Jump to content
Accelerated Evolution

Senate votes to raise indecency fines


Recommended Posts

By Z. BYRON WOLF

May 19, 2006 — When Janet Jackson's costume malfunctioned at the Super Bowl halftime show in 2004 and exposed her for a half a second to many millions of eyes, it led immediately to a blitz of talk about indecency and regulation.

There were indignant hearings in the House of Representatives and indignant hearings in the Senate, and everyone seemed to agree — something had to be done.

But two Super Bowls and five months after Jackson flashed America on national television, despite numerous attempts and several nearly unanimous votes, Congress has been unable to pass a law saying the fines should be hiked. The only increase in the Federal Communications Commission's indecency violation fines since the infamous 2004 Super Bowl was because of inflation, which allowed the agency to raise the penalty from $27,000 to $32,500 in September 2004.

In the latest attempt to get something done, the Senate voted unanimously late Thursday night, without fanfare, to raise the fines the FCC can levy against broadcasters by a factor of 10. Now the Senate and the House will have to work out their differences over how much the fines should be.

In the immediate aftermath of Jackson's flashing, it didn't seem as if it would take this long. The snowball of discourse on decency in broadcasting led Howard Stern to move to satellite radio, and the networks instituted several-second delays on live programming to give them a chance to weed out indecent malfunctions.

The FCC fined CBS, the network that aired the Janet Jackson costume malfunction, $550,000 — $27,500 for each of the U.S. stations that carried the indecency.

Not enough, many thought. Bills were introduced to increase the amount of the fines — $27,500 is a drop in the bucket for a company like CBS, the argument went. If the bill passed by the Senate had become law, the fine for Jackson's malfunction would now be more like $5 million.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1982324&page=1

Link to comment

if you do a google search for all the sights containing the word “the” (+the) it comes up with 22,320,000,000 results, and if you do a search for all the sights not containing the word “the” (-the) it has 5,580,000,000 results, implying that google alone has 27,900,000,000 sights. That is a rather large number, and growing. The idea that any organization could control all of that is unreasonable.

Link to comment

OK Once again, you guys failed to thoroughly read through my post!

Quoted for truth. ^ :rolleyes:

But I fear the day they try to go after the net for real. And you know they will. It's us adults who will end up paying the price!

Even if they try, it'll still cause a lot of problems.

Link to comment

I'm not certain they will try. It would be beyond idiotic.

It's not even like one country controls the internet. If they try to what's to separate them from the Chinese government?

Besides, if they shut down the internet... Someone'd just start it up again. At this point as long as there's ready access to computer's there'll be internet.

Link to comment

How easy it is for people to forget.... :mellow:

The government doesn't even really have to do anything, and we can still have problems.

The end of network neutrality and what it means for you.

http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/washin...tevensBill.html

http://www.savetheinternet.com/

http://www.freepress.net/netfreedom/

http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/netneutrality.html

http://www.democraticmedia.org/news/washin...atch/index.html

Remember this thread?

Not to mention how easy it would be for the government to come in after something like this and "work their magic."

---

Oh and don't forget about this either. It wouldn't be nearly as hard as you all seem to think, for the government to come and lay down the law!

Link to comment

I know about net neutrality. What I'm saying is, if all the ISP's stop providing internet they won't make any money. If the big ISP's stop respecting network neutrality, people will move to the smaller ones. You know, the ones run by hackers.

I already use a small ISP. They're generally big Open Source Hippies. My point is is that there are a billion small ISP's in every big city. The internet isn't going anywhere.

Unless you use Comcast. Then you're already fucked.

Link to comment

I know about net neutrality. What I'm saying is, if all the ISP's stop providing internet they won't make any money. If the big ISP's stop respecting network neutrality, people will move to the smaller ones. You know, the ones run by hackers.

I already use a small ISP. They're generally big Open Source Hippies. My point is is that there are a billion small ISP's in every big city. The internet isn't going anywhere.

Unless you use Comcast. Then you're already fucked.

As soon as I leave this house I am never using Comcast again.

Link to comment

As soon as I leave this house I am never using Comcast again.

Exactly. My parents gave me control over what ISP we were going to get because they figured that I was the one who wanted high speed internet the most. And I get significantly less allowance now.

Speaking of which, I gotta do the whole finding an ISP thing again next year... The college I'm going to doesn't let you use Bit Torrent or games on their network, gotta pay for my own.

Link to comment

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...