38 House Members Stand Up To New Puritanism

The House voted 389-38 to increase indecency fines for radio and TV stations from the current cap of $32,500 to half a million dollars. And of course, the bill doesn't require the FCC to clarify or state their criteria for what constitutes indecency. The Senate still has to approve its own version of the bill, and then a compromise bill will need to be hammered out, approved by both houses and signed by Bush. This whole process failed last year due to the FCC ownership controversy, but that issue is now finalized so the bill is expected to be succesful this time around.

The House version approved today would:

Raise the maximum fine for broadcasters from $32,500 to $500,000 per violation, and for individual entertainers from $11,000 to $500,000 per incident. The fines are the same for non-commercial and commercial stations alike.

Allow the FCC to issue a fine against an individual without first issuing a warning.

Mandate a license revocation hearing after a third offense for a broadcaster. The FCC currently can hold such a hearing after the first offense, but is not required to do so.

Require the FCC to respond to a consumer's indecency complaint within six months.

Include protections for network affiliate stations that did not know what was to be broadcast by the network so they are not held responsible for indecent programming.

Comments

[Amanda Barrett]

fuck. who are the 38?

[Liz Berg]

Here are the 38 members of the House that voted AGAINST raising the fines for indecent broadcasts (i.e., these lads and ladies have their heads screwed on properly... well, at least concerning this issue). If you don't see your rep listed here, give 'em hell.

36 Democrats
1 Republican
1 Independent

Abercrombie (HI-1st)
Ackerman (NY-5th)
Baird (WA-3rd)
Berman (CA-28th)
Clay (MO-1st)
Conyers (MI-14th)
Delahunt (MA-10th)
Farr (CA-17th)
Fattah (PA-2nd)
Frank (MA-4th)
Grijalva (AZ-7th)
Harman (CA-36th)
Hastings (FL-23rd)
Hinchey (NY-22nd)
Honda (CA-15th)
Kucinich (OH-10th)
Lee (CA-9th)
Lewis (GA-5th)
Lofgren, Zoe (CA-16th)
McDermott (WA-7th)
Nadler (NY-8th)
Owens (NY-11th)
Paul (TX-14th)
Payne (NJ-10th)
Sabo (MN-5th)
Sánchez, Linda T. (CA-39th)
Sanders (VT)
Schakowsky (IL-9th)
Scott (VA-3rd)
Serrano (NY-16th)
Sherman (CA-27th)
Stark (CA-13th)
Velázquez (NY-12th)
Wasserman Schultz (FL-20th)
Waters (CA-35th)
Watson (CA-33rd)
Waxman (CA-30th)
Woolsey (CA-6th)

[Dude]

And speaking on behalf of the new Puritanism, is the bill's sponsor:

http://www.house.gov/upton/press/press-02-16-05.html

http://www.house.gov/upton/index.html

[Tina Funk]

Isn't it ironic? The US Servicemen are over in the Middle East fighting and dying to bring them Democracy, and the United States Government is continually taking away our rights. Personally, I think religion and politics should not mix.. I interpret this Bill to say that the Government feels that the average American is unable to care properly for their children.
Looks like it passed in the House, but thank goodness there are a handful of Senators that are fighting for the average American.