WASHINGTON - Chafing over a "wardrobe malfunction" and racy radio shock-jock programs, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency.

Lawmakers sought to hit broadcasters where it hurts, the pocketbook, in approving the measure 389-38, rejecting criticism that the penalties would stifle free speech and expression and further homogenize programming.
Democrat Raul Grijalva, D-Ariz., voted against the measure. All other members of the Arizona delegation voted for it. advertisement 
The bill would increase the maximum fine to $500,000 from $32,500 for a company and to $500,000 from $11,000 for an individual entertainer.

"With passage of this legislation, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House telecommunications panel and author of the bill. "Our kids will be better off for it."
The White House said that it strongly supports the legislation to "make broadcast television and radio more suitable for family viewing."
A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, where it has broad bipartisan support. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Commerce Committee, has said he wants to act on the bill quickly, but he hasn't given a timetable.
Any differences in the two bills would have to be resolved before it can go to President Bush for his signature. Last year, the two chambers were unable to reach a compromise.

Opponents said they were concerned that stiffer fines by the Federal Communications Commission would lead to more self-censorship by broadcasters and entertainers unclear about the definition of "indecent."
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, chief executive officer of the Media Access Project, a law firm that represents small broadcasters, said some of his clients already are censoring themselves because they can't risk fines at the current level.

Dennis Wharton, National Association of Broadcasters spokesman, said voluntary industry initiatives are preferable to government regulation in addressing programming issues. He added that there is often more explicit content on cable and satellite channels, which are not subject to indecency fines but can be just as easily accessible to children.
Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time and cannot air indecent material from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way" and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0217indecency17.html

This could mean bad news for shows like "Nip/Tuck", "The Sopranos", "The L Word", "Six Feet Under", "South Park", an other shows.

George Bush and certain "family rights groups" must be happy right now, could that same thing happen to movies, video games, and books?  :-\\

They can't fine HBO, you have to subscribe to it. But South Park could be in trouble.

Lets see GWB try to defend this.

They can't fine HBO, you have to subscribe to it. But South Park could be in trouble.

Lets see GWB try to defend this.


It will definetly be passed, "Family Rights Groups" will make sure of this.

It's called "The Remote"................. USE IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  >:(

V-Chip, you dumb-ass parents.

Decentcy Bill Passed Iin The Staes 

What the f***!?

Lets see GWB try to defend this.

Defend what?  This bill didn't ban anything new, it just increased the fines for television networks who broadcast indecent material.

The Federal Communications Commission does not ban anything.  It responds to complaints from the citizens of the United States of America.  Remember, the airwaves are owned by the public, and the public has the right to complain about stuff going off over their airwaves.  Also remember the FCC does not monitor or censor cable or satellite television or radio.  Don't believe me?  See if the FCC takes a complaint over something you saw on cable, or something you saw between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

I think the government has a right to keep a moral standard over all-access television and radio.  If you people want to view porn and hear bad language so badly, go rent a movie.

I am just glad that I live in Canada, and that the CRTC is not as anal as the FFC.  ::)

FFC


FCC.

As much as I dislike Bush and his posse I think this was actually a good move.  I know there's the "change the channel" argument but whenever I saw blood or gore on TV I was haunted for a couple weeks back when I was a little kid. 

As much as I like "South Park" that show is NASTY!  :P  I think it's about time for decent TV. 

I hope it doesn't bring "Lost" or "Chappelle's Show" off the air though. 

I hope it doesn't bring "Lost" or "Chappelle's Show" off the air though. 


It doesn't affect cable or satellite television.  Only broadcast like ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, UPN, FOX, and non-satellite radio.

It doesn't affect cable or satellite television. Only broadcast like ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, UPN, FOX, and non-satellite radio.


Lost is ABC.  Does that mean it will be pulled off the air?  If it will that will suck but if it means TV can be cleared up I guess it's worth it.  :-\\

FCC.


Sorry, my bad.

I think the government has a right to keep a moral standard over all-access television and radio.  If you people want to view porn and hear bad language so badly, go rent a movie.



