from IMDB:

 

 

Penny Nance, who describes herself as a religious conservative and has been a vocal opponent of racy images on television, has been hired by the Federal Communications Commission as a part-time adviser to its Office of Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, Mediaweek reported Monday. Last January, in a letter to President Bush, Nance complained of a "huge indecency problem" on basic cable and said that networks should restore the 8:00 p.m. family hour. In an Op-Ed piece published in the Washington Times three years ago, Nance wrote, "Sexual themes and even soft-core pornography are rampant on shows such as CBS' Survivor and MTV's Real World." She also stated: "There are plenty of cases where television content violates the FCC's standards, there have been countless cases over the past decade or more. But the FCC hasn't acted on a single complaint." Her comments were made before the to-do over the Janet Jackson Super Bowl incident.

 

 

 

Wow, a religious conservative wants to nanny-fy TV so people can only watch what they deem acceptable. Who'da thunk it?

 

By the way, they never mention in these stories that 99% of the non Janet Jackson complaints the FCC gets are from PTC nutballs who get offended by every "hell" and "damn" on TV.

 

Also its key to remember that the FCC is supposed to only handle free over-the-air networks, and stuff you pay for like cable is supposed to be out of their jurisdiction.

I actually agree with this in principle. I think the vast majority of television shows have gotten too racy, and while we should not kick everything off the television set, it would not hurt to create some more family friendly television. Of course, it is troubling when the federal government takes it upon itself to act rather than the television networks. I am also amused that the complaints are again about sex, and nothing regarding violence.

My stand is if you want to clean up the networks, fine. If you made the choice to pay for cable you shouldn't be told you can't watch something.

 

It's like how now they want to regulate satillite programming now that their #1 punching bag Howard Stern is moving there.

 

Besides, like Al said, its really all about their all out fear of sex and their overwhelming need to supress it.

The FCC went on record last year saying they weren't going to bother with satallite radio. Stern's been bullshitting on that to make himself seem more important. The only people trying to get it regulated are regular radio types that are too lazy to compete. The FCC won't regulate any kind of pay service.

There's been numerous congresscritters on record saying they want the FCC to start going after pay services.

 

Hell, the lady hired by the FCC in the story I posted wants to regulate basic cable, which last I checked is a pay service.

She's just an advisor. There's really no telling that she'll have any real power with anyone.

 

I doubt they'll ever regulate pay services. They're philosophy has always been consistent towards those things. They've shown no interest at all with satallite radio. A few congressmen might make a stink but the FCC has no obligation to listen to them.

 

The real problems with the FCC are never mentioned and not understood by most people. The real problems is they're still operating under radio laws they wrote in the 20s and 30s.

The real problem with the FCC is that the don't do dick for years and then they go too far to the other extreme with the excessive fines. Then they threaten station owners with loss of license if they complain about it.

Howard Stern is a whiny douchbag who stopped being funny years ago, and uses his so-called war with the FCC as a means to get attention for himself, remind people that he's still alive, and distract from the fact that he sucks.

 

There, I said it.

 

However...as a real conservative, I find the concept of the FCC a joke. This is the difference between conservatives and the religous right. As far as I'm concerned, if you're conservative doesn't that mean you want less government interference in your every day life? I don't want some damn government agency (being paid for with tax payer dollars mind you) to tell me what I can watch. If people don't like what's on TV or the radio, change the damn channel.

 

I find the concept of censorship to be an issue than spans both sides of the political spectrum. Let's not forget Tipper Gore and Joe Leiberman. As sektor here said...you should have the right to watch whatever the hell you want, especially if you paid for it.

You're 100% right, real conservatives would fight this tooth and nail. Unfortunately in America, conservatisim is being replaced with religious nuttery. Old school conservatives are finding themselves marginalized within the GOP. If you don't bow down before the "family" groups, you get your legs taken out from under you.

Here's my feeling. I don't much agree with Jerry Falwell, lets say. However, he has the right to say and do whatever he wants on TV. I don't agree with him, so I don't watch his show. If he, and anybody else is allowed to dicatate what kind of things are allowed to be said, and done on television...then what's to stop a huge liberal majority from rising up and forcing HIM off the air, or Rush Limbaugh, or Fox News, or whatever?

 

Everybody should have the right to say what they have to say, and let the public decide if they want to watch, or listen. If they don't...you'll know it.

 

Rush Limbaugh is still on the air because people listen to his show.

 

Michael Moore is still making movies because people buy tickets to see them.

 

I'm not interested in having anybody, government agency, religous group, or political party on either side of the spectrum decide for me that I shouldn't be able to hear or see it. I don't like Michael Moore at all...but he damn sure should be allowed to make all the movies he wants, because if he can't, then next thing somebody else will be telling somebody on the other side of the fence that THEY can't say something.

 

The whole basis for political thought has to come from an examination of both sides of the issue, and studying the thought process of both sides. As soon as people let the goverment or religous groups restrict that open presentation...you can't really have democracy. You start off by censoring porn and cable television, and the next thing it will be the ideas. That's too creepy for me.

 

I honestly don't know any conservative people who think that the government should be allowed to regulate that kind of stuff. We all get to enjoy the freedom that American Society creates, when you start restricting that freedom, you set a scary precedent.

Well said. One of the problems I think both sides face is that when you *do* speak out against something, it's assumed that you're also attacking that person's right to free speech. I've never understood that. Conservatives get tagged with that sometimes on some social issues; liberals get tagged with that for having a differing opinion even more.

That's the way it used to be, but for the last 15 years at least conservatisim in the US has been them controlling (or trying to) the airwaves so you only see or hear points of view they agree with.

 

I don't really know if it's just the influence of the religious right, any further discussion usually leads into tinfoil hat territory, but the era of conservatives being against small goverment appears to be dead and buried here.