Slashdot Mirror
FCC to Require Broadcasters to Keep Tapes of Shows
The Importance of writes "Under current FCC rules, in order to make an indecency complaint about a broadcast you have to provide "a significant excerpt from the program or a full or partial tape or transcript of the program." However, broadcasters aren't required to keep a tape of their broadcasts so, rarely, an indecency complaint gets dismissed for lack of evidence. But that is going to change. The FCC has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking [PDF] [TXT] that will require broadcasters to maintain recordings of their broadcasts for 60-90 days. The FCC is also considering reducing what you must claim in order to enter a complaint, thus opening the floodgates for indecency complaints by groups like the Parents Television Council, which is already keeping the FCC censors busy. Doesn't the government have better things to do?"
Why is it censorship if you require the broadcaster to keep a record of what was transmitted?
And if a broadcaster has something to say, whether contentious or not, why would you not want to keep a record of it?
From what I can tell, only a minority of the population would actually care enough about TV to actually complain. Most people just turn off the tv or watch something else when something's on that they don't like.
Back, a long time ago, (I think), there were many, many complaints about a lingerie poster with Kylie Minogue in it. A couple of hundred got through, out of about 20000, IIRC. Even if that seems significant, more people entered a competition to win the poster than the number of people who complained.
Why make laws to fix a problem when it can be fixed with an ON/OFF switch? I for one am sick of these 'think of the children!!!' laws, which don't help the children at all. Being 14, I don't think that restricting content or information from getting through is a good way of doing things. My parents have tried to give me certain opinions my whole life. Trying to censor information isn't the way to make things good. Especially when you can't stop it after it has been done.
Television is the enemy of creativity. There are thousands and thousands of things you can do which are more entertaining, more compelling, and generally more lively than watching Television.
Personally, I find it indicative of the height of decadence in society today that we've got massive government agencies whose sole purpose is to keep content designed for wasting time within certain 'limits' of 'social acceptance'.
I'll tell you whats offensive: the fact that 400,000 people a day are sitting in front of televisions, doing nothing with their lives, and society thinks this is 'normal'. Thats more fucking offensive than a few fucking swear fucking words, I tell you that.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
While keeping the tapes seems reasonable, making complaints easier looks rather like censorship through the backdoor.
Rather than a govenrment body directly cracking down, they can say they are responding to complaints, and fear of complaints may force some broadcasters to change things.
That is a bit tinfoil hat thinking, but some people in the current US admistration do seem very keen on "cleaning things up" (Ashcroft anyone?).
Yes. However, since the prudes (religiously motivated prudes in particular) make a very loud crowd that also tends to vote, the government listen to them.
I for one am worried about the recent re-emergence of social conservatism both in Europe and abroad. One good thing about conservatism is that it encourages people to vote. Voting just doesn't seem to be "cool" amongst the young social liberals and now we're seeing the results.
The owls are not what they seem
Shouldn't this parent's tv society or whatever be reponsible for what tv shows they let their children watch, instead of attempting to censor tv for all of us. Their site didn't even rate south park, I really wanted to see how they reviewed it, haha.
Thing is, why should the onus -only- be on the broadcaster in these cases?
If you've got an indecency complaint to make, you should be able to make your -own- copy of the event.
Copyright laws seem more designed to prevent open criticism of the quality of media, than the actual control of copy of that media. Frankly I think far too many TV and "Mass Media" broadcasters are getting away with nefarious info-war rubbish, and it has gone on too long... the public need education on propaganda, and they -need- the right to record all media they perceive, on persistent and undeniable basis.
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
how does that work?
"hey that was disgusting, put a tape in quick and record 5 minutes ago"
My guess is your job isn't to be a raunchy DJ. Howard's JOB is to do that. And yet he is fined for it. If you're a computer scientist and you make fart jokes, it might be considered inappropriate at work. However, construction workers that want to hear fart jokes can tune in Howard. If your office wants to censor you listening to Howard, technically they probably can. The government can NOT, however, and should NOT, because 18 million people (about) enjoy listening to the show in various public (and allowed private) places. If you think for one minute that your kid is being warped by Howard, turn it off, or better yet, get real, because your kid has heard 10 times worse at school every day since kindergarden.
stuff |
I, for one, don't welcome our Christian fundamentalist government and it's regulation of morality.
>> "What would the robut do? Frame someone!"
So what your saying is that people like howard stern should not be liable for what comes out of their mouths. I am held liable for what I say at every job I have ever had. How is he above that? Because he is a celebrity? Please explain it to me.
Because you can switch him off if you find him offensive? Same as your boss tells you to shut your mouth, only you don't even have to tell him to his face, just hit that dial! The feeling of POWER must be overwhelming!
Inoffensive speech needs no protection. That's what the First Amendment is all about. Protecting speech that others don't like.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
I'll tell you why
Because whoever is behind this shit sees the blood in the water and is now looking at past tapes to see if they can apply Today's standards to yesterday's broadcasts.
I think it stinks and is completely unfair.
WTF? Over?
Our problem in the States these days is that parents want the government to be responsible for their kids. When their kids get in trouble for shoplifting or shooting another kid over a pair of shoes, they want to point to violence on TV or the music they listen to as the problem. Unfortunately, the real problem, as most intelligent people know, is the parents themselves. They don't want to take the time to raise their kids. They want the onus of responsibility to be with the government, hence these absurd laws.
The Republicans are always going on about family values, and while I'm a liberal myself, I have to agree with that one issue. Family values in this country have, for the most part, gone to shit. I was raised by a single mother who worked full time. She still managed to raise me to know the difference between right and wrong. Even after a long, hard day's work, she managed to come home and spend time with me and talk to me about my day.
The fact is, getting the government to charge out after indecency on TV is a complete and utter waste of time. As if kids can't find stuff 100 times more indecent and profane in the SPAM in their inboxes anyway.
What we need is to start prosecuting parents for the crimes of their children so that parents will start taking responsibility for their kids again. At least that's my opinion. Parents can be much better parents than any government, if they have the incentive.
If a broadcaster doesn't record everything now. And the government decides that they have to record everything and keep it on record, they now have the added cost of maintaining the new manditory data. There are costs for people, equipment etc. Even if it only added $1 of cost per month, they shouldn't be forced to do this. How does this relate to the 5th amendment? If you ask me, the groups who offer the complaints should be providing the proof, not the broadcasters. That's like forcing me to install equipment in my fridge that detects when I'm drinking on Sunday! (Illegal in some areas).
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
This is what I really hate about the FCC and groups like the PTC. They should have no say is what I can or can't watch or listen to and what can or can't be shown/said on TV and radio.
The only duty they should have is to enforce the accurate and complete labeling of what a show contains (Adult Language, Nudity, Violence, R X, PG etc) and keep those ratings honest.
Let me decide what I want to see and hear, not some coucil with a stick up their ass who freaks everytime they hear the work ass or bitch on TV.
Parent your children. There are two knobs: volume and power. Use them. Don't force my favorite shows to a G level because you can't parent your children or use a remote control.
A prime example. After the Janet Jackson thing, the Bob and Tom radio show simply sucks. They can't play or say nearly any of the things they used to, so now I don't listen to them any more.
All because someone couldn't handle the site of a nipple on TV.
In the UK, television stations can show whatever they like after 21.00; I don't know when in the morning they are obliged to start being "family-friendly". In Mainland Europe, I believe the system is even simpler: everyone understands that television broadcasts are {primarily} for adults, and parents are entirely responsible for deciding what their kids should or should not watch.
If you don't like what you see, nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to watch it. And if you can't stop your kids watching TV when they shouldn't be, then you are an unfit parent.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Ma Bell is now several corporations, which, if combined, would be much larger than their predecessor. What do you call that, parthenogenesis? No, corporations are virtual, totally unlike the very real human.
Enron is in the midst of restructuring various businesses for distribution as ongoing companies to its creditors and liquidating its remaining operations. Ken Lay, after years BBQ'ing and praying in Texas, was just indicted, so he's going to have to work again for awhile. Probably to avoid jail in exchange for not talking too much about that Afghan gas pipeline his buddy Dubya tried, too late, to get from the Taliban. Meanwhile, they continue to operate, though without the market confidence required to make new contracts. But their existing contracts continue to squeeze California, Oregon and Washington dry. That's not much like a person, either. By now, a consumer from the Pacific coast, a pensioner from the Gulf coast, or an investor from the Atlantic coast would have strung up Mr. Enron, or splattered his brains across a boardroom table. Mr. "Brains" Lay will instead be treated with much more luxurious respect and autonomy than would any disembodied organ.
Corporate fines are financed by credit and revenue. Limited liability and "restructuring" are synthetic corporate operations impossible for humans. Corporations can be "put on hold", be in many places (or nowhere) at once, deliberate without cross-examination - all impossible for humans. Otherwise, we never would have invented these monsters to do our bidding - we'd just stick to real people, who don't cost an extra thousand bucks to incorporate.
--
make install -not war