Congress propses decency rules

[Buried 0]

This ties into the FCC thread, but nonetheless interesting. Personally I believe " you can't please everyone" and it's not up to the gov to dictate what I or should hear/watch. Why are some parents giving up their ability to parent to the gov. It's up to the parents to make these decisions. Companies provide content. You can watch if you want to or not. No one is being forced.

Source

CONGRESS PROPOSES DECENCY RULES FOR CABLE, SATELLITE

Quote

CONGRESS PROPOSES DECENCY RULES FOR CABLE, SATELLITE
Senate and House Committee Heads Endorse Measure
March 02, 2005
QwikFIND ID: AAQ36X
By Ira Teinowitz and Doug Halonen
WASHINGTON (AdAge.com) -- The drive to curb broadcast obscenity was ramped up today as the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee and the House Energy and Commerce Committee endorsed proposals to extend broadcast indecency bars to cable and satellite media.

Speaking separately to a meeting of the National Association of Broadcasters in Washington, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, criticized cable broadcasts and indicated they would move to expand broadcast obscenity rules to cover cable content, though Mr. Barton expressed concerns regarding First Amendment issues.

Sexually active children
"We wonder why our children are sexually active at a young age," said Mr. Stevens. "We are spending millions to promote abstinence while our public airwaves are increasingly promoting sex.

"In this country, there has to be some standards of indecency," Mr. Stevens said.

Mr. Barton, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, said, "I think [broadcasters and satellite and cable operators] ought to play too, to the extent it's possible, by the same rules."

Supreme Court challenge
Mr. Stevens also warned the cable industry about its contention that because subscribers pay for cable, indecency curbs would violate consumers' First Amendment rights.

"I disagree violently," he said. "We might as well get it on the table. If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take them on, and we'll let the Supreme Court decide."

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[billvon 3,171]

Here we go again. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

What amazes me is that people are offended by seeing someone's breast, but are fine with a movie showing someone killing 50 people and being proclaimed as a hero because of it. Something out of whack there.

But in the end it won't matter. Broadcast media is on the way out. In ten years, trying to regulate broadcast media will be like trying to reduce accidents by restricting horses to 20mph on public roads.

[justinb138 0]

Why can't someone propose some legislation regulating parenting? I doubt that this proposal has anything to do with protecting children anyway.

Personally, I think that the broadcast companies are losing out to cable networks (who can have less restrictions and can therefore broadcast more "entertaining" content) and trying to even the playing field. Using the "we want to save the children" is just the excuse that they think congress will buy.

What a waste of time.

Edit: cause I can't type today

[Buried 0]

I like this quote

Quote

We wonder why our children are sexually active at a young age," said Mr. Stevens. "We are spending millions to promote abstinence while our public airwaves are increasingly promoting sex.

I mean seriously? Look at EU and their media. And to relate what you said about 'monkey see monkey do' I don't see people going around killing people. ... but then again that is was video games are for

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[billvon 3,171]

>Using the "we want to save the children" is just the excuse that they think congress will buy.

There's a great piece on the Daily Show that covers this. A special report on the Parent's Coalition against Indecent blah blah blah talked about what they do - which is to say, that they watch hundreds of hours of video, download the offensive parts, and create a library on the web showing those offensive parts so that supporters can download the clips and become excited. Presumably they will then take action to 'save the children.'

"Heck, I've been downloading obscene stuff for years," said the commentator. "I never knew I was saving the children!"

[Buried 0]

ha yeah there was something on the daily show regarding this a while back.

ironic that the person who was running the site was creating a on-demand indecency db to fight their cause of indecent material, eh?

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[kelpdiver 2]

Wonder what the community standards for decency are in Alaska. I'd venture that in that male dominated state, full blown porn would be acceptable on broadcast.

The restriction on content until 10pm has always been a bit stretched - shouldn't the kiddies be in bed well earlier. Funny enough though - the east coast time broadcasting for most cable on Directv means that 7-9pm is when the most lurid of the cable fare comes on at my home. If they were to extend to paid TV, Direct and the various channels like Spike and FX would be in a bind to comply.

At CES/AVN I saw the first (that I'm aware of) set top box that delivers 30 channels over a DSL line. While it was of course a porn service, it's just a short matter of time before such boxes or Windows Media Center type computers will allow peopel to subscribe to individual channels. I'm thinking under 5 years for good availability.

