|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| Mar 12th, 2004 08:53 PM | ||
| mesobe |
yay. another stone for the war mongering nazis. *waves a little flag* |
|
| Mar 12th, 2004 06:51 PM | ||
| davinxtk |
For some reason, I'm laughing at that. I shouldn't be. It's tragic. |
|
| Mar 12th, 2004 09:28 AM | ||
| mburbank | Boy! If I weren't so full on all the Bread and so engaged by this wonderful circus, I might have time to think about how criminal it is that elected officials are even spending any time on this, let alone moving so quickly, efficiently and decisively in ways they can't about anything that actually matters. | |
| Mar 11th, 2004 10:00 PM | ||
| Perndog |
Re: House Votes to Raise Indecency Fines Quote:
|
|
| Mar 11th, 2004 06:37 PM | ||
| Brandon |
House Votes to Raise Indecency Fines House Votes to Raise Indecency Fines David Stout WASHINGTON, March 11 — An overwhelming majority of the House of Representatives voted today to greatly increase the maximum penalties for obscenity, indecency and profanity on radio and television. With the baring of Janet Jackson's breast in the Super Bowl halftime show still fresh in their memories, the lawmakers voted, 391 to 22, to raise the maximum fine for a broadcast license-holder to $500,000 from $27,500. The penalty for a performer would also rise to $500,000 from the current $11,000. The measure was approved early this afternoon with wide support from members in both parties. Two hundred-eighteen Republicans voted in favor and 1, Ron Paul of Texas, voted against. On the Democratic side, 172 voted in favor and 21 against. One independent, Bernard Sanders of Vermont, also voted for the bill. A similar bill is pending in the Senate. One difference in the measures is that the Senate version would order the Federal Communications Commission to study ways to protect children from violence on television. The Senate bill would also put a hold on media-ownership changes adopted by the F.C.C. last year. President Bush has strongly endorsed the principle of the legislation approved today. But passage by the full Congress may be months away, since the House and Senate bills would have to be reconciled. One supporter of the bill, Representative Joseph Pitts, Republican of Pennsylvania, said during debate that he was "tired of hearing parents tell me how they have to cover their children's ears." Or their eyes, he might have added. The real momentum for the measure was created on Feb. 1, when the singer Justin Timberlake exposed Ms. Jackson's breast to millions of television viewers. Accidental or otherwise, Mr. Timberlake's maneuver outraged many Americans, not all of them prudish, to judge by the mail sent to newspapers, television networks and the F.C.C. Critics of the measure have expressed worries that it might undermine free expression. "We're moving in a direction of undermining the First Amendment," Mr. Paul of Texas said in explaining his "no" vote. Federal law and F.C.C. regulations already bar broadcast, as opposed to cable, television and radio stations from airing sexual material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. There are no such restrictions for cable and satellite television or for satellite radio. The bill approved today would not change the definitions of what is "obscene" and "indecent." Those are spelled out by the F.C.C. and can be read on the agency's web site: www.fcc.gov. Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be considered "obscene," material must be offensive to "an average person, applying contemporary community standards," and it must depict sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way." Finally, the material taken as a whole must lack serious merit. Material that is "indecent" is defined by the F.C.C. as containing "patently offensive sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity." The timing of the broadcast for such material may be restricted to protect children. "In making indecency determinations, context is key!" the F.C.C. says on its web site. "The F.C.C. staff must analyze what was actually said during the broadcast, the meaning of what was said, and the context in which it was stated." Edward O. Fritts, president of the National Association of Broadcasters, noted that the industry has already scheduled an indecency summit for March 31. "N.A.B. believes that voluntary industry initiatives are far preferable to government regulation when dealing with programming issues," Mr. Fritts said in a statement on his organization's Web site. "Just recently, a number of broadcasters have taken positive steps to address concerns of parents and policymakers, and we expect the upcoming N.A.B. Summit on Responsible Programming to yield additional substantive results. N.A.B. does not support the bill as written, but we hear the call of legislators and are committed to taking voluntary action to address this issue." Despite Mr. Fritts's preference for voluntary action, the Super Bowl incident created irresistible momentum for Congressional action, especially in an election year. The measure approved by the House today, if it also clears the Senate, would amend the Communications Act of 1934. Television was a scientific concept back then, but the first round-screen, black-and-white sets were still years away from becoming household fixtures. Many Americans can recall that, once upon a time, husbands and wives slept in separate beds on television, never used profanity and never talked about sex. They will recall, too, that football was once an outdoor game played on grass, and that halftime shows used to feature brass bands and high-prancing but modestly dressed young women. Television and football have come a long way since then — too far, a House majority declared today. (www.nytimes.com) ----- Christ, don't these people have anything better to do with their time? |
|
