Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

So it's just art, religion, and the media that you feel should be censored. Well, that's awfully big of you. I'm still unclear (and have been asking for several years while only receiving vague responses) as to how the existence of the FCC is not a violation of the first amendment.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Yeah, I should have been more specific. I get why it's necessary to set up and enforce technical regulations. But the FCC's authority to censor content makes no sense to me whatsoever.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Even if it was... perhaps my personal form of happiness involves broadcasting a television show called "Eliza Dushku has sex with Kristen Bell." On this week's episode, Eliza Dushku has sex with Kristen Bell. Special guest appearance by Lauren Ambrose.It's high concept.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

I don't get how that's relevant. Like I said earlier, I understand the need for technical legislation, but that doesn't mean content has to be adjusted.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

I don't see anything in the first amendment about speech having to be in the public interest. Why does a limitation on availability change that?And even if we assume it does... how does yet another wacky adventure by the gang at Full House serve the public interest? It's a pretty bad analogy, since people need power or water. Nobody actually needs family-friendly television.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Oh. So it's not just art, religion, and the media.Tell you what, why don't we make this easier. Is there anything you don't think should be censored? Why not? It's legal to lie. Is there something special about TV that makes it a magic box through which no lies can travel? If you can't say why it's valid for the FCC to censor content, maybe you shouldn't note the FCC's content-censoring authority as a justification for your stance.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Pefect. I assure you, in the pilot episode of "Eliza Dushku Has Sex With Kristen Bell", absolutely nothing will be faked. I'm glad you don't want it censored.I can't promise they won't start phoning it in after a season or two, though. My legal inability to offend you hurts me, and I wish to speak out against this government policy through action, by offending you. Thanks for your support. I'm responding to this post instead of the one you addressed to me, because all that post said was "read a couple posts back about the hicklin test." And here, all you've done is cut and paste the Wikipedia entry that describes the Hicklin test. I see you've been a busy googler.But not quite busy enough, or you'd know that the Hicklin test was overturned fifty years ago. Perhaps, when explaining why the FCC should have the authority to censor content, (which you still haven't done), we could stick to laws that are actually on the books, and were not struck down in 1957? If you're that worried, don't own a TV. As I understand it, nobody held you at gunpoint, brought you to Circuit City, forced a TV into your hands, brought you home again, plugged in the TV, turned it on, and rigged a bomb to it so that if you try to shut it off, your house will explode.In other words, nobody's forcing you. Being a hypocrite is not the same as being in the middle. Common mistake.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Not in my artistic vision, mister. But are you saying that acting is lying, and should therefore be censored? Fun. Oh, well you said it. I guess it must be the case. Sure it is. It's perfectly legal, for instance, to start a website called "God Hates Fags", despite that being offensive to a great number of people. Where did you get this crazy idea that it was illegal to offend people? You're extremely confused. Your own post said the Hicklin test was made in 1867. The case in which the US government said, "No, this isn't gonna work" was in 1957. There is a legal difference between indecency and obscenity, and by and large, porn does not legally qualify as obscenity. That's why you can watch porn without worry that the cops will bust down your door and arrest you.An ad for Desperate Houswives sure as shit doesn't qualify as obsecnity, and wouldn't, even if Teri Hatcher suddenly dropped her pants and started playing with a vibrator.So given that Teri Hatcher pleasuring herself on film is, in fact, protected speech, why does the FCC have the authority to stop it? Sure is. But it's not your right to like what's on it.And while we're on the subject, it's also your right to own a gun, and keep it in the house, fully loaded, with the safety off. But it would be stupid to do so with kids around.If you choose not to own a gun because you have kids, it doesn't take away your right to own a gun. It just means you've chosen to make your kids a priority. And a wise choice it would be, too. There you go bringing up government regulation again. Gonna explain why the FCC has the authority to censor content any time soon? Gosh, I hope I don't go to jail for offending you. I hear it's illegal.I'll bet the cops bust down my door any second now. So don't let them watch it. The easiest way do so, one which would place absolutely no demands on you as a parent, would be to not own a TV. Problem solved. By which, of course, you mean your nonexistent freedom to demand family-friendly programming, not the network's real-life freedom of speech.It's unfortunate that you don't like being called a hypocrite.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Gosh, if it's so unnecessary, why was it the only thing in my post to which you responded?I'm gonna go ahead and guess the reason is, "I don't have an answer for anything else, but want to keep my moral indignation. It's fun."

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

And the core of your stunning levels of wrongability in this thread is the fact that although obscenity is offensive, offending you does not make something obscene. Throw on the fact that obscenity has a specific legal standing, which you clearly don't get, having cited a fifty-year-dead test as if it was used today, and your justifications for censorship become incredibly, amazingly wrong. The TV's harrassing you?Has the toaster been laughing at you? Your original point, if I'm not mistaken, was that the content-censoring authority of the FCC is what should let you keep Desperate Housewives from airing ads during basketball games.I've been asking you why the FCC should be allowed to censor content for... wow, seven pages now. You still haven't answered. So screw it, if you don't want to stick to the point, let's make fun of your spelling.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Is this "proof" to which you refer the fifty-year-dead test you brought up, just out of curiosity?And hey, you still haven't answered my question about the FCC. Just fyi. Eight pages and counting, now. And here's why you are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.*I have offended you several times over the course of this thread. You've said so, in fact. And, as I stated earlier, prompting you to throw a hissy fit, I am not in jail. Nor have I been fined, had my internet privileges revoked, or in any way been so much as scolded by the government. Because it is perfectly legal.And let me assure you, I am purposefully offending you. It is not the accidental result of my free speech. It gives me an almost physical sensation of pleasure. Did you even read the title of the article? "MSNBC, CBS take Imus off air." He's suffering the reprecussions of the networks, not the law. Because, and try to understand this, offending someone is not illegal.---*This sentence works better if you picture me singing it.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Perhaps you missed the point, having carved off everything except the bit where I ripped on you. Making fun of you is a delightful side-venture, so long as you keep veering away from direct questions and obfuscating the point. I would prefer you dealt with debate honestly, but if not... hey, why not make fun of you?Oh, and "wrongability" is a made-up word. It can't be misspelled. You see, your wrongosity has actually passed the point where the English language can handle it... I have to create new words to properly convey your levels of wrongitude. What I said, eight pages ago, was, "I'm still unclear (and have been asking for several years while only receiving vague responses) as to how the existence of the FCC is not a violation of the first amendment."What you want your kids to see has fuck-all to do with the FCC's ability to violate the first amendment. So you haven't actually answered a thing.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Well, I'm much funnier than you. Take a lesson from this, kids: unless there are molotov cocktails being hurled at the White House, all laws must be perfectly valid. Great. WHY? Is the television a magic box that prevents the first amendment from applying? Think about what you just said. Just for a minute. It's the equivalent of "it just says fruits, not apples."

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

I asked the question on the first page. There is no way to look at it that is not eight pages. You can help it if you're wrong. Pawning it off on wikipedia doesn't change anything.As far as the resulting court battles, they refer to obscenity, not offensiveness. Knock yourself out.Seriously. Go to the cops. Tell them a bad man on the message board is offending you.I await the judgement of the courts. No, I really wouldn't. Because I'm not coming to your house and making fun of you. You're choosing to go to a place where I'll be, and choosing to engage in conversation with me. Gosh, Al Sharpton is making noise. Who'da thought. Do let us know if anything comes of that. Sure. The employers are the ones choosing to broadcast, and can broadcast what they please. If Don Imus wants to say whatever he pleases, he can find a way that he's not doing it on someone else's dime. He keeps that right, no matter what. Seriously, answer the question about the FCC, or stop bringing them up. It's just dishonest. Given your comedy stylinz' on this forum? You're right. I have no idea. "I don't know" is a valid answer. But if you don't know of any valid reason for their authority, it becomes dishonest to try and bring up their authority to support your point.As far as the whole world hearing goes, is it your opinion that speech should only be free if nobody can hear it? Because he is infringing on others without their permission. This is the limit of all our rights; when others are harmed against their will.However, you chose to bring a TV into your home; you invited it in, and can switch it off at any time, or get rid of it altogether. Nothing is harming you that you're not asking for; your peace has been disturbed by your own actions.Edited by Dan Carroll, : clarity

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert

Ut... I am forced to say, "you are right, and I am wrong." (See how easy that is?)So, if it will make you happy, I will rephrase. You have avoided the question for 122 posts.Wow. That sounds much worse. It's called a discussion board. If you want a place where you can sound off at length without anyone ever being able to say anything in return, the good people at geocities or angelfire will be happy to provide. I don't know how many times I can ask why the government is allowed to regulate content. At a certain point, I might just have to start mentally translating your posts into monkey noises. They'll be more entertaining as monkey noises. Then why bring him up to support your point? When you do it, sure. Little hint... proudly proclaiming the validity of ignorance is far more likely to make you lose credibility. Yup. So... once again... WHY IS THE FCC ALLOWED TO DO SO?I'm not asking you to repeat, over and over again, that they do. I am asking WHAT IS THE REASON.If you don't know, then you can see no valid reason why it should be the case. So bringing them up to support your point is dishonest. From the statement "They did not think about being able to say something and the whole world being able to hear it in an instance?" No, I can honestly say that I can't make leaps that wild.However, if your issue is how many people can hear, then it certainly seems that your point is that speech should only be free if no one can hear it... no leap required. See above. Already answered. Bush is a prick. I heard he rapes kittens.*braces self, looks around*Gosh, I seem to be fine. Your children? None whatsoever. If you're that concerned, don't invite TV into your house.Other children? None of your business. See, I'm cutting you off right there, because that is the point where you have chosen to invite the TV into your home. Don't like what's on? Stop allowing it in. That's one advanced TV you got there. How do you tell it that you only want to watch basketball? How does it manage to block out the news, and family-friendly sitcoms, and documentaries on duck-billed-platypi, and any of the other non-basketball shows on television? How do you make it show nothing but static when basketball's not on?No don't bother answering... we both know it doesn't. Because you're not only giving them permission to show you basketball. You're giving them permission to broadcast whatever they happen to be broadcasting into your home. One of those things happens to be basketball. Sure. But if you walk up to a man with a bullhorn, and say, "Excuse me, sir! Please put your bullhorn right in my face and scream your opinions!", then you have no right to complain when he does so. If you do that, you have decided, "this is the time and place; lay it on me."Similarly, if you purchase a TV, put it in your home, and turn it on, you have no right to complain that the TV is unfairly intruding on your home.Don't like it? Don't have it.Edited by Dan Carroll, : No reason given.

---

"I know some of you are going to say 'I did look it up, and that's not true.' That's 'cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, look it up in your gut."
-Stephen Colbert