Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Sen. Ted Stevens from the Mild-Mannered State of Alaska Is Mad as Heck...
...and he's not going to take it anymore.
Speaking in front of one of the most annoying of all trade groups, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), the Republican Stevens suggested that freedom of speech for pay TV and radio was too much to bear:
"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told [NAB], which represents most local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.
"There has to be some standard of decency," he said....
Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable TV and satellite radio and television. It could become part of a pending bill to boost fines on broadcasters who violate indecency restrictions or of an effort to overhaul U.S. communications laws....
Last year the Senate Commerce Committee narrowly defeated an amendment to a bill boosting fines for indecency that would have extended such limits to cable and satellite services....
Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content.
"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.
Whole thing here. For the record, Stevens did mutter that, of course, "No one wants censorship."
Nope, broadcasters--and politicians--just want to neuter competitor cable and satellite services by restricting permissible language and images and reducing free expression to the narrow limits allowed on broadcast outlets. That's got nothing to do with censorship (or rigging markets in the favor of politically connected pals). The House of Representatives recently boosted the maximum fines for indecency from $32,500 per incident to $500,000. The Senate is expected to do the same.
In an interview with Reason in our December issue, former FCC honcho Michael Powell implied that attempts to extend content regulation to cable, satellite, and other pay services were misguided, saying:
Do you think a 12-year-old knows what a broadcast channel is? Do you think that they have any idea what the differences between Channel 4 and Channel 204 are? Do you think that the First Amendment ought to change as the dial changes?
I don't. To suggest that we bend the First Amendment for one industry singularly is to do hazard to our most cherished principle.
Unfortunately, it seems like Republicans are more than willing to limit free speech to keep broadcasters happy--and to keep "indecency" away from the very people who are willing to pay for it.
Powell, who became a real indecency zealot himself after the Janet Jackson Super Bowl brouhaha, implied pretty strongly that over time, broadcast would enjoy the more expansive expression rights that cable and satellite media enjoy. If Stevens--and other pols--are serious, the reverse may well be the case. Here's wondering when they'll start reading newspapers and the Web and start pushing to limit all that...
Powell Q&A here.
|3.2.05 @ 3:31AM|#
Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the
cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose
limits on its content.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
I am not confident that the Supreme Court will overturn censorship.
Who could have foreseen the destruction caused by one exposed
breast?
|3.2.05 @ 3:38AM|#
I can't believe a guy would get re-elected by neutering cable TV to the same dull-and-trite-as-shite standards as broadcast TV, which is worth watching only for Law & Order IMHO. I mean, what the f*ck else is there to do in Nome during the nine-month winter except watch TV? Without the stuff on HBO occasionally I'd get as piss drunk as an Alaskan crabber to keep from getting terminally depressed.
|3.2.05 @ 4:01AM|#
"Here's wondering when they'll start reading newspapers and the
Web and start pushing to limit all that..."
bushies dont read, they skim. so your safe unless you put that tit
on the front page.
|3.2.05 @ 4:06AM|#
I mean, what the f*ck else is there to do in Nome during the
nine-month winter except watch TV?
You can work on scrimshaw and slowly go insane. I worked in Alaska
for three years and spent winters on vacation in Arizona. When I
returned in the spring, I always heard tales of people going nuts
over the previous winter.
Gary, I think quite a few Democrats also go spastic over tits and
ass. It will take bipartisan compromise to really shitcan the
Constitution.
|3.2.05 @ 4:11AM|#
Twba,
True. But they always seem to be hypocrites about the issue.
______________________________________________
cdunlea,
I mean, what the f*ck else is there to do in Nome during the
nine-month winter except watch TV?
Fuck and eat seal blubber? :)
|3.2.05 @ 4:49AM|#
There are already content rules on children's programming on
cable. I'd sure like to see those knocked down on First Amendment
grounds.
Kevin
|3.2.05 @ 5:04AM|#
Gary, they don't eat the seal blubber too often. They usually just shoot the seals and let them float away. The seals are killed to prevent them eating salmon caught in nets. The bites cause the salmon to lose all value on the market. The shithead seals are prone to taking a single bite out of each fish trapped in a gill net.
|3.2.05 @ 6:38AM|#
Remember: the sole purpose of human civilization and the media are to set a good example for children.
|3.2.05 @ 6:42AM|#
About time this jackass did a Hale Boggs & disappeared
in the tundra.
Or maybe he needs skiing lessons from Sonny Bono...
|3.2.05 @ 8:04AM|#
"For the children!"
Why do so many people forget that children grow up into adults?
This is just another form of nanny-statism.
|3.2.05 @ 8:11AM|#
Yes, we must seek out and destroy any and every last bastion of
true liberty that still exists in this country. "Uhh, say
what!? You mean them folks on the cabuhl teevee still have their
first amendment rights somewhat intact!? Damnit, just when you
think you've got that whole 'bill of rights' phase completely out
of our system, this kinda shit rears its ugly head. Well, we'll
just see about that..."
How sad, that these fucks are fuming over the fact that people
haven't had their first amendment rights stolen. And then, they
have the nerve to talk about bringing "freedom" to Iraq. Fuck me,
why don't we first try bringing some "freedom" to the good ol' U S
of A?
|3.2.05 @ 9:08AM|#
Hmmmmm... I wonder if the existance of "Penn & Teller:
Bullshit" could be behind this. After all, P&T have bashed
creationists, end-of-the-world fundies, drug warriors (all of them,
good GOP constituencies), and have had plenty of off-color language
and socially redeeming nudity on the show. (I love the redhead they
had on the "Sex Sex Sex" episode.)
If that's one of th targets, it shouldn't be too hard to get the
Dems on board. Penn and Teller have taken on environmentalits, the
animal rights movement, and just about every goof-ball new age
crystal gazer next to Shirely MacLaine. (OK, not all new agers are
Dems. Look at the Reagans.)
|3.2.05 @ 9:11AM|#
"Why do so many people forget that children grow up into adults?
This is just another form of nanny-statism."
What do you expect when one party acts like a nagging,
overprotective, mother (i.e. Democrats), and the other acts like an
authoritarian, abusive, Father (i.e. Republicans)?
|3.2.05 @ 9:14AM|#
"Fuck me, why don't we first try bringing some "freedom" to the
good ol' U S of A?"
What? Don't you know that he armed forces are for protecting the
interests of well-connected foreign dignitaries and large
corporations?
What did you think the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines were for
anyway? Defending OUR country?
How quaint.
Rob D.|3.2.05 @ 9:14AM|#
It's almost as if things aren't bad enough. Why doesn't every
freedom fighter just back down. It doesn't seem like any overall
progress has been made in the last 50 yrs with regards to the
advancement of freedom. Let this country become a true fascist
state, and then the masses will HOPEFULLY realize the importance of
defending everyone's freedom, not just their own.
Most people are too comfortable in their own lives to recognize
freedoms are regularly being taken away. Here we are today, about
to fine broadcasters of "indecent" material $500,000 per incident.
I'm glad! Keep the extreme legislation coming. I'm tired of reading
about the small stuff daily that slowly chips away at my hopes of
making a difference.
|3.2.05 @ 9:30AM|#
Hmmmmm... I wonder if the existance of "Penn & Teller:
Bullshit" could be behind this.
The most likely impetus for this new wave of censorship is the
imminent arrival of Howard Stern on Sirius.
Pete Guither|3.2.05 @ 9:35AM|#
One of the things that particularly annoys me about Stevens is
his comment about passing restrictions and letting the Supreme
Court work it out. Just like the idiot Istook and his law against
having marijuana legalization ads in the metro.
The Constitution doesn't say, "Pass a bunch of bad laws and see
what the Supreme Court says." The Constitution reads: "Congress
shall pass no law..."
When you can turn to pretty much any reputable legal scholar and
they'll say "Yep, that's a violation of the First Amendment," and
you go ahead and pass it anyway, then these senators are violating
their oath to protect the Constitution and should be
censured.
... or at least pay for the appeals to the Supreme Court out of
their pockets.
|3.2.05 @ 9:35AM|#
"The most likely impetus for this new wave of censorship is the
imminent arrival of Howard Stern on Sirius."
Indeed, but a fan can dream that his favorite comedy/magic duo are
targets of government arm-twisting. It sounds kind of romantic.
|3.2.05 @ 9:37AM|#
"The Constitution doesn't say, "Pass a bunch of bad laws and see
what the Supreme Court says." The Constitution reads: "Congress
shall pass no law...""
Well, what do you expect from the same party whose president signed
McCain-Feingold in hopes that the SCOTUS would repeal the icky
stuff? We've seen how well that worked.
|3.2.05 @ 9:50AM|#
"When you can turn to pretty much any reputable legal scholar
and they'll say "Yep, that's a violation of the First Amendment,"
and you go ahead and pass it anyway, then these senators are
violating their oath to protect the Constitution and should be
censured."
Again, what do you expect since politicians don't actually have to
face any consequences for violating the law of the land? In theory,
they have to face the wrath of the people who put them in office.
However, since their constituents voted them in for those exact
reasons, it's more likely they'll get re-elected for using the Bill
Of Rights as a toilet seat cover.
If there is any justice in America, then any official, elected or
appointed to any branch of government (that includes you too
Dubbya), who either who sponsors or votes for a piece of
legislation found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS should face
being stripped of office, a prison term of no less than 20 years,
and a $1 million fine.
Yes, I'm serious.
|3.2.05 @ 10:14AM|#
Pete, I have an idea to run by Stevens: let's execute him and let God decide if he goes up or down. I mean, if he's so sure of his position...
|3.2.05 @ 10:33AM|#
All of this is actually about Howard Stern's move to Sirius. And
Ted Stevens has to be the crookedest Republican up there based on
post-election-riches, right?? The senate has been lucrative for
him, so of course he's against any of us speaking about his
riches...
Not-Daniel
|3.2.05 @ 10:48AM|#
The most likely impetus for this new wave of censorship is
the imminent arrival of Howard Stern on Sirius.
You do know why censors hate Howard Stern so much, right? It's
because he spouts Libertarian beliefs every which way on his
show!
This is the worst thing possible for liberals and conservatives
alike (a.k.a., the Status Quos)
!Viva Revolucion!! (or however you spell it)
|3.2.05 @ 10:52AM|#
Actually, in a way I could support this, if it were
used as a club to force cable/satellite providers to change their
subscription models into a pure "ala carte" system (i.e. only
subscribe to -- and pay for -- those channels I'm interested
in).
As far as I can see, if the industry won't let me choose what I
get, it's time to regulate 'em all.
A position, it seems, that organizations such as the Parents
Television Council are also gravitating to:
We support cable consumer choice as the best way to protect families from content they find offensive or that may be indecent and to protect free speech concerns. But if the cable operators refuse to allow consumer choice, then we believe that any cable network which is included in the basic or expanded basic tiers should be forced to comply with the same decency standards as the broadcast networks. Such a policy would force those networks that don�t adhere to such standards onto a separate subscription tier.
|3.2.05 @ 12:02PM|#
What bugs me about the story is not so much the ranting of Stevens (a major asshole) but the applause - APPLAUSE! - from the mental midgets of the NAB.
Franklin Harris|3.2.05 @ 12:31PM|#
It didn't take long for Stevens to find an ally in the U.S.
House:
Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, the head of the House Energy and
Commerce Committee, supported the idea of indecency guidelines for
cable and satellite and said he would consult with Stevens on
possible legislation.
"It's not fair to subject over-the-air broadcasters to one set of
rules and subject cable and satellite to no rules," Barton told
reporters after a separate appearance before the broadcasters
group.
Read more.
|3.2.05 @ 12:52PM|#
But none of this should dissuade us from continuing to believe that the Red States are the true bastions of liberty ;)
|3.2.05 @ 1:49PM|#
But none of this should dissuade us from continuing to
believe that the Red States are the true bastions of
liberty.
I don't think it matters what color your state is once you get to
the Senate...
|3.2.05 @ 2:24PM|#
Bring in on, fuckwads.
You'll drive the only good video feeds to the internet. (An
international medium where it's already impossible to
regulate.)
|3.2.05 @ 3:05PM|#
Miles: "...if it were used as a club to force cable/satellite
providers to change their subscription models into a pure "ala
carte" system... As far as I can see, if the industry won't let me
choose what I get, it's time to regulate 'em all."
There's a great idea - someone won't offer to sell you exactly what
you want so let's get the government to force them to do it. Maybe
this was facetious but to think the Parents Television Council
really cares one wit for "consumer choice" and free speech is to
stretch credulity beyond any reason. That's just a convenient
argument for getting their idea of "decency" forced on everyone
else.
Message to the Parents Television Council: You already have
consumer choice - if there is a channel that you would not buy
because you find its material offensive you can BLOCK it! Problem
solved. Amazing what technology can do these days isn't it.
|3.2.05 @ 3:32PM|#
Oh great, so first their senator helps to stick it to the rest
of us taxpayers by keeping Alaska the biggest sucker on the Federal
tit and now he's going to save us from the societally debasing
sight of a bare one on cable... If the "environmentalists" are not
going to let us suck any more of their oil in partial return for
our largess can we at least sell then back to Russia? I'm sure
Comrade Stevens would find Putin a receptive audience for his urges
to limit speech.
As an aside to Akira (and speaking of bare ones on cable), yeah
that redhead on "Bullshit!" was something else... who is she? I
think I'm in love!
|3.2.05 @ 6:38PM|#
Fortunately for all of us, Stevens and his allies will not be
able to regulate satellite broadcasters even if they get a bill
passed. The reason? The satellites operate in international space,
outside US jurisdiction, and the owners can simply register them in
a more permissive country.
If nasty police states like Iran can't prevent their citizens from
getting and using illegal satellite dishes now, how is the US --
where the dishes are legal, even if subscribing to some foreign
broadcast services may no longer be allowed -- going to beat
them?
