The FCC Has Yet To Hear Of Hulu
The best case for Big Government is that it provides lifetime employment for herds of idiots who would otherwise likely be on public assistance or barely feeding their children.
Jacob Sullum underscores this with a piece in reason on "The FCC's Incomprehensible Ban on Broadcast Indecency":
My daughters, who range in age from 5 to 18, watch TV programs and movies on DVDs, on smart phones, streaming from Netflix through our Wii, on video websites, on our DVR, and on demand from AT&T U-verse. They do not know or care what "broadcast television" is, and they certainly do not perceive a categorical distinction between "over-the-air" channels and the rest.But the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) does, imposing a form of censorship on broadcast TV that would be clearly unconstitutional in any other context--for the children, of course. A case the Supreme Court heard on Tuesday gives it an opportunity to renounce this obsolete doctrine once and for all.
...Fox and the other TV networks challenging the ban are urging the Supreme Court not only to uphold the 2nd Circuit's decision but to reconsider the 1978 ruling that approved content-based regulation of broadcasting on the grounds that the medium was "uniquely pervasive" and "uniquely accessible to children." Now that nine out of 10 households are served by cable, satellite, or fiber-optic TV and children commonly watch video from nonbroadcast sources, it is hard to make that argument with a straight face.
...During Tuesday's oral argument, Justice Samuel Alito worried that repealing the indecency ban would trigger an explosion of televised nudity and profanity, even while conceding that the rule applies to an ever-shrinking part of the video market. In fact, there are more child-friendly entertainment options than ever before, no thanks to the government's ham-handed interference. From a consumer's perspective, the FCC's weirdly selective censorship is not just unnecessary but increasingly incomprehensible.
Why do I have a bad feeling they will decide more things need to be censored...
The Former Banker at January 11, 2012 11:18 PM
On the one hand, this is just mind-bendingly stupid. Even more so after you read the FCC's justification.
On the other hand, the Buggy-whip Regulatory Agency is arguing about keeping it's regulation on handle-thickness, when soon enough no one will be using buggy whips. The "broadcast" channels are nearly irrelevant; their spectrum could be better used for other things, and likely will be in 10 or 20 years.
Granted, it would be better to just eliminate all parts of the agency dealing with broadcast television. Ron Paul might even do this - here's hoping his star keeps rising.
a_random_guy at January 12, 2012 5:22 AM
The deconfliction of the frequencies was and is still needed. The FCC should have never been controlling content.
This is what they did to Howard Stern and others on the radio. The answer is simple -- change the channel.
Jim P. at January 12, 2012 6:08 AM
You want to know what I find really amazing? I can't believe that this guy's family has actually found anything that they want to stream via Netflix. Outside of Dr. Who episodes, there is nothing out there.
**Sorry! Just couldn't resist!***
Of course, he is totally right. As usual, the government is light years behind the rest of society and this is a waste of time.
sheepmommy at January 12, 2012 7:07 AM
Huh? We find lots to watch on streaming Netflix. Like Strawberry Shortcake. And Nova. And Strawberry Shortcake. And the Tudors. And Strawberry Shortcake.
I can't think of a single show we watch on broadcast TV on a regular basis. My kid isn't even interested in the Saturday morning cartoons (which is good, I think, because most of them are either all booger jokes or Mean Girls lessons.)
ahw at January 12, 2012 7:17 AM
I can't think of a single show we watch on broadcast TV on a regular basis.
Same for us. We get cable entirely for Game of Thrones. Sometimes we watch The Daily Show, but everything else is from Netflix and online.
Also, I would love to drive to work in a pirate.
MonicaP at January 12, 2012 7:29 AM
Given the current trends on what shows show in my lifetime, I can't say I am terribly worried about the fate of nudity on TV.
NicoleK at January 12, 2012 7:47 AM
heh, Sullum should listen to The Former Banker... and keep quiet. Pointing out that other parts of the broadcast spectrum are not regulated is an excuse to regulate them... particularly for the FCC who needs to find a reason to exist.
Anticipating that they will somehow go quietly into the night is the same as saying you've never heard of regulatory scope creep. I hear it's always been all the rage.
SwissArmyD at January 12, 2012 8:16 AM
I think having Madonna perform at halftime of The Big Game permanently reduces that event to naught but the orgiastic celebration of our cultural decay (why watch 2 squads of freakishly large, strong men trying to cripple each other while someone hurls an oblate spheroid across a field in their midst?). Would the FCC ban the halftime broadcast for that?
