[NV Greens] Fwd: Bernie Sanders on Media Censorship

Thu Feb 17 23:36:37 PST 2005

>
>
>Censorship of the Media Creating Insidious Chill on Free
>Expression on our Airwaves
>
>By US Rep. Bernie Sanders
>
>February 17, 2005, CommonDreams.org
>
>http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0217-32.htm
>
>[The following is a 2/16/2005 floor statement by Rep. Bernard
>Sanders in opposition to The Broadcast Decency Enforcement
>Act 2005]
>
>Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation.
>
>Mr. Speaker, I think we can all agree that we do not want our
>children exposed to obscenity on the public airwaves. That
>goes without saying.
>
>As someone who last year voted in favor of similar
>legislation, I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of
>censorship that seems to be developing in this country, and I
>will not be voting for this bill today. This censorship is
>being conducted by the corporate owners of our increasingly
>consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done by the
>government. This result is an insidious chill on free
>expression on our airwaves.
>
>There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about freedom,
>freedom and freedom but, apparently, they do not really
>believe that the American people should have the "freedom" to
>make the choice about what they listen to on radio or watch
>on TV. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about
>the intrusive role of "government regulators," but today they
>want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what
>they can air. I disagree with that. A vote for this bill
>today will make America a less free society.
>
>Mr. Speaker: I am not a conservative. But on this issue I
>find myself in strong agreement with Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the
>Director of Telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute
>- a very conservative think tank. And here is the very common
>sense, pro-freedom position that he brings forth:
>
>"Those of use who are parents understand that raising a child
>in today's modern media marketplace is a daunting task at
>times. But that should not serve as an excuse for inviting
>Uncle Sam in to play the role of surrogate parent for us and
>the rest of the public without children.
>
>"Even if lawmakers have the best interest of children in
>mind, I take great offense at the notion that government
>officials must do this job for me and every other American
>family.
>
>"Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental
>part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government
>level is an entirely different matter because it means a
>small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole
>nation is permitted to see, hear or think.
>
>"I've always been particularly troubled by the fact that so
>many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal
>and parental responsibility about most economic issues,
>seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural
>issues."
>
>Mr. Speaker, the specter of censorship is growing in America
>today, and we have got to stand firmly in opposition to it.
>What America is about is not necessarily liking what you have
>to say or agreeing with you, but it is your right to say it.
>Today, it is Janet Jackson's wardrobe malfunction or Howard
>Stern's vulgarity. What will it be tomorrow?
>
>Let me give just a couple of examples of increased censorship
>on the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a
>political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org
>that was critical of President Bush's role in creating the
>federal deficit. Last November, sixty-six ABC affiliates
>refused to air the brilliant World War II movie "Saving
>Private Ryan," starring Tom Hanks, for fear that they would
>be fined for airing programming containing profanity and
>graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie
>in previous years. This ironically was a movie that showed
>the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-
>Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates
>around the country didn't feel free to show it. Last
>November, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the
>United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples
>were welcome to their Church. The networks felt that it was
>"too controversial" to air. And just last month, many PBS
>stations refused to air an episode of Postcards with Buster,
>a children's show, because Education Secretary Spellings
>objected to the show's content, which included Buster, an 8-
>year old bunny-rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from
>a family with two mothers in Vermont.
>
>Mr. Speaker, each of these examples represent a different
>aspect of the culture of censorship that is growing in
>America today. My fear is that the legislation we have before
>us today will only compound this problem and make a bad
>situation worse.
>
>This legislation would impose vastly higher fines on
>broadcasters for so-called indecent material. But this
>legislation does not provide any relief from the vague
>standard of indecency that can be arbitrarily applied by the
>FCC. That means broadcasters, particularly small
>broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very
>dangerous cycle of self-censorship to avoid a fine that could
>drive some of them into bankruptcy. Broadcasters are already
>doing it now. Imagine what will happen when a violation can
>bring a $500,000 fine. If this legislation is enacted, the
>real victim will be free expression and Americans' First
>Amendment rights.
>
>In the past week I have sought out the views of broadcasters
>in my own state of Vermont and I have heard from many of
>them. Without exception they are extremely concerned about
>the effect this legislation will have on programming
>decisions.
>
>Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing a copy of a statement by Mr. John
>King, President and CEO of Vermont Public Television.
>
>Statement of Mr. John King, President and CEO of VT Public
>Television on H.R. 310:
>
>Vermont Public Television, like other local broadcasters,
>does its best to serve the needs and interests of its local
>community. It's a great privilege and a great responsibility
>to have a broadcast license. While we acknowledge that there
>must be sanctions for broadcasters who misuse the public
>airwaves, we believe the sanctions proposed in HR 310 are
>extreme.
>
>The FCC's proposals for increased fines for obscenity,
>indecency and profanity have already had a chilling effect on
>broadcasters nationally and locally, including Vermont Public
>Television. The legislation also makes lodging a complaint
>easier and puts the burden of proof on the station. Codifying
>these proposals into law will make the situation worse.
>
>While many people might assume the new sanctions are aimed at
>commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling the
>effects every day. Public television's educational
>programming for children has always provided a safe haven.
>The same public television stations that take such care of
>their young viewers also respect the intelligence and
>discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing
>choices for themselves.
>
>Vermont Public Television has always operated responsibly in
>our programming for adults. At times, our programs included
>adult language and situations appropriate to the
>informational or artistic purpose of a program. While there
>have always been prohibitions against gratuitous indecency,
>the FCC always took context into account. Now, it seems that
>context is no longer considered.
>
>Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights,
>we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single
>violation. The $500,000 maximum fine could put a small
>station like VPT out of business.
>
>Last year, when the FCC proposed increased fines and told
>broadcasters there was one word that would never be
>appropriate on the air, PBS and its member stations,
>including Vermont Public Television, began to make content
>choices so as not to run afoul of the new FCC restrictions.
>
>PBS programmers began making edits to national programs being
>distributed to stations. An "American Experience" documentary
>on Emma Goldman was scrutinized for what might possibly look
>like a bare breast and edited, just to be sure. On "Antiques
>Roadshow," a nude poster was edited. This month, most PBS
>stations will air a drama from HBO called "Dirty War ." In
>the story, a woman showers to remove radiation. When the
>program airs on PBS, the shower scene will be edited.
>
>Our programming director, and no doubt most local
>programmers, have become very cautious. Once the FCC starts
>telling broadcasters they must not use certain words or
>situations, programmers tend to avoid producing and airing
>programs with words and situations that might even come close
>to content that could be subject to fines.
>
>At VPT, we produce many live local programs with panelists
>representing many points of view. We take calls from viewers
>live on the air. There has never been a problem with
>language, but the legislation's reference to using a "time
>delay blocking mechanism" makes us worry. We don't use a time
>delay. Are we subject to a fine if a panelist or a caller
>uses a word considered obscene, indecent or profane?
>
>Our programming director says the FCC proposals have already
>made us rule out airing independent films on our "Reel
>Independent" program. Films by Vermont filmmakers that we
>would have aired in past years are not being accepted for
>broadcast now.
>
>We cannot support HR 310 as it is written.
>
>
>_______________________________________________________
>
>portside (the left side in nautical parlance) is a news,
>discussion and debate service of the Committees of
>Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism. It aims to
>provide varied material of interest to people on the
>left.
>
>For answers to frequently asked questions:
><http://www.portside.org/faq>
>
>To subscribe, unsubscribe or change settings:
><http://lists.portside.org/mailman/listinfo/portside>
>
>To submit material, paste into an email and send to:
><moderator at portside.org> (postings are moderated)
>
>For assistance with your account:
><support at portside.org>
>
>To search the portside archive:
><http://people-link5.inch.com/pipermail/portside/>


-- 
Paul Etxeberri

"Forests precede civilizations and deserts follow"   ---Chateaubriand