Kill off the FCC

[Steerpike]

JD...you aren't understanding the case law. Your statement that words that incite violence aren't protected is factuallu incorrect or at best incomplete. Also, you should review the definition of obscenity from a legal point of view, as well as how that test is applied. I don't think you are interpreting it correctly.

If you are interested in discussing the current state of the law in these areas, it is an engaging topic. If you're simply interested in appearing to be correct in the forums, I will start a topic for those who are interested.

 

[Contumacious]

JD...you aren't understanding the case law. Your statement that words that incite violence aren't protected is factuallu incorrect or at best incomplete. Also, you should review the definition of obscenity from a legal point of view, as well as how that test is applied. I don't think you are interpreting it correctly.

If you are interested in discussing the current state of the law in these areas, it is an engaging topic. If you're simply interested in appearing to be correct in the forums, I will start a topic for those who are interested.

I believe that she would be happier in a theocratic state like Iran, Afghanistan, Alabamistan.......

.

 

[Father Time]

This is an oversimplification and isn't entirely correct. In fact the example you gave would likely be protected. It merely advocates the idea of violence at some undefined future time, and there is no threat of an imminent occurrence of that violence.

The State can regulate this kind of speech if it both incites imminent lawless action and is likely to produce that imminent lawless action. Words that incite violence can very well be protected speech.

You know for a supposed paralegal she's not showing a whole lot of law to back her statements up.

Bull. I gave y'all plenty of first amendment case law.. You and your idiot friend Cont just do one of these "control + F" searches of the page of ONE term, and that is all.

Yeah we were discussing hate speech so I looked for the term hate speech. Although I did do more as per your request and found nothing.

You just do not have the BALLS to read through and look at the quoted cases and text that I included early on in this thread, either.

The supreme court document you gave me is 187 pages long and it deals with broadcasting not with hate speech which is what I challenged you on. So no I'm not bored enough to read the whole thing. Although it's your fucking argument and your damn citation why the hell can't you point me to the paragraphs that prove your point? Why is it you won't make more citation but instead are trying to leech off the ones I bring?

Try looking through the Cornell law database for "profanity" and other words like "excrement" and such.

I'm not doing your work for you, it's your job to come up with law that supports your claim not my job to look for them (and did you all ready forget we're talking about hate speech)?

CERTAIN words are not going to be allowed, though- and that is always how it should be, to avoid a detriment to society.

Because if we don't have language police how would we ever survive. Let's ignore free speech and all that stuff we just can't have people offended by those words we (well not we, since not everyone agrees on what words are taboo so more accurately you) arbitrarily make out as 'bad'. If you ban or partially ban the words you give them power and weight they didn't have before and make them a big help to anyone who wants to make a point.

One can express their opinions without making the opinion into some kind of X-Rated freak show that would cause even Howard Stern to blush. It is not necessary to use all that profane language and obscene imagery to express one's views.

You're really going to pull the 'you don't need it therefore it's ok for us to take it away from you' crap? The least you can do is stop pretending you're a libertarian since you don't care about free speech. "You can express your views except for ways we don't like".

Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government." -Lenny Bruce

As a result, the first amendment does not protect that kind of speech or expression.

Only in broadcasting though.

Draw a picture and tape it to your wall in your home somewhere.. it does not belong on any publicly viewed airways. There is simply no justification for it.

The public can view other things if they don't like what they see. There's little justification for this censorship either.

 

[JD_2B]

JD...you aren't understanding the case law. Your statement that words that incite violence aren't protected is factuallu incorrect or at best incomplete. Also, you should review the definition of obscenity from a legal point of view, as well as how that test is applied. I don't think you are interpreting it correctly.

If you are interested in discussing the current state of the law in these areas, it is an engaging topic. If you're simply interested in appearing to be correct in the forums, I will start a topic for those who are interested.

Actually, it is CORRECT and I have, on numerous occassions posted case law that proves this as factual. I have also quoted Thomas Jefferson, because asshole Cont wants to think that libertarians should support everything that the mouth is capable of spewing out.

You need to understand the people in the thread before taking sides. Cont is the one being unreasonable, not me. I could care less about being correct. If I stand corrected, with case law, especially, I take it as the lawful truth and use it as such. I am like a soldier. I am perfectly capable of lateral thinking, but this disagreement is not about MY personal opinion, just the fact that Contumacious and Radioman REFUSE to read even in PART the caselaw I cited multiple cases and sources for them on multiple fucking occassions. The fact that you don't want to read any of it is not my issue or my fault. It is ALSO not my fault that certain people on here are oversensitive about my position, which is not in allowing all foul words and things to be restricted or regulated, even, but in certain things to be. I have repeatedly said that it is not allowed for them to restrict overly tightly on this matter.

To REHASH, since there are no instant replays for y'all...

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1639648-post15.html

Under First Amendment doctrine, many types of speech receive the most stringent levels of constitutional protection, whereas o

Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc. 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York 447 U.S. 557 (1980).
Valentine v. Chrestensen 316 U.S. 52 (1942).
Cent. Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

Forums | LII / Legal Information Institute

First Amendment protections of speakers’ rights to speech and assembly vary based on the speakers’ chosen forum. The Supreme Court breaks down forums into three types: traditional public forums, designated forums, and nonpublic forums. See Perry Educ. Ass’n v. Perry Educators’ Ass’n, 460 U.S. 37 (1983). Finally, some public property is not a forum at all.


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1642712-post37.html

Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49, 65–70 (1973)(commercial showing of obscene films to consenting adults); Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 (1986) (private, consensual, homosexual conduct); Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 111 Ct. 2456 (1991) (regulation of non– obscene, nude dancing restricted to adults).

CRS/LII Annotated Constitution First Amendment

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1643958-post40.html
FCC v. FOX TELEVISION STATIONS, INC.
"shit" counts because it refers to excretory activities..


Thomas Jefferson quotes
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1654312-post164.html

More TJ Quotes
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1655034-post166.html

RSACi Rules/ Definitions
http://www.usmessageboard.com/1656740-post171.html
RSACi - Registration - Definitions

 

[KittenKoder]

JD, you don't get one point I made, censorship by the government is wrong, period.

 

[asaratis]

I wonder why no one's defending the FCC? Surely there must be someone here who thinks the FCC is needed.

I was getting defensive 'til you moved the goalpost with this:

I wonder why no one's defending the FCC? Surely there must be someone here who thinks the FCC is needed.

I will defend the FCC
The FCC is responsible for all spectrum use in the United States. They are one of the most important agencies in government.
Without the FCC allocating spectrum, bandwidth and power levels there would be no cell phones, satellite communications, internet, GPS

Ok since I don't know the other functions olf the FCC very well I should've said who will defend the FCC's censoring of media?

 

[asaratis]

JD, you don't get one point I made, censorship by the government is wrong, period.

You are right! They are wrong! Control to them should not belong.

 

[Contumacious]

Cont is the one being unreasonable, not me. I could care less about being correct. ]

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

TEXAS V. JOHNSON, 491 U. S. 397 (1989)


I would like to suggest that tonight you should go out Trick-or-treating dressed as:

Beulah Ballbreaker

.

 

[JD_2B]

Cont is the one being unreasonable, not me. I could care less about being correct. ]

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

TEXAS V. JOHNSON, 491 U. S. 397 (1989)


I would like to suggest that tonight you should go out Trick-or-treating dressed as:

Beulah Ballbreaker

.

You see my photo, right, contrag? Yeah..

Anyways.. I agree with the above statement. The government should not suppress ideas, no matter how disagreeable they might be to society. I have never contested this.

However, there is a civil way of expressing those ideas, and a very uncivil way. the uncivil way is not protected. and neither should it be.

Its not the VIEW of the IDEA of WHAT a person is expressing that can be censored.. it's the MEANS to express it- the wording used.

We are adults, we are all capable of rational and civil discussion. Even if the adult is a nazi skinhead, or someone like you who supports child molestation, or whatever- there is always a WAY of expressing those dispicable thoughts that do not require the use of things like, say, child pornography or threatening speech, or EVEN words that not only demean you as an individual, but also cause your idea to appear less attractive than ever before.

You and Yukon prefer to say "fuck the little babys.. those sluts- lets all shove broomsticks up their asses... fuck them!!" That is NOT an expression of an IDEA or anything even remotely constructive.

You and Yukon CAN say though "Nothing wrong with having sex with little girls.. We like that. They like it, too! They act like they want us to shove broomsticks up their butts, too, so we do it, willingly!"

