Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: fd ski on April 12, 2001, 07:45:00 AM
-
Well well well, good christians will make sure you don't listen to that devil bastard Howard Stern... new FCC rules come down to nothing more then censorship...
When words like "fart" become obscene, and one of the funnies skit-songs ever written by Monty Python "Sit on my face and tell me that you love me" is banned, we're not far from full blown censorship...
What's next ? Well, Bible thumping nuts lead by their illiterate leader will most likely "bring the solution to an end" (quote from Mr. Bush ) and make sure that we all are good and decent christian sheep that we should be.....
I can't wait for Ashcroft prosecuting Stern... fun fun fun all the way to the supreme court..
Oh, for the record
F A R T
Come and get me decency police !!!
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
[This message has been edited by fd ski (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Federal Censorship Commission ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
I was just surfing in FCC's site and one question came in my mind:
Can you say Dick in public or do you have to call it Richard?
<G,D,R>
-
It's folks like Stern that purposely try to find ways to abuse the 1st amendment rights to the point where they get restricted, if anything, you should be pissed at Stern for having to carry things a bit too far in order to be funny.
-
Another issue that if you are normal and follow just half the rules, it doesn't apply to you. I'm in that boat.
Eagler
-
FCC is dictating what can be said on a federally licensed radio station.. not in your homes.
When I look at the rules imposed in my workplace to avoid any chance of harassment lawsuites, these regulations seem tame.
AKDejaVu
-
Ah so you're not allowed to use the media to express yourself freely?
I.e the media does not fall under right of free speech?
That's NICE. Have the govt control the media (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
This is scary.
Worth noting is that many freedom crying republicans are awfully silent when it comes to restricting manifestations of freedom they disagree with. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif)
<poke>
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
[This message has been edited by StSanta (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
It's folks like Stern that purposely try to find ways to abuse the 1st amendment rights to the point where they get restricted, if anything, you should be pissed at Stern for having to carry things a bit too far in order to be funny.
So what you're saying is that he should be banned because YOU don't like him , totally disregarding MILLIONS who make a FREE CHOICE to listen to his BS ?
If his stuff is so horrible and pathetic, nobody would listen to it, but people do, and you have no right to impare that choice.
Come on, what happend to "my boy Bush will make goverment smaller and his government won't interfere in lives of the people" ?
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
Santa, you know not of Howard Stern and his many run-in's with the Feds?
-
FCC Sucks.
And please Bart don't bring religion into this. You are blaming this on Christians when I know many of them who disagree with this kind of idiocy. It has nothing to do with faith. When you make stupid statements like that, you drive away people who would support your point if you made a rational argument instead of a knee-jerk slam on people who have different beliefs than you.
[This message has been edited by funked (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Ami-coms,
You think your free lol (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
------------------
AH : Maniac
WB : -nr-1-
-
PS Are you familiar with Tipper Gore and the PMRC?
http://members.localnet.com/~pfc8488/tipper.htm (http://members.localnet.com/~pfc8488/tipper.htm)
Don't think you can escape these idiots just by electing a Democrat.
-
StSanta I keep trying to post about <censored> but every time I do the god-<censored> mother-<censored> cuts me off.
I wish the <censored> I could tell you what I think of the <censored> because they are really starting to <censored> me off.
-
FD-ski, You said I said he should be banned, where did I say that?
I said he purposely pushes the FCC to the brink. Banned? Hardly. Follow the rules that everyone else abides by? Definately.
-
LOL Maniac! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
-
Lets see....
You don't want to let your government to decide if you can have a gun or not but you're willing to let your government to decide what you can hear from radio?
At least guns are involved in more homicides than radio-programs... propably (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
-
Its a good thing too Staga, or you could have radio programs done by wanna-be Goebells (sp) telling folks to take to the streets and burn all jews. In this country, yes, you do have the right to free speech, you have also (IMO) have an obligation not to *purposely* ABUSE those rights.
Freedom always carries a price, in this country, its rules and regulations set up by a Gov't that is for the people, and by the people.
*Edit.
[This message has been edited by Ripsnort (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Ripsnort - criticising the government could be construed as an abuse of freedom of speech, from the stand-point of a sleazy politician. He might take offence at a critique of his policies.
Freedom always carries a price, in this country, its rules and regulations set up by a Gov't that is for the people, and by the people.
Yet gun control, rather inexplicably, does not abide by this principle?
I really can't believe the anti-federal government people among you, don't find this censorship alarming.
-
Welp, I do. I wasn't too uncomfortable with where the FCC was before, but the idea of them further tightening acceptable broadcasts is troubling.
-
"I really can't believe the anti-federal government people among you, don't find this censorship alarming. "
I can...they dont like Howard Stern, so the ban is ok.
Daff
-
Of all the times I have ever listened to Howard Stern on the radio, he has never said anything that offended me. A lot of MUSIC plays a lot more vulgarities than Howard Stern ever says.
We have music that advocates drug use and killing police and various other wanton acts of destruction. Such music directly promotes illegal acts. How is any radio program worse than that?
The FCC seems to be picking on certain individuals, not trying to actually do good. Our freedoms are gradually being reduced. I only wonder how bad things will get before people start to resist.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Freedom always carries a price, in this country, its rules and regulations set up by a Gov't that is for the people, and by the people.
well if it's for the people i'm pretty sure that "the people" doesn't include myself and at least couple million of other people who have no problem with Howard Stern program.
So let's make sure we get this right:
in this country, its rules and regulations set up by a Gov't that is for the corporations and interest groups, and by the minotiry.
Better ? (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif)
<g,d,r>
------------------
Bartlomiej Rajewski
aka. Wing Commander fd-ski
Northolt Wing
1st Polish Fighter Wing
303 (Polish) Squadron "Kosciuszko" RAF
308 (Polish) Squadron "City of Cracow" RAF
315 (Polish) Squadron "City of Deblin" RAF
Turning 109s and 190s into scrap metal since 1998
Northolt Wing Headquarters (http://www.raf303.org/northolt/)
-
[whinning voice]But its for the children![/whinning voice]
Censors, be they from the right or the left, disgust me.
------------------
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother
Bring the Spitfire F.MkXIVc to Aces High!!!
Sisu
-Karnak
-
Why so many misinterpret this amendment is beyond me.
-
Howard Stern is an ass. I practice my own form of censorship by not allowing my children to watch his piece of crap show on E!
Since I censor my children, does that make me a bad person?
I supposed if I cared about Howard Stern then I might get riled, but I sure as heck am not going to get riled just for the sake of being riled. Nobody is getting hurt except Howard, and who really cares about that? There is censorship every minute of every day in the United States. You still cannot say the word f*, sh*, etc. on National Television (cable is different). When is the last time you heard someone mutter those words on Fox, ABC, CBS, NBC, etc? Why don't they? Why do they bleep some words on Saturday Night Live reruns? When is the last time you saw a woman's breast or a man's noodle in full view on CBS? Or two people makin whoopie in the bedroom?
Censorship is everywhere and already running rampant in the US. Big deal.
I do have a question tho, for those living ouitside the US, do they use the words f* and s* on your Broadcast Networks?
Fury
[This message has been edited by Fury (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
Fury, here, it's not unheard of for the Danish equivalent of "it kicks ass" to be used in commercials. And, it's the direct translation.
Then again, our two big tabloidish newspapers also have topless girls on the front page now and then.
No biggie (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
------------------
Von Santa
Staffelkapitän 9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"If you return from a mission with a victory, but without your Rottenflieger, you have lost your battle."
- D. Hrabak, JG 54 "Grünherz"
-
Fury, in the UK those words can be used (and very frequently are).
We have a watershed (9 PM) after that time just about anything goes. Except hardcore sex. An erect noodle is considered hardcore and apparently there are rules governing when a noodle is considered erect. Don't ask me how they decide. (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
It's censorship of a kind, but not an outright ban. Just recognises that children are still watching TV before 9 PM and people know what they are getting in terms of sex, violence and bad language before and after the watershed.
-
Fdski,
Please put the blame where it belongs, and not with us Christians. The blame goes to the feds.
Here's an idea, let's kill EVERY federal program and burocracy! They don't belong there anyway, they belong in the states. The Federal governmen for the most part stinks! 1/2 of it is always trying to take 1/2 of the countries rights away. That's either half, who ever happens to be in power.
I bet 1/2 of those bastards haven't read the constitution in years. They sure as hell don't run the country like they have. To most of them, both parties, the constitution is an obsticle to navigate around.
And yes I agree! the FCC sucks! (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/biggrin.gif) But don't forget tipper gore's deal in the 80's. That was outright censorship!
