Toward a Kinder, Gentler Sopranos

|

Get ready for a bloody fight over fake violence:

An upcoming FCC report recommending steps that Congress can take to regulate television violence has sharply divided the agency's five members.

Multiple sources said Republican Chairman Kevin Martin and Democratic Commissioner Michael Copps, who are spearheading the crackdown on graphic scenes, had approved the latest version of the report.

The report concludes that Congress can regulate violent TV images without compromising the First Amendment. It has created some unusual alliances — teaming Martin and Copps, who are often at odds, while dividing Copps and Adelstein, who normally move in lockstep.

Shortly after the FCC report's release, Sen. John (Jay) Rockefeller, D-W.Va., plans to reintroduce legislation that would expand the FCC's "indecency" regulations to pay TV and allow the agency to restrict violent fare on broadcast, cable and satellite.

A television industry source predicted that, even if the FCC approves the report 3-2, Rockefeller's bill would easily pass the chamber because "no one's going to oppose violence [legislation]."

At the moment, indecency regs mainly pertain to the threat of exposed nipples and other innocence-killing lady parts. The authors of the report want to expand the definition of indecency to include graphic violence.  FCC comissioner Robert McDowell says he's all for it.

NEXT: More "Thompson for President" News

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they 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 for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Let’s seen now.. The IRS, the ATFE, the DEA, and the FCC. Thess boobs we could well do without.

  2. On what grounds does the FCC claim it has jurisdiciton over non-broadcast TV?

    Cable TV companies it their subscribers are not using the “public” airways so I don’t see how they have any legal hook into claiming authority over it.

    I expect there will be a plethora of lawsuits if the legislation is passed.

  3. Oh, there must be some mistake. Did David get to look at this before it was posted?

    There are more Ds than Rs in the censor tally of the post.

    Balance will be demanded! It must be maintained to maintain balnace! Someone come up with five more Rs, real quick, to balance this article properly!

  4. Who will censor the FCC? It’s for the children!

  5. We should just import our TV from the middle east. No sex or violence, except what we export. Should be great.

  6. Cocksuckers!

  7. We should just import our TV from the middle east. No sex or violence, except what we export. Should be great.

    And no V-Chip either.

    Oh no! There is another D in the mix! Better find 7 more Rs to balance.

  8. Timothy,

    One of the local college radio stations here uses the FCC:FU anthem for a station promotional spot.

  9. Cable TV companies … are not using the “public” airways

    Dey using dem satellimites

  10. “Oh no! There is another D in the mix!”

    ???? I’m not sure what this means. Really.

  11. oh, Dr. Duck. I see. anti-satellimitism.

    Timothy, Smacky: awesome! have you seen the FCC song from family guy?

    hier

  12. Lamar,

    No violence on Middle East TV, except for those beheadings. And long-lingering shots of dead Palestinians. And stonings. And the bodies of dead Americans being dragged through the streets.

    But definitely no sex. Because sex is so much more damaging the psyche and soul.

  13. “On what grounds does the FCC claim it has jurisdiciton over non-broadcast TV?”

    I agree that the FCC can use me to regulate the content of cable television.

    Reports of my having been subjected to waterboarding are completely false.

  14. Hey, how’s that liberaltarian thing working out? Good thing we have Dems in charge of Congress now, no way Dems would vote for this, right?

    And after today’s ruling expanding EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gases, I have little faith in the Supreme Court ruling that the FCC doesn’t have authority over satellites and landlines.

  15. VM,

    Thanks for the link! That was great.

  16. But High #: I betcha they won’t play that song on the radio…

    🙂

  17. I tend to think that they’ll back off on the cable. It would lead to too much of a battle, especially when it comes to premium services that people pay extra for. If people don’t want to see Tony Soprano blow someone’s head off, they shouldn’t subscribe to HBO.

    They might crackdown on broadcast shows like 24, however, which would reek. I suspect 24 might be a particular target, as certain people seem rather eager to blame it for recent torture scandals, probably as a way of deflecting the government’s own responsibility.

  18. ???? I’m not sure what this means. Really.

    Typical notation for USA political party affiliations of individuals use R for Republican, D for Democrat and so on.

    The V-Chip was an Al Gore (D) initiative.

    Hope that helps.

  19. Reports of my having been subjected to waterboarding are completely false.

    Can we leave Ted Kenned out of this please?

  20. Guy Montag:

    Talk about an eye opener. This whole time I thought that the “D” next to a name was a “P” (for pinko, I guess I didn’t look close enough). And I just assumed the “R” was a “P” with a little pee-pee added on. So I guess it isn’t “P” for Pinko Party and “R” for the Rudimentary Peni Party…..

