Kill off the FCC

[RadiomanATL]

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.

Ummm. No.

I would like to see the FCC public decency enforcements go away. However, that is completely from me arguing against, as you put it:

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.

Just because I would like to see them go away does not mean that I think that they are currently infringing on first amendment rights like Comatose does.



Are you seriously not able to see the difference? In all seriousness is English your second language? It's either that or you are confusing people and positions....again.

So you want to revise your statements....assmunch?

 

[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.

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'll try laying out my position in the simplest terms here for you:

I would like to see the current enforcement of TV and radio decency standards by the FCC go away. I believe and know that the market will self censor in pursuit of the almighty dollar. I do not want the FCC disbanded, as the scope of the regulatory powers goes far beyond just the enforcement of the decency standards, and this regulatory power is very much needed.

However, I do not think that the current enforcement of the decency standards by the FCC violates any law or the US constitution.



Is it really this difficult to understand? I've been consistent with my position since I started posting in this thread.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Or....


Just because I would like to see the speed limit raised does not mean that I think the current speed limit is unconstitutional.

 

[Contumacious]

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.

:

That is correct according to the Cuban Constitution.

Here in these USA is illegal.

.

 

[Father Time]

9 pages here and I don't think anyone has actually argued in favor of keeping the TV censorship around just arguing over getting rid of the FCC entirely.

 

[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.

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.

Funny is right. What's really funny is they put the word fairness in the title when in fact their's nothing fair about it. But that's the way Democrats talk. They call it something that they know it's not just to fool everyone into thinking something is meant to do one thing when in fact it is meant to do something entirely different. One can assume that the title means a complete 180 to what it really means, and the same goes for everything else they dream up as well as the names of their organizations.

Btw, Only way they can pound the opposition into the ground is if they censor them.......not allow their side to be aired in public.

In effect....LIE TO AND MISLEAD THE PUBLIC.

Good point.

 

[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.

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.

Funny is right. What's really funny is they put the word fairness in the bill when in fact their's nothing fair about it. But that's the way Democrats talk. They call it something that they know it's not just to fool everyone into thinking something is meant to do one thing when in fact it is meant to do something entirely different.

Sorta like the Republicans with their 'Patriot Act'

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

Funny is right. What's really funny is they put the word fairness in the bill when in fact their's nothing fair about it. But that's the way Democrats talk. They call it something that they know it's not just to fool everyone into thinking something is meant to do one thing when in fact it is meant to do something entirely different.

Sorta like the Republicans with their 'Patriot Act'

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't you think defending us from all enemies foreign and domestic sounds Patriotic?

I guess after the left demonized it to such a great extent it would seem something that it's not. Much as you hate to admit, it did protect us from any further terrorist attacks.

But in retrospect it really was a sucky act. At least that's what the Democrats and the Driveby's told us.

 

[RadiomanATL]

No worries.

The "fairness doctrine" will not be passed.

Edit: At least not in the incarnation that has so many people worried.

 

[mudwhistle]

No worries.

The "fairness doctrine" will not be passed.

Edit: At least not in the incarnation that has so many people worried.

Nope. Obama has his guy running the FCC now so who needs a Fairness Doctrine anyway.

 

[RadiomanATL]

No worries.

The "fairness doctrine" will not be passed.

Edit: At least not in the incarnation that has so many people worried.

Nope. Obama has his guy running the FCC now so who needs a Fairness Doctrine anyway.

Has nothing really to do with that either.

Major FCC rule changes are very rarely due to the little letter beside the person in charge at the moment. 1927, 1934, 1948, 1996....these are the dates of major changes in the FCC's mandate. Notice that since the advent of broadcast television there has been only one. And it actually loosened "fairness" constrictions.

Here is what is currently in effect:

Equal Opportunities. The Communications Act requires that, when a station provides airtime to a legally qualified candidate for any public office (federal, state, or local), the station must “afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The equal opportunities provision of the Communications Act also provides that the station “shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast” by the candidate. The law exempts from the equal opportunities requirement appearances by candidates during bona fide news programming, defined as an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview, or documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the documentary) or on–the–spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities).

In addition, a station must sell political advertising time to certain candidates during specified periods before a primary or general election at the lowest rate charged for the station’s most favored commercial advertiser. Stations must maintain and make available for public inspection, in their public inspection files, a political file containing certain documents and information...

The Public and Broadcasting, July 2008 --- Media Bureau (FCC) USA

My opinion, but I don't see anyone being able to raise serious legal objection to this language. And I don't foresee any administration being able to overcome the objections by the public in order to change it either.

IMO, it's fearmongering.

 

[mudwhistle]

No worries.

The "fairness doctrine" will not be passed.

Edit: At least not in the incarnation that has so many people worried.

Nope. Obama has his guy running the FCC now so who needs a Fairness Doctrine anyway.

Has nothing really to do with that either.

Major FCC rule changes are very rarely due to the little letter beside the person in charge at the moment. 1927, 1934, 1948, 1996....these are the dates of major changes in the FCC's mandate. Notice that since the advent of broadcast television there has been only one. And it actually loosened "fairness" constrictions.

Here is what is currently in effect:

Equal Opportunities. The Communications Act requires that, when a station provides airtime to a legally qualified candidate for any public office (federal, state, or local), the station must “afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The equal opportunities provision of the Communications Act also provides that the station “shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast” by the candidate. The law exempts from the equal opportunities requirement appearances by candidates during bona fide news programming, defined as an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview, or documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the documentary) or on–the–spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities).

In addition, a station must sell political advertising time to certain candidates during specified periods before a primary or general election at the lowest rate charged for the station’s most favored commercial advertiser. Stations must maintain and make available for public inspection, in their public inspection files, a political file containing certain documents and information...

The Public and Broadcasting, July 2008 --- Media Bureau (FCC) USA

My opinion, but I don't see anyone being able to raise serious legal objection to this language. And I don't foresee any administration being able to overcome the objections by the public in order to change it either.

IMO, it's fearmongering.

Fearmongering.....wake the fuck up Dude.

Laws are open to interpretation. Get a good enough lawyer and you can sell anything in court. All you need is to establish precedent to get your way. And at the moment Obama and the Dems hold to keys to power in Washington. Who's to stop them?

Obama has already attempted to Black-list Fox News. This is just another phase of his takeover of media in America. There's no doubt about it.

 

[RadiomanATL]

Nope. Obama has his guy running the FCC now so who needs a Fairness Doctrine anyway.

Has nothing really to do with that either.

Major FCC rule changes are very rarely due to the little letter beside the person in charge at the moment. 1927, 1934, 1948, 1996....these are the dates of major changes in the FCC's mandate. Notice that since the advent of broadcast television there has been only one. And it actually loosened "fairness" constrictions.

Here is what is currently in effect:

Equal Opportunities. The Communications Act requires that, when a station provides airtime to a legally qualified candidate for any public office (federal, state, or local), the station must “afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office.” The equal opportunities provision of the Communications Act also provides that the station “shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast” by the candidate. The law exempts from the equal opportunities requirement appearances by candidates during bona fide news programming, defined as an appearance by a legally qualified candidate on a bona fide newscast, interview, or documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject covered by the documentary) or on–the–spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including debates, political conventions and related incidental activities).

In addition, a station must sell political advertising time to certain candidates during specified periods before a primary or general election at the lowest rate charged for the station’s most favored commercial advertiser. Stations must maintain and make available for public inspection, in their public inspection files, a political file containing certain documents and information...

The Public and Broadcasting, July 2008 --- Media Bureau (FCC) USA

My opinion, but I don't see anyone being able to raise serious legal objection to this language. And I don't foresee any administration being able to overcome the objections by the public in order to change it either.

IMO, it's fearmongering.

Fearmongering.....wake the fuck up Dude.

Laws are open to interpretation. Get a good enough lawyer and you can sell anything in court. All you need is to establish precedent to get your way.

Obama has already attempted to Black-list Fox News. This is just another phase of his takeover of media in America. There's no doubt about it.

Wake the fuck up?

lol.

Having been around the block a few times myself in this arena....let me know how it works out for you.

 

[mudwhistle]

[
Wake the fuck up?

lol.

Having been around the block a few times myself in this arena....let me know how it works out for you.

So you say.

I suppose you've been in on all of their secret meetings and you know exactly what they're up to.

I've been in the arena myself. I know a thing or two about the law and how it works as well.

First thing my prof taught me was that where the law is concerned facts are not the only element taken into consideration in any case. It all depends on what you want the facts to be and how far you're willing to go to make them a reality.

Get somebody with very few scruples in a position of power like Obama and many of the Dems in Washington and they can and will go as far as we allow them to. It's harder to reverse something that's already in place then it is to stop it from ever being implemented.

 

[RadiomanATL]

[
Wake the fuck up?

lol.

Having been around the block a few times myself in this arena....let me know how it works out for you.

So you say.

I suppose you've been in on all of their secret meetings and you know exactly what they're up to.

I've been in the arena myself. I know a thing or two about the law and how it works as well.

