A tragic day for America
The House has now passed the indecent indecency bill.
We are the only nation with a First Amendment. In a time when speech is being attacked in China — with help from American corporations — and across the Middle East and in Russia and in too many places to name, we should be standing by this principle above all others. If we can’t show the way in anything else, we should show the way in protecting free speech.
Instead, Washington played a cynical political game with a cult of allegedly religious nuts who share kinship with the mobs that burned down embassies and businesses because they were offended by the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Those nuts took their toll in blood. Our nuts take their toll in money. That’s American.
We are suffering under they tyranny of the offended and we must fight back. As Christopher Hitchens said at the Hay Festival in the UK last week, it is our right not only to practice religion but to criticize it. It is our right to offend.
: By the way, as I understand it, this legislation carries a maximum fine of $3 million per incident. The FCC already multiplied fees for its latest record fine to go over that amount. So the financial impact of this may be nothing. Which makes it an even more cynical act. It’s a PR move. And my colleagues in media keep falling for it. There is no public outcry, damnit. The public is watching the shows that offend the allegedly religious nuts. The allegedly religious nuts offend me.
Tags: Howard_Stern
June 8th, 2006 at 7:49 am
This offends my sensibilities and I believe it should be fined in an amount equal to but not greater than $3 million.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:57 am
Jeff, I applaud your attention to this important subject. The right-wing groups who pushed for this legislation simply don’t speak for most Americans.
However, I correct you on one point: the U.S. is certainly not the only nation to explicitly protect free expression in its Constitution or legal system. The tenets of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights exist in similar provisions in liberal democracies - both fledgling and established - worldwide.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:02 am
Jeff:
I don’t want to make this seem like a big deal, because it is. But I think the problem of overregulation of the “public airwaves” is self-correcting. Audiences will flock to other media: satellite radio, the Internet and other venues where channels are theoretically unlimited in number. The FCC will exceed its mandate when it tries to regulate these media, considering the only justification for their control in the past has been the notion of ensuring the public good, given limited bandwidth (a limited number of channels that can exist in each terrestrial market). Since that concept is now completely outdated, IMHO the rug has been pulled out from under the FCC’s feet with regard to new media.
In short, terrestrial radio will become incredibly lame because no one will want to take risks anymore. Meanwhile, I’ll be happily listening to “filthy talk” on XM Comedy and laughing at the fundies’ attempts to make the world conform to their standard.
Love,
Hespos
June 8th, 2006 at 9:22 am
Does the passage of the bill over the objections of the broadcast media mean that they have lost their clout?
It used to be that the media and congress were in a mutual shakedown scheme. Congress would give them what they wanted in terms of deregulation and tax breaks and the media would give the politicians air time to pontificate. Those who opposed the corporate desires just became non-persons on TV.
Something has changed in the media dynamics, but I’m not sure what it is.
June 8th, 2006 at 9:24 am
Tom-
Terrestrial radio is already incredibly lame!
But the real question is can standard radio ever recover from the stiffling effects of the FCC and the migration to satellite and other forms of content distribution? My thought is probably not, unless they can figure out some sort of incredible, localized programming that would be impractacle to distribute on a national system like Sat radio. (I’m thinking something that only delivered local news and maybe a majority of its music programming being derived from regional artists.)
June 8th, 2006 at 10:01 am
[...] Jeff Jarvis calls it a tragic day, I still hope it will be a wake call. [...]
June 8th, 2006 at 10:06 am
I agree terrestial radio is lame.
Satellite radio is supposed to keep out of the local content business, but we see that being tested already with the court cases surrounding the traffic channels XM has in many major markets. I’m hoping that satellite radio goes IP, though, so that there will really be an unlimited number of channels, and folks like you and me can have our own shows on satellite.
So no, I don’t think terrestrial radio will recover. Especially with the fundie stranglehold on it. No offense to the religious folks out there, but when I think fun, I think “Van Halen concert,” or “XM Comedy” not “church picnic.”
June 8th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
By November, most of the fascist wet-dreamers in Congress will be gone, God willing. A censor’s useless, unless he or she censors something. Hell, I find the events of Septmeber 11 and Hurricane Katrina more offensive than a inadvertant display of a mammary gland on a sport event where children should have asleep for the upcoming school day. Thanks a lot, Herr Bush Jr.
