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."
Useful Terms (Score:5, Funny)
piss
fuck
cunt
cocksucker
motherfucker
Re:Useful Terms (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:2)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:2)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:2)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:2)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Useful Terms (Score:5, Funny)
I suggest fist to replace fuck. As in fist you, motherfister.. That immediately sounds a lot nicer.
Also, perhaps to replace piss, if it's used as a derogatory term (since there's already a perfectly good word for piss; urine), I'd suggest come, or cum as it's known online.
The phrase, this place smells like two-week old come would surely please the FCC immensly, as it contains not a single dirty word.
Now, for cunt one might describe the actual organ as vagina, or perhaps, on Oprah, as beafcurtain covered meathole, but I understand it's ofted used to refer to a person, as in "he's a cunt". Luckily, dickhead isn't on the list, otherwise what would one call Mr.Cheney's face for example?
"cocksucker" is a bit of a mystery to me. Neither word the composite is made up of is particularly naughty in its own right. While applicant of low pressure to a rooster might be an odd jobdescription, who knows if these people exist, and how much pride they might take in their work? Surely people working at the fudgepacking plant have similar feelings. Perhaps cumbucket would be an alternative with enough street-cred to supplant it some day.
As for tits, that just doesn't make sense. In particular, The Royal Tit-Watching (ornithological) Society [nice-tits.org] (SFW) would take serious issue with not being able to discuss the objects of their fascination. Besides "look at the tits on her" is a term of admiration. I'd suggest we go with funbags on this one, since it would, hopefully, infuriate rabid feminists and/or puritans even more if breasts, which are actually pretty mundane things - almost all women and overweight men have them - are consistently referred to explicitely as sexual objects.
So there you have it, folks. Now leave me the fist alone, you're fudgepacking cumbuckets the lot of you!
Gore Vidal's solution to dirty words (Score:3, Interesting)
He approached this problem by substituing the names of the Supreme Court judges for the naughty words. Burger, Rehnquist, Powell, Whizzer White and Blackmun became nouns and verbs for, well, yo
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~
Nothing new (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Nothing new (Score:3, Funny)
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.
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.
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.
Re:Benjamins (Score:5, Funny)
"Oh no, a naked breast! Run for your lives!"
What? (Score:2)
Safety issues should be part of doing business for a nuclear powerplant. If a power station can't compete with other energy sources and maintain safety, perhaps they shouldn't be doing business at all.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Maybe there shouldn't be a financial fine for FCC violations at all, but rather the people in question would be suspended from the public airwaves for a year. Now *that* might directly address these publicity seekers.
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.
Re:Benjamins (Score:5, Insightful)
Except, a nuclear accident could cost MORE (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
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:Benjamins (Score:2)
The GP's accusation is somewhat diminished by the fact that the power industry actually moves more money, but the general sentiment is valid.
Re:Benjamins (Score:4, Interesting)
To be clear, my point is not that we should or should not allow Howard Stern, boobs, or Sex and the City on primetime broadcast television, rather I'm saying that fines have to be proportional or they prove to be ineffective.
For the grandparent who referred to the low fines for nuclear power plants. $60,000 was "the Nuclear Regulatory Commission levied last year". There is no information in the post or in the article about what these fines were for or what the maximum penalty for the plant would have been for a situation that could have actually led to a nuclear incident. For all we know that fine for not putting the wet floor sign up in the men's restroom after it had just been mopped.
Profane political speech is very potent (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Profane political speech is very potent (Score:5, Funny)
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
Nothing really new. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Nothing really new. (Score:3, Interesting)
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:Nothing really new. (Score:3, Informative)
If he wanted to destroy some SUVs, he would have been smarter to use a method that didn't involve fire.
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.
Re:Nothing really new. (Score:4, Funny)
You mean you actually read the articles?
to be honest (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:5, Insightful)
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 supporte
Re:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_biogr
Don't be so quick to blame things on those who oppose your views.
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 ma
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:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:3, Funny)
Because it, by and large, is.
Yay.
Boo.
You may be suffering from the "'Mrrica are teh great" syndrome.
Since the first guy who couldn't explain a lightning bolt decided it had to be some m4d 1337 i
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.
