FCC Chairman Kevin Martin, testifying to congress about censoring cable and satellite TV:
You can always turn the television off and, of course, block the channels you don’t want[….] But why should you have to?
Some statements are just so mind-blowingly idiotic there’s nothing you can say in response.
Didn’t you know..
that watching tv is a constitutional right?
God… how idiotic…(and just so you know..I definitely think the FCC is one of those regulatory agencies that should be obliterated…)
Re: Didn’t you know..
And what are the others, pray tell?
Re: Didn’t you know..
Well, there are
a) your right not to be offended
b) your right to live anywhere, irrespective of whether it’s below sea level or chronically thrashed by storms
c) your right to work in the same career field, irrespective of whether it makes sense in the modern economy
d) your right to small gas prices and vast cars
e) your right to live an unreasonable distance from your place of work
f) your right to 1.3 new diseases per year, courtesy of the pharmaceutical industry.
Oh, you probably meant federal government agencies that can go, no?
How about: those dealing with individual citizens, as they represent a lousy abstraction.
Oy!
I don’t have either of those things but man you think that would be the one arena you could have “free” speech/expression. Damn puritanical value system!
Puritan Values… coming soon to an internet near you!
NO!!!!!!!
This is why the term “purityrranical” was coined.
What he meant to say is why should you have to when you can just stop watching TV altogether? And then proposed a law banning TV altogether. We wouldn’t want anybody to accidently wacth something they may later decide is offensive.
What about the all the offensive material on unregulated ViewMaster slides? Think of the children!
I really can’t understand the idea of certain kinds of censorship, I meanthing like maybe a ad along the highwy that anyone can see, sure. But one always has the option to to watch or read books, tv, or movies. One of the places I think this comes from is parents who don’t want their children to watch such and such a thing but also don’t discipline them. So the only way to keep them from watching it is to keep eveyrone from watching it. Or maybe just not worry so much about what their children see if they aren’t willing to perosnally gulate what the watch for goodness sakes.
My brain just said “Damn, there really should be graphically pornographic viewmaster slides.”
I am a sick sick puppy.
Because, you know, some people might actually WANT that content.
/me sighs
God… I hate the world, you know that? Seriously.
Clearly that man needs more pr0n.
Truly.
No, No….this is a good thing Avdi!!!!
(Isn’t this part of the argument the FCC made that people should be able to buy channels ala carte?
This way, instead of paying $50 for 150 channels (90% you don’t want) you can spend $15 and get Sci-Fi, Discovery, & History Channel. Think about it. I bet 90% of the programming you watch on TV is on just 5-6 channels. If you could buy each channel for like $2-3 and not have to pay $50/month for the rest of the junk…that’s a good thing.
🙂
Freedom to choose is not censorship!
(note, if this comment was not in reference to the recent ala carte push by the FCC and was merely for the point of blocking out smutt and censoring TV then I do agree with you)
Heck, of course this goes to my TV on demand. Why can’t I watch Gilligan when I want to watch Gilligan.
*grin*
I am really waiting for more TV download on demand. 🙂
It isn’t “freedom” to choose if the companies are coerced into providing it.
“A la carte” pricing is almost invariably more expensive than package deals.
Yes, I would like the option to only pay for what I watch. But the decision to offer that should be between the cable/sat companies and the consumer, it shouldn’t be forced on them.
Actually, a lot of them would like to but are forced into bundle deals with the big channel holders (ie: viacom will say you have to carry all of our channels in order to have x channel)
I think in 20 yrs it’ll be a moot point, you’ll search for your show and watch it.
Any and all government censorship should be obliterated; it’s already outlawed, but, apparently, the government doesn’t feel the need to follow the law when it decides not to. The same uber-conservatives that promote media censorship are the ones that expect market forces to protect the environment, but will stop at nothing to ‘protect the children’ from cuss words.
Bullshit.
If companies want to choose to market to people wanting censored television, then the cable companies should opt to carry a ‘family package’ which blocks certain channels and certain content by default. Our digital cable now has all sorts of parental lock controls to provide this service to those who care. The FCC getting involved is just a big brother tactic for the far right to force it’s extreme standards on the rest of us.
Did I mention, grrr.
Actually the reason that there is censorship (FCC) on TV & Radio broadcasts is due to the fact that there is a limited amount of spectrum. And that the spectrum belongs to the “People”. As such, there is not enough spectrum to be available to all people. So the government leases out limited control of portions of spectrum.
The public airwaves must be considered accessible and open to all the “public” hence the reasons for FCC guidelines regarding TV/AM/FM broadcasts.
However, these rules do not apply to cable and satellite because they are private carriers.
two issues are separate..
While i recognize the fact that a limited spectrum must somehow be ordered–i.e. that having bazillions of pirate radio stations set up in every home trying to use the same bandwidth is not necessarily going to be the most optimal situation…
I don’t see how that fact necessarily implies that the FCC has the right to sanction various channels for the content that they broadcast…
In comparison.. the Internet also has–in a practical sense–a limited bandwith (yes, i know you could have infinitely long ip numbers, but that’s not really practical is it) that is managed by a non-profit corporation ICANN that bid on a contract offered by the US Dept of Commerce. Now.. ICANN, while managing the finite spectrum of domain names/ip numbers does not impinge upon the content of any site at all… and I don’t see theoretically, why the electromagnetic spectrum couldn’t be managed in a similar way–i.e. that licenses are sold/registered by some system by a non-profit organization, but that organization doesn’t do anything about the content on them..
