pay for the service. Arguement can be made if you don't like what's on broadcast TV, don't watch as well, but you don't pay directly for the programming on the public airwaves.
If people don't want South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut airing in all its rated R glory at midnight on saturday's then they won't watch it.
Voluntary Service (Score:5, Insightful)
This is dangerous ground... (Score:5, Insightful)
"The People Vs. Larry Flint" is a great case to show that there should be firm limits to what the government can or cannot say about decency standards. Larry Flint was able to show that his product, while distasteful to many, is covered under free speech and is not subject to this type of restriction. I don't see how pay-tv services should be treated differently. There are controls in place (parents) to restrict viewing. If these controls are insufficient, the problem is not with the material that's available to be viewed, the problem is with the parent.
Ridiculous (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:5, Insightful)
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
Now let us consider the following:
1. Violator of what, exactly, if there are not laws in place regulating cable right now?
2. You THINK you have the same power to regulate cable as "over-the-air"?
It makes sense that the federal government regulates airwaves as a "channel of commerce." This is fairly straightforward since the airwaves are generally considered publicly owned "space." Cable, however, runs over private property in a physically limited location. While there may be some power to regulate it, how can this be done without interfereing with private contract and first amendment rights?
3. [begin rant] Does it bother anyone else that federal officers will attempt to pass a law just because they "feel" they have the power, and "feel" something is needed? If there must be standards, why not let the bloody states set them and stop trying to distend the limits of federal authority beyond all recognizable bounds? [end rant]
Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
Now lets move on to next issue.
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop trying to NATIONALIZE EVERY ISSUE (Score:3, Insightful)
The right tries to set standards for the whole country, while the left refuses to allow anyone to set any standards anywhere.
Folks, there are all sorts of people out there and just as many ideas about how communities ought to operate.
Some like the order and peace that comes with tough limits on behavior, and some like the thrill of anarchy.
So long as people have the right to choose the city/town/village/rural backwater compatible with their outlook I don't see what the problem is leaving each community to decide for itself what is or isn't appropriate.
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is ridiculous. Are they going to start regulating pay-TV channels next, like HBO? You can't say the f-word anymore in movies?
One thing I've never understood about this censorship was articulated by George Carlin best. His sentiments are something along the lines of, why is it ok to use profanity as long as at least the key vowels are left out? For instance, "f*ck" is perfectly acceptable in most censored media, even though it still clearly expresses the idea, the concept behind the word, just as clearly as if that little asterisk were replaced by the "u" it "censors".
S*ck my fat f*cking c*ck, *ssh*le. Do you really feel protected from my sentiment because I've applied the appropriate amount of "censorship"? (Or am I simply not allowed to express certain sentiments at all under this new bill? Isn't that unConstitutional?)
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:1, Insightful)
Republicans for the Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)
If they believe in the power of the free market, then let the cable companies respond to the demand for "decent" cable TV.
Re:Don't push it Alaska (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:5, Insightful)
It makes sense that the federal government regulates airwaves as a "channel of commerce."
Actually from what I recall free speech issues on regulation of broadcast media are gotten around because the information is sent into everyones homes without any kind of subscription. It has nothing to do with being a channel of commerce. It's like regulating nudity on billboards, etc.
Cable television on the other hand is a subscription model, and broadcast into nobodys home that doesn't want it. Cable (and really satelite TV and satelite radio) are really like newpapers and magazines, and are granted the same first amendment protections.
Does it bother anyone else that federal officers will attempt to pass a law just because they "feel" they have the power, and "feel" something is needed? If there must be standards, why not let the bloody states set them and stop trying to distend the limits of federal authority beyond all recognizable bounds?
No, it bothers me when people try to regulate things that are clearly protected by first amendment rights. It would equally bother me if individual states tried the same thing.
Re:Republicans for the Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)
Idiocy in this case crosses party lines.
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
I belive you are entitled to a full , 100% , refund of that months payment. The service you paid for is the show, complete with "offensive content". If the content is tampered with before it is viewable, you just got screwed out of the product you paid for.
Censorship is a funny thing. I am offended by many blatantly ignorant statements on rightwing religous networks, such as fox news and scarborough country. Some people are offended by the George Carlin, The Daily Show, Real Time, great sex volume 9, or even Chapelle Show.
I developed a solution that I believe works for everyone. I hereby announce my intent to patent a method for preventing access of offensive content via the tuning mechanism of signal receivers which adjust the display to non-offensive content through a remote controll device.
If I am offended by someones kid crying in public, can I run up and put a piece of duct tape over his mouth ? Of course not, it's not my kid.
Well, why then should anybody get to put duct tape over the content I enjoy, it's my content. I paid for it. It's on a subscription service.
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree that things should be left to the States, or even the people, as the Constitution was written but those days are, sadly, long past. All we (the US) will be getting is more and more Federal government and regulations.
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Here's an idea - don't like what you see on cable/sat and don't want to bother parenting the children you decided to have?
Don't shell out the $50 a month to get cable/sat and stop fucking whining.
Is there some point to all this? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have a hard time believing that there are actually programs or movies being created that are patently offensive to a majority (or even a sizable minority) of the population. Such programs would not be watched and would thereby lose either their commerical sponsorship, or the revenue from paid subscribers.
I don't think I've ever seen anything on television, whether it be broadcast or cable, that struck me as just so henious that I needed the government to protect me from it.
The truth is that this kind of censorship is nothing more than an attempt by a small but organized minority to remove certain ideas from the public airwaves, and thus the public consciousness. Now they'll claim that its "for the children!" but this is at best a half-truth. They may actually care whether kids see the things they're up in arms against, but they're just as worried that adults will see them as well.
Here in America the concept of freedom of speech is enshrined in the document that is the foundation of our government, the US constitution. What most people don't recognize or realize is that freedom of speech itself is not meaningful without freedom of thought. Freedom of thought is dependent upon freedom of information. This is what censorship is an attempt to stifle. The things you know and the ideas and concepts you come into contact with determine the things you think about, which in turn determines what you talk about, the ideas that you express, and the conclusions you reach.
Censorship is evil regardless of who is doing it or the supposed justifcations behind it. If something is a lie, the answer is not to suppress it, but to answer it with the truth. The truth itself, needless to say, is not something that needs to be suppressed, and anyone who does so is NOT your friend. There are times when secrets are necessary, and when information needs to be kept private, but holding details in private is not the same as the active suppression of public discourse.
When Ted Stevens assumed office he took a solemn oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution. What he is doing is nothing less than the violation of his oath of office.
Lee
Re:Land of the Free (Score:5, Insightful)
Goddamnit! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:1, Insightful)
Parenting (Score:5, Insightful)
What ever happened to that V-Chip that was supposed to protect the children? DirectTV had the ability to lock out content and disable channels a long time ago. I remember showing my parents how to turn it off when they screwed it up.
Technology and government are not substitutes for parenting
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:1, Insightful)
Vote with your eyeballs, stop watching TV (or at least the offending shows) if you don't like them.
Re:Big difference (Score:5, Insightful)
What really worries me though is that most people now think that censoring (yes, that's what it is) over-the-air TV is ok. If someone isn't able to get cable for whatever reason, they're basically left with what government says is ok, and that sucks.
Re:Discount? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Don't push it Alaska (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Stop trying to NATIONALIZE EVERY ISSUE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Land of the Free (Score:1, Insightful)
A close second is that we are free from the burdens our leaders selflessly protect us from.
Oh, and who can forget the freedom to vote for the other candidate who will do exactly the same thing, but states it slightly differently?
When was this Golden Age of Obscenity? (Score:2, Insightful)
Was America "more free" before the advent of Civil Rights Act, Title 9, American's with Disabilities Act, etc? I would say no. The problem is that its a struggle to stay free, and you're gonna win some and lose some.
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, it's still easy, but now it's unlawful...
Re:This is what I hate about Conservatives (Score:2, Insightful)
The rest I'll agree with, however.
Re:Easy solution (Score:2, Insightful)
I sure as shit hope not! Trying to turn the net into an end all be all for every type of media puts a huge burden on the entire ball of wax. Why else do you think DDoS attacks work?
It is a lot like those OfficeJet printer/scanner/copier/fax machines. When you attempt to do many things it turns out that it often winds up that you do none of them well.
B.
Re:Land of the Free (Score:1, Insightful)
Why even bother proposing the law? Aren't there more pressing concerns to address? But proposing certainly works as a nice intimidation tactic to compel some concessions (witness Senator Liberman) without going through the Constitutionality tests. That is the fringe of the US.
Doesn't even bother you that some elected official is dragging out the censorship issue for the umpteenth time, and a ton of resources will have to be used to knock it down once again?
I've got better things to do than to be perpetually stuck rehashing this encroachment of rights.
That isn't freedom. That's slavery.
Re: Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)
"And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues. And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi" (Matt., xxiii, 1-8).
Re:The Fairness Doctrine as well. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:2, Insightful)
If they don't have time to raise the kids, maybe they shouldn't have them.
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:5, Insightful)
To me, that's the biggest problem with the U.S. -- we got founded by a bunch of guys from England who thought the Church of England wasn't prudish enough... Damn Puritans...
Honestly -- the first thing a baby sees is Mom's boobies...
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
Already done (Score:2, Insightful)
It is called the "off" switch.
Perhaps if people exercised some self-control and personal responsibility, instead of asking Big Bother to do it for them, we'd all be better off. There are certainly enough alternatives that people like you can safely drain their brains in front of the TeeVee without subjecting the rest of us to your morals.
If you don't like it, turn it off or change the channel. It's not that hard.
asterisk (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Better Solution (Score:3, Insightful)
There was one particular paragraph from the article that I found most interesting -- it's one of the few things that President Bush has said with which I agree:
Going back to your original comment about a "broadcast flag", there are a couple of potential problems I see with that system. The first is in the choice of who gets to classify programs to determine what constitutes vulgar language or inappropriate behavior. For instance, suppose that someone from Slashdot was chosen as that moderator. Any program praising Microsoft would instantly be marked as vulgar language
The second problem with the system is that of false positives. Let's say that you were watching an episode of Bill Nye, the Science Guy. Suddenly, in the middle of a segment on how vinegar affects eggshells, the sound goes dead. Why? He was talking about acid (acetic acid, to be precise.) Similarly, both 'cock' and 'ass', among other 'dirty words', have nonsexual meanings referring to various animals.
Re:Land of the Free (Score:4, Insightful)
Never been to the US "south" and eaten at a Denny's have you?
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:2, Insightful)
The Christians in the real world all have differing opinions. I, for one, don't mind watching movies with swear words--I very seldom swear despite hearing them both on TV and out in the real world.
As for things like nudity, I must admit that watching nekkid women turns me on, and causes me to think about things I know I shouldn't, but that's why I make it a point not to watch nekkid women.
The general consensus from Christians is "garbage in, garbage out." What's garbage for you is the same as what's garbage for me, and even if there is no perceptible change in behavior, even change in thought is undesireable. Before you peg me as being an extremist, I believe that "right thought" is part of the eight-fold path--the difference is what is deemed acceptible and what is not.
Now, I'm against this kind of censorship, because I think it's up to the parent to make sure their children are viewing appropriate material, and without such laws, I'm sure there would be a big market in this country for some kind of product that screens certain content on TV.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that Christians are no more weak-minded than you are. We have different standards that constitute what is acceptible or not, and because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically--is not something to be feared, friend. Try looking at the world from someone else's perspective.
Someone Else Controlling my life (Score:2, Insightful)
If it was up to these types of people, the only thing that would be on TV is the Christian Broadcasting Channel.
Uh huh. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't understand (Score:4, Insightful)
Let children watch violent sporting events which idolize violence and aggression as a means of conflict-resolution and ego gratification (Pro-everything).
Encourage children to idolize rapists (Kobi Bryant), murderers (OJ Simpson), wife-beaters (Mike Tyson) drug abusers (Strawberry), gangsters (the NBA), and cheaters (Canseco, et. al).
Encourage children to become enamored of a system which transferrs public funding (for stadium construction) into private hands (team owners) on the threat of leaving for another city (extortion).
Encourage children to become involved in a government-regulated monopoly, similar to many Soviet bureaucracies.
Encourage children to watch cheerleaders shake their scantily-clad privates into the camera, promoting the objectification of women as sexual property.
Yet it's not okay for a parent to use the remote control to prevent them from seeing 5-seconds of nipple.
Unless it's not really about "protecting the children", and it's really about "controlling the lives of others".
Re:Discount? (Score:5, Insightful)
They're just words. They mean the exact same thing as the word they're replacing. The meaning comes through.
Re: Nanny State (Score:3, Insightful)
That verse isn't an excuse to defraud people.
Even more Censorship? No, thank you!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Thought crimes? (Score:3, Insightful)
I got as far as I believe that "right thought" before I burst out laughing from thinking "Right Thinking is doubleplus good for everyone"
I hate to spoil your fun, but I was referring to a Buddhist tennant of purging the mind of undesireable thought. I did so to demonstrate that a) censoring undesireable material out of television is not for "behavior" as the original grand-parent said, and b) Christians are not the only ones interested in this. Why does this idea make you laugh?
The only problem is that this requires mommy and daddy to come home for an hour to read the instruction book and learn how to set up the TV and decide just what they want little timmy to see. And these days, thats just too hard for too many parents.
I agree--I have a real problem with parents that want to go along with censorship and all the first amendment problems it entails just because they're letting the TV raise their children and they don't want to do anything about it.
This is, incidentally, the core of the problem, so I'm glad we agree.
Re:Better Solution (Score:5, Insightful)
The discussion at hand is about cable/satellite television, for which you have to subscribe. In other words, you need to go out of your way to get it. I don't get cable because I think the vast majority of it is crap and a waste of time. Heck, how many reality TV shows do people really need anyway?
Why do you feel that media companies should treat you like a child and show some parental responsibility? If you're not an adult, then you can't subscribe to the material anyways and your parents should be the ones to regulate what you watch. If you are an adult, then you can choose not to subscribe and police yourself accordingly.
The producers think they are all high and mighty and don't need to show any responsibility and most people disagree.
How do you conclude that most disagree? Is that just a wild guess or can you back it up?
As one person said here a few months ago, just because you change the channel doesn't mean it goes away...
You're right. It doesn't go away. And just because you don't read that particular book in the library doesn't mean it goes away either. How about we rein in the authors while we're at it?
Re:Is there some point to all this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your rights extend to the point where your fingers touch the tip of my nose, and vice versa. There are plenty of things that I don't like, but the burden of living in a free society is that we are all going to see, hear, and know about things that we disagree with and do not like. You can either have freedom of speech or freedom from being offended, you can't have both.
Lee
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I have several Christian friends. I do not go out of my way to offend them, but I do consider them to be, for the most part, weak-minded, or, at the very least, programmed since birth. The funny thing is, if it's a cult (unpopular, small religion) it's brainwashing, but if it's religion, then we're teaching our children morals and values.
Also, note that I am not against spiritualism or belief. I am merely against the blind following of any book or creed, specifically one that was made such a long time ago. If you come to these conclusions on your own, I see no problem with them. If you do these things because it says so in an ancient book, I consider you weak-minded. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:1, Insightful)
GreyWolf, while I admire your attempt to show these swine a differing point of view, I think it's wasted here. This kind of pointless argument is why I've started coming here less often, and going to forums where people show more respect for people who think differently.
Re:Land of the Free (Score:3, Insightful)
Absolutely. If I don't want to do business with Bush supporters, Christians, Women, Blacks, gays, etc.. that SHOULD be my choice. If I want to be stupid enough to turn away 50-90% of my clientele (directly, not counting those who stop patronizing my business because I am an asshole), there's no reason to stop me from running it into the ground, other than bullshit feelgood PC crap.
Disclosure: I don't run my own business. I speak to the principle of the thing, not any actual desire to do so. Missing that point, now explicitly stated, implies your concent to scathing public mockery.