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."
Shit
piss
fuck
cunt
cocksucker
motherfucker
What do you call the person who graduated last from medical school?
Doctor!
They compared the two because they're both government organizations, and as a demonstration of how simply stupid the bill is.
from the punishment-fits-the-crime dept.
You mean the punishment-fits-the-bra dept.? I think this says a lot, though, about the hypocrisy of our country--we bomb others who have nukes, we punish nuclear gaffes for a lot, but we allow violence over sex and must punish boob-revelations and the like for 4* as much? *sigh*...I apologize, I just still don't get it.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
The entertainment industry brings in far more capital than a powerstation does.
This is just an example of proportionate fines. Like charging a person for speeding based on their income. Why should someone not fear the penalty if they can easily afford the fine? I see no problem with this practice.
0110100100100000011000010110110100100000011000100
Playboy magazine had an article some years back during the war on drugs (boy, I'm glad we killed all those drugs and only have partially nude pop stars and terrorists to deal with) comparing typical prison sentences for murder and rape vs. selling LSD to an undercover cop. Guess who the government thinks is more dangerous --- as measured by length of time served?
The best thing WE can do is to contact the FCC and let them know that we disagree (yes, use the American Family Association's website against them). The bulk of the feedback they get tells them that showing a naked breast on TV or speaking a certain word is the most horrific thing that could happen to the populus.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Nope. There are many ways to wrongfully cause someone's death that don't involve premeditation.
g e=1&word=murder
http://www.cogsci.princeton.edu/cgi-bin/webwn?sta
Wrongful death is what one is charged with in a civil case, murder is a criminal charge. As an example, OJ Simpson was found not guilty of murder but was found responsible of wrongful death.
...this is an indication that those responsible for nuclear reactors have their act together to a greater extent than the media.
$500,000 is a lot to you and me. But it's not a HUGE sum of money to a broadcast corporation.
It's like, if the only punishment for speeding was a $50 fine... It would probably still keep me from doing it, because I'm a poor bastard, but Bill Gates in his V12 armchair wouldn't care, because to him, $50 is well worth the enjoyment derived from driving fast.
And the nuclear thing... So what if that was the biggest fine issued last year... Maybe there weren't any violation deserving of their bigger fines.
Showing a breast on national TV... $500,000
Killing an elderly person...$100,000
Screwing up at a nuclear power plant...$60,000
Running a red light...$250.00
Getting your story posted to Slashdot...Priceless
If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
There's a nice unbiased source of information if I've ever seen one . If we're going to start using sources like this, shouldn't these topics be on politics./.org?
In Soviet Russia, Chuck Norris will still kick your ass.
... they'd be fucking loaded, a single 30 minute show would net them about $20m, the fines would soon equate to the combined GDP of all the third-world nations combined. US guests are sometimes amazed with what's being said, Jonathan Ross seems to faze them most... imagine Stern doing the Letterman at 8pm primetime on the biggest network... saying whatever he fucking likes and without no bloody adverts!
I thought it odd that Radio 1 now says during certain shows "this show contains strong language, if you easily offended please turn off your radio, if NOT please turn it up!"... now that's unreasonable, they just to do all that without warning or apology before, it's a bloody outrage... cunts.
Much as I loathe some of the stupid things the FCC does, and makes broadcasters do, they're not the ones to blame here.
Congress is pushing the stepped-up enforcement.
Congress is responsible for the raise in fines.
If you've got a problem with this, write your two senators, and representative.
Furthermore, there is one group who are responsible for 99.9% of the FCC indecency complaints. Perhaps there's a problem not with the government, but with some ninnies who have nothing better to do than worry about what people are watching on TV, or listening to on the radio.
(Yes, I am a broadcaster, no I'm not speaking on behalf of my employer, yadda, yadda, yadda).
One of the people on the FCC who keeps pushing for these fines is a Democrat. Not that the facts matter in your little rant as you forget all the laws that Liberman has supported. It is much easier to just blame one side, when both are guilty I mean we can't hold OUR SIDE to the same rules as the BAD GUYS, now can we?
Perhaps more like the tyranny of the conservative-supported Parent's Television Council, which makes between 21-99% of complaints against TV indecency.
I do agree with their unsuccessful "'a la carte' programming option" plan though; hopefully soon I won't have to pay for a bunch of channels I don't need.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
Fines are a deterrent to bad behaviour. Sure, the "average" nuclear accident might be small and non-lethal, but if the fines aren't large, there's no incentive to keep standards high to prevent a huge accident. If a bad nuclear accident was to happen, the total cost on the environment and human lives would be far greater than what one TV or Radio show was worth or could affect.
Same sort of story there.. You get less time if you actually commit a crime and steal a cd then if you commit a copyright violation and copy the same thing.
Its all about who has more money..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Michael Powell (son of Colin Powell) was appointed as chairman by GW Bush in his first term, though he was made a commisioner of the FCC (but not chariman) by Clinton.
Michael K. Powell is Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Chairman Powell was nominated by President William J. Clinton to a Republican seat on the Commission, and was sworn in on November 3, 1997. He was designated chairman by President George W. Bush on January 22, 2001.
a phy.html
http://www.fcc.gov/commissioners/powell/mkp_biogr
Don't be so quick to blame things on those who oppose your views.
I wonder how much it would cost to broadcast Eric Idle's FCC Song after this...
Yes, Hollywood violence and shows that further the belief that only cops and bad guys have guns do SO much for the NRA.
I have never seen a movie involving firearms that didn't have me cringing because of how it depicted gun owners or some particular class of firearm.
I'm not sure where glorifying violence fits into my agenda... Actually... It doesn't.
Hell, gun boards went crazy after Tom Cruise's "Collateral" because it was the first time in a long time that someone took some training and performed something realistically... because of ONE SCENE in the movie (The alley scene, where he's getting his briefcase back.) Does this help the NRA though? No. Cruise was a bad guy with a gun. It's only ever the bad guys with the guns. So outlawing guns will make the bad guys give them up, and it won't effect anyone else.
Glorifying violence does NOTHING for the NRA. It is not an organization about violence. It is an organization that believes in the second ammendment: the right to self-preservation and the right to defend the country from an oppressive government in times of need. Amazingly, "hunting" is just a more publicly accepted use of firearms, so that works into the agenda too, even though that's not what the good old 2ndA is about.
Make sure the FCC knows you want them to keep their grubby paws of satellite radio. The religious right are coming after satellite radio as well.
And it gets worse. The terresterial broadcasters are now saying that they won't be able to compete against satellite unless the FCC levies the same restrictions against satellite that they do on regular radio.
I'm a very happy XM subscriber and I'd hate to think that they might get sucked into this rediculous quagmire as well.
-S
--- What parts of "shall make no law", "shall not be infringed", and "shall not be violated" don't you understand?
Ofcourse pot is much more damgerous than assaulting someone? Are you some kind of left wing radical or something?
Both of the "sides" you mention are "the BAD GUYS". Not everyone in America buys the myth that Democrats and Republicans are our only choices. Some of us are Greens. Others are Libertarians.
We vote with our conscience because we cannot stomach the neo-fascist posturing and legislating done by Bush, Ashcroft, Cheny, Kerry, Liberman, Clinton, etc.
"Your admirers in the street
Got to hoot and stamp their feet
in the heat from your physique" -King Crimson
The use of curses has always been a freedom taken for granted by most geeks on Unix systems. Next thing you know they'll be going after CUPS as well.
:-)
Oh! You mean those #*&@%ing curses. Well, I better look out when the feds start spying on my WiFi network
I think for me, it's about risk. The risk of my heart going into defib due to looking at Janet Jackson's nipples is pretty small. The risk of a nuclear accident causing death, cancer, and birth defects is somewhere above that.
I also tend to feel that just because something didn't happen yet doesn't mean it's not going to happen in the future.
Finally, I'm not anti-nuclear power by any means. France has done a great job keeping it clean and safe over the years. I also feel that the cost of coal and oil powerplants don't reflect their true cost in pollution, deaths from respiratory disease, and contribution to global climate change.
Because it, by and large, is.
Yay.
Boo.
You may be suffering from the "'Mrrica are teh great" syndrome.
Since the first guy who couldn't explain a lightning bolt decided it had to be some m4d 1337 invisible guy tossing those around as punishment for getting into other people's preserved mammoth.
That being said, would you like to buy a flower to benefit our temple?
Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
The fine is intended to hurt just enough to keep them from doing it again. If Wal-Mart can soak up a $1000 fine, but still save more by not changing their policies and procedure then the fine did nothing at all. Mom and pop will probably be hurting after the fine and try their best to make sure it doesn't happen again.
This is just part of the general corruption of the U.S. government.
From the article: Free expression and First Amendment rights are the real target of this legislation," declared Rep. Bernie Sanders (Ind-Vt.) during the debate over the bill. "This is not what America is about."
A better description is that the real target is anyone who might say things that are not accepted by those who control the government.
Also, large fines for using negative words gets votes from those who think they are superior because of their religion. Such people and their anger are easily manipulated.
The government is being sold to anyone who has the money. Huge amounts of money are being borrowed and transferred to the pockets of those in power. The U.S. government is now far more in debt than ever before: Debt Clock. If you are a U.S. citizen, you are expected to pay. Those who want corruption in the U.S. government want the government to borrow. The corrupters find ways to transfer the money to their pockets.
The origin of the present problems was in the 40s and 50s, when U.S. government leaders made two decisions. It is likely that those in power then did not understand that their decisions would eventually corrupt the entire government. At the time, the decisions seemed logical.
First, the government decided that it could act in other countries in secret. Second, the U.S. government decided it could act in secret to protect U.S. businesses in other countries.
What probably no one realized then was how much that would come to be a corrupting influence on the government. Probably no one realized then how much additional profit big multinational businesses could make by arranging, in secret, for U.S. taxpayers to pay for the security arrangements needed by U.S. multinational businesses.
