Kill off the FCC

[RadiomanATL]

Well, you did a fine job of ignoring my post except for one sentence..

Because the one sentence is wrong. And the rest of your post follows from that one sentence. It matters very much how the show comes into your home.

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.

And yet you repeat the incorrect assertion. It matters very much how the signal enters your home as it relates to the FCC censuring content. If it is a broadcast signal, then the FCC has control over content under the guidelines they have established. This is because the signal is being broadcast over "government owned" frequencies., essentially leased to the broadcast companies. And the signal is free and clear to be picked up by anyone with a television receiver.

If the signal enters your home via cable or satellite, then the FCC has very little regulatory power over content. This is because the user pays for the right to access the signals, and by doing so consensually agrees with the content being sent.

I do not know what argument you are continually trying to make. But it seems to have nothing to do with mine. That is that the FCC has no regulatory control over content of cable and television signals. I suppose that the FBI does, if the companies sent out illegal images, and I suppose that using cable/satellite signals in the commission of a crime might violate something in the FCC guidelines, but this is not what is being discussed.

 

[Contumacious]

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..

That statement confirms that you are a bitter femi-nazi determined to prevent nasty men from enjoying themselves.

Well, too fucking bad , satellite TV and cyberspace are LIBERTARIAN territory. So go forth and stew in your own juices. Let me go watch TEN on the dish network. Pussies look fantastic on HDTV.

.

 

[JD_2B]

Well, you did a fine job of ignoring my post except for one sentence..

Because the one sentence is wrong. And the rest of your post follows from that one sentence. It matters very much how the show comes into your home.

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.

And yet you repeat the incorrect assertion. It matters very much how the signal enters your home as it relates to the FCC censuring content. If it is a broadcast signal, then the FCC has control over content under the guidelines they have established. This is because the signal is being broadcast over "government owned" frequencies., essentially leased to the broadcast companies. And the signal is free and clear to be picked up by anyone with a television receiver.

If the signal enters your home via cable or satellite, then the FCC has very little regulatory power over content. This is because the user pays for the right to access the signals, and by doing so consensually agrees with the content being sent.

I do not know what argument you are continually trying to make. But it seems to have nothing to do with mine. That is that the FCC has no regulatory control over content of cable and television signals. I suppose that the FBI does, if the companies sent out illegal images, and I suppose that using cable/satellite signals in the commission of a crime might violate something in the FCC guidelines, but this is not what is being discussed.

But that is the POINT of what is being discussed...

And I think that you are just not seeing the forest for the trees is all. I do not claim that the FCC has dominance over anything and everything that the First Amendment entails..
I just see the need for the FCC historically, as a means to ending jurisdictional battles, regardless of the original wording of what types of signals are sent, or by whom..

You yourself said that the government owns the air, that these signals are sent by. You disagree with that. Your contention is that the government does not have power over the stuff that happens in the air. Then why not push to do away with the FAA, also? Because the atmosphere belongs not just to one state, but to all states, and since aircraft have to communicate with other aircraft that are in the air above a state other than one they are going to be landing in, this causes problems in regulations, on a state by state basis, and thus presents a need for the FAA.

Let me explain some things about property ownership to you..
Your property extends not just to the surface area of that your fence surrounds.. But also all the way to the core of the earth, and to the uppermost reaches of Earth's atmosphere. This is considered your personal property..

We are an individually governed country, meaning that we govern ourselves. We choose how to live our lives, what property we want and where, what kind of structures will exist there, etc. We may choose to have a property with an 800 story building on it, if we choose to... But we do that with the understanding that trying to do this in a suburb where the HOA agreement prohibits such a thing, will inevitably be rejected..

Also, the "air up there" above your property is very difficult for one owner to be able to enforce jurisdiction towards. Thus, this air is not OWNED by the government, but is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, in order to resolve complaints. This is entirely a jurisdictional matter, and the jurisdictional problems with would end up occurring if the FCC was eradicated would be the same as before- Chaotic and unnecessary. To say otherwise is asinine.

