You Really Can't Say That On TV!
Yesterday, the U.S. Senate passed (by a 99-1 vote) legislation increasing fines for broadcasters who run afoul of FCC decency rules. From the Bloomberg account:
The Senate measure would raise Federal Communications Commission fines against television and radio broadcasters such as Viacom Inc. to as much as $275,000 a violation and $3 million a day. The current maximum fine is $27,500 a violation and will go up to $32,500 in about a month to account for inflation.
The Senate also passed a resolution proclaiming that there's been significant media consolidation since 1996 and suspended last year's FCC ownership rules. Whole pathetic thing here. The House passed similar legislation a while back (which Pres. Bush supports), so look for a final law sooner rather than later. Especially in an election year.
The lone senatorial holdout, by the way, was John Breaux (D-La.), who opposed the bill for one crappy and one good reason. Figure out which by reading this great demolition of fears of "media consolidation."
All of this reminds me of something Drew Carey said in his refreshingly foul-mouthed and funny 1997 Reason interview:
The government is really into "protecting" people. The FCC says you can't broadcast certain words and certain pictures. It says it's protecting citizens. But I'm sitting in my home with DirecTV and can watch whatever I want. I can afford the best pornography--laser-disc porn! The government's not protecting me from anything.
All the government's doing is discriminating against poor people. It thinks poor people are like cows, that poor people can't think straight: If we let them hear dirty words or see dirty pictures, there's going to be madness! If you're poor and all you can afford is a 12-inch black-and-white TV and can't pay for cable--you're so protected! You'd probably be happier if you could see some pornography, a pair of titties, once in a while on free TV. But a pair of titties on free TV? The government figures if you saw that, you'd just explode!
The interview, done when Carey's book Dirty Jokes and Beer: Stories of the Unrefined hit bookstores, also includes illuminating examples of what network censors let pass. For instance, "butt wipe" got cut but "butt weasel" was OK'd. God only knows why.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
99-1, huh? I hope Howard Stern took notice that John Kerry wasn't the one that voted against the bill!
Now, you still want to say this is all W's fault, Howard?
...,
It will be once he signs it into law.
Drew was right, though. It didn't even take a pair, just one half-covered boob to make the country crazy.
So tell me again why voting makes a difference...
Jim Walsh-
Because if you vote for one side, they'll spout rhetoric from one side of the political divide while regulating speech and racking up huge deficits. And if you vote for the other side, they'll spout rhetoric from the other side of the political divide while regulating speech and racking up huge deficits.
If you have to live in a highly regulated society, at least make sure that the rhetoric is soothing 🙂
Kevin:
But what about the CHILDREN?!?!? I'm trying to raise my children to be right with JEEZ-us and I won't allow their Christian morales and values be polluted by this SMUT! 😉
Seriously, I don't give a rat's ass what offends the bible-beaters, or anyone else for that matter. Change the channel, overt your eyes, or join the rest of civilized humanity and realize the fact that sex is not "sinful." Come on America, put the Bible/Torah/Koran on the bookshelf (or better yet, the garbage can where they really belongs) and loosen up.
Edit: ...where they really belong
I heard all about this on WABC in NYC by a guy named Mark Levin who is fairly right wing. I am glad that he screamed it was censorship. I can't wait for the lawsuits to start happening and possibly for this legislation to be thrown in the garbage can where it really belongs. What is it with so many folks in America when it comes to sex or off color language? Sure, if I had kids, I wouldn't want them to repeatedly viewing certain things......what harm is a pair of boobs or genitalia going to do? It is my obligation to regulate what my kids see, not the government. When are we going to stop being stung by that wascally Puritan bumble bee?
When are we going to stop being stung by that wascally Puritan bumble bee?
When real freedom-lovers begin to swat it.
I love it when you guys start shouting your support of unfettered access to pornography for kids. Keep going with that...
Who said anything about unfettered porn for kids? If you can't control what your children watch most of the time, you've got your own problems. Why should I not be able to hear language on TV that I hear thousands of times a day in the real world? Or see something that I see all the time in the mirror or my bedroom or whathaveyou?
O right, it's because we need to protect the children. I forgot.
Vigilance Matters,
After all, a picture of a woman's bare breast or two people fucking is SO much worse for kids than stories on the nightly news about government corruption, break ins, murders, school shootings, etc. If you have kids, don't let them watch it. Or, maybe, actually talk to them about troubling pictures and stories if the children do see things that trouble them.
Well, this bipartisan vote sends a powerful message about the choice before us in this election: Do you want politicians who will restrict speech to defend The Children from corporate entertainment, or do you want politicians who will restrict speech to defend traditional values from Godless Hollywood?
Tweedledum or Tweedledummer?
Hey, Vigilance blogged on last week's Time Warner CEO story ("no choice for you!") as well. Same basic argument -- "why should I pay for shows I don't watch or like?" but with the lagniappe of "morally indefensible" programming.
thoreau,
"Tweedledum and Tweedledee
Agreed to have a battle!
For Tweedledum said Tweedledee
Had spoiled his nice new rattle.
"Just then flew down a monstrous crow,
As black as a tar-barrel!
Which frightened both the heroes so,
They quite forgot their quarrel."
You reinforce the 2-party model. I prefer to think that, with a clean conscience, I can vote for the monstrous crow. ;>
the problem is people can't fetter their own goddamn children! 🙂
I better check my Summerfest schedule. I think they may have booked the Monstrous Crows.
Raawwwkkk Onnn!
Kevin
Vigilance Matters!!!
Unfettered pornography for children? I don't think so. Apparently you're not reading the posts carefully. It's a parent's job to censor what they think is not appropriate for their kids to be exposed to, not the government. For example, there are web filters one can buy to filter out sexually explicit sites so you don't have to be like a hawk on your kid's shoulder as he/she surfs the net. What kids hear and are exposed to in the street and among their peers is definitely not G rated.....in fact it's probably closer to XXX. So please get your head out of your rump and stop longing for life in Mayberry.
It makes sense
het is zinvol