New Indecency Legislation Expected

[guruoo]

New Indecency Legislation Expected
By Jayson Romaine
Sunday, January 22, 2006


WASHINGTON — Even staunch supporters admit they face major 1st Amendment issues with new indecency legislation being bantered around Washington this week, but with several new initiatives announced during Thursday’s Senate Commerce Committee hearing on Internet pornography, it’s clear that indecency laws are heading for a change. “Whatever we reach by consensus is going to happen now,” Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said at the hearing. “ whatever we mandate is going to go to court.”

<snip>

So far, four content regulation bills remain stalled in his committee, including one that would increase penalties for indecency from $32,500 to $500,000, capping the maximum charged at a whopping $3 million a day. Another proposed bill, S. 616, targets video distributors, giving the Federal Communications Commission 60 days to figure out if children are protected by current distribution technology on a case by case — company by company — basis.

<snip>

The only bill to spur active involvement from broadcasters so far is S. 946, which would require a major increase in the amount of “kid friendly” programming currently available. EchoStar, for example, which owns the Dish Network satellite system, announced during Thursday's hearing a new “DishFamily” network, which would offer 32 “family programming” channels.

Representatives at Ad Council also made it known during the hearing that the Council would create public service announcements to educate consumers on content blocking technology, including PSA’s on the infamous V-chip. Furthermore, broadcasters plan to display a TV program’s content rating during every commercial break, rather than merely during the opening of the show as is done now.
“Every parent in America has the total power to control all the television that is dispatched to their homes,” said former movie lobby chief Jack Valenti, who helped organize the Ad Council initiative.

Valenti, a strong proponent of self-policing in the industry, warned legislators that indecency laws were a dangerous water to tread. “Don't torment and torture the 1st Amendment,” he said.

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=12957

[blm]

1. Pure political gaming - they know it's the vourt's perview, but GOP will

always pull some stunt on hot button issues, knowing full well it's all for show and they don't give a rat's ass about anything but show for their demagoguery-loving voters.

[AndyTiedye]

13. All Bets Are Off Once They Pack The Court

[boobooday]

2. Oh Please

PORN. This is a really, really, imminent threat to America.

Now, if we're going to talk indecent, I would say that the most filthy pornography broadcast on television, to CHILDREN, no less, was Bush's Shock and Awe campaign, complete with moaning and cooing from the whores at Fox News.

[NC_Nurse]

3. Here's the point:

“Every parent in America has the total power to control all the television that is dispatched to their homes,” said former movie lobby chief Jack Valenti, who helped organize the Ad Council initiative.

If you don't want your kids watching something - don't let them. Pretty simple, huh?

Yes, I'm a parent, and occasionally my kids watched something they weren't supposed to...I talked to them about it. They seem like decent human beings....I could've cut off the cable if I was worried, couldn't I?

[guruoo]

8. Exactly...

Better to first experience these things from
within the sphere of parental influence.

[Orsino]

4. Requiring increases in kid-friendly programming...

...while they strangle PBS? Puh-leez.

Misdirection. God, gays, guns, porn and abortion.

[depakid]

5. What is wrong with these people?

Fundamentalists, hatred and violence on so called "family channels," yet anything related to loving and sex MUST be supressed.

This is just insane- now, if you wanted to fine corporations who actually do intentionally harm, kill or maim people- and make it hurt- alright then. That's normal responsible behavior. But NO- Republicans would NEVER consider doing that. Makes too much sense. They'd rather go after tits and ass.

[KakistocracyHater]

6. Why do they scream how they hate regulation

but yet they are rabidly trying to regulate what information is available to people, trying to regulate access to birth control methods, trying to regulate school curricula. Yet they scream that it was unnecessary regulations that killed some miners? These people don't understand cause & effect-they think homosexuality causes hurricanes(when it's really water temps), they missed the real cause of the miners' demise-worker safety deregulation! So they'll destroy regulations that make medications safe, but they really feel it's vastly important to regulate television & radio programs. They'll deregulate so poisons can be dumped into our food & water supplies, but they'll pass strict regulations against access to birth control. Their priorities are those of the insane.

[wordpix]

11. small gov and anti-regulation--- unless they help the rethugs in power get

elected and concentrate more money in their greedy repuke hands

[KakistocracyHater]

12. But the Patriot Act & Homeland Security enlarged the gov

[sidpleasant]

7. Stevens wants the FCC to censor satellite radio

But then he's a complete whore who's taken tens of thousands of dollars from the trade association representing old fashioned terrestrial radio broadcasters.

[guruoo]

9. That would just drive them to move their uplinks,

jobs, and money offshore.

[wordpix]

10. how about Libby's pornography in his book: young girls having sex with

bears in a cage. Do they care to ban that, too, or is that OK because it's a repuke book from a sicko rethug?

[IndianaGreen]

14. Ted "Bridge to Nowhere" Stevens is going to protect us from porn

Let's start with the White House press briefings! There is nothing more pornographic than that, isn't it?

[leesa]

15. Republicans...the most immoral people on earth, legislating morality

[DBoon]

16. would stronger laws against obscenity

mean that I would no longer have to listen to administration officials defending torture?

Oh, wait, they don't mean THAT kind of obscenity.

[HuffleClaw]

17. oh bloody hell

just more of their 'pro-family/anti-gay' crap. and their new supreme court will likely rubberstamp it. i sure hope people are ready for a return to the days of 'leave it to beaver'.

[truth2power]

24. Did you say "Beaver"??? Fine that individual $500,000..

:rofl: :rofl:

[Democat]

18. Stupid Democrats could stand up for free speech and be heros, instead...

Idiots like Hillary and Lieberman will try to out right wing the right wing and make us look like losers to all of the young voters who want the government to stay out of their personal lives.

Democrats should band together with artists, musicians, movie makers and authors to stand up for free speech - call the Republicans on this and make them look out of touch.

We know what elected Democrats will do instead. They will fuck this up like they always do.

[NVMojo]

19. Are they so bored with issues related to invading the middle east

that they have to start sticking their damn noses even deeper into the lives of Americans?

[SoCalDem]

20. TVs, video games & computers are JUST LIKE GUNS..

People who wrap themselves in the 2nd amendment INSIST that it's a citizen's/parent's right to have s many guns as they like, and the government should not regulate them or tell people how to use them. We all know that guns are inherently dangerous, and that lots of children FIND guns every year and kill themselves or their siblings/friends...and STILL the parents contend that it's THEIR business..

Well.... children are NOT the ones buying Sirius/XM/Nintendo/X-Box/ or computers.. PARENTS and ADULTS buy these things, and it's THEIR responsibility to see that the "children" are using these items safely. It's NOT up to the government to restrict usage for EVERYONE so that negligent parents do not have to watch their children ..

I am dead-set against child porn, but if children were not so readily available online, these guys would have a difficult time luring them into meetings.

[salin]

21. For some reason, one of Enron's efforts came to mind

if I recall they got into providing cable for hotels/motels - but it wasn't profitable (enough?) so they were in the process of acquiring a deal with a porn outfit in order to be able to "sell more" of their services. I think the deal went south before the implosion of Enron. Point being - some repub corporate cronies just might find a little crimping of their money making from all of this - and I find that rather ironic and a tad bit humourous.

[salin]

22. For some reason, one of Enron's efforts came to mind

if I recall they got into providing cable for hotels/motels - but it wasn't profitable (enough?) so they were in the process of acquiring a deal with a porn outfit in order to be able to "sell more" of their services. I think the deal went south before the implosion of Enron. Point being - some repub corporate cronies just might find a little crimping of their money making from all of this - and I find that rather ironic and a tad bit humourous.

[obreaslan]

23. You know what offends me?

The 700 Club! That offends me. And Jerry Falwell, and the EWTN channel! By their rules, these shows and channels should be taken off the air. If they offend me and my family, and I think they are dangerous to my family's mental health, they should be taken down. Will they do that? My guess is no.

:rant:

:grr: