House approves higher indecency fines.

[DaChew]

Just wanted to post this to make sure that everybody is on the same page about the level of fines the FCC will be dishing out in the future. The higher fines were passed by both Republicans and Democrats in a very solid majority.

So, next time the bipartisan FCC hands out fines to broadcasters, we're not going to hear about the right-wing censorship of Bush's appointed chairman of the FCC (whoever takes Powell's place) right?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050216/D889PONG0.html

 

[Tony]

So, next time the bipartisan FCC hands out fines to broadcasters, we're not going to hear about the right-wing censorship of Bush's appointed chairman of the FCC (whoever takes Powell's place) right?

Yes, because a so-called "right-winger" is the executor. It's up to him to enforce the laws.

But I do agree, this censorship is ultimately the fault of the entire government. If it's one-thing politicians can agree on, it's the restriction of freedoms.

 

[Snide]

So, next time the bipartisan FCC hands out fines to broadcasters, we're not going to hear about the right-wing censorship of Bush's appointed chairman of the FCC (whoever takes Powell's place) right?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050216/D889PONG0.html

Both parties are guilty of being stupid on raising the max fine by this much.

But if the FCC, under a new Republican head, starts identifying things they used to let go as being subject to these higher fines, then the right wing is fair game to criticism on that point (Unless of course you can point to a comparable percentage of Democrats who agree with the changing guidelines).

Not saying it will happen; just pointing out that the increase of the maximum allowable fine is only one item. The real question is, obviously, what is "indecent," and will that definition be evolving because of Janet's (almost) bare nipple?

 

[DaChew]

But if the FCC, under a new Republican head, starts identifying things

They don't, and they haven't, identified anything. Remember, the FCC responds to complaints. They work under the rules provided to them by Congress. It's the politicians that set the rules and they can change them too. We need to ask, if we think their recent rulings are stupid, why those rules haven't been changed.

 

[Tony]

They don't, and they haven't, identified anything. Remember, the FCC responds to complaints.

What does the FCC do about complaints that there isn't enough sex/violence on tv?

 

[Snide]

They don't, and they haven't, identified anything. Remember, the FCC responds to complaints. They work under the rules provided to them by Congress. It's the politicians that set the rules and they can change them too. We need to ask, if we think their recent rulings are stupid, why those rules haven't been changed.

And you're sure FCC interpretations of those rules won't change? Not doubting you, just asking. The increase in fine is scary enough to me.

 

[DaChew]

And you're sure FCC interpretations of those rules won't change? Not doubting you, just asking. The increase in fine is scary enough to me.

I just as certain that FCC interpretations of those rules won't change as I am that federal judges interpretations of the Constitution won't change. - Not at all. But this is why FCC positions are appointed. They can be removed also. The point is, appointees to federal commissions can't be allowed to pick and choose which rules they like this week and not the next. Their duty is to enforce the rules they've been given. If the rules need to be changed, then it's up to congress to change them (as they just did.). This business of a congressperson positioning themselves as a champion of free speech by attacking the right or left -wing chairperson of the FCC is garbage. They have the power to change rules they don't like if they want to. They don't want to, they'd rather position themselves as champions of free speech.

 

[Snide]

I just as certain that FCC interpretations of those rules won't change as I am that federal judges interpretations of the Constitution won't change. - Not at all. But this is why FCC positions are appointed. They can be removed also. The point is, appointees to federal commissions can't be allowed to pick and choose which rules they like this week and not the next. Their duty is to enforce the rules they've been given. If the rules need to be changed, then it's up to congress to change them (as they just did.). This business of a congressperson positioning themselves as a champion of free speech by attacking the right or left -wing chairperson of the FCC is garbage. They have the power to change rules they don't like if they want to. They don't want to, they'd rather position themselves as champions of free speech.

I follow what you're saying. Heads of agencies answer to the President, not the voters. I'm not sure this doesn't mean the FCC head wouldn't take the new law as a sign that he/she may also be less liberal regarding what is "indecent." I don't know that a "pick and choose" mentality is necessary to see a difference. But we shall see. Personally, I doubt we'll see much difference in policy...the only difference may be in programming content out of fear of the big fines (which is why I didn't like the bill in the first place).

 

[easycruise]

Just wanted to post this to make sure that everybody is on the same page about the level of fines the FCC will be dishing out in the future. The higher fines were passed by both Republicans and Democrats in a very solid majority.

So, next time the bipartisan FCC hands out fines to broadcasters, we're not going to hear about the right-wing censorship of Bush's appointed chairman of the FCC (whoever takes Powell's place) right?

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050216/D889PONG0.html

Don't underestimate the ability of a liberal to ignore facts, and just generally engage in Bush bashing, and of course, make themselves look like idiots at the same time!

 

[easycruise]

And you're sure FCC interpretations of those rules won't change? Not doubting you, just asking. The increase in fine is scary enough to me.

I think the fine is still too low. Make it an even million dollars. In fact, that's what I suggested when I sent the FCC an e-mail after last year's Super Bowl.

I don't want the TV to spring surprises on me when I'm watching TV with the kids. Tell me in advance what's coming up so I can choose to watch or not. We don't let naked women hang on the street corner yet on TV it's OK. But, I'm of the opinion that all Viagra and Levitra commericals should be banned too. I don't want to be forced to explain things to my kids at a time that I don't agree with.

 

[Cleon]

Well, since I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, am I still allowed to criticize this ridiculous, anti-free-speech crap?

 

[Tony]

Well, since I'm neither Democrat nor Republican, am I still allowed to criticize this ridiculous, anti-free-speech crap?

Neither am I, and I stopped caring about what I was "allowed" to do a long time ago. Screw what you're "allowed" to do, do it anyway.

 

[Snide]

I think the fine is still too low. Make it an even million dollars. In fact, that's what I suggested when I sent the FCC an e-mail after last year's Super Bowl.

I don't want the TV to spring surprises on me when I'm watching TV with the kids. Tell me in advance what's coming up so I can choose to watch or not. We don't let naked women hang on the street corner yet on TV it's OK. But, I'm of the opinion that all Viagra and Levitra commericals should be banned too. I don't want to be forced to explain things to my kids at a time that I don't agree with.

No offense, but when a liberal talks like this, he is called a "whiner."

I understand your point, and maybe I wouldn't mind a higher fine, if I knew it would be only in extreme cases. What probably seperates you and me is our idea of what is extreme is. An almost bare nipple isn't extreme enough to me. Certainly not something I would have had trouble explaining to my then-4-year -old.

Viagra commercials are a differnt breed, though. I wouldn't mind at least knowing what time at night I could expect to see them.

 

[Cleon]

Neither am I, and I stopped caring about what I was "allowed" to do a long time ago. Screw what you're "allowed" to do, do it anyway.

Sorry. "Am I allowed to criticize anti-free speech BS" is a subtle bit of sarcasm on my part.

 

[nelsondogg]

I think the fine is still too low. Make it an even million dollars. In fact, that's what I suggested when I sent the FCC an e-mail after last year's Super Bowl.

I don't want the TV to spring surprises on me when I'm watching TV with the kids. Tell me in advance what's coming up so I can choose to watch or not. We don't let naked women hang on the street corner yet on TV it's OK. But, I'm of the opinion that all Viagra and Levitra commericals should be banned too. I don't want to be forced to explain things to my kids at a time that I don't agree with.

Didn't your kids suck on your/wife's nipple? Really, whats so horrible about explaining a nipple to a kid?

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

I think the fine is still too low. Make it an even million dollars. In fact, that's what I suggested when I sent the FCC an e-mail after last year's Super Bowl.

