Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Should the Public Airwaves be More or Less Censored?
subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 16 of 310 (392798)
04-02-2007 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by Dan Carroll
04-02-2007 10:00 AM


FCC regulation
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 Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 10:00 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 11:58 AM subbie has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 17 of 310 (392802)
04-02-2007 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 12:01 AM


U.S. Constitution | U.S. Constitution | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
first, stop saying we live in a democracy. that's bullshit. we live in a republic enlightened by the ideas of democracy. in that, we protect the rights of the few instead of enforcing the desires of the many. however, this translates into we restrict no rights that the few desire except when it very clearly presents a real and present danger. being exposed to violent, sexual, or otherwise explicit or objectionable material has consistently failed to demonstrate a real and present danger to humanity. rome failed because of lead pipes and arrogance, not the exposure of their children to the buttseks.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
we have the right to express ourselves however we choose in any public or private forum whether supported or funded or not by the government or private interest. the censorship part of the fcc is unconstitutional. however, very few go up against them and win. it is the government. this should worry us. a lot. this should terrify us. this shouldn't make us feel safe in our sex and violence free homes.
likewise, no one should be capable of knowing or viewing what media you decide to view in your home without your express permission, excepting when there is suspicion of real criminal activity. this is entirely off-topic here, but i'm still not sure why this isn't a sufficient right of privacy. at any rate. i was going somewhere with this, and i've now forgotten.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
these appear to cause difficulty. but. they guarantee the right of the people to do as they please, not the right of the people to restrict the rights of other people. basically, 9 means "just because we didn't explicitly say 'people can have buttseks' doesn't mean they can't", not "just because we didn't say that 'people have the right to lynch people for having buttseks' doesn't mean they can't."
i'm disturbed by your need to censor fiction. fiction isn't real. it should be the most safe of mediums. i'm more disturbed by news mediums displaying real gore than by all the touristas movies combined.
frankly, i think basketball (and other sports), which glamorizes the absence of education and academia should be rated higher. i think it's dangerous propaganda which proclaims the importance of physical prowess over intellectual capability. i think sports events should be reserved for late night television when impressionable children should be in bed.
there are a few fiction books on censorship that you should probably read, and maybe you will come to at least comprehend (if not agree) why i view censorship as the only true evil. because if we cannot speak of something, then we cannot understand why or why not it may be acceptable. this is why the founding fathers put it in that first amendment. religion is a kind of free speech. they were merely clarifying its inclusion. also, standing with those who you agree with is another kind of free expression. again, they were clarifying its inclusion, not giving a separate right.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 12:01 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2007 11:33 PM macaroniandcheese has replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 18 of 310 (392803)
04-02-2007 11:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 9:13 AM


Re: No to Censorship
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 Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 9:13 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2007 11:36 PM subbie has replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 310 (392805)
04-02-2007 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by macaroniandcheese
04-02-2007 11:16 AM


and don't give me pursuit of happiness crap. that's not in the constitution.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-02-2007 11:16 AM macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 21 by macaroniandcheese, posted 04-02-2007 12:05 PM Dan Carroll has not replied
 Message 24 by DrJones*, posted 04-02-2007 3:22 PM Dan Carroll has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 310 (392806)
04-02-2007 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by subbie
04-02-2007 11:45 AM


Re: FCC regulation
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.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by subbie, posted 04-02-2007 11:45 AM subbie has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 04-02-2007 12:14 PM Dan Carroll has replied

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3928 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 21 of 310 (392808)
04-02-2007 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dan Carroll
04-02-2007 11:55 AM


haha. (i was referring to our horrible filth infringing on their pursuit of happiness. of course, why they're watching tv instead of being at church, i'll never know. [i'm probably going to get suspended for this.])

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 11:55 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1255 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 22 of 310 (392810)
04-02-2007 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Dan Carroll
04-02-2007 11:58 AM


Re: FCC regulation
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 Franklin
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 11:58 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 12:22 PM subbie has not replied

Dan Carroll
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 310 (392811)
04-02-2007 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by subbie
04-02-2007 12:14 PM


Re: FCC regulation
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.
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 is analogous, in some respects, to regulation of a utility that has a monopoly over its service area.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by subbie, posted 04-02-2007 12:14 PM subbie has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 24 of 310 (392842)
04-02-2007 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by Dan Carroll
04-02-2007 11:55 AM


"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.
I'd buy that for a dollar!