  21. May I offer a suggestion to our intrepid commenters? The next time you feel the need to make some infantile, snide, or sarcastic comment about Ds or Rs, please remember that apart from one or two folks, no one here cares. The people who hang out here are not fans of Ds or Rs, and trolling for either demonstrates two types of laziness. It demonstrates that the commenter is too lazy to figure out what H&R is about, and that the commenter is too intellectually lazy to think past party divisions. Please, take it somewhere else and let the grownups talk. Please.

  22. R C Dean,

    Looks like you made another one squeal like a stuck pig. Or is that drip like a cracked watermelon?

  23. Maybe RC Dean just made ’em blush like David Brooks….and that’s no small feat.

  24. “The report is expected to tell Congress that studies show media violence can harm kids, that there is a constitutional way for Congress to rewrite the definition of indecency to include violence, and parents should have more control of their channel choices.”
    from the 2nd link in the article

  25. The above comment applies to you too, Guy. In point of fact, your comments are worthless as are those things you confuse with thoughts. Your partisan hackery is all noise and no signal. If you’ve ever contributed something thoughtful or original, I’ve missed it.

  26. Guy, Lamar,

    God knows the Rs have been a huge disappointment to me ever since taking the majority, but I have to say the whole delusional notion that modern-day liberals, with their slavish devotion to the Total State, will ever advance the libertarian agenda one millimeter, really bakes my noodle.

  27. Americans won’t fight for many causes, but damn if we’re ever going to give up our sacred right to watch trash TV.

  28. Lighten up, Dan T. You know the saying. One man’s trash TV is another man’s pseudo-sexual penis envy.

  29. R C Dean,

    but I have to say the whole delusional notion that modern-day liberals, with their slavish devotion to the Total State, will ever advance the libertarian agenda one millimeter, really bakes my noodle

    Back when I used to vote D I was under that illusion. Well, not the same one, but the illusion that Ds were making things “fare” through government. The Rs disappoint a great deal, but they are a hell of a lot closer to letting me make my own decisions than the Ds are.

    Also, I still hear a watermelon dripping in the background . . .

  30. If congress believes it can regulate sex, it would make no sense for it to believe it can’t regulate violence. Either the former would be rolled back or the latter would be advanced. Looks like we’re going to get the latter.

    Let’s hope this is a case of “worse is bettter”.

  31. Sure, Guy. And I hear a partisan troll yapping. As he has been for some months now.

  32. Howard Beal,

    You sound very angry. In fact you sound mad as hell. What are you not going to do next?

  33. The Rs disappoint a great deal, but they are a hell of a lot closer to letting me make my own decisions than the Ds are.

    So long as it isn’t gambling or looking at nudie mags, eh?

    D=R, simple as that folks except one claims to protect you from each other while the other does it out of “moral” superiority. The end result is the same.

  34. So long as it isn’t gambling or looking at nudie mags, eh?

    Let’s see . . .

    I don’t gamble much, but I don’t have any problem making a bet when I want to and all of my porn (your meaning of “nudie” I hope) is all online.

    Of course, I would like more of both to be legal and not run by the state.

  35. Does this mean the FCC is going to regulate the bible? That is full of all kinds of violence!

  36. “Does this mean the FCC is going to regulate the bible? That is full of all kinds of violence!”

    and sexual chocolate. Ya never know when Jesus is going to show up in the cocoa buff.

  37. “The report is expected to tell Congress that studies show media violence can harm kids, that there is a constitutional way for Congress to rewrite the definition of indecency to include violence, and parents should have more control of their channel choices.”

    Only in church and Congress would censoring programs = parents having more control.

    On what grounds does the FCC claim it has jurisdiciton over non-broadcast TV?

    It’s the “for the children” clause in the penumbra of the Constitution.

  38. Hey HOWARD!!!

    Republicans RULE! Well they kinda did….. for a while anyways… and they are the only one of the TWO major parties that even lets libertarians kinda hang out and appoint us as judges and at least consider our ideas when it comes to Public Policy and Economics.

    And they don’t seem to be approaching the regulation of non-broadcast teevee with the same kinda VIGOR as those Ds. Maybe , somewhere back in their brains, they might have a notion that maybe markets could take care of that thing- like the way basic cable doesn’t come with hardcore porn channels, not that the content would cost anything, but maybe cable subscibers don’t want it on the basic tiers.

  39. Doesn’t Jay Rockefeller have a huge conflict of interest, what with his wife being a mucky-muck at Washington, D.C.’s WETA?

    {Beltwayites: am I misinformed?}

    Kevin

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.