Free Speech Takes a hit
 

The House has overwhelmingly passed a bill to make the maximum fine for "indecency" $500,000 for an artist and/or company.

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/arti...16123109990009

--
House Passes Higher Indecency Fines

Snubs Criticism That It Will Stifle Free Speech and Homogenize Broadcasts

By GENARO C. ARMAS, AP

WASHINGTON (Feb. 16) - Chafing over a "wardrobe malfunction'' and racy radio shock-jock programs, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency.
Lawmakers sought to hit broadcasters where it hurts - the pocketbook - in approving the measure 389-38, rejecting criticism that the penalties would stifle free speech and expression and further homogenize programming.
The bill would increase the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer.
"With passage of this legislation, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope,'' said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House telecommunications panel and author of the bill. "Our kids will be better off for it.''

The White House said in a statement that it strongly supports the legislation that "will make broadcast television and radio more suitable for family viewing.''

A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, where it has broad bipartisan support. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Commerce Committee, has said he wants to act on the bill quickly, but he hasn't given a timetable.
Any differences in the two bills would have to be resolved before it can go to President Bush for his signature. Last year the two chambers were unable to reach a compromise.

Opponents said they were concerned that stiffer fines by the Federal Communications Commission would lead to more self-censorship by broadcasters and entertainers unclear about the definition of "indecent.''
They cited the example of several ABC affiliates that did not air the World War II drama "Saving Private Ryan'' last years because of worries that violence and profanity would lead to fines, even though the movie already had aired on network TV.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said changing the channel is the best way for families to avoid racy programming.

"But the prurient Puritans of this House are not satisfied with free choice and the free market,'' Nadler said. "Instead, they want the government to decide what is or is not appropriate for the public to watch or listen to.''
Andrew Jay Schwartzman, chief executive officer of the Media Access Project, a law firm that represents small broadcasters, said some of his clients already are censoring themselves because they can't risk fines at the current level.

National Association of Broadcasters spokesman Dennis Wharton said voluntary industry initiatives are preferable to government regulation in addressing programming issues. He added that there is often more explicit content on cable and satellite channels, which are not subject to indecency fines but can be just as easily accessible to children.

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time, and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct "in a patently offensive way'' and lacking "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.'' Indecent material is not as offensive but still contains references to sex or excretions.

The FCC has stepped up enforcement of the indecency statute, perhaps most notably with a $550,000 fine against CBS for Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction'' during last year's Super Bowl halftime show. Radio personality Howard Stern also has been a frequent target.

"The 2004 Super Bowl crystallized the notion that something needs to be done,'' said Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee that sent the bill to the full House. "For too long, broadcasters have been pushing the envelope.''

The FCC has wide latitude to impose fines. It can fine an individual company, groups of stations owned by a company and individual entertainers. In the case of CBS and last year's Super Bowl halftime show, it imposed a fine of $27,500 - then the maximum - against each of 20 stations owned by the network.

All five members of the FCC - three Republicans and two Democrats - say the current fines are far too low and they have encouraged Congress to boost them.

The House bill would let the FCC fine an individual entertainer, such as a disc jockey, without first issuing a warning, which is the case now. The FCC has never issued such a fine.

"There have to be restrictions because there has to be an interest in protecting children,'' said Lara Mahaney, a vice president with the watchdog group, Parents Television Council.

The Senate bill calls for raising the maximum fine on broadcasters to $325,000, with a cap of $3 million for one day. The House bill does not include a cap.

The bill is H.R. 310.
02/16/05 23:35 EST

In the words of Larry Flynt (If memory serves) - "Freedom of speech doesn't protect speech that you like, it protects speech that you hate."

This whole frenzy over indecency is just stupid. Give me a break.

A$$holes.

Wow, then you should be thankful that you don't live here then :rolleyes:

Oh, hell no. We're already there.

Oh please! Only to radical liberals, who would prefer anarchy to democracy.

We have been inching closer to it since the beginning of the demise of the Fourth Amendment beginning in say the 50's, though some place it closer to Prohibition (another religious fantical nightmare :rolleyes: ) or earlier.

