Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act Passes

[Freddie Stubbs]

The fast track continues as the House has voted overwhelmingly in favor of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005. The Act now moves to the Senate for consideration where it is likely to be voted through quickly, before heading to a conference committee, where the language of the House and Senate versions of the bill will be reconciled. Attempts at similar indecency acts stalled out in conference committee late last year due to additional legislation that was attached to it. Once the language is revised a final version of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 will be voted on by the House, then the Senate, before heading to the White House for President Bush's signature.

more: http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=67649

[Lone_Wolf_Moderate]

1. I feared it would pass the House. Let's hope this thing dies in the Senate

[Freddie Stubbs]

3. It had wide support of Democrats in the House

161 House Democrats supported it, and only 36 of them opposed it:

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll035.xml

[PROGRESSIVE1]

5. how sad!

:wtf: Where is the opposition???

[Freddie Stubbs]

9. They are opposing the GOP on issue that they disagree with them on like

Social Security and working with them on issues that they agree with them like this one.

[tx_dem41]

13. IMO, it will sail thru the Senate. n/t

[sidpleasant]

43. Barney Frank changed his mind, a small consolation for me

Incredibly, my congressman Barney Frank voted for the 2004 version of this monstrosity. When I inquired why on earth a liberal Democrat like him would vote to give even more repressive power to the American Taliban in the Bush administration he responded in part:
"As a strong believer in the First Amendment, I do think it is important for us to reassure people that they will not be involuntarily subjected to sexual imagery, coarse language, etc., without there being at least fair warning. So I will continue to argue that the FCC should not proceed against shows like Howard Stern's, but I did think on balance that giving them more power to prevent any repetition of the Jackson or Bono incidents
was a reasonable way to proceed."

In the wake of the censoring of "Pvt. Ryan", PBS's Auschwitz documentary and "Buster" cartoon Frank seems to have come to his senses this time around.

[Emboldened Chimp]

2. What, exactly, does this bill do?

[mudderfudder77]

4. Ask and you shall...

The new legislation, approved by the House Commerce Committee on a 46-2 vote, would significantly raise the dollar amount of indecency fines levied on broadcasters and performers from $32,500 per violation to $500,000. The new rules will also do away with warnings handed out for a performer's first offense. A 'three strikes' clause in the legislation would require the FCC to consider license revocation after three violations for indecency.

The bill was introduced by Michigan Representative Fred Upton and then was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 25.

[Protagoras]

8. I find Parading Propaganda as News Indecent

and lying about FDR quotes indecent and brainless flagwaving and warmongering indecent.

I'm not much bothered by the naked human body.

Think this bill will address my concerns?

[jayfish]

12. Wouldn't It Be Refreshing To See...

someone from the broadcast realm stand-up and protest this. I'm not talking about behind the scenes bullshit. I'm talking about someone at a broadcast network going on the air and saying "shit,shit,shit". David letterman perhaps? I'd like to see how quickly the FCC would revoke CBSs' license. They wouldn't and the law would be rendered "unenforceable".

Jay

[despairing optimist]

24. The Bite Your Tongue, Wash Your Mouth Out With Soap Amendment

The networks could self-fund its enforcement by getting competitive bids from major soap and detergent producers.

How indecent is it to start a war that didn't have to happen and win election with lies and smears? My apologies for actually thinking.

[Freddie Stubbs]

7. Increase fines for indecent broadcasts and

make it easier for the FCC to yank the licenses of repeat offenders.

[drummer55]

6. I wish they spent as much effort stamping out real horrors like

oh I dont know

torture
war
famine
disease


the noose grows ever tighter round the neck of the common citizen.

[TahitiNut]

10. Anti-boob, pro-lies, pro-facist, pro-corporatist bullshit.

:puke:

[atommom]

11. Protecting America's children from wardrobe malfunctions ... how

heartwarming. This is pure PR, and it annoys me to see bills like this flying through when more important issues don't even get addressed.

[Redstone]

14. The Congress must be so bored...

Nothing, absolutely nothing in the way of important or pressing issues for them to deal with; no wonder they jumped on this right away...nothing else for them to do.

I am SO happy to see they have their priorities so straight.

Redstone

[Wilms]

15. Look at the bright side.

We are spared Janet's breast, which I want up in my face as much as I want a fundie up in my face.

What some refer to as "indecency" others call "freedom of speech".

To me, it's commercialization.

Janet Jackson on TV IS NOT Lenny Bruce at a club.

[dxdem]

16. All of this...

because of one breast. Not even really a good breast. A breast we all could have done without seeing. But one breast, and we're back to decency arguments...blah.

[OneBlueSky]

17. one great big huge pile of horse manure, imo . . .

you'd think these people would spend their time dealing with the myriad of REAL problems facing this nation and the planet . . .

[cosmicdot]

18. will showing Britcoms on TV be effected?

the last vestiges of anything worth viewing ... for me, at least ...

