Senator wants cable, satellite TV subject to indecency rules

Key GOP senator says he would push for such legislation

Back to being a libertarian for a while.

Rant mode on.

This article (among others) discusses the topic of at least one Senator that wants to impose decency rules on all TV, not just broadcast, but all. Headline is linked.

Senator wants cable, satellite TV subject to indecency rules

Key GOP senator says he would push for such legislation

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON --Indecency guidelines that over-the-air broadcasters must follow should be extended to cover cable and satellite broadcasters, congressional Republicans who are influential on telecommunications issues said yesterday.
Most viewers do not differentiate between traditional TV and cable, so they do not know when they might be exposed to objectionable programming, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, the head of the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, told the National Association of Broadcasters in Washington.
"In this country, there has to be some standards of decency," said Stevens, who said he would push for such legislation. The National Cable and Telecommunications Association, a trade group, said that people choose to pay for channels and, as part of their subscription, are able to block programming they do not want seen in their homes. Because of that, the group said, any legislation would face an uphill battle in court.
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the head of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, supported the idea of indecency guidelines for cable and satellite and said he would consult with Stevens on possible legislation.
"It's not fair to subject over-the-air broadcasters to one set of rules and subject cable and satellite to no rules," Barton told reporters after a separate appearance before the broadcasters group.
Last month, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill to raise the maximum indecency fine from $32,500 to $500,000. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate but has not had a hearing.
Federal law bars nonsatellite radio stations and noncable television channels from broadcasting certain references to sexual and excretory functions between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., when children are most likely be tuning in.
The Federal Communications Commission has no power to regulate cable and satellite stations, which are available to about 85 percent of the about 108 million U.S. households with televisions.

So, Senator Stevens (and a few others) now want to regulate my "boob" tube even more. Deadwood on HBO - out with the C--- Sucker exclamations. Sopranos on HBO, too violent, must be tamed back. Sex and the City, too much sex, can't have that. Skin-a-max after hours, uh no. Showtime with it's cheap soft core porn in the late hours, nope.

Except... hmmm, I actually PAY for these services. I pay for a subscription to HBO because I want to see Deadwood. Because I like the Sopranos. Because my wife enjoyed watching Sex and the City (and hey, those girls were nice and easy on the eyes, even as Samantha used language that would be considered crude, and was seen in positions that were very compromising).

Where does this crap end?!

Should I have to be concerned that immature individuals are seeing Dennis Franz's butt on NYPD Blue during the 9pm hour in the Central Time zone? Maybe. Should I be offended at seeing Janet Jackson being exposed during the half-time at the Super Bowl? (Actually yes, but more because it was during a crappy musical number with a no-talent bum, but that's a different issue). Probably so, since it isn't something that I should have to expect during a family hour broadcast.

But, I should not have to be concerned that the Government wants to involve itself in TV programs that I'm paying to watch and have the ability to turn off at any time. I can use V-chip type technology to automatically filter. I can use my parental skills to actually monitor what my kids watch and keep them from watching Taxi-cab confessions or Shock Video on HBO. I can keep them from watching NYPD Blue. I can make sure they are not watching Coupling.

I don't need, and don't want, the government to involve itself in being the arbiters of good taste and decency. At least not in most cases. I want them to allocate frequencies perhaps. I want them to help regulate prices, perhaps. But I want them to stay the hell out of my life in most cases, and let me make mature, responsible decisions on my own.

After all, I'm older than 17 years, 364 days. I'm mature. Even the Supremes have decided that.

politics

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Yeah, there have been people trying to pull satelite and cable under the same umbrella as broadcast TV and Radio for years now. Their downfall is the exact rules for decency they try to use to back their arguments.

The broadcast company owns the transmitter and the customer owns the radio or tv set. However, when radio was invented, it was decided that the airwaves belong to no one. That is still true today.

What seperates Cable and Satellite media is the equipment between the transmitter and the radio or TV. According to FCC regulations, the airwaves can be regulated, but cables and satelites (being privatly owned) fall under privacy laws. In other words, for the same reason phone sex can't be banned, sex over the cable and satellite can't be banned.

Successfully updated karma reason!

kingbee

Join Date 04/2004

+42

i think it's extremely interesting that

Back to being a libertarian for a while

as opposed to being a conservative? strange, cuz any authentic conservative would find it as outrageous and ill-considered as you. or parated2k. or me.

what kinda conservative favors increased government incursion into our lives? further erosion of the first amendmen? appointed--not elected--regulators imposing dubious 'moral values' as a tranparent concession to those other 'conservatives' who believe the constitution is inferior to the ten commandments?

However, when radio was invented, it was decided that the airwaves belong to no one. That is still true today

it clearly isnt true today. that's the next most problematic issue in play here. it hasnt been true since the fcc determined its mission is to function as a broadcaster advocacy group or trade association rather than as a regulatory body acting on behalf of the public.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Actually, it's the FCC's regulations that ensures that the airwaves belong to no one. Since the airwaves are "public property" no broadcaster can tell me, "if you don't like what I put on the air, just don't watch". That would be equal to a group of people masterbating in a public park, then saying, "if you don't want to see me jerking off, then stay out of the park".

I have a right to be in the park, and that right is not superceded by the other guys right to masterbate. Just as I should expect to walk through the park without wondering if I'll be subjected to that, I should be able to watch TV or listen to the radio without being subjected to it.

On the other hand, , if I pay a company to show a group of people masterbating, since satellites and cables are Private Property the FCC has no jurisdiction over it.

Too often, we think of all tv as the same, since we are watching it one the same tv. However, to technicians and broadcasters, they are far different.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!

View all recent posts

Mark all posts as read Delete cookies created by the forum Return to Top

Stardock Forums v Server Load Time: Page Render Time: