House ups fines for indecency on airwaves

[ScreamingEagle]

Some good news for a change:

The House overwhelmingly approved a bill today that would increase to $325,000 the amount the Federal Communications Commission can fine broadcasters for indecency violations.

The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act, approved 379-35, represents a tenfold increase over the current maximum fine of $32,500 per violation, which lawmakers and some parent groups had deemed inadequate since Janet Jackson's infamous "wardrobe malfunction" during the 2004 Super Bowl telecast. The law does not apply to cable and satellite broadcasts.

Sponsored by Sen. Sam Brownback, Kansas Republican, the legislation passed the Senate with unanimous consent last month and President Bush is expected to sign it.

"After two years, Congress is sending a bill to the president that will raise broadcast indecency fines to a meaningful level," Mr. Brownback said. "Raising the fines for abusing the public airwaves will hold broadcasters accountable for the content and consequences of their media."

The House passed a tougher bill sponsored by Rep. Fred Upton, Michigan Republican, in February 2005 that would have raised the maximum fine to $500,000 and allowed individual performers, such as radio deejays, to be fined without first receiving a warning, as is currently the case.

"This bill will put a hole in anyone's wallet," said Mr. Upton, adding that House accepted the Senate bill "to get it done" after more than two years of effort and to help "clear the decks and get ready" a major telecommunications reform bill for a possible vote later this week. The stiffer fines are needed at a time when 30-second Super Bowl ads sell for about $2.5 million, he added.

Mr. Upton said he expects President Bush to sign the legislation within the next week.

The FCC defines broadcast indecency as "language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities."

"Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity," according to the FCC.

Under federal law, radio stations and over-the-air TV channels cannot air any obscene material, and they cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

"It was about bloody time -- this ought to have happened two years ago," said L. Brent Bozell, president of the watchdog group Parents Television Council, which has advocated stiffer fines for indecency and led campaigns urging people to contact the FCC with complaints.

Mr. Bozell said the increased fines still may not really hurt the major networks, but should serve as a wake-up call to affiliates "who break the law."

The nation's 13,000 radio stations and 1,700 TV stations preferred self-regulation to government intervention, said National Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton. If the government insists on regulations, they should be applied equally to cable and satellite TV, and satellite radio stations, he added.

http://washingtontimes.com/business/20060607-061637-4676r.htm

 

[acludem]

What a bunch of crap. If you don't like what's on, change the (censored by FCC) channel.

acludem

 

[Avatar4321]

What a bunch of crap. If you don't like what's on, change the (censored by FCC) channel.

acludem

Indecency isnt protected by the First Amendment so there is no censorship involved.

 

[insein]

Who defines indecency?

This is crap. Just another area where the government can grab some money that they have no claim too and the people will pat them on the back for it because they are "doing it for the kids."

Change the FUCKING channel all you lazy MOTHERFUCKERS if you dont like what you hear. I always do. Or i turn the damn thing off.

 

[jillian]

Indecency isnt protected by the First Amendment so there is no censorship involved.

No. OBSCENITY isn't protected by the First Amendment. With "indecency", you're on your own.

Don't like what's on, listen to what appeals to you. I don't need government imposing someone else's moral standards on everyone else.

Government can't do the things right that it's doing already. You trust them to shape morals? Who asked them to? It's

So much for "small government", huh?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Indecency standards depend upon the standards of the community...meaning us the voters. Enforcement of those standards is another matter and most Americans think the FCC is doing a pretty poor job of it.

NEW YORK (April 25, 2005) – More than half (53%) of adult Americans say the Federal Communications Commission is doing a “poor job” of maintaining community standards of decency on broadcast TV, particularly during the evening hours from 8 pm to 10 pm, according to a new poll conducted by Harris Interactive for Morality in Media. More than twice as many adult Americans believe the FCC is doing a “very poor” job (33%) versus a “very good” job (15%).

Here is the question and total results:

“The Federal Communications Commission has a rule that prohibits indecency on broadcast TV between 6 o’clock in the morning and 10 o’clock at night. They define ‘indecency’ as any content, which depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner when measured by contemporary community standards.

