Posted on 11/29/2005 2:58:26 PM PST by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON – Sexed-up, profanity-laced shows on cable and satellite TV should be for adult eyes only, and providers must do more to shield children or could find themselves facing indecency fines, the nation's top communications regulator says. "Parents need better and more tools to help them navigate the entertainment waters, particularly on cable and satellite TV," Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told Congress on Tuesday.
Martin suggested several options, including a "family-friendly" tier of channels that would offer shows suitable for kids, such as the programs shown on the Nickelodeon channel.
He also said cable and satellite providers could consider letting consumers pay for a bundle of channels that they could choose themselves – an "a la carte" pricing system.
If providers don't find a way to police smut on television, Martin said, federal decency standards should be considered.
"You can always turn the television off and of course block the channels you don't want," he said, "but why should you have to?"
Martin spoke at an all-day forum on indecency before the Senate Commerce Committee. It included more than 20 entertainment industry, government and public interest leaders with differing views on whether broadcast networks, cable and satellite companies need more regulation.
Cable and satellite representatives defended their operations, and said they've been working to help educate parents on the tools the companies offer to block unwanted programming. They also said "a la carte" pricing would drive up costs for equipment, customer service and marketing – charges that would likely be passed to subscribers.
Others at the forum, such as the Christian Coalition, urged Congress to increase the fines against indecency on the airwaves from the current $32,500 maximum penalty per violation to $500,000.
Since the Janet Jackson "breast-exposure" at the Super Bowl nearly two years ago, indecency foes have turned up the pressure on Congress to do more to cleanse the airwaves. But efforts to hike fines have so far failed.
Even so, Committee Co-Chair Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, told the forum that lawmakers want to see the industry help protect children from indecent and violent programming.
"If you don't come up with an answer, we will," he said.
Congress is considering several bills that would boost fines.
Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said some critics have complained the bills don't go far enough and that decency standards should be expanded to cover cable and satellite.
Currently, obscenity and indecency standards apply only to over-the-air broadcasters. Congress would need to give the FCC the authority to police cable and satellite programming.
Kyle McSlarrow, head of the National Cable & Telecommunications Association said the government doesn't need to intervene, and that there's more room for self regulation.
Some lawmakers also complained about the TV ratings system and said it was too confusing for parents. But broadcasters said they weren't ready to give up on the V-chip and the ratings system it uses to help identify programs with sex, violence or crude language.
Jack Valenti, the former president of the Motion Picture Association of America, cautioned lawmakers to let the industry come up with a solution. Otherwise, he said, "you begin to torment and torture the First Amendment."
And I could sure use a little strange.
+
No kidding. With our cable service have to pay $10 for a box for each TV to be able to block programming. Even then, when we watch re-runs of "Raymond," we get R-rated commercials for "Sex in the City."
Well, I don't see where the FCC has any jurisdiction on this matter, but I do wish that cable was a la carte pricing. I don't enjoy spending like 7 bucks a month for ESPN which I don't watch. Also, I wouldn't even spend .01 for lifetime.
Hasn't the supreme court already ruled on this? I think the FCC is a bigger danger to America than someone saying sh** on this week's episode of cop drama.
I give up... Long live Amerika...
MAN THE LONG BOATS!!! We've got some work to do...
The libertarians here are a loud-mouthed bunch, to be sure, but not even close to the majority of posters on this forum. Case in point: Terri Schiavo. There were a bunch of very angry libertarian types demanding that she be killed ASAP. But FreeRepublic polls showed that they were a relatively small group.
On this issue--and the many others that deal with cultural decline and protecting our kids from cultural corruption--the libertarians are a minority within the conservative movement. Happened to hear Laura Ingraham on the FCC/porn subject just today, and what she said reflects the views of most conservatives.
Needless to say, she didn't agree with the porn fans "freedom lovers" on this site.
*** DING DING DING *** No more calls; we have a winner!
Sorry. "It Takes A Village" is not a "conservative" positions, Shrillary's attempts at obfuscation notwithstanding.
You evidently missed the definitive reply to that work, It Takes a Family by Senator Rick Santorum. It reflects what real conservatives think--and, unlike the libertarian position, it does not equate "freedom" with unrestrained-license-to-scratch-whatever-itches.
I agree. We need to get rid of the FCC, because something that will be happening is that they'll be going after talk radio next. I have no doubt that the "Fairness Doctorine" will be coming back in a big way before 2008.
If people don't want commercial companies to distribute something, they shouldn't go after the government for more regulation: They should organize against those companies and hurt them the best way possible: In the corporate pocketbook.
The forces of the market, not government, should be used to get TV providers to "clean up their act."
Mark
Above all, it is worth noticing because, like Goldwater's Conscience, it lays down a marker. As Goldwater repudiated Dwight Eisenhower and Richard Nixon, so Santorum repudiates Goldwater and Ronald Reagan.
AKA The Ayatollah of the Airwaves.
Oh, wow! With insightful wit like that, you could go far as a headline writer for The New York Times.
LOL! Hmmm... Milton Friedman and John Stossel on one side; madprof98 on the other... how to choose?
Tell me the truth...Is this really Kevin Martin?
I'm not sure what she has to do with anything. I gather that you don't care for her (I doubt she'd agree with the whole "close the SOA, curtail the gun lobby and abolish the death penalty" thing).
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.