Defending Our Right Not To Be Offended

[bloom061604]

How Draconian can it get? The US House of Representatives has passed a bill, 389-38, authorizing unprecedented fines for indecency. Opponents said penalties would stifle free speech and expression and further homogenize programming. The bill would increase the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer.

The bill's author, Republican Representative Fred Upton, chairman of the House telecommunications panel, said, "With passage of this legislation, I am confident that broadcasters will think twice about pushing the envelope. Our kids will be better off for it."

The White House strongly supports the legislation that "will make broadcast television and radio more suitable for family viewing." The Senate has its own version of the bill that has broad bipartisan support.

Democratic Representative Jerrold Nadler said changing the channel is the best way for families to avoid racy programming. "But the prurient Puritans of this House are not satisfied with free choice and the free market," Nadler said. "Instead, they want the government to decide what is or is not appropriate for the public to watch or listen to."

In the Senate bill, the maximum fine on broadcasters would be raised to $325,000, with a cap of $3 million for one day. The House bill does not include a cap.

—Bloom

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

This is saddening, but doesn't surprise me at all. American television has always been alarmingly tame in comparison to Europe. And Japan takes it totally to the other extreme; I'm aware of an oriental game-show where people have to guess what type of spice was used to season noodles that are being vomited over their heads by an over-filled, obese woman...

While that is nutty, and not something I'd want to watch, I would never try and deny other people their viewing. Personally, I can't imagine anything quite as fucking dreary as "family viewing".

[bspider]

bloom, I'm so very glad I don't have to watch US television...after the 'wardrobe malfunction' of just over a year ago, I thought things couldn't get any worse, but it seems that heck yes, they can!

Is it just broadcast media or do cable/internet media come into this as well?

Censorship*==Bad. For me, that's the bottom line.

Boris.

*By other people. Self - censorship I practice all the time.

[bloom061604]

Is it just broadcast media or do cable/internet media come into this as well?
Radio and television only would come under this bill, local stations as well as the networks. Individual disk jockeys, announcers and program directors could also be subject to fines. Not included would be pay channels like HBO, Starz, Showtime, et al, which run full length movies and some of their own productions, uncensored and with no commercials, which viewers subscribe to and pay for and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has no jurisdiction over.

There have been a number of bills aimed at censoring Internet content, but nothing has been enacted into law yet. Obviously, the Internet would be much more difficult to oversee than the already licensed and tightly regulated broadcasting industy in this country.

—Bloom

[DavidEngland99]

I agree. The UK used to be like that many years ago - then there was a scandal - the "Profumo affair" after which all sorts of things seemed to get discussed on radio and TV. On the whole I think we have media censorship about right now over here. US TV sucks. Not only is there nothing racy, the news is absurdly parochial and bland and all muddled up with ads. No wonder most Americans think they were attacked by Iraq in 9/11.

Kate - I believe there are some people who get off on vomit (ugh!), a bit like we do on pee - I suppose those programs are made for them. Are there any programs about pee-related subjects?

David

[Val]

It mightn't be a bad idea to censor some of their fascist Rush Limbog types but I bet they are the ones who'd be untouched. The way their version of 'free speech' works, they seem quite capable of censoring themselves to oblivion anyway by threatening to withdraw advertising, calling the Wraith of Gawd down on any who dare to watch and so on. Was a radio 4 play last night about Mary Carthorse's private prosecution of the play Romans in Britain under act to prevent men from pimping men because it featured simulated buggery. It's only about 20 years ago. On the other hand, in one way the rash of 'reality' TV looks much more extreme than the old shows but because it says less about background conditions it's tamer hiding being superficial shock value. MTM produced some good serious American stuff though how they ever got it shown is guesswork. Bring back Alf Garnett!

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

Bring back Alf Garnett!

I agree!!

I'm hugely in favour of that sort of observational comedy. In a way, South Park currently pushes a lot of the same "I'm-saying-an-awful-thing-but-I-don't-really-mean-it" boundaries. The down-side is that the moronic majority often assume it's for real, and get all pissy and offended.

I saw an interview with Warren Mitchell once, where he was despairing at the fact that, quite a few times, he's had bigots approach him in the street wanting to shake his hand and slap him on the back, whilst saying "Brilliant stuff! So glad there's still people like you who aren't afraid to stick it to those bloody niggers and pakis!!"

It's such a shame that, when creating close-to-the-knuckle material, you have to down-play it for the benefit of those poor people with below-average social perception (the same people who lobby governments to outlaw "all this filth on the telly")

*sigh*

[Ape]

While that is nutty, and not something I'd want to watch, I would never try and deny other people their viewing.

Even if that included watching people dying or being killed as part of a game show?

If such a thought does strike you as unacceptable, then obviously there IS a point at which you WOULD, the difference is not the basic principle (which you have the same as the American lawmakers), but WHERE you draw the line.

;-)

[DavidEngland99]

Ape,

I think the question as to where the ultimate limit should be is an interesting one. For example, I would be happy to see violence stripped off the screens altogether.

The example you gave could be handled by other laws - I mean, if somebody is killed, then someone else is guilty of murder.

The way I look at it, having adult sex, of whatever kind is normal and legal (except for a few states in the US, I think) and so it should be permitted on late night TV. Thumping someone's head in, let alone knifing or shooting them is illegal - so it should not be shown on TV - even in simulated form.

WOW - that would make for a different TV experience!

David

[Ape]

Ape,

I think the question as to where the ultimate limit should be is an interesting one. For example, I would be happy to see violence stripped off the screens altogether.

The example you gave could be handled by other laws - I mean, if somebody is killed, then someone else is guilty of murder.

The way I look at it, having adult sex, of whatever kind is normal and legal (except for a few states in the US, I think) and so it should be permitted on late night TV. Thumping someone's head in, let alone knifing or shooting them is illegal - so it should not be shown on TV - even in simulated form.

WOW - that would make for a different TV experience!

David

Boxing is a completely legal way of thumping someone's head in, and occasionally killing them. You want all violence stripped off the screen, yet that would include a completely legal activity being removed from the screens, surely? The law is only a representation of what society deems acceptable/unacceptable at the time, it is not some objective reality outside of society. One need only consider the furore over fox hunting to realise that. All that happens in America, with both laws and television, is that they set their line (of decency or censorship depending on your point of view) differently to Europe and the UK. All I am trying to say is we all have ideas of what is decent/acceptable/moral behaviour and the difference is simply where we draw the line, whether in law or in what can be seen on tv.

[DavidEngland99]

Well, maybe I am a bit extreme on this, but people say "sex and violence" as though they were somehow equivalent. They are not! Counting rape and child molestation as violence, you are left with the rest of sex which is consensual and wholly enjoyable. Why should that be paired with violence which (with the possible exception of boxing!) totally anti-social.

Censorship is potentially OK if there is a well defined reason. Avoiding encouraging or glorifying violence seems a reasonable reason. People censor sexual content on the basis of embarrassment - which is NOT a good reason.

David

[Ape]

I think you are wrong there, David. They censor sexual stuff because they think it leads to a depraved world in which people's moral values become all confused and where no holds are barred. In their view, sexual freedom leads to other kinds of 'vices' like drinking, drugs and probably violence. Societal values break down (they think) and the rot sets in, leading to depraved oblivion. They believe they are linked because they think once people let their hair down sexually, they will do so in other ways too. I think they are wrong partly because I believe in personal freedom where that freedom does not impinge on someone else's freedom (as best as possible, there are always likely to be compromises), plus I think banning things often makes them more attractive, whether sexual or drugs etc. I do accept that sexuality is not something one chooses, like one can drugs. Of course, sex and violence are separate for you and me, but for a lot of people, the type of personal freedom advocated by Thatcher and Reagan in the 80s has led to a belief that if you want to do something, no-one else should be able to stop you - and that applies to sex, violence, swearing, drugs etc...

Embarrassment doesn't really come into it.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

While that is nutty, and not something I'd want to watch, I would never try and deny other people their viewing.

Even if that included watching people dying or being killed as part of a game show?

Yes. I'm especially in favour of the celebrity version.

[DavidEngland99]

Ape - If 'they' think that sexual license leads to violence etc. why are they relatively lax about violence? I mean, even on US TV, you can see people being threatened with a gun and possibly shot - that is just routine! I think that 'they' are uniquely obsessed with sex.

I suppose I feel strongly about this because I know how sexually repressed things were here in the UK when I was growing up. A huge part of human life was just shoved under the carpet because it was too embarrassing. Yes, I think a lot of this is about embarrassment. Mrs. Whitehouse used to appeal to middle aged/elderly women who felt embarrassed when they watched a steamy love scene on TV - even though they could switch to another programme if they did not like it! Perhaps it reminded them also of what they had maybe missed, and what their kids were up to!

LOL Kate - a celebrity death show would be something - who would you nominate for the house? Presumably the aim would be to get thrown out of the house!

David

[Val]

I hardly saw any of the second Alf Garnett series but in relation to Kate's comment, Johnny Speight said once that he stopped writing it when Ma Thatcher made it government policy.

This reads a bit odd because it was drawn up for something else but when it comes to attitudes I worry about, it comes high.

"There's an enormous amount of presonal wish fulfillment fantasy. For instance there was a girl in Hong Kong wouldn't go out with me, so I had her gang-raped and buried alive in a barrel of concrete in a novel set in Hong Kong".

I can't join the complaints about the BBC's lack of comment on this (the interviewer was probably dumbfounded or afraid she might be the one to cause complaints!) any more than on "Woman's Hour's" interview with an aspirant suicide bomber because as they answered, "It speaks for itself" and was not a psychology broadcast. It explains perhaps why the speaker, a violence writer called Steven Leather, is the prisoners' favourite and she prefered not to go out with him. Of course one doesn't know what fantasies he reserves for men who displease him but it's interesting that was the first thing he thought of, and seemed to find a bit of a wry joke on himself.

[~*~ k a t e ~*~]

a celebrity death show would be something - who would you nominate for the house?

Foamy the Squirrel put it better than I ever could. Go here (http://www.illwillpress.com/vault.html) and click to watch the cartoon called "Foamy's Rant III" (assuming you have a decent connection speed).

[DavidEngland99]

LOL Kate - after I had waited for that cartoon to download on a 56K modem, er, well, I guess it was worth it :x

Have you noticed how if you talk to anyone about the internet they seem to have found a completely different sub-world out there!

Do you watch Foamy regularly, Kate?

David