Well, since everyone is such a "free speech " advocate, and nothig is obscene...Im sure we can just say NIGGER instead of the 'N" word right? And Kyke and Chink and Wop and Spic is ok becuase its free speech right?....excpet its not free speech if trent lott makes a comment at a brithday party or if jimmy the greek makes a comment right?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Stop the FCC
- Thread starter snooptrader
- Start date
What you said is "free."
The bill comes after the freely speaking episode in a manner that is offensive to those who wield power.
The bill comes after the freely speaking episode in a manner that is offensive to those who wield power.
Quote from TM_Direct:
Well, since everyone is such a "free speech " advocate, and nothig is obscene...Im sure we can just say NIGGER instead of the 'N" word right? And Kyke and Chink and Wop and Spic is ok becuase its free speech right?....excpet its not free speech if trent lott makes a comment at a brithday party or if jimmy the greek makes a comment right?
Quote from TM_Direct:
Well, since everyone is such a "free speech " advocate, and nothig is obscene...Im sure we can just say NIGGER instead of the 'N" word right? And Kyke and Chink and Wop and Spic is ok becuase its free speech right?....excpet its not free speech if trent lott makes a comment at a brithday party or if jimmy the greek makes a comment right?
By your examples, you are apparently confused about the whole "free speech" thing.
As an employer I have the right, within limits, to set certain standards for my organization and I am not forced to employ you if you decide to act outside of those standards. The Greek issue is no more of a "free speech" issue than is showing up late for work.
Trent is perfectly free to say what he wants at a bday event. I am free to consider him a jerk and his party is free to consider him a liability -- no "free speech" issue involved.
The Dixie Chicks are free to give their opinions at their concerts and I am free not to go.
Toby Kieth is free to rant and I am free to boycott his CDs.
Robbins/Sarandon are free to speak their minds and I am free to see a different movie.
I am free to voice my opinions here on ET and you are free to put me on Ignore.
The right to free speech does not insulate one from the results of that speech and I am constantly tired by those (especially politicians and celebrities) who whine that their "free speech" is being impinged just because we don't like what they have to say and it effects their careers.
As Henley/Frey would say "Get over it".
JB
Quote from Turok:
By your examples, you are apparently confused about the whole "free speech" thing.
As an employer I have the right, within limits, to set certain standards for my organization and I am not forced to employ you if you decide to act outside of those standards. The Greek issue is no more of a "free speech" issue than is showing up late for work.
Trent is perfectly free to say what he wants at a bday event. I am free to consider him a jerk and his party is free to consider him a liability -- no "free speech" issue involved.
The Dixie Chicks are free to give their opinions at their concerts and I am free not to go.
Toby Kieth is free to rant and I am free to boycott his CDs.
Robbins/Sarandon are free to speak their minds and I am free to see a different movie.
I am free to voice my opinions here on ET and you are free to put me on Ignore.
The right to free speech does not insulate one from the results of that speech and I am constantly tired by those (especially politicians and celebrities) who whine that their "free speech" is being impinged just because we don't like what they have to say and it effects their careers.
As Henley/Frey would say "Get over it".
JB
While i understand what you are saying, the fact remains that there is no true 'freedom' of speech or ideology......there is no differnece between the punnishment laid out by the FCC or one being forced to resign from his job at a network due to political pressure.....ie Rush at ESPN......he never said a foul word, but expressed an opinion....ESPN/ABC pressured him out....and then PRESIDENTIAL canidate Howard Dean siad they should fire him and joined the swell against him....they didn;t choose to ignroe him did they?
Quote from TM_Direct:
While i understand what you are saying, the fact remains that there is no true 'freedom' of speech or ideology......there is no differnece between the punnishment laid out by the FCC or one being forced to resign from his job at a network due to political pressure.....ie Rush at ESPN......he never said a foul word, but expressed an opinion....ESPN/ABC pressured him out....and then PRESIDENTIAL canidate Howard Dean siad they should fire him and joined the swell against him....they didn;t choose to ignroe him did they?
Ahhh...yes, you are I are in agreement. Most people refer to "free speech" as a legal or constitutional issue and usually the issues doesn't involve that.
Yes, our actions and words usually have consequenses and thus are not free.
JB
Turok and TM both make good points. Turok is absolutely right that there is a difference in the right to free speech and the consequences of it. TM is right that those consequences seem to fall disproportionatley on those who violate the dictates of political correctness. But I think their points, although valid, are not what is at issue here.
