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.
Before running a movie, just place a statement:
"Warning: WE HAVE NOT CHECKED IF THIS MOVIE IS DECENT"
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
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.
Transmit the sattelite TV from another country. Easy-peasy, no problem.
I for one do not favor any such content regulation.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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."
Excellent! Finally someone is doing something about filtering out all that motion picture equivalent of spam that comes out of Hollywood, keeping these "blockbusters" from congesting our airwaves and cable lines! We may see television dominated by decent, quality entertainment at last!
Oh, wait, did they mean "decency" as in, no words like "fuck" or "cunt", and no bare tits or ass? Damn. There's a good number of decent flicks that we'll be missing if that goes through then...
-Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of all Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
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.
I don't know about the rest of slashdot but I enjoy Cinemax after dark.
Your lucky you even get a vote.
Technology, the cause of and solution to all of life's problems.
Oh. Still watching the 700 Club, are we?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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?
I remember listening to some sort of interview with the head of the FCC (Powell), months ago. He remarked that kids didn't know the difference between a pay channel and a broadcast channel. So he felt the FCC should be regulating any sort of medium that kids might listen/view, no matter where it came from.
Don't like it? Get involved - Write to the US Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Senator Ted Stevens.
And the Co-Chairman Senator Daniel K. Inouye. It's cool to complain on websites, but if even a fraction of us actually contacted our representatives in congress, maybe things might change.
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.
- There must be decency.
- There must be some person(s) given the task to decide what is decent and what isn't.
- Those given that task will be government officials/bureaucrats.
- Whatever those persons deem not decent should not be shown on CATV or played on satellite radio.
- The not decent material will not be shown/played based on the decisions of the government officials.
How is that not censorship?everything in moderation
I laugh out loud everytime I listen to the show, unlike Howard Stern, etc. If you don't have XM, try to find an mp3 on usenet.
Bringin' pork, (Pork for Alaska)
Pork! for Alaska,
They bring pork, the rush is on!
Pork! for Alaska,
They bring pork, the rush is on!
Big Ted left Alaska in the year '72,
On the Senate Rules Committee, was a real workhorse too,
With George and Michael Powell, and the FCC gang too.
They crossed the Yukon River and found the bonanza gold
Below that white-domed fountain, way the hell southeast of Nome.
Ted crossed the majestic mountains to the valleys far below.
He talked to his team of lobbyists as he mushed on through the snow.
With the northern lights a-running wild in the land of the midnight sun,
Yes, Teddy Stevens, a mighty man, in the year 2001.
Where the river is winding,
Pig nuggets they're finding!
Pork for Alaska!
They bring pork, the rush is on.
George turned to Ted with his pork in his hand,
Said: "Ted you're a-lookin' at a lonely, lonely man.
"I'd trade all the pork that's buried in this land,
"For one small slab of pork to[no, no NO, we are NOT goin' to find out what happened to Ginny in this filk as long as I have any say at the FCC]
To the tune of North to Alaska, Johnny Horton
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.
How will this affect South Park???
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
If they believe in the power of the free market, then let the cable companies respond to the demand for "decent" cable TV.
Do something about it. If every Slashdot member calls the Senator, believe me, they will get the message.
His webpage is here: http://stevens.senate.gov/ and his phone number is (202) 224-3004.
Do it now. Kill this crap in the bud. You only earn the right to rant and rave if you pick up the phone, send an email, or write a letter. If not, then keep quiet (no more whining to Slashdot), since that's what they want you to do.
First of all, holy contradictions Batman!
Second of all, the standard of decency is LOCAL. Or, it's supposed to be. Meaning that there is not, nor should there ever be, a national standard of decency for any form of broadcast media. To have one would amount to blatant federal government-sponsored censorship (as opposed to the subtle censorship we already enjoy).
Taking away the ability for CITIZENS to decide LOCAL standards of decency is a stick in the eye of states' rights, to say the least, and is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
We're really screwed here in the US if we don't do something. It's hard to believe that people can't get past the "Howard Stern"-ness of this issue and see that this is a bad direction to go. This is exactly what the First Amendment was written to prevent. Free speech won't even have a tax (as it does with the $500,000 fine bill); it will be plain illegal.
Can you imagine what might happen if a child were exposed to a breast again? My goodness, we've got to stop this breastfeeding, surely that's turning infants into sexual deviants!
Imagine some kid hearing the word "fuck". I mean, it's for certain that he'll drop out of his First United Calvinistic Church of Believers are Saved and Unbelievers Will Fry Like BBQed Hotdogs and become a gay Satanist, or even worse, a Democrat!
We must silence Howard Stern! Fartman must die! He must be replaced with righteous men like Rush Limbaugh and Pat Robertson, men of loving intolerance! After all, this is a Christian nation (Muslims and Jews temporarily accepted), and we know that the Founding Fathers didn't really mean "free speech" as in free. Besides, we have to make certain sacrifices to assure that Wardrobe Malfunctions, quite possibly planned by Osama bin Laden to destroy Jesus Christ's favorite sports telecast; the Superbowl, never happen again.
In the FCC Patriot Act 2005, we will make sure the US is a decent, moral society where fags are pushed back in the closet, Howard Stern is forced off the air, and rich Republican supporters get more well-deserved tax breaks. After all, that's what America is really about. Oh, and we have $500 kazillion bounty on that freaky English guy, Eric Idle, for his evil anti-FCC song. If you are not with us in our quest to regulate and control your thoughts, then you are against us.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
People forget that we are restricted all over the place. Most places you can't run around naked or have sex on the side of the street or even play fight club with willing participants. These things are regulated to be done only on private property out of sight of neighbors. So where does your private property end and your next door neighbor begin? Currently it only considers airwaves but XM, Sat tv all go over airwaves also. The main difference is the expectation that the viewers are "participants" by their willingness to pay for the service instead of being "innocent bystanders". Don't get me wrong I think his idea at face value is stupid and moves us down a slippery slope, but it does raise a good question (more likely his true intent). What is the purpose of decency censorship and where should it be used? And before you say that it has no use and should never be used how many times have you meta-moderated goatse.cx? I would be on the phone if that image ever came on my TV.
So where should the line be drawn and who is exempt from the restrictions?
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?
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.
1) dont buy 2) block it 3) learn to appreciate it 4) learn not to be so retarded as to find any of this scary and threatning 5) kill your self and your family and send them to heaven. 6) Profit for the miniister in case your tithe didn't bribe god enough.
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.
Create a subscription channel called SCAF: the Shit, Cunt, Asshole, Fuck channel. Broadcast nothing but those four words over and over again. Subscribers can pay something like 25 cents a month to get it -- the money counts as a contribution towards freedom of speech. Then, if something like this is ever passed, it will result in the channel being 100% censored since there's nothing decent left to transmit. It'd certainly make for an interesting court case to challenge the constitutionality (oh, how I love made-up words) of these types of regulations.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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 is even weirder is that putting in the astericks really does make a difference - I personally don't swear much, but the "niceness" of swear words in a public forum is really increased by using astericks in my opinion.
In fact, I am not at all put out by your statement as you wrote it. But if you had put the actual vowels in, I would have considered you an annoying kid.
That is really weird!
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
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.
The Force has a strong influence on the weak minded
Then again, the kid is probably downloading everything they want to watch for free off the Internet anyway.
"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).
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
Here's an ex-commisioner's take on the whole FCC censorship issue.
m
He implies that it is a political issue and control of media issue, not a morality issue as such.
http://www.saveradionow.org/nicholasjohnshon.ht
The guy is no kook. Read it and try to understand.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
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.
Calling it a broadcast standard is like calling the rule 'You can't murder people with a hammer' a 'hammer regulation'. No, it's a murder regulation.
You can't murder people with [anything]. You can't offer child porn via [anything]. They're not [anything] regulations.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
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.
I was watching a documentary lastnight all about the current censorship laws trying to be passed in the US at the moment.
The fashion label 'FCUK' French Connection United Kingdom has great sales globally but can't penetrate the US market because their products were all pulled from US stores because the christian right were complaining that the label was an offensive word. Its not even spelt that way. How far will this go people?
A great quote from the show was from an ex shock jock in florida who was pulled off the the air due to concerns by his radio station of getting fined by the FCC.
I can't say fuck on the radio but I can own a gun that can kill over 100 people.
While holding his military machine gun (Think it was an M16)
This docco also discussed a law which was attempting to be passed in one of your southern states for people who reveal their underwear above their jeans to be put in jail for up to 150 days.
You guys live in a very morally bizzare country.
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.
Actually, there's no legal limit on commercials in the US except for Children's programming. They had dropped that limit too, but it got reintroduced in the Children's Television Act of 1990.
Warning: Opinions known to be heavily biased.
what the hell has happened to the Republican party? I remember a time when they used to argue against frivolous regulation.
What do you do if you can compete with the guy down the street? Pay (err lobby) the government to pass laws which will make your competition less competitive. Bet if you dig deep enough into the Senator's contributions you'll find $$ from the Broadcast lobby. My .02, this is nothing more than Broadcast media trying to legislate competition into the cable channels under the guise of 'standards'.
They're trying to do it to XM and Sirius under the guise of 'National Security', this is nothing different.
Call me cynical...
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.
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.
no, I just found the thought of you saying it and not knowing where it came from funny. I'm actually hindu, which is where that idea originated(as world religions of Eur-asia go).
I also found it humorous that a Buddhist tennant was used as part of an argument by someone defending christianity because most people in general don't know much about other religions, much less use them in their arguments.
but just to tell you, the tennant in buudhism is about being able to be exposed to anything(even those nekkid women) and still remain in complete control and not have those thoughts form. That is the self control they shoot for.
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.
I have a religious view of gov? I didn't follow that one.
The point I was making is that publicizing the gap in reasoning while making another decent argument sacks your credibility as an arguer.
You could make a fantastic argument and have me head over heels, but if you tell me little green men told you the argument... I'd have to try and seperate it, but know that any leeway I gave you in hope you adhered to some scientific method in your research would be gone, and I'd double check everything, dismiss the green men, and move on.
The mind is facnating in how it believes things, its been my major focus of study for a dozen or so years. Reading something like 'Demon Haunted World' (thats where the quote was from) is like a user manual to your brain, and you get to run a self diagnosis like a droid, and its always interesting to see if the system is already to corrupted to start repairing itself.
Don't get me wrong, I don't dismiss religious people as never having good arguments, but I have found that 100% of their good arguments aren't religious. The confounding thing for me is that they will argue a point using all the tenets of reason, and then go be religious. It's such a dichotomy I can't fathom it, although I have a good understanding of it (figure that one out).
I happen to be spiritual myself, but not in the sense that an invisible man is pressing all the buttons of life, but I draw strength from the fact i know I can do things, i have confidence because of past performance, and I know what makes me happy. I need no myth for that, and i think that's where we will eventually evolve.
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.