Soon huge businesses were arguing that the U.S. government should subvert democratically elected leaders, as the government did in Iran in the 70s. Soon U.S. businesses would arrange unfair contracts with corrupt leaders, and when there was a protest, call for U.S. government intervention in the name of patriotism.
That's partly how we got to the present situation, where two men, whose family and business associates and friends have extensive investments in global oil businesses, are president and vice-president of the entire U.S. government, even though there is conflict of interest in such an arrangement.
"On top of that, since when is being religious a bad thing?"
.... I could go on and on.
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?
Since the Salem Witch trials?
Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people?
Since the Crusades?
Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children?
Since the Inquisition?
Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals?
Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)?
Since mostly looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?
Since
When does following a worldview or belief system which is responsible for such acts become ethically and moraly indefensible? Those are some pretty bad things if you ask me. It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
Ah, now you're just blaming what some religious people did on religion itself. I tend to blame the people. Not the religion. The church out here (Which I used to attend) isn't full of people who burn old women, hijack airplanes, or mutilate children.
People can use anything as their cause and taint that cause, but it doesn't necessarily make that cause a bad thing.
They're seperate of any nuclear commission. Why compare the two?
Perhaps you missed the "wronful death" comment...
The FP author compared the two because they both exist as government regulatory agencies, and, in a more abstract sense, they both act to protect the public from what they oversee.
Now, if you consider what they actually protect us from, you'll understand why the fines levied appear vastly disproportionate to the public risk of the violation....
Janet's breast, no public risk ("But think of the kids!" Yeah, the same kids that started life sucking on a pair of the same things) - $550,000 fine.
Three mile island, by comparison, did release quite a bit of radiation into the nearboy Middletown area, and came within half an hour of rendering half of Pennsylvania uninhabitable for the next 20,000 years - $155,000 fine.
Howard stern discusses topics with the maturity of a group of 3rd-grade boys. Fined $495,000 and, on the bigger issue of immature radio hosts, Clear Channel gets whacked for 1.75 MILLION dollars.
The Hanford site in Washington, which had a rather lengthy history of very serious "accidents", releases 25,000 gallons of water contaminated with plutonium in 1997. Fined? $140,625.
Things like THAT leads us to wonder just how far the FCC has its head stuck up its netherregion. "Turn the earth to sand, and still commit no crime", but don't you dare use any colorful four-letter words, or show any perfectly natural humal parts not shared by both genders...
Strictly speaking, methadone and methamphetamines aren't usually related. Methadone is used in the treatment of heroin addiction. If you're looking for a (at least tenuous) link between big pharma and crystal meth, methamphetamines are tradiationally made from over-the-counter cold medications containing (pseudo)ephedrine hydrochloride.
~Idarubicin
True, but the FCC is actually a part of the Executive Branch and is therefore ultimately responsible to Bush and his staff. I'm sure Powell knows which way the wind blows.
The problem isn't soley Bush nor is soley Powell. They're just lightning rods because they're easily identifiable. The problem is the whole puritanical attitude of the entire administration. While Bush has real power, in many cases he's also a figure head because one doesn't get elected President of the United States by himself; it's a massive team effort. The Prez is only one person out of many that is guiding this administration and setting priorities. It's reasonable to assume that if Gore had been elected, the FCC's marching orders might have been a bit different.
Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
I've always found it hilarious what they actually *beep* out of a British TV show... They can curse all they want, but they can't say: "Oh my G*beep*"
What's in the 'G' word that's so offensive?
Violating decency rules is intentional. Accidents at nuclear plants are accidents. Accidental deaths at nursing homes are also accidents.
You can affect the frequency of accidents with safety and preventive measures. We want that frequency to be low enough so that they basically don't occur, and we want companies to make the necessary investments to achieve such a low frequency.
Why shouldn't the punishment for a deliberate action be higher than for an accidental one?
They are both deliberate actions, and the nuclear and medical ones have far more severe consequences. Therefore, the fines for the nuclear and medical violations should be higher.
So, if an accident does occur at a nuclear power plant or in a nursing home, that is clear evidence that the operator intentionally chose to skimp on investing in safety and supervision in order to save money.
They're seperate of any nuclear commission. Why compare the two?
Because the relative severity of the punishments meted out gives us a good idea of how seriously those crimes are perceived by the government.
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
Violating decency rules can occur accidentally. For example, a bystander yelling "Holy shit!" when watching a crash take place on live TV.
Such occurred on CNN when they broadcast the video footage of the planes hitting the WTC. The newscaster shrugged "I apologise for the language, but think it's appropriate nonetheless".
Said footage was aired HUNDREDS of times around the country, unbleeped, and the FCC turned a blind eye to it.
The major problem isn't the language, the psychotic religious right being in charge, who are trying to legislate morality.
Just because you can mod me down, doesn't mean you're right. Shoes for industry!
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. "
'nuff said...
At the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun.
