Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[Samson]

Bullshit? You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube? I can and I do.

or watch PBS.

Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.

I really hate government regulation...on the one hand

On the other, I hate being blasted awake by someone wanting to SELL ME THE SHAMU-SHAMMY WASH CLOTH MADE IN GERMANY!!!!

My solution is to VCR 90% of whatever I wanna watch, FF through commercials.

 

[Liability]

In fact, I still PREFER that they fiddle around with that kind of relatively unimportant stuff over their efforts at doing such "business" as taking-over car companies, banks, credit agencies or the provision of national health care.

This is one of the extremely few times I agree with you entirely...

It is one of the almost non-existent times you are right!

 

[The T]

Reporting from Washington - Rep. Anna G. Eshoo (D-Menlo Park) wanted advertisers to hear her loud and clear. So she introduced the Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation -- or CALM -- Act, aimed at lowering the volume on televised sales pitches.

"In my 17 years in the House of Representatives, I've never carried a bill which has been received with so much enthusiasm," Eshoo said. "Only the do-not-call list has even come close."

Turning down the volume on TV commercials -- latimes.com

Unconstitutional waste of time.

Seems to me this is a matter for the Federal Communications Commission, and Technical Standards...

Radio and Television Broadcast Rules
47 CFR Part 73

Seems to me if a station is staying within it's bandwith limits of Visual/Aural levels (Deviation)?

Too bad.

 

[Liability]

I REQUOTE my own earlier post to give Kevin Kennedy a chance to see it.

I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.

Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:

* * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
not available to all. That is its unique characteristic,
and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
is subject to government regulation. * * * *

National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.

Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that? If so, how? Why?

 

[The T]

Nope.

They can do many things clearly within their Constitutional authority thereby presenting (effectively) no "issue" whatsoever.

And there is not even a hint of a prohibition in the Constitution againt the Federal Government acting on a matter involving federal jurisdiction, like our airwaves.

The Constitution does not mention an Air Force, either. The Air Force is not, on that basis, unconstitutional.

That's not how the Constitution works. The Constitution lists the powers of the government, not what the government is restricted from doing. If we use your interpretation that gives the federal government authority to do whatever it wants.

Isn't it? The Constitution must give authority to Congress to "raise and support Armies" and "to provide and maintain a Navy," but it doesn't need to explicitly authorize an air-force? I would have to disagree.

WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"

Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.

But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want. Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.

I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.

The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense. Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit. (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).

Now then: Who does own our AIRWAVES? The correct answer is WE DO. But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation. We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons. Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves. And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government. The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.

From a technical standpoint? This is correct, and by reasons of the physics/science of Propegation of RF Energy.

As to the AirForce? Remember? It at one time was called the "US ARMY AIR CORPS", and belonged TO the US Army. it became it's separate entity on 18 September 1947.

And yes it still falls under Military as expressed in the US Constitution.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

What I really hate is when one post is 10 times louder than the preceding one.

I turned your volume down. That was easy.

I muted you both

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.

Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:

* * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
not available to all. That is its unique characteristic,
and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
is subject to government regulation. * * * *

National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.

Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that? If so, how? Why?

Megaphones, speakers, and speech itself, inherently is not available to all. That is why, unlike other modes of expression, it is subject to government regulation. * * *

 

[Liability]

I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.

Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:

* * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
not available to all. That is its unique characteristic,
and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
is subject to government regulation. * * * *

National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.

Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that? If so, how? Why?

Megaphones, speakers, and speech itself, inherently is not available to all. That is why, unlike other modes of expression, it is subject to government regulation. * * *

I presume that you are joking. Because, of course, there is no limitation on megaphones and soapboxes. There is no inherent limit on access to printing presses and paper and ink or computers and printers and copiers. But there IS a very natural limitation on the amount of usuable frequencies available for radio transmission or television transmission -- especially where we are trying to avoid the prospect that two or more groups trying to use the SAME limited frequencies effectively override each other so completely that that frequency becomes unusable to anybody.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I repeat: (especially for the nitwits like KKen and toiletarian who seem especially ignorant)

And what exactly does that prove? That they're already violating the Constitution? One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.

It proves that your argument is academic and moot. You give me the impression you might think otherwise.

This is an online message board. I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.

 

[Liability]

And what exactly does that prove? That they're already violating the Constitution? One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.

It proves that your argument is academic and moot. You give me the impression you might think otherwise.

This is an online message board. I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.

Well, maybe in the least...

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.

Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:

* * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
not available to all. That is its unique characteristic,
and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
is subject to government regulation. * * * *

National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.

Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that? If so, how? Why?

I would say Frankfurter is incorrect. I find nothing in the Constitution to back up the claim that the radio is subject to government regulation, also I find that the market can regulate more efficiently than the government. Simply respect property rights in regards to radio airwaves and I see no problem. As for regulating interstate commerce, that simply means that the federal government may strike down any trade barriers put up between the states.

 

[Toro]

So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?

I don't know if this has been addressed in the 11 pages that are currently in this thread but private interests do not own the airwaves. The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private interests.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

WHAT is "not how the Constitution works?"

Yes, in theory (albeit no longer in practice) the Constitution lists the AREAS of authority of our limited Federal government.

But using my "interpretation," you are flatly wrong in claiming that they could do whatever they want. Using my "interpretation" they ought to be called on it whenever they act on some area outside of their actual authority.

I don't understand whatever it was you were trying to say in your final paragaph, either.

The Constitution give the FEDERAL Government authority in the realm of national defense. Thus, although it does not mention "Air Force," (it couldn't since there was no such thing at the time, of course), the authority to employ an Air Force as well as an army and a navy is implicit. (This is so true, I deem it utterly silly to even contend that an Air Force is unconstitutional).

Now then: Who does own our AIRWAVES? The correct answer is WE DO. But we cannot have any useful application of those airwaves without some kind of regulation. We lack the ability to do that as indiviudals, and if the STATES were to try it, there would be endless conflict and cacaphony for obvious reasons. Thus, the Federal government is the natural entity to help us regulate OUR airwaves. And authority for the regulation of our airwaves is certainly easy enough to derive logically from the grants of authority we gave to the Federal Government. The reason it falls to the Feds and not to the states is that it does involve interstate commerce.

The Constitution doesn't have to forbid the federal government from doing anything. If it doesn't explicitly give them authority then they're not allowed to do it. That's what the 10th Amendment tells us.

If the army and navy are implicit, then why does the Constitution mention them explicitly? Because the framers knew that the Constitution had to explicitly spell out the powers of the federal government. Implicit powers are the creation of statists intended to increase the power of the state. I would support a constitutional amendment giving the federal government the power to maintain an air-force, but let's not pretend the Constitution actually gives them the power to do so implicitly. That opens up pandora's box for statism.

It mentioned "Army" and "Navy" in terms of the military authority of the Federal Government because there was no other notion of an armed force. The Air Force, however, is clearly implicit.

The constitution DOES provide for the Federal Government's AUTHORITY, moreover, with regard to interstate commerce. And when it comes to regulating the airwaves, that is what the Federal government is doing.

You're correct. I wasn't questioning why they only mentioned Army and Navy, I was questioning why they felt the need to mention them at all if they're implicit powers. The answer is because they knew that the Constitution must explicitly state what the federal government is authorized to do, and with that in mind I would say that a constitutional amendment is necessary for the air-force.

Yes, the Constitution says the federal government may regulate interstate commerce. But regulate meant "to make regular," meaning that they were supposed to make interstate commerce regular. Which means the states would not be permitted to enact protectionist trade policies against one another.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It proves that your argument is academic and moot. You give me the impression you might think otherwise.

This is an online message board. I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.

Well, maybe in the least...

I have no delusions of grandeur that the Supreme Court or any federal officials, or any officials whatsoever, are looking at my posts and rethinking their entire philosophy as it pertains to government. I simply post what I think on here to engage with others and for my own amusement.

 

[manifold]

And what exactly does that prove? That they're already violating the Constitution? One violation of the Constitution doesn't make another violation ok.

