Kill off the FCC

[rightwinger]

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?

They can only censor media that is involved in interstate commerce.. commercialized media..

They just cannot censor the opinions or "expression"..

The freedom of speech does not extend to obscenity..

So, if the overarching question is why does the FCC get involved in content?

The answer is simple. The United States is a puritanical, sexually supressed country that is disproportionately influenced by religious right wing fanatics.

In their desire to control what everyone could watch, they used the FCC as a vehicle to control interstate communications

 

[Contumacious]

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?

They can only censor media that is involved in interstate commerce.. commercialized media..

They just cannot censor the opinions or "expression"..

The freedom of speech does not extend to obscenity..

So, if the overarching question is why does the FCC get involved in content?

The answer is simple. The United States is a puritanical, sexually supressed country that is disproportionately influenced by religious right wing fanatics.

In their desire to control what everyone could watch, they used the FCC as a vehicle to control interstate communications

Correct.

Luckily we have the internet and sat tv.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

With all the the devices parents can use to keep their kids from seeing bad thing on TV (V-chips, cable filters, parental controls, the god damn off button), is there any reason why we still need the useless pile of trash known as the FCC around? How is this censorship of nudity (and especially swearing) not a blatant breach of the 1st amendment? Why do we need government prescribing what is and isn't appropriate for TV?

You're talking about deregulating part of the FCC, which I agree with. However the FCC does a whole pile more than that, some of it actually important and useful. So I cannot agree with disbanding the FCC.

 

[Contumacious]

With all the the devices parents can use to keep their kids from seeing bad thing on TV (V-chips, cable filters, parental controls, the god damn off button), is there any reason why we still need the useless pile of trash known as the FCC around? How is this censorship of nudity (and especially swearing) not a blatant breach of the 1st amendment? Why do we need government prescribing what is and isn't appropriate for TV?

You're talking about deregulating part of the FCC, which I agree with. However the FCC does a whole pile more than that, some of it actually important and useful. So I cannot agree with disbanding the FCC.

Yes, indeed. There are actually important and useful things that they do such as .........er...............uhum................cough.................sigh.............ahh...............never mind.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

With all the the devices parents can use to keep their kids from seeing bad thing on TV (V-chips, cable filters, parental controls, the god damn off button), is there any reason why we still need the useless pile of trash known as the FCC around? How is this censorship of nudity (and especially swearing) not a blatant breach of the 1st amendment? Why do we need government prescribing what is and isn't appropriate for TV?

You're talking about deregulating part of the FCC, which I agree with. However the FCC does a whole pile more than that, some of it actually important and useful. So I cannot agree with disbanding the FCC.

Yes, indeed. There are actually important and useful things that they do such as .........er...............uhum................cough.................sigh.............ahh...............never mind.

.

So you like to talk about things you know nothing about? Seems to be a past-time of yours.

 

[Contumacious]

You're talking about deregulating part of the FCC, which I agree with. However the FCC does a whole pile more than that, some of it actually important and useful. So I cannot agree with disbanding the FCC.

Yes, indeed. There are actually important and useful things that they do such as .........er...............uhum................cough.................sigh.............ahh...............never mind.

.

So you like to talk about things you know nothing about? Seems to be a past-time of yours.

some of it actually important and useful....such as:

 

[RadiomanATL]

Yes, indeed. There are actually important and useful things that they do such as .........er...............uhum................cough.................sigh.............ahh...............never mind.

.

So you like to talk about things you know nothing about? Seems to be a past-time of yours.

some of it actually important and useful....such as:

Regulating power, frequency, height, mileage between broadcasting sites on similar frequencies, safety of operation of broadcasting facilities....

Want me to go on?

The bottom line is that the government "owns" the airwaves. And while I disgaree with their regulation of content, many other regulations that the FCC enforces are there for the good of the population and for the good of the competition between commercial broadcasting entities.

 

[Contumacious]

The bottom line is that the government "owns" the airwaves. .

Privatize the Airwaves!

The airwaves have been socialized for so long that most people accept it as natural and proper. It is neither. First, let’s get something straight: just because we call them “the public’s airwaves,” it doesn’t mean that’s what they are. Anything said to be owned by the public is actually controlled by the government — politicians and bureaucrats. If you think you are a real part-owner of the airwaves, try selling your “share.” Real owners can sell what they own.

