Stop FCC

[notfred]

Originally posted by: Freejack2
It's a bit of a dilemma for me on this.
While we should have freedom of speech, the argument is that kids can hear these public broadcasts and because of that there should be no swear words, slurs, or sexually suggestive material on these broadcasts. Technically any broadcast that is broadcast over the air (stuff on satellite or cable should be a different story as you have to pay to receive them) shouldn't contain anything that might be offensive or what a child shouldn't hear.
If anything technically the FCC should be far more strict about any material that is broadcast over the airwaves. Larger fines and jail sentences for these things.

If Howard Stern for example who broadcasts on public airwaves starts talking about sex on his show he should be taken off the air permanently, fined, and possibly sentenced to jail for it. Basically when it's public airwaves if Disney wouldn't show it then it shouldn't be on the public airwaves, cable and satellite only.

I find the words "Jesus", "Church", "God", "Bible", etc... offensive. Therefore, all religious programming should be banned from the airwaves, as it might be offensive. Freejack2 would support me on this, he certainly wouldn't want me to turn on the radio on a Sunday morning and hear something I consider offensive.

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
needs a bump. "feedom" bush speaks of sounds more and more like communist chinese freedom don't offend...the party..

Educate yourself. The main proponent of this FCC crackdown inside the FCC is Michael Copps. Bush has not even uttered a dozen words about this entire issue.

and you don't see this silence as tacit approval. don't be niave.

 

Originally posted by: Kilrsat
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: Don_Vito
In addition to signing the petition, I have written my congressman and Senator McCain (I am a longtime fan, but he is a co-sponsor of the new "broadcast decency" legislation), and can't wait to wear my new <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.freestern.com">Free Stern</a> t-shirt [WARNING - link does not contain nudity but many not be 100% work safe!]. I don't want to live in a country taken over by the religious right . . .

You live in a country where what is displayed in public or through the public's means is goverened by "contemporary coummity standards." If you look at the law books, most every state or locality will have a law referencing obscene material and broadcasts. Usually defining obscene something like this:

1. The average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find appeals to the prurient interest if taken as a whole;

2. Under contemporary community standards, describes or shows sexual conduct in a patently offensive way; and

3. Lacks serious literary, artistic, political, educational or scientific value, if taken as a whole.


This means that radio and tv broadcasts over the air need to follow these standards as they are done through public communication channels. So even taking away the FCC it would leave it up to every state to press charges against those stations airing the material.[/quote]

And they would more than likely be smacked down by the courts. Why do you think that the FCC hasn't just shut down Stern? They can't, because they know the supreme court would find that action unconstitutional. Instead, they use the power of fines to do the work, that way, its not the government taking stern off the air, but his employer. Its strongarming tactics at its finest, and its wrong.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
needs a bump. "feedom" bush speaks of sounds more and more like communist chinese freedom don't offend...the party..

Educate yourself. The main proponent of this FCC crackdown inside the FCC is Michael Copps. Bush has not even uttered a dozen words about this entire issue.

and you don't see this silence as tacit approval. don't be niave.

Naive would be thinking that George Bush is sitting in the Oval Office obsessing about Howard Stern and directing a massive FCC campaign against him because Stern read Al Franken's book on his February vacation and had an epiphany that Bush was the anti-Christ. That is what mister "Defender of Free Speech" (except for fellow DJ's on Infinity owned stations) would have you believe. I would remind you that Infinity Broadcasting paid a record 1.7 million dollar fine right smack in the middle of Bill Clinton's 8 year term.

 

[Linflas]

I pretty much agree with the sentiments expressed by Neal Boortz on this whole FCC issue. I just laugh at the idea that this whole thing was somehow instigated by Bush and the Republicans when all the evidence points to it being a bipartisan censor-fest.

THE CENSORSHIP MOOD

Today's show will come to you from The Heritage Foundation in Washington D.C. I'm here in this frightening place (DC, not The Heritage Foundation) to attend the annual Radio &amp; Records Talk Radio convention.