Republicans have no moral standards when it comes to social policy.  You cannot cut nutritional aid to a quarter million needy families and then play some kind of morality card when it comes to media content.  That is the dirtiest hypocrisy imaginable.

I think most TV programming is garbage.  From "Nip/Tuck" to "Desperate Housewives" it all promotes selfishness, vanity, superficiality, spitefulness, greed, money-worship, and disrespectful attitudes toward one's fellow human beings.  Funny isn't it?  Those are the underlying tenets of the Republican party, those are the principal motivations of your average rightwing legislator.

To me, nudity and profanity are not necessarily offensive.  It depends on the context.  The context on commercial television (including premium cable) is the problem for me 99 times out 100.  
However, the most offensive programming on television to me is the commercials.

Advertising is the business of creating insecurity and unnecessary want in people.  It is our society's scourge, bane, plague, and downfall.  Commercialism is utterly immoral and devoid of redeeming qualities.  However, you'll never hear Brent Bozell, William Bennett, or any of those other rightwing thugs decry commercialism, for commericalism is at the heart of the capitalist caste system they love more dearly than even their own mothers.

Chris Rock is potty-mouthed and crass.  Sometimes he's funny.  On the whole, I find his routine ugly and I wouldn't pay a red cent to see it.  But at least Chris Rock is not a g*dd*mned liar and a shameless brown-noser for the fascist elite like the anchors of FOX News.  If we are going to fine television programs for indecency, how about fining them for what REALLY harms the people, lying about public policy.  Then Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Bill O'Reilly, and Hannity & Colmes would have nothing to say!
Breasts are a natural and vital part of humanity, corporate advertising is not.

What the Right is ultimately after is thought control!

My fear is that movies maybe next.  >:(

My fear is that movies maybe next. >:(


I hope not.  That would be wrong  >:(

Breasts are a natural and vital part of humanity, corporate advertising is not.

What the Right is ultimately after is thought control!



Mind control is a government school.

Why do you want breasts on television?  And if that is allowed, where does it end?

My fear is that movies maybe next

I wouldn't bet on that ever happening.

Mind control is a government school.
But you would have no problem with "government" schools espousing the current administration's ideologies.

Why do you want breasts on television? 
He has to ask!  The man has to ask!  You feelin' alright?
;)
Seriously, it depends on the CONTEXT.  I would rather see bare breasts portrayed in a mature and non-exploitative way than cleavage and booty as portrayed in the pornographic and denigrating fashion of MTV and BET.  Human anatomy isn't indecent.  Exploitation of sexuality to SELL products IS!
And if that is allowed, where does it end?
Turn the question around.  We have voted in a government that has voted to levy 500,000 fines for displaying what it considers "indecent."  Where does this end?

I thought you were a "libertarian," 'ceptin' for gay marriage.  So I gues you are a libertarian except you want the state to stand between two women or men getting married AND you want the state to control what we can see on TV.  Other than that, government stay out!

Oh, and don't try the cheap tactic of saying the government isn't forbidding anything, it is just fining performers and media outlets.  You know better.
There used to be a joke--
An American and a Russian are talking, and the American says his country is freer than the Soviet Union because America has freedom of speech.
"A-ha," says the Russian, "We too have freedom of speech in USSR!"
"You do?," asks the American.
"Yes," replies the Russian, "But after speech, NO FREEDOM!"

"All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships."
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

"Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but unlike charity, it should end there."
Clare Boothe Luce


I don't believe in ANY form of cencorship and that is what this is trying to do. I think it should be up to parents to say what their kids can and cannot watch. But I am an adult and I don't need ANYONE telling me what I can watch or not watch. As for what is on t.v. now, most of it I wouldn't even call entertaining. But, I have a remote and I know how to use it. As far as nudity goes, and I have said this many, many times-I would rather see nudity than violence. And if I had kids, I would rather have them see nudity than violence.