The spectrum started out as a privately owned, homesteaded resource, as innovators discovered how to use it to satisfy various human wants (information, entertainment, et cetera). Of course, in the early days of radio, broadcasters interfered with one another’s transmissions. But rather than asking the government to nationalize the airwaves, they went to court, just as landowners did in cases of trespass. The courts responded by applying the common-law principles of ownership. As a result, an orderly system of private airwaves was emerging, until it was derailed in the 1920s by the commerce secretary, Herbert Hoover, who has an odd reputation as a champion of laissez faire. As historian Murray Rothbard described it, “Hoover by sheer administrative fiat and the drumming up of ‘voluntary cooperation’ was able to control and dictate to the radio industry and keep the airwaves nationalized until he could secure passage of the Radio Act of 1927. The act established the government as inalienable owner of the airwaves, the uses of which were then granted to designated licensed favorites.” In return for licenses, the government imposed various obligations. In recent years, those obligations have been eased or eliminated, but the government still holds the ultimate power to revoke the license of any television or radio station in the country.

,

 

[JD_2B]

And the fact that these lawsuits constantly having to be filed under a homestead standing were a public nuisance TO the court system, calling for congressional action, which is how the Radio Act came to be.


You are trying to say that individual state laws that can and do affect and can and do differ from the laws of other states, or the interests of other owners, should not be considered at all..

The reason we have "federal" laws is to just give a jurisdiction for these types of lawsuits, and to avoid all the headaches and hassles involved with state to state disagreements..

 

[Contumacious]

And the fact that these lawsuits constantly having to be filed under a homestead standing were a public nuisance TO the court system, calling for congressional action, which is how the Radio Act came to be.

As usual the pretext to create the FCC was because the " airwaves suffer from "chaos,".

That is no longer the case.

The fuckers have no authority to penalize anyone because Janet was kind enough to show us her boobie.

.

 

[JD_2B]

And the fact that these lawsuits constantly having to be filed under a homestead standing were a public nuisance TO the court system, calling for congressional action, which is how the Radio Act came to be.

As usual the pretext to create the FCC was because the " airwaves suffer from "chaos,".

That is no longer the case.

The fuckers have no authority to penalize anyone because Janet was kind enough to show us her boobie.

.

The CHAOS was not something the airwaves suffered from.. It was the courts suffering, and the owners having jurisdictional problems.

And.. Janet was "kind enough" to show her nipple to all the kids watching, and females who dont fucking want to see that shit.

Self righteous bastard..

 

[RadiomanATL]

The bottom line is that the government "owns" the airwaves. .

Privatize the Airwaves!

The airwaves have been socialized for so long that most people accept it as natural and proper. It is neither. First, let’s get something straight: just because we call them “the public’s airwaves,” it doesn’t mean that’s what they are. Anything said to be owned by the public is actually controlled by the government — politicians and bureaucrats. If you think you are a real part-owner of the airwaves, try selling your “share.” Real owners can sell what they own.

The spectrum started out as a privately owned, homesteaded resource, as innovators discovered how to use it to satisfy various human wants (information, entertainment, et cetera). Of course, in the early days of radio, broadcasters interfered with one another’s transmissions. But rather than asking the government to nationalize the airwaves, they went to court, just as landowners did in cases of trespass. The courts responded by applying the common-law principles of ownership. As a result, an orderly system of private airwaves was emerging, until it was derailed in the 1920s by the commerce secretary, Herbert Hoover, who has an odd reputation as a champion of laissez faire. As historian Murray Rothbard described it, “Hoover by sheer administrative fiat and the drumming up of ‘voluntary cooperation’ was able to control and dictate to the radio industry and keep the airwaves nationalized until he could secure passage of the Radio Act of 1927. The act established the government as inalienable owner of the airwaves, the uses of which were then granted to designated licensed favorites.” In return for licenses, the government imposed various obligations. In recent years, those obligations have been eased or eliminated, but the government still holds the ultimate power to revoke the license of any television or radio station in the country.

,

So having been proven wrong, you decide to change your argument?

Loon.

 

[KittenKoder]

They can only censor media that is involved in interstate commerce.. commercialized media..

They just cannot censor the opinions or "expression"..

The freedom of speech does not extend to obscenity..

So, if the overarching question is why does the FCC get involved in content?

The answer is simple. The United States is a puritanical, sexually supressed country that is disproportionately influenced by religious right wing fanatics.

In their desire to control what everyone could watch, they used the FCC as a vehicle to control interstate communications

Correct.

Luckily we have the internet and sat tv.

.

They're censoring a lot of that now as well though.

 

[JD_2B]

So, if the overarching question is why does the FCC get involved in content?

The answer is simple. The United States is a puritanical, sexually supressed country that is disproportionately influenced by religious right wing fanatics.

In their desire to control what everyone could watch, they used the FCC as a vehicle to control interstate communications

Correct.

Luckily we have the internet and sat tv.

.

They're censoring a lot of that now as well though.

Only the stuff that is seen in banner ads, and other advertising or commercial type content, including the stuff seen in shows.

And Satellite TV? Who cares how the shows come into your home? Just because they are bounced off of a satellite does not somehow make what is being broadcast/ bounced, pinged, etc out of and into the US any less of an interstate commerce issue..

 

[RadiomanATL]

Who cares how the shows come into your home?

The FCC.

If a private satellite beams a signal to a private receiver, the FCC no longer has the authority to censure content.

Power, frequency, etc...yes. Content, no. The FCC has the mandate to maintain the airwaves for "the public good" using a broad definition of public decency standards. Airwaves meaning broadcast frequencies under an outdated governmental definition that the feds never have updated, and would face fierce opposition to updating now (it's a definition that really doesn't bear too much on the discussion anyway, but basically means that if you can pick it up with an antenna it counts).

I say this because satellites do not use the broadcast frequencies as defined by the government. The use the air itself as a medium, yes, but the frequencies, no. Therefore the FCC cannot control the content under the public decency standards...which is the only way the FCC can control content anyway.

All of this is a long winded way of saying that ya, it matters very much how the signal enters your home, and it has nothing to do with an interstate commerce issue.

 

[Contumacious]

And the fact that these lawsuits constantly having to be filed under a homestead standing were a public nuisance TO the court system, calling for congressional action, which is how the Radio Act came to be.

As usual the pretext to create the FCC was because the " airwaves suffer from "chaos,".

That is no longer the case.

The fuckers have no authority to penalize anyone because Janet was kind enough to show us her boobie.

.

The CHAOS was not something the airwaves suffered from.. It was the courts suffering, and the owners having jurisdictional problems.

And.. Janet was "kind enough" to show her nipple to all the kids watching, and females who dont fucking want to see that shit.

Self righteous bastard..

Where the fuck were you when Janet "The Butcher of Waco" Reno was incinerating ALIVE 22 children in Waco, TX? What is more hurtful , to see Janet's nipple or to burned to death?

Had CBS or any other network shown something you disagree with boycott the station. You don't have to sic the FCC on them.

.

 

[JD_2B]

Who cares how the shows come into your home?

The FCC.

If a private satellite beams a signal to a private receiver, the FCC no longer has the authority to censure content.

Power, frequency, etc...yes. Content, no. The FCC has the mandate to maintain the airwaves for "the public good" using a broad definition of public decency standards. Airwaves meaning broadcast frequencies under an outdated governmental definition that the feds never have updated, and would face fierce opposition to updating now (it's a definition that really doesn't bear too much on the discussion anyway, but basically means that if you can pick it up with an antenna it counts).

I say this because satellites do not use the broadcast frequencies as defined by the government. The use the air itself as a medium, yes, but the frequencies, no. Therefore the FCC cannot control the content under the public decency standards...which is the only way the FCC can control content anyway.

All of this is a long winded way of saying that ya, it matters very much how the signal enters your home, and it has nothing to do with an interstate commerce issue.

You want to try to get the FCC on some ridiculous technicality based on the frequencies origins?? Well good luck with that- but I hate to break it to you- it will not slide..

The FCC also DOES have the right to regulate the content of these shows as long as it does not infringe on the station's or producer's freedom of expression or religion. Sorry, radioman with a bias, but words and images that are generally considered profane or obscene are not going to be allowed, as long as THE NATURE of the programming is commercial, whether in whole or in only a small part. The MEANS to which these programs are aired are hardly the issue to the end result of what is allowed and disallowed to BE aired. Not every type speech or imagery is protected by the first amendment..

You can very easily watch adult porn videos on TV, without worrying about censorship.. That is because those shows don't need to promote a product or service OR use commercial advertising..

Its not like these stations are told that EVERY show they air has to have X, Y and Z censored from viewing or hearing this shit. The decisions are made on a show by show basis...and very much based on their commercial nature, and are not even considered on a station by station basis, even..

 

[JD_2B]

As usual the pretext to create the FCC was because the " airwaves suffer from "chaos,".

That is no longer the case.

The fuckers have no authority to penalize anyone because Janet was kind enough to show us her boobie.

.

The CHAOS was not something the airwaves suffered from.. It was the courts suffering, and the owners having jurisdictional problems.

And.. Janet was "kind enough" to show her nipple to all the kids watching, and females who dont fucking want to see that shit.

