Senator fights cable 'indecency'

Reuters ^ | March 1, 2005 | CNN

[Blackirish]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said 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. (up $0.28 to $32.74, Research) or Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (up $0.38 to $5.95, Research), 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 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.

[budwiesest]

I can't agree with your comparison of free TV to a public park.

Let's agree that there are two realms: public and private. The public sphere is where we might meet uninvited. The private, just the opposite. If I held the door open to the post office for you to enter, you might say, "thanks".

If I knocked over a table that supported your favorite 'blow' at a private party we'd been invited to, your response might be very different.

In short, making millionaires out of those who take things that are private and make them public is objectionable to me. A very simple recipe for success for anyone so inclined.

On my next trip to the post office I'd rather not have to endure an interview between Stern and his guests as to who had sex with a retard, Barbara Walters, John Madden, or anyone else. I'm there to buy stamps and split.

If what seperates the public from the private must be torn down, let it be by those with an ounce more brainpower than MTV, Justin Timberlake, and Janet Jackson in an obviously choreographed skit during a public event such as the superbowl.

[orangelobster]

"Let's agree that there are two realms: public and private. "

I still can't agree because you are confusing reality with images. You've never met Janet Jackson or Howard Stern. You've only been exposed to images of them. Images can't harm you and no one's forcing you to watch them. I don't think anyone's the worse off for having seen Janet Jackson's nipple. We all have them. We've all seen them. Reality is different. If there's some law about exposing yourself in public at the super bowl that's one thing. Blaming the camera that captures it is another. The camera is the messenger. Don't shoot the messenger.