Cat

"All censorships exist to prevent any one from challenging current conceptions and existing institutions. All progress is initiated by challenging current conceptions, and executed by supplanting existing institutions. Consequently the first condition of progress is the removal of censorships."
George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

"Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but unlike charity, it should end there."
Clare Boothe Luce


I don't believe in ANY form of cencorship and that is what this is trying to do. I think it should be up to parents to say what their kids can and cannot watch. But I am an adult and I don't need ANYONE telling me what I can watch or not watch. As for what is on t.v. now, most of it I wouldn't even call entertaining. But, I have a remote and I know how to use it. As far as nudity goes, and I have said this many, many times-I would rather see nudity than violence. And if I had kids, I would rather have them see nudity than violence.



Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them.  ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935
I was getting at this idea in my last post.

Books won't stay banned.  They won't burn.  Ideas won't go to jail.  In the long run of history, the censor and the inquisitor have always lost.  The only weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.  ~Alfred Whitney Griswold, New York Times, 24 February 1959
I remembered the idea but not the wording of this one, so I googled it.  Here is a site with a whole bunch of great quotes about censorship:
http://www.quotegarden.com/censorship.html

Conservatives like to claim the First Amendment applies only to "political speech," but do we want to let the government determine the parameters of "political" or "speech"?

I wonder what George Orwell would have to say about this, if he was still alive?

The only valid censorship of ideas is the right of people not to listen.  ~Tommy Smothers

The dirtiest book of all is the expurgated book.  ~Walt Whitman

Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.  ~Abbott Joseph Liebling, "Do You Belong in Journalism?" New Yorker, 4 May 1960

We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values.  For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people.  ~John F. Kennedy

Thanks for the link, Max. I like this one.


Think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so, too.  ~Voltaire




Cat

Re censonship Tom Jefferson said "Whose foot should be the guide by witch all others must be streached or cut?"  Who is to determine what is objectionable and what is not, some fundamentalist/liberal/radical bureaucrate?  The remote is in my hand.  I think I should decide.

It's good to see congress is worried about the really important issues, unlike the $500 billion deficit.  ;)

It's good to see congress is worried about the really important issues, unlike the $500 billion deficit.  ;)


According to USA Today the Bush budget cuts (which didn't go near far enough) were the equal to taking away eight cents out of ten dollars.  Yet CNN is pulling out the "oh woe is us" crap.

According to USA Today the Bush budget cuts (which didn't go near far enough) were the equal to taking away eight cents out of ten dollars.  Yet CNN is pulling out the "oh woe is us" crap.


You know what I notice about you conservatives is that you guys are for small government unless it is to expand your so called "moral values" agenda (this decency law), to protect big business (new class action lawsuit law), or over-bloat the military. Taxes should be used for the benefit of the public, not to start wars to benefit big business (halliburton). Conservatives could care less about the average american, they are only concerned about their corporate pals and rich friends, what's best for big business is best for America, yeah right.

(this decency law), to protect big business (new class action lawsuit law)

Oh okay.  Those two bill weren't passed with bi-partisan support.

All I can say is it's about time we got SOME tort reform, now if only President Bush will keep his promise and cap medical malpractice lawsuits to 250,000.

Now the poor trial lawyers can't shop around for state courts were they know they can win and hit the lawsuit lottery.... :\'(

You know what I notice about you conservatives is that you guys are for small government unless it is to expand your so called "moral values" agenda (this decency law), to protect big business (new class action lawsuit law), or over-bloat the military. Taxes should be used for the benefit of the public, not to start wars to benefit big business (halliburton). Conservative could care less about the average american, they are only concerned about their corporate pals and rich friends, what's best for big business is best for America, yeah right.



Very well said.




Cat

You know what I notice about you conservatives is that you guys are for small government unless it is to expand your so called "moral values" agenda (this decency law), to protect big business (new class action lawsuit law), or over-bloat the military. Taxes should be used for the benefit of the public, not to start wars to benefit big business (halliburton). Conservative could care less about the average american, they are only concerned about their corporate pals and rich friends, what's best for big business is best for America, yeah right.