/rant
DaveG at January 12, 2012 8:57 AM
For sake of argument, let us assume that the FCC censorship served a
useful purpose in keeping children from seeing and hearing things
that their parents wanted kept from them.
Even conceding the above, the time for FCC censorship has passed.
Since 1999, every TV sold in the U.S. has contained the federally-
mandated V-chip. Now, parents have a technological way to keep
their children from seeing and hearing content that the parents
don't approve of. It means that parents can control their kids'
viewing without affecting what adults can receive over the air.
Per numerous U.S. Supreme Court rulings, there's no excuse for a
broad restriction on freedom of speech when a narrow restriction
suffices. This seems to fit the broad censorship vs. the V-chip
exactly.
ron at January 12, 2012 9:13 AM
"Saturday morning cartoons"
Oh no. I had to sit through Saturday morning TV a few months ago - two weeks running. Long story, not important. However, it was an eye-opener - I hadn't realized just how bad things hat gotten.
There doesn't actually seem to be such a thing as Saturday morning cartoons anymore - it's Saturday morning commercials. At least 40% of the time it was commercials; the rest of the time it was "cartoons" that were actually commercials for all the cartoon-related products you could buy (hello, Sponge Bob).
The so-called cartoons aren't even particularly entertaining. You can't have any sort of violence, not even the slapstick variety (did you know that "Roadrunner and Coyote", "Bugs Bunny", and similar cartoons have been forbidden as too violent?). You can't make jokes that have any chance of offending anyone. Really, it's no wonder that there nothing left but senseless pap.
Why anyone would subject their kids to Saturday Morning Commercials is beyond my understanding. Yes, I have kids. When they watch TV, they have a nice selection of kids videos. Commercial free. Not a Sponge Bob in the lot.
Finally, note that this solution (letting kids watch videos, selected by their parents) makes the whole FCC argument silly. If parents want to control what their kids are exposed to, they can. The FCC's censorship is utterly unnecessary.
a_random_guy at January 12, 2012 10:11 AM
Nothing on Netflix? Well, besides Firefly (remember the recent post here?), Death Note, Sanctuary, The Lost Room, The Orphanage, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, The Girl who Played with Fire, The Girl who Kicked the Hornet's Nest, Queen to Play, Fathead, Bugs Bunny (which apparently isn't on network TV anymore) and a couple of hundred others I'm forgetting, no, there's not that much on Netflix.
As for TV, I never bothered to get a digital antenna during the switchover a few years ago, and cable is 99% stuff I don't care about.
Lori at January 12, 2012 11:28 AM
"...it's Saturday morning commercials."
As opposed to the quality entertainment provided by Thundercats, He-Man, My Little Pony, Transformers, She-Ra, and GI Joe that was totally unrelated to the amount of merchandise each of these moved?
Elle at January 12, 2012 2:28 PM
As opposed to the quality entertainment provided by Thundercats, He-Man, My Little Pony, Transformers, She-Ra, and GI Joe that was totally unrelated to the amount of merchandise each of these moved?
Posted by: Elle
Hey hey hey, those shows and merchandise were valuble fodder for the creation of Robot Chicken
lujlp at January 12, 2012 3:19 PM
This is incredibly stupid. You have the modern convenience of - OMG - changing the channel FROM YOUR CHAIR or turning the TV off completely. Supply, demand...it's a pretty simple equation. I'm sure broadcast TV would go hog wild for a bit, but water always finds it's level.
If you're using the TV as a babysitter and don't monitor the content, then you suck as a parent. Sorry, but you signed up for the job, DO IT. Stop "purifying" TV - adults pay for it, adults should regulate it. If no one is watching a show, regardless of the reason, it will get yanked off the air. God people, stop being such prudes. Honestly. I don't want my television experience dictated by "what's appropriate for a five-year-old". That should be MOMMY'S job, in MOMMY'S home.
And lujip - I LOVE ROBOT CHICKEN! I swear to all that is holy they have every action figure ever made. Seriously, I didn't know half of those existed.
Daghain at January 12, 2012 8:39 PM
I think a few of them didnt, they have a great production staff.
I think my favorite bit is where they have Kristin Chenoweth doing "When you give a mouse a cookie"
lujlp at January 13, 2012 3:04 PM
here it is
http://robotchicken.wikia.com/wiki/Give_a_Mouse_a_Cookie
lujlp at January 13, 2012 9:21 PM
Leave a comment