Kill off the FCC

[Steerpike]

1- No- Censorship does not infringe on your freedom of speech, expression, religion, or free thought.

Of course it infringes upon it. The questions is whether it is a permissible infringement under our Constitution.

You're not exactly on target in your approach to foul language either. Foul language doesn't in and of itself equate to obscenity, which lacks protection.

In the Cohen v. CA case, where a kid was arrested for having a t-shirt that said "Fuck the Draft," the Supreme Court overturned, saying "Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."

 

[Contumacious]

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.

Of course it does.

Long Live SATV and cyberspace - LIBERTARIAN TERRITORY.

.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

My point is that I don't foresee the law changing from the way it currently is. That is all.

 

[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?

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.

My posts were crystal clear. Considering that you were the only person who had trouble comprehending them, perhaps the problem is not with what was posted, but rather the person who was reading them.

Here was my very first post into this thread. My response to the OP is bolded:

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?

You're talking about deregulating part of the FCC, which I agree with. However the FCC does a whole pile more than that, some of it actually important and useful. So I cannot agree with disbanding the FCC.

How is my position NOT clear? Instead of pompously offering paragraphs of advice, you couldn't just say "mea culpa" and move on?

 

[RadiomanATL]

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.

.

And you're a fucking loon who likes to stick his pecker into spider monkeys.

You got anything else?

 

[Contumacious]

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.

.

And you're a fucking loon who likes to stick his pecker into spider monkeys.

You got anything else?

He is a Marxist hence he loves to be enslaved, he loves having a bureaucrat's fingers in his nostrils guiding his every step. He also has a secret , serious spider monkeys fetish.

.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

.

And you're a fucking loon who likes to stick his pecker into spider monkeys.

You got anything else?

Actually it's Howling monkeys....


make um howl at the moon....

....I think that was a funny response though.

 

[Father Time]

"Censorship does not infringe on your freedom of speech, expression,"

I don't think you know what censorship means. One definition is preventing people from saying certain things so yeah it does infringe on freedom of speech.

""monkey" -in re: Obama (FOX) (hate speech)"
Show me law precedent that says hate speech isn't covered by the 1st amendment. Hell I doubt that even qualifies as hate speech.

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

Are you joking? All it means is 'be quiet'. If the person chooses to ignore it... nothing happens. Shut up by itself is not automatically a threat (it can be like every other command, depending on tone).

"
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."

Uh no it doesn't, you can filter out the bad shows and explain that some words should not be said.

 

[RadiomanATL]

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

.

And you're a fucking loon who likes to stick his pecker into spider monkeys.

You got anything else?

He is a Marxist hence he loves to be enslaved, he loves having a bureaucrat's fingers in his nostrils guiding his every step. He also has a secret , serious spider monkeys fetish.

.

I'll take that as a "no".

 

[JD_2B]

1- No- Censorship does not infringe on your freedom of speech, expression, religion, or free thought.

Of course it infringes upon it. The questions is whether it is a permissible infringement under our Constitution.

You're not exactly on target in your approach to foul language either. Foul language doesn't in and of itself equate to obscenity, which lacks protection.

Obscenity in and of itself is allowed, depending on where, when, and how it is used. But obscenity on television and in other venues where commerce and political speech frequents, is NOT protected. You have to understand, not everything is allowed.

In the Cohen v. CA case, where a kid was arrested for having a t-shirt that said "Fuck the Draft," the Supreme Court overturned, saying "Absent a more particularized and compelling reason for its actions, the State may not, consistently with the First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense."[/QUOTE]

I agree with that finding. I used to have a T-shirt depicting a rasta man smoking a doobie, and giving the finger. I have had multiple other shirts that have bad words on them too. Profanity and obscenity are two separately considered things though, and THIS THREAD also is not discussing censorship overall, just by the FCC.

 

[Steerpike]

Obscenity in and of itself is allowed, depending on where, when, and how it is used. But obscenity on television and in other venues where commerce and political speech frequents, is NOT protected. You have to understand, not everything is allowed.

You are failing to grasp something here. Obscenity is not protected in the public sphere. That doesn't mean it is necessarily disallowed, but where the government chooses to disallow it there is no First Amendment protection if in fact the speech is determined to be obscene.

 

[JD_2B]

"Censorship does not infringe on your freedom of speech, expression,"

I don't think you know what censorship means. One definition is preventing people from saying certain things so yeah it does infringe on freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not all encompassing. For instance, one may not yell "Fire!" or "Bomb!" in a public movie theatre. It is YOU, not I, who does not understand the scope of the First Amendment, darling.

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

Show me law precedent that says hate speech isn't covered by the 1st amendment. Hell I doubt that even qualifies as hate speech.

I fucking did. I linked the goddamned SC rulings. Dont be so ignorant as to not bother to look, and then DARE to say that I am not EDUCATING your sorry ass.

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

Are you joking? All it means is 'be quiet'. If the person chooses to ignore it... nothing happens. Shut up by itself is not automatically a threat (it can be like every other command, depending on tone).

The CASELAW ruling says that there should be an equal opportunity for the other side to speak. O'Reiley LOVES to cut people off midsentence, and then cut them out entirely when they are not telling him just what they want to hear.

In certain respects, however, governmental regulation does implicate First Amendment values to a great degree; insistence that broadcasters afford persons attacked on the air an opportunity to reply and that they afford a right to reply from opposing points of view when they editorialize on the air was unanimously found to be constitutional.48Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969) . “The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, . . . .” Id. at 369. The two issues passed on in Red Lion were integral parts of the doctrine. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”50 The broadcasters had argued that if they were required to provide equal time at their expense to persons attacked and to points of view different from those expressed on the air, expression would be curbed through self–censorship, for fear of controversy and economic loss. Justice White thought this possibility “at best speculative,” but if it should materialize “the Commission is not powerless to insist that they give adequate and fair attention to public issues.”51
CRS/LII Annotated Constitution First Amendment

"
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."

Uh no it doesn't, you can filter out the bad shows and explain that some words should not be said.

How can I filter it? I dont have parental controls, and should not have to do away with the television set, just because YOU can't handle the responsibilities that come with being a media broadcaster.

 

[Steerpike]

The CASELAW ruling says that there should be an equal opportunity for the other side to speak. O'Reiley LOVES to cut people off midsentence, and then cut them out entirely when they are not telling him just what they want to hear.

Are you suggesting that the First Amendment is implicated by a private cable broadcast? Neither FoxNews nor CNN nor any other private entity violates the First Amendment.

 

[Contumacious]

Obscenity in and of itself is allowed, depending on where, when, and how it is used. But obscenity on television and in other venues where commerce and political speech frequents, is NOT protected. You have to understand, not everything is allowed.

You are failing to grasp something here. Obscenity is not protected in the public sphere. That doesn't mean it is necessarily disallowed, but where the government chooses to disallow it there is no First Amendment protection if in fact the speech is determined to be obscene.

South Park and Libertarian Philosophy

Plato’s Symposium is useful for showing that vulgarity and philosophical thought are not necessarily antithetical. Before dismissing South Park, we should recall that some of the greatest comic writers – Aristophanes, Chaucer, Rabelais, Shakespeare, Ben Jonson, Voltaire, Jonathan Swift – plumbed the depths of obscenity even as they rose to the heights of philosophical thought

 

[JD_2B]

The CASELAW ruling says that there should be an equal opportunity for the other side to speak. O'Reiley LOVES to cut people off midsentence, and then cut them out entirely when they are not telling him just what they want to hear.

Are you suggesting that the First Amendment is implicated by a private cable broadcast? Neither FoxNews nor CNN nor any other private entity violates the First Amendment.

Again, you failed to read the decisions..

Screw you, then. Why waste my time with someone who is just here to be a troll?

 

[Steerpike]

Again, you failed to read the decisions..

Screw you, then. Why waste my time with someone who is just here to be a troll?

You obviously don't have a very good understanding of either the First Amendment or obscenity. That much is clear and it explains why you don't want to 'waste' time. You do not, in fact, know what you are talking about.

 

[Father Time]

"Censorship does not infringe on your freedom of speech, expression,"

I don't think you know what censorship means. One definition is preventing people from saying certain things so yeah it does infringe on freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not all encompassing. For instance, one may not yell "Fire!" or "Bomb!" in a public movie theatre.

Censorship encompasses more than just that like say banning books which is indeed unconstitutional.

I fucking did. I linked the goddamned SC rulings. Dont be so ignorant as to not bother to look, and then DARE to say that I am not EDUCATING your sorry ass.

Your Supreme Court ruling dealt with profanity over broadcast, not with hate speech or giving the other side a chance to speak.

The CASELAW ruling says that there should be an equal opportunity for the other side to speak. O'Reiley LOVES to cut people off midsentence, and then cut them out entirely when they are not telling him just what they want to hear.

How can I filter it? I dont have parental controls, and should not have to do away with the television set, just because YOU can't handle the responsibilities that come with being a media broadcaster.

How old is your TV most old ones have V-chips. Although it seems hardly fair to take away the right to see uncensored speech just because You are unwilling to get a V-Chip or control what your kids watch.l
"Censorship is like saying a man can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it"-Mark Twain

 

[JD_2B]

I don't think you know what censorship means. One definition is preventing people from saying certain things so yeah it does infringe on freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not all encompassing. For instance, one may not yell "Fire!" or "Bomb!" in a public movie theatre.

Censorship encompasses more than just that like say banning books which is indeed unconstitutional.


Your Supreme Court ruling dealt with profanity over broadcast, not with hate speech or giving the other side a chance to speak.

The ruling, had anyone actually taken the time to look it over, had multiple citations at the bottom, which do say that first amendment rights are fairly limited- They are broadly allowed, as long as they do not have hate speech, incite violence, and in certain aspects of use- use profanity or obscenity. Look, bro, I am a libertarian, contrary to whatever you might think. I am also, however, a moderate just like most of society is. I am also not pulling any of this out of my ass. You BOTH refuse to REVIEW the case law presented to you, because neither of you can face the fucking reality that the first amendment is not as "all inclusive" as your deluded selves would prefer to think it is. You also skip through my posts and pick and choose the facts I am presenting just to... what? Troll? Sorry but no matter how many pages this thread goes long, the law of the land is not going to magically become all inclusive.. The first amendment wasn't even intended that way. It was intended to be a means of allowing citizens to get their voices heard, in support or opposition of any issues at hand, and to disallow government from giving any religion the ability to rule over the country or any public land, therein. That's all it was intended to do.
Face it.. You two losers just cant debate the subject and are simply having a temper tantrum because you wish you could spread your hate and disgust over the public airways. Too fucking bad. Aint gonna happen.. Not even if this thread goes to page 1 million. Sorry!

The CASELAW ruling says that there should be an equal opportunity for the other side to speak. O'Reiley LOVES to cut people off midsentence, and then cut them out entirely when they are not telling him just what they want to hear.

How can I filter it? I dont have parental controls, and should not have to do away with the television set, just because YOU can't handle the responsibilities that come with being a media broadcaster.

How old is your TV most old ones have V-chips. Although it seems hardly fair to take away the right to see uncensored speech just because you are unable to do your damn job as a parent.

"Censorship is like saying a man can't eat a steak because a baby can't chew it"-Mark Twain

No most NEW ones have V-chips, dumbfuck.. The FCC only required TVs made as of the year 2000, to have V-Chip technology. Christ, how many people have a TV that is less than 10 years old? OK I know- Lots of people do- now that we made the digital switch, people have digital TVs. I can tell you for a fact, though, that many people DO NOT have a digital TV, and DO NOT have a TV that was made after 2000. I don't know a whole lot of people who have KIDS, especially, that have TVs with parental controls..

And even if we did, that is COMPLETELY beside the point, because if the FCC was obliterated, then so would censoring, and with it, parental controls. The parental controls on a TV set, would only be the TV media broadcaster's controls. The point is, if I don't trust the media ALREADY, even under the FCC legislation (yeah they go ahead and take the hits and pay the fines, if it is worth it to them, sure they do), and they are then having these fines and restrictions banished from the map of justice, then what fucking good are V-Chips, in the end? No good. Having a V-Chip with no FCC to place requirements and limitations on ratings, is like not having a V-chip at all.

