On the flipside of Stephen Spielberg’s call for less violence on television, CBS is appealing one of the FCC’s rules concerning profanity. According to an article in Tuesday’s Hollywood Reporter (h/t to Drudge, emphasis mine throughout):
CBS told a federal court Monday that the government's new "zero tolerance" policy for indecent broadcasts is threatening to choke off free speech.
In its opening brief with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, CBS contends that the commission's policy "is flatly inconsistent with the bedrock principle that First Amendment freedoms require breathing space to survive."
The article continued (reader is cautioned that some of the profanity in question is present):
The case is one of two legal battles this month that will go a long way to deciding whether the government can slap broadcasters with a big fine and threaten their licenses to operate because of a slip of the tongue. The other case is in the New York circuit and involves Nicole Richie's use of the word "shit" during the 2003 Billboard Music Awards, which aired on Fox.
[...]
At issue is the FCC policy adopted in response to U2 frontman Bono's utterance of a version of the word "fuck" during the 2003 Golden Globes broadcast.
In the Bono decision, the commission changed its definition of "fleeting" use, deciding that a certain word can be so vile that it runs afoul of the nation's indecency laws.
The commission believes it is standing on firm and logical ground with its position:
The commission contends that the fines, which totaled $550,000, were necessary because of the attention the show generated and the threat that an unrestrained Hollywood poses to American sensibilities.
"CBS continues to ignore the voices of millions of Americans, Congress and the commission by arguing that Janet Jackson's halftime performance was not indecent," FCC spokesman Clyde Ensslin said. "CBS believes there should be no limits on what can be shown on television even during family viewing events like the Super Bowl; we continue to believe they are wrong."
The article concluded:
As defined by the FCC, material is indecent if it "in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium." While obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment, indecent speech is as the federal courts and the FCC have ruled that such speech can be aired from 10 p.m.-6 a.m.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
empowered
November 21, 2006 - 10:04 ET by iveseenitallCBS and the rest of the MSM have been empowered by the election. Hold on to your hats, the slide into the gutter has begun. It's easy and appealing to be a liberal and we've been slippin' and slidin' into liberalism for decades. Buckle up and pray for the future of this nation.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
There is no bottom to depravi
November 21, 2006 - 12:08 ET by kwThere is no bottom to depravity.
Let's see, so this is suppo
November 21, 2006 - 10:04 ET by sarcasmoLet's see, so this is supposedly-worth $302,542,000 to me as a taxpayer? I'll try to put this clearly, apologies for "shouting," but: USE YOUR FREAKIN' OFF BUTTONS & BEGIN TO BELIEVE IN A FREE MARKETPLACE FOR ENTERTAINMENT MEDIA FOR ONCE, CONSERVATIVES! THE FCC IS A WHITE-ELEPHANT OF FDR-SOCIALISM & SHOULD NOT EXIST!!! Thank you. Flame away.
JMR
see
November 21, 2006 - 10:13 ET by iveseenitallSee what I mean.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
I love these deep, analytic
November 21, 2006 - 10:48 ET by sarcasmoI love these deep, analytical, substantive replies...
JMR
So you think if they un-fund
November 21, 2006 - 10:14 ET by MightyMouthSo you think if they un-fund the FCC you'll get to keep your share of that 300mil? Guess again, they will flush that money down some other toilet.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
When did I ever say that???
November 21, 2006 - 10:20 ET by sarcasmoWhen did I ever say that??? If we un-funded the FCC instead of spending more & more tax money on it every year, our kids and grandkids will be (slightly) less-screwed due to less fiscal irresponsibility. I'm not talking about other toilets here nor did I ever say anything about "my share," I'm talking about the big government white elephant which should not exist even if various busybodies who apparently don't like free markets think it SHOULD exist. Period. Read what I actually say. It's too complex to reply to what people have imagined I've said...
JMR
human nature
November 21, 2006 - 10:27 ET by iveseenitallYou exhibit a basic misunderstanding of human nature and history. Anarchy doesn't work.
NEVER, NEVER trust a liberal
No FCC != "anarchy.&qu
November 21, 2006 - 10:30 ET by sarcasmoNo FCC != "anarchy." Gosh, you people are imaginative today!!
JMR
This nation
November 21, 2006 - 11:01 ET by iveseenitallThis nation is too big for each person to be a law unto himself. If you don't like the system, change it. We need not destroy things to satisfy our own desires. That's change for the sake of change.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
Well mr "sarcasmo",
November 21, 2006 - 10:36 ET by MightyMouthWell mr "sarcasmo", I could do the research but I am sure you have advocated that the FCC should be "de-funded at once". Now I may be wrong, but if you insist, I will find that very post by you.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
I've never denied that I've
November 21, 2006 - 10:47 ET by sarcasmoI've never denied that I've said they should be defunded at once, I'll say it again today, but you're STILL not-reading...See above, minus your imagination though.
JMR
I am reading, just trying to
November 21, 2006 - 10:53 ET by MightyMouthI am reading, just trying to figure out why you focus on one aspect of the FCC, (decency fines). The FCC does alot more according to the very website you linked to...
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Different question. I think
November 21, 2006 - 10:57 ET by sarcasmoDifferent question. I think there should be none of the fines, and (see elsewhere) I think the court system & police can take over the FCC's other functions more efficiently & less politically at a substantial savings to taxpayers. And yes, it's no great shock that the FCC's website says wonderful things about the FCC's spending habits, I'm the one who questions them.
JMR
Why do libertarians always as
November 21, 2006 - 11:11 ET by MightyMouthWhy do libertarians always ask for something that is NEVER going to happen? You are either the most optimistic sort, or the most belligerent.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Imagine that, libertarians
November 21, 2006 - 11:30 ET by sarcasmoImagine that, libertarians wanting an expensive big government agency to go-away. Sacreligious!!
JMR
Whoops, you forgot "big
November 21, 2006 - 11:34 ET by MightyMouthWhoops, you forgot "big government worthless agency". Of course worthless is in your mind, but for some reason others want it around. What a great country we live in.
"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 10:17 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
I was thinking of you as I posted this, and was expecting your response, although as not as loud.
Anyway, so is it your belief that the four broadcast networks should be allowed to air whatever they want 24 hours a day with no restrictions? Would this include hardcore pornography and snuff films? ns
Well, it's been tough getti
November 21, 2006 - 10:26 ET by sarcasmoWell, it's been tough getting through when I didn't shout, so I figured it was worth a try. And if any of 'em were stupid enough to air something like that, I'd naturally expect the free marketplace to "reward" them accordingly, but note: that's not what they say they want to air. It's funny, though, how you go from a single, saggy exposed tit (or the s-word or the f-word) right to hardcore porn and snuff films here. Aren't the FCC's defenders comfortable dealing in the reality of what actually produces fines these days? Might you need to argue way-out to the extremes instead, in order to get to firmer ground for some somewhat-shaky arguments? :) Just wondering, 'cuz I've certainly seen it before on other subjects here...
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 10:38 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
Excuse me, but your claim is that there should be no government body regulating what's on television. As such, that would allow anything to be aired. Therefore, it is quite safe to ask someone so outspoken concerning Libertarian philosophies how far they are willing to allow this to go? If you find exposing the extremities of tolerance beside the point, I think it is you who are missing it. ns
No, I'm just inconveniently
November 21, 2006 - 10:45 ET by sarcasmoNo, I'm just inconveniently pointing out an argument-tactic you didn't really want pointed-out at the moment. I'm perfectly-willing to address the extremes (see above, in fact, because I already-did!) in my free-market hypothetical-world, but we also need to discuss the saggy-tit-flash that causes immense fines/litigation in the real world of FCC regulation, no? Was the most-TiVo'd moment in television history something so offensive that it should have cost US taxpayers even a penny while we're drowning in a sea of red ink? Not in my opinion.
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 10:49 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
How do you know what I did or didn't want pointed out? Point out whatever you want, James. Go for it. However, it is equally acceptable for me to point out the possible consequences of the nation following your recommendations. ns
It's equally acceptable, bu
November 21, 2006 - 10:52 ET by sarcasmoIt's equally acceptable, but it's also less-likely, by-far, in the real world. Look at it this way: have "moral standards" gone up or down on broadcast media since the FCC was born and started growing bigger and more-expensive to taxpayers every year. Hmmm. I think I'll rest my case with that one.
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 10:57 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
If you rest your case on this, J, you're a lousy attorney. After all, crime is also on the rise as penalties and legislation to try to prevent it have risen. Are you suggesting that laws to fight crime cause crime? If this is the case, in your view, if we eliminated all criminal laws, crime would stop, yes? ns
Nonsense, but not in the ca
November 21, 2006 - 11:00 ET by sarcasmoNonsense, but not in the case of certain laws (illegal drugs) which also show that familiar pattern of more-spending & more-problems. A free market system would, in my view, provide a variety of content, but successful businesses would be careful to include "clean" content because that's what many consumers demand.
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 11:05 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
But, drugs are only one aspect of crime. What about other violent crimes? Do you believe there should be murder and rape laws, or that the existence of such restrictions is actually encouraging maladaptive and violent behavior? ns
I'd actually punish violent
November 21, 2006 - 11:16 ET by sarcasmoI'd actually punish violent criminals, which means things like the Jessica Lunsford rape/murder -- which, like it or not, can be totally attributed to the tax and spend drugwar's minimum mandatory sentencing laws filling FL's jails with nonviolent offenders & letting violent assholes out whether or not the antiLibertarian-biased news media ever allowed such words to be spoken on the air -- would happen less-often because more violent perps would tend to be in cages, where I think they belong. I'm tougher than any conservative I've ever met on violent crimes of all sorts, and I think most folks here already suspected that... The FCC, of course, has nothing to do with any of this, and still should not exist.
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 11:21 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
So, is it your belief that criminal laws do indeed reduce the incidence of criminal acts? ns
No, just the cage part of '
November 21, 2006 - 11:28 ET by sarcasmoNo, just the cage part of 'em being enforced. Laws on the books are irrelevant to violent criminals, IMO. Clearly, Jessica's rapist/killer wasn't deterred by the law alone, but if he'd been inside a cage which was instead filled by a nonviolent "criminal," Jessica Lunsford would still be a happy little girl today. Period. She's not, she was instead horribly killed after being tortured by a madman who should have & would have been in jail. And I just explained exactly why she's dead, whether or not the news media, liberals, or conservatives on NB, or authoritarians like Bill O'Reilly particularly-want to listen to the facts behind Jessica's death.
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 12:08 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
So, "Laws on the books are irrelevant to violent criminals." Then why don't we get rid of them completely? Or, do you feel they do indeed have some inhibiting factor, and, therefore, some societal benefit which would make you resting your case earlier quite premature?
Furthermore, do you believe traffic laws save lives on the highways, or should we get rid of them, too? ns
Because, IF enforced, they
November 21, 2006 - 12:46 ET by sarcasmoBecause, IF enforced, they put violent people who ignore them in cages. My "IF" is big/bold/italic for a reason...And my case is resting just-fine, I can take-on a big group in this forum. I've proved it before and today's obviously no-different. You just don't happen to LIKE where it's resting! :)
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 13:01 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
You're right. I don't like where your case is resting, because it's called quicksand. For instance, if this is all about enforcement, then shouldn't you be shouting from the rooftops for greater enforcement of drug laws and FCC regulations than completely eliminating them? After all, you're now affirming laws as not being the problem when it comes to crime, but instead, their enforcement is the key.
However, since you rested your case on the premise that it was FCC regulations that were exacerbating profanity and vulgarity on television, that doesn't seem to fit well with your position that criminal laws are fine as long as they are properly enforced. As such, using the position you have now taken, it appears not to be the regulations under the auspice of the FCC that are the problem, but their enforcement.
Better grab on to something quickly, James, because that position you're resting on is going down quicker than a $5 prostitute. :-) ns
You misunderstand my case,
November 21, 2006 - 13:12 ET by sarcasmoYou misunderstand my case, which is doing just fine. Some (idiotic...) laws getting extra-harshly enforced while other (sensible...) laws not getting enforced at all leads to (drum roll!) tragic results. Gee, what a shocker, we couldn't have possibly seen THAT one coming, despite literally decades of warnings from me & people like me? Knock me over with a feather, the murder of Jessica Lunsford's just a total mystery, but it must have nothing at all to do with the drugwar -- because most of the media & almost-all conservatives don't want to think about that little inconvenient aspect of things! Unless your argument's able to walk on this kind of water, I'd say it's you who's sinking here. And faster than the $5 prostitute could have ever-dreamed!
And if more laws were always a good thing in every aspect of our lives, as some here seem to think, why this?
JMR
Build more prisons to incarc
November 21, 2006 - 11:39 ET by UnsaneBuild more prisons to incarcerate them all, or have FL take advantage of TX's excess capacity.
Problem solved.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
I'm sure Jessica would be h
November 21, 2006 - 11:43 ET by sarcasmoI'm sure Jessica would be happy to hear that...Oh, yeah....
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 12:14 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
Do you think laws or the lack thereof can make everybody happy, and solve all problems? Doesn't everything we do as a society have the intent of benefiting the majority while obviously not every single person under the umbrella?
I could point out anomalies that exist in anything we could discuss, but that would not negate the benefit of such to the overwhelming majority of the population. Or, is your concern here exclusively for Jessica?
You've done this in the past with debates, Sarc, and it's really unseemly. There are indeed exceptions and anomalies in everything. We can not as a society of 300 million create laws which will work 100 percent of the time for 100 percent of the population. We are not gods.
As such, if your position is that laws must be 100 percent effective for 100 percent of the population or not exist at all, we should therefore eliminate all of them, for they all have their flaws. ns
I don't see why anything I'
November 21, 2006 - 12:51 ET by sarcasmoI don't see why anything I've said here today is "unseemly," I've just demolished a few arguments a bit un-gently is all. I've never said we were gods, or that laws could solve all problems, or make people happy. What I DID say, which you apparently didn't see (damn this cloaking device!) was that a cage could have solved the Jessica rape/murder problem if it hadn't been used on non-violent people instead of the violent asshole who killed the little girl. It's a viewpoint the antiLibertarian biased news media like the big 3, CNN, & Fox News didn't ever allow on the air, but it's gaining currency fast here on the internet because fair people can sense that even though what I say might seem "unseemly," I'm also 100% RIGHT.
JMR
Sarc
November 21, 2006 - 13:08 ET by Noel SheppardJ,
Ah yes. The old "I'm 100 percent right" argument. I always love it, James, when you get that high on your horse. Of course, I should expect your retort to be something suggesting that my displeasure is because I know I'm wrong. Sadly predictable, and why I question my sanity for engaging you on a subject whose direction and conclusion was so easily foreseen.
As I realized months ago, in dealing with you on such issues, the computer in the movie "War Games" was quite prescient. Adieu. ns
Ok, rather than going ad ho
November 21, 2006 - 13:17 ET by sarcasmoOk, rather than going ad hominem like you just did (hmmm, Noel might be losing this one, eh?) let's assume I'm not-right at all. Without any of the various imaginative leaps you've already unsuccessfully-tried to take above (until I once again said my all-too-usual "I never said thats") just how is it that I'm wrong? Unseemly, and with inconvenient facts & opinions, as usual, but wrong? Even 1%, forget the 100, go for something easy as long as you don't have to make it up and can instead take it from my words. How???
JMR
sarc...there comes a point in
November 21, 2006 - 10:51 ET by bassndudesarc...there comes a point in this that you must submit to some regulation. Looking at Europe, Germany, for example. You can find this stuff on regular TV over there. This exposure has had a direct effect on the population there. They have become more liberal sence I left there, and you cant tell me that what you see and hear on TV has no effect. The kids come home from school, and watch this tripe before mom and dad get home. Dont tell me that this little 8 year old mind is not influenced. It has been going on sence the 60's. And you see where they are.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Obviously, not everything pro
November 21, 2006 - 10:49 ET by Tim GrahamObviously, not everything proposed for TV flies -- as we've just seen in the O.J. case. But in today's very segmented entertainment marketplace, where Grandpa's watching one channel, Mom and Dad another, and the kids watching three different shows or listening to I-Pods or playing video games (or all three at the same time), there's not much "family TV" occasions any more. That's why the Janet Jackson incident carried so much weight. The Super Bowl is clearly the biggest TV night of the year, and CBS/MTV couldn't even keep that at a socially acceptably level of sleaze.
The media-bias angle, here, Noel, is this: notice how CBS and the other nets don't cover this issue.
Tim
November 21, 2006 - 10:53 ET by Noel SheppardTim,
Well, I was actually more offended that evening by the rapper that had gals dressed in Victoria Secret underwear prostrating themselves in front of him while he was holding on to his groin virtually the entire song. That's when I sent my daughter out of the room.
As for the bias angle, I agree. ns
Who the hell watches the half
November 21, 2006 - 11:08 ET by UnsaneWho the hell watches the halftime show anyways? Halftime during the Super Bowl is a time to re-stock necessary supplies and to dispense with garbage.
Somewhat related, but it also grates to hear people the next day wanting to talk about commercials, and not THE GAME.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
Uns
November 21, 2006 - 11:25 ET by Noel SheppardUns,
I rarely just watch television. Typically, my computer is on my lap, and I'm either writing or researching while I'm watching. For the most part, the only exceptions are when my eyes are starting to bother me, or if a movie is on that I really want to watch. So, halftime was on that Sunday mostly due to my laziness.
However, I think a lot of people watch halftime for the million dollar entertainment that has been common of late. ns
On television
November 21, 2006 - 11:41 ET by UnsaneNoel - Agreed. If not for sporting events and the occasional look at Fox News (and some local, eye-candy laden news programs), I wouldn't even bother owning a television.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
If they did cover it, would
November 21, 2006 - 10:54 ET by sarcasmoIf they did cover it, would a voice like mine be heard even-once? I doubt it...That's why I love the internet, clearly one or two voices can get everyone's knickers in a knot! :)
JMR
No, your precise LP point wou
November 21, 2006 - 11:07 ET by Tim GrahamNo, your precise LP point would not be heard, but you're roughly in the CBS why-not-an-F-bomb camp....so CBS's paid lawyer would speak for you.
No, he wouldn't. He's likel
November 21, 2006 - 11:36 ET by sarcasmoNo, he wouldn't. He's likely to be on the revolving-door FCC gravy-train for lawyers, so he'd most assuredly assume the FCC should continue to exist, because most of those hundreds of millions I referenced above go to lawyers. You, and the news media, would assume libertarians were spoken-for, but once again, the antiLibertarian bias of omission would shine-through, as predicted. Hence, "I love the internet." Here, I can say inconvenient things, and it can't be filtered, and some of the "mainstream" news media probably even surf-by from time to time to see. And by the way, Tim, my argument is also most certainly not "why not an F-bomb," it's more like "why not a free marketplace" from everything I've written above, isn't it?? Think CBS's shysters will ever argue THAT???
JMR
Cloak fully-engaged, sir! A
November 21, 2006 - 12:54 ET by sarcasmoCloak fully-engaged, sir! AntiLibertarian bias in this instance is totally-invisible to Tim (as is, apparently, the FCC/EPA/etc. big government agency-lawyer revolving jobs-door!). That CBS shyster really does somehow represent libertarians, whether or not they know it or believe a word he says! :)
JMR
USE YOUR &%$#@! OFF BUTTONS
November 21, 2006 - 10:22 ET by Free StinkerUSE YOUR &%$#@! OFF BUTTONS
Fair enough. But don't you think there are any instances where we need the FCC?
of course
November 21, 2006 - 10:28 ET by iveseenitallOf course. History has proved the need for law. We are all imperfect. And the real victims in this are our kids. We've made it too easy for them to be indecent and it shows up in their arrogant ignorance, in the way they drive,in the way they talk,in their sexual mores, in their disrespect for people and anything which limits their "freedom." Kids reflect the immaturity of the liberal mindset. And the media IS the liberal, adolescent mindset in action.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
No. Taxpayers pay for an en
November 21, 2006 - 10:29 ET by sarcasmoNo. Taxpayers pay for an entire legal system for property rights, and the electromagnetic spectrum is just like real estate. We don't need any special big government agency for real estate, do we? (Hmmm. I'm hesitant to give big government's various fans here any ideas, hopefully the ol' cloak lets this one about real estate slip-by without being noticed!). Also, if there's ANY FCC left whatsoever, it's bound to grow big & intrusive again. Cut it out at the roots. Replace with court system & first amendment.
JMR
Sarc - Let's say I buy the ri
November 21, 2006 - 10:32 ET by Free StinkerSarc - Let's say I buy the rights to a given frequency in New Jersey.
Who do I go to when someone else starts broadcasting on that same frequency?
Please don't tell me you think that should go to civil court.
Well, what do you do when s
November 21, 2006 - 10:40 ET by sarcasmoWell, what do you do when someone starts trespassing on your land? The court system, imperfect as it is, was constitutionally-designed to sort-out property rights issues. If you have a trespassing issue, you'd need to call the cops and/or go to court. Hell, does the FCC do anything special the US court system could NOT do??? Not that I can see...They're just: even more expensive, even more intrusive, even more politically-biased (see Stern vs Oprah content) and even less accountable than the courts. I've NEVER in my lifetime heard of any FCC official getting fired for being incompetent. I suppose they're all excellent, just like public school teachers, eh??
JMR
I have a question regarding w
November 21, 2006 - 11:03 ET by contraryI have a question regarding who actually owns the airwaves. I was under the assumptions most, if not all, of the airwaves are "owned" by the public, and leased to ABC, CNN, etc... I'm talking about the physical infrastructure here and I admit not knowing much about this, so that is why I am asking. If they are indeed publically owned, then a government body would seem to be the way to go depending on what the public wants. Of course one could start talking about scope of the federal government in the US constitution where it does not mention once about goverment owning airwaves.
However, if privately owned, I can see the FCC as something of an unnecessary intrusion. Watching TV is not a right, so the market should be able to handle the demand for what is viewed. If porn is something all americans want to watch then so be it, but I just don't think that is the case.
Public airwaves
November 21, 2006 - 11:29 ET by nkviking75The Communications Act of 1933 (I believe that's the year) placed in law the assumption that the airwaves belong to the public. They reasoned that the amount of broadcast "real estate" was limited and therefore needed to be carefully controlled as to technical regulations. The Federal Radio Commission, which later became the Federal Communications Commission, was created to regulate those airwaves. Cable and satellite programmers are not covered by the FCC because they do not use those airwaves. There are also international treaties that govern the spectrum. For example, treaties mandate that US stations east of the Mississippi have call letters starting with W, and west of the MIssissippi they start with K. (Some of the oldest stations have their original call letters, which were grandfathered in, such as WHO in Des Moines.)
The AM band is quite crowded, especially in the Eastern US. A few stations are small-c clear channel stations (not to be confused with Clear Channel the company). They operate on AM at a maximum of 50,000 watts. Originally they would be the only station operating on their frequency from dusk to dawn. (The FCC has fudged that a bit in recent years.) Many stations have to operate in a directional pattern at least part of the day to avoid interfering with other stations on that frequency. Some have to cut their power way down at night. FM broadcasting was developed a couple of decades after AM. The FM band isn't as crowded as AM.
I think the FCC is necessary for these technical considerations. If it didn't exist, someone would have had to create it long before now, either as a private entity run by the industry, or a government agency.
As for content on the airwaves, I wonder what the Founding Fathers would think of the stuff that gets justified by the First Amendment. I think they were far more interested in protecting ideas, especially political ones, than dirty words and pictures. I wish there was a way to know how they'd structure the First Amendment if they were drafting it today.
Ownership of the airwaves
November 21, 2006 - 11:46 ET by EllisWyattThe conventional wisdom is that the "public" (whoever that is) owns the airwaves, but I disagree. Read this article for an alternative viewpoint:
http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?JServSessionIdr006=rioxt8evn3.app7a&page=NewsArticle&id=5129&news_iv_ctrl=1085
Here's a key excerpt:
"The rationale for this system was that "no one created the airwaves," and so no one was entitled to own them. But this premise is false. Broadcast frequencies as such did not exist until the first radio was invented. The innovators who discovered how to broadcast on these frequencies and the businessmen who built the antennas were the ones who literally created the airwaves. They turned a previously unknown and unusable realm into a medium of communication."
"But the federal government arrogated to itself sole ownership of this medium, and it has continued to dictate terms to the creators of the airwaves--and to charge them for the privilege. Today, for example, an unprecedented number of new frequencies are being opened up as telecommunications firms develop new broadcast technologies--especially for wireless telephone and Internet service--and expand into previously unused frequency bands. Yet as these firms invest in research and development, and build antennas and satellites, they must wait for the FCC to approve the new frequencies and to auction off broadcast licenses. The innovators are being charged billions of dollars to buy back the frequencies they opened up in the first place."
