FCC and the Bill or Rights

[Asi]

I am by no means a scholar on the Constitution, but it seems to me the existance of a government sponsored body that tells people what they can and cannot say (FCC) defies the Constitution. I don't remember the line that speaks about our freedom of speech "as long as it isn't one of those four letter words" Although I don't think the intention of the amendment was so Howard Stern could have strippers make out on his show, the principle that no one can tell anyone else what they can say still stands

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Actually, a better question was were did the government get off commandeering the broadcast spectrum? The radio spectrum wasn't limited, the number of transmitters was limited. The proper thing for the US government to have done the first time two broadcasters tried to use the same band in the same market was to award title to the band to the first entreprenuer who developed it, and continued to sell titles to developers as needed.

It's not complicated, and it wouldn't have been long before the laws and courts would bandwidth and all the other geek-talk about the RF spectrum the same as they treated geographical real-estate.

The government had no business regulating content at all. Especially not when it used it's bogus theory of "limited resources" that it's own meddling created to impose that absurd "fairness doctrine" on broad casters, or that requirement that all stations broadcast some fraction of time to "community service" shows, you know, that crap stations put on between midnight Sunday and the morning shows on Monday.

 

[ProudAmerican]

The argument can certainly be made that when the founders authored "freedom of speech" they could have never foreseen our current methods of delivering that speech to such a huge audience.

I believe the constitution MUST be combined with common sense and responsibility.

Freedom without responsibility is a ridiculous concept IMO.

I have no problem at all with Howard Sterns current method of delivering his message. on a paid for system that supports him.

however, public radio is a different situation entirely. I realize we will always have the "if you dont like it change the station crowd" but IMO small children should not be subjected to such nonsense. there is always the chance that someone is simply changing the station and their children hear something they shouldnt.

if you think "freedom of speech" meant "anything goes" then ask yourself,

does the right to bear arms mean I can have a suitcase nuke in my garage?

does freedom of religion mean people should be able to take human sacrifice?

does freedom of the press mean you can publish anything about anyone you like no matter the damage it does to them personally?

Whenever I ask myself these questions I always revert back to the most important rights of all. The right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

whenever any of the other rights we enjoy rob someone of that.....then we MUST take a serious look and proceed accordingly.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

The argument can certainly be made that when the founders authored "freedom of speech" they could have never foreseen our current methods of delivering that speech to such a huge audience.

I believe the constitution MUST be combined with common sense and responsibility.

Freedom without responsibility is a ridiculous concept IMO.

I have no problem at all with Howard Sterns current method of delivering his message. on a paid for system that supports him.

however, public radio is a different situation entirely. I realize we will always have the "if you dont like it change the station crowd" but IMO small children should not be subjected to such nonsense. there is always the chance that someone is simply changing the station and their children hear something they shouldnt.

if you think "freedom of speech" meant "anything goes" then ask yourself,

does the right to bear arms mean I can have a suitcase nuke in my garage?

does freedom of religion mean people should be able to take human sacrifice?

does freedom of the press mean you can publish anything about anyone you like no matter the damage it does to them personally?

Whenever I ask myself these questions I always revert back to the most important rights of all. The right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

whenever any of the other rights we enjoy rob someone of that.....then we MUST take a serious look and proceed accordingly.

I disagree, but im impressed with your logic, I usually have you on my guilty pleasure list for the people whos posts I always have an opinion on.

I dont think freedom should be sacrificed for responsibility or safety, or anything else protectionist. But you're right about the "anything goes" mentality can be dangerous.

People dont often realize that their freedoms only protect them from their governments. You cant get away with yelling fire in a crowded theatre (unless theres a fire.)

When it comes to arms people are all over the place, but its my interpretation that congress may not restrict us from any arms necessary to the security of a free state (that includes defense against the Govt, so automatics are in, in my book)

Freedom of religion is also freedom from religion, so sacrificing others is out, before you take into account that its also murder.

Freedom of the press has to content with legal protections from fraud it libel.

You see, there are always limits, but we should be careful where we place the ones on a slippery slope, that sh** tends to roll downhill.

 

[zymurgy]

Actually, a better question was were did the government get off commandeering the broadcast spectrum? The radio spectrum wasn't limited, the number of transmitters was limited. The proper thing for the US government to have done the first time two broadcasters tried to use the same band in the same market was to award title to the band to the first entreprenuer who developed it, and continued to sell titles to developers as needed.

It's not complicated, and it wouldn't have been long before the laws and courts would bandwidth and all the other geek-talk about the RF spectrum the same as they treated geographical real-estate.

The government had no business regulating content at all. Especially not when it used it's bogus theory of "limited resources" that it's own meddling created to impose that absurd "fairness doctrine" on broad casters, or that requirement that all stations broadcast some fraction of time to "community service" shows, you know, that crap stations put on between midnight Sunday and the morning shows on Monday.

Bravo!!!

In my community several pirate radio stations have sprung up over the last couple years and it appears they are completely untouchable.

Apparently a provision exists where if we are curently in a state of war then the FCC loses its power to enforce rights over the airwaves. While at war you don't need a license to broadcast.

 

[Calm2Chaos]

The argument can certainly be made that when the founders authored "freedom of speech" they could have never foreseen our current methods of delivering that speech to such a huge audience.

I believe the constitution MUST be combined with common sense and responsibility.

Freedom without responsibility is a ridiculous concept IMO.

I have no problem at all with Howard Sterns current method of delivering his message. on a paid for system that supports him.

however, public radio is a different situation entirely. I realize we will always have the "if you dont like it change the station crowd" but IMO small children should not be subjected to such nonsense. there is always the chance that someone is simply changing the station and their children hear something they shouldnt.

if you think "freedom of speech" meant "anything goes" then ask yourself,

does the right to bear arms mean I can have a suitcase nuke in my garage?

does freedom of religion mean people should be able to take human sacrifice?

does freedom of the press mean you can publish anything about anyone you like no matter the damage it does to them personally?

Whenever I ask myself these questions I always revert back to the most important rights of all. The right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

whenever any of the other rights we enjoy rob someone of that.....then we MUST take a serious look and proceed accordingly.

Seriously... You think hearing that word shouted in a split second is going to cause more harm then the barrage of profanity there friends are saying directly to them every single day? Turn the channel is right. Then if that doesn't work attempt a little thing I like to call parenting. If howard stern saying pus.sy turns your child into a deviant then I am thining you may have screwed up somewhere along the way in raising him/her. Please stop trying to make personal judgements for people.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Actually, a better question was were did the government get off commandeering the broadcast spectrum? The radio spectrum wasn't limited, the number of transmitters was limited. The proper thing for the US government to have done the first time two broadcasters tried to use the same band in the same market was to award title to the band to the first entreprenuer who developed it, and continued to sell titles to developers as needed.

It's not complicated, and it wouldn't have been long before the laws and courts would bandwidth and all the other geek-talk about the RF spectrum the same as they treated geographical real-estate.

The government had no business regulating content at all. Especially not when it used it's bogus theory of "limited resources" that it's own meddling created to impose that absurd "fairness doctrine" on broad casters, or that requirement that all stations broadcast some fraction of time to "community service" shows, you know, that crap stations put on between midnight Sunday and the morning shows on Monday.

The FCC is a joke today. They've just increased the fine for uttering a four letter word, but you can't show an American soldier's coffin on TV?

WTF :spin: :spin:

Which is more "obscene"?

We're headed in a direction where one corporation will eventually own all of the media. A good use of the FCC would be to avoid media monopolies and to keep the internet free.

Never gonna happen under these incompetents....

 

[Alex]

The argument can certainly be made that when the founders authored "freedom of speech" they could have never foreseen our current methods of delivering that speech to such a huge audience.

I believe the constitution MUST be combined with common sense and responsibility.

Freedom without responsibility is a ridiculous concept IMO.

I have no problem at all with Howard Sterns current method of delivering his message. on a paid for system that supports him.

however, public radio is a different situation entirely. I realize we will always have the "if you dont like it change the station crowd" but IMO small children should not be subjected to such nonsense. there is always the chance that someone is simply changing the station and their children hear something they shouldnt.

if you think "freedom of speech" meant "anything goes" then ask yourself,

does the right to bear arms mean I can have a suitcase nuke in my garage?

does freedom of religion mean people should be able to take human sacrifice?

does freedom of the press mean you can publish anything about anyone you like no matter the damage it does to them personally?

Whenever I ask myself these questions I always revert back to the most important rights of all. The right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

whenever any of the other rights we enjoy rob someone of that.....then we MUST take a serious look and proceed accordingly.

Expecting the government to regulate what a child hears makes them a lazy parent. If a child is exposed to something that the parent does not agree with, then it is the responsibility of that parent to handle it, not the government.

Your definition of "liberty" is very clearly different from the actual definition.

"liberty: the quality or state of being free: a : the power to do as one pleases b : freedom from physical restraint c : freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d : the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e : the power of choice"

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

 

[ProudAmerican]

Expecting the government to regulate what a child hears makes them a lazy parent.

absolutely untrue.

with the lack of common courtesy and responsibility we see in todays world, if certain things werent held in check, there would be no end to the nonsense on the airways.

freedom must be accompanied by personal responsibility.

something many people are sorely lacking.

 

[Alex]

absolutely untrue.

with the lack of common courtesy and responsibility we see in todays world, if certain things werent held in check, there would be no end to the nonsense on the airways.

freedom must be accompanied by personal responsibility.

something many people are sorely lacking.

it is not up to the government to teach people personal responsibility or common courtesy.

I say let the nonsense have no end on the airways. A person's right to free speech does not end just because someone else has a child.

 

[ProudAmerican]

it is not up to the government to teach people personal responsibility or common courtesy.

I say let the nonsense have no end on the airways. A person's right to free speech does not end just because someone else has a child.

you have the right to that opinion. fortunately there are ways to help people out with that whole common courtesy thing, when they refuse to do it on their own.

its very unfortunate it has to be that way.

i wish it didnt have to be that way.

i dont even support the fact that it is that way.

unfortunately though.....it simply is what it is.

 

[BodiSatva]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
The argument can certainly be made that when the founders authored "freedom of speech" they could have never foreseen our current methods of delivering that speech to such a huge audience.

I believe the constitution MUST be combined with common sense and responsibility.

Freedom without responsibility is a ridiculous concept IMO.

I have no problem at all with Howard Sterns current method of delivering his message. on a paid for system that supports him.

however, public radio is a different situation entirely. I realize we will always have the "if you dont like it change the station crowd" but IMO small children should not be subjected to such nonsense. there is always the chance that someone is simply changing the station and their children hear something they shouldnt.

if you think "freedom of speech" meant "anything goes" then ask yourself,

#1 does the right to bear arms mean I can have a suitcase nuke in my garage?

does freedom of religion mean people should be able to take human sacrifice?

does freedom of the press mean you can publish anything about anyone you like no matter the damage it does to them personally?

Whenever I ask myself these questions I always revert back to the most important rights of all. The right to life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness.

whenever any of the other rights we enjoy rob someone of that.....then we MUST take a serious look and proceed accordingly.

#1 This has nothing to do with PERSONAL ARMS for those NOT in a Militia…People get this confused all of the time.

Amendment II: The Right To Bear Arms
- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I agree with your premise though. Good thoughts.

 

[ProudAmerican]

#1 This has nothing to do with PERSONAL ARMS for those NOT in a Militia…People get this confused all of the time.

Amendment II: The Right To Bear Arms
- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I agree with your premise though. Good thoughts.

you forgot to put "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in bold.

 

[BodiSatva]

Originally Posted by ProudAmerican
you forgot to put "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" in bold.

Re-Posted by BodiSatva

#1 This has nothing to do with PERSONAL ARMS for those NOT in a Militia…People get this confused all of the time.

Amendment II: The Right To Bear Arms
- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I agree with your premise though. Good thoughts.

Better?

 

[ProudAmerican]

Re-Posted by BodiSatva

#1 This has nothing to do with PERSONAL ARMS for those NOT in a Militia…People get this confused all of the time.

Amendment II: The Right To Bear Arms
- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I agree with your premise though. Good thoughts.

Better?

I can only read what is there.

you can interpret it however you like. I know what it says. And I am glad you agree with my premise. I havent found many that do.

And im sorry we simply have to disagree on the rest.....but I just cant ignore that last sentence.....

"The right of the people" just sorta sticks out like a sore thumb.

 

[BodiSatva]

ProudAmerican
I can only read what is there.

you can interpret it however you like. I know what it says. And I am glad you agree with my premise. I havent found many that do.

And im sorry we simply have to disagree on the rest.....but I just cant ignore that last sentence.....

"The right of the people" just sorta sticks out like a sore thumb.

Oh, we agree on all of it. I only was clarifying one point, that we still agree on in general..to the rest, I agreed wtih you.

I just felt that Amendment II: The Right To Bear Arms should be noted that it's primary function is to serve the state...and in turn that serves the individual. Most people think that they can by an Uzi and just have it because it is their RIGHT. They have some RIGHT to own a gun. Well, if they use that gun to serve the NATION and a MILITIA in some capacity, then they do... otherwise, they do not have a right to simply own a gun IMO, after many years of Government and Constitutional study. But that is the great thing about our nation...the Supreme Court and disagreement over rights. Either way, I think we are on the same page.

 

[zymurgy]

Re-Posted by BodiSatva

#1 This has nothing to do with PERSONAL ARMS for those NOT in a Militia…People get this confused all of the time.

Amendment II: The Right To Bear Arms
- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

I agree with your premise though. Good thoughts.

Better?

Your argument seems a bit odd to me.

A militia by definition is ordinary people. "An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers".

 

[BodiSatva]

My arguement?
What seems odd about it?

Below is the actual Second Amendment...Not my arguement.

Amendment II: The Right To Bear Arms- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A Militia is a group of Ordinary Citizens that serves the Government in times of need...
NOT just a bunch of ordinary citizens that says that they are some group.

The Minutement of Colonial Times were a Militia.
My friends Uncle Ted and all of his hunting buddies that get together and blast deer with AR 15's in hunting gear are NOT MILITIA and IMO they should not be allowed to own guns.

So, the PEOPLE (Ordinary Citizens) bear arms for the security of a free state, and for this purpose, personal ownership of weapons shall not be infringed. How is this odd...I am just translating what it says...this is what I do.

 

[zymurgy]

My arguement?
What seems odd about it?

Below is the actual Second Amendment...Not my arguement.

Amendment II: The Right To Bear Arms- A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

A Militia is a group of Ordinary Citizens that serves the Government in times of need...
NOT just a bunch of ordinary citizens that says that they are some group.

The Minutement of Colonial Times were a Militia.
My friends Uncle Ted and all of his hunting buddies that get together and blast deer with AR 15's in hunting gear are NOT MILITIA and IMO they should not be allowed to own guns.

So, the PEOPLE (Ordinary Citizens) bear arms for the security of a free state, and for this purpose, personal ownership of weapons shall not be infringed. How is this odd...I am just translating what it says...this is what I do.

What seems odd is you painting the picture that in a free state the people serve the goverment.

The government serves the people, including the militia, always.

 

[BodiSatva]

I don't paint.
I also don't say that the people serve the government...
I never have.

The people OBEY the government in return for the government protecting the people's rights.

What I say is that a militia protects the security of the state so that the people can remain free. This Amendment is a partnership. The people of a militia help the government, that is why they are allowed to bear arms.