Alan Greenspan
What's amusing about all this is that ClearChannel has been seen as heavily pro-Bush. But it seems that Bush's "activist FCC" may not be good for business, as they reported a huge one-time loss. That same article reports that their radio business is stagnating. Frank Rich said it best: Basically, FCC regulation is on the upswing, but you get between the people and their "Desperate Housewives" at the risk of your business model.
But religion gives those who would do those things a hotline to people's hearts.
What do you think would fly better:
"I want to ban gay marriage because I don't like them"
"I want to ban gay marriage because it says so in the bible"
There's nothing wrong with religion, but the world would be a much better place if it were not organized.
Do a google search on Davis Besse. Its the nuclear power plant that nearly let their containment vessel rust through.
As for the profitability of power companies versus media companies, First Energy, the owners of Davis Besse and some coal fired power plants cleared $878 million in profits just in the first quarter of 2004, and that was while they were stuggling to repair Davis Besse. Energy companies, thanks to deregulation, a blind eye from the FERC and the Bush administration, and a carefully managed shortage of power can charge as much as they want for electricty.
First Energy's name may sound familiar because they are also suspected to have been responsible for the blackout on the east coast.
Also reference Enron's scam to nearly bankrupt California by artificially inflating the price of electricity. California pled for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to step in since it was obvious Enron was colluding with several other energy traders to extort billions of dollars from Californians for electricty. Their illegal activity, since proven by tapes of their energy traders planning the scam, bankrupted PG&E, hammered California's economy and is still hammering it due to the still high cost of electricity, and of course helped put the Republican's in to the governorship. Now there was a situation where some regulation, fines and criminal charges were called for and to date the Bush administration has done nothing about it, and many suspect were in fact colluding with Enron to commit this gigantic fraud, both to help Enron's profitibility and to force a Democrat Governor out of office.
All in all these fines are just the New Republican Party and the Religious right waging war on New York and Hollywood liberals and striving to inflict their puritanical values on everyone. Meanwhile they are letting their rich friends and big corporate backers rape, loot and pillage the public in order to make handsome profits.
@de_machina
Ah, America - Home of the puritans.
:).
In Denmark we can say anything we want on TV, and we do - i hear the word 'fuck' & 'shit' daily when i watch 'Boogie' a music show for young ppl that runs around 4-6pm. Primettime for the kids to learn new words
And travelling around europe, this is how it works most places, maybe perhaps with the exception of Germany (i wouldent have understood it if they used profanity anyways)
I thought puritans died out with the last victorians - but they just sailed to America it seems, heh.
But seriously, cant you sue the FCC for violating the freedom of speech? It would seem obvious that they are enforcing censorship.
You seem to miss the point that media giants are disproportionately wealthy and that $155,000 fine is absolutely nothing in the face of spending $2.7 million for 30 seconds of publicity. Really, a hundred and a half K is enough to tell a reactor manager, "wow, a couple of those and we won't have a reactor to run". Pepsi will spend that money at the drop of a hat. THAT is why the fines are disproportionate.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
"Chairman Powell was nominated by President William J. Clinton to a Republican seat on the Commission"
Slashdot rule #13: if the government does anything bad, make it degenerate into a republican/democrat mudslinging match.
It the same government folks, no matter which figurehead is trying to run it this year.
Really, a hundred and a half K is enough to tell a reactor manager, "wow, a couple of those and we won't have a reactor to run".
A couple of those and they won't have quite so many customers eager to soak up that energy, either.
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Well, I mean, come on. Goverment agencies. Both of them, same government.
OK, apples and oranges you may say, but since these are just words...simple words over the airwaves. Words in and of themselves are harmless. No word has ever physically harmed anyone in the history of mankind. Actions taken by people against or because of words, that's a different matter. But simply seeing a naked boob or refering to that boob as a "tit" on the airwaves means nothing.
But yet, this goverment (granted, two different offices that have nothing to do with each other, but still, under the umbrella of "the goverment") wants to put a fine up to (and when they say "up to" they really are going to use the max for the first couple of slobs that try to challenge this) 500,000 bucks. 500,000 bucks for saying words. That's all they're doing, talking and speaking certain words or certain subjects and getting whacked for half a million PER INCIDENT.
On the flip side, the fines handed out by this same government (see above about both agencies under same government blah blah) to nuclear mishaps, which CAN be deadly, which CAN harm others, is relatively low.
So in essence...you know, I'm not going to sum it up, I mean utlemming, you KNOW all this. You can't seriously not understand this. It's not a red herring (which by the way, is a term that's misused here).
It boils down to this, there shouldn't be ANY fines from the FCC. The FCC should just be there to hand out broadcast license and SHUT THE FUCK UP! If you don't like Howard Stearn or Rush Limbaugh, DON'T LISTEN TO THEM! Case closed. Go change the channel. But no, we have to fine everyone...how DARE they say tit on the radio!
