The End of Free Speech, As We Know It . . .R. I. P.

[CaptnKirk]

FCC Cites Stern & Bono

Bono ? For something he said last year ? Making laws that punish targeted offenders RETROACTIVE ?
This guy isn't even an American, he's Irish. What in the hell are the Bushies forcing censorship on us for ?

Stern ? For being a dispicable Toad ? Past offenses there too, retroactive to birth.

Where is the 'Less Government' that they ran on.
Politically Correct - the Republican way.

 

[conjur]

"Given that today's decision clearly departs from past precedent in important ways, I could not support a fine retroactively against the parties," said FCC Chairman Michael Powell (news), who had asked his fellow commissioners to overturn the agency's enforcement bureau's finding.

Good. I like Michael Powell. He's been pushing hard on TV Broadcasters to stop dragging their feet on moving to DTV.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

because censoring the public air-waves keeps you from having a political party, or expressing a particular point of view, right?

 

[myusername]

"the commission previously equated profanity with language challenging God's divinity"

Okay, the fact that this would even be an issue for a government agency is disturbing. I guess it's easy to lose it in all of the other outrageous power plays by the religious right recently.

"Complaints should no longer be denied because of a lack of tape, transcript or significant excerpt," Commissioner Kevin Martin said."

Alright, sooo .. about that state of the union in which I clearly heard dubya say he regularly performed fellatio on ... well, you get the idea.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: myusername
"the commission previously equated profanity with language challenging God's divinity"

Okay, the fact that this would even be an issue for a government agency is disturbing. I guess it's easy to lose it in all of the other outrageous power plays by the religious right recently.

"Complaints should no longer be denied because of a lack of tape, transcript or significant excerpt," Commissioner Kevin Martin said."

Alright, sooo .. about that state of the union in which I clearly heard dubya say he regularly performed fellatio on ... well, you get the idea.

Hey myusername, they're "praying" over the words along with the rest of the NeoCons in here and the 4th Reich Administration.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: myusername
"the commission previously equated profanity with language challenging God's divinity"

Okay, the fact that this would even be an issue for a government agency is disturbing. I guess it's easy to lose it in all of the other outrageous power plays by the religious right recently.

"Complaints should no longer be denied because of a lack of tape, transcript or significant excerpt," Commissioner Kevin Martin said."

Alright, sooo .. about that state of the union in which I clearly heard dubya say he regularly performed fellatio on ... well, you get the idea.

wow, good to know I'm on the winning side of the gestapo!

 

[heartsurgeon]

Making laws that punish targeted offenders RETROACTIVE ?

just out of curiousity, did you find it equally offensive when Clinton retroactively increased income taxes?

 

[etech]

"Commissioners said they did not propose a fine for Bono's expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards because they had never before said that virtually any use of the F-word violated its rules. The FCC specifically rejected earlier findings that occasional use of the F-word was acceptable."

"NBC issued a statement that said: "We believe the commission made the right decision in not fining us over the regrettable Bono incident. As we've previously said, Bono's utterance was unacceptable and we regret it happened." "


They clarified the rules, the F word is unacceptable on prime time TV. I guess in your crowd that it might be acceptable and normal but I don't find it so.

Just how is this the end of free speech?

 

[bozack]

Originally posted by: etech
"Commissioners said they did not propose a fine for Bono's expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards because they had never before said that virtually any use of the F-word violated its rules. The FCC specifically rejected earlier findings that occasional use of the F-word was acceptable."

"NBC issued a statement that said: "We believe the commission made the right decision in not fining us over the regrettable Bono incident. As we've previously said, Bono's utterance was unacceptable and we regret it happened." "


They clarified the rules, the F word is unacceptable on prime time TV. I guess in your crowd that it might be acceptable and normal but I don't find it so.

Just how is this the end of free speech?

The libs have to whine about something, but when it is Liberman or some other democrap passing the motion you won't hear a peep from them.

 

[Zephyr106]

Further pussification of America. They didn't say fvck on the airways back in the old days? Americans must of been pussies then as well. Remember when we prohibited alcoholic beverages.

Zephyr

 

[lozina]

Originally posted by: bozack

Originally posted by: etech
"Commissioners said they did not propose a fine for Bono's expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards because they had never before said that virtually any use of the F-word violated its rules. The FCC specifically rejected earlier findings that occasional use of the F-word was acceptable."

