S. 1780, The Protecting Children from Indecent Programming Act
- This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.
Revision History 
Below is the revision history of this article.
(Learn how to edit the WashingtonWatch.com wiki.)
(Latest | Earliest)
To look at a past version, click on its date. To compare any two versions, select their radio buttons and click on "Compare Selected Versions." To compare a past version with the current version, click on (cur). To compare a version with the preceding version, click on (last).
Cost per :
Learn More
RSS Feeds for This Bill
Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)
Visitor Comments
Sportslaw
July 20, 2007, 9:12am (report abuse)The text of the bill, if it ever becomes law, would guarantee legal challenges, and given the U.S. Court of Appeals Ruling on the FCC's "fleeting expletive" standard, would most likely be held overbroad and unconstitutional. The text of the bill "a single word may constitute indecent programming" lacks any kind of boundaries, as it simply piggybacks on the FCC's general regulatory powers. It also flies inthe face of 30 years of judicial precedent, beginning with the Pacifica ruling. Since indecent speech has constitutional protection (unlike obscene speech), a court must be sensitive as to whether the limitation is broader than necessary.This bill does not do that.
Could the 2008 elections be just around the corner?
S. Kincaid
September 17, 2007, 5:20pm (report abuse)I am surprised, although by no means shocked, that this bill even exists; are we that frightened of our children saying a naughty word or reciting a naughty limerick? It would seem to me that, what with our friends the Internet, movies, text-messages, and the like, it's nigh impossible to protect a child from such a thing.
And what exactly are we protecting them from? I think most people fail to address the real issue: why do we feel it's bad? Do you know? Think hard and long before you knock words that have existed for thousands of years and only now are expletive.
Also, I'd love to know what the audience is. Is it toddlers? Kindergarteners? Preteens? Teens? All of the above? I didn't learn my potty-words from TV: I learned them on the playground. Something to bear in mind. Kids find this stuff out anyway. If we start persecuting those who swear, we’ll all be in the slammer some time.
D. Wojda
December 4, 2007, 9:21pm (report abuse)In response to S. Kincaid's questions. The audience, as already defined, is anyone exposed to primetime programming, which is everyone. Not every child has exposure to the internet, cell phones, and/or inappropriate movies. Also, good for you, you did not learn your potty-words from TV. Good point. That is because there were no potty-words TV prior to a few years ago. That's the advantage we would like to continue to give others. Also - just to educate, these words have not existed for thousands of years; they are mostly slang words that have developed thru recent generations and will continue to develop throughout ours.
L. Higginbotham
August 27, 2008, 10:56am (report abuse)Well put, Wojda. I don't like my kids to use words like "screwed" and "sucks", and those meanings have developed within the last couple of decades, even though the words themselves have been around for ages. Just because kids are going to hear those words "someday", doesn't mean we have to willingly allow them to come into our homes. My 3 children have extremely limited access to television, internet, phones, etc. I feel it's bad because that type of language is most often used in a negative way - anger, disrespect, demeaning. Why can't we fill our programming with intelligent words instead of resorting to the low-brow ones? How many teenagers know what pother means? But ask them what the F word means, and I'm sure they could tell you.