Kill off the FCC

[Father Time]

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?

 

[KittenKoder]

I agree ... we haven't needed the FCC controlling content for a long time, and the worst thing is they only control content because they can. Sorry for this, but I also have to add this song:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NDPT0Ph5rA]YouTube - Family Guy - The Freaking FCC[/ame]

 

[JW Frogen]

Sorry, I thought this thread was kill off KFC.

NEVER!!!!!

KFC is proof that the world can know peace, who else has ever united the cooking of a racist Confederate coronel and African American gangs?

KFC should win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Or at least be spared from the humiliation of winning a Grammy.

 

[KittenKoder]

Sorry, I thought this thread was kill off KFC.

NEVER!!!!!

KFC is proof that the world can know peace, who else has ever united the cooking of a racist Confederate coronel and African American gangs?

KFC should win the Nobel Peace Prize.

Or at least be spared from the humiliation of winning a Grammy.

I know! Let's put KFC in charge of the FCC!

 

[Father Time]

I wonder why no one's defending the FCC? Surely there must be someone here who thinks the FCC is needed.

 

[KittenKoder]

I wonder why no one's defending the FCC? Surely there must be someone here who thinks the FCC is needed.

I know there are many who want the FCC to remain in power, even on here, just they can't justify it now.

 

[indianaboy]

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

 

[KittenKoder]

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

It isn't constitutional as it is, it was however not suppose to be able to dictate content. Originally it was just suppose to make certain broadcasts did not infringe on other frequencies and copyrights. Censorship should be the sole choice of the privately owned networks, what they choose to air and what they do not, but parents got lazy and decided that the TV should be the babysitter, so they ignored the constitution and gave the FCC godlike powers over the networks so they wouldn't have to watch their kids. I know, I was raised by the TV, and it sucked.

 

[bodecea]

Who else would control bandwidth so we don't have tv/radio stations stomping all over each other?

 

[KittenKoder]

Who else would control bandwidth so we don't have tv/radio stations stomping all over each other?

As I said, that's what they were suppose to do, but they overreached and took over. We can start another commission for that specific purpose, and make certain this time it doesn't get away with trashing the constitution.

 

[Father Time]

So does anyone think these old laws about swearing on TV will get axed anytime soon?

 

[JW Frogen]

I vote yes.

Oooops.

Sorry, I thought this thread was kill off the KFC.

I am sure KFC is a form of Confederate chicken revenge.

"We may have lost the waaaawr but we can still make them Yankees tummy's turn and tumble."

 

[JW Frogen]

Shit, I just re-read the thread.

My joke has been there dumped that.

I am getting old, like Robin Williams.

And drunk, like 90% of Russia.

 

[KittenKoder]

So does anyone think these old laws about swearing on TV will get axed anytime soon?

Mayhaps ... and they should be "axed". They are obsolete and frivolous, it has made parents lazier yet not "protected" anyone. The FCC was suppose to just ensure that signals don't get "crossed" ... that's what they should be doing now, not dictating what is on the air.

 

[JD_2B]

The first amendment covers the freedom of EXPRESSION. That is the one thing that is explicitly protected.. (that, religion and peaceable assembly- Edited to include parentheses)

Commercial broadcasting is not as well covered by the First Amendment as people seem to think it is..

There are a lot of restrictions related to first amendment rights when it comes to advertising, and many other outlets where free speech may be contested as held "infringed upon", such as, for instance- the dude who got tased for trying to get more time to speak, and not sitting down when told.

Government interference in freedom of speech must be reasonable and not interfere with the point of view being expressed..

I do agree that they do not have a right to censor television shows even on public broadcasts- It is not a transaction, and does not even count as a commercial, unless it is being used as hybrid speech, by both issuing an opinion and also directly or indirectly attempting to sell or market something.

Under First Amendment doctrine, many types of speech receive the most stringent levels of constitutional protection, whereas o

Forums | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[Si modo]

Who else would control bandwidth so we don't have tv/radio stations stomping all over each other?

Right. Don't kill it off entirely as it does do some good in keeping some order to so many forms of communications.

But, on content? The FCC should butt out.

 

[California Girl]

Who else would control bandwidth so we don't have tv/radio stations stomping all over each other?

Right. Don't kill it off entirely as it does do some good in keeping some order to so many forms of communications.

But, on content? The FCC should butt out.

They should, but they just got Mark Lloyd in as 'Idiot in Charge of Diversity'..... if anything, Mr Lloyd will want more control, not less. Mark Lloyd thinks state run media is best for us. It's nice to have someone who knows what is best for us in charge at the FCC. I feel all warm and cozy..... not.

 

[Si modo]

Who else would control bandwidth so we don't have tv/radio stations stomping all over each other?

Right. Don't kill it off entirely as it does do some good in keeping some order to so many forms of communications.

But, on content? The FCC should butt out.

They should, but they just got Mark Lloyd in as 'Idiot in Charge of Diversity'..... if anything, Mr Lloyd will want more control, not less. Mark Lloyd thinks state run media is best for us. It's nice to have someone who knows what is best for us in charge at the FCC. I feel all warm and cozy..... not.

Lloyd is DEFINITELY one to keep an eye on.

 

[California Girl]

Right. Don't kill it off entirely as it does do some good in keeping some order to so many forms of communications.

But, on content? The FCC should butt out.

They should, but they just got Mark Lloyd in as 'Idiot in Charge of Diversity'..... if anything, Mr Lloyd will want more control, not less. Mark Lloyd thinks state run media is best for us. It's nice to have someone who knows what is best for us in charge at the FCC. I feel all warm and cozy..... not.

Lloyd is DEFINITELY one to keep an eye on.

Yep, most definitely on the watch list of those who value freedom of the press. That man is a man with a plan.

*Conspiracy theory alert - Conspiracy theory alert - Conspiracy theory alert*

 

[Wry Catcher]

Who will protect us from the uncovered breast of Janet Jackson? [sarcasm]
Over 500,000 complaints were received by the FCC, source: Justin Timberlake exposing Janet Jackson's breast at Super Bowl Half-Time