Posted on 06/02/2005 1:17:06 PM PDT by freepatriot32
The Danger.
No bill has been introduced yet, but Senator Stevens has promised one, and when it arrives it is likely to come straight out of the Commerce Committee he chairs and move directly to a vote with little time for public comment. The time to act is now.
You can read more about this at...
Center for American Progress: Think Again: The New Content Commissars
Jammed.com: Transcript of Sen. Stevens' remarks on Internet "indecency" laws
DownsizeDC.org commentary
This bill would deny you the right to watch mature programming on cable TV for the sake of parents who are too lazy and irresponsible to bear the burden of doing their jobs as parents. Those parents who object to cable TV programming already have several ways to deal with this problem:
They can buy a reduced set of cable programming (this is the approach used by DownsizeDC.org President Jim Babka who has three children under 10).
They can no have cable at all, but rely on broadcast TV only (which is now heavily censored).
They can restrict cable to only one part of their house and not allow their children to watch TV there.
They can block cable channels they consider inappropriate for their children. But some parents, rather than take any of these responsible steps, want Congress to do their parenting for them, at the expense of everyone else who wants to be able to watch mature programming.
And, we might add, Congress has no constitutional authority for such censorship, something that should concern every American who still cares about constitutional legality.
Many Americans have excused broadcast censorship because the government supposedly owns the broadcast spectrum, but no such excuse exists here. Congress can make no claim to own cable networks, local cable providers, or even the TV sets in your home. They simply don't have the authority.
Why Take Action?
Please help us stop the growth of the nanny state.
Please help us stop the Congressional urge to turn the entire country into Disneyland.
Please help us preserve the benefits of adulthood. Please help us preserve the First Amendment.
Please don't reward the busy-bodies who think they know what's best for you and your family.
Please stop the political habit of using children as an excuse for extinguishing American freedom.
Please don't let Congress reward the whining of irresponsible parents who want others to do their job for them. To send your message to Congress opposing this censorship click here.
If you please, are you referring to over-the-air broadcasts, or subscriber-only cable/satellite services. Both use NTSC/FCC (and other) engineering protocols, as I understand it.
Look, the thing y'all don't understand is that when they censor one thing that people find offensive, it's easier to do it the next time. That's what the First Amendment is all about. Atheists are offended by religion. Let the government run TV and it's goodbye religious programming. Stop it. Control your own environment, teach your kids that your family does not approve of what's on cable, and stop asking the government to place more and more restrictions on people--because if you think they're going to stop outside YOUR door, you are sadly mistaken.
I agree.
Network broadcasts should have tighter limits. I thought the late 80s struck a pretty good balance as far as what should be on broadcast or not.
But these folks who want to mess with subscriber-only cable are nuts.
I'm not trying to be pedantic, and I don't think I AM being pedantic. There's a very big difference between the two. I also think Howard Stern should be thrown off the air, yet I have no problem with his new Sirius show. Listeners have to pay and go out of their way to get it...it's a private transaction. More power to him.
LOL good post to liberal logic.
what is that?
How's the pot smoking going?
For all intents and purposes, Cable and Satellite are the new "public" broadcasts because there are no viable alternatives. That gives them a monopoly on what channels they can "package" together with little input from the consumer.
The only way this can be done fairly is to let the consumer choose their own channels from the lineups the cable companies offer (premium ones would still cost more of course). Otherwise people who object to the garbage but want access to broadcasts are still having to foot the bill for all of it.
This would be a wiser way of pursuing this than blanket restrictions IMHO.
No viable alternatives?
a) Nothing.
b) Basic Package
c) Channel lockout
d) Antenna only
Puh-leaze.
Then quit watching TV or listening to radio because unless you are oblivious you'd know government has been deciding what we can watch and listen to for DECADES!
The biggest arm of force they have is the FCC itself and it's licensing procedures. Why can't you listen to a radio station on 106.75 FM out of Los Angeles while living in Chicago? Easy. They won't let you. The technology is there for them to broadcast their signal to you. But then you'd be deprived of a "local" source of radio on 106.75 FM.
The same goes for TV and even cable. So unless you are willing to forgo all of those rules, you can't whine. And most people won't because they like the monopolies of their geography even though it's becoming more and more irrelavent.
And I'd assume you'd also be for getting rid of those ridiculous rules that require public broadcast stations to re-up for their licenses under the concept they are "serving the commiunity". Who cares? It's a business. Or that they no longer have to air those stupid "public service announcements".
I'm sure you would as do I. But at the same time you have to grant the argument that total lack of rules will allow porn on free TV (oh wait, there are soaps) or the F word, etc. Can't say we should have restrictions on those without the government "deciding". And you have to remember we are the government and community standards, which is the basis for many of these laws, should probably apply.
At least we still don't have the fairness doctrine which let the MSM hold a monopoly on political speech.
If you don't respect the right of people you hate to access their first amendment rights then you really don't believe in the first amendment or freedom for that manner.
b) Basic Package - not bad, but pretty generic and you still haven't addressed the overriding factor of "choice". Do you get to choose the lineup?
c) Channel lockout - the worst, you're still paying for the locked out channels. You're just getting less for the same price.
Wouldn't a better alternative look like this?
From ALL non-premium channels, choose:
a) 10 channels
b) 20 channels
c) 40 channels
d) 80 channels
etc., the numbers are not important but you get my drift. The one reason this would never go over is because most of us with common sense would "pick and choose" and go with option B with some premium movie channels added on and the providers wouldn't be able to make a killing hawking 90+ channels of garbage (and I'm thinking of entertainment quality here, not merely decency).
I still this makes more sense than regulating the content of cable and satellite companies as it would truly put the power of choice in the hands of the consumer.
We'd all love a la carte, but it would kill marginal channels. The sewers like MTV and such would survive, IMHO, but the educational stuff would suffer crib death.
Wouldn't a better alternative look like this?
In the short run, for the consumer, yes. No doubt.
But a "race for the bottom" would ensue. The smart channels would dumb down, the really smart channels would wither and die, and the pathetic channels would spawn like mad.
No, because I have a solution. We could just FORCE them to keep the educational channels... could even subsidize them with tax dollars if need be... yeah, that's the ticket.
Heh heh heh.
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.