House approves tougher indecency fines

[BJ_M]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Chafing over racy broadcasts like Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency.

Rejecting criticism the penalties will stifle free speech and homogenize radio and TV broadcasts, bill supporters said stiff fines were needed to give deep-pocketed broadcasters more incentive to clean up their programs and to help assure parents that their children won't be exposed to inappropriate material.

The measure, which passed 389-38, boosts the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer.

The bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support from lawmakers upset about incidents like Jackson's breast-baring "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

"This is a penalty that makes broadcasters sit up and take notice," said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that sent the bill to the full House. "This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families to come back into their living room."

The White House, in a statement, said it strongly supports the legislation that "will make broadcast television and radio more suitable for family viewing."

The Senate is considering a similar bill. Any differences in the two will have to be worked out before it goes to President Bush for a signature.

Last year the two chambers were unable to reach a compromise.

Opponents said they were concerned stiffer fines by the Federal Communications Commission would lead to more self-censorship by broadcasters and entertainers unclear about the definition of "indecent."

They cited the example of several ABC affiliates that last year did not air the World War II drama "Saving Private Ryan" because of worries that violence and profanity would lead to fines, even though the movie already had aired on network TV.

"We would put Big Brother in charge of deciding what is art and what is free speech," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Illinois, who opposed the bill. "We would see self- and actual-censorship rise to new and undesirable heights."

Parents -- not the government -- are the best judges of what their children should see and hear, said Rep. Henry Waxman, D-California.

"No one knows when one person's creative work will become another person's definition of a violation of indecency," Waxman said.

The FCC has stepped up enforcement of the indecency statute, perhaps most notably with a $550,000 fine against CBS for Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." Radio personality Howard Stern also has been a frequent target.

Fines for indecent programming exceeded $7.7 million last year. Four years ago, FCC fines totaled just $48,000.

The FCC has wide latitude to impose fines. It can fine an individual company, groups of stations owned by a company and individual entertainers. In the case of CBS, it imposed a fine of $27,500 against each of 20 stations owned by the network.

All five members of the FCC -- three Republicans and two Democrats -- favor greatly increasing the fines.

The House bill allows the FCC to fine an individual entertainer, such as a disc jockey, without first issuing a warning, which is the case now. The FCC has never before issued such a fine.

"By significantly increasing fines, they are going to be at a level where they can no longer be ignored," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Michigan, who introduced the bill. "Parents can rest easy."

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time, and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way" and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.

The House bill gives affiliates protection from fines in instances in which they carry network programming that later is deemed indecent. It also requires the FCC to hold a license revocation hearing after a third offense by a broadcaster, and to respond to an indecency complaint from a viewer or listener within six months.

The Senate bill calls for raising the maximum fine on broadcasters to $325,000, with a cap of $3 million for one day. The House bill does not include a cap.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.

[Gurm]

So it's ok to show people being shot, blood flying everywhere, brains splattering on the wall.

It's ok for our children to be subjected to psychological conditioning by advertisers.

It's ok for violence, profanity, and poor values to be passed along.

But HEAVEN FORBID anyone see a naked breast.

HEAVEN FOR-*******-BID.

I need to move to Europe. At least those governments are up-front about how they oppress their citizenry.

[BJ_M]

or move to canada

[Gurm]

Too cold, and full of French-speaking people.

Come to think of it, Europe might also be bad in that regard. Hmm...

[Grant_H]

So it's ok to show people being shot, blood flying everywhere, brains splattering on the wall.

It's ok for our children to be subjected to psychological conditioning by advertisers.

It's ok for violence, profanity, and poor values to be passed along.

But HEAVEN FORBID anyone see a naked breast.

HEAVEN FOR-*******-BID.

I need to move to Europe. At least those governments are up-front about how they oppress their citizenry.

Exactly what I was thinking and have been for years, instead of getting better it's getting worse. Everyday I get a little closer to moving to England

[lordsmurf]

Because of anti-politics, religion rules, I'll insert a blank. Use your imagination.

I think the current __________ party is just afraid of nipples. The answer to sex is "don't have it". Nudity, porn, etc ... all bad. They'll tote their ______ and proclaim that such things will land you in ________.

