L.A. City Council To Bar Radio Hosts From 'Racist, Sexist' Comments...

[Emma]

In all, the 110th Congress introduced nearly 3,000 resolutions and passed more than 1,000.

Read more: Congressional Resolutions - TIME

Of the 911 total measures, only 376 were legally binding bills and joint resolutions, according to the CRS report. The rest were simple and concurrent resolutions. Occasionally these non-binding resolutions inspire some controversy, but a look through the full list provided by CRS confirms that the vast majority are ceremonial or symbolic in nature. An example is a resolution "congratulating Charles County, Maryland, on the occasion of its 350th anniversary." Others from the CRS report include:

• A resolution commending the University of Nebraska-Lincoln women's volleyball team for winning the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I Women's Volleyball Championship.
• A concurrent resolution honoring the memory of Napa Valley winemaker Robert Mondavi.
• A concurrent resolution authorizing the use of the Capitol Grounds for the District of Columbia Special Olympics Law Enforcement Torch Run.

We'll take the alternate approach. We started with the 376 legally binding measures (that is, the bills and joint resolutions). Then we looked closer.

Of the 376, 88 were naming bills for U.S. Postal Service facilities -- legislation that, while legally binding, is almost always non-controversial and treated as pro-forma business by the House and the Senate. According to CRS, all of the naming bills passed by unanimous consent. Because these bills are not the kinds of measures requiring substantive debate, we'll subtract them.

That gets us down to 288 bills. Another 30 passed by unanimous consent re-named a federal building, park, office or highway after someone -- another common category of bill that rarely if ever inspires debate. And four additional bills that were passed by unanimous consent addressed what seem to be non-controversial issues involving U.S. coins.

That leaves 254 bills. We could scrutinize the CRS list for other non-controversial bills passed by unanimous consent, but we'll stop there; once you get beyond common categories like building namings, it gets tricky to determine whether a bill addresses a major, debatable issue just by its title, which is all that CRS lists.

So, stopping here would define our universe of legally binding, non-naming, non-coinage bills at 254.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/17/jim-demint/demint-says-94-percent-bills-are-passed-unanimousl/
​

 

[BlindBoo]

More faked outrage. (or well, I guess it could be stupidity outrage)

Banning: 1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: (The city council banned racial slurs but the law was overturned because it was unconsitutional).

Condemning: 1. To express strong disapproval of: (condemned the racial slurs.)

Didn't several city councils across the country condemn the Iraq invasion and occupation?

It's not a law. The city council doesn't have the authority to ban free speech (The FCC can fine a station for using prohibited words). They can however they can pass a resolution to condemn any thing they want to.

 

[LeftofLeft]

I wonder if these same groups will condemn Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson's radio shows or others like them. I am sure they have more radical one in CA! What about the Latino radio host that bash the Gringo and call for the SW to be colonized by Mexico? They have them on the air in LA. What about the Black Panther members who scream about whitey and what they need to do to whitey. Nope that speech is OK!

City Council members were one step closer on Wednesday to becoming the first in the nation to adopt a resolution condemning certain types of speech on public airwaves.

Councilmember Jan Perry introduced legislation this week that would call upon media companies to ensure “on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs” on radio and other broadcasts.

Members of Black Media Alliance, National Hispanic Media Coalition, Korean-American Bar Association, and American Indians in Film and Television were on hand to voice their support for the proposal.

The resolution — which was also supported by Councilmember Bernard Parks and Council President Herb Wesson — called attention to the recent uproar over comments by KFI 640 AM talk show hosts John Kobylt and Ken Chiampou.

Kobylt and Chiampou were suspended after they called the late pop singer Whitney Houston a “crack ho” three days after her death in February.

The proposal cites a “long history of racially offensive comments as well as deplorable sexist remarks, particularly towards women and Black, Latino, and Asian communities” at KFI 640 and calls for parent company Clear Channel Communications and other broadcasters to hire a more diverse workforce to offset the trend.