"NBC issued a statement that said: "We believe the commission made the right decision in not fining us over the regrettable Bono incident. As we've previously said, Bono's utterance was unacceptable and we regret it happened." "


They clarified the rules, the F word is unacceptable on prime time TV. I guess in your crowd that it might be acceptable and normal but I don't find it so.

Just how is this the end of free speech?

The libs have to whine about something, but when it is Liberman or some other democrap passing the motion you won't hear a peep from them.

You know someone has no idea what it means to be a 'liberal' if they believe Lierberman is one.

 

[Drift3r]

Here's a helpful hint ! Just you that button on your remote or the dial on your radio to change the station or channel !!!!!!!!! You don't need a goverment agency to help you to change the radio dial or tv channel. God you got to love how libs and reps cater and bend over to useless groups with a agenda.

P.S. I find Rush's drug use offensive as well as Savages xenophobic rethoric but I would never take them off the air or censor them since I know how to use a radio dial to change a station.

 

[Drift3r]

Originally posted by: etech
"Commissioners said they did not propose a fine for Bono's expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards because they had never before said that virtually any use of the F-word violated its rules. The FCC specifically rejected earlier findings that occasional use of the F-word was acceptable."

"NBC issued a statement that said: "We believe the commission made the right decision in not fining us over the regrettable Bono incident. As we've previously said, Bono's utterance was unacceptable and we regret it happened." "


They clarified the rules, the F word is unacceptable on prime time TV. I guess in your crowd that it might be acceptable and normal but I don't find it so.

Just how is this the end of free speech?

Then change the channel !

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: etech
"Commissioners said they did not propose a fine for Bono's expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards because they had never before said that virtually any use of the F-word violated its rules. The FCC specifically rejected earlier findings that occasional use of the F-word was acceptable."

"NBC issued a statement that said: "We believe the commission made the right decision in not fining us over the regrettable Bono incident. As we've previously said, Bono's utterance was unacceptable and we regret it happened." "


They clarified the rules, the F word is unacceptable on prime time TV. I guess in your crowd that it might be acceptable and normal but I don't find it so.

Just how is this the end of free speech?

Then change the channel !

Plow through this and then let's have a discussion on why certain things should stay off of prime-time TV.

POLITE SOCIETY

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Drift3r

Originally posted by: etech
"Commissioners said they did not propose a fine for Bono's expletive during the 2003 Golden Globe Awards because they had never before said that virtually any use of the F-word violated its rules. The FCC specifically rejected earlier findings that occasional use of the F-word was acceptable."

"NBC issued a statement that said: "We believe the commission made the right decision in not fining us over the regrettable Bono incident. As we've previously said, Bono's utterance was unacceptable and we regret it happened." "


They clarified the rules, the F word is unacceptable on prime time TV. I guess in your crowd that it might be acceptable and normal but I don't find it so.

Just how is this the end of free speech?

Then change the channel !

according to the supreme Court we've got both the right to be pre-informed of such things, and not have them on TV at all when most kids will be watching.

for banno and the breast 'change the channel' doesn't work as it's to late by then.

you may want to sexualized and vulgarize children, but the kids most at risk don't have parental supervision, so it's our obligation not to expose them to content that they are incapable of properly processing.

 

[sMiLeYz]

You know I'm tired of all you libs taking things out of context like that. The first admendment isn't going away!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

You know I'm tired of all you libs taking things out of context like that. The first admendment isn't going away!

is it being ignored, like the 10th, or 'regulated' like the 2nd?

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: etech
Just how is this the end of free speech?

It limits art. It limits the audience to art. It limits my right to view that art. It also limits someones right to free speech and expression.

 

[Zebo]

In the transeint large socieity in which we live, where little or no social consequences can be had for acting like an ass, we need "common" decentcy standards. When i say common it should preclude politcal ties and be some basic standards the majority agree upon. Saying F word I think we can agree does'nt fall into this catagory. I sure as heck don't want people to talk that way to me or become normal verbage. JMO.

I'm sure it violates the consititution if read proper and literal which seems very unfortunate..Amendment?

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Zebo
In the transeint large socieity in which we live, where little or no social consequences can be had for acting like an ass, we need "common" decentcy standards. When i say common it should preclude politcal ties and be some basic standards the majority agree upon. Saying F word I think we can agree does'nt fall into this catagory.

I disagree. You're drawing an arbitrary line saying it should always be banned. I on the other hand believe that there are cases where it can be allowed. To me there is no reason why The Godfather can't be shown on network tv. It has swearing, it has violence, it even has nudity, but it is one of the greatest movies of all time and a true classic piece of cinema. There is no reason for it to not be shown. There are 290 million people in this country, 217 million of those are 18 years of age or older, why are they being punished because the 73 million under the age of 18 (all of whom presumably have parents or guardians) might hear a naughty word.

There is plenty of all ages network programming, why can't there be some adult (and by adult I don't mean porn). Why place these blanket limits?

 

[Zebo]

I'm drawing an arbitary line? Then how did you arrive at your decision not to include pornos? At least I admit it. Sure it's an arbitary line based on public discourse when using the publics EM spectrum. Is'nt democracy great?

 

[Deleted member 4644]

FU_. CK THE FCC

 

[Sspidie99]

according to the supreme Court we've got both the right to be pre-informed of such things, and not have them on TV at all when most kids will be watching.

for banno and the breast 'change the channel' doesn't work as it's to late by then.

you may want to sexualized and vulgarize children, but the kids most at risk don't have parental supervision, so it's our obligation not to expose them to content that they are incapable of properly processing.

How would this apply in Howard Stern's case? Personally, I do not like the guy and find him vuglar. However, radio is not like television. His program is not being broadcast on Disney radio. People who tune onto his show know what they are listening to. They are willing listeners. If you didn't want to listen to what he has to say, then you do not tune onto his show. People should have a right to voice their opinions, even if you don't agree with them. Especially, when people are willing participants.

 

[SViscusi]

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm drawing an arbitary line? Then how did you arrive at your desision not to include pornos?

I'm not drawing the line at porno.

Here's where the obscenity line is.

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

If a porn movie passed the three pronged obscenity test then it's fair game. As of yet I have yet to find one that passes it. Maybe in a few years but I don't think we've reached that point yet.

Here's what the standard is for Indecency which is limited to 10 pm to 6 am.

The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium" criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Here's the crux of the argument. Has anyone actually looked around lately? The contemporary community standards include trash like reality tv, crappy sitcoms, and tabloid tv movies of the week, but they're all alright becase no one say fvck? Dude Where's my Car is a step up in quality than the typical tv show let alone The Godfather. The simple fact of the matter is the definition for indecent is too narrow and you want to narrow it even further.

Howard Stern is not anymore indecent than Rush Limbaugh is. And if someone can find an artistic way to use the word fvck, then they should be able to. At anytime.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: SViscusi

Originally posted by: Zebo
I'm drawing an arbitary line? Then how did you arrive at your desision not to include pornos?

I'm not drawing the line at porno.

Here's where the obscenity line is.

Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and cannot be broadcast at any time. To be obscene, material must meet a three-prong test: (1) an average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the material must depict or describe, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable law; and (3) the material, taken as a whole, must lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. See Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973).

If a porn movie passed the three pronged obscenity test then it's fair game. As of yet I have yet to find one that passes it. Maybe in a few years but I don't think we've reached that point yet.

Here's what the standard is for Indecency which is limited to 10 pm to 6 am.

The Commission has defined broadcast indecency as language or material that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium, sexual or excretory organs or activities. In applying the "community standards for the broadcast medium" criterion, the Commission has stated, "The determination as to whether certain programming is patently offensive is not a local one and does not encompass any particular geographic area. Rather, the standard is that of an average broadcast viewer or listener and not the sensibilities of any individual complainant." Indecent programming contains sexual or excretory references that do not rise to the level of obscenity. As such, the courts have held that indecent material is protected by the First Amendment and cannot be banned entirely. It may, however, be restricted in order to avoid its broadcast during times of day when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience.

Here's the crux of the argument. Has anyone actually looked around lately? The contemporary community standards include trash like reality tv, crappy sitcoms, and tabloid tv movies of the week, but they're all alright becase no one say fvck? Dude Where's my Car is a step up in quality than the typical tv show let alone The Godfather. The simple fact of the matter is the definition for indecent is too narrow and you want to narrow it even further.

Howard Stern is not anymore indecent than Rush Limbaugh is. And if someone can find an artistic way to use the word fvck, then they should be able to. At anytime.

Interesting arbitray court decision .... I have no problem with godfather..own all three in fact.. . And I agree almost all TV is trash including cable news. But I still have a problem with foul language in public discourse/network TV. But it looks like I'm and the FCC is on the wrong side of the case you cite. Still don't make it right. BTW- how that pig stern use it artistically? I have a hard time believing that one.