You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Home Front: Politix
Congressman Goes Insane, Want To Criminalize Naughtiness
2005-04-05
The chairman of one of the entertainment industry's most important congressional committees says he wants to take the enforcement of broadcast decency standards into the realm of criminal prosecution.
Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III, R-Wis., told cable industry executives attending the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. conference here on Monday that criminal prosecution would be a more efficient way to enforce the indecency regulations.
"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner told the executives.
The current system -- in which the FCC fines a licensee for violating the regulations -- casts too wide a net, he said, trapping those who are attempting to reign in smut on TV and those who are not.
"People who are in flagrant disregard should face a criminal process rather than a regulator process," Sensenbrenner said. "That is the way to go. Aim the cannon specifically at the people committing the offenses, rather than the blunderbuss approach that gets the good actors.
"The people who are trying to do the right thing end up being penalized the same way as the people who are doing the wrong thing."
It was unclear exactly how he would go about criminalizing violations of the indecency statutes. Typically, the Federal Communications Commission notifies the alleged offender and, if no settlement is reached, issues a fine.
When asked how he intended to criminalize the violations, Sensenbrenner repeated his assertion that it was the best way to penalize people who violate the statute but avoid "penalizing people who are not violating the law."
While he expressed a wish to criminalize the indecency violations, he also applauded the cable industry for its actions. Cable companies allow customers to block channels they find offensive but still require the customers to pay for it.
"I think the industry is doing what it should be doing," he said. "I think this is the way it should go."
Although the indecency issue was put on the front burner last year after Janet Jackson's breast was bared during the Super Bowl halftime show, it has remained a concern for Congress.
The House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved legislation this year that directs the FCC to fine broadcasters and individuals up to $500,000 for airing smutty programming on TV and radio.
Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time, but indecent speech can be aired safely between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. because the courts and the FCC have determined that children are not a large part of the audience in those hours.
Although cable and satellite TV are not covered by the indecency statutes, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, and Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, have said they want to bring multichannel programmers into the legal mix.
Stevens attended the convention Sunday, when he met with top cable industry executives, sources said. The executives hoped to persuade Stevens to back off, the sources said.
During the meeting, the cable operators demonstrated their blocking technology, but it was unclear whether Stevens was swayed by their arguments.
Posted by:Anonymoose

#9  Sensenbrenner's had a lot of good ideas. This is NOT one of them
Posted by: Frank G   2005-04-05 11:59:06 PM  

#8  This just proves Congress is full of idiots of all persuasions. I used to say they should all be taken out and flogged once a month just on principle.
Posted by: Spot   2005-04-05 9:36:56 PM  

#7  You call me...what you want mojo?
Posted by: Big Trouble   2005-04-05 2:18:18 PM  

#6  "I think you guys ought to turn yourselves in and plead not guilty by reason of stupidity..."
- Big Trouble
Posted by: mojo   2005-04-05 1:03:39 PM  

#5  Sensenbrenner wants to ban talking about sex, McCain wants to ban talking about politics.

How about we just ban them both?

(Oh, on McCain, you won't believe what he's trying now. It looks like he's been sucking up some Indian casino money, coz he's trying to give the tribes a huge payoff).
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2005-04-05 12:58:07 PM  

#4  One more reason I'm happy I left Wisconsin....
Posted by: nada   2005-04-05 12:05:55 PM  

#3  This is a form of censorship. Nothing in the constutition permits any of this.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III, R-Wis. is a melonhead.
Posted by: Sock Puppet 0’ Doom   2005-04-05 11:58:06 AM  

#2  How about criminalizing stupidity, and prosecuting Sensenbrenner and the rest of his Puritan Brigade as the first examples?
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2005-04-05 11:57:32 AM  

#1  You can pry my Skinamax from my cold dead hands....
Posted by: mmurray821   2005-04-05 11:50:23 AM  

00:00