[Tauntenue]

Dump the censorship and let the free market work. Parents already have parental controls and V-chips to control which stations their kids watch and even limit which shows they can watch based on the ratings so what's the problem? If this is an issue for them the ball is in their court and they can control it if they want to but don't tell the rest of us we have to be censored because they're to lazy to use the tools they have.

[RedImmik]

I thought GOP's were for less gvernement ?

[SodeSceriobia]

He's obviously brown nosing for votes in an election year. Like I said, he's spineless and just goes with the flow.

[ptmQqoxw]

I thought GOP's were for less gvernement ?

HAHA! More fool you. Guess which party is always trying to increase censorship "to protect the children".

[Greactbet]

No, the GOP is for carefully applied government. They believe the government should only interfere with the sexual relations of consenting adults and the sovereignty of nations run by brown people.

Oh, and if they want to buy alcohol... And if they want to open a store on Sunday... And if they want to see a movie which shows a bit of skin... And if someone wants to wear clothing they don't like... Or if a non-white person wants to actually vote in an election... Or if a state actually wants to enact laws campaign donors at the Fed level don't like (see the Federal pre-emption of state fair lending laws)... Or... Well ****, the list just goes on and on because they love big government but only want it used for things they like.

[Cibirrigmavog]

I thought GOP's were for less gvernement ?

Republicans and Democrats are both big government parties - they just want different types of big government.

[SobiquYo]

It's somewhat of a tough case, IMO. Mostly because, if I understand correctly, the broadcast networks are using broadcast frequencies owned by the US Government. In that case, can't the government decide on what should be aired on its property?

[EmpokemyMok]

It's somewhat of a tough case, IMO. Mostly because, if I understand correctly, the broadcast networks are using broadcast frequencies owned by the US Government. In that case, can't the government decide on what should be aired on its property?

The US Government owning the frequencies is stupid though. There's no good reason for them to claim ownership except that they can by force.

Furthermore, no, the government is leasing that ****, they should not be in a position to be dictate what is okay and what isn't because no one is making the goddamn idiotic assumption that what is aired is construed as explicitly approved by the government. Only a sophist or an idiot would make that leap.

[temansertewek]

I think controlling it is a better way to look at it then ownership. Conflict of frequencies by broadcasters would destroy the system. And its a good way to raise additional funds for the government.

In the old days it almost made sense for the feds to set standards.
These days it doesn't make as much sense due to the way people receive their signals. Most people now use an alternate to over the air broadcast so there really isn't much differentiation. And most of the younger generation have never watched it over the air.

And standards have changed and are somewhat flexible. In the old days you would never have much of an argument that tits and asses weren't appropriate on TV. These days that's not considered an automatic.

So I think the standards should be lowered. If they want to protect the early evening hour, I'd have no problems with that. But it seems silly when on the same set the other cable channels maintain their own standards.

I do find it funny that some of the censorship on AMC or TBS is sometimes more stringent then NBC or ABC.

[imawlBoli]

It's somewhat of a tough case, IMO. Mostly because, if I understand correctly, the broadcast networks are using broadcast frequencies owned by the US Government. In that case, can't the government decide on what should be aired on its property?

Why doesn't the US government claim to own the letters in the alphabet? Then it can decide what gets to be published.

[lizadax]

Why doesn't the US government claim to own the letters in the alphabet? Then it can decide what gets to be published.

If the US gov wants to claim that paper is public, they can try, I don't think it could be argued well though.

They could make an argument that trees are, though.

Letters are completely different.

You don't understand what you are talking about (not unusual).

JM

[moredasers]

Who owns the highway system, MRT144?

JM

The people! Not some ****tarded puritan bureaucrat in DC. Are you trying to be dense.

[Goseciwx]

I don't understand why a new broadcaster would choose a frequency that conflicts with an already existing broadcaster in the area. Wouldn't it be in their interest to avoid doing that?

History suggests otherwise as that was one of the reasons the forerunner of the FCC was created in 1927.

[layedgebiamma]

But the bureaucrat in DC is who administers them and decides how to run them. And he is selected by people who are sent to washington by the vote of the people.

Do you now understand how government works at all?

JM

He's selected by a plutocrat politician and invariably has a conflict of interest in upholding the public good. Don't you understand government in practice vs. government in theory.

[indartwm]

BTW my prediction is our right wing supreme court will rule in favor of censorship because they're enormous hypocrites. Maybe they'll surprise me though.

You're talking about the court that ruled 8-1 for Fred Phelps. Oerdin, this is another case of you always being wrong.

[LookSe]

You're talking about the court that ruled 8-1 for Fred Phelps. Oerdin, this is another case of you always being wrong.

Broken clocks are right twice a day.

You never responded to that article I posted that clearly showed how not in favor free speech they are. I'm pretty disappointed that you aren't letting evidence affect your perception and you've retreated into cognitive dissonance when it come to the Robert's Court and Free Speech.

Here is that article again.

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-ro...ouble-standard

[shenacatro]

Already doing that. Doesn't justify the loopy bullshit done in the name of the public good or that ownership and lease confers oversight. A landlord can't evict people for sodomy, just as a government shouldn't be allowed to fine a network for showing sodomy.

But the government can do something if you are engaging in sodomy on top of your car on the side of the road...

JM

[Logaleta]

A landlord can't evict people for sodomy

Only because of government regulation. You know, that thing that you are arguing against .

[irrawnWab]

The people! Not some ****tarded puritan bureaucrat in DC. Are you trying to be dense.

It is ironic that you ask if he's trying to be dense considering you are doing a great job of it yourself.

[libertiespana]

Only because of government regulation. You know, that thing that you are arguing against .

TV enjoyed in the comfort of ones own home is closer to sodomy laws than public nudity and sex cases.

Why should the government restrict what consenting adults watch in their own home? Because it lays ownership claim to the airwaves? That's not good enough to protect landlords from evicting sodomites, and it shouldnt be enough for the government to control content. Unless you'd like to make the grand argument that government property rights supersede and are extra more special than other property rights.