Political Crossfire Forums

George W Bush

According to the FCC:

"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time."

source: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html#TheLaw

Now, if someone can explain to me where it says within the First Amendment that obscene speech is NOT protected, I will agree. Until then, however, the FCC is WRONG and is making this up.

Agree/Disagree?

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21632 Location: Minnesota

The Constitution seperated judicial, executive and legislative powers. In creating the FCC, Congress granted the organization quasi-judicial, quasi-executive, and quasi-legislative powers. In reality it is at best an extra-Constitutional entity and at worse, illegal in existence. They would probabbly also disagree that they are at best extra Constitutional (when I mean "best" I mean that's the best way to spin it) but really illegal...

That said, states ought to have their rights to restrict speech reinstated. Even though I may disagree with them actually doing it, they ought to have the power (well ought not have it taken away by The Nine).

perdidochas · Joined: 06 Mar 2006 Posts: 15424 Location: Florida

George W Bush wrote: According to the FCC:

"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time."

source: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html#TheLaw

Now, if someone can explain to me where it says within the First Amendment that obscene speech is NOT protected, I will agree. Until then, however, the FCC is WRONG and is making this up.

Agree/Disagree?

Court cases have ruled that obscene speech is not protected. The 1st amendment doesn't specify. However, if machine guns (which are clearly militia weapons) can be regulated (in light of the 2nd Amendment), obscenity can surely be regulated. In the case of the FCC, numerous cases have affirmed this.

I agree totally that obscene speech is not protected. The 1st amendment is intended to protect political speech primarily, not dick jokes.

George W Bush · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:09 pm Post subject:

The it seems as though the FCC is using a play on words because, for example, the First Amendment doesnt say I cannot spit on someone as I am speaking.

What fallacy is this? I forget (dont have my logic book to cite it).

At any rate, this level of immaturity is suprising coming from an organization meant to quell offensive language.

Demonic Spoon · Joined: 20 Sep 2004 Posts: 6953 Location: Ohio

perdidochas wrote: George W Bush wrote: According to the FCC:

"Obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment and broadcasters are prohibited, by statute and regulation, from airing obscene programming at any time."

source: http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html#TheLaw

Now, if someone can explain to me where it says within the First Amendment that obscene speech is NOT protected, I will agree. Until then, however, the FCC is WRONG and is making this up.

Agree/Disagree?

Court cases have ruled that obscene speech is not protected. The 1st amendment doesn't specify. However, if machine guns (which are clearly militia weapons) can be regulated (in light of the 2nd Amendment), obscenity can surely be regulated. In the case of the FCC, numerous cases have affirmed this.

I agree totally that obscene speech is not protected. The 1st amendment is intended to protect political speech primarily, not dick jokes.

Machine guns should not be regulated.

Unconstitutional bulls**t.

micfranklin · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:23 pm Post subject:

John Galt wrote: The Constitution seperated judicial, executive and legislative powers. In creating the FCC, Congress granted the organization quasi-judicial, quasi-executive, and quasi-legislative powers. In reality it is at best an extra-Constitutional entity and at worse, illegal in existence. They would probabbly also disagree that they are at best extra Constitutional (when I mean "best" I mean that's the best way to spin it) but really illegal...

That said, states ought to have their rights to restrict speech reinstated. Even though I may disagree with them actually doing it, they ought to have the power (well ought not have it taken away by The Nine).

Nah, gotta disagree with you on that point. Plus, if they get the power to do that then they'll want the power to do other things.

And I guess it couldn't hurt if I said the FCC should be abolished altogether.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

First Amendment wrote: 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.

Congress is not allowed to make laws to abridge free speech. But since the FCC is apart of the executive branch it has a right to abridge free speech.

It should have never been created by Congress. But since it is now under executive oversight it does have the right to abridge to speech.

micfranklin · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 2:41 pm Post subject:

politicalmojo wrote: First Amendment wrote: 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.

Congress is not allowed to make laws to abridge free speech. But since the FCC is apart of the executive branch it has a right to abridge free speech.

It should have never been created by Congress. But since it is now under executive oversight it does have the right to abridge to speech.

