The FCC's cable crackdown

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

The indecency war is ready to heat up -- and Tony Soprano, Jon Stewart and the "South Park" kids better watch their mouths.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Michael Scherer



Aug. 30, 2005 | A 2003 episode of the short-lived Fox comedy "Keen Eddie" features a woman described as a "filthy slut" who is hired to "extract" semen from a prize thoroughbred. "That's not natural," the prostitute protests. "Think of it as science," says the man offering to pay. Though the episode featured no actual extraction -- off-camera the woman lifts her shirt and the horse suddenly drops dead -- some Americans complained, finding the scene inappropriate for prime-time television.

The Federal Communications Commission disagreed. In the majority opinion, the commission decided the sequence was not intended to "pander, shock, or titillate." The decision, however, was not unanimous. Commissioner Kevin J. Martin, whom President Bush has since appointed FCC chairman, thought Fox stations should be fined. "Despite my colleagues' assurance that there appeared to be a safe distance between the prostitute and the horse, I remain uncomfortable," Martin wrote at the time.

Though Martin lost the battle over horse extraction, he is now poised to win the broader indecency war. During the long hot summer in Washington, he has been quietly meeting with religious activists and industry leaders to organize a push for new standards for broadcast, cable and satellite television. At the same time, Martin's allies in the Senate have been considering new laws that could increase broadcast indecency fines, break up cable TV offerings to allow parents to cut off racy channels, and -- most controversially -- give the FCC the power to fine basic cable programs, like MTV's "Real World" and Comedy Central's "Daily Show," for crude and lewd content.

"On the surface, it may look like ... we are in a holding pattern," a Senate Commerce Committee staffer tells Salon. "But there have been lots of meetings on a staff level as well as meetings with interest groups and with industry."

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2005/08/30/fcc_indecency/index.html

[genieroze]

1. Stay the F**K away for my $cable$ unless these fundie assholes want to pay

my cable bill. If these fight wing fundie nut-jobs don't like what's on cable, GET A FREAKING ANTENNA!

[Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin]

10. Just a thought

How do I get these religious stations off my cable?

I don't want these money grubbing whore chasing chicken-hawk assassination loving pedophiles corrupting my children.

[loudsue]

12. Good point! n/t

:kick:

[genieroze]

21. I use comcast and I think they can remove them from your TV. I think

it's only digital. You can do like I do and block the channels. I block FAUX news.

[WCGreen]

50. great point...... Here here here

[0007]

51. If 'ya find out let me know, 'eh?

[joeunderdog]

48. FCC regulation is merely another form of economic discrimination

Pay channel customers get to see all the indecency they want. Why does having the money have anything to do with the moral decency of what you watch? Poor people have the right to be as indecent as the next guy. Besides, SOMEBODY is watching this stuff. Porn revenues top the NFL, MLB and the NBA...COMBINED!

All those "dirty" people keep having interest in sex. If the RW is against all that sorta thing, how the hell do we keep getting new generations of Republicans anyway?

[mongo]

53. You get new republicans

by sinning like hell on Sat night, praying for forgiveness on Sun.

Jesus wrote a blank check...

[Roland99]

2. Would this cover calling for assassinating world leaders on cable, too?

[Judi Lynn]

16. I don't want to pay for the privilege of supporting murder-plotting creeps

If they want to do right for America, they won't slide sly, greedy would-be murderers onto tv screens to be watched by American children.

[Joebert]

3. So, in the future, how will adults get TV programming?

Since none of us are considered mature enough to change the channel, when they lock it down to the one channel showing patriotic themes only, how will we get information.

It's diluted enough already, but these kinds of steps ensure a move to the internet for a lot of material.

And then, boom, China style blockages on the internet, and we're done.

I am certainly extrapolating a lot, but it sure feels like it's heading that direction.

What's funny is that Fox plays "offensive" stuff, and then Fox News complains about it.