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
While I agree that religion is (thankfully) going out of style, I don't think most of those are fair points. In fact, most of those have more to do with politics than with religion; religion is just used as a scapegoat to avoid the real issues. Or maybe you are just looking at the glass as half empty. Billions upon billions of people over the millenia have been devout believers in one religion or another. While the points you bring up are atrocious, they account for only a very tiny percentage of all worshippers. What you're saying is similar to calling driving stupid because a small percentage of people drive drunk and kill people. Driving in itself is not a bad thing, and neither is religion. It is only when the wrong person becomes involved does shit happen. It is a shame that your comment is modded up, although I would expect nothing less on Slantdot.
While the vast majority of human beings have differing beliefs and viewpoints on almost everything, the one thing that they all have in common is that they believe in or practice a religion. When you don't understand the real reason for something, it is easy to blame religion because it is so widespread and diverse. Maybe the death of religion would be a good thing because it would (hopefully) force us to look at the real issues of the world.
This isn't where the fine is levied...it's aimed at the guy that says the dreaded words over the airwaves. The broadcast corporation get's fined, sure, but the DJ or "on air talent" or whatever you want to call them is also hit with a $500,000 fine. These people, unless your Stern or Limbaugh, don't have that kind of dough. And the fine is per incident. AND the corporations aren't going to let the guy back on the air until he pays the fine...so he's screwed and the FCC and the religious right are all happy because they've "cleaned up the airwaves".
"Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
You seem to miss the point that media giants are disproportionately wealthy and that $155,000 fine is absolutely nothing in the face of spending $2.7 million for 30 seconds of publicity.
Disproportionately wealthy? Do you have any idea how much money the "energy" industry pulls in? From CNN, "Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, just missed $300 billion in sales for the year". By comparison, from the Motley Fool, "Few if any Wall Street watchers believe that AOL Time Warner will make its aggressive $40 billion sales goal and $11 billion EBITDA goal this year". Yeah, I'll agree that seems fairly disproportionate, but I think you have the balance off by just a tad.
Even ignoring how much they make, though, what about how much damage they can cause?. Outraged parents and Christians aside, most otherwise-sane people would agree that a 1.5 second nipple shot doesn't cause all that much "damage" to anyone, not even to uber-horny early-teens males.
On the other side of that, would you consider turning half of PA into an uninhabitable nuclear wasteland as some pretty serious damage? Would you consider Bhopal (not in the US, but the same thing COULD happen here) as something worth some pretty hefty "preventative" fines to avoid?
That's so screwed up.
Even if it was my car I'd settle for a _new_ car + damages + pay for my transport costs (till I get the car), in lieu of jail for him. If I really was pissed off - car had sentimental value etc. I'd just be happy with a max 1 year jail time (coz jail time often means a bigger mark in your record).
I don't see how it benefits anyone to send him to jail for 22 years 8 months. Even the min 7 years is rather long.
If you set fire to 3 people, to me that'll be really different. But 3 SUVs?
While random damage to property should be discouraged, I think the judge is doing a lot more damage than Jeff did to the SUVs and the owners.
If the judge can't tell the difference between the seriousness of damaging cars and directly damaging people, I think the judge should be put in prison to keep the public safe from him.
You didn't answer the question at all. The OP asked what's wrong with being religious.
Since religion was used as an excuse to fly planes into skyscrapers?
Religious fanaticism is not "being religious" any more than liking sex makes you a pedophile.
Since the Salem Witch trials? Since it was used as an excuse to enslave and convert native people? Since the Crusades? Since it is used as an excuse to mutilate body parts of children? Since the Inquisition? Since the latest rash of obviously covered up molestation scandals? Since the systematic persecution of homosexuals (and other minority groups)? Since mostly looking the other way during the worlds worst genocide?
Again, this completely avoids the question. Nobody claims that groups of people don't make mistakes. Why would religious groups be any different? Look at the horrors committed under Stalin in the name of atheism... how is that any different--or better?
When you talk about religion you're missing something very important. The word "religion" has two separate definitions: religion as a system of beliefs and religion as an institution, which consists of fallible men. Judging Christians on the basis of immoral actions of the institution of Catholicism is like you accountable for the actions of the United States under George W. Bush.
Are all religions (as systems of beliefs) are equal? No. Obviously some are better than others. And some are undeniably evil. But to group them all into a single group called "religion" and classify it as "morally indefensible" is unfair.
It seems that blind faith in all its many forms, including religion, is a very dangerous thing indeed.
And living in despair without purpose or reason isn't?
-Grym
I don't remember bring up oil companies, but since they came us, I'm pretty sure I remeber the fine for the Exxon Valdez spill being more that $155,000. Fines proportionate to wealth. It's not perfect, but that's the model.
Yeah, I guess I'm funny like that.
I suppose you're right, there. I'm in in the TV world, so I don't pay much attention to radio. I think it's pretty silly to fine Stern, though. I mean-- the argument for censorship of broadcast television and radio is that, being on our airwaves free for anyone with a reciever, people might be offended by content the FCC deems obscene. These regulations are left over from the days of NBC Red and Blue, when there was no listener choice-- currently, though, there are many coices for the consumer. When someone tunes in to Stern, they know what they're getting.
