@#%$ Scalia

[JollyRoger]

Public airwaves are hardly free-market.

Nope. There is no bidding for them. There is no bidding for commercial advertisements on them. There is no competition between holders of a spot on the "public" airwaves to profit and gain market share at the expense of other holders of spots on the "public" airswaves.

Is internet access free? Are all written publications free? Is it legal to do such on a bathroom wall?

Is access to the public airwves free? You need a television and a method of access. Many free publications contain objectionable content. Think of the weekly a;lternative newspapers. Loaded with f-bombs and escort ads. As for the bathroom stalls - that was just a jab.

Is it "prudish" for a parent to not want their 5 year old to be subjected to f-bombardment on public airwaves?

Is it "prudish" for a parent to not want their kid having a horrible example of how to behave on public airwaves?

Is it prudish for parents to not want their kid subject to these things at public school?

Take away the tv (if you are worried about fleeting expletives) and don't send them to public schools (if you are worried about constant expletives).

 

[Ecofarm]

Who OWNS them? Private citizens? The free-market?

The airwaves... not the networks...

You can do what you want with your property, within reason, but I expect our property regulations to be enforced. Just like I expect our other laws to be enforced. If one doesn't like them, then change them. I'm sorry, but ignoring them is not acceptable.

 

[Perfection]

Tyranny

 

[Cutlass]

Who OWNS them? Private citizens? The free-market?

The airwaves... not the networks...

You can do what you want with your property, within reason, but I expect our property regulations to be enforced.

That's a pretty flimsy line for a right wing guy like you to advocate communism on.

 

[JollyRoger]

Who OWNS them? Private citizens? The free-market?

The airwaves... not the networks...

The networks, through their licenses, owns a significant bundle of the property sticks. They have a government license, just like banks, lawyers, and hairdressers. Are you calling my law office publically owned or would you consider me a free market participant?

 

[Ecofarm]

That's a pretty flimsy line for a right wing guy like you to advocate communism on.

If you mean that I am anti-private property...

1. I'm not advocating that everything be public property. I am VERY much an advocate of the existence of private property.

A communist specifically advocates the abolition of private property. One cannot "advocate communism" otherwise.




If you mean that I support authoritarianism of public property...

2. I'm am advocating the representative regulation of property that is public (which, of course, should never be all property).

I'm not being "authoritarian", I'm being "pro-enforcement of democratically established laws". Note: a real communist would never ascribe authoritarianism to communism in the first place; they would say the communist regime became fascist.



In other words: what?

 

[Cutlass]

1. I'm not advocating that everything be public property. I am VERY much an advocate of the existence of private property.

2. I'm am advocating the representative regulation of property that is public (which, of course, should never be all property).

A free market anti government private property person would say let the market decide.

 

[GoodGame]

Actually, that's not the question here. The question here is whether the FCC overstepped its statutory authority in making the regulation. After that question is answered (here, in the negative), then the case will go back down and the Second Circuit Court of Appeals will look at the merits and determine whether it's constitutional. And from what I've read, the Seconds will likely strike it down. At which point it might return to the Supremes on the merits issue.

Cleo

I see it now. So really this is just a check the block step, that revolved around the APA and page 2 opinion. So anyways, the I take it that the answer to the rest of the thread is the SCOTUS said:

None of the Second Circuit’s grounds for finding the FCC’s action arbitrary and capricious is valid. First, the FCC did not need empirical evidence proving that fleeting expletives constitute harmful“first blows” to children; it suffices to know that children mimic behavior they observe.

So I guess if the Second Circuit Court strikes it down on subsequent review, on constitutionality, will we perhaps see the quoted section at the core of the arguement. Might we expect the Second Circuit to argue something about constitutional rights vs. parenting rights vs. children's rights or something similiar? That is will the Second Circuit even consider this SCOTUS opinion when they next act on this case?


EDIT:
Anyways, it's pretty clear the government says it controls the airways, and in peace lets the market-place do what it wants with them as long as they pays the fees and stays with the regulations.

 

[Ecofarm]

A free market anti government private property person would say let the market decide.

I say sell the airwaves to private parties. But as long as they ARE public, the people should be allowed to vote on their own rules and have those rules enforced. Just like I can make rules about my property.

 

[Gooblah]

In public, yes. Papers, etc can print/video what they like.


That is always the context. Unless someone is refering to sex, the f-bomb = "duh"/"umm"/ahhh"/"uhhhhh"

It is a place holder for a brain that's trying to work too fast, a general adjective or noun (speaking loosely) that could mean anything.

So...public airwaves should be censored to prevent swearing? Who are we protecting at that point?

Adults should be mature enough to handle a person swearing. Honestly, if you're going to flip out if someone says 's***' or 'f***' in an exclamatory manner (i.e oh s*** i locked my keys in the car!), then there are bigger problems than the swearing (namely, your maturity level). On the flip side, I acknowledge that using swear words or obscene phrases to describe people should be banned and punished - but at the max a public apology, cutting off airtime/funds, or fining the person.

Kids my age don't normally listen to public radio (I listen to NPR, but hey, I'm liberal, so it's basically mandatory. ), and even if we do, we're exposed to enough swearing (in our own speech, for example), that censorship is useless. For kids younger than 15, if their parents raised them properly then they should be mature enough to know that a) swearing is generally uncalled for, b) is rude, and c) is useless. Now, I honestly wouldn't want my child exposed to swearing, but I think that as a parent I would hopefully be smart enough to censor the radio and tv myself...not leaning on the government for it. I should be the one either cutting cable or blocking MTV...not the government.

As for the second point: I dunno, I swear mostly as an exclamation. I've yet to hear someone say "Well...f**kkkkkkk......I........s**ttttttttttttttttt........." unless they have Tourette Syndrome, which is sad anyways.

 

[Ecofarm]

Adults should be mature enough to handle a person swearing.

Yea, I can handle it. But I have every right to regulate my property. Public property should be regulated by representative legislation and enforced. You think otherwise?

Just like Thunderfall (and his designated representatives) have the right to regulate this site, I have the right to regulate public property - because I own it. And how do we do that? We vote. And those regulations are enforced. Of course, Thunder doesn't need a vote because this is private property.

 

[Gooblah]

Yea, I can handle it. But I have every right to regulate my property. Public property should be regulated by representative legislation and enforced. You think otherwise?

Well, as long as you're part of the majority.

Currently, the majority of the nation agrees with you, so good for you (honestly) . I appear to be part of the minority with regards to this issue, so I'll just have to wait my turn. Until then, the law (an unjust one, IMO) will be enforced, and I'll sit and watch and probably not write a letter to my representatives, considering my lack of representation.

 

[Ecofarm]

How is it unjust?

Are we persecuting a race, gender or ethnic group?

You're against public standards for public property? You think somehow that private standards for public property is justice? That's a tragedy of the commons waiting to happen.

 

[Cutlass]

How is it unjust?

Are we persecuting a race, gender or ethnic group?

You're against public standards for public property? You think somehow that private standards for public property is justice?

you're persecuting people who love freedom.

 

[potatokiosk]

That is always the context. Unless someone is refering to sex, the f-bomb = "duh"/"umm"/ahhh"/"uhhhhh"

It is a place holder for a brain that's trying to work too fast, a general adjective or noun (speaking loosely) that could mean anything.

No. The f-bomb is an intensifier. F-ing is much closer to "very" or "extremely" than it is to "uhh".

There is no rational reason for banning it. It's just a taboo. It only offends people who refuse to accept free expression.

 

[Ecofarm]

you're persecuting people who love freedom.

We're not persecuting anyone. We have standards for use of public property. That's neither persecution nor unjust.

No. The f-bomb is an intensifier. F-ing is much closer to "very" or "extremely" than it is to "uhh".

And the difference is?

There is no rational reason for banning it. It's just a taboo.

Did you read nothing about setting a proper example for behavior?

It only offends people who refuse to accept free expression.

It offends everyone who appreciates proper speech and evolved expression.

 

[Gooblah]

How is it unjust?

Are we persecuting a race, gender or ethnic group?

You're against public standards for public property? You think somehow that private standards for public property is justice? That's a tragedy of the commons waiting to happen.

I didn't realize it was such a big deal. Anywho, I guess I used the wrong phrase. Maybe not 'unjust', but 'useless', 'stupid', 'wasteful', 'serving crap parents', 'serving overprotective parents' would fit.

 

[Cutlass]

We're not persecuting anyone. We have standards for use of public property. That's neither persecution nor unjust.

But they're communist standards.

 

[Ecofarm]

But they're communist standards.

I don't think you know what communist means.

 

[Rashiminos]

Is it "prudish" for a parent to not want their 5 year old to be subjected to f-bombardment on public airwaves?

Is it "prudish" for a parent to not want their kid having a horrible example of how to behave on public airwaves?

Is it prudish for parents to not want their kid subject to these things at public school?

I think you have confused prudish with wanting the best possible example for children in general.

Yes, yes, yes, and no.