Read More:
City Council Warns ‘Crack Ho’ Comments ‘Intolerable’, Calls For Diversity In Talk Radio « CBS Los Angeles
DRUDGE REPORT 2012®

Definitely a bad precendent. If implemented, it will simply be more power for Big Government to decide/determine hate speech vs. free speech. If a Liberal says something that may be construed as "hate", the Council will simply deem "free speech." If Rush Limbaugh says anything on his syndicate in LA, it will automatically be deemed hate.

 

[eflatminor]

More faked outrage. (or well, I guess it could be stupidity outrage)

Banning: 1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: (The city council banned racial slurs but the law was overturned because it was unconsitutional).

Condemning: 1. To express strong disapproval of: (condemned the racial slurs.)

Didn't several city councils across the country condemn the Iraq invasion and occupation?

It's not a law. The city council doesn't have the authority to ban free speech (The FCC can fine a station for using prohibited words). They can however they can pass a resolution to condemn any thing they want to.

See post #31, which sums up nicely why you're missing the point.

 

[paulitician]

Ah ... back up a sec.

It's a resolution? I misread/misunderstood the OP. IOW, it's all bark, no bite. The council isn't passing a law banning radio speech.

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. But the OP isn't really known for his honesty, nor his intestinal fortitude.

Ironic imbecile Alert!

 

[BlindBoo]

Socialists/Progressives do not truly believe in or support Free Speech. These are not Classic Liberals of the past. Many people are still confused about the difference. Today's Democrats are not Classic Liberals. They are Socialists/Progressives. And they are fervent supporters of the Nanny State/Police State. Sadly, it is what it is.

I'd be right there with ya (as shown in my first post here).

If the issue truly was (as stated in the headline to this topic) "L.A. City Council To Bar Radio Hosts From 'Racist, Sexist' Comments" I'd be right there with ya (as shown in my first post here). But that's not what the council is doing. They're not barring anything.

 

[BlindBoo]

More faked outrage. (or well, I guess it could be stupidity outrage)

Banning: 1. To prohibit, especially by official decree: (The city council banned racial slurs but the law was overturned because it was unconsitutional).

Condemning: 1. To express strong disapproval of: (condemned the racial slurs.)

Didn't several city councils across the country condemn the Iraq invasion and occupation?

It's not a law. The city council doesn't have the authority to ban free speech (The FCC can fine a station for using prohibited words). They can however they can pass a resolution to condemn any thing they want to.

See post #31, which sums up nicely why you're missing the point.

This was my first response to the original specious post. I happen to agree that passing nonbinding resolutions is a waste of time.

So now do you accept that this is not a ban on anyones free speeh rights but rather the council simply speaking out against something they don't like?

 

[paulitician]

This is Government interference and intimidation. It's a very dangerous step in the wrong direction. But i guess some feel they need to ignore it or even cheerlead for it. Most in this country will defend anything their own team does. But this is wrong, and it doesn't matter which political party you belong to.

 

[BlindBoo]

Ah ... back up a sec.

It's a resolution? I misread/misunderstood the OP. IOW, it's all bark, no bite. The council isn't passing a law banning radio speech.

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. But the OP isn't really known for his honesty, nor his intestinal fortitude.

Ironic imbecile Alert!

How Ironic. Libo-Pauli are you willing to admit that the LA City Council is not trying to bar any radio station from saying despicable things like "Ms. Houston was a Crack Ho", and that the resolution you are posting about is non binding and has no legal force behind it?

 

[Emma]

This is Government interference and intimidation. It's a very dangerous step in the wrong direction. But i guess some feel they need to ignore it or even cheerlead for it. Most in this country will defend anything their own team does. But this is wrong, and it doesn't matter which political party you belong to.

No, it's not intimidation. These businesses know it has no teeth.

 

[LockeJaw]

Whether California likes it or not, the Constitution is still the Supreme Law of the Land.

Not for much longer.

Let's not be too pessimistic, Cg.

 

[jillian]

The govt does not have the right to do that.

However, those type of comments can and do get advertisers to pull their ads...which are these show's source of revenue....the market and public opinion typically takes care of people who go too far.

i don't see where they're prohibiting the speech. it seems like they'e condemning it... which is simply stating their opinion, too.

perhaps someone can show me otherwise. but i'm not seeing any there there.

Why am I not surprised???


You dont even need to read between the lines here.... you lefties never cease to amaze me at how you can twist the 1st Amendment.

Councilmember Jan Perry introduced legislation this week that would call upon media companies to ensure “on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs” on radio and other broadcasts.

they're asking that the media companies police themselves.

still not seeing a problem

*shrug*

besides, FCC v Pacifica already said there's broad latitude in governing what can be transmitted over public airwaves.... right or wrong.

still not seeing anything but fauxrage.

 

[Liberty]

its funny...this all started from that local radio show saying whitney houston was a crack-ho. The liberals of course went up in arms saying that was a "racist" comment. So, doesn't this beg the question: Aren't liberals the real racists for assuming all black people are "crack hoes?" Kind of weird.

 

[bodecea]

Ah ... back up a sec.

It's a resolution? I misread/misunderstood the OP. IOW, it's all bark, no bite. The council isn't passing a law banning radio speech.

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. But the OP isn't really known for his honesty, nor his intestinal fortitude.

Ironic imbecile Alert!

Says the poster who clearly either doesn't know what a Resolution is....or is purposely lying.

 

[bodecea]

This is Government interference and intimidation. It's a very dangerous step in the wrong direction. But i guess some feel they need to ignore it or even cheerlead for it. Most in this country will defend anything their own team does. But this is wrong, and it doesn't matter which political party you belong to.

Once again, the OP shows his ignorance of his own story.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The govt does not have the right to do that.

However, those type of comments can and do get advertisers to pull their ads...which are these show's source of revenue....the market and public opinion typically takes care of people who go too far.

i don't see where they're prohibiting the speech. it seems like they'e condemning it... which is simply stating their opinion, too.

perhaps someone can show me otherwise. but i'm not seeing any there there.

You are right, as of what I can read in that article they are not prohibiting it yet.


However, it seems the language they are using points to the govt travelling down the road of censorship.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

The govt does not have the right to do that.

However, those type of comments can and do get advertisers to pull their ads...which are these show's source of revenue....the market and public opinion typically takes care of people who go too far.

i don't see where they're prohibiting the speech. it seems like they'e condemning it... which is simply stating their opinion, too.

perhaps someone can show me otherwise. but i'm not seeing any there there.

Why am I not surprised???


You dont even need to read between the lines here.... you lefties never cease to amaze me at how you can twist the 1st Amendment.

Councilmember Jan Perry introduced legislation this week that would call upon media companies to ensure “on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs” on radio and other broadcasts.

That is what i'm more concerned with Jillian......how do they "ensure" this as a govt?

 

[paulitician]

This is Government interference and intimidation. It's a very dangerous step in the wrong direction. But i guess some feel they need to ignore it or even cheerlead for it. Most in this country will defend anything their own team does. But this is wrong, and it doesn't matter which political party you belong to.

Once again, the OP shows his ignorance of his own story.

Yes, you keep on cheerleading for it. That's sad, but certainly not surprising.

 

[paulitician]

E.X.A.C.T.L.Y. But the OP isn't really known for his honesty, nor his intestinal fortitude.

Ironic imbecile Alert!

Says the poster who clearly either doesn't know what a Resolution is....or is purposely lying.

You're having a really bad ironic imbecile day today.

 

[paulitician]

Update: The City Council has approved a resolution calling on local TV and radio stations to limit any “racist” and “sexist” comments on their broadcasts.

The City Council voted 13-2 to pass the resolution with a motion urging “the management of radio and television stations in Los Angeles to do everything in their power to ensure that their on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs over public airwaves in the City of Los Angeles”.

City Council OKs Resolution Urging Media To Curb ‘Racist, Sexist Slurs’ « CBS Los Angeles