This is getting ridiculous already

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Unknown
I'm talking about TV cause we as parents have control over that. I guess I would just have to disagree with you. I do believe we should take the responsibility as parents to limit children watching TV and fully be aware what our child is learning and watching. I as a parent, should be responsable enough to turn off the tube when it get's bad. Not let someone else control it. Remember just talking about TV here.

I agree on the parenting issue. As a parent I would change the channel if I thought something was inappropriate. The SB was a family sport being televised during primetime on national TV. If censorship is the concern of some they should switch to cable TV for their programs. If I see a program that is rated R on HBO you can bet your bottom dollar that my son isn't watching it. I shouldn't fear what my son is going to see if I go to the bathroom or run to get a beer while the ball game is on. This is what the rating system is for, so that we know ahead of time what is and isn't appropriate for what audience.

 

[DKSuddeth]

My point was that why is janet getting all the shit and timberlake is allowed to slide by? did his hand work via remote control?

 

[MtnBiker]

His singing does.


I understand your point DK.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by DKSuddeth
My point was that why is janet getting all the shit and timberlake is allowed to slide by? did his hand work via remote control?

I agree, he should be hearing more for his actions as well. Then again, his career was pretty much tanked already anyway. This dickhead was probably still stupified after being dumped by Britney only to see her kissing Madonna at the music awards.

I also don't know how credible the story is, but he claims when they rehearsed it she had a top on underneath the pull away.

 

[Aquarian]

ah, from what I've read I believe it was an accident. the red undergarment was supposed to stay while the black overlay was torn off. one friend says she heard janet say it was on purpose on a news show, but I have yet to see that reported somewhere for myself. all in all tho, even if it was on purpose the song did say 'i'm gonna have you naked by the end of this song'. Not like there was no warning

 

[tim_duncan2000]

I suppose we should allow people to have sex on their front lawns and street corners as well. We should just control where our children walk so that they don't see it.

I was just about to say something like that. Maybe they could show hardcore porn on the major networks. Maybe have some penetration and S&M. After all, if you don't like it, change the channel. At least on most other things there is some warning. There was none here and no one knew it was coming.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by tim_duncan2000
I was just about to say something like that. Maybe they could show hardcore porn on the major networks. Maybe have some penetration and S&M. After all, if you don't like it, change the channel. At least on most other things there is some warning. There was none here and no one knew it was coming.

Maybe this is really the bigger issue:

Most people consider this medium of entertainment to have a moral value. It is up to the parents to do that job, nobody else. If anyone else does it, it becomes an issue of moral relativism.

When we then subject a mass media to limited speech, we are then infringing upon it which is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The plain and simple fact of it is that Timberlake will not, and cannot be CONSTITUTIONALY justified as under arrest when he committed a crime that was based in moral relativism and not an absolute.

If the setup was such that the TV media was totally free of censorship, Timberlake could have been nailed for assault by her. If they were in it together, and it was agreeable, then the system its self would dictate the moral parents would boycott the networks or not watch tv at all. Networks want money so they will adjust to what the public then wants.

Passing laws to restrict content is illegal by way of Constitutional law. -On public broadcast anyway.

 

[jimnyc]

Censoring inappropriate material on broadcast tv IS NOT unconstitutional, not even close.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Censoring inappropriate material on broadcast tv IS NOT unconstitutional, not even close.

Why would that be? Who owns the airwaves?

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Why would that be? Who owns the airwaves?

Censoring inappropriate behavior IS NOT unconstitutional. Public displays of nudity is against the law in most places. The airwaves are regulated by the FCC, and they have a responsibility to make sure guidelines are set forth and followed on broadcast tv available to the general public.

Your very same argument can be made for pornographic movies on regular broadcast tv. Is it unconstitutional for the FCC to forbid pornography on daily broadcasts? After all, freedom of speech, right?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Censoring inappropriate behavior IS NOT unconstitutional. Public displays of nudity is against the law in most places. The airwaves are regulated by the FCC, and they have a responsibility to make sure guidelines are set forth and followed on broadcast tv available to the general public.

Your very same argument can be made for pornographic movies on regular broadcast tv. Is it unconstitutional for the FCC to forbid pornography on daily broadcasts? After all, freedom of speech, right?

You are arguing personal choice and lower level law are basis for going against a simple direct and literal clause:

Amendment I

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.

