Good news for prudes who can’t figure out how to use their remote controls (although an argument could be made that without opposable thumbs, some of these knuckledraggers might have a rough time with the device)- President Bush has your back:
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 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.
Apparently tv ratings, the 0n/off button on remote controls, and the ability to lock channels was not enough- now the public can be protected from the evil menace of ‘indecent’ programming with the threat of massive fines. Mind you, this won’t stop our delicate and perpetually offended friends from viewing something ‘indecent,’ as the fines will come AFTER the ‘offense,’ but it will give Brent Bozell’s wingnut brigade something to champion and a reason to keep sending out fundraising letters. And, after all, defending marriage is a tough job, so now they can feel safe to turn on the tv after a tough day protecting society from the fags. Besides, everyone knows Hollywood hates America, so if we didn’t do this, society would end. Just like Rome.
And this is an election year, so we do have to do something to give the cave-dwellers a reason to come out and vote for the Grand Old Party.
You do remember the Grand Old Party, don’t you? They are the ones who used to champion freedom and personal responsibility.
Pb
Aw man, I thought he was going to have a little speech about proper remote control operation. It’d be cute, sort of like when he tries to explain economics to America in terms of simple supply and demand. And then we’d ‘know’ how to use them at least as well as President Bush, and we could all properly operate our remote controls in peace.
My mistake.
Mr Furious
I think it would go something like this:
“This here is what some call, a, remote control. Because it controls your television from a remote location…”
Otto Man
Thanks, small government conservatives!
Barry
John Cole: “You do remember the Grand Old Party, don’t you? They are the ones who used to champion freedom and personal responsibility.”
How long ago was this true?
Krista
That’s right. Bush can’t protect you from the terists, but he CAN keep you from having to see a boobie!!!
The Pirate
Well, thank God that children will have to wait until they go to school the next day to hear the word “fuck.” This was clearly important legislation. I mean it’s not like there’s a war or anything going on.
Mr Furious
What’s funny is I actually agree about the courseness of television and the creep into times children watch TV. I’m a parent, and I’m sensitive to that.
Funny thing though. It’s not a problem in my house because my daughter doesn’t get to decide when, where, or what she watches. Her parents do.
The only TV in the house is in the basement—the “TV Room” if you will. Not in the kitchen, family room, play room, living room or anywhere else blaring at everyone all hours of the day. And my daughter will have a tv in her bedrooom when she has her own house.
The V-chip was all the government ever needed to do and it’s done. If they feel compelled to do something else, try an ad campaign to explain the V-chip and tells people that they actually can contol the box in the corner of the room, not vice versa. And certainly not that the governement will do it for them.
tBone
Thank God we’ve turned the corner on wardrobe malfunctions. Our long national nightmare of boobies popping out on broadcast TV is finally over.
Andrew
This is a cute little delusion.
My only question is: Are libertarians stupid (i.e., they actually believe that Republicans are for less intrusive government) or just dishonest (they don’t care about any values except for low taxes)?
Jim Allen
So much for having a reason to live.
slickdpdx
John: I agree. A load of horseshit. But don’t forget Tipper “I Hate Music” Gore and Joe “I hate Video Games” Lieberman. I think Hillary has been hating on vids too.
Dave Straub
My question would be: What makes you think libertarians are content to hitch their wagons to the GOP?
Ryan S.
Off topic… But Damn
Read This Article
Ed
And John Cole will still refuse to vote for Democrats because they’d be worse.
Tim F.
He’s right, this phenomenon is a bipartisan embarrassment. In fact, out of Bush’s many faults I never would have included sanctimonious puritanism. This has to be some sort of pandering, but I don’t see the calculation behind driving a wedge between the culture warriors and the already-wavering ilbertarian wing.
Tim F.
edit my post: sanctimonious “cultural” puritanism. I think that he’s a live-and-let-live guy as far as that stuff goes, but with a truly awful panel of political advisors.
D. Mason
My fear is that after the November election, when there is absolutely nothing left for them to lose, they will go full bore with this kind of shit. That is if they retain a majority, god forbid.
Mr Furious
Tim F-
I agree on the bipartian embarrassment factor. In fact, I have less patience for this crap from Lieberman and Hillary. Though I will say, pursuing some ratings- or warning-based solution is better than the shit coming from the Right.
