Senator fights cable 'indecency' Alaska's Stevens says he'll push to apply public broadcast standards to satellite, too. March 1, 2005: 2:20 PM EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said Tuesday he would push to apply broadcast decency standards to subscription television and radio services like cable and satellite.
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
"There has to be some standard of decency," he said.
Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable and satellite radio and television.
Federal regulations bar broadcast television and radio stations from airing obscene material and restrict indecent material, such as sexually explicit discussions or profanity, to late-night hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening.
But so far those restrictions have not applied to subscription television and radio services offered by companies like Comcast Corp. (up $0.28 to $32.74, Research) or Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (up $0.38 to $5.95, Research), which recently signed shock jock Howard Stern.
Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on what they air.
"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.
The House of Representatives has approved legislation to raise fines to $500,000 from $32,500 on television and radio broadcasters that violate indecency limits. The Senate has legislation pending to increase fines as well.
But neither bill has provisions that would extend indecency restrictions to cable and satellite services.
_________________ - Sir Not Appearing on this Board
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
Ted Stevens wrote:
Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area
This is bullshit, unless he is saying this relative to the broadcast networks.
The only things I have seen on cable that could be construed as "indecent" are a handful of South Park episodes (the "shit" episode comes to mind), and Denis Leary's most recent show. Both are shown late at night, and the reason for that is because the cable networks want to respect their customers!
If this passes, I see the Supreme Court unanimously striking this down like they did with the first Internet indecency law.[/quote]
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:04 am Posts: 484 Location: Westerville, OH
Green Habit wrote:
Ted Stevens wrote:
Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area
This is bullshit, unless he is saying this relative to the broadcast networks.
The only things I have seen on cable that could be construed as "indecent" are a handful of South Park episodes (the "shit" episode comes to mind), and Denis Leary's most recent show. Both are shown late at night, and the reason for that is because the cable networks want to respect their customers!
If this passes, I see the Supreme Court unanimously striking this down like they did with the first Internet indecency law.
[/quote]
From what I understand, he is pushing the indecency law to cover subscription cable and satellite... such as HBO, Skinamax, cable porn, Sirius, ect....
Basically, he believes that parents that buy these services which are not delivered through public airwaves, do not have the commen sense to monitor thier children's viewing habits... and the government has every right to decide whether a nipple that you the consumer paid to see is too indecent to show..and may lead to *gasp* moral corruption! I'm telling you, the way things are going... in 10 years all we'll have to watch on TV is Touched by an Angel and Charles in Charge.
_________________ - Sir Not Appearing on this Board
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 10:53 pm Posts: 20537 Location: The City Of Trees
Brink of Forever wrote:
Basically, he believes that parents that buy these services which are not delivered through public airwaves, do not have the commen sense to monitor thier children's viewing habits... and the government has every right to decide whether a nipple that you the consumer paid to see is too indecent to show..and may lead to *gasp* moral corruption!
Heh, more bullshit. Punish all Americans for the inactions of a few.
Brink of Forever wrote:
I'm telling you, the way things are going... in 10 years all we'll have to watch on TV is Touched by an Angel and Charles in Charge.
When the Federal Communications Commission fined Clear Channel Communications $27,500 last year for each of eighteen incidents of "indecent material" spouted by shock jock Howard Stern, it sure seemed like a lot of money. But in retrospect those fines look like chump change. On February 16th, the Bush administration won House approval for a bill that would raise the maximum FCC fine to $500,000 per violation. Under the new measure, Clear Channel -- and Stern himself -- could each have been fined a total of $9 million.
"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 review of fines levied by other federal agencies suggests that the government may be taking swear words a bit too seriously. If the bill passes the Senate, Bono saying "fucking brilliant" on the air would carry the exact same penalty as illegally testing pesticides on human subjects. And 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. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.)
If Bush has his way, Howard Stern may soon have a tough choice to make: Tell a sex joke on the air, or dump toxic waste in New York's drinking water while willfully placing an employee at risk of injury or death? No wonder the foul-mouthed host is moving to satellite radio, which falls outside the authority of the FCC.
Would someone please, please justify this? I just don't get it.
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
When the Federal Communications Commission fined Clear Channel Communications $27,500 last year for each of eighteen incidents of "indecent material" spouted by shock jock Howard Stern, it sure seemed like a lot of money. But in retrospect those fines look like chump change. On February 16th, the Bush administration won House approval for a bill that would raise the maximum FCC fine to $500,000 per violation. Under the new measure, Clear Channel -- and Stern himself -- could each have been fined a total of $9 million.
"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 review of fines levied by other federal agencies suggests that the government may be taking swear words a bit too seriously. If the bill passes the Senate, Bono saying "fucking brilliant" on the air would carry the exact same penalty as illegally testing pesticides on human subjects. And 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. (Actually, you might be able to afford four "nuke malfunctions": The biggest fine levied by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year was only $60,000.)
If Bush has his way, Howard Stern may soon have a tough choice to make: Tell a sex joke on the air, or dump toxic waste in New York's drinking water while willfully placing an employee at risk of injury or death? No wonder the foul-mouthed host is moving to satellite radio, which falls outside the authority of the FCC.
Would someone please, please justify this? I just don't get it.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Green Habit wrote:
That post was hilariously pathetic.
The facts are pathetic, or I'm pathetic for posting it?
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) wrote:
If that's the issue they [pay cable stations] want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide.
Fuck you, and fuck your fine!
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 1:03 am Posts: 24177 Location: Australia
Think it's "indecent"? Turn the fucking tv off dumbass.
_________________ Oh, the flowers of indulgence and the weeds of yesteryear, Like criminals, they have choked the breath of conscience and good cheer. The sun beat down upon the steps of time to light the way To ease the pain of idleness and the memory of decay.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 1:55 am Posts: 9080 Location: Londres
There was a French doco on last night about the increasingly authoritarian practices of the FCC and the influence of the uber-conservatives on the media. Mentioned things like wardrobe malfunction, Bono dropping the f-bomb and curiously, the withdrawal of products from French Connection United Kingdom (FCUK).
Will General Col please take his son with him on his retirement?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 3:04 am Posts: 484 Location: Westerville, OH
Hinny wrote:
There was a French doco on last night about the increasingly authoritarian practices of the FCC and the influence of the uber-conservatives on the media. Mentioned things like wardrobe malfunction, Bono dropping the f-bomb and curiously, the withdrawal of products from French Connection United Kingdom (FCUK).
Will General Col please take his son with him on his retirement?
Actually, Michael Powell resigned a month or so ago. Despite what Howard Stern says, I don't think Powell had that much to do with current trend at the FCC. That is more than likely driven by politicians.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:50 pm Posts: 3955 Location: Leaving Here
vacatetheword wrote:
Think it's "indecent"? Turn the fucking tv off dumbass.
Agreed. Why legislation is needed baffles me, if someone doesn't like what is being broadcast, change the damn channel or turn it off. If you have kids, be around and know what they are watching or doing. I know parents who purposefully do not have cable specifically to avoid having their kids sitting in front of stuff that isn't meant for them to view.
~ My Rant ~
I would like to see the entire NATION turn their TELEPHONES and their TELEVISIONS OFF for 6 months - and have the entire nation NOT PAY THE BILLS FOR EITHER SERVICE for that same period of time, simply as a means of protesting
1. the FCC and their completely special interest group driven agenda
2. the cable/telecommunications monopoly that continues to go unchallenged including but not limited to "packaged deal" selections to the consumer where you are forced to by things you don't need or want in bundles in order to get the simple things you do need or want.
3. the crap they are trying to feed us by making us pay $35-40 for "basic" cable and "basic" satellite service when the advertising dollars the broadcast companies receive pay for it above and beyond what we are made to pay; the lines and satellites are there, we don't need to pay for the infrustructure any more because commercial advertising pays for its maintenance 10 fold.