[dorbie 0]

I have no issue seeing JJ's breast, or with Howard Stern's titilation or lots of other stuff the morality obsessed loud minority gripes about.

I do object to JJ hijacking the superbowl with her tit flash. Context is important. She can do what the hell she likes as long as it's somehow labeled and families don't have it shoved in their face when enjoying a national tradition.

Is everyone in the US incapable of seeing the difference between one set of circumstances and the other?

While we're at it why lump nebulous "standards" issues with each other? A backlash over activists forcing gay marriage on a populace has nothing to to with issues of spicy broadcasts but it's being taken as carte blanche green light for all sorts of crap.

Some pretty dodgy decisions are "crackdowns" being made because Americans seem incapable of articulating the differences between obviously different situations. They're so busy lobbing verbal grenades at eachother to make some silly point that they lose sight of the big picture.

[billvon 3,171]

>I do object to JJ hijacking the superbowl with her tit flash. Context is important.

Agreed. And some parents have no problem with an episode of ER that depicts the violent rape and murder of a woman, but they would have a big hairy problem with a healthy woman's breast being shown during a breast exam. And them's some screwed up values.

>A backlash over activists forcing gay marriage on a populace . . . .

I hadn't heard that you had been forced to marry a man! Congratulations (I guess.)

[Buried 0]

Quote

The restriction on content until 10pm has always been a bit stretched

well thats 10pm EST, since shows aired are the same in CST its 9pm here.


i do find it funny that [on howard stern] if a girl is topless and has 'stickies' over her nipples they dont blur, but if they dont they blur everything on the chest.. anyone else see that kinda odd.?

Where is my fizzy-lifting drink?

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Is everyone in the US incapable of seeing the difference between one set of circumstances and the other?

Not everyone, but apparently many.

. . =(_8^(1)

[vmsfreaky1 0]

I think your whole country is odd.

Not just the whacko christians and their coalition.

I saw a french program about your decency laws, I became ill hearing about your moral majority wankers.

I truly feel sorry for you.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I truly feel sorry for you.

It must really burn you up to know how fabulously your government gets along with ours. The US doesn't have any better suck-up friends anywhere on the planet, second only perhaps to your mother country.

. . =(_8^(1)

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Supreme Court challenge
Mr. Stevens also warned the cable industry about its contention that because subscribers pay for cable, indecency curbs would violate consumers' First Amendment rights.

"I disagree violently," he said. "We might as well get it on the table. If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take them on, and we'll let the Supreme Court decide."

And it will lose. Just because a parent can't control their children's viewing habits means the rest of the adult world has to suffer? If Larry Flint can defend his freedom of speech there, the pay for tv market will have an easy time. Even Powell has said the FCC has no right to restrict a subscription based service. The only thing this will do is drive up the cost of our subscriptions.

What comes next? Preventing movies with the same content from being made? After all that is something you have to pay for that kids somehow find a way to see. Bad parenting = more legislation? Maybe this administration can add something to the Dept Of Homeland Security that will nurture our children!

Kids being sexually active at a young age is something the politicians have to take care of now? Parenting from the Hill? Not only are they big on taking away rights from the States they are going to be in your family room as well. Why am I not surprised that two republicans have started this up? Guess they are for big gov now, huh? Guess they don't mind removing freedoms?

Idiot politicians.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[rickjump1 0]

Maybe sex should be on adult content channels period. If there were no restraints they would be fucking and fighting on each and every channel. The Disney channel would be showing Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs doing it.

How many of you that oppose any sort of restraint have children or grandchildren? Are you able to watch everything they watch? If you care there is a limit. I know you can lock out certain channels. I did it for my kids. A lot of stuff presented as good familty entertainment can turn into something not suitable for children period, and I'm not talking about some bare ass or tit shot. That's my $.02 after Miller time. Wish I had Shiner Bock.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

A backlash over activists forcing gay marriage on a populace . . . .

I hadn't heard that you had been forced to marry a man! Congratulations (I guess.)

Nice of you to twist what Dorbie really meant -- that activists are trying to force the populace to accept gay marriage as a societal norm -- into something he obviously didn't mean at all.

. . =(_8^(1)

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

Nice of you to twist what Dorbie really meant -- that activists are trying to force the populace to accept gay marriage as a societal norm -- into something he obviously didn't mean at all.

So, something that isn't the norm doesn't deserve the same freedoms, respect, rights, et al as what is the norm? Outside the norm = wrong???

