Kill off the FCC

[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.

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.

So, now, we should be allowed to yell "fire" in a public theatre?? Or incite violence... or any number of things that speech can do that are NOT protected by the freedom of speech?


And Radioman- by your own admission, the FCC only controls "broadcast" stations.. Which we all know have been made nonexistent, since the development of digital signaling.

Stop backpedaling.

 

[jillian]

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.

Actually, the appropriate inquiry is whether the speech is protected speech. e.g., there are appropriate time, place and manner restrictions in certain instances. There are minor types of impact which are found not to "abridge" speech,. And there are things like obscenity which are not considered protected speech.

This is why I really hate when you all pretend you know what the Constitution "says". How it's APPLIED in a particular instance is what we're talking about.

 

[RadiomanATL]

And Radioman- by your own admission, the FCC only controls "broadcast" stations

Only as it relates to the public decency standards that the FCC enforces.

 

[Contumacious]

Article 6 does not mention court rulings.

thanks for playing.

.

Idiot- I dont even know why I entertain all your delusions of grandeur, Cont,

Because you know I am correct in my assertions.

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.

Bullshit.

Back in the 1920's the goddamned bureaucrats usurped the power to regulate broadcasting because of "chaos of the airwaves"

Now the fucking bastards want to muscle in on the internet:

Is there chaos in cyberspace? Of course not. They love power for power sake.

The Internet's New Enforcer

The FCC chairman appoints himself top cop on the World Wide Web.

Peter Suderman | September 23, 2009

 

[RadiomanATL]

Obscene, Indecent and Profane Broadcasts

Obscene Broadcasts Are Prohibited at All Times

Obscene material is not protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution and cannot be broadcast at any time. The Supreme Court has established that, to be obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test:

* An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest;
* The material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and
* The material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Indecent Broadcast Restrictions

The FCC has defined broadcast indecency as “language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities.” Indecent programming contains patently offensive sexual or excretory material that does not rise to the level of obscenity.

The courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of the day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Consistent with a federal indecency statute and federal court decisions interpreting the statute, the Commission adopted a rule that broadcasts -- both on television and radio -- that fit within the indecency definition and that are aired between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. are prohibited and subject to indecency enforcement action.

The problem is that the line between indecent and obscene is pretty blurry, and very subjective. So the vast majority of stations don't even go there. AAMOF, I can't think of one broadcast entity who does decide to air indecent programming after 10pm.

As it pertains to cable and satellite public decency content standards:

Section 505 of the 1996 Act states that cable operators, or other multichannel video programming distributors who offer sexually explicit adult video programming or other programming that is indecent on any channel(s) primarily dedicated to sexually-oriented programming, must fully scramble or block both the audio and video portions of the channels so that someone who does not subscribe to the channel does not receive it. Until a multichannel video programming distributor complies with this provision, the distributor cannot provide the programming during hours of the day when a significant number of children are likely to view it.

However, Section 505 was challenged in the courts. On May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S. which determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Commission's rules implementing Section 505 cannot be enforced.

Q:Is there anything else that will allow cable television subscribers to block objectionable programming?

A: Yes. Section 504 of the 1996 Act requires a cable operator to fully scramble or block the audio and video portions of programming services not specifically subscribed to by a household.

To put it even more simply, by scrambling their content to non-paying users, the operators of cable and satellite networks are exempt from the public decency standards that are enforced upon broadcast stations (although not obscene standards, but its unlikely that this will ever be held up in court because the of the aforementioned line between obscene and indecent is so damn subjective and blurry). This is because the user implicitly agrees to the content of the cable/satellite by entering into the contract to receive it in their home. And since it is scrambled, a user who has not entered into a contract with the provider cannot (or is not supposed to) receive it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Back in the 1920's the goddamned bureaucrats usurped the power to regulate broadcasting because of "chaos of the airwaves"

You do know that they weren't referring to content when talking about the "chaos of the airwaves", don'tcha?

 

[editec]

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?

Your complaint presumes that the sole purpose of the FCC is censoring what goes over the airwaves.

That's nonsense, of course.

The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 as the successor to the Federal Radio Commission and is charged with regulating all non-federal government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States. It is an important factor in U.S. telecommunication policy.

source

 

[Contumacious]

Back in the 1920's the goddamned bureaucrats usurped the power to regulate broadcasting because of "chaos of the airwaves"

You do know that they weren't referring to content when talking about the "chaos of the airwaves", don'tcha?

Created by the 1934 Communications Act, the FCC is one of the New Deal’s spawn. Section 326 of the act contains a shameless instance of doublespeak:

Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Back in the 1920's the goddamned bureaucrats usurped the power to regulate broadcasting because of "chaos of the airwaves"

You do know that they weren't referring to content when talking about the "chaos of the airwaves", don'tcha?

Created by the 1934 Communications Act, the FCC is one of the New Deal’s spawn. Section 326 of the act contains a shameless instance of doublespeak:

Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication.

However, under section 1464 of the same Act it is determined that:

Whoever utters any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.



Ya dumb shit.

 

[Father Time]

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.

So, now, we should be allowed to yell "fire" in a public theatre?? Or incite violence... or any number of things that speech can do that are NOT protected by the freedom of speech?


And Radioman- by your own admission, the FCC only controls "broadcast" stations.. Which we all know have been made nonexistent, since the development of digital signaling.

Stop backpedaling.

Inciting violence, yelling fire in a theater can cause harm, yelling swear words on a TV can't.

In any other context profanity is protected speech why the hell should TV and radio be an exception?

