Thank God, (However You Worship Him), That There Are "Real American" Legislators Ready to Protect Our Children from "Fleeting Profanities and Nudity"

Here are excerpts from a trade a media trade article followed by a few smart ass remarks from me:

"Protecting Children from Indecency Programming Act Would Give FCC Authority to Fine Fleeting Profanities and Nudity

By John Eggerton -- Broadcasting & Cable, 12/6/2007 11:56:00 AM

As the opportunities for passing legislation this year dwindle down to a precious few, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska), vice chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, called on his colleagues to approve a bill that would give the Federal Communications Commission express authority to fine fleeting profanities and nudity, although it would not direct the agency to do so.

The bill, the Protecting Children from Indecency Programming Act (S. 1780), was introduced by Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W. Va.) after a Federal Appeals Court found that the FCC had not justified its decision to crack down on fleeting profanities, specifically in a case involving swearing by Cher and Nicole Ritchie on a Fox awards-show broadcast...

"I urge the Senate to take up this important legislation," Stevens said in a statement Thursday. "Radio and broadcast TV are still the way most Americans get their news and entertainment. Whether sitting in a car with your children or in front of the TV, the American public should be able to expect that they will not be barraged with unexpected indecent material, whether it is through an image or a word."

By the way Senator, this is the meaning of barraged "an overwhelming quantity or explosion, as of words, blows, or criticisms: a barrage of questions." Perhaps you engaged in a bit of hyperbole Senator?

Senator Stevens, when my kids sit in front of a television screen and hear all of the real vulgarities our nation promulgates, those are the truly indecent things that they are exposed to. All kids will undoubtedly survive an inadvertent and unplanned vulgarity or breast.

These words and body parts exist, and if they are intentionally broadcast, ok, do what you will, but inadvertent? You make a mockery of the process Senator.

The following type of stuff makes me real proud to be an American.

Knowing that it is acceptable for children to be hungry, homeless, or without health care is acceptable, yet an inadvertent and unplanned vulgarity or breast is not.

Torture is more or less acceptable, as is blowing up innocent civilians in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet an inadvertent and unplanned vulgarity or breast is not.

Spying on our citizens and other constitutional violations are acceptable, yet an inadvertent and unplanned vulgarity or breast is not.

Going to war in Iraq BY MISTAKE is more or less acceptable, yet an inadvertent and unplanned vulgarity or breast is not.

Setting the stage for attacking Iran is acceptable, yet an inadvertent and unplanned vulgarity or breast is not.

In a staggering moment of hypocrisy three and a half years ago, our very own Vice President Dick Cheney annoyed by Senator Patrick Leahy said "fuck yourself" to him. Adding a bit of irony to the moment, the Senate on that date passed 99-1 something called "The Defense of Decency Act."

Senator Stevens, I have a hypothetical question for you.

Had a broadcaster covered that moment live, and carried the Vice Presidents utterance of the word "fuck," would that broadcaster be subject to a draconian fine levied by the FCC?

As I have said before, I am real proud to be an American.

Norman Horowitz

Comments

[Scarabus]

11:38 AM on 12/09/2007

Yeah, what dexxjones said! As my granddaughter matures, I worry a lot more about the sight of a senator who is involved in a bribery scandal, who is close to the top in ridiculously wasteful and unnecessary pork barrel spending, and who as chairman of the communications committee demonstrated such profound ignorance about what the internet really is. Fleeting boobs and tushes and naughty words are much less a threat to children than the example of senators who are greedy and stupid, and who think it's more important to avoid naughty words than to stop an unjust war.

[PazparaTodod]

10:35 AM on 12/09/2007

I know you wanted to be politicaly correct by adding the "HOWEVER YOU WORDHIP HIM" but it should'e read Hm/HER.

[texanna]

10:13 AM on 12/09/2007

The ONLY way I could see this being an "important piece of legislation" is if we include in the definition of profanity/obscenity the barrage of obnoxious bloviating/history reversal by Republican blowhards that I have to suffer on a daily basis. Otherwise, let's take up a collection so we can buy and send a copy of the most recent Webster's to Sen. Stevens so he can look up the definition of the word "important". Maybe if he fully understood the definition of the word he would address some of the issues that do fall within the definition -- such as getting us the hell out of Iraq, figuring out how to fix our broken health care system, piecing together our shredded Constituion and doing something about our march toward extinction by our own hands!

[Galvestonians for Dr. Ron Paul]

09:42 AM on 12/09/2007

YOU MUST BE CRAZY to want to give this government AUTHORITY over the PEOPLES internet.
They do not have the power to rule on this.
Once you have given them the right to chose what we should see and what we should not, you go against the constitution.
There are several products on the market today to keep kids out of these type of sites.
The parents MUST take responsibility.
Not pass this off to government.
Im tired of people like you supporting the big EYES of government.
WTF?
NEVER must we give the government power over our children.
They have TOO DAMN MUCH, NOW!
THEY DO NOT DESERVE IT!
I will never trust government to know what is right for my kids.
You should not either.
They will ALWAYS chose big business and money over the true well being of our Children.

WAKE UP!

[dexxjones]

08:05 AM on 12/09/2007

they like their obscene like they like their outrage- fake. janet jackson's boobie? obscene the CHILDREN shouldnt see a boobie.

bombing children unlucky enough not to be born on a bush estate? crickets. these people had better hope the athiests are right, becasue by any definition, they would be going directly to hell. stevens in particular is unintentionally hilarious as a moral judge.