Slashdot Mirror
Attempt to Apply Decency Standards to Cable/Satellite Television
bigtallmofo writes "Reuters is reporting that Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (Senator from Alaska) is pushing for decency standards to apply to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio. You may recall Senator Stevens for voting against a measure to criticize the FCC in 2003 for loosening its broadcast ownership restrictions. Maybe he thinks profanity provides an unfair advantage to his broadcast-company constituents?" We touched on this last year, in the attempt to apply decency standards to satellite radio.
Do cable subscribers get to withhold a percentage of their monthly payments in compensation for the good bits of programs that have been cut/bleeped out? If they edit out 10% of the total months content, then it is only fair that their subscribers get a 10% discount right?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
I wish that was enough to stop them.
I was hoping we would all just move to cable and dump the government along the way.
Ask them to apply decency standards to books, movies in theatres, and finally to what you say in your own home. After all, won't somebody think of the children?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
In satellite TV, decoders had a parental-block, and would stop you if the movie was rated-R or something.
And that was 10 years ago.
Now if you mean enforcing all tv producers to say "This movie is rated R" and use some blocking, I agree.
After all, kids watch cable, too, don't they?
I wonder why some US people still say that they live in the land of the Free with all the regulation that their government is imposing on them...
Fuck this!
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Stream it over the Net...
Did he inhale?
If you find cable indecent, you don't pay for the service. Arguement can be made if you don't like what's on broadcast TV, don't watch as well, but you don't pay directly for the programming on the public airwaves.
If people don't want South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut airing in all its rated R glory at midnight on saturday's then they won't watch it.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
This is bad. If they can apply decency to media I pay to have piped into my house, they'll shoot at DVD and CD content. The only difference is the transmission media. Only adults can order cable, so you already have your "adult check" verification.
The entire concept of pat-television is that it is not available to everyone, and that people should be able to view what they wish in their own homes. If we take measures like this to the extreme, then the next argument will be to prevent people from buying porn.
"The People Vs. Larry Flint" is a great case to show that there should be firm limits to what the government can or cannot say about decency standards. Larry Flint was able to show that his product, while distasteful to many, is covered under free speech and is not subject to this type of restriction. I don't see how pay-tv services should be treated differently. There are controls in place (parents) to restrict viewing. If these controls are insufficient, the problem is not with the material that's available to be viewed, the problem is with the parent.
The whole difference between broadcast and cable is broadcast is in the public domain. Anyone with the proper equipment can receive the signal and hear/view the content. What comes over the air is regulated for "the public good". Cable and Satellite are closed non-public systems. You pay for the ability to receive and/or decode their signals. It is a private transaction, and should not be subject to regulation. This would be akin to saying p1*yb0y cannot publish material of their choice for their private subscribers. Now, I try to limit my intake of indecent material, and I certainly screen for my kids. But that is the whole point, to me. My responsibility, My rights to view what I have payed to receive in the form originally produced. I don't need the government babysitting me and my kids.
Why, oh why, didn't I take the Blue Pill?
Except that in most of Europe you can show on normal TV what you can barely get away with on X-Rated cable in the US...
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
From TFA:
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
Now let us consider the following:
1. Violator of what, exactly, if there are not laws in place regulating cable right now?
2. You THINK you have the same power to regulate cable as "over-the-air"?
It makes sense that the federal government regulates airwaves as a "channel of commerce." This is fairly straightforward since the airwaves are generally considered publicly owned "space." Cable, however, runs over private property in a physically limited location. While there may be some power to regulate it, how can this be done without interfereing with private contract and first amendment rights?
3. [begin rant] Does it bother anyone else that federal officers will attempt to pass a law just because they "feel" they have the power, and "feel" something is needed? If there must be standards, why not let the bloody states set them and stop trying to distend the limits of federal authority beyond all recognizable bounds? [end rant]
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
If cable/satellite providers would only sell channels individually, there would be no need for "decency standards". If you are not happy with the contents of this channel, simply don't buy it. Dont' want your kids looking at porn on your tv ? Simply don't buy channels that air such material.
Now lets move on to next issue.
A million monkeys and this is the best sig they could come up with...
We could avoid much hostility and conflict if we'd just agree to let each community decide for itself what is permitted.
