The Word Police...

[Satyrday Reptiles]

I know, I know... we could have fun discussing politics until this year's hatchlings are ready to breed and then some, but I only get to pop in every once in awhile these days, plus it's 'that time of year' for many of us so I'll keep it short and sweet.
This is hopefully one thing we can all agree on:

StopFCC.com

If the ignorange of the mainstream media on this of all subjects offends you, if you don't want Michael Powell and friends telling you what you can and can't say, watch or listen to...
Hey - if you think fart noises are funny, (even a little...)
[snicker]

Please take a moment to check out this link and sign the petition.
It'll only take two seconds of your time and they won't spam you.
Thanks!
Liz

PS: For those of you who couldn't comprehend my old quote:
I hope you enjoy this one, (it comes complete with a bonus link!)

 

[Glenn Bartley]

Hmm, maybe if the FCC gets to go far enough, and if the G goes far enough to restrict free speech, then maybe some of the leftist in this great nation will realize where they screwed up by failing to support the second amendment. Isn't it ironic.

All the best,
Glenn B

 

[IanV]

then maybe some of the leftist in this great nation will realize where they screwed up by failing to support the second amendment. Isn't it ironic.

That really made me smile man! Thanks!
I agree though. The Liberals are all but willing to stop us from having our guns, but heaven forbid if we get people to stop using profane language on public air waves.


IAN

 

[Satyrday Reptiles]

Uhhhhh...
What planet are you on?
You know- you'll be getting government issued Bibles before they take your precious guns away. Try turning off Rush Limbaugh and FOX news and the rest of that propaganda that the "liberal media" in this country feeds you and maybe you'll learn the truth about whats REALLY going on. I know that's probably too much to ask, but I tried.
Have fun running around shooting things.

 

[Darin Chappell]

As far as I know, no one is attacking free speech. Are their any examples of that from a governmental position? I'd sure like to see them, if there are.

Now, I know that the government is trying to clean up the use of certain forms of expression on the media that is OWNED by the government ... a right which the government has every bit as much as Rich has the right to determine what is, or is not appropriate on his owned websites. But I know of no legislation, executive order, or political action that is attempting to stop people from saying whatever they want.

Howard Stern can be as crude as he wants to be, but he does not have the right to use the public airways to do so. You see, it is a right to free speech, not a right to be heard.

 

[Satyrday Reptiles]

The government doesn't excatly own the media, it's the 'public airwaves', as they say. The FCC regulating these airwaves in the US is causing the problems. The implications of some "minor changes" to the existing rules will have monumental effects on what you choose to listen to on the radio or watch on television.
Of couse you can still turn off whatever you don't like, as always; but more regulation has been the 'in thing' so it seems - amazing as that sounds with the current administration.
This all has stemmed from the infamous Superbowl halftime show the so-called "Nipplegate Incident" - Michael Powell, (son of Colin Powell) who's in charge of the FCC had a hissy fit and things have been going downhill ever since. (the short of it, anyway.)
Several popular radio personalities have lost syndication and even their jobs, (partially thanks to Clear Channel which will be allowed to control 49% of all media in any given market with the simple passing of these "revisions".) I can offer a couple links to articles with much more detailed information than I can provide here at the moment: Here's one detailing the proposed regulation of cable and satellite:
http://www.tvweek.com/topstorys/031504senate.html

More interesting links on topic here if you have time to check them out
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&edition=us&q=fcc+indecency&btnG=Search+News

and I can find more specifics if you're that interested.
Basically, if you don't like it, turn it off. Just like I do with both Howard Stern and Rush... What's wrong with that?
The popular alternative floating around out there will literally take us back fifty years if passed.

 

[Dragondad]

Darin I agree

You see this as control, I view it as the monitor of what the government has issued to the public.

You dont have the right to tell me what I should watch any more than I have the right to tell you

Howard Stern can be as crude as he wants to be, we dont have to listen and if a chain of radio stations chooses to not air him that is their choice.

We can all say that what happened at the half time of Super Bowl was nothing, but what right does anyone have to dictate that something that might offend anyone should be mainstream. I mean lets get real can we live without Janets breast...(sorry Neil) can you live without Howard Stern and his shock jock airwaves?
Yes we can.

You telling the FCC to stop the enforcing the law is no more worthwhile in my opinion than forcing a border cop to ingnore an illegal alien.

So rather than blame the right or the left on this issue, try for once to understand the law and the "responsibility" that goes with it.

 

[oreo]

Is this a joke?

Ok you guys go ahead and stick your face in that bucket of chicken and live your commercial lives like big brother wants you to. As far as I am concerned the most of you are sheep waiting to be herded into the stable everynight. Its that whole attitude that makes it easy for those in power to steal, thats right STEAL your rights away. The media is controlled by the government for a reason, to control you. I cant believe what I hear these days but I will tell you what guys. When the "MAN" comes a knocking on your door because you havent eaten the quota of fried chicken your were supposed to and for punishment they are going to take your books away dont come crying to me. No one has the right to decide what is good for me except me. Oh! Janet's boob was on T.V. oh no! you all were suckled on one what the hell is wrong with seeing one. Somebody told you female breasts were bad so therefore you should only see one in the privacy of your own house? Gimme a break. When are you guys going to wake up and see that there is a lot of manipulation going on right in front of your eyes.

See the big picture. First its a breast, next you shouldnt see any violence. Maybe you shouldnt be exposed to vulgarity or childish humor that evokes a response. Maybe just Maybe you should all be Amish and never see a tv or radio again if it hurts your feelings.

This is my opinion and I dont force it on anyone. Think for yourself that is what this country is founded on isnt it? FREEDOM not anarchy, FREEDOM

 

[Glenn Bartley]

This country was founded upon a desire to have more money and to break out from under the over taxation of the colonists by the British. That, in a nutshell, is it. Everything, back then as now, revolves around the almighty buck (by whatever name of currency was current at the respective time and place). I guess you could call that freedom.

If you can call that freedom, then I guess you could say that this country was based upon freedom when it was founded; however, I think that some native Americans (remember reservations) and some African Americans (remember slavery) and some Eurpoeans (remember indentured servitude), might not see eye to eye with that belief despite all the fancy written words in the declaration of Independence and the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Best regards,
Glenn B

 

[dwedeking]

Actually with the vast number of ways to get your message out (Internet, Satellite radio, private publications etc) censorship on public airwaves does little to impede the flow of free speech.

Sheep. Let's talk about sheep. I am sure that Howard Stern's bank account is very happy to have all those out there to promote his "rights" of free speech. Without being able to read Howard Stern's mind (or those of other performers) my guess is that they are more concerned with the monetary worth of shock programming rather than their ability to stand up to the establishment and promote freedom and equality. I just don't see how talking about scat, vomit, sex and the ability to say penis on the radio promotes a better quality of life in arenas that really matter (personal freedom, living standards, over taxation etc). I don't remember reading about a "Right To Entertain" in the Constitution or that attached bill of rights.

Luckily in this country it is your freedom to promote whatever causes you feel are important but my personal opinion is that you could better spend your energy on a cause that matters instead of filling some spoiled "hollywood" promoters/performers pocket with money.

Here's some other causes that could really use your attention:

1. Re-allocation of wealth. While not rich now (on the other end of the spectrum) the fact that there are those that feel they should take away someone's success and give it to some that did not succeed in life (either through bad luck or poor decisions on their part) scares me and also destroys the desire to succeed.

2. The movement that feels people should not be judged on performance. Starting in school people are now being taught that it's ok to fail or barely pass, the system will take care of you anyways. As an employer I am seeing the effects of this in work force. Kids straight out of school are failing to understand why they were fired for poor performance. They showed up on time, what else is there right?

