 | Cogressman Fred Upton at the grand opening of Felpausch Foods in Northside, MI |
As you are all almost certainly aware, there is a movement afoot to more strictly regulate the decency of the entertainment broadcast on radio and television in America. Leading this charge is the always-dastardly Religious-Wrong. Although there was talk prior, they have used the infamous Janet Jackson Superbowl incident to pressure the spineless thieves in the U.S. congress to make cracking down on indecent material a priority not education, not poverty, not debt relief broadcast decency!
January 21st of this year, Fred Upton a Michigan republican, introduced the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2004, and a week later it gained the support of the White House (big surprise). Fred, chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, had this to say about the bill, I think it's imperative that we get this bill to the president's desk as fast as we can." Imperative? Really Fred? Good to know Fred is really looking out for his constituents in the great state of Michigan. Because as we all know, Michigans biggest problem is dirty words and images on TV.
It isnt just Fred Upton, this bill passed the House with overwhelming bipartisan support. In the Senate, Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (Senator from Alaska) is pushing for decency standards to apply to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.
"There has to be some standard of decency," Stevens said on the Senate floor. But he also cautioned that "No one wants censorship." Huh?! So let me get this straight, Ted wants a punitive system to curb objectionable material in entertainment based on a standard of decency, presumably his own. BUT he doesnt want censorship, which is defined by good ole Merriam & Webster as, the institution, system or practice of examining in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable. Now, I went to a public school, so take my opinion for what its worth, but those two ideas sound like the same thing. If someone can clue me into the difference, I would appreciate it.
I can, at least in theory, understand how Upton can interpret his charge to extend to maintaining limits on the kind of content broadcast over the public airwaves. I mean, they are publicly owned and broadcasters obtain a license from the government to use them, so the public can presumably set whatever rules they wish. I get the feeling that Upron's ideas about decency and the public's are probably not the same, but that is a different story.
On the other hand, Stevens claim that congress also has the power to regulate cable and satellite is insane. These are services that individuals purchase of their own volition. This isnt a public trust; it is not unlike buying a DVD at Best Buy or a book from Barnes & Noble. How can Stevens justify his claim that Congress should be able to censor - I am sorry, regulate a standard of decency (in)" a product I personally choose to purchase? Does he really think that Congress should have the power to punish companies for selling to adults any content, regardless of delivery method, that he considers indecent?
 | Save us from bad words Senator Stevens |
I would be interested to ask these men some questions like, what they are really trying to accomplish? Do they honestly want to get rid of swear words and sex in entertainment? Do they really think they are representing the will of their constituents? They certainly dont represent my wishes. As far as I am concerned, swear words and sex are the only entertainment. Thats why watching sailors fuck is my favorite pastime.
More to the point, dont we already have a system in place that allows the community to control the content on their TVs and radios? Yes, it is called the power button. If people really didnt want to see that stuff they wouldnt watch, and hence the networks, who arent in the business of creating content people dont view (that is the job of internet writers), would stop making it.
The truth is that people WANT to see this stuff - certainly not everyone; and perhaps not even the majority of people, but thankfully that isnt how this country works. We have protections in the law for this very reason. There is no exception in the first amendment for unpopular or sexual speech. All speech is protected. I mean, what is the point of protecting my right to say something like, Fred Upton and Ted Stevens can suck a warm dick if you are going to turn around and say that no one can hear me say it or I will be fined $500K?
In England, a country with no written guarantee of free speech, they broadcast Jerry Springer The Opera on a Saturday night complete with all the profanities (3,168 "fucks" and 297 "cunts" according to Mediawatch), and Jesus admitting to being "a bit gay".
But in the end, this is all just the last gasp of a meaningless conservative backlash. The glorious internet will save us from these fanatics.
It wont be long before all of our entertainment, from phone calls to on-demand video, will be broadcast on the internet, and there just isnt anyway to regulate content on the internet. As much as the power lusting fascists in Washington might try, there will always be some rouge 17 year old Norwegian kid posting watersports porn from his apartment, or for that matter, a 27 year old American telling Congressmen to suck a warm dick from his LA apartment on a website not unlike this one.
 |
