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.
Do as we do in Europe: (Score:5, Interesting)
The Fairness Doctrine as well. (Score:2, Interesting)
I for one do not favor any such content regulation.
I was just thinking about this, this morning (Score:1, Interesting)
I agree that the FCC needs to "regulate" frequencies. And I think there needs to be an annual fee to cover the administration costs, only. They should be able to enforce people stepping on frequencies for which they are not licensed. This includes HAM "operators" without a handle. This includes freelancers who jam ambulance and police frequencies.
That's it. No indecency fines or any other moronic behavior like that. No control over content. If the Islamists take over our airwaves, then we should have gotten to them years ago; it's our own fault. If parents can't handle explain a pair of boobs to their 7 year old, then they can throw the TV out in the dumpster. If you can't handle a pair of tits, then Christ knows there's no good reason you should be having kids or a TV. Or they can buy from a manufacturer that locks the TV to stations which market themselves as PROMOTING VIRTUE AND PREVENTING VICE, just like the Saudis do (with public beatings, but that's another thread).
I want the FCC out of censorship. I want to be required to decide what my child will, and will not, watch.
Parental responsibility.
C'mon... (Score:2, Interesting)
First of all, holy contradictions Batman!
Second of all, the standard of decency is LOCAL. Or, it's supposed to be. Meaning that there is not, nor should there ever be, a national standard of decency for any form of broadcast media. To have one would amount to blatant federal government-sponsored censorship (as opposed to the subtle censorship we already enjoy).
Taking away the ability for CITIZENS to decide LOCAL standards of decency is a stick in the eye of states' rights, to say the least, and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
We're really screwed here in the US if we don't do something. It's hard to believe that people can't get past the "Howard Stern"-ness of this issue and see that this is a bad direction to go. This is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. Free speech won't even have a tax (as it does with the $500,000 fine bill); it will be plain illegal.
Interesting thought (Score:2, Interesting)
So where should the line be drawn and who is exempt from the restrictions?
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:2, Interesting)
You're paying to bring it into your own household, so act responsibly and protect them. Use digital TV with restrictions, or some other method.
Isn't this similar to saying that guns should be sold with built-in child protection?
"I want a gun in my house, but my child might play with it, should I have to watch my kids every minute from the time they're born until their 18th birthday?"
No, just acknowledge what you bring into your house is potentially dangerous/whatever and ACT LIKE AN ADULT ABOUT IT. Take responsibility and protect your kids from the dangerous thing you really want in your house.
Re:Land of the Free (Score:3, Interesting)
If I knew of a place that was actually free socially, and didn't have to pay 80% of my salary in taxes (free fiscally), I would move there.
Re:Stop trying to NATIONALIZE EVERY ISSUE (Score:3, Interesting)
The philosophy is coming back to bite them on the ass, I suppose.
The shift during the FDR admin should be obvious to everyone. Consider for example prohibition of alcohol, which required an amendment, and later federal laws regulating things like marijuana.
As conservative as people were to want prohibition, they followed the difficult process of getting an amendment to the constitution. They needed to convince 75% of the states and 2/3 of congress.
When the political left took over with FDR, they basically just blew off the process and claimed "hey, the federal government had the power all along! (now that we're in charge).
Better Solution (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Go all the way (Score:5, Interesting)
There was an interesting case (don't have any links, so you'll have to take my word for it) about something similar that happened here in Dallas a few years back. There are some "photo-artists" (Jock Sturges, Robert Mapplethorpe and Sally Mann, to name a few) whose art includes pictures from European nudist beaches, replete with underage subjects. You can legally buy collections of their photos at Barnes & Noble (and, presumedly, other booksellers)... evidently, some right-wing talk-show host got his panties in a knot over this, and encouraged his listeners to go into the bookstores, find those books, and rip them up. A lot of them did, and IIRC, were never prosecuted for anything (neither was B&N for selling what this right-wing talk show host considered CP).
Re:Land of the Free (Score:3, Interesting)
Mostly I'm glad for living this side of the pond, but I am a subject of a bunch of unelected foreigners who used religious hatred to strongarm the country into giving them control of it. I have, ultimately, no rights other than what they deign to grant me. There are many things wrong with America, but at the basis of it they are a free people, whose government rules only by their sufferance and not the other way round. There aren't so many people (The US is by no means the only such country, but I doubt they are in the majority) who can say that.
But it works! (Score:5, Interesting)
In fact, I am not at all put out by your statement as you wrote it. But if you had put the actual vowels in, I would have considered you an annoying kid.
That is really weird!
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:3, Interesting)
Thanks to the Beloved Congress, my television has a V-Chip in it. So that argument no longer stands, right?
Re:Worried about decency? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then again, the kid is probably downloading everything they want to watch for free off the Internet anyway.
