News & Politics - Bush signs law boosting TV, radio indecency fines

mcdreamylover · 06-15-2006, 09:52 AM

I posted this in the TV forum but figured since it is news it belongs here too:

Quote:

Bush signs law boosting TV, radio indecency fines 1 hour, 5 minutes ago

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Thursday signed into law legislation that raises fines tenfold on radio and television broadcasters that violate U.S. decency standards by airing extensive profanity or sexual content.

ADVERTISEMENT

The new law, which boosts fines to as much as $325,000 per violation from $32,500, could help congressional Republicans woo conservatives in a tough election year as they have faced ebbing support from key core constituencies.

The Christian Coalition had placed legislation to increase the fines as the No. 5 item on its 2006 legislative agenda. The new law also caps any continuing violations from an incident at $3 million.

The drive for the higher fines came when pop singer Justin Timberlake ripped off part of duet partner Janet Jackson's costume and briefly exposed her breast during the 2004 Super Bowl football halftime entertainment show aired on national television.

Television and radio broadcasters are barred from airing obscene material and are limited from broadcasting indecent material between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m., times when children are likely to be in the audience.

Those restrictions do not apply to cable or satellite services. That prompted radio shock jock Howard Stern to move his show to satellite radio to avoid the federal regulations since his antics led to fines against stations that aired his show.

Marissa · 06-15-2006, 11:47 AM

Who gives a **** if a kid sees a breast on TV?! Why are breasts so bad?? I just don't get it...

mcdreamylover · 06-15-2006, 12:52 PM

Here's a novel idea if you don't like it then don't watch it. Don't go ruining it for those who don't have a problem with it. You don't want your kids to see it then don't let them. It's your job as their parent to make sure they don't. Not the networks.

Lexis · 06-15-2006, 01:02 PM

Laws like this can really limit artisitic expression. Without a Trace recently got a huge, huge fine for an episode they did about the dangers of underage teens being pressured into sex and girls thinking they had to sleep with lots of guys to be popular. It was a really serious episode and it didn't glamorise teen sex and in my opinion, wasn't gratitous.

When it first aired, no complaints were made. But then the Christian groups fixed on a repeat of the episode and the FCC handed down a fine. Its pandering and it really makes me sick.

Papri · 06-15-2006, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcdreamylover

Here's a novel idea if you don't like it then don't watch it. Don't go ruining it for those who don't have a problem with it. You don't want your kids to see it then don't let them. It's your job as their parent to make sure they don't. Not the networks.

But sometimes it is unexpected, and consequently may "ruin it" (whatever "it" is) for those who do have a problem with nudity/violence/profanity etc. Sometimes parents don't have control over what's gonna happen - the whole Jackson/Suberbowl thing is a prime example.

While I agree sometimes it may infringe on "artistic expression" surely there could be a way to compromise? Only show such things after the watershed or whatever? I just think by showing stuff that may make people feel uncomfortable 24/7 is infringing on their rights too - a person is less likely to be offended by the absence of a nipple or swearing than by having it shown/said.

**TheAngel** · 06-15-2006, 02:45 PM

I think all TV shows that are going to show nudity, adult content, and the like, should have warnings before the show, which most of them do, but to totally limit it. I haven't seen anything on TV, even after midnight, that would rank as pornographic or that I was offended to watch. And to be honest, why are kids living their lives in front of the TV anyway. I'm 19 and I still only watch about an hour of TV a day, two tops on a really slow day.
But I can understand this because the Republicans need votes and this will make a lot of people happy, then they can go home, plop their kids in front of the TV, and ignore them the rest of the day.

Lorna · 06-15-2006, 06:00 PM

Ditto Lexis.

In the UK, no programs are allowed to show anything classed as "gratuitous" (in theory - although Hollyoaks seems to get away with it!) before 9pm. And after that time....anyone who is too young to see anything sexual shouldnt be watching TV anyway!

I know it is difficult now, with cable TV, but it is possible to block certain channels if they are known to show programs with more adult content. I do think there should be more censorship on adverts as well though, I have seen so many adverts being shown during the day for shampoo or some other kind of product, and the model/actress in the advert is half naked! I dont really think it is necessary to have a naked woman splashed across the screen just to sell some shampoo or face cream!