First thing my prof taught me was that where the law is concerned facts are not the only element taken into consideration in any case. It all depends on what you want the facts to be and how far you're willing to go to make them a reality.

Get somebody with very few scruples in a position of power like Obama and many of the Dems in Washington and they can and will go as far as we allow them to.

Like I said...

Let me know how it works out.

And as someone who very rarely makes predictions, I still stand by mine.

 

[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.

Ummm. No.

I would like to see the FCC public decency enforcements go away. However, that is completely from me arguing against, as you put it:

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.

Just because I would like to see them go away does not mean that I think that they are currently infringing on first amendment rights like Comatose does.



Are you seriously not able to see the difference? In all seriousness is English your second language? It's either that or you are confusing people and positions....again.

So you want to revise your statements....assmunch?

Ahh..

Sorry. It is my bad, overall.. I was not seeing the forest for the trees, as I am constantly on Cont's ass for all the time, I guess.

However, please do not stomp on my English skills or intelligence again. Your posts are generally vague, and do not clearly state your position. Not that this is uncommon around here or anything, but you gotta admit- with just words on a screen, it is very helpful to the reader to clarify your own positions on the given topic, rather than giving vague analogies to it and expecting the reader to be able to somehow read your expression.
Most of how we communicate IRL is through body language, and even emotive verbal cue.

On message boards (and I am not saying this to offend, just educate) and in other type-sets, you absolutely MUST be clear and diligent, rather than vague and half-hearted.
Again, no offense meant there. This happens all the time when people try to have conversations via text messaging, as well. This is why I refuse to text conversations and will simply ignore someone who seems to have all the time to text and no emotional energy to talk. All that can result is a downward spiral that is very comparable to what you and I just experienced.

 

[KittenKoder]

Only two types of people like censorship:

1. Oppressives who like to tell everyone what to think.

2. Lazy parents.

 

[mudwhistle]

[
Wake the fuck up?

lol.

Having been around the block a few times myself in this arena....let me know how it works out for you.

So you say.

I suppose you've been in on all of their secret meetings and you know exactly what they're up to.

I've been in the arena myself. I know a thing or two about the law and how it works as well.

First thing my prof taught me was that where the law is concerned facts are not the only element taken into consideration in any case. It all depends on what you want the facts to be and how far you're willing to go to make them a reality.

Get somebody with very few scruples in a position of power like Obama and many of the Dems in Washington and they can and will go as far as we allow them to.

Like I said...

Let me know how it works out.

And as someone who very rarely makes predictions, I still stand by mine.

I'm having a little trouble trying to figure out what your point is other then you trust these people to follow the law to the letter.

This is not very realistic because we've seen too many times this year where they have tried going around laws and around the Constitution......Obama's use of Czars is a prime example of it.

Czars are supposed to be advisers to the President. They are prohibited by law from holding positions of authority, yet they do in the Obama White House. Try explaining why that is and why you feel confident that we should trust this White House when they can't even follow the laws they impose on all the rest of us. Why should we ignore the obvious and let our guard down. After all of the bullying tactics we've seen in this administration what's to stop Obama from imposing bans on communications in this country on TV, radio, and the Internet?

Any smart lawyer can figure out that the removal of proposed fines and penalties for any banned programming is gonna be hard and could possibly take years of legal actions once they are in place. Somebody has to file suit and prove in court the lack of constitutionality of those restrictions. Legal maneuvers can string such a case out for years, even decades. But you knew this already because after all, you are an expert on the laws in this country. Nobody can pull the wool over your eyes. Right?

 

[Contumacious]

So you say.

I suppose you've been in on all of their secret meetings and you know exactly what they're up to.

I've been in the arena myself. I know a thing or two about the law and how it works as well.

First thing my prof taught me was that where the law is concerned facts are not the only element taken into consideration in any case. It all depends on what you want the facts to be and how far you're willing to go to make them a reality.

Get somebody with very few scruples in a position of power like Obama and many of the Dems in Washington and they can and will go as far as we allow them to.

Like I said...

Let me know how it works out.

And as someone who very rarely makes predictions, I still stand by mine.

I'm having a little trouble trying to figure out what your point is other then you trust these people to follow the law to the letter.

He is a Marxist hence he loves to be enslaved, he loves having a bureaucrat's fingers in his nostrils guiding his every step.

.

 

[JD_2B]

Only two types of people like censorship:

1. Oppressives who like to tell everyone what to think.

2. Lazy parents.

1- No- Censorship does not infringe on your freedom of speech, expression, religion, or free thought. It is not oppressive to support holding people to a higher standard with their language, than to use curse words, and sexually explicit imagery.

