"Federally, the First and Tenth Amendments answer your question. Locally, that is another issue, but has nothing to do with the FCC and congress."
The FCC and other industries have regs. Just because they failed to properly enforce them yesterday is no reason NOT to enforce them today.
And while "local" and state decency standards and code enforcement are STILL valid, the First Amendment is now what the courts say it is depending upon the interpretation of say -- the Ninth Circuit. Or haven't you gotten the memo? It's a "living, breathing Constitution."
"Amsterdam? hardly, but if we are honest and use our common sense, we can see that personal freedom and are both being eroded at am alarming pace."
YES, "Amsterdam" -- the place which epitomizes freedom and personal responsibility run amok. The "freedom" to legally indulge in ALL forms of drugs, sex with animals, minor sex, prostitution in Macy's front window, etc.
Is this what you would really consider "freedom"? At the price of moral and societal anarchy and chaos? Is this the end game that really engages "common sense"?
I don't think so. An individual can exercise his right to free speech regardless of whether or not anyone listens. For instance, does anyone really listen to the annoying street corner preacher? I think not, however the self styled evangelist has every right to spout off.
The FCC and other industries have regs. Just because they failed to properly enforce them yesterday is no reason NOT to enforce them today.
A fair argument. I think we can bot agree that the FCC like most government regulatory agencies, applies it's influence less than consistently. What is suspect in this situation is the action of Clear Channel (who is a very loyal supporter of the president) and congress. If this were a simple matter of some word not getting bleeped in time, there would be a fine imposed. Instead the congress changes the rules and and the cost, and before a single complaint is levied by the FCC, Howard's show is silenced in 6 markets. Would it be ok for the IRS to be used as a political weapon against an opposing viewpoint? I believe that is exactly what is going on here.
It's a "living, breathing Constitution."
Again, I think we both agree this concept is a pant-load.
Regarding Amsterdam, I really think it's disingenuous to compare The United States of America to Amsterdam.
Is this what you would really consider "freedom"? At the price of moral and societal anarchy and chaos? Is this the end game that really engages "common sense"?
Anarchy and chaos? I think that's a slight exaggeration, don't you? I've not advocated any such thing. I have, on the other hand, advocated respecting the limits on government as detailed by our constitution.
Let address common sense, A logical individual would be forced to examine the big picture of the Stern issue. None of this would have happened had Howard not changed his mind about an across the board position of support for president bush. As soon as a very high profile and influential (yet controversial) entertainer makes it OK to NOT support the president, the wrath of election-year politics is unleashed.
Your thoughts?