Whimsical FCC encroaches on First Amendment rights

[Cold Highway]

Take its role as broadcast censor: The agency has spent years enforcing an arbitrary, inscrutable code governing what speech and images are acceptable. Are four-letter words forbidden or not? Which ones? And when? What about breasts or bottoms or lower backs? Does it matter if the context is medical, accidental or unattractive? The FCC's answer to all of those questions is yes, no, maybe or all three, depending on whether the words and pictures in question meet its definition of indecency. But that test is performed using guidelines that are clear as mud: "An average person, applying contemporary community standards, must find that the material as a whole appeals to the prurient interest." Who counts as an average person? And how is one to determine current community standards in a country that contains both the joyous vulgarity of downtown Manhattan and the quiet piety of Pennsylvania's Quaker communities? The answer, unfortunately, is that these judgments are left to the FCC's whim.

The Fascist Commissar Commission has been nothing but another government toilet that money is flushed into. Its been long overdue to destroy this department and restore the 1st Amendment.

SUDERMAN: Whimsical FCC encroaches on First Amendment rights - Washington Times

 

[samsmart]

The Fascist Commissar Commission has been nothing but another government toilet that money is flushed into. Its been long overdue to destroy this department and restore the 1st Amendment.

SUDERMAN: Whimsical FCC encroaches on First Amendment rights - Washington Times

I wouldn't say we need to get rid of the FCC. Rather, I'd say that we need to take away it's ability to regulate content.

And don't forget - it was right-wingers who used the FCC to start cracking down on obscenity on television and radio because of Janet Jackson's boob being shown during the Super Bowl.

 

[rathi]

The FCC should simply stop being the morality police. It has vital functions, like maintaining the frequency spectrum, but it shouldn't be trying to nanny us. I think that the market is more than capable of censoring content on its own when appropriate. ABC isn't going to put boobies on its family shows even if its legal. The networks have every incentive to ensure that mature content is kept on shows for mature audiences. If you are watching South Park to begin with, you don't really have a lot of room to complain if they start throwing f-bombs around.

 

[LaMidRighter]

I wouldn't say we need to get rid of the FCC. Rather, I'd say that we need to take away it's ability to regulate content.

And don't forget - it was right-wingers who used the FCC to start cracking down on obscenity on television and radio because of Janet Jackson's boob being shown during the Super Bowl.

Nope, the FCC has been used historically to crack down on content since it's inception. What was originally designed to be a simple way to organize the very limited amount of frequencies so as to avoid confusion and chaos has ballooned into a monstrosity that can literally do whatever the hell it wants to the tune of grotesque regulatory fines. For instance, that annoying break in you hear weekly for the test of the EMS, again monthly, and every time a freakin' minor inconvenience like a heavy rain hits and on every station.....yeah, that's the FCC. As well, if a station doesn't have a "legal ID", I won't bore you with the details, but yeah, these guys have too much power and make too many stupid ass rules.

 

[samsmart]

Nope, the FCC has been used historically to crack down on content since it's inception. What was originally designed to be a simple way to organize the very limited amount of frequencies so as to avoid confusion and chaos has ballooned into a monstrosity that can literally do whatever the hell it wants to the tune of grotesque regulatory fines. For instance, that annoying break in you hear weekly for the test of the EMS, again monthly, and every time a freakin' minor inconvenience like a heavy rain hits and on every station.....yeah, that's the FCC. As well, if a station doesn't have a "legal ID", I won't bore you with the details, but yeah, these guys have too much power and make too many stupid ass rules.

But I like the FCC because they give out licenses and help prevent pirate radio stations from breaking in on my daily talk show's broadcast. That I'm all for. And considering I live in an area where tornadoes can occur, I don't mind the EMS, as I would like to be alerted when a disaster, natural or otherwise, happens. In those regards I have no problem with the FCC.

 

[LaMidRighter]

But I like the FCC because they give out licenses and help prevent pirate radio stations from breaking in on my daily talk show's broadcast. That I'm all for. And considering I live in an area where tornadoes can occur, I don't mind the EMS, as I would like to be alerted when a disaster, natural or otherwise, happens. In those regards I have no problem with the FCC.

I don't see anything wrong with the FCC regulation of airwaves, that's initially what they were set up to do, and free speech does not extend to that particular area since you actually have to access it, and use those frequencies, so licensing in that aspect is a legit issue. The EMS mandate is what I take issue with, I could see a voluntary usage or some other system being more beneficial, but I'm able to see both sides of that one.

 

[CrazyMcCool]

There is really no use for them now and they are overdo to be striped of their powers..

In the days of technology I can just ( If I am a brainless idiot( no offense can not word it better D: ) and dont realize that kids will say these words around 11 anyway, and until like they are 12 they wont understand wtf they even mean) turn on the parental control on the tv, or even better yet not even have a TV and turn on parental control in my web browser :roll:

All they do is tax people for having rights...and its bloody ridicules

 

[Ikari]

The Fascist Commissar Commission has been nothing but another government toilet that money is flushed into. Its been long overdue to destroy this department and restore the 1st Amendment.

SUDERMAN: Whimsical FCC encroaches on First Amendment rights - Washington Times

I don't think it should be destroyed. I do think that it is fine for the FCC to police pirating and things of that nature. That way if a company pays to use a certain frequency or bandwidth or whatever there is some mechanism to ensure that they are able to use it without interference. But that's about the only legitimate power the FCC has. For the censoring, I think it's absolutely over the boundaries of the powers granted to the government and is nothing but an infringement against the 1st amendment.

 

[Areopagitican]

The FCC, I believe, has been carried too long into the future. It is an old institution built for another time. Scrap it, and start anew. I wouldn't mind if the new regulatory agency had more or less the same powers, but at least then we can have an honest public debate about it.

 

[American]

It appears to me that the FCC has implemented a lot of policy decisions that have cost Americans more to access broadcast media.

 

[digsbe]

I support keeping the FCC. They have a right to censor inappropriate content. Kids shouldn't have to see commercials that depict naked people and curse like sailors because someone feels like expressing their first amendment rights.

 

[DrunkenAsparagus]

Then have them play outside. Again, no station, in its right mind is going to put stuff like that on kid's programs

 

[Deuce]

A lot of people in this thread don't seem to understand that the FCC's primary role isn't related to content. Look, we need an FCC. Disbanding them would throw the broadcast television and radio industries into total chaos. Two signals cannot coexist on the same frequency. The result of signal collision is a mess of static that is useless for everyone.

Now, as for content control, I totally agree. The "family-values-oh-god-someone-please-think-of-the-CHILDREN" types clamoring for censoring profanity and sexuality have brought this mess upon us all. This country has a long history of overly puritanical views on sexuality. Hey, guess what, sex exists. People have sex all the time. Without sex, there are no babies. It's a natural thing. QUIT FREAKING OUT ABOUT IT. Hiding our children from sexuality and giving them the idea SEX IS BAD VERY BAD just leads to poor reactions later in life when they are finally exposed. Repression leads to explosion. As for profanity? Good lord, there was a news story not all that long ago where a parent group was demanding that the dictionary be banned from the classroom. Because it contained the word "penis..." and a definition of the word. *facepalm* They're just words.

 

[Ikari]

I support keeping the FCC. They have a right to censor inappropriate content. Kids shouldn't have to see commercials that depict naked people and curse like sailors because someone feels like expressing their first amendment rights.

You not liking something isn't grounds for government intervention though. Especially when you act against the rights and liberties of the individual. So you may not want your kids seeing some commercial, but then I suppose it's up to you to prevent it. Furthermore, even if the FCC's power was restricted to property rights, many channels wouldn't show inappropriate images...well at least till late at night. But even then dollars to donuts says that stations like NBC, FOX, etc. wouldn't show it. Maybe on their other cable channels, but there would still be consumer pressure to ensure appropriate TV. And then technologies for blocking may become more prevalent as well.

In the end, there's a lot of things that perhaps we don't like. But we must always as "is the appropriate for government, is this power granted to it?" before we start excusing the growth of government against the rights of the individual.

 

[Your Star]

Screw the FCC, plain and simple. It shouldn't be the governments job to regulate what is appropriate, and what isn't. If you don't like it you have to ability to change the channel.

 

[samsmart]

Screw the FCC, plain and simple. It shouldn't be the governments job to regulate what is appropriate, and what isn't. If you don't like it you have to ability to change the channel.

And who will regulate things such as licenses so that radio and television stations can operate?

 

[CrazyMcCool]

I support keeping the FCC. They have a right to censor inappropriate content. Kids shouldn't have to see commercials that depict naked people and curse like sailors because someone feels like expressing their first amendment rights.

No no one would do that, but you got parental control that you can do from your TV on your own..why should I pay the FCC for something I dont use and hate, and can do from my own TV now ?
Also when I was 5 i would sing " we will we will **** you" insted of rock you cause when i listend to the song it sounded like **** you, and I sang and i was happy as a fudge man on fudge island.
It was not till I was 11 that someone told me its Rock you, and even then I had no idea wtf **** ment. at age 13 I learned what **** ment.

Serouisly kids dont care about these things, if they see someone say ****, they wont know what it means, and they wont feel any sexual tension till they develope and bythen they will have enough education to understand what these feelings are..
Its really just BS to say that bad language is bad for kids...Its just the diff of times I guess..

Like how back in the old days playing a Tri-Tone will get you burned alive cause it was the "devilz" chord :roll:
Time to get with the times me think :wink:

Also its going to be a strange day when Girls gone wild decide to put a commercial on Cartoon network or the disney channle :lol:

 

[CrazyMcCool]

And who will regulate things such as licenses so that radio and television stations can operate?

How about an organazation that is only doing that, and does not tax people hundrad of thusands of dolors for saying the word "crap" on the radio :roll: (spell fail xD )