What the PTC has figured out is that indecent TV and radio was being allowed simply because the FCC only takes action when it gets a complaint from somebody in the public. No complaint, nobody was harmed so no foul.
The FCC is still in control over what is indecent, so the PTC's power is merely that of spotter. If they complain about something that isn't over the line nothing will happen. Of course, a big problem with the current system is that the FCC doesn't have
EVERYTHING offends these people, their jobs is to get people upset so they will donate money to them so they do not have to get real jobs.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the fifth worst network TV show for families in this year's PTC's Top 10 Best and Worst Report, has licensed a line of toys for kids ages 8 and up. CSI features graphic scenes of blood, violence, and sex. Company Vice President and general manager of CBS Consumer Products, called it
Seems to me that shutting down the PTC would be censorship too. The PTC has every right to complain to the FCC if that is what they want to do. This is political free speech, constitutionally guaranteed and all. Other's have equal right to lobby FCC for the opposing view.
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech. It is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to broadcast this over the public airwaves. And government (acting on behalf of the public) does have the right to regulate what appears on such a public medium.
This regulation does not include the right to suppress political speech. However, suppressing speach is not the same denying the priviledge of airing snuff-videos (to use an extreme example).
You lobby the FCC to express your view where they should draw the line. This form of free speach is protected, and as far as I know unlikely to be changed by either the PTC or the ACLU.
You don't like FCC guidelines, lobby for you viewpoint. Tell them you want Desparate Housewives, tell them you want snuff films and pornography. It's your right to speak out that that is protected. As is the PTC's right for the same.
Yes, there is a reason I mentioned snuff films and pornography -- as I stated -- To make an example: I support the constitutional right or you or others to lobby for their position, even if the majority considers it extreme. Just like I do for the accused in thie story.
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech.
Go read the First Amendment again. It says "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." It is absolute in its prohibition and unlimited in the types of speech it protects. Now, the Court has not always been so generous in its interpretation of that Amendment, but it has consistently stated that more than simply political speech is protected.
I am sorry, do you attend public performances of any kind? Please be kind to tell me where.
So I can go there and yell FIRE!!!!!! in the middle of it.
Hey! It speech, and is therefore protected by law.
The court has been smart enough to interpret it as a possibly regulated disemination of ideas. Yelling fire and soap operas are not instances of spreading ideas. If you feel that they are, then you can go to court, and they will apply the litmus test set by SCOTUS to your case and tell you if you are right or
Yep. You can. Try yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre some time and pay attention to what you're charged with when they arrest you. Things like disrupting the peace, reckless endangerment, neglegent manslaughter, etc. None of those has anything to do with *what* you said, just the *consiquences* of saying it.
True, but as you yourself pointed out, reckless endangerment is a law against speech. Notice how just for saying a word, I can be charged with something. If I do not yell, but just calmly say fire, I
Of course soap operas are protected speech, otherwise they could be banned entirely like obscenity and child pornography. Simply because they are not absolutely protected does not mean that they are not protected at all. And the reason speech that can kill is prohibited is not because of the speech component, but because of the action component. It doesn't matter if I yell "fire" in a crowded theater or if I yell "free pr0n" on slashdot. The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which
And the reason speech that can kill is prohibited is not because of the speech component, but because of the action component.
Correct, but under the strict interpretation of the constitution, the action would have to have no laws for it as well, since all I have done is uttered a word. I did not personally kill anyone, people who listened to me did.
The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which is not on saying certain things, but on saying things that have a certain result.
You can't read the First Amendment literally like that, as the poster above me noted you can't yell fire in a theater. You can't disclose state secrets (like troop movements in war time), even if it is news.
Congress can regulate contracts (even though this could be seen as a form of speech).
It is not an absolute prohibition since there are other clauses that also have to be taken into consideration. But you're right, more than political speech is protected.
Why do all you religious wingnuts post anonymous? Do you really beleive what you say? I can't see how anyone can honestly believe that garbage.
If you argument holds then Muslims should get school sponsored in class prayer as well and don't foret them cooky hindus and crazy jews.
Give it a break. Go in the hallways and pray all you want. Why does anyone need to sanction it, which EXCLUDES others btw?
...the government shall pass no law preventing me from praying to whatever I want, wherever I want. That means I should be able to pray in schools, pray in libraries
So you think you should be allowed to kneel and start praying in the middle of a busy intersection? No one is stopping you from praying in schools or libraries, quietly and without disrupting other people. If, however, you want to stand on a chair in the middle of the library, and start preaching, I'll bet you'll be asked to leave.
Many of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Generally, most Christians would not include Deists among their number. The basic idea of Deism is that God created the universe and hasn't had anything to do with it since. Modern Deism generally does not have an opinion as to whether God created the world literally or just jump started the process.