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: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:Stupid, yes. But surprising? (Score:3, Interesting)
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?
Perhaps... (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong Comparison.... Fine Levels set by Congress (Score:2)
The regulatory body (like FCC or NRC) simply looks at the particular instance of violation and decides where it falls in the spectrum set by Congress.
So if you have a beef with how Congress decides to make a law,
Maybe... (Score:2)
Fines.... (Score:5, Funny)
Killing an elderly person...$100,000
Screwing up at a nuclear power plant...$60,000
Running a red light...$250.00
Getting your story posted to Slashdot...Priceless
I will punch myself in the head for posting this: (Score:2)
Profit!
Rolling Stone Magazine (Score:2, Insightful)
If Americans ruled British TV... (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought it odd that Radio 1 [bbc.co.uk] now says during certain shows "this show contains strong language, if you easily offended please turn off your radio, if NOT please turn it up!"... now that's unreasonable, they just to do all that without warning or apology before, it's a bloody outrage... cunts.
Yes indeed... (Score:3, Interesting)
What's in the 'G' word that's so offensive?
Re:Yes indeed... (Score:3, Informative)
For non-US citizens we are somewhat shocked that a country that prides itself on free-speech can allow its television to be so watered down.
What the parent says about beeping is generally true, before 9:00pm all swear words on UK telly are beeped out, often with the mouth pixelated, but afterwards virtually anything goes.
For US TV virtually any form of gun-related violence is fine, but utter one swear
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).
WHo does it surprise ? (Score:2)
Law is an ass (Score:2, Troll)
Music and Shoplifting (Score:5, Interesting)
Its all about who has more money..
The FCC Song (Score:3, Funny)
Broadcasting Curses (Score:4, Funny)
Oh! You mean those #*&@%ing curses. Well, I better look out when the feds start spying on my WiFi network
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.
So much for freedom of speech (Score:3, Informative)
In Denmark we can say anything we want on TV, and we do - i hear the word 'fuck' & 'shit' daily when i watch 'Boogie' a music show for young ppl that runs around 4-6pm. Primettime for the kids to learn new words
And travelling around europe, this is how it works most places, maybe perhaps with the exception of Germany (i wouldent have understood it if they used profanity anyways)
I thought puritans died out with the last victorians - but they just sailed to America it seems, heh.
But seriously, cant you sue the FCC for violating the freedom of speech? It would seem obvious that they are enforcing censorship.
Re:So much for freedom of speech (Score:4, Informative)
The legal age of drinking in Denmark is 16, we got less alcoholics than restricted countries such as Sweden and Norway, that has state owned monopolies on alcohol.
We got less teen pregnancies eventhough we educate people in sex from 6th grade, show them titties on TV etc.etc. Seems real education works better than advocating abstine
And we got one of the lowest crime rates in the world, and the country in the world where people feel the safest. Why? We must be doing SOMETHING CIVILISED that works.
swearing... (Score:3, Funny)
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
Parents Television Council (Score:3, Insightful)
Not in the medical profession (Score:2, Funny)
Doctor!
Re:Wrongfully Causing a Death? (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?sta
Re:Wrongfully Causing a Death? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrongfully Causing a Death? (Score:2, Informative)
(Exc
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:2, 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.
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:4, Informative)
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:2)
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: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?
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:5, Informative)
Market Capitalization by Industry:
Broadcasting & Cable TV: $503B
Motion Pictures: $24B
Oil & Gas Integrated: $1.6T
Oil & Gas Operations: $437B
Oil Well Services & Equipment: $253B
Natural Gas Utilities: $155B
Electric Utilities: $659B
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:5, Interesting)
Normally, I would agree - That sentence counts as an invalid argument.
In this case, however, it forms a central theme to the argument... Namely, we CAN disagree on whether or not Janet's nipple actually hurts anyone. We can throw various developmental psych theories back and forth, each supporting our point of view more-or-less equally well.
You can measure radiation levels. You can calculate economic damages based on evacuating and totally closing an area off indefinitely. You can count the dead birds in Alaska.
It strikes me as absurd that we would punish something that some people find vaguely "offensive" at anywhere near the level we would punish an objectively damage-causing act (It actually baffles me that we would punish the former category at all, but that gets into an entirely different topic).
