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.
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.
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.
I wonder why some people still pretend to understand the laws of the United States when they can't even distinguish between a proposed bill in Congress and an actual law...
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
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.