It proves that your argument is academic and moot. You give me the impression you might think otherwise.

This is an online message board. I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.

But this argument means nothing anywhere you have it, not just on an online messageboard. Whether or not universal healthcare is a good thing or a bad thing on the other hand has real world implications, even if our opinions about it do not.

See the difference?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?

I don't know if this has been addressed in the 11 pages that are currently in this thread but private interests do not own the airwaves. The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private interests.

It's been mentioned, but I've not found anything in the Constitution that says the government may own the airwaves and lease them to anybody. One unconstitutional action does not legitimize another.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It proves that your argument is academic and moot. You give me the impression you might think otherwise.

This is an online message board. I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.

But this argument means nothing anywhere you have it, not just on an online messageboard. Whether or not universal healthcare is a good thing or a bad thing on the other hand has real world implications, even if our opinions about it do not.

See the difference?

Are you saying that whether or not something is constitutional means nothing anywhere you have it? Because I'd have to disagree. I was merely responding to your accusation that I think my opinion has any more basis than just that, my opinion.

 

[Liability]

I address this next question to guys like Kevin Kennedy because, unlike guys like 2Parties, Kevin is actually serious and intelligent in how he contemplates this topic.

Here's a SCOTUS decision quoted excerpt:

* * * *Freedom of utterance is abridged to
many who wish to use the limited facilities of radio.
Unlike other modes of expression, radio inherently is
not available to all. That is its unique characteristic,
and that is why, unlike other modes of expression, it
is subject to government regulation. * * * *

National Broadcasting Company v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 at 226.

Was Justice Frankfurter incorrect in that? If so, how? Why?

I would say Frankfurter is incorrect. I find nothing in the Constitution to back up the claim that the radio is subject to government regulation, also I find that the market can regulate more efficiently than the government. Simply respect property rights in regards to radio airwaves and I see no problem. As for regulating interstate commerce, that simply means that the federal government may strike down any trade barriers put up between the states.

YOU see nothing in the Constitution "to back up the claim that the radio is subject to government regulation." Hm. I'm afraid that doesn't quite settle the matter.

Of course the market can resolve lots of things, but it cannot necessarily resolve disputes such as the ones likely to develop where:

Radio Station A in State X near the border of State Y uses the SAME frequency as Radio Station B in State Y near the border of State X. The two radio stations using the same frequency creates a cacaphony rendering both stations largely useless where their transmissions overlap. State X cannot regulate the frequency used by Radio Station B even though B's use interferes with Radio Station A IN State X. And vice versa. The problem is that the number of usable frequencies is limited. And regulating this matter does involve interstate commerce.

Your definition would seem to suggest that the only valid Federal say in interstate commerce matters is with regard to trade barriers (like taxes and tolls). But there is nothing in the Constitution that supports that unduly limited interpretation.

The creation of the FCC was not an undue overreaching by the Feds. It does involve ACTUAL interstate commerce and the Federal Government IS the logical entity in a large nation to craft reasonable rules to regulate the use and enjoyment of those airwaves.

 

[Liability]

This is an online message board. I'm well aware that nothing said here matters in the least.

Well, maybe in the least...

I have no delusions of grandeur that the Supreme Court or any federal officials, or any officials whatsoever, are looking at my posts and rethinking their entire philosophy as it pertains to government. I simply post what I think on here to engage with others and for my own amusement.

I had an old English teacher (many many moons ago, alas) who used to enjoy tweaking his students by suggesting to them that they enjoyed delusions of adequacy!

 

[Toro]

So you believe the federal government is granted authority by the Constitution to regulate how loud a commercial on television is?

I don't know if this has been addressed in the 11 pages that are currently in this thread but private interests do not own the airwaves. The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private interests.

It's been mentioned, but I've not found anything in the Constitution that says the government may own the airwaves and lease them to anybody. One unconstitutional action does not legitimize another.

It is your interpretation of the constitution that the government cannot own the airwaves. Others would have a different interpretation.

The 5th amendment says that the government shall not take private property without just compensation. That implies that the government can own property. Thus, the government can own the airwaves.