Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on March 08, 2005, 05:52:36 PM
-
I saw this on foxnews.com today and have to say I couldnt disagree with these two idiots more. I hope these guys don't get too much clout within the party because I really think this would ruin entertainment as we know it.
Indecent Proposal: Expanding FCC Speech Controls to Cable
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
By James L. Gattuso
Ten years ago, when the GOP (search) first took control of Congress, there was much excited talk about abolishing the FCC. Its days were numbered, many thought. Ten years later, those numbers look pretty large.
Rather than talk of shrinking the FCC (search), two key GOP leaders last week were talking about expanding it. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, told reporters he wanted to extend the agency’s control over “indecent” speech to cable and satellite television. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, his House counterpart, said he also might support the idea.
Lawmakers are responding to a genuine concern, shared by many Americans, that television and radio programming is becoming more offensive. However, the proposed solution, increased government restrictions on speech, is fundamentally misguided. The idea of government bureaucrats deciding what can and cannot be heard is repugnant to American values.
Conservatives -- who have long been the targets of politically correct speech codes on college campuses and elsewhere -- should be particularly wary of such restrictions.
It is also naive to think that regulators can draw a neat line between what is appropriate and what is not -- as most recently shown by the reluctance of many PBS stations last month to air unexpurgated versions of a “Frontline” documentary on American troops in Iraq.
The FCC’s powers have so far been limited to broadcasters, who operate under FCC license. Stevens and Barton now want to eliminate that distinction, seeing it as a loophole for cable and satellite programming. Never mind that this programming largely comes over privately built facilities and does not enter anyone’s home unless requested (and paid for).
Worse, speech regulation is unlikely to stop with cable and satellite programming. What about video transmitted over the Internet? Isn’t that a “loophole” that the FCC needs to plug? Or Internet radio? Why not other pervasive media that might cause offense? If we’re plugging loopholes, what about the big one that lets newspapers and magazines print virtually anything they want? Shouldn’t a regulator be looking at them to make sure no one gets offended?
Even FCC chairman Michael Powell, who initiated the FCC’s drive against broadcast indecency, sees a problem here. “I think it’s a dangerous thing to start talking about extending government oversight of content to other media just to level the playing field,” he said earlier this year. Sadly, however, he’s leaving, and other regulators are not so averse to expanding their domain. For instance, current Commissioner Kevin Martin, widely touted as Powell’s replacement, has said that extending profanity restrictions is a “viable alternative” that should be considered.
Fortunately, even if the proposed expansion of controls passes Congress, it would have a hard time getting past the Supreme Court. It wouldn’t take an activist judge to see a clear conflict with the First Amendment here.
Rather than impose ever-stricter limits on media content, lawmakers concerned about the quality of programming should instead promote policies that would expand the choices available to consumers. Already, cable programmers such as the Family Channel and Disney Channel offer family-oriented television. Satellite radio operator Sirius recently announced it would offer several channels of children’s radio on its network.
By reducing governmental barriers to new outlets, policymakers could further increase the number of choices available. Such steps could include freeing up underused radio spectrum, reducing regulations that discourage investment in new telecommunications systems, and reducing taxes on providers.
Ultimately, the solution to offensive programming lies not with policymakers but with individual consumers and families. Parents and others unhappy with what they see on television have weapons more powerful than any congressman has. Like other businesses, broadcasters respond to their customers. Complaints to broadcasters and to the advertisers who support them can be effective.
But the most powerful weapons consumers wield are their own remote controls. The best regulation comes not from government but from individuals making choices for themselves. Rather than look to Washington for answers, we should look to our own thumbs.
James L. Gattuso is a research fellow in regulatory policy at The Heritage Foundation, a Washington-based public policy research institute.
-
On the other hand, the FCC should have stopped this (http://www.clearchannel.com/) from ever growing as big as it is.
-
free speech. free radio.
:aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
On the other hand, the FCC should have stopped this (http://www.clearchannel.com/) from ever growing as big as it is.
Couldnt agree with you more (if in fact you are referring to the fact that IIRC 80% of all radio stations in the country are owned by the same company)
Media that is controled by one outlet whether it be the govt or a cingle corp. is not free speech
-
I used to roll my eyes whenever something like this would come up because it would eventually lead to someone mentioning "Big Brother" and 1984. This time I can see the initial footsteps towards controlled media. It doesn't take much to get the ball rolling. Could they expand the ban on what is indecent to what is immoral and then to what is unhealthy for a society? In some cases, they (the government in general) already have. It is easier now to see that one day, with this kind of authority, the government might decide that a broadcast on a certain topic would be bad for the society to be exposed to.
-
i was flipping through AM channels in the car this afternoon.
it's been a while.
strange air out there.
-
That is disgusting and what I consider "obscene"
See now this type of thing is exactly the reason why I will never align myself with either of the two parties.
The left leans too far left and the right leans too far right.
