Reply
Wed 2 Mar, 2005 12:09 pm
Senator: Decency Rules Should Apply to Pay TV, Radio
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and 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 Corp. and Time Warner Inc. or XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. and Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., which recently signed Stern.
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.
Sen. George Allen, a Commerce Committee member and Virginia Republican, told reporters 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 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 U.S. 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. So far the White House has expressed support for the House bill, and made no public pronouncement about the Senate measure.
Since this is NOT public airwaves, the PUBLIC is protected by having a choice to buy or not to buy.
If I want to pay to watch x, it is no ones buisness, especially the govts.
I think some politicians are getting out of control, thinking they are the conscience of the people.
They forget they are our servants.
IMO, if a radio or TV medium is private, and not supported by the government, the government has no right to set standards. It is up to each consumer to decide if a program is appropriate.
What'll be next? Books?
Screw Stern, what about THE SOPRANOS, or some HBO comedy specials. I have an XM tuner in the truck and Im always listening to the comedy station. If he screws with the first Amendment, theres gonna be hell to pay for the "third in line "guy
I am not sure if I have ever seen you four agree on anything before.
This must mean something, although I feel a bit pressured to take the other side just to keep things nteresting...
Nice looking kid, Brown. Again, congratulations.
Can it be? We all agree on this?
I'm shocked, shocked I tell you!!
Well I'll chime in on agreement here. Cable IMO is a voluntary and private medium and thus can do pretty much whatever it chooses. If the public wants raunchy, so be it. If the public doesn't want so much raunchy, the producers are going to give the public what it is willing to pay for.
In wireless systems, however, public airways are involved and I have no problem with the government, in the interest of enforcing public decency, requiring the programs to be appropriately rated so parents can tune out inappropriate raunchy for their kids.
Whatever the government funds, the government should be able to set the standards just as those paying for stuff in the private sector can set standards. Otherwise the government should butt out in all areas other than with programming that is clearly illegal such as drug trafficking or inciting to riot, overthrowing the government, etc.
I do believe the government can and should have a say in standards of decency in programming that goes out over the free airways, but I do hope they use common sense in making those judgments.
Chime in as saying this is, well, not a good idea.
The gov't really would be much better off reviewing its' currently-existing policies re: deceny on the airwaves, and try to establish some better standards.
Cycloptichorn
The definition of "common sense" will forever be highly interpretive based on your political ideologies, so I sincerely doubt that common ground can ever be established.
When you can watch murder after murder after murder on the public airwaves, you don't hear alot of complaints from the right, and yet when a single breast is accidently exposed on national television, the conservatives have a cow.
So where is the line drawn? IMO, NOBODY truly knows. Therefore, the definition of common sense will change depending on your political and/or moral leanings.
Heaven help us if they get their hands on HBO. If that happens, I swear, I really will blow up the tv, eat a lot of peaches, move to the country, and build me a home. There will be absolutely nothing worth watching.
I agreed with everyone .... up to that last post from Dookie, of course.
duck, is that little duckie part of a hazmat exercise?
I guess that the agreement of so many of us who dwell in different caves signals something.
Satellite is, by virtue " an airwave" but its signals are locked within a frequency that is wholly owned and operated by the signal purveyor.
HBO is often distributed by satellite.
The good senator from Alaska needs to go and buy a clue.
Tico, how about expanding on something for once rather than uttering your usual knee jerk insults?
Why is it that violence on television is o.k., and yet a women's breast is not?
It's really a simple question. And it's a guarantee that the liberal progressives aren't on the censorship bandwagon like the conservatives are.
Nobody said violence on TV is OK and a woman's breast is not except for you Dookie. I think the person starting this thread would classify himself as mostly conservative which makes you insulting and pretty much off target here..
Dookiestix wrote:Tico, how about expanding on something for once rather than uttering your usual knee jerk insults?
That wasn't an insult ... and I generally try and keep my insults confined to the Insult Thread. I really can't help it if you feel my disagreement with your post is an insult.
And I really don't need a lecture from you that I should not be insulting people. You of all people on this board ....
there's an insult thread?!
Wrong, Foxfyer. Michael Powell has said it, other censors have said it, and the neoconservative movement has said it. It IS the neoconservative movement who object.
John Ashcroft, a classic neocon, put a dress on the good Spirit of Justice statue. And that pretty much started at trend.
And really, you need to stop your blind accusations here. In saying that violence is O.K. is to mearly change your channels on television and see how pervasive it is. And it's on the public airwaves. Even though there are some disclaimers regarding violence that is more graphic, it is still getting televised.
If they were to broadcast Shindler's List again, it became apparent from the FCC and Mr. Powell that unless the nudity was blurred out or edited, that it would not be televised.
These aren't liberal progressives making these rules, Fox.
So, NONE of this is off target. It deals with the central core issue of censorship. It was the initial reason why we were all in agreement in the beginning.
I doubt ANYONE can answer why violence is o.k. but nudity is not. And it is o.k. based on my aforementioned definition.
Please read through my posts a little more carefully before making such blind accusations. It mearly undermines your arguments.
And in case you forgot, it is the REPUBLICANS who are in firm control of every branch of government, and they are therefore making the rules governing this topic.
Um, Tico, let's hope in your next few postings you can actually stick to the subject this time.
If you don't agree with me, then tell us WHY...
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace