[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 73 (Friday, June 9, 2006)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1111]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




     S. 193, THE BROADCAST DECENCY ENFORCEMENT ACT: CONGRESSIONAL 
                              MALFUNCTION

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY

                              of illinois

                    in the house of representatives

                         Tuesday, June 6, 2006

  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the 
passage of S. 193, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. I object to 
the passage of this bill because of my strong belief that in any 
legislative attempt to express disapproval of what some consider to be 
objectionable speech or acts, we must be careful not to infringe upon 
the Constitutionally-protected right to free speech. This legislation 
is an overreaction to the 2004 Janet Jackson ``wardrobe malfunction.''
  I am a grandmother of four and I am concerned about what is making it 
onto the airwaves. I understand that many find the content and language 
used in some programs intolerable, especially for children. However, 
because I am also a strong proponent of the First Amendment and oppose 
inappropriate restrictions on free speech, I must weigh concerns about 
questionable content against the need to protect free speech.
  I think we also need to be careful about passing a bill that gives 
``Big Brother'' a heavy hammer to punish those who violate his notion 
of decency. I believe that increasing fines to $325,000 per incident 
would have a chilling effect on creativity, lead to second-guessing of 
material, pulling programs, and other forms of censorship. As I have 
said before, we run a great risk when our legislation threatens to 
undermine both our Constitution and our creativity.
  If we are serious about improving broadcast content, which is what I 
think people really want to do, then we need to address the fact that 
large media conglomerates are allowed to gobble up independent stations 
that are much more sensitive to the communities they serve. Large media 
conglomerates are the main sources of indecent programming. Since 1999, 
80 percent of the indecency findings have been against two media 
giants: Clear Channel and Viacom.
  Not only do they lack knowledge of local community standards, but 
they also drown out the diversity of voices and viewpoints. Our 
constituents would be better served if we were voting to limit the 
over-concentration of media ownership, not to increase fines.
  While I do not support S. 193, I am glad that my colleagues agree 
that the even more problematic H.R. 310 is not the route to take. 
Censoring artists with outrageous fines and threatening broadcasters' 
licenses should something ``indecent'' make it on the airwaves would 
have caused even more damage to our First Amendment than the bill 
before us today. Regardless, I think S. 193 opens the door to future 
attacks at one of our Nation's fundamental freedoms and I urge my 
colleagues to vote no.

                          ____________________