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.
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...
Yeah, kids watch cable too, but kids are supposed to have these things called 'parents' too. It is the parents responsibility to decide what thier children should and shouldnt be able to see and it is thier responsibility to carry that out, our taxes should not be spent on programs and enforcement of laws that abridge the flow of information. Seriously, paying to NOT get information? Thats entirely backwards.
Sure, all you have to do is sit with your kids every minute that they are watching TV from the time they're born until their 18th birthday. No problem.
Here's an idea - don't like what you see on cable/sat and don't want to bother parenting the children you decided to have?
Don't shell out the $50 a month to get cable/sat and stop fucking whining.
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.
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?
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.
"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.
Are "boobies" really that big of a deal? Why is it that nobody is complaining about "embedded reporters" showing firefights in Iraq, or the aftermath of suicide bombers in Israel, you'll buy toy GI Joe's and toy guns for the kids, but OH MY GOD BOOBIES! Just how is that gonna ruin a kid?
To me, that's the biggest problem with the U.S. -- we got founded by a bunch of guys from England who thought the Church of England wasn't prudish enough... Damn Puritans...
Honestly -- the first thing a baby sees is Mom's boobies...
"That's not even wrong..." -- Wolfgang Pauli
"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|
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.
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.