The Republican party is NOT for small government at all.  They are for making the rich richer by shifting ever more of the tax burdens upon the middle and working classes.
They are for a bloated Pentagon budget because defense contracting is more lucrative than any other kind of business.  No competition, no market research, and no risk, just a guaranteed payoff from Uncle Sam via the taxpayers.  They would rather flush money down the sieve of the Pentagon with thousand dollar toilet seats and five-hundred dollar hammers than invest in social services.  Why give John Q. Public the impression government works?  Besides overbilling the Pentagon lines the pockets of American bigshots.
There middle class tax-cut was all smoke mirrors, and let it be know in re: "faith based initiatives," the Bushies were never serious about that poor people stuff anyway.
Republicans are for subsidizing American companies to relocate overseas and put more Americans out of work.  Republicans are for the American government exploiting the natural and human resources of poor countries in order to enrich corporate executives and bigtime shareholders.
Republicans are only serious about spending cuts when it comes to social spending.
The fact is, even if we cut ALL non-military spending to zero, we would still fall short $190 billion.  The Bushies will still tell us we can afford those tax cuts for the rich!  How pathetic!  The Bushies still try to sell social security "personalization" when their plan has been shown up as just a handout to Wall Street.  Those guys really think "Middle America" is stupid, and I'm beginning to wonder if they're right!

It's all a smoke screen to cover up the more important issues, like the on going war in Iraq.

Taxes should be used for the benefit of the public


Nothing like giving them their money back with a tax cut.  That is the ultimate benefit!

Nothing like giving them their money back with a tax cut.  That is the ultimate benefit!



Nope.

Nothing like giving them their money back with a tax cut.  That is the ultimate benefit!


Those tax cuts become the national debt which will be paid off by the descendents of Joe Blow not the piggish top percentile.  Those guys know how to get out of paying taxes altogether.  It's just like the Mafia.  Dubya said as much, "Don't raise taxes on the rich, we don't have to pay 'em!"  Or the Athena of '80s greed, Leona Helmsley said, "Only little people pay taxes."
::)

Or the Athena of '80s greed, Leona Helmsley said, "Only little people pay taxes."


Only the rich pay taxes.

Top 20% pay 80% of all collected federal taxes.
Top 50% pay 96.03% of all taxes collected by the American federal government.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcol11.0021.ImageFile.gif

CBO Report: Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
Link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1

IRS income stats
Link: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Only the rich pay taxes.

Top 20% pay 80% of all collected federal taxes.
Top 50% pay 96.03% of all taxes collected by the American federal government.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/today.parcol11.0021.ImageFile.gif

CBO Report: Effective Federal Tax Rates Under Current Law, 2001 to 2014
Link: http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5746&type=1

IRS income stats
Link: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-soi/01in01ts.xls

Federal schmederal. 
As Timothy Noah of Slate.com points out, "the progressivity of the income tax is reversed somewhat by the regressive payroll tax, and even more so by regressive state and local taxes. "Noah goes on to cite a piece written for the New York Times earlier this year by Dan Altman that found that when all taxes are taken into consideration, a person in the bottom quintile of wage earners pays an average of 18 percent of his or her pretax income to the government, while the figure for wage earners in the top quintile is 19 percent. Those in the middle pay between 14 percent and 17 percent in taxes. In other words, writes Noah," on average Americans pay approximately 17 percent of their income in taxes, no matter what income they earn." 
And this is why a "flat tax" is so regressive.
a. You have $10,000, the government takes 2000.
b. You have $10,000,000, the government takes $2,000,000
Who is it really a better deal for, the guy with eight grand, or the guy with eight million?

As much as I dislike Bush and his posse I think this was actually a good move.  I know there's the "change the channel" argument but whenever I saw blood or gore on TV I was haunted for a couple weeks back when I was a little kid. 



Ooohhh, poor baby!  The same thing happened to me back in the fifties when I watched  "Invasion of the
Puppet People" and "The Attack of the Fifty Foot Woman".  The problem here is your parents should have
been parents and not allowed you to watch this stuff, that is what I did with mine.  He didn't watch what I
didn't think was appropriate.  He is thirteen now and has pretty much free access (to anything but porn), and
I know what he is watching and he knows my feelings, positive and negative, about his choices. 

