Restrictions on cable? Maybe in Alaska
Of course, this will never even get anywhere near a vote:
WASHINGTON (Reuters)– Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said on Tuesday he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television and subscription satellite TV and radio.
“Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area,” the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local television and radio affiliates. “I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air” broadcasters.
“There has to be some standard of decency,” he said. But he also cautioned that “No one wants censorship.”
We’re not familiar with Stevens. But we’ve always been of the opinion that cable and other pay broadcast services should, by their very nature, be unfettered. And, trust us, they’ll remain so. No word on whether Stevens wants to restrict satellite transmissions.
If this ridiculous notion had any chance of becoming some sort of law, we’d be worried. As it is, we’re calm. (Exactly what does Ted Stevens think this is going to do for his career? The folks back in Alaska are going to be very peeved.) Here’s what would happen if Stevens waved a magic wand and made HBO and XM and Sirius subject to FCC regs: Everything would go backwards– and slide back to a time before Eisenhower. And no one in this hemisphere would stand still for that. Hell, the FCC wouldn’t even want that hornet’s nest!
What does any of this have to do with standup comedy? You’re here and you ask that question?
Rest assured, it ain’t happening. Go back to your homes. Nothing to see here.
No Responses
Reply to: Restrictions on cable? Maybe in Alaska
Because we all know what a threat the F-word is to both national security and our nation’s youth.
-Shaun Eli
“A threat to our national security and our nation’s youth?” You’re smarter than that.
No one views “Fuck” that way… no serious person at least. Crude language, profanity and the like have traditionally been restricted from our public airways. There’s a good argument for it. It can be argued that we’re a better people for it. That’s a whole other argument, though.
Characterizing those who seek to rein in crude language as folks who view “Fuck” as a threat to our national security or as a threat to our youth distorts or mischaracterizes their case and brings the entire debate to a screeching halt.
In posting this, we made a distinction between regulating cable and regulating broadcast. And we opined that regulating cable is insipid and that it will probably never happen.
Whether or not “fuck” belongs on broadcast television– and why or why not it should remain restricted– is an entirely different debate.
If someone seeks to restrict cable in a similar fashion, we can hear them out– and, quite probably, crush the argument without resorting to distortion.
You’re right, I was distorting the whole issue, and I didn’t mean to cheapen the argument by my use of sarcasm. I think in 2005 anybody who seriously believes that any elementary school kid hasn’t already heard all the dirty words is living in a snow bank.
I can understand the official legal difference between cable and broadcast but frankly a lot of people have to get cable to get any TV at all, so the argument that paid TV should live by different rules seems disingenuous. If the airwaves belong to the people then either everybody should get a turn at it or they should be sold to the highest bidder, and not to whoever got there first, which is how the networks ‘own’ their VHF channels.
And frankly while whether someone used the F word is more objective than whether something with different words is obscene, you can be really disgusting without using any offensive words. I was very grossed out when I saw the movie “Saving Private Ryan” in a theatre. It was recently on television, the FCC received thousands of complaints, and decided to do nothing. Which was appropriate, in my opinion.
Several years ago my mother asked me if I’d ever heard of Howard Stern. Apparently she’d stumbled across his radio show. She told me how horrified she was at some of the things he talked about (all without using foul language). I was expecting her next sentence to involve a letter to the FCC or some other complaint. I asked what she did. She did the appropriate thing—she changed the station.
As I stated in a recent letter published in The New York Times, I’m way more offended by television preachers telling me I’m going to spend eternity in hell– not because of my acts but because I’m not a believer in their particular religion—than I am in any violent movie or collection of horrid stories or any four-letter words.
-Shaun