News "Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005"

This is really only really for us Americans...

This is serious people. This bill, which is currently in congress, is a bill to inform the American public and to protect children from increasing depictions of indecent and gratuitous and excessive violent material on television, and for other purposes. In shorter terms, it aims to completely regulate PAY television and satellite radio. The bill is S.616: "Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005" will create the exact same standards applied to broadcast TV and radio to what you and I pay for with cable / satellite TV or with XM and/or Sirius satellite radio. Currently, on satellite radio we can listen to fully uncut, unedited tracks from any and all bands and the dj's are free to say or do whatever they want. If this bill passes, they will be constrained by the same FCC regs that your local FM station is. This whole bill is the result of things such as Janet Jackson's Halftime "wardrobe malfunction" last year.

If you feel that cable/satellite TV or satellite radio should be left alone and that we are able to judge and decide what is acceptable for our children to watch or hear, might I suggest stopping by the Senate's web site, finding who exactly is your Senator and dropping them a letter? It's best not to email or fax these people as they generally ignore communications like that. I would write a letter and stick it in an envelope - best is to make multiple copies and send multiple letters. The more they receive, the more they will pay attention.

I can't stress enough how serious this is. Think the Induce act will have bad consequences? This has the potential to be even worse because it is a direct invasion of our freedom of speech and limit our right to choose what we want to see and/or hear, even if we pay a subscription for it.

 

Doesn’t that infringe on your freedom of speech?

 

Was my main point

 

Does anyone think they might consider passing a "Indecently Long And Frankly Patronising Names For Legislative Acts Act"?

 

seems rather stupid imho, wouldnt it be more sensible to crack down on those that are buying them underage? (assuming the have age ratings in the states)

If it goes through youll all be buying uncensored black market games from europe

 

While I have little objection to the disposal of the content this aims to dispose of, the very idea of the government having the ability to limit constitutional freedoms is totally absurd; I wrote to my senator about this. The rest of you should too.

 

Surely you have to be 18/21 to pay for premium services anyway because they usually require a creditcard or some sort of contract, so, the people that buy it should be responsible for who else sees it.

 

Which is another reason why this concept is absurd.

 

Not all the time. If you have a digital cable box, any premium content purchased will be billed to your account, not a credit card. However, if the PARENT locks the channel(s), then you can not access any of them without a password. This is what I do with my satellite receiver - all pay-per-view and premium channels (HBO, Showtime, etc) are locked and can only be accessed with a 4-digit pin.

Not the intent of the bill. This has to do with cable television and satellite radio.


I think most of you don't understand this bill. It's not directed solely at HBO, Cinemax, Showtime, Pay-Per-View or anything like that, it's aimed primarily at cable tv stations (SciFi, Comedy Central, TBS, TNT, MTV, etc) and satellite radio.

 

Not to mention the first "and" should be a comma.

If you're paying for cable (etc) then they should just put a "we're not liable for the content" disclaimer in the contract. That way parents who aren't intelligent or responsible enough to use the v-chip can't get things like this thought up as congressional acts.

 

A note in afterthought: Wow... that's... a long post. Well, if you don't want to read it, the scroll bar is your friend! Also, feel free to tell me off for sticking my foot in my mouth. Hey, that's the spirit of this post!

I'm technically a U.S. citizen, but I don't live there. Still, I think that everyone should sit up and pay attention to this because these sorts of laws have a nasty habit of cropping up in other countries once they get passed in the States.

In the interests of getting people to read the bill (it's pretty short, hey congressional representatives have to read dozens of these each week, OK?), I'm just going to make brief points with reference to which section I'm discussing.

Sec 2.3.B) Accessible? Available, yes, but it's only accessible if parents allow that access. That sounds like an argument to draft a "Bill to Inform American Parents that They Are Responsible for the Upbringing and Behaviour of Their Own Damn Kids and not to Act Like Dog Owners Who Pretend that the Dog Crapping in the Gutter Has Nothing to Do with Them Act of 2005" (that name should be long enough to satisfy the drafters).

Sec 2.5) Exponentially from what to what?

Sec 2.6) How many individual Americans generated those complaints (I know some angry retirees with a lot of free time on their hands), and why couldn't they find the channel selector or "off" switches on their TVs?

Sec 2.8) "Off" switch?

Sec 2.15) Er, I said, "off switch"?

Sec 2.16) "OFF" SWITCH?!

Sec 2.17) "Hmm, 'Rise of the Night Stalker': A boy whose parents are brutally slain by vampires grows up to hunt them without mercy on the dark city streets. Rated 15+. Well, I have no way of telling whether or not it's violent, so I guess it's OK."

Sec 2.20) So basically they're saying that because a small minority of parents subscribe to these services but are apparently never home to watch their kids and can't afford technology-based censorship systems, the fairest solution is to remove the content in question for everyone. If you've got kids and you're working those hours but you still can't afford a V-chip or a babysitter, what are you doing paying for cable? Oh, oh, I see, this act is intended to protect unsupervised kids of overworked parents who are pirating cable, right?

Sec 4.a.3) I'm sorry, I must have missed the meeting where we decided that a content provider is ultimately responsible for someone else's child's viewing patterns.

Sec 6) As far as I can tell, all these amendments to the Communications Act of 1934 can be boiled down to one sentence: "Local broadcasters of syndicated material will be liable for any breaches of these laws, and have a legal right to refuse to broadcast any of the syndicated material that they don't want to... unless the syndicating network puts their foot down and says they really, really have to, in which case the local broadcaster is off the hook." WTF?!

Sec 7) These amendments seem pointless if Sec 2.18 is to be believed, and will be thrown out anyway, in the case of Sec 2.19 (and therefore also Sec 2.20) becoming reality.

Nezuji

 

Yeah, unfourtunately this is how it tends to go.

This basically boils down to parents being lazy and irresponsible, as covered by Nezuji. Of course, we should put this into perspective: some Americans are too lazy to walk one or two city blocks, so should it come as any suprise that they can't summon enough willpower to move their thumb to the power or channel buttons?

 

Total ********, if people dont like something I dont remember anyone holding a gun to anyones head to watch cable TV I PAY FOR. If your so freaked out by the media then turn off the radio and tv and hide in a dark closet forever. Leave us be that like to watch and listen to these things.

I somehow doubt this will pass, but if it does we all can kiss the last little bit of american "freedom" there is left goodbye. Anyone notice that this country is one of the least free on the planet? Seriously go research how many laws dont exist in other places in the world

 

Not only that, but there are a lot of technophobes in the US, and learning how to put locks on channels and such makes people reach for the asprin and want to forget, besides, with their kids being more knowledgeable about TVs than their parents, what doesnt stop the kid from putting locks on channels in retaliation (kid doesn't get to watch mind numbing reality show? then fine, parent doesn't get to watch dumb soap opera)? Personally, I don't own a TV and don't plan on owning one (really is the biggest waste of money, electricity, and brain cells), and if TV is a problem to your kids, just get rid of the damn thing (not like your 12 year old is gonna go and buy one himself, unless you spoil him with a $50/week allowance) and if you're a responsible parent (them's rare beasts nowadays), a small sacrifice like getting rid of the TV shouldn't stand in the way of disciplining your kids.

Then again, your kids will probably just spend more time at their friend's place once you dump the TV, and you'll probably do the same. But your friends, and your kids friends, and their parents, will probably get so fed up with you coming over, they'll probably dump theirs, and BAM a chain reaction starts and everyone will dump their TVs. See, problem solved...

But seriously, people are dumb, lazy, and afraid of technology, and if you want to stop this bill, you're going to have to educate and motivate a buncha dumb, lazy and technophobic folk (i.e. not gonna happen), who in all honesty probably won't give much a damn until it's too late.

Oh yeah, and this bill reeks of MPAA and RIAA bribes. "Damn, those smart ass americans keep downloading our money away, ah well, we'll just take away anything worth watching on TV so the dumb have to buy what they want to see and hear".

-L6

 

With everything that's been happening lately such as record fines imposed by the FCC, public outcry with the Janet Jackson deal, the Desperate Wives / NFL promo and similar things, don't be suprised if this gains momentum. With any logic, it shouldn't pass, but don't be suprised if it at least gets serious consideration.

The whole problem is the outspoken minority. Most parents have common sense to at least make an attempt at blocking unsuitable content from their kids. It may not always be easy, but that's what the little toll free number to the cable or satellite provider is for - technical assistance.

 

I regularly read the Bit-Tech news posts but never bothered to register. However, this one post pushed me over the edge.

It just defies comprehension that the US keeps pumping out these patronising, regulatory laws.

Firstly it angers me that some people seem to presume that THEY know what's best for everybody else, and that they should go ahead and enforce their narrow views on the rest of the populace.

Secondly, the unrelenting hypocrisy of it all just keeps baffling me. On the one hand there is a government that is driven solely by the economic interests of the already indecently rich, a government that sends its youngsters to war to protect and expand those same economic interests. On the other hand they claim to hold the moral high ground, regulating everything you say, read, watch, think.

I won't even start on how religion is used to pursue those two nasty habits (narrow-minded regulation and convincing people they need to wage war on some distant country).

I like to think I'm an free-thinking individual, and I'm constantly reminded of how lucky I am not to live in the "land of freedom and democracy". Honestly, the US and the way it influences the world and tries to mold it to its own values makes me very uneasy.

 

BlueDemon: For the most part, I agree with the rest of your post to some extent. The only thing I don't understand is being a citizen of Belgium, why does it matter to you so much? This whole thing is completely US internal affairs and has no bearing on any foreign interests.

 

Wow. I mean, just... wow.

The United States of America posesses one of the largest economies in the world. You're also one of the biggest in terms of population, land mass, and per capita GNP. You also maintain one of the (if not the) largest and most technologically advanced standing armies in the world.

Whether anyone likes it or not, the U.S.A. is a Highly Influential World Power (tm). And a part of that is that when legislation is passed in your country, law-makers around the world start scratching their chins and considering whether that law would work for their country, too. If it's already been done in the U.S., half the battle has already been won in most national assemblies.

And this bill is fairly clearly the thin end of a very unpleasant wedge.

Nezuji

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand where everyone is coming from, my thing is that with this logic, whenever the US passes a law or when there is a bill in Congress, we should consult the "world body" or think how it may effect the decision making in other nations. If the US has this kind of influence within your governments, that's not our fault, it's the respective government officials fault and should be delt with within your elections or policy decisions. Everyone is so keen on ripping the US apart if we "meddle" with the internal affairs of foreign nations, but yet it seems that every foreign nation feels they have the right to meddle with the internal affairs of the US. Sorry, that's not going to happen - you can't have it both ways.

 

I sincerley hope that no country on this planet follows the awesome "logic" of bush and his goons. If thats true were all in some major trouble...

But thats exactly right, its the outspoken minority of christian mothers (almost sorry to point it out that exact, but I read that 99% of all complaints about television were from that group) and others who somehow get sway over everyone else. Its just wrong. Like i said, crawl into a dark hole if the world scares you so much, dont make the rest of us change just for the 10 of you that dont like whats in the media that You have full control over, you know, that little knob or button that says "on" or "off"

To ask you in other countries, when a couple people complain about something that the rest are perfectly fine with like whats on tv, does your government snap to and try to pass totally stupid laws to cater to the .01% that has a problem or do they just tell them to eat it.