Posted on 03/01/2005 10:01:09 AM PST by Dave S
Senator: Decency Rules Should Apply Pay TV, Radio
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push to apply broadcast decency standards to subscription television and radio services like cable and satellite.
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
"There has to be some standard of decency," he said.
Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable and satellite radio and television.
Federal regulations bar broadcast television and radio stations from airing obscene material and restrict indecent material, such as sexually explicit discussions or profanity, to late-night hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening.
But so far those restrictions have not applied to subscription television and radio services offered by companies like Comcast Corp. or Sirius Satellite Radio Inc., which recently signed shock jock Howard Stern.
Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on what they air.
"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.
The U.S. House of Representatives has approved legislation to raise fines to $500,000 from $32,500 on television and radio broadcasters that violate indecency limits. The Senate has legislation pending to increase fines as well.
But neither bill has provisions that would extend indecency restrictions to cable and satellite services.
Its not just that the despots don't want to hear it, they also don't want anybody else to hear it either.
Think again, idiot.
Would his rules also apply to movies shown on pay movie channels like HBO? This would make it virtually impossible to watch uncensored R-rated movies without actually renting or buying the movie. Sorry, but America isn't going to go for that.
The senator needs to leave cable alone.
Does he have no clue how to change the channel? Or to turn the TV or radio off if he does not like what is on and read the Congressional Record instead? Or even to insert a compact disc or cassette tape with music or an audio book he might like? Or a DVD or VHS tape?
What is WRONG with these folks inside the Beltway? Does common sense have to be checked at the Beltway?
It has been Democrats like Michael Copps at the FCC that have been pushing the 'indecency' fines, presumably to sucker half-wits like Ted Stevens to embrace draconian anti-free speech legislation.
Stevens should be voted out of office at the first opportunity.
This Congressman is on a power trip, and needs to take some Ritalin.
I get sick of hearing porno, etc....being referred to as "adult entertainment", or "adult bookstores", etc.... I am an adult and I don't partake of those activities....I think is should be called "pervert bookstores" and "pervert entertainment". Anything that harms children, and this stuff does, should be shunned in our society.
#&@% him!
This approach is seriously unhealthy for the country. It's how we got CFR -- "pass any law you want, the SCOTUS will fix it later."
Oh, is that what that little button is supposed to be for?
Vote your heart then by not subscribing to pay cable and let the rest of us perverts enjoy what we damn well want to watch. We dont tell you that you cant watch the 700 Club.
If only this stuff did not harm children....how can one justify this kind of stuff knowing that children are being harmed?
Last time I checked...
But it seems to escape the attention of Congress and the PTC. It seems like Xander Cage needs to do something with Ted Stevens's car.
"Ted, you're a bad man. And you know what we do to bad men? We punish them. Ted... you're about to enter... the Xander Zone."
If all there is to it is "It's for the children!", you're not going to get much traction here, IMHO.
No, there doesn't. Except for the standard applied by the consumer of media - "do I want to pay for this, or not?"
For once we can seek advice from Iran and Saudi Arabia. These two countries and the former Taleban can offer super advice on setting up morality police.;>)
"Subscription" may be a bit of a misnomer in this case. I "subscribe" to the basic cable package, with no extra frills. There are many shows that I find a little over the top with unnecessary smut and trash. In a case like this, it's almost analogous to saying that since I decided to have a front window, I shouldn't be offended in my neighbors decide to 'get it on" in my front yard; I'm free to pull the drapes.
If it's a true subscription, then I don't care what they put on, but I don't want to have random smut interspersed with normal daytime TV. The way it is now, if you want to protect kids from smut, you'd have to block 60% of the normal channels on cable/satellite TV.
Oh, I know, children really don't matter...screw 'em, adults deserve to live their lives and the children can go jump off a cliff. By gosh, I have a "RIGHT" to do as I please!
I just like to keep reminding people that a lot of societies ills could be cured if we started shaming the appropriate behaviors.
People often mistake language for action. There's a difference between 'indecent' language and 'indecent' action. Ted Stevens apparently doesn't know the difference. He's playing right into the hands of the left.
Stevens needs to think through what he is proposing or be voted out of office at the first opportunity.
Like I said, if you going at it from the standpoint that "It's for the childen" is all that matters, you're not going to get much traction.
You're not making any more sense than the Democrats howling that the Republicans want to see inner city children starving and old people thrown out on the street because they won't go along with increasing the welfare programs as much as the 'Rats think they ought to.
"you'd have to block 60% of the normal channels on cable/satellite TV."
What's the matter with that. I remember a time when I only got one channel and don't feel the worse for it.
If you want to live in a nickelodeon/disney channel TV world that's fine. No reason to impose that on everyone else.
I am talking about day to day decisions that people make in their lives...nothing to do with the government....or government control....I hope someone decides not to visit the "pervert bookstores", or watch "pervert entertainment" because they know it harms children, not because the government told them not to.
Believe me when I say that I want the federal government to stay out of everything, they only makes things worse.
Go for it, but note that "shame" is not synonymous with "arrest and imprision".
Taliban Ted should resign from the Senate and find a more appropriate place to be a censor -- like Alabama or Saudi Arabia.
I agree, but I think shame does a lot more than prison, etc.... look how we have shamed smokers? Let's do the same for those who have children out-of-wedlock.
For some reason I made the assumption that you were posting based on the content and context of the article that is the subject of the thread.
Great, then you won't mind when your neighbors start doing it on your front lawn - just because the other neighbors don't like it, or your kids get the occassional shock, so what?
Methinks you're missing the forest for the trees - just because some folks like smut and casual filth doesn't mean we should all have it imposed on us.
Oops, wait a minute, that's a permutation of your argument. I wonder if it is more powerful and sane in your direction or my direction?
Do decency standards not effect children? Just because I may not want the fed. gov. to implement a ban or what have you....I want society as a whole to shame that type of behavior.
How exactly are children harmed? And if that is the standard, wouldn't we have to ban certain books ... guns ... cars ... fast food ... etc.?
2. I'm opposed to giving ANY new power to a bunch of inept, incompetent, power-hungry, unelected bureaucrats like the FCC.
I am talking about moral issues, i.e. and yes, I would hope that society would shame certain magazines, tv shows, etc....
I do not see where a gun or fast-food has anything to do with the morals of our young children.
Trying to twist this to where nothing is bad is what I expect from people who partake in things they would not want their chilren to partake in. So they try to throw everything in the mix so they do not look so bad.
" "Subscription" may be a bit of a misnomer in this case. I "subscribe" to the basic cable package, with no extra frills. There are many shows that I find a little over the top with unnecessary smut and trash. In a case like this, it's almost analogous to saying that since I decided to have a front window, I shouldn't be offended in my neighbors decide to 'get it on" in my front yard; I'm free to pull the drapes.
If it's a true subscription, then I don't care what they put on, but I don't want to have random smut interspersed with normal daytime TV. The way it is now, if you want to protect kids from smut, you'd have to block 60% of the normal channels on cable/satellite TV."
Your post is illogical and nonsensical. If you look out your front window, that's public property, available for anyone to see. If you look at your cable, even 'basic' cable, that's something YOU specifically made an effort to go out and get. YOU chose to have it into your house. It is not available in public unless someone goes out of their way pay for it. Like you did.
Trying to equate even basic cable with behavior in public is moronic. Get a clue before you post something so ridiculous.
All well and good. Right now, we are talking about a "federal ban or what have you". If you want to discuss some other issue or aspect, there are other threads. If you can't find one, you can always start one.
He's nuts! I can understand the networks, radio and even basic cable but Pay Per View?
"just because some folks like smut and casual filth doesn't mean we should all have it imposed on us."
No one's imposing 'smut' and 'filth' on you. Like I said, if you want to block channels on your television, be my guest. I hope you understand that your argument is in full support of Michael Copps, the democrat, at the FCC who is the pushing anti-indecency legislation.
Look at the more oppressive governments around the world. You'll see that the more oppressive they are, they will have an equally oppressive attitude to legislating morality. These are the most immoral political structures.
The issue isn't what society does to shame bad behavior. The issue is what the government will do to legislate certain material out of existence. Every person can vote with their remote if they don't like a program, but censorship removes that decision from us.
The FCC broadcast rules at present are far from tyrannical, and if they apply to cable and satellite the public can only benefit from being deprived of smut.
I, for one, am sick and tired of having my family subjected to M-F on XM.
The FCC broadcast rules at present are far from tyrannical, and if they apply to cable and satellite the public can only benefit from being deprived of smut.
I, for one, am sick and tired of having my family subjected to M-F on XM.
Then how can one justify not having everyone making a middle class income...after all its the kids that suffer. Everyone family should be guaranteed that their breadwinner or welfare recipient should receive at least $50,000 per year, to support the children you know.
If you don't care for my posts, then please ignore them. What I said does relate to the matter at hand.
Protect children first, last, and always.
Are you sure you are not referring to daytime soaps on over the airways free TV?
Stevens is talking about going beyond basic cable, he was specifically referring to Sirrius Radio and XM Radio, both pay channels. For basic cable you can complain to your local cable system, the local municipality that oversees it. If they dont agree that your morals are the community standard then its your problem. TUrn the TV off or threaten your kids with having to watch the 700 Club five hours a day if they get caught watching something they shouldnt be.
I disagree completely. Money has nothing to do with raising good, moral kids. My grandparents, who helped raise me, did not have a dime, but they had sooo much more than that, the things they passed down to me are worth much more than money.
My grandparents did not have a lot but always enough to eat and plenty of love to go around. I wouldn't trade them for the Hilton's or anyone else with a lot of money.
Kids do not suffer because they can't have the latest electronics, kids suffer when they do not have a stable, two-parent home.
Then why do you subscribe to XM?
I went the only venue available to get TV reception in my area - none of the basic stations advertises as having "adult" content. I guess that's illogical to you, even though, if you follow your "logic" to it's different possibilities, if you specifically go out of your way to buy a box of cereal that offers a surprise inside, and you find that the suprise is a picture of two guys having sex, you can't be upset because you went out and spent money for the surprise. If I buy cereal, I want cereal, and if it comes with a surprise, I don't want the surprise to be smut, I want it to be suitable for all ages - just like I want my daytime/primetime TV shows unless I subscribe to packages with express intent to show adult content.
Republicans for censorship. A great group.
Thats the one thing that shocks me the most about politicians of all brands and idealologies. Most don't look a few moves ahead and think, "Hmmm what will happen to the powers I am proposing the government to have in Bill X when "my side" is not the majority?"
I shudder to think what the Hildabeast and her supporters consider as "decent" and "indecent"...I'll tell you one thing...The Rush Limbaugh Show and FR won't be on her "decent" list.
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.