3. The blurring of separation of church and state.

4. Over population. Many issues we deal with as a country are due to over population (caused by uncontrolled immigration and just simply having too many kids). This issue impacts environmental, social and economic factors that are affecting our living standards.

These are much more deserving of your attention and time rather than helping Janet Jackson sell her next record because she's over the hill (in my opinion).

 

[Darin Chappell]

I ask again:

"Where has the government violated ANYONE'S right to express himself or herself through free speech?"

There is a vast difference between limiting what may be said on publicly owned airways (ie: that which the government controls) and actually attacking a person's right to say anything they want.

It is for this reason that it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a crowded movie theatre. Undoubtedly, you have the right to shout "Fire!" all you want, if that is your accepted form of verbal expression. However, when you are endangering the public by your free expression of speech in a venue wherein the public has an expectation of safety, a safety guranteed by the governmental controls in place, then the government has been ruled to be well within its rights to stop such expression.

Now, who determines what is "endangering the public?" Well, that's a real poser, isn't it? However, that is a completely different discussion that might better be taken up in another thread. The fact is that once the government has determined speech to be unacceptable for the public airways, it has every right to squelch the USE of those airways, without actually violating the First Amendment.

As to the statement made about "sheep," I wonder if those who cry aloud for the loss of freedoms we've never had might not also be seen as sheep. I mean, just because someone happens to believe, according to the Constitution, that the government is right in this instance, that does not make one a sheep to be led about any more than one following the mass hysteria of some who have no legal ground upon which to stand are necessarily free thinkers. It's like the hippie communes of the mid-60s ... they were radicals, rebelling against "the MAN" for their individuality ... all in EXACTLY the same way! Free thinkers, or sheep followign a different shepherd? Name calling doesn't really help anyone address the issue, does it?

Finally, I find it a bit amusing that someone (I can't recall whom) warned that if we were not careful, we would find ourselves in the same boat in which we were 50 years ago. Two things. First, many of us are not at all worried about that, because 1954 was actually a pretty good time to be alive; life was good, better even in many regards than it is today. Second, does it not strike you as ironic that you "worry" about regressing 50 years back, but you make your stance of the right and wrong of this issue based upon a document ratified 215 years back? Why is a little regression bad, but a LOT of regression good???

Just some thoughts to consider, folks ...

 

[Dragondad]

A little rusty

It been a long time since I was involved in the media business so a little on the rusty side. You dont just go out and say I am turning on a radio station I thing that 97.9 is the spot on the dial I will use. The FCC issues the license to broadcast. On TV the license to a spot on isnt issued from CBS, NBC, ABC Fox or Howard Stern they are issued from the FCC to the local entity. In exchange for the right to use a frequency you have to adhere to a set of guidlines.

The airwaves are public only to the context that you can listen to them(in the case of radio or watch them base local TV for free).

So if a radio station chooses to bend the rules for the sake of trying to attract audience(since the revenue if any station is based on advertisers and that fee is based on how many listeners or viewers they have) that is their choice but in the scope of bending the rules they know they can also be fined. Thats what they agreed to when the got the license and thats what they know can happen. Thats what the contract says you go outside the lines and we can punish you.

You get a drivers license it gives you a right to drive but with that right comes the responsibility to obey the law. Its no different so do you drive 100mph just because you dont want to be a sheep. Or do you obey the laws of the land even though it might infringe on your so called rights. Do you have a right to steal from the store, I guess you could say you do provided you are willing to take the chance of the consequence if you get caught. Well certain radio stations and tv stations are getting caught or at least finally called on the carpet for their actions. They are not obeying the law and are not following the rules they agreed to when they were issued the license. Sorry its no ones fault but their own.

 

[Dragondad]

Going back in time

Darin dont you find it odd that the same people who also are affraid to go back in times are the ones who cant seem to come up with any new ideas.


How much of the so called modern music is just a redo of music that is 30 years old. (I hate it when I play a song and one of the kids goes "thats a redo of a song Eminem did")How many movies today are just redos of a popular TV show that s 30 years old.

