FCC Chairman: Why Should People Have To Monitor Their Own Entertainment?
What a twit...
Right. Why go through all that hassle of changing the channel when you see or hear something offensive. That's what we have the FCC for. To censor our television. Since, you know, we all agree on what is and is not offensive.
/sarcasm
Sadly, most of the legislators Mr. Martin was addressing agreed with him:
What right does Congress have to give the FCC sway over cable and satellite programming? The only reason the FCC has authority over broadcast television now is that Congress seized ownership of the "public airwaves" decades ago. And that might have made sense decades ago (after all, there are only so many frequencies available), but is Congress seriously considering the seizing of privately developed satellite and cable networks? All for the sake of censorship, no less?
Since when did American abdicate their personal responsibility to the government? I am quite capable of defining what is offensive to me, personally, and avoiding it. I'm also quite capable of monitoring my child's entertainment intake and censoring it accordingly. I do not need the government to do this for me. I don't want my tax dollars spent on it, for one thing, and I don't trust government bureaucrats enough to hand them that kind of power, for another.
While listening to a radio report on this story yesterday I heard an interesting quote from an entertainment industry executive who said something to this effect:
All the censoring, channel-blocking and ratings systems in the world aren't going to help a single child out if the parents don't care.
That's a great point. I have no problem with the entertainment industry giving Americans the tools whereby they can censor their own content intake, but I am four-square against giving the government any power to do this beyond what they already have.
WASHINGTON - Sexed-up, profanity-laced shows on cable and satellite TV should be for adult eyes only, and providers must do more to shield children or could find themselves facing indecency fines, the nation's top communications regulator says.
"Parents need better and more tools to help them navigate the entertainment waters, particularly on cable and satellite TV," Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin told Congress on Tuesday.
Martin suggested several options, including a "family-friendly" tier of channels that would offer shows suitable for kids, such as the programs shown on the Nickelodeon channel.
He also said cable and satellite providers could consider letting consumers pay for a bundle of channels that they could choose themselves - an "a la carte" pricing system.
If providers don't find a way to police smut on television, Martin said, federal decency standards should be considered.
"You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don't want," he said, "but why should you have to?"
Right. Why go through all that hassle of changing the channel when you see or hear something offensive. That's what we have the FCC for. To censor our television. Since, you know, we all agree on what is and is not offensive.
/sarcasm
Sadly, most of the legislators Mr. Martin was addressing agreed with him:
Even so, Committee Co-Chair Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, told the forum that lawmakers want to see the industry help protect children from indecent and violent programming.
"If you don't come up with an answer, we will," he said.
Congress is considering several bills that would boost fines.
Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said some critics have complained the bills don't go far enough and that decency standards should be expanded to cover cable and satellite.
Currently, obscenity and indecency standards apply only to over-the-air broadcasters. Congress would need to give the FCC the authority to police cable and satellite programming.
What right does Congress have to give the FCC sway over cable and satellite programming? The only reason the FCC has authority over broadcast television now is that Congress seized ownership of the "public airwaves" decades ago. And that might have made sense decades ago (after all, there are only so many frequencies available), but is Congress seriously considering the seizing of privately developed satellite and cable networks? All for the sake of censorship, no less?
Since when did American abdicate their personal responsibility to the government? I am quite capable of defining what is offensive to me, personally, and avoiding it. I'm also quite capable of monitoring my child's entertainment intake and censoring it accordingly. I do not need the government to do this for me. I don't want my tax dollars spent on it, for one thing, and I don't trust government bureaucrats enough to hand them that kind of power, for another.
While listening to a radio report on this story yesterday I heard an interesting quote from an entertainment industry executive who said something to this effect:
All the censoring, channel-blocking and ratings systems in the world aren't going to help a single child out if the parents don't care.
That's a great point. I have no problem with the entertainment industry giving Americans the tools whereby they can censor their own content intake, but I am four-square against giving the government any power to do this beyond what they already have.
HG
docdave
Carrick
likwidshoe
pparets
realitybasedbob
Bat One
