Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judges Find Dignity in Profanity
Townhall.com ^ | July 16, 2010 | Brent Bozell

Posted on 07/16/2010 6:28:01 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last
To: DJ MacWoW
Because others won't. How big a cesspool do you want to swim in?

And again, as you pointed out, our rights come with responsibilities. Should we ban guns, even with the second amendment in place, because of illegal shootings? If people choose to act irresponsibly then your beef is with them. We know the government in general has a horrid track record of respecting individual rights. Allowing our current government to infringe on those rights isn't going to help.

The FCC licenses broadcasters to "serve" the public. How does the "F" bomb serve the public good?

It doesn't. That's why I do not watch TV or listen to radio programming which makes use of it. How hard is it to turn the thing off if you do not like it?

What are you going to do when conservative news outlets are silenced "to serve the public good?"

21 posted on 07/16/2010 7:42:14 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
Should we ban guns,

Strawman.

The 1st Amendment does not give people the right to be profane. The bottom line is that public airwaves need to be regulated. We have become a coarse society that will not get any better by allowing profane language on TV and radio.

22 posted on 07/16/2010 7:45:37 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Strawman.

Hardly. You're making the argument that our rights should be infringed for the public good. If we use your reasoning, then every right granted to us by our Creator is at risk for the same reasons, including our right to keep and bear firearms.

The 1st Amendment does not give people the right to be profane.

Nothing in the Constitution grants any rights to anyone. The first amendment says that Congress may not abridge our freedom of speech, among other things. How is the FCC's disallowing of certain content fitting in with that? It doesn't.

The original intent of the FCC was to regulate airwaves so that radio and later TV stations would not interfere with one another. As these airwaves span state lines, this is a perfectly reasonable and legal use of the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution to regulate who uses which frequency. This cannot, and must not, twist into the ability for the FCC to limit free speech.

23 posted on 07/16/2010 7:52:56 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
You're making the argument that our rights should be infringed

You're on TV or radio? Tell me, what's the point of licensing broadcasters if anything goes? If anything is permissible? When their licenses are up, they have announcements that tell viewers they can make comments about renewing their license as to whether they serve "the public good". Why?

24 posted on 07/16/2010 7:57:44 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Tell me, what's the point of licensing broadcasters if anything goes?

The whole point of licensing broadcasters should be to ensure that they do not interfere with each others' use of signal. That is a reasonable and constitutionally permissable exercise in the regulation fo interstate commerce by the Federal government.

When their licenses are up, they have announcements that tell viewers they can make comments about renewing their license as to whether they serve "the public good".

This is silly and it should be done away with. When "the public good" is defined as the silencing of conservative media outlets, this would be good?

25 posted on 07/16/2010 8:25:09 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
The whole point of licensing broadcasters should be

But it isn't. They are also judged on content.

This is silly and it should be done away with. When "the public good" is defined as the silencing of conservative media outlets, this would be good?

It has been a rule since the first broadcast. Bet you're under 60.

And silencing conservative outlets is another strawman. Usually used to silence the conservative view.

Have a nice day!

26 posted on 07/16/2010 8:36:27 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: erman

Yo cant legislate morality.

_________________________

Garbage. You can legislate morality. Didn’t you read this article?

These three judges have just ruled on a moral issue. They used their liberal immoral logic to allow more profanity in our homes. So our children can learn the f-word by the time they start school.

And if it isn’t judges, then it is our state and federal lawmakers who are “legislating morality”. Or immorality, if you will.

It chafes my cheese to hear someone say “you can’t legislate morality”. This is either said from ignorance, or by someone who wants to see unlimited immorality in our culture.


27 posted on 07/16/2010 8:40:46 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
You're on TV or radio? Tell me, what's the point of licensing broadcasters if anything goes? If anything is permissible? When their licenses are up, they have announcements that tell viewers they can make comments about renewing their license as to whether they serve "the public good". Why?

And just who gets to decide what constitutes "The Public Good?"