... the local station was so paranoid and scared after the wardrobe malfunction that they had one of those "The following program may contain .... viewer discretion" announcements before showing "The Vicar of Dibley" ... "Are You Being Served" was shown per usual despite all its talk about Mrs. Slocombe's cat ... go figure ... which only exemplifies the problems which will be created ...

how many lawsuits will this create?


I thought we settled all of this 30 years ago ...

[mutus_frutex]

19. Another fight lost..

This is just ridiculous. All those democrats that voted for it, don't they realize that they have to put a stop to all this bullshit at some point? When are they going to do it? When discussions of breast cancer are forbidden, for example?

[Freddie Stubbs]

20. What fight?

This bill had bipartisan support. 161 Democrats supported it and only 36 opposed it.

[mutus_frutex]

21. If you don't see it, well, what can I say..

Your message speaks volumes about the state of this party..

[cosmicdot]

22. here's you voted against this repressive, regressive legislation

---- NAYS 38 ---

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll035.xml

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Baird
Berman
Clay
Conyers
Delahunt
Farr
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Grijalva
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hinchey
Honda
Kucinich
Lee
Lewis (GA)
Lofgren, Zoe
McDermott
Nadler
Owens
Paul
Payne
Sabo
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sanders
Schakowsky
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Stark
Velázquez
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Waxman
Woolsey

So, I emailed my Republican congresscritter and asked for a list of what can be watched and what can not ... he voted for this; he should know.

[Pushed To The Left]

35. Those 38 are the real progressives

I can't believe that so many Democrats supported this nonsense. I think we should let all 38 of them know that we support their actions! I am definitely going to e-mail Boxer and Feinstein to urge them to vote against this. I hope that Boxer continues what she has been doing and stands up against this right-wing legislation. We should all contact our Senators!

[cosmicdot]

36. emailed Boxer myself

hate it when I return to a post to find I screwed it up ... "you" for "who" :spank:


in my Britcom post, I thought it was the wardrobe malfunction which caused KOCE to go mental, but, on further thought, it might have been when Howard Stern was on the FCC block ... but, still ... viewer discretion to watch 'The Vicar of Dibley' ... of course, now, they probably won't ever show the episodes again ... one of my favs ...

[wordslikelead]

23. ugh

This disgusts me. As if TV wasn't already censored enough. With these new ridiculous regulations, stations are going to be too scared to do anything. I'm so sick of people being so concerned about what's on TV. I'm sick of people being so easily offended.

[ixion]

25. so because some moran fundie isn't smart enough to change the channel

we all have to suffer through Donna Reed reruns forever and ever and ever. :evilgrin:

[Bariztr]

26. Can't use the remote? Don't turn on the TV!

Its bad enough that because some puritanical, tight assed, fundie busybody can't work a remote everyone else has to suffer. With TIVO, V chips and on/off buttons they still can't spend the time to monitor the TV. We don't want big government, oh no, we want a big damn babysitter.
Bastards the lot of them including every Dem who voted along with this.

Time to go to pay radio and TV. They have the best stuff on anyway.

[GetTheRightVote]

27. Our freedoms stolen one bill at a time, one vote at a time, do their votes

get counted in the senate and house correctly, should we be watching the highest level of government to make sure they are doing it right ?? I just wonder about it once and a while.

:kick:

[Freddie Stubbs]

32. This bill won't make illegal anything which is currently illegal

It only raises the penalties.

[YankeyMCC]

28. House Approves Stiffer Indecency Fines

It seems odd to me that there is so little discussion about this.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.

...

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/national/AP-Congress-Indecency.html

[LSdemocrat]

29. Wow. That's the actual title of the article.

[iamjoy]

30. Yippy Skippy

They've finally solved the problems with social security, the deficit, world hunger, the nuclear weapons in Korea and Iran.
And now, they have time to focus on things like boobs and...uh, boobs

Yeah, right.

[BattyDem]

31. Someone at the NYT has a sense of humor!

Great title! :evilgrin:

So ... who decides what's indecent? :shrug:

We all know what's going to happen ... all the "broadcasters" are going to get so fed up with the morality police that they'll move all their programming to cable - and no one will be able to watch television without paying for it.


I'm getting so fed up with these f*cking "nanny laws" :grr:
If the fundies are so offended by everything they see, THEY CAN TURN THE DAMN TELEVISION OFF! These backwards, sexually repressed, intellectually bankrupt assholes are dragging us all back into the dark ages. It's amazing ... European televison shows breasts, yet no one says a f*cking word and the children grow up just fine; but whiny, juvenile Americans can't handle it! Hey America: GROW UP!!!!!!!!!

How did my country get to be so ... ridiculous?

[Skip Intro]

34. Its all bluster. ED commercials guilty. And Hollywood will spank the FCC.

The good news is that they didn't move the definition of "indecent" or "obscene" one bit - good in the sense that censorship took a very insignificant step today imho. ALthough coming from the gang that wasted so much on a lie of an invasion, who knows.

But, look at this snip:

Under FCC rules and federal law, radio stations and over-the-air television channels cannot air obscene material at any time, and cannot air indecent material between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. The FCC defines obscene material as describing sexual conduct ``in a patently offensive way'' and lacking ``serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value." Indecent material is not as offensive but still "contains references to sex or excretions."


Ever seen a Viagra (or the like) commercial before 10pm?

Ever seen a reference to sex between 6am and 10pm?

Oprah? With ah-nold?

Indecent, you know.

What hypocrites.

And read that again. The law says that obscenity - always illegal - must be offensive AND lack "serious....politicial.....value." The mere mention of the "forbidden" could always be claimed to be a "political statement." Obscene is not obscene if its political. DC does it, why not Hollywood.

Giant opening there.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[Mountainman]

37. Where is Lenny Bruce when we need him, 7 dirty words come back

6. Lenny Bruce Pardoned

New York Governor George Pataki pardoned satirist Lenny Bruce last week, 39 years after the obscenity bust and conviction that began the end of Bruce's life. Obsessed with defending himself, unable to get work, bankrupt and on the lam, Bruce died 28 months later at the age of 40.

The gifted satirist was arrested for saying dirty words in a Greenwich Village club after midnight. Of course, these same words are now said routinely on cable TV. But this does not mean we're freer today than in 1966. Sure, you can now say the dirty words--but you still can't have the dirty thoughts.

Bruce may have been arrested for saying "motherfucker," but he was destroyed for telling the truth. One of his routines described Jesus and Moses returning to Earth, passing through Harlem and seeing starving people living 20 to a room; they then visit Cardinal Spellman and remark that his ring is so expensive it could feed all the people they had seen. If you still can't repeat this (still true) line on network TV, exactly how valuable is our right to hear someone say "motherfucker"?

In response to a campaign of conscience by Robin Williams, the Smothers Brothers, Penn Jillette and others, Governor Pataki issued the pardon as "a declaration of New York's commitment to upholding the First Amendment." Bruce himself would have mocked the cynical emptiness of Pataki's rhetoric, coming only months after Pataki polished his conservative credentials, supporting the Patriot Act and other attacks on America's Bill of Rights.

Governor, it's easy to pardon a man dead four decades. Where was your commitment to the First Amendment when Mayor Giuliani wanted to close the Brooklyn Museum for "offensive" art? Where was your support for public libraries pressured to install blocking software on public library computers (issue #21)? Why are you silent on the zoning vigilantes attempting to destroy legal adult businesses throughout the state?

What might Bruce have said about the pardon?

These cocksuckers want to pardon me now--thanks a whole fucking lot. Where were you when I was getting my balls kicked in "liberal" New York? And then he might add, the Church says ‘if you thought it, it's the same as doing it’. Let's apply that to the collection plate next Sunday.

At this writing, there was still no actual response to the pardon from Bruce, who is still dead.

http://www.sexualintelligence.org/newsletters/issue47.html#six

[Freddie Stubbs]

38. 7 Dirty Words was George Carlin, and the FCC has actually ruled that

you can say 'F*ck' on TV, as long as it is not in a sexual context. So, you can say "Oh f*uck, I missed the bus!" but you can't say "I want to f*ck that woman."

[eridani]

39. Kucinich statement against

Fellow progressive Tubbs-Jones was for it. Apparently she got bugged by enough of her constituents.

http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/110864139872220.xml

Opponents said stiffer fines by the FCC 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 year because of worries that violence and profanity would lead to fines, even though the movie already had aired on network TV.

"Change the channel, not the Constitution," said Democratic Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Cleveland, the only Ohioan to vote against the bill.

"Every American has the ultimate power to police their own TV and radio content."

Last year, Democrat Stephanie Tubbs Jones, also of Cleveland, broke with the other Ohioans and joined Kucinich in opposing stricter FCC fines. Tubbs Jones said Wednesday that "I am still a strong proponent of the First Amendment, and I still have some concerns with regard to the FCC's position on a lot of issues.

"But there are overwhelming numbers of parents across this country who are concerned about indecency," she said.

[American Tragedy]

40. I better not EVER hear them bitch about 'big government' again

[AzDar]

41. So ...up to 500,000 to SHOW a boob, but only 250,000 (max) if a negligent

doctor removes the boob that isn't riddled with cancer during surgery??? This can't really be happening to OUR country, can it???

[jbnow]

42. I'm sick of it

I am a fan of decency. I have found rued the lack of G rated family hour at 8 PM. Heck I think TV and movies should always include condom use when people mess around to popularize their use. I have many complaints.

But was Janet's breast this scary to have such a ripple effect? Every time I hear how children were there and what could you tell them I want to slap someone. She didn't dance naked. Gee, how about saying "Her dress ripped, I bet she is embarrassed" Or aren't kids supposed to know we have breasts?