Our freedom is being taken.

#1 I'm not living in the US so I might have missed something.
Just curious, is this about "Freedom of speach" in media?

#2 Yes. The government is trying to censor radio and TV to the point that it is getting ridiculous. This all was spurred on by Janet Jackson showing her breast during the half-time show of the super bowl.

The religious right freaked out and the government is going along being that it is an election year and showing that they can actually do something. Instead of focusing on real problems like terrorism and the economy. This proposed bill if flying through. You won't see a budget get passed this fast.

#3 That's really unnessecary.
In sweden they already limited our freedom of speach last year; we are not allowed to speak about anyone without their permission.

The point that no one follows this law is another story though :P Might be the same if US enforces a law like that.

#4 Stefan,
You make it sound as if we are actively being censored ;) If we're thinking about the same thing it's just a law which makes it illegal to publish personal details without permission.

-- Personal opinion --
Personally I don't think all censorship is necessarily bad. Some extreme things just don't belong on mass distributed media but are better kept private. Breats, however, is not one of those things. The real issue is when the government starts censoring what you can do and say in your own privacy.

If you think todays large media organizations provide a forum where the full spectrum is represented you've bought the perception of free speech, not actual free speech. It really doesn't matter if they get censored, they've been self censoring for a long time.

We're all confined, it's just the size of the confinement that varies. Does this bill really reduce your personal freedom? Doesn't look so to me. Eveyone's so worried about the right to have their opinion heard. Myabe people should be more worried about the right to hear the truth.

#5 Peter

Of course that's not what I meant, but merely that there is a law saying that you have to ask an individual before speaking about him/her. That is also not the law I was referring to :)

On the subject.
I really feel it's nessecary, but if it's not to a large degree, then why not? As Peter mentioned, everything's not suitable for games.

#6 @ Michael

There is a big difference between games and the public air waves. FCC regulations have no impact on computer games.

This is probably the wrong forum to post comments about FCC regulations.

#7 Being the FCC is not the point I was trying to make. Who do you think appoints people to the FCC. The president. Guess whose agenda those are appointed are going to follow...... The president. We need to vote people out of office who cannot seperate church and state.
These policies will continue to flow to other things like games if it's not nipped in the bud.

#8 It may not directly affect our industry but it does indirectly affect it.

Personally I try to stear away from these types of posts, and I don't think that political issues normally belong on forums like these.

But it becomes a grey area when we are speaking about how things affect our industry. The original post was defintly a politcal one though.

Regardless, I added my name to the petition. Why? Because I strongly feel that once we start down this road, it won't stop. Five years from now, ten years from now, we'll wake up and find ourselves with very little free speach left. Unless we stand firm now and make our thoughts known.

#9 I agree with Johns synopsis of the situation. Recently it seems as though the people who fight so hard to keep church and state seperate, come right back and demand action from the government on matters that are nothing if not religious. This blatant (?spelling?) disregard for our freedom of oth speach and personal choice blow me away.
- Clutch out.

#10

Quote:Censorship is best done by the lack of consumer interest in my opinion. Not by government.

The problem is that we're not talking about consumers... we're talking about the PUBLIC. Everybody and their dog, effectively. That's what the FCC regulates. If you've PAID for it and have become a subscriber (consumer) - you've effectively entered a contract to receive whatever content is being sent to you. If you don't like it, you can withdraw your support by terminating your subscription.

But what goes out over the public airwaves can be picked up by anybody. THAT is the difference. Effectively, it's on public display everywhere. Just like we have laws for public lewdness or disturbing the peace, part of the mandate of the FCC is to extend this to what goes freely and publicly over the airwaves.

#11

Quote:But what goes out over the public airwaves can be picked up by anybody. THAT is the difference. Effectively, it's on public display everywhere. Just like we have laws for public lewdness or disturbing the peace, part of the mandate of the FCC is to extend this to what goes freely and publicly over the airwaves.

Which is why we feel the FCC really has no right to be including cable services that we PAID for in this legislation.

