Bush signs law promoting censorship of kids' programming

President Bush on Tuesday signed the Child Safe Viewing Act, requiring the Federal Communications Commission to explore the market for technologies that allow parents to censor the programming their children watch.

The new law requires the FCC to issue a notice of inquiry to examine what advanced content-blocking technologies are available for various communication devices and platforms. It also calls for the FCC to consider how to encourage the development and use of such technologies without affecting content providers' pricing or packaging.

The term "advanced blocking technologies" is defined in the law as technology that enables parents to protect their children from "any indecent or objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by such parent, that is transmitted through the use of wire, wireless, or radio communication."

The FCC will have to report its findings to Congress within 270 days.

The bill was introduced last year by Sen. Mark Pryor, D-Ark. It passed unanimously in the Senate and passed without objection in the House in October.

[solitare_pax]

Um - doesn't the "V-CHIP" and recorded time delay do that already?

Or should we just unplug the internet, TV, radio and grammaphone and go back to the ideals of 18th century America as Mr. Bush and his supporters desire?

Of course - that would mean getting parents to raise their kids. Oh, the horror!

[karpenterskids]

"Should we just unplug the internet, TV, radio and grammaphone and go back to the ideals of 18th century America as Mr. Bush and his supporters desire?"



Wow...you really ARE ignorant, aren't you?

[sigzero]

The problem is that parents aren't raising their kids. The television is. The games are. The school is.

[pgp_protector]

And who's fault is that, it's the parents, but don't go punishing me because some yahoo doesn't want to watch their kids.

[jlmiller35redmon]

What an unfortunately inflammatory headline. As a parent of a young child whose learning issues require us to carefully manage how she receives new information, I am appalled that you would label technology that makes it easier for parents to shield their children from objectionable material as censorship.

Censorship in the classic sense is the use of government force to prevent the dissemination of information. It is not parents making certain that the information available to their children is suitable for those children based on the parents' intimate knowledge of the needs and capabilities of their children.

This headline hearkens back to the days of "yellow" journalism, when sensational headlines and articles were used to gin up public outcries to create ever more sensational headlines.

Given the exponentially expanding amount of garbage laying about the web and flowing through our media sewer pipes, it's about time tools were made available to those of us in the public who would like to choke the flow a bit. The bill the president signed encourages the development of technology that will be made available. It does not require anyone to use it.

Please think before you write.

[tm_anon]

Why not do a little something larger than just looking up technologies to keep the "badness" away. These days, unless one parent has an exceedingly high paying job, both parents work in a large percentage of households. Why not pay any parent staying at home to care for their child? I'm not talking welfare here, I'm talking about being employed by the government as a stay at home parent in order to raise your child. It's a dangerous path, but if kept in check, it's a path that could allow more financial freedom while still staying at home to care for your child without the stigma of welfare. If more mothers were able to help pay the bills by raising their children properly, having reports on the health and well being of the child sent to the appropriate government agency and only reports on the health and well being of the child, then not only would there be a larger percentage of children being taken care of properly in order for the parent to continue being employed, but there would be more ability to raise a child in a way that nurtures his mind and body without worrying about where to get the money to take him to the zoo or to a museum or to disney on ice if you choose. Pay the parent, but make them do their job, don't just enable them to let technology take over.

[Jbw1291]

That is an abjectly horrible idea. You're right, you're not talking welfare: you're talking pure socialism.

Asking (allowing?) the government to pay parents to stay home with their children is not only totally unfeasible economically, it creates a legal precedent that seems to say:

a) Parents are not innately responsible for their children; the task of looking after them is an *optional* job that deserves payment.
b) The government *is* responsible for America's children. They already control the education system, you want to give them a legal opening to control every other aspect of your child's life as well?

The government has done an utterly horrible job managing almost every aspect of American policy for the last 20/30 years, but people still seem ready to jump on the bureaucratic bandwagon every time a payout of some sort is involved. Remember: with privilege comes responsibility; with lack of responsibility comes lack of privilege. The more you take from the government, the greater the control you give them over your life.

[baisa]

OMG, can we please have some Truth In Journalism? Parental control over what their children watch is not "censorship" -- censorship is **government** control over what people can watch -- no **private** action can ever be censorship.

[PzkwVIb]

Wrong:
Censorship is:
1 a: the institution, system, or practice of censoring b: the actions or practices of censors ; especially : censorial control exercised repressively

Nowhere does the definition mention Government.

Censorship: The use of state or group power to control freedom of expression, such as passing laws to prevent media from being published or propagated
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/censorship
Promoting technology to allow parents to fulfill their obligations as parents is not censorship. Additionally, the President signing a law that was passed UNANIMOUSLY in both houses by a Democratic-controlled Congress is hardly "Bush promotes censorship."

[DrollTroll]

Following the advice to "kill all the lawyers"... don't kill the Internet, just knock off all the kids.

[Dalkorian]

Nice. Save the internet, kill your children. LOL. Andrea Yates did it, why don't you.

OMG, I think I just went to far. I guess I'm in a dark mood today. Since sarcasm doesn't come across well in blogs, I'M KIDDING! Please do NOT harm your children, hug them instead!

[Wookiee-1138]

How this being funded?

