I know I'm disagreeing with the Supreme Court (and Congress, too. They've passed laws that cover these issues, too). And I never said the FCC was making these things up. There are two issues at play here. 1. The FCC has expanded the definition of what is offensive. I've not heard the Supreme Court rule on whether the FCC had the power to regulate innuendo. So, I say the FCC is not enforcing the law in the way they were told to. So, the FCC is to blame for deciding on new rules to prohibit speech apparently without new law or new Supreme Court opinions (If you can show me a recent Supreme Court opinion or new law that told the FCC to regulate innuendo, I'd be glad to see it. I don't personally know of any new law or decision). 2. The whole law is wrong, and it's based on a stupid assumption that is not supported by the facts. Even the Supreme Court can be wrong. Their word is the law of the land, but that doesn't mean their decision was right. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
mrpaige, The FCC has NOT, nor cannot, alter the definition of Obscene. That is the only thing not covered by the 1st Amendment. The FCC is merely ruling on what is Indecent, thus what must be played after 10pm. They are not and cannot OUTLAW Indecency. Plus, from past rulings throughout the '90s, they are indeed letting community standards control them. They don't seem to be imposing them, just enforcing the rulings. The FCC is not as evil as you make it sound, imo. Now regarding your dislike for the rulings themselves, I cannot argue with you, as you say. My main point is to question you blaming the FCC as some regulator making unilateral decisions like they own the airwaves.
The FCC has altered the definition of obscene if that story is correct in saying that the FCC changed their guidelines for what is obscene two months ago. The inclusion of innuendo was made then, not before. That's changing the definition. I admit that sometimes when I wrote FCC, I really meant "the government". The FCC is merely the enforcement agency for much of this, so my anger gets directed at them (much like the police often get the blame for merely doing things that the city council or state government tells them to do), but it is clear from this article that the FCC has imposed a new rule. And since I do not know of any new law or new Supreme Court decision that changed the definition, the FCC should be the sole focus of blame in this specific case. I also don't know how, when the FCC issues guidelines for the entire nation that spell out what is indecent, that community standards could be taken into account. Unless there is a specific set of guidelines for each community, they're effectively imposing one set of standards on every community. My community is different than your community, yet the guidelines are all the same. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
Doesn't KTRH operate at 50k or 100k? Geez. I think KSEV when it was first started had to power down or something at night so they wouldn't "drown out" a neighboring station. That was one reason why their broadcasts sucked to hell at night. Well, their content sucked pretty much all the time, but I'm speaking of the reception. ------------------ "Now it is more clear that it doesn't make sense." -- HeyPeeism at its convoluted best.
mrpaige, You are contradicting yourself by mixing words. Obscene is OUTLAWED. The above article has nothing to do with Obscene. Indecency is not outlawed. To my reading, innuendo has always been part of the Supreme Court ruling on Indecency. Even if we disagree on that, we are only talking about airtime after 10pm, not OUTLAWING! The FCC is not taking stuff off the air. They are merely requiring you to play it after 10pm. I am absolutely positive about that, as I have played "patently offensive" stuff on the air and logged it and sent the log to the FCC office for filing (or whatever they do with the logs). I will tell you one thing that they have added to Indecency....explicit mention of using drugs.
