Types of People Post on this Forum

[Purplehood]

I think that the FCC should only monitor the airwaves for violations of laws (not FCC regulations). If a TV or Radio station wants to run trash, let it run trash. It will either thrive or go broke. That is free speech. I don't have problems with rating a TV or Radio station, but that should be done by someone other than the FCC and not have any binding influence on those same stations. It should simply be a tool.

It is not done by the FCC. But I'm with you. However, you may be shocked to find just what will die off and what will not. Take the taxpayer's money out of PBS and NPR and they will disappear in less than a week.

I need to clarify here:
My real problem with the FCC is their apparent ability to regulate licenses for stations. As I so ineloquently tried to explain in my previous post, the market should do this. Not the FCC.

[mr.72]

I think that the FCC should only monitor the airwaves for violations of laws (not FCC regulations). If a TV or Radio station wants to run trash, let it run trash. It will either thrive or go broke. That is free speech. I don't have problems with rating a TV or Radio station, but that should be done by someone other than the FCC and not have any binding influence on those same stations. It should simply be a tool.

It is not done by the FCC. But I'm with you. However, you may be shocked to find just what will die off and what will not. Take the taxpayer's money out of PBS and NPR and they will disappear in less than a week.

I need to clarify here:
My real problem with the FCC is their apparent ability to regulate licenses for stations. As I so ineloquently tried to explain in my previous post, the market should do this. Not the FCC.

The air waves are one fixed, limited, resource. There is a tacit requirement for a centralized regulating authority. Without such an authority, the system would not be useful, much like roads or airspace for flight, etc. The authority to regulate and license the air waves naturally falls upon a government agency. So you think that a private entity should issue licenses? How do they acquire rights to the air space? Do they just squat it, homestead it? If I set up a radio tower to blast broadband noise on the entire usable band then I can claim to "own" it and then do I get the right to license it?

Someone has to license it. Why not the FCC?

Can I speculate that what you are really trying to say is that you don't want the FCC to include decency standards or any measurement of "the public good" into their licensing authority? Maybe they should only auction off the licenses to the highest bidder? Or maybe it's a fixed fee but it's a waiting list? Political favors to get you promoted on the list? Lottery? So this month the license for 590kHz on the AM band in Austin belongs to KLBJ but next month, maybe someone else bid higher or won the lottery and you tune to that frequency and find gangsta rap or 24/7 Alex Jones in its place?

[Purplehood]

What I am vainly trying to say is that I don't like the past or current administrations manipulation of licenses through the FCC being used to silence detractors. I really need to get back to 2 or 3 cups of coffee in the morning, I can't think straight on just one.

[android]

... 24/7 Alex Jones

Oh, you have a cruel and twisted mind to even think of such a thing!!

I toast and salute you!!

[bdickens]

"Separation of church and state" is a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians and has no basis in the Constitution or any other of our founding documents.

No its a very real thing (even if you dont want it to be)
Look up the "establishment clause" its in the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (among other things)
Then compare that to cases like "McCollum v. Board of Education" a Supreme Court ruling that said (paraphrasing) that teaching a Religion in a public school is against the Establishment clause. The group they ruled against was trying to get some of the Classes they were trying to get taught were JEWISH CLASSES. Do you want your Tax dollars going towards the teaching of Jewish and/or Islamic religions? Do you think THEY want their Tax Dollars going towards Christian classes? No of course not. The government shouldn't have a say on Religion unless its impeding on people's rights (like the Marrying 16 year olds or denying medical care to babies)

Supreme Court says we have a Right to Guns, Free Speech ect. the Supreme court also says you cant MAKE people in prey in School or swear that you believe in god to gain a Government position.

I could go on and on about this subject by I suggest you do your own reading on it. You will find that I am correct

This should help (That or reading the many books on the subject)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... sions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishm ... _Amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

America was founded by Christians and with a heavy influence on the bible. But there is a reason Government officials do not report or are not required to hold religious positions. our Founding Fathers (Think the Pilgrims) saw what can and will happen when you have a government that is run by Theology, it prohibits FREEDOMS. America was never set up to be run a Christian Nation run by Christians or a particular branch of Christianity, its was a Nation of "The People" who at the time just happened to be for the majority Christians.

You are absolutel;y 100% WRONG. The establishment clause prohibits the government from setting up an established religion. It also means that the government can not require religious observances, nor can it promote them. It does not say that the government can ban religious observances, no matter what some twisted "athiests" think.

Some people have a really hard time understanding plain English. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." seems pretty plain to me. Congress (and by extension, the States -via incorporation) can not start a "Church of the United States" nor compel membership. But on the other side of the coin, they can not prohibit citizens from exercising their religions.

