Last month the house of rep. passed a bill that allowed the FCC to fine up to $500,000 to broadcasters or internet providers whom put forth anything "indecent" on "publicly regulated channels" (publicly regulated?). While this bill is infringing even more upon our first amendment rights, it does little to define what is "indecent". Also upsetting is the fact that the FCC is not an elected body, rather they are appointed, we the people have no say in whom we choose to regulate what is and is not "indecent".
While these facts are shocking and upsetting, the most shocking and upsetting thing is that now, nearly a month later, I have seen very little if anything about this story or this act from any major news providers. I have seen very little debate and very little contention. Why is this? Shouldn't the CNNs and the Fox News's as well as their parent corporations be worried about this? Perhaps they are scared of offending the FCC and invoking McCartistic witchhunts on themselves.

Here are some examples of things you didn't get to see thanks to increasing worries about "indeceny" (courtesy of Inthesetimes.com):

In January 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush’s role in creating the federal deficit.

In November 2004, 66 ABC affiliates refused to air the World War II movie Saving Private Ryan for fear that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This, ironically, was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates around the country didn’t feel free to show it.

In November 2004, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their church. The networks felt that it was “too controversial” to air.

In January, many PBS stations refused to air an episode of the children’s show “Postcards with Buster” after Education Secretary Margaret Spellings objected to the show’s content, which included Buster, an 8-year-old bunny rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from a family with two mothers in Vermont.

An episode of PBS’ “Antiques Roadshow” that included appraisal of an antique nude lithograph was edited so as not to offend.

Is the first Amendment doomed? What are your thoughts on this indecency act and how do you think it will affect us all?

The worst will be when they start cracking down on the internet. I mean come on look how much indecent stuff is on here. I figure it will be the final frontier.

Well, i envy you guys. I can only imagine what fun it must be living in the "land of the free".

(/sympathy)

Whats it like living under the Christian Dictator?

i'm so sick of the FCC. they're stupid conservative idiots. YAY HOWARD STERN!

a Lithograph? that would be like covering the breasts of the Capitaline Venus on the air. How stupid. Our money used to show a bare breated Columbia on it...how far we have come.

I think that "indecentcy" thing is so stupid and crap, It is totally taking away our rights by the minute. Theese things EXISTS, stop cencoring them from the public and change the channel if you don't like it. the FCC is disgust, and cencorship is crap

You forgot to mention that Sinclair Broadcasting was forced to scale back (and some stations dropped entirely) a broadcast criticizing John Kerry's war record.

Actually, this has as little to do with the FCC as some of your examples.

In any case, I don't mind the Indeceny Act, although frankly I'm far, far more concerned about media violence than cussing and controversy. THAT is what needs to be regulated.

*sigh* i really don't like the FCC

Whooboy. Forget book-burners, now we have movie-editing, commericial-banning FCCers. That's just horrible. Ah well, I don't watch TV anyways.