Kill off the FCC

[Contumacious]

Left to their own, networks would allow blowjobs during prime time..

And you came to that conclusion how?

Thanks to the GI's who were stationed in S. Korea and Viet Nam in the early 1960's we had beautiful pictures of female nudity circulating in my classroom when I was in the 6th grade. I was 10 years old, No harm done.

So your concerns are totally misplaced.

.

 

[chanel]

Really? Its refreshing that you haven't seen some of the youtube videos where young women are treated like dogs. That does not compare to a still photo in a locker.

Reality TV is trashy enough. We don't need to see the Biggest Loers gettin it on.

 

[Father Time]

Really? Its refreshing that you haven't seen some of the youtube videos where young women are treated like dogs.

I doubt you have either, you said there was gang rapes on youtube and even regular nudity gets taken down there.

 

[KittenKoder]

Really? Its refreshing that you haven't seen some of the youtube videos where young women are treated like dogs. That does not compare to a still photo in a locker.

Reality TV is trashy enough. We don't need to see the Biggest Loers gettin it on.

Well ... if the stations want ratings there would have to be a variety ... so just tune into the ones that show what you want to watch ... pretty simple really.

 

[JD_2B]

The airplane case was on intimidating language and it even mentions such apply to non profane speech.

Hell it even supports my side.

"As an initial matter, we must address the Government's
threshold contention that profanity is not constitutionally
protected speech. This argument is meritless. The Supreme Court
has long held that, as a general rule, simple profanity or
vulgarity -- not rising to the level of "fighting words" or
obscenity -- is constitutionally protected speech.9 See, e.g.,
Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U.S. 130 (1972); Gooding v.
Wilson, 405 U.S. 518 (1972); Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15
(1971); see generally Tribe, supra, § 12-10, at 849-56.
Although we disagree with the Government's broad contention
about the constitutional status of profanity, we do recognize
that general rules do have their exceptions."

You are full of shit... READ THE FUCKING CASES ASSHOLE.

Fifth Circuit Court Cases - Case Law and Opinions from the 5th Circuit Federal Court - Court of Appeals - unoffical reports -

Nevertheless, even if we were to accept appellants'
argument that § 1472(j) does discriminate against profane or
vulgar language, and thus apply the more stringent analysis
required in cases involving a content-based regulation, we would
still hold that the statute is constitutional.

Congress did not unnecessarily infringe passenger's
first amendment liberties to use intimidating profanity.

Our
research indicates that the most commonly understood "dictionary"
definition of "intimidate" is in fact the one given by the court
-- namely, to place a person in fear. Interestingly, this was
the primary definition listed in Webster's New Collegiate
Dictionary, the dictionary cited by appellants at trial;
appellants requested a more specific, secondary definition.
While intimidation may result from words or conduct that may
directly threaten, it is commonly understood that a person may
intimidate another without actually making a direct or even
veiled threat.

Appellants Hicks and Moore argue that mere words -- at least
words that do not constitute a direct threat -- cannot constitute
intimidation. We disagree. As we noted in our discussion of the
district court's definition of "intimidate," that term is not
synonymous with "threaten." With respect to the evidence
presented by the Government at trial, we observe that numerous
members of the Continental flight crew testified that appellants
intimidated them. In the environment in which appellants'
statements17 were made -- the closed quarters of an airplane --
the extreme and repeated profanity which they used, when combined
with the angry tenor of their words, certainly would intimidate a
reasonable person. Appellants' words were not merely indicative
of aimless frustration; rather, they evinced extreme anger vis-a-
vis particular persons, namely Continental flight crew members. As we set forth in the statement of the facts in supra
Part I, Appellants Hicks and Moore each engaged in extreme and
repeated angry profanity and vulgarity. Appellant Canty has not
challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction.
25

There is ample evidence in the record to support a rational
fact-finder's conclusion that appellants interfered with numerous
Continental flight crew members' duties. There was specific
testimony to this extent from Melissa Bott and Carol McWilliams.
There was also other evidence indicating that flight crew
members, including a member of the cockpit crew, were forced to
ignore their duties as a result of the appellants' intimidating
words and conduct.
We conclude that there was sufficient evidence to support
appellants' convictions under § 1472(j).
III.
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM all three appellants'
convictions under 49 U.S.C. § 1472(j).

PLEASE NOTE:

Rather than discriminating against protected profanity or
vulgarity, the statute reasonably regulates the time, place, and
manner of speech, irrespective of its particular content. The
16
content of passengers' speech is thus regulated only in an
incidental fashion. Only intimidating speech in a quite limited
context is proscribed. See CISPES v. Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 770 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1985).10 In other
contexts, profanity -- even if intimidating -- would not go
unprotected.

Soooo Can you fucking READ that, and at least admit that profanity is not a first amendment right that you can use at-will in any place and in any way you so choose??

 

[Father Time]

PLEASE NOTE:

Rather than discriminating against protected profanity or
vulgarity, the statute reasonably regulates the time, place, and
manner of speech, irrespective of its particular content. The
16
content of passengers' speech is thus regulated only in an
incidental fashion. Only intimidating speech in a quite limited
context is proscribed. See CISPES v. Federal Bureau of
Investigation, 770 F.2d 468 (5th Cir. 1985).10 In other
contexts, profanity -- even if intimidating -- would not go
unprotected.

