Cable, satellite next in line for indecency fines?

[BJ_M]

crap end of shows like L word, rescue me and sopranos, Howard Stern, porn channels and many others ...

Ted Stevens, chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, said on Tuesday that he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television, as well as subscription satellite TV and radio.


"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.

"There has to be some standard of decency," he said. But he also cautioned that "no one wants censorship."

Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable TV and satellite radio and television. It could become part of a pending bill to boost fines on broadcasters who violate indecency restrictions or of an effort to overhaul U.S. communications laws.

If Stevens is successful, it could pose new problems for raunchy radio host Howard Stern, who has said he was forced to leave broadcast radio for satellite radio to avoid decency limits--and Federal Communications Commission fines.

So far, the restrictions have not applied to subscription services offered by companies like cable TV operators Comcast and Time Warner, or to services such as XM Satellite Radio and Stern signer Sirius Satellite Radio.

Last year, the Senate Commerce Committee narrowly defeated an amendment to a bill boosting fines for indecency that would have extended such limits to cable and satellite services.

Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, a Commerce Committee member, told reporters that he would be "hesitant to expand it to those" services.

While lawmakers and some parents groups are anxious to wipe the airwaves clean of indecency after singer Janet Jackson bared her breast last year during the Super Bowl halftime show, President Bush has said parents are the first line of defense and can just "turn it off."

Federal regulations bar broadcast television and radio stations from airing obscene material, and they restrict indecent material such as sexually explicit discussions or profanity to late-night hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening.

Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content.

"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.

A spokesman for the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, which represents cable operators, was not immediately available for comment.

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 restriction to cable and satellite services. So far, the White House has expressed support for the House bill and has made no public pronouncement about the Senate measure.

[BJ_M]

FCC Wants Children Shielded from Cellphone Smut

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. communications regulators are turning their sights on protecting children from indecency on mobile telephones after cracking down on television and radio stations for indecent antics.



The wireless industry should mount an education campaign so parents know how they can shield their children from adult content as more and more have mobile phones, John Muleta, head of the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites)'s wireless bureau, said in a letter released on Tuesday.

"With adult content available from a myriad of sources, now more than ever it is important for carriers, content providers, and parents to know what is being done by industry to prevent access to adult content by minors," he said.

"Through responsible action on the part of wireless carriers and content providers this important social goal can be achieved without government intervention and without interference to the provision of content to adults," Muleta said.

He urged the wireless industry association, CTIA, to tell parents what services their children's mobile phones can access and that they can if they want to block pay-per-call voice services and Internet access.

Muleta also asked the industry to review whether it should change its code of conduct to address adult material.

About 21 million, or 33.8 percent, of 5- to 19-year-olds had cell phones by the end of 2004, according to technology research firm IDC.

A spokesman for CTIA said it has a team working on the issue and was "committed to staying ahead of it."

"The goal is to have a rating system in place and also provide additional tools in the form of filtering systems," said Joe Farren, director of public affairs at CTIA.

Unsolicited e-mail messages of any kind to mobile phones are barred by law. But there are no laws on the books that directly address indecency on wireless phones.

The FCC (news - web sites) has been cracking down on television and radio broadcasters for violating limits on decency after a series of incidents, including pop singer Janet Jackson (news) baring her breast during the 2004 Super Bowl football game halftime show.

[BJ_M]

.....public library found carrying a book that swears or contains pornographic images or content should be fined $500,000.......

This is being proposed by some usa lawmakers ....



don't laugh -- many many books have already been pulled from schools and from some libraries over the last several years .....


cen·sor·ship
1. The act, process, or practice of censoring.

[AlecWest]

Perhaps it's time for the "Anti-Stuck-Up-Sticky-Beak-Act of 2005" ... making it illegal for any person or group of persons to attempt legislating their morality on the tolerant majority.

[celtic_druid]

Just how tolerant is the majority though?

[TBoneit]

Well why not just go after magazine stands that sell playboy/husteler etc. too? Playboy channel, HBO Specials.

OT: Anybody remember way back when HBO was still fairly new, the specials they ran such as the Burlesque shows with baggy pants comics and fan dancers etc. ?

This backlash against the pervasive deteriation of content such as song lyrics, Music videos such as the special I believe MTV2 ran with full nudity, Full porn channels already banned in 6 or 8 states, I do not recall exactly how many sorry. The way the F word etc. is almost around the clock on some cable channels.

This backlash does not surprise me. Am I for censorship not exactly, but some things are wrong. Some say the parents can control what the children watch. Not in large metro areas. It is to pervasive and the government has removed much of a parents control.