There are already a half dozen methods of filtering what kids see. But many parents are either ignorant of their existence or don't know how to work them, expecting them to somehow be fully automated and completely parallel with their definitions of "objectionable".

[Dalkorian]

We don't have to think about funding yet. Remember who's still in the White House? He figures we'll find funding for it later, or just borrow more from China. They seem to have lots of money for us to borrow.

I really wish there was a way we could stop fuhrer bushit from doing anything else until he leaves office. All he's doing now is robbing us blind and trying to complicate the messes for Obama to clean up. Why can't he and chimpy just crawl into a corner and burn in hell already?

[philnye]

Dalkorian,

How the heck do you think Obama is going to fund any of his grand promises? I'm all for smaller, less intrusive government but also less handouts, less "Don't worry, we'll save you financially" (both personal and corporate), and frankly, less meddling of the government "financial wizards" both Republican and Democratic who keep trying to "fix" a system that is supposed to be self adjusting anyway.

[hukuk]

Nobody wants to block the internet. But advanced blocking technologies are really safety? There is a case like "the advanced blocking technology is defined in the law as technology that enables parents to protect their children from any indecent or objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by such parent, that is transmitted through the use of wire, wireless, or radio communication" at Turkey. But that is not enough. Some judgements block the internet everytime. So we must be carefully. Because maybe our child do this illegal resources (porno, crime ect.).
Firstly we must teach our children these harrassment things as a parent. We can not forgive the technology or can not give our child up.
There is a platphorum about child safe at Turkish law. http://www.hukuki.net (but language is Turkish)

[Pete Bardo]

Yes, this technology already exists--it's called the power switch on most tv's. It is 100% effective in blocking offensive material. And the authority to use this technology already exists, it belongs to the parents.

Moral: don't ever ask the government to do anything for you that you could do for yourself.

[philnye]

I don't see this as a good starting point. Creating a law that makes the government agencies responsible for developing or even implementing controls on media. Several of the comments are just and I am not saying anything about parents who to look out for what their kids see or hear. I have two young boys and I cringe when a radio DJ says things that are vulgar, so I keep the volume down or change the station to prevent exposure to my kids. You have to think of how can a seemingly good natured law be abused to really see how it will affect our society. While it would be good to have controls available for concerned parents, it should not be the government that pushes them down our throughts but the parents themselves looking for the alternatives. If the government wants to prepare a parental information site, that would be very useful though.

Read carefully the wording about protecting our kids from "any indecent or objectionable video or audio programming, as determined by such parent, that is transmitted through the use of wire, wireless, or radio communication." So if someone on a phone call (a wired or wireless) says something objectionable to the parent of a child, how does this law enforce that. Are all humans now censored in public or risk jail? It should be common good manners to watch what you say in public and not government enforcement. What about radio (wireless)? Is every DJ now censored from saying or discussing anything objectionable ever? The FCC currently limits swearing which I am OK with but what about topics parents find objectionable? A child could overhear a radio station from a passing car, at the dentist, or just out and about. How can any technology in these cases protect kids without censoring everything for everyone else based on the hundreds of thousands of different criteria that we all may find objectionable? The intention is amiable but the standard law broad verbiage is ripe for abuse.

Parents can control somewhat their home environment with the v-chip, reviewing video game ratings or even better playing with your kids, listening to radio with an ear out for "kid friendly" vs. adult content, and can pay close attention to their kids online habits and use internet filtering through a child login to the family computer as well as close observation. These are what parents should and many do and those that don't wold be advised to start. As I've said prior, the government would be well received if it provided resources in the form of information rather than enforcing laws that could be abused. Only good family upbringing should protect your kids when they are outside your zone of influence since if we let someone else do it, it will be overdone and abused.

That's my $0.02.

[Ruadhagen]

I'm sorry, but this is clearly pork or ignorance of existing solutions.

One of the professors at my university (Simon Fraser University, Canada) created the V-Chip while I was doing my degree in electrical engineering. Shortly thereafter, President Clinton appealed to Congress to require the V-Chip technology in all new TVs. A law was passed - all the TVs had to have the V-Chip, and the broadcasters had to include the electronic rating information. The technology exists, is deployed, and works.

Problem solved, right?

Apparently not. Stuff like this only highlights how incapable governments are at regulating their affairs - they don't even seem to take the five seconds to do a google search that would reveal that the solution already exists. But then again, politics is not about providing solutions, it's about *appearing* to provide solutions or take action.

[Hey_Radar]

I had to make a deal with my kids. Just because we're old enough to see an 'R' rated film doesn't mean we should. So we stopped going to them to set an example.

I do use "parental controls" on my TV/DVR and on our PCs, and I do wish they had more flexability. I do wish that the technology allowed it ability to watch a R rated movie at a PG level. Some of this technology exists but its not always compatible with the latest technologies (i.e. HDMI). I would also like to create a black list a particular show, since not all PG-13 or PG shows are created equal. It's also hard to filter the internet on a wide scale, such as via the Wii, or Sony PSP, or a cell phone.

Last, how do we block the school teachers? According to my kids, the stuff coming out of their high school teachers mouth and the books they have to read are as bad as a lot of TV shows that I would block.