4. intentionally bad reception (manipulated broadcast signals including color bleed of red/orange, shadow and ghost images, and advertising banners or crawls taking away part of the overall screen image intentionally) and purposefully limited bandwidth/baudrates to mislead us into believeing we need to upgrade our (or purchase more) hardware and/or services.
Do I wish to banter and debate any of these assertions herein? No, because I don't have reports or detailed data to reference, but it would be worth someone finding URLs to information on how the telecommunications industry works actively to protects its interests by funding political candidates, by pushing legistlation through the Federal Government which then has to be upheld or monitored by the FCC after the fact, and the marketing of package deals to consumers based on the multiples of channels owned by the industry itself. Or just ask "Charlie" from Dish Network about the challenges associated with trying to be competative in an industry that is set up specifically to disallow satellite providers or other potential cable companies from entering or effectively competing in the cable/telecommuncations monopolized space.
When 5 companies own 90% of the news/radio/television agencies, and control all the money, its no wonder that the federal agency assigned to regulate or control or establish "standards" ends up essentially doing what those companies want; if the people in that organization want to keep their jobs, that is.
I want to cancel my telephone service, but my husband needs to keep it for his work (for the DSL line, which is an entirely separate rant altogether), and I want to cancel our satelitte service, but my husband can't seem to give up television, so the best I could do was get him to go with the middle level of service to bring the bill down a bit.
But if I lived alone, I would cancel (not have) both. I don't subscribe to any magazines nor newspapers, and I haven't listened to the radio since 1998-99. I'm sick of being "sold" shit disguised as entertainment or news, and I'm sick of the lack of ability of any agency or broadcaster (there are a couple of exceptions, Nightline and Nova on PBS come to mind), to OBJECTIVELY present information in a way that allows me to just obtain the information and decide for myself what I think about it.
If I ever buy a new car I might just check out satellite radio for no other reason but to listen to Howard Stern and/or NASCAR broadcasts, eliminating the need for a TV or a Radio, and (HOPEFULLY) eliminating all commercial advertising and flamboyantly one sided "news" broadcasts.
Either that or I'll leave my husband and run away to Canada where people appear to have common sense that is seriously and sadly lacking in my own nation.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:19 pm Posts: 39068 Location: Chapel Hill, NC, USA Gender: Male
cltaylor12 wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
Think it's "indecent"? Turn the fucking tv off dumbass.
I would like to see the entire NATION turn their TELEPHONES and their TELEVISIONS OFF for 6 months - and have the entire nation NOT PAY THE BILLS FOR EITHER SERVICE for that same period of time, simply as a means of protesting
_________________ "Though some may think there should be a separation between art/music and politics, it should be reinforced that art can be a form of nonviolent protest." - e.v.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:50 pm Posts: 3955 Location: Leaving Here
just_b wrote:
cltaylor12 wrote:
vacatetheword wrote:
Think it's "indecent"? Turn the fucking tv off dumbass.
I would like to see the entire NATION turn their TELEPHONES and their TELEVISIONS OFF for 6 months - and have the entire nation NOT PAY THE BILLS FOR EITHER SERVICE for that same period of time, simply as a means of protesting
TV Turnoff Week is no ordinary social ritual. The goal is simple: to shake up routines and get people questioning the role of TV in their lives.
Sure, it’s a statement against dead-end couch culture. But it's also about cleaning up the mental environment. Like our oceans and air, our shared mindscape is littered with pollutants -- distorted news, manipulative ads, violence and top-down culture.
How can we fight back? In years past, we've smashed TVs, postered schools and offices, aired ads, and performed anti-tube street theater. The hottest idea this year? TV-B-Gone™ -- a key-chain remote control capable of turning off virtually any television. It's the ultimate tool for reclaiming our commons.
From April 25 to May 1, thousands of jammers will be hitting the streets with this ingenious device, illicitly zapping TVs.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
- Sir Not Appearing on this Board
