Broadcast Dencency Enforcement Act of 2005
BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - February 16, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Act. While I acknowledge and appreciate that this is a bipartisan effort in bringing this bill, I believe that this attempt to address the quality of broadcasting is both overreaching and off the mark and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
There is already a law on the books that addresses indecency, and my view is that we need to get a grip and not embrace a solution that could cause more harm than good. I believe that H.R. 310 is one of those solutions.
H.R. 310 would essentially in my view put Big Brother in charge of deciding what is art and what is free speech. If enacted, especially with the increased fines against individual artists, we will see self- and actual censorship reach new and undesirable heights. Even the threat of this legislation has already led to that kind of censorship.
For instance, on Veterans Day of 2001 and 2002, ABC aired ``Saving Private Ryan,'' a movie about World War II, to honor those who served. In 2004, with the threat of almost identical legislation to the one we are considering hanging over their heads, 66 ABC affiliates refused to run the show. They were afraid that the award-winning salute to our veterans would be deemed indecent. They were concerned that it might trigger at least one incident, maybe three, of indecency because it is unclear whether saying one indecent word three times in the same broadcast might trigger license revocation proceedings.
As we can see, the threats to our Constitution and to artistic expression are all too real with H.R. 310. Do we not want to have sensational performances, sensational in the best sense of the word? Do we want a blanding down? Once we do this kind of censorship, can political speech be far behind?
I am concerned about the continual refusal to address what I believe is really behind the decline in broadcasting and that is the overconcentration of media ownership.
Broadcasting content has been getting worse, not because of low fines and out-of-control talent, but because of the shift away from local control to ownership by media conglomerates that have no regard for the varying community standards.
Additionally, much of the furor over indecency has been explained by a desire to protect our children. And there are many programs on TV that I believe are inappropriate for my little grandchildren, particularly the many which depict graphic violence over and over and over again. But I do not want H.R. 310 or Big Brother making that decision for me or their parents.
If I could just say that I happen to be much more concerned about the first amendment than I am about my grandchildren seeing Janet Jackson's nipple. I would say, let us get a grip and we can do without this legislation. I urge a ``no'' vote.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov