|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 14, 2004 19:48:17 GMT -5
You're going in circles here. I've rebutted your arguments, yet you keep saying the same thing in your replies. Fix the broken record. Maybe you need to re-read my last couple of posts. As I said previously, I agree with you that it is unconstitutional to ban political speech. That much we agree on. And for the record, I think you and I agree on the majority of the issues discussed here. However, if you give the FCC the power to ban "any potentially offensive material", there's nothing preventing them from labeling certain types of political speech as "offensive" and shutting it down. They won't let the constitution get in their way. You oughta know that. They'll ignore the constitution and say that only "non-offensive" political speech can be aired. They'll be lobbied to do so by activist groups such as the NAACP and the ACLU. If you don't see this coming, you need to wake up.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 14, 2004 20:28:38 GMT -5
Scratching my head here. I think you're going around in circles, too. I really don't see how anything I've said has been shown to be false.
They don't have that power. They only have the power that congress gave them. All they have done recently is have a vote in congress to increase fines to make the existing laws have the same meaning, and bite, that they did years ago.
The NAACP, the ACLU and liberals are a threat to our contitution whether the FCC does their job or not. I'm not worried about them abusing their power at this point! I want them to use the power they have been granted under our representative government.
I'm not going to take an indifferent attitude and just let the liberal swamp land of cultural filth continue to take over the airwaves. It's against the law.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 14, 2004 22:30:52 GMT -5
I've not tried to prove you false. Everything you've said is factually correct. I won't challenge your facts. Everything you've said is factually correct and plainly obvious. I challenge your foresight. Regulatory agencies such as the FCC have tradtionally been hijacked by liberal organizations such as the ACLU. If the ACLU sees the FCC as an organization they can manipulate, they'll do just that. They'll lobby the FCC to deem "offensive" any speech that disagrees with their ideology, regardless of what the constitution says. Government agencies like the FCC have a history of caving to the demands of groups like the ACLU and the NAACP. If the FCC opens the door, these groups will come charging through. You're a smart person. You should see this coming.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 15, 2004 12:09:33 GMT -5
I understand your point. I just refuse to cave into incremental filth and moral relativism on the public airwaves. The left will try to exploit and manipulate everything! They have and will try to exploit and manipulate the military, but that doesn't mean it's not necessary.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 15, 2004 16:31:16 GMT -5
Now we're getting somewhere. I don't want to see filth on TV, and if the FCC takes a stand, they'll have to be a whole lot more specific than "filth", or "obscenity" No boobs, no butts, no cursewords would be a start. You have to define it such that there is no chance whatsoever for ambiguity. You have to define the law such that there is no argument as to what is and is not illegal. You cannot be vague. We'll see what happens, but I think this is a very slippery slope.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Jul 15, 2004 17:27:54 GMT -5
I am going to step in here and agree with TNRighty. It is indeed a slippery slope. The Constitution protects Political Free Speech. There are however limits to everything. The Hatch Act, McCain Feingold, and many other laws signed of by SCOTUS do in fact abridge those freedoms. That slippery slope has become more than just slippery. More, and more, laws are being passed that infringe on free speech. Where does it stop? It doesn't. As long as it protects a Politicians precious job, or position, there will be more. Indeed attempts to pass the Equal Time Amendment continues to this day which would effectively cut off Rush and many others. Why? To protect a political system. Look at recent attempts by Leahy to remove Rush from the AFRS. (Armed Forces Radio System). The assaults continue. We must not only draw the line we must roll the line back.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 15, 2004 18:11:56 GMT -5
I just don't see a slope. The FCC has been around for many years. The same definition of indecency was in place in the days of Father Knows Best. The only thing that has changed is the fines. They don't decide who to go after.
If the violation does result in a fine, the broadcast station can pay it or go to court.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 15, 2004 19:13:07 GMT -5
Thank you for posting that quote in your last reply. You just made my entire case for me. That quote (I assume from the FCC) included this, "Enforcement actions in this area are based on documented complaints received from the public about indecent or obscene broadcasting." This is VERY, VERY, VERY dangerous. I think I know what YOUR definition of "indecent or obscene" is, and I'd probably agree with it. But what's stopping someone from crying to the FCC that Rush Limbaugh is offensive!!! "Offensive and obscene"; Those words are vague and open to personal opinion. Do you want activist judges interpretting what is and is not offensive and obscene? We've seen what side activist judges fall on. Why can't you see the danger here?
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 15, 2004 23:04:51 GMT -5
The link I posted provides more info. I'm not worried about the FCC abusing it's power. It's not even doing what it's supposed to be doing.
The alternative is to just let the liberals have free access to the cesspool that is the modern airwaves, without fear of any consequences to their illegal behavior. I suppose there is always the library.
|
|
|
|
Post by BOLO on Jul 16, 2004 17:25:40 GMT -5
Ten most dangerous words in the world. "I'm from the Government and I'm here to help you". When the Public fails to censor, lawfully, the TV and Radio stations, then the natural inclination is to ask the Gov to step in. That is a trap from which it is hard to break free.
Whoopi got popped. Janet and whatever his name is will never be on anything the NFL is connected with. The public, and the Fair Market, are the better venues for censorship.
Not the Gov. Buried in the NSA (1947) is a law allowing, under certain conditions the FCC to shut down the air waves. We are under one of those conditions right now. Place temptation out there, and someone will take it. It is envitable that some one will complain about Rush. It is further inevevitable that he will be fined by a politically correct FCC.
I am. They have before.
Good I'm glad their not.
Freedom is precious. Every bit of it. Too much has been curtailed. No more.
|
|
|
|
Post by TNRighty on Jul 16, 2004 17:55:24 GMT -5
BOLO is exactly right. Like I've been saying all along, the market will police itself, and the Whoopi thing is a perfect example of private individuals taking a stand without government intervention. Just watch, though. Whoopi will try to say her rights to free speech have been infringed. If and when she goes there, she's dead wrong. The laws that protect free speech say only that the government can take no action against you for speaking out. As long as the FBI doesn't take Whoopi and throw her in jail for blaspheming the president, her rights have been upheld. Slim Fast, however, has every right to kick her out of town for what she said. The government can't incarcerate you for what you say, but that doesn't mean free speech is without repercussions. If an employee says or does something I think is detrimental to my business, I have every right to kick her to the curb. What we saw today is exactly how this is supposed to work.
|
|
|
|
Post by MO on Jul 18, 2004 18:12:20 GMT -5
I guess! That's pretty much what it's been doing for thirty years.
|
|
