Cesnorship, or how the FCC hates Mr. T

[cannon_fodder]

I was just curious on what people's take was on the FCC's (read Federal Censorship Commission) continued encroachment on our freedom of speech.  Whether you view it as a needed regulation or not, it is a limitation of speech in the USA.  

quote: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.

First, it needs to be understood by non-legal types that the 1st Amendment protects all forms of expression, but just speech.  Non-verbal can be just as powerful if not more so (a picture is worth...).  Second, it needs to be understood the read "Congress Shall" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to basically mean a government actor, be it state or federal.

With that base of knowledge, there are several points that are of recent concern:

1) The first major encroachment was the airwaves.  Congress declared the American People owned the airwaves and it had the right to censor them as it saw fit.  In so doing it banned certain words from radio and shortly thereafter from broadcast television and went on to set content guidelines during certain hours.  

It sets no real guidelines for what is acceptable and what is not, the FCC will fine you when it sees something that is not allowed on a "I'll know it when I see it" basis.  Cue the Janet Jackson debockle.

2) The FCC has expressed a desire to further regulate television for violent content.  Performing no scientific study on the correlation, it boldly declared violence on TV spurs violence in real life.  This is in an exploratory phase but would likely operate under the "its too violent when we say it is" guideline.  

3) Howard Dean has renewed calls for "Fairness Doctrine" in which the government closely regulates political speech in public forums.  He would like to see KRMG told how many hours it can devout to Boortz, Rush, and Hannity and how many hours it must devout to Gore, Frankin, and Sharpton.  Both of the primary political views would be required to get equal airtime.

4) And finally, the FCC has boldly stated, or assumed that it has the right to regulate non-airborn content.  That is to say, media flowing over cable and satellite lines.  In essence, the Power Ranger's on Nickelodeon and Noodles are too violent and should not be marketed to children.

The FCC has expressed a strong desire to regulate the internet in the same way.  Starting with applying the above reference "fairness" doctrine to the internet.  Presumably requiring the Huffington Post to run X number of conservative articles and Matt Drudge to run X number of liberal links.
---

All of the above action is precipitated on one of two basic theories:
1) Think of the children (I'm too lazy to do it myself)
or
2) My political view is not popular enough on the radio.

So here is your assignment:

Is it a proper roll of government to regulate  speech on the airwaves, television, or other mediums:  if so, to what extent and how do you delineate the guidelines?  If not, are their instances in which it is proper?

At what point has the government gone too far?

I understand this is a wide ranging topic, so I hope it can stir some heated discussion.

[iplaw]

Before anyone posts, first let me beg that please, for the love of God, no one integrate the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" into this discussion anywhere.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Before anyone posts, first let me beg that please, for the love of God, no one integrate the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" into this discussion anywhere.

Okay, you can't shout "flood" in a crowded shipping channel either. []

I've always felt that the off button or channel changer in one's home should be the ultimate arbitor of censorship.  You don't like what's on?  Don't watch it.  There are tons of other channels you can tune into.  

If enough people don't watch the smut and violence, it disappears for lack of interest and ultimately, revenue.

[rwarn17588]

Or shout "fire" in a crowded firehouse. []

[MichaelC]

You can say whatever the hell you want to.  You can say it in public, if it's something you have to pay for, you can pay for it too.  BUT, it does not say in the constitution that you can say whatever the hell you want to over public airwaves.

Neither You nor I, are entitled to say whatever we want to on public airwaves.  Neither is Mr T, or Imus, or anyone else.  Next you'll be b****in because there isn't enough hard-core porn on KOTV.

[iplaw]

The Fairness Doctrine issue is what intrigues me the most.  It's a desparate power grab by those who can't succeede in radio (I.E. Democrats) to force successful conservative shows to carry liberal material that forced others like Air America off the airwaves to begin with.

[MichaelC]

I disagree with "Fairness Doctrine".  Besides the free market aspect, right-wing radio has the tendency to be self-destructive.  I'd rather keep it that way.

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by MichaelC

I disagree with "Fairness Doctrine".  Besides the free market aspect, right-wing radio has the tendency to be self-destructive.  I'd rather keep it that way.

Self destructive would be Air America.  No listeners, no profit, no Air America.  Conservative radio is a flourishing and economically viable product.  I don't see what you mean by self-destructive.

[Conan71]

I'm not sure how serious and imminent a threat the fairness doctrine is.  I think to a degree, it's fear-mongering by the GOP and conservative commentators.

I don't agree with it to the extent that a free-enterprise profitable station like KRMG would be forced to sacrifice profits by having $harpton, Stuart Smalley, et. al. on the air to balance Rush, Hannity, Savage, and Boortz.  Ad spots for the current programming makes good money in this market.  Arbitrons for liberal hosts would be very, very low in this market.  

The government would essentially be causing financial harm to radio stations by dictating programming.  In all fairness, shouldn't Spanish stations be required to provide equal English programming so we can keep tabs on them?  Where do you stop?

There aren't enough Hometown's in Tulsa to make liberal programming profitable and I think it would be draconian to force that on local radio stations.

[NellieBly]

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.


Seems like the republics are the ones that don't like to be fair.

[mr.jaynes]

quote:Originally posted by iplaw

Before anyone posts, first let me beg that please, for the love of God, no one integrate the phrase "you can't shout fire in a crowded theater" into this discussion anywhere.

How about shouting "theatre!" at a crowded fire?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by NellieBly

However, before the Commission's action, in the spring of 1987, both houses of Congress voted to put the fairness doctrine into law--a statutory fairness doctrine which the FCC would have to enforce, like it or not. But President Reagan, in keeping with his deregulatory efforts and his long-standing favor of keeping government out of the affairs of business, vetoed the legislation. There were insufficient votes to override the veto. Congressional efforts to make the doctrine into law surfaced again during the Bush administration. As before, the legislation was vetoed, this time by Bush.


Seems like the republics are the ones that don't like to be fair.

If by "fair" you mean the PC Gestapo monitoring the media, then yes, by all means please be unfair to us.

Maybe your side could attempt to find someone who doesn't stink on ice to put on the air.  Possibly someone that people want to listen to that attracts listeners...just a thought.  

[cannon_fodder]

Nellie:

You're going to have to explain that to me.  You arent arguing for or against the merit of dictating the speech pattern of private enterprise, you don't think Republican are fair because they followed the constitutionally set guidance for how a bill becomes a law?  If that is the mud you wish to sling, lets compare GW's veto crayon (couldnt resist) to Clinton's and see who is less fair.

If you do not like 'how a Bill becomes a Law' please start a discussion on how to change that.  I do not want to digress any further.


Conan:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18366765/site/newsweek/
The Chairmen of the DNC is advocating for the Fairness Doctrine, it is not just fear mongering.  Nor do I care which party is advocating for or against it, I think its a bad idea (obviously).  Next shall we require Hollywood to employ a % of conservative actors, or newspapers to publish a fair share of conservative editors opinions, or maybe dictate more conservative protests on college campuses.  Its just goofy.

[edit]Additional Link: http://www.opinionjournal.com/best/?id=110009999 [/edit]

MichaelC:

While it is true that the constitution

quote: does not say in the constitution that you can say whatever the hell you want to over public airwaves.

It doesnt have to.  Our government is one of enumerated powers.  It was prohibited from limiting speech expressly and no enumerated power directly allows the subrogation of that right in any particular medium.  By the very definition of enumerate powers, the document doesnt have to say alot of things (though it does say so, I am free to type in an internet forum).

And I will not be complaining about any of the programming on any network.  As a consumer it is my prerogative to consume or not any particular product.  By doing so I cast my vote on the worthiness of the product while not inhibiting others of its consumption.

Mr. T pities the fool who doesn't want hard core porn on KOTV. This thread needs more Mr. T.
-----

In my most humble of opinions, the government treats TV and Radio like they are rights.  People do not have the right to listen to the radio and not be offended.  They do not have the right to sit their child in front of the TV and be secure in its content.  It is neither a right nor a requirement - they can turn the TV off and send the kids outside.  They can change the dial, put in a christian CD, get XM radio, or heaven forbid turn it off (and talk on their cell phone).

I would like to see a movie-style rating system were a rating is given that advises people of the content.  I agree with the notion that as a parent I enjoy watching some shows with my son - if during PBS' NATURE hard core porn began to show I would be upset and deem that inappropriate.  It would cause me to discontinue my support for PBS and disallow my son from viewing further programs - with appropriate warnings networks can avoid this consequence without infringing on other's ability to consume their product.

---
I'm surprised no one has addressed the ambiguity of the laws.  Not even the FCC can define what's indecent.  

and finally... while you cannot yell fire in a movie theater, you can still yell "VIRUS" in a forum.

[Chris]

Once again I think the ability to not listen to what you don't like is good enough. No need for any fairness doctrine when no one is forcing you to listen in the first place.

[iplaw]

Who wants to bet against me that this story doesn't even register on $harpton's radar...

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270130,00.html