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 11:55 AM Dan Carroll has not replied

DrJones*
Member
Posts: 2284
From: Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 08-19-2004
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 25 of 310 (392850)
04-02-2007 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 9:08 AM


I am not a free as you say.
Sure you are, turn off the damm TV.
Why are my kids seeing r rated commercials during a g rated basketball game?
I still doubt that this is actually what happened.

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 9:08 AM riVeRraT has not replied

fallacycop
Member (Idle past 5520 days)
Posts: 692
From: Fortaleza-CE Brazil
Joined: 02-18-2006


Message 26 of 310 (392852)
04-02-2007 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Percy
04-02-2007 10:59 AM


I tried to protect my children from exposure to inappropriate material. Tried for years. And failed.
So I don't know what the answer is for the Internet.
In my opinion, the best solution for that is called cuties.
If my kidds even see a couple kissing on TV, they usually go like eeh-yuh. By the time they change their opinions about that will most probably be around the time they are old enough to see whatever they want anyways. (I think that's about 14 years old, by the way). I've never tryed to impose on them any content limits and things have turned out quite alright.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Percy, posted 04-02-2007 10:59 AM Percy has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 310 (392890)
04-02-2007 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 12:01 AM


I also saw another commercial today that I wasn't to happy about, and that is for desperate housewifes, a show that glamorizes women cheating on their husbands, and the commercial contained sexual content, that I feel is not appropiate for my youngest one yet. Again during a basketball game.
What a great opportunity to discuss sex education with your kids ... and let them ask questions.
Do you think this is not going to happen when you are NOT there?
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 12:01 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by riVeRraT, posted 04-03-2007 11:39 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 28 of 310 (392891)
04-02-2007 8:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by anglagard
04-01-2007 10:31 PM


Too much
There are topics that should be discussed that aren't.
Sex education is one.

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by anglagard, posted 04-01-2007 10:31 PM anglagard has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 29 of 310 (392897)
04-02-2007 8:26 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by riVeRraT
04-02-2007 12:01 AM


You still haven't given a reason for why this isn't a reasonable solution.
quote:
Are you joking me?
I don't need to give you a REASON why.
Sure you do.
quote:
I like TV, and so do my kids, it is just as much a right for us to watch it as the next person.
Right.
What you don't have the right to do is limit what is shown on TV to what you think should be on it.
That would be limiting what is shown on TV based upon your personal standards.
TV does not exist for you and you alone, rat.
quote:
All my kids friends watch TV, am I supposed to isolate them from the world?
"Everybody else does it" is the oldest excuse in the book.
If you don't like what is on TV, and you don't care to or cannot control what your children watch, then your only other option is to turn it off or get rid of it.
Tell me, let's say there was an exhibit at the local art museum of and artist who painted nudes. Somebody in town didn't like it because they felt it was inappropriate for children, even though there was no mystery about the nature of the exhibit and there were plenty of signs and information outside the exhibit. That person decides to lobby the government to never allow nude paintings to be displayed in that museum ever again.
How is that reasonable? Isn't it more reasonable to simply allow parents to decide if an exhibit is appropriate for their children or not rather than make the exhibit unavailable for everyone?
Why does this person think they have the right to decide for everybody else?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by riVeRraT, posted 04-02-2007 12:01 AM riVeRraT has not replied

riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 30 of 310 (393210)
04-03-2007 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Dan Carroll
04-02-2007 9:44 AM


So it's just art, religion, and the media that you feel should be censored. Well, that's awfully big of you.
I am not limiting it to just that, but those are some examples.
Why should it be legal to be lied to on TV?
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.
As an ameture radio operater, and an old CB'r who used to come over his neighbors TV sets, I often asked myself the same question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-02-2007 9:44 AM Dan Carroll has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Dan Carroll, posted 04-04-2007 10:39 AM riVeRraT has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024