FCC Settles Censorship Claims with ClearChannel

The Importance of writes "Earlier this week Slashdot debated whether the FCC should be abolished. One of the reasons many think the FCC should go away is because of censorship. Well, yesterday, the FCC settled all existing censorship investigations with Clear Channel for $1.75M and a promise to be better in the future, such as by firing DJs for their first offense. Clear Channel also plead guilty to violating indecency standards, but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong. On the other hand, the FCC seems to have forgotten that they decided a couple of months ago to regulate profanity in addition to indecency. In other FCC news, they've posted the internet section of the FCC History Project."

Comments

Re:Shakedown

[slashd'oh]

Actually, in the Reuters article, not all of the Commissioners were in agreement about this, since it lumped all the claims together into one settlement:

"FCC Commissioner Michael Copps voted against the settlement, arguing it failed to examine all the complaints against the company and the incidents could not be considered when deciding whether to renew the company's radio licenses."

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[deanj]

Nice conspiracy theory, but the big flaw in all this is that the person in the FCC pushing all the indency stuff is Michael Copp, a democrat. He was part of the Ersnt Hollings' staff before going to the FCC.

This all reminds me of Tipper Gore back in the 1980s.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[RealAlaskan]

The two words have very different definitions, so it's not surprising to me that the FCC distinguishes between them. In fact (adding some words here to beat the lameness filter), I'd be surprised if they didn't.

The FCC seems to concentrate on definitions 1 and 2 for obscene, and definition 1 for profane. I'm not sure that Janet Jackson's breast is obscene by definition 2 (``Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.''), so they must be relying on definition 1 there. Offensive I can believe.

Definitions courtesy of Dictionary.reference.com

obscene ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sn, b-) adj.

1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.
2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.
3. Repulsive; disgusting: "The way he writes about the disease that killed her is simply obscene" (Michael Korda).
4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous: "local merchants in nearby stores get hammered by stratospheric rents and obscene taxes" (Joe Queenan).

profane ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fn, pr-) adj.

1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[Mz6]

You can blame Bush all you want.. but Kerry feels the same way about it. Pulled from Drudgereport.com (Jun 4)

"In an interview set for broadcast Sunday on C-SPAN, presidential hopeful John Kerry says he supports the current FCC crackdown on television indecency, but comes out against the greater scrutiny of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime.

"I think there is a distinction between public broadcast and the notions we've had historically about family time, family hour -- and what you buy privately and personally."

"I am not in favor of government interference and censorship and restriction of what an individual privately can decide to do in their home, in their own space, so to speak," Kerry said, but he did seem to be OK with indecency regulation "where you have children involved, where you have a broader cross-section of the public, where there is sort of a sense of family time or hour."

On media concentration:

"I wasn't there for the vote, but I was 100% in favor of overturning this rule.

"I think that too much media in the hands of one powerful entity or one individual is a mistake. I think it runs counter to the foundation of our country. I think it runs counter to the need for Americans to know what they are getting news and information from multiple sources that are not singularly controlled."

On the Janet Jackson Super Bowl 'nipple' incident:

"I thought that was in poor taste and wrong -- wrong venue, wrong timing, wrong place, wrong audience. So, there are some standards and pretty generally people should know what they are."

Think what you will.

Re:A great government / private sector partnership

[gfxguy]

Exactly! If only Michael J. Copps, the FCC chairman who is fighting so hard against this "indecency", were replaced by a republican who supports first amendment rights.

I guess Copps got his training when he worked for "Fritz" Hollings (D-Disney).

Re:could anybody explain...

[Rytr23]

I believe one of the FCC employees stated in print that they "could not fine Oprah, because she is so beloved, whereas Howard Stern is a lightning rod" or something very much to that effect. Kind of scary if you ask me...

Re:Hmm..

[AME]

You've got to be kidding. Plenty of hosts on Clear Channel criticize Bush regularly. Removing the Dixie Chicks from playlists was done in response to listener demand, not some partisan decision from management.

Just because Natalie Maines says that she's being censored, it doesn't mean that she is. In her case, she said something that many didn't like and they decided not to listen to her anymore. That's not censorship.

You, sir, are wrong.

[gfxguy]

You can't let facts get in the way of a liberal G.W. haters rant!

The fact of the matter is it's all about control, and both parties want control. Democrats, and people with a liberal, socialistic agenda want the government to have more control. I'm not saying conservatives are free from guilt, but I have a big problem trying to pin this on the current administration and Bush in particular.

Surely they can find something about the current administration with more substance to whine about.

Re:Anyone? Anyone? (I'm chirping)

[riptide_dot]

I'm not a huge Howard Stern fan, but in the name of free speech I'll defend him 'till the day I die. Take away my free speech and you take away my primary reason for living in a free country. I don't necessarily agree with Howard or even like what he says. I definately think there's better things that small children can be doing with their time. But what children listen to should be decided by their parents, not the government.

What I DO think is that censoring him and/or anyone should not be tolerated by a free public (or anyone for that matter). It's not the Howard Sterns we really care about, it's the idea that protecting free speech (not just popular speech) should be one of the foundations of our American society.

If the FCC needs a way to keep children from hearing adult content, there are better ways to accomplish that goal than censorship. Like the Vchip, for example. But this is slashdot - couldn't we be discussing other technical ways to prevent children from hearing adult content without having to censor that adult content? Hard problems call for ingenious solutions, and I can't think of a better forum for those types of ideas to be discussed.

Re:Infinity and Viacom not fined, they carry Stern

[AveryT]

Ummm, no.

Stern broadcasts from WXRK, which is part of Infinity Broadcasting (Viacom). Stern was broadcast on only six ClearChannel stations before being dropped.

FCC cases are probably still pending against Infinity, who may not lie down as fast as ClearChannel since Stern represents a big chunk of their bottom line.