June 8th, 2006 at 1:52 pm
Your whine and cheese is showing. Our public life is a blot of commercial filth. Perversion masks as some type of right. I say blankety blank.
Filthy speech should be banned from the public forum.
Filthy people should be punished in the public forum.
June 8th, 2006 at 2:42 pm
And now the same bunch of geniuses are about to be asked to legislate the future of the broadband Internet. Net neutralites: be careful what you ask for.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:00 pm
Echoing Robert Fineman’s sentiments, where were the networks in all of this? If they aren’t fighting harder to defend themselves and unmask these astroturf outrage campaigns for what they are, then they deserve every regulatory whuppin’ they get.
Ironic all this outrage started with a nude boob during the Super Bowl that admittedly was hard to see. That was nothing compared to the post-bowl edition of Grey’s Anatomy this past January with that steamy shower scene. Or that episode of Desperate Housewives featuring S&M?
But hey, why let proportion ruin a perfectly good temper tantrum?
So now, with the spectre of bigger fines hovering over them, are the networks going to be spooked into cleaning up television for Red State America?
Oh well. I always said I needed to read more books, anyway — if they don’t ban those next.
June 8th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
I agree wholeheartedly with you on this bill and the general need to fight back against the “tyranny of the offended”. Speaking of offended, this paragraph:
“Instead, Washington played a cynical political game with a cult of allegedly religious nuts who share kinship with the mobs that burned down embassies and businesses because they were offended by the Danish Mohammed cartoons. Those nuts took their toll in blood. Our nuts take their toll in money”
is beneath contempt. Successfully lobbying political leaders to get legislation enacted is not comparable to and does not “share kinship with” terrorism, regardless of how violently you may disagree with it. And I doubt, upon reflection, that you really think it does.
June 8th, 2006 at 5:33 pm
There won’t be a public outcry because the pro-administration corporate interests that run the media in this country won’t cover it. It’s not news like immigration, gay marriage amendments, and the 9/11-wives-who-are-happy-their-husbands-died are.
June 8th, 2006 at 6:34 pm
Is anyone having trouble finding “indecent” stuff? I’m not. So what if the public airwaves have some kind of minimal code? As if one less venue for shits and tits makes a dent in what’s available. There are no other implications, either. Not for books, magazines, web porn, cable, satellite - nothing. I mean, really, what huffing.
June 8th, 2006 at 8:51 pm
“allegedly religious nuts”
There is nothing alleged about their nuttery. I fear that if the planets align just right, we could be stuck with Sam Brownback as our next president, and that will be the End of Days.
June 9th, 2006 at 4:44 am
Be happy, at least the Net Neutrality stench didn’t pass, so the FCC won’t be as busy as the Googoo-turf Alliance wanted to to be.
June 9th, 2006 at 7:27 am
Filthy speech should be banned from the public forum.
I find Wise One’s statement offensive. Wise One needs to be punished for offending my sensibilities.
June 10th, 2006 at 12:07 am
[...] It is hard to go around the blogosphere lately without reading about Net Neutrality . Unlike the rest of the world, I’m not so convince by the apocalyptic visions about the end of the free network. Let me start with clarifying that I do not think that ISP ’s should charge additional payment for content delivery, beyond the charges they already for the accesses for the network. Moreover I believe that the it is the best interest of the network development that these ISP’s will not control the traffic in the pipes. Most of the arguments , at least the good ones, for government protection of Net Neutrality basing on two points. the first one assume that the public cannot “defend” its rights without the power of the government. The second argument is more interesting and its basically said that the network was built with government, and thus the public, protection and therefore the public has the right to interfere with decisions about the use of the ISP property (i.e. the network’s infrastructure). While these are good arguments they are not enough to convince me that the further involvement of government in the network is a good idea. The justification of the government increasing regulation of the network based on past regulation seemed like infinite loop. It is time to get the government out of the game, not to persuade it to deeper its involvement. In fact it is really harder to convince me that the government will secure the freedom of the network in a week where its approved unanimously the broadcast decency enforcement act. I disagree with many of the arguments in Art Brodsky’s excellent post , but I agree with this statement: “But another cliché says it ain’t over until it’s over. And it ain’t over.” The truth is that trying to control the network and to recreate the old monopolies is impossible in a free market and is a bad business. Consumers are less depended on the baby bells today, and are going to be even less depended in the future. Options, like BPL, going to widen the competition and to set more choices. Consumers will move from a carrier that limits their options to ones that enable options and if the baby bells will try to recreate the reality of the 60’s and 70’s they are going to face shocking reality. I don’t think that the fact that Google investing in companies that develop such options is a coincidence. Furthermore , the content companies are in a size , and pile of cash, that – if bullied enough – can turn into a new game of mergers. It will be interesting, to say the least, to see Google going after Verizon or Yahoo! After AT&T. Net Neutrality is a good idea, having the government “Protecting” it isn’t. The net will remain neutral because it make sense , not because of the FCC. Who should protect the Net Neutrality? Nobody! Baby Bells, Free Market, Government Regulations, Monopoly, Net Neutrality [...]
