It used to be that when the entertainment industry cut its own throat, it took a few months for the Washington political wolves, their noses ever in the air, to catch the scent and rally to lap up the blood.
So when National Association of Broadcasters (NAB) President and CEO Eddie Fritts asked, at the NAB's convention in April, "[I]f Congress decides to regulate broadcasters for indecency, does it make any sense for cable, satellite TV [and] satellite radio to get a free pass?", the Forces of Decency™ understood the fear behind the question and were ready to press their agenda.
Adult industry people might ask, 'How does this affect me?' Well, aside from cable channels like HBO, Cinemax, Encore, Showtime and The Movie Channel losing most of their late-night movie line-up; aside from productions like the Moonlite Bunnyranch's upcoming series "Cathouse" (which begins showing Thursday) being ditched; aside from softcore series like "Red Shoe Diaries" and "Women: Stories of Passion" being ditched, not much.
Of course, all of those productions featured adult talent in major and minor roles, were often staffed by industry techs and some were produced by adult studios, so it might behoove industry people to pay attention to what's going on in Washington these days...
The latest murmurs in Congress about censoring non-explicit material stretch back more than a year, where a bill to increase the upper limit of Federal Communications Commission (FCC) indecency fines ten-fold – from $27,500 per incident to $275,000 per "fuck"– just missed passage last year. However, this year's bill to increase the fine to a half-million bucks has already passed the House, though it seems temporarily stalled in the Senate, which, after all, has been busy confirming as many religio-conservative appeals court judges as it can before the Democrats wake up and find their backbones.
And it matters not that the broadcast industry announced in late April that it would "soon issue a voluntary indecency code for stations" that might include a five- to 10-second delay on some broadcasts, including live news feeds, to prevent kids from popping up behind reporters and yelling "Trojans fuckin' rule" for the TV-viewing world to hear. After all, Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III (R-Wisc.), author of H.R. 1528, the "spy or fry" drug bill, doesn't care about namby-pamby "voluntary" codes; he wants action!
"People who are in flagrant disregard [of indecency regulations] should face a criminal process rather than a regulatory process," Sensenbrenner lectured the NAB executives at their convention.
So even having Tony Vinciquerra, president and CEO of Fox Networks Group, describe his network's airing of a "Married by America" episode which included computer-masked nudity as "not our finest moment in TV" just ain't gonna cut it with neocon pols like Sensenbrenner.
A short digression: Did ya know that there is, among House Republicans, a "Values Action Team" (VAT) headed by Rep. Joe Pitts, one of the speakers at the Victims of Pornography Summit. He gives a report each week that Congress is in session to the Republican Study Committee. VAT members are provided with a free lunch courtesy of the Family Research Council at their weekly "strategy meetings," and their weekly public meetings "now draw over 30 pro-family outside groups."
Among the VAT's members – no complete list is available – are Reps. Dan Burton (R-Ind.), Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), Jeff Miller (R-Fla.), Michael C. Burgess (R-Tex.) and John Sullivan (R-Okla.). Some of their touted accomplishments last year were: Passing the late-term abortion ban; securing $25 million for "character education" and $65 million for "abstinence education" in a general appropriations bill; and preventing the government from "discriminating" against Medicare Choice providers who refuse to provide abortion services to their clients.
But it's Senate Republicans who seem to be the main ballcarriers for censorship this year. Consider Sen. Ted Stevens' (R-Ark.) speech at the American Cable Association's annual meeting in mid-May, where he opined that "there’s no question that the prohibitions on the over-the-air broadcasters ought to be met equally by anyone who is providing the services to the American family home."
Stevens went on to say that he'd met with Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.), the chairman of the House Subcommittee on Energy and Commerce, "and I think we’re on the same page on some of these things as we move forward this year," and that "the House and the Senate Committees are both committed to work on revisions that will ... bring about more decent programming... The basic aim is a level playing field for everybody involved in communication."
Now, one might question how level the playing field is to begin with for, on the one hand, over-the-air broadcasters whose signals can be picked up by any television with an antenna, and on the other, cable and satellite providers who charge fairly big bucks for feeds that enter a home by coaxial cable through a box that can be shut down at a moment's notice for non-payment of those fees.
But Stevens was on a roll.
"My staff tells me that many of you support the comments I’ve already made to the industry about the necessity for decent family viewing on cable," he told the cable- and satellite-casters. "I do believe that the concepts of must-carry and carrying television programming onto cable has brought about some change, but there’s no question that the prohibitions on the over-the-air broadcasters ought to be met equally by anyone who is providing the services to the American family home, at least that’s my feeling."
"While your digital subscribers could block individual channels or programs," he continued, "the majority of your customers are not able to do that and as you carry them over the air you really have to deal with the question of the moral and religious values of yourself and your viewers. I think Congress is becoming more sensitive to this."
Stevens never got around to explaining what interest Congress has (or should have) in the "moral and religious values" of cable and satellite providers or their customers, but it seems likely that we'll all find out soon enough. According to researcher Adam Thierer, Steven and Barton have been meeting with the new FCC chairman Kevin Martin to figure out a way to "broaden federal broadcast 'indecency' regulations to cover cable and satellite television," Thierer reported in a Washington Post op-ed piece in early June.
"In searching out a legal justification to censor new media outlets," Thierer continued, "policymakers are falling back on the same arguments they have used to regulate broadcast television and radio: They are 'pervasive,' and they are 'intruders' that are 'uniquely accessible' to children at home. These are the catchphrases a slim 5 to 4 majority of the Supreme Court used in FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) to rationalize treating broadcasters like second-class citizens in the eyes of the First Amendment. There are many reasons to doubt Pacifica in today's world, but even under that case there's no logic for new indecency rules for cable and satellite channels."
Martin is certainly the man for the job. In a letter he wrote to L. Brent Bozell III, head of the religio-reactionary Parents Television Council (PTC) in December, 2003, Martin stated, ''Certainly broadcasters and cable operators have significant First Amendment rights, but these rights are not without boundaries. They are limited by law. They also should be limited by good taste.''
But "taste" is subjective, and it's clear that when the head of the FCC, which handed out $7,928,080 in fines last year, agrees with the guy who leads the organization that filed over 99 percent of the indecency complaints the FCC received last year, Martin's idea of "taste" is unlikely to match up well with that of today's cable and satellite operators.
"The FCC has been delinquent in its stewardship of the public airwaves," Bozell said. "This irresponsibility must stop, and with the leadership of chairman Martin, we are confident it will."
Indeed, on May 23, Martin met with a coalition of pro-censorship groups, including leaders of the National Coalition and the Religious Alliance Against Pornography, the Long Island Citizens for Community Values and the National Coalition for the Protection of Children & Families, to talk about "indecency and obscenity being transmitted by cable, satellite TV, and satellite radio" as well as "the production and distribution of porn and live pornographic acts over new communications vehicles such as PDAs and iPods," according to a report from AgapePress News Summary, a religious e-zine.
So far, Stevens hasn't proposed any legislation to promote his indecency views, but it seems likely that he'll sign onto Senate Bill 616, authored by Sens. John Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) and Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.), which, like the bill passed by the House, would boost "indecency" fines to $500,000 per incident – "except that the amount assessed a licensee or permitee for any number of violations in a given 24-hour time period shall not exceed a total of $3,000,000" – and, for the first time, would regulate violence on TV. It would also order the FCC to study extending indecency rules to cable and satellite channels – and most readers can guess how such studies, whose participants would be chosen with the "guidance" of the Bush/Rove administration, are likely to come out.
What's particularly appalling are some of Congress' "findings" that preface the regulatory section of the bill. For example:
"(6) In 2004, Americans filed over 1,000,000 complaints with the Federal Communications Commission about indecent programming." And, "(7) According to reports from the Parents Television Council, indecent and violent video programming on cable television is pervasive."
It's not surprising that a congressional bill introduced during the Bush administration would give credence to "reports" from a fundamentalist conservative group that for months listed "Buffy the Vampire Slayer" as the worst show on TV, and it's a bit disingenuous not to have noted that more than 99% of those "1,000,000 complaints" originated from PTC subscribers who, to say the least, have a skewed perception of what "indecency" is – but it gets worse.
After claiming that there is "empirical evidence" (from what studies? Congress doesn't say) that children exposed to "violent video programming" (“Star Trek”? Saving Private Ryan? “Cops”? “The Nightly News”? Bugs Bunny cartoons? Congress doesn't say) have a "higher tendency to engage in violent and aggressive behavior later in life" and a "greater tendency to assume that acts of violence are acceptable behavior and therefore to imitate such behavior," the bill's authors conclude that, "(14) There is a compelling governmental interest in limiting the negative influences of violent video programming on children."
Can you say "thought police"?
And just in case no one can connect the dots – and it's unlikely that Mass Media 2005 will do so – check out Conclusion #19: "After further study, pursuant to a rulemaking, the Federal Communications Commission may conclude that content-based ratings and blocking technology do not effectively protect children from the harm of violent video programming."
Anybody think there's a chance in hell that the FCC won't conclude that? And therefore...
"(20) If the Federal Communications Commission reaches the conclusion described in paragraph (19), the channeling of violent video programming will be the least restrictive means of limiting the exposure of children to the harmful influences of violent video programming."
After the FCC concludes its study, which it has 60 days after the passage of S616 to do, it "shall report its findings from the assessments made under subsection (a) to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation of the United States Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the United States House of Representatives."
Gee, doesn't Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Ark.) chair the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation? And doesn't Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) chair the House Committee on Energy and Commerce? No chance those guys are biased, is there?
Anyway, after the completely unbiased FCC reaches its completely unbiased conclusion that the completely unbiased PTC was correct about the pervasiveness of indecent and violent video programming, "then the Commission shall initiate and conclude (not later than 270 days after the date of that determination) a rulemaking proceeding--
"(A) to prohibit television broadcast station licensees from broadcasting gratuitous and excessively violent programming during the hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience if the Commission's determination relates to measures applicable to such broadcast television programming; or
"(B) to adopt measures to protect children from indecent video programming, or gratuitous and excessively violent video programming, as the case may be, carried by multichannel video programming distributors during the hours when children are reasonably likely to comprise a substantial portion of the audience if the Commission's determination relates to measures applicable to such multi-channel video programming."
You probably know "multi-channel video programming distributors" better by another name: Cable and satellite TV providers. And in case you aren't sure what "indecent video programming" may be, don't worry: The government will tell you:
"(3) INDECENT VIDEO PROGRAMMING- The Commission shall define the term 'indecent video programming' for purposes of this section."
And if you have any doubts that that definition will be completely unbiased, you probably haven't been paying enough attention to Brit Hume, Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity. ("Who?" "Look 'em up.") And it'll only cost violators at most $3 million per day!
Gee; d'ya think those providers might want to make up that money in higher ad prices, which might just be made up by higher product prices that adult industry members might just have to pay? Or d'ya think those providers might just chill (as in "chilling effect") any of their speech they fear might fit the FCC's "definition" – which they don't even know what it is yet!
There's plenty more wrong with this bill, some of which Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) discussed in an op-ed piece in the June 7 Village Voice, noting that passage of S616 would likely toll the death knell for such popular programs as “The Sopranos,” “The Daily Show,” “South Park,” “Queer As Folk,” “The Dave Chappelle Show” and others – but he went even further.
"In a broader sense, this push to censor demonstrates that the extreme right-wing Republicans who now control the White House and Congress believe that the federal government should tell every American what they may or may not consume on cable or satellite TV, or the Web—even though consumers are paying for those services," Sanders wrote. "At a time when we hear the president and other Republicans talking about the need to spread 'freedom' throughout the world, these same politicians apparently believe that Americans should not have the freedom to watch TV programs of their choice. What hypocrisy! And, remember, these are the same folks who told us year after year (before they got power) how dangerous the federal government was and how we had to get government 'off the backs' of the people."
Okay; so one guy in Congress Gets It. Keep your eyes out for how many more, if any, also do. Then vote accordingly.
