S. 193, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act: Congressional Malfunction

S. 193, THE BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT: CONGRESSIONAL MALFUNCTION -- (Extensions of Remarks - June 09, 2006)

* Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the passage of S. 193, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. I object to the passage of this bill because of my strong belief that in any legislative attempt to express disapproval of what some consider to be objectionable speech or acts, we must be careful not to infringe upon the Constitutionally-protected right to free speech. This legislation is an overreaction to the 2004 Janet Jackson ``wardrobe malfunction.''

* I am a grandmother of four and I am concerned about what is making it onto the airwaves. I understand that many find the content and language used in some programs intolerable, especially for children. However, because I am also a strong proponent of the First Amendment and oppose inappropriate restrictions on free speech, I must weigh concerns about questionable content against the need to protect free speech.

* I think we also need to be careful about passing a bill that gives ``Big Brother'' a heavy hammer to punish those who violate his notion of decency. I believe that increasing fines to $325,000 per incident would have a chilling effect on creativity, lead to second-guessing of material, pulling programs, and other forms of censorship. As I have said before, we run a great risk when our legislation threatens to undermine both our Constitution and our creativity.

* If we are serious about improving broadcast content, which is what I think people really want to do, then we need to address the fact that large media conglomerates are allowed to gobble up independent stations that are much more sensitive to the communities they serve. Large media conglomerates are the main sources of indecent programming. Since 1999, 80 percent of the indecency findings have been against two media giants: Clear Channel and Viacom.

* Not only do they lack knowledge of local community standards, but they also drown out the diversity of voices and viewpoints. Our constituents would be better served if we were voting to limit the over-concentration of media ownership, not to increase fines.

* While I do not support S. 193, I am glad that my colleagues agree that the even more problematic H.R. 310 is not the route to take. Censoring artists with outrageous fines and threatening broadcasters' licenses should something ``indecent'' make it on the airwaves would have caused even more damage to our First Amendment than the bill before us today. Regardless, I think S. 193 opens the door to future attacks at one of our Nation's fundamental freedoms and I urge my colleagues to vote no.

http://thomas.loc.gov/