June 17th, 2006 at 7:34 am
[...] I capped off the evening with a screening of Fuck (I wonder what kind of comment spam that will generate?). The film is a review of the "the social, political, personal, historical, linguistic and artistic significance of the word." It was a fun Friday screening, not profound, but with entertaining interviews with folks ranging from Billy Connolly to Hunter S. Thompson to (public radio's own) Sandra Tsing Loh– Pat Boone, Ice T, and Dave Marsh stood out. It includes an unedited version of then-Cubs manager Lee Elia's 1983 rant against unsupportive "3,000" fans in which he dropped the F-bomb 17 times in 3 minutes . (Ah, those were the days– when Cubs fans didn't flock to the park without regard for the quality of baseball.) Steve Anderson revealed that if broadcast, the film would be subject to $260 million in fines under the latest indecency legislation Bush signed this week. (Neither Howard Stern nor Michael Powell were interviewed, but both make appearances.) [...]
February 13th, 2007 at 1:22 am
[...] I expressed in the past my concern with the regulatory efforts aimed to protect the so called "Net Neutrality". Those who advocate for regulatory protection argue that without the government protection the companies that control the Internet infrastructure will discriminate the packets traffic in favor of companies that will pay premiums, or worse against their competitors. Inviting the government to regulate an industry isn’t a new phenomena. However past experience should warn us that the government, once involved, will not – and cannot – limits its scope of intervention to the original intentions of those who ask its involvement. It happened in the past and its bound to happen again, once public money involve – the public will have a say. Concerned moral groups, parents organizations, policies advocates and many others will start demanding that since their money is invested, through the government’s budget, they should have control to limit or promote content. And therefore a victory in a battle to protect the neutrality from the "evil corporations" will results in the expansion of the decency act to the internet. Recent history also teaching us that once the government is involve it will act to preserve the situation that requires it involvement. Artificially maintaining status of scarcity, maintaining funds as a political payout although their original purpose no longer exist and creating barriers on technological development so it will suit existing regulations, instead of modifying the regulations to the new reality – are only few possible examples. However the damage doesn’t end with government barriers. Once in place that state of the network will not depend on the market and the consumers power but on laws and lobbying. Unfortunately after many years of government control over the telecom market the incumbents, those who are the source of the net neutrality advocates, are masters in lobbying and political manipulations. And once in place those companies will not need to fear the markets and consumers but limited numbers of politicians that are already attentive to similar lobbying efforts. But if not the government, who will protect the network? The short answer is : common sense. Consumers have more options today, when regulations being removed, than when regulations were protecting the consumers. The competition between the cables and the traditional phone companies with other players, like BPL, joining the competition giving consumers more choices – and ultimately more power to get better service. But the consumers has an allies, a powerfully ally, the content companies. Companies like Google, Microsoft and other will be able to use their market power to effectively creates more business options that will protect their interest. It isn’t an accident that company like Google investing in alternative methods, like BPL. Therefore if an old Telecom company will try to enforce premiums, or simply slow down the service of its competitors, it will gain only a short term advantage. Such move will turn pretty fast into a Pyrrhic victory and will cost substantial market share lose. And the choice is pretty clear: [...]