This year's convention buzz? Government ... the FCC ... censorship .... fines ..... fired disk jockeys.

The mood in Washington is ugly. It's an election year. The full House and one-third of the Senate are up for reelection ... as is the president. These politicians want to get themselves on record for "protecting family values" and a making sure that your precious children never, ever get to see Janet Jackson's breast again as long as they draw breath. The FCC, obviously feeling heat from somewhere, levying three-quarters of a million dollar fines against radio stations for material that was broadcast two years ago. Jocks with number-one ratings in their markets are being offered up as sacrificial lambs to the DC censorship mood.

This situation reached its boiling point, of course, with that now-notorious Super Bowl halftime show. Yes, the show was tacky. But what in the hell did you expect when the entire production was turned over to MTV? Barry Manilow? So ... Nelly grabbed his crotch. We all have them. And Janet Jackson's right breast made it's TV debut ... seen two, you seen them all. That was on a Sunday. The first day of the week. By Saturday night of that same week Americans (and that includes children) had the opportunity to watch hundreds of murders, beatings, rapes and hints at gratuitous sex on television. The news, though, continued to be about Janet's jug.

This has to be said here. Americans are prudes. We are probably the only industrialized country in the world that goes into a national state of shock when a breast appears on broadcast television. Spend a bit of time in Europe. There you're as likely to see a breast on a television commercial as you are to see the word "sale." As a result European children grow up with a much more healthy view vis-à-vis the human body. Why, some Europeans might actually think that there is something more discomforting about seeing one person murder another on television than watching one person loved by another.

Back, though, to Washington. What we're seeing in those congressional hearings, and in the moods of our august legislators, is nothing short of a burgeoning censorship movement. Today it's breasts, vague descriptions of sexual situations, and the fearsome "F" word. Tomorrow?

Let me make my position clear here from the beginning. I'm against government censorship of the airwaves. The FCC should have only one role ... and that is to protect a broadcaster's property right in their broadcast frequency. Nothing more. The FCC should not be the national censorship arm of the Imperial Federal Government.

There is no doubt in my mind that if broadcasting had been around when Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the rest of our founding fathers (PC="Framers") wrote our Constitution, broadcasting would have been included in the First Amendment. The purpose of that little "freedom of the press" bit in our Constitution was to make sure that the government could exercise no control over the means of the dissemination of information in America. Information was to flow freely .. and that included information about the comings and goings and various shenanigans of politicians.

Today the vast majority of Americans get their daily dose of news and information from the broadcast media. In the mornings we listen to radio for news, weather and traffic. In the midday period Americans turn to talk radio to keep up. In the evenings we go to the television news programs. A minority of Americans read daily newspapers. A smaller number read news magazines. We are now, my friends, in a situation where the majority of Americans get their news and information about what is going on with their government from entities that are licensed by and subject to punishment at the hands of that very government. Nobody can truly believe that this is what our founding fathers had in mind.

Now don't even try to tell me that the government would never try to regulate the political and news content of the broadcast media. Michael Medved tried that stunt with me last night as we went chin-to-chin on MSNBC. Yes, my friends, the government will try to control the political content of broadcast media. The government has tried it. And the government succeeded. Have you heard of the Campaign Finance Reform Act? Did you know that our illustrious Supreme Court has just ruled that the government can, indeed, control what can and cannot be said about politicians on radio and TV stations in the final days of a political campaign? Not newspapers. Not news magazines. Oh no! They have First Amendment protections. Broadcasting? Different story.

Public Ownership of the Airwaves? Give me a break!

When broadcasting came into its own in this country politicians became eager to exercise control. They couldn't do a thing about what newspapers printed ... but they were determined not to make the same mistake with the new wonderful world of broadcast media. So ... they came up with this idiotic little fiction that "the public owns the airwaves." That became their excuse for government licensing and regulation.

