Now, if you have a problem with the FCC existing at all, that is a different matter. Argue that the federal government doesn’t have a right to create agencies such as the FCC that regulate public broadcasts. But the hyperbole used here is depressing, especially since conservatives seem to pride themselves on their use of logic.
I, too, have a hard time with much of libertarian philosophy. The whole “don’t look if you don’t want to see it” attitude is troublesome in many respects. So after we have killed our television, turned off our radio, stopped subscribing to the newspaper, stopped sending our children to public schools and ceased leaving the house, what then are we supposed to do? I suppose becoming a sect similar to the Amish is an option…
I would argue that Social Conservatives who choose to use the legal power of agencies such as the FCC are engaging in “conservatively correct” behavior. One of the purposes of the FCC (whether they serve this purpose is in contention), is to restrict indecent programming. We are not asking for more or stiffer regulations. We ask that they enforce the ones they currently have.
We don’t have many other choices. We cannot completely withdraw from society, which it seems liberals and libertarians prefer that we do. We have tried the free market approach, and it has failed miserably. We have abstained from trying a governmental approach due to Constitutionalist beliefs, only to watch Socialists merrily run roughshod over our every interest. Just like you cannot prove a negative, you cannot protest activity through inaction.
Free market approach to what, TV prgramming? What did you have to offer?
It's like the BATF. They regulate guns. They were originally a TAX collection group. Prohibition ended, and they became overrun with JBT's.
This is the problem with government problems. Also, what is indecent? Peter Deutsch would consider Free Republic indecent. That's another problem with regulating content.
There are two, and only two legit censoring tools I support and respect. One is the clicker. The other is writing networks, affiliates, and boycotting advertisers of the goods that sponsor shows. That's how us gunowners put a dent into Mitch Albom, and really hurt K-MART. The MARKET system.
Those that run to government are as bad as the liberals since it plays right into their hands. They love nothing more than power in the hands of government.
Maybe people like Jerry Springer?
This is a free market economy. If you think you can produce better TV, radio, newspapers and books, gather up your like minded buddies and do it. Don't force the rest of us to deal with your personal hang-ups. Get off your behind and produce the kind of entertainment YOU want instead of trying to deny everyone else theirs.
This was an extremely lazy, liberal response on your part. Nothing worse than whining.
Aye, there's the rub: It's the interpretation of that 'decency clause' that allows the camels nose of regulatory fiat and tyranny under the tent.
The Taliban was only enforcing their 'decency clause' when they were shooting people during soccer games.
How can the FCC become a legitimate party to such a contract? A "contract" imposed by a third party who does not have any relevant property right is nothing but a protection racket.
you cannot protest activity through inaction
I guess all those descriptions "sit-in" protests in the history books are just stories, like UFOs and Bigfoot sightings.
Well said.