Congress Increases Indecency Fines Tenfold

Brutuskend

Lifer
Apr 2, 2001
26,558
4
0
Congress Increases Indecency Fines Tenfold
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 8, 1:23 AM

WASHINGTON - Vowing to clear the public airwaves of prurient and vulgar material, Congress has overwhelmingly approved legislation to increase by tenfold the fines that broadcasters could face for indecent programming.

President Bush welcomed passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act and promised to sign it into law. "I believe that government has a responsibility to help strengthen families," he said in a statement. "This legislation will make television and radio more family friendly by allowing the FCC to impose stiffer fines on broadcasters who air obscene or indecent programming."

The bill would increase the maximum fines the Federal Communications Commission may levy for indecent content from the current $32,500 to $325,000 per incident. The legislation passed the House 379-35 on Wednesday after moving through the Senate last month on a voice vote.

Approval of the bill culminates a two-year effort to get tough on sexually explicit material and offensive language on radio and television following Janet Jackson's 2004 Super Bowl "wardrobe malfunction."

The FCC recently denied a petition of reconsideration from CBS Corp.-owned stations facing $550,000 in fines over the Jackson incident, in which she briefly revealed a breast during a halftime concert.

The bill was important to conservative groups and its passage came on the same day that another conservative priority _ a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage _ failed in the Senate.

"The FCC will now have the authority to impose meaningful, punitive fines when the indecency law is broken," said L. Brent Bozell, president of the Parents Television Council, a group that has actively pursued cases of indecent material on the public airways. "We hope that the hefty fines will cause the multibillion-dollar broadcast networks finally to take the law seriously."

"This is a victory for children and families," said Senate sponsor Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. The higher fines were needed, he said, "in a world saturated with violent and explicit media."

The bill does not apply to cable or satellite broadcasts, and does not try to define what is indecent.

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio and over-the-air television stations may not air obscene material at any time, and may not air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. when children are more likely to be in the audience.

The FCC says indecent material is that which contains sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The legislation, while facing little resistance in Congress, had detractors warning of problems in defining what is indecent and of the erosion of First Amendment rights.

"What is at stake here is freedom of speech and whether it will be nibbled to death by election-minded politicians and self-righteous pietists," Rep. Gary Ackerman, D-N.Y., said in a statement. He recalled how after the Super Bowl incident, numerous ABC affiliates refused to air the acclaimed war movie "Saving Private Ryan" because of its rough language.

The National Association of Broadcasters said it would prefer to see the nation's 13,000 radio stations and 1,700 TV stations police themselves.

The FCC has also actively responded to the increase in complaints about lewd material over the airwaves, with total fines jumping from $440,000 in 2003 to almost $8 million in 2004.

The agency recently handed down its biggest fine, $3.3 million, against more than 100 CBS affiliates that aired an episode of the series "Without a Trace" that simulated an orgy scene. That fine is now under review.

___

The bill is S. 193

 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Isn't that just wonderful.

Anybody wanna go watch some more episodes of CSI where they talk about a hooker getting strangled with her own underwear and then getting chopped into little pieces?
 

pontifex

Lifer
Dec 5, 2000
43,804
46
91
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Congress Increases Indecency Fines Tenfold
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 8, 1:23 AM

WASHINGTON - Vowing to clear the public airwaves of prurient and vulgar material, Congress has overwhelmingly approved legislation to increase by tenfold the fines that broadcasters could face for indecent programming.

President Bush welcomed passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act and promised to sign it into law. "I believe that government has a responsibility to help strengthen families," he said in a statement.

here's an idea, let the families strengthen themselves. we don't need the government telling us how to run our family.

"This legislation will make television and radio more family friendly by allowing the FCC to impose stiffer fines on broadcasters who air obscene or indecent programming."

get up off your ass and turn it off or change the fvcking channel!


The bill was important to conservative groups and its passage came on the same day that another conservative priority _ a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage _ failed in the Senate.

and these are the kind of people who want to tell us what to do. fvcking religious freaks. isn't the bible full of violence and sex? lets ban it or fine the church.

"This is a victory for children and families," said Senate sponsor Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. The higher fines were needed, he said, "in a world saturated with violent and explicit media."

no, this is a victory to people who want to control what everyone does in their personal life. this is a victory for the religious freaks mentioned earlier. this is a victory towards total government involvement in everything we do.

again, isn't the bible full of that stuff? what about news programs?


The bill does not apply to cable or satellite broadcasts, and does not try to define what is indecent.
yet...


The legislation, while facing little resistance in Congress, had detractors warning of problems in defining what is indecent and of the erosion of First Amendment rights.


what you find indecent may not be indecent to someone else. again i'll say get up off your ass and change the channel or turn it off.

fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.
 

mercanucaribe

Banned
Oct 20, 2004
9,763
1
0
Yet the conservatives on this forum will have you believe that the Bush administration loves freedom...?
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Yet the conservatives on this forum will have you believe that the Bush administration loves freedom...?

Take a look at the # of Dissenters. Less than 40. So I guess we can say the same thing about the Dems and Repubs in the House, right?
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Yet the conservatives on this forum will have you believe that the Bush administration loves freedom...?
Sure, it was all because of Bush and conservatives, right?
The legislation passed the House 379-35 on Wednesday after moving through the Senate last month on a voice vote.
That's a crapload of conservative Bush-loving Republicans.
 

DaShen

Lifer
Dec 1, 2000
10,710
1
0
Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Agreed
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,410
616
126
funny how the FCC decides that seeing a naked human body is obscene. but watching murder, rape, beatings, stabbings, shootings, people blown up, fingers cut off is not.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
Originally posted by: mercanucaribe
Yet the conservatives on this forum will have you believe that the Bush administration loves freedom...?

The legislation passed the House 379-35 on Wednesday after moving through the Senate last month on a voice vote.

Reading and thinking FTW. With a vote count like that it is hardly the Bush administration that caused this.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: pontifex
Originally posted by: Brutuskend
Congress Increases Indecency Fines Tenfold
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 8, 1:23 AM

WASHINGTON - Vowing to clear the public airwaves of prurient and vulgar material, Congress has overwhelmingly approved legislation to increase by tenfold the fines that broadcasters could face for indecent programming.

President Bush welcomed passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act and promised to sign it into law. "I believe that government has a responsibility to help strengthen families," he said in a statement.

here's an idea, let the families strengthen themselves. we don't need the government telling us how to run our family.

"This legislation will make television and radio more family friendly by allowing the FCC to impose stiffer fines on broadcasters who air obscene or indecent programming."

get up off your ass and turn it off or change the fvcking channel!


The bill was important to conservative groups and its passage came on the same day that another conservative priority _ a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage _ failed in the Senate.

and these are the kind of people who want to tell us what to do. fvcking religious freaks. isn't the bible full of violence and sex? lets ban it or fine the church.

"This is a victory for children and families," said Senate sponsor Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan. The higher fines were needed, he said, "in a world saturated with violent and explicit media."

no, this is a victory to people who want to control what everyone does in their personal life. this is a victory for the religious freaks mentioned earlier. this is a victory towards total government involvement in everything we do.

again, isn't the bible full of that stuff? what about news programs?


The bill does not apply to cable or satellite broadcasts, and does not try to define what is indecent.
yet...


The legislation, while facing little resistance in Congress, had detractors warning of problems in defining what is indecent and of the erosion of First Amendment rights.


what you find indecent may not be indecent to someone else. again i'll say get up off your ass and change the channel or turn it off.

fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

No one's telling you what you can or can't watch or listen to; they're only regulating what is broadcast over public airwaves. By your own bolding, the bill does not apply to cable or satellite services. Ignorant alarmists piss me off.
 

ThePresence

Elite Member
Nov 19, 2001
27,727
16
81
Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.
They're not. They're telling broadcasters what they may and may not broadcast. There's a difference.
 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.
 

DainBramaged

Lifer
Jun 19, 2003
23,454
41
91
The government has *no* fvcking responsibility to help strengthen families. I don't know what Bush is smoking, but I'd like some.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
"I believe that government has a responsibility to help strengthen families,"

Why do you believe that? :confused: The government's responsibilities are clearly laid out in the constitution, nothing even coming close to resembling the same ballpark as "strengthening families" is in the constitution.
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: ThePresence
Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.
They're not. They're telling broadcasters what they may and may not broadcast. There's a difference.

Don't ruin his ignorant, immature tantrum.
 

NatePo717

Diamond Member
Jun 6, 2005
3,392
4
81
I don't remember ever saying I wanted more censorship of my TV/Radio shows. fvcking media nazis.
 

Howard

Lifer
Oct 14, 1999
47,982
11
81
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.
They should hand out chastity belts door to door.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,330
1
81
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.
They should hand out chastity belts door to door.

And give me the keys.
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,920
46
91
In case anyone cares, http://www.parentstv.org/ is the group that's mostly responsible for "purifying" our airwaves. Most FCC complaints come from their members. We should all e-mail them and thank them for protecting us from the TV stations that terrorize us with naughty language.
 

Engineer

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
39,230
701
126
Welcome to the nanny state.

I would wager that a majority of the people who voted for this sit down an watch a porn flick from time to time. Same for the gay bashers...they love lesbian porn.
 

Ricochet

Diamond Member
Oct 31, 1999
6,390
19
81
I'm so disappointed in Congress. They pretty much thumbed their noses at our First Amendment rights.

Apparently, a lot of conservatives (both Democrats & Republicans) lack the skill to turn the radio knob or change the TV channel. The success of broadcasts are dependent on ratings (ie. how many people tune in). The public votes with their ears. It is the public who should decide what is decent or indecent and decide whether they should tune in or tune out.

Everyday, we are becoming more and more like a nanny state.

 
Dec 27, 2001
11,272
1
0
Originally posted by: Howard
Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Originally posted by: pontifex
fvck! i hate this sh!t and it really gets me pissed off. don't fvcking tell me what i can or can't watch or listen to.

Nobody is, genius. You can still order whatever porn you want, so knock yourself out. Same your drama and false dilemas for somebody else. This is protecting our kids from happening upon stuff on television that will permemnently scar their minds. I bet you still remember the first time you ever saw pornography. Do you remember the first time you withnessed violence on TV? Doubtful. See, there's a big difference between doing something by seeing something (watching porn) and just seeing something and not doing anything (violence). And you cover violence with you kids somewhere between the ages of 1 and 2 when you explain why hitting and biting are not okay, so they can handle MacGyver punching some guy. Jump starting some pre-teen boys libido for no reason other than to keep wankers like you feeling more normal isn't something I feel is a good thing.
They should hand out chastity belts door to door.

So you're saying porn should be shown in junior high school classrooms? Got it.
 

Linflas

Lifer
Jan 30, 2001
15,395
78
91
All you people screaming like stuck pigs need to think this thing through. By increasing the fines to something meaningful in 2006 dollars instead of fines set back in the 1930's or 40's large media companies will no longer be willing to just settle these things to make them go away. Instead they will actually have to go through the court system and judges that adhere strictly to the constitution are generally loathe to uphold censorship of radio and television unless the government can make a very strong case that it serves a compelling public interest. Just look at how the SC has thrown out congessional attempts to censor the internet to date.