Muzzling the media?

March 12, 2004

The House overwhelmingly passed legislation Thursday substantially increasing the maximum fine for radio and TV indecency.

Does it seem that the government is intent on muzzling public broadcasting in the face of the First Amendment? The role of the government is not to protect what is broadcast in the media to little children; that is the job of parents.

(An aside: Because I know most of you will view this as some anti-Bush act, the vote was 391-22. There are not 391 Republicans in the House. So your beloved Democrats are just as guilty in getting this through the House as the Republicans)

Posted by roy on March 12, 2004 at 03:18 PM in Ramblings | 3 Comments

Related Entries

politics August 7, 2003
Democrats and Republicans April 27, 2005
growing up, part 24 May 2, 2008
Untitled December 10, 2008
terrence ... at wsop main event! July 4, 2009

Comment with Facebook

Want to comment with Tabulas?. Please login.

HK1997

Comment posted on March 12th, 2004 at 09:38 PM

If this will help make Clear Channel stop looping the same mediocre music lineup over and over again, I\'m all for it.

Reply to this comment

lillia (guest)

Comment posted on March 12th, 2004 at 05:30 PM

hi royoy!!.. since your latest post is on politics, i shall comment on this.. no socializing here!.... hehe.. anyway.. so would you say this is different than the laws against pornography?.. i don\'t have an opinion on this yet.. but it seems like there is a line that the media should not cross, in order to benefit the public.. just wondering what you think..

Reply to this comment

roy

Comment posted on March 13th, 2004 at 01:06 PM

Argggghh. I thought about what I was going to say last night but it\'s really not consistent.

I think that introducing pornography to kids at an early age is definitely harmful; which is why there are laws restricting pornography ... and I\'m definitely not against laws restricting pornography to minors.

But I feel what they\'re doing here is is a bit different. The concept of \"indecency\" can be misconstrued in so many ways that it\'s really dangerous.

Unlike other policy decisions, we\'re immediately seeing where the passing of this law is going; <a href=\"http://www.legalnewswatch.com/news_317.html\">Howard Stern</a> was taken off the air by Clear Channel ... and this law is supposed to give the FCC more ammunition to force unwilling broadcasting corporations to do the same to their lineups.

Reply to this comment

About

Categories