This just sends me through the damned roof:
Two top U.S. Republican lawmakers on Tuesday said they want to apply broadcast decency standards to cable television and satellite television and radio to protect children from explicit content.
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said he would push legislation this year to accomplish that goal and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton said he would back it if it does not violate free speech rights.
“Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area,” Stevens, from Alaska, told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents hundreds of local television and radio affiliates. “I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air” broadcasters.
“There has to be some standard of decency,” he said, but noted that “no one wants censorship.”
No one but you, you pompous windbag. You don’t like what is on cable television? Don’t fucking pay for the service. And if you absolutely must buy it, even though yuo hate it, there is another layer of protection for you. It looks like this:
It is called a remote control, you loudmouth luddite busybodiy, and it will help you turn the channel form those awful shows that offend you to Lawrence Welk re-runs. You can buy one here.
A quick warning though, Sen. Stevens- a remote control can be hard to use when you have your thumb up your ass.
*** Update ***
Jeff Jarvis has a similar censorship device. HEY-I THOUGHT OF IT FIRST!!!! Heh.
*** Update ***
What a MAROON!
Glen
Why, John, you surprise me.
Don’t you understand? When it comes to keeping Grandma out of a cardboard box in her old age, or making sure the kidlings have clean water, that’s nanny-statism.
On the other hand, when it comes to “please help me! I’ve fallen and I can’t reach the remote!” — well, dad-burn it, the gummamint’s got to DO something!
You voted for this crew, not it I. (Not literally in the case of Stevens, but I think you take my point.) Please don’t be shocked by the Salemites residing on their coattails.
John Cole
That’s just stupid, Glen. Just because you voted for someone doesn’t meanyou agree with everything they do.
Y your standard, you only shjould vote for someone if you agree with EVERY SINGLE issue on the planet. Hell, Only George Bush agrees with everything George Bush thinks.
Birkel
On Hardball tonight McCain said he was willing to consider placing restrictions on cable TV. Chris Matthews was frickin’ beside himself.
And I was stupified.
I’m a conservative , but want these a-holes to stay the hell out of my house. F-in’ jerks.
Glen
I said “coattails.” No, I don’t think you, Stepfordwise, agree with everything the Living Shrub says (anymore than I did Kerry). You must admit, however, he has enabled (AA style), if not explicity endorsed an impressive number of Salemites.
Glen
Birkel,
I think I’ve just lost 99% of my remaining respect for John Cain. This, from a liberal/liberatarian who did.
Ugh.
Tom Scott
I whole heartedly agree. There should be more f*ck me-s*ck me TV and it should all be sponsored by Jack Daniels and Marlboro. If ya’ don’t like it grab the remote. Don’t try to force your morals down my throat past my whiskey and cigarettes.
whatever
So what are we talking about here?
We have decency standards for ABC, NBC, etc. No one seems particularly upset about those.
But Nicolodean (to pick a random one) isn’t held to the same standards since it isn’t a “broadcast” network.
So what this bill does is put Nick, MTV, and other stations that don’t “broadcast”, but are on cable under the same restrictions as network TV.
Don’t worry – you can still get your porn. Paid subscription TV won’t be covered.
You reaction to this is totally moronic unless you start a jihad against the standards currently in place for the networks. But I thikn you really didn’t look into this first, did you?
JohnO
I disagree that Bush has “enabled” this new wave of censorship, especially when he’s come out and said the same thing that John Cole has said, which is “if you don’t like what’s on t.v., use the remote.”
I can’t help but think this whole ball would not have started rolling but for the ridiculous act of deparation of 2 washed up pop tarts on Super Bowl Sunday. Had it not been for that, there wouldn’t have been enough combined outrage to start the censorship campaign in motion.
Terry
This is one where “whatever” gets it about right. If you want your TV filled with obscenities, vulgarities and whatever, you should be happy to pay a little extra for it.
semm
whatever:
Let’s do this from first principles. The only basis for the FCC any decency control at all is based on the notion that the broadcast airwaves are a scarce resource that need to be managed. They are managed by the government for the ‘public good.’ For cable and satellite, there is no scarcity of this resource, therefore no reason for any government involvement whatsoever.
While I agree with mr cole in principle, i think all of these ‘you can avoid it’ arguements are beside the point. No human being has the ability to watch TV without a television, and even if one bought a television, the government already forces each one to have a v-chip so that even for broadcast tv reception once can block out those channels with objectionable content. SO the diffference between cable and broadcast is not relevant in this sense.
jdm
Sure, Glen, the Democrats only use their powers for Good. They would never impose onerous restrictions on private property owners or employers to satisfy one of their innumerable voting blocs. They would never maintain nor ratchet up the intensity of the War on Drugs in a cynical attempt to peel off a vote or two from Republicans. They would never impose new mandates through the educational system to make sure some poor misguided religious fools can’t pray to their false god on public property…
F’r’chrissakes, John has labels for both Democrat *and* Republican stupidity because there’s more than enough on both sides. But one can still think that in balance one party is more beneficial (or less dangerous) than the other at some point in time.
wild bird
So whats become of their vow to up hold protect and defend the US constitution? its just the same all the time they are suppost to do that when it comes to the constitution they dont stand up to their sacred vow so why should they be allowed to run for any public office
Farix
I would be worried if there was any significant support in either the House or the Senate, especially among other Republicans. Contact your reps. folks and tell them exactly where you stand.
Not that it will do me any good. I have one Senator who is noting more then an old kook in a white sheet and the other is a silver spooned carpetbagger. Then I have a representative who can’t decide if he is an Arab first or an American.
Kimmitt
They would never impose new mandates through the educational system to make sure some poor misguided religious fools can’t pray to their false god on public property…
Okay, this is a tangent, but while individual Dems may be antireligious, the Democratic Party as a whole has vigorously defended the rights of the individual to worship as he or she sees fit. Individual worship is absolutely protected by the First Amendment, as surely as state sponsorship of a given person’s religion is prohibited. The Democratic Party and its leaders have been nothing but supportive of this, and stories about children having their bibles confiscated tend to be fabrications.
Bob
It is always the way. You want the thugs to take care of those with whom you disagree. Eventually they come after you.
Ha ha ha.
There always comes that realization when you discover that your unfettered id isn’t part of their unfettered id after all.
Hahaha.
“When they came for Hamdi and threw him in jail without a trial I said, ‘I’m not Hamdi. Fuck’em.’ When they came for Granny, I said, ‘I’m not Granny, fuck her.’ But when they came for my remote, Granny wasn’t there to protect me. Now I’m sad.”
Hahaha.
The Sanity Inspector
Probably this was inevitable. The pants-droppers can only romp about so long before the envelope pushes back.