The bottom line is the only criteria there should be for a broadcaster to stay in business is if they can make a profit.

And I guarantee in a true market, broadcasters who engage in filth for the most part would go out of business.

Unfortunately many of these channels are part of larger broadcasting conglomerates, like Viacom, who are subsidized. Also allowing cable companies the option to not have to go "a la carte" with channels would be a big help.

28 posted on 07/16/2010 8:47:02 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Actually that should read Also allowing cable companies the option to go "a la carte" with channels would be a big help.
29 posted on 07/16/2010 8:49:51 AM PDT by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW; pnh102
We have become a coarse society that will not get any better by allowing profane language on TV and radio.

Nor will we will get any worse, the internet is full of profanity and pornography galore, should the FCC start putting limits on that? The rule in question here is based on media architecture that is rapidly becoming less relevant, to try and make traditional social arguments for one form of media when the entire media "pie" has expanded is a silly endeavor that is stuck in the past. Government needs to sell the licenses and legislate the architecture of the system, but they should tread lightly when it comes to the moral content of what the licenses provide. Tough to make the "public good" argument when television being replaced by the internet as a source of information, and the internet is full of naughty language.
30 posted on 07/16/2010 8:50:35 AM PDT by Thurston_Howell_III (Ahoy polloi... where did you come from, a scotch ad?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If one believes the Government, instead of the free market, should decide what gets shown on network TV then one should reconsider whether or not they believe in small government.


31 posted on 07/16/2010 8:50:47 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
The 1st Amendment applies to the freedom to speak out against the government without fear of reprisal

Yes -- among many other things.

32 posted on 07/16/2010 8:53:34 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Thurston_Howell_III
Nor will we will get any worse

Keep greasing that slippery slope.

From post 11: The General is sorry to be informed that the foolish, and wicked practice, of profane cursing and swearing (a Vice heretofore little known in an American Army) is growing into fashion;

added to this, it is a vice so mean and low, without any temptation, that every man of sense, and character, detests and despises it.

33 posted on 07/16/2010 9:04:52 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: gdani
Yes -- among many other things.

I went to school when they didn't teach "many other things" but only the truth.

34 posted on 07/16/2010 9:05:52 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
Bet you're under 60.

And silencing conservative outlets is another strawman. Usually used to silence the conservative view.

And I'll bet you're under 23.

Until 1987, conservative talk radio did not exist in the USA because of illegal content regulation by the FCC by way of the "Fairness" Doctrine.

My predictions that conservative media outlets would be targets for censorship by the government are not without historical precedent.

35 posted on 07/16/2010 9:13:26 AM PDT by pnh102 (Regarding liberalism, always attribute to malice what you think can be explained by stupidity. - Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
I went to school when they didn't teach "many other things" but only the truth.

So, in your school what did they rely on when/if they claimed the speech provisions of the First Amendment are only to protect the right to "speak out against the government without fear of reprisal".

If it's that simple & limiting, why doesn't the First Amendment just say it in plain language?

36 posted on 07/16/2010 9:14:52 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: pnh102
And I'll bet you're under 23.

I guess I hit a nerve.

Have a nice day.

37 posted on 07/16/2010 9:21:26 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: gdani
If it's that simple & limiting, why doesn't the First Amendment just say it in plain language?

Why doesn't the Constitution define Natural Born Citizen? Because they didn't think they had to when at that point in time people KNEW what it meant.

38 posted on 07/16/2010 9:21:37 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW

I’ll take that as a non-answer.


39 posted on 07/16/2010 9:23:06 AM PDT by gdani
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: gdani
I’ll take that as a non-answer.

Because you have no response to being told to look at historical context. Look at post 11. I'm sure the President of the Constitutional Convention thought the 1st Amendment was about being allowed to cuss your brains out. And definitely not about avoiding prison or death for criticizing government. You know, like in England.

40 posted on 07/16/2010 9:27:45 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If Bam is the answer, the question was stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-65 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson