Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?

You already have the absolute ability to decide what you watch. There are two different controls that, if used properly, will give you all the regulation of the airwaves that you ought to have. Change the channel, or turn it off.You don't like some of the programming, or some of the commercials? I'm sorry that you are subjected to points of view that you disagree with, but that is the price of living in a free society. Of course, living in a free society, you are entitled to state your disagreement with those viewpoints. That, in a nutshell, is the philosophy behind the First Amendment. The answer to speech that we don't like isn't less speech, it's more speech.You don't like Desperate Housewives, so you want them not to be able to advertise during programs you like. Well, lemme tell you something, I don't like religious programming. And I'm not just talking about scamming televangelists, I mean any of it. If you want the right to say what ads can play, then give me the right to ban all religious programming of any nature whatsoever, and furthermore, give me the right to determine what's religious and what isn't.Why not let the majority decide, you say? Have you never heard the phrase "the tyranny of the majority?" If not, Google it.The majority already gets to decide, in a backdoor manner. A program has to achieve a certain level of success for it to stay on. If nobody, or very few, watches, it'll go away. That's called the free market, and it never fails to amaze me how repugnantcans, who trumpet the virtue of the free market when discussing economic policy, completely forget about it when it comes to censorship, morality, or any of the other areas of personal conduct where they insist on telling the rest of us how to live.The airwaves belong to the public, let them decide what should be on by choosing what they wish to watch and what they don't. There's really no principled basis for any other policy.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The reason behind it is the fact that the airwaves, by their very nature, are a limited commodity. You simply cannot have 100 broadcast television stations in one market, or 100 broadcast radio stations. Out of this fact arose things like the "fairness doctrine," public service programming, etc.Obviously, things are much different now. The number of broadcast frequencies available in each market is still the same, but there are many different outlets for almost everyone besides broadcast.BTW, I am not going to try to defend this reasoning to attacks, I'm not particularly in favor of it. But I thought I'd give a shot at explaining what the reasoning is.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Wonderful.I'm saying there shouldn't be any "ratings" at all, at least none imposed by the government or any governmental agency. It's no part of any legitimate governmental function to restrict, judge, rate, control, censor, limit or in any other way interfere with the free flow of speech.If the industry rates itself in response to public pressure, bravo! That's the free market. But it ought never be required by the government.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

The relevance is that it's not a completely free market, or is wasn't before we had a gazillion cable and satellite providers as well. Given that it was a limited market, there were those who felt that some regulation was appropriate to ensure that those who were granted access to the use of this limited commodity would use it in the public interest. It is analogous, in some respects, to regulation of a utility that has a monopoly over its service area. A basic, underlying assumption behind free market theory is that entry into the market is open to anyone. With limited bandwidth, that assumption does not hold, providing at least some support for the concept of governmental regulation of the service.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

While I happen to agree with a couple of those things, they have absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

As far as I'm concerned, that's for the kid's parent to decide and control. None of my business.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I can see how a million things that other people do affect me. So what? Just because something affects me doesn't give me the right to tell someone else how to live their life. You gotta do better than that.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

You're going to have to explain to me how the government telling broadcasters what they can show and what they can't isn't a freedom of speech issue, because it sure sounds like one to me. And the government doesn't own the airwaves in this country, the public does. They are not one and the same.You see hypocracy on this board and in this forum? So do I. But since I've never said generally that anyone is responsible for what someone else does, your charge doesn't apply to me.You roll your eyes at the statement that the government does a good job at protecting us from ourselves, yet continue to insist that the government can regulate speech for our protection. I must say I'm completely mystified at your ability to hold both those positions at the same time.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

And I firmly believe that parents have the right to raise their children as they see fit unless and until they cross the line into something that is clearly and demonstrably harmful to the children. Watching a movie doesn't even come close.Consider also the fact that different movies affect different kids different ways. If we are forced to reduce all programming to the level that no kid is going to be bothered by it, we'll be left with Sesame Street and the Teletubbies.Moreover, as someone previously said in this thread, even if there are some things that kids should't watch, that doesn't mean it's a good idea for government to regulate that for all of us. I'm not a kid, and I ought to have the right to watch programming that may not be suitable for kids.We live in a free society (or at least we used to). That means that you are going to be exposed to ideas that you don't like. You are certainly free to expound on why those ideas are bad and influence the marketplace of ideas. You are not entitled to shut that marketplace down.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I regret to inform you that the Cookie Monster, as you knew him, is dead. He has been replaced by a pod monster who says things like, "Cookies are a sometimes food."

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I have taken a look at how Freedom of Speech originated. I spent a semester in law school on it. Your understanding of the First Amendment is seriously flawed and completely wrong.First, Regina v. Hicklin, 1868. L. R. 3 Q. B. 360, as your quote from Wiki makes clear, is a British case from 1868 which says absolutely nothing about U.S. Constitutional Law, and is explicitly rejected in Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476 (1957), and described as "discredited" in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 33 (1973). There are many, many other U.S. Supreme Court decisions, as well as from other courts, that stand in direct opposition to the proposition apparently set forth by Hicklin.Perhaps no single case does a better job of showing how wrong you are, and explains with extraordinary clarity why, than Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). Paul Robert Cohen was convicted of violating California Penal Code 415 which prohibited "maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct . . . ." after wearing a jacket upon which he had written the words "Fuck the Draft." Id. at 16.Mr. Justice Harlan wrote the opinion of the Court reversing his conviction on First Amendment grounds. The opinion includes the following passage:

quote:

---

At the outset, we cannot overemphasize that, in our judgment, most situations where the State has a justifiable interest in regulating speech will fall within one or more of the various established exceptions, discussed above but not applicable here, to the usual rule that governmental bodies may not prescribe the form or content of individual expression. Equally important to our conclusion is the constitutional backdrop against which our decision must be made. The constitutional right of free expression is powerful medicine in a society as diverse and populous as ours. It is designed and intended to remove governmental restraints from the arena of public discussion, putting the decision as to what views shall be voiced largely into the hands of each of us, in the hope that use of such freedom will ultimately produce a more capable citizenry and more perfect polity and in the belief that no other approach would comport with the premise of individual dignity and choice upon which our political system rests. See Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375-377 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).

​

To many, the immediate consequence of this freedom may often appear to be only verbal tumult, discord, and even offensive utterance. These are, however, within established limits, in truth necessary side effects of the broader enduring values which the process of open debate permits us to achieve. That the air may at times seem filled with verbal cacophony is, in this sense not a sign of weakness but of strength. We cannot lose sight of the fact that, in what otherwise might seem a trifling and annoying instance of individual distasteful abuse of a privilege, these fundamental societal values are truly implicated. That is why "wholly neutral futilities . . . come under the protection of free speech as fully as do Keats' poems or Donne's sermons," Winters v. New York, 333 U.S. 507, 528 (1948) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting), and why "so long as the means are peaceful, the communication need not meet standards of acceptability," Organization for a Better Austin v. Keefe, 402 U.S. 415, 419 (1971).

​

Against this perception of the constitutional policies involved, we discern certain more particularized considerations that peculiarly call for reversal of this conviction. First, the principle contended for by the State seems inherently boundless. How is one to distinguish this from any other offensive word? Surely the State has no right to cleanse public debate to the point where it is grammatically palatable to the most squeamish among us. Yet no readily ascertainable general principle exists for stopping short of that result were we to affirm the judgment below. For, while the particular four-letter word being litigated here is perhaps more distasteful than most others of its genre, it is nevertheless often true that one man's vulgarity is another's lyric. Indeed, we think it is largely because governmental officials cannot make principled distinctions in this area that the Constitution leaves matters of taste and style so largely to the individual.

​

Additionally, we cannot overlook the fact, because it is well illustrated by the episode involved here, that much linguistic expression serves a dual communicative function: it conveys not only ideas capable of relatively precise, detached explication, but otherwise inexpressible emotions as well. In fact, words are often chosen as much for their emotive as their cognitive force. We cannot sanction the view that the Constitution, while solicitous of the cognitive content of individual speech, has little or no regard for that emotive function which, practically speaking, may often be the more important element of the overall message sought to be communicated. Indeed, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter has said, "one of the prerogatives of American citizenship is the right to criticize public men and measures--and that means not only informed and responsible criticism but the freedom to speak foolishly and without moderation." Baumgartner v. United States, 322 U.S. 665, 673-674 (1944).

​

Finally, and in the same vein, we cannot indulge the facile assumption that one can forbid particular words without also running a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process. Indeed, governments might soon seize upon the censorship of particular words as a convenient guise for banning the expression of unpopular views. We have been able, as noted above, to discern little social benefit that might result from running the risk of opening the door to such grave results.

---

Nothing in the First Amendment limits Freedom of Speech to speaking out against the government. Nothing in Cohen provides support for such a limitation.The closest you come to anything approaching the truth is mentioning, but not explaining, Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973). Miller is an obscenity case, which holds that certain works can be prohibited consistent with the First Amendment if they meet a three-part test. That test is: (1) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest; (2) the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions specifically defined by applicable state law; and (3) the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.I fail to see how this test helps advance your position that anything offensive can be banned, but perhaps you can explain.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I thought the answer was crystal clear in the passage from Cohen v. California that I quoted, but apparently it wasn't clear enough for you. Let me put it this way:The First Amendment gives you the right to offend people.Any questions?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

One question, been asked repeatedly in one form or another, but I'll give it a go anyway.Can you not see that there's a difference between obscenity and being offensive?

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

I won't claim to have done a 50 state survey on harassment laws, but for the most part, I'd venture to guess that the sine qua non of harassment laws includes repeated, unwanted contact with the harassee.There is very little that is complicated in any harassment laws that I have looked at. It's a very good idea for harassment laws to be uncomplicated so that everyone is on notice as to what clearly constitutes harassment.If there is one overarching theme underlying most First Amendment jurisprudance, it's the idea that governmental regulation of speech should be content neutral, in other words, it's much more difficult for the government to ban or regulate speech because of the content of what is being said. Because harassment laws usually address repeated unwanted contact, they are completely content neutral. It's just as much harassment to call someone 20 times a day to say they are good looking as it is to call them 20 times a day to say they are ugly. Thus, there is no real question or concern that harassment laws infringe on the First Amendment.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

If Freedom of Speech only meant freedom to say something that didn't offend anyone, it would disappear. Freedom of Speech is absolutely, 100% no question about it, the right to be an asshole. As you acknowledged earlier in this thread, only those opinions that are offensive need the protection of the First Amendment. Popular opinions by definition need no protection. This is probably the first thing you said in this thread that I agree with. It's also pretty much what most of us have been saying to you, so it's nice to see you starting to come around. If someone is being an asshole by taking advantage of the First Amendment in ways you don't like, stay away from them. That pretty much sums the whole thing up in a nutshell.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat