[DJ MacWoW]

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!

[Thurston_Howell_III]

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.

[pnh102]

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.