ForumGarden

Comments?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Bush Signs Legislation on Broadcast Decency

The Washington Post

Peter Baker June 16, 2006



Complaining that television and radio shows in recent years have "too often pushed the bounds of decency," President Bush signed legislation yesterday to escalate dramatically the penalties against broadcasters who violate federal standards.



"The language is becoming coarser during the times when it's more likely children will be watching television," Bush said, citing a study of nighttime programming. "It's a bad trend, a bad sign." He noted that complaints to regulators have exploded since he took office. "People are saying, 'We're tired of it, and we expect the government to do something about it.' "



The ceremony came on a busy day for Bush as he tended to various matters in between his surprise visit to Baghdad this week and a domestic fundraising trip starting today followed by a European summit next week. In back-to-back events, Bush also gave a speech calling for action on stalled global trade talks, signed a bill to improve coal mine safety and authorized creation of the world's largest protected marine reserve.



The White House decided to showcase the signing of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act at a time when Bush and Republican congressional allies are trying to reassure disaffected conservative supporters that they remain committed to conservative causes. With midterm elections approaching, Bush recently gave two speeches promoting a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage and the Senate plans to vote on another amendment that outlaws flag burning.



The decency act, coming two years after one of singer Janet Jackson's breasts was exposed in a "wardrobe malfunction" during a Super Bowl halftime show, increases the maximum penalty for broadcasting indecent material on radio or television between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. from $32,500 to $325,000. The new law does not change the standards of indecency, which is defined as "patently offensive" sexual or excretory content.



Broadcasters and free-speech advocates argue that the legislation attacks expression and unfairly targets broadcast networks while cable and satellite programming remains beyond the reach of federal regulation. The main television networks and affiliates recently sued to challenge the government's power to regulate on-air content.



The National Association of Broadcasters yesterday released the same statement it issued when the legislation passed, calling "responsible self-regulation" the preferred path and asserting that any rules "should be applied equally" to cable and satellite outlets.

Where as a parent l do believe that there should be some rules in regards to what is and isnt acceptable when l know my child is likely to be watching tv l do believe that it should cover all tv programmes regardless of terrestrial or cable or digital etc

I will however say that the way that the goverment steps in needs to be closely watched and that certain religious beliefs in regards to certain things are not allowed to influence what is deemed decent..

for example will and grace could be seen as indecent in some eyes...

Yet another attempt to snag the vote of the religious contingent. I guess passing meaningful legislation will just have to wait until after the election.

The most meaningful legislative act I want to see is done with an eraser. Delete a few hundred laws, to start.

You know - I really hate politicians, so I avoid watching/listening to speeches. I found myself trapped by a televised Presidential speech earlier this week I think I managed to stay awake for about a half an hour.

I did notice that GW seems to think that the American Public is stupid. His speech made it sound like he was talking to a second grade class. That really bothers me. I really hate being talked down to.

You certainly put alot of trust in our gov't, for someone with no trust of politicians.

I would prefer it if they legislated to ban reality TV shows. They're so annoying! :-5

Plus there is so many of them now it's a joke!

On a more serious note, why is it that whenever anyone does something that goes against societies "anything goes" mentality (not the best way to describe it but it's the best way I can think of) they are either labled as "religious", or in GWB's case "trying to please the religious," and dismissed?

If you read the article, the rules about what is decent and what isn't haven't changed, just the penalty for breaking them. I don't see what the problem is if I'm honest.

Mongoose wrote: I would prefer it if they legislated to ban reality TV shows. They're so annoying! :-5

Plus there is so many of them now it's a joke!



On a more serious note, why is it that whenever anyone does something that goes against societies "anything goes" mentality (not the best way to describe it but it's the best way I can think of) they are either labled as "religious", or in GWB's case "trying to please the religious," and dismissed?



If you read the article, the rules about what is decent and what isn't haven't changed, just the penalty for breaking them. I don't see what the problem is if I'm honest.
I think we have fundamental differences in the role of government. Our constitution severely limits governmental interference in our lives, though since the "New Deal" politicians have infiltrated more and more into our lives, despite the constitutional limits.