Self righteous bastard..

Where the fuck were you when Janet "The Butcher of Waco" Reno was incinerating ALIVE 22 children in Waco, TX? What is more hurtful , to see Janet's nipple or to burned to death?

Had CBS or any other network something shown something you disagree with then boycott the station. You don't have to sic the FCC on them.

.

Yes I do have to..

If some guy hits me, it could be said that he is using his first amendment freedom of expression. Well, I could also just dump the guy, and not press charges.. But guess what? I happen to know that just dumping the guy is not going to help society as a whole, so I choose to press charges.. Violence is not protected under the First's freedom of fucking expression.

This is not about what an individual thinks, and more about where society's mores and ethos stand. If society in general would be even marginally disgusted with something being aired, and we are talking about shows aired in more than one state- then the FCC has the JURISDICTION and the right to censor whatever bits of the show are not deemed to be protected by the first amendment.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Who cares how the shows come into your home?

The FCC.

If a private satellite beams a signal to a private receiver, the FCC no longer has the authority to censure content.

Power, frequency, etc...yes. Content, no. The FCC has the mandate to maintain the airwaves for "the public good" using a broad definition of public decency standards. Airwaves meaning broadcast frequencies under an outdated governmental definition that the feds never have updated, and would face fierce opposition to updating now (it's a definition that really doesn't bear too much on the discussion anyway, but basically means that if you can pick it up with an antenna it counts).

I say this because satellites do not use the broadcast frequencies as defined by the government. The use the air itself as a medium, yes, but the frequencies, no. Therefore the FCC cannot control the content under the public decency standards...which is the only way the FCC can control content anyway.

All of this is a long winded way of saying that ya, it matters very much how the signal enters your home, and it has nothing to do with an interstate commerce issue.

You want to try to get the FCC on some ridiculous technicality based on the frequencies origins?? Well good luck with that- but I hate to break it to you- it will not slide..

The FCC also DOES have the right to regulate the content of these shows as long as it does not infringe on the station's or producer's freedom of expression or religion. Sorry, radioman with a bias, but words and images that are generally considered profane or obscene are not going to be allowed, as long as THE NATURE of the programming is commercial, whether in whole or in only a small part. The MEANS to which these programs are aired are hardly the issue to the end result of what is allowed and disallowed to BE aired. Not every type speech or imagery is protected by the first amendment..

You can very easily watch adult porn videos on TV, without worrying about censorship.. That is because those shows don't need to promote a product or service OR use commercial advertising..

Its not like these stations are told that EVERY show they air has to have X, Y and Z censored from viewing or hearing this shit. The decisions are made on a show by show basis...and very much based on their commercial nature, and are not even considered on a station by station basis, even..

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I was saying. But a nice attempt at....something I guess.

You said "Who cares how the shows come into your home?" I answered that question in how it relates to content.

If it comes across a satellite dish, the FCC cannot enforce the decency standards that it can upon broadcast entities. ILLEGAL images, such as kiddie porn, are something else entirely.

 

[JD_2B]

Nothing you said has anything to do with what I was saying. But a nice attempt at....something I guess.

You said "Who cares how the shows come into your home?" I answered that question in how it relates to content.

If it comes across a satellite dish, the FCC cannot enforce the decency standards that it can upon broadcast entities.

Well, you did a fine job of ignoring my post except for one sentence.. And you mischaracterized what my standpoint is, by only quoting the part you wanted to..

AGAIN..

Only the stuff that is seen in banner ads, and other advertising or commercial type content, including the stuff seen in shows.

And Satellite TV? Who cares how the shows come into your home? Just because they are bounced off of a satellite does not somehow make what is being broadcast/ bounced, pinged, etc out of and into the US any less of an interstate commerce issue..

In how it is aired, for starters:

You want to make this a technicality as to the means to an end- and I say (as well as historical case law) it doesnt matter what FORM the communication is in. Cable counts as much as broadcast does. Satellite will also be added to the mix, because it is just better technology, and has no bearing on the fact that it is, in fact, transmitted from one state to another. This is jurisdictional, and falls under the jurisdiction of the FCC, rather than the states. It makes no difference that it is bounced off of an orbiting satellite dish. We just don't have courtrooms in space. Get real.

Content:

Even in a public forum, or an in school debate, expletives would not always be allowed.. Hate speech is not allowed under the first amendment.. speech that incites violence is not allowed.. expletives and obscenity is not allowed. These things ON A FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL are not protected by the first amendment. If they are not protected by the constitution, then they CANT be somehow protected by the FCC. That is ridiculous.