SB 2018-182: Free Speech Protection Act (Final Vote)

[Lumine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Sponsor: Senator Reactionary.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So as far as legislative history ... this bill began in response to something I was tasked by the Southern Chamber of delivering here. Last session we passed a law which included the following language:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the crux of this bill was constitutionally suspect broadcast censorship. But I figured while we were in the neighborhood, why not clean up a lot of the gross free speech violations in federal law.

2-1 removes jail time as an available punishment for using "obscene language" on tv or radio.

2-2 protects broadcasting licenses from being revoked over swear words.

2-3 and 2-4 remove federal interference in children's tv.

2-5 and 2-6 allow rap and hip hop music to be heard as intended by the artist over the radio.

2-7 allows lottery information over the radio. GASP!

2-8 helps preserve the FM radio market as a medium for free speech.

3-1 allows citizens to collect petition signatures on the sidewalk near post offices which is sometimes prohibited.

3-2 helps New York, since there are rules for billboard size limits near federal highways and the electronic billboards in Times Square are arguably in violation. This protects Time Square as is.

3-3 codifies the Supreme Court opinion of United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), re: flag burning.

3-4 codifies the Supreme Court opinion of Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970), re: wearing military uniforms in anti-war plays.

3-5 and 3-6 eliminate the compulsory participation in a pair of marketing boards. These are just like the ones we discussed in the farm bill. 1 is for propane and 1 is for paper packaging. It codifies the Supreme Court opinion of United States v. United Foods, Inc., 533 U.S. 405 (2001).

3-7 prevents certain large employers from mandating the religious or political participation of employees.

3-8 allows the press to ask polling questions to members of the military.

3-9 makes it easier to assemble and speak on federal land.

3-10 eliminates a dumb rule that regulates mail including "investment advice".

3-11 codifies the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion of RJ Reynolds v. FDA, 696 F.3d 1205 (D.C. Cir. 2012) re: compelled advertising.

3-12 reduces the harsh punishment imposed under the animal enterprise terrorism act for trespassing onto a stockyard to take pictures.

I hope we can all join together and protect free speech. Without freedom of speech we are animals.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Also if you need a better understanding of the changes, I have included the IRL citations to the US Code or Code Federal Regulations being targeted for removal or amendment.

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

This bill defends free speech for people in our society as it is very important for government to not intrude on it.

[Lumine]

As it currently stand I cannot support this. Mind you there's a lot of what I truly believe are useless or arcane regulations that need to go, and that does cover most of the bill. However, I do believe there are some standards that should be kept on TV considering the impact it may have particularly on children, just as I believe that there should be certain limits which I frankly do not consider as infringing freedom of speech (or at least not in a dangerous manner). I also think there should be a limit as to what should be shown on TV, even if the FCC clearly oversteps its bounds from time to time.

In particular, I believe it is important to retain limits on advertising considering the impact it does have, just as I think it is a good idea to actually have a minimum for educational programming considering the potential positive effects in our youth as opposed to more... let's say mindless forms of TV programming.

I propose an amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

I object to this amendment on the ground that I believe that the role of the federal government should not be to ban certain types of unsavory speech on broadcasted television. If a region wishes to legislate morality in this manner, they can try do so at the regional level.

[Lumine]

I object to this amendment on the ground that I believe that the role of the federal government should not be to ban certain types of unsavory speech on broadcasted television. If a region wishes to legislate morality in this manner, they can try do so at the regional level.

Objection noted. Per the rules, a vote will start within 24 hours.

[_]

I also Object for what it's worth.  I don't believe that striking any of those provisions is correct, EXCEPT for the FCC Part, I'd like to have a debate on that specific section.

Also,

3. 33 U.S.C. § 700 criminalizing the desecration of flags is hereby repealed.
4. 10 U.S.C. §772 criminalizing the wearing of a military uniform for defamatory purposes is hereby repealed.

Aren't these 2 rules unconstitutional anyway?  Wasn't Flag Burning ruled constitutional?

[Mr. Reactionary]

I also Object for what it's worth.  I don't believe that striking any of those provisions is correct, EXCEPT for the FCC Part, I'd like to have a debate on that specific section.

Assuming we vote down the amendment, once debate continues I am willing to discuss the FCC provision and consider an alternative that does not deprive the FCC of all power over content.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), re: flag burning.

Schacht v. United States, 398 U.S. 58 (1970), re: wearing military uniforms in anti-war plays.

The Supreme Court said enforcement of these laws is unconstitutional, but we need to go through the formality of repealing the code section to remove it from the books.

[Lumine]

Amendment vote open, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay!

[_]

Nay

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Lumine]

Amendment rejected.

Offering a milder amendment:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

[Mr. Reactionary]

Would it be allowable to discuss each proposed deletion separately before voting on this amendment? Ive expressed a willingness to consider deleting II-5 or narrowing the scope of the change if we can figure out a largely neutral framework for censorship.

I think the rules for TV programming and the rule for rap lyrics have different deficiencies I would like to discuss in further detail. Im pretty firm on these provisions, but my priority order is:

II-6, II-4, II-3.

If not, then I also find this Amendment hostile.

[Lumine]

Would it be allowable to discuss each proposed deletion separately before voting on this amendment? Ive expressed a willingness to consider deleting II-5 or narrowing the scope of the change if we can figure out a largely neutral framework for censorship.

I think the rules for TV programming and the rule for rap lyrics have different deficiencies I would like to discuss in further detail. Im pretty firm on these provisions, but my priority order is:

II-6, II-4, II-3.

If not, then I also find this Amendment hostile.

I'm certainly willing to discuss it, yes. I can see the argument for 2.6 being retained even though I personally don't like it (and it seems there's broad agreement in doing something about 2.5), but I continue to have misgivings on 2.3 and 2.4 in particular.

So let me ask for your opinion, why would you consider it necessary to remove limits on advertising during children's TV programming (my assumption being of course that children are known to be influenced by such advertising in ways that can prove negative)? And the same goes to 2.4, shouldn't there be at least a minimum of educational programming? I get of course that there's only so much limits you should impose on television, but I'm not optimistic about the programming that will replace educational shows given the current quality of TV.

[Mr. Reactionary]

So I love animation, including its history. I mourn for the kids of today who were deprived of the stellar cartoon content I got to experience as a child during the Animation Renaissance of the late 80s - 90s.

When Congress passed regulations mandating time be set aside for educational content when children were supposed to be already watching, it effectively killed non-cable TV's ability to compete with Cable networks which were not subject to the limits. Below is a discussion of the impact of educational requirements from a Wikipedia article on the Animation Renaissance:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Similarly, I feel that limiting advertising time reduces interest in producing a cartoon product that is not dependent on merchandise sales. Think of a lot of the pre-Renaissance cartoons, and they were largely toy-driven with poor content. (GI Joe, He-Man, Transformers, Rainbow Bright, Carebears, Strawberry Shortcake, Rubik the Amazing Cube, etc.).

While I do find the content regulations in II-4 and II-5 offensive to free speech, my primary interest is to kill the bad rules that killed good animation.

[Wisconsin+17]

Commercial time limits strike me as an obsolete, and antiquated mechanism. I agree with Lumine on 5 and 6 though. If we're to have anything that is considered 'childrens' programming there is going to have to be some oversight.

[Lumine]

The problem is that at some point you need to have limits, even when we're discussing free speech. And television in particular is an area in which guidelines are very relevant because, even if it has lost audiences to other mediums it still influences millions of Atlasians through its content.

Now that we have some extra context (and I would thank you for it, it was necessary for me to learn of it), I'm actually persuaded that the right direction here is in favor of more stricter rules in certain contexts rather than to get rid of them. If anything, expanding them to cable networks might be an interesting answer to raise standards while negating an unfair advantage.

I may propose an amendment to that purpose later, but for the time being my amendment stands and per Reactionary's post is considered hostile.

Senators, a vote has started now on the amendment, please vote AYE, NAY or ABSTAIN:

[Mr. Reactionary]

Nay

[_]

Nay!

[Lumine]

Aye.

[Former Senator Haslam2020]

Nay

[At-Large Senator LouisvilleThunder]

Nay