Helpinghand
All-American
Stern gets fined, Bono's remarks get fine....
Lets stop all this crazyness
Please sign the Petition at:
www.stopfcc.com
Lets stop all this crazyness
Please sign the Petition at:
www.stopfcc.com
-
Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
- Thread starter Helpinghand
- Start date
ashlandbuck
Banned
Sears already tried this. He didn't get a lot of support.
I empathize for you because of my own distrust and dislike of the goverment, but I couldn't think any less of Howard as a human being. I'll pass on signing the petition.
I empathize for you because of my own distrust and dislike of the goverment, but I couldn't think any less of Howard as a human being. I'll pass on signing the petition.
Upvote
0
So, I suppose that "free speech" means I have the right to say, "God fucking damn, I'd really like to fuck me a Nigger bitch for a change instead of the skanky-assed slant-eyed Jap whore I've been fucking the two months" on the radio when kids could be listening? I don't think so.
Upvote
0
sears3820
Sitting around in my underwear....
When were you ever able to say that stuff on the radio? I realize the we must protect children from some of the filth that is out there but aren't adults/parents capable of screening what young ones watch, listen to and read? I just don't like morals being forced down my throat.MililaniBuckeye said:
The regulation of tighter definitions of indecency are just another attempt to sacrifice freedom of expression in order to appeal to "family values." Election year posturing perhaps?
They're not just targeting radio:
http://www.tvweek.com/topstorys/031504senate.html
Upvote
0
ashlandbuck
Banned
I can't patrol my kids 24/7 to be sure that they are not listening to or watching filth.That's impossible.
As much as you may not like it, there has to guidlines. The FCC is trying to set some. You still cannot do such things as yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
You have to admitt that Howard really pushes the envelope.
As much as you may not like it, there has to guidlines. The FCC is trying to set some. You still cannot do such things as yell "fire" in a crowded theatre.
You have to admitt that Howard really pushes the envelope.
Upvote
0
BuckinMichigan: Actually it doesn't. You can't yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater for fun (i.e., when there is no actual fire) without being held accountable for unreasonably putting innocent people's lives in danger. There are also laws against libel and slander. In other words, there are limitations on what you can and cannot say. The writers of the Constitution intended for us to be able to voice our opinions in a public forum concerning the common good of the people (being able to criticize out own government, etc.). They did not mean for us to able be totally irresponsible and say whatever we want to whomever we want without due repercussions.
(edit) Ashland types faster than me...
(edit) Ashland types faster than me...
Upvote
0
I feel there is clearly a distinction between the petition and the article Sears links to that discusses restrictions on cable as well.
Along with the freedom of speech there is an implied freedom from speech. I don't care much for Howard, but he certainly doesn't offend me. That doesn't mean some other person - or that person's children - should be exposed to language and descriptions that they or their parents find offensive. As stated above it is impossible to protect access of your children to what is boradcast over public airwaves. Howard Stern is not pushing that envelope, he shredded it several years ago.
But when you start talking about censoring subscription services it is an entirely different matter. If you don't like the standards on cable tv don't pay for it and you are then free from exposure. To place restrictions on such media is clearly a limitation of free speech IMO.
Along with the freedom of speech there is an implied freedom from speech. I don't care much for Howard, but he certainly doesn't offend me. That doesn't mean some other person - or that person's children - should be exposed to language and descriptions that they or their parents find offensive. As stated above it is impossible to protect access of your children to what is boradcast over public airwaves. Howard Stern is not pushing that envelope, he shredded it several years ago.
But when you start talking about censoring subscription services it is an entirely different matter. If you don't like the standards on cable tv don't pay for it and you are then free from exposure. To place restrictions on such media is clearly a limitation of free speech IMO.
Upvote
0
ashland - Kids should be supervised when Howard is on in the morning. So that is an easy supervision job. One can't monitor their children 24/7 as you indicated so as a parnet we hope that we instill in them what is right and wrong so that if they hear or see something that is deemed as "filth" it will not harm them. (And chances are children at a young age hear worse on a school bus and at school anyways.)
It is ironic that a classic rock station now may not be able to play Pink Floyd's "Money" because of the line "..do goody good bullshit".
Does anyone know how the head of the FCC got the position and what his qualifications are?
It is ironic that a classic rock station now may not be able to play Pink Floyd's "Money" because of the line "..do goody good bullshit".
Does anyone know how the head of the FCC got the position and what his qualifications are?
Upvote
0
ashlandbuck
Banned
Buckeye prof
Have you ever watched or listened to Horward? The stuff they hear at school may certainly be bad but I doubt if 6th graders will be discussing the sexual adventures of a hermaphrodite and asking each other to show each others their tits and ass.
I do agree with you though that the ultimate resposibilty is mine when it comes to my children and their sense of right and wrong.
I wouldn't ever sue the makers of the TV show and movie "Jackass" if my kids were actually stupid enough to mock one of their stunts.
Have you ever watched or listened to Horward? The stuff they hear at school may certainly be bad but I doubt if 6th graders will be discussing the sexual adventures of a hermaphrodite and asking each other to show each others their tits and ass.
I do agree with you though that the ultimate resposibilty is mine when it comes to my children and their sense of right and wrong.
I wouldn't ever sue the makers of the TV show and movie "Jackass" if my kids were actually stupid enough to mock one of their stunts.
Upvote
0
ashlandbuck
Banned
Sears, I know. I am really torn on this issue.
I truly do empathize with those that feel the FCC is over stepping their bounds.
I truly do empathize with those that feel the FCC is over stepping their bounds.
Upvote
0
BuckBackHome
Wolverine is largest member of weasel family
Mili,
You are correct. The courts have said there are limitations to Freedom of Speech when it concerns a breach of the peace or cause violence. However, the Supreme Court has also said the government has to provide "substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech."
The example you used may be offensive to some, all, or none, but does it justify a breach of peace or cause violence? My guess is the courts would say no and would allow you to make that comment.
I believe the First Amendment allows us to express ourselves in speech without fear of restrictions by the government and is not solely limited to what is the "common good." The "common good" is a subjective term and can be defined, if chosen to be, by the majority. The concern is whether a limitation on speech is because it causes violence or simply offends someone. It then becomes a question of whether it is an erosion of one of the basic tenets this country was founded upon.
Hey, how do you feel about guns
You are correct. The courts have said there are limitations to Freedom of Speech when it concerns a breach of the peace or cause violence. However, the Supreme Court has also said the government has to provide "substantial justification for the interference with the right of free speech where it attempts to regulate the content of the speech."
The example you used may be offensive to some, all, or none, but does it justify a breach of peace or cause violence? My guess is the courts would say no and would allow you to make that comment.
I believe the First Amendment allows us to express ourselves in speech without fear of restrictions by the government and is not solely limited to what is the "common good." The "common good" is a subjective term and can be defined, if chosen to be, by the majority. The concern is whether a limitation on speech is because it causes violence or simply offends someone. It then becomes a question of whether it is an erosion of one of the basic tenets this country was founded upon.
Hey, how do you feel about guns
Upvote
0
NorthShoreBuck
True Madness Requires Significant Intelligence
Free?
You'll get me to shut up before you get my guns.
How is that for my first post?
You'll get me to shut up before you get my guns.
How is that for my first post?
Upvote
0