Mark Levin interviews the FCC Commissioner on massive internet takeover

[IlarMeilyr]

This debate is supposedly NOT about regulating what is said on the interwebz, however.

The DANGER (or one of the dangers) is how the proposed rules and regulations might later be abused in ways that have the effect of censoring content. Another danger, of course, is that the desire to impose such censorship is the real root goal of the folks (like Obumbler) trying to get the rules implemented.

 

[BlueGin]

Here it comes.....

The Right Scoop ^
Mark Levin had on his show tonight Ajit Pai, the FCC Commissioner who is trying to expose how Obama and his cronies at the FCC are going to takeover the internet. Pai told Levin that after the 2012 election, Obama told the FCC what he wanted them to do and wallah, now we have a 332 page Internet takeover plan. That’s why he calls it Obama’s plan. To sum up the takeover, Pai characterized it like this: “We’re adopting solutions that won’t work to a problem that doesn’t exist using legal authority we don’t have.” Sound familiar? Listen to the...

Yes, it does sound familiar because it's the same old nonsensical fear-mongoring for financial profit and political gain. And, as usual, conservatives moths fly right into the light bulb.

I see Groucho's cigar, burned your brain!

Libs only appreciate fear mongering when they are behind it.

 

[Pogo]

INTRODUCTION

In the Radio Act of 1927 Congress recognized broadcasters' right to "free speech," 1 meaning those granted licenses to operate AM radio stations could do so free of government censorship or programming. However, a review of the Progressive influences on the Radio Act indicates that Congress never intended for radio licensees to use free speech to create an open, vibrant marketplace of ideas through radio broadcasting. What Congress sought for the new medium was a voice that would articulate middle class ideology. 2

This research does not refute the existing history written on the text of the Radio Act, which is examined after the major issues have been considered. The search is for the underlying ideology in the Act that may not be found by only reading it and accepting a literal understanding of "free speech." From an ideological approach, the question is how did Congress intend for radio licensees to practice "free speech?" To answer that question, this paper will review the Progressive tenets contained within the Radio Act and the language at its heart, particularly the creation of a commission to regulate radio in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

In this examination of the Radio Act, Progressive influence is evident in many places. The Progressive influence can be found in the 1926 Congressional debate that preceded President Calvin Coolidge's signature in 1927. Much of that debate and many provisions of the law focused on free speech issues. The Supreme Court decisions resulting from convictions under the Espionage Act of 1917 suggest that the justices shared a limited, Progressive definition of free speech, indicating both branches of government held similar presumptions on the federal right to regulate the marketplace of ideas.

The FCC has never regulated broadcast content. Other than that you can't use the airwaves to commit libel or to run a lottery, it's never either encouraged or discouraged any kind of content whatsoever. The entire blurb above is irrelevant wandering rumination. Because there's no such language.

 

[Pogo]

Once again --- posting images is not articulating a point.

That's why I always say, if you can't articulate your own point, well it just might be you ain't got one.
e.g. post 1...

So you're siding with restricting internet access then?

No, it means I like pistachio on my hubcaps.

Weird segue dood.

The poster put an image up with a text that implies a conclusion. He doesn't say how we get to that conclusion. He never does, just posts an endless diarrhea of Google images and runs away. Now read my post again and we'll start all over.

 

[Vigilante]

INTRODUCTION

In the Radio Act of 1927 Congress recognized broadcasters' right to "free speech," 1 meaning those granted licenses to operate AM radio stations could do so free of government censorship or programming. However, a review of the Progressive influences on the Radio Act indicates that Congress never intended for radio licensees to use free speech to create an open, vibrant marketplace of ideas through radio broadcasting. What Congress sought for the new medium was a voice that would articulate middle class ideology. 2

This research does not refute the existing history written on the text of the Radio Act, which is examined after the major issues have been considered. The search is for the underlying ideology in the Act that may not be found by only reading it and accepting a literal understanding of "free speech." From an ideological approach, the question is how did Congress intend for radio licensees to practice "free speech?" To answer that question, this paper will review the Progressive tenets contained within the Radio Act and the language at its heart, particularly the creation of a commission to regulate radio in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

In this examination of the Radio Act, Progressive influence is evident in many places. The Progressive influence can be found in the 1926 Congressional debate that preceded President Calvin Coolidge's signature in 1927. Much of that debate and many provisions of the law focused on free speech issues. The Supreme Court decisions resulting from convictions under the Espionage Act of 1917 suggest that the justices shared a limited, Progressive definition of free speech, indicating both branches of government held similar presumptions on the federal right to regulate the marketplace of ideas.

The FCC has never regulated broadcast content. Other than that you can't use the airwaves to commit libel or to run a lottery, it's never either encouraged or discouraged any kind of content whatsoever. The entire blurb above is irrelevant wandering rumination. Because there's no such language.

It didn't regulate broadcast content.... more delusional OCD Pogo shit!

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses to both present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was, in the Commission's view, honest, equitable and balanced. The FCC eliminated the Doctrine in 1987

Must be wonderful, to always fall on ones sword!...another bookmarked OCDPogoGirl post!

 

[Pogo]

INTRODUCTION

In the Radio Act of 1927 Congress recognized broadcasters' right to "free speech," 1 meaning those granted licenses to operate AM radio stations could do so free of government censorship or programming. However, a review of the Progressive influences on the Radio Act indicates that Congress never intended for radio licensees to use free speech to create an open, vibrant marketplace of ideas through radio broadcasting. What Congress sought for the new medium was a voice that would articulate middle class ideology. 2

This research does not refute the existing history written on the text of the Radio Act, which is examined after the major issues have been considered. The search is for the underlying ideology in the Act that may not be found by only reading it and accepting a literal understanding of "free speech." From an ideological approach, the question is how did Congress intend for radio licensees to practice "free speech?" To answer that question, this paper will review the Progressive tenets contained within the Radio Act and the language at its heart, particularly the creation of a commission to regulate radio in the "public interest, convenience, and necessity."

In this examination of the Radio Act, Progressive influence is evident in many places. The Progressive influence can be found in the 1926 Congressional debate that preceded President Calvin Coolidge's signature in 1927. Much of that debate and many provisions of the law focused on free speech issues. The Supreme Court decisions resulting from convictions under the Espionage Act of 1917 suggest that the justices shared a limited, Progressive definition of free speech, indicating both branches of government held similar presumptions on the federal right to regulate the marketplace of ideas.

I see we're gonna cut-and-paste bomb all the threads with the same spiel, so I'll just paste the same response: there is no such language. The FCC has never controlled content on the airwaves. Other than that you can't run a lottery (which is why we hear the phrase "no purchase necessary") and you can't libel somebody -- that's it. Nothing in anybody's broadcast license refers to "progressive speech", "free speech" or anything of the kind nor is there a "speech test". Doesn't happen.

It's amusing to speculate "what if it did?". I guess. But it doesn't.

 

[Contumacious]

The FCC has never regulated broadcast content. Other than that you can't use the airwaves to commit libel or to run a lottery, it's never either encouraged or discouraged any kind of content whatsoever. The entire blurb above is irrelevant wandering rumination. Because there's no such language.

The ignorass never cease to amaze me


U.S. Supreme Court


FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)

A radio station of respondent Pacifica Foundation (hereinafter respondent) made an afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue, entitled "Filthy Words," which listed and repeated a variety of colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." A father who heard the broadcast while driving with his young son complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which, after forwarding the complaint for comment to and receiving a response from respondent, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint. While not imposing formal sanctions, the FCC stated that the order would be "associated with the station's license file, and in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I-III and IV-C, finding:

• 
  
  

2. Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in advance, ************the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content of completed broadcasts. Pp. 735-738.****************


Let's face it dude.


The tyranny is ABSOLUTE

AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW


.

 

[Pogo]

The FCC has never regulated broadcast content. Other than that you can't use the airwaves to commit libel or to run a lottery, it's never either encouraged or discouraged any kind of content whatsoever. The entire blurb above is irrelevant wandering rumination. Because there's no such language.

The ignorass never cease to amaze me


U.S. Supreme Court


FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)

A radio station of respondent Pacifica Foundation (hereinafter respondent) made an afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue, entitled "Filthy Words," which listed and repeated a variety of colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." A father who heard the broadcast while driving with his young son complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which, after forwarding the complaint for comment to and receiving a response from respondent, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint. While not imposing formal sanctions, the FCC stated that the order would be "associated with the station's license file, and in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I-III and IV-C, finding:

2. Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in advance, ************the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content of completed broadcasts. Pp. 735-738.****************


Let's face it dude.


The tyranny is ABSOLUTE

AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

That's not control of ideas, but style. And secondly, FCC operates on such cases passively -- that is, it takes no pro-active action but responds to complaints from the public. If there's no complaint, there's no FCC involvement. That is, it acts on behalf of the public. And that's exactly what took place here. It's right in your bloated post.

Look dood, this is my career. You're not about to snowjob me with cuts and pastes from shit you found on the internet after a seven minute search. Nor is my vision so bad I need the extra large font that looks like you're just learning to write -- what are you, five years old? Or do you just think when you have no point writing it real big and red somehow makes it into one?

Now why don't you try to form thoughts in your own words -- if indeed you can come up with any -- instead of just parroting shit you find on the internets. You're as bad as Pissyante with the cut-and-paste crapola.

Your first cut-and-paste tried to float a myth about some mandated "ideology". Suddenly now you shift to profanity. Vacillate much?

 

[Contumacious]

The FCC has never regulated broadcast content. Other than that you can't use the airwaves to commit libel or to run a lottery, it's never either encouraged or discouraged any kind of content whatsoever. The entire blurb above is irrelevant wandering rumination. Because there's no such language.

The ignorass never cease to amaze me


U.S. Supreme Court


FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)

A radio station of respondent Pacifica Foundation (hereinafter respondent) made an afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue, entitled "Filthy Words," which listed and repeated a variety of colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." A father who heard the broadcast while driving with his young son complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which, after forwarding the complaint for comment to and receiving a response from respondent, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint. While not imposing formal sanctions, the FCC stated that the order would be "associated with the station's license file, and in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I-III and IV-C, finding:

2. Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in advance, ************the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content of completed broadcasts. Pp. 735-738.****************


Let's face it dude.


The tyranny is ABSOLUTE

AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

That's not control of ideas, but style. And secondly, FCC operates on such cases passively -- that is, it takes no pro-active action but responds to complaints from the public. If there's no complaint, there's no FCC involvement. That is, it acts on behalf of the public. And that's exactly what took place here. It's right in your bloated post.

Look dood, this is my career. You're not about to snowjob me with cuts and pastes from shit you found on the internet after a seven minute search. Nor am I six hundred years old so I don't need the extra large font that looks like you're just learning to write -- what are you, five years old?

Now why don't you try to form thoughts in your own words -- if indeed you can come up with any -- instead of just parroting shit you find on the internets. You're as bad as Pissyante with the cut-and-paste crapola.

REPEATING


2. Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in advance, ************the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content of completed broadcasts. Pp. 735-738.****************

Find someone who understands the English Language to translate it for you.


.

 

[Pogo]

The FCC has never regulated broadcast content. Other than that you can't use the airwaves to commit libel or to run a lottery, it's never either encouraged or discouraged any kind of content whatsoever. The entire blurb above is irrelevant wandering rumination. Because there's no such language.

The ignorass never cease to amaze me


U.S. Supreme Court


FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION, 438 U.S. 726 (1978)

A radio station of respondent Pacifica Foundation (hereinafter respondent) made an afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue, entitled "Filthy Words," which listed and repeated a variety of colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." A father who heard the broadcast while driving with his young son complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which, after forwarding the complaint for comment to and receiving a response from respondent, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint. While not imposing formal sanctions, the FCC stated that the order would be "associated with the station's license file, and in the event subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been granted by Congress

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I-III and IV-C, finding:

2. Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in advance, ************the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content of completed broadcasts. Pp. 735-738.****************


Let's face it dude.


The tyranny is ABSOLUTE

AND WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW

That's not control of ideas, but style. And secondly, FCC operates on such cases passively -- that is, it takes no pro-active action but responds to complaints from the public. If there's no complaint, there's no FCC involvement. That is, it acts on behalf of the public. And that's exactly what took place here. It's right in your bloated post.

Look dood, this is my career. You're not about to snowjob me with cuts and pastes from shit you found on the internet after a seven minute search. Nor am I six hundred years old so I don't need the extra large font that looks like you're just learning to write -- what are you, five years old?

Now why don't you try to form thoughts in your own words -- if indeed you can come up with any -- instead of just parroting shit you find on the internets. You're as bad as Pissyante with the cut-and-paste crapola.

REPEATING


2. Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting. Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in advance, ************the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content of completed broadcasts. Pp. 735-738.****************

Find someone who understands the English Language to translate it for you.

So you have no sentience of your own and can't even articulate your own cut-and-pastes. Nothing but huge letters and endless parroting. What the **** are you doing on a message board then?

Complete waste of time. Dismissed. Point remains, the FCC has never controlled broadcast content. In light of that fact I have to wonder what the basis of concern is that it would turn around and do it on the internets.