There are many constitutionally appropriate restrictions on free speech, the right to cry "Fire" in a theater being the classic. The Supreme Court has long recognized that broadcasters do not have the same rights that publishers do. Broadcasters are allowedto use the public airwaves, ie the limited frequencies available for broadcasting, and in exchange they have an obligation to act in the public interest, broadly defined. Publishers have no such duty. Anyone can start a newspaper and give it away or sell it. You have to be granted a license to operate a radio or TV station.
So the issue regarding what broadcasters are allowed to send out over the public airwaves is not strictly a free speech question, although clearly there are substantial free speech overtones. For me, the better analogy is to zoning. Zoning restricts your property rights, but the theory is we accept that tradeoff for the greater good. The FCC applies a type of zoning to broadcasting. If it is done properly, we are all better off. We can allow our kids to watch TV or listen to the radio with a certain confidence. If broadcasters feel there is a market for filth, they can use cable or the internet.
What about Clear Channel ditching Stern, supposedly to curry favor with the White house? As TM suggests, anyone who has a problem with that should be protesting ESPN for dumping Limbaugh or the networks for dumping Dr. Laura. They have a right to select whom they want, and there is no free speech issue involved.
Could the FCC regulate Rush Limbaugh out of existence? Yes, probably so, but they would have to do it in such a way that all political advocacy was eliminated. They effectively did that for a long time with the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Finally it was scrapped. It was a joke because it kept the Rush Limbaughs off the air but did nothing to eliminate the subtle propagandizing of Walter Kronkite or the pervasive liberal bias that has made network news such a joke.
There are many constitutionally appropriate restrictions on free speech, the right to cry "Fire" in a theater being the classic. The Supreme Court has long recognized that broadcasters do not have the same rights that publishers do. Broadcasters are allowedto use the public airwaves, ie the limited frequencies available for broadcasting, and in exchange they have an obligation to act in the public interest, broadly defined. Publishers have no such duty. Anyone can start a newspaper and give it away or sell it. You have to be granted a license to operate a radio or TV station.
So the issue regarding what broadcasters are allowed to send out over the public airwaves is not strictly a free speech question, although clearly there are substantial free speech overtones. For me, the better analogy is to zoning. Zoning restricts your property rights, but the theory is we accept that tradeoff for the greater good. The FCC applies a type of zoning to broadcasting. If it is done properly, we are all better off. We can allow our kids to watch TV or listen to the radio with a certain confidence. If broadcasters feel there is a market for filth, they can use cable or the internet.
What about Clear Channel ditching Stern, supposedly to curry favor with the White house? As TM suggests, anyone who has a problem with that should be protesting ESPN for dumping Limbaugh or the networks for dumping Dr. Laura. They have a right to select whom they want, and there is no free speech issue involved.
Could the FCC regulate Rush Limbaugh out of existence? Yes, probably so, but they would have to do it in such a way that all political advocacy was eliminated. They effectively did that for a long time with the so-called Fairness Doctrine. Finally it was scrapped. It was a joke because it kept the Rush Limbaughs off the air but did nothing to eliminate the subtle propagandizing of Walter Kronkite or the pervasive liberal bias that has made network news such a joke.
i'm not racist, however, i think people should be able to say "nigger" on the radio if they want. i don't say it and can't remember the last time i ever did, but, imo, this is not the government's business.Quote from TM_Direct:
Well, since everyone is such a "free speech " advocate, and nothig is obscene...Im sure we can just say NIGGER instead of the 'N" word right?
one of the silliest things i ever heard was when the FCC was saying "fucking" is ok to say, as long as you don't mean it referring to sex. WHAT A JOKE. ohhhh, whatever you do, DON'T talk about sex like that!
The big point that's being missed here is that Infinity and Clear Channel have virtual monopoly power as granted by the FCC's limitation of licenses. In other words I can start a web site, a newspaper, or even a cable television network without the scrutiny of regulation. However he who is fed at the FCC's trough must adhere to her standards.
"Pirate radio" is illegal because it blocks the signals of licensed stations. Clear Channel owns 11% of the radio stations in America, CBS owns 200, and Viacom's Infinity another 160. No pun intended but these guys have acquired licenses to steal.
Thus Stern's high syndication fees are a direct result of his tapping into a limited pool of available stations. I feel his whining about government intervention to be self serving and hypocritical. The FCC has created a system that has enriched Stern. Play by their rule Howie.
"Pirate radio" is illegal because it blocks the signals of licensed stations. Clear Channel owns 11% of the radio stations in America, CBS owns 200, and Viacom's Infinity another 160. No pun intended but these guys have acquired licenses to steal.
Thus Stern's high syndication fees are a direct result of his tapping into a limited pool of available stations. I feel his whining about government intervention to be self serving and hypocritical. The FCC has created a system that has enriched Stern. Play by their rule Howie.