I understand the fines are meant to keep a lid on how far the shock jocks go, but i think it's time we ask ourselves whether or not the government ought to have the right to decide what too far is for us. Can't the market dictate that? If Stern had gone too far, his advertisers would have withdrawn support.
Take me with a grain of salt, though. Being in Hollywood, I'm probably fairly disconnected with the moral pulse of America.
Living in your incredible arrogance is pretty bad. I am agnostic - I do not believe that in the absense of any evidence in either direction that we can make statements about a deity or deities. Of course, many people try to spin scientific discovery (or lack thereof) to suit their own interpretation of the facts but the bottom line is that no one has ever proven or disproven the validity of any religion. To do so would really cheapen the whole thing, because it's not about fact but about faith.
Some people seem to need something to cling to, and there is always a religion around waiting to take advantage of and profit from that particular element of the human condition. In return the religion offers the sheeple a support network and a sense of well-being. Basically every organization exists to fulfill this purpose. The thing I find amusing about religion is that it asks you to accept something unprovable. In other words it operates on the irrational side of existence which makes it particularly attractive to those who are experiencing a life crisis.
However, every time someone engineers some system like this, there are people who are taken advantage of. And, of course, there is stratification. If the goal of Catholicism were as stated, to save souls and help people, then there wouldn't need to be a pope dressed up in gold and silk. You might still have a pope but he could be in an office building for all that matters. The most important realization to come to about religion is that it is not about spirituality when it is wrapped up in complex trappings. It's about control, and the people on top getting what they want. You don't need all that shit to make a statement about spirituality. I'm not sure what's so special about gold and jewels that they should adorn religious icons anyway; they're pretty but most precious metals have only specialty uses. Using them for corrosion protection seems a bit excessive and, well, arrogant.
Even religions which do not amass wealth like the Catholic church are still about controlling people and making them behave in the way the founder(s) desire(d). Do you really need someone else to tell you how to connect with your spiritual self?
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
If you look inside yourself and cannot honestly determine the basis for your prejudice against homosexuals, you may want to consider the possibility that you have been brainwashed. I've known some homosexuals, and they generally had the same types of strengths and weaknesses that anyone else has.
That is why profanity is punished--because those in control want to stay in control. Profane political speech can be very moving. By removing profanity from public politics, they make most people apathetic about politics. Which means less people vote. Which is what they want.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Excluding the people who disagree, and then saying "everyone agrees" really doesn't tell us much. Not that I don't agree with your basic point, I just think you need to work on your argument a little.
Normally, I would agree - That sentence counts as an invalid argument.
In this case, however, it forms a central theme to the argument... Namely, we CAN disagree on whether or not Janet's nipple actually hurts anyone. We can throw various developmental psych theories back and forth, each supporting our point of view more-or-less equally well.
You can measure radiation levels. You can calculate economic damages based on evacuating and totally closing an area off indefinitely. You can count the dead birds in Alaska.
It strikes me as absurd that we would punish something that some people find vaguely "offensive" at anywhere near the level we would punish an objectively damage-causing act (It actually baffles me that we would punish the former category at all, but that gets into an entirely different topic).
True, my choice of phrasing committed a fallacy. But, IMO, a very revealing fallacy, once corrected.
Playboy has articles written by some fantastic writers, and of course fantastic naked women. I have oftenthought that Playboy should market a second magazine with the same articles, but without the distracting images, that make reading it in public something of an impossibility these days.
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
Maybe the show generates that and makes it worth it, maybe it doesn't. The reason Infinity paid those fines is because the FCC was holding up paperwork for licenses when Infinity was trying to buy several radio stations back during the big radio consolidation crunch. Things were being "lost" even though the FCC isn't supposed to be able to do this, and Infinity at the time had plans to contest the fines in court. One might be able to argue that Clear Channel came into such power because the FCC effectively sidelined Infinity at this time, but that's another can of beans.
Here are some more comprehensive numbers, courtesy yahoo finance
Market Capitalization by Industry:
Broadcasting & Cable TV: $503B
Motion Pictures: $24B
Oil & Gas Integrated: $1.6T
Oil & Gas Operations: $437B
Oil Well Services & Equipment: $253B
Natural Gas Utilities: $155B
Electric Utilities: $659B
Gore Vidal was working on his surrealistic follow-up to Myra Breckinridge when the US Supreme Court ruled that 'communities could set local standards' for naughty words. Since the same book would be on sale everywhere, this presented a problem of being exposed to legal action on the whim of any local prosecutor.
He approached this problem by substituing the names of the Supreme Court judges for the naughty words. Burger, Rehnquist, Powell, Whizzer White and Blackmun became nouns and verbs for, well, you know.
Brilliant. Text came out like this:
"He Burgered her lustfully. His mighty Rehnquist thrusting deep into her forbidden, intimate Blackmum. She tried to stop him by grabbing his Powell's. She enjoyed it in the Whizzer White, but detested Burgering as against nature..."
