A New Jersey legislator wants cable networks that air poker shows to help addicts. Those stations should give money to treat people with gambling problems, she says, and if the donations aren't made voluntarily, she'll just write a new law.
Assemblywoman Joan Voss, a Democrat, on Tuesday called for a surcharge on state cable providers if the networks don't cooperate. "Cable television channels that are heavily promoting the Texas Hold 'Em rage should be held responsible for some of the unglamorous side effects, like juvenile gambling addictions," said Voss.
Hey lady, why stop at poker shows? ESPN could be made to pay into a healthcare fund for people with sports injuries. Maybe the Playboy Channel should start paying the therapy bills for sex addicts. And since mob shows could push the gullible into a life of crime, why don't we order HBO to send a check to the Crime Victims Fund for every new episode of The Sopranos?
It's young people's "easy access" to televised vice that concerns Ms. Voss — so logically, other low-threshold media might be next in line for some serious regulatin'. How about magazines and the Internet? They're everywhere, I tell you! Determined lawmakers like Ms. Voss can surely join hands to make Modern Drunkard magazine pay for the treatment of alcoholics. Cigar Aficionado will then have to compensate stogie-lovers who get emphysema. And because sites like nascarconnections and thatsracin.com arguably don't promote safe driving, why don't we tell them to pony up for the treatment of car-crash victims?
Honestly, the possibilities are endless.
P.S.: While we're on the subject of politicians extracting money from media outlets "for the public good," check out this AP story: In New Mexico, newspapers will now be required by law to publish free death notices. Next up: forcing dailies to run their readers' garage sale ads for free? Lost-pet notices to be printed at the publisher's expense? Ditto for birthday wishes and valentines? I'll keep you posted.
The attacks on liberty in the US are getting to be more and more of a concern. Unfortunately, I think they are the current farthest point along a fairly long line of things, and in order to correct things at this point a great deal that has gone before would have to be undone. If that could be accomplished, it would be a good thing.
Off the top of my head: litigation as curative, nanny statism, therapeutic paradigm of corrections, money as compensation for damages, Patriot Act, and so on.
Posted by: Poustman | Friday, March 11, 2005 at 05:59 PM