Whatever the deal is, the FCC is one of the many things I cannot stand in the government.

TNBiologist · Joined: 31 Jan 2006 Posts: 962 Location: Tennessee

Personally I would love to see the FCC abolished. The only good I see them doing is regulating that porn cannot be shown during saturday morning cartoons. (I know an extreme example but you get what I mean). I really don't care if Howard Stern curses ike a sailor and has phone sex while on his show. If I want to hear it I wil listen and if not I will listen to something else. People have a choice to watch or listen or not and do not need some government authority telling them that something is not appropiate. Do away with the FCC but pass a law stating that TV shows must show some kind of parental ratings just befoee they start so parents can decide if they want their children to watch something else.

micfranklin · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:12 pm Post subject:

TNBiologist wrote: Personally I would love to see the FCC abolished. The only good I see them doing is regulating that porn cannot be shown during saturday morning cartoons. (I know an extreme example but you get what I mean). I really don't care if Howard Stern curses ike a sailor and has phone sex while on his show. If I want to hear it I wil listen and if not I will listen to something else. People have a choice to watch or listen or not and do not need some government authority telling them that something is not appropiate. Do away with the FCC but pass a law stating that TV shows must show some kind of parental ratings just befoee they start so parents can decide if they want their children to watch something else.

Nearly every show has a parental rating, but its usually during the first few seconds of a show. But yeah, waste the FCC and I'll be just fine, because I do believe that remote controls exist and one can easily hit the next button if they see something unfit for children (or go up to the TV and hit the channel button if they don't have a remote).

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

micfranklin wrote: politicalmojo wrote: First Amendment wrote: 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.

Congress is not allowed to make laws to abridge free speech. But since the FCC is apart of the executive branch it has a right to abridge free speech.

It should have never been created by Congress. But since it is now under executive oversight it does have the right to abridge to speech.

Whatever the deal is, the FCC is one of the many things I cannot stand in the government.

It is a nuisance. But the problems that come with the FCC are not near as severe as the problems that accompany a populace raised on violence and cursory. The FCC is necessary on some level of government whether state or federal.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

TNBiologist wrote: Personally I would love to see the FCC abolished. The only good I see them doing is regulating that porn cannot be shown during saturday morning cartoons. (I know an extreme example but you get what I mean). I really don't care if Howard Stern curses ike a sailor and has phone sex while on his show. If I want to hear it I wil listen and if not I will listen to something else. People have a choice to watch or listen or not and do not need some government authority telling them that something is not appropiate. Do away with the FCC but pass a law stating that TV shows must show some kind of parental ratings just befoee they start so parents can decide if they want their children to watch something else. I agree that the parental ratings BEFORE a show starts would be fine. But, I disagree on the "time and place" restrictions. If I want to show GI Joe performing cunnilingus on Barbie during Saturday morning cartoons, I should be able to. It would a stupid thing to do, and I would likely lose all ad revenue, views, and eventually my company...but, I should be able to make that decision. It is the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's' television viewing....not the government's.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21632 Location: Minnesota

micfranklin wrote: John Galt wrote: The Constitution seperated judicial, executive and legislative powers. In creating the FCC, Congress granted the organization quasi-judicial, quasi-executive, and quasi-legislative powers. In reality it is at best an extra-Constitutional entity and at worse, illegal in existence. They would probabbly also disagree that they are at best extra Constitutional (when I mean "best" I mean that's the best way to spin it) but really illegal...

That said, states ought to have their rights to restrict speech reinstated. Even though I may disagree with them actually doing it, they ought to have the power (well ought not have it taken away by The Nine).

Nah, gotta disagree with you on that point. Plus, if they get the power to do that then they'll want the power to do other things.

And I guess it couldn't hurt if I said the FCC should be abolished altogether.

Well my contention has been that the Bill of Rights does not apply against the states and the Supreme Court in it's selective incorporation is incorrect.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21632 Location: Minnesota

politicalmojo wrote: First Amendment wrote: 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.

Congress is not allowed to make laws to abridge free speech. But since the FCC is apart of the executive branch it has a right to abridge free speech.

It should have never been created by Congress. But since it is now under executive oversight it does have the right to abridge to speech.

Like I said it is QUASI-EXECUTIVE, QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, and QUASI-JUDICIAL. It's actually still under Congress although they gave it some of it's powers.

Congress also gave it powers it did not have.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

John Galt wrote: politicalmojo wrote: First Amendment wrote: 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.

Congress is not allowed to make laws to abridge free speech. But since the FCC is apart of the executive branch it has a right to abridge free speech.

It should have never been created by Congress. But since it is now under executive oversight it does have the right to abridge to speech.

Like I said it is QUASI-EXECUTIVE, QUASI-LEGISLATIVE, and QUASI-JUDICIAL. It's actually still under Congress although they gave it some of it's powers.

Congress also gave it powers it did not have.

exactly

but the point I was making is that FCC in and of itself was not acting unconstitutionally. Its creators acted unconstitutionally by creating something that does belong in any branch of government.

micfranklin · Posted: Wed Jul 19, 2006 3:45 pm Post subject:

UrielsFyre wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Personally I would love to see the FCC abolished. The only good I see them doing is regulating that porn cannot be shown during saturday morning cartoons. (I know an extreme example but you get what I mean). I really don't care if Howard Stern curses ike a sailor and has phone sex while on his show. If I want to hear it I wil listen and if not I will listen to something else. People have a choice to watch or listen or not and do not need some government authority telling them that something is not appropiate. Do away with the FCC but pass a law stating that TV shows must show some kind of parental ratings just befoee they start so parents can decide if they want their children to watch something else. I agree that the parental ratings BEFORE a show starts would be fine. But, I disagree on the "time and place" restrictions. If I want to show GI Joe performing cunnilingus on Barbie during Saturday morning cartoons, I should be able to. It would a stupid thing to do, and I would likely lose all ad revenue, views, and eventually my company...but, I should be able to make that decision. It is the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's' television viewing....not the government's.

Simply put I guess :tu:

If I wanna watch some show with lots of blood and gore in it or an episode of Family Guy at around 10:00 at night, then I should have every right to do that. Children shouldn't really be up that late anyway.

mojo · Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Posts: 5537 Location: Dreamland, NC

micfranklin wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Personally I would love to see the FCC abolished. The only good I see them doing is regulating that porn cannot be shown during saturday morning cartoons. (I know an extreme example but you get what I mean). I really don't care if Howard Stern curses ike a sailor and has phone sex while on his show. If I want to hear it I wil listen and if not I will listen to something else. People have a choice to watch or listen or not and do not need some government authority telling them that something is not appropiate. Do away with the FCC but pass a law stating that TV shows must show some kind of parental ratings just befoee they start so parents can decide if they want their children to watch something else. I agree that the parental ratings BEFORE a show starts would be fine. But, I disagree on the "time and place" restrictions. If I want to show GI Joe performing cunnilingus on Barbie during Saturday morning cartoons, I should be able to. It would a stupid thing to do, and I would likely lose all ad revenue, views, and eventually my company...but, I should be able to make that decision. It is the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's' television viewing....not the government's.

Simply put I guess :tu:

If I wanna watch some show with lots of blood and gore in it or an episode of Family Guy at around 10:00 at night, then I should have every right to do that. Children shouldn't really be up that late anyway.

You want it to be where it doesn't matter what time it is. You just said that earlier. If you wish to watch content of that nature go for it. There are plenty of private options in which you can purchase movies that would fit your certain tastes. But you dont need to play and unedited version of "the hill has eyes" at 3:00 in the afternoon for everyone to see. You can rent the movie if you really want too.

spearsy23 · Joined: 24 Oct 2005 Posts: 5632 Location: Fulton, Ks

Or i could not have to pay and see it on t.v. at 3:00 in the afternoon while parents WATCH THEIR OWN DAMN KIDS RATHER THAN HAVING THE T.V. DO IT FOR THEM.