Scrat wrote: To me there is a distinct difference between politicians and government. Government is a tool, an instrument whereas politicians are the things that use that tool to control a society.



I do not trust the politicians because they are corrupt and they only care about lining their pockets and getting re-elected to further line their pockets. They do not care about the common good of the people and the nation. But they run the gov't. Hence, they are the gov't.



Scrat wrote: I think that this is one of the few instances when the tool of governance is being used correctly, I have only to compare our television which is at best "entertainment" and used as a tool to sell things whereas if you watch the Russian state controlled broadcasts you can learn languages and chemistry. Not to mention many other useful things that are education oriented.
Fine. Let the gov't have it's own channel, or even channels. They already have PBS, by the way. But how does that make it right to restrict private broadcasting? Why can't we have both?

I agree that it should be the parents repsonsibility to monitor what their children watch. I have all channels except stations like Animal Planet and cartoon stations blocked on our television in the den. But I have to say even some of the cartoon stations, such as Nickelodean and Cartoon Network are getting awfully brave with some of thier shows.

Thanks Snooze.

As an ousider I find it very bizarre. You have a violence obsessed culture that seems to glorify gratuitous violence, You think it's OK for kids to own guns so long as they don't use bad language. Politicians that lie to gain support for warfare and to take away civil rights by allowing arbitrary arrest, a vice president that openly justifies the use of torture and yet you get upset by the sight of a naked boob and bad language.

Why don't they just insist all TV's have an off button. If you don't like something turn it off. once viewing figures drop so will programmes with too much bad language.

A prurient society is the most repressive of all to live in IMO

posted by scrat

To me there is a distinct difference between politicians and government. Government is a tool, an instrument whereas politicians are the things that use that tool to control a society.


Don't know if the colloquialism will travel but I agree all politicians are tools albeit it pretty uselss ones!! (OK smack my wrist for using bad language)

personally I am against any kind of censorship. As an adult I do not need anyone to tell me what I should or should not watch or what is or is not morally wrong, parents should censor as they see fit.

Scrat wrote: Politicians are supposed to be the tools of the people and they are supposed to use the system of government for the common good.



Here in America there is a disconnect between the politicians and the people. I guess this law could be a symptom of that as I am sure the majority of people in America would agree with Anastrophe.



Most of the controversy about this is because of marketing forces. Here in America there is 2 things thar sell all of the time, every time. Sex and violence.



It is the easiest way to sell something and also takes a lesser amount of effort and therefore time and money. It's a known fact that the more a kid watches TV the more violent tendancies they tend to have, especially boys. Any child psychologist can tell you that.



Television is a medium of ideas and the sharing of information. It doesn't take much to figure out why a control of this type is needed to some extent.
That control belongs to Mom and Dad, not Uncle (Sam). It's their responsibility to decide what is proper and what is not. If they're not fulfilling their responsibility, take the kids.

Scrat wrote: And let the government raise them? Before we do that let's just put something in the water that sterilizes people and have whomever wants kids get the antidote by convincing a certain group of people they would be fit parents.



Responbility is a tough word to use on people nowadays anyway. :-3
How is that different from the gov't dictating what the kids can & cannot watch in their own living rooms?

The public airwaves are owned by us, the public, and are regulated by the government as our representatives Like it or not, the government has a compelling interest to ensure a minimal standard of decency so that the public in general can derive some entertainment from these airwaves. Broadcasters are given the use of the airwaves for free. Even the digital spectrum, worth billions of dollars, was offered to broadcasters free of charge by the government amounting to one of the largest corporate welfare schemes ever. I have no inherent problem with this arrangement and as a parent I often appreciate that there are some standards out there that help in making family entertainment more available. Satellite and cable broadcasters are a different animal. As much as I may agree with the governments position on decent broadcasting, the government has no public interest in regulating that which belongs to private companies. This is where "turn the channel" comes into play.