Re: two issues are separate..
“I don’t see how that fact necessarily implies that the FCC has the right to sanction various channels for the content that they broadcast…”
The premise was that the public airwaves had to be appropriate for the general public. If they actually held to that, then essentially the “public airwaves” are supposed to be “G” rated.
“Now.. ICANN, while managing the finite spectrum of domain names/ip numbers does not impinge upon the content of any site at all…”
Does too, all the time…in it’s control of top-level domains. For example: there has long been the suggestion of a .kids or .xxx domain. In fact, requiring all blatantly pornographic content to be on the .xxx domain would not be censorship. It would merely be zoning. And that is something done all the time.
Regarding the IP address issue, although limited it is magnitudes over the current channel system. 2nd, it has the ability to expand and grow. (Not an option with the analog station system.) In fact, there are new IP systems that increase the level to orders of magnitude more. Lastly, IP addresses do not restrict domains. With host header technology and single IP can serve hundreds of different domains.
Therefore, there is no need. But rest assured. If there were only 200 possible websites. Content would be highly regulated and structured.
arrghhh..eerrrgh…
okay.. I see the premise, but I think it is a stupid premise, because it is predicated upon a certain standard of content that is rather arbitrary…
I mean.. really… couldn’t we also update that standard to also include issues like “well, no radio/tv program is allowed unless the people speak English with perfect grammar” ???
ARggh… how dumb… I mean really.. I don’t find swearing to be offensive, but I do find most religious stuff on the radio to be offensive.. so why doesn’t my standard count??? Am i not part of the general “public”???
basically.. I find it interesting how “public” gets defined by certain people to mean certain things.. now I know the historical reasons for this, but it still irritates me to no end..
As for the second part… I don’t see how particular naming schemes is really content control… they don’t tell people what they can put on their sites–merely how people will find that site… (I don’t have a problem with zoning laws, however, so maybe that’s why i don’t see this as a big issue..)
Re: arrghhh..eerrrgh…
See my reply to theSaj for why this really IS a big deal.
Re: arrghhh..eerrrgh…
I can see your point… and I hadn’t really thought about the “requirement” to put porn in an xxx domain…
Overall.. I’m not a big fan of obscenity laws at all.. and given the choice to vote on stuff… I would vote against any kind of requirement for xxx domains.. (but not against making them available..)
Of course, as we’ve talked about in the past, I do believe that zoning laws can be useful things at times.. but that is based more on the idea that there are definite concrete effects (like noise, pollution, etc) that come with the placement of businesses and residences and such things..
I see porn/art/written content as something different.. namely that it is physically a lot easier to just stop looking at a webpage/stop reading a pornographic novel than to avoid the possible noise and pollution of someone opening up a steel mill/dance club next door.
Re: arrghhh..eerrrgh…
I don’t find swearing to be offensive, but I do find most religious stuff on the radio to be offensive.. so why doesn’t my standard count???
And that is why they ensure that only a station or two in an entire region carries religious programming. It’s also a big issue in the case of “spanish” radio, and they contest why should all the stations be English?
In truth, it is a pendulum that can never really be balanced. At best you can hope to keep it spinning fast enough to build up enough gyroscopic forces to keep it somewhat stable and upright…at best
Re: two issues are separate..
Yes, it is. There is a reason so many people are against such “zoning” – even people who aren’t flaming libertarians like me. And it isn’t because we don’t want to have .xxx domains in our browser histories. It’s because it’s a stupid, dangerous idea. Why? Because somebody has to decide what qualifies as pornography, and will therefore be automatically filtered by the thousands or millions of compturs and networks that will block all .xxx domains once such a law is passed. We all know the famous definition of pornography – “I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it”. The big question is who is the “I” in that statement? And what do they consider pornography? Is sex-education pornography? And if the answer is “some of it”, where do you draw the line? You can bet James Dobson draws the line at a very different place than Betty Dodson. Is literate erotica pornography? What about graphic documentery depictions of the genital mutilation practiced by certain cultures? And who says the US definition of pornography is the one that should prevail? What about the French definition? The Saudi definition? We could just turn it over to the UN or a similar multinational organization, but we all know how effective THOSE are.
It’s easy to say “require porn to be in the .xxx domain” (or “require porn to be limited to a special port”, an even more braindead suggestion that was recently put forth by a Utah congresscritter). But when you get down to the nitty-gritty, someone has to make moral judgements about the content, and ultimately that is censorship. Because .xxx will be blanket-blocked in a lot of places, and even where it isn’t it will have a stigma attached to it. How many high school teachers are going to accept a research paper where the sources have .xxx domain names?
Re: two issues are separate..
well, there is a point where one must make decisions. NAMBLA thinks 4 yrs of age is good enough for consent. Who is to say they are wrong.
No, it’s not easy. But even if we erred on the side of leniency when it came to pornography. I think there is plenty that there is no question on. And it’s usually those ones that are causing most of the offense.
Like all the crap email…and to a degree I see the Liberty end of things. But if that is the case, then let me have my sledge hammer and be able to smash the server that was sending tons of crap email to my work acocunt.
*shrug*
Much like Fezzini from The Princess Bride, what conservatives mean when they talk about “market forces” is not what they think it means.
Okay, I’m going to !@#$% rant…cause you know what, I’m am overall against “government censorship” and there is all this crap about censorship. (Regardless of the fact public schools do it all the time.)
But you know what, it also has a flip side of decided ram-rodding down people’s throats. And I am just as equally opposed to that as well.
For example: CleanFilms.com makes versions of movies where the sex and violence etc have been removed to make it more acceptable to certain viewers. They in fact, purchase a copy of the original film and then provide the edited movie to the individual. (There is in fact no economic loss on the part of the movie studios, in fact there is an increase in sales.)
However, now our court system is going to impede and prohibit such action. Now, this is NOT state censorship. Censorhip is when the government says you can or can’t. This is individual choice of censorship. (And that I am 200% willing to stand for and willing to pack a shotgun to protect.)
Yes, people make the gripe about “artistic license”…but guess what, there is “viewer license” as well. And just as an artist has the right to add such content a viewer, if they should so choose, should be able to choose not to view such segments. And if they hire a 3rd party service to perform the task of removal, why should the viewer not have such a right?
Hell, we have had “abridged” books for hundreds of years now. In fact, most classics that people read are “abridged” versions. How many works have been abridged without their author’s (now dead) permission? Tons…
So where as I am against State Censorship I am damn well supportive of the right of individual censorship. But I am always flabbergasted how it’s always the decry of freedom and anti-capitalism but when it’s reversed. They want to take away freedoms from others.
This is the dichotomy I get so sick of.
*growls*
– Saj
I’m not sure why you addressed this rant to me. Banning what CleanFilms does is wrong. Protecting copyright shouldn’t extend to forcing people to view the speech exactly as the artist intended. This isn’t technically a speech case, though; it’s a copyright case.
Telling the cable companies how to do business is also wrong. It’s anti-business at the least; and potentially anti-speech if the end result is a chilling effect.
“I’m not sure why you addressed this rant to me.”
Oh, just thought I’d put it here as we were talking about censorship issues, etc.
“Telling the cable companies how to do business is also wrong. It’s anti-business at the least; and potentially anti-speech if the end result is a chilling effect.”
I agree and disagree. If we took such action unilaterally I’d agree. But when companies are restricted from competiting and industries are protected. If I could get telephone service from my cable company and cable from my telephone and there were not regulations preventing such and maintaining these little monopolies. Well, then I’d agree.
But since we’re in the business of regulation and I am not able to get alternatives, and our government is going to protect these industries. Then I feel there needs to likewise be protections for me.
*shrug*
quick informational question about clean films..
When they buy copies of the original film to edit.. do they buy them on a one for one basis? or do they they purchase one copy, edit it, and then make lots of copies of it? (perhaps this doesn’t apply, I’m thinking like a blockbuster video rental type style..)
If it’s the first, I have no problem with it on theoretical grounds.. since no one should be forced to watch things/consume stuff that goes against their personal values.. (of course, I kinda wonder why anyone would want to watch most of the kinds of films that have sex&violence in them if they don’t like these things..)
If it’s the second kind.. that’s a copyright issue, I believe.. but as I say above, perhaps the kind of situation doesn’t apply…
In any case.. i just had another thought.. if we assume the first situation, and that cutting out is ok.. would it also be okay in the reverse situation–for example, to buy films on a one-to-one basis, and then enhance them by editting in graphic sex and violence?
I mean.. seeing pornographic vegie tales might just be one of the most hilarious things ever… 😉
Re: quick informational question about clean films..
“do they buy them on a one for one basis?”
Yes, they buy them on a one for one basis.
“of course, I kinda wonder why anyone would want to watch most of the kinds of films that have sex&violence in them if they don’t like these things..”
Take the Titantic, one scene might make it objectionable. There are a lot of great movies that might have just a single scene that gives it an “R” rating (often tossed in specifically to get that rating).
“To buy films on a one-to-one basis, and then enhance them by editting in graphic sex and violence?”
1) It was decided the placement of commercials in front of a film by video rental was okay.
2) The addition of content may make it a new creative work, as new “creative content” is added as opposed to just merely removing it. Not that I really think that should be an issue either.
3) Mystery Theater 3000 does just that (albeit without sex & violence) with old films. I see it as an acceptable art form.
well then…
Here.. unlike in most other places on El-Gay.. we are in complete agreement.. ;)))
well..
Federal level ATF is pretty whacked in my book..localities should decide those things…
DEA is also at the top of my list…
wft?
This was supposed to be up underneath your comment.. I don’t know how it got down here..
I sure am glad that someone else can decide what I might be offended by and block it for me. I would be more apalled by this guy if I hadn’t already come to expect this kind of statement from the current generation of people out to protect me from my own freedom to be offended.