Kill off the FCC

[RadiomanATL]

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.

.

So you can't come up with anything I am proposing, huh?

Thought not.

 

[jillian]

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.

The airwaves are a public trust. They are a finite resource and are regulated by government for that reason and to prevent monopoly ownership of means of communication.

You might want to think twice before you start taking on the radioguy on this subject. You're outgunned. Mostly, you probably should learn your subject matter before you run around proving that a) you're a loon; and b) you really know nothing about what you're discussing.

I'd direct you to FCC v Pacifica, which dealt with this issue extensively more than 35 years ago...

In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Court considered whether the Federal Communications Commission could, consistent with the First Amendment, punish a broadcaster who chose to play over the air at 2 o'clock on a weekday afternoon a twelve-minute "Filthy Words" monologue by George Carlin. In a narrow 5 to 4 decision, the Court upheld the FCC's authority to channel broadcasts containing indecent words to late-night broadcast hours when children are unlikely to comprise much of the audience.

Regulation of Indecent Speech

The Court has also found that commercial speech can be subjected to appropriate time, place and manner restrictions:

Although content-based restrictions on speech in the public forum are subject to strict judicial scrutiny (usually a requirement that the restriction serve a compelling state interest and that there is no way of serving the interest that is less speech-restrictive), content-neutral restrictions on speech are subject to only intermediate scrutiny. In general, the government must show that the law serves an important objective (not involving the suppression of speech), that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there remain ample alternative means of communication.

Time, Place and Manner Regulations and the First Amendment

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

The airwaves are a public trust. They are a finite resource and are regulated by government for that reason and to prevent monopoly ownership of means of communication.

You might want to think twice before you start taking on the radioguy on this subject. You're outgunned. Mostly, you probably should learn your subject matter before you run around proving that a) you're a loon; and b) you really know nothing about what you're discussing.

I'd direct you to FCC v Pacifica, which dealt with this issue extensively more than 35 years ago...

In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Court considered whether the Federal Communications Commission could, consistent with the First Amendment, punish a broadcaster who chose to play over the air at 2 o'clock on a weekday afternoon a twelve-minute "Filthy Words" monologue by George Carlin. In a narrow 5 to 4 decision, the Court upheld the FCC's authority to channel broadcasts containing indecent words to late-night broadcast hours when children are unlikely to comprise much of the audience.

Regulation of Indecent Speech

The Court has also found that commercial speech can be subjected to appropriate time, place and manner restrictions:

Although content-based restrictions on speech in the public forum are subject to strict judicial scrutiny (usually a requirement that the restriction serve a compelling state interest and that there is no way of serving the interest that is less speech-restrictive), content-neutral restrictions on speech are subject to only intermediate scrutiny. In general, the government must show that the law serves an important objective (not involving the suppression of speech), that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there remain ample alternative means of communication.

Time, Place and Manner Regulations and the First Amendment

Yeah.

I wasn't even going to get into what he said, since it just results in talking in circles with him. But I guess I'll reply:

For all intents and purposes the government does own the airwaves (talking frequencies, not airspace). This is why broadcasters have to renew their licenses, under strict requirements that the FCC sets forth. A highway analogy: Just because someone owns a car (transmitter) does not mean that they own the road (frequency).

And the advances of technology have only made non-content related regulations even more important. Not less. So I have no idea where he was going with this one.

 

[jillian]

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.

The airwaves are a public trust. They are a finite resource and are regulated by government for that reason and to prevent monopoly ownership of means of communication.

You might want to think twice before you start taking on the radioguy on this subject. You're outgunned. Mostly, you probably should learn your subject matter before you run around proving that a) you're a loon; and b) you really know nothing about what you're discussing.

I'd direct you to FCC v Pacifica, which dealt with this issue extensively more than 35 years ago...



Regulation of Indecent Speech

The Court has also found that commercial speech can be subjected to appropriate time, place and manner restrictions:

Although content-based restrictions on speech in the public forum are subject to strict judicial scrutiny (usually a requirement that the restriction serve a compelling state interest and that there is no way of serving the interest that is less speech-restrictive), content-neutral restrictions on speech are subject to only intermediate scrutiny. In general, the government must show that the law serves an important objective (not involving the suppression of speech), that the law is narrowly tailored, and that there remain ample alternative means of communication.