You are 100% correct Jay. The problem is (And i'm not sure if you were saying this yourself or not) that not only does the FCC want to clamp down on public airwaves, they want to do the same clamping on the cable channels, and pay TV.

I pay for that TV. I don't want it censored. If I felt that cable was out of control, and something I didn't want to see, then i'd cancel my subscription. I don't need the government telling me I can't watch it because its rude, crude, and socially unacceptable. I'll make that decision for myself, since this was a free country when I woke up.

[Possible political flame]
I haven't seen anything that say's President Bush (I'm not to fond of the guy myself, but I was raised to respect the position so its President Bush, not Mr Bush or Bush) is "behind" this in any way shape or form. If in fact he is, then i'm afraid i'll have to start trash talking im in public though. Not even a week ago he made this big old public speach of which the core message was "Government doesn't need to regulate our society. We trust the American people to do that themselves." If he is saying that on one hand and pushing this kind of legislation on the other, then he can take his two faced politcal ass and leave my country.
[/possible politcal flame]

#12 I signed it, and think it's appropriate here for the same reasons that John states. Except...

I don't think this road is very long, nor do I expect that we will travel down it very far. I've yet to talk to anyone online or offline that felt that the FCC's tightened grip was a good idea. That's far from a scientific poll, but, it indicates to me that there's something wrong happening here. Normally, things don't go wrong for too long - 'specially when the FCC had been down a completely different road for the last 10 years (reducing restrictions and policies. You could say F**k on TV under certain circumstances, just before the whole Janet thing. That's how lax the FCC was getting about certain things.)

#13

Quote:Censorship is best done by the lack of consumer interest
in my opinion. Not by government.

Isn't that what we have in the Howard Stern case? edit: I just saw the word "lack" there. In any event, the government isn't censoring Stern, Clear Channel is.

edit2: I have to raise a caveat here about the "lack of consumer interest" argument. Should we apply the same logic to other areas? Should "lack of consumer interest" be society's defense against heroin and cocaine? Should we legalize these substances and just rely on "lack of consumer interest" to protect society?

Obviously, "lack of consumer interest" isn't always properly aligned with the public good.

Quote:This all was spurred on by Janet Jackson showing her breast during the half-time show of the super bowl.

That's a popular misconception. The truth is that this push was underway well before the Jackson incident.

Quote:We need to vote people out of office who cannot seperate church and state.

The "separation of church and state" is yet another popular misconception. There is NO provision in the Constitution for "separation of church and state." The "separation of church and state" is derived from a deliberate misreading of the Constitution.

The Constitution simply forbids the government from making laws regarding the establishment of religion. "The state should keep its hands off religion" is a much more accurate way of interpreting the establishment clause than "separation of church and state" is.

If we're going to whine about the FCC, let's whine about something worth the effort: the relaxing of the regulations regarding media consolidation in favor of the media conglomerates. Now THERE'S a real problem.

#14 Clear Channel is in bed with the republican party. The CEO goes golfing with President Bush. Media giants had to appear in front of congress to explain what they are doing about indecency. Clear Channel offered Howard up as a sacrficial lamb. If you go to Howard's website you can see that Clear Channel has a double standard. They have other Jocks that have said "indecent" things that are documented.

#15

Quote:The problem is that we're not talking about consumers... we're talking about the PUBLIC.

I have to disagree to an extent. I don't like the classical music channel in my area. I change the channel or I turn off my radio.

Howard Stern has a large audience. If too many people were offended by him he would have no ratings and be off the air regardless. That was the point I was trying to make.

I don't want the government telling me what I can listen to, watch, or play. Unless of course it is illegal. Like watching child pornography

#16

Quote:Clear Channel is in bed with the republican party. The CEO goes golfing with President Bush. Media giants had to appear in front of congress to explain what they are doing about indecency. Clear Channel offered Howard up as a sacrficial lamb. If you go to Howard's website you can see that Clear Channel has a double standard. They have other Jocks that have said "indecent" things that are documented.

Clear Channel has every right to be in bed with the Republican Party.

I really don't see how the Stern case is an example of the government infringing on the people's rights. Companies/Corporations have a right to censor their own programming.

They do it ALL the time. This is why most Americans trust the info they find on the Internet (and their own judgement in separating the wheat from the chaff) more than they do the big media corporations, if the polls are to be believed.

BtW I'm not a Republican or religious.

Quote:I have to disagree to an extent. I don't like the classical music channel in my area. I change the channel or I turn off my radio.

The difference is there's probably no argument to be made that your local classical music channel broadcasts content that is or could be regarded as offensive by a large segment of the public or a reasonable adult on a regular basis. There's also the fact that your local classical music channel is as subject to corporate censorship as any other channel or program.

Quote:Howard Stern has a large audience. If too many people were offended by him he would have no ratings and be off the air regardless. That was the point I was trying to make.

If it wasn't a good business decision, Clear Channel probably wouldn't have made it. In the end that's all this is, a business decision.

As for Stern's large audience: bestiality porn has a large audience too, but that doesn't stop the Federal government from prosecuting obsenity cases against the peddlers of such smut.

Quote:I don't want the government telling me what I can listen to, watch, or play. Unless of course it is illegal. Like watching child pornography

Perhaps you should read up on obscenity laws.

#17 Sorry that this turned into a political discussion. I intended to simply bring this up as something to be concerned about. We as game makers could be the next target of people who are easily offended.


Unfortunately these people may be the minority but their voice is the majority. I think that needs to change in order to have the freedoms we currently have.

#18 The Clear Channel thing is not relevant to my point. My point is that The govenment is going to probably have the bill passed by next week that will charge a $500,000 fine for each instance of a person saying or doing something indecent over radio or TV. That is $500,000 for each syndicate(ie local radio station bringing you a program) as well. This will not be a fine for the persons employer but for that 1 person. This even includes if a radio station plays a song with the word "shit" in it. They in theory could fine the recording artist. Now if this isn't government stong arming then I don't know what is. Whats next book burning?

This is my last response to this thread. I just feel people should know whats going on.

Coz

#19

Quote:Sorry that this turned into a political discussion.

It started out as a political discussion.

Quote:I intended to simply bring this up as something to be concerned about. We as game makers could be the next target of people who are easily offended.

You don't have to be easily offended to take issue with Stern's show. I'm one of those rare people who doesn't fall into the usual categories of "Stern hater" or "Stern lover." I sometimes find him funny and even intelligent, but the simple fact is that he is frequently offensive to people who aren't easily offended.

Quote:Unfortunately these people may be the minority but their voice is the majority. I think that needs to change in order to have the freedoms we currently have.

If I had kids, I'd be uncomfortable with the fact that they could listen to Stern just by turning on the radio.

#20

Quote:The Clear Channel thing is not relevant to my point.

It might not be your point, but you keep referring to it so it must have some relevance to the discussion in your opinion.

Quote:My point is that The govenment is going to probably have the bill passed by next week that will charge a $500,000 fine for each instance of a person saying or doing something indecent over radio or TV. That is $500,000 for each syndicate(ie local radio station bringing you a program) as well.

I say good. I'm a bit tired of the fourth estate (they're really better described as the first estate - what industry or group has more worldwide power than the media? NONE) and the free reign they get. I say if they want to spew obscenity, let them do it on cable where people ask for such content. That's why I don't have cable, because I don't want to have to pay for the sewage on MTV just so I can get a few news channels.

Quote:This will not be a fine for the persons employer but for that 1 person. This even includes if a radio station plays a song with the word "shit" in it. They in theory could fine the recording artist. Now if this isn't government stong arming then I don't know what is. Whats next book burning?

Well, let's talk a bit about "book burning," or its modern American equivalent. Many school districts have banned Huck Finn because of the use of the n-word by Sawyer. These bans have been led by liberal politically correct cultists. What's next, book burning?

As for fining the recording artist, that's a bit of a stretch. Recording artists don't make people play their songs, so let's just say I doubt this scenario will come to pass.