The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from Thomas Jefferson who, incedentally, was not involved in the drafting of the Constitution.

Curiously, those same "athiests" who complain about the mythical "separation of church and state" whenever Christians want to pray in public spaces or display historical artifacts such as someone's Bible in them are strangely mute when it comes to schools having a "pretend you're a Muslim" day.

[mr.72]

What I am vainly trying to say is that I don't like the past or current administrations manipulation of licenses through the FCC being used to silence detractors. I really need to get back to 2 or 3 cups of coffee in the morning, I can't think straight on just one.

Do you have any evidence that this is or has ever happened? I am not disputing it, I am just asking.

Obviously, there is no explicit intent or FCC rule to restrict or change licenses according to licensee's political philosophy or opinions being expressed on the air. This would be a gross violation of freedom of the press and free political speech and would represent corruption in government that should put people in prison.

The only times I recall where the President made an effort at controlling broadcast media was the Clinton-era "fairness doctrine" (which was not an FCC rule) and the current administration's public position regarding Fox News.

[android]

Curiously, those same "athiests" who complain about the mythical "separation of church and state" whenever Christians want to pray in public spaces or display historical artifacts such as someone's Bible in them are strangely mute when it comes to schools having a "pretend you're a Muslim" day.

No complaint from me as long as my daughter and her friends can have "pretend you're a Mossad agent" on the same day!

But seriously, if my daughter came home with such a thing, I'd be going ballistic. She doesn't need to pretend she's anything but an armadillo in her theater class.

[Purplehood]

What I am vainly trying to say is that I don't like the past or current administrations manipulation of licenses through the FCC being used to silence detractors. I really need to get back to 2 or 3 cups of coffee in the morning, I can't think straight on just one.

Do you have any evidence that this is or has ever happened? I am not disputing it, I am just asking.

Obviously, there is no explicit intent or FCC rule to restrict or change licenses according to licensee's political philosophy or opinions being expressed on the air. This would be a gross violation of freedom of the press and free political speech and would represent corruption in government that should put people in prison.

The only times I recall where the President made an effort at controlling broadcast media was the Clinton-era "fairness doctrine" (which was not an FCC rule) and the current administration's public position regarding Fox News.

I read about it all the time in that propaganda rag I get every month, called "American Rifleman". I read that sucker cover to cover. Current events suggest that the FCC is now trying to get rid of the large right-wing broadcasters and allow "local" (read that as "the Proletariat") stations to take their place.

EDIT: Since sarcasm is hard to show in print, I am being silly when I call it a propaganda rag. Carry on.

[joe817]

I read about it all the time in that propaganda rag I get every month, called "American Rifleman". I read that sucker cover to cover. Current events suggest that the FCC is now trying to get rid of the large right-wing broadcasters and allow "local" (read that as "the Proletariat") stations to take their place.

Not to argue with you, but can you cite some instances where that is happening?

I see quite the contrary happening. There are new networks emerging targeting the hunting, shooting, fishing and outdoor activities. The Sportsman Channel, Hunting Channel, Outdoors Channel.

They broadcast daily episodes devoted to hunting, fishing and shooting. There are about 6 or 7 programs devoted exclusively to guns, self defense and shooting. Guns & Ammo Magazine and the NRA themselves have shows aired several times per week.

And these are emerging networks, not the tried and true big 3 or little 5 networks we all grew up with.

There are many emerging TV networks that have a very broad viewer base. And they cover the entire spectrum of human interests. Some I don't care for at all, and I don't watch them. It's my choice.

The FCC also regulates radio stations. The AM dial is overloaded with talk shows. And to my knowledge, every one of them is conservative in nature. Many are TO conservative for my tastes. I don't know of any liberal talk shows out there, except those you can get on a subscription basis only.

Finally, the MPAA is a rating organization. IMO it is beneficial, and serves a purpose. It is not a censorship organization. Isn't every motion picture produced nowadays rated by MPAA? (I ask that in sincerity because I really don't know)

[mr.72]

I read about it all the time in that propaganda rag I get every month, called "American Rifleman". I read that sucker cover to cover. Current events suggest that the FCC is now trying to get rid of the large right-wing broadcasters and allow "local" (read that as "the Proletariat") stations to take their place.

Not to argue with you, but can you cite some instances where that is happening?

Ditto that. I would like to see some example of THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION revoking the license of a broadcaster due to the political or ideological content of their broadcast. I am not talking about decency standards, or fines due to violations of the rules, unless you can cite a rule that involves political or ideological content which has been violated and resulted in a fine or other action from the Feds.