The IDEA is disgusting.. and offensive to society.. but this could be printed in a paper this way, because it is a CIVIL and non threatening way of putting your EXPRESSION out there, as third class and utterly <puke, hurl, choke> filthy as that IDEA might be.

The IDEAS are not what should or may be censored.. Just HOW they are expressed can AND WILL be. Period.

 

[Father Time]

"There is always a WAY of expressing those dispicable thoughts that do not require the use of things like, say, child pornography or threatening speech"

I swear child pornography should have it's own Godwin's law derivative of it. Who the hell is trying to pretend child pornography is an expression of speech? Child pornography (using actual children) is the molestation and/or rape of children and then selling photos/videos of it. It's not even in the same league as threatening speech, even serious threats to a person's physical well being are not in the same league.

"or EVEN words that not only demean you as an individual, but also cause your idea to appear less attractive than ever before."

Yes you can also be offensive rude and incredibly insulting without using profanity, what's your point?

 

[RadiomanATL]

"There is always a WAY of expressing those dispicable thoughts that do not require the use of things like, say, child pornography or threatening speech"

I swear child pornography should have it's own Godwin's Law derivative of it.

We'll call it Yukon's Canon

 

[JD_2B]

"There is always a WAY of expressing those dispicable thoughts that do not require the use of things like, say, child pornography or threatening speech"

I swear child pornography should have it's own Godwin's law derivative of it. Who the hell is trying to pretend child pornography is an expression of speech? Child pornography (using actual children) is the molestation and/or rape of children and then selling photos/videos of it. It's not even in the same league as threatening speech, even serious threats to a person's physical well being are not in the same league.

There was a time when child pornography was considered to be "not so bad".. I want to catch y'all up with the times, because it IS bad.. and one of the reasons why this type of "expression" is not protected.

"or EVEN words that not only demean you as an individual, but also cause your idea to appear less attractive than ever before."

Yes you can also be offensive rude and incredibly insulting without using profanity, what's your point?

So what? Rode and offensive IDEAS are protected.. using vulgarity and certain types of other language in EXPRESSING THAT IDEA is considered threatening, and is therefore not protected speech. It doesnt matter WHAT you are saying... the only thing that is not protected is HOW you choose to say it. Jesus.

How is this so fucking difficult for you???

 

[Father Time]

"using vulgarity and certain types of other language in EXPRESSING THAT IDEA is considered threatening"

... Are you freaking serious? That is THE dumbest argument I've heard against profanity. Pretty much every swear word has at least one non-profane synonym so if I were to use the profane version I'd be threatening but if I were to say the same exact thing but without profanity I wouldn't?

Oh and I'd like to see evidence that profanity isn't protected outside of broadcasting.

 

[Contumacious]

You see my photo, right, contrag? Yeah.. .

You are physically very pretty, very charming.

Now I will try to deprogram you , at no charge , of course.

.

 

[JD_2B]

"using vulgarity and certain types of other language in EXPRESSING THAT IDEA is considered threatening"

... Are you freaking serious? That is THE dumbest argument I've heard against profanity. Pretty much every swear word has at least one non-profane synonym so if I were to use the profane version I'd be threatening but if I were to say the same exact thing but without profanity I wouldn't?

Oh and I'd like to see evidence that profanity isn't protected outside of broadcasting.

Uhhh yeah.. on an aircraft..

Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals - unoffical reports -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JIMMY HICKS, JERRY CANTY,
and LATONYA MOORE,

By a public school's coach, either in the locker room, or on the field

This paper will focus on the matter of First Amendment rights regarding free speech

Harris v. Victoria Independent School District, the Court rules, “In order for speech by a public employee to enjoy constitutional protection from retaliation by a public employer, the speech must involve a matter of public concern” (1999)

Second, the person’s interests must not be outweighed by the injury it could cause to the state as an employer, which is referred to as the Pickering Balance. In Pickering v. Board of Education, the Court states,

“A state has interests as an employer in regulating the speech of its employees that differs significantly form those that it possesses in connection with the regulation of the speech of the citizenry in general, and where a public school teacher contends that his dismissal is violative of his constitutional right to free speech, it is necessary to arrive at a balance between the interests of the teacher, as a citizen, in commenting upon matters of public concern, and the interest of the state, as an employer, in promoting the efficiency of the public services that it performs through its employees” (1968).

