My Congressman, Jim Sensenbrenner, has some good ideas... but then he pulls crap like this and just pisses me off:

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III, R-Wis., told cable industry executives attending the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. conference here on Monday that criminal prosecution would be a more efficient way to enforce the indecency regulations.

"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner told the executives.

The current system -- in which the FCC fines a licensee for violating the regulations -- casts too wide a net, he said, trapping those who are attempting to reign in smut on TV and those who are not.

"People who are in flagrant disregard should face a criminal process rather than a regulator process," Sensenbrenner said. "That is the way to go. Aim the cannon specifically at the people committing the offenses, rather than the blunderbuss approach that gets the good actors.
...
While he expressed a wish to criminalize the indecency violations, he also applauded the cable industry for its actions. Cable companies allow customers to block channels they find offensive but still require the customers to pay for it.

"I think the industry is doing what it should be doing," he said. "I think this is the way it should go."

This article confuses the hell out of me. Which is it Jim? Do you want to criminialize indecency, or do you want companies to provide methods for people to choose what they want to see? You try to claim that they are one in the same. You're wrong. They are mutually exclusive. Some people like the smut that you want to ban. Filters aren't meant to get rid of it for everyone. They're meant to get rid of it for the people who don't want it, and allow it for those that do. Furthermore... currently cable TV operators are not under regulated by the FCC... although some members of Congress would like to change that. Are you proposing that change as well?

So what's next? Magazines? DVD's? And exactly what is indecent? It's been years since the Supreme Court ruled on pornography. The best they could come up with is "I'll know it when I see it". Is that the marvelously rigorous standard that you will use to decide who to deprive of their liberty through your new law?

I wrote about this last year after the MNF incident with Desperate Housewives when I said that the networks were Begging to Be Censored. It looks more and more like I was right. The solution I proposed there I think is still the best:

So here is my solution. Networks... be up front and honest about what you're going to show. Not only that, but choose appropriate venues for your material. When I turn on Monday Night Football, I actually want to watch football. I'm not watching it for the sexy promos. I don't watch the Super Bowl for the half time show, and I really don't know anyone who does. If I want sex on TV, then I'll watch porn. Screw subtlety. Viewers... if you don't want to watch adult shows, then don't turn it on. But that also means that you can't complain just because someone else might choose to turn it on. Finally to the FCC... well if the networks and the viewers both keep up their end of the bargain, you should be out of a job. It couldn't be this simple could it?

Jim... as it turns out your law just isn't needed. People already have the tools they require to avoid indecency on television. It's called a remote control. It's a wonderfully powerful device. Expect a harshly worded letter to this effect in your mailbox soon.