A google of "demise fourth amendment search" will reveal many articles on this.

I mean the Fourth Amendment says:

Yet - the idiotic faux conservatives squeal with glee at the thought of the Feds using things like RICO (which predates and essentially forms the underlying reasoning behind the Patriot Act) and the Patriot Act to catch those terrorists - what they in their bloodlust do not realize is that once the barriers are down, there is nothing to stop the govt. from so loosely defning the term terrorist (or whatever it is) that THEY are not protected and I can assure you the govt. does not care which scapegoat is in line when it comes to votes. I mean this is tantamount to the chickens sharpening the ax that will be used to cout of their heads and they are just too stupid to know it or they are lulled into a sense of "that could never happen to me." Here is a newsflash - if your neighbor or anyone else gets pissed at you, all they have to do it suggest to law enforecement that they thought they saw some suspicious activity and the law will be on you like white on rice. They can break the door of your house down, throw you to the floor and step on your head while arresting you and there is nothing anyone can do about it. That is pathetic and scary - yet "it coud never happen to me" :rolleyes:

Here are some sites:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment04/

http://www.robertslaw.org/4thamend.htm

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/f081.htm

I agree with you on that.

But, I still maintain this is the freest place I have ever been -- though I have not been everywhere YET :cool: AND - it is less free now than it was 20 years ago, which is frightening :eek:

Lord Child - our breathe may ignite :eek:

To be honest I think in general America will be the last place to realise America is headed for a fascist dictatorship.

Yep, we've been moving in that direction for four years now. It'll take decades to repair the damage that is being done to this country.

:nod:

If a parent doesn't like what's on tv - then don't let your kids watch - or monitor what your kids watch :shrug: Why should it be up the networks to censor their stuff??? Some of us have no kids and don't mind some of the stuff on tv....

I'm sick to death of the responsibilities moving away from parents and being put on everything else - ultimately it's still the parent who is responisble for their child - not television, not movies, not society and not schools.....:mad:

Yes it is, but the parents should have guidelines. Like the Superbowl - that traditionally has been something parents could assume would be something they did not have to make a serious decision about. There was no threat of a Janet Jackson episode. So, rules need to exist to assist parents in this regard. I have no beef with that. My beef is with how they are applied. I mean I found the viagra ads dirtier and demanding of more explanation to children than Janet's tit. Yet, they are okay. It is just rank hypocrisy. Interestingly, if La Jackson had been wearing a shirt that said Cialis - there would be no controversy :rolleyes:

Right, but as the little guys get f*cked more and more the more they have to work and the less time they have to watch their children. I do not agree with what the Republicans are doing at all, I'm just defending tired parents. If I were born 20 years later my life would have been so different. There's no way my parents would have been able to afford a house which they purchased in '77 for $34,000 which is about what my Dad paid for his new truck. :eek:

I don't think that the SuperBowl is family safe:shrug: lol...my kids will not be watching football!

I guess I just take my sister and her husband's parenting and look at what they do - they're not perfect - but my nephew is at the top of his class - he's reading a few grade levels above where he should be and overall he's a smartie...

They've ALWAYS monitored what he watches - he's pretty much not allowed to watch tv in primetime at all....unless it's a video approved by his parents...he watches like PBS kids, Discovery Kids and some Disney Programs but other than that...things always have to be age appropriate for him.

I think also that too much emphasis is put on television! Don't like what's on? Don't want your kids to se eit? Then turn it off - don't own one etc...there are many options but a lot of parents now use tv and video games to watch and entertain their kids....it's sad....therefore I still maintain that ultimately the parents should take full responsibility :shrug:

There are still alternatives to television though. Tired parents aren't a valid excuse in my opinion.

When my mom got divorced she was left with two girls, a house, a car and she only made $9,000 a year (this was 1987 ish) - she had to start working full-time and she worked like mad...but still had rules she expected me to follow at age seven. I was not just left on my own to watch tv - there are after school programs and recreation programs for kids (many of them are free) - and there are books!

I realize that not everyone lives by Deanna's book of life - but haha - that's just the way I feel :p