But brainwashing your with corporate propaganda (ads) is just fine. Especially violence, because it sells more stuff.

Go figure.

[canadateck]

Too cold, and full of French-speaking people.

Come to think of it, Europe might also be bad in that regard. Hmm...

French???? Where canada??? You mean Quebec....

[Gurm]

Yeah Quebec is scary. I hear they attack English-speakers up there, especially Americans. That's scary. Even in real France (Quebec is "fake France") they just sneer at us and then happily take our money. They don't BEAT us and smash our cars.

[BJ_M]

Quebec'rs love Americans ....

sure they rip them off -- but they really do like them ..

hell - 1/2 the population of Quebec lives in Florida.

[Ironballs]

[quote="gurm"]I need to move to Europe. At least those governments are up-front about how they oppress their citizenryquote]

You want to try living in England mate. No Spanky movies here.

[zleepy]

So it's ok to show people being shot, blood flying everywhere, brains splattering on the wall.

It's ok for our children to be subjected to psychological conditioning by advertisers.

It's ok for violence, profanity, and poor values to be passed along.

But HEAVEN FORBID anyone see a naked breast.

HEAVEN FOR-*******-BID.

Gurm, the film Naked and the Dead was based on Norman Mailer's book.
The first edition (1948) was banned by USA Fed's for being pornographic
because it had too many F words !!!!
It was banned in Canada, for the same reason.

USA's Red States rule in Wash. DC and almost all DVD's are 'cleaned up'.
Example, 2 guys making out is gone in the unrated version of Wild Things.
Film makers want to sell to 25% of the world (China) and are censoring sex
and more before shooting the films.

[NamPla]

Unfortunately this is representative of a general trend throughout the Western world, it's not restricted to the U.S. Even Holland, our last bastion of sanity & freedom, is under attack by the EU to "tighten up" its laws, I hear.

Quite sad, if you ask me.

So what if a kid sees a tit on TV? Big deal. Tits are good, not evil!

[BJ_M]

Lets steer this away from politics please

[BJ_M]

[quote="zleepy"]

..............................
USA's Red States rule in Wash. DC and almost all DVD's are 'cleaned up'.
Example, 2 guys making out is gone in the unrated version of Wild Things.
Film makers want to sell to 25% of the world (China) and are censoring sex
and more before shooting the films.

Director John McNaughton says he deleted a scene that would have shown Matt Dillon and Kevin Bacon showering together, as it was gratuitous.

I have the original script, they never were 'making out' , just took a shower together ...

[saladonyourlincoln]

My answer is "A. All of the above"

Personally I don't see any problem with a tit flashing across my screen at any time. Yes, the Europeans are a bit more open about the female body and don't try to cover it up like its some sort of "nasty" like they do here in the U.S. For that, I applaud the Europeans. However...have you checked out the cost of living in Europe??? Take it from me...we poor Americans could not afford it...in fact, I don't see how the Europeans do. I do think Canada is probably the best option. The Canadian girls I talk to in my line of work all sound happy, vivacious, sexy...hell, I wish I were there now. Just gotta get more used to the COLD...

[cal_tony]

Move here, move there, doesn't make that much of a difference. After having been raised in Utah as a child, (a totally repressive place for original thinking), I found California to be quite a refreshing change. The weather here is hospitable so that takes Canada out of the running. And besides if any of you did move to Canada, what do you think you would watch on TV,.. U.S. programs mostly. Or as you do here, the DVD,s of your choice. Move, Nah, wherever you go, governments are and have always been repressive to contrary thinking. Without the tension of good and evil, heaven and hell, communism and capitalism, governments wouldn't have anything to protect us from. Maybe then we wouldn't think we needed all that much governing and that's really not good for their job security. Ergo, always govt. and always more of it.
Think of it this way, it's like copy protection one side vs. the other with no end in sight. The posts above and on other topics don't complain about the protectors. The general consensus is "you find a way to do it and sooner than you think we'll find a way to undo it". Simply put, if you like Jesus,and that's how you define yourself, find a red state. If complaining about censorship and govt. intrusion is your bag, find a blue state and at least you'll be a little happier or if nothing else, at least you'll be in the company of other complainers. I'm not much for predictions, but it seems that the war between the reds and the blues is just beginning.

