Posted on 02/02/2005 4:50:28 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
Lawmakers See Indecency Bill Moving Quickly
8 minutes ago Politics - Reuters
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Legislation to significantly hike fines for broadcasters airing indecent material will move quickly in the U.S. House of Representatives, leaders of the House Energy and Commerce Committee said on Wednesday.
After a series of high-profile incidents on television and radio, a bipartisan group of House lawmakers has proposed boosting fines on stations and entertainers to as much as $500,000 per violation, up from the current $32,500.
The measure would also require the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) to decide whether to revoke a station's license if the broadcaster violates the rules three times.
The House Energy and Commerce Committee will vote on the measure within the next two weeks, said Rep. Fred Upton (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the panel's subcommittee on telecommunications.
"We're going to start off with decency legislation," the Michigan Republican told reporters as he and the full committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record), outlined panel's 2005 agenda.
His spokesman said the bill would bypass the subcommittee and be voted on by the full House Energy and Commerce Committee.
"Chairman Barton has a commitment from the leadership to get it to the floor very quickly," Upton said. He added that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, had asked that the House move first on the bill.
Lawmakers in the Senate have offered their own measure, however the maximum fine would be $325,000 per violation with a $3 million cap for a repeated violation.
Family groups, lawmakers and FCC (news - web sites) commissioners demanded Congress increase fines after singer Janet Jackson's bare breast was exposed during the National Football League's Super Bowl championship game last year. They complained that the size of current fines was not a deterrent.
The House and Senate were unable to reach a compromise last year to raise penalties.
Television and radio broadcasters are banned from airing indecent material, like sexually explicit discussions, sexual innuendo or some profanity, except during late night hours when children are considered less likely to be listening or watching.
As far as I'm concerned, indecency legislation is indecent, especially when it gives more power to a bunch of power hungry bureaucrats.
We have a remote. We have a plug. We even have a V-chip. What's next - THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE?
Or will guns be considered 'indecent'. Don't laugh - AOL does that already.
I'll patrol my TV. I'm not weak minded enough to have government be the patrol police.
Thought this was a new nickname for x42
I hope they stomped on it before it could slither under the furniture.
So9
What's wrong with censorship of offensive materials? Parents do it all the time. This country would be much better off if it outlawed liberalism and all the cultural pollution that's on TV and the media.
Government isn't intelligent enough, competent enough, or trustworthy enough to be a censor.
Parents do it all the time.
It's a parent's job. Not government's What I choose to watch is none of their damn business.
This country would be much better off if it outlawed liberalism and all the cultural pollution that's on TV and the media.
If you want to get rid of it, there's a good way to do so. It's called the free market.
So just because the government is usually inept doesn't mean banning indecency is a bad thing. We have lots of criminal laws that you will agree with. I thought that conservatives believe indecency is a bad thing on TV. You know that most parents let their kids watch whatever shows they want. It would be much better of course if the parents would act like responsible adults, but I will take whatever limits on bad TV that we can get.
The free market doesn't always work in a conservative way, and this is especially true when it comes to social issues. Capitalism may be much better than Communism, but it hasn't stopped society's race towards cultural decadence since the 60's.
BTTT
I don't think it's such a bad idea, although I'm very doubtful it will accomplish anything.
Especially when the definition of "indecency" is not explicit.
For example, I could live with a rule, for over the air broadcasts, that states: You can't say the following words () () (). And you can't show the following body parts () (). Anything else is OK.
What we have now amounts to: "go ahead and air your show. If someone gets their panties in a twist about it, -then- we'll decide how much to fine you".
This is ex post facto law at its worst and I pray that some broadcaster will have the balls to fight it in court and that there will be enough liberal justices left to rule his way.
(If you were in charge, would I be allowed to say "balls"?)
It's MY responsibily with MY TV.
The key word is GOVERNMENT
What's the definition of indecency?
You know that most parents let their kids watch whatever shows they want. It would be much better of course if the parents would act like responsible adults, but I will take whatever limits on bad TV that we can get.
So because some parents don't police their kids, we need government to restrict what adults can watch?
The free market doesn't always work in a conservative way
Modern Conservatism has always been about less government and liberty - going back to John Locke. Modern Liberalism is about big government claiming to know what's best for me.
Should satellite radio and pay TV remain off limits to the FCC?
We need less government not more.
Another jackass idea from DC.
They are the ones who should be "fined" for indecency.
Congress, just go away.
I have to agree. Unfortunately the people that make sitcoms seemed to be fixated on bodily functions for plot lines. Hey, who needs to pay for good writers when you can palm off the hacks.
Also, isn't it odd how many really young children on tv have raunchy things to say. Lines placed in their mouths by a writer. I often wonder if it isn't the writer who is getting thrilled.
Or the director, producer, whoever. Something is wrong out there in tv land, that's for sure.
No. It certainly is NOT.
First, the FCC can (and does) regulate *every* transmission. That extends to a modem or your garage door opener or a satellite broadcast/transmission.
Second, they have done so *way* before you showed up on earth (I’d be perfectly willing to bet). Way before there WAS a television set.
And NO - as they have partitioned bands for commercial use – they WILL continue to regulate according to the general use conditions as before – which required the broadcaster (when broadcasting is allowed) or the transmitter (when it is not) to follow existing regulations. Those were the circumstances under which partitioning was ALLOWED and APPROVED. That’s certainly the way I remember it happening.
Next stop – if the FCC wants to appear consistent – is regulating cable feeds and satellite broadcasts consistent to how (nearly) every other over-air broadcast is regulated – cell phones included there too.
My guess is that they would as likely to push hate-speech codes and crack down on "intolerance".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.