FCC's Martin Hates Regulation, Except When It Suits Him Politically
from the seven-hundred-thousand-dirty-words dept
It's sort of funny how when it comes to things like net neutrality and line sharing, Kevin Martin and his cohorts at the FCC keep their hands out and spout a less-regulation-is-better-regulation mantra, but when it comes to things like wiretapping and "indecent" broadcasting, they've got no problem using the heavy hand of regulation to intervene. But Martin's attempt at regulating morality by doling out record fines to broadcasters looks like it could backfire, as TV networks are fighting back in court. They've got two main arguments: first, that the FCC is toeing the line of the First Amendment, and second, that the decency standards are so arbitrarily and inconsistently applied that the FCC is overstepping its authority. It's that inconsistency argument that many legal observers say could pose the biggest problem for the FCC, which defends itself by saying it's only reacting to viewer complaints. It fails to note, however, that the vast majority of those complaints are computer-generated form letters and emails from "family-friendly" pressure groups, whose involvement lead to a 67,394% increase in the number of complaints received by the FCC between 2001 and 2005. The bigger question, though, is who's selling all these easily offended people televisions that can't change channels or be turned off?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not to be callas or anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not to be callas or anything...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taliban Baptists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taliban Baptists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish I could make people do what I fail to do as
Maybe I could sue automakers because I fail to see why I should pay $3.50/gal. for gas.
Oh, I know, I'll sue speaker makers because the recording industry makes bad music and shouldn't have to hear it.
Wait, I've got it. I'll sue verizon, because somene else has bad taste in music doesn't mean I should be subjected to it when I call and get a ring-back tone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hrmm...
When does that line of reason end? Why not have hardcore porn on TV and if you don't want to see it, just "change the channel".
No... I'm not saying that these people are trying to get porn on TV or any other alarmist drivel... my point is... how can that even be used as an argument regarding decency...? In order to curb indecency, you HAVE to draw a line somewhere... Saying, "just change the channel" is the exact same thing (logically) as saying, "don't have any restrictions regarding what can and can't be shown on broadcast TV". But anyone who thinks that obviousy doesn't have children.
And don't give me this "better parenting" crap. No matter how involved you are in your kids lives, it's physically impossible to be standing over their shoulders 24 hours a day. If there's smut on TV, they can very well stumble across it while you're downstairs doing the laundry or out at the store or something... Seriously... this isn't about good parenting (even though that's something that's becoming more rare these days)... it's about having to draw a line somewhere and then enforce it.
Now... if they're gonna make laws... then yeah... they need to enforce them consistently... and yes, they can't just let the system get "gamed" by automatic "complaint generators" and what not. Those are all legitimate concerns... I just don't understand why people feel the need to throw in a silly "change the channel, stupid" argument at the end of reasonable statements.
WATYF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hrmm...
Better Parenting does NOT mean that you have to stand over your kid's shoulder 24/7 - it means you TEACH them what your moral beliefs are through words and actions, and know that they will have to face things on their own one day. But if you have taught them well, they can make informed decisions rather than simply wondering where all of this indecency came from and why their mommy isn't stopping them from seeing it.
It is the radical people who make the most noise, and they do what they can to have their views forced down everyone else's throat. Just because they object to something, they feel that everyone else should be prohibited from seeing it, and that is WRONG. Arbitrarily deciding that something is decent or indecent is NOT the way to run things, and caving to the radical groups is not in anybody's best interests.
And yes, I have raised children and have practiced "Change the Channel" while I explain WHY I am doing so. That is good parenting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: hrmm...
And that's exactly what I was talking about. If you follow that logic to its inevitable conclusion, we would have no rules whatsoever regarding what can and can't be on TV... because there's *gonna* be people out there who think there's nothing "indecent" about what you and I would consider "repulsive". I'm not saying that anything that makes me uncomfortable should be off limits to everyone... I'm saying you either need to draw a line and enforce it, or don't bother drawing one at all. "Change the channel" is the same as "don't bother drawing a line".
And the idea that your kids would never disobey you is quite incredulous. Just because someone changes the channel and says "why" they did it, doesn't mean their kids aren't going to be mischevious or tempted to go check out whatever it is that mommy said they shouldn't be watching, nor does it mean that they'll automatically change the channel if they stumble on something bad. Disobedience and misplaced curiosity are some pretty common traits among kids (by nature, that is... not as the result of bad parenting).
"Just because they object to something, they feel that everyone else should be prohibited from seeing it, and that is WRONG."
And that's your opinion. But that doesn't make it "wrong". Remember.. what's "wrong" for you might not be "wrong" for others.
We make (and observe) laws everyday made by people (on both sides of every issue) who decide what we can and can't see/do/say/whatever based on what they consider "wrong". There's always someone who's gonna disagree with a law. But you either have to decide to draw a line (whether it be regarding this or any other issue) and say, "This is the way it's gonna be.", or you have to decide that there will be no lines. At some point... *somebody's* gotta make the call. And, in this country, if you don't like the calls that are being made, vote someone else into office who'll make the call that you agree with. (Just keep in mind that there will be plenty of people who disagree with the calls they make too.)
WATYF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: hrmm...
And you're right, somebody does have to make the call -- but these moral decisions are, in most cases, best made by individuals, rather than being dictated by the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hrmm...
"And the idea that your kids would never disobey you is quite incredulous."
I never said that they would never disobey - that is part of being a kid, as you said. But with a little bit of an idea as to why they are being restricted, kids will have a chance to make up their own minds about things when they DO disobey.
My parents didn't let my sisters and me watch the Three Stooges because they felt that we were too likely to try some of the stunts they did and end up hurting ourselves. When we got to an age where we could understand that the stunts were just that, we were allowed to watch their shows. But for my parents to have taken it upon themselves to try to ban the Stooges from the airwaves would have been taking things too far.
We all have to make decisions about what we will and will not accept. If my ideas are different than yours about what is acceptable, there should be a common ground where we can agree. When enough people agree that there is a boundary, then the line can be drawn and we can accept the fact that some of what we MIGHT see or hear will be something we would rather not be exposed to.
That is when we need to learn to change the channel.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hrmm...
a) Cancel Cable TV or Satellite TV
b) Use the channel restrictions that come with the Cable to Sattellite Box
c) Use the smart restrictions encoded in every TV set made in the last decade or so.
d) remove all antenae or cable connections from the premises or HOW BOUGHT remove the DAMN TV entirely from the premises!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: hrmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hrmm... by Monarch
Monarch, when taking those tests where you read an article and then have to choose the main point of the article, did you ever get one of those right?
WATYF's main point is, to repeat yet again, "you either need to draw a line and enforce it, or don't bother drawing one at all. 'Change the channel' is the same as 'don't bother drawing a line'."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A safe place to play
If “it takes a village to raise a child,” then the village shares some responsibility for what’s provided to children. As a parent, it’s my responsibility to provide a safe place for my children to play, say, a public park. So I sit in the park and watch the kids play. If I find someone distributing porn on the playground, I’m going to report them to the police. That’s my job. There are zoning laws that regulate where porn belongs; let it be found there by those who seek it. Granted, if it’s just objectionable language, I’m going to take it up with those who spoke it, not run straight to the police -- each infraction to its appropriate response.
As to those "family-friendly" pressure groups: if someone taps me on the shoulder, points out the porn distributor, allows me to verify that the person really is distributing and then says, “I’ve called the police day after day about this, but no one responds,” then suggests that if more people call, the police might take them seriously, I would agree. If they then offered the use of their cell phone and the speed dial number, I’d consider that a public service.
Bear in mind: the First Amendment may guarantee free speech, but not a public forum nor a captive audience.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FCC Chair Martin
With respect to the current chairman of the FCC, I suggest that you follow the money rather than the morality. That seems to explain alot more.
Stu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Television-- you're sitting on your ass looking at pictures of strangers-- shouldn't you be doing something worthwhile?
As for the Great Super Bowl Nipple Incident-- I watched that superbowl-- it was the first for me in at least fifteen years. The room was half-full of 30-40 somethings and half full of toddlers. NO ONE watched the half time show.
I can distinctly remember half-time starting and everyone getting up and wandering to the dining room to get more food/drink.
It was several weeks before I realized that Kid Rock was not a former Beastie Boy.
The only people offended by the nipple slip are the sad fucks who watched the halftime show.
Life is full of surprises. If you are so surprised by something that comes over the airwaves as entertainment that you have to write an angry letter to someone you are probably a worthless individual that would be better off stopping the anti-depressants and just offing yourself.
Seriously. Go to your nearest good university (this may require a trip outiside of South Carolina) and see some performance art. You will get no warning before the show that the giant dyke is going to end up naked and covered with blood talking about her pussy farts (actually happend to me). You can take it as it is-- laugh, dismiss it, or be disgusted. But don't write the FCC you passive-aggressive loser.
What's next? You complain to the DMV when you see an old bicyclist die of heart failure on the side of the road or you see a loose dog get exploded by a truck? Do you complain to the cops when the guy they're chasing jumps through a glass door and gets shredded? I've seen all those things. They were experiences. They were valuable-- they were my life. They were not nits to be picked. Life is invariably fatal, and it involves a lot of sex and violence. If yours doesn't, you are probably already dead.
If anything, you should complain to the broadcasters that there is not *more* to challenge and digust and arouse and enrage and amuse you. Or do you prefer tripe?
And no Junyo, there is not so much a difference between people who would cover a nipple and who would cover an ankle-- it's just flesh. Does a cat's tight little bounces-when-it-meows anus entice you into beastiality? If not, then why should an intangible's stranger's image on the television effect you? You could actually grab the cat and duct tape it's claws so it couldn't defend itself while you sodomized it (this works!-- I've heard), but that woman on the television, first you'd have to find out who she is and where she lives... and since you're spending a lot of time watching tv, you are not likely to take any action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Religion and Media Control
Do I think that TV content is over-regulated? Absolutely. It is easy to teach your children what you *believe* is not proper behaviour (as well as why) and show them through your choices. Ultimately -- they will come to believe that you as a parent were right or wrong.
Terribly graphic sex, and the most graphic hardcore violence available is something I don't wish my children to come across and then become confused about what they do believe -- but worst of all I sometimes worry if that could leave psychological scars on them. But those are just my kids -- other people are totally free to choose what they allow or encourage their children to watch -- I have been taught that I am not thier ultimate judge and therefor I am not to judge them.
Wow. Leave it to "religion" to stir up/create these kinds of problems. I do not belong to any religion, I'm just a Christian. I pray often for Christ to save me from his "fanatic" followers. Sorry for the long post folks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]