More Attacks on Free Speech Proposed

[username]

Please do, I'd be interested to read that.

I don't recall the name of the case, but it involved Playboy airing it's soft porn on cable.

Basically (from memory) playboy's content was deemed indecent and the SC said it is on pay TV so hands off.

Since that time you may have noticed that cable/satellite porn has grown more hardcore (or perhaps you haven't noticed ) .

The bottom line is that if playboy has been given the royal blessing to air porn, cable and satellite in general are untouchable because both services have channel and content blocking features that are free to use.

This was the argument (IIRC) in the playboy case. If you don't want to see it, don't watch the channel. If cable and sat broadcasting in general are too much for you, don't pay for those services.

This is just the kind of stuff that politicians say to rile people up. Most likely this senator's constituents approve of this kind of censorship so he can talk about it and look good to them even though there is really no chance of such legislation getting approved or past the courts.

 

[TragicMonkey]

I don't see why the FCC should have the power to control content on broadcast TV, either.

It's not like anyone's forced to own a television. If you don't like the content on the airwaves, don't buy a machine to suck that content out of the air.

Okay, I'm a little hazy on how television works. But my point is that the consumer has to actively seek television of any kind, it's not being forced on him against his will, not like a billboard advertisement or even junk mail, both of which get to you without your taking any action.

 

[Tony]

Because of cable and satellite penetration in American households. Legislators know that the American public won't go for the editing of something they pay to see. In short, I have faith in the broad ranging public demand for smut.

The american public went for the editing of broadcast tv, I see no reason why they wouldn't go for it again. Especially after an emotionally charged propaganda campaign.

I wish I shared your optimism.

Might take some time.

That's fine, there's no rush. I just want a reason that will make me share your optimism.

 

[DavidJames]

The american public went for the editing of broadcast tv, I see no reason why they wouldn't go for it again. Especially after an emotionally charged propaganda campaign.

I agree and after the last election, the "moral majority" now have a clear majority in congress. I think this may end up being an election issue next year, not unlike the gay marriage issue was last and wouldn't be surprised at similar results.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

"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."

Here is the above sentence translated from Politician-speak (AKA Idiotese) to English,

"I want to have control over what people see and hear in their own homes. But people, even some of my supporters, begin getting antsy when the word 'Censorship' is thrown about. So we won't call it that. We'll call it decency standards instead."

 

[Grammatron]

What he's trying to do isn't illegal. He's decided to try to pass federal law that will extend FCC jurisdiction to cable and satellite providers. It won't pass but it's not illegal to try. Plus, I don't think the new law would get past the Supreme Court. I believe they've already ruled that the FCC, constitutionally, has no power to regulate cable and satellite content. I think that was in 2000 but I'd have to look it up.

I think I found the case and it's rather laughable, to me at least. The case basicly had to do not with porn being broadcast, but with scrambled porn and "signal bleed" where a kid might catch an inverted image of a breast and thus be scarred for life...or something like that.

 

[DaChew]

Why can they control content on television and not in books? It's not like kids can't get their hands on books containing "language, suggestive dialogue, sexual situations" etc. Is it because people just don't read, or because it sounds really, really bad to want to censor books?

The FCC doesn't specifically control the content of television. The FCC regulates broadcasting over the public airwaves. I suggest that a video tape or DVD is more analgous to a book than broadcast television. Of course, you can buy videos of absolutely the most socially unacceptable activities without interference from the government.

 

[Tony]

more...

http://www.journalnow.com/servlet/S...icArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031781320656&path=!nationworld&s=1037645509161

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.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

"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.

Idiotese to English translation "There are some media outlets that the government doesn't yet control. This will not do."

 

[hgc]

...

"if Howard Stern is to be believed". Well, I don't know what to say to that.

Personally I find him believable sometimes, but not all the time. I put the disclaimer because he is my source for this. Take it for what it's worth to you. I don't insist that you believe it.

I do know that new frequency allocations take a long time to approve. It's not like Infinity is hurting for spectrum space they are one of the largest broadcasting companies in the country. Were they ulitmately denied licensing without reason? I don't know what evidence Stern could provide that would support his claim.

According to the claim, Infinity was in the process of buying a station, and the necessary papers to complete the deal, which normally take a short time, ground to a halt. The owner of the station was going to have to try to sell to someone else, so Infinity dropped the suit, paid the fine; and the papers went through.