Skydiving is a fringe sport pretty far away from the norm. Therefore the USPA and it's members are trying to force it as a norm on the rest of the population. In fact, the USPA helped lobby to get jump planes to operate outside the normal rules related to collison avoidance devices. Therefore Skydiving = wrong?

btw - somehow I lost how over regulation on freedom of expression on a paid medium somehow connects to gay marriage. Could someone please explain that one to me again?

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[yourmomma 0]

***
I do object to JJ hijacking the superbowl with her tit flash. Context is important. She can do what the hell she likes as long as it's somehow labeled and families don't have it shoved in their face when enjoying a national tradition.

Quote

Tits are a healthy alternative to the ultra... "Violence"-(pick negative adjective) which is the NFL.

• Quote

[billvon 3,171]

>what Dorbie really meant . . . .

I'm glad you knew what he really meant, but often you have to say what you mean if you want it understood.

>that activists are trying to force the populace to accept gay marriage
>as a societal norm . . .

All the activists I've heard of just want to have the same rights as heterosexuals.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Maybe sex should be on adult content channels period. If there were no restraints they would be fucking and fighting on each and every channel. The Disney channel would be showing Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs doing it.

It most certainly would not. They're so uptight that they use a different label (Buena Vista, iirc) to release movies that aren't in step with the image they want to protray, for that image gets them a lot of 'family oriented' viewers. I also quite willing to bet you good money that there won't be any fucking on the Christian media sources, nevermind the BYU channel.

The reality is that if community standards really don't include shows like Nip/Tuck or the Shield, those shows will lose out to more wholesome ones. But when you look at those ratings, it looks like a heck of a lot more people like Desparate Housewives and Howard Stern. Remove the restraints and let every niche form. Would be a beautiful time to implement a la carte subscriber options.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

So, something that isn't the norm doesn't deserve the same freedoms, respect, rights, et al as what is the norm? Outside the norm = wrong???

Yes, much of our society thinks homosexuality is morally wrong, and therefore isn't socially acceptable. So in that case, yes: out of the norm = wrong. Having said that, I personally think they should have equal rights under the law.

I don't care for their stealing of the term "marriage" to define their unions, however.

Quote

Skydiving is a fringe sport pretty far away from the norm.

But it isn't a "moral" issue, and so isn't a good comparison here.

. . =(_8^(1)

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

I don't care for their stealing of the term "marriage" to define their unions, however.

Is it really stealing or a paradigm shift?

Quote

Skydiving is a fringe sport pretty far away from the norm.

But it isn't a "moral" issue, and so isn't a good comparison here.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

I don't care for their stealing of the term "marriage" to define their unions, however.

Is it really stealing or a paradigm shift?

It's outright theft but, like the word "gay", won't be questioned for long.

Quote

You are going to the wrong DZs then.

. . =(_8^(1)

[tbrown 26]

Most of our fellow dot.commies are probably too young to remember who Elizabeth Ray was. Ms. Ray was a stunning blonde thirty-something Congressional staffer who was most definitely not hired for her typing ability. In fact, the Congressman who hired her even said "we can teach you to type". Ms. Ray WAS really great at some really cool stuff and guess who one of her main squeezes was ? Senator Ted Stevens - "Mr. Decency" himself. Of course Big Ted was thirty years younger and still able to get one up without pharmaceutical assistance in those days, so that may be one of the issues behind his belated putsch to make us all more decent Americans.

If Congress ever took half of this family values bullshit even halfway seriously in their own lives, the escort services of our nation's capital would go out of business overnight.

I've been faithful to my wife for 24 years and if I want to watch Sex and the City on cable, Ted Stevens can just shove it up his ass.

Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity !

[billvon 3,171]

>I don't care for their stealing of the term "marriage" to define their unions, however.

Well, blacks stole it to describe interracial marriages, even though most of the country thought such marriages morally wrong. We seemed to do OK.

But in the end I don't much care if it's called marriage or not - as long as a married (or united, or whatever) couple has the same rights no matter what their sexual orientation.

>>Skydiving is a fringe sport pretty far away from the norm.

>But it isn't a "moral" issue, and so isn't a good comparison here.

You're right, today it isn't. But if people were saying "I don't mind skydivers, I just don't want them jumping in public airspace and shoving their sport down my throat" you'd be pretty annoyed.