Now that its swinging too far to the right by default I'm gonna have to vote Dem next election unless Hillry runs in which case I'll either vote independant or will abstain out of disgust
-
One Saturday eves, I work at Sears. One of the guys I work with is a discjokey at the only locally owned & operated rock station (its the one Stephen King owns). He pointed out that he is the only live dj on in the late nights he works. ClearChannel bought up everything here. Last he checked, he's the *only* live DJ in the state and he's thinking of checking further south into NH and VT.
And if you ever thought about being a DJ...he says he's making $7.55 an hour.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
One Saturday eves, I work at Sears. One of the guys I work with is a discjokey at the only locally owned & operated rock station (its the one Stephen King owns). He pointed out that he is the only live dj on in the late nights he works. ClearChannel bought up everything here. Last he checked, he's the *only* live DJ in the state and he's thinking of checking further south into NH and VT.
And if you ever thought about being a DJ...he says he's making $7.55 an hour.
Yup they dont make squat unless they have a big name.
I did a radio show for a few weeks. The "drive at 5" at the local rock station. I went to work in the mornings and recorded a 5 hour show in an hour and made about $50 a week from it.
whats worse is when you have corporate radio telling you "what you can and cannot play" it's all about money to them and that whole business is majorly screwed up
To think the Govt wants to get involved now in my HBO and comedy central just annoys the crap out of me.
-
I think the Janet Jackson episode made a bad situation worse.
I also think people are going overboard on both sides.
I agree that a boob-show on the Super Bowl was in remarkably poor taste. Whether you are pro or con on nudity, doing so during a family event like that is just foolish.
And I think they are right on when they go after a few of the foul-mouthed DJs and such. But when TV stations are hesitant to play "Saving Private Ryan" and such, then the lines need to be re-drawn.
When the broadcasters show they can police themselves and spare the general public much of this *in your face* profanity, I dont think they'll have much to fear from Big Brother.
-
Originally posted by LePaul
I think the Janet Jackson episode made a bad situation worse.
I also think people are going overboard on both sides.
I agree that a boob-show on the Super Bowl was in remarkably poor taste. Whether you are pro or con on nudity, doing so during a family event like that is just foolish.
And I think they are right on when they go after a few of the foul-mouthed DJs and such. But when TV stations are hesitant to play "Saving Private Ryan" and such, then the lines need to be re-drawn.
When the broadcasters show they can police themselves and spare the general public much of this *in your face* profanity, I dont think they'll have much to fear from Big Brother.
I think if it was Britney's boob no one would have thrown a stink about it.
But yea alot of the reaction has been definate overkill.
-
Ist not a curse having teh small Azn c4wk. j00 can slip it in for teh buttsecks and she will not no teh difference.
-
I have to agree that they (R's) are probably going to far.
Then again, I don't really know the details. I would say that there probably is a need for controls on what's freely boradcast. There's always some person, or company or whatever that's out to push the limit, see how far they can go.
Perhaps if it were easier to control what's broadcast in our own home (or whatever you're children view/listen too), we wouldn't need some kind of "Big Brother". As things are now, and no thanks the that stupid stunt Jackson pulled (among others)... I say we do whatever it takes to keep the attention-potatos off the airwaves. Technology will eventually even things out.
-
I wouldn't totally blame it on the R's. Wasn't it Al Gore's wife that tried to restrict the sales of music albums?
-
Originally posted by Storm7
I wouldn't totally blame it on the R's. Wasn't it Al Gore's wife that tried to restrict the sales of music albums?
C'mon... let's all wax nostalgic about the PMRC.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
I went to work in the mornings and recorded a 5 hour show in an hour and made about $50 a week from it.
So you received $50 a week for working 1 hour a day?
That aint bad... You could have picked up golf balls at the local driving range the rest of the day and worked your way through school.
But you probably should have been paid a lot more for your talent of being able to talk five times faster than a normal human.
-
Originally posted by Tumor
I have to agree that they (R's) are probably going to far.
Then again, I don't really know the details. I would say that there probably is a need for controls on what's freely boradcast. There's always some person, or company or whatever that's out to push the limit, see how far they can go.
Perhaps if it were easier to control what's broadcast in our own home (or whatever you're children view/listen too), we wouldn't need some kind of "Big Brother". As things are now, and no thanks the that stupid stunt Jackson pulled (among others)... I say we do whatever it takes to keep the attention-potatos off the airwaves. Technology will eventually even things out.
Problem is when it comes to cable and satalite.
your paying to have it come into your home.
therfore you do have the coontrol.
and I know just with my own Cable Co I can set it to block whichever channels I choose.
Dunno how I can have much more control then that.
but I certainly dopnt want the Gov telling me what I can and cant have piped into my house when Im the one paying for it.
-
free speech. free radio.
rinse. repeat.
-
JB88, not trying to bust on you......but I'm guessing you are about 25 years old.
-
you flatter me.
negativo nukeness.
add a few, then multiply by two and subtract a couple back.
oh, and i am pro-free communication in case you didnt notice.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Dunno how I can have much more control then that.
but I certainly dopnt want the Gov telling me what I can and cant have piped into my house when Im the one paying for it.
Well, I do agree D, but who knew before-hand what Jackson was going to pull. Right now, I can turn it all off, or just hope for the best in what I don't turn off (or block), unless some responsible entity steps in and see's to it that, lets say ABC, isn't showing graphic sex or whatever in the name of the almighty rating. I don't think the Govt is going to keep you from watching what you want to watch, but rather keep what shouldn't be on prime time, off prime time (ok, not exclusive to actual prime-time but you get my drift).
Ok, don't get me wrong, I'm not the type to think a bare boob is gonna traumatize my kids. Far from it, but... having whats'is name yank the bit of clothing off, well thats different. I dunno, maybe I'm just old school. Back when there was 3 channels (4 counting PBS on UHF or VHF or whatever it was), WHEN reception was good, Mom and Dad never had to worry about what I saw (save the occasional foriegn movie on PBS they never figured out lol). I guess I just wish it was all still so simple.
-
its interesting how it is the old networks are being most influenced politically, cbs, abc and nbc have all had politically motivated scandals and censorship issues in recent years.
they are the ones still carrying the monkey. the government can nail them with embarrassing fines if they get out of line.
the old free air channels are screwed...but i hope that they are always there...and i hope that they finally get back in the game and start stretching it right.
pay as you play, it is my decision what i want to watch and what my own limits or my kids limits are.
anyways, we have an IP address as our frequency. will the FCC next tell me that i dont have the right to broadcast my views or it will fine me for a violation?
-
Originally posted by Storm7
I wouldn't totally blame it on the R's. Wasn't it Al Gore's wife that tried to restrict the sales of music albums?
Tipper potato is the one who promoted and got the "Parental Advisory Explicit Lyrics" stickers on tapes, CDs, etc. IMO, she increased the sales of these articles and listening of them by minors.
Karaya
-
I am against government agencies growing.
I am also against stern like language on free radio while I am hitting "seek" on the car radio with my grand daughter in the car or older folk or whatever...
I have no problem with adults listening to or watching anything they want so long as they pay for it or it is an adult only media available only to subscribers or patrons who know what they are getting into.
My solution would be to take a lesson from the left and allow people to sue any potty mouth that offended them on free radio. If you happened to go by sterns station and he offended and embarassed you in front of your children or older relatives or friends then... you should be able to sue him for damages.
lazs
-
The government has no business regulating something I'm paying to see/hear.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
The government has no business regulating something I'm paying to see/hear.
-SW
Agree.
Karaya
-
wulfie... I agree. so long as it doesn't break any laws (human sacrafice.. snuff films... kiddie porn.) and...
It is posted and clear that you are about to be subjected to whatever it is that you paid for.
"free" media should be regulated tho to protect children... the government can do it or people can do it by suing the crap out of offenders and hoping a jury sees it their way.
lazs
-
The free media needs to be regulated. I'm a little cautious of the government doing it, but since the media outlets seem to be a little inept at controlling it, I guess it's a necessary evil.
As is, Cable broadcast shows have a rating system and warn of what the show contains. When South Park ran the episode where they said sh*t, it was shown at 10PM and warned of the language. The South Park movie, unedited, is shown at 1PM on Comedy Central. Should be well past children's bed times, but it does state that it depicts animated violence, vulgar language, etc.
Even HBO, ShowTime, and Skinemax have a rating system in place, and you pay extra for those channels.
With this system in place, the only people that should be regulating what is seen and heard via cable, or satellite, should be parents/adults of each household.
I know most sane people see that, but somehow this is beyond the grasp of some people.
-SW
-
Originally posted by AKS\/\/ulfe
I know most sane people see that, but somehow this is beyond the grasp of some people.
-SW
Since when do sanity & politics have anything in common?
-
Indeed, but I meant common people, not government people.
-SW
-
wulfie... I think you have a grasp of the problem... if you don't set standards for free media the "grey area" lefties come out of the woodwork.... "but all the anal sex was on after 10pm" or whatever excuse...
In the southpark example... guess what? I don't believe they can show it on free airwaves. what is the problem with only showing it on pay venues?
I realize that morals change and that someone must allways test the boundries to see where we are at as a people... that is fine but... being a pioneer is risky... you could get slapped down... don't get all whiney about it like that crybaby stern when you get busted.
lazs
-
I think you misunderstood the SouthPark example, it was just to show that there are warnings and ratings in place on pay cable.
I think the free (stuff you can recieve with bunny ears) media needs to be regulated.
-SW
-
I think we agree...
regulate the free stuff and put warnings on the pay for stuff.
lazs
-
Yup, we do.
-SW