The creative genius of society is going going gone. They either have to shock us to attract us or redo something we liked 30 years ago.

But then again us sheep dont have an imagination.....

 

[Satyrday Reptiles]

Wow... I'm suprised at the response here...

Here are a few articles on recent legislation, most are short and sweet:

Senate May Draft It's Own Indecency Bill (you'll have to scroll down for it, ir won't anchor for me)

U.S. House Panel Backs Big Hike in Indecency Fines

Indecency Legislation Proposes 25 Cent-Per-Listener Fine

House Committee Approves Indecency Fines Of $500,000 Per Violation

Clear Channel vs. the First Amendment

Here's one I like, (some of you may disagree....)
It's South Florida style, but a nice summary on the issue:
The shot heard 'round the dial

Finally, a nice little blurb about Condoleezza...
When Rupert Murdoch Calls...

 

[Glenn Bartley]

We lack responsibility in this country because we for the great part lack the morality of just 35-40 years ago. Morality is not expressed by the baring of Janet Jackson's breast, or by the foul language used on TV or the radio, nor by the amount of violence seen on TV, nor by gay marriages, nor by the gay parades in greenwhich Village with nearly naked men (she/men) grabbing one another wantonly as they march, nor by the disrespect of rap music for women or the law, nor bytrying to destroy the pledge of allegience as we know it.

I am all for free speech, do not misunderstand, but I am also for freedom to choose what I and others want to listen to, and to what my children will listen and what we will see. This is our right - it would naturally be inferred from a freedom of speech right and is one of the many rights not expressed forthright in the constitution but yet protected by the constitution.

When smut or violence or disrespect for morality and decency come across on almost every radio station, in many if not the great majhority of rap songs, in many rock songs, in most new TV shows - well then the people who are doing that are ramming it into my face - and that is unacceptable. When I see men shoving their tongues down other men's throats, and women kissing other women, every day on TV that is overdone to say the least. There is no right to use the airwaves to broadcast electronic or digital images or signals. That is a privelage, and companies need to be licensed just as you need a license to drive on roadways. The right is freedom of speech - not freedom of broadcasting that speech! Go out and stand on an apple crate and make a speech about gay rights, then you are covered by freedom of speech.

Of course, heaven forbid that anyone be allowed to make a speech about religion in a public place or on government property or in a school, the liberals do not consider that to be speech that falls under the same freedom - do they! There need be no church involved - just an expression of religion and you (generic) on the left act as if you have a mega wedgie. Recently someone suggested the removal of every religious symbol from government in the USA. Are you for that too. If you are for that, then please visit a national cemetary someday - like Arlington, biut a smaller one closer to home is ok. Tell me should we remove the head stones? I think not, and the majority of them are religious symbols. This from me who is agnostic as all heck, and on the verge of being a tried and true atheist! Yet I see little wrong with someone expressing religious beliefs in school, in public or in a government building as long as it is done with some reserve and not constantly shoved in my face as is the immoral agenda of the ultra left. Yet, if you see something wrong with expressions of religion, how is that different from the perversion you want to spew forth.

Why not use some common sense and common courtesy and arrive at a point of common decency. Amreica would be a better place for it.

 

[dwedeking]

"Yet, if you see something wrong with expressions of religion, how is that different from the perversion you want to spew forth."

While I cringe when I hear religious spoutings, when performed by a private citizen they are an expression of freedom of speech. Now, when those spoutings take a violent or hateful context like has been done before they should be censored when done over public airways or in the use of public space (for example a town square). If Howard Stern wants to spew garabage (though I happen to like his program I can understand some people's aversion to it) that is fine unless he is using public space to do so. Then he is set to a standard of acceptance such as the religious spouting example above. It is irrelevant if they are religious fanatics, liberal bleeding hearts, or money hungry performers they are all held to a standard when using a public arena. In this case it's the standards set by the FCC. Due to the abundance of ways to get your message to the public the closing down of radio and tv (by increasing the standards) will not deter your opportunity of expressing your freedom of speech rights.