On the internet, concerning true anonymity (on bulletin boards, and anonymous remailers, for example) there are criminal behaviors.. (not necessarily profanity on its own, but speech that is harmful to the public in general)

MTTLR


Also, Libel and Slander are not protected, with or without profanity.. This does not require a press machine. Remember "freedom of the press" does not require that one owns a newspaper press company, or even sells their publications or uttered speech for profit or in any kind of business sense.

p201-pap

Hostile work environment (hate speech, generally, and with or without profanity, sexual harassment)

What Speech Does "Hostile Work Environment" Harassment Law Restrict?

Again (and again and again) it is not the IDEAS and the right to express your ideas that are at odds here.. Those are protected. HOW you go about it, is NOT entirely protected.
to assume otherwise is to admit to an anarchist individual status.

 

[mudwhistle]

Cont is the one being unreasonable, not me. I could care less about being correct. ]

"If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable."

TEXAS V. JOHNSON, 491 U. S. 397 (1989)


I would like to suggest that tonight you should go out Trick-or-treating dressed as:

Beulah Ballbreaker

.

You see my photo, right, contrag? Yeah..

Anyways.. I agree with the above statement. The government should not suppress ideas, no matter how disagreeable they might be to society. I have never contested this.

However, there is a civil way of expressing those ideas, and a very uncivil way. the uncivil way is not protected. and neither should it be.

Its not the VIEW of the IDEA of WHAT a person is expressing that can be censored.. it's the MEANS to express it- the wording used.

We are adults, we are all capable of rational and civil discussion. Even if the adult is a nazi skinhead, or someone like you who supports child molestation, or whatever- there is always a WAY of expressing those dispicable thoughts that do not require the use of things like, say, child pornography or threatening speech, or EVEN words that not only demean you as an individual, but also cause your idea to appear less attractive than ever before.

You and Yukon prefer to say "fuck the little babys.. those sluts- lets all shove broomsticks up their asses... fuck them!!" That is NOT an expression of an IDEA or anything even remotely constructive.

You and Yukon CAN say though "Nothing wrong with having sex with little girls.. We like that. They like it, too! They act like they want us to shove broomsticks up their butts, too, so we do it, willingly!"

The IDEA is disgusting.. and offensive to society.. but this could be printed in a paper this way, because it is a CIVIL and non threatening way of putting your EXPRESSION out there, as third class and utterly <puke, hurl, choke> filthy as that IDEA might be.

The IDEAS are not what should or may be censored.. Just HOW they are expressed can AND WILL be. Period.

Uh,....would you please quit trying to inject reason and common-sense into the discussion?

 

[Father Time]

The airplane case was on intimidating language and it even mentions such apply to non profane speech.

Hell it even supports my side.

"As an initial matter, we must address the Government's
threshold contention that profanity is not constitutionally
protected speech. This argument is meritless. The Supreme Court
has long held that, as a general rule, simple profanity or
vulgarity -- not rising to the level of "fighting words" or
obscenity -- is constitutionally protected speech.9 See, e.g.,
Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1972); Gooding v.
Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15
(1971); see generally Tribe, supra, § 12-10, at 849-56.
Although we disagree with the Government's broad contention
about the constitutional status of profanity, we do recognize
that general rules do have their exceptions."

 

[Steerpike]

Obscenity has no Constitutional protection.

The problem comes in defining obscenity. Vulgar or foul language is not necessarily obscenity. Pornography and obscenity are not synonymous under the law. Whether something is obscene is a factual determine made on a case by case basis, and you can have content that some people would find far, far out of bounds that a court might not consider obscene. And the definition of what is obscene can even change depending where the facts take place.

 

[chanel]

I haven't read this through but I do believe in controls on content on TV. Left to their own, networks would allow blowjobs during prime time. Youtube videos of gang rapes will be the new reality TV. I cannot monitor 100 channels that my children watch. I cannot prevent them from looking at the humiliation of females on the internet. I can only hope that there is less to choose from. Without monitors, it would be worse than it is now.

 

[Contumacious]

Obscenity has no Constitutional protection.The problem comes in defining obscenity. .

Well I define obscenity by giving examples:

1- Obama Hellcare
2- Federal Reserve Board
3- The invasion of Waco, Iraq, Afghanistan
4- etc