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."
Pay a premium to have a medium that is slightly freer, yet the medium itself is just as controlled and subvertible.
I don't see how they COULD apply. It's not public.
This makes me wonder why the FCC has such power over TV. Not that I liked seeing Janet Jackson's breast or anything...
That's the gist of the argument. Any service which you have to invite into your home (in other words subscribe to) does not have to meet the same standards as any service which can be picked up accidently by a supposedly innocent bystander.
He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
The FCC rules that FCC rules do not apply to things outside of the FCC's domain.
Again.
I can't decide whether I find it comforting these kinds of rulings keep showing up so often or worrisome these kinds of rulings are even being CONSIDERED.
Kind of funny (and rather sad) how instead of fighting the censorship they would rather just have everybody under the same censorship...yey everybody loses.
In a letter to the FCC, Levine complained that the commission needed to create a "level playing field" in protecting the public interest.
Yes! Once the playing field is leveled, to the ground, charred, smoking, apocalyptic, barren of expression... the public interest will have been protected.
The coolest voice ever.
It's like Cable TV. They don't have to adhere to the same standards as traditional broadcast stations. On comedy central they use language like "Pussy" and "Dick" sometimes, you're not likely to hear that on CBS any time soon.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
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.
The basic summary of the decision is that because you pay for the service you are inviting the information in (ahhh, reminds me of "Lost Boys" :) and therefore anything "indecent" is your fault.
... and by going to a library can do so for free. I can turn on the radio or TV today and still see stuff that is considered indecent by many yet not by me. By equating subscriptions with privacy, we are forced into a culture where to get information we want we have to pay for it. It is the "new" thing today but it will likely be standard tomorrow.
... we shouldn't have to pay to get freedom of expression and we shouldn't have to be subject to what someone -else- considers decent/indecent.
I think the whole state of affairs is flawed.
1) If I am a well-off under-18 I likely have access to some form of credit account (even if it is just my debit card attached to my allowance). I can subscribe to one of these services much easier than I can to a satellite TV service because I don't need to deal with an installer.
Is it likely? No, and even then most parents aren't going to care as much. Doesn't change the lack of validity in the presumption.
Plus it doesn't stop me from listening to the music / talk / whatever being played by my friends and simply put satellite radio is a lot more portable than the Playboy channel.
2) I can get access to whatever content I want on the Internet
3) It should be up to the adult or a parent and no one else what is indecent. I personally would MUCH rather have a teenage boy listening to Howard Stern enact boyish fantasies than to have that same teenage boy listening to a radical fundamentalist preacher telling him his thoughts are evil (and I know that the reverse is true for many). I may not consider the preacher indecent (though it gets close sometimes), but that just highlights the point AFAIK.
Point is
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
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?
That guy that complained needs to be taken out an beaten. Rental cars? Please... if the customers of rental cars don't like the service so much, and find it so obscene, then they don't rent from that rental company any more.
/sigh
Listening to Satellite radio is a CHOICE. You can't "accidentally" listen to it. You have to actively and willfully make an attempt to listen to it, and thus the FCC has absolutely NO grounds to censor it.
That guy is just a chump and can't compete in the market place, so he wants big brother to step in and fight his battles for him. People like that need to be removed from the gene pool.
I'm so SICK AND TIRED of being told what I can and can't watch/hear by other people. I wish there was someplace left on this earth I could go start my own nation.
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.
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.
They have this already. Perhaps you've heard of cable and satellite services?
On occasion, Comedy Central plays the South Park movie, uncut, including the Saddam/Satan bedroom scene and all of the swear words. The run this after 10pm just in case, but it's still there.
Of course, you can still occasionally see some nudity on PBS stations, though they get away with it because it's artful and tastefully done, and some of the darker TV shows on the main three after 10pm would push the lines a bit before the whole Super Bowl incident.
You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
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.
