PDA

View Full Version : F'n Ted Stevens Wants to Regulate "Indecency" on Cable and Satellite TV


Amnorix
03-01-2005, 12:19 PM
Seriously, stay the f**k out of our lives...

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/01/technology/satellite_decency.reut/index.htm?cnn=yes


Senator fights cable 'indecency'
Alaska's Stevens says he'll push to apply public broadcast standards to satellite, too.
March 1, 2005: 11:04 AM EST
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said Tuesday he would push to apply broadcast decency standards to subscription television and radio services like cable and satellite.

"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television 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 and satellite radio and television.

Federal regulations bar broadcast television and radio stations from airing obscene material and restrict indecent material, such as sexually explicit discussions or profanity, to late-night hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening.

But so far those restrictions have not applied to subscription television and radio services offered by companies like Comcast Corp. (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=CMCSA) (up $0.22 to $32.68, Research (http://cnnfn.investor.reuters.com/Reports.aspx?ticker=CMCSA)) or Sirius Satellite Radio Inc. (http://money.cnn.com/quote/quote.html?shownav=true&symb=SIRI) (up $0.37 to $5.94, Research (http://cnnfn.investor.reuters.com/Reports.aspx?ticker=SIRI)), which recently signed shock jock Howard Stern.

Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on what they air.

"If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide," he said.

The House of Representatives has approved legislation to raise fines to $500,000 from $32,500 on television and radio broadcasters that violate indecency limits. The Senate has legislation pending to increase fines as well.

But neither bill has provisions that would extend indecency restrictions to cable and satellite services.

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 12:21 PM
As a conservative I have to say this is going too far. Take away my art films? Lynch him.

siberian khatru
03-01-2005, 12:21 PM
He'll have to pry my "Red Shoe Diaries" from my cold, dead fingers.

siberian khatru
03-01-2005, 12:22 PM
Take away my art films? Lynch him.

I hope that was an intentional pun, because it's very clever.

Soupnazi
03-01-2005, 12:32 PM
This stuff is getting outta hand. I'm all for some basic decency standards on regular TV and radio (the public airwaves) but they've got no business coming after subscriber services.

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 12:34 PM
This stuff is getting outta hand. I'm all for some basic decency standards on regular TV and radio (the public airwaves) but they've got no business coming after subscriber services.

Like I said on the other thread, the crackdown on 'indecency' was not unexpected and if you voted W you gave your tacit support to the Adminstration doing it (thru the AG) and Congress because there has been EVERY INDICATION the largest federal government in history was going to exercise MORE power and MORE restriction regarding 'decency' if re-elected.

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 12:42 PM
Like I said on the other thread, the crackdown on 'indecency' was not unexpected and if you voted W you gave your tacit support to the Adminstration doing it (thru the AG) and Congress because there has been EVERY INDICATION the largest federal government in history was going to exercise MORE power and MORE restriction regarding 'decency' if re-elected.

Any legislation of this type has about as much chance of passing as you being invited by Laura for tea in the White House.

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 12:46 PM
Any legislation of this type has about as much chance of passing as you being invited by Laura for tea in the White House.

I would not be so sure.

They are already appealing decisions that went against them prior to the election. And if they can get a judge to decide for them and then tie the issue up for a few years until it's heard by the SC then they can at least appease and appeal to the zealots in their party who think anything other than married, missionary, heterosexual sex for reproduction is obscene.

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 12:48 PM
I would not be so sure.

They are already appealing decisions that went against them prior to the election. And if they can get a judge to decide for them and then tie the issue up for a few years until it's heard by the SC then they can at least appease and appeal to the zealots in their party who think anything other than married, missionary, heterosexual sex for reproduction is obscene.

Bookmark this post for when it comes true and then beat me over the head with it when it does. I aint worried.

Baby Lee
03-01-2005, 01:01 PM
if you voted W you gave your tacit support to the Adminstration doing it (thru the AG)
Because Bush's handprints are ALL over this. :rolleyes:

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 01:10 PM
Because Bush's handprints are ALL over this. :rolleyes:


It's behind Gonzales' actions.

Soupnazi
03-01-2005, 01:10 PM
Like I said on the other thread, the crackdown on 'indecency' was not unexpected and if you voted W you gave your tacit support to the Adminstration doing it (thru the AG) and Congress because there has been EVERY INDICATION the largest federal government in history was going to exercise MORE power and MORE restriction regarding 'decency' if re-elected.

Sure, analagous to a vote for Clinton being a tacit endorsement of his giving weapons secrets and nuclear capability to the N Koreans right?

For god's sake already, I hope your hatred of Bush keeps you from shaking a baby or abusing a dog or something, because that's the only way it would be constructive.

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 01:18 PM
Sure, analagous to a vote for Clinton being a tacit endorsement of his giving weapons secrets and nuclear capability to the N Koreans right?

For god's sake already, I hope your hatred of Bush keeps you from shaking a baby or abusing a dog or something, because that's the only way it would be constructive.


:hmmm:

Irrevelent analogy. W's administration was ACTIVE in the SC and FCC in trying to change rules and/or apply standards in their first administration...

if they truly believe they were elected on a conservative, religous, moral mandate why would they not push even further in their second term?

mlyonsd
03-01-2005, 01:30 PM
:hmmm:

Irrevelent analogy. W's administration was ACTIVE in the SC and FCC in trying to change rules and/or apply standards in their first administration...

if they truly believe they were elected on a conservative, religous, moral mandate why would they not push even further in their second term?

Because Chicken Little, even they know it would be a losing issue to tackle.

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 01:37 PM
Because Chicken Little, even they know it would be a losing issue to tackle.


I wouldn't be so sure...

I guess you and I will have the next four years to judge whether or not they crack down and support efforts in Congress to do so or whether things stay the same.

HC_Chief
03-01-2005, 02:32 PM
Like I've said, the Republicans will only lose power if they start to f*ck things up by attempting to LEGISLATE MORALITY.

DON'T DO THAT!

I'm telling you now, if this sort of puritanical bullshit legislation keeps cropping up, the leftist nut-bags are going to start getting seats back.

Amnorix
03-01-2005, 02:33 PM
Like I said, the Republicans will only lose power if they start to f*ck things up by attempting to LEGISLATE MORALITY.

DON'T DO THAT!

I'm telling you now, if this sort of puritanical bullshit legislation keeps cropping up, the leftist nut-bags are going to start getting seats back.
You don't seem to understand that legislating morality is what half these guys think they're there to do....

ROFL ROFL ROFL

memyselfI
03-01-2005, 03:47 PM
You don't seem to understand that legislating morality is what half these guys think they're there to do....

ROFL ROFL ROFL

Exactly. Karl Rove is one of them.

Cochise
03-01-2005, 04:09 PM
Like I've said, the Republicans will only lose power if they start to f*ck things up by attempting to LEGISLATE MORALITY.


:rolleyes:

KCWolfman
03-01-2005, 04:24 PM
If people pay to be "violated", they have that right. I have no qualms with cleaning up the public airwaves, but leave cable television alone. Congress just doesn't have that right, IMO.

KCWolfman
03-01-2005, 04:25 PM
Like I said on the other thread, the crackdown on 'indecency' was not unexpected and if you voted W you gave your tacit support to the Adminstration doing it (thru the AG) and Congress because there has been EVERY INDICATION the largest federal government in history was going to exercise MORE power and MORE restriction regarding 'decency' if re-elected.
BS post.

This is not the Admin, it is a wacked out Alaskan Representative.

Using your stupid analogy we must assume that Kerry would have drafted youths as his party initiated a bill to do so during the past year.

KCWolfman
03-01-2005, 04:27 PM
Exactly. Karl Rove is one of them.
What morality has Rove legislated?

beavis
03-01-2005, 04:36 PM
I wouldn't be so sure...

I guess you and I will have the next four years to judge whether or not they crack down and support efforts in Congress to do so or whether things stay the same.
I think this is BS, but I'd go along with it if they'd shut you up as well.

jettio
03-01-2005, 05:02 PM
Congress would have some authority to regulate under the commerce clause, provided that any regulations did not violate 1st amendment.

Frank Rich's latest New York Times article makes the case that most of the biggest smutpeddlers are big GOP donors, and that all of the talk for more regulation is likely to go nowhere because money talks louder.