The right tries to set standards for the whole country, while the left refuses to allow anyone to set any standards anywhere.
Folks, there are all sorts of people out there and just as many ideas about how communities ought to operate.
Some like the order and peace that comes with tough limits on behavior, and some like the thrill of anarchy.
So long as people have the right to choose the city/town/village/rural backwater compatible with their outlook I don't see what the problem is leaving each community to decide for itself what is or isn't appropriate.
If they believe in the power of the free market, then let the cable companies respond to the demand for "decent" cable TV.
Maybe after GWB drills all the oil out of it he will donate it to Canada.
Forgive me if I just don't understand what this decency stuff is supposed to be about. Do we really need the government to dictate a program's content?
I have a hard time believing that there are actually programs or movies being created that are patently offensive to a majority (or even a sizable minority) of the population. Such programs would not be watched and would thereby lose either their commerical sponsorship, or the revenue from paid subscribers.
I don't think I've ever seen anything on television, whether it be broadcast or cable, that struck me as just so henious that I needed the government to protect me from it.
The truth is that this kind of censorship is nothing more than an attempt by a small but organized minority to remove certain ideas from the public airwaves, and thus the public consciousness. Now they'll claim that its "for the children!" but this is at best a half-truth. They may actually care whether kids see the things they're up in arms against, but they're just as worried that adults will see them as well.
Here in America the concept of freedom of speech is enshrined in the document that is the foundation of our government, the US constitution. What most people don't recognize or realize is that freedom of speech itself is not meaningful without freedom of thought. Freedom of thought is dependent upon freedom of information. This is what censorship is an attempt to stifle. The things you know and the ideas and concepts you come into contact with determine the things you think about, which in turn determines what you talk about, the ideas that you express, and the conclusions you reach.
Censorship is evil regardless of who is doing it or the supposed justifcations behind it. If something is a lie, the answer is not to suppress it, but to answer it with the truth. The truth itself, needless to say, is not something that needs to be suppressed, and anyone who does so is NOT your friend. There are times when secrets are necessary, and when information needs to be kept private, but holding details in private is not the same as the active suppression of public discourse.
When Ted Stevens assumed office he took a solemn oath to uphold, protect, and defend the constitution. What he is doing is nothing less than the violation of his oath of office.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
I pay beacoup bucks to hear swearing on cable!
Child pron I can see but why edit everything for 12 year olds? Are Christians really that weak-minded to allow anything influence their behavior?
Ya know, the net is not as free as people think these days - the vast bulk of people rely on coporate ISPs and are mere end points. It is vitally important that more people start building community wireless (or even wired) WANs, preferably mesh-routed, so that when the corporations/government start dicking around with the ordinary net, we still have a real and uncontrollable net.
Well said.
What ever happened to that V-Chip that was supposed to protect the children? DirectTV had the ability to lock out content and disable channels a long time ago. I remember showing my parents how to turn it off when they screwed it up.
Technology and government are not substitutes for parenting
Im a gamer, not a grammer major. This post is full of spelling and grammer mistakes.
Ummm... they got converted to Christianity somehow... probably by reading a 2000 year old book... obviously they are pretty weak-minded when it comes to things that influence their behaviour.
Ted Stevens is the king of pork-laden bills and industry kickbacks. That guy is so corrupt he makes Marion Barry look clean.
When I here people say the US is getting "less free" I wonder what they're talking about. Was there ever a time when there weren't people who wanted to censor the media? When was the last time a book (or even a movie) was banned? Used to a happen all the time. Was there ever a time when more obscene (in the everyday sense of the term) material was more accessible?
Was America "more free" before the advent of Civil Rights Act, Title 9, American's with Disabilities Act, etc? I would say no. The problem is that its a struggle to stay free, and you're gonna win some and lose some.
What happens when they make the satellite descrambler illegal to own in the country you are recieving the signal in?
Yes, it's still easy, but now it's unlawful...
crazy dynamite monkey
Wrong. Libertarians would love to DEFEND our country, not just go and bomb the crap out of countries with whom we disagree. Defense means our borders, not screwing around with other sovereign nations for no good reason.
The rest I'll agree with, however.
I'm Peggy.