Most of the aversion to religious symbols are in the context of government places (outside of a courthouse or in the lobby is still a government place even though it is open to the public) and their usage or promotion by government employees. Governments are by definition there to set rules of society, your preference of worship or lack there of should not be a deciding factor in those rules, keep your religion private (at least that is the contention in America). This was in direct response to English law in which religion played an extensive part in the politics and rule at the time. I can see trends of this starting again and hope that it is just a trend that will, like most political trends, start to swing back to the middle ground.

We lack responsibilty in this country because we do not teach it to our children. We provide social safety nets so there are no consequences to our mistakes (lose your job = unemployment insurance, have a kid when your not ready for it = government assistance, don't plan for retirement = social security). Nudity doesn't make you irresponsible (and if your nude in the sun on a summer day you quickly learn responsibility and consequences ) nor does foul language.

 

[Darin Chappell]

Elizabeth,

With all due respect, the links you provided all dealt only with the FCC's regulation of the licenses they have been given the authority and responsibility to regulate. No where in any of that is there any evidence that the government has denied ANYONE the right to say ANYTHING. The FCC has simply been doing what it has always done ... regulate the content on the public airways.

The FCC may not be drawing the line where you see fit, but it has always drawn the line somewhere. Regardless of where the line has been drawn, though, no one right to speak freely has been attacked. Even in the 50s there were people who spoke with great vulgarity, and no governmental agencies swept them into black vans destined for "nowhere." Such people were unable to spew that forth on regulated airways, and they are not allowed to today either, but their rights to say what they want remain whole. They just do not have the right to be heard, and certainly not on FCC regulated airways.

 

[Satyrday Reptiles]

Look, I started this thread because there's definitely *something* going on and yes, there's something we can do about it, (not much, but hey - I thought it was worth a shot)
I felt for once, after all these years of supporting this site;
Here was something my "friends" here on Fauna might want to have a look at and get involved in.
One thing we might all possibly agree on.
Lookie here what I get:
Wow.
Maybe I should've used this banner for all you flag wavers

and some less colorful language - Perhaps I would've gotten a much different response.

I'm sorry, I don't have all day to sit here and go back through articles and tapes with a magnifying glass and a fine tooth comb, and come back here to pontificate on these boards. Some of you here with hundereds even thousands of posts (who aren't moderators) must be nice to have all that free time...
If, after reading through the material I linked up here, you still can't see the proverbial writing on the wall, well then, I really don't know what else to tell you, other than good luck to us all.
Did anyone here actually go to StopFCC.Com take the 30 seconds to actually read the petition and maybe sign it?
No?
Well, I tried.
Hey, with such 'wonderful friends' like you guys....

Whatever. You know - my time and energy are obviously much better spent elsewhere.

Aw Man! Shouldn't have done that.... here come the suits!

 

[Darin Chappell]

So, beacause we disagree with you -- politely, mind you -- because we have dared to disagree with you, we get written off and flipped the bird by some lame computer graphic?

Where is you desperate desire to have free speech when it is directed against your position, Elizabeth? One might think that a total free speech advocate such as you profess to be would revel in the fact that differing views can be freely expressed here. Instead, you just get huffy and insulting.

Wow ... "Consistancy, thou art a jewel!"

 

[Glenn Bartley]

Ms. Craig,

You, in my opinion, only pretend to stand up for freedom of speech. Then when someone else exercises their freedom of speech and disagrees with you, you get personal and nasty. What is the problem? How can you purport to hold for freedom of speech yet at the same time, in my opinion, apparently put down and malign they who have exercised their right to the same? Maybe you just don't get the whole thing about our Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Do you? I think not at all.

As I see it, you should be utterly ashamed of yourself and your sentiments as expressed in your last post (preceding this one) in this thread.

Sincerely,
Glenn B