[BiggJawn]

47. What, you don't think you'll like "The Theocracy Channel"?

No more bicycle racing on OLN, either, since with that Lycra "Yew kin see thare THANGEES!!!!" as one old woman exclaimed...

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Didn't Laura tell a joke on this subject at the WH Correspondents Dinner?

n/t

[Massacure]

5. Won't fly. Free Speach is protected.

[BattyDem]

9. I don't expect Bush-appointed judges ...

to protect our free speech rights. :-(

[Massacure]

11. Well if that happens, it is time to dissolve the union and start anew.

[BattyDem]

13. I agree ... perhaps something like this:

[Joebert]

26. That is a superior picture...

Yoink!

I have some people at work that need to see that.

[Robeson]

20. Now you are starting to get the picture.

[onenote]

24. well fortunately, they're not all bush appointed

And you'd probably be wrong if you predicted the outcome of a first amendment challenge to regulation of cable content based on the party affiliation of the justices. THe last time Congress passed legislation censoring cable content was in 1992, in a statute that required cable operators to block the content of adult-oriented pay channels (like Playboy) so that someone who didn't subscribe wouldn't get a poorly scrambled but watchable or audible channel. In other words it was intended to protect folks who didn't subscribe to the channel.

But it was struck down (correctly) on the grounds that there were less intrusive ways of dealing with the problem, such as providing a blocking device on request.

Those voting for Playboy: Souter (R), Kennedy (R), Thomas (R), Stevens (D), Ginsburg (D)
Those voting against Playboy: Breyer (D), Scalia (R), O'Connor(R), and Rehnquist (R).

Even with replacements for O'Connor and Rehnquist, the same law would be struck down again today.

The interesting case won't involve HBO, it will involve A&E or Bravo or some other 'basic' cable network that you get in a package with other stuff. And for the most part, those channels don't put on adult material before 10 pm, which is the start of the "safe harbor" when adult material is okay.

Stay tuned.

onenote

[BattyDem]

27. That's good news

With the way Bush has been stacking the courts, I've been getting very nervous about our ability to protect our rights. It's nice to know that some judges still represent the law and not the GOP. :-)


About the FCC and cable: I know that basic cable is part of a package deal, but I'm still paying for it; it does not get "beamed" into my home without my knowledge or permission. Whether or not I subscribe to premium channels like HBO or Showtime is irrelevant. I'm still paying for the "package" of other channels. Besides, I can block out any channel I don't want simply by using the parental control features on my cable box. I can also block programs based on ratings thanks to the V-Chip in my TV.

The bottom line is this: I don't want the government deciding what is appropriate for me to see and hear, especially when I pay for it. If someone is offended by something on cable, they can either block out the channel or not subscribe at all.

[onenote]

30. I agree with you about basic cable

Because it is a subscription service, it shouldn't be subject to the same level of content regulation as over the air television, particularly since, as you correctly point out, there are lesser intrusive means of "protecting" those who don't want certain types of programming in their homes. I was just trying to explain what the focus of the debate is so that folks don't use HBO as the example.

onenote

[BattyDem]

33. I'm glad you explained because I thought HBO, Showtime, etc. were included

and that was REALLY pissing me off because I pay EXTRA for those, LOL!

[rman]

41. It is already flying for some time, on non-cable broadcast.

Did you forget about the wardrobe failure?

[BattyDem]

6. I've said it before and I'll say it again ...

I PAY for cable!!! How DARE you censor something that I purchased?! I am a law-abiding, tax-paying adult and I am perfectly capable of deciding what I want to see and what I don't. I don't need the government to do it for me. :grr:

There are already parental controls on cable boxes that allow parents to cut off any channel they want. There's a TV ratings system that works in conjunction with the V-Chip. If someone does not wish to see or hear certain things, they can easily block them out. Why should every American have to live by the "decency" standards of close-minded, sexually repressed individuals who are determined to force their moral code on the rest of the country?!