I see quite the contrary happening. There are new networks emerging targeting the hunting, shooting, fishing and outdoor activities. The Sportsman Channel, Hunting Channel, Outdoors Channel.

The FCC regulates broadcast television service, not cable or satellite pay channels. So these specialized networks, along with CNN, CNBC, Fox News, MSNBC, ESPN, Univision, WFN, Golf Channel, Speed, whatever, are not regulated or licensed by the FCC. They may be subject to other government regulation, I am not an expert on this topic.

The FCC DOES regulate anything that connects to the PSTN (public switched telephone network), probably actual cable wiring installations, and most certainly satellite bandwidth. So your satellite service may on the whole be subject to FCC regulation, but it has nothing to do with the individual channels and only to do with the use of the broadcast spectrum for pay television service (or whatever, private service). FCC also regulates wireless phones and anything else that runs over the air.

And these are emerging networks, not the tried and true big 3 or little 5 networks we all grew up with.

Those are the ones regulated by the FCC. That is, if you can pick it up on an antenna over the air for free, it is subject to the FCC regulation regarding decency and content standards (commercials, political ads, etc.).

The FCC also regulates radio stations. The AM dial is overloaded with talk shows. And to my knowledge, every one of them is conservative in nature. Many are TO conservative for my tastes. I don't know of any liberal talk shows out there, except those you can get on a subscription basis only.

yeah but FM radio is loaded with the other stations. But the difference is that liberals tend to want to be entertained with music, and conservatives tend to want to listen to news-related commentary and talk.

Finally, the MPAA is a rating organization. IMO it is beneficial, and serves a purpose. It is not a censorship organization. Isn't every motion picture produced nowadays rated by MPAA? (I ask that in sincerity because I really don't know)

No, not every movie is rated by the MPAA.

A lot of movies are released for public consumption in theaters with an MPAA rating and then later released on DVD in "unrated" form, but the vast majority of movies and other films are not rated by the MPAA, but since most of these are either direct-to-video, made-for-TV, or independent in some other way, they are not intended for mass marketing and presentation in your normal movie theaters. And of course there is an enormous catalog of "adult" films that are not rated by the MPAA.

[Purplehood]

Next time I am reading my stack of American Rifleman in my home "office" on the back of my porcelain throne, I will find the article and point you all at it.

[joe817]

Well thanks for the explanation mr.72!

What a great forum! I learn something new here everyday!

[A-R]

Where is it written that censorship can only be undertaken by government? Private entities censor voices all the time. Difference is that if the government is the group doing the censoring, then the people being censored have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." If a private entity does the censoring, they can tell you to take a hike and that's that.

Actually that is exactly the difference and there is 100% no problem with that. If you don't like the MPAA, stop watching movies with MPAA ratings. If enough people stop watching MPAA-rated movies then the organization will cease to exist.

The problem with the government is that if I don't like government actions (censorship or whatever), then I cannot choose not to be a consumer of the government. If I don't like how the government is doing something, I can't decide not to pay taxes anymore without winding up in prison. So that's why the public has the right to petition the government because they do not have the right to not be consumers of the government.

And what about the businessman - a movie maker, for instance, to keep with the same theme - whose movies cannot be shown in any theater in the US because he doesn't submit to the MPAA? He can't choose to not submit to MPAA because if he does he has no business. This may not be as obvious and black and white as the government telling someone "no", but the result is the same. His freedom is infringed by the actions of a large powerful group, but unlike the government, he has little or no ability to vote this group out of power.

As an aside, I don't really care that much about MPAA. I rarely watch movies anymore anyway. It was just an example that was being discussed that allowed me to elaborate on my larger point.

This is a prime example of the fallacy that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than government. At least we - the people - have the right (and sometimes the ability) to change how our government behaves.

No, it is exactly opposite of what you say. I do NOT have the same ability to change the way government behaves. The government does what it does and I am forced to comply at the point of a gun and under threat of arrest. When a private enterprise does something I don't like, I just choose not to consume their product. Monopoly or not, I can decide if the product or service they produce is worth my compliance with their means of producing it enough for me to elect to pay for it. But not so with government.

