1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Group Targets Cable/Satellite Decency Bill

Discussion in 'General Satellite Discussion' started by Chris Blount, Apr 26, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Chris Blount

    Chris Blount Creator of DBSTalk Staff Member Administrator DBSTalk Gold Club

    17,312
    28
    Jun 22, 2001
    Legislation introduced recently that aims to extend broadcast indecency regulations to cable and satellite TV services, if passed, would represent the most significant congressional effort to regulate speech since the Communications Decency Act (CDA) of 1996, says Progress and Freedom Foundation Senior Fellow Adam Thierer.

    Thierer, in an essay titled "Thinking Seriously about Cable and Satellite Censorship," takes aim at a bill introduced by Sens. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.va.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Texas). Thierer says the earlier Cable Decency Act was found unconstitutional, but with the new legislation Rockefeller and Hutchison are trying to avoid the same fate.

    "While this is a more nuanced argument for speech regulation than what we saw during the CDA debate, it is precisely for these reasons that cross-media censorship must be rejected," said Thierer, who works for the foundation's Center for Digital Media Freedom. "The fact that new media outlets have grown in popularity and that millions of Americans voluntarily subscribe to them, are powerful arguments against speech controls, not for them."

    Shows like "The Shield," "South Park," and "Nip/Tuck" would be forced to migrate to premium tiers to avoid regulation. "What this means is that, should (the bill) pass, viewers will have to pay significant sums of money to escape censorship in the future," Therier said.

    http://www.skyreport.com (Used with permission)
     
  2. kb7oeb

    kb7oeb Icon

    631
    0
    Jun 16, 2004
    Why would HBO escape censorship but not Comedy Central?
     
  3. BFG

    BFG Hall Of Fame

    2,118
    0
    Jan 23, 2004
    All I can say is F&%K them! :D
     
  4. kb7oeb

    kb7oeb Icon

    631
    0
    Jun 16, 2004
    I agree! Everytime I hear about this I think about the V-Chip. Seems like the people calling for this are too stupid to use it.
     
  5. SimpleSimon

    SimpleSimon Hall Of Fame

    5,468
    0
    Jan 15, 2004
    Exactly!
     
  6. Gm2

    Gm2 Cool Member

    25
    0
    Apr 10, 2005
    yeah sure take all the fun out of tv,and make us pay more to see programs we wan't to watch. Thats what we have parental controls for. I think basic channels that you pay for should be uncensored,and those who do not want to watch TVMA progamming need to block it.
     
  7. JonBlack

    JonBlack Legend

    190
    0
    Feb 24, 2005
    The V-Chip, does anybody know of anyone that actually uses this function on a TV??? :confused:

    I remember hearing a lot of coworkers, acquaintances, etc. all excited about it when it was being introduced, that it would save their children from the dreaded TV filth but no one seemed to actually use it. :confused:

    BTW: The Cable/Satellite Decency Bill is for your own good! Just enjoy the fact that people are looking out for your welfare. :lol: :hurah: :lol:
     
  8. mainedish

    mainedish Hall Of Fame

    2,196
    0
    Mar 25, 2003

    If you used it today it might be off during most of the prime time shows!!
     
  9. kb7oeb

    kb7oeb Icon

    631
    0
    Jun 16, 2004
    Its very adjustable on my tv (I think all of them) if you think violence is ok but not sex then just check the boxes you want in the parental control on the tv. There is even an option to block any signal not sending rating information.
     
  10. homeskillet

    homeskillet Icon

    506
    0
    Feb 3, 2004
    If they pass this bill, then what is next... the Internet itself? Government keep your hands off my PAID television/radio/ect.
     
  11. Gm2

    Gm2 Cool Member

    25
    0
    Apr 10, 2005


    Exactly!
     
  12. leegart

    leegart Legend

    142
    0
    Dec 18, 2004
    I don't see how they get around this little "problem" called the First Amendment.
     
  13. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,373
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...

    They've managed to do it for years for broadcast radio and TV. I think it's all driven by laziness myself. Parents like the conveinance of using the TV for a babysitter. Well if they actually had to pay attention to what their kids were watching what would be the point? I mean after all what good is that if you can't just set them in front of the TV and forget about them for a while. And if their kids are learning words and about violence and *gasp* heaven forbid sex on their TV's they start feeling guilty about not being good parents. But do they blame themselves for that? Of course not! It's all the TV's fault of course so obviously it's time to contact your congress men and women and make them broadcast only "nice" stuff so they can have their safe baby-sitter back! :nono:
     
  14. boylehome

    boylehome Hall Of Fame/Supporter

    2,143
    0
    Jul 16, 2004
    It should fail big time. But if it makes it to the president, it will pass and we will see more infringement on our constitutional rights. Anyone remember the lyrics (60's), "freedom's just another word with nothing left to lose"?
     
  15. leegart

    leegart Legend

    142
    0
    Dec 18, 2004

    The law for broadcast TV and radio is different because they are using the airwaves. The courts have said that the government has a right to regulate content for broadcasters because of the scarcity of frequency spectrum. The courts have also held that since cable TV (and presumably satellites) mostly don't use spectrum like broadcasters that they have more First Amendment protection. I believe this may cause a problem for the proposed regulations.
     
  16. tsmacro

    tsmacro Hall Of Fame

    2,373
    57
    Apr 28, 2005
    East...
    However my point in pointing out how they've been able to censor (oh excuse me maybe I should say "protect" instead) the public airwaves just shows how the protections of the first amendment are not by any means absolute and obviously open for interpretation.
     
  17. leegart

    leegart Legend

    142
    0
    Dec 18, 2004
    I know that First Amendment protections have to be balanced against government interests but so far, the scarcity of the airwaves principle has justified the difference in the extent of the protection broadcasters get (less) vs. non-broadcasters (more). I expect that distinction to remain.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page