Slashdot Mirror
FCC to Fine Curses More Than Nuke Violations
DiZNoG writes "With Congress debating new higher fines for broadcast indecency in the wake
of last year's 'wardrobe malfunction' and Howard Stern's antics, Rolling
Stone has published
an interesting perspective on things. Rolling Stone did a review of fines
levied by other federal regulatory bodies, and has found the new indecency fines
disproportionately large compared to other fines. According to the article,
if the bill passes then 'for the price of Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction'
during the Super Bowl, you could cause the wrongful death of an elderly patient
in a nursing home and still have enough money left to create dangerous mishaps
at two nuclear reactors.' The article further states the largest fine the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission levied last year was $60,000, this new bill would
allow broadcast indecency fines up to $500,000. Glad I keep my broadcast cursing
to a minimum, now if I could only get a handle on those pesky dangerous nuclear
mishaps."
In the UK the price of a human life is about 5 years in prison, maybe let off to 3 years with good behaviour. But rob a bank (i.e. go against the state) you will be looking at a minimum of 25 years in prison.
Nope wrongful death is a term used in Tort Law. What the person glossed over is that in a wrongful death case the person could still be charged for murder if it was premeditated. Let's say a nurse in a nursing home killed a resident. The nurse would be charged for murder while the nursing home would be sued for Wrongful Death because the "should have" protected the resident better.
The reason that the FCC wants to have bigger fines is simple. If you will pay a few million for a 30 sec ad on the superbowl just how big a deterrent is a 20,000 fine?
I love how people are so worried about the FCC slapping big fines on Media companies for breaking the rules. I mean these are the same media companies behind the RIAA and MPAA.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
Isn't any legislation that tries to modify behavior (either encourage or discourage it) trying to legislate morality? When congress created our welfare system, wasn't it to be compassionate to the poor? Sounds like a morality thing to me.
Nope, you're just enganging in contortionist rationalizations for why welfare is bad. Next?
As for the "holy shit" comment on a live CNN broadcast, there is a huge difference between that and an intentional
Yes, there is a huge difference. The Superbowl incident was never rebroadcasted, and yet CBS got hefty fines. The "holy shit" was broadcast over and over and over again, and never fined once.
Shut up you fucking commie prick.
Ok Slashdottereens, lets explain why the parents comment was a troll!
Shut up was used to open the single sentence in this post. A less agressive and more helpful comment along the lines of "Be quiet" or "What you say is wrong" or even "I disagree" would have made a far more sensible opener.
commie was not the most tactful choice of words, nor was it the most accurate. The grandparent never once quoted any significant texts by Marx, nor did he declare membership of any registered communist organisations. fucking commie was hardly called for either. "You are a charletonrous communist" might have given more respectability to the post.
prick would seem out place in such a post. Not only has the parent incorrectly used the noun after the preceeding, verbalised, noun, he has also made a rather tasteless choice, when, "man", "annoying person" and/or "rouge" would easily have sufficed.
Now I understand that a great many slashdottereens may have modded the comment as funny, as the, tart and less than tasteful tone no doubt produced a few giggles, but such comments ultimately lower the quailty of the overall discussion and should be modded downm, lest the funny mod itself be called into disrepute.
May the Maths Be with you!