Your ideas on free speech might be your opinion, but they're out of synch with what we view as free speech. 1. Commercial speech receives lesser protection than political speech, but it is not unprotected - it is, in fact, 'real speech" - and afforded higher protection than hate speech, obscenity, etc. 2. A television program designed to entertain does not enter the realm of commercial speech. Commercial speech is speech that essentially does nothing more than proposes a transaction. What transaction does "without a trace" propose? That you pay CBS to kidnap people? No. The commercial time during Without a trace? That's commercial speech, pure and simple. Without a Trace itself is not - pure and simple, and it's not even close. As far as the humongously profitable nature of broadcast TV (I think a lot of networks would argue about that one) that's an argument for raising license fees, and not much more. 3. You've apparently resolved that FCC airwave rights > 1st amendment rights -- the Red Lion approach. I tend to think that this vision is misguided and wrong, and that the concept of the traditional public forum should apply to the airwaves. 4. YOu've also glossed over/skipped the whole issue of arbitrariness - stations that aired "offensive" programming in certain regions are fined while others are not. That's the rule now - speech rights vary with geography? I hope to god it's not - not to mention the possible due process/equal protection concerns. 5. You don't care because it doesn't affect you because you don't watch TV. Fine, no problem with you not caring. Illegal wiretapping likely doesn't affect me either as I don't fit any profile of somebody who'd be wiretapped (I think). But that doesn't mean I don't think its wrong or am not concerned about the infringements.
That's some weird logic. You don't watch it, so you don't care - yet you also trust the FCC to rule perfectly. I don't exactly understand.
Interesting that my last little throw-away sentence was the thing to grab the most attention. Anyway, I wasn't here to argue. I answered a question about my initially opaque statement of opinion on the subject. I never said I didn't care; I apparently care enough to post about it. Nor did I say that I trusted the FCC to rule perfectly. I said I understood their right to rule and I'll say I would abide by their decisions insofar as they remain within their right to rule. To address Fisher's points: 1. Not sure why you brought up the distinction between commercial and other forms of speech. Television shows may be "real speech" when the Supreme Court or whomever talk about types of speech and their limits. What I was saying is that I don't respect it. That doesn't mean that I think it should get lesser protection, but it makes me smirk. And, I would point out, the issue the FCC is dealing with here is to what extent has the broadcasting company veered into obscenity. 2. Though I recognize this is not the main point of your number 2 (which I mostly addressed in my number 1), the profit margins of TV companies may be large or small, but the absolute dollars they deal in is large. Therefore fines need to be large in order to be noticed next to the revenue of a superbowl ad or the licensing expense of a hit show, for example. 3. I had to google Red Lion. I don't think you can apply a traditional public forum concept to broadcast stations because only a very few people have access to the airwaves to broadcast on. How fair would it be that Murdoch has free speech to broadcast into 50 million homes, and I don't? I think speech is free to those who own the medium. Everyone (nearly) can talk, so everyone has access to that medium of expression. Newspapers own the printing presses so they have access to that medium. But television airwaves are an asset of the country that is let out to broadcasters. Therefore the country will regulate it as it sees fit. Your own vote would be the broadcasters should do as they please. But, you've been outvoted. Hell, I've been outvoted too. If this is the crux of the disagreement, maybe we should drop all the other stuff and just focus on this one. 4. I didn't spend much time on the arbitrariness of the fines, though I did allow room for censure if the government were maliciously misusing these fines. But, I don't know enough about the process or even the shows being fined to speak intelligently as to whether there is a disparity or not. 5. I guess I shouldn't have put that sentence in. It's true I don't watch television, but it isn't true I don't care about the subject. As I had argued in all the rest of the post, I don't see an infringement to be fretted over.
has anyone seen the orgy scene? i think i'll need to see it before i can make an accurate judgement edit -- http://www.parentstv.org/PTC/clips/main.asp gimme a break, they got fined for that?
. . interesting. . . Government was once thought to help people/parents to make stronger better american not we want them to work against them While I don't agree with the ruling I do not want TV to be an ANYTHING GOES and leave it to the parents to supervise the kids I guess we will all be kool when We raise our kids right then someone's kid . . who wasn't raise right kills our kid . .. we'll be able to say . . u know what . .they shuold have raised him better won't bring our kid back . . but hell us not giving a d*mn about the next kid would warm us at night Rocket River
So assuming that the FCC has the right to regulate broadcast content which trumps free speech (which I don't believe it does) - it can apply a vastly different standard of obscenity than the accepted legal standard, further, arbitrarily hadn out fine depending on how many morality crusaders call in? Severe due process violations involved in that logic.
