FCC NOI Asks for Comments on Content Control
FCC NOI Asks for Comments on Content Control
October 29, 2009
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has released a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) seeking feedback and responses to the subject of the affect of electronic media on children and whether or not the Commission should have more power to wield authority.
Released on October 23, Empowering Parents and Protecting Children in an Evolving Media Landscape presents some of the influence (both pro and con) emerging media has on youngsters, before asking for additional data on these subjects. Specifically the FCC is seeking “information on the extent to which children are using electronic media today, the benefits and risks these technologies bring for children, and the ways in which parents, teachers, and children can help reap the benefits while minimizing the risks.”
The FCC also is asking commenters to “to discuss whether the Commission has the statutory authority to take any proposed actions and whether those actions would be consistent with the First Amendment.”
FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski included a statement with the NOI in which he noted that “twenty years ago, parents worried about one or two TV sets in the house,” while today, media choices are far more widespread for children, including videogames, which “have become a prevalent entertainment source in millions of homes and a daily reality for millions of kids.”
Genachowski continued:
This Notice of Inquiry recognizes the importance of undertaking a comprehensive approach to assessing how children can best be served in the digital media landscape. The vital role of government in this media environment is therefore to empower parents and protect children, while honoring and abiding by the First Amendment.
Thanks2 Sean
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:18am
gellymatos: Like I said, paranoia that the law could make it illegal to voice an opinion on gay marriage. And catholics don't condon...
gellymatos: Like I said, paranoia that the law could make it illegal to voice an opinion on gay marriage. And catholics don't condon...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:15am
Valdearg: Can you find a different reason behind the lawsuit, other than the fact that they want to protect their "right" to perpetrate violence against homosexuals, based on their religious beliefs?
Valdearg: Can you find a different reason behind the lawsuit, other than the fact that they want to protect their "right" to perpetrate violence against homosexuals, based on their religious beliefs?
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:14am
Valdearg: The fact is that this Law Center, which specializes in the defense of Catholic Beliefs, kind of like a Catholic ACLU, I suppose, is challenging a law that PROTECTS homosexuals from violent acts motivated by hatred of gay people.
Valdearg: The fact is that this Law Center, which specializes in the defense of Catholic Beliefs, kind of like a Catholic ACLU, I suppose, is challenging a law that PROTECTS homosexuals from violent acts motivated by hatred of gay people.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:13am
gellymatos: Again, sorry I jumped the gun like I did.
gellymatos: Again, sorry I jumped the gun like I did.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:13am
Valdearg: @Gelly: It's a liberal blog. Its not designed to be balanced. Does that mean that everything there is completely false, and not worth investigating? Nope.
Valdearg: @Gelly: It's a liberal blog. Its not designed to be balanced. Does that mean that everything there is completely false, and not worth investigating? Nope.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:12am
Valdearg: To be completely honest, I would argue that that assessment is more biased and farther from reality than the Daily Kos assessment.
Valdearg: To be completely honest, I would argue that that assessment is more biased and farther from reality than the Daily Kos assessment.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:12am
gellymatos: I'm sure the story itself is true, it's just that the site seems to be biased. More so than Fox. And that takes effort.
gellymatos: I'm sure the story itself is true, it's just that the site seems to be biased. More so than Fox. And that takes effort.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:11am
Valdearg: Would you rather I link straight to the horses mouth? Here's the story from the Law Center involved in the suit.
Valdearg: Would you rather I link straight to the horses mouth? Here's the story from the Law Center involved in the suit.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:10am
Valdearg: @Gelly: I love how you jumped on the A_L train, and EVERYTHING that EVER comes from Daily Kos is questionable. Clearly, NONE of it could POSSIBLY merit a closer look.
Valdearg: @Gelly: I love how you jumped on the A_L train, and EVERYTHING that EVER comes from Daily Kos is questionable. Clearly, NONE of it could POSSIBLY merit a closer look.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:09am
gellymatos: I'm sorry. I thought you were attacking the church due to your history of doing so. My bad.
gellymatos: I'm sorry. I thought you were attacking the church due to your history of doing so. My bad.
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:08am
gellymatos: ...that these laws will make it illegal to voice an opinion against gay marriage. Third, Your source is questionable. And by...
gellymatos: ...that these laws will make it illegal to voice an opinion against gay marriage. Third, Your source is questionable. And by...
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:07am
Valdearg: @Gelly: Wow, jumping right to the defense of the church, despite the fact that I never implicated the Catholic church?
Valdearg: @Gelly: Wow, jumping right to the defense of the church, despite the fact that I never implicated the Catholic church?
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:06am
gellymatos: , not orders from the church. Second, the paranoia about these laws that SOME christians have is based off of the parnoid idea..
gellymatos: , not orders from the church. Second, the paranoia about these laws that SOME christians have is based off of the parnoid idea..
Posted 02/09/10 at 11:05am
gellymatos: Vald: Where to start. Oh yes. First, he doesn't seem to represent the whole church. His doing this out of his own conviction...
gellymatos: Vald: Where to start. Oh yes. First, he doesn't seem to represent the whole church. His doing this out of his own conviction...
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:59am
Valdearg: Honestly, the only thing I can imagine is the plaintiffs think it's their religious right to perpetrate violent criminal acts against homosexuals. Unfortunately, knowing some folks like that, it wouldn't surprise me if they did believe that.
Valdearg: Honestly, the only thing I can imagine is the plaintiffs think it's their religious right to perpetrate violent criminal acts against homosexuals. Unfortunately, knowing some folks like that, it wouldn't surprise me if they did believe that.
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:59am
Valdearg: @AE: I know, right? The only thing that law does is make a violent criminal act more severe if it was motivated by a hatred of homosexuals.
Valdearg: @AE: I know, right? The only thing that law does is make a violent criminal act more severe if it was motivated by a hatred of homosexuals.
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:43am
Andrew Eisen: What's amazing is the folks at that Law Center can't seem to read plain English that states that nothing in the law restricts someone's right to think what they want or say what they want.
Andrew Eisen: What's amazing is the folks at that Law Center can't seem to read plain English that states that nothing in the law restricts someone's right to think what they want or say what they want.
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:39am
Valdearg: But, hey, people are capable of anything when they use their religion as justification for their blatantly bigoted behavior.
Valdearg: But, hey, people are capable of anything when they use their religion as justification for their blatantly bigoted behavior.
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:35am
Valdearg: It's amazing, that anyone with any humanity, whatsoever, would challenge a law that adds protections to a group of people who are excessively targeted for violent attacks, based strictly on who they are.
Valdearg: It's amazing, that anyone with any humanity, whatsoever, would challenge a law that adds protections to a group of people who are excessively targeted for violent attacks, based strictly on who they are.
Posted 02/09/10 at 10:33am
Valdearg: Essentially, he claims the law infringes on a Catholic's God Given right to express their beliefs. This is only true if he believes it's his God given right to use someone's homosexuality as motivation to assault, murder, or maim them.
Valdearg: Essentially, he claims the law infringes on a Catholic's God Given right to express their beliefs. This is only true if he believes it's his God given right to use someone's homosexuality as motivation to assault, murder, or maim them.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
"Please provide us with evidence that will allow us to have more control over your lives. For the sake of the children, naturally."
--------------------------------------------------
I LIKE the fence. I get 2 groups to laugh at then.
Government organization considering grab for more power. Film at eleven.
In other breaking news, experts are quoted as saying the sun is "very likely" to rise tomorrow morning.
Recent surveys and studies have shown that kids use online media to watch porn *GASP* and because of the video games they play they become raving, raping madmen with no moral values and are most likely going to jail then they would not playing video games and not going online.
Here in the studio we have a qualified psychologist who has written several books totally unrelated to the matter to talk to you about this, more at 11.
- FOX NEWS
"God, is that you?"
"No! It's a me, Mario!"
This seems like a potential hot-button issue coming up in a few years (as more people take notice). Various government entities want control over media. Hell, there is even that move the Senate took recently to give the president emergency control over the internet. (naturally, nobody cared because a celebrity is currently in office)
Heh, if anything the FCC needs to be dissolved. It's outlived it's usefulness, and is only a bullying tool for the PTC
If I may be so bold...griping here may be satisfying in the short term but will get us nowhere long-term.
The FCC is calling for COMMENTS...this is our chance, as a group, to have our voices heard. I would urge each of us to take 20 minutes to write a respectful, coherent comment on these issues and submit them to the FCC. This will help us get some balance on this issue.
For those who know of information that contradictions the "traditional view"...that, in particular, would be a valuable contribution to this discussion.
And remember, keep it respectful, coherent and reasonably short.
Ok, off my soapbox...
Didn't it say we have to wait 60 days to respond? I don't know how to contact them with comments they are requesting.
---------------------------------------------------- Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
I see what you're referring to, but I believe it's "legaleze"...it says 60 days after publication in the federal register...I believe that has now happened. At any rate they seem to be accepting comments at this time on their web-page (the web-page to deliver the comments is toward the end of the .pdf document in the link. You have to write out a .doc file, and upload it).
Well, I no longer live in the Unites States so have fun guys. I suffer from chronic lazyness that prevents me from doing this, but I wish you guys the best of luck!
"God, is that you?"
"No! It's a me, Mario!"
Let's say for the sake of argument that video game censorship is constitutional (yes I know how hard it is to swallow this). What authority would the FCC have to make the rules for game censorship?
Video games are not commuinication in much the same way as a movie or a book is not communication. Sure some of them involve the internet but the FCC has no authority there in terms of content control (at least not now). Let's take God of War 3, the game has no multiplayer and no online to speak of (it may have DLC though), how could the FCC possibly justify that the game would fall under their jurisdiction?
I used to cling to the hope that the FCC is not filled with censoring trash, and that they instead are just regular people obliged to censor the TV and respond to complaints as per the letter of the law. Now that's been shattered.
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
"Thanks2 Sean'"
Your welcome.... (j/k)
FCC will find limited success trying to wield the bleephammer on the internet. The most they could ever hope to accomplish is making suggestions to big names like YouTube or Google.
I for one want our government to keep things free and open, then step aside. Excpet where regulation is necessary. Like energy and other public utils.
"The vital role of government in this media environment is therefore to empower parents and protect children, while honoring and abiding by the First Amendment."
Sorry, but the First Amendment needs to be first and foremost, not just an afterthought. The children will be fine.
Oh behalf of the extra 10 dollars my parents have to spend due to the FCC giving Cablevision a slap on the wrist fine while not making sure they didn't fix what got them fined in the first place:
($%^ you FCC. MOST USELESS ORGANIZATION EVER!
Wait, wasn't the ECA praising the FCC just a few days ago?
ECA, small hint: You can't give some power to the government and expect them not to take everything they can.
I read somewhere that Genachowski was one of the founding members of Common Sense Media.