Lots of luck to all of us.
Cheers

[lordsmurf]

Perhaps it's time for the "Anti-Stuck-Up-Sticky-Beak-Act of 2005" ... making it illegal for any person or group of persons to attempt legislating their morality on the tolerant majority.

Amen, my friend.
I fully support the "Sticky Beaks Need To STFU Act of 2005"

[AlecWest]

Just how tolerant is the majority though?

Very tolerant. The problem is that this majority tends to remain silent. The squeaky wheel always gets the grease ... and society's nit-pickers have always set the agenda for lawmakers.

[Karate Media]

Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content.

"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.

Ha, ha, ha. Yes, I'd like to see you take them on, Ted. Cable TV is not the public airwaves and requires that you purchase the service. Like, say, pornographic magazines. If I'm paying for it, please don't even attempt to tell me what I can and can't see.

At best, the most Mr. Stevens can hope for is extended freedoms for individual municipalities to regulate their local cable providers (the same way they can use local "values" to define purient interests).

Even then, it might possibly only cover basic cable service -- using the argument that broadcast TV is often not an option for some people, so the most basic cable service should be "wholesome," while higher, paid tiers have more freedom re: content. At which point, cable providers will offer only the local broadcast stations, PBS, and the Weather Channel in their basic service tier -- which it pretty much is already, come to think of it.

There's always a slight chance this could make it through -- Powell was for it as chairman of the FCC; and with the push for all-digital broadcast TV there might be a stronger desire now to regulate cable and satellite; and most Americans are f'in idiots who think a bare breast will destroy the world -- but the great thing about America is that we can always reverse the laws that idiots put in place. Used to be that women and African-Americans couldn't vote and alcohol was illegal...

EDIT: Oh, yeah, and in a country where the Supreme Court can make bold decisions like "Hey, let's not execute children and the mentally handicapped," maybe, just maybe, there's hope that Ted will lose his battle...

[AlecWest]

This backlash does not surprise me. Am I for censorship not exactly, but some things are wrong. Some say the parents can control what the children watch. Not in large metro areas. It is to pervasive and the government has removed much of a parents control.

What makes TV run? Money ... advertising money, and lots of it. The best way to moderate programming you don't like is to tell advertisers what you think of it. Or, in the case of cable or satellite channels, no one holds a gun to anyone's head to subscribe to them. If enough people complain, advertisers will take note. And if subscription levels decline for a given cable or satellite channel, programmers will take note.

BUT ...

If advertising works ... or if people subscribe to cable/satellite channels en masse, that tells advertisers and programmers that the MAJORITY of people who watch their channels approve of what they see. For people who don't approve of what they see (the intolerant minority), there are a number of choices available ... including (A) not buying a TV, (B) watching TV with children to counsel them about words/phrases you consider inappropriate, or (C) joining some cloistered community (like the Amish) who avoid contact with tolerant society.

Everyone has the right to watch what they want to watch and NO one has the right to legislate their morality on other people. The fact that we're already watching movies and shows where networks voluntarily change nasty words to clean derivatives shows that networks at least try to be sensitive to touchy viewers ... with no legislation required. Example from ABC's recent airing of "Forrest Gump":

(hint - the edited word is "IT")

[housepig]

ridiculous. it's not broadcast; it's not being forced on anyone; it only arrives in the homes of someone who pays for (or steals) the service, explicitly inviting the content into the home.

man, I need to get out of this country... or run for office.

[AlecWest]

ridiculous. it's not broadcast; it's not being forced on anyone; it only arrives in the homes of someone who pays for (or steals) the service, explicitly inviting the content into the home.

Exactly. If the niche of squeamish people was big enough, the free market would take care of them. It's already happening in the Internet realm. In my locale, Hevanet.com caters to Christians who want to spare their children from the "evil" websites out there ... with installed software that first scans a page for "prurient" words before allowing access to the page. Of course (grin), that doesn't always work. A buddy of mine goes through them "for his kids" and told me he allows his kids to listen to online police scanners (to which Hevanet allows access). I suggested that if his kids tune in the scanner for Mobile, Alabama PD:

http://www.al.com/mobilepolice/popup1/index.frame

that one night, he'll be reading a newspaper when his kids come rushing into the living room, asking him "Daddy, what's a stupid-ass pimp?"

[BobV]

ridiculous. it's not broadcast; it's not being forced on anyone; it only arrives in the homes of someone who pays for (or steals) the service, explicitly inviting the content into the home.

man, I need to get out of this country... or run for office.