“In your opinion, is the FCC doing a good job or a poor job of maintaining community standards of decency on broadcast TV, particularly during the evening hours from 8 PM to 10 PM?”

41% Total good job
53% Total poor job

15% Very good job
26% Somewhat good job
3% Neither (volunteered)
20% Somewhat poor job
33% Very poor job
3% Don’t Know / Refused (volunteered)

The Harris Interactive national telephone poll of 1,001 Americans ages 18 and over was conducted from April 1st through 4th, 2005 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 percentage points at a 95 percent confidence level.

Robert W. Peters, President of Morality in Media, commented:

“The poll results are a representation by the respondents of America’s community standards of decency and another indication the FCC is not fulfilling its statutory responsibility to curb indecency on broadcast TV. A majority of adults think the FCC is doing a poor job of maintaining standards of decency on broadcast TV; and, presumably, the 3% of adults who think the FCC is doing neither a good nor bad job and the 26% of adults who think the FCC is doing a ‘somewhat good job’ both see room for improvement.

“Last year, for the first time in the history of broadcasting, the FCC fined a TV network for airing indecent programming. In fact, the Commission fined two networks and determined that a third had violated the law. This much-publicized enforcement may explain why some Americans now think the FCC is doing a ‘good job.’

But this year, the FCC’s Enforcement Bureau is again routinely denying indecency complaints about network TV programs and promotions, including a locker room sex seduction scene that introduced a Monday Night Football game. Undoubtedly, some (perhaps many) complaints were properly denied, but opinion polls and other expressions of public concern indicate that there is a ‘disconnect’ between what the public thinks is indecent and what the Bureau thinks.

“Part of the problem is that the Bureau is applying more of a ‘public lewdness’ than a ‘public indecency’ standard. As the Supreme Court noted in its 1978 FCC v. Pacifica decision, the ‘normal definition of “indecent” merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of morality.’ In contrast, Webster’s Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary (Random House 1996) defines ‘lewd’ to mean ‘inclined to, characterized by, or inciting to lust or lechery; lascivious’.

“The Enforcement Bureau’s thinking is exemplified by its 2003 ruling in the Golden Globe Awards case, where the Bureau concluded that utterance of a derivative of the ‘f—word’ during a live airing of that program was not indecent because the word was used as an ‘expletive to emphasize an exclamation’ rather than to ‘describe or depict sexual…activities and organs.’

“Thankfully, in the Golden Globe Awards case, the FCC Commissioners had the good sense and will to overrule the Enforcement Bureau. They need to begin doing so again.”

According to a Pew Research Center survey (4/19/05), 75% of adults favored “stricter government enforcement of decency rules when children are more likely to be watching TV.” According to a Time magazine poll (3/28/05), 53% of adult Americans said that in controlling the amount of sex and violence on television, “the government should be more strict.” According to a First Amendment Center survey (6/29/04), 65% of adults thought, “government should have the power to regulate during the morning, afternoon and early evening hours those broadcast television programs that contain references to sexual activity.” According to a poll conducted for Morality in Media by Wirthlin Worldwide in February 1998, 59% of adult Americans thought the FCC needed to “work harder” to enforce the broadcast indecency law; only 28% thought a rating system and V-Chip combination would be an effective alternative.

MORALITY IN MEDIA is a nonprofit national organization, with headquarters in New York City, which works to curb traffic in obscenity and to uphold standards of decency in the media. MIM operates the ObscenityCrimes.org Web site – where citizens can report possible violations of federal Internet obscenity laws to Federal prosecutors – and the National Obscenity Law Center, a legal resource for prosecutors, legislators and others.

http://www.moralityinmedia.org/index.htm?mediaIssues/wirthprn.htm

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Indecency standards depend upon the standards of the community...meaning us the voters. Enforcement of those standards is another matter and most Americans think the FCC is doing a pretty poor job of it.

Ho boy! Poll numbers! I'm convinced!

 

[jillian]

Ho boy! Poll numbers! I'm convinced!

:rotflmao:

If people didn't want what is aired, they wouldn't tune in and the ratings would fall. Guess the free market doesn't apply to the thought police, huh?

 

[Annie]

I hate when I agree with the libs, but in this case I do. Change the station, channel, put blocks up on your computer if you have kids.

I think the states should decide who should marry or not. I think the states should decide abortion. I know, off topic, sorta.

 

[insein]

The problem is that the "public" airwaves are not part of the community. You have the right to block any material that you dont want to be seen or heard by your kids 100% of the time within your home or car. What public indecency laws are meant to do is keep people from enforcing indecent acts that are contrary to the views of the public IN PUBLIC. I.E. A person placing a sculpture of 2 people having sex on his front lawn might go against the decency of the community and therefore be banned. A guy who likes to have anal sex with his wife is perfectly allowed to in the privacy of his own home. If he has anal sex with her on his front lawn, then there is a problem. People can't turn him off or simple look away when its right in plain view. If people walk down the street naked, then most communities will ban this as part of the common decency of the community. Just like in nudist colonies that is not part of their law because it doesnt effect their sense of public decency.

When people on the radio, for example Stern, begin talking about inappropriate material and you have your kid in the car, it's your responsibility as a parent to choose whether or not you want your kid to listen to that stuff. You are not held hostage and have no where to go in order to escape the material in question. You have the simplest of tasks of turning the dial. Don't blame the government or the radio station for allowing it to air. Change the channel and move on with life. The more we allow the government to creep into these unneccassary areas and take money that isnt theres with the people backing them, the more areas open up to their ability to steal. You think they give a damn about public decency? If it made them more money to fine those NOT walking around naked (and they could get away with it) they wouldnt hesitate to pass a law prohibiting clothing with a fine of $200 for all offenders not found naked. The point im trying to make is that government will not rest with these issues. They will keep pushing till they actually get to something that does affect you and then it will be too late to stop it.

 

[PsuedoGhost]

The problem is that the "public" airwaves are not part of the community. You have the right to block any material that you dont want to be seen or heard by your kids 100% of the time within your home or car. What public indecency laws are meant to do is keep people from enforcing indecent acts that are contrary to the views of the public IN PUBLIC. I.E. A person placing a sculpture of 2 people having sex on his front lawn might go against the decency of the community and therefore be banned. A guy who likes to have anal sex with his wife is perfectly allowed to in the privacy of his own home. If he has anal sex with her on his front lawn, then there is a problem. People can't turn him off or simple look away when its right in plain view. If people walk down the street naked, then most communities will ban this as part of the common decency of the community. Just like in nudist colonies that is not part of their law because it doesnt effect their sense of public decency.

When people on the radio, for example Stern, begin talking about inappropriate material and you have your kid in the car, it's your responsibility as a parent to choose whether or not you want your kid to listen to that stuff. You are not held hostage and have no where to go in order to escape the material in question. You have the simplest of tasks of turning the dial. Don't blame the government or the radio station for allowing it to air. Change the channel and move on with life. The more we allow the government to creep into these unneccassary areas and take money that isnt theres with the people backing them, the more areas open up to their ability to steal. You think they give a damn about public decency? If it made them more money to fine those NOT walking around naked (and they could get away with it) they wouldnt hesitate to pass a law prohibiting clothing with a fine of $200 for all offenders not found naked. The point im trying to make is that government will not rest with these issues. They will keep pushing till they actually get to something that does affect you and then it will be too late to stop it.

Preach it. Indecency laws were put into place by people who were concerned about what they viewed as dangerous material for children. Perhaps people should just own up to the fact that they need to be responsible for what their kids are listening/watching/playing/finding in various electronic communication methods nowadays. I mean seriously... How many parents scream about their kids having access to "obscene" things, but do nothing about it at home?

This is a parent issue... NOT A government issue.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

:rotflmao:

If people didn't want what is aired, they wouldn't tune in and the ratings would fall. Guess the free market doesn't apply to the thought police, huh?