Soooo Can you fucking READ that, and at least admit that profanity is not a first amendment right that you can use at-will in any place and in any way you so choose??

I already said it's not protected in broadcast (stupid courts), so I all ready admitted it's not always protected, anyway

would not go unprotected... Do I really need to explain how double negatives work?

"The Supreme Court
has long held that, as a general rule, simple profanity or
vulgarity -- not rising to the level of "fighting words" or
obscenity -- is constitutionally protected speech."

 

[Contumacious]

Soooo Can you fucking READ that, and at least admit that profanity is not a first amendment right that you can use at-will in any place and in any way you so choose??

Profanity IS a First Amendment Right.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Case Law is NOT the Law of the Land

Supremacy Clause

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.

.

 

[JD_2B]

Soooo Can you fucking READ that, and at least admit that profanity is not a first amendment right that you can use at-will in any place and in any way you so choose??

Profanity IS a First Amendment Right.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Case Law is NOT the Law of the Land

Supremacy Clause

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.

.

So do you think that case law regarding child pornography should all be dismissed, all because it is not written in the fucking constitution, cont???



Nothing in the case law judgments abridge the freedom of speech..

OK look- Since you are being such a goddamned idiot about this- let's do it like we do it in court-

PRESENT YOUR CASE.

Show me, PROVE to me how freedom of speech has been infringed upon all because certain words and types of speech (generally speaking HOW YOU SAY IT) is not always protected. Prove to me that in each of those cases that you have, how the people saying those things have had their options to make their thoughts and opinions made clear, have had their fundamental freedom to say those things taken away.

I PROMISE you.. You quote something that has not been found to be protected speech, and I can give you a better way of saying it, to where the same sentiment and idea is expressed, without anyone being able to say shit.

 

[Contumacious]

Soooo Can you fucking READ that, and at least admit that profanity is not a first amendment right that you can use at-will in any place and in any way you so choose??

Profanity IS a First Amendment Right.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Case Law is NOT the Law of the Land

Supremacy Clause

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.

.

So do you think that case law regarding child pornography should all be dismissed, all because it is not written in the fucking constitution, cont???

As far as I know there is no fucking constitution. Just some rules . If the woman is sexually appealing and willing, nail her. But I haven't had sex since the Reagan administration so may be the rules have changed.

Nothing in the case law judgments abridge the freedom of speech.

HUH?

OK look- Since you are being such a goddamned idiot about this- let's do it like we do it in court-

PRESENT YOUR CASE..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let Founding Father Alexander Hamilton explain to you:


"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations.

.

 

[JD_2B]

Profanity IS a First Amendment Right.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Case Law is NOT the Law of the Land

Supremacy Clause

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.

.

So do you think that case law regarding child pornography should all be dismissed, all because it is not written in the fucking constitution, cont???

As far as I know there is no fucking constitution. Just some rules . If the woman is sexually appealing and willing, nail her. But I haven't had sex since the Reagan administration so may be the rules have changed.

Nothing in the case law judgments abridge the freedom of speech.

HUH?

OK look- Since you are being such a goddamned idiot about this- let's do it like we do it in court-

PRESENT YOUR CASE..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let Founding Father Alexander Hamilton explain to you:


"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations.

.

Dude- Give me ONE fucking example of how the freedom of EXPRESSION (the RIGHT to state your opinion) is surrendered in any way by censorship..

ONE.

Whats amatta? CONT do it??? What Are ya CHICKEN????

Come on.. Stop being a little bitch with me and give the class ONE EXAMPLE. VERBALIZE ONE FUCKING LOUSY ASS EXAMPLE. Thats all. Just write it on the board there.. You know you want to..

 

[Father Time]

So do you think that case law regarding child pornography should all be dismissed, all because it is not written in the fucking constitution, cont???

As far as I know there is no fucking constitution. Just some rules . If the woman is sexually appealing and willing, nail her. But I haven't had sex since the Reagan administration so may be the rules have changed.



HUH?

OK look- Since you are being such a goddamned idiot about this- let's do it like we do it in court-

PRESENT YOUR CASE..

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Let Founding Father Alexander Hamilton explain to you:


"It has been several times truly remarked, that bills of rights are in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgments of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was Magna Charta, obtained by the Barons, sword in hand, from king John. Such were the subsequent confirmations of that charter by subsequent princes. Such was the petition of right assented to by Charles the First, in the beginning of his reign. Such also was the declaration of right presented by the lords and commons to the prince of Orange in 1688, and afterwards thrown into the form of an act of parliament, called the bill of rights. It is evident, therefore, that according to their primitive signification, they have no application to constitutions professedly founded upon the power of the people, and executed by their immediate representatives and servants. Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing, and as they retain every thing, they have no need of particular reservations.

.

Dude- Give me ONE fucking example of how the freedom of EXPRESSION (the RIGHT to state your opinion) is surrendered in any way by censorship..

"Take away the right to say "fuck" and you take away the right to say "fuck the government.""-Lenny Bruce

Profanity can be a wonderful tool to get your point across briefly and bluntly, being banned words from TV they give them instant weight. If we're not able to express the depth of our feelings for anything we don't have freedom of expression.

Although we are also guaranteed freedom of speech and if we're not allowed to say certain words we don't have free speech, period.

 

[shawn_gg]

guess women would like to hear the good things only