PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2650-2652)
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Mar 14, 2005
Indecent and Gratuitous and Excessively Violent Programming Control Act of 2005 - Directs the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to assess the: (1) technological and practical effectiveness of measures that require television broadcast station licensees (licensees) and multichannel video programming distributors (MVPDs) to rate and encode programming that could be blocked by parents; (2) prevalence of violent programming on television; and (3) effectiveness of the current system for rating and encoding violent programming. Requires the FCC, if it determines that current rating and encoding measures are not effective in protecting children from violent or indecent video programming, to initiate and conclude a rulemaking proceeding to: (1) prohibit licensees from broadcasting such programming during children's viewing hours; or (2) adopt measures that adequately protect children from such programming. Provides exemptions, including premium and pay-for-view services.
Amends the Communications Act of 1934 to provide forfeiture penalties for licensees or license applicants determined to have broadcast obscene, indecent, or profane language or images. Outlines factors to be considered in determining penalty amounts, including: (1) whether the material was live or recorded, scripted or unscripted; (2) whether a time delay blocking mechanism was implemented; (3) the size of the audience and market; and (4) whether the violation occurred during children's viewing hours. Requires public hearings with respect to violations of indecency prohibitions.
Requires licensees or permittees that receive programming from an unaffiliated network to be given reasonable opportunity to review all recorded or scripted programming in advance, and to preempt any violating programming.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Requires each licensee, MVPD, and other programming service to provide a warning of the specific content of each recorded or scripted program it broadcasts.
Directs the FCC to: (1) assess the effectiveness of voluntary programming rating standards; and (2) require each licensee to broadcast daily at least six hours of educational and informational programming.
Expresses the sense of Congress that each licensee, MVPD, and other programming service should reinstitute or adopt provisions set forth in the "Television Code of the National Association of Broadcasters," as adopted on December 6, 1951.
People & committees
Sen. Rockefeller, John D., IV [D-WV] · D–WV
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. (text of measure as introduced: CR S2650-2652)
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2649-2650)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Sep 8, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.616 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.616 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.616 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.616 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.