The "free market" obviously doesn't apply to smoking because of the negative effects of smoking. What makes you think indecency and pornography have any less negative effect? Speaking of the thought police, how about "hate" crimes? Typically "hate crimes" are racial in nature, but what about gender? Couldn't most porn be considered a "hate crime" against women?

If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the horrendous effects of pornography are many times worse than say, secondary smoke. What's wrong with society attempting to prevent that?

 

[insein]

The "free market" obviously doesn't apply to smoking because of the negative effects of smoking. What makes you think indecency and pornography have any less negative effect? Speaking of the thought police, how about "hate" crimes? Typically "hate crimes" are racial in nature, but what about gender? Couldn't most porn be considered a "hate crime" against women?

If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the horrendous effects of pornography are many times worse than say, secondary smoke. What's wrong with society attempting to prevent that?

Staying on topic here, jillian and SE, pornography can be stopped by all people who wish it stopped in their own homes and in their own vehicles. In the public eye, there is an expected level of "decency" based on what the community thinks. Opening a porno theater right next to a school would not happen in most cities, towns, etc because the public decency wouldnt allow it. Stopping porn from entering a public library or a school internet system is a form a public decency. TV's and radios on display in public at businesses or public settings should have a level of decency and only show programs that reach that requirement. However, within the privacy of your home and vehicle, you are your own censor. You control what gets played. If one persons level of decenct differs from anothers, then it doesnt matter because they control their own setup. Where we get a problem is when people try to tell other people what to do in the privacy of their own homes. Thats when government gets involved and takes money from or creates criminals out of common citizens who happened to have a different view then the ones who complained.

Do not let government police your private lives!

 

[CockySOB]

What a bunch of crap. If you don't like what's on, change the (censored by FCC) channel.

acludem

Somehow this just seems to beg for comparison to your opinion about the Scouts. But you seem to WANT the Scouts to be "censored."

Just a mild observation, nothing more.

 

[CockySOB]

Preach it. Indecency laws were put into place by people who were concerned about what they viewed as dangerous material for children. Perhaps people should just own up to the fact that they need to be responsible for what their kids are listening/watching/playing/finding in various electronic communication methods nowadays. I mean seriously... How many parents scream about their kids having access to "obscene" things, but do nothing about it at home?

This is a parent issue... NOT A government issue.

Spot on!

 

[Mr. P]

The "free market" obviously doesn't apply to smoking because of the negative effects of smoking. What makes you think indecency and pornography have any less negative effect? Speaking of the thought police, how about "hate" crimes? Typically "hate crimes" are racial in nature, but what about gender? Couldn't most porn be considered a "hate crime" against women?

If you were honest with yourself, you would admit that the horrendous effects of pornography are many times worse than say, secondary smoke. What's wrong with society attempting to prevent that?

Bring in Big Brother, he'll fix everything. No he'll make it worse, No thanks, I know where the on/off switch is. What you watch is your business, I don't need the Gov to make you do as I SAY.

 

[no1tovote4]

If we can't trust the government to simply not pay 4000 dollars for a toilet seat, what makes us think we can trust them to decide correctly what is okay for us to watch? Come on people! There is a REASON for the 1ST Amendment! Government is retarded and has not frontal lobe or even life of its own... Let actual people decide what they do not like and want to block, they have brains, frontal lobes, and are the parents!

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Bring in Big Brother, he'll fix everything. No he'll make it worse, No thanks, I know where the on/off switch is. What you watch is your business, I don't need the Gov to make you do as I SAY.

So we're supposed to just turn off the Super Bowl?

 

[insein]

So we're supposed to just turn off the Super Bowl?

OMG, You can't explain to your children what 5 miliseconds of a half covered up boob is? But these same parents are probably the ones that let them watch MTV all day long. Get over the freakin super bowl. I see more exposure walking around the mall then i did from that.

 

[jasendorf]

More intrusive government from the Womb-to-Afterlife Republicans. Why am I not surprised?