15 Apr 2004 | CM Harrington said...

Well, if everyone is really upset about this [as I am], they should put their vote into the other column.

"Pressure" from email doesn't really exist. It is far too easy to ignore and delete.

Instead, write a physical letter and/or phone your local representatives. They can't ignore a metric tonne of mail in their mail room, nor can they ignore a constantly ringing phone.

Remember to VOTE! If you don't, you have no right to complain about what is happening.

17 Apr 2004 | S.A. Miller said...

I don't meant to start a political argument here (hey, you're the one who posted this!) but you do yourself no service by labeling the vast majority of people in this county that want decency on the airwaves, by labeling them the "Religious Right"

The First Amendment gives citizens the right of freedom of speech, including "dick & fart" jokes, but it does not guarantee the right to a 10,000 Watt radio station to do those "dick & fart" jokes on.... If you can't understand the difference, I can only assume you have an ulterior partisan motive.

And by the way, did ya actually read that article? Yeah that's right, even HBO is held to the same laws that everyone else is.

17 Apr 2004 | CM Harrington said...

Yeah that's right, even HBO is held to the same laws that everyone else is.

Actually, HBO is not an over-the-air station, and is not subject to the FCC rules and regulations. That only applies to broadcast OTA media. This is why they are able to utter expletives, show full nudity, etc. without getting in trouble with the FCC.

19 Apr 2004 | S.A. Miller said...

Actually, HBO is not an over-the-air station, and is not subject to the FCC

That may be true, but it is not the FCC that is supposedly going after HBO, the Department of Justice is. And every one, over-the-air or not, is subbject to "indecency laws." There is a differance between what the Federal government regulates can be broadcast over the air via the FCC, "family time" rules and such, and Federal "indecency laws," like a ban on bestiality videos, which would be pursued by the DoJ.

19 Apr 2004 | ML said...

...you do yourself no service by labeling the vast majority of people in this county that want decency on the airwaves, by labeling them the "Religious Right"

Hmm...I never used the words "vast majority." I did say Powell is backed by the religious right on this issue. Do you disagree, S.A.?

And does everyone who dislikes censorship have an "ulterior partisan motive?"

20 Apr 2004 | S.A. Miller said...

I never used the words "vast majority."

Correct, your statement was that FCC as a whole (these decisions have been unanimous, so that includes the Democrats on the FCC) and Michael Powell and in particular are "backed by the religious right" as if this is only a small segment of the population who are supportive of the FCC's current actions. By implication, you are saying that some how this is something that is being forced on the population at large by some faith-based right-wing cabal.

My point was that the vast majority of the American population that is in support of cleaning up the publicly owned airwaves, extends far beyond the "Religious Right."

Does everyone who dislikes censorship have an "ulterior partisan motive?"

Again, so long as the airwaves are considered owned by the public, no one has a right to a 10,000 Watt radio station, or night time TV show. To the same point, the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech does not extend to violations of community "indecency laws," like a ban on bestiality videos and such.

Is evil Ashcroft "going after HBO" ? Not as long as HBO does not violate "indecency laws."

20 Apr 2004 | ML said...

By implication, you are saying that some how this is something that is being forced on the population at large by some faith-based right-wing cabal.

I wouldn't say forced. "Strongly influenced" sounds about right.

We agree the religious right exists, right? Cuz yeah, I guess I would call them a faith-based right-wing cabal.

violations of community "indecency laws"

The problem is these laws set up an overly broad and hopelessly vague standard for decency in programming. What is indecent? What are the list of words that can't be said? How can you expect broadcasters to follow a law that is never actually stated beforehand but only decided after the fact? I'm with the ACLU (a freedom-based libertarian cabal?) on this one.

21 Apr 2004 | One of several Steves said...

To the same point, the Supreme Court has ruled that free speech does not extend to violations of community "indecency laws," like a ban on bestiality videos and such.

I'm pretty sure you're wrong on that point. The Supreme Court has ruled that obscene speech has no First Amedment protection, but that indecent speech does. Bestiality videos and the like fall into the realm of obscene speech and can be banned. Letting some f-bombs fly on TV is not considered obscene, and is regulated only due to the concept of the public ownership of the airwaves.

And HBO is not covered by that at all. Because it is a pay service, it is not does not fall under the government's ability to regulate the airwaves. Which is why you can find full nudity, etc. on premium cable, but not on broadcast or regular cable.

23 Apr 2004 | Don Schenck said...

If we are going to err, I'd rather it be on the side of free speech. One can always turn the channel or -- better yet -- turn the TV off and go play outside.