House Approves Stiffer Indecency Fines

AP ^ | 2-16-05 | Genaro C Armas

[loboinok]

We have a remote. We have a plug. We even have a V-chip. What's next - THE FAIRNESS DOCTRINE?

Sounds fair to me... what all do you want besides ALL.
Some decent folks want some Network Programing that they can sit down to, and enjoy with their children.

I mean lets get real. You have 220+ channels of cable programing with smut. 150+ satellite channels with smut. Endless internet smut. You have all the smut you want 24/7 365 in all mediums you can imagine. And you begrudge decent people, 4 hours of three channels and tell them to use their remote or unplug their TV. Give me a break!

[Dan from Michigan]

And you begrudge decent people

We don't even know what "decency" means. It means what the FCC says it means, and is subject to change anytime. That's dangerous. AOL bans pro-2a sites. Guns are porn. I learned that a few years back when a mainstream(ie, not 'militia') pro-2a organization had to find a new server.

Let's use the market system. Government is not competent enough, intelligent enough, or trustworthy enough to have the power to regulate content.

[Cat loving Texan]

Indecency is defined as when programming violates "contemporary community standards." Howard Stern has the highest rated morning show in New York. How can he be fined for indecency?

There are 2 knobs on a radio: an on/off switch and a tuning knob. Parents should learn how to use them. The present rules are purely subjective.

[Almondjoy]

Last time I checked the public owned the airwaves.. if the public owns them then we have the power to say what can and cannot be broadcasted over them.

If however they want to find their own forms of communication.. cable.. satellite radio.. for two examples.. then let them.

[Laura Earl]

We didn't get the dog clean with elbow grease, we got the dog clean with uh stomach grease.. uhhuhhhuuhhh

[loboinok]

Government is not competent enough, intelligent enough, or trustworthy enough to have the power to regulate content.

I agree, they are not. But the people were and will be again when they get their act together and start electing competent, intelligent and trustworthy Reps. It started this last election cycle. Lets see if it continues.

[unlearner]

Wrong. We live in a community. The community has a say on what it considers indecent. What do want, would you be OK if live sex acts were broadcast on commercial TV? (They are almost there now.) How about something X-rated? How about sodomy, bestiality, necrophilia?

There is probably some point at which any sane person will agree that something does not belong on the public airwaves.

Your problem is that you do not agree with most Americans on what constitutes indecency. I have the same problem, just in the other direction. The standards are far, far too lax.

Free speech is for ideas and information not mass produced sexual stimulation.

[msjhall]

I agree with the penalty but what difference will it make? In regards to family viewing broadcast television is a lost cause. The Superbowl stunt was but one incident in comparison to the saturation of desperate programming the networks are using to attract viewers.

[Zavien Doombringer]

Huh?

I don't follow you...

Do lawful people need laws? What guides these lawful people in society? God given morals.

I don't want a government to control us, we have the liberty to govern ourselves and the freedom to do what ever we want to do, as long as it doesn't interfere with other's rights.

On the other hand, those that cannot control themselves in public need to have these laws binding them as to not infringe on your rights.

[FactsMatter]

Members of congress, both dem and Republican, want to extend the FCC power to fine 'indecency' to all forms of TV and radio - including SAT, CABLE, and SATRADIO.

[ny demimonde]

howard is going to satellite, so before y'all celebrate be advised that more and more stations are going all spanish and foreign language.

i'm at the point where i don't care....as with TV, i stopped listening to network programming when i got cable. switching to satellite is easy. the downward spiral of free terrestrial radio has begun. buh, bye.

[Almondjoy]

Well then that's clearly overstepping the bounds of the 1st amendment in my opinion.

If it's public owned then the public should be allowed to control content.

If it's private owned then THEY should be able to control content.

If you don't like what they have on their private property you don't have to buy into it.

If people buy cable they should know what they are buying and know full well they might have to take measures like the V-Chip and what not.

[Sam Cree]

I agree that this kind of thing is better ruled by market forces and societal pressure than by the state.

There is an unnerving parallel between some on the religious right and some feminists I notice. To my horror.

[DBeers]

Good News!

[DBeers]

We have one major political party (Republicans) hijacked by religious fanatics who want to impose their "morals" on the rest of the nation

I disagree with your assertion regarding the Republican party. As to the dummycrats -they matter not....

[Bonaparte]

This may come as a shock to you, Karen, but the great majority of Republican voters and Republican elected officials are moderates, ie. they are not "religious conservatives." All they want is their tax breaks and they couldn't care less about standards of public decency.

[Sam Cree]

You are probably right, Bonaparte (I forget now which Bonaparte you are? FBI maybe?), but there is more than a grain of truth in what she says.

[Wolfie]

Stern's a genius. $500 million to go to satellite, and the Government's going to eliminate his competition on terrestrial radio. Buy satellite stock now.

[blaquebyrd]

Buy satellite stock now.

I've been saying that for months now. If this passes you'll see a huge jump in satellite radio and TV subscriptions. Then the "Puritans" will have to pay for the privilege of being offended.