If we, as consumers, deplete a private business of revenue by choosing not to consume their product or service, then they will be forced to either change their behavior, product or service, or they will cease to exist (that is, until, as illustrated for the past year, the government will step in and give them money to continue operating even though the consumer en masse has voted with their wallets for them to cease). But to deprive the government of revenue by choosing not to pay is "criminal" and if done in an organized manner is tantamount to revolution.,

How do you "choose" to not buy the product of the monopoly? No one else is selling the product! That's why it's a monopoly. Obviously if it's a discretionary expense, such as movie tickets, you can choose to just not watch movies at all. But that is a false choice. And if the product is mandatory (something you can't live without - like medicine or drinking water), then you truly have no choice AND you have no ability to change the power structure of the monopoly through a vote. This is why the "trust busters" like Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft et al put an end to unregulated monopolies at the turn of the last century. A private monopoly is infinitely more dangerous than any democratically elected government.

So "Capitalism at its finest" = censorship? I realize the easy response to this is "but the movie studios voluntarily join the MPAA" .... but "voluntarily" is often a deceptive term in such discussions. How voluntary is your participation in something if not participating will surely lead to the ruin of your business? Not exactly the textbook definition of "voluntary" .... more like coercion.

No, this is not coercion! There is a benefit to joining: increased market appeal. The benefit to not joining is freedom to do what you want, which is a risk. The MPAA members have established a standard that typically improves your odds of successfully marketing a film so it is a great benefit to join and comply if you would like to market films. But there is no coercion. The reality is that the public at large prefers movies produced by MPAA-member studios according to those standards, and if you are in the fringe minority then you can not join and you will wind up marketing your product to like-minded fringe minority of people.

Re-read my post, I said "like coercion". It is not textbook definition of coercion, because there is no immediate threat. But it is very similar in that there is an implied threat (or risk) that failure to comply will result in detrimental effects. "Benefit to joining" is well spun double-speak. There is always a "benefit" to complying with any coercion, and an opposite detriment to not complying. But none of this can be defined - even generously - as "voluntary" which is defined as "acting on one's own accord; of one's own free will, without compulsion or obligation." Just because a group can get their way by coercing someone privately and not through an overt government action, does mean that group is not limiting someone else's freedom and liberty.

[A-R]

Where is it written that censorship can only be undertaken by government? Private entities censor voices all the time. Difference is that if the government is the group doing the censoring, then the people being censored have the right to "petition the government for a redress of grievances." If a private entity does the censoring, they can tell you to take a hike and that's that.

Actually that is exactly the difference and there is 100% no problem with that. If you don't like the MPAA, stop watching movies with MPAA ratings. If enough people stop watching MPAA-rated movies then the organization will cease to exist.

The problem with the government is that if I don't like government actions (censorship or whatever), then I cannot choose not to be a consumer of the government. If I don't like how the government is doing something, I can't decide not to pay taxes anymore without winding up in prison. So that's why the public has the right to petition the government because they do not have the right to not be consumers of the government.

And what about the businessman - a movie maker, for instance, to keep with the same theme - whose movies cannot be shown in any theater in the US because he doesn't submit to the MPAA? He can't choose to not submit to MPAA because if he does he has no business. This may not be as obvious and black and white as the government telling someone "no", but the result is the same. His freedom is infringed by the actions of a large powerful group, but unlike the government, he has little or no ability to vote this group out of power.

As an aside, I don't really care that much about MPAA. I rarely watch movies anymore anyway. It was just an example that was being discussed that allowed me to elaborate on my larger point.

This is a prime example of the fallacy that private enterprise is ALWAYS better than government. At least we - the people - have the right (and sometimes the ability) to change how our government behaves.

No, it is exactly opposite of what you say. I do NOT have the same ability to change the way government behaves. The government does what it does and I am forced to comply at the point of a gun and under threat of arrest. When a private enterprise does something I don't like, I just choose not to consume their product. Monopoly or not, I can decide if the product or service they produce is worth my compliance with their means of producing it enough for me to elect to pay for it. But not so with government.

If we, as consumers, deplete a private business of revenue by choosing not to consume their product or service, then they will be forced to either change their behavior, product or service, or they will cease to exist (that is, until, as illustrated for the past year, the government will step in and give them money to continue operating even though the consumer en masse has voted with their wallets for them to cease). But to deprive the government of revenue by choosing not to pay is "criminal" and if done in an organized manner is tantamount to revolution.,

How do you "choose" to not buy the product of the monopoly? No one else is selling the product! That's why it's a monopoly. Obviously if it's a discretionary expense, such as movie tickets, you can choose to just not watch movies at all. But that is a false choice. And if the product is mandatory (something you can't live without - like medicine or drinking water), then you truly have no choice AND you have no ability to change the power structure of the monopoly through a vote. This is why the "trust busters" like Teddy Roosevelt and William Howard Taft et al put an end to unregulated monopolies at the turn of the last century. A private monopoly is infinitely more dangerous than any democratically elected government.

