A set of controversial television broadcasting regulations -- some of which the PLP claimed were more for Government's protection than the public's -- was passed by the Senate yesterday.

Senate President the Hon. Albert Jackson , vice president Sen. Norma Astwood and Sen. Joe Johnson , all three of whom are Independents, joined with the five United Bermuda Party senators in supporting the amendments, while the three Opposition senators remained staunchly against them.

The Opposition Senators were particularly concerned with a rule requiring talk show callers to give their names, addresses and telephone numbers before going on the air.

And Senate Opposition leader Sen. Alex Scott charged the Broadcast Commissioners were "not independent by any stretch of the imagination''.

In an effort to prove the commissioners had met with Government over the regulations, he said he understood they had a row with Cabinet and threatened to resign if forced to make any changes to them.

Government Senate Leader and Telecommunications Minister the Hon. Mike Winfield emphasised the new rules were "not Government regulations''.

They had been brought forth by the fully independent Broadcast Commissioners, he said.

There had been much controversy over them infringing freedom of speech, he conceded, but he said: "If I believed for one moment that they would impact negatively on the right of every Bermudian to freedom of speech, I would not for one moment be proposing them.

"They do not impact on the freedom of speech, rather emphasise the responsibility that comes with freedom of speech.'' Sen. Winfield said the set of new rules also included a requirement that alcohol advertisements carry a warning similar to, "Excessive alcohol consumption can be hazardous to your health.'' Government wanted to send a message of moderation but not prohibition to the community, he said. The requirement might be worded more toughly in the future, he said, but it was a "step forward'' that no other country had put in place yet.

And tobacco ads would be banned unless there were "overwhelming reasons'' to carry them, such as their being part of a tobacco-sponsored programme of great importance to the community.

Addressing a PLP submission that TV stations should be left to institute their own policies, as is the case with newspapers in their letters to the editor pages, he pointed out newspaper editors had far more time to read over letters from the public to ensure they were safe to print.

He noted another change to the Broadcasting Commissioners Act included new programme classifications, such as RP for religious programmes, instead of R -- "which could well mean quite the opposite''.

And anyone using TV to solicit funds must be a registered charity. Addressing a PLP concern, he noted it was "extremely easy'' to become a registered charity.

He understood it could be done by telephone. Sen. Winfield added a local station carrying a programme soliciting funds could simply register the religious organisation on the producer's behalf.

The regulation was to ensure their was no abuse of the power of the medium of television.

Sen. Scott said the Constitution clearly stated people had the right to freedom of speech "without interference''.

Government was "intervening'' by requiring talk show callers to give their names and other details. The requirement had not been placed on newspapers, he noted.

Sen. Scott said Sen. Winfield had failed to provide the name of any other democratic country which had the regulation in place. "Possibly South Africa does, or the (old) Germany,'' he offered.

He charged the regulations were "one more similarity between Bermuda and South Africa''. "Hamilton could be Pretoria (the capital of South Africa),'' he said.

Sen. Scott asked, "Why didn't Government just leave it up to the TV stations like they left it to the newspapers. In the rest of the free world, governments have taken a hands-off approach on issues like this.'' Tackling another regulation, Sen. Scott said Government was in the business of "soft sell'' by only requiring alcohol advertisers to warn that too much alcohol could be hazardous to one's health.

"Sen. Astwood is right, if alcohol came on the market now it would be banned outright. A skull and crossbones would be put on it,'' he said. "We should be saying, `Don't use it. Take one glass and you're on your way -- why bother?'' He added, "This is not a healthy piece of legislation.'' On a final note, Sen. Scott said he was sorry Government had not made more of an effort to increase local television programming.

Bermudians were being subjected to "cultural pollution''. From watching television, they know more about America's culture than their own, he claimed.

Supporting the regulations, Sen. Johnson said he believed the greatest threat to freedom of speech, was the abuse of freedom of speech.

"Those who execute their right responsibly will have nothing to fear under the regulations, but those who don't will face the full weight of the law,'' he said.

Sen. Trevor Woolridge (PLP) said Government had failed to produce an account of any incident which showed the need for the talk show restriction.

"Bermudians have demonstrated they can be responsible,'' he said. "Why can't we trust our citizens?'' Sen. Wendell Hollis (UBP) said the right to freedom of speech had to be balanced with a person's right to protect their reputation and integrity.

Sen. Hollis noted the PLP had "completely changed its tune'' by saying, in effect, that the Commissioners were so independent of Government that they had insisted nothing be changed in their draft of the regulations.

The Hon. Michael Winfield.