Cont- Do not compare yourself to a libertarian. You are an anarchist. Libertarians are not at all anti-law, anti-government. We are against BIG government, and unjust legislation that infringes upon inalienable rights to the people.

Both- I am very sorry to break it to you, but publicly airing shows full of obscenity, profanity, hate speech, etc, is not within anyone's first amendment rights. Censorship of such does not infringe on any single person's inalienable freedom of expression, religion, or political speech. There is nothing about this that type of censorship that is harmful to you or anyone else. You are both just going to have to deal with it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

But that is the POINT of what is being discussed...

So? You made an incorrect assertion, and I have corrected it. Thats all. I am not arguing against your other points, as you seem to think I am. All I have said, and continue to say, is that the FCC has very little regulatory control over content of cable/satellite broadcasts.

You yourself said that the government owns the air, that these signals are sent by. You disagree with that.

No, I have said that the government owns the frequencies. You are arguing against a position I have never taken.

Your contention is that the government does not have power over the stuff that happens in the air.

No, I am not. Again, you are arguing against a position I have never taken.

Let me explain some things about property ownership to you....

And let me explain something to you...

The government owns the frequencies. It has nothing to do with "property ownership" by private individuals of airspace.

Both- I am very sorry to break it to you, but publicly airing shows full of obscenity, profanity, hate speech, etc, is not within anyone's first amendment rights. Censorship of such does not infringe on any single person's inalienable freedom of expression, religion, or political speech. There is nothing about this that type of censorship that is harmful to you or anyone else. You are both just going to have to deal with it.

I never said that it did. I bolded the key word there for you which makes your statement true. Once again, you are arguing against a position I have never taken.

Do you ever get tired of that?

 

[JD_2B]

But that is the POINT of what is being discussed...

So? You made an incorrect assertion, and I have corrected it. Thats all. I am not arguing against your other points, as you seem to think I am. All I have said, and continue to say, is that the FCC has very little regulatory control over content of cable/satellite broadcasts.

No, I have said that the government owns the frequencies. You are arguing against a position I have never taken.

No, I am not. Again, you are arguing against a position I have never taken.

The government owns the frequencies. It has nothing to do with "property ownership" by private individuals of airspace.

Both- I am very sorry to break it to you, but publicly airing shows full of obscenity, profanity, hate speech, etc, is not within anyone's first amendment rights. Censorship of such does not infringe on any single person's inalienable freedom of expression, religion, or political speech. There is nothing about this that type of censorship that is harmful to you or anyone else. You are both just going to have to deal with it.

I never said that it did. I bolded the key word there for you which makes your statement true. Once again, you are arguing against a position I have never taken.

Do you ever get tired of that?

You do realize that this is also jurisdictional, and that I DID in fact address this???

Do you think those frequencies do not get to the multiple states (hence it being included in interstate commerce) just because you are saying that they are frequencies???

The fact that the frequencies DO end up in many different states (regardless of transmission, ok- REGARDLESS- you totally want this to be based on some terminology that is entirely irrelevant, historically) makes it an FCC matter, because it is JURISDICTIONAL.

Jurrrrr- isssss- dick- chuuun-- alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll


FUCK.

 

[RadiomanATL]

But that is the POINT of what is being discussed...

So? You made an incorrect assertion, and I have corrected it. Thats all. I am not arguing against your other points, as you seem to think I am. All I have said, and continue to say, is that the FCC has very little regulatory control over content of cable/satellite broadcasts.

No, I have said that the government owns the frequencies. You are arguing against a position I have never taken.

No, I am not. Again, you are arguing against a position I have never taken.

The government owns the frequencies. It has nothing to do with "property ownership" by private individuals of airspace.

Both- I am very sorry to break it to you, but publicly airing shows full of obscenity, profanity, hate speech, etc, is not within anyone's first amendment rights. Censorship of such does not infringe on any single person's inalienable freedom of expression, religion, or political speech. There is nothing about this that type of censorship that is harmful to you or anyone else. You are both just going to have to deal with it.

I never said that it did. I bolded the key word there for you which makes your statement true. Once again, you are arguing against a position I have never taken.

Do you ever get tired of that?

You do realize that this is also jurisdictional, and that I DID in fact address this???

Do you think those frequencies do not get to the multiple states (hence it being included in interstate commerce) just because you are saying that they are frequencies???

The fact that the frequencies DO end up in many different states (regardless of transmission, ok- REGARDLESS- you totally want this to be based on some terminology that is entirely irrelevant, historically) makes it an FCC matter, because it is JURISDICTIONAL.

Jurrrrr- isssss- dick- chuuun-- alllllllllllllllllllllllllllll


FUCK.

Goddamn you are dunce.

I have said multiple times that the FCC has regulatory power over content in broadcast frequencies.

You CONTINUALLY are arguing against a point I have not made.

Post #55

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

Post #61:

If it is a broadcast signal, then the FCC has control over content under the guidelines they have established.

Do you even bother to actually, ya know, read the posts you are responding to?

 

[Contumacious]

[Cont- Do not compare yourself to a libertarian. You are an anarchist. Libertarians are not at all anti-law, anti-government. We are against BIG government, and unjust legislation that infringes upon inalienable rights to the people.
.

"WE"? WTF?

Here we have "RadiomanATL" and JD_2B two marxists ninnies arguing about how much tyranny to impose.

Libertarian Party

Statement of Principles

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

[Cont- Do not compare yourself to a libertarian. You are an anarchist. Libertarians are not at all anti-law, anti-government. We are against BIG government, and unjust legislation that infringes upon inalienable rights to the people.
.

"WE"? WTF?

Here we have "RadiomanATL" and JD_2B two marxists ninnies arguing about how much tyranny to impose.

Libertarian Party

Statement of Principles

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

.

You're a fucking loon, ya know?

 

[KittenKoder]

I hate agreeing with Cont.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I hate agreeing with Cont.

So don't do it.

I would agree with abolishing the censorship that the FCC imposes.

I would not agree with abolishing the FCC altogether, like Comatose does.

See the difference?

 

[KittenKoder]

I hate agreeing with Cont.

So don't do it.

I would agree with abolishing the censorship that the FCC imposes.

I would not agree with abolishing the FCC altogether, like Comatose does.

See the difference?

Well ... that all depends. I agree with abolishing their power completely, simply because they are responsible for this lame ass "digital" signal.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I hate agreeing with Cont.

So don't do it.

I would agree with abolishing the censorship that the FCC imposes.

I would not agree with abolishing the FCC altogether, like Comatose does.

See the difference?

Well ... that all depends. I agree with abolishing their power completely, simply because they are responsible for this lame ass "digital" signal.

Yeah, but that just means some other agency will take over the other, necessary, regulatory roles.

So the end result is the same. Just under a different acronym.

 

[Contumacious]

[Cont- Do not compare yourself to a libertarian. You are an anarchist. Libertarians are not at all anti-law, anti-government. We are against BIG government, and unjust legislation that infringes upon inalienable rights to the people.
.

"WE"? WTF?

Here we have "RadiomanATL" and JD_2B two marxists ninnies arguing about how much tyranny to impose.

Libertarian Party

Statement of Principles

1.1 Expression and Communication

We support full freedom of expression and oppose government censorship, regulation or control of communications media and technology. We favor the freedom to engage in or abstain from any religious activities that do not violate the rights of others. We oppose government actions which either aid or attack any religion.

.

You're a fucking loon, ya know?

I'm just joshing. I Love the FCC.

So, what kind of work do you do for them?

.

 

[KittenKoder]

So don't do it.

I would agree with abolishing the censorship that the FCC imposes.

I would not agree with abolishing the FCC altogether, like Comatose does.

