Providing for Consideration of H.R.310, Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 310, BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - February 16, 2005)
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman help us define what inappropriate is? Does the gentlewoman think that the film "Saving Private Ryan," which depicted the incredible sacrifice by American troops on D-Day, is inappropriate and should have been kept off of ABC?
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I think the standard for inappropriate on the airwaves has been established by the FCC, and they are the ones.
This bill does not speak to that. This bill speaks to raising of the fines.
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, if the gentlewoman would continue to yield, but this bill leads to self-censorship. Small stations who are fined a half a million dollars are going to be very cautious. "Saving Private Ryan" was kept off of dozens of ABC affiliates because they were afraid of a fine.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mr. SANDERS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the rule and opposition to the underlying legislation.
As someone who voted in favor of similar legislation last year, 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 done by the corporate owners of our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media; but it is also significantly being done by the government, and that is what this bill is about today. What we are seeing is an increasing and insidious chill on free expression in the airwaves.
There are a lot of people in Congress on that side of the aisle, my conservative friends, who talk about freedom and freedom and freedom; but apparently they really do not believe that the American people should have the freedom to make the choices themselves about what programs they see on television or on the radio.
There are a lot of people in Congress, including Conservatives, 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. I am a proud Progressive. But on this issue, I agree with some important conservative thinkers. Let me tell my colleagues what Mr. Adam D. Thierer, the director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute, extremely conservative think tank, says, and he has it right: "Those of us 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."
That is and that should be the Conservative position. That should be the position of people who say get the government off our backs; we do not want government regulations.
Mr. Speaker, increasingly in this country we are seeing censorship on the airwaves. In January of 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org, and on and on it goes.
Let us vote "no." Let us vote against this bill and support freedom.
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 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush's role in cheating the Federal deficit. Last November, 66 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.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov