Fuck the FCC (and the Court)

Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Fuck the FCC (and the Court)

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1293f3e5.pdf 

FCC vs. Fox was finally decided today after a long wait. While all the hack news headlines proclaim "Court throws out FCC indecency policy" as usual reporters are idiots. While the Court did rule against the FCC they did so purely on procedural grounds. The only reason the FCC can't fine Fox is because they didn't provide enough notice that fleeting expletives and partial nudity are against the rules. So while Fox gets to save a few bucks the FCC can still fine you for saying "I love my fucking freedom" on tv. Ironic for a country that loves to brag about our freedom of speech so much.

At least the FCC doesn't regulate the internet (yet) so dear FCC

 

And Sapient, thanks again for providing a forum where free speech can flourish be it from commies, anarchists, libertarians, democrats, republicans, atheists, theists, deists, theistards, assholes, dumb asses, smart asses, and even the nice folk too.  

 

And to any of you who are offended by the occasional curse word, get a fucking life- it is only a group of syllables that you randomly decide offends you when put in a certain order so go 跟猴子比丟屎. 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
http://www.youtube.com/watch?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGYDxJmXCE8

I love this country/rock song by Steve Earle. I always feel better when I play it loud.

Lyrics below :

I used to listen to the radio
And I dont' guess they're listenin' to me no more
Well they talk too much but that's okay
I don't understand a single word they say
Piss and moan about the immigrants
But don't say nothin' about the President
A democracy don't work that way
I can say anything I wanna say

So fuck the FCC
Fuck the FBI
Fuck the CIA
Livin' in the motherfuckin' USA

People tell me that I'm paranoid
And I admit I'm gettin' pretty nervous, boy
It just gets tougher everyday
To sit around and watch it while it slips away
Been called a traitor and a patriot
Call me anything you want to but
Just don't forget your history
Dirty Lenny died so we could all be free

So fuck the FCC
Fuck the FBI
Fuck the CIA
Livin' in the motherfuckin' USA

F U C K F U CK

Fuck the fcc

Fuck the FBI

Fuck the CIA

Living in the motherfucking USA.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3140
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
There is tricky issue here

There is tricky issue here in that the airways are considered to be owned by the public. So of course the government must regulate it as far as who gets to use how much bandwidth. Should it just go to the highest bidder? Or should we allow educational and religious programs to be broadcast? Do individuals or corporations have 'rights' to use the airways?

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13833
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:There is tricky

EXC wrote:

There is tricky issue here in that the airways are considered to be owned by the public. So of course the government must regulate it as far as who gets to use how much bandwidth. Should it just go to the highest bidder? Or should we allow educational and religious programs to be broadcast? Do individuals or corporations have 'rights' to use the airways?

There is the first RUB you and I agree on.

But what both you and Beyond seem to miss, is that the founders WERE for competition, but if the First Amendment is any indication of their intent, I find it hard for the private sector to be immune to the same anti monopoly principle, otherwise the highest bidder is enough.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:EXC

Brian37 wrote:

EXC wrote:

There is tricky issue here in that the airways are considered to be owned by the public. So of course the government must regulate it as far as who gets to use how much bandwidth. Should it just go to the highest bidder? Or should we allow educational and religious programs to be broadcast? Do individuals or corporations have 'rights' to use the airways?

There is the first RUB you and I agree on.

But what both you and Beyond seem to miss, is that the founders WERE for competition, but if the First Amendment is any indication of their intent, I find it hard for the private sector to be immune to the same anti monopoly principle, otherwise the highest bidder is enough.

 

What does any of this have anything to do with whether or not you can say "fuck" on public airwaves? There is a big difference between determining how bandwidth is divvied up and determining what can be said after it is divvied. I have no issue with the current method of getting the rights to set up a radio station, I do have issue with songs being censored. The government should not have a role in determining content in any way. 

Other First Amendment jurisprudence is consistent with my view- the government can control to some extent where you can speak or when for rallies, protests and marches etc. However, it cannot regulate the content of what is said at rallies, protests or marches. Why does the technology of television and radio suddenly give government the power to regulate what is said in the public forum? I see no good reason, yet Supreme Court Jurisprudence continues to make a distinction for obscenity and profanity- and by that very position our government is showing favoritism to a particular political position- conservatives who are offended by it.

If it is ok for government to regulate what is said on tv or radio, is it ok for them to also outlaw cussing in all public areas? If you say "fuck" on a public sidewalk can a cop arrest you? In many jurisdictions, cussing in public or especially in front of a lady is illegal and punishable by prison. Such laws are no longer enforced, but they are technically on the books. Is it constitutional? I would say no, but given this court decision I am not confident that the justices would agree with me.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Because, o illiterate

Because, o illiterate wannabe conservative, the 1st Amendment only protects POLITICAL speech.

The content of protected 1st Amendment activities are ... protected.

Try lying under oath.  If you have an absolute Free Speech right, lying under oath is protected speech.  There's your answer -- there is no absolute right to "free speech".

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Because, o illiterate wannabe conservative, the 1st Amendment only protects POLITICAL speech.

The content of protected 1st Amendment activities are ... protected.

Try lying under oath.  If you have an absolute Free Speech right, lying under oath is protected speech.  There's your answer -- there is no absolute right to "free speech".

1st Amendment wrote:

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.

The qualifier "political" is not included anywhere I see. "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" and you call me illiterate. In fact, in the series of Supreme Court cases since Roth v. United States http://www.oyez.org/cases/1950-1959/1956/1956_582/ first determined that obscenity was not completely protected by the first amendment the Court has repeatedly affirmed that work with "literary or artistic value" does have at least some first amendment protections. (Miller v. California http://www.oyez.org/cases/1970-1979/1971/1971_70_73/&nbspEye-wink

 

A thought process upheld in Reno v. ACLU http://www.oyez.org/cases/1990-1999/1996/1996_96_511 a case in which the speech clearly had nothing to do with politics (well Clinton was in office so I guess blowjobs were kind of a hot political topic at the time)

 

The debate has been what is literary and artistic and what is obscene. Admittedly, I take the radical position that nothing is obscene unless a politician is speaking. What one person finds obscene another finds artistic. However, in this particular case I think it is absurd to determine that Cher saying "fuck'em" in response to direct criticism from others is obscene. 

 

Besides "I love my fucking freedom" is political speech. So is "fuck George Bush" or "fuck Obama" or "fuck the court" all phrases that are prohibited. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Even a blind squirrel can find a nut

 One thing you are right about Furry is that the right to free speech (even political or religious) is not absolute. Nor is any other right in the bill of rights. As a practical matter, government does have some restrictions. What constitutional rights get is the government has to pass a higher standard to justify passing a law that affects that right. I never claimed the right was absolute,  however, being that freedom of speech is a specifically enumerated right the court should exercise "strict scrutiny" whenever it is infringed which means the government must have a compelling governmental interest, the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest and the law must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. 

 I do argue that the government does not have a compelling enough interest to curtail cuss words on television, where it does have a compelling interest to pass laws punishing people for lying under oath in a court room. Obviously, if people could lie at whim without being punished in court proceedings that would significantly hamper the government in one of its main duties so I would describe that as a compelling governmental interest. I fail to see such a compelling interest in this case. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: One

Beyond Saving wrote:

 One thing you are right about Furry is that the right to free speech (even political or religious) is not absolute. Nor is any other right in the bill of rights.

Well, once you get that Freedom of Speech "is not absolute" it's just a matter of deciding what doesn't fall into the parts that =are= protected.  When you become a Supreme Court justice, you'd get to decide that.

HTH.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Beyond

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

 One thing you are right about Furry is that the right to free speech (even political or religious) is not absolute. Nor is any other right in the bill of rights.

Well, once you get that Freedom of Speech "is not absolute" it's just a matter of deciding what doesn't fall into the parts that =are= protected.  When you become a Supreme Court justice, you'd get to decide that.

HTH.

 

Wow, your argument is so stunningly insightful I guess you win. I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders. What was I thinking? That I lived in a country where regular bumpkins like me could spout our opinions?!? I'm just going to go back to my cabin in the woods and let my intellectual superiors run the country without comment from me.  

Well, goodbye everyone. Since most of my time on this board has been devoted to speaking out about what the elite in DC are doing, I guess there isn't much a point in me posting here. I'm just going to go join the rest of the sheeple, keep my mouth shut and let the leaders lead me wherever they want without thinking for myself like a good little...theist. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 I should also mention the

 I should also mention the Stolen Valor Act that I discussed here, was ruled on as well. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-210d4e9.pdf I haven't had time to do more than a cursory scan of the opinion myself but the bottom line is that you do in fact have the freedom to lie about military service and receiving medals. So at least we have one victory for free speech.

Note to Furry- this is another case where the speech was not political in any way. I guess six justices on the Court agree with the rube that first amendment protection goes beyond pure political speech. 

Oh, shit I wasn't going to spout my opinions anymore. What can I say, I make a terrible theist 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Wow,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wow, your argument is so stunningly insightful I guess you win. I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders. What was I thinking? That I lived in a country where regular bumpkins like me could spout our opinions?!? I'm just going to go back to my cabin in the woods and let my intellectual superiors run the country without comment from me. 

I didn't say you don't get to have an OPINION, you illiterate f*ck, only that you don't get to DECIDE.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Beyond

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wow, your argument is so stunningly insightful I guess you win. I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders. What was I thinking? That I lived in a country where regular bumpkins like me could spout our opinions?!? I'm just going to go back to my cabin in the woods and let my intellectual superiors run the country without comment from me. 

I didn't say you don't get to have an OPINION, you illiterate f*ck, only that you don't get to DECIDE.

 

Did I ever claim I get to decide? 

 

If you are going to accuse someone of being illiterate you should probably work on your reading comprehension. Things like "I would say no, but given this court decision I am not confident that the justices would agree with me." and "However, in this particular case I think it is absurd to determine that Cher saying "fuck'em" in response to direct criticism from others is obscene." "I do argue that the government does not have a compelling enough interest to curtail cuss words on television" Make it pretty damn clear that I am stating an argument for my opinion, not declaring an absolute truth or dictator status. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10725
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Skipping the argument, I'm

Skipping the argument, I'm always up for disbanding the FCC. Permanently.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Skipping the

Vastet wrote:
Skipping the argument, I'm always up for disbanding the FCC. Permanently.

I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3704
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Vastet

harleysportster wrote:

Vastet wrote:
Skipping the argument, I'm always up for disbanding the FCC. Permanently.

I'd vote for that in a heartbeat. 

 

     Ditto.

www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/misanthropy

"A man can never have too much red wine, too many books, or too much ammunition." Rudyard Kipling


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

Wow, your argument is so stunningly insightful I guess you win. I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders. What was I thinking? That I lived in a country where regular bumpkins like me could spout our opinions?!? I'm just going to go back to my cabin in the woods and let my intellectual superiors run the country without comment from me. 

I didn't say you don't get to have an OPINION, you illiterate f*ck, only that you don't get to DECIDE.

 

Did I ever claim I get to decide? 

 

If you are going to accuse someone of being illiterate you should probably work on your reading comprehension.

Okay, you might want to work on your memory and your, uh, WRITING comprehension.

You wrote --

Quote:
I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders.

I didn't say you don't get to have an OPINION.

I did say, and I stand by my statement, that you're illiterate.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:Okay,

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Okay, you might want to work on your memory and your, uh, WRITING comprehension.

You wrote --

Quote:
I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders.

I didn't say you don't get to have an OPINION.

I did say, and I stand by my statement, that you're illiterate.

And again, how does your reply have any relevance whatsoever to what I said? Your posts in this thread have been nothing but trolling and irrelevant attacks. The only thing you have that is even an attempt at an argument was your first post attempting to claim that only political speech is protected which was easily demonstrated as complete bullshit by only relying on a single bookmark in my browser. Seriously, if you are going to challenge me at least make me go two or three bookmarks deep, or if you have a really intelligent argument you can make me do a brand new google search.  

Illiterate? Really? That the best you got? You should leave such trolling up to Vastet, he is much better at condescending insults than you. Go take some lessons and try the insults again. Better yet, offer an actual legitimate point if you believe there is a good argument for why profanity should be excluded from first amendment protection. I'll admit there are some plausible arguments, you have not offered any of them.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Okay, you might want to work on your memory and your, uh, WRITING comprehension.

You wrote --

Quote:
I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders.

I didn't say you don't get to have an OPINION.

I did say, and I stand by my statement, that you're illiterate.

And again, how does your reply have any relevance whatsoever to what I said?

You said

Quote:
I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders.

in response to my saying that you do not get to DECIDE what is covered by the First Amendment.

Your response was a non sequitor (go look that up, assuming you know how to use a dictionary) and you attacked me for your inability to read.  Having explained it to you several time, you're either completely and totally illiterate, or you have a major inability to acknowledge that you're functionally illiterate.  As an asshat.

Okay, why is profanity on public airwaves not protected speech?  I agree with the Supreme Court rulings, including the reasoning behind them.  The PUBLIC airwaves are PUBLIC airwaves.  We The People, through our elected officials in the Legislative and Executive branches, should get to decide how a PUBLIC resource is managed.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder wrote:And

FurryCatHerder wrote:

You said

Quote:
I guess only Supreme Court justices are allowed to have opinions and the rest of us should shut the fuck up and listen to our leaders.

in response to my saying that you do not get to DECIDE what is covered by the First Amendment.

Your response was a non sequitor (go look that up, assuming you know how to use a dictionary) and you attacked me for your inability to read.  Having explained it to you several time, you're either completely and totally illiterate, or you have a major inability to acknowledge that you're functionally illiterate.  As an asshat.

Yeah the whole thing started when you said

furry wrote:

 

Well, once you get that Freedom of Speech "is not absolute" it's just a matter of deciding what doesn't fall into the parts that =are= protected.  When you become a Supreme Court justice, you'd get to decide that.

HTH.

Which I took the reasonable interpretation to be that you were saying I should STFU since I don't get to decide. If you didn't mean that, fine. Move on, it isn't relevant anyway. If you didn't mean that I should STFU, then your statement is completely pointless- which is fine, I support your right to write completely pointless things, I do it myself from time to time. In the future you can assume the 100% of everything I write is my opinion, I never pretend to dictate to anyone, claim I am smarter than anyone or claim to know the Truth. If I am providing a fact I will link to original sources because I don't expect anyone to take my word for anything on the internet. I simply offer my opinion and provide as much evidence as I can to support it, it is up to the reader to determine whether or not I am right. So pointing out that I don't get to decide is pointless because everyone already knows that... moving on.   

 

FurryCatHerder wrote:

 

Okay, why is profanity on public airwaves not protected speech?  I agree with the Supreme Court rulings, including the reasoning behind them.  The PUBLIC airwaves are PUBLIC airwaves.  We The People, through our elected officials in the Legislative and Executive branches, should get to decide how a PUBLIC resource is managed.

Exactly which ruling are you agreeing with? Obviously you did not read the Supreme Court decision because the Court did not rule on the issue of censoring profanity. The issue of whether or not profanity is protected on network television is a question that will have to be answered by lower courts first and will probably find its way back to SCOTUS in the next decade or two. You are agreeing with a ruling that doesn't exist, that takes talent, if by "illiterate" you mean I can't read things that have not been written yet I guess I am illiterate. The bottom line is that whether the FCC's power to censor language is constitutional remains an undecided issue at the Supreme Court level, probably because the justices don't agree enough to create a majority opinion that decides it conclusively. Must be some illiterate rubes like me on the court. 

The Court has not ruled one way or the other, which was the basis of my criticism in my OP, I believe they should address the issue and obviously I hope they decide it my way. Right now the only precedent is the decision made by the Second Circuit Court which did determine that the FCC regulation violated first amendment protection because it was too vague, although explicitly left open the possibility that the FCC could make a policy that could pass constitutional muster. 

As far as your assertion that public airwaves can be censored because they are public, does that also mean that speech on a public sidewalk can be censored? How about in a place of business open to the public? On private property when the speech can reasonably be expected to be heard in a public area? What about the internet? Can speech on the internet be censored? It is public. Exactly where do you draw the line and under what justification? If the government can censor any speech anywhere in public, I hope we could agree that would be a very scary thing. So is it the governments power to censor anything they think is inappropriate, or is there something special about cuss words that leave them open to censorship while saying "Obama is a loser" is not? 

Thanks for playing, please try again. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


FurryCatHerder
Theist
FurryCatHerder's picture
Posts: 1253
Joined: 2007-06-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond,Go read all of the

Beyond,

Go read all of the censorship-of-public-airwaves rulings you can find.  Then look for common themes.  Then try b.s.'ing someone else with your fake "Conservative" beliefs.

If it makes you happy, I blame the Liberal educational establishment for why Neo-Conservatives, Libertarians, Ayn Randians, etc. are so f*cking stupid these days.  I also blame the Internet.  Because you probably didn't make it past the second or third page of the referenced decision before clicking on some other link or playing Angry Birds or downloading some pr0n.

"Obviously I'm convinced of the existence of G-d. I'm equally convinced that Atheists who've led good lives will be in Olam HaBa going "How the heck did I wind up in this place?!?" while Christians who've treated people like dirt will be in some other place asking the exact same question."


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4668
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
FurryCatHerder

FurryCatHerder wrote:

Beyond,

Go read all of the censorship-of-public-airwaves rulings you can find.  Then look for common themes.  Then try b.s.'ing someone else with your fake "Conservative" beliefs.

If it makes you happy, I blame the Liberal educational establishment for why Neo-Conservatives, Libertarians, Ayn Randians, etc. are so f*cking stupid these days.  I also blame the Internet.  Because you probably didn't make it past the second or third page of the referenced decision before clicking on some other link or playing Angry Birds or downloading some pr0n.

I have, any specific rulings I should look up? You can't even get the beliefs right, on this particular issue the conservatives on the court tend to be the ones against my position. FFS if you are going to accuse me of being ignorant at least get your facts right in the preceding sentence. For the most part it is the conservative group that is anti profanity and anti obscenity. Virtually every SCOTUS case on the subject has dealt with pornography and none has issued a decision on fleeting expletives. The major decision on profanity over public airwaves being FCC v. Pacifica, a 5 to 4 decision that several justices on the Court today have directly suggested should be revisited. But even that ruling was very narrow as Justice Stevens noted in the majority opinion,

 

Justice Stevens wrote:

It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution. The Commission's decision rested entirely on a nuisance rationale under which context is all-important. The concept requires consideration of a host of variables. The time of day was emphasized by the Commission. The content of the program in which the language is used will also affect the composition of the audience, and differences between radio, television, and perhaps closed-circuit transmissions, may also be relevant. As Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote, a "nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, - like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388 . We simply hold that when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene.

 

 

This opinion is the reason why there are warnings before certain tv shows and racier material is aired late night because its basis for a compelling government interest was not simply because the airways were public, the compelling government interest was to protect children from offensive material. It does not support the outright blanket censorship that the FCC rules have today. Indeed, two justices of the majority wrote a separate concurrence (Justices Powell & Blackmun) 

 

Justice Powell wrote:

It is conceded that the monologue at issue here is not obscene in the constitutional sense. See 56 F.C.C.2d 94, 98 (1975); Brief for Petitioner 18. Nor, in this context, does its language constitute "fighting words" within the meaning of Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). Some of the words used have been held protected by the First Amendment in other cases and contexts. E.g., Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974); Hess v. Indiana, 414 U. S. 105 (1973); Papish v. University of Missouri Curators, 410 U. S. 667 (1973); Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971); see also Eaton v. Tulsa, 415 U. S. 697 (1974). I do not think Carlin, consistently with the First Amendment, could be punished for delivering the same monologue to a live audience composed of adults who, knowing what to expect, chose to attend his performance. See Brown v. Oklahoma, 408 U. S. 914 (1972) (POWELL, J., concurring in result). And I would assume that an adult could not constitutionally be prohibited from purchasing a recording or transcript of the monologue and playing or reading it in the privacy of his own home. Cf. Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557 (1969).

But it also is true that the language employed is, to most people, vulgar and offensive. It was chosen specifically for this quality, and it was repeated over and over as a sort of verbal shock treatment. The Commission did not err in characterizing the narrow category of language used here as "patently offensive" to most people regardless of age.

The issue, however, is whether the Commission may impose civil sanctions on a licensee radio station for broadcasting the monologue at two o'clock in the afternoon. The Commission's primary concern was to prevent the broadcast from reaching the ears of unsupervised children who were likely to be in the audience at that hour. In essence, the Commission sought to "channel" the monologue to hours when the fewest unsupervised children would be exposed to it. See 56 F.C.C.2d at 98. In my view, this consideration provides strong support for the Commission's holding.

(emphasis mine)

 

IOW, Justice Powell argued that the FCC had the power to regulate time and place of certain content, not to ban the content outright. He again brought up this point towards the end of his opinion,

 

Justice Powell wrote:

On its face, it does not prevent respondent Pacifica Foundation from broadcasting the monologue during late evening hours, when fewer children are likely to be in the audience, nor from broadcasting discussions of the contemporary use of language at any time during the day. The Commission's holding, and certainly the Court's holding today, does not speak to cases involving the isolated use of a potentially offensive word in the course of a radio broadcast, as distinguished from the verbal shock treatment administered by respondent here. In short, I agree that, on the facts of this case, the Commission's order did not violate respondent's First Amendment rights.

 

Thanks for playing, please try again. Try coming with some facts next time.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Reverend Wells
Reverend Wells's picture
Posts: 36
Joined: 2012-08-17
User is offlineOffline
Nice job!

I guess you won since she finally shut the fuck up.

Quote:
You can't even get the beliefs right, on this particular issue the conservatives on the court tend to be the ones against my position. FFS if you are going to accuse me of being ignorant at least get your facts right in the preceding sentence. For the most part it is the conservative group that is anti profanity and anti obscenity.

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I'm mostly liberal and my viewpoint is fuck the FCC. I don't know where she got the dumbass idea that conservatives want to be able to freely say expletives on TV and radio, since most conservatives are of the Bible-thumping variety.

 

"Now this ... is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination." - Buddha, the 2nd Noble Truth