Slashdot Mirror
FCC Indecency Rules Don't Apply to Satellite Radio
SirTwitchALot writes "The FCC has announced that Satellite radio services
do not have to comply with the same indecency requirements as traditional broadcasters. Apparently this decision was brought forth by the complaint of a traditional radio station owner, stating that the FCC needs to "level the playing field." Chalk up a win for continued freedom on subscription services."
What's next, NBC complaining about HBO? Too bad for Saul Levine that he didn't have Clear Channel on his side. I wonder if that would have given his claim any more weight.
Isent indecency regulations unconstitutional? It sounds alot like censorship to me, something that is constitutionally banned in Denmark.
We may not censor anything for whatever reason, i though America had similar laws.
But now that i think of it, i remember all the "bleeps" in imported shows from America, i think indencency laws are oretty dumb, because who has the right to determine what is decent and what is not?
If I buy a television or radio, plug it in, turn it on and tune it in I am inviting the signal into my house.
... oh yeah ... the V-chip has) to be the acceptance of the purposefulness of my actions.
Maybe this could be settled by opening a new market for television and radios where you have to call and pay a slight fee to activate the "uncensored" channels.
Or just turn on the V-chip (and put them in radios) and allow the conscious act of turning it off (and to protect kids have a PIN system like
The whole Janet Jackson debacle should have been left to the free market. MTV/NFL pissed off a whole boatload of people and that was their fault for not understanding their market. If people had to make decisions based on the history of broadcasters instead of using the FCC as a lobby against the entertainment industry, shows would lose viewers (instead they often create "grudge viewers" who watch just to get mad) and the markets would right the boat while viewers would be more intelligent with their watching habits.
The FCC should be for regulating signals and criminal activity. Subjectively "indecent" content should not be able to be punished in a pseudo-criminal manner by an organization that is not representational of their constituency.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
That is what happens with the FCC today. It is used -by- the people who it was originally created to defend -against-.
The FCC wasn't set up to protect the interests of the media outlets. It was setup to protect everyone ELSE who might have interest in the use of broadcast spectrum.
Historically this meant being sure that no media outlet became a monopoly, and therefore smaller outlets would rail (rightly at the time) against the larger ones.
Now that the larger ones begin to feel threatened by a new technology they are converting the FCC into a protectionist organization for them at the expense of all.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
Had the FCC actually decided that satellite radio had to be `decent', then this would not only put a stop to bad language on Comedy Central, but also to PPV porn on Direct TV or Dish Network, for example. Of course, it doesn't have to be just porn -- any show with nudity would be prohibited.
(It's odd how violence is ok, but the slightest view of a nipple and people go nuts.)
In any event, it's refreshing to see the FCC make a good decision once in a while.
Cable can broadcast whatever they want. There was a Supreme Court Decision on it. From what I understand though, the reason why Cable channels don't just broadcast hardcore pornography is that they want to keep their advertisers.
This is why MTV is so tame. MTV could allow uncensored rap/nudity/etc, but the advertisers are too conservative to alow such a thing. It's just capitalism at work.
Its just like HBO on TV. You are payine for it so if you dont want "nauty content" don't buy it.
"The universe is my dwelling place and my house is my only clothes! Why are you entering into my pants?" - Liu Ling
A tasteless form of hot ceral. Also, used to refer to anything without form or substance that is foisted upon people.
Childproofing is the task of running around your house to make it "safe" for an unmonitored child so they can't start fires, can get at poisons (which they will eat) and can break things.
This is what you get when people utterly refuse to raise their children. Parents today want the schools to do it for them. And, want the government to help. And anybody else they can get - as long as they are left out of the process. So, we end up with a society that has been "childproofed". That is really what we are talking about here, isn't it?
The side effect of this is until our society is completely childproofed, we have abberations where children are incompletely raised. The result of this is rampent welfare ("The government OWES me, man!"), theft ("I want, I want NOW!") and vandalism. So, shops put in expensive theft-prevention equipment and police end up dealing with 20-year-old children that never grew up.
How many older or adult children killed their parents this year? How many killed their parents before 1960? How about adjusting this as a percentage of the population and seeing if there is any growth? This is a sure sign of parental abdication.
Is it mainly technology (satellite vs. land-based), or is it that one is pay-based, and the other is free? This is important.
If it turns out that pay-based is the criterion, then would we start to see some land-based broadcasting systems encrypting their signals and then charging a subscription fee, in order to skirt FCC rules? Or would we start to see the FCC clamp down on any free satellite-based broadcasting companies?
If it's technology-based, what's to stop the FCC (other than Congress) from saying later on, "You know what? We got the satellite stuff too. STFU Howard Stern."
They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
The big difference between terrestrial broadcasting and satellite radio is that the latter is not, in fact, "broadcasting." You have to pay to receive it. All of the arguments that have been posted have not taken this into account. Because it involves a contract, no minor can sign up for service on their own, so the whole idea of empowering parents to shield their children from naughty concepts, should they choose to, remains intact. And both services will, if you request it, block any channels you wish from your receiver.
A child can buy an AM/FM radio - there is no contract involved. That is the fundamental difference.
That is also true of TVs, but they're significantly more expensive, making it much more likely a parent would know if his child had a personal TV set.
TVs now must, because of type acceptance rules, have ratings enforcement mechanisms (the so-called "V" chip). The reason that the rules have not been loosened significantly is that those rules do not apply universally - TVs smaller than a certain size are exempt. If we *knew* that every TV had a parental control mechanism, then TV-MA programming *should* have no decency rules at all.
The first ammendment does not allow content based censorship unless it is the least intrusive means available to achieve the end of allowing parents to keep offensive programming away from their children. We are rapidly approaching the time when it won't be anymore. I'm looking forward to it.
And by the way, before anyone brings up Cable / Satellite TV channels... I believe that they actually do *not* have to abide by the same decency standards. I believe they do voluntarily (except for the premium tiers, of course, like HBO, Showtime, etc).
Our freedoms shouldn't be contingent on an ability to pay...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Not exactly. The airwaves are public property. The idea is that one should be able to purchase a radio and access these public broadcasts without having to resort to extraordinary efforts to avoid (for example) profanity. In the "olden days" there was no way to go to 97.3FM from 100.7FM without passing by 99.1FM due to the nature of the analog tuning dial (and TV was similar). This being the case, it wasn't unreasonable to prohibit indecent content "in the clear". Since encryption and coding require an additional layer of intentional processing to render the content, the "inadvertent" argument is inapplicable.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.