Enoch · Joined: 29 Aug 2005 Posts: 9373

politicalmojo wrote: micfranklin wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Personally I would love to see the FCC abolished. The only good I see them doing is regulating that porn cannot be shown during saturday morning cartoons. (I know an extreme example but you get what I mean). I really don't care if Howard Stern curses ike a sailor and has phone sex while on his show. If I want to hear it I wil listen and if not I will listen to something else. People have a choice to watch or listen or not and do not need some government authority telling them that something is not appropiate. Do away with the FCC but pass a law stating that TV shows must show some kind of parental ratings just befoee they start so parents can decide if they want their children to watch something else. I agree that the parental ratings BEFORE a show starts would be fine. But, I disagree on the "time and place" restrictions. If I want to show GI Joe performing cunnilingus on Barbie during Saturday morning cartoons, I should be able to. It would a stupid thing to do, and I would likely lose all ad revenue, views, and eventually my company...but, I should be able to make that decision. It is the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's' television viewing....not the government's.

Simply put I guess :tu:

If I wanna watch some show with lots of blood and gore in it or an episode of Family Guy at around 10:00 at night, then I should have every right to do that. Children shouldn't really be up that late anyway.

You want it to be where it doesn't matter what time it is. You just said that earlier. If you wish to watch content of that nature go for it. There are plenty of private options in which you can purchase movies that would fit your certain tastes. But you dont need to play and unedited version of "the hill has eyes" at 3:00 in the afternoon for everyone to see. You can rent the movie if you really want too. Yeah, and I can rent "The First Wives Club," but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown on TV. Just because you have another option for viewing something doesn't mean it is the only option that should be allowed.

If I want to show hardcore porn at 11:00a.m on a Saturday, then I should have the right to do so. Don't want to watch it? Change the station. Don't want your children to see it? Then be a parent and monitor what they watch. Most digitial cable providers, and satellite providers, allow for parental locks anyway. Block my station if you don't feel like monitoring your children yourself.

John Galt · Joined: 04 May 2004 Posts: 21632 Location: Minnesota

UrielsFyre wrote: politicalmojo wrote: micfranklin wrote: UrielsFyre wrote: TNBiologist wrote: Personally I would love to see the FCC abolished. The only good I see them doing is regulating that porn cannot be shown during saturday morning cartoons. (I know an extreme example but you get what I mean). I really don't care if Howard Stern curses ike a sailor and has phone sex while on his show. If I want to hear it I wil listen and if not I will listen to something else. People have a choice to watch or listen or not and do not need some government authority telling them that something is not appropiate. Do away with the FCC but pass a law stating that TV shows must show some kind of parental ratings just befoee they start so parents can decide if they want their children to watch something else. I agree that the parental ratings BEFORE a show starts would be fine. But, I disagree on the "time and place" restrictions. If I want to show GI Joe performing cunnilingus on Barbie during Saturday morning cartoons, I should be able to. It would a stupid thing to do, and I would likely lose all ad revenue, views, and eventually my company...but, I should be able to make that decision. It is the parents' responsibility to monitor their children's' television viewing....not the government's.

Simply put I guess :tu:

If I wanna watch some show with lots of blood and gore in it or an episode of Family Guy at around 10:00 at night, then I should have every right to do that. Children shouldn't really be up that late anyway.

You want it to be where it doesn't matter what time it is. You just said that earlier. If you wish to watch content of that nature go for it. There are plenty of private options in which you can purchase movies that would fit your certain tastes. But you dont need to play and unedited version of "the hill has eyes" at 3:00 in the afternoon for everyone to see. You can rent the movie if you really want too. Yeah, and I can rent "The First Wives Club," but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be shown on TV. Just because you have another option for viewing something doesn't mean it is the only option that should be allowed.

If I want to show hardcore porn at 11:00a.m on a Saturday, then I should have the right to do so. Don't want to watch it? Change the station. Don't want your children to see it? Then be a parent and monitor what they watch. Most digitial cable providers, and satellite providers, allow for parental locks anyway. Block my station if you don't feel like monitoring your children yourself.

Do you think the government should be able to liscense for airspace? As in, do you think that "pirate radio," or "pirate tv" brodcasting on whatever frequency they like, should be "allowed" (as in the entire thing is unregulated)?

Do you think that air traffic controllers should have their own frequency that is not impeded upon by pirate stations?