So "Capitalism at its finest" = censorship? I realize the easy response to this is "but the movie studios voluntarily join the MPAA" .... but "voluntarily" is often a deceptive term in such discussions. How voluntary is your participation in something if not participating will surely lead to the ruin of your business? Not exactly the textbook definition of "voluntary" .... more like coercion.

No, this is not coercion! There is a benefit to joining: increased market appeal. The benefit to not joining is freedom to do what you want, which is a risk. The MPAA members have established a standard that typically improves your odds of successfully marketing a film so it is a great benefit to join and comply if you would like to market films. But there is no coercion. The reality is that the public at large prefers movies produced by MPAA-member studios according to those standards, and if you are in the fringe minority then you can not join and you will wind up marketing your product to like-minded fringe minority of people.

Re-read my post, I said "like coercion". It is not textbook definition of coercion, because there is no immediate threat. But it is very similar in that there is an implied threat (or risk) that failure to comply will result in detrimental effects. "Benefit to joining" is well spun double-speak. There is always a "benefit" to complying with any coercion, and an opposite detriment to not complying. But none of this can be defined - even generously - as "voluntary" which is defined as "acting on one's own accord; of one's own free will, without compulsion or obligation." Just because a group can get their way by coercing someone privately and not through an overt government action, does mean that group is not limiting someone else's freedom and liberty.

[marksiwel]

"Separation of church and state" is a myth perpetrated by anti-Christians and has no basis in the Constitution or any other of our founding documents.

No its a very real thing (even if you dont want it to be)
Look up the "establishment clause" its in the 1st Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (among other things)
Then compare that to cases like "McCollum v. Board of Education" a Supreme Court ruling that said (paraphrasing) that teaching a Religion in a public school is against the Establishment clause. The group they ruled against was trying to get some of the Classes they were trying to get taught were JEWISH CLASSES. Do you want your Tax dollars going towards the teaching of Jewish and/or Islamic religions? Do you think THEY want their Tax Dollars going towards Christian classes? No of course not. The government shouldn't have a say on Religion unless its impeding on people's rights (like the Marrying 16 year olds or denying medical care to babies)

Supreme Court says we have a Right to Guns, Free Speech ect. the Supreme court also says you cant MAKE people in prey in School or swear that you believe in god to gain a Government position.

I could go on and on about this subject by I suggest you do your own reading on it. You will find that I am correct

This should help (That or reading the many books on the subject)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... sions.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishm ... _Amendment" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

America was founded by Christians and with a heavy influence on the bible. But there is a reason Government officials do not report or are not required to hold religious positions. our Founding Fathers (Think the Pilgrims) saw what can and will happen when you have a government that is run by Theology, it prohibits FREEDOMS. America was never set up to be run a Christian Nation run by Christians or a particular branch of Christianity, its was a Nation of "The People" who at the time just happened to be for the majority Christians.

You are absolutel;y 100% WRONG. The establishment clause prohibits the government from setting up an established religion. It also means that the government can not require religious observances, nor can it promote them. It does not say that the government can ban religious observances, no matter what some twisted "athiests" think.

Some people have a really hard time understanding plain English. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." seems pretty plain to me. Congress (and by extension, the States -via incorporation) can not start a "Church of the United States" nor compel membership. But on the other side of the coin, they can not prohibit citizens from exercising their religions.

The phrase "separation of church and state" comes from Thomas Jefferson who, incedentally, was not involved in the drafting of the Constitution.

Curiously, those same "athiests" who complain about the mythical "separation of church and state" whenever Christians want to pray in public spaces or display historical artifacts such as someone's Bible in them are strangely mute when it comes to schools having a "pretend you're a Muslim" day.

I dont see how we both point to the same piece of paper and say the same thing, and I'm the one thats wrong
The Supreme Court, has gone on to say that there should be a Separation of Church and state is in the Spirit of the Establishment clause (paraphrasing)
Mythical it aint friend, sorry its very Real and very important. You can pray outside in public, you just cant do it on Government land (even then most places wont stop you) or with government backing, I dont see why this upsets you so.
never heard of a School having a "Pretend your a Muslim day"

As far as Thomas Jefferson
*Wrote the Declaration of Independence
*Jefferson was in France during drafting, but did write many letters and had a great influence on the Constitution and those writing it,
Not to mention other things he had an influence on- the founding of the Federal Government, Secretary of State, a vice President, and the 3rd President of the US, I'd say his words have a great effect on the constitution on the founding of America in general, and to disregard his influence is myopic at best