But you're forgetting the "Won't somebody think of the children" rule. If I buy a TV just so I can watch Pat Robertson warn me about the evil that gays and *shudder* liberals pose to my existence, what's to prevent my theoretical 5-year old child from turning on the tube and being assaulted by some tripe-spewing volcano of depravity (or an NBA game) coming over the "free" airwaves.
And v-chips? Pshaw I say. I can barely be counted on to form my own opinion when it comes to presidential elections. How am I supposed to regulate what my children watch?
He took a duck to the face at 250 knots.
In the same way, HBO is currently broadcast to millions of hotel guests who aren't directly subscribing to HBO, but who have access to that service due to arrangements that the hotel has made for them.
I guess that when you're getting desperate, every crackpot theory seems pretty reasonable.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
...how about laying off cable TV? I've never understood why the Comedy Channel has to edit their damn movies. They're not broadcast transmissions. You have to pay to get them, you can't stick a coathanger antenna out your window and receive them - so what's the problem?
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
No, MTV/NFL pissed off about three people, the rest were whipped up into a frenzy by the press. No-one really cared until the media told them they should.
Over here in the UK, more overt nudity is used to advertise kitchen appliances and motor oil.
There are two major types of satellite in the US. One is TVRO, or "BUD" which uses a large dish and receives mostly on the C band (although I believe it can do ku band) - it uses fairly open standards. The other is DBS (Direct Broadcast System) which uses a mini-dish and receives I believe exclusively on the Ku band - it uses very closed standards. Originally TVRO was more popular, but DBS has become more popular over the years. DirecTV, Echostar's DISH network and a new service called Voom are three American DBS companies.
Looking at broadcast maps, it occurred to me that signals seem to be confined to a continent. European porn channels are mostly confined to Europe, American porn channels are mostly confined to North America. I didn't see any satellite that spanned the Atlantic with its signal. Mississippi, Alabama, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah or Tennessee and the City of Cincinatti, Ohio have laws against the content of American porn satellite channels, so satellite companies won't sell to subscribers there (or will limit what they can get). Southern states legislatures probably have an effect on the rest of the country, European satellite TV can show a lot of content that American TV can not. But the adult content Americans can get from Europe is limited, if any, at least from what I could see - correct me if I'm wrong.
Anyhow, I'll look up some specifics about the various channels (like TEN, Playboy etc.) and post it as a reply to this message a little later.
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
Yeah, I know. Having travelled to Norway, the UK and Ireland I am familiar with how weird U.S. television policies have become.
Interestingly to me, while there was more sexuality on overseas there were less crime dramas and less violence overall in those areas. I know which of the two I would rather a developing mind see.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
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.
Comedy central does not get all of its money from cable subscribers (like HBO does), so it must get sponsorship. That means it must have shows that sponsors are willing to pay for. Since sponsors tend to get a bit gunshy around swearing and nudity, most cable stations have to avoid it.
Unfortunately, sponsor censorship is just a fact of life. If you want to pay for all of your own programming, subscribe to HBO (it's well worth it, IMHO), and get all the sex and swearing you can handle. If you want Proctor & Gamble to pay for your programming, you have to let them dictate what will not be part of it.
aQazaQA
What a load of bullshit, this reminds me of the senator who after seeing the video of a marine shooting an injured insurgent in a mosque was outraged and said that embedded news teams should be banned! This is totally ridiculous - OF COURSE the playing field should be levelled, otherwise what is the fucking point of the FCC? The field should however (and this to me is like explaining that the earth goes around the sun) be levelled on the totally opposite direction - get rid of the bloody censorship altogether! WTF are these people smoking?
Now could someone please explain why a V-Chip like system (that either blocks out the audio/video when it gets the signal OR unblocks a scrambled audio/video when it gets the signal) has not been standardised to solve this stupid problem? All the FCC needs to do is find out how many people oppose censorship vs how many are in favour and then decide which system to use and therefore who has to buy new radios/tvs or adaptors if they want to take advantage of it, it really is that simple. Or just do what the rest of the world does and not get so anal about hearing people swear.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
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).
The price of freedom is eternal vigilance and several subscriptions.
Our freedoms shouldn't be contingent on an ability to pay...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
On both sides.
On one side are those who would just make every other word in a script a four letter one. South Park did a great parody of this in their "shit" episode. It started as one network show saying the word "shit" once, to an episode of Drew Carrey where people just yammered "Shit shit shitty shitter shit shit..."
And on the other side there's the people whose heads explode if someone uses the word "hell" even in an academic context, or the letters c, o, n, d, o and m are used in close proximity to one another.
So you have to find some balance. It seemed like we had it for a long time. I'm not entirely sure what happened to make it all start resonating.
You don't don't want to censor to the point where only two year olds are served by the airwaves, and you don't want zero restraint that allows the airwaves to degrade into a river of shit. Neither state serves the public interest. Both cases are catering to a lowest common denominator, albeit different types- idiots who are idiots because they are 2 years old, or idiots who are idiots because they are dumbfuck asshats.
The solution is to kill more people.
--- Ban humanity.
A few winters ago, my local PBS station (Mountain Lake PBS), was showing a documentary on birthing. Well, they got to the point where the focused the camera on the woman's crotch (not blurred out), and the transmitter hiccupped somehow, freezing the image perfectly centered on her nether region. This wasn't a problem at the studio, it was a problem at the transmitter/antenna site.
Well, they don't call this station Mountain Lake PBS for nothing. The transmitter is in a pretty remote location and could only be reached by snowmobile at this time of year. So, the image lasted quite a long time (12 hours, IIRC) before it got fixed. As silly as it sounds, the incident made national news. Just thought I'd share.
Geek used to be a four letter word. Now it's a six-figure one.
I was unclear on what the bounds of the FCC's mandate actually are, so I did some checking. According to the FCC:
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency, directly responsible to Congress. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.
The FCC has 16 bureaus and offices, including the Enforcement Bureau, which enforces the Communications Act. The Bureau sees its mission thusly: Through firm, fast, flexible and fair enforcement of the Communications Act and the FCC's rules, promote competition, protect consumers and foster efficient use of the spectrum while furthering public safety goals.
The FCC reports directly to Congress, and it seems Congress has given the FCC the responsibility of policing the airwaves on certain matters: t is a violation of federal law to broadcast obscene, profane or indecent programming. The prohibition is set forth at Title 18 United States Code, Section 1464 (18 U.S.C. 1464). Congress has given the Federal Communications Commission the responsibility for administratively enforcing 18 U.S.C. 1464. In doing so, the Commission may issue a warning, impose a monetary forfeiture or revoke a station license for the broadcast of obscene, profane or indecent material.
I'm not sure if this fits into the original mandate of the FCC, but since it was established as an agency that reports directly to Congress, and Congress gave it the power to watch out for indecency, it seems that the FCC is about more than spectrum management.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
"If you suck on a tit the movie gets an R rating. If you hack the tit off with an axe it will be PG."
Jack Nicholson
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Exactly. If the dude wants a level playing field by applying the indecency standards, we would then have to continue making it level by requiring listeners to subscribe to his station. How many people would be willing to pay and how much revenue would he make compared to the traditional model of ad sales? Sounds like he either didn't think this one through or he was just hoping he could trick the FCC into giving broadcast radio an unfair advantage by placing unconstitutional speech restrictions on a private network.
So basically in the US you have to pay extra to get the right to free speech.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Arg. I proclaim there was no Janet Jackson debacle. There was a manufactured debacle on the sadly (now) right-wing cable news channels, right wing radio and most importantly a few "decency" (right wing churches SEE: southern, baptist, fundamentalist ) groups flooded the FCC with complaints. In 2003, 99.8 percent of the complaints come from the Parents Television Council. Here's a sample:
What Powell did not reveal--apparently because he was unaware--was the source of the complaints. According to a new FCC estimate obtained by Mediaweek, nearly all indecency complaints in 2003--99.8 percent--were filed by the Parents Television Council, an activist group.
