You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Culture Wars
House Approves Stiffer Indecency Fines
2005-02-17
Chafing over a "wardrobe malfunction" and racy radio shock-jock programs, the House overwhelmingly passed a bill Wednesday authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency. Lawmakers sought to hit broadcasters where it hurts — the pocketbook — in approving the measure 389-38, rejecting criticism that the penalties would stifle free speech and expression and further homogenize programming. The bill would increase the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer. "With passage of this legislation, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope," said Rep. Fred Upton, R-Mich., chairman of the House telecommunications panel and author of the bill. "Our kids will be better off for it."

The White House said in a statement that it strongly supports the legislation that "will make broadcast television and radio more suitable for family viewing." A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, where it has broad bipartisan support. Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Commerce Committee, has said he wants to act on the bill quickly, but he hasn't given a timetable. Any differences in the two bills would have to be resolved before it can go to President Bush for his signature. Last year the two chambers were unable to reach a compromise. Opponents said they were concerned that stiffer fines by the Federal Communications Commission would lead to more self-censorship by broadcasters and entertainers unclear about the definition of "indecent." They cited the example of several ABC affiliates that did not air the World War II drama "Saving Private Ryan" last years because of worries that violence and profanity would lead to fines, even though the movie already had aired on network TV.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., said changing the channel is the best way for families to avoid racy programming. "But the prurient Puritans of this House are not satisfied with free choice and the free market," Nadler said. "Instead, they want the government to decide what is or is not appropriate for the public to watch or listen to..."
389-38? Pathetic. I look forward to new congressional hearings about how the Cartoon Network is turning the next generation into serial killers. Those darn Powerpuff girls.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#5  I'm with Thraing.
Posted by: Shipman   2005-02-17 6:09:04 PM  

#4  The electro-magnetic spectrum, as far as it falls within the American area, is public domain, just as 'public' lands are. If you don't mind clear cutting forests or strip mining land, then well, yes, go ahead and do anything you want. However, if you accept that the government is responible for stewardship of the property on behalf of the people, then it will set up standards and regulations. This is open broadcast, not cable, not satellite, that is being addressed. If you want your kicks they're readily available now in accessible venues. Otherwise, just vote the bums out, if you can.
Posted by: Thraing Whaimp1866   2005-02-17 2:27:07 PM  

#3  Don't like something? Change the freakin' station!
Posted by: Raj   2005-02-17 1:49:34 PM  

#2  Maybe the House should fine Yahoo for implied indecency....or something...
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-02-17 1:15:10 PM  

#1  That headline is just wrong, in so many ways...
Posted by: mojo   2005-02-17 11:02:49 AM  

00:00