• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Senate votes 99-1 to increase FCC's indecency fines

Status
Not open for further replies.
Great. HBO and satellite radio will be next. It's just a matter of time...

A job well done, Senator Brownback. I'm sure you'll be ascending the ranks of the Fellowship in no time.

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000543135

With only one dissenting vote by Sen. John Breaux, D-La., the Senate passed a rider attached to a Department of Defense authorization bill introduced by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan.

The measure, approved 99-1, changes FCC regulations and increases fines from $27,500 per incident to $275,000, with a maximum fine of $3 million a day.
 

MetatronM

Unconfirmed Member
Of course, the question that requires answering is, "why exactly did they decide to tack this onto a Department of Defense bill?"

The answer is so they could pull the "un-American" card when somebody gets pissed off about it. How delightfully evil and underhanded. :D
 
They need to stop fooling around with this and just get down exactly what can and can't be shown or heard on TV/radio. And it should apply to everyone. Specifically going back to when Stern would be fined for airing something Oprah played on her show but wasn't fined for. If he can get fined for that then she should.
 

shoplifter

Member
SolidSnakex said:
They need to stop fooling around with this and just get down exactly what can and can't be shown or heard on TV/radio. And it should apply to everyone. Specifically going back to when Stern would be fined for airing something Oprah played on her show but wasn't fined for. If he can get fined for that then she should.

It won't happen because it'll get smacked down so fast it wouldn't be funny. If one of these challenges went to court it wouldn't hold up, it's just that the FCC can drag things out so long that licensees won't get to renew.
 
shoplifter said:
It won't happen because it'll get smacked down so fast it wouldn't be funny. If one of these challenges went to court it wouldn't hold up, it's just that the FCC can drag things out so long that licensees won't get to renew.

Yah I know it's not going to happen but it needs to. This just allows them to fine people they don't like instead of fining the peole who's doing the samething as the people they don't like. If they'd fined Oprah every soccer mom out there would be jumping on them, but they do it to Stern and you've got alot of people backing what they're doing. Freedom of speech is alive and well...Just as long as long as the FCC likes you or better yet fears the consequences of fining you.
 
MetatronM said:
Of course, the question that requires answering is, "why exactly did they decide to tack this onto a Department of Defense bill?"

The answer is so they could pull the "un-American" card when somebody gets pissed off about it. How delightfully evil and underhanded. :D

You slip something like that in and people have to pick and choose which parts of the bill to fight and which ones to let ride.
 
Diablos said:
What did Howard say that got him in trouble, but not Oprah?

He wanted to play a tape where a guest on Oprah was describing sexual acts. The spcific one that he was going to play was "tossing salad", before he was about to play it his boss walked in and told him not to play because if he did they'd get fined. Oprah never was fined for it even though the FCC said they investigated the episode.
 
SolidSnakex said:
They need to stop fooling around with this and just get down exactly what can and can't be shown or heard on TV/radio. And it should apply to everyone. Specifically going back to when Stern would be fined for airing something Oprah played on her show but wasn't fined for. If he can get fined for that then she should.

That's the problem with the bill. Nothing is defined and the rules are not evenly enforced:

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=op...R=4/H=0/*-http://www.musicbiz.com/content.asp

Last week at the NAB show, while Chairman Michael Powell was asserting that the FCC maintained an "even-handed" policy when it comes to enforcing indecency rules, an aide was "fudging" The Hollywood Reporter that Oprah Winfrey wouldn't get fined for saying almost the same things Howard Stern said because she's "untouchable" and he's a "lightning rod."

http://www.musicbiz.com/content.asp

Other amendments tacked onto the bill: One suspends the FCC's June 2 ownership revisions, and one regulates violent content on TV. Since the Senate version is different than the measure passed by the house, those differences will have to be negotiated. The impact of this bill, when Pres. Bush signs it, is that it will basically force any medium to large radio group to band together to fight fuzzy and arbitrarily enforced rules in court. In this instance, politics will make strange bedfellows.
 

Diablos

Member
The Hollywood Reporter said that Oprah Winfrey wouldn't get fined for saying almost the same things Howard Stern said because she's "untouchable" and he's a "lightning rod."

OMG

This is getting way out of hand. We have some uptight biased mega-religious twats calling the shots here. Unacceptable...
 
heavy liquid said:
That's the problem with the bill. Nothing is defined and the rules are not evenly enforced:

http://rds.yahoo.com/S=2766679/K=op...R=4/H=0/*-http://www.musicbiz.com/content.asp



http://www.musicbiz.com/content.asp

The rules basically seem to be "take out anyone we don't like". So Stern is in their line of fire right now. If they can get him out then they're going to move on to someone else who doesn't fit into their frame of liking. There's really nothing anyone can do about it. Everythingss gotta fall into their religious frame of mind.
 

Hamfam

Junior Member
MetatronM said:
Of course, the question that requires answering is, "why exactly did they decide to tack this onto a Department of Defense bill?"

Hey, the Defence Department needs to get their funding from somewhere.

Btw, isn't this FCC bill against the nature of capitalism? Damn communists.
 
This was posted on the old site, but it's definitely required reading on Senator Brownback who's spearheading this:

http://www.rgj.com/news/printstory.php?id=39926

Six members of Congress live in a $1.1 million Capitol Hill town house that is subsidized by a secretive religious organization, tax records show.

Rent is $600 a month, DeMint said.

Few in the Fellowship are willing to talk about its mission.

It organizes the annual National Prayer Breakfast attended by the president, members of Congress and dignitaries from around the world. The group leaves its name off the program, even though it spent $924,373 to host the event in 2001, bringing in $606,292 in proceeds, according to the most recent available IRS records, and pays travel expenses for foreign officials to attend.
 

bionic77

Member
shoplifter said:
it only comes into play when someone files a suit over the fcc fines.

So why doesn't Stern or someone file a suit challenging this? And does anyone remember the standard the Supreme Court established for decency (I think it was in that Larry Flynt case)?
 

FnordChan

Member
Sigh. I'm heavily involved with college radio (WXDU-Durham) and can see that absolutely no good is going to come of this. Our station would probably be shut down were we to receive a single $27,500 indecency fine; the thought of being hit with a $275,000 fine because a naughty word is accidentally broadcast is simply ludicrous.

Hopefully these fuckers will come to their senses - or will backpeddle after political backlash - and bring things back down to the realm of the sane. Meanwhile, I hope poor old 'XDU survives the experience.

FnordChan
 

shoplifter

Member
bionic77 said:
So why doesn't Stern or someone file a suit challenging this? And does anyone remember the standard the Supreme Court established for decency (I think it was in that Larry Flynt case)?


Because the FCC can and will drag its feet when renewing licenses, causing the station to lose it. The FCC is no better than the Mafia.
 

Mashing

Member
I've believed that religion does more harm than good... After all, most wars are caused by religion (not so much anymore, but in centuries past it was)...
 
How can they get away with this I mean seriously? If this thing happened in the UK the Government would be out within weeks
 

RedDwarf

Smegging smeg of a smeg!
Because the majority of Americans, including Senators, are:
sheep.jpg
 

ballhog

Member
I think the problem is that most Americans are incredibly stupid, and have thier panties in a bunch trying to keep gays from getting married. Sanctity of marriage, fucking retards.
 

calder

Member
RedDwarf said:
Exactly. Michael Powell is a tool.

From what I've read the last year or so, if I was an American I'd be almost more frightened of Powell and his shameless lust for power and control over pop media than Bush and co, at least for the long-term. I wonder how far in public life he imagines his decency campaign and Bush admin connections will get him. Congress? Senate?
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
So they passed a completely unrelated bill 99-1 and probably knew about this rider, but couldn't do anything about it because of how it would look if they opposed the main legeslation?

Uggh this kind of shit should not be allowed. Its worse than pork barreling.
 

DarienA

The black man everyone at Activision can agree on
I am loving my XM radio... now if I can get Stern and/or Don and Mike on an XM station I'd be in heaven....
 
scola said:
So they passed a completely unrelated bill 99-1 and probably knew about this rider, but couldn't do anything about it because of how it would look if they opposed the main legeslation?

Body armor? Mr. Kerry NO
Higher combat pay? Mr. Kerry NO
 

Wolfy

Banned
Oh no, now they're going to have more taste on television and radio! NOOOOO!!

Come on, guys. Where's the controversy?
 

calder

Member
Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --

Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?

[everyone boos]

Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]

Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
 

human5892

Queen of Denmark
calder said:
Kent: With our utter annihilation imminent, our federal government has snapped into action. We go live now via satellite to the floor of the United States congress.

Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --

Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30 million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.

Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?

[everyone boos]

Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]

Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply doesn't work.
:lol
 

Willco

Hollywood Square
My grandfather worked for the FCC for decades and never wanted to retire. He loved his job. Until Clinton left office. This shit takes place now. He's been practically forced to retire from a job he used to love (and I mean LOVE) because his conscience can't handle it anymore.
 
RedDwarf said:
Because the majority of Americans, including Senators, are:
sheep.jpg


Sad but true. It wasn't just Republican senators who approved this bill. With the exception of one, all the Democrats fell in line like sheep too.
 

bionic77

Member
Wolfy said:
Guys, what's the big deal? Less swearing and nudity?! OMFG. :-|

It is a fundamental restriction of free speech. If you don't like what someone is saying you can always turn off the radio or tv, but when you make it illegal to say those things you take away from everyone's freedom.

Guess the constitution isn't that big of a deal anymore.
 

Eric-GCA

Banned
I find it amazing how many people here feel threatened by the possibility of larger fines for showing crap on TV.