 

[KittenKoder]

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.

So, now, we should be allowed to yell "fire" in a public theatre?? Or incite violence... or any number of things that speech can do that are NOT protected by the freedom of speech?


And Radioman- by your own admission, the FCC only controls "broadcast" stations.. Which we all know have been made nonexistent, since the development of digital signaling.

Stop backpedaling.

Inciting violence, yelling fire in a theater can cause harm, yelling swear words on a TV can't.

In any other context profanity is protected speech why the hell should TV and radio be an exception?

It should be up to the station, private businesses have the right to censor their own programs, but the government has no right to tell others what to say.

 

[Father Time]

So, now, we should be allowed to yell "fire" in a public theatre?? Or incite violence... or any number of things that speech can do that are NOT protected by the freedom of speech?


And Radioman- by your own admission, the FCC only controls "broadcast" stations.. Which we all know have been made nonexistent, since the development of digital signaling.

Stop backpedaling.

Inciting violence, yelling fire in a theater can cause harm, yelling swear words on a TV can't.

In any other context profanity is protected speech why the hell should TV and radio be an exception?

It should be up to the station, private businesses have the right to censor their own programs, but the government has no right to tell others what to say.

My thoughts exactly

 

[Contumacious]

So, now, we should be allowed to yell "fire" in a public theatre?? Or incite violence... or any number of things that speech can do that are NOT protected by the freedom of speech?


And Radioman- by your own admission, the FCC only controls "broadcast" stations.. Which we all know have been made nonexistent, since the development of digital signaling.

Stop backpedaling.

Inciting violence, yelling fire in a theater can cause harm, yelling swear words on a TV can't.

In any other context profanity is protected speech why the hell should TV and radio be an exception?

It should be up to the station, private businesses have the right to censor their own programs, but the government has no right to tell others what to say.

Exactly.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

Forget about the Fairness Doctrine. They're changing it to another name to hide it from the public.

The biggest worry I see on the horizon is the attempts by Democrats to use the FCC to censor TV and Radio into broadcasting "Fair and equal content".

Meaning they fully intend on nailing any broadcaster that carries conservative programming and or commentary.

Fox News, Clearchannel, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are all squarely in their sights.

This is what you get when the powers that be feel their policies aren't exactly good for the economy and a large majority of the voters.

 

[Father Time]

Forget about the Fairness Doctrine. They're changing it to another name to hide it from the public.

The biggest worry I see on the horizon is the attempts by Democrats to use the FCC to censor TV and Radio into broadcasting "Fair and equal content".

Meaning they fully intend on nailing any broadcaster that carries conservative programming and or commentary.

Fox News, Clearchannel, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are all squarely in their sights.

This is what you get when the powers that be feel their policies aren't exactly good for the economy and a large majority of the voters.

Reminds me of Rush Limbaugh warning of such a thing when he was blasting the government/the right wing for trying to censor Howard Stern (no I don't listen to Rush I just read the quote in a book).

I betcha Stern was also saying the same thing.

This ladies and gentlemen is why one should never stand for such government censorship.

 

[JD_2B]

You do know that they weren't referring to content when talking about the "chaos of the airwaves", don'tcha?

Created by the 1934 Communications Act, the FCC is one of the New Deal’s spawn. Section 326 of the act contains a shameless instance of doublespeak:

Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communication. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication.

However, under section 1464 of the same Act it is determined that:

Whoever utters any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than two years, or both.



Ya dumb shit.

That type of censorship does not infringe on First Amendment rights.

As I have been saying ALL ALONG with FUCKING CITATIONS, the first amendment does not extend to all that other shit.

There is no clear line, and there never will be, as long as language evolves. Get used to it.

(Hopefully I am talking to the right person still, lol- I have lost track as to who believes what is legal and what not. )

Cut out the sarcasm, boys- I cant READ your body language from my monitor..

 

[RadiomanATL]

There is no clear line, and there never will be, as long as language evolves. Get used to it.

(Hopefully I am talking to the right person still, lol- I have lost track as to who believes what is legal and what not. )

You're not.

Again.

Try, ya know, looking at the names of the posters and stuff.

 

[JD_2B]

Forget about the Fairness Doctrine. They're changing it to another name to hide it from the public.

The biggest worry I see on the horizon is the attempts by Democrats to use the FCC to censor TV and Radio into broadcasting "Fair and equal content".

Meaning they fully intend on nailing any broadcaster that carries conservative programming and or commentary.

Fox News, Clearchannel, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are all squarely in their sights.

This is what you get when the powers that be feel their policies aren't exactly good for the economy and a large majority of the voters.

Fairness and equality got you down? Or is it just the fear that liberals are going to end up pounding those guys into the ground, if this type of thing goes through????

Tooooo funny.. you conservatives.

 

[JD_2B]

There is no clear line, and there never will be, as long as language evolves. Get used to it.

(Hopefully I am talking to the right person still, lol- I have lost track as to who believes what is legal and what not. )

You're not.

Again.

Try, ya know, looking at the names of the posters and stuff.

I did. I even went back a page. You like to use sarcasm, so I am having a hard time understanding whether you are against censorship of things like obscenity and profanity.

I realize you are far brighter than little Cont the scuzz of the earth, but neither one of you seem to be able to see the forest for the trees, it seems, aside from when you are backpedaling, lol.. unless that was sarcasm talking..

 

[JD_2B]

HA! I knew I was right..

Post #77- Radioman said:

"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?"

Assmunch backpedaler.