I don’t think any artist was seriously impacted by the “Parental Advsory” label on a CD. (Aside from not making it into WalMart). And I would say it’s helpful to parents, and I wouldn’t doubt is actually a marketing strategy for many artists…
I’d like to agree on your point about Bush, but I’m not so sure. I think it’s more likely his “live and let live” attitude is more closely related to his disinterest than tolerance.
Mr Furious
Whatever. At this point their failure to pursue or deliver on this stuff after the election is almost as dependable as their running on it beforehand.
Perry Como
No. But the nannystatists are rejoicing. For those of us with the libertarian bent, I’ll once again recommend this article. I’ve been arguing that same point for a couple years now, but maybe now it will sink in.
McNulty
I pretty much agree with the sentiments of John and everyone else here. This is a colossal waste of time and change the damn channel if you don’t like what’s on.
But, that being said, and just as an aside, I’m only 33 but even i get suprised sometimes when i see just how much you can get away with on regular TV (or basic cable, more specifically) these days.
There are really only two shows i never miss, and that’s 24 and The Wire (although the Wire is starting to lose me with their Soprano-like 18 month to 2 year breaks between seasons), but my fiance (who gets to control the remote most of the time during non-football time of year as a reward for sitting through every Penn State and Eagles game with me and never complaining) is a big fan of a lot of FX shows like Nip/Tuck, Rescue Me, and some dark comedy about people with eating disorders, the name of which escapes me.
Watching these, I seriously can’t fucking believe some of the stuff they say and some of the stuff they show.
As i said, I’m by no means offended by it, and i think what Bush is proposing is typical election-year pandering, but holy cripes, some of them, especially Nip/Tuck, are just…wow.
Steve
Bush mentions the increase in complaints since he took office. I think this illustrates the principle that if you grease the squeaky wheel, all the other wheels have an incentive to start squeaking too.
I have no doubt that some people are legitimately offended by stuff they see on TV, although I belong to the “change the channel” crowd as well. But this explosion in complaints doesn’t come spontaneously from a bunch of offended individuals – it comes because groups like the AFA get their membership riled up whenever something offensive happens and encourage them all to file complaints. And they do this over and over because it works, because the administration gives them satisfaction, and because that means they gain political power and credibility with their membership. It’s probably a fantasy of mine that someday, if these people weren’t constantly appeased every time they whined about something offensive, maybe they’d shut up.
And yeah, the problem reaches across the aisle, even into the Party of Hollywood. But there’s little doubt that the Republicans can out-sanctimony the Dems any day of the week.
Ryan S.
This regulation only applies to networks right. Not basic cable.
tBone
I have the same reaction. For a long time, cable stations basically mirrored the decency standards of the broadcast networks, even though they didn’t have to. Now that some of them are pushing the envelope, it seems a little shocking to see that stuff on “regular” TV instead of HBO or Showtime.
Perry Como
Heh. Let me don my old fogey hat, but I remember when nudity was shown after midnight on broadcast TV[0]. This was back in the 80s.
[0] – Some sketch comedy show that was news-like, iirc. Most definitely involved boobies though. That’s why I remember it.
DecidedFenceSitter
As far as libertarianism goes, there seems to be a change brewing, as per the link rules I’ll just provide the first one
There seems to be change brewing, will it be enough to actually shift, we’ll see.
As someone with a fair amount of libertarian ideals to him, I’ve generally voted Democrat because I’d rather have my pocket book raped by the gov’t then my private life.
Ryan S.
Some people need to really get over the ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’. Who knew that almost two years ago that people would still be traumatized by Janet Jackson’s boob.
However, if Mariah Carey where to have a ‘Wardrobe Malfunction’. I would mind splitting that fine with the networks.
Krista
Ryan, I believe that one needs to actually be wearing clothing in order to have a wardrobe malfunction.
Zifnab
The important thing is that these decency standards are being held firm across the board. For every Howard Stern who gets lambasted for saying the word “nipple” on national radio, we’ve got an equally firm grasp the somewhat risque material coming from the right, right?
link
link
… Hmmm… or not.
tBone
Not Necessarily the News? It was an HBO series, but it’s possible that it was rerun on broadcast TV.
I wouldn’t classify post-midnight programming as “regular TV” anyway, unless you’re the type of person who’s trying to collect a complete set of Ron Popeil Home Surgery/Salad Shooter Combo Kits.
Perry Como
Krista, clothing is overrated.
tBone, that was it. Blogospheria comes through once again.
Krista
Perry – was that your “line” in college?
Mr Furious
Yeah, Perry, did you use that “line” on the girls? Or just the police?
Perry Como
Krista, no, I just licked my eyebrows.
Andrew
Because, when push comes to pulling the voting lever, they almost always do.
At this juncture, any “honest” libertarian should support divided government, and that means voting Democrat in all national elections this year. Therefore, if I don’t see a libertarian actively pulling for the Dems, their stupidity/dishonesty is pretty clear.
Jim Allen
Great. Just great.
It’s going to take the rest of the afternoon to get that image out of my head. Thanks a lump.
McNulty
A Libertarian is just a Republican that smokes weed.
LITBMueller
Yep, they ain’t bowing down to the terrrrrrists, but, when it comes to the religious right, they get right down on bended knee!!!!
The Other Steve
What an utterly pathetic stupid reporter. I mean read this shit and try to make sense of it.
DO YOU SERIOUSLY THINK FREE-SPEECH ADVOCATES WOULD BE MAKING THAT ARGUMENT?
Yeah, Broadcasters sure… but free-speech advocates?
I spit on the grave of this imbecile.
SeesThroughIt
You know what’s sad, John? You say this, and it’s dripping with appropriately-applied sarcasm. Yet if you go to many right-wing sites, you’ll see the same statement–except they’re being serious.
Perry Como
Hint, Instafuckwit isn’t a libertarian.
Punchy
I’m guessin the effect is minimal. It’s not like they changed the standards; just made the fine–one the public will never have to pay–larger.
If they actually legislated new stardards….cleavage maximums or minimum can coverage…then I see the cavemen getting all sweaty and worked up. But increasing a fine? Nah…this’ll play for 1-2 days and then forgotten…
ppGaz
Now they just champion snark.
Hey, if your party can’t actually govern, who cares? At least you can trashtalk your opponents and feel good about yourselves. That’s what counts.
Eleanor Clift found a good term for it: Reverse Accountability, the art of shifting blame to the people who are not in charge. The Buck Stops There.
Gary Farber
“And, after all, defending marriage is a tough job….”
Indeed, John, and that’s why they’re doing so fabulously.
Steve
By the way, “freedom and personal responsibility” was a nice slogan, but hasn’t it pretty much always been the GOP who have been the prissy TV censors, and liberals who, you know, wanted to unlease the evil of the Sexual Revolution upon us all? Because I don’t think you can pin the whole thing on Tipper Gore.
RSA
I’ll don my. . .beret, and mention that probably in any western European country you can think of, there’ll be a broadcast TV station that switches to soft core pornography at midnight. It’s not an enormous deal. I remember when watching German TV for the first time, one afternoon back in the mid-80’s, and seeing a shower gel commercial in which a woman’s breasts appeared. Oh, and dolphins. (How perverse, right?) American TV has the weirdest combination of body shame and titillation imaginable.
Cromagnon
Goddamn fucking shit!
John S.
Correction: A Libertarian is just a Republican who doesn’t think the government should spend $9 billion a year to stop others from smoking weed.
Andrew
and likes un-Christian butt sex.
waddayaknow
Isn’t Brent Bozell another one of the Moon-pies?
Rudi
Yes, but they don’t get up on the “Family Values” soapbox. Love the Repugs “hippocrits”: SC 700 Club stepfarther daughter raper; Gingrich Limbaugh FMA audultters 3 + marriage.
I will worry about my family, and won’t tell you what your family should be. Help little old ladies across the street, even Grandma Bush; she would have to wash my lower class contamination off her hand afterwards.
Libertarians are OK as long as they cool it on 911 conspiricy, RFID tags for animals and such.
MikeLucca
John Cole says:
And this is an election year, so we do have to do something to give the cave-dwellers a reason to come out and vote for the Grand Old Party.
Are you seriously suggesting that only a cave dweller, as you put it, would care about what kinds of television their children watched. I guess that makes me a cave dweller then, since I shut off the cable when my first child got old enough to work the remote.
How many of you here have children, anyway? Maybe you ought to wait until you do before you start throwing around phrases like cave dwellers.
tBone
He’s suggesting that people should make their own decisions about TV in their homes (like you did), not rely on Nanny Government.
I monitor what my kids watch and I block channels I don’t want them to be able to access. If, despite that, they occasionally hear a bad word or see a naked boobie, I think they’re resilient enough to survive without the government’s help.
Do you really think this is anything other than shameless election year pandering?
MikeLucca
I see your point, tBone. But let’s take a look at the Super Bowl incident. That’s supposed to be something that’s safe to watch with your family. It’s not supposed to involve dirty dancing and semi-nudity. But sex sells and we all know that television is a business. The only way to counter that is with fines large enough to create a disincentive. I wouldn’t call that pandering, more like common sense.
tBone
Really? I’d say the public outcry alone was sufficient to clean things up at the Superbowl halftime show. Unless Keith Richards had a nipple-slip I’m not remembering.
Andrew
Yes, let’s take a look at that. If dancing and a nipple destroy the good morals of your children, then there just might be some deeper issues that you need to deal with.
Like, OMG!!!111!one!! A nekkid body!
John S.
I’m convinced.
MikeLucca is DougJ’s new sockpuppet.
tBone
It’s been a while since we had a good contestant for “Spoof, Troll or Wingnut?”
Andrew
Damn, spoofed by “the moderate parent.”
That was a really good one.
MikeLucca
Without knowing exactly what you’re talking about, John S, I’ll take that as a compliment coming from a DNC sock puppet like yourself. I don’t listen to talk radio, but my take is that it makes a lot more sense than most of what you hear from Howard Dean.
ppGaz
Spoof. Follows the now-obvious DougJ pattern. Once or twice a week here, for the last year or so, a new handle appears on the page, featuring the same old spoofish righty impersonation. Same material, over and over.
This is Eleanor, nee MikeLucca. Filling in for Brian.
ppGaz
Even for spoof, that’s remarkably wrong. You do know that cable is the major tv pathway now, and that broadcast is more and more marginalized? One reason is restrictive regulation. There is only a limited market for Doris Day movies any more. Large fines will do nothing but hasten the demise of broadcast network tv, a demise which is well on its way to being complete. Even the phony Gee-Zus(tm) crap has run away to cable, where the audience is.
tBone
Truthiness in action!
MikeLucca
Is there any real debate on this blog or just a bunch of lefties calling everyone who disagrees with them a spoof and a Republican sock puppet? And apparently in your world even voting for Gore in 2000 doesn’t prevent you from being a Republican sock puppet. You guys need to buy a clue.
ppGaz
Yeah, you might want to do some work on this. Do a count of the names that post here, and then count the ones I’ve called a spoof. You’ll find it’s a pretty small percentage.
Also, make a list of those spoof candidates and then make a check mark next to the ones who have actually put up a denial or defense. As far as I know, that number is zero.
Back to you, Doug.
ppGaz
Heh. Well, one tires of “debating” with spoofs and righties who just spew talking points.
“Debating” has certain signatures, and spoofs can’t do it.
Righties around here won’t do it. Mostly, we get just a series of snark pissing contests.
Wnat to have a “debate?” Okay, the thread centers around a question of whether a free society needs a sex police operation monitoring and regulating the content of television broadcasts. The “decency” act. Let’s debate that. Snark about “Howard Dean” doesn’t feed that bulldog. Do you think?
Back to you, Doug.
MikeLucca
ppGaz says:
Okay, the thread centers around a question of whether a free society needs a sex police operation monitoring and regulating the content of television broadcasts.
Unless I’m mistaken, there already are decency standards in place. The question is not about whether or not they exist, but how strictly they should be enforced. My view is that (1) we should have them and (2) that they should be strictly enforced. But I feel much more strongly about (1) than about (2). If you want to get rid of the standards, that’s another debate. But the president is pushing for tougher penalties, not new standards, according to the snippet here. So why don’t you try arguing about that instead of calling people sock puppets and comparing them to right-wing radio personalities?
MikeLucca
When I said more strongly, I meant to say less strongly. We can argue about whether or not to have the standards, but if we have standards, we’ve got to enforce ’em.
ppGaz
I might, if you weren’t a spoof. That’s a sockpuppet who represents the view of his adversary instead of his own.
“My view is that …… blah blah blah.” Do you think a “debate” is about stating what your views are?
A debate is a contest between ideas. Each side makes an argument. What’s the argument for these standards, and for stronger enforcement? I don’t care what you think, I don’t take instruction from you. I care what the argument is. Make an argument.
MikeLucca
You want an argument? How about that you should be able to watch t.v. with your kids without hearing cursing, without seeing murders or nudity. That’s my argument…and I already made it, you idiot.
ppGaz
Well, you made an argument, but not the argument.
