Freedom of Speech and First Amendment

[aeroripper]

Just wanting to know what you guys feel about the first amendment in the US constitution and how it applies to our daily lives: (here's the reference incase you didn't know the jist of it)

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.

I just thought how funny it is today to notice how this has been trampled on by the FCC. Howard Stern is on trial, george carltin, and others all over broadcast can't see "naughty" cuss words without being heavily fined. Is the FCC fascist? Telling us what we can and cannot say? How big of influence are they really? On March 11th 2004 instead of just broadcast they want to try and censor cable networks (read: privately held companies, the people).

http://www.cato.org/dailys/03-23-04.html

I feel that everybody and anybody has the right to say whatever the hell they want even if it offends other people or a certain group. That even protects the idiot neo-nazis to the s*** spewing hippies. I figure, if you don't like it you don't have to listen. It's the same with cuss words, their part of the language and its not the word that is bad (like some groups would like to say) but the context and feelings that are being expressed. BUt that's a whole nother topic entirely.

 

[f|uke]

Howard Stern was only attacked because of the stance he took against the Bush administration. It had nothing to do with the sexual content, and everybody knows it. That was a gross abuse of federal power.

**** the FCC.

Edit: Oh, the irony.

 

[aeroripper]

Howard Stern was only attacked because of the stance he took against the Bush administration. It had nothing to do with the sexual content, and everybody knows it. That was a gross abuse of federal power.

That's dumb, he can say whatever the hell he wants against the government as he's entitled.

 

[SimonomiS]

That's dumb, he can say whatever the hell he wants against the government as he's entitled.

Shhh...they'll hear you...

EDIT:Shouldnt this be in politics anyway?

 

[gh0st]

Howard Stern was only attacked because of the stance he took against the Bush administration. It had nothing to do with the sexual content, and everybody knows it. That was a gross abuse of federal power.

Thats strange why havent any of the other liberal media players been attacked like that ******? Oh because they know how to get their point across without looking like a sleazy shiteater.

 

[The Monkey]

It doesn't appeal to my daily life at all.

 

[f|uke]

Thats strange why havent any of the other liberal media players been attacked like that ******? Oh because they know how to get their point across without looking like a sleazy shiteater.

Right. Howard stern is a sleazeball, which made him an easy target.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Right. Howard stern is a sleazeball, which made him an easy target.

Seems like hes really got himself to blame for that though really.

You can if you want say anything you want even today, but you just have to say it right.

 

[gh0st]

Right. Howard stern is a sleazeball, which made him an easy target.

Yeah. It did. The FCC is there so sleazeballs like him dont taint my airways.

 

[Ames]

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

 

[ríomhaire]

there was a guy in University Collage Cork (not in the US but anyway) who was arrested for sending a n e-mail to George Bush calling him a maniac or something.

 

[SimonomiS]

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

What if there actually IS a fire?

 

[Ames]

What if there actually IS a fire?

"What's that smell? Smoke?"

"Hey everybody, I think I smell some smoke back here..."

"FIRE! FIRE! Get out of the way!"

 

[aeroripper]

boy, you think b/c howard stern in ur opinion is a sleezeball, makes the fcc entitled to fineing him? Wow this country is sadder then i thought.

no kidding, in my opinion christians and evangelicals are sleezeballs and they should be fined excessivly for saying things i don't agree with on their radio shows. Is it gonna happen? No, and it shouldn't cause they have that same right to say what they want.

You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater.

That's quite a bit different. A TV show that might have said a few bad words or questionable material is different. You can always turn the channel. In yelling "fire" your endangering their lives (well for all they know).

 

[gh0st]

boy, you think b/c howard stern in ur opinion is a sleezeball, makes the fcc entitled to fineing him? Wow this country is sadder then i thought.

No. He uses public airways inappropriately. Thats makes it the governments job to regulate on his ass. If you dont like decency in our media move to belgium.

no kidding, in my opinion christians and evangelicals are sleezeballs and they should be fined excessivly for saying things i don't agree with on their radio shows. Is it gonna happen? No, and it shouldn't cause they have that same right to say what they want.

I'm not a ****ing christian evangelical, why do you assume that? I dont assume youre a pot smoking hippie liberal, why cant you extend the same courtesy?

 

[Calanen]

I saw what Stern said, (which I will not summarise here) and while it was not in good taste, and some would say disgusting, it was not 'obscene'. The FCC should not have fined him for that.

Another FCC fine was given to some radio shock jocks in Florida who rang Cuba to speak to Fidel Castro. They at first flattered him and then called him an assassin and a murderer on the air. Castro went ballistic and was screaming obscenities at them on the phone.

The FCC fined the DJs for broadcasting a person's voice on the air without their permission, ie Castro's. I thought it was hilarious - and the FCC should not have fined them? Who cares if Castro is made to look like a fool on morning radio? Does Castro vote?

 

[GhostFox]

The FCC should be blasted off the face of the planet as it exists now, and reinstituded as a regulatory commision concerned solely with licensing, not morality.

 

[aeroripper]

I'm not a ****ing christian evangelical, why do you assume that? I dont assume youre a pot smoking hippie liberal, why cant you extend the same courtesy?

I wasn't referring to you, i was speaking in general terms. AND DON'T CALL ME A ****ING LIBERAL, you don't even know what it means. Being liberal was traditionally a good thing. I hate it how our media makes it seem like "liberals" are aliens and sub-human.

Liberal: look it up

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=liberal&x=13&y=17

 

[gh0st]

I wasn't referring to you, i was speaking in general terms. AND DON'T CALL ME A ****ING LIBERAL, you don't even know what it means. Being liberal was traditionally a good thing. I hate it how our media makes it seem like "liberals" are aliens and sub-human.

I just said I dont assume you're anything.

I dont know what liberal means? Hahahahahahahhahaa. Kill yourself.

 

[aeroripper]

I dont know what liberal means? Hahahahahahahhahaa. Kill yourself.

Why don't you do it for me you know you want to.

The FCC should be blasted off the face of the planet as it exists now, and reinstituded as a regulatory commision concerned solely with licensing, not morality.

no kidding, there's no use for it. People who don't like their kids hearing it on tv should just turn it off. Quit looking to the government to raise your kids and get off your lazy ass and do it yourself.

 

[gh0st]

Why don't you do it for me you know you want to.

No you seem like a nice person. I honestly dont care, I just hate Howard Stern.

 

[bliink]

gh0st and aeroripper, you both need to stop fighting.

 

[aeroripper]

But fighting is fun

I'm sorry Ghost :-/

 

[gh0st]

But fighting is fun

I'm sorry Ghost :-/

Sorry aeroripper.

Asshole

 

[Bodacious]

no kidding, there's no use for it. People who don't like their kids hearing it on tv should just turn it off. Quit looking to the government to raise your kids and get off your lazy ass and do it yourself.

The thing is people are tuning in to programs like '03's Super bowl and not expecting to be titty flashed. Some people are watching with their children and they shouldn't be exposed to that.

 

[bliink]

Some people are watching with their children and they shouldn't be exposed to that.

Their children were most likely feeding off a womans breast at one point.

Whats with the taboo I wonder?

 

[Bodacious]

Their children were most likely feeding off a womans breast at one point.

Whats with the taboo I wonder?

People were expecting to be entertained, not offended. Just because you don't find something offensive doesn't mean everyone else doesn't find it offensive.

 

[bliink]

Just because you don't find something offensive doesn't mean everyone else doesn't find it offensive.

yep, but what if the majority were not offended?
if theres a problem with the FCC, its that it doesnt represent the will of the majority

 

[Calanen]

Should not be exposed to a breast? Come on....

But they can watch Rambo on network TV use an M-60 on a small town and kill the sheriff with it?

 

[gh0st]

Their children were most likely feeding off a womans breast at one point.

Comparing a natural event to an unscripted, old lady, muchless related to Michael Jackson, showing her boob, is rediculous.

Its against the rules to have that kind of nudity on live TV events on public TV. Thats been around since before the FCC was mandated.

 

[mabufo]

yep, but what if the majority were not offended?
if theres a problem with the FCC, its that it doesnt represent the will of the majority

Hell, I'd like to see boobs on late night TV once in a while too...

But having this happen during the superbowl, while millions of children are watching... young children.. is, as ghost said, ridiculous.

 

[bliink]

But having this happen during the superbowl, while millions of children are watching... young children.. is, as ghost said, ridiculous.

meh.. they're kids.. they've seen breasts before, and they'll see them again, and then again (and even more if they have the internet)... its not like 2 seconds of a partially covered nipple is going to warp anyone.

 

[gh0st]

meh.. they're kids.. they've seen breasts before, and they'll see them again, and then again (and even more if they have the internet)... its not like 2 seconds of a partially covered nipple is going to warp anyone.

You're right, they are going to see it when they WISH to see it, not when it is imposed upon them by some wrinkly 60 year old.

 

[bliink]

You're right, they are going to see it when they WISH to see it, not when it is imposed upon them by some wrinkly 60 year old.

So its more a case of "ewww gross"
they'd react the same as my friends did years ago when I showed them my bloody knee.
Kids get over that stuff in about 5 minutes.. can you really imagine some guy in 2044 sitting on a psychiatrists (sp?) couch saying "well, my psychosis started the day I saw that womans breast on tv... I was so shocked!"

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

The FCC has not stepped on the first ammendment.

The FCC regulates public broadcast since any little kid with a TV and reabbit ear antannae can view it. Anything on private broadcast and in print, etc can not be touched. Public broadcast can only be monitored for decency also, not for political ideology.


You can say whatever you please and such. If you're in a government contract to use the air waves, you gotta abide by their rules. If you don't want to, then leave the contract.

 

[GhostFox]

There is no reason stations cannot be self-policing. The FCC is a redundent institution.

I completely agree that parents shouldn't have to worry about little jimmy seeing boobies during the superbowl. Stations understand how people feel, and would not risk losing sponsers over it. CBS could have taken care of the problem just as well without the FCC.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

There is no reason stations cannot be self-policing. The FCC is a redundent institution.

I completely agree that parents shouldn't have to worry about little jimmy seeing boobies during the superbowl. Stations understand how people feel, and would not risk losing sponsers over it. CBS could have taken care of the problem just as well without the FCC.

I don't think they would have, honestly though. Years back they would have as the threat of losing sponsors at that rate would devastate them, but I'm not so sure as many would now today for bad things.

But this can ONLY apply for public airwaves, and it's touchy at that hence the FCC needing to be closely watched, there needs to be some appeal board not related to the FCC for it's fines (There probably is as I don't know how the situation goes for appealing it, but if not there needs to be)

Paid/Private broadcast and anything in print the government can do absolutely zilch about though, and that's good. Some private ones censor themselves but purely so they can be accepted by a wider audience/parents. An example is Comedy Central during the day. At night they show anything ("Secret Stash" at 1AM) but during the day they beep stuff, etc so that parents will let their kids watch and see more of their commercials.

 

[GhostFox]

Some private ones censor themselves but purely so they can be accepted by a wider audience/parents. An example is Comedy Central during the day. At night they show anything ("Secret Stash" at 1AM) but during the day they beep stuff, etc so that parents will let their kids watch and see more of their commercials.

That is my point. Outside of FCC regulations, stations have no problem regulating themselves. I don't see why the public networks would.

Of course we have the CRTC up here, so you guys have nothing to complain about with the FCC down there in comparison. Maybe if I can strike a blow against the FCC, the CRTC will fall next. My own domino theory of govt. regulatory comissions

 

[bliink]

That is my point. Outside of FCC regulations, stations have no problem regulating themselves. I don't see why the public networks would.

Of course we have the CRTC up here, so you guys have nothing to complain about with the FCC down there in comparison. Maybe if I can strike a blow against the FCC, the CRTC will fall next. My own domino theory of govt. regulatory comissions

I think its more a question of society rather than the regulatory bodies; I mean, they're guided by the currents of society, and what we have is a bunch of old prudes hanging on for dear life in a world full of young'uns (not just physically, but in outlook) who don't mind a bit of nudity in prime time.

I think its basically another generation gap thats forming, its just not as clear.

 

[Razor]

So its more a case of "ewww gross"
they'd react the same as my friends did years ago when I showed them my bloody knee.
Kids get over that stuff in about 5 minutes.. can you really imagine some guy in 2044 sitting on a psychiatrists (sp?) couch saying "well, my psychosis started the day I saw that womans breast on tv... I was so shocked!"

Bliink, where would you draw the line? Every 5 year old has seen a breast, would you put a topless children's presenter on tv though?

I don't know about this first ammendmant stuff but i reserve the right not to turn on the tv at 4pm and see softcore porn on the television when all i want to watch is the Simpsons.