Besides, I do not subscribe to "robotic parenting", either.. I am the parent. I am the registered voter, and if I have to be the only person who gives a rats ass what is said or showed on television or on the radio, then you can bet your ass I am going to let my voice be known. Not on some crap ass message board, though. NOOOO Thats not how to let your representatives know you are concerned.. I write letters through Email. If you dont like something, you are FREE (by the First Amendment) to do the same. =)

 

[Father Time]

Freedom of speech is not all encompassing. For instance, one may not yell "Fire!" or "Bomb!" in a public movie theatre.

Censorship encompasses more than just that like say banning books which is indeed unconstitutional.


Your Supreme Court ruling dealt with profanity over broadcast, not with hate speech or giving the other side a chance to speak.

The ruling, had anyone actually taken the time to look it over, had multiple citations at the bottom,

Over 250, which one dealt with hate speech? ctrl +f 'hate ' brought up nothing so it clearly doesn't label which court case dealt with hate speech so I ask you again to cite legal precedent.

'They are broadly allowed, as long as they do not have hate speech, incite violence, and in certain aspects of use- use profanity or obscenity. Look, bro, I am a libertarian, contrary to whatever you might think.'

A libertarian who advocates censorship? Sure.

"I am also, however, a moderate just like most of society is."

Pick one. Libertarian or moderate, you can't be both.

I am also not pulling any of this out of my ass.

You just refuse to cite it.

You BOTH refuse to REVIEW the case law presented to you,

According to your own words you haven't given me case law just case law that supposedly references the legal decision I'm looking for.

because neither of you can face the fucking reality that the first amendment is not as "all inclusive" as your deluded selves would prefer to think it is.

Yes because flaming will somehow make me see your point.

You also skip through my posts and pick and choose the facts I am presenting just to... what?

Am I not allowed to contest you on only some points?

Sorry but no matter how many pages this thread goes long, the law of the land is not going to magically become all inclusive.. The first amendment wasn't even intended that way. It was intended to be a means of allowing citizens to get their voices heard, in support or opposition of any issues at hand,

When did the founding fathers, say that?

Face it.. You two losers just cant debate the subject and are simply having a temper tantrum

And you can't be challenged to back up assertions without name calling.

Look I asked you for precedent for hate speech and you haven't even given me the name of a case.

because you wish you could spread your hate and disgust over the public airways.

Nice try but no I believe in giving free speech even to people I disagree with. It's what free speech means.

And even if we did, that is COMPLETELY beside the point, because if the FCC was obliterated, then so would censoring, and with it, parental controls. The parental controls on a TV set, would only be the TV media broadcaster's controls. The point is, if I don't trust the media ALREADY, even under the FCC legislation (yeah they go ahead and take the hits and pay the fines, if it is worth it to them, sure they do), and they are then having these fines and restrictions banished from the map of justice, then what fucking good are V-Chips, in the end? No good. Having a V-Chip with no FCC to place requirements and limitations on ratings, is like not having a V-chip at all.

You do know you can block individual channels right?

Oh and rating systems that are not maintained by the government can work fine too. The ratings used for video games and movies are maintained and assigned by the respective industries, not by the government. Interestingly neither rating system carries any weight in government, you can legally sell 17+ rated games or tickets to an R rated movie to a minor and yet theatre and game store franchises choose not to.

Besides, I do not subscribe to "robotic parenting", either.. I am the parent. I am the registered voter, and if I have to be the only person who gives a rats ass what is said or showed on television or on the radio, then you can bet your ass I am going to let my voice be known. Not on some crap ass message board, though. NOOOO Thats not how to let your representatives know you are concerned.. I write letters through Email. If you dont like something, you are FREE (by the First Amendment) to do the same. =)

Yes because if you don't like something it's very libertarian to demand the government forcefully put a stop to it. Or you could try complaining to the stations.

 

[Steerpike]

According to your own words you haven't given me case law just case law that supposedly references the legal decision I'm looking for.



Yes because flaming will somehow make me see your point.

Flaming usually comes when you are talking to someone who is not well-versed in the subject matter. That appears to be the case here. If you notice who is doing the name-calling then you'll see at the same time who lacks knowledge.