Jump to content

Senator Wants Indecency Rules Enforced For Cable


ROC

Recommended Posts

U.S. Senator Urges Indecency Rules for Cable-TV Shows (Update2)

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, whose panel oversees the communications industry, said cable-television programs should be subject to the same rules on indecency as over-the-air broadcasts.

The National Cable & Telecommunications Association, the main lobbying group for cable-TV companies such as Comcast Corp., believes that ``we don't have any authority to deal with cable on indecency,'' Stevens, an Alaska Republican, told reporters in Washington today. ``We'll take them on and let the courts decide.''

Efforts to subject cable to indecency fines may escalate friction between the government and the TV industry. On Feb. 16, the House of Representatives passed a bill to raise the maximum indecency fines against broadcasters to as much as $500,000 for each violation, from the current $32,500. A measure to raise fines to $325,000 has been introduced in the Senate.

``A five-year-old doesn't know if they're watching cable or over-the-air,'' Edward Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, said in an interview today. The NAB represents TV broadcasters and has advocated that cable should be subject to the same indecency rules.

Brian Dietz, a spokesman for the cable group, said the organization would respond shortly to Stevens's remarks.

In a July statement posted on the NCTA's Web site, the group says that ``any attempts to regulate indecency on television must be sensitive to the legal and technological differences between broadcasting and cable,'' such as cable's nature as a pay service and its tools to block unwanted programs.

Supreme Court

The group cited a 2000 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which said the federal government doesn't enjoy the broad power over cable programming that it traditionally has had over broadcasters.

Under Federal Communications Commission regulations, penalties for broadcasting indecent material apply to radio and TV broadcast stations licensed by the government for the use of airwaves considered to be public property.

The exposure of singer Janet Jackson's breast on the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show on Viacom Inc.'s CBS network prompted a congressional push for stiffer sanctions against indecent broadcasts. The FCC received more than 500,000 complaints about the incident, which led the agency to fine the network $550,000.

Edited by TheROC-Revolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. As of right now, the FCC cannot control what is shown or said on cable tv, but advertisers would pull out of a show if they felt it was indecent.

And on premium-cable channels like HBO and Showtime you can say and do what you want.

Edited by SkinMySenses
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ringmaster

U.S. Senator Deserves To Die

March 1 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens deserves to die.

Edited by Ringmaster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. As of right now, the FCC cannot control what is shown or said on cable tv, but advertisers would pull out of a show if they felt it was indecent.

And on premium-cable channels like HBO and Showtime you can say and do what you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Ringmaster

I doubt laws that censor cable TV will ever pass. A part of the reason people buy those networks is because they want to see things as they are meant to be seen. That would mean censuring all the movies HBO airs, as well as the shows.

Censoring these networks would lead to a massive drop of revenue for them, and would probably lead to various lawsuits against the government.

But adverts pulling out? Could happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So more regulations because about .15% of the ENTIRE population complained?

That's a bit idiotic. Now that we're bowing to the cable minorities. There's about 300,000,000 in this country but just because 500,000 complain they have to get there way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So more regulations because about .15% of the ENTIRE population complained?

That's a bit idiotic. Now that we're bowing to the cable minorities. There's about 300,000,000 in this country but just because 500,000 complain they have to get there way.

Edited by TheROC-Revolt
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good luck regulating the cable industry. Since it's not a free service, like regular network stations are, the chances of anyone cracking down on them is minimal; there's plenty of case law in cable's favor. Additionally, that kind of profanity is almost always kept to the post 10 PM timeslot, so that gives the government even less of a leg to stand on, metaphorically speaking. They might score a symbolic victory over the worst offenders, but this entire thing strikes me as a pre-emptive move to scare cable stations to clean up their act on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

U.S. Senator Urges Indecency Rules for Cable-TV Shows (Update2)

``A five-year-old doesn't know if they're watching cable or over-the-air,'' Edward Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, said in an interview today.

Edited by Mind Games 96
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm pretty sure. Don't quote me though.

Whoops, sorry.

Anyway, this is all because of Howard Stern's jump to Sirius. The FCC has wanted to get their grubby little fingers on cable for years now, they've just never had the chance. The Janet Jackson incident got the public in the mindset of "Please, government, protect my children from naughty things because I can't be bothered to do it myself." But still... that happened on broadcast television, not cable. But joy oh joy, Howard Stern is jumping to Satellite Radio. Now we can show the public that naughty things are going on there (despite the fact they willingly bring it into their homes), and they can lump cable TV in there and finally put an end to filthy, dirty, entertaining television.

Personally, I still don't understand why we have an FCC... I honestly do not see the point. On broadcast TV and radio, they say it's the "public airwaves" and anyone could be listening or watching. Well no shit, but guess what, no one has to buy a television or a radio so your kids don't have to be exposed to it. Here's a thought, if you have kids, get rid of your TV and radio. I'm sick and fucking tired of being involuntarily enlisted into the fight to keep adult entertainment away from children. I do not care about children in the slightest... I know they're "our future" and all that bullshit but give me a goddamn break. It's not my job to raise them, it's the parents that shit them out of their womb every fucking nine months. Again, this is just another example of the government's two main objectives: 1. Continue to control media and mold it to their liking. And 2. Continue to treat the unmarried and those without children like second-class citizens.

Marriage is an archaic institution that doesn't mean ANYTHING unless you buy into all that silly religion nonsense. And children? If you want them, fine... but let's stop pretending like birth is this miraculous thing. There's over six billion people in the world, what's special here? And I realize I'm going off on a rant here, but it's all relative. Basically, fuck the FCC, fuck these parents with nothing better to worry about, and according to the United States government, "fuck freedom."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. To learn more, see our Privacy Policy