See the difference?

Well ... that all depends. I agree with abolishing their power completely, simply because they are responsible for this lame ass "digital" signal.

Yeah, but that just means some other agency will take over the other, necessary, regulatory roles.

So the end result is the same. Just under a different acronym.

I believe there is a less oppressive option, just don't know it yet.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Well ... that all depends. I agree with abolishing their power completely, simply because they are responsible for this lame ass "digital" signal.

Yeah, but that just means some other agency will take over the other, necessary, regulatory roles.

So the end result is the same. Just under a different acronym.

I believe there is a less oppressive option, just don't know it yet.

Removing the censorship would be pretty much what you are looking for then.

The other stuff they do is pretty boring, and not controversial.

I mean, if you abolish the FCC, then an owner of multiple stations could overpower another single station owner by broadcasting on the same frequency. This would give the owner of the multiple stations an unfair competitive advantage for his other stations. And basically it would make it possible for a market to have all radio stations owned by one single entity.

Small example, but you get the point.

 

[Contumacious]

Well ... that all depends. I agree with abolishing their power completely, simply because they are responsible for this lame ass "digital" signal.

Yeah, but that just means some other agency will take over the other, necessary, regulatory roles.

So the end result is the same. Just under a different acronym.

I believe there is a less oppressive option, just don't know it yet.

In a free country is called boycotting. If a Radio or TV station does not have enough followers , it can not sell advertisements , and soon will go out of business.

If they don't go out of business, if they prosper then your standpoint is the minority view.

In that respect Capitalism - the free market - is democratic.

What RadiomanATL proposes is the substitution a bureaucrat's opinion for those of the marketplace.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

What RadiomanATL proposes is the substitution a bureaucrat's opinion for those of the marketplace.

.

Just what the fuck do you think I am proposing?

All I have done is say that:

1) I would agree with getting rid of the FCC decency standards.

and

2) Explain some of the minor and major regulations that the FCC enforces.

So what is this proposal I am making you fucking twit?

 

[Contumacious]

Yeah, but that just means some other agency will take over the other, necessary, regulatory roles.

So the end result is the same. Just under a different acronym.

I believe there is a less oppressive option, just don't know it yet.

Removing the censorship would be pretty much what you are looking for then.

The other stuff they do is pretty boring, and not controversial.

I mean, if you abolish the FCC, then an owner of multiple stations could overpower another single station owner by broadcasting on the same frequency. This would give the owner of the multiple stations an unfair competitive advantage for his other stations. And basically it would make it possible for a market to have all radio stations owned by one single entity.

Small example, but you get the point.

Oh, I see .....you have a point there NOT.

Now we have federal bureaucrats controlling the stations. So the federal bureaucracy have an unfair competitive stations. For example , instead of exposing the goddamned Bush administration as a continuing criminal enterprise - they are forced into silence.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

I believe there is a less oppressive option, just don't know it yet.

Removing the censorship would be pretty much what you are looking for then.

The other stuff they do is pretty boring, and not controversial.

I mean, if you abolish the FCC, then an owner of multiple stations could overpower another single station owner by broadcasting on the same frequency. This would give the owner of the multiple stations an unfair competitive advantage for his other stations. And basically it would make it possible for a market to have all radio stations owned by one single entity.

Small example, but you get the point.

Oh, I see .....you have a point there NOT.

.

Thats because the point went over your head due to your fetal alcohol syndrome.

 

[Contumacious]

What RadiomanATL proposes is the substitution a bureaucrat's opinion for those of the marketplace.

.

Just what the fuck do you think I am proposing?

All I have done is say that:

1) I would agree with getting rid of the FCC decency standards.

and

2) Explain some of the minor and major regulations that the FCC enforces.

So what is this proposal I am making you fucking twit?

The airwaves do not belong to the federal government . Secondly, technology is so far advanced now that the problems that were occurring in the 1920's are not going to re-occur.

.