"Telephone, radio, television, etc are all going to be distributed across the net."
I sure as shit hope not! Trying to turn the net into an end all be all for every type of media puts a huge burden on the entire ball of wax. Why else do you think DDoS attacks work?
It is a lot like those OfficeJet printer/scanner/copier/fax machines. When you attempt to do many things it turns out that it often winds up that you do none of them well.
B.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
"And all their works they do for to be seen of men. For they make their phylacteries broad, and enlarge their fringes. And they love the first places at feasts, and the first chairs in the synagogues. And salutations in the market place, and to be called by men, Rabbi" (Matt., xxiii, 1-8).
Actually, The Fairness Doctrine is not censorship at all. It required broadcasters to present a multiplicity of viewpoints when dealing with controversial material. It was instituted because the electromagnetic spectrum is a public good, held in trust for all americans of all viewpoints by the US Government, and thus, there is a compelling public interest in avoiding broadcasting only wrong information. I don't think there is a legal leg to stand on to regulate cable systems as those are wholly privately owned and don't consume spectrum. Satellite, perhaps, but that's easily gotten around by broadcasters operating outside the US's jurisdiction. I agree with you in that I don't favor content regulation either, but I don't think the Fairness Doctrine counts as such since a broadcaster could say any silly non-libelous thing they want as long as they give equal time.
It is called the "off" switch.
Perhaps if people exercised some self-control and personal responsibility, instead of asking Big Bother to do it for them, we'd all be better off. There are certainly enough alternatives that people like you can safely drain their brains in front of the TeeVee without subjecting the rest of us to your morals.
If you don't like it, turn it off or change the channel. It's not that hard.
Yeah, right.
"Asterisk" repeat after me, "asterisk" not "asterick", not "astersisk" A-S-T-E-R-I-S-K
What doesn't kill you only delays the inevitable
There was one particular paragraph from the article that I found most interesting -- it's one of the few things that President Bush has said with which I agree:
Going back to your original comment about a "broadcast flag", there are a couple of potential problems I see with that system. The first is in the choice of who gets to classify programs to determine what constitutes vulgar language or inappropriate behavior. For instance, suppose that someone from Slashdot was chosen as that moderator. Any program praising Microsoft would instantly be marked as vulgar language
The second problem with the system is that of false positives. Let's say that you were watching an episode of Bill Nye, the Science Guy. Suddenly, in the middle of a segment on how vinegar affects eggshells, the sound goes dead. Why? He was talking about acid (acetic acid, to be precise.) Similarly, both 'cock' and 'ass', among other 'dirty words', have nonsexual meanings referring to various animals.
Y|
The Christians in the real world all have differing opinions. I, for one, don't mind watching movies with swear words--I very seldom swear despite hearing them both on TV and out in the real world.
As for things like nudity, I must admit that watching nekkid women turns me on, and causes me to think about things I know I shouldn't, but that's why I make it a point not to watch nekkid women.
The general consensus from Christians is "garbage in, garbage out." What's garbage for you is the same as what's garbage for me, and even if there is no perceptible change in behavior, even change in thought is undesireable. Before you peg me as being an extremist, I believe that "right thought" is part of the eight-fold path--the difference is what is deemed acceptible and what is not.
Now, I'm against this kind of censorship, because I think it's up to the parent to make sure their children are viewing appropriate material, and without such laws, I'm sure there would be a big market in this country for some kind of product that screens certain content on TV.
So, to answer your question, I'd say that Christians are no more weak-minded than you are. We have different standards that constitute what is acceptible or not, and because you have not been able to see the world through my perspective, you can only explain my value system by attacking my character.
Open-mindedness--and by that I mean the willingess to suppose any possiblility without accepting it dogmatically--is not something to be feared, friend. Try looking at the world from someone else's perspective.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
This is just one more instance of someone else trying to tell me what I can or can not watch. They use the excuse that they are protecting our children. In effect they are trying to tell me what I should and should not let my children watch. I don't need someone else making decisions for me! I personally monitor what my children watch, and I don't need someone else telling me right from wrong.
If it was up to these types of people, the only thing that would be on TV is the Christian Broadcasting Channel.
Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for the are subtle and quick to anger.