[genieroze]

22. They are only sexually repressed when it comes to everyone else

having sex.
check it out
http://tesibria.typepad.com/redmorals/

[BattyDem]

23. Great link ... thanks!

:toast:

[high density]

7. Yeah, this sounds like something that we don't need.

All of these "interest groups" that the FCC always meets with seem to have opinions that are 180 degrees from mine.

I do miss "Keen Eddie," but it lives on via DVD. (The horse jerkoff episode wasn't one of the better ones, though.)

[Daphne08]

8. I pay for cable and that makes it a different matter!

Hands off the cable, FCC!

[msongs]

14. the christian majority watches this stuff....let 'em protest censorship nt

[LeftyMom]

15. Would that include sattelite too?

Because if it didn't that'd shift a lot of viewers (and dollars) to Directv owner and repub patron Murdoch.

It wouldn't surprise me if that's part of what this is about. They throw the overchurched, undersexed fundies a bone, the rest of the population switches to sattelite and they get a big fat contribution (and more Faux News handjobbery) from Murdoch.

Maybe I'm wrong, but that's the scenario as I see it. They wouldn't fuck with Joe Sixpack's teevee if there weren't a big upside and there are easier ways to kiss up to the fundigelicals.

[onenote]

31. it would cover satellite too.

[sidpleasant]

56. I fear you're right

I suspect that the FCC and their Republican - Taliban allies in Congress will probably argue that they can regulate premium cable channels and satellite TV because the content is delivered in part of its distribution chain via a publicly owned resource: the broadcast spectrum. It's beamed from a satellite either directly to a dish on your house or to a much larger dish at your cable company's local HQ. That's how the bastards will claim ovesight / regulation / censorship jurisdiction.

[Stinky The Clown]

17. This is actually GREAT NEWS a real opportunity for OUR side ......

If they allow for the blocking of individual channels (and it seems to say exactly that), then we can all vote with real money.

Block Faux

Block all the faux christian charlatan channels

Then let them try to crow about all the 'murkin homes they reach.

C'mon, fuckwads .... do it .... do it quickly.

Bwahahahahahahahahaha

[reprobate]

32. Won't help. Ratings are gathered by driving their trucks thru .....

target neighborhoods. Their equipment reads the frequency of the local oscillators in the tvs in the homes they drive by. Whether or not the channel is blocked is immaterial. If it is being watched it will show up. If it is not being watched it won't.

The answer is not to watch those particular channels. The fewer who watch the less the station or network can charge for their airtime. That's the way to beat them.

[genieroze]

39. You can't watch a blocked channel, my kids already tried. lol

[reprobate]

54. OK, I see what you're saying. And you, of course, are right.

[wli]

18. I guess it's too late to emigrate and too lousy to stay. Crap. n/t

[Voltaire99]

19. HBO--the last network for grown ups.

Home to the best serial drama on these shores. And now the American Taliban want to scourge it.

Small wonder--the mind of a religious creep never rests.

Have you noticed? Tolerance for religion offers perfect cover for fascism.

[onenote]

25. no one is seriously pushing for censoring HBO

The target is "basic" cable networks like A&E and MTV and Bravo that are sold as part of packages with other channels.

onenote

[Up2Late]

28. Oh so FOX can get away with "filth" on Broadcast TV, but Viacom has to...

..."clean up" their Cable channels?:wtf:

Talk about your double standards and Hypocrisy!

If the Cato Institute isn't all over this, something is very wrong!:mad:

[slay]

29. These censorship pushers need to fuck right off

If they don't like it - DON'T WATCH IT! Duh. This is the same problem when it comes to abortions and pot smoking. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you don't want to smoke pot, then don't. But we have to stop telling others how to live their lives. These assholes want everyone to be and think just like them. Really pisses me off. :mad:

[Tyranny_R_US]

34. If someone drops the F-Bomb on CNN,MSNBC or FOX....

Don't report it to the FCC.

[reprobate]

35. This may be one of the things that set off the second American Revolution.

You can take away Joe Sixpack's rights, steal his vote, and take away his social security, but screw with his reality shows and stand back. He'll shoot.

[durablend]

46. A double whammy?!?

First you're taking away his right to drive (can't afford it), now you're taking away his teevee? RUH ROH!

Will they try for the triple play and seal the deal (burying the GOP)?

[tonekat]

36. Don't screw with my cable, redneck mutha!

Bad enough that things that have been broadcast in their entirety years ago now get subject to whacko-religious wingnut censorship:

1) Woodstock was broadcast the weekend before last on VH1 - funny, I don't remember people's butts being pixelated when it got shown on prime time network TV in the 70s!

2) Stewie's butt on Family Guy! It's a cartoon you morans!!!!

[Rex]

37. Say funny things!

"Despite my colleagues' assurance that there appeared to be a safe distance between the prostitute and the horse, I remain uncomfortable," Martin wrote at the time.

Uncomfortable in what way? Is there an actual measure of decency between a prostitute and a horse?

[Starbucks Anarchist]

38. This is such BS.

If you don't like it, don't watch it.

This will backfire in a major way. The majority of this country may not care about illegal wars, discrimination in the Constitution or giveaways to the rich, but fuck with their entertainment and they'll suddenly become Malcolm X.

[onenote]

40. not if its "a la carte"

If they force cable and satellite to sell channels one at a time instead of a package, a lot of folks aren't going to complain. The problem with that approach is that it means the government will end up setting prices and who here trusts them to do that when content considerations are involved. And in the long run, it will mean (a) higher prices for everyone and (b) some networks won't survive (say goodbye to any gay-themed networks).

onenote

[Starbucks Anarchist]

42. I don't think a la carte will make a difference.

It seems like a slippery slope. Also, if parents want to block objectionable channels, they can simply skip over them instead of having a government-induced action take place.

[onenote]

43. i'm not advocating a la carte

I'm just saying that is the approach that is being advocated in an attempt to avoid the backlash that some here predict would occur. My point is that a la carte is being touted as "consumer friendly" -- only its not. Its an impingement on editiorial freedom just as much as if the government ordered a newspaper to offer (and charge less for) a version of the paper that didn't include the comics or the sports.

onenote

[Starbucks Anarchist]

45. Sorry, didn't mean to imply that you did.

[sendero]

44. I believe in a la carte....

... and there is no reason for the govt to get involved with pricing.

Half the channels on cable would dissapear because nobody actually watches them anyway - and I could pay for the entertainment,news/etc I want instead of subsidising a bunch of religious quack shows and redundant sports channels.

Not to mention that the whole "indecency" argument would be renedered moot. Don't iike the programming? Don't buy it.

[onenote]

52. of course the govt will get involved

There are two possible a la carte models. One is that you simply choose from a menu of services, each separately priced and whatever the total cost is, is what you pay. But if you take everything there is a discount. So the cable company prices individual channels at $10 apiece but if you take the entire package (which has 30 or more channels), there is a "volume discount" that lowers the price to $35 bucks. The fundies who only want a few channels will howl. The other possibility is that the operator sets its package price, but gives a "rebate" if you ask for particular channels to be blocked. But then the operator makes the per channel rebate $0.25, so you don't really save anything. Again, the fundies will howl. So, in comes the FCC to set prices. And anyone who trusts the FCC to decide equitably the pricing of content is more trusting than I am.

onenote

[Prisoner_Number_Six]

49. Indecency, NO, but terrorist threats, YES??????????????

Well, I guess now we know what the real priorities are. Patwa is safe.

[samsingh]

55. the FCC is making itself irrelevant

[Rosco T.]

57. This is why I bought a Canadian Sat system down here in the...

.. "southern provinces".

Virtually no censorship on language on anything else, even the animated shows (snoop around for some episodes of "John Calahan's: Quads", or "Bromwell High").

I get all the US networks (abc/cbs/nbc/etc..) without having to jump thru hoops, most of the series from the US Cable (Sopranos, Daily Show, South Park)..

I pay my bill every month to Starchoice.. they just don't know 'xactly where I live :D