@#%$ Scalia

[potatokiosk]

And the difference is?

One is an intensifier, another is an expression of hesitation. You can refuse to see a difference between the two if you want, but it's like refusing to see the difference between a chair and a turtle.

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

It offends everyone who appreciates proper speech and evolved expression.

I don't object to having arbitrary standards of proper behavior and speech. I'm just pointing out that the f-bomb is banned arbitrarily. Your only good argument in favor of the ban is that the public can do whatever it wants with its airwaves.

 

[choxorn]

Any child may find the f-word on the internet. Or in a written publication. Or on the wall of a public bathroom stall recently occupied by a right wing moralist.

Or, commonly spoken by random people they meet. Most people aren't that sensitive to swearing.

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

Why, we're protecting all the innocent little ones who would have their lives destroyed by hearing a single swear word ever!

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.

I agree completely. Saying "Oh s***!" after dropping something on your foot is not that offensive. Calling someone an s***-head is very offensive.

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.

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.

Yes, it's his private property. The airwaves, however, are public property, not private.

 

[GoodGame]

I don't object to having arbitrary standards of proper behavior and speech. I'm just pointing out that the f-bomb is banned arbitrarily. Your only good argument in favor of the ban is that the public can do whatever it wants with its airwaves.

SCOTUS said that it wasn't arbitrary, currently, and was within the FCC's jurisdiction. Round 2 in perhaps 12 month?

 

[I'm Cleo!]

SCOTUS said that it wasn't arbitrary, currently, and was within the FCC's jurisdiction. Round 2 in perhaps 12 month?

"Arbitrary and capricious" is a legal standard for reviewing the actions of administrative agencies -- the most deferential one. To be "arbitrary and capricious," the agency's actions have to be way out there, like trillion-dollar fines, or targeting particular broadcast services, or throwing darts at a phonebook to pick defendants. I think choxorn might have been talking about the non-term-of-art meaning of "arbitrary."

(Not to be a pedant, but I thought this might clear some things up.)

Cleo

 

[Ecofarm]

One is an intensifier, another is an expression of hesitation. You can refuse to see a difference between the two if you want, but it's like refusing to see the difference between a chair and a turtle.

I knew what you meant the first time. You can refuse to see the similarity if you want, but it's like refusing to see the similarity between crappy and very crappy. In fact, if something is very or extremely, there's probably a better word to describe it if only facetiously or in metaphor.

(Not to be a pedant, but I thought this might clear some things up.)

-----

Now the dems can take care of their confirmations quick-like... oh wait... Obama hasn't bother to nominate anyone.

 

[a_propagandist]

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:

"To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;"

Not so strict-constructionist now?

 

[Berzerker]

The question here is whether the FCC overstepped its statutory authority in making the regulation.

Wait a minute, a bureaucracy is making law? The Constitution says all legislation begins in the House, it does not say bureaucrats have legislative power. Sheesh! But the courts let Congress get away with that and then we're told we have a Constitution. Bushit

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Are we seriously proposing that profane terminology on public airwaves should be protected under "free speech"??

Even the most conservative readings of the Freedom of Speech restrict it specifically to mean "freedom from censorship." Only in very recent American history has it come to include "freedom after speech."

I'm sure you'd appreciate it alot if I stood on the street outside your house and screamed profane obscenities at your children. When the cops came to arrest me, I could claim "free speech"??

You'd probably be either arrested or fined for disrupting the peace or something, not for being obscene.

Hey, officer, I have every right to scream obscenities at their house from the street... free speech!

Is that not the present justification?

So kids are allowed to use the f-word in school now?

Of course not. As minors, they are not subject to the full rights that adults are. After all, kids don't vote, do they?

 

[Berzerker]

Most of us would like some standards of behavior on public airwaves. We voted and made laws as such. Basically, if you want to use our stuff, you must meet certain standards. Now, you can go and do whatever you like, within reason, with your own stuff all you like - it's a free country.

it aint yer stuff. I dont buy my TV, satellite dish or programming from you. And after telling us we can use our own property, with your permission of course, you say its a free country? Define freedom. Seriously, if you're gonna throw the word around and pretend you believe in it, lets see exactly how you define it. If you dont like a station that allows vulgarity - DONT WATCH! Jesus. Why dont you get together with other freedom loving Americans and boycott the offenders? Thats how a free and civilized people deal with such matters.

 

[GoodGame]

Wait a minute, a bureaucracy is making law? The Constitution says all legislation begins in the House, it does not say bureaucrats have legislative power. Sheesh! But the courts let Congress get away with that and then we're told we have a Constitution. Bushit

Basically US laws set the limits of the bureaucrats, and the bureaucrats act within the limits of the laws. The situation with the OP is the bureaucrats ----the FCC, issued a memo, based on the law, and the story up to now is the SCOTUS said that was dandy.

Round two is to find out definitively about the limits of the Constitution and broadcast.

 

[choxorn]

I think choxorn might have been talking about the non-term-of-art meaning of "arbitrary."

What? That was potatokiosk, not me.

Of course not. As minors, they are not subject to the full rights that adults are. After all, kids don't vote, do they?

Of course, whether or not we're allowed to do something doesn't mean we're not going to do it anyway. If you don't believe me, listen to a few random conversations among teenagers, they're likely to contain at least one swear word.

 

[a_propagandist]

Of course, whether or not we're allowed to do something doesn't mean we're not going to do it anyway. If you don't believe me, listen to a few random conversations among teenagers, they're likely to contain at least one swear word.

Hey, man, I'm a teenager, and I do not swear. Mostly, I say "hell" and "crap." Just needed to defend the percent of kids who do not swear like sailors. Aside from pointing that out, I agree with you.

 

[Ecofarm]

Even the most conservative readings of the Freedom of Speech restrict it specifically to mean "freedom from censorship." Only in very recent American history has it come to include "freedom after speech."

You think only the most conservative view of free speech outlaws and prosecutes (censors) slander and libel?

Only the reactionares object to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?

"Freedom after speech" is irrelevant. Public decency laws are non-partisan, enacted and enforced in many facets. Even liberal dems don't want porno on the telecom in Times Square.

 

[woody60707]

How far can the FCC reach? Lets say that Airwave viewship is replaced by such a large % of cable/sat(other?), that all the big TV networks stop using the airwaves.

Would this end the regulation by the FCC of network TV?

 

[Ecofarm]

Are you seriously supporting an argument from the Daily Kos, a most partisan and hackish piece of garbage?

The minority justices were so in regard to the FCC's democractically established power being (in fact?) unestablished, not because they are against public regulation of public property. Don't confuse a technicality with principle.

Private property is not censored, beyond criminal law. Public property will always have voter-established regulations. Welcome to reality in the free world.

 

[Berzerker]

voter established regulations ? Reality in the free world? You dont even see the irony in that?

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Of course, whether or not we're allowed to do something doesn't mean we're not going to do it anyway. If you don't believe me, listen to a few random conversations among teenagers, they're likely to contain at least one swear word.

Yes I know, I was a teenager once. Do yourself a favor and hold onto that iconoclastic attitude, it'll serve you better than many will try and lead you to believe.

You think only the most conservative view of free speech outlaws and prosecutes (censors) slander and libel?

Censorship means stopping you from saying something before it is said. It does not mean prosecuting after it has been said. In fact, that's the precise thing that I said in the post of mine you quoted.

To put two and two together: Yes, it does prosecute slander and libel. There is a long history of this which is still in effect. It does not, however, get censored.

Only the reactionares object to yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre?

"Freedom after speech" is irrelevant. Public decency laws are non-partisan, enacted and enforced in many facets. Even liberal dems don't want porno on the telecom in Times Square.

Conservative can also mean "traditional," "old," or "minimalist." Eco. I was using it in those manners. Stop trying to make things partisan. If I meant the political position, I would have capitalized it.

 

[classical_hero]

This is funny since here you can get away with such stuff and hardly cause a problem. Say the f word does not always mean a sexual act, when it is spoken as a swear word it is a word of frustration. Most swear words are like that, even if they have a secondary meaning.

 

[GoodGame]

This is funny since here you can get away with such stuff and hardly cause a problem. Say the f word does not always mean a sexual act, when it is spoken as a swear word it is a word of frustration. Most swear words are like that, even if they have a secondary meaning.

This ruling actually is to clarify that non-literal use of the f-word and s-word (normally descriptive of sex or excerement) can be fined; They described that kind of word use as 'fleeting' for whatever reason. The FCC had a memo as such. The problem isn't the semantics (secondary meanings) of speech, but whether certain words are taboo on the air, or not, and if it's constitutional to make certain words taboo on air.

 

[Formaldehyde]

How far can the FCC reach? Lets say that Airwave viewship is replaced by such a large % of cable/sat(other?), that all the big TV networks stop using the airwaves.

Would this end the regulation by the FCC of network TV?

Yes and no. It used to be that cable TV channels had no censorship at all since they were not governed by the FCC. The early South Park episodes are an excellent example. But nowadays, you usually have to go to the premium service tier to be completely free of censorship due to more and more pressure to regulate themselves through self-censorship. And that trend may get even worse if new censorship laws finally pass Congress:

http://www.pff.org/issues-pubs/pops/pop12.6cablecensorship.pdf