Indeed, on May 23, Martin met with a coalition of pro-censorship groups, including leaders of the National Coalition and the Religious Alliance Against Pornography, the Long Island Citizens for Community Values and the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, to talk about "indecency and obscenity being transmitted by cable, satellite TV, and satellite radio" as well as "the production and distribution of porn and live pornographic acts over new communications vehicles such as PDAs and iPods," according to a report from AgapePress News Summary, a religious e-zine.
So far, Stevens hasn't proposed any legislation to promote his indecency views, but it seems likely that he'll sign onto Senate Bill 616, authored by Sens. John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), which, like the bill passed by the House, would boost "indecency" fines to $500,000 per incident ? "except that the amount assessed a licensee or permitee for any number of violations in a given 24-hour time period shall not exceed a total of $3,000,000" ? and, for the first time, would regulate violence on TV. It would also order the FCC to study extending indecency rules to cable and satellite channels ? and most readers can guess how such studies, whose participants would be chosen with the "guidance" of the Bush/Rove administration, are likely to come out.
What's particularly appalling are some of Congress' "findings" that preface the regulatory section of the bill. For example:
"(6) In 2004, Americans filed over 1,000,000 complaints with the Federal Communications Commission about indecent programming." And, "(7) According to reports from the Parents Television Council, indecent and violent video programming on cable television is pervasive."
It's not surprising that a congressional bill introduced during the Bush administration would give credence to "reports" from a fundamentalist conservative group that for months listed "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" as the worst show on TV, and it's a bit disingenuous not to have noted that more than 99% of those "1,000,000 complaints" originated from PTC subscribers who, to say the least, have a skewed perception of what "indecency" is ? but it gets worse.
After claiming that there is "empirical evidence" (from what studies? Congress doesn't say) that children exposed to "violent video programming" (?Star Trek?? Saving Private Ryan? ?Cops?? ?The Nightly News?? Bugs Bunny cartoons? Congress doesn't say) have a "higher tendency to engage in violent and aggressive behavior later in life" and a "greater tendency to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior and therefore to imitate such behavior," the bill's authors conclude that, "(14) There is a compelling governmental interest in limiting the negative influences of violent video programming on children."
Can you say "thought police"?
And just in case no one can connect the dots ? and it's unlikely that Mass Media 2005 will do so ? check out Conclusion #19: "After further study, pursuant to a rulemaking, the Federal Communications Commission may conclude that content-based ratings and blocking technology do not effectively protect children from the harm of violent video programming."
Anybody think there's a chance in hell that the FCC won't conclude that? And therefore...
"(20) If the Federal Communications Commission reaches the conclusion described in paragraph (19), the channeling of violent video programming will be the least restrictive means of limiting the exposure of children to the harmful influences of violent video programming."
After the FCC concludes its study, which it has 60 days after the passage of S616 to do, it "shall report its findings from the assessments made under subsection (a) to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the United States House of Representatives."
Gee, doesn't Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ark.) chair the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation? And doesn't Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) chair the House Committee on Energy and Commerce? No chance those guys are biased, is there?
Anyway, after the completely unbiased FCC reaches its completely unbiased conclusion that the completely unbiased PTC was correct about the pervasiveness of indecent and violent video programming, "then the Commission shall initiate and conclude (not later than 270 days after the date of that determination) a rulemaking proceeding--
"(A) to prohibit television broadcast station licensees from broadcasting gratuitous and excessively violent programming during the hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience if the Commission's determination relates to measures applicable to such broadcast television programming; or
"(B) to adopt measures to protect children from indecent video programming, or gratuitous and excessively violent video programming, as the case may be, carried by multichannel video programming distributors during the hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience if the Commission's determination relates to measures applicable to such multi-channel video programming."
You probably know "multi-channel video programming distributors" better by another name: Cable and satellite TV providers. And in case you aren't sure what "indecent video programming" may be, don't worry: The government will tell you:
"(3) INDECENT VIDEO PROGRAMMING- The Commission shall define the term 'indecent video programming' for purposes of this section."
And if you have any doubts that that definition will be completely unbiased, you probably haven't been paying enough attention to Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. ("Who?" "Look 'em up.") And it'll only cost violators at most $3 million per day!
Gee; d'ya think those providers might want to make up that money in higher ad prices, which might just be made up by higher product prices that adult industry members might just have to pay? Or d'ya think those providers might just chill (as in "chilling effect") any of their speech they fear might fit the FCC's "definition" ? which they don't even know what it is yet!
There's plenty more wrong with this bill, some of which Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) discussed in an op-ed piece in the June 7 Village Voice, noting that passage of S616 would likely toll the death knell for such popular programs as ?The Sopranos,? ?The Daily Show,? ?South Park,? ?Queer As Folk,? ?The Dave Chappelle Show? and others ? but he went even further.
"In a broader sense, this push to censor demonstrates that the extreme right-wing Republicans who now control the White House and Congress believe that the federal government should tell every American what they may or may not consume on cable or satellite TV, or the Web?even though consumers are paying for those services," Sanders wrote. "At a time when we hear the president and other Republicans talking about the need to spread 'freedom' throughout the world, these same politicians apparently believe that Americans should not have the freedom to watch TV programs of their choice. What hypocrisy! And, remember, these are the same folks who told us year after year (before they got power) how dangerous the federal government was and how we had to get government 'off the backs' of the people."
Okay; so one guy in Congress Gets It. Keep your eyes out for how many more, if any, also do. Then vote accordingly.
http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=230129