Philosophy vs. law
November 21, 2006 - 12:50 ET by nkviking75You can argue philosophy all day long, but until Congress or the courts change it, the law is that the airwaves are public. I do question auctions, however. I think the airwaves need technical regulation, but any broadcaster who can muster the resources to get a station on the air ought to have a free shot at it.
FS,Who do you go to when some
November 21, 2006 - 10:41 ET by King of the BritonsFS,
Who do you go to when someone trespasses on your property or breaks into your home?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
KTOB...that is not even compa
November 21, 2006 - 10:43 ET by bassndudeKTOB...that is not even comparable.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
BnD,Why not? Is it not a p
November 21, 2006 - 10:47 ET by King of the BritonsBnD,
Why not? Is it not a property right? Is that not one of the stated purposes of our government in our founding documents - to protect property rights?
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
. . . and isn't the FCC is pr
November 21, 2006 - 11:01 ET by Free Stinker. . . and isn't the FCC is protecting the property rights of the "Airwaves" ?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The MSM supports the troops. The enemy's troops!
Not really. For example, CB
November 21, 2006 - 11:09 ET by sarcasmoNot really. For example, CBS/Viacom did not pursue a case where the FCC's own attorneys, in sworn court pleadings, falsely-denied that this real and really-hilarious product exists. Why not pursue the open and shut case? Because the FCC wouldn't let other licensure approvals go-on if they did, which would be called corruption (at least) if the courts did something similar. I think it's innovative things like www.mintyass.com that made America great, not the FCC. If you disagree, then don't buy the stuff, or go hit that off button, or go pull the power plug and shoot your TV. All of those solutions to the problem cost me as a taxpayer less than an agency with incompetent attorneys who can't even do a web-search to find out if a product is real or a goof.
JMR
Sarc - Not to change the subj
November 21, 2006 - 11:16 ET by Free StinkerSarc - Not to change the subject, but I can't open that link. Since I use SpybotSD's "immunization" function, I'm wondering if that link is in my Restricted Sites list (i.e. - known adware/spyware site) What exactly is it?
As far as pulling the plug, I canceled HBO because of the crap (Bill Maher & "Real Sex") they show. As I told a colleague, "If I wanted the Spice channel, I would have ordered it."
It's an invention called &q
November 21, 2006 - 11:20 ET by sarcasmoIt's an invention called "Sphincterene," basically minty-fresh baby-wipes for one's backside. And they do exist (and work!). I'm not sure about adware on the site, I use a Mac so adware doesn't bother me much. :)
JMR
Sounds like a re-scented Nice 'N Clean ;-)
November 21, 2006 - 11:25 ET by Free StinkerSounds like a re-scented Nice 'N Clean ;-)
I use a Mac so adware doesn't bother me much . . . yet
FCC
November 21, 2006 - 11:37 ET by NathanI don't get it. You want to save money by funneling hundreds of thousands of obscenity and indecency complaints into the federal court system? Obviously, individual suits would not work. There would be too many, and you would get inconsistent results. So, you would need to create a bureaucracy to consolidate the civil cases before a single federal judge, who, notwithstanding your contention to the contrary, would likely have his or her own political motivatations. Once this new bureaucracy is in place, you will have essentially recreated the FCC and enjoy no net benefit.
No, the obscenity & ind
November 21, 2006 - 11:42 ET by sarcasmoNo, the obscenity & indecency complaints would be handled by that mysterious "off button" thing. For courts, I'm talking about the FCC's other functions WRT spectrum. The free marketplace will punish any speech that's actually offensive without big mother's help. No new bureaucracy needed.
JMR
I would go to the police, not
November 21, 2006 - 11:00 ET by Free StinkerI would go to the police, not civil court.
Here is the point, in gener
November 21, 2006 - 12:46 ET by Conservative VoiceHere is the point, in general libertarians are right. But there are times where you need government control. When there are multiple broadcasts of the multiple super-bowl shows then using the power of choice works. But the fact is there is only one super bowl, and pretty few broadcasts of that show. So when you have a monopoly capitalism has a harder time maintaining control.
