[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

Okay for you, but the SC disagrees. We could discuss the SC, but probably should not do it in this thread.

Agreed.

That's loaded in so many ways... How about, "People who listen to radio"?

If they are voters, then they are some subset of who decides.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

It's not free speech. The airwaves are not free, and corporations are not people. I answered the question you asked. Why are you pretending like you asked something else?

??? Well, first of all, you weren't responding to any question of mine, but it's understandable that you're confused; unless you're pretending I asked you, in which case it all makes perfect sense. Secondly, corporations are by and large considered people, even if you don't. Thirdly, the government only controls the frequency, not what is said on it by private corporations or individuals, and there's enough legal and historical precedent for that for this not even to be a real issue. Finally, how positively ridiculous is it for you or anyone to suggest that registered voters be allowed to dictate what's on the air?

Ultimately, the real question is: why would liberals even care?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

??? Well, first of all, you weren't responding to any question of mine, but it's understandable that you're confused; unless you're pretending I asked you, in which case it all makes perfect sense.

Semantics. I was answering a question asked (by JFool). Your response takes my statement entirely out of the context of the question it was addressing.

Secondly, corporations are by and large considered people, even if you don't. Thirdly, the government only controls the frequency, not what is said on it by private corporations or individuals, and there's enough legal and historical precedent for that for this not even to be a real issue.

Oh really? Would you like to explain how the fine for Janet Jackon's "wardrobe malfunction" is not control of what is said / shown by private corporations?

Finally, how positively ridiculous is it for you or anyone to suggest that registered voters be allowed to dictate what's on the air?

I didn't suggest that they should be allowed to: I stated that they currently do. Again: you are not responding to what I said by virtue of recontextualizing the comment.

Ultimately, the real question is: why would liberals even care?

Care about what? You are skipping around topics pretty quickly and without notice.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Semantics. I was answering a question asked (by JFool). Your response takes my statement entirely out of the context of the question it was addressing.

What context do you think I found for your statement? I only ask because I'm pretty sure you were asked who decides what should air, and you answered registered voters. If you meant something other than what you said, by all means, educate me.

Oh really? Would you like to explain how the fine for Janet Jackon's "wardrobe malfunction" is not control of what is said / shown by private corporations?

The whole ordeal proved that the government has no control over what happens on air, only what happens after. Their solution? Ask the stations to police themselves or face fines. The fine itself? Nullified. Vacated by the supreme court, sent back to federal court for another look. Still up in the air a near decade later. That's no control. Its hardly even a threat.

I didn't suggest that they should be allowed to: I stated that they currently do. Again: you are not responding to what I said by virtue of recontextualizing the comment.

If you think they currently do, then you're not paying attention. Can you support your assertion.

Care about what? You are skipping around topics pretty quickly and without notice.

If you're not aware of the topic, the single topic, that is being discussed in this thread, perhaps you should bow out. It begs the question, however; why are you participating in the thread at all?

[jthomas1600]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Semantics. I was answering a question asked (by JFool). Your response takes my statement entirely out of the context of the question it was addressing.

Oh really? Would you like to explain how the fine for Janet Jackon's "wardrobe malfunction" is not control of what is said / shown by private corporations?

I didn't suggest that they should be allowed to: I stated that they currently do. Again: you are not responding to what I said by virtue of recontextualizing the comment.

Care about what? You are skipping around topics pretty quickly and without notice.

Is that what you'd call a red herring? Something that really is not relevant to the discussion but just a distraction? Sure there are certain swear words you can't say on the radio and a level of adult content that is censored on the air. But when we're talking about controlling the airways here we're talking about forcing a network to discus certain political views or limiting them in how much they can talk about other views. So far I don't think that's something the government has controlled and I don't think it's something they should control. What's next? All rap/hip hop stations need to give equal time to country western music and classic rock?

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

All rap/hip hop stations need to give equal time to country western music and classic rock?

Hear hear!

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by S.B.Nichols

What context do you think I found for your statement? I only ask because I'm pretty sure you were asked who decides what should air, and you answered registered voters. If you meant something other than what you said, by all means, educate me.

The context is that it was presupposed, for the sake of the question, that there was not an inherent free-speech violation.

The questioner was asking *who* would decide regulation (I believe he asserted someone), not whether regulation was inherently free-speech or not.

I answered the question "if we had regulation, who would decide what was regulated". "How is that free speech" (your question) was antethetical to the premise of the question.

The whole ordeal proved that the government has no control over what happens on air, only what happens after. Their solution? Ask the stations to police themselves or face fines. The fine itself? Nullified. Vacated by the supreme court, sent back to federal court for another look. Still up in the air a near decade later. That's no control. Its hardly even a threat.

You seem to want to eat your cake and have it too.

There *are* regulations on speech over the airwaves. To dismiss that fact because you feel they are not enforced well engouh (I haven't seen porn on NBC lately, have you), while simultaniously attacking a suggestion of regulation (which would not presumably be enforced any better) is hypocritical.

If you think they currently do, then you're not paying attention. Can you support your assertion.

Certainly: OET -- Rules & Regulations Page

If you're not aware of the topic, the single topic, that is being discussed in this thread, perhaps you should bow out. It begs the question, however; why are you participating in the thread at all?

That's passive-aggressive; so unless the one topic is "Is Jerry aware of the topic", or "why is Jerry participating on this thread", why don't *you* bow out... or better still, come on over to my house and we can discuss it in person. I would be interested to see if your commentary maintains its tone.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by jthomas1600

Is that what you'd call a red herring? Something that really is not relevant to the discussion but just a distraction? Sure there are certain swear words you can't say on the radio and a level of adult content that is censored on the air. But when we're talking about controlling the airways here we're talking about forcing a network to discus certain political views or limiting them in how much they can talk about other views. So far I don't think that's something the government has controlled and I don't think it's something they should control. What's next? All rap/hip hop stations need to give equal time to country western music and classic rock?

Given your response, I would say that "red herring" would not be the proper label. I'm not sure of the proper jargon for what you feel I'm doing, but I think it would be safe to say that you feel I'm over-generalizing.

I think that there's some validity to both my statement and your response. We should start by recognizing that, indeed, free speech is not absolute. It's not even absolute when we are not discussing the FCC (you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater).

I think we need to aknowledge (my wardrobe example) that there *is* more restriction on the airwaves than not (well, that would have been illegal in public in many states... but I digress).

We can then discuss the reasonableness of how far to take it.

From where I sit, some (much?) of the opposition has taken the hyperbolic stance that any impingement on "free speech" is unreasonable and not already established. I don't believe they would phrase it that way, but it seems a prerequsite to many of their comments.

Perhaps I can be forgiven some reducto-ad-absurdum hyperbole of my own in the interest of esblishing a proper frame work (there are limits to free speech, there is a public interest in controlling the use of commercial RF even more than there is general speech); and from there we can discuss what sane limits might be and why.

[S.B.Nichols]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Certainly: OET -- Rules & Regulations Page

You'll need to be a bit more specific, if you can. Actually, you need to be very specific. I could point to the same website for support. Actually, I think I will.

OET -- Rules & Regulations Page

That's passive-aggressive; so unless the one topic is "Is Jerry aware of the topic", or "why is Jerry participating on this thread", why don't *you* bow out... or better still, come on over to my house and we can discuss it in person. I would be interested to see if your commentary maintains its tone.

Just taking my lead from you, sir. The point is, if you don't know what we're talking about, and are apparently unwilling to learn, I'm not sure what you're doing. (actually, I do, but don't worry, I won't tell anyone)

[adamwagg]

Things have been very friendly in CE of late. Let's keep it that way everyone.

[Jfool]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

... , there is a public interest in controlling the use of commercial RF even more than there is general speech); and from there we can discuss what sane limits might be and why.

I just can't figure out what the problem is. What is so horribly wrong with radio the way it is today, that we need some new government regulation? Aside from liberals complaining of there not being enough liberal talk shows. Do you really mean to argue government should go that far?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by Jfool

I just can't figure out what the problem is. What is so horribly wrong with radio the way it is today, that we need some new government regulation?

From the article:

"Enacted under President Truman in 1949, the Fairness Doctrine sought to ensure"

So it's not new.

Aside from liberals complaining of there not being enough liberal talk shows. Do you really mean to argue government should go that far?

I'm neither attacking nor defending this particular piece of legislation. It is simply not interesting to me. I did get involved with the more general discussion of regulation of the airwaves in general. I'm happy to discuss that broad topic.