My money is on the broadcasters to win this one, no matter what
laws Congress enacts on the subject.
|3.2.05 @ 6:45PM|#
Akira: If there is any justice in America, then any
official, elected or appointed to any branch of government (that
includes you too Dubbya), who either who sponsors or votes for a
piece of legislation found to be unconstitutional by the SCOTUS
should face being stripped of office, a prison term of no less than
20 years, and a $1 million fine. ... Yes, I'm serious.
You have partial precedent in ancient Athens:
The job was not risk-free; no one could be made to answer for
how they had voted in the Assembly, but politicians could be
prosecuted for making an unconstitutional proposal, or for
deceiving the people with false promises. (Imagine what our own
political system would look like if politicians could be prosecuted
for false promises!)
Also:
The Jury Courts were also staffed by sortition, picked daily
from a pool of 6000 volunteers (a favorite number with the
Athenians, apparently). Juries were large, ranging from several
hundred to several thousand depending on the seriousness of the
charge ...
Many ancient observers considered that the Jury Courts, rather than
the Council or Assembly, were the true governing powers in Athens.
For one thing, the Jury Courts had the power of judicial review.
The opportunity to exercise this power came when a politician was
prosecuted for having proposed an unconstitutional law or decree in
the Assembly. A politician could be prosecuted whether his proposal
had passed or not; but if it had indeed been enacted into law, and
the proposer was found guilty, the law was automatically repealed.
The juries made frequent use of this power... Thus, a few hundred
ordinary citizens could strike down, as unconstitutional,
legislation enacted by an Assembly of 6000 people.
There was no set penalty for person found guilty of proposing an
unconstitutional law, but this is how penalties were determined in
general (and this is a great idea for tort reform, too):
The procedure worked as follows: The prosecutor would propose a
penalty, and the defendant would then respond with a
counter-proposal, obviously of a lighter penalty. The jury would
then choose between the two penalties. (Having the jury come up
with a penalty of its own would have required discussion and debate
impracticable under the circumstances, given the size of the jury.)
Prosecutors were prevented from proposing excessively harsh
penalties by the fear that this would make the jury more likely to
choose the defendant's milder proposal; defendants were likewise
prevented from proposing excessively mild penalties by the fear
that this would make the jury more likely to choose the
prosecutor's harsher proposal. This was an ingenious way of
ensuring moderation in punishments.
There was also a procedure for putting an existing law "on trial"
and it would be repealed if found guilty of being
unconstitutional.
From a very interesting article (albeit rather long -- the above is
actually a very short excerpt) by Roderick Long of the Libertarian
Nation Foundation. Much fun can be found in reading through their
archives.
Article "The Athenian Constitution" found here:
http://libertariannation.org/a/f41l1.html#4.0
|3.2.05 @ 10:17PM|#
Fuck me, why don't we first try bringing some "freedom" to
the good ol' U S of A?
Considering the Bush administration's usual technique for bringing
freedom to nations, are you sure that's a good idea?
Be careful what you ask for. You just might get it.
James Anderson Merritt|3.3.05 @ 11:38AM|#
One of the most disturbing things about the push for
cable/satellite censorship is the assertion, oft-quoted in news
reports I've seen or read, that "people don't distinguish between
broadcast, cable, and satellite." The implication is that things
which the public cannot or does not distinguish should be treated
the same way. Of course, the "treatment" isn't to leave them alone,
as one might assume from reading the 1st Amendment to the
Constitution, but to extend censorship in one medium into the
"indistinguishable" sibling media.
The people who are proposing that satellite and especially cable be
censored ala broadcast TV should first explain how and who
broadcasters are subject to censorship in the first place, despite
the 1st Amendment. Then, they should have to prove that cable and
satellite are the same as broadcasting in all aspects that legally
admit censorship. I don't think censorship proponents could make
EITHER case. Indeed, a broad and honest discussion of the topic
might reveal that the justifications for broadcast censorship are
too flimsy to hold in the modern day, as well.
The downside? Suppose that the censorship proponents DO advance
arguments that carry the day. Then what happens when people begin
to "fail to distinguish" between internet feeds and newspapers or
(censored) television/cable/satellite? There will come a time when
most people get their "newspapers" online (from traditional
newspaper publishers' websites, no less), and certainly their
television-style entertainment and news, too. If it is only the
public's powers of discrimination, which confer 1st Amendment
protections against censorship, then we might as well accept that
Amendment as cooked.
James Anderson Merritt|3.3.05 @ 11:41AM|#
In graf 2 of my posting above, a crucial typo: I meant to type, "The people who are proposing that satellite and especially cable be censored ala broadcast TV should first explain how and WHY broadcasters are subject to censorship in the first place..." Not "how and who."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245