Another way to look at this is city planners. There is only so much real estate. So city planners dictate where business should be, where residence housing belongs, where to place the farm...etc. I think there should be decency laws against the broadcast industry. Porn and garbage can be found easily, can we have some areas where we can just enjoy the game and enjoy a show? If they want to create a NFLXXX where all the cheerleaders are having sex with the football players during halftime, then let it be paid per view.
porn
November 21, 2006 - 10:30 ET by the mad poleIf you want porn , you should PAY for it. Now or Later
The government is a PROVEN fa
November 21, 2006 - 10:37 ET by King of the BritonsThe government is a PROVEN failure in almost every area that it lays its bohemoth, unprincipled, politically fat fingers upon. Why would you want the government to regulate this? If you don't like the porn then watch ESPN, or Home and Gardens network, or the cooking channel, or the cartoon channel, or any other free market demand meeting channel that exists to fulfill your TV watching needs.
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry
imperfect
November 21, 2006 - 10:50 ET by iveseenitallPatrick Henry was not advocating a lawless society.As imperfect as our sytem of laws is, we need some restrictions. Humans cannot handle anarchy and nations without laws are doomed to failure. No man is an island unto himself.
NEVER,NEVER trust a liberal
iveseenitall
November 21, 2006 - 11:11 ET by UnsaneAnd that's the trouble with libertarians. They simply do not want ANY restrictions on human behavior (no blood, no foul). While this is a wondrous ideal, this is not practical, and as a conservative, I accept the reality that there should be some reasonable limits on human behavior.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
So a cheaper, constitutiona
November 21, 2006 - 11:22 ET by sarcasmoSo a cheaper, constitutional court system rather than a more-expensive & much more political FCC is now somehow becoming no restrictions on human behavior? Wow. Can I examine some of those mushrooms off the pizza conservatives here are eating today?? ;)
JMR
Let's see here...you will hav
November 21, 2006 - 11:47 ET by UnsaneLet's see here...you will have to pay for...a judge, or two, or even more...more attorneys, more courts (buildings, offices), land for said infrastructure, maintenance costs and so forth. Sounds like it's pick your poison time.
I don't dabble with 'shrooms. I leave that to drug-obsessed libertarians. (Sorry, couldn't resist!)
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
And $302,542,000 of taxe$ s
November 21, 2006 - 15:31 ET by sarcasmoAnd $302,542,000 of taxe$ saved would hardly begin pay for any of that, eh? :)
JMR
Considering how many courts w
November 21, 2006 - 21:54 ET by UnsaneConsidering how many courts would be needed, yes.
"Socialism is the philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy." -Sir Winston Churchill, British statesman (1874-1965)
KOTB,While I agree with you
November 21, 2006 - 11:08 ET by davidrw70KOTB,
While I agree with your accessment about governement, the main reason itis like that is because it is run by 'men' (and women) who have no REAL checks placed upon them. Yeah we have the odd scandal come to light every now and then but when people are given 'unlimited' freedom to do whatever they want, it will ALWAYS be a bad thing in my opinion.
If given a choice would a child eat chocolate ice cream or broccoli for dinner? There has to be some standard set forth, and in this case it is the parents responsibility........without the base line standards we have now NO one will be safe from the crap that will hit the airwaves........
'If you don't like the porn then watch ESPN, or Home and Garden............'etc....that is all very good but why stop at porn?? Why not have kiddie porn televised, snuff films, animal cruelty shows, bum fights, girls gone wild, boys gone wild????? Where do you draw the line????
Someimes man has to be protected from his own freedom, in order for that freedom to be maintained,IMHO.
'You lose the debate when you let someone distract you from the original idea of the debate.'
This for sure, the factors
November 21, 2006 - 11:40 ET by reelman461. pushover parenting... as its called... (causes problems)
2. modern liberalism (pushes for the secular)
3. election results (embolden #2)
4. inaction by moral people
5. rich media liberals
6. broken homes (sp families in the lib term)
"Someimes[sic] man has t
November 21, 2006 - 12:09 ET by King of the Britons"Someimes[sic] man has to be protected from his own freedom, in order for that freedom to be maintained,IMHO"
Spoken like a true tyrant!
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!´´
--Patrick Henry