Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

Not really, I think they are just distorting my point.
And I would too, if I thought someone was trying to revoke my right to free speech. Yes, I know you guys do this all the time.Here's the deal.My original point was that showing offensive things on a public television should not happen.Not all the time, just without warning. Then someone argued that freedom of speech gives him or her the right to show whatever he or she wants. Whenever they want. Which I have proved, IS against the law.Now, as far as offensiveness being illegal, I will continue to say that, because in -certain instances- it is illegal.Now the word offensive is way to broad of a term, and what people here did was take it out of context from the kind of offensiveness I am talking about. There is a huge difference between someone purposely offending people, i.e. shock radio/TV, and someone who says something out of their right to free speech, that just happens to offend someone. That is why I get what jar points out. I think jar puts into context with that statement.Now we don't have to search far, to take a look at the difference between being purposely offensive, and making a comment that might offend someone.
MSNBC, CBStake Imus off air for 2 weeks - CNN.com
Imus offended those people, and now he is suffering the repercussions of the law.So I am not incorrect in saying that it is illegal to offend people. I don't think I go off on tangents until someone like you makes a leap and assumes too much about what I am saying, instead of applying it to the topic on hand. For instance, saying the Mormons do not own their own morality based on the results of survey, is the kind of leaps I am talking about.Sure many good points have been made through out this thread, but most of them do not apply. And as I have sated from the very first reply, was that I wished to learn more about what I was saying through the power of discussion.So I do not fear being wrong.Edited by riVeRraT, : No reason given.

How very intelligent of you.Having bad spelling, or not having enough time to spell check everything, does not make your points wrong.Also be prepared, because so far, every single persont hat has pointed that out to me, has made spelling errors of their own. What does that make you?And as usual, I did not have to look far for the spelling errors.
wrongability
harrassing You couldn't figure that out. It's been said a few times already.
I'll say it again for your sake.I don't want the government regulated airwaves to be showing content during breaks, that does not match the content of the program.I don't want my kids, or anyone else's unsupervised kids to be exposed to stuff, before they are ready to handle it. There is just no need for it. It is not good for them, period.Since the governement oversees what and where of using the public airwaves, then it's up to them to regulate it.Even though I am partially against it, because in ways I feel like I am not free due to their regulation, I completely understand the need for it, and overall it makes sense.

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

But you still mispelled another, I know it was a made up word, I guess it's only ok for you to raz me. If what the FCC is doing is so wrong, and we disagree with it so much as a nation, then why isn't htere a revolution about it?Or maybe the real answer is that the first amendment only selectively applys to the airwaves.The first amendment says "freedom of speech," not "freedom of speech over magnetic wavelengths".

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

Only two pages for me, see it's all in the way you look at things. You keep mentioning the fifty year old dead test, yet you do not recognize the court battle that evolved from it, or the actual FCC rules which I posted. I can't help it if wikipedia is wrong. Not everyone who breaks the law, winds up in jail. Your accumulated offensiveness, has led to bonified harrasment. If I wanted to, I could pursue it legally. It's also against the rules of this forum. I know that, who cares? If it was really an issue with me, I would pursue it, and you could wind up with a restraining order. I am glad that I please you, it is my one desire. Yes your right, but Al Sarpton is loooking to pursue it anyway he can, and if there is a legal course of action, he will find it.Now if having a right to offend people gets you fired, is it really a right then? Let's see how many people take the networks to court. They may have also suspended him to avoid getting fined from the FCC.

You have no idea how funny I could be, your just lucky that I get it, and can take it. I don't know, possibly. Freedom of speech was before TV. They did not think about being able to say something and the whole world being able to hear it in an instance. This obviously presents a whole new set of problems, and in the interest of national security, certain things should be censored? I don't know. Yes, I understand your point, but think about a person standing on the corner, in the middle of the night with a bullhorn shouting out their opinions of the attacks on the twin towers.So this person has the right to do that, but not after 9pm when it is disturbing the peace.

quote:

---

There is a huge difference between someone purposely offending people, i.e. shock radio/TV, and someone who says something out of their right to free speech, that just happens to offend someone.

---

There is absolutely ZERO difference between these two things from a constitutional standpoint.That's why Ann Coulter isn't in jail for calling John Edwards a faggot.You are wrong, rat. Are you completely incapable of admitting to having made an error?

quote:

---

Imus offended those people, and now he is suffering the repercussions of the law.

---

Really? What crime has he been charged with?

quote:

---

I know that, who cares? If it was really an issue with me, I would pursue it, and you could wind up with a restraining order.

---

No kidding?Is Dan threatening you in order to force you to read his posts on EvC?I find that people who refuse to admit when they are wrong are offensive to me.Prepare to get a visit from the sherrif, rat.

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

quote:

---

and in the interest of national security, certain things should be censored?

---

Yes, and Desperate Housewives commercials during prime time is a true weakness in our national security.Gimme an effing break.

He might win the appeal. Ironically, he'd have a better case on free-speech grounds than if he was blasting ABBA at full volume.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yes, there is. If you go into your settings, you can choose how many topics you can see on one page. So I see only 2 pages, in this thread, at this point. Not exactly, I was in this thread first, and you choose to reply to me, and then harrass me. Ok then, isn't the TV stations using the government regulated airwaves, similar to using someone elses dime? Can't stand that guy. Trying to be funny here is equivilent to losing credibility. So I don't bother. I bring it up, because it is there, and for quite sometime now. I don't actually have to know the reasons why.Apparently we have a right to watch TV, and they regulate it. That is why I got letters from them when my CB brodcasts where coming over my neighbors TV during the olympics. They were quite upset, because I was saying some bad stuff. If I remeber correctly I was cursing, and I think it is illegal to curse over the CB radio.
So much for true freedom of Speech. Oh come on, here we go with the leaps again. Couldn't you see that my point was there is a time and place for it?You can stand on a corner and shout with a bullhorn at 10pm at night, but you'll probably get a ticket.You can talk on the CB radio, but only until you start to bother your neighbor.You could mention Bush's name in this forum, but as soon as you say a few wrong things about him, the secret service will be breathing down your neck.All around us, there are examples of just how not free freedom of speech really is.What is the big deal if I am concerned about what my children, and other children are seeing on TV? So when I turn on the TV to watch basketball, I am only giving them permission to show me basketball. Then you get commercials rammed down your throat, and ones that don't match the rating of the program your watching.So what's the real difference there?Apparently you agree that there should be a time and place for free speech, not just whenever you feel like it.

There you go again, making that stupid fuckin leap of yours.Why do you blend to totally different points together. Your only interest in this discussion is to make me look bad, while dodging the real points. What a sad life you live. I guess I should be honored in some sort of sadistic way that you even pay attention to me.Ok, I am going to clear something up right now, and hopefully that will make a bunch of people happy.I was wrong to say it like this "offending people is illegal"
But in the context that I was using it, I was not completely wrong, only in that I described it wrong.There are many things illegal that stem from being offended, while being offended is not part of any legal actions that can be taken against you. However being offended by someone over a long period of time, can lead to harrassment, which is against the law.Many private, and public companies, all have rules and regulations that guard against being offended, and being harrassed.I am also pissed off that everyone chose to ignore this regulation from our governments pages:

quote:

---

Profane Broadcast Restrictions

​

The FCC has defined profanity as “including language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.”

​

Like indecency, profane speech is prohibited on broadcast radio and television between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.

---

They use the word offensive.So obviously, it is illegal to be offensive. That is one example.The real problem here is that the word offensive is to broad of a term, that I should have never used, because people around here do not know how to keep things in context.