FCC Fines too Harsh?

[kmack]

Most of you know that Clear Channel Communications was fined $27,500 for 18 incidents "indecent material" from Howard Stern, well it turns out that's not all that bad .

On February 16th the Bush administration won House approval for a bill that would raise the FCC fine to $500,000 per violation. That means both Stern and Clear Channel would have been forced to pay $9 Million.

If this bill makes it through the senate, there would be a huge descrepency on the fines of the FCC compared to other (much more important) federal agencies. For example, U2's Bono saying "F*cking brilliant" at the Grammy's has the exact same penalty as illegaly testing pesticides on human subjects. Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" fine would be financial equivalent of someone causing the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home, AND (a big and) create TWO dangerous mishpas at nuclear power plants.

With the new FCC fines, you could take your choice of telling a sex joke on the air, or dumping toxic waste in New York City's drinking water while willfully placing an employee at risk of injury or death.

Frankly I think these fines are way to harsh, especially because of our First Ammendment rights.

 

[No Limit]

Yeah, and our friends at the Republican party are trying to make FCC regulations apply to private communications such as Cable or Satellite meaning everything will be censored. If this succeeds there will be nothing that can stop them from censoring CDs and then movies and then video games, etc...

 

[CptStern]

blame the rise in "moral values" for this

boobie-gate was the most rediculous witch hunt I've ever witnessed ..can see various body parts on CSI in any episode (the head in a bucket was quite memorable), but dear god dont show a part of the human anatomy! that's disgusting!

 

[Icarusintel]

the FCC is the final bastion against freedom of speech in media and for that reason it should be abolished
(i only posted here really to use the word bastion, i love that word)

 

[Steve]

On February 16th the Bush administration won House approval for a bill that would raise the FCC fine to $500,000 per violation. That means both Stern and Clear Channel would be forced to pay $9 Million.

Um...that doesn't make any sense. I'm always forgetting what the phrase is...but it's the thing in the Constitution that says that you can't recieve a punshment for a crime you've commited if the law was passed AFTER you committed it. Or does that not apply to the FCC?

 

[gcomeau]

Um...that doesn't make any sense. I'm always forgetting what the phrase is...but it's the thing in the Constitution that says that you can't recieve a punshment for a crime you've commited if the law was passed AFTER you committed it. Or does that not apply to the FCC?

I think he means they would have had to pay 9 million... if the fines were already set to what they're trying to set them to now.

 

[kmack]

I think he means they would have had to pay 9 million... if the fines were already set to what they're trying to set them to now.

Yup, that's what I meant, sorry if I was unclear, I fixed it.

 

[Absinthe]

Soon they'll pass retroactive laws that don't allow me to say words like "****" in public areas.

Thank God for this forum's censoring, otherwise I'd be screwed.

 

[Gray Fox]

But like absinthe said, this forum uses the same restriction on words like ****, but we don't mind it here, so why should we mind it whne the fcc does the same.

 

[kmack]

But like absinthe said, this forum uses the same restriction on words like ****, but we don't mind it here, so why should we mind it whne the fcc does the same.

This is a forum owned and operated by private citizens. The FCC, is FEDERAL REGULATIONS. It would be more like the FCC forcing HL2.net to censor it's members. Self-censorship is one thing, government censorship is quite another.

 

[No Limit]

But like absinthe said, this forum uses the same restriction on words like ****, but we don't mind it here, so why should we mind it whne the fcc does the same.

Because Munro has the right to turn off censors. If every internet web site was censored in this way it would be closer to what the FCC is doing. Would you be happy with that?

 

[Absinthe]

But like absinthe said, this forum uses the same restriction on words like ****, but we don't mind it here, so why should we mind it whne the fcc does the same.

Actually, I was only joking about the censoring. As in "the censoring will save me from being screwed by the FCC". Obviously, my joke sucked.

Munro has the right to disable censoring if he wishes. Getting fined $50,000 dollars for indecent language or content is lunacy, and is a sign of the sad state of affairs the USA's media is in.

 

[Zeus]

Censorship is for facists. I hate the FCC.

 

[Calanen]

Zeus im pretty anti-censorship too. But clearly some things need to be censored, ie kiddy porn. But probably not quite as much needs to be censored in the US as there is. Janet Jackson's breast caused a big stir - if it happened in australia or europe, no big deal at all. Its always seem to make little sense to me, that graphic violence and murder was more acceptable than a topless woman.

 

[Calanen]

Retrospective, or retroactive legislation, is the phrase your are looking for....normally you cannot do it.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

Yeah, and our friends at the Republican party are trying to make FCC regulations apply to private communications such as Cable or Satellite meaning everything will be censored. If this succeeds there will be nothing that can stop them from censoring CDs and then movies and then video games, etc...

This is one rogue senator from Alaska and most of the GOP is against this (Or they damn well better be.)

Keeping public broadcasted things clean is legal. Anything anyone can pick up with an old rabbit ears antannae. Pay broadcasts shall be allowed to do whatever their little heart desires. Any pay broadcasts censored are doing it themselves to attract younger audiences (IE: Comedy Central during daylight hours)


I think 500,000 is too high though of a fine. I think the fine should somehow be scalable. Things the broadcaster themselves had little time to control but tried (Breast thing, the cursing at grammy's, etc) should get less. If they suddenly cut to prostitutes licking some man's knob and showing it graphically the fine should increase (but not to THAT level, unless they showed something prolonged very bad like an hour long necrophilia or something)
Nothing outside of broadcast shall be censored, either. That means print, movies, anything.

 

[kmack]

Zeus im pretty anti-censorship too. But clearly some things need to be censored, ie kiddy porn. But probably not quite as much needs to be censored in the US as there is. Janet Jackson's breast caused a big stir - if it happened in australia or europe, no big deal at all. Its always seem to make little sense to me, that graphic violence and murder was more acceptable than a topless woman.

Ya, there are much worse things then a woman's breast (something almost eevery single one of us has seen.).

Also, I was watching TV tonight with my younger sister and an ad for "Levitra" came on. Levitra is an erictile dysfuntion drug and I must say the ad is nothing short of smut. "stronger, lasting erection" I'm sorry, but at 7 pm on a non-cable channel (this was on NBC) that is hardly appropriate. It also mentioned sexual activity, and erections lasting 4 hours or more. Frankly, id like to see the fine the FCC slaps on someone, say jay leno, for making a joke about a 4 hour erection. Frankly i think that the FCC would turn a blind eye to this as drug companies are practically immune to everything now, their lobbyists are too powerful.

The FCC is walking a very, very fine line. Censorship is a very sensitive topic, obviously there are decency issues, but again the first ammendment must be protected. it's going to be interesting to see the things that get fines, and the things that dont under the new harsher penalty system.

 

[kmack]

This is one rogue senator from Alaska and most of the GOP is against this

source?

 

[diluted]

I want to see more boobies on TV, not less! Just not Janet Jackson's boobies please, 1 second was enough.

 

[bliink]

Ya, there are much worse things then a woman's breast (something almost eevery single one of us has seen.).

And sucked on.

(AS A BABY!)

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

source?

I don't remember but when I read the article linked from Drudge Report the other day I read a series of quotes by other Republicans saying things along the lines of "I'm wary of placing anything on pay subscription services" etc

 

[kmack]

And sucked on.

(AS A BABY!)

yes, as a baby :naughty:

 

[kmack]

I don't remember but when I read the article linked from Drudge Report the other day I read a series of quotes by other Republicans saying things along the lines of "I'm wary of placing anything on pay subscription services" etc

sorry, bit harsh, but someone usual makes me give a source on things i say :hmph: . It is of course a republican initiative though. shocking :dozey: .

 

[Bodacious]

Censorship is for facists. I hate the FCC.

OT: Any hate for the ACLU for censoring creationism in schools?

OnT: I don't support the alaska senator's idea to censor pay tv and other pay services. The rep from Tx supporting it is not my rep, so not my business. If this even gets commitie I will write my senator and rep.

 

[kmack]

OT: Any hate for the ACLU for censoring creationism in schools?

You mean the seperation of church and state censoring creationism in school. And no, I do not hate them for protecting people from having someone else's religious beliefs imposed upon them, it is unconstitutional.

 

[Bodacious]

You mean the seperation of church and state censoring creationism in school. And no, I do not hate them for protecting people from having someone else's religious beliefs imposed upon them, it is unconstitutional.

You show me where the words "seperation of church and state" exist in the constitution and I will agree with you.

 

[BabyHeadCrab]

I'm sorry, I didn't know that my country was a dictatorship

 

[kmack]

You show me where the words "seperation of church and state" exist in the constitution and I will agree with you.

The framers of the U.S. Constitution were concerned that European history might repeat itself in the new world. They wanted to avoid the continual wars motivated by religious hatred that had decimated many countries within Europe. They decided that a church/state separation was their best assurance that the U.S. would remain relatively free of inter-religious strife. Many commentators feel that over two centuries of relative religious peace in the U.S. have shown that they were right.

In 1789, the first of ten amendments were written to the Federal Constitution; they have since been known as the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment reads:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This was ratified by the States in 1791.

horizontal rule
The establishment clause of the First Amendment:

The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State."

The Supreme court is there to interpret the Constitution for us, they did, and that is what they concluded, their word is the ultimate law of the land.

I'm guessing, somehow, this isn't enough

 

[seinfeldrules]

Hell, they hit the conservative talk shows pretty hard as well.

 

[kmack]

Hell, they hit the conservative talk shows pretty hard as well.

ya, i saw all those $500,000 FCC fines handed out to Bill O'reilly, oh wait, no, no I didnt, because there were none.

 

[seinfeldrules]

ya, i saw all those $500,000 FCC fines handed out to Bill O'reilly, oh wait, no, no I didnt, because there were none.

My local talk radio host has had to tone down his commentary a ton. Trust me, this isnt some massive Conservative conspiracy to own the media.

 

[kmack]

My local talk radio host has had to tone down his commentary a ton.

Well if that isn't a rock-solid argument I don't know what is. You realize that these fines are for indecency don't you?

 

[seinfeldrules]

Well if that isn't a rock-solid argument I don't know what is. You realize that these fines are for indecency don't you?

But this new crackdown is also applying to the airwaves, which is primarily run by conservatives.

 

[kmack]

But this new crackdown is also applying to the airwaves, which is primarily run by conservatives.

No you are completely wrong in every aspect of your statement. This is not directed at anything but individual people. It is limiting what an individual can do, it has nothing to do with conservatives, unless they are telling sex jokes or cursing. It affects television just as much, and again only when an individual swears, exposes himself, or is otherwise indecent.

 

[seinfeldrules]

unless they are telling sex jokes or cursing.

Which is what many of the more extreme Conservative talk shows do. It affects everyone, not only Liberals. Just trying to make that point clear.

 

[kmack]

Which is what many of the more extreme Conservative talk shows do. It affects everyone, not only Liberals. Just trying to make that point clear.

That point doesn't matter at all.
What this is all about is the bush administration allowing the FCC to fine people $500,000 per incident of indecency. I am just as outraged at a conservative getting fined as a liberal. This thread is about the Republicans in the white house threatening everyones free speech.

 

[seinfeldrules]

What this is all about is the bush administration allowing the FCC to fine people $500,000 per incident of indecency

I take it Congress has no say in the matter?

 

[kmack]

I take it Congress has no say in the matter?

And who, may I ask, controls congress, who is the majority that will vote for the presidents agenda. The republicans have congress. This is exactly my point, the republicans are edging in on our first amendment rights, the increased fines are a step towards censorship.

 

[seinfeldrules]

The republicans have congress. This is exactly my point, the republicans are edging in on our first amendment rights, the increased fines are a step towards censorship.

Who put them there?

 

[kmack]

Who put them there?

the voters, but i hardly think this has anything to do with my thread.

Give me one single post you have made that addresses my original post.:

Most of you know that Clear Channel Communications was fined $27,500 for 18 incidents "indecent material" from Howard Stern, well it turns out that's not all that bad .

On February 16th the Bush administration won House approval for a bill that would raise the FCC fine to $500,000 per violation. That means both Stern and Clear Channel would have been forced to pay $9 Million.

If this bill makes it through the senate, there would be a huge descrepency on the fines of the FCC compared to other (much more important) federal agencies. For example, U2's Bono saying "F*cking brilliant" at the Grammy's has the exact same penalty as illegaly testing pesticides on human subjects. Janet Jackson's "wardrobe malfunction" fine would be financial equivalent of someone causing the wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home, AND (a big and) create TWO dangerous mishpas at nuclear power plants.

With the new FCC fines, you could take your choice of telling a sex joke on the air, or dumping toxic waste in New York City's drinking water while willfully placing an employee at risk of injury or death.

Frankly I think these fines are way to harsh, especially because of our First Ammendment rights.

In response to this you have said and I quote

"Hell, they hit the conservative talk shows pretty hard as well."

"My local talk radio host has had to tone down his commentary a ton. Trust me, this isnt some massive Conservative conspiracy to own the media."

"But this new crackdown is also applying to the airwaves, which is primarily run by conservatives."

"Which is what many of the more extreme Conservative talk shows do. It affects everyone, not only Liberals. Just trying to make that point clear."

"I take it Congress has no say in the matter?"

You never once said anything about what this is about. It is about the disproportinate fines. I asked if you thought it was too harsh for the bush administration to force such high fines on ANYONE when things like U2's Bono saying "F*cking brilliant" at the Grammy's has the exact same penalty as illegaly testing pesticides on human subjects. I don't care if conservatives are getting hit as hard as liberal, I want to know why Bush is attacking free speech.

All you did was say that conservatives are hit just as hard. Wher e in my post do i say anything about conservatives or liberals. I stated the fact that bush passed the law, thats it. The discussion is about the law.