Having said all of that, let me finish by saying this about the "wardrobe malfunction". Last year, just in time for the Superbowl, I bought myself a 55" HDTV. I was viewing the half time entertainment over the air via 1080i. I was definately impressed with the picture quality. I saw the notorious incident live in full color, in hi-def, and on as big as life widescreen. So what did I see. Not much at the time. It wasn't til I was told over and over again on subsequent programs "that I saw something that day that I shouldn't have" and that I and my children would be ruined forever.I know what it was that I didn,t see. So now I wonder what all those people with 20" to 32" tvs thought they saw but really didn't see at all. The media loved it, they played it over and over again. Of course, each time they did they were shooting themselves in the foot. Politicians loved it, sooner or later they all had there chance to be on tv and quoted in the papers and finally they had the opportunity to pass new regulations.

All that HYPE over something that could hardly even be seen and for those of you that did get to see it, more HYPE! It wasn't even a real tit. All of this is very confusing. Growing up in Utah, with all it's fundamentalism, I never noticed that much fuss over a tit. Tits were everywhere, in movie theaters, in grocery stores even in church. Women were breast feeding everywhere. Utah may not have taught me to release my creative mind, but at least I was raised knowing it's only a tit, what's the big deal?

[alsyed]

it was an enjoyable incident.

The big brothers should have been happy it wasn't janet's brother exposing.....

[NamPla]

ALSYED ---

Too late, Janet's BIG BROTHER has already exposed himself & 20 years later they're still working it out.

JUST GOES TO SHOW, DOESN'T IT?

Society is bullshit. (That's not "political", by the way!).

[mats.hogberg]

So it's ok to show people being shot, blood flying everywhere, brains splattering on the wall.

It's ok for our children to be subjected to psychological conditioning by advertisers.

It's ok for violence, profanity, and poor values to be passed along.

But HEAVEN FORBID anyone see a naked breast.

Amen. It's a sick world.

/Mats

[alsyed]

it surprised they didn't have advertising on her breast when it was exposed... don't they know sex sells


powers that be only hissed and fitted about it, cuz 'politics' and 'religion' are mixing tooooo much!

[macleod]

Personally I don't see any problem with a tit flashing across my screen at any time. Yes, the Europeans are a bit more open about the female body and don't try to cover it up like its some sort of "nasty" like they do here in the U.S. For that, I applaud the Europeans. However...have you checked out the cost of living in Europe??? Take it from me...we poor Americans could not afford it...in fact, I don't see how the Europeans do. I do think Canada is probably the best option. The Canadian girls I talk to in my line of work all sound happy, vivacious, sexy...hell, I wish I were there now. Just gotta get more used to the COLD...

Obviously not a parent...

Regarding the specific incident at the superbowl, a family sits down to watch a show with certain assumptions, that it will be "safe" for their children to watch the program. I believe that most people did not sit down to watch the game with the understanding that there would be nudity (although it sounds like a bonus in your case
).

I am sure that someone is going to post "just dont watch television". To that, I'll say, "get real". A decent percentage of TV is OK for our kids and while it is true a number of kids (and adults) spend too much time in front of the tube (tv,computer, video games), TV can be a good tool for kids, just not for sex education.

I remember that whole thing on the MTV awards where Guns and Roses came out and was cussing up a storm and they had to do that 30 second (or whatever length it was) delay. Wasnt that suppose to be for all live broadcasts????

I do think that marketing people need to chill out a bit as they push advertising WAYYYYYY too much. They just seem to get more and more pushy with their ways to get to people.

As one of the previous posters mentioned, when it initially happened, (the janet incident), I think had the news and political folks didnt beat it to death, it wouldnt have been the big deal it is.

Makes you wonder who is to blame (btw, its a rhetorical question)

[mats.hogberg]

What's "unsafe" with a nipple? I am a parent, my daughter has never been shielded from nudity, not even rather explicit sex, that has made me squirm in the TV sofa from embarassement), but seemingly left her undisturbed, (but to some extent from violence, I admit that!) and I am curious to your opinion on how that might have damaged her?

