ok now i will preface this by saying i am a huge howard stern fan! however, i heard this morning that now pres bush is all trying to pass decentcy standards on pay cable stations, satellite radio, and the internet. what the hell is this about??? what about OUR rights? not the rights of our church going president? he can’t inflict his beliefs on an entire nation. if i want to watch porn, i want to have the option. it’s called freedom mr. bush! i don’t care what he thinks is right or wrong, ESPECIALLY something i am paying for!!! i don’t know it just really ticked me off this morning.
I am not a Howard Stern fan at all and I fully agree with you. Subscription services should not be subject to the same restrictions as broadcast services. When will this nonsense stop!
As a side note, what cracks me up is that before JFK, there was a fear that a Catholic president would try to force his beliefs on the nation.
I will preface this by saying I despise Howard Stern, but I am in favor of the First Amendment.
Nevertheless, the Bush proposal does make a certain rough sense. If we want to restrict over-the-air broadcasters from broadcasting wardrobe malfunctions and the F-word, isn’t it fair to restrict their competition from doing it, too? If you subscribe to cable, what do you care whether you’re watching your local TV station or a cable network? They both get to your set through the same wire.
So, either make the restrictions uniform, or drop them uniformly. After all, the “public airwaves” that the FCC is allowed to regulate are the same ones that satellite signals go through.
What is the third ‘C’ for?
I agree with kunilou’s first sentence, but that’s about it.
Bush should take his head out of his ass and read the Constitution. If I am paying directly for it, ala cable/satellite, then is not the business of the government what I am watching. This is an attempt at censorship, plain and simple.
i loathe Howard Stern, but if people want to buy his garbage, more power to him!
But read the post again. I never said I supported the Bush plan, I just said it makes a certain rough sense, especially if you think like W. “A certain rough sense” is not the same as “good.”
The FCC should censor the White House Administration.
I can’t think like W…it makes my head hurt! 
Puh-leeze. This is like saying that if you restrict open-air events (in a public space) from selling all the alcohol the patrons can force down their gullets, then it’s fair to restrict the amount of alcohol people can drink at home (a private space).
In any case, it would be preferable to resolve the discrepancy in the other direction. The arcane devices known as the “off switch” and the “channel selector” will prevent you from noticing over-the-air broadcasts as effectively as they screen out cable signals, unless you were bitten by a radioactive vacuum tube and gained the ability to directly sense TV images.
Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaazy!
I don’t suppose someone could be so kind as to link to this “Bush plan.”
yes, yes, a link!
Censorship??
Christian??
It is hard to say what Bush means, he waffles on the subject more than Clinton or Kerry could ever dream.
Straight from the horse’s. . . er, mouth:
Chastity?
This has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with campaign donations. Clear Channel (and to a lesser extent, Viacom/Infinity Broadcasting) sees the traction that XM and Sirius are getting with consumers, and they’re scared. They’ve built these broadcasting empires, and now people are starting to move away from the 20 minutes of commercials and 5-song playlists that dominate terrestrial radio.
Stern and Opie & Anthony having the freedom of satellite radio means people won’t be listening to the local terrestrial stations.
Cable/satellite TV is getting caught up in this because there’s no way to regulate satrad without hitting TV, too. But when they try to come for HBO, the American public will lash out with a fury.
That doesn’t sound like waffling to me. It sounds as if he is proposing that the government develop standards for rating content, such as already exist in the voluntary movie and television rating systems. It’s a stupid and redundant idea, but it doesn’t sound anything like enforcing content standards on subscription services.
No, because the purpose of restricting all that fun stuff in OTA broadcasts is to make sure fragile prudes (and/or the minors in their care) won’t stumble across it accidentally, not to eliminate it entirely. Those fragile prudes can choose not to subscribe to cable, satellite TV, or satellite radio, but they can’t keep OTA broadcasts out of their homes.
The key difference is that OTA broadcasts are sent into everyone’s home, and their content is accessible to everyone. Cable TV signals are only sent to subscribers, and satellite broadcasts are still only accessible to subscribers, even though the signals themselves are sent to everyone.
Cocksuckers.
C is for Cookie.
And that’s good enough for me.