Udie
-
<CENSORED>
[This message has been edited by The FCC (edited 04-12-2001).]
-
lol
wait till the FCC catches an episode of...
TV FUNHOUSE
(the most disturbing TV show, ever)
-
Fdski,
for once you are right (http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Smileys/default/smile.gif).
Given a choice between being offended by someone's speach and allowing speach to be censored, I'll take being offended every day of the week.
How did the Bible get into this?
-
The same way guns did.
-
Sorry, the FCC has been able to censor the radio for a long damn time.
As far back as Carlin's "7 Words You Can't Say on Radio" in 1978, the Supreme Court ruled that the FCC can control radio content. Obscenity has been a basis for censorship for a long time.
Section 29 of the Radio Act of 1927 provided:
"Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construed to give the licensing authority the power of censorship over the radio communications or signals transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be promulgated or fixed by the licensing authority which shall interfere with the right of free speech by means of radio communications. No person within the jurisdiction of the United States shall utter any obscene, indecent, or profane language by means of radio communication." 44 Stat. 1172.
And to quote from FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (the case about Carlin's monologue) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=726 (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=438&invol=726)
Obscene materials have been denied the protection of the First Amendment because their content is so offensive to contemporary moral standards. Roth v. United States, 354 U.S. 476
Their place in the hierarchy of First Amendment values was aptly sketched by Mr. Justice Murphy when he said: "uch utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality."
First, the broadcast media have established a uniquely pervasive presence in the lives of all Americans. Patently offensive, indecent material presented over the airwaves confronts the citizen, not only in public, but also in the privacy of the home, where the individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of an intruder. Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U.S. 728 . Because the broadcast audience is constantly tuning in and out, prior warnings cannot completely protect the listener or viewer from unexpected program content. To say that one may avoid further offense by turning off the radio when he [438 U.S. 726, 749] hears indecent language is like saying that the remedy for an assault is to run away after the first blow. One may hang up on an indecent phone call, but that option does not give the caller a constitutional immunity or avoid a harm that has already taken place. 27
Second, broadcasting is uniquely accessible to children, even those too young to read. Although Cohen's written message might have been incomprehensible to a first grader, Pacifica's broadcast could have enlarged a child's vocabulary in an instant. Other forms of offensive expression may be withheld from the young without restricting the expression at its source. Bookstores and motion picture theaters, for example, may be prohibited from making indecent material available to children. We held in Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 , that the government's interest in the "well-being of its youth" and in supporting "parents' claim to authority in their own household" justified the regulation of otherwise protected expression. [438 U.S. 726, 750] Id., at 640 and 639. 28 The case with which children may obtain access to broadcast material, coupled with the concerns recognized in Ginsberg, amply justify special treatment of indecent broadcasting.
It is appropriate, in conclusion, to emphasize the narrowness of our holding. This case does not involve a two-way radio conversation between a cab driver and a dispatcher, or a telecast of an Elizabethan comedy. We have not decided that an occasional expletive in either setting would justify any sanction or, indeed, that this broadcast would justify a criminal prosecution. The Commission's decision rested entirely on a nuisance rationale under which context is all-important. The concept requires consideration of a host of variables. The time of day was emphasized by the Commission. The content of the program in which the language is used will also affect the composition of the audience, 29 and differences between radio, television, and perhaps closed-circuit transmissions, may also be relevant. As Mr. Justice Sutherland wrote, a "nuisance may be merely a right thing in the wrong place, - like a pig in the parlor instead of the barnyard." Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388 . We simply hold that when the Commission finds that a pig has entered the parlor, the exercise [438 U.S. 726, 751] of its regulatory power does not depend on proof that the pig is obscene.
So first the Court determined that the FCC's requlations told it to censor for obscenity. Then the Court said that the words were obscene and finally that the FCC's censoring was Constitutional. This case was decided in 1978. Justices Stevens, Burger, Blackmun, Powell and Rhenquist concurred with the decision. (note that the majority of these justices would be considered on the liberial side of the aisle)
Anyways, the FCC regulating radio material content is about 22 years old. This is nothing new.
{PS, if you don't like my reasoning, blame the Supreme Court of 1978, not me)
------------------
Col Dune
C.O. 352nd Fighter Group (http://www.352ndfightergroup.com)
"The Blue Nosed Bastards of Bodney"
"Credo quia absurdum est." (I believe it because it is unreasonable)
- The motto of the Republic of Baja Arizona