A question: If the public owns the airwaves, why doesn't the public also own all the real estate? We get this song and dance about the public owning the airwaves because there are only a limited number of broadcast frequencies available, and they need to be allocated and controlled "in the public interest." Well, the last time I checked there was only a limited amount of real estate around. Why, then, aren't politicians preaching about the "public ownership of the land" and taking measures to make sure that all real estate is used "in the public interest?" Instead of owning the land upon which our homes sit, why aren't we leasing that land from some government entity called the FREC ... the Federal Real Estate Commission. Hey! Maybe that would be a good idea! Every five years or so we could submit an application to the FREC explaining how we're using our particular piece of real estate in the public interest. Neighbors and community activists could submit filings to the FREC stating that we are not, in fact, using our real estate in the public interest and demanding that the FREC revoke our licenses!

Wow! I really think I'm onto something here.

Let's say that we have an unmarried couple living in a house down the street. You're upset because you are teaching your children that a man and a woman should get married before they move in together and start to raise a family. You want that unmarried couple out of the neighborhood. So, the next time they apply to the FREC for a renewal of their license to occupy that particular piece of "publicly owned" real estate you file to have their license revoked. Gay couple down the street? Same thing.

Or let's say that there's a convenience store in town that actually sells (gasp!) copies of Playboy. You have it on good authority that someone can actually open the pages of one of those magazines and see parts of the female anatomy. You get a little group together and prepare to oppose their license renewal when it comes up next year.

Just yesterday you were walking down the street in your neighborhood and you heard sounds representative of domestic intranquility coming from that house on the corner. The words were unmistakable. "F___ you! I'll mow the f___ing yard when game is over." Why, you're not going to allow that language to be used in your neighborhood, are you? After all, your child could have been walking by that house and heard those words. You go to the FREC and ask for a heavy fine to be assessed against the neighborhood sports fan for his indecency.

But what about community standards?

Now there's a dangerous little term. Community standards. First ... you do realize that the very phrase has an anti-individualistic tone, don't you? Shouldn't we be talking here about "individual" standards? Individuals have moral standards. As long as a community is made of individuals with individual likes, dislikes, wants and needs you cannot truly say that there is one standard that fits and applies to the whole community.

There is, though, a way that people can express their individual standards in such a way that something approximating a "community standard" can be arrived at. The most common way is voting. Now there's more than one type of voting out there. Individuals can vote with ballots to chose a politician to serve the community. You might say that this politician is representing a "community standard" because he came away from the election with more individual votes than anyone else.

Individuals can also vote with dollars. In the free market every dollar is a vote. Each dollar spent is a vote cast for a particular product or merchant. The products or merchants with the most votes win. The products or merchants with few votes eventually fade away. Individuals, voting with dollars, eventually establish a "community standard" in products, services and merchants. Imagine the chaos if there was some sort of a government agency that was assigned the task of trying to figure out just what the "community standard" in flower shops or restaurants was. Would that government agency then try to force all flower shops and restaurants to adhere to that standard, or face fines? Maybe license revocation?

And as for broadcasting? There, again, individuals vote. There are two knobs on your radio. Cast your vote by turning either one. As individuals across the community cast their votes over a period of time, a community standard is established. Those who meet the standard survive. Those who don't fail. When you allow the individuals to create that standard through the exercise of their free choice with one of those two knobs ... freedom and the free market prevail. Politicians, though, want to establish that standard through highly-publicized hearings and government rules. Freedom plays no role.

Next up ... political free speech.

One last thing. Today it's sexually explicit material the politicians are getting all lathered-up about. What is it going to be tomorrow?