And the bill hardly restricts speech as you paranoia-types are blathering, all it does is increase a fine that was already in place. jeez.
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
Wolfy said:
Guys, what's the big deal? Less swearing and nudity?! OMFG. :-|
It doesn't institute any sort of new guidlines so it won't be "less nudity and swearing," it ups fines for violations, accidental or otherwise.

The problem is that it is uping these fines by a factor of ten for something that can be as trivial as a live caller saying something stupid. a quarter of a million dollars? Seems excesive. I don't have a problem with guidlines for public braodcst. But it is fast turning into a witch hunt.

Additionally my main problem with this is the means in which it was delivered, rendering dead any actual dialog that could have surrounded this. That is the big deal.
 

demon

I don't mean to alarm you but you have dogs on your face
And the bill hardly restricts speech as you paranoia-types are blathering, all it does is increase a fine that was already in place. jeez.
Yeah, threatening to fine a network up to 3 million dollars for using a phrase the FCC deems inappropriate isn't "restriction".
rolleyesold.gif
And where does it end? I'm afraid to find out.
 

shoplifter

Member
Eric-GCA said:
And the bill hardly restricts speech as you paranoia-types are blathering, all it does is increase a fine that was already in place. jeez.

No, its a TENFOLD increase in a vague 1st Amendment restricting policy that can not just be levied against content providers, but also against performers. This isn't paranoia, it's being sick of the power the FCC wields to restrict what I want to see and hear.

The FCC was created as an agency to make sure that the airwaves were used in the public interest and to also make sure that frequencies were assigned so tha they wouldn't overlap. Not to regulate what that content is.

Powell has already said that he wants to get into -cable- regulation next.
 

FnordChan

Member
Eric-GCA said:
And the bill hardly restricts speech as you paranoia-types are blathering, all it does is increase a fine that was already in place. jeez.

The standard fine currently in place is $27,500. Now, to me, that seems a tad high for a bare glimpse of boobie or an inadvertant bit of profanity, but not entirely unreasonable. Today the Senate decided to make the minimum fine ten times that amount which seems, shall we say, a tad excessive. I mean, I'm pretty sure indecent material isn't ten times more harmful today than it was a year ago.

In fact, a $275,000 fine seems pretty damn steep no matter how you look at it. I'm not a lawyer and I'm not regularly down at the courthouse racking up fines, so I'm not entirely sure where this level of fine falls in the range of criminal activity. So, I decided to poke around for the Federal Sentencing Guidelines and see if they offered any helpful suggestions. These may be a bit out of date, but take a look at these 1997 Federal Sentencing Guidelines. It's a PDF, so I can't just quote here, but you'll find the relevent info on page 24, which is to say a chart detailing an Offense Level, a Minimum Fine, and a Maximum Fine. It starts here:

Offense Level: 3 and below
Minimum Fine: $100
Maximum Fine: $5,000

And goes all the way up to:

Offense Level: 38 and above
Minimum Fine: $25,000
Maximum Fine: $250,000

Now, I'm not entirely sure what an Offense Level is, so I went poking around the Federal Sentencing Guidelines table of contents to see what popped up. Here's a few examples, and the Base Offense Level for each:

First Degree Murder: 43
Second Degree Murder: 33
Aggravated Assault: 15
Minor Asault: 6 with a weapon, 3 without
Criminal Sexual Abuse: 27

And, my personal favorite:

Air Piracy: 38

Now, granted, the minimum indecency fines approved today don't carry a prison sentence with them, but still, based on these Federal Guidelines, broadcasting indecent or obscene material carries the maximum fine for, say, hijacking a plane.

Oh, and in case you're wondering:

Broadcasting Obscene Material: 12

Per the fine table I mentioned earlier, an Offense Level of 12-13 carries with it a minimum fine of $3,000 and a maximum fine of $30,000. I should mention that there is a distinct (and rather vague) legal distinction between Indecency and Obscenity.

Now, as mentioned, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me - and, to the government itself as of a few years ago - that the current minimum fine is, in technical, legal jargon, fucking ludicrous.

I leave the notion of how the threat receiving $275,000 minimal fines and upwards of $3 million dollars in fines per day might hamper free speach as a lesson for the reader.

FnordChan
 

sc0la

Unconfirmed Member
I haven't heard it yet personally, but the first act of a few weeks ago episode of "This American Life" covered similar FCC things. TAL is always good radio for me.

You can check out the stream here
http://www.thislife.org/ra/267.ram

EDIT: there is a 6 minute prologue to get past. Which oddly enough I think contains some mario music in it. Though I could be confusing it with some ballet that is lodged in the back of my head, it reminds me of the water music from SMB3.

FnordChan said:
Now, as mentioned, I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me - and, to the government itself as of a few years ago - that the current minimum fine is, in technical, legal jargon, fucking ludicrous.

LOL, as always Fnord, you are awesome
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom