One of the last bastions of free speech on the airwaves are pay cable stations like HBO and Showtime as well as Satellite channels. In the past the FCC hasn't been able to regulate language or sexual situations on channels like these because they aren't "public" airwaves, you have to pay a subscription fee and acquire special equipment to view them.

HBO in particular has made a name for itself with shows like The Sopranos, Six Feet Under, Sex in the City, Oz and recently Deadwood. They also of course run movies in their unedited forms daily.

I noticed this article in the SF Chronicle this morning and it appears that Deadwood in particular has attracted the attention of some right-wing politicians.



Can you even begin to imagine a Joe Pesci movie on HBO edited down in that cheesy After School Special way that they use for movies on network TV? I can make a pretty safe bet that no one would pay for that.

Questions for debate:
1. Should the FCC have the authority to regulate Pay cable and Satellite channels such as HBO, Showtime, Spice, etc which require a subscription fee and special equipment to receive?

2. Has this indecency and censorship crusade lead by the right-wing gone too far in abridging 1st amendment rights?

Should the FCC have the authority to regulate Pay cable and Satellite channels such as HBO, Showtime, Spice, etc which require a subscription fee and special equipment to receive?

Absolutely not. What a person pays to see in their own home should not be subject to FCC interference.

Has this indecency and censorship crusade lead by the right-wing gone too far in abridging 1st amendment rights?

There aren’t sufficient adjectives in the language to describe how far overboard the censorship folks have gone. In my opinion, it is a clear violation of our rights. What's next? The morality police will arrest you for saying a naughty word in public?.

Like the referenced article states, these people must not know how to work a remote. I find it surreal that saying a dirty word will generate more fines than nuclear mishaps. Good grief, the inmates are running the asylum...

The best censorship is the on/off switch. Or don't buy a TV at all.

Luckily the FCC has declined to regulate satellite radio; maybe that offers hope for them keeping their noses out of pay TV.

1. Should the FCC have the authority to regulate Pay cable and Satellite channels such as HBO, Showtime, Spice, etc which require a subscription fee and special equipment to receive?
NO NO NO NO NO. This agency is supposed to regulate airwaves, so that stations' signals don't bleed over one another or whatever. As far as broadcast regs, I don't mind a sensible bit of regulation on obscenity (again, on free broadcast only). They should have nothing whatsoever to say about content on cable, satellite, anything else that I pay for and bring into my home. Not to mention, thanks to these guardians of morality, the V-Chip is in most TV's and cable boxes anyway. Why not spend your efforts targeting parents to program their own darn sets, which would be a lot more effective.

2. Has this indecency and censorship crusade lead by the right-wing gone too far in abridging 1st amendment rights?
Are you sure that this is inflammatory enough, CJ? A "right-wing crusade" ? Need we remind you that Tipper Gore brought us the PMRC, way back in the 80's, to clean up music lyrics for our impressionable children.

If you want to get up to speed on this, go to the parents television council., where you can conveniently find the "worst" TV clips of the week - obscenities and all. They also monitor cable. "Right Wing Crusaders" like Naomi Judd, Jane Seymour, Tim Conway, Connie Selleca and (yikes) Billy Ray Cyrus are on the board, along with the more expected characters like Pat Boone and Michael Medved.

I honestly don't think that this "crusade" has gone too far. Whether reading "The Plug-In Drug" back in the 70's, or documenting the sexist filth that makes up most of MTV's programming, I believe that the pro-values movement serves as a useful counterpoint to Hollywood. You know, using their free speech and all.

But (big but) the government tends to overreact when presented with the information. For example, some of what Howard Stern does is clearly obscene (broadcasting audio of sex scenes for instance). However, the selective enforcement of laws against him is inexplicable. If the FCC would say "don't broadcast audio of sex scenes" he could comply or not, but understand when he is breaking the law. But, other than the "seven dirty words," they won't give a clear answer. Anyway, the FCC should not be the arbiter of decency, they should work on getting High Def TV right, since they've been working on it for 20 years.

1. No they shouldn't have that authority. It seems to me that they are a long way from justifying the claim that they do have that authority if their only support is that it isn't "fair" to broadcasters not to censor it, too. This is the first that I've ever heard of this, and I'm curious as to what other justifications they have for the claim to the authority to censor premium cable.

2. I think this is going too far, yes. What do you mean by crusade, though? What other right-wing censorship actions are you referring to?

NO!!!!!! If we are to follow that pesky Constitution thingy, they shouldn't be allowed to regulate public TV, I won't hold my breath. How especially hypocritical of the Republicans, a group that kneels at the alter of private property rights is pushing for a law that regulates private corporations...

I would be as bold as to say that the ahem, "left-wing" is equally as responsible for censorship in this day and age as the right...They're just different about it, the Right shows up in form of the morality force, the Left as the PC police. In this instance, though, the government has obviously gone too far [which is becoming par for the course] in abridging our 1st Amendment rights. You gotta love a government that sees the Second Amendment as more sacrosanct as the first...We've got our priorities in order all right.

CP

I don't know that I would call it inflammatory so much as true, and sometimes the truth hurts. Tipper Gore aside (I had actually forgotten about that, and am still puzzled by it), I can't think of a single act of censorship lead by a left leaning politician or group as it relates to the airwaves.

However, this idea (whether it ends up being successful or not) is being pushed by two Republican politicians. A lot of the recent news stories in this area such as the ones Daffy illustrated fell under the purview of Michael Powell as head of the FCC, not exactly the most liberal man alive. Furthermore pretty much every right-wing talk show host or radio host has at some point taken this very position. In your response you mentioned Michael Medved and I can assure you he has a special passion for this because I have had the um... pleasure(?) of being on his show. And then of course there are more right leaning organizations like the American Family Organization responsible for Clean Films than I can count. Oh and let's not forget organizations like Wal-Mart censoring the music they sell in their stores.

So it may sound inflammatory but I think that is because it is true and it hurts. I know that not everyone who calls themselves a conservative or a Republican feels this way, but I know if it was my party doing this I'd sure be raising a stink about marching all over the constitution in the name of "family values".

So far that has basically been the response from my counterparts on the right in this thread and that is a good thing.

That's because there hasn't been one. Left leaning politicians/groups don't enact censorship legislation. They use their powers of censorship through political correctness [feel free to roll your eyes ]. Liberal groups are less militant [sometimes] about their censorship, but the fact remains, liberals are just as apt to censor others as the Religious Right.

CP

CJ, here's where you and I can find common ground. As per my sig line, this type of congressional activism is disgusting. At no time should a blue nose do gooding moralist with apparently too much time on his hands try and tell me what I can or cannot watch or listen to if I'm paying for the service.

Tipper is indeed an example of the left doing the same thing, but I do disagree with you on your first statement. I consider the attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine by left leaning politicians and groups as absolutely an act of censorship....because I believe their intent is not to expand the amount of news and talk outlets that they reach the public on.....but rather a blatant attempt to stifle and shut down right leaning talk radio.

Actually, the reason that I mentioned Tipper Gore is that she had started the advisory label movement. While many record labels refer to their "Wal-Mart" versions, the reality is that these 'clean' versions of CD's are only the non-Parental Advisory versions. Wal-Mart doesn't actually censor directly, they merely stock only the non-warning stuff. It's a bit obtuse I admit. I saw Rage Against the Machine back in the day and Zack de la Rocha's mom introduced the group with "never shop at Wal Mart 'cause they won't sell my son's record!"

As for Clean Films, that's just capitalism in action I guess, they aren't really censoring, just selling a product that people want. Weird, but not really censorship.


"My party" doesn't exist, but I'm making a stink about it anyway. Seriously, this kind of thing could get to be a pretty big divide between the more libertarian Republicans and the conservatives. Michelle Malkin calls them "South Park Republicans" which is an interesting turn of phrase. If terrorism is less of an issue in 4 years or if the Democrats get smart on immigration and defense, the whole morality police thing could swing back against the Republicans.

ConservPat makes an interest point on PC censorship - what is more chilling, being told that you can't refer to extratory functions, or the looming threat of a Jesse Jackson boycott if you don't have 10% more black characters on your TV network.

Bush has appointed yet another crony to head the FCC. You can bet your lacy thong underwear that cable is next on this guy's "clean-up" agenda.

Scary.

Well...the FCC itself commenced in 1934, under FDR, and the Communications Decency Act of 1996 was signed into law by Clinton (which was struck down by the USSC in the ACLU v. Reno case), so I'd dispute that your statement is true.

1. Should the FCC have the authority to regulate Pay cable and Satellite channels such as HBO, Showtime, Spice, etc which require a subscription fee and special equipment to receive? No, and I am about 99 percent sure this has been attempted (likely many times) before and was struck down by the USSC...the difference being cable uses a household-by-household subscription via wire (considered invited speech) and public broadcasting uses public airwaves (which are permitted to be regulated under the Communications Act which established the FCC).

2. Has this indecency and censorship crusade lead by the right-wing gone too far in abridging 1st amendment rights? Not in my opinion. If the FCC starts to regulate invited speech (cable) I'll be concerned. As is, their jurisdiction is very limited...three or four channels out of scores of channels (perhaps what, hundreds for those with satellite systems?) on television, and radio. Big deal. The FCC is a dinosaur on the edge of extinction.

I would have to look this up, but I am 99.9% sure they do regulate cable right now at least as far as language goes.

If I'm watching The Daily Show at 9 am in the morning, words get bleeped. That doesn't happen at 11 pm at night. Comedy Central is not a network channel, it is available only on a household-by-household basis.

So if what you were saying was true, they should be able to say whatever they want and not get bleeped out. Furthermore they should be able to parade naked women around during the whole show if they so desired (like many shows in Europe), but as we both know that is also not allowed.

I'm also pretty sure the same thing applies to satellite TV (DirecTV, Dish Networks, etc). I know for a fact it doesn't apply to Satellite Radio yet (XM Radio, Sirius).

The FCC already regulates cable and satellite, so be concerned

I don't think so, CJ...but I'm not 99 percent sure, so prove me wrong. There are market forces which regulate the content of broadcasts on cable. Namely, sponsors and subscribers. The FCC is unnecessary.

This FCC Fact Sheet discusses the FCC and Cable TV regulations. From this sheet we get the following...



Not really any specifics, but it is important to note the references on this sheet to the "local franchising authority".



Every cable company in the country competes for "franchises" which are granted by local community governmental entities - city councils, county, whatever. And, those franchises are for a finite period of time and must be renewed at the end of the "contract". Thus, if a specific cable company carries a channel that is offensive to a large number of people in the community, chances are they are going to run into difficulties the next time their franchise comes up for renewal. And, that brings us to the second consideration....

Cable companies pay "broadcasters" (or channels like the SPEED channel, FoodTV, etc.) for the right to carry those stations on their systems. Therein lies the second edge of the sword. If a channel is running programming that is offensive to a community that the cable company serves, they won't be doing business there for very long. Number one, the cable company runs the risk of losing their franchise for running the programming and if they aren't going to run it, they sure as hell aren't going to pay for it. And this all without the FCC. Ain't local control grand?

So, if you have cable and you're not getting your "First Amendment" right to T&A and dirty words, I'd suggest you contact your local city council and request more.

Ok, that is the deal then Mrs. P. Either these broadcasters are somehow subject to the 6 am to 10 pm rule and the 7 dirty words (even though the cable content itself isn't) or they voluntarily comply. Either way it is effectively the same thing.

I would go grab the actual stuff off the FCC site but I've been reading legal contracts all night and that stuff is giving me flashbacks.

1. Should the FCC have the authority to regulate Pay cable and Satellite channels such as HBO, Showtime, Spice, etc which require a subscription fee and special equipment to receive?

NOOOOOO!

I'm a big fan of US cable shows, those from HBO shows in particular. The idea of Tony Soprano expounding on how Johnny Sack is a "muddyfunster", or Ian McShane expressing has disgust at the perpetrator of a fumbled assassination attempt of Timothy Olyphaunt as a "clot", with poor lip-synching, fills me with sadness.

Doesn't the idea of "artistic licence" enter anyone's head here? What next? Back to the Hays code in Hollywood?

So NO the FFC should NOT have the authority to regulate pay channels. Indeed after the international laughing stock America made of itself in making such a fuss over the flashing of Janet Jackson's partially-obscured breast on network tv, I'd say that the FCC has rather too much authority over US broadcasting already. The last thing that should be happening is an extension of thier remit.

2. Has this indecency and censorship crusade lead by the right-wing gone too far in abridging 1st amendment rights?

Yes, definitely. And while I can see that there is a similar movement from the left, through the medium of PC, boycotts and the like, I don't think that the two are exactly the same.
One is attempting to mobilise people power to make the consequences of the exercise of free speech unpalatable. The other is attempting to prevent the exercise of free speech by mobilising government power, albeit through a quango such as the FCC.
The first amendment has nothing to say about the former, while it specifically prohibits the latter.

As an aside, in a recent British TV series on TV censorship here (on Channel 4, the publicly-owned commercial network), the consensus was that taboos have always existed and always will, but the nature of those taboos changes over time.

In the UK, at least, the gradual normalisation of sexual swearwords and growing acceptability of depictions of consenting sexual acts between adults (we are currrently luxuriating in the first cinematic release of a mainstream "art" film showing full penetrative sex. Lucky old us. The critical reception has been lukewarm, at best. 9 Songs reviews link) is happening at the same time as the acceptability of depictions of violence and use of racial slang decreases - use of "the N-word" on TV generates almost as many viewer complaints, and sometimes more (depending on context), than use of "the F-Word" or even "the C-word".

I, for one, see no particular reason to lament this shift.

And out of curiosity, are there any Biblical injunctions against the use of such Anglo-Saxon sexual slang words? I know the Lord's name shall not be taken in vain, but is there a well-founded scriptural reason why "the F-word" and it's brethren should be so offensive to religious ears? Or is it just conservatism?

Isn't that basically what I said above (in fewer words)?
"There are market forces which regulate the content of broadcasts on cable. Namely, sponsors and subscribers. The FCC is unnecessary."
IOW, Broadcasters "voluntarily comply" because ignoring the desires of their customers would have a negative impact on their business. It's the customers and sponsors who don't want the nudity and/or profanity during certain timeperiods on cable. Not FCC regs.