I am surprised that this vote came and went and almost no mention was made in the blogshpere. How can that be true? Of all groups the blogshere, although not directly affected, stands next inline for this type of regulation.

As a recap, H.R. 310, The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 amends the Communications Act of 1934. This is a substantial change to the 1934 Communications Act.

Who can be fined:
It redefines who can actually be fined as “any Federal Communications Commission (FCC) license, permit, or certificate is either a broadcast station licensee or permitted or an applicant for a broadcast license, permit, or certificate”

How much can they be fined:
This resolution also increases the penalties from $32,000 per incident to $500,000 per incident maximum for each violation.

What/Who else can be fined:
This also allows for penalties for non-licensees, provisions for license disqualification, revocation, or renewal consideration for violations of indecency prohibitions.

I am unfortunately not surprised by the outcome of this vote. The House passed this resolution with bipartisan support by a count of: 389 Ayes, 38 Nays, 6 Present/Not Voting.

I find this vote disappointing in three areas:

Censorship
I find this quite disappointing. Unfortunately, this bill leads us more toward censorship. Media outlets, TV and Radio, who are fined $500,000 are going to be very cautious in their programming . “Saving Private Ryan” was kept off of dozens of ABC stations. Those stations did this in fear, that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. A tremendous movie, possibly one of the best of a generation, not seen by potentially millions, this fear resulted in censorship.

I regret things like the Janet Jackson incident, but I think we may be creating a greater problem. Again, that we do not want our children exposed to obscenity, but this bill may be taking things too far. Further, I have more confidence in families and parents to be the protectors of their children, not the U.S. Government.

Freedoms
Additionally, there are many people in Congress, who talk about freedom. Unfortunately, based on the voting results, they really do not believe that the American people should have the freedom to make the choices themselves about what programs they see on television or on the radio. Parents censoring what their children watch and listen to on the radio, is a core part of being a good parent. Censorship by the government is entirely different, it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the country is permitted to see, hear or think. First it is Janet Jackson and Howard Stern, what will be next?

There are a lot of people in Congress, Democrats and Republicans inclusive, who speak of the intrusive role of government regulations. H.R. 310 does exactly that. It puts regulatory agencies in the position to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. I strongly disagree with that.

Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, says “Those of us who are parents understand that raising a child in today’s modern media marketplace is a daunting task at times, but that should not serve as an excuse for inviting Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and the rest of the public without children. Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in mind, I take great offense at the notion that government officials must do this job for me.”

Why is this not the position of every conservative in Congress? This Bill seems very hypocritical by both parties.

Indecency Guidelines
This Bill would impose much higher fines on broadcasters for so-called indecent material. But this legislation does not provide any change to the vague standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily applied by the FCC. This will force every media outlet to choose based on this criteria not on content. At some point this infringes on free expression and Americans’ First Amendment rights.

Closing
Again, why was this not acknowledged across the blogsphere? And, why was there not an uproar over this, am I the only one who seems to care?

Cross posted on BlueGlowWorm and The WideAwakes

Footnote:
ABCNews
GovTrack

Said Dean Reese @ 1:36 pm | Permalink   

1. I agree with your statements regarding public censorship in most cases. With regards to parents being the main source of censorship for children, it’s time for people to quit expecting the government to shield them from things they don’t like…not just in media related matters either. We all have the ability to turn off the radio or tv and do something else.

   A more effective way to reign in the mass of violence and crassness in the media would be to simply stop watching, stop listening, stop talking about it.

   But, since the public airwaves are owned by the public, in trust by the government, and only leased to the broadcasters, some community standards should be upheld. Those current standards have been stretched pretty thinly so that even parents like myself have a hard time finding appropriate shows to watch with a 5 year old. More often than not, even children’s programming is filled with tongue in cheek inuendo that makes me cringe. My solution? Turn it off and play a game or read a book.

   Comment by ken grandlund — 2/25/2005 @ 2:27 pm

---

2. It actually was. Say Anything and Instapundit both mentioned it. I had a small debate about it with David from Bloggledygook. You can catch his part of the argument on his site and mine at Conservative Friends

   Comment by Drew — 2/25/2005 @ 2:58 pm

---

3. Too much legislation. I’m getting tired of all these regulations on every little stupid thing.

   Comment by Cao — 2/25/2005 @ 8:30 pm

---

4. I definitely agree. Censorship in regards to protecting children has nothing to do with free speech. I love your blog. I’ve blogrolled you on my site. I’m just getting started. Check it out and leave me a comment on what you think. Maybe if I’m lucky you will link me up!

   http://www.stoptheaclu.blogspot.com

   Comment by Jay — 2/25/2005 @ 10:38 pm

---

5. I agree, this is a God-Awful decision. Everybody sitting in front of a TV set can push a button and change the channel (or turn off the set).

   I’m not a Conservative; I think there are many cases where government needs to protect employees and the general public against Big Business. But anyone who can’t operate their Remote should crawl back into their crib and wait for Mommy to come home.

   Comment by tomharper — 2/26/2005 @ 2:26 am

---

6. I’m definietly not a conservative but I think Hollywood and television in general brough this on themselves because they refused to exercise a little discretion. A backlash from exasperated parents was felt after the Janet Jackson epidsode. My children are all grown but even I appreciate the difficulty parent have with policing the boob tube to keep their children from watching objectionalbe material. Still it is a shame because their is always going to be soem idiot lawyer who will interpret (already happenting) this as restricting anything with a bad word, sex or extreme violence without looking at the context.

   Comment by Carol — 2/26/2005 @ 6:56 pm

---

7. Hey this reminds me of a persoanl beef of mine. The comedy channel has taken to bleeping out the bad words on South Park but they continue to let through G’d’. Does anyone besides me think this is skewed? I mean if there is one thing you shouldn’t say its G’D’.

   Comment by Carol — 2/26/2005 @ 6:58 pm

---

8. Hey blueworm, something that has been on my mind lately, what do you think of the freedom of speech when it comes to organzations like NAMBLA?

   Comment by Barry — 2/26/2005 @ 9:55 pm

---

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, website trumps email, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website