Future versions of Myron, and foreign editions, lacked this feature. But it was wild in the original hardback.
Am I safe to assume that this only applies to English-language swearwords? After all, there are plenty of curses in plenty of languages, and the FCC would be none the wiser...or...?
People say I'm crazy, I got diamonds on the soles of my shoes...
It is much easier to just blame one side
Yes, it is. There's Liberman and the guy on the FCC. How many other Democrats can you name that are luddites? Here's some Republicans I can name off the top of my head: Powell, Santorum, Fallwell, Bennett, Hatch, Coburn. Want to take any bets on the political affiliation of groups like the Parents Television Council? Next I suppose you'll imply that Democrats are as much to blame for the gay marriage hysteria because there are a couple of Democrats who supported the bans.
Luddites are now the dominant wing in the dominant Republican party. Take away those few Democrats, and nothing would change - you'd still have Republicans in Congress trying to pass huge fines. Take away the Republicans, and this issue goes nowhere.
Does this mean I excuse Liberman for being a luddite? No, of course not. But I do have a sense of proportion and know where to put most of the blame.
The Union Carbide Bhopal Incident was #1. a PRIVATE company #2. a CHEMICAL company As opposed to GOVERNMENT-RUN NUCLEAR plants.
Yes, and this is exactly what everyone who claims religion thinks.
Yup, you do. The above senario - speaking out of your ass to explain things you don't understand - is the basis for every religion.
You want to know why people of some religions think the way they do? Research it.
And your point is...what? They're all variations on thunderbolts and mammoths.
If you do that, you're bypassing the scientific method and coming to a conclusion you cannot uphold.
What, like buying a bunch of crap that was made up by people living thousands of years ago?
My faith comes from not knowing all the answers. I hope nobody claims that position, because if you do, I can guarantee that you are dead wrong.
I don't know if you noticed, but your faith (Baptist) is all about telling people what the answers are. That's what religion does.
Censorship
By Luke Green
Our constitutional right to freedom of speech has been under fire for quite some time now, often with the support of the people. This attack is what we call censorship, and it is damaging our society. When was the last time you watched TV show with a bigot yelling profanities at another man with your children? Why? If your answer is that you want to protect them, that is definitely a good answer, but a flawed reason for censorship, as I will attempt to show.
It is hardly intelligent to attempt to mandate morality, because what one person may find immoral, another may find completely harmless, and vice versa. For example: showing a man eating a hamburger on television is relatively commonplace. PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals), however, regards this as highly immoral. Does this mean we should ban showings of such things? No, because it is not unanimously agreed that eating animals is immoral. Most people enjoy it every day.
The FCC regulates broadcasting in the U.S., often fining broadcasters for "indecent" broadcasts. Certain words are blacklisted, even though not everyone agrees that these words are immoral, and many people use them in everyday conversation. What if suddenly you were disallowed to use words that you feel are completely benign, would you be okay with that? Would you be fine with other people controlling how you communicate?
There are many reasons we should have absolute freedom of speech, the clearest of all being that we don't want government controlling what we can and cannot say, hear, or read. There is another, less obvious reason we should have this great freedom: so that we may be able to view, and understand the fallacies of the ignorant. I contend that if we do not expose our children to the ignorant, they may become unable to identify ignorance. The common counter-argument to this is that people want to preserve their child's innocence. Innocence is when a person is free from guilt, not when a person is free from understanding guilt.
Would you say that a person who does not understand that theft is wrong is more or less likely to steal? Clearly they are more likely to steal, because a person who doesn't realize the damage it may cause is more carefree when it comes to theft. This has a perfect analogue with censoring "bad" material. If you do not show them what is bad, they will be left to figure it out completely on their own, which may result in the exact opposite of what you intend.
Censorship is interfering with your right to decide what your child can and cannot view. I know that it seems like the censors are on your side, but in reality you are a tool that helps them keep their jobs, and impose their moral beliefs on future generations.
In conclusion, a person of character will stand up for what they believe in, but a truly great person will stand up for everyone's individual right to believe whatever they want to believe. So please feel free to preserve your child's innocence, but please do not damage their moral acuity by supporting censorship.
My organization is mobilizing people to speak up and fight back. We have two current actions -- those of you who are pissed off, well, do something about it.
First, you can write your Senator and ask them to vote against the Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Act. (http://speakspeak.org/senators/)
Then, you can help put a stop to the Parents Television Council's hijacking of the complaint process. (Remember the PTC? They're responsible for 99.9% of FCC complaints? Ring a bell?)
Anyway, they're currently pushing for the maximum fine against CBS and all of its affiliates as punishment for the CSI episode that ran on 2/17. We're fighting back with a letter explaining why the episode was not indecent. http://speakspeak.org/letter/
The FCC is required to evaluate indecency complaints using "contemporary community standards." If the only community they hear from is the PTC, we're all screwed.
So, fight back. Please.
Sure, when compared on the basis of public harm, the FCC's fines look silly next to the the NRC's finger waggling efforts that were hard coded into what, 1950's dollars? Why all the focus on FCC anyway? Does anyone really enjoy most of the garbage offered as entertainment?
Fines for "indecency," raise 'em! Provide incentive to develop meangingful programming... Socially valuable content renders expletives useless, and if you like p(.)rn there's no shortage. Educational content and thoughtful social commentary doesn't usually appeal to stupid consumers? Good.
Focus on governmental agency tactics for a minute. Fines are the poor man's control "schtick." Seems like it should work, but it's past facto and even the death penalty doesn't serve as a deterrent for those who can't see past their hormones or the next 5 minutes.
That having been said, negative incentives work best when they are levied upon the correct individuals and proportionate to the wealth of the violator. See that happening anywhere? In the U.S., we don't fine the shareholders. Without that ability NRC's fines would be little more than token bones to public perception because they would be passed through to consumers as a price increase.
(Witness the multiplier effect of an increase in the cost of energy. Cost of consumption is going up people! Of course if you are heavily diversifled enough you don't take the hit.)
The only reasonable way to get at the problems of nuclear power, without a revolution, is to make clean alternatives financially viable while requiring enforcement of health, safety and environmental law.
IN the mean time focusing on such trivial conversation, just like network programming does, you serve only to deflect focus from more important issues.
Grow Up Slashdot
In some circles you cant even make a very bleak curse while in some you are completely ignored even if you are expressing yourself that may cause most people to turn their heads.
From my point of view I find the censoring that occurs in some TV shows more indecent than it they had been showing the real thing or broadcasting the real expression instead of a -beep-...
Some examples: The OCC(Orange County Choppers) has a poster on their wall, which is blurred by somebody because it is indecent or something. Same goes with some blurring of soda cans in the Mythbusters series. So what if they are using Pepsi or Coke... I wouldn't care less. The Janet Jackson incident isn't worth more than a yawn from me... So if some kids were watching, well they can probably see more in some magazines. It seems to me that some naked bodyparts are more annoying to some people than cutting someones throat during dinner.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
A lot of this ironically, has to do with one organization with an exaggerated membership, that peddles smut on their own web site that systemmatically harasses the FCC over these issues. The goofy, right wing, Parents Television Council, whose leadership seem to primarily sit around all day and watch/document every sleazy media moment they can get their sweaty eyeballs on.
If you are trying to prevent violence, then limit the exposure of violence.
It's a pity it's breasts and swear words, not violence, which is being regulated then. I would rather see a nipple for a couple seconds than be exposed to the violence that is allowed on TV everyday. That said, I'm not about to complain about it, because changing the channel, choosing not to watch TV is, in fact, quite easy. Want to know how my parents prevented me from watching unwholesome television as a child? They encouraged me to be more amused by things other than television. They encouraged me to read, play outside, play games with my friends.
----- "Type theory is like pretzels on crack." -- random friend
As opposed to the classic "Let's attack a highly-rated post on a controversial topic and hope the few mods who strongly disagree with it will toss me a few points"?
Difference here, I gave accurate information as corroborated in multiple locations. As far as I can tell, you completely made yours up.
A quick google * yielded fines of $1.5 million, and $80 million in medical settlements. A tad bit more than $150,000, don't you think?
If you could support it, yes. Instead, you posted a registration-required link and mentioned Google.
But, lest I commit the same erro myself, here you go:
Or how about a choice line from the PA governor's address on the problem? And what did they end up paying in fines?
and $80 million in medical settlements.
"Liability" for damages does not equal "fines". I can find no source for that $80M claim, but even if I could, it wouldn't much matter, since it doesn't fall into the category of "punitive" actions. The same holds true for...
And of course, lets not take into account any new laws or regulations in the past 20 years.
Just because it might end up bothering those it directly affects, new laws do not directly punish someone, they merely (attempt to) improve the overall situation, for all players.
Being politically conservative, I support ironclad enforcement of a few, reasonable laws. Once we decide that something "shouldn't be done," the penalty for doing so should not be so light as to be considered a "cost of doing business." This threshold might well be different for the entertainment industry than for other industries. On the other hand, I think that the FCC's obscenity standards are unreasonable. Stern's shows make money, because people seem to enjoy his antics. (I'm not a fan, but I'm not anti-Stern, either)
Being an economic conservative, I tend to view the Bush administration as favoring a few select businesses (his campaign contributors), as opposed to supporting an economic environment conducive to business in general. The FCC seems to be strongly favoring Cable television and Satellite radio over traditional broadcast media. The majority of the public seems to prefer a boob or a cuss word here and there, and are willing to pay for a subscription, rather than get "boring" content for free. The economically conservative view would be to relax the broadcast standards, and let radio and television stations provide content to meet market demand, as they see fit.
After all, if you owned a cable or satellite business, wouldn't you want (free) radio and TV to be as boring as possible? Wouldn't you contribute to a candidate who promised to do so?