Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Today's Posts

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Brandon Brandon is offline
The Center Square
Brandon's Avatar
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Migrant worker
Brandon is probably a spambot
Old Mar 11th, 2004, 06:37 PM        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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Perndog Perndog is offline
Fartin's biggest fan
Perndog's Avatar
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Snowland
Perndog is probably a spambot
Old Mar 11th, 2004, 10:00 PM        Re: House Votes to Raise Indecency Fines
Quote:
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.
Not all of them prudish my ass. No one who isn't painfully prudish writes the fucking FCC because there was a titty on the TV for two seconds. I hate American society more every day.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #3  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Mar 12th, 2004, 09:28 AM       
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
davinxtk davinxtk is offline
GO AWAY DONT POST HERE
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Up.
davinxtk is probably a spambot
Old Mar 12th, 2004, 06:51 PM       
For some reason, I'm laughing at that.

I shouldn't be. It's tragic.
__________________
(1:02:34 AM): and i think i may have gone a little too far and let her know that i actually do hate her, on some level, just because she's female
(1:03:33 AM): and now she's being all kinds of sensitive about it
(1:03:53 AM): i hate women
Reply With Quote
  #5  
mesobe mesobe is offline
Senior Member
mesobe's Avatar
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: your mom
mesobe is probably a spambot
Old Mar 12th, 2004, 08:53 PM       
yay. another stone for the war mongering nazis.

*waves a little flag*
__________________
The stupider people think you are, the more surprised they will be when you kill them.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:35 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.