An interesting fact is that Thomas Jefferson once edited a large portion of the New Testament covering the life of Jesus ("The Jefferson Bible"). His main changes
...sort of. What's happening here is that a group is ensuring that they're heard regardless of the rights of others. According to John Locke, on whose writings many of the points of American government are based, your rights stop when they infringe on someone else's rights. The PTC is messing with my right to enjoy Shakespeareian levels of violence and teenage sex, and thus they need to go take a flying leap.
I don't watch TV very much but I went to their website and read their "Latest Action Alert" for an ABC show called "Life as we know it":
[begin excerpt from Parents TV Council] " * Student Dino plots to take his girl friend Jackie's virginity. Viewers see the youngsters in his home while his parents are away; a shirtless Dino is half-lying across Jackie and he puts his hand into her pants. He says, "just take 'em off.... Doesn't it feel good to you?" Jackie says: "Yes. It feels too good. I don't
oooooo sex, masterbation. SCARY. POISENING CHILDREN. Come on! Babies suck on their mothers tits...did you know that? Isn't that indecent? Shouldn't somebody put a stop to it? What kind of crazy organism has a taboo against its own form of reproduction. How could such a thing possibly evolve. Maybe groups like the PTC will slowly leave the gene pool.
Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:3, Interesting)
What the PTC has figured out is that indecent TV and radio was being allowed simply because the FCC only takes action when it gets a complaint from somebody in the public. No complaint, nobody was harmed so no foul.
The FCC is still in control over what is indecent, so the PTC's power is merely that of spotter. If they complain about something that isn't over the line nothing will happen. Of course, a big problem with the current system is that the FCC doesn't have
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Informative)
EVERYTHING offends these people, their jobs is to get people upset so they will donate money to them so they do not have to get real jobs.
CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, the fifth worst network TV show for families in this year's PTC's Top 10 Best and Worst Report, has licensed a line of toys for kids ages 8 and up. CSI features graphic scenes of blood, violence, and sex. Company Vice President and general manager of CBS Consumer Products, called it
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:4, Insightful)
The government does not have the right to squash political speech. Desparate Housewives is not political speech. It is not a constitutionally guaranteed right to broadcast this over the public airwaves. And government (acting on behalf of the public) does have the right to regulate what appears on such a public medium.
This regulation does not include the right to suppress political speech. However, suppressing speach is not the same denying the priviledge of airing snuff-videos (to use an extreme example).
You lobby the FCC to express your view where they should draw the line. This form of free speach is protected, and as far as I know unlikely to be changed by either the PTC or the ACLU.
You don't like FCC guidelines, lobby for you viewpoint. Tell them you want Desparate Housewives, tell them you want snuff films and pornography. It's your right to speak out that that is protected. As is the PTC's right for the same.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
I do not recall supporting snuff films.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read the First Amendment again. It says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." It is absolute in its prohibition and unlimited in the types of speech it protects. Now, the Court has not always been so generous in its interpretation of that Amendment, but it has consistently stated that more than simply political speech is protected.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
So I can go there and yell FIRE!!!!!! in the middle of it.
Hey! It speech, and is therefore protected by law.
The court has been smart enough to interpret it as a possibly regulated disemination of ideas. Yelling fire and soap operas are not instances of spreading ideas. If you feel that they are, then you can go to court, and they will apply the litmus test set by SCOTUS to your case and tell you if you are right or
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
True, but as you yourself pointed out, reckless endangerment is a law against speech. Notice how just for saying a word, I can be charged with something. If I do not yell, but just calmly say fire, I
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)
Correct, but under the strict interpretation of the constitution, the action would have to have no laws for it as well, since all I have done is uttered a word. I did not personally kill anyone, people who listened to me did.
The content of the speech is irrelevant to the prohibition, which is not on saying certain things, but on saying things that have a certain result.
I unders
First Amendment (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Touche! (Score:1)
Re:Touche! (Score:2)
So you think you should be allowed to kneel and start praying in the middle of a busy intersection? No one is stopping you from praying in schools or libraries, quietly and without disrupting other people. If, however, you want to stand on a chair in the middle of the library, and start preaching, I'll bet you'll be asked to leave.
Re:Touche! (Score:1)
An interesting fact is that Thomas Jefferson once edited a large portion of the New Testament covering the life of Jesus ("The Jefferson Bible"). His main changes
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2, Interesting)
[begin excerpt from Parents TV Council]
" * Student Dino plots to take his girl friend Jackie's virginity. Viewers see the youngsters in his home while his parents are away; a shirtless Dino is half-lying across Jackie and he puts his hand into her pants. He says, "just take 'em off.... Doesn't it feel good to you?" Jackie says: "Yes. It feels too good. I don't
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:1)
What actual damage is it doing?
You think it is doing damage to your kids? Then don't let them watch it. Not your job to stop other peoples' kids from seeing it.
Re:Somebody's gotta do it. (Score:2)