Layla_Lennon · 06-16-2006, 06:08 PM

* first time posting here*
So, It's not Ok to show a boob or something like that but It's Ok to show people being killed or injured badly on Tv? people worry too much about showing sex but forget that showing violence is just as bad, i just can't understand that...

RugarTheGreat · 06-16-2006, 08:45 PM

I don't care too much for censorship...because, in my opinion, censorship leads to the death of an idea. I think basic cable channels should have stricter regulations on it's shows, which I think is already how they do it. I also agree with lighting up on the regulations after 10pm. Or maybe technology can be put into televisions so that shows above a certain rating need a password to view...I don't know if that's already a reality because I don't watch TV that often.

All in all, I believe that we should censor only so far. I think it's the duty, as a good parent, for parents to do their own regulation of what their kids watch. That's not always possible when parents are not always around...such as when I was growing up, but I was always out playing ball or something, not really watching television.

On another note, I find it bad when parents let their 3 year old kids watch TV...the first 5 to 6 years is when most of your personality is formed...I don't think a kid needs too much television during those years. Or, atleast be very careful about the type of shows.

Lain · 06-16-2006, 10:16 PM

I've posted the article in the Censorship thread earlier but oh well.

As it was said in the given thread, in many TV shows, there is so much violence that goes on but if a simple shot of a boob or butt is shown, the activists, FCC, and the government come flying.

SMG_fan · 06-16-2006, 10:46 PM

All this over a boob! thats really pathetic.

Here in Australia, we would've forgotten about it by now, we don't seem care all that much if a boob is shown on telly. You really should see big brother uncut which is shown at 9:30 pm, theres fully frontals of both the men and the woman.

Someone said that there are ratings on tv shows with voilence so that is ok, but aren't there ratings on shows for nudity? There are here in Australia.

For goodness sake, a boob is a boob. Everyones seen them, its a bit of flesh, geesh.

Belinda

**sum1** · 06-17-2006, 08:56 AM

Why can't he sign a law REQUIRING broadcaters to broadcast "indecent" stuff?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~*Sha*~

But if you're watching a wholesome football game, that last thing you expect to see is a partially dressed woman

Wtf is wholesome about a football game? They should ban THAT stuff.

Marissa · 06-17-2006, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SMG_fan

All this over a boob! thats really pathetic.

Here in Australia, we would've forgotten about it by now, we don't seem care all that much if a boob is shown on telly. You really should see big brother uncut which is shown at 9:30 pm, theres fully frontals of both the men and the woman.

Someone said that there are ratings on tv shows with voilence so that is ok, but aren't there ratings on shows for nudity? There are here in Australia.

For goodness sake, a boob is a boob. Everyones seen them, its a bit of flesh, geesh.

Belinda

Yeah, really...i've never understood the fascination with breasts... One thing I've found kind of weird about censorship is that recently I've noticed that shows on stations like Discovery Health have started censoring things like baby penises! Now THAT is absurd.

And the violence that's shown on TV disturbs me far more than seeing a breast. I don't think that there should be pornography on cable, but I think that's pretty clear and no one is contesting that.

BearDogg-X · 06-17-2006, 10:55 AM

Double posted. Sorry.

BearDogg-X · 06-17-2006, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lexis

Laws like this can really limit artisitic expression. Without a Trace recently got a huge, huge fine for an episode they did about the dangers of underage teens being pressured into sex and girls thinking they had to sleep with lots of guys to be popular. It was a really serious episode and it didn't glamorise teen sex and in my opinion, wasn't gratitous.

When it first aired, no complaints were made. But then the Christian groups fixed on a repeat of the episode and the FCC handed down a fine. Its pandering and it really makes me sick.

Those "complaints" that the Parent Trash Cult sent were basically form letters already written. CBS is fighting these fines for that reason.

This is the same group that had to pay Vince McMahon and WWE $3.5 million in 2002 over lies they spread about Smackdown!, primarily over the Lionel Tate case.

Nothing that group does is real:

http://franklinavenue.blogspot.com/2...ews-press.html


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Bush signs law boosting TV, radio indecency fines