True, my choice of phrasing committed a fallacy. But, IMO, a very revealing fallacy, once corrected.
Re:It's the FCC! (Score:3, Informative)
As opposed to the classic "Let's attack a highly-rated post on a controversial topic and hope the few mods who strongly disagree with it will toss me a few points"?
Difference here, I gave accurate information as corroborated in multiple locations. As far as I can tell, you completely made yours up.
A quick google * yielded fines of $1.5 million, and $80 million in medical settlements.
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: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!
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
"tyranny of the masses"? (Score:2, Informative)
Perhaps more like the tyranny of the conservative-supported Parent's Television Council [washingtonpost.com], which makes between 21-99% of complaints against TV indecency. [cnsnews.com]
I do agree with their unsuccessful "'a la carte' programming option" plan though; hopefully soon I won't have to pay for a bunch of channels I don't need.
Re:They have the money (Score:2)
Satellite radio (Score:4, Informative)
Make sure the FCC knows you want them to keep their grubby paws of satellite radio. The religious right [townhall.com] are coming after satellite radio as well.
And it gets worse. The terresterial broadcasters are now saying [billboardr...onitor.com] that they won't be able to compete against satellite unless the FCC levies the same restrictions against satellite that they do on regular radio.
I'm a very happy XM subscriber and I'd hate to think that they might get sucked into this rediculous quagmire as well.
-S
Re:They have the money (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Thank You Right Wing Loonies (Score:5, Informative)
Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell) was appointed as chairman by GW Bush in his first term, though he was made a commisioner of the FCC (but not chariman) by Clinton.
Re:Write your congressperson. (Score:2, Interesting)
I have never seen a movie involving firearms that didn't have me cringing because of how it depicted gun owners or some particular class of firearm.
I'm not sure where glorifying violence fits into my agenda... Actually... It doesn't.
Hell, gun boards went crazy after Tom Cruise's "Collateral" because it was the first time in a long time that someone took some training and performed som
Re:Write your congressperson. (Score:4, Informative)
Strictly speaking, methadone and methamphetamines aren't usually related. Methadone is used in the treatment of heroin addiction. If you're looking for a (at least tenuous) link between big pharma and crystal meth, methamphetamines are tradiationally made from over-the-counter cold medications containing (pseudo)ephedrine hydrochloride.
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, a
Re:Broadcast violations are intentional (Score:5, Interesting)
Such occurred on CNN when they broadcast the video footage of the planes hitting the WTC. The newscaster shrugged "I apologise for the language, but think it's appropriate nonetheless".
Said footage was aired HUNDREDS of times around the country, unbleeped, and the FCC turned a blind eye to it.
The major problem isn't the language, the psychotic religious right being in charge, who are trying to legislate morality.
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:Duh (Score:4, Interesting)
As for the profitability of power companies versus media companies, First Energy, the owners of Davis Besse and some coal fired power plants cleared $878 million in profits just in the first quarter of 2004, and that was while they were stuggling to repair Davis Besse. Energy companies, thanks to deregulation, a blind eye from the FERC and the Bush administration, and a carefully managed shortage of power can charge as much as they want for electricty.
First Energy's name may sound familiar because they are also suspected to have been responsible for the blackout on the east coast.
Also reference Enron's scam to nearly bankrupt California by artificially inflating the price of electricity. California pled for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to step in since it was obvious Enron was colluding with several other energy traders to extort billions of dollars from Californians for electricty. Their illegal activity, since proven by tapes [cbsnews.com] of their energy traders planning the scam, bankrupted PG&E, hammered California's economy and is still hammering it due to the still high cost of electricity, and of course helped put the Republican's in to the governorship. Now there was a situation where some regulation, fines and criminal charges were called for and to date the Bush administration has done nothing about it, and many suspect were in fact colluding with Enron to commit this gigantic fraud, both to help Enron's profitibility and to force a Democrat Governor out of office.
All in all these fines are just the New Republican Party and the Religious right waging war on New York and Hollywood liberals and striving to inflict their puritanical values on everyone. Meanwhile they are letting their rich friends and big corporate backers rape, loot and pillage the public in order to make handsome profits.