President Bush signed a law increasing the max fine FCC?

Question

Bush signed a law increasing the maximum fine the Federal Communications Commissions can impose for indecency on radio and TV to between $32,500 to max $325,000. Did he do the right thing, esp in light of the "Janet Jackson incident" during Feb. 1 , 2004 Super Bowl half-time? why?
Should the guidelines on indecency also include fines for cable TV & satellite radio programming and broadcasts that seem to incite hate racism or spread lies and misinformation? why?

Answer 1

No, he did not do the right thing, because that fine is per station. The fines are disproportional to the crime and are completely political in nature - CBS literally paid more for the Janet Jackson incident than most Enron execs combined. Which was more harmful?

Should the studios be held responsible? Of course. However, several groups (and the FCC) have noticed that Christian groups are fond of sending huge write-in campaigns against certain shows/features, even if the exact same footage was shown previously without complaint - and under further review, many of the complainers never saw the incident themselves, but wrote in as part of the campaign. The Janet Jackson incident was completely overblown - many people who were outraged never saw it (either weren't watching, weren't in the room, or didn't see the momentary slip), and those that did didn't see much until it raced around the 'net and everyone saw it in slow motion or as a still picture.

Should the guidelines apply to cable and satellite? Like terrestrial television, users always have the option to simply not watch it or change the channel, and most modern TV's have parental controls. Market forces will always provide more disincentive for TV stations to stay in line than will fines. I personally feel that everyone should play from the same guidelines, however the FCC's guidelines are inappropriate to be applied across the spectrum of TV, but appropriate for what they do cover.

Legally, however, the FCC cannot regulate cable TV, because the FCC's regulatory powers come from the fact that the US asserts that it owns the airwaves, and that the stations must purchace a license to use the airwaves from the government. For cable, the private companies own the cables, so they are free from FCC regulation (but not other regulation). I'm not sure what the legal argument for satellite TV is, but the satellites are privately owned (and in space, out of US jurisdication), as are the dishes.

There should be a balance: people should quit whining about the small stuff, and if they don't like it, watch something else (it's not like there are only 3 channels like 50 years ago). Advertisers do the same thing: if they feel that customer backlash is too great, they'll drop their ads with a station or program. When enough people stop watching and enough companies drop support, channels take notice quickly (or go out of business).

Answer 2

i'm wondered so we borrow 100 and sixty billion from China and pay loopy activity,and then they pass out six hundred money unmarried or 1200 money for couples and three hundred money a baby,and then we are meant to flow out and purchase products made in China.What about the ten trillion or more suitable debt the u . s . could have in 09.What about the individuals economic equipment,jobs are leaving human beings have a lot less funds using skyrocketing potential costs and mortgages,food,dairy,rather a lot each little thing,housing market is in shambles.in my opinion i imagine over halve that receives the stimulus checks will pay some type of debt it truly is the sorrowful issue,cant even income from the money.

Answer 3

you've got your dates wrong, it didn't happen in '04, it happened later than that.