Think about this. What phrase do many leftist politicians use to describe the expression of conservative ideas and concepts. You've heard them. It's "hate speech." On many college campuses around the nation there are active movements to have the expression of conservative ideas branded as "hate speech" and banned on campus. Expressing opposition to that government-enforced program of systematic racial discrimination known as "affirmative action" is condemned as "racism." A whacko Hispanic activist in Atlanta is pushing the idea that using the phrase "illegal alien" is comparable to using the "N" word. How long before pressure is brought to bear on the FCC to have these elements included in the definition of "community standards" that the FCC tries to enforce through fines and license revocation?

I understand, my friends. There are many things that both you and I hear on radio shows and see on television shows that offend our sensibilities. Once, though, you start using the government as an agent of censorship it's hard to stop. One group wants sexually explicit material banned. Then another wants "hate speech" banned. With the demands of each group ...and those that follow ... the noose of government censorship on the our number one method of sharing information is tightened.

Let's recognize and accept our individual responsibility for what we watch and what we listen to, and let's tell our politicians to stop using the heavy hand of government regulation as a method of pandering for votes.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Linflas

I pretty much agree with the sentiments expressed by Neal Boortz on this whole FCC issue. I just laugh at the idea that this whole thing was somehow instigated by Bush and the Republicans when all the evidence points to it being a bipartisan censor-fest.

"censor-fest"

You and the rest blow it right there.

Censorship is not supposed to be an American word under FREEDOM.

Censorship = Dictatorship.

Last I checked there is a guy claiming to be a Freedom loving Republican sitting as President.

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Linflas

I pretty much agree with the sentiments expressed by Neal Boortz on this whole FCC issue. I just laugh at the idea that this whole thing was somehow instigated by Bush and the Republicans when all the evidence points to it being a bipartisan censor-fest.

"censor-fest"

You and the rest blow it right there.

Censorship is not supposed to be an American word under FREEDOM.

Censorship = Dictatorship.

Last I checked there is a guy claiming to be a Freedom loving Republican sitting as President.

And there is a guy claiming to be a Freedom loving democrat running to replace him that will not change a damned thing as regards this issue. :roll:

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
Don't like it? Change the station. Idiots.

If the censors have their way, all the stations will show the same stuff.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Freejack2
So basically you are saying that you want children to see and hear things that they shouldn't be exposed to?

it's not about kids, never was, it's about a religious minority trying to force their views on the general public.

if i don't want my kids to listen to stern, then i raise them to not listen to stern. it's my responsibility as a parent to monitor what my kids do and not do, not the responsibility of the federal government.

 

[Coquito]

Nice to see this thread back

 

[NutBucket]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Freejack2
So basically you are saying that you want children to see and hear things that they shouldn't be exposed to?

it's not about kids, never was, it's about a religious minority trying to force their views on the general public.

if i don't want my kids to listen to stern, then i raise them to not listen to stern. it's my responsibility as a parent to monitor what my kids do and not do, not the responsibility of the federal government.

This country needs more parents like you.

Cheers :beer: Platinum Gold

 

[DaWhim]

i don't care, i don't watch tv.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Freejack2
I as an adult like to listen to shows with more content that disney but on the same hand in this day and age it has for better or usually worse become the governments job to handle morality. So because of this it's now the FCC's job to make sure that anything that a kid could hear has been sanitized to disney levels. I may not agree with this but the people with power in this country have decided this and that is how it shall be. If you don't like it then too bad, you can't change it.

So you're perfectly fine with this? Because our leaders said so it's all right?

I seriously don't think you really know what free speech is. If we have free speech and something you hear offends you, that IS A GOOD THING. You can ignore it or say something back, but not silence it. That's the whole point.

The government should not be in the business to tell my children or your children or even ourselves for that matter, what we can and can't watch, listen, or say PERIOD.

What has happened that makes this perfectly acceptable?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: ELP

Originally posted by: Freejack2
I as an adult like to listen to shows with more content that disney but on the same hand in this day and age it has for better or usually worse become the governments job to handle morality. So because of this it's now the FCC's job to make sure that anything that a kid could hear has been sanitized to disney levels. I may not agree with this but the people with power in this country have decided this and that is how it shall be. If you don't like it then too bad, you can't change it.