Well put. 1. I didn't see all of those episodes, but it seems that the disparity in fines is more than a little absurd. 2. As for myself, I appreciate and expect my government to support our efforts to keep our kids' "formulative" years as free as reasonably possible from some of what passes as "entertainment" these days on TV and radio. 3. I used to believe that how a child turned out was a direct reflection of the parenting he received...in this case, change the channel, turn it off, where's the parents, etc. While it's turned out true that the parent's efforts are indeed the greatest influence, I've learned that a child has a better chance at a good foundation if they receive reinforcing support from their environment. Believe me, I'm not shirking my parental duties. I'm just saying give us a break when we're watching a show or listening to the radio together. Is it really necessary to use over the top audio or visual to make the show entertaining? If so, what programming will there be left that is watchable by all? Leave that on pay tv and radio and let free airwaves be free of such stuff. 4. I know this is long, but a quick example of why we need our government involved. I'm driving with my son, listening to the Spurs' pregame show...I think even the "where's the parent police" would agree that I should be safe letting my son listen to an NBA broadcast, right? Well, they run this commercial for a nationally syndicated show they broadcast by this guy whose name escapes me right now. In the clip he talks about having his buds over and how his little girl walks in the room and they're all entertained by looking up her dress,etc ! I don't know the rest because I switched the dial FAST, but that crap was enough for my son to go,"huh, what are they talking about Dad, why did they say that about the girl"? So if our government doesn't help us keep unnecessary crap(sorry, entertainment) like this off of "free" airwaves, then I guess we're just supposed to turn our radios and tv's off, because they're not being indecent and offensive to developing ears and eyes...they're exercising their right to freedom of speech?!? And, after all, where are the parents? Oh, that's right, I was right there beside him, just as I usually am.
DAMN. I need to start watching more TV. P.S. - if a parent group takes all the objectionable content (after having spent hours recording it from television), puts it all together in one tiday package, and makes it available on the internet - how exactly are they helping? I love crusaders. In their fight against sex and violence, they've figured out a way to spend all day watching and thinking about sex and violence.
I think the fact that commercial TV is absolutely rife with violence... swamped in it, and yet this is what grabs the attention of the GOP dominated FCC, tells you all you need to know about what the real reason is behind it... an agenda that is driven by Administration supporters that just happen to be religious fundamentalist conservatives. They must think rampant sexual innuendo on programs like Friends is OK. A show that came on at 7PM for many years, just when children are most apt to watch TV. A huge hit that kids watched with their parents, rampant sexual references, or not. I guess it's just dependent on whether you like a show or not, and whether the one you are trying to censor is seen as a "bad program," by those with the agenda that agrees with the President. Hypocrisy can be a b!tch. Keep D&D Civil.
I've said before, I'm sure the amount of furious guilty masturbation that occurs while the PTC and these other 'morality' groups are doing their research is unparalleled.
PTC is exactly that - it's a "protect the children" fanatic group that has been burned in the past by being overzealous. Of course, this has not stopped their crusade, but I digress. PTC pwned by WWE (Cannot find the "official news" reports - but this link is even better IMO.) PTC spams FCC Hardly sounds like a honest "consensus from the people". More like crazy vigilantes.
Exactly. You can't have it both ways. But that doesn't mean you have to turn it off - options do exist.
Theoretically, I agree with you about worthless programming. BUT, notice that it is YOUR opinion about what YOU feel is worthwhile. Slippery slope. Freedom isn't simply about standing up for what YOU feel is worthwhile. Freedom is about standing up for the principal of freedom.
What is the difference between television and the internet? Gates and others believes the two will become one in the future anyway. p*rn and gambling are the businesses on the net. The same will happen to tv. Why is one censored and the other not?
Since the government basically hands out TV/Radio monopolies via the FCC - they can levy restrictions. The internet is almost impossible to control in that regard (at the moment). Congress certainly has tried to restrict internet business - but the supreme court has shut them down . Of course, since the internet is global, any US restrictions that do get passed are still useless.
Exactly, censorship should come from parents. Our government will always do a very very bad job at censorship. Rather than paying a buracracy to monitor and pass our random fines, we should invest our tax dollars into developing new technologies that lets the people do their own censorship rather than relying on the government to do a hap-hazard job.
