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?
The 'Janet Jackson Nipple Law'...
..it has a nice ring to it :-)
Working for a radio station in Austria, we have about the same rules here (90 days, real airplay), and we saw it as quite a pain originally. We kept the records on mp3s wich got deleted after the "holdtime".
One day we got sued from a company that a moderator had said "offensive things" about them and at court the mp3s were the key to show that this wasnt true. Since then we see this also as a mechanism to be able to show what really got broadcast in situations like this.
"Doesn't the government have better things to do?"
Are you suggesting that education, health, freedom and peace are more important than keeping Janet Jackson's breast out of sight? You damn liberal!---
We spoke for about a half an hour. I don't recall a thing we said. - Colorblind James Experience
I find it difficult to believ that broadcasters aren't already required to keep records permenently for historical purposes.
Just think of the millions of hours of TV that no one will be able to research. Admittedly most of it isn't of the highest quality, but still, some historian might well be interested in the future.
The cost is nowadays minimal anyway. DivX, 400GB HDDs and backup tapes have made it simple to record everything that gets broadcast. Perhaps an archive of broadcasts should be recorded from all stations. I hardly think this affects anyones rights as we could all view it anyway.
As an aside it's also very sad when brief exposures of a naked human breast are considered indecent.
May the Maths Be with you!
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.
Doesn't the government have better things to do?
Uh, no.
Actually, between large numbers parents who vote (and organize themselves into pressure groups), and the large numbers of twentysomethings who don't vote, and teenagers who *can't* vote, who do you think makes a more effective pressure group? Who do you think the guv'mint will try to pander to?
Off topic: I've been reading this and been wondering about how much of this "won't someone think of the children" crap would still exist if legal age for voting was 14 or 15.
Go somewhere random
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
how is an individual supposed to make said tape in light of current copyright laws?
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.
Evolution or ID?
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'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.