I didn't write the thing, I am just showing the reality of the situation. Remember, the government's job is not to grant freedoms to citizens. It is the citizens job to grant power to government.

 

[_dmp_]

For the Record:

The expression is "Couldn't care less".

"I couldn't care less" means that there is NO level of caring I have, which could be LESS than how little I care for the issue at hand. If 'caring' were a scale, of say, 1 to 10, and 10 meant you care a LOT, and 1 means you care just a little bit, "Couldn't care less" would be a 1. or a 0.

"I COULD care less" means that you may care a 5...or a 2. It implies there exists a level of caring yet to be reached, before all caring stops.


Thank you for your time...continue on with your day.

 

[jimnyc]

So nice of you to highlight the portion of the bill of rights that applies, and then take it out of context. The 'freedom of speech' was designed to protect citizens speaking about their government, not allowing nudity or profane language on broadcast TV.

Why did you avoid my question about the pornography. Is it unconstitutional to prevent pornographic material on national broadcast TV?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
So nice of you to highlight the portion of the bill of rights that applies, and then take it out of context. The 'freedom of speech' was designed to protect citizens speaking about their government, not allowing nudity or profane language on broadcast TV.

Why did you avoid my question about the pornography. Is it unconstitutional to prevent pornographic material on national broadcast TV?

1. An ammendment stated direct in its entirety, and when it stands not attached to any other statement or dictated idea within the document is NOT taken out of context.

If you really want to drive this home, define the word "abridging".

-Main Entry: abridge
Pronunciation: &-'brij
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): abridged; abridg·ing
Etymology: Middle English abregen, from Middle French abregier, from Late Latin abbreviare, from Latin ad- + brevis short -- more at BRIEF
1 a archaic : DEPRIVE b : to reduce in scope : DIMINISH <attempts to abridge the right of free speech>
2 : to shorten in duration or extent <modern transportation that abridges distance>
3 : to shorten by omission of words without sacrifice of sense : CONDENSE
synonym see SHORTEN
- abridg·er noun

Plain and simple, it was so that all Americans, regardless of their perspective could speak their minds. Yes, the most POWERFUL intent was in regard to government oppression, but it does not SAY "in regard to government", does it? It says that in no way shall it ever, under any circumstance, be reduced or limited.

2. Why did I avoid your question about the pornography? Is it unconstitutional to prevent pornographic material on national broadcast TV?

-Because it is an emotional statement you are making and based on lower level law. The Constitution as we know is the highest authority of law in our government. -It ALWAYS will be. As such, you are asking as to if I agree or disagree with how you would infringe upon that right.

Because I disagree with your idea that it is legal or SHOULD be legal to infringe upon it for ANY reason, I did not answer.

If you really want to pin me down to be more in disagreement, I will give you my perspective. It is this:

Nobody, as an American citizen, has a right to pass any law or revise anything to contradict or limit ANYTHING in the Constitution for any reason.

Amendment IX

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

In this regard, ANYTIME a person thinks that a situation, such as "adult" material is wrong or is creating an issue that needs to be resolved, we are required by our Constitution literally in terms of the Bill of Rights, and in terms of how we were founded as a God fearing nation, to take this responsibility upon ourselves as individuals to resolve in an individual MORAL and RESPONSIBLE way as God's law Biblically would dictate. -After all, the Bible was the foundation for the morality built INTO the structure in the first place.

The way this would have been done in the family of the past which was predominantly Christian, was through Biblical teaching of proper behavior, ethics and morals. Things like this adult material would be shunned and protested. Basic economics would change the policy of broadcasters.

Because the nation is slipping in its morals, and less people want to take responsibility over their own behavior, (including the issue of letting government oppose our Constitution), this is no longer understood, nor promoted.

So.....To make a long story short, my opinion, without trying to be offensive is that if more people would take responsibility for themselves and be moral and upright in how they conduct themselves, this wouldn't be an issue at all.

 

[jimnyc]

Bottom line, IT IS NOT even remotely unconstitutional for the FCC to limit what can take place on broadcast tv. Hell, why aren't the tv stations suing the federal government for denying them their constitutional rights?

Contrary to popular belief, the amendment DOES NOT give anyone the right so say what they want and where ever they want.

Argue on any other basis you like, but saying it's unconstitutional is wrong.

 

[William Joyce]

They say the government owns the airwaves. No, really. When you get your FCC license, that's your "permission" to use frequency X on the AM, FM or TV spectrum. That's because, as a matter of physics, and not politics, there is a limited number of frequencies. If people tried going pirate, it would jam up receivers. So it's like the airwaves are the streets.

Obviously, this does not apply to cable or the Internet, though cable has its own regulatory jungle.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
Bottom line, IT IS NOT even remotely unconstitutional for the FCC to limit what can take place on broadcast tv. Hell, why aren't the tv stations suing the federal government for denying them their constitutional rights?

Why hasn't even 1 of the gun laws been TAKEN TO COURT even on the grounds of being unconstitutional? Why hasn't the Patriot act? The Constitution clearly states a law must be repealled when unconstitutional. -There is no statement about a line item veto, or any of that garbage.

The answer is your American government has PEOPLE in office. People naturally want more power and more money. They like to keep their jobs. This means you need to be more dependent on them if they are to KEEP their power and money and jobs. If they cut their own laws or organizations out of the picture, or even lobbyists then they affect their personal finances and egos (money and power). This goes AGAINST HUMAN NATURE. TV stations don't rock the boat because they already make MORE money and have MORE power by getting the lobbying efforts of advertisers going. It is in their best interest to keep the cycle going. Broadcast tv has a monopoly. -The govt. owns the airwaves. If they swalk, FCC can say, "Hey bub, you're outta here, we will let station x take yer place."

Contrary to popular belief, the amendment DOES NOT give anyone the right so say what they want and where ever they want.

Argue on any other basis you like, but saying it's unconstitutional is wrong.

I can understand and live with that being a perspective opposed to my own. I only declare that there is no Constitutional evidence to point any other way than what I have said. I am very open to being wrong, but I haven't seen anything to legitimately contradict this point yet.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by William Joyce
They say the government owns the airwaves. No, really. When you get your FCC license, that's your "permission" to use frequency X on the AM, FM or TV spectrum. That's because, as a matter of physics, and not politics, there is a limited number of frequencies. If people tried going pirate, it would jam up receivers. So it's like the airwaves are the streets.

Obviously, this does not apply to cable or the Internet, though cable has its own regulatory jungle.

Nope.

Study telephone switchboard operation or computer systems.

It is called "multiplexing" or "phase shifting". You have limitless bandwith. You can add packet format to that as computer networks use.

That statement of limitation is a myth.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by NewGuy
I can understand and live with that being a perspective opposed to my own. I only declare that there is no Constitutional evidence to point any other way than what I have said. I am very open to being wrong, but I haven't seen anything to legitimately contradict this point yet.

There is absolutely no constitutional evidence to support your argument. If there was, the censorship on broadcast TV would have been removed long, long ago. It's not up to me to defend the constitution when someone cries foul, it's up to that party to prove their rights have been infringed upon. Nothing in the constitution supports the freedom to do as you please on broadcast tv. If there was any valid argument to this at all, these huge corporations would have been in court quicker than a blink of an eye. Not only is the FCC right in this instance, most broadcast stations are in agreement with them and have taken proactive steps to comply with decency guidelines.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by jimnyc
There is absolutely no constitutional evidence to support your argument. If there was, the censorship on broadcast TV would have been removed long, long ago. It's not up to me to defend the constitution when someone cries foul, it's up to that party to prove their rights have been infringed upon.

Ok, for MY benefit then, could you explain how the Constitution can NOT apply? I still don't get it. I have just shown that rights were infringed upon, but I do not understand the logic of the other side of the argument.

Nothing in the constitution supports the freedom to do as you please on broadcast tv.

If you want to be literal, it doesn't GIVE a qualifier. -Unless you want to claim TV as PRESS in which case, that is to be uninfringed as well. Broadcast tv was technology. The Constitution was not a document of controlling or planning for anything other than human nature. It MUST be that way to remain a consistant form of law. Technology and politcs would otherwise make the Constitution conditional, which it was never intended to be.

If there was any valid argument to this at all, these huge corporations would have been in court quicker than a blink of an eye. Not only is the FCC right in this instance, most broadcast stations are in agreement with them and have taken proactive steps to comply with decency guidelines.

Justification for your point is the reactions of others?

The only reason the broadcast stations have taken ANY measure is because it was AFTER people cried foul and were withdrawing money by advertisers not wanting to be associated with public outcry, and the public switching channels.

I still fail to see any basis for your view of it being legal, but I guess we will have to agree to disagree.