This year, the trend has continued, and perhaps intensified.
Through early October, 99.9 percent of indecency complaints--aside from those concerning the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" during the Super Bowl halftime show broadcast on CBS-- were brought by the PTC, according to the FCC analysis dated Oct. 1. (The agency last week estimated it had received 1,068,767 complaints about broadcast indecency so far this year; the Super Bowl broadcast accounted for over 540,000, according to commissioners' statements.)
A small fundamentalist group is, with Bush and Powell's avid help, bringing down a blanket of censorship on America.
I would counter with the fact that so few people being able to cause such a stink and so much monetary and social damage is a debacle.
I don't say that it was the fault of Jackson that it happened, but it was a debacle and it was attached to her name.
It is more productive to voice thoughtful opinions (reply) than to judge (moderate) others.
The FCC says the broadcast bands are a common good owned by the public and vulgarities ought not corrupt it. The FCC says so, provided the antenna emitting those photons is located on the ground and those photons' frequency is HF or UHF.
But that's not true if the antenna is located in the heavens and the photons are in microwave bands. In such case, those considerations of a public good and civil discourse go to hell.
Sure, it all makes perfect sense.
If American culture is coarse and vulgar then broadcasts to the American public should reflect this on both terrestrial and satellite broadcasts. The FCC should be consistent, applying one standard to the AM & FM and satellite bands.
If the resultant content is coarse and vulgar, that reflects the marketplace's demand for corruption. Don't like it? Improve yourself and those around you. Not enough? It tells you you're failing at the job of being salt and light.
The FCC will leave satellite radio along until Howard Stern creates a big splash by broadcasting on Sirius. Then, we're going to see the same sort of religious-right-backsplash we've seen all along, and the FCC will respond. They seem to have it in for that dude, especially after he stopped supporting Bush. This is going to continue until the entire media is one big Sinclair/Clear Channel/Republican ghetto. I accidentally surfed the AM band recently in Chicago, and couldn't believe what I found. Three 50k watt Christian stations, FOUR totally conservative talk stations, and the one station that could be relied upon to stay sane, WCFL (Chicago Federation of Labor), broadasting ESPN! So there. Anybody who believes in freedom, it's time to kiss your ass, or your country, goodbye.
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.
She seems to have misplaced the constitution mere hours before it became relevant.
It's really not *that* hard to control a kid's access to media, it just takes a modicum of discipline on the part of the parent. (Speaking from experience as a parent with reasonably high standards about what constitutes acceptable viewing material.)
Dude, I think I can see my house from here.
I agree with the ruling, but that does not change the fact that Howard Stern is a disgusting pig.
"I am a patient boy. I wait I wait I wait. My time is water down the drain..." Fugazi
Steve: "Is Bush giving the State of the Union Address?"
John: "No, Thats some other pussy on TV right now!"
The government which is strong enough to protect you from everything is strong enough to take everything from you.
Indeed, he is a disgusting pig, that, somehow, has turned out to be on my side of upcoming Freedom Wars.
It doesn't mean that I like him. It just means that he and I both understand: he has a right to exist, and I have a right to dislike him. And both of us will defend each other's rights, because if I let the (capital R) Right take him then I know I'll be next.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
that a country with practically a full length lead over the entire modern world in gun violence cares so much about nipples.
Can we say, "Misguided?"
Mod me up, mod me down, flame me, praise me -- whatever you do, you help prove I exist...
Speaking from experience as a parent with reasonably high standards about what constitutes acceptable viewing material.
Maybe you can explain to the rest of us what's so bad about a human body that your children would be harmed by some images of Janet Jackson? They didn't nurse with a blindfold after all. Or is it just a control thing?