Congress Set To Increase Indecency Fines By 10 Times

[Groovenstein]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12871293/

Separate bills have passed the Senate and the House and are waiting to be merged. I think the scariest part of this whole censorship parade is in this part from the article, with my emphasis added:

"With no dissent, the Senate late Thursday approved a bill to raise indecency fines 10-fold to $325,000 per violation . . . ."

We are getting further and further down the track to hell. A bill like this raises no dissent? I thought censorship was a right-wing thing and the left was all about social freedom. I doubt America will ever have it as bad as places like Cuba, i.e. outright state-run media, but we could get pretty bad.

"'Families should be able to turn on the television during that period of time and trust the broadcasters to abide by the law,' said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. . . ."

Hey Frist, families should be able to turn on the television and watch whatever the broadcasters want to show them. What business is it of yours to make programming decisions? To you and your brethen I say: %&*% %&$* %&$*#*# !$#[censored].

At least it doesn't apply to cable and satellite services. So that's something.

[JASKN]

I don't watch a lot of television, so I'm not that interested in the subject and haven't done a lot of research on it. But isn't the trend moving away from "public" broadcasting anyway? Ipods offer some shows at pay-per-view, and isn't cable booming and set to outdo the major networks? How long can this free-tv thing last with Tivo and Digital Cable? I think censoring the television will kind of work itself out.

When our government begins censoring the internet, blogs, and podcasts is when I will start worrying.

[Eternal]

When our government begins censoring the internet, blogs, and podcasts is when I will start worrying.

I'd start worrying soon, because that will be the next target. Consider this story:

Saul Levine, who owns three radio stations in California, asked the commission in October to modify its satellite radio rules to include an indecency provision similar to the one that governs broadcast stations using public airwaves.

In a letter to the FCC, Levine complained that the commission needed to create a “level playing field” in protecting the public interest.

Personally, if it wasn't for the fact that we're living in a theocracy, I'd "level the playing field" by getting rid of censorship on public airwaves. Luckily the FCC rejected the plea:

The FCC’s media bureau turned aside a radio station owner’s request that broadcast indecency regulations apply to subscription satellite services.

But what if it wasn't just one owner fighting for this, but every radio station that's subjected to FCC right now? And it's not hard to imagine an analogous situation taking place in the TV world. If the owners of censored stations can no longer attract customers because of the lame (censored) content, they won't waste time lobbying politicians for censorship everywhere.

[DavidOdden]

Ipods offer some shows at pay-per-view, and isn't cable booming and set to outdo the major networks?

The FCC itself says "In the past, the FCC has enforced the indecency and profanity prohibitions only against conventional broadcast services, not against subscription programming services such as cable and satellite. However, the prohibition against obscene programming applies to subscription programming services at all times.". Let me repeat some of that: "In the past...". What is totally unclear to me is how difficult it would be to expand the power of the FCC to cable, motivated by the fact that cable has become the TV of the 21st century. At least one relevant law, 18 USC 1464, states "Whoever utters any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." Interestingly, "radio communication" is not defined in that chapter. The term is referrenced but not defined in 18 USC 2510 which is part of chapter 119. 47 USC 153 defines the term (for the purposes of chapter 5 of title 47) thusly -- 'The term “radio communication” or “communication by radio” means the transmission by radio of writing, signs, signals, pictures, and sounds of all kinds, including all instrumentalities, facilities, apparatus, and services (among other things, the receipt, forwarding, and delivery of communications) incidental to such transmission.' That would, as far as I can see, include the microwave transmission of the signal from Cable Central to your local provider. In principle, cable is subject to regulation by the FCC (see 47 USC 152 'The provisions of this chapter shall apply with respect to cable service, to all persons engaged within the United States in providing such service, and to the facilities of cable operators which relate to such service, as provided in subchapter V–A').

Just because they don't currently enforce such restrictions on other forms of communications does not mean that they can't chose to do so in the near future.

[JASKN]

Great research. I can't believe how ridiculous the law is. I try not to get depressed when I learn about this kind of shit from the government. But while I have a deep desire to right it all, I have no desire to go into politics or law. What do you do when confronted with this, besides make clear your disgust for it?

[Maarten]

Vote for someone who opposes it is the main avenue open to you then. And writing letters to the editor, I suppose

[DavidOdden]

But while I have a deep desire to right it all, I have no desire to go into politics or law. What do you do when confronted with this, besides make clear your disgust for it?