There's decency ... and there's decency. Some of the things that we see and hear in our media qualify as "indecent", or at least, unpleasant. But some might consider it indecent to try and tell other people what to do, say and think.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I don't understand why it's okay to:
Let children watch violent sporting events which idolize violence and aggression as a means of conflict-resolution and ego gratification (Pro-everything).
Encourage children to idolize rapists (Kobi Bryant), murderers (OJ Simpson), wife-beaters (Mike Tyson) drug abusers (Strawberry), gangsters (the NBA), and cheaters (Canseco, et. al).
Encourage children to become enamored of a system which transferrs public funding (for stadium construction) into private hands (team owners) on the threat of leaving for another city (extortion).
Encourage children to become involved in a government-regulated monopoly, similar to many Soviet bureaucracies.
Encourage children to watch cheerleaders shake their scantily-clad privates into the camera, promoting the objectification of women as sexual property.
Yet it's not okay for a parent to use the remote control to prevent them from seeing 5-seconds of nipple.
Unless it's not really about "protecting the children", and it's really about "controlling the lives of others".
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
That doesn't excuse what they do, nor is simply pointing out what they are doing equal to 'casting the first stone'
That verse isn't an excuse to defraud people.
The majority of US citizens is against any further censorship and new "decency standards". Why are our representatives not representing us? What is happening to our democracy and our constitution? Is our country controlled by ultra right-wing christian fundamentalists now who use the word "democracy" only when it fits their right-wing Orwellian agenda? God bless America...!
I got as far as I believe that "right thought" before I burst out laughing from thinking "Right Thinking is doubleplus good for everyone"
I hate to spoil your fun, but I was referring to a Buddhist tennant of purging the mind of undesireable thought. I did so to demonstrate that a) censoring undesireable material out of television is not for "behavior" as the original grand-parent said, and b) Christians are not the only ones interested in this. Why does this idea make you laugh?
The only problem is that this requires mommy and daddy to come home for an hour to read the instruction book and learn how to set up the TV and decide just what they want little timmy to see. And these days, thats just too hard for too many parents.
I agree--I have a real problem with parents that want to go along with censorship and all the first amendment problems it entails just because they're letting the TV raise their children and they don't want to do anything about it.
This is, incidentally, the core of the problem, so I'm glad we agree.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
Sure we can change the channel but the media producers need to show some responsiblity just as parents do.
The discussion at hand is about cable/satellite television, for which you have to subscribe. In other words, you need to go out of your way to get it. I don't get cable because I think the vast majority of it is crap and a waste of time. Heck, how many reality TV shows do people really need anyway?
Why do you feel that media companies should treat you like a child and show some parental responsibility? If you're not an adult, then you can't subscribe to the material anyways and your parents should be the ones to regulate what you watch. If you are an adult, then you can choose not to subscribe and police yourself accordingly.
The producers think they are all high and mighty and don't need to show any responsibility and most people disagree.
How do you conclude that most disagree? Is that just a wild guess or can you back it up?
As one person said here a few months ago, just because you change the channel doesn't mean it goes away...
You're right. It doesn't go away. And just because you don't read that particular book in the library doesn't mean it goes away either. How about we rein in the authors while we're at it?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Also, I have several Christian friends. I do not go out of my way to offend them, but I do consider them to be, for the most part, weak-minded, or, at the very least, programmed since birth. The funny thing is, if it's a cult (unpopular, small religion) it's brainwashing, but if it's religion, then we're teaching our children morals and values.
Also, note that I am not against spiritualism or belief. I am merely against the blind following of any book or creed, specifically one that was made such a long time ago. If you come to these conclusions on your own, I see no problem with them. If you do these things because it says so in an ancient book, I consider you weak-minded. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree.
Ok, people, it looks like this Christian has taken enough of a beating. All the angry responses have only made him look better in comparison. I, for one, disagree with some of his views (I find that acknowledging human sexuality, for example, is not wrong), but his views are clearly based on thought and he has shown that he's at least fairly open to other peoples beliefs, which is more than most /.ers can honestly say.
GreyWolf, while I admire your attempt to show these swine a differing point of view, I think it's wasted here. This kind of pointless argument is why I've started coming here less often, and going to forums where people show more respect for people who think differently.