On this subject, I have to recommend one segment on the Jimmy Kimmel show on Fridays, “This Week in Gratuitous Censorship”. Even if you don’t like Kimmel, check it out. Maybe mute the TV until he gets to that segment.
In the unlikely event that that wasn’t just another post-padding drive-by and you actually return to check for a response, the answer is simple: nobody cares, not anymore.
But the real answer, of course, is that the airwaves in this country are not private property: they are public property, just like a National Forest is public property. The networks lease the airwaves from us, which means that we’re allowed to put certain restrictions on how those folks use our property.
Is this a good system? I’ve got real mixed feelings about it. On the one hand, private ownership of the means of communication can get the country into real big trouble, and it’s harder to get bigger than public airwaves. On the other hand, I’m not real impressed with how the FCC is representing me in negotiations with these companies. To say the least.
Fortunately, I hardly watch any TV. Computer games and comic books are far more interesting :).
Daniel
Geez Lib, why did you even answer her post?
Maybe he figured that by lying about the answer, he could provoke someone else into giving the correct answer. I dunno.
Daniel
You know, this is something that I have always wondered about. If I partially “own” the airwaves, and these companies are leasing them, where is the money going? Do I get a check at some point?
Incomplete answer. The story that prompted this thread mentiones efforts to expand the FCC sway over private channels also.
Cable and satellite radio are not public property, hence the Supreme Court ruling in that Playboy can show it’s skin flicks any time of the day and the sticking down of the Communications Decency Act. Any move to regulate these outlets, I think, will be quickly shot down by the courts.
I believe the move to raise the top fine from $27K to $500K is clearly an effort to chill expression. The FCC can’t enfore prior restraint, but is trying to make the potential fine so heavy that it has the same affect by causing broadcasters to not air anything even close to the line. I think it is unsound and worth challenging.
I don’t like children at the supermarket. I find them loud, offensive and generally horrible creatures. I am not the only person who would prefer to go grocery shopping in a kidless environment. And you know, scream and curse all you want about your right to reproduce or whatever, but I have to go to the grocery store, there’s no way around it. And so I go… and am assaulted by children and babies and their smelliness and stickiness and shrieking or giggling or whatever it is that children do when they’re not quiet. FURTHERMORE, I don’t want my own (very bright, quiet) child to be subjected to a bunch of squalling brats.
Should the government regulate whether or not you may bring your children to the supermarket because it pisses me off?
What if I got 23 letters from other people who agree with me?
The short answer is, "It doesn’t because the Supreme Court says it doesn’t. If you want a longer answer…
In Roth v. US, decided in 1957, the Supreme Court ruled that obscenity is not protected under the First Amendment. Here’s a link to the Roth decision:
In FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, the Court ruled that the FCC does have the power to regulate obscene, indecent, or profane language broadcast by licensees, and to punish the broadcasters.
Assuming, of course, that it wasnt a just another post-padding drive-by.
The money, by law, goes into the US Treasury and is part of the annual federal budget.
Thank you. That’s what I wanted to know. (Although the average Doper’s idea of obscenity will differ from say, the Left Behind board’s idea of obscenity).
I sent some e-mail to the FCC asking about it. It’s not clear from their website that they have any mechanism for handling “complaints” that aren’t really complaints. If the reply is interesting, I’ll post what I find out.
When the last round of fines was levied against Howard Stern, he let through an avalanche of callers that said they wanted to write the FCC saying that they specifically found nothing offensive in the broadcast. Howard urged them all not to do this, saying (no cite, obviously) that the FCC can and will simply count all letters received as complaints, regardless of content.
So his alternative for the many listeners who wanted to support him was that they should send complaints about Oprah’s teen sex show, which he was not allowed to air due to fears of being fined by the FCC. His point was to outline the double standard of the FCC.
Interesting, I hadn’t heard about that.
I’m surprised no one has posted a link yet to The FCC Song by Eric Idle.
That’s all.
Newspeak: “The airwaves are owned by the public”
English: “The airwaves have been expropriated by the politicians in power”
I don’t know about this. Similar to what has already been said about the Fucking Communications Commission treating all letters as complaints, my brother and I wrote our senator (John McCain) earlier this year to express our concern and negative feelings for the Broadcast Indecency Act. What we got back was something to the effect of:
“Thank you for expressing your concern over the indecency that permeates our airways today. Don’t worry, I am in your corner and fighting to pass the Broadcast Indecency Act…etc., etc., etc.”
Your country sucks, dudes. It never used to, but now it’s gone. And it’s getting even suckier as every day passes.
I’m sorry for you all.
For your information, it was post-marital sex. An earlier version of the script explained that at the beginning of the scene, she was wearing a wedding towel.