First of all, don’t say “you” when you mean “I.” You aren’t interested in how I raise my kids, that’s my business and not yours. Yours is how you raise your kids. So get down off the soapbox, because it’s bullshit, and I will knock you off it every time you try to climb up on it.
Second, George Bush has made the argument that supports my position. He says that the people know best how to spend their money. He says that the people would know best how to prepare for their own retirement.
How then can he turn around and say that “the people” aren’t smart enough to run their own tv sets and maintain control over what they watch? That “the people” need protection from television networks?
Mind you, the several networks are now competing with dozens of cable channels who are not regulated and who are beating the networks in terms of ratings and audience because people have choices and will exercise them ….. read it slowly, perckerwood. The people, the very people your president says should have choices, are making choices and doing it without government control or direction, and they are choosing to look away from the material is that is controlled.
Do you have respect for the people, or not? If you do, then stop pretending that you have the ability or the authority to act like the thought police and protect people from themselves. Who told you that America needs a nanny government?
MikeLucca
ppGaz says:
How then can he turn around and say that “the people” aren’t smart enough to run their own tv sets and maintain control over what they watch? That “the people” need protection from television networks?
He’s not, he’s saying that they should be able to get an accurate view of what is going to be on at certain times of the day. I believe that people should be able to operate their cars, but I also believe that there should be safety standards and that they should be enforced. How is this different from that?
ppGaz
{ spits coffee }
As if we needed more proof that you are a con artist.
How is tv different from a car? Gee, I dunno, because a car doesn’t lend itself to “decency” standards?
Safety is all about the laws of physics. “Decency” is some bullshit that you are pimping which is totally subjective and totally a matter of personal choice.
Your comparison is about as inapt as it could be.
But, thanks for making it since I can use it. Most of the safety in your car depends on how you drive it. Most of the “decency” in your tv depends on how you operate it. You want the “family” channels? They are easy to find. Your tv set makes it easy to restrict your viewing to those channels, and your kids’ viewing too.
If you don’t want your kids to hear the swearing that goes on in public, don’t expose them to public tv. What kind of parent would do that, and blame the kids’ exposure on the tv?
Give it up, man. Even as spoof, you can’t sell this bill of goods.
ppGaz
Watch the 700 Club, then. If you can’t operate a tv set better than you apparently do, you shouldn’t be allowed to own one. Do you have a license to operate it?
I didn’t think so.
MikeLucca
ppGaz says:
If you don’t want your kids to hear the swearing that goes on in public, don’t expose them to public tv.
Public television isn’t the problem here. There is almost no swearing or violence on PBS and while there are problems with its political slant, it definitely is suitable for children for the most part.
ppGaz
I missposke, I meant free tv, as opposed to cable. Doug.
Tom
but the difference is when the Dems are crusading to save the chi-rren, they are sincere.
Krista
The two things that amused me about the whole Super Bowl kerfuffle were this:
1. The booby shot happened at the very end of the dance. People have been complaining not just about the booby shot, but about the provocative dancing itself. Why did these people not change the channel until they were reasonably sure that halftime would be over?
2. Why is a breast considered completely unsuitable for family viewing, whereas a violent sport where people tackle each other over a piece of leather, sometimes incurring compound fractures, is considered suitable family viewing?
I can understand people getting a bit perturbed about the violence on TV. I think it would be good for CSI to be on a little later than it is, due to its extremely disturbing imagery. But, that’s what the remote’s for. And as far as the sexual stuff, I guess I’m weird, but I’d much rather that my young nephews see Janet Jackson’s breasts than an extremely realistic depiction of an eviscerated corpse.
Cyrus
Unfortunately, I don’t think there are any answers to this question that do not boil down, at least in part, to “reactionaries hate it when women enjoy sex.” Violence in fiction and sports is natural or a way to sublimate urges to even worse behavior, so the theory goes. But if a woman is in control of her own sex life, it ruins a lot of the control people like Dobson have and is entirely beyond their comprehension and so on. So it must be stopped before it ruins everything.
But now I sound like She Who Must Not Be Named (amandamarcotte), so I’d better go.
Krista
I think you must be right. I have yet to hear any sort of logical response from people who are so vehemently against sexuality or bad language in the entertainment industry, but have no problem with violence.
And as far as reactionaries hating it when women enjoy sex, if they’re that bloody repressive, I don’t think they have to worry about their women enjoying sex, anyway.