You're 100% right. I just don't know where to go to escape the nanny state. Everything everywhere is being reduced to the lowest common denominator.

[wulf109]

In the America only 50% of the people bother to vote,republican conservative's is the result. This is just another example of their religious extremism. Unfortunately we all suffer by having them in control.

[BJ_M]

no politics -

no religion

somehow you got both in one sentence ..

[EvilWizardGlick]

It isn't about tv or the music. Howard Stern slipped the noose and is going satellite. They have intensified the focus on Stern since he started talking anti-Bush.
Stern coast to coast will have a huge audience. The thug like politicos only want that type audience for right wing propaganda.
So they use the big hammer to shut Howard up.
They figure no other voice will carry the message as far and as quickly.
The rest is just a blind to get the family friendly clones and stupid people on board. C'mon as if the v-chip and password protected boxes are not enough.

[EvilWizardGlick]

no politics -

no religion

somehow you got both in one sentence ..

Clearly the topic is POLITICAL.
And the real reason for the action I mentioned above.
How do you intend to ban "political" topics when they cover legislation that is generally promoted by one party?
Not that the other party will not greedily jump on to gain a few brownie points.
Either way politics can not be avoided when it comes to media legislation that affects us all.

[EvilWizardGlick]

In the America only 50% of the people bother to vote,republican conservative's is the result. This is just another example of their religious extremism. Unfortunately we all suffer by having them in control.

Not quite true.
Polls overwhelmingly support "liberal" programs and ideas.
Many of those programs and ideas affect the corporate line.
So Big Corporations throw money at politicians of BOTH parties who will promote their agendas.
Thus we wind up with conservative government being elected by liberal populace, because the binary system fails them.

[Tom Saurus]

This may someday mean a "Topsy Turvy" Grey Market where Americans pretend to be Canadian to watch Canadian Channels. I think that the Channels up here are becoming more liberal.

I recently read about a Business Man who owned a chain of Adult Video Stores who sold out, and now is seeking approval to launch several XXX Channels for the Canadian Market. These Channels will be aimed at those with various preferances as well.

Interesting times, I wonder if it is indecent to watch porn, and there is to be censorship, does this mean that Hollywood Horror Movies might get censored too. What on earth is decent about Freddy Kruger and Jason Movies? What about violent video games? What about Politicians wasting money? Perhaps if "They" are going to start examing things they should add those to the list.

[EvilWizardGlick]

I recently read about a Business Man who owned a chain of Adult Video Stores who sold out, and now is seeking approval to launch several XXX Channels for the Canadian Market. These Channels will be aimed at those with various preferances as well.
l

Nothing like three or four midgets dressed as sheep doing a big blonde waitress.
Sigh.

[JohnnyCNote]

If they manage to push this through, how long before they go after movies?

Canada looks more attractive every day....

[Gregg]

Consider moving to Eastern Europe /Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia etc./. The english are already buying property there like crazy. A 1500 sq. ft. brick house close to the sea costs less than $90 000. The regular cable TV /$10 a month/ includes a free porn channel. If you pay $10 more you get 5 more porn channels 2 of which are 24/7. A family size pizza with a beer costs $4.

Enjoy!

[painkiller]

Actually, the best answer is right before us.

Clue - the last 3 words of Housepig's message dated 3/2/05 at 12:55.

(And if you don't want to scroll back to see it - the answer is - RUN FOR OFFICE.)

[Sabro]

V-Chip, net nanny, power button, hands over eyes, fingers in ears.....am I missing something here?

<band head against wall> arrrrrgggg</bang head against wall>

Sabro

[ViRaL1]

Telling me what I CAN and CAN'T PAY to watch in the privacy of my own home...THAT ladies and gentlemen is INDECENCY AT IT'S FINEST!!!

(Am I allowed to say fascist?)

[JohnnyCNote]

Consider moving to Eastern Europe /Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia etc./. The english are already buying property there like crazy. A 1500 sq. ft. brick house close to the sea costs less than $90 000. The regular cable TV /$10 a month/ includes a free porn channel. If you pay $10 more you get 5 more porn channels 2 of which are 24/7. A family size pizza with a beer costs $4.

Enjoy!

Well, I already speak Russian fluently. There's just the problem with Putin....

[BJ_M]

yea well -- to see where they are coming from -- look at this doc from 1963 and read it ........

btw -- this is real ...

[ViRaL1]

That's not copyrighted is it? :P

[BJ_M]

no -- thats just tax $$ at work

[JohnnyCNote]

Maybe we'll have a repeat of the McCarthy era blacklists.....