Time, Place and Manner Regulations and the First Amendment

Yeah.

I wasn't even going to get into what he said, since it just results in talking in circles with him. But I guess I'll reply:

For all intents and purposes the government does own the airwaves (talking frequencies, not airspace). This is why broadcasters have to renew their licenses, under strict requirements that the FCC sets forth. A highway analogy: Just because someone owns a car (transmitter) does not mean that they own the road (frequency).

And the advances of technology have only made non-content related regulations even more important. Not less. So I have no idea where he was going with this one.

you're correct, of course. and the loosening of restrictions for monopolistic companies under the last admin (at least for its supporters) was a dangerous thing, IMO.

as for Contemptable...he doesn't know where he was going with it either... except to do the "i hate government" whine. but i figured i'd give him a chance.

 

[RadiomanATL]

and the loosening of restrictions for monopolistic companies under the last admin (at least for its supporters) was a dangerous thing, IMO.

Most of that can actually be traced back to the '96 Telecommunications act. Thats the act that loosened restrictions on ownership. It spawned Jacor, the first mega-communications company. And then ClearChannel purchased Jacor in '99, which is how CC became as big as it did overnight. In 1995 it owned only around 40 stations. With it's purchase of Jacor in '99 and then AM-FM Inc in 2000, it went from "who's that?" to "holy shit".

 

[jillian]

and the loosening of restrictions for monopolistic companies under the last admin (at least for its supporters) was a dangerous thing, IMO.

Most of that can actually be traced back to the '96 Telecommunications act. Thats the act that loosened restrictions on ownership. It spawned Jacor, the first mega-communications company. And then ClearChannel purchased Jacor in '99, which is how CC became as big as it did overnight. In 1995 it owned only around 40 stations. With it's purchase of Jacor in '99 and then AM-FM Inc in 2000, it went from "who's that?" to "holy shit".

true insofar as radio stations were concerned, absolutely.

and then after 2000, i believe news corp did the same as regards television and newspapers.

*sigh*

i don't think any company should be allowed to own more than one of each type of media in a given locale.

 

[RadiomanATL]

and the loosening of restrictions for monopolistic companies under the last admin (at least for its supporters) was a dangerous thing, IMO.

Most of that can actually be traced back to the '96 Telecommunications act. Thats the act that loosened restrictions on ownership. It spawned Jacor, the first mega-communications company. And then ClearChannel purchased Jacor in '99, which is how CC became as big as it did overnight. In 1995 it owned only around 40 stations. With it's purchase of Jacor in '99 and then AM-FM Inc in 2000, it went from "who's that?" to "holy shit".

true insofar as radio stations were concerned, absolutely.

and then after 2000, i believe news corp did the same as regards television and newspapers.

*sigh*

Yup. But it was still the telecomm act of '96 that spawned it. Until then if you owned radio, you couldn't own television or print in the same market. The act got rid of that restriction.

i don't think any company should be allowed to own more than one of each type of media in a given locale.

See, I disagree. I think it should be limited by market penetration, not necessarily medium.

 

[jillian]

Yup. But it was still the telecomm act of '96 that spawned it. Until then if you owned radio, you couldn't own television or print in the same market. The act got rid of that restriction.

I don't agree with everything that admin did. I hate NAFTA, too.

i don't think any company should be allowed to own more than one of each type of media in a given locale.

See, I disagree. I think it should be limited by market penetration, not necessarily medium.[/QUOTE]

I'm not married to any particular solution. Why do you think it should be limited by market penetration and not necessarily medium?

 

[RadiomanATL]

I don't agree with everything that admin did. I hate NAFTA, too.

I wasn't blaming that admin. It was the law of unintended consequences coming back to bite them in the ass. The telecomm act did some good as well.

Also, it has taken 13 years, but the marketplace has helped to settle the dust since the gobbling-up frenzy of the late 90's, early 00's.

I'm not married to any particular solution. Why do you think it should be limited by market penetration and not necessarily medium?

Simply put, because that is really what matters. Not how many 1kw-backyard stations someone, or something, owns. It doesn't really matter if I own a station that can't be heard more than 2 blocks away, so why should that impede on me owning another - larger - medium? As long as it doesn't go over the tipping point of the 10-20-30% (pick your number) of market penetration it really doesn't mean anything as far as a monopoly goes.

 

[Contumacious]

You might want to think twice before you start taking on the radioguy on this subject. You're outgunned. Mostly, you probably should learn your subject matter before you run around proving that a) you're a loon; and b) you really know nothing about what you're discussing.

So much bullshit, so little time.

The federal government has no authority to "own" or manage the airwaves as a "public trust", whatever the fuck that means.

The federal government has no Lawful authority to distinguish between different types of speeches and thereafter deny 1st Amendment protection.

Only the zombified . the naive , the gullible and the sheeples accept that kind of bullshit.

.

 

[jillian]

Only the zombified . the naive , the gullible and the sheeples accept that kind of bullshit.

.

or perhaps someone who actually understands the law...

unlike you.

i'm sure you actually read the supreme court cases you were shown...

yah... sure you did.

thanks for playing.

 

[JD_2B]

For all intents and purposes the government does own the airwaves (talking frequencies, not airspace). This is why broadcasters have to renew their licenses, under strict requirements that the FCC sets forth. A highway analogy: Just because someone owns a car (transmitter) does not mean that they own the road (frequency).

And the advances of technology have only made non-content related regulations even more important. Not less. So I have no idea where he was going with this one.

Radioman- your analogy is not workable, in this situation, because you want the FCC gone, claiming that - based on your road analogy-

"The department of transportation might own the roads, but they should not get to declare speed limits or any other rules of the road."

Well, with great power comes great responsibility..

Only Spidey could make everything clear as a bell, right.

 

[Contumacious]

Only the zombified . the naive , the gullible and the sheeples accept that kind of bullshit.

.

or perhaps someone who actually understands the law...

Well, I was referring to US Law.

i'm sure you actually read the supreme court cases you were shown...

Those cases are irrelevant:

US Constitution Article 6


This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding


Article 6 does not mention court rulings.

thanks for playing.

.

 

[JD_2B]

Article 6 does not mention court rulings.

thanks for playing.

.

Idiot- I dont even know why I entertain all your delusions of grandeur, Cont, but the freedom of speech applies universally, and is respected by the FCC.

If you actually fucking READ the court rulings, you will SEE that First Amendment rights DO NOT EXTEND so far as to allowing all these disgusting things that you SO wish would be allowed.

Thanks for playing.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Radioman- your analogy is not workable, in this situation, because you want the FCC gone
:

No, I don't. I never said any such thing. As a matter of fact, I've been arguing the opposite. Have you even been paying attention?

Seriously. Stop debating points I've never brought up.

 

[Polk]

I've never had a problem with certain forms of censorship, but I can't figure out how the FCC exists under our Constitution.

Because unlike print (which in theory is unlimited), the broadcast airwaves are limited in number.

 

[jillian]

Those cases are irrelevant:

*snip*

Article 6 does not mention court rulings.

thanks for playing.

Court rulings construing the Constitution ARE the SUPREME law of the land.

Are you really this stupid?

Seriously....

For your sake, I hope you're just pretending.

Tell us, oh brain dead one, if the Supreme Court isn't the Court that interprets the Constitution, who does?

You?

Too funny for words... I'm figuring you can barely find your mouth with your fork.

 

[Polk]

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?

That's a very separate issue. And, frankly, the FCC has outlived it's usefulness on that front. It had a point when there were only three television stations (at most) available and all of the self-censoring technology didn't exist. Those issues don't really exist anymore though.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Radioman- your analogy is not workable, in this situation, because you want the FCC gone
:

No, I don't. I never said any such thing. As a matter of fact, I've been arguing the opposite. Have you even been paying attention?

Seriously. Stop debating points I've never brought up.

Post #43:

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.

Post #47:

... 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.

Post # 70:

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

Post # 75:

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.

Post # 83:

the advances of technology have only made non-content related regulations even more important. Not less.

How in the world do you get that I want to abolish the FCC out of these statements?

 

[Father Time]

Article 6 does not mention court rulings.

thanks for playing.

.

Idiot- I dont even know why I entertain all your delusions of grandeur, Cont, but the freedom of speech applies universally, and is respected by the FCC.

If you actually fucking READ the court rulings, you will SEE that First Amendment rights DO NOT EXTEND so far as to allowing all these disgusting things that you SO wish would be allowed.

Thanks for playing.

The 1st amendment reads Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.

No law means no law.

The Supreme Court chose to ignore it.