2- With all of the programs we have available to use, the V-chip, parental controls, etc.. sure- you could easily SAY that parents who support censorship are lazy. Saying this does not make it true, though.. Not everyone has the updated technology to even use parental controls on a television set.. and even if everyone did, and had a V-chip, then without the FCC, it would be up to the individual or company what counts as "good and okay" or "bad and not okay" for each individual age group. As it is, there are certain guidelines and limitations that are in place to ensure that the ratings for these shows are correct. BUT, without that standard, and without an agency to enforce it, it will slowly but surely diminish from being what was once considered "good and okay" for our kids, to "bad and distasteful".
Furthermore, when it comes to free speech in the political forum, like a news station's talk show, involving debate- all too often these guys already try to get away with using all sorts of abusive language, and all too often will use words that incite violence...


Examples of words and phrases that are NOT protected by the First Amendment, but that people ALREADY use in political talk-show dialogue, and news media:


"monkey" -in re: Obama (FOX) (hate speech)

"Shut up!" - Bill O'Reiley's favorite (which actually infringes on the other speakers freedoms more than him being censored would do)

"Allowing transgenders to exist, pretty soon it becomes normal to fall in love with the animals,..."I look forward to when [the transgender children] go out into society and society beats them down. And they wind up in therapy." (Speech that incites violence)
Read more at: Michael Rowe: KRXQ Sacramento Radio Hosts Encourage Violence Against Transgender Children

"Obama held one of the first meetings of his political career in Bill Ayers's living room, and they've worked together on various projects in Chicago." Here, Palin began to connect the dots. "These are the same guys who think that patriotism is paying higher taxes -- remember that's what Joe Biden had said. "And" -- she paused and sighed -- "I am just so fearful that this is not a man who sees America the way you and I see America, as the greatest force for good in the world. I'm afraid this is someone who sees America as 'imperfect enough' to work with a former domestic terrorist who had targeted his own country."- Palin, during the 2008 Presidential Election
"It's a dangerous road, but we have no choice," a top McCain strategist recently admitted to the Daily News. "If we keep talking about the economic crisis, we're going to lose."
In a recent video clip from MSNBC, McCain asked a rally, "Who is the real Barack Obama?" In response to McCain's rhetorical question, a voice from the crowd can be clearly heard to shout in response, "Terrorist!" (speech that incites violence)
Read more at: Jeffrey Feldman: Is Palin Trying To Incite Violence Against Obama?

Speech that is protected, but not punished-

*Bono uses the F word during the 2003 Golden Globe awards, which NBC aired live.

*Cher said "so Fuck 'em" live on Fox, during the 2002 Billboard music awards.

* Paris and Nicole on stage at yet another awards show aired live by FOX, allowing one of the girls to say "Why do they even call it "The Simple Life?" Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple."l

*Several shows aired by FOX also had characters saying "bullshit" or "bullshitter".. (aired on the Early Show, in an interview, so not even considered indecent)

NOW- since some of these were aired live, and the station did not have enough notice to bleep these out, the station did not get punished for these. No big deal, right?? Right.. At least the ones that were aired live, anyways.. The hate speech and inciting violence??? Those are not protected uses of your vocal chords.

No. 07-582: FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc. - Petition

When you get to shows were they COULD stop this demeaning.to.all.who.hear.it type of language, and they simply CHOOSE not to, that is when those complaints come with a penalty.

WHY??

Because parents TRUST these stations to abide by their given rating systems, and to overall just not say things on national or even local television that they would not say (or not want said) directly in front of a child.

If my son wants to watch the news, he is welcome to it. I understand that during a live interview or discussion, some words that are FAR less than appealing might come out. That is okay, I can discuss that one word with him..

When it happens FREQUENTLY, though, what am I supposed to do or say? Allowing non-censorship pretty much makes parents powerless in trying to teach their children to hold themselves to a higher standard in their use of the English language. The more commonly a word is heard, the quicker it becomes a part of your vocabulary.

I don't know about you, but when I see a bunch of teenagers standing around cussing this way and that, I do not think "This is their first amendment freedom of speech hard at work" and applaud them. In fact, MOST people think "Ugh.. punk teenagers"..

Guess what? That brings property values down.. It makes the houses and the area to be less desirable.

Censor away, FCC.. Censor away. Nobody wants to take away anyone else's First Amendment freedom to express themselves, to speak on politics, to have peaceable assembly, or to have the freedom of religion.. We just don't want old people to see our kids, 5 years from now, standing around at some corner store saying Fuck this and Fuck that, and declaring the parents of that neighborhood to be, as you so eloquently put it, "Lazy", and resultingly, not want to buy our freaking houses.

Can you understand that??