Your "Indecency" Is Not My Indecency
To me, what's truly indecent are attacks on freedom of speech. George Bush signs attacks on freedom of speech into law with the broadcast "decency" law.
President Bush signed legislation Thursday that will cost broadcasters dearly when raunchy programming exceeds "the bounds of decency."At a signing ceremony for the new law increasing by tenfold the maximum fine for indecency, Bush said that it will force industry figures to "take seriously their duty to keep the public airwaves free of obscene, profane and indecent material."
For raunchy talk or a racy show of skin, the Federal Communications Commission can now fine a broadcaster up to $325,000 per incident.
Approval of the bill culminates a two-year effort to get tough on sexually explicit material and offensive language on radio and television following Janet Jackson's 2004 Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction."
The FCC recently denied a petition of reconsideration from CBS Corp.-owned stations facing $550,000 in fines over the Jackson incident, in which she briefly revealed a breast during a halftime concert.
The agency recently handed down its biggest fine, $3.3 million, against more than 100 CBS affiliates that aired an episode of the series "Without a Trace" that simulated an orgy scene. That fine is now under review.
The FCC has received increasing complaints about lewd material over the airwaves, and has responded with fines jumping from $440,000 in 2003 to almost $8 million in 2004.
"The problem we have is that the maximum penalty that the FCC can impose under current law is just $32,500 per violation," Bush said. "And for some broadcasters, this amount is meaningless. It's relatively painless for them when they violate decency standards."
The bill does not apply to cable or satellite broadcasts, and does not try to define what is indecent. The FCC says indecent material is that which contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.
The legislation, while facing little resistance in Congress, had detractors warning of problems in defining what is indecent and of the erosion of First Amendment rights.
What scares me most is how few people are scared by stuff like this.
UPDATE: And here's this link via Reason, of what, exactly the government is responding to (as usual, they're pandering to the fundanutters). From a Mediaweek story by Todd Shields:
Virtually none of those who complained to the Federal Communications Commission about the teen drama Without A Trace actually saw the episode in question, CBS affiliates said as they asked the agency to rescind its proposed record indecency fine of $3.3 million.All of the 4,211 e-mailed complaints came from Web sites operated by the Parents Television Council and the American Family Association, the stations said in a filing on Monday.
In only two of the emails did those complaining say they had watched the program, and those two apparently refer to a “brief, out-of-context segment” of the episode that was posted on the Parents Television Council’s Web site, the affiliates’ filing said.
“There were no true complainants from actual viewers,” the stations said. To be valid, complaints must come from an actual viewer in the service area of the station at issue, the filing said.
“The e-mails were submitted … because advocacy groups hoping to influence television content generally exhorted them to contact the commission,” the CBS stations said.
L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, said that “everything the PTC has said is accurate.
It's called "Astroturfing" when groups do this to papers. What's it called when they do it in government? "Law," I guess.
As I've said before, if you're a parent, how about you simply police what your kids watch, rather than policing what I can and can't.
Much ado about nothing.
The FCC isn't getting any new powers. It might look scary that stations can be fined for violating some poorly-defined standard of "decency", but the FCC has had that power for decades. And it doesn't even have any jurisdiction over cable or satellite.
So now they can fine stations $325,000 instead of $32,500. Big whoop. CBS gives away more than that in two episodes of "The Price is Right." The FCC's real power is its ability to grant and revoke broadcast licenses. This bill doesn't change that in any way, nor does it even define what is acceptable and what isn't.
If GW Bush is proud of this toothless legislation, good for him. Because it won't impact the quality of broadcast television or his approval ratings in any meaningful way. Some days, that man's comprehensive idiocy is a good thing.
If you want something to be scared about, follow the above link, then read the article U.S. JOURNALISTS FORCED OFF GUANTANAMO.
Gary S. at June 16, 2006 1:31 AM
You know, there's an easy way to ensure your kids don't see this filthy filthy filthiness....don't have a goddamn TV. My family has never owned a TV, so policing what we watched wasn't ever a problem. You can bet the parents writing Strongly Worded Letters are the same douches that let their kids have unrestricted access to the TV. Don't like it? Turn it off. Oh, but I guess it's too much trouble to monitor what widdle Susie watches when you're running the church bake sale and writing angry letters because you're marching in lockstep with every brain dead advocacy group in America. Sometimes I think these people won't be happy until we're all in straightjackets being fed pabulum by an employee of Uncle Sam's. Christ. Personal responsibility...do you know it, motherfucker?
amh18057 at June 16, 2006 6:24 AM
Exactly. Parent your own children, don't make the government parent all of us.
Amy Alkon at June 16, 2006 7:15 AM
Maybe the government should police the amount of advertisments and the way companies are allowed to present thier products to the public. i think THAT is more damaging to our kids than someone seeing Janet Jacksons boob on the tube....
Rob at June 16, 2006 7:40 AM
Back to the 50's. I lived through that uptight generation and assure you that it was not "Happy Days. The Cold War craziness, McCarthyism, and the Boots of Big Brother were stamping fear and censorship in every news and entertainment medium to the point that the 1950's is now often referred to as "the quiet generation." That's what happens when we let religious wingnuts like Bush and his sheepflock use these kinds of issues to draw attention away from more serious things, like war and such. Bad words, burning flags, gay marriage amendments, and other pointless and useless "critical issues" are so easy for politicians to hide behind when real, hard decisions need to be faced courageously. But, then, we're talking about Bush, aren't we?
John Foland at June 16, 2006 9:15 AM
Amy, admit it: You'd never heard of this fucking TV show before this story either. You certainly did not watch, and savor, the rape scene under discussion.
As TV becomes less and less relevant, it will be much harder for you to feign irritation at these little panders from the FCC. That agency, always a paper tiger, has been overwhelmed for the last 70 years anyway.
Crid at June 16, 2006 11:54 PM
"Maybe the government should police the amount of advertisements?" What? And what's this "our kids" shit? Last time I checked, I was still gloriously, wonderfully, blessedly childfree. Where in the Constitution does it say that the government should police what your kids watch? If you don't want them seeing the advertisements, don't let them watch TV. And to every parent who acts like they somehow couldn't keep Junior from watching TV (uh, maybe take the set ouf of his bedroom?), why don't you grow a pair? Seriously, folks. You're bigger than they are for a reason.
amh18057 at June 17, 2006 6:32 AM
>>Bush and his sheepflock use these kinds of issues to draw attention away from more serious things
Ummm... considering their track record, do you really WANT Bush and his sheepflock dealing with the serious issues?
Perhaps we should be happy that these people are spending their time on such irrelevant legislation. Personally, I'm hoping for a two-year presidential debate on gay marriage and flag burning.
Gary S. at June 18, 2006 7:03 PM
It rather has to make a person wonder at some people's concept of sin ( means to miss the target, in medieval archery, btw ) when sharing sexual pleasures ,in an era where negative side effects are much diminished, is farther from smart than violence, rape, murder which are publicised at every hands turn. I've got to be an over-aged hippie to think that attitude is so far past misguided as to be in the vicinity of insane.
opit at June 20, 2006 10:39 PM
Bush as the poster boy of morality ?
http://blogd.com/bushrecord.html
opit at June 20, 2006 10:44 PM
Leave a comment