we are only talking about airtime after 10pm, not OUTLAWING! The FCC is not taking stuff off the air. You're just arguing semantics here. They are outlawing it during the day, no? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Indecent then. They've changed their defintion of what is indecent to include things that were not indecent just a few months ago. Perhaps they have always been told to include innuendo in their definition of indecent and simply didn't, thereby defying Congress or the Supreme Court or whoever empowered them on that issue), but the facts appear to be that they have new guidelines that didn't exist until two months ago. The rules have changed, and they have changed solely because the FCC decided they changed. There was no new Congressional mandate and no new Supreme Court decision. And it is outlawing. It's outlawed during the day. It's a restriction on Free Speech that serves no public interest at all. They are taking stuff off the air. Sure, it's just during the day now, but that's not to say that it will always just be during the day. And these restrictions have a chilling effect on stations. I know of no stations that have different play-lists for nighttime and daytime. They put together a playlist and use it. If something is indecent, it just won't get played at all at many stations. The fact that some stations do have different playlists for overnight and daytime doesn't mean the chilling effect doesn't exist. But even so, they are outlawing said speech. The time factor is not important. If I tell you that you cannot vocally support a Democrat during the day, but supporting one at night is fine and dandy, you're still going to see that as a restriction on your freedom and consider it outlawing your speech (even though you're perfectly able to speak-out for said Democrats in the middle of the night). If Congress passed a law stating that it was illegal to vocally support Democrats from 6am to 10pm, would you not consider that an outlawing of speech? Or would the fact that you can support Democrats during the night make it okay with you? (Assuming you'd want to support a Democrat anyway). ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]
Plus, when I saw "obscene", I mean "indecent". It's a metaphor. Didn't you read the commentary on The Joker? ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
No I am not???? A semantics argument concerns the meaning of words. I am saying he used "Obscene" when he meant to say "Indecent". Further, notice I am capitalizing these. I am using the Supreme Courts' definition. mrpaige said this: "The FCC has altered the definition of obscene if that story is correct in saying that the FCC changed their guidelines for what is obscene two months ago" The use of the word obscene here is incorrect. mrpaige means to say indecent, according to the law. This is not a big deal. I am not really saying he is wrong. I am just correcting his misuse of the word. This is not a matter of semantics when you are discussing which word to use according to the letter of the law. Further, I am also not arguing the semantics of what "Outlawed" is. I am stating what the Law says. If you say outlawed is 10pm, then you are arguing semantics with the Supreme Court, not me. Shanna, I don't mean to sound arumentative with you. But can you see that all I'm doing is offering this thread the letter of the Law. How is that a frivilous "semantics" argument? Now, I am willing to argue the semantics of whether "innuendo" was implied in the 1978 ruling concerning the definition of Indecency.
Regulating what is said on the radio is a little more complicated than simply a free speech issue. There is the matter of liscencing for each broadcast frequency in a given area. The government / FCC issues permits allowing a given station the right to use a certain frequency (91.5 or whatever) exclusively within a certain area. They also prevent the use of the frequencies .1 above or below (91.6, 91.4) in that same area. There are a finite number of frequencies available and, in exchange for the privelage of using one of those frequencies, a station agrees to certain restrictions / regulation of its content. ------------------ Bingbong was set up, led to an untimely death in the prime of his life for no other reason than pure malice. Things like that do not go unavenged. Sometimes it spills out onto the field of play.
mrpaige, According to the Supreme Court, "Outlawed" speech in not protected by the 1st Amendment, by definition. Speech after 10pm is protected by the 1st Amendment, just regulated. They say "Indecent" material is protected by the 1st Amendent...thus it is not "Outlawed", by definition. I do not argue for a second that you are correct in that they are adjusting the definition of Indecent on an on-going basis. Besides, it is their mandate to do so, by the Supreme Court ruling. But they have not outlawed anything that you have mentioned, by definition of the letter of the law. Regulate is the word they use, I believe. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 14, 2001).]
I'm intentionally using an inflamatory word that is effectively correct to note my opposition to what they are doing. Just because they don't use the term "outlaw" (and they also call their rules "guidelines"), doesn't mean that they aren't outlawing the speech during those times. They (whoever we're talking about, be it the FCC, the Courts, Congress) have made this speech unlawful during this time period. It is therefore outlawed during that time period. The fact that they choose to call it something else doesn't mean referring to it as being "outlawed" isn't also correct. My friend may choose to be called a Sanitation Engineer, but that doesn't mean he's not a garbageman. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
Just looking at the definition of the word, we see that to outlaw something means: to declare illegal or to place under a ban. If said speech is banned from the airwaves through regulation during the day (and subject to fines), how is said speech not outlawed? How can you say that by definition this speech is not outlawed when the behavior fits the very definition of the word? The speech is made illegal/banned during the time periods they set forth in their regs. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
DoD---- KTRH is 50,000 Watts. Watts have different distances for AM and FM stations. The reason KSEV has to power down to crap at night is that WLW- Cincinatti is the dominant station on the 700 frequency (Class A 50,000 Watts Non-directional). Another 'Dominant' Station is 820 WBAP out of DFW. Compared to other major cities Houston has very few powerful stations on the AM. KILT at night can't send that much out to the north because 610 in Kansas City has an "unlimited" license (5,000 Watts) which means that no one can interfere with their signal. Here in Lubbock our most powerful station is 790 KFYO 5,000 Watts Directional Day/ 1,000 Watts Directional Night. Also, UH's KUHF is 100,000 watts. Rob ------------------ Producer at SportsRadio 1340 KKAM- Lubbock visit me online at www.robertsnyder.net
You cannot use Webster's Dictionary when describing definitions spelled out by the Courts. The Courts define the words. That is plain and simply. Hell, that is what Lawyers do for a living, carefully choose their words. I may choose to call something against the law when it is merely against a regulation. Am I allowed to get away with it? By saying Outlaw when discussing Laws, you are saying they are making speech against the Law to broadcast, when in fact, they are merely regulating it. Don't define Outlaw when you are discussing Laws. And that is not an FCC Guideline, it is known as Common Law as defined by a Supreme Court ruling. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 14, 2001).]
No, I know he's talking about another station, I'm just imagining the power these college stations have. I never knew they put out so much power from their towers. I was comparing it with KTRH because they're one of the bigger AM stations and I always thought 50k was a lot of juice. I guess the days of college stations operating on the power generated by 2 hamsters on a wheel are over. ------------------ "Now it is more clear that it doesn't make sense." -- HeyPeeism at its convoluted best.
Ah, cool! So now I know. Thanks for the explanation, Rob. I appreciate it. ------------------ "Now it is more clear that it doesn't make sense." -- HeyPeeism at its convoluted best.
You keeping telling me that the FCC is not the villian here. They're just doing what they are told by the Supreme Court and Congress. And then when I note that the FCC itself is changing their definitions without new instructions or rulings from Congress or the Supreme Court, you fully admit that's the case but again blame the Supreme Court. So is you contention that the FCC was defying the Supreme Court up until two months ago when they came up with these new rules banning indecent innuendo? You got on to me for complaining about the FCC changing the rules noting that it's not the FCC's fault. If the FCC isn't the one changing the rules, who is? If the FCC only does what it is told, who told them to change the rules two months ago? ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com
But it is against the law to do these things. They choose to call it something else, but banning something from the airwaves, even if only during certain hours, is outlawing it during those hours. They've made it against the law. It's arguing semantics. And since there apparently is no legal definition of the world "outlaw" (my Black's Law Dictionary only has the "fugitive" definition), we can play these stupid little games of calling something by a different name in order to look like we're not doing what we really are doing. I can see how this can work for local governments. I don't know why the Republicans don't make a rule saying that abortions can only be performed between 2am and 2:05am. It's not banning abortions, it's merely regulating them. And Congress does have some power to regulate abortions. We can do a lot of things if we call them by different names than what they really are. We're not outlawing speech. We're merely saying you can't use those words or make those implications during these time periods. It's not outlawing it during those time periods even if it's illegal to do it and we've banned it. It's just a regulation. It's not the law, it's only a regulation that has the full force of law and you will be fined if you don't follow it. ------------------ Houston Sports Board Film Dallas.com AntiBud.com [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).] [This message has been edited by mrpaige (edited June 14, 2001).]