/Mats

[Gurm]

I'm ALSO a parent, and I would prefer that society not damage my kids' psyches by giving them entirely the wrong idea about sex and their bodies.

They've seen breasts. They're gonna see much worse when I'm not around, I don't want them being ashamed of their own bodies and sex/sexuality. Ignorance breeds ignorance, and prudish attitudes about nudity and sex breed... unwanted babies and sexual repression - not to mention the oppression of women in the long run. No thank you.

[BJ_M]

I'm ALSO a parent, and I would prefer that society not damage my kids' psyches by giving them entirely the wrong idea about sex and their bodies.

They've seen breasts. They're gonna see much worse when I'm not around, I don't want them being ashamed of their own bodies and sex/sexuality. Ignorance breeds ignorance, and prudish attitudes about nudity and sex breed... unwanted babies and sexual repression - not to mention the oppression of women in the long run. No thank you.

ditto, except they see much worse even when i AM around sometimes ..

they also have wine at dinner sometimes, since they were little tikes ...

[NamPla]

Macleod, who's to say you represent the "moral standard" upon which all the rest of us should follow? Those kind of ethics are the worst kind of hypocrisy out there.

I'm sorry, but I HATE seeing censorship enforced on the grounds of "indecency" and "moral offensiveness". That is pure EVIL. There's adults in this world too, not just kids. Actually, kids usually are more "mature" than adults, I think. Why should TV/cinema be totally sanitized? Bugger that! GIMME MY XXX!!! heh!

Tho' I DO tend to agree, Janet Jackson's tit...should be banned. HA!!!!

[Nilfennasion]

I grew up in a violent, abusive (read: young, Catholic-influenced) family that was not helped by the fact that in spite of having suffered it since basically birth, I've only just been diagnosed with autism in my mid twenties. If you think the images I saw on television or (vomit) VHS when I was a lad put any ideas in my head that I didn't previously think of, you are quite clearly delusional, Macleod.

If everything I hoped for these days came to pass, I would still want my son to see the imagery I grew up with, so he could understand why I am the impatient, non-trusting monster that morons who apparently knew what was best for me, my parents, and everyone else's parents too, turned me into.

Tho' I DO tend to agree, Janet Jackson's tit...should be banned. HA!!!!

Gotta agree here. The rest of her repulsive body (along with that of the rest of the Jacksons) ought to be on the chopping block, too.

[BJ_M]

Tito is Ok i think ...

[pepegot1]

Bush wacked again! The right wing reactionaries want to turn the clock back to the 1950's, when "Father Knows Best" was king. The customs & mores of that time are "Gone With the Wind". They are jumping on PBS-TV for the potentially airing on Frontline, this Tueday evening, a report showing the conditions faced by our troops in Iraq. Naturally, four letter words abound (13 they said ). The are putting the Big Heat on PBS to censor this, yet you can go to a movie theater and hear f--- words all over the place. What hypocrisy this is. We have not been so split since the "Civil War", and it is not going to get better soon.
We have come a long way since Rhet Butler said to Scarlet O'hara: "Personally my dear, I don't give a damn"- today, "give a F".
They say "Arabia has a problem with identity", but fail to look in the mirror.

[Nilfennasion]

Indeed, Tito looks at least vaguely normal. Human, even.

The problem these days is not so much vulgarity. It is the mindset of content. We have a moron who claims to adapt one of the English language's most revered works, and manages to produce something so utterly vapid, so superficial, that it remains doubtful he had any thought beyond "let's all fight a lot" when he planned it. We have a news network that is little more than a propaganda machine for a political party run by a gutless thug, which claims to be "fair and balanced". It gets away with this. We have a music industry that shows us tunes that require little more than bashing your head on a piano to emulate, and claims it is the best they can do.

And in the past few years, a trend has emerged where we are told that critical thinking is bad. That we should be grateful for anything these wankers put out at us. And yet their sales are less than a tenth what they were during the 1960s and 1970s, when poverty and squalor were prompting attempts at social revolution. Aside from the fact that Hollywood is unlikely to reach the intellectual zenith it did in 1987, there is so much wrong with these facts its scary.

[pepegot1]

Well said, Nilfennasion!!