I myself like Action films and Horror movies, however if I do see something that makes my stomach really upset, I change the channell.

If anything, Parents should decided what their kids should watch and not watch, not some faceless government officall or "public interest group".

And this is why a "flat tax" is so regressive.
a. You have $10,000, the government takes 2000.
b. You have $10,000,000, the government takes $2,000,000
Who is it really a better deal for, the guy with eight grand, or the guy with eight million?


Shows what you know about the flat tax.  In the flat tax plan the first 36,000 dollars earned are not taxed.  Then from that point on you are taxed 17%, no matter how little or much you go over $36,000.00.  It stops the government from punishing success.

Besides I don't support the flat tax.  I support the fair tax.

Shows what you know about the flat tax.  In the flat tax plan the first 36,000 dollars earned are not taxes.  Then from that point on you are taxed 17%, no matter how little or much you go over $36,000.00.  It stops the government from punishing success.

Besides I don't support the flat tax.  I support the fair tax.

What is the "fair tax"?

What is the "fair tax"?


It's also called the national sales tax.  It will increase the government's revenue (it's a tax increase basically, which is why I'm surprised they're not more democrats in the US House supporting it currently) make the economy grow at an amazing pace by all estimates, my the economy near recession-proof, and scrap the 16th amendment.  All the government's money will come from one big national sales tax.

Please don't judge it until you've read all about it.  http://www.fairtax.org/

What the f***!?

Defend what?  This bill didn't ban anything new, it just increased the fines for television networks who broadcast indecent material.

The Federal Communications Commission does not ban anything.  It responds to complaints from the citizens of the United States of America.  Remember, the airwaves are owned by the public, and the public has the right to complain about stuff going off over their airwaves.  Also remember the FCC does not monitor or censor cable or satellite television or radio.  Don't believe me?  See if the FCC takes a complaint over something you saw on cable, or something you saw between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

I think the government has a right to keep a moral standard over all-access television and radio.  If you people want to view porn and hear bad language so badly, go rent a movie.




Why? I already pay for cable service! Let the gov't do whatever they want to the free networks... they started sucking years ago anyway, but leave cable and subscription channels alone! I don't need to be told what I should and shouldn't watch. You think your kids are endangered? Watch them more closely!

Why? I already pay for cable service! Let the gov't do whatever they want to the free networks... they started sucking years ago anyway, but leave cable and subscription channels alone! I don't need to be told what I should and shouldn't watch. You think your kids are endangered? Watch them more closely!

Kids are endangered by this administrations social and fiscal policies, not by what's on television.

Why? I already pay for cable service! Let the gov't do whatever they want to the free networks... they started sucking years ago anyway, but leave cable and subscription channels alone!


What part of "Also remember the FCC does not monitor or censor cable or satellite television/radio." did you not understand?

The FCC takes complaints only for ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, UPN, and broadcast radio.  Also free broadcast television can play whatever it wants between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

It clearly states on the FCC's website that their laws for television do NOT apply to cable.

What part of "Also remember the FCC does not monitor or censor cable or satellite television/radio." did you not understand?

The FCC takes complaints only for ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, PBS, UPN, and broadcast radio.  Also free broadcast television can play whatever it wants between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM.

It clearly states on the FCC's website that their laws for television do NOT apply to cable.


So what exactly is the reason that cable networks have to show edited materials and must censor language and content? I don't care if they've been included in the new fine schedule, they are still regulated by the FCC.

More news..... cable to be next?

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. 

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/01/technology/satellite_decency.reut/?cnn=yes

This could mean bad news for show like South Park and The Sopranos.  ::)

I find it interesting that the most repressive regimes politically, the most likely to torture or "disappear" people, to prevent fair and open elections, etc. have 2 things in common regardless of what political stripe they assume.  First, they tend to have very low literacy rates, and second, they tend to censor expressions of sexuality.  The first I can understand, but it would seem to me that encouraging people to focus their attention on sexually explict material would be the ultimate distraction from real politics.  If I were a dictator, I'd push the porn, a much better "opiate of the masses" than religion.