So you're perfectly fine with this? Because our leaders said so it's all right?

I seriously don't think you really know what free speech is. If we have free speech and something you hear offends you, that IS A GOOD THING. You can ignore it or say something back, but not silence it. That's the whole point.

The government should not be in the business to tell my children or your children or even ourselves for that matter, what we can and can't watch, listen, or say PERIOD.

What has happened that makes this perfectly acceptable?

i can't blame the govt for that. consistently parents blame the govt when their kids underperform academically. otoh, i've never seen a parent get up front and say how well their kids are doing in school because of what the govt did. anything good kids do, parents take all the credit, anything bad the kids do govt gets all the blame.

given this kind of nonsense, if i were in power, i would want to control what gets sent to the kids, problem with blaming someone is you give them power over your lives. it's a two way street and most congressman are glad to hear it, glad to hear how you blame them for everything because it just gives them another sphere of influence.

who cares about the constitution anymore. who cares about freedom anymore. it's all about the blame game. we blame they take power.

it pisses me off. if my kids do something it's because that's how I raised them or because THEY chose to, it is NOT something that is the govt fault.

 

[MartyMcFly3]

Im currently wearing my "Free Stern/F the FCC" shirt.

And for those of you who say Howard should be kicked off for talking about sexual acts, try a little reading material

I guess if you are Oprah, its alright... Not Safe For Work

Howard played the same exact clips that aired on the Oprah Winfrey Show, a show that airs at 9am in some markets, and almost the entire clip was bleeped! Oprah did not receive any fines.

 

[Kyteland]

Originally posted by: Sifl
Trisha Blunier from Ft. Worth, TX (March 11th at 12:57AM)
Amamnda Hugnkiss from Springfield, IL (March 11th at 12:57AM) ??
Robert Schaefer from Cherry Hill, NJ (March 11th at 12:57AM)
Keilan Battles from Dallas, TX (March 11th at 12:57AM)
Scott McKnight from Gresham, OR (March 11th at 12:57AM)

Haha. Legit names. Riiiiiiight.

<moe>
Hugnkiss
Amanda Hugnkiss
I'm looking for Amanda Hugnkiss.
Hey, wait a minute.....
</moe>

 

[0roo0roo]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
needs a bump. "feedom" bush speaks of sounds more and more like communist chinese freedom don't offend...the party..

Educate yourself. The main proponent of this FCC crackdown inside the FCC is Michael Copps. Bush has not even uttered a dozen words about this entire issue.

and you don't see this silence as tacit approval. don't be niave.

Naive would be thinking that George Bush is sitting in the Oval Office obsessing about Howard Stern and directing a massive FCC campaign against him because Stern read Al Franken's book on his February vacation and had an epiphany that Bush was the anti-Christ. That is what mister "Defender of Free Speech" (except for fellow DJ's on Infinity owned stations) would have you believe. I would remind you that Infinity Broadcasting paid a record 1.7 million dollar fine right smack in the middle of Bill Clinton's 8 year term.

i didn't mention stern anywhere. although the oppressive enviroment created affects him greatly, it affects all. bush and his christian right have been driving for this kind of crack down for a long time now. the fact that it affects mostly those who do not support him is simply convenient. if the fcc were forcing accountability and accuracy in reporting and cracking down on rush limbaugh, you'd hear the administration singing a different tune rather quickly. it all comes down to bush talking of freedom, but as ussual, its just talk.

 

[chibchakan]

Eric Idle presents... The FCC Song

 

[Babbles]

I signed the petition and I am all for restricing the FCC, not the broadcasters. However I am still going to vote Republican. Kerry is just too whacked out and a ultra-hippy liberal douche for me.

I am not even a huge fan of Howard Stern - I listen to him here and there - but, again, I think the double standards and unfair fines that he recieves is just mindblowing.