Top Senate Republican pushes quick indecency vote

[drunkturkey]

They've already got it through the house.... now if this makes it past the Senate... not good.

-----------------------
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/news/story.jsp?id=2004040700560002456135&dt=20040407005600&w=RTR&coview=
-----------------------

Top Senate Republican pushes quick indecency vote




WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - Senate Republican leader Bill Frist is attempting to work out a deal with Democrats to limit debate on legislation that would increase the fines people pay for broadcasting smut so that a vote on the bill could come Thursday, sources said.

Supporters of the legislation had tried to ramrod the legislation through the Senate Tuesday under an expedited procedure, but that ran into problems as various groups and Democrats began to raise objections to voting on the bill without debate.




"Frist has been trying to work out time agreements with Democrats so that there will be a short debate and a vote on Thursday," one GOP Senate aide said.

But it was unclear late Tuesday whether Frist is going to be able to get Democrats to go along with his plan. Democratic aides also said the Tennessee senator had been working their bosses in an attempt to get a vote before the Senate goes out for spring recess, but no agreement had been reached.

"There's no time agreement as of now," a Senate leadership aide said. "There's not been any serious discussions of a time."


But Frist's efforts may have gotten a boost as Sen. John Breaux, D-La., is unlikely to push an amendment to include some cable programming under the same indecency regulations that broadcasters have to meet, according to his spokesman Brian Weiss.


As defined by the FCC and the courts, material is indecent that "in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time, but indecent speech can be broadcast from 10 p.m.-6 a.m.


Breaux's amendment failed by only one vote in the Senate Commerce Committee, but Weiss said the senator was leaning against bringing it up on the floor.


"My impression is that he is unlikely to bring it up, but he reserves the right to offer an amendment if he sees fit," Weiss said.


Representatives of the creative community also have been pushing lawmakers to at least tone down a provision in the bill that could have individuals facing fines of $500,000 if they make an indecent act on TV or radio. Under the bill that won committee approval, companies could face fines of $275,000-$500,000 for each broadcast indecency. Individuals, however, are automatically subject to the $500,000 fine.


The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, a major Hollywood union, and the Creative Coalition, a political advocacy group, have been spearheading efforts to get that provision changed. A similar provision is in the version of the bill that overwhelmingly won in the House. Sources within the creative community said they thought they had secured enough support for an amendment that would water down that provision. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others are considering offering an amendment that would make the fine structure the same for businesses and individuals. The change also would include language that would consider the accused's ability to pay.


"But that doesn't mean we agree with the draconian provision," one creative community source said. "Performers are not the right people to be fined."


Reuters/Hollywood Reporter

[Hoagie]

Our only hope is that some senators obviously want to speak out against this garbage or they would have expedited it. i pray that enough of them have the intelligence and the guts to stand up to the Nazis.

[peewee]

oh shit... all forms of the media as we know it are going to change... wonder how long before they attack the internet

[Hoagie]

They already have attacked the internet. It's just hard for them to enact and enforce laws against the internet because it is so easy to host content in other countries.

[assassin216]

if they pass that bill i am gettin george w bush out cuz it dont make no fuckin sense

[WestchesterJason]

Fuck The Fcc

[drunkturkey]

Fuck The Fcc
This has nothing to do with the FCC at the moment... As a matter of fact, Michael Powell said about a week or two ago that he was not comfortable with this proposed law, as he didn't think the "artists" should be fined as that is coming too close to breaching free speech. Who knows. I hate “policeaticians”.

[mascan42]

Looks like it's not going to happen. From FMQB:


Dems, Easter Bunny Delay Indecency Legislation
April 8, 2004

Senate Republicans are seeking quick legislative action on proposed new indecency penalties, but their efforts are being thwarted by a combination of Democratic objections, and the desire of some Senators to leave town for Spring Break.

Senate majority leader Bill Frist has been pushing for a quick vote with a minimum of debate, and his aides say that he remains hopeful that the Senate will pass the bill before the break. Legislation can be approved in the Senate quickly if there is no objection.

But according to one lobbyist, there is significant concern among Senators about the legislation, and further debate may be necessary. That debate would likely not happen until after the holiday break.

[SOS]

FMQB (http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=22504)


Top Senate Republican Pushing For Thursday Indecency Vote http://www.fmqb.com/images/trans.gif April 7, 2004

Senator Sam Brownback's attempt to jam his indecency bill through the Senate by getting it placed on the unanimous consent calendar ran into some resistance yesterday. Some Democrats weren't so eager to vote on legislation without having any debate on it first. Now Senate Republican leader Bill Frist is negotiating with Democrats to limit debate so the bill can be voted on on Thursday, allowing lawmakers to head home for the Easter break after approving harsh new indecency penalties for broadcasters and performers.

"Frist has been trying to work our time agreements with Democrats so that there will be a short debate and a vote on Thursday," The Hollywood Reporter quoted a GOP Senate aide as saying.

Limiting debate would be made easier if some of the more controversial proposals some Senators have been pushing to tack onto the bill were dropped. Already, Senator John Breaux (D-LA) is likely not to push for an amendment that would subject cable programmers to the same rules as over-the-air broadcasters, his aide told the Reporter. Another hot potato provision that may not survive final legislation is one that puts a one-year moratorium on the FCC's loosened media ownership laws.

The matter of socking individual performers with fines of up to $500,000 is likely to get some floor time. Hollywood lobbyists AFTRA and the Creative Coalition have been railing against that and now believe they have enough support for an amendment to ease performer fines. John McCain (R-AZ) and other Senators are talking about introducing an amendment that would make the fine structure the same for performers and licensees, and take into account the accused party's ability to pay.
Radio and Records Online:


No Vote Yet On Senate Indecency Bill

Although talk had been swirling around Capitol Hill that supporters of Sen. Sam Brownback's "Broadcast Decency Act" were pushing to get the measure up for a vote yesterday, the bill never made it to the Senate floor. With the Congressional Easter break at hand, it may not see a vote until sometime in the immediate future. While the bill's original intent was to drastically increase the amounts the FCC can fine in cases of broadcast indecency, extraneous amendments aimed at curtailing violence on TV and one which would delay finality of the FCC's new media ownership rules have weighed down and may damage the bill's chances for passage. Many amendments were added over the protests of Brownback and Senate Commerce Committee chairman John McCain, who believed a cleaner bill stood a better chance of passage.

[Sinn Fein]

Already, Senator John Breaux (D-LA) is likely not to push for an amendment that would subject cable programmers to the same rules as over-the-air broadcasters, his aide told the Reporter.
I am glad to see that insanity won't be going any further. I've been paying special attention to that angle.

[CWRURoss]

Fuck the Biblebeaters

[jpc165]

The reponse I received today from Senator Arlen Specter's office concerning my views on the indecency/1st amendment shit going on:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding the broadcasting of indecent material over our nation’s airwaves. I appreciate learning of your concern.



Whereas the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment, and therefore cannot be broadcast at any time, the Court has ruled that “indecent” speech should enjoy limited constitutional protection. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (1978) provides the judicial foundation for the enforcement of indecency broadcast standards by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and approves the Commission’s working definition of indecent: “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory activities or organs.” Because FCC guidelines allow the broadcasting of certain indecent speech between the “safe harbor” hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., media outlets generally remain free to broadcast indecent material unless judicial action is taken in relation to a specific incident.



Two major events have recently brought this ongoing issue back into the limelight, causing many Americans to once again question the effectiveness of the our nation’s broadcast indecency guidelines: an October decision in which the FCC concluded that a profane, four-letter expletive uttered during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards live, prime-time broadcast did not violate the agency’s broadcast indecency standard, and the CBS live, prime-time broadcast of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.



On January 13, 2004, FCC Chairman Michael K. Powell illustrated his opposition to the October ruling in a public statement asking his four fellow commissioners to overturn the controversial decision when it comes before them for review. Subsequently, the FCC issued an order on March 18, 2004 which overturned its Enforcement Bureau’s original decision, concluding that the profane, four-letter expletive uttered during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards prime-time broadcast did indeed violate the agency’s indecency standard.



Chairman Powell has also expressed his disapproval of the CBS live broadcast of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, an event which has rekindled a heated public debate over the effectiveness of the rules and regulations that govern our nation’s radio and television broadcasts.



Various legislative remedies have been introduced in Congress that directly confront the recent events involving broadcast indecency. These proposals involve increasing the fines imposed on broadcasters for violating FCC indecency standards and formulating specific lists of indecent speech that cannot be used during broadcasts.



Broadcast indecency has been an issue for decades and pins the right to free speech against the right of a community to protect its listeners, most notably its children. Understanding the potential risks that broadcast indecency imposes on our nation’s youth, I will continue to monitor and consider not only the legislation introduced in response to the CBS live broadcast of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, but also the FCC’s overall enforcement of its broadcast indecency standards.



Again, thank you for writing. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov (http://specter.senate.gov/).



Sincerely,







Arlen Specter

Wow thanks dick! :icon_conf


Understanding the potential risks that broadcast indecency imposes on our nation’s youth, I will continue to monitor and consider not only the legislation introduced in response to the CBS live broadcast of the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show, but also the FCC’s overall enforcement of its broadcast indecency standards.
How the fuck do you understand the potential risks indenceny imposes on our nations youth. Fuck the children! Where are the studies and the statistics to support your understanding? We're fucked, nobody is listening to what the majority is saying.
::hammer:

[SOS]

always with the children.



p.s. Nice job jpc165. :xyxthumbs

[mascan42]

Wow. You wrote to him compaining that you didn't want congress to pass indecency legislation, and his response is to tell you that he's going to vote for it anyway. I guess he doesn't want your vote.

[jpc165]

Wow. You wrote to him compaining that you didn't want congress to pass indecency legislation, and his response is to tell you that he's going to vote for it anyway. I guess he doesn't want your vote.
I hear ya, but I the fucked up thing is the alternative would most likely vote the same way. So what the hell do you do? I guess you give just give up. What the fuck is the point pressing this issue if no one in a position of power is willing to listen to our side of the arguement?
:drunk: :piss2

[Ballbuster1]

These people are really pissing me off. I raised 2 good, intelligent,
and moral sons. They watched tv & movies all the time with me. The
difference is that I made sure they knew what was acceptable on
tv & in flicks was not always acceptable in real life.
IT'S CALLED BEING A RESPONSIBLE PARENT!!!!!
I do not need these dickheads to tell me how to raise my family.

[SOS]

I hear ya, but I the fucked up thing is the alternative would most likely vote the same way. So what the hell do you do? I guess you give just give up. What the fuck is the point pressing this issue if no one in a position of power is willing to listen to our side of the arguement?
:drunk: :piss2
Other people in power or people who want to get more power listen to those who are not heard by those in power.