It's tough, but the most important thing, I think, is to realise how simply saying something can make a difference. If the topic comes up in a conversation somewhere, all you need to do is point out that this is not the proper function of government. Of course those around you may dismiss you saying "Sez you", but this can lead to the all-important political conversation about what is the proper function of government. Of course you have to be prepared to argue persuasively -- the point is, now the conversation is on the right subject, rather than on "how do we get the government to restore the Christian roots of our culture" or "how do we assure social justice and equality" (depending on who you're hanging out with).

[Qwertz]

I wonder what would happen if Our Illustrious Leader were to accidentally let slip a naughty word during some such live television address or another. Would the networks get fined if they failed to bleep it in time? Would the President get a stern talking to from the FCC?

[DamnGirl]

Given their own outrageous, sell-out-to-the-highest-bidder behavior, why do members of congress have any authority in matters of decency anyway?

[Groovenstein]

During his first campaign, Bush did call somebody an a-hole, (one article) but I don't think it was televised live. I imagine whether the networks would get fined if such a thing happened during a televised event would depend on which party the FCC Chairman wanted to upset more.

[JASKN]

But DavidOdden, I'm talking about serious government reform. You think that is possible by pointing out to my friends what the government is really for (which I do)? I'm thinking, "Not going to happen in my lifetime," which is what I really care about.

I think that I can buy a good government. Money is power, and when I get enough of it I think I'll have enough influence to either buy out the government or buy enough media outlets for a long enough time, or even buy the right universities or private education for other people, to get the message across to everyone and create the best possible atmosphere for rational minds to exist, and a government to match. This is a big deal to me. I don't think I'll be able to buy a whole country comparable to the USA in my lifetime, so I'm probably going to have to work with this country. Can you think of other ways to fix the government?

Edited May 22, 2006 by JASKN

[DavidOdden]

But DavidOdden, I'm talking about serious government reform. You think that is possible by pointing out to my friends what the government is really for (which I do)? I'm thinking, "Not going to happen in my lifetime," which is what I really care about.

Well, I don't expect POG in my lifetime (or yours, either). In fact, I would be highly skeptical of sneaking an Objectivist president into the White House, if he weren't elected overtly as a no-holds-barred Objectivist. The prerequisite for that is, inter alios, an electorate that accepts the essential principles of Objectivism. So one step towards creating such an electorate is reclaiming the political agenda.

I think that I can buy a good government. Money is power, and when I get enough of it I think I'll have enough influence to either buy out the government or buy enough media outlets for a long enough time, or even buy the right universities or private education for other people, to get the message across to everyone and create the best possible atmosphere for rational minds to exist, and a government to match.

I'm a bit distrustful of people who consider their bank account to be their only rational value. A person who is willing to vote for free enterprise today because you bought their vote will probably vote for communism tomorrow, if Stuart Mott and Michael Moore pool their assets. It might be better to spend your money on a really great car. That, or buy a country for cheap. At this point, I'm betting you could get Zimbabwe for a couple hundred mill. And Somalia is pretty much available for free right now. An industrious person could turn Somalia into a real place for much less than it would cost to actually buy the US.

Or better: buy Canada. Their language is pretty easy to learn.

[Liriodendron Tulipifera]

We are getting further and further down the track to hell. A bill like this raises no dissent? I thought censorship was a right-wing thing and the left was all about social freedom.

Ah, but their goals are one and the same. But you knew that. And it doesn't take an Objectivist to point it out, either.

I just got done watching "Inside Deep Throat" which was quite an insightful little movie as regards the motives of the political left and right, as far as sex is concerned.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali's new book, The Caged Virgin is rather good as well, and points out that the liberal left play right into the hands of the religious conservatives when it comes to sex. I finished it in one sitting.

I know Hirsi Ali is not an Objectivist, as her book indicates (although she would certainly be a good candidate and I am very curious as to whether she is familiar with Ayn Rand). And I highly doubt the two makers of "Inside Deep Throat" are Objectivist, either.

This is good news. We just need more ordinary people to stand up for free speech.

Edited May 23, 2006 by Liriodendron Tulipifera

[Groovenstein]

Ah, but their goals are one and the same. But you knew that. And it doesn't take an Objectivist to point it out, either.

Oh yeah. It was my little way of mocking those who think only the right-wing is about "legislating morality." During the 2000 election campaign, some people with whom I spoke occasionally expressed their support for Al Gore based in part on their view that Bush was the censorship candidate. I'm sure you have no trouble imagining their surprise when I pointed out Tipper Gore's little project. I doubt the members of Warrant were/are Objectivist, but "Ode to Tipper Gore" was a nice touch. (For those not familiar with "Ode to Tipper Gore", it was a track they put on one of their CDs that consisted entirely of a bunch of clips strung together of them using profanity.)