This is getting ridiculous already

[jimnyc]

I'm not going to debate this further. Please come back to me when these tv stations file their lawsuits. Please let me know the outcome of these non-existent lawsuits as well. This censorship has been going on since the beginning of broadcast TV. I'd love to see the history of lawsuits drawn up based on the constitution and what their disposition was.

 

[jimnyc]

Here's some good reading from a lawsuit in 1995. This FCC won this case and it was upheld by the Court of Appeals. Although this isn't exactly what were were discussing, it deals with the constitutionality of the FCC's censorship practices. Here are a couple of snippets:

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: Various broadcasters and public- interest groups representing listeners and viewers appeal a judgment of the district court dismissing their constitutional and statutory challenges to the Federal Communication Commission's scheme for imposing forfeitures for the broadcast of indecent material. The appellants' central argument is that the procedures for enforcement set out in 47 U.S.C. §§ 503(b) and 504(c) lack appropriate safeguards-including prompt judicial review-which forces broadcasters to conform with potentially unconstitutional restrictions upon their speech. We hold that the provisions at issue are capable of constitutional implementation and therefore reject the appellants' facial challenge to the statutes. Though we agree that the FCC's implementation of its enforcement scheme is potentially troubling in some respects, we also conclude that the appellants have not alleged facts sufficient to show that the FCC is currently applying the statutes in an unconstitutional manner. We therefore affirm the judgment of the district court.
......

In short, the FCC's indecency-enforcement scheme is clearly capable of constitutional application.
......

We agree with the appellants that some of the Commission's procedures are troubling but, on the basis of the record before us, we cannot agree that those procedures violate the first amendment.
......

B]ecause of the delays of securing administrative and judicial determinations in indecency forfeiture proceedings, and uncertainties as to the permissible scope of FCC indecency regulation they attempt to conform their conduct to the indecency standards articulated by the FCC and its Commissioners, whether or not they believe those standards are constitutional.


That simply does not establish a violation of the Constitution.

http://www.ll.georgetown.edu/federal/judicial/dc/opinions/93opinions/93-5178a.html

 

[DKSuddeth]

The Airways belong to the public, not the government. With that said let it be known that it has ALWAYS been government policy to let 'community standards' be the guiding rationale for what is, will be, and will not be transmitted over the airwaves.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I have to say newguy, I'm drawn to the strict libertarian purity of your view, but I think the concept of public decency has it's place. People just shouldn't say shaft and balls on the radio unless it's a golf show, not in the middle of the day, when kids may hear it, in their headset on the bus, for instance. Technically yes, "it's the parents role to monitor the media going to their children." sadly, this isn't possible without denying kids the great things radio has to offer unless we go to parental blocks on radios, but come on people, can't we just agree to not say "dick" and "boobs"?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

This would be different if it were political speech, but it's not. I'm not going to the mat to defend a whore's right to describe how she masturbates to the juvenilve Howard Stern during morning drive time.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
This would be different if it were political speech, but it's not. I'm not going to the mat to defend a whore's right to describe how she masturbates to the juvenilve Howard Stern during morning drive time.

I agree though, and that was my point. We need to uphold some standards for the things our children have easy access to.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc


I agree though, and that was my point. We need to uphold some standards for the things our children have easy access to.

-Which coincidentally was my point. We just disagree on the methodology.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by dmp
For the Record:

The expression is "Couldn't care less".

"I couldn't care less" means that there is NO level of caring I have, which could be LESS than how little I care for the issue at hand. If 'caring' were a scale, of say, 1 to 10, and 10 meant you care a LOT, and 1 means you care just a little bit, "Couldn't care less" would be a 1. or a 0.

"I COULD care less" means that you may care a 5...or a 2. It implies there exists a level of caring yet to be reached, before all caring stops.


Thank you for your time...continue on with your day.

Funny. LOL.




Also you're just afraid the feds'll come after your CB Radio Smut Channel next. you damn pornographer!:cof:

 

[musicman]

Originally posted by dmp
For the Record:

The expression is "Couldn't care less".

"I couldn't care less" means that there is NO level of caring I have, which could be LESS than how little I care for the issue at hand. If 'caring' were a scale, of say, 1 to 10, and 10 meant you care a LOT, and 1 means you care just a little bit, "Couldn't care less" would be a 1. or a 0.

"I COULD care less" means that you may care a 5...or a 2. It implies there exists a level of caring yet to be reached, before all caring stops.


Thank you for your time...continue on with your day.

Irregardless.....

 

[musicman]

One of my least favorite arguments is, "If you don't like it, change the channel", or "Just don't watch".

The fact that you keep a clean house and take your garbage out to the curb on Thursday night doesn't help you if I, as your neighbor, elect to live hip-deep in filth. The rats and fleas that I draw will, most certainly, be your problem.

A sinking culture drags us all down.