Posted on 02/16/2005 1:41:10 PM PST by Dan from Michigan
House Approves Stiffer Indecency Fines
2 minutes ago Politics - U. S. Congress
By GENARO C. ARMAS, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Chafing over racy broadcasts like Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency.
Rejecting criticism the penalties will stifle free speech and homogenize radio and TV broadcasts, bill supporters said stiff fines were needed to give deep-pocketed broadcasters more incentive to clean up their programs and to help assure parents that their children won't be exposed to inappropriate material.
The measure, which passed 389-38, boosts the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer.
The bill enjoyed broad bipartisan support from lawmakers upset about incidents like Jackson's breast-baring "wardrobe malfunction" at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
"This is a penalty that makes broadcasters sit up and take notice," said Rep. Joe Barton (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that sent the bill to the full House. "This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families to come back into their living room."
The White House, in a statement, said it strongly supports the legislation that "will make broadcast television and radio more suitable for family viewing."
The Senate is considering a similar bill. Any differences in the two will have to be worked out before it goes to President Bush (news - web sites) for a signature. Last year the two chambers were unable to reach a compromise.
Opponents said they were concerned stiffer fines by the Federal Communications Commission (news - web sites) would lead to more self-censorship by broadcasters and entertainers unclear about the definition of "indecent."
They cited the example of several ABC affiliates that last year did not air the World War II drama "Saving Private Ryan" because of worries that violence and profanity would lead to fines, even though the movie already had aired on network TV.
"We would put Big Brother in charge of deciding what is art and what is free speech," said Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., who opposed the bill. "We would see self- and actual-censorship rise to new and undesirable heights."
Parents — not the government — are the best judges of what their children should see and hear, said Rep. Henry Waxman (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif.
"No one knows when one person's creative work will become another person's definition of a violation of indecency," Waxman said.
The FCC (news - web sites) has stepped up enforcement of the indecency statute, perhaps most notably with a $550,000 fine against CBS for Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction." Radio personality Howard Stern also has been a frequent target.
Fines for indecent programming exceeded $7.7 million last year. Four years ago, FCC fines totaled just $48,000.
The FCC has wide latitude to impose fines. It can fine an individual company, groups of stations owned by a company and individual entertainers. In the case of CBS, it imposed a fine of $27,500 against each of 20 stations owned by the network.
All five members of the FCC — three Republicans and two Democrats — favor greatly increasing the fines.
The House bill allows the FCC to fine an individual entertainer, such as a disc jockey, without first issuing a warning, which is the case now. The FCC has never before issued such a fine.
"By significantly increasing fines, they are going to be at a level where they can no longer be ignored," said Rep. Fred Upton (news, bio, voting record), R-Mich., who introduced the bill. "Parents can rest easy."
Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time, and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way" and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.
The House bill gives affiliates protection from fines in instances in which they carry network programming that later is deemed indecent. It also requires the FCC to hold a license revocation hearing after a third offense by a broadcaster, and to respond to an indecency complaint from a viewer or listener within six months.
The Senate bill calls for raising the maximum fine on broadcasters to $325,000, with a cap of $3 million for one day. The House bill does not include a cap.
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!
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.
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.
We didn't get the dog clean with elbow grease, we got the dog clean with uh stomach grease.. uhhuhhhuuhhh
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Good News!
I disagree with your assertion regarding the Republican party. As to the dummycrats -they matter not....
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.
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.
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.
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.