Posted on 07/16/2010 6:28:01 AM PDT by Kaslin
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?"
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.
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.
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?
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?
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!
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.
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.
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.
Yes -- among many other things.
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.
I went to school when they didn't teach "many other things" but only the truth.
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.
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?
I guess I hit a nerve.
Have a nice day.
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.
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.
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.