The media pundit's pundit. Written by NYC insider Jeff Jarvis, BuzzMachine covers news, media, journalism, and politics.
The market for breasts
: This is absurd when you think about it for, oh, two seconds:
The FCC is raising its current fine for indecency — not related to huge fines still being proposed in Congress — from $27,500 to $32,500 because of “inflation.”
What, breasts are getting more expensive? Or is that they’re getting bigger (wrong inflation)? What costs more about indecency such that you need to raise the fines?
More idiocy from the FCC.
I’ll have to make sure my cost of living increase equates that level of inflation. Yeah, like that’s going to happen.
Well, I get social security I suppose that fine inflation means I’ll get enough of a raise to pay more taxes!
“What costs more about indecency such that you need to raise the fines?”
The profits which the pandering perverts are hauling in, peddling nasty language over the US citizen-owned broadcast frequencies is much higher, thus the need to raise the fines.
If perversity profits, raise the penalties.
C’mon Jeff, you know this. You’re just being coy.
Don’t you weary of presenting yourself as 100% in the potty-mouth corner of the arena of ideas?
Once again, with feeling. Broadcasters are free to go to a subscription network and peddle their filth, totally independent of the FCC. No one is stopping anyone from saying what ever they want.
What is not “free” is the freedom to turn the US citizen-owned public broadcast frequencies into delivery vehicles for filth.
You need your filth, sign up for HBO or Showtime, and by all means, enjoy it, with everyone’s blessing… in private, away from our children, and not over US citizen-owned broadcast frequencies.
It’s not idiocy. While I don’t know how long ago the original $27,500 fine was instituted, adjusting for inflation makes sense and is necessary to ensure that any such regulations have teeth. For example, If a fine of $5,000 was instituted 30 years ago, one would hope it has been increased since then, otherwise it has little value as a penalty/deterrent
I agree.
I am a 25 year old law student trying to work myself through school and facing a huge amount of debt once I get finished.
The government could do a lot more to help my future than impose fines on Howard Stern.
For starters loan forgiveness, increased financial aid for living expenses, and better public transportation for a few things.
It’s absolutely absurd to believe that fining CBS for Janet Jackson’s breast will do more to help America’s youth than investing the money in some sort social program.
Why is this even being debated? This is a simple adjustment for inflation, nothing more, nothing less. It is not politically motivated, it is something that just gets done from time to time.
Do you think speeding tickets stay the same price year after year? There are better battles to pick, this is just pointless whining.
Are you going to define filth for us, Paul?
Because if you own the frequencies, so do I.
And what if we differ in our opinions?
Look, just put your TV on PAX, throw away the remote, and you’ll never have to witness any filth.
What’s wrong Jeff? Afraid widdle Howie Stern won’t be able to afford the consequences of his actions?
After 5 minutes of simulated intercourse that drew no complaint, one little titty and the world comes to an end? Both father and Son need to transfer to the U.N. where reality will not interfere with them any more. I think people who listen to Stern should be fined.
Fines are supposed to discourage the violations. That’s why you have to raise them when people start to consider them just part of the cost of doing business.
Whether you like it or not the American public doesn’t like this stuff being broadcast. We still retain some semblance of democracy.
“Whether you like it or not the American public doesn’t like this stuff being broadcast.”
Oh, except for the millions and millions of Stern listeners, a group that, were they to speak out and speak up in defense of their favorite radio personality, would dwarf the thousands of people who dislike Stern fervently enough to force him off the air with government pressure…
Once property gets mixed up in a matter, it becomes much more important. If the FCC lost the ability to levy fines for indecency, it would suddenly lose interest.
Your boobaucracy at work…
/someone had to say it!
I’m no fan of the FCC, but of course they have to raise their fines in response to inflation. Otherwise the fine would have no effect. How is this idiocy? How can I understand this and you don’t? I must be missing something…
Note: Just because you dislike an organization doesn’t mean everything they do is bad and wrong.
The FCC is statutorily required to adjust its fines to reflect inflation and it’s completely reasonable, as others have said, to include such adjustments. The adjustments were made not just to broadcasters, but across the board – they also adjusted the levels that apply to common carriers (telephone companies) for violations of procompetition rules, for example.
You can rail all you want about the latest votes in Congress to lift the fine levels substantially or whether the FCC should have this authority at all. Those are legitimate fights. But the “idiocy” here is ragging on the FCC for taking a statutorily mandated step to implement a token increase in its fine levels to reflect inflation. That’s it.