Re:Nobody Understands the Federal System (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because someone pays for cable TV, that is not a request to have all kinds of trash piped into their homes.
Absolutely right. I can't stand Fox News either.
The problem is that there are so many instances now where you are watching one of those "trusted" stations that don't generally show things that children shouldn't see and suddenly, something indecent appears.
I know how you feel. Every now and again I see that nut Jerry Falwell on the 700 club spreading his biggoted crap.
However, people who want to watch TV and be assured that the content is family appropriate should have that right as well.
Thankfully our founding fathers never gave us this right. In fact they gave us exactly the opposite of this right.
All of you who are mocking the fact that this is being done "for the children", just think about what the world is going to be like 30 years from now when everyone has grown up being indoctrinated with sex, violence, and filthy language. It will be like one big whorehouse.
And I think the same thing about all that religious right wing crap I see. Strangely enough we're also given a brain to decide what's right and wrong. As far as the "30 years from now" idea, sex, violence and filthy language wasn't invented yesterday, and no ones forcing you to subscribe to cable. As another poster pointed out, use your v-chip if you don't want your kids to see stuff you don't like. You're even one up on me, since there's no "biggoted right wing crap" rating I can censor out of my TV.
Re:Do as we do in Europe: (Score:5, Interesting)
You wouldn't be complaining if you'd seen American TV. Commercials out of every orifice (the legal limit on commercials for every hour of programming in the US is 20 minutes; in the UK it's 7 minutes), they're not allowed to swear (you can be fined for saying "god damn"!), and any nudity is a definite no-no.
Comparing that to the UK, I seem to remember the BBC showing American Pie a few weeks back - it was broadcast unencrypted on network TV with no commercials, and no cuts at all, including the full webcam scene. And who can forget that they broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera on a Saturday night complete with all the profanities (3,168 "fucks" and 297 "cunts" according to Mediawatch), and Jesus admitting to being "a bit gay".
Not bad for a country with no written guarantee of free speech. But then again the US consistently shows how little that means.
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:3, Interesting)
So as a parent I could control what little Billy is watching if I took the time to learn about the available technology. There are of course problems with mis-rating program content and the Janet Jackson gaffe. Has there been any proof that some kid was seriously scarred because of a boob?
I think one main issue is that most houses have tons of TVs now. In my house there was one TV (and later another one in my parent's room). I did not have my own TV with cable, so if I was watching something it was in the living room. At the ages where I could see psychological damage (say under 12 or something) I really wasn't alone with the TV. Parents aren't parenting I guess.
And to make a final point, how come government institutions are so all powerful and can seriously crush major corporate interests when it comes to broadcast media? Why doesn't the EPA have the same bite on chemical companies as the FCC does on the media? Are the checks being cut by the broadcasters not big enough? What's going on here? What kind of priorities are these?
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:2, Interesting)
Calling it a broadcast standard is like calling the rule 'You can't murder people with a hammer' a 'hammer regulation'. No, it's a murder regulation.
You can't murder people with [anything]. You can't offer child porn via [anything]. They're not [anything] regulations.
Re:I thought they already had this... (Score:2, Interesting)
You heard me. Required by law. At the pole.
Also, all televisions over a certain size are required by law to come with a V-Chip. And all broadcasting on TV is rated, although that is not required by law.
Remember how we had this debate 10 years ago? I sure do. I was 15, and thought it was absurd. But we got V-Chips, we got filtering of cable, the prudes won all the battles.
And now they've all come back. I'm not giving a fucking inch this time. Not only can they not get cable, they can not get any cable channel they want, and even not get any cable show they want!
The only conclusion possible is that they don't want me to be able to watch certain shows.
Not Censorship, Business plain n simple.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Easy solution - some standards (Score:3, Interesting)
The point I was making is that publicizing the gap in reasoning while making another decent argument sacks your credibility as an arguer.
You could make a fantastic argument and have me head over heels, but if you tell me little green men told you the argument... I'd have to try and seperate it, but know that any leeway I gave you in hope you adhered to some scientific method in your research would be gone, and I'd double check everything, dismiss the green men, and move on.
The mind is facnating in how it believes things, its been my major focus of study for a dozen or so years. Reading something like 'Demon Haunted World' (thats where the quote was from) is like a user manual to your brain, and you get to run a self diagnosis like a droid, and its always interesting to see if the system is already to corrupted to start repairing itself.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss religious people as never having good arguments, but I have found that 100% of their good arguments aren't religious. The confounding thing for me is that they will argue a point using all the tenets of reason, and then go be religious. It's such a dichotomy I can't fathom it, although I have a good understanding of it (figure that one out).
I happen to be spiritual myself, but not in the sense that an invisible man is pressing all the buttons of life, but I draw strength from the fact i know I can do things, i have confidence because of past performance, and I know what makes me happy. I need no myth for that, and i think that's where we will eventually evolve.