I don't want the TV to spring surprises on me when I'm watching TV with the kids. Tell me in advance what's coming up so I can choose to watch or not. We don't let naked women hang on the street corner yet on TV it's OK. But, I'm of the opinion that all Viagra and Levitra commericals should be banned too. I don't want to be forced to explain things to my kids at a time that I don't agree with.

Yes, think of the children ....

Charlie (kids must be protected from life) Monoxide

 

[SlippyToad]

I think the fine is still too low. Make it an even million dollars. In fact, that's what I suggested when I sent the FCC an e-mail after last year's Super Bowl.

I don't want the TV to spring surprises on me when I'm watching TV with the kids. Tell me in advance what's coming up so I can choose to watch or not. We don't let naked women hang on the street corner yet on TV it's OK. But, I'm of the opinion that all Viagra and Levitra commericals should be banned too. I don't want to be forced to explain things to my kids at a time that I don't agree with.

I think you'd better get a good sound and light-proof box to raise them in, then. You are surrounded by a country that thrives on commerce, and commerce is driven by engaging people's desires, and the most popular desires are those of the flesh.

It's been very amusing watching the two wings of the conservative movement try to get along with each other. On the right breast, we have the money-hungry salesmen eager to generate more consumerbots. On the right-right breast, we have the piouser-than-thou busybodies, eager to generate more Jesusbots. The two rights (of course they cannot have a left) are at odds with each other, because the more powerful the one gets, the more offensive it becomes to the other.

What really stood out about this year's halftime show (which I did not watch, but observed others' reactions to) was that it was deadly boring. This probably impacted sales. Look for a scantily-clad show next year that goes right up to the edge of what is acceptable, and is rife with barely-disguised innuendo.

Also, I find it amusing that you were one of the email-bots that plastered the FCC with complaints last year. Until you were recruited by the Parents Television Council were you one of the 350 people in the country who regularly complained to the FCC?

 

[Ed]

Didn't your kids suck on your/wife's nipple? Really, whats so horrible about explaining a nipple to a kid?

Nothing, but how, when and where are none of your business. In fact whether or not is not your business either. That is the point, I think.

I don't have a problem with G rated material on the traditional media, say before 10 pm. I do have a problem with Levitra ads on in the afternoon/early evening. For TV, this affects about 7 channels out of the 80 or so that I get on cable and I don't think that that is a terrible imposition for the population at large. The problem is that the Networks are a hurtin' and they want to hypo ratings using any means at their disposal. Because they have a problem (largely self made BTW) it does not follow that I do. Their attempts to invoke "free speech" and engage well meaning idiots to help them create a competitive marketplace more to their liking is cynical at best.

At least one network that I know of has/is seriously investigating putting their programming on on cable which would obviate their bitching and whining. From their standpoint it is a problem since this sort of legitimizes cable, per se, and they are highly resistant to this.

 

[Ed]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
I think you'd better get a good sound and light-proof box to raise them in, then. You are surrounded by a country that thrives on commerce, and commerce is driven by engaging people's desires, and the most popular desires are those of the flesh.

Certainly this is a valid observation but it is not the place of government (or companies) to make decisions regarding how I bring my child up and what I choose to tell them when. Do you really think that government has a right to preempt me?

 

[SlippyToad]

Originally posted by SlippyToad
I think you'd better get a good sound and light-proof box to raise them in, then. You are surrounded by a country that thrives on commerce, and commerce is driven by engaging people's desires, and the most popular desires are those of the flesh.

Certainly this is a valid observation but it is not the place of government (or companies) to make decisions regarding how I bring my child up and what I choose to tell them when. Do you really think that government has a right to preempt me?

I said no such thing. I said, we are living in a society based on an imperative that conflicts from yours (and his); namely the imperative of selling things using the most effective tool available, which has been determined through exhaustive research to be sex. You can get used to it or you can withdraw from that society. But the same people who are peddling "filth" to you are linked at the hip to the ones peddling "morality" to you. You have failed to notice this until now?