Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Of course, the existence of micro-stations contradicts that argument. .

Many things, particularly technological development in the 35 years since Red Lion, contradict its arguments.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Um, please do. But because it's a scarce resource, it's considered to be subject to more government regulation than the press, where it's assumed anyone can print up a handbill. Put differently, the golden rule applies: because the gov't doles out the spectrum, it retains greater power to dictate content, or preclude certain content.

From your and AG's many posts on the subject, I understand that. I'm not really concerned with what the law is, but what the law should be. For example, why is something "indecent" if over the air but not in print? The scarcity of the resource should play no part in that determination.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Let that be a lesson to you. If you don't do the anal, you'll eventually have to leave.

I doubt that the new one, I think her name is Beth, does anal.

I just cannot fathom why a guy would want to stick his dick in a woman's asshole. I guess if she has had 4 kids and is all stretched out, maybe her ass is tighter.

But what about the feces? Isn't that a sexual turn off to you? Can't you smell it if you are having anal?

I guess the woman could do an enema first, or something like that, but is that appealing to you? Hey hun, I am feeling frisky tonight, how about you go upstairs and do an enema then change into something sexy?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For example, why is something "indecent" if over the air but not in print? The scarcity of the resource should play no part in that determination.

It's indecent either way. It's just that the gov't may regulate the indecency when it's put on a scarce resource, because 1A scrutiny is lowered. Kind of like how it cut funding for the NEA when it was turning out such art as "PissChrist"

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
It's indecent either way. It's just that the gov't may regulate the indecency when it's put on a scarce resource, because 1A scrutiny is lowered. Kind of like how it cut funding for the NEA when it was turning out such art as "PissChrist"

So you are saying that because the resources are scarce, the government can pick and chose the type of context to "promote"? That seems to make sence when the government is dolling out $ to support the resource, but not when the government is merely collecting a licensing fee.

[Dave]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
that is the kind of message that could be used on Fashion to help some of the meaner posters learn not to be so nasty to new posters, maybe seeing the last few moments of anguish before Mr. Ebola changed his sock to Dave would help people grow.

I'm your sock, Hank, except with better typing skills.* And I'm mostly sure that I'm mainly correct in saying I don't care nearly enough about politics to possibly be Mr. Ebola.

* You know, bacon tastes good and all that.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
That seems to make sence when the government is dolling out $ to support the resource, but not when the government is merely collecting a licensing fee.

Look at it as giving away a valuable resource for free. Compare to the recent cell phone spectrum auctions--licenses for spectrum are quite valuable, even more so when there were no alternatives.

And it's not really promotion; rather, it's certain limited claims to direct the use of the resource: no indecency and equal time rights for politicians. Apparently few stations feel that the tradeoff isn't worth it and have turned in their licenses and moved to cable.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
From your and AG's many posts on the subject, I understand that. I'm not really concerned with what the law is, but what the law should be. For example, why is something "indecent" if over the air but not in print? The scarcity of the resource should play no part in that determination.

Different standards apply. Non-broadcast media can publish indecent material; broadcast media can publish indecent material only during the "safe harbor" hours set by the FCC (I think it's 10 pm to 6 am or something like that). No media can publish obscene material (if it violates a state law passing muster under Miller).

So, TV & Radio = no indecency, no obscenity.
Print & Internet = no obscenity.

The difference between indecency and obscenity is hard to draw, but indecency generally depicts sexual or excretory functions.* Obscenity does that also, but does so in a way that is patently offensive and further lacks serious literary, artistic, scientific etc. value.

*The FCC recently ruled that use of the word "fucking" as a mere adverb, and not as a gerund regarding sexual intercourse, wasn't indecent because it didn't depict sexual or excretory functions. So Bono can say it all he likes, until Powell gets his way and they amend the rule.

[Not Me]

Originally posted by sgtclub
For example, why is something "indecent" if over the air but not in print? The scarcity of the resource should play no part in that determination.

Of course it doesn't matter in regards to indecency if something is over the air rather than in print.

But I don't think that anyone is saying that. I think what they are saying is that when you are using public resources to get your message across, a resource that others would like to be able to use but cannot because you have been given a monopoly on that by the government, you are more accountable to the public as a whole. If you are getting your message out using wholly your own resources, you aren't accountable to the public.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Look at it as giving away a valuable resource for free. Compare to the recent cell phone spectrum auctions--licenses for spectrum are quite valuable, even more so when there were no alternatives.

And it's not really promotion; rather, it's certain limited claims to direct the use of the resource: no indecency and equal time rights for politicians. Apparently few stations feel that the tradeoff isn't worth it and have turned in their licenses and moved to cable.

OK, so now at least I understand the rationale, but I still don't agree with it, because at its most basic level we have the G essentially deciding what can and cannot be said. Out of curiousity, does the law distinguish between visual indecency/obsenity and oral/written? I wouldn't regulate any of them, but there seems to be a difference between seeing two people screw and hearing or reading a description of it.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Out of curiousity, does the law distinguish between visual indecency/obsenity and oral/written? I wouldn't regulate any of them, but there seems to be a difference between seeing two people screw and hearing or reading a description of it.

AGain, it's not a distinction in what constitutes indecency, but rather what the gov't can regulate. I think when Atticus said TV/Radio, he implicitly limited it to broadcast TV/Radio. The indecency restrictions do not apply, to my knowledge, to cable channels.

Powell's problem in all of this is that any regulatory effort will be challenged, and may well pave teh way for the complete overrule of Red Lion.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by bilmore
I think that, if this were going to progress, it would only be if he were carrying the water. I'm thinking (hoping?) he never uses the words "amend the constitution" again.

His statements pretty clearly identified him as a supporter of the amendment. Do you really think that he can drop it? Yesterday you touted Bush's ability to be a stand-up guy as a big part of his popularity in non-PB America. Wouldn't this undermine that view among the Christian right or whoever else has been pushing him to "codify this one way or another"?

At the very least I think it would make it a little more sticky when he tried to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper during the general election.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
OK, so now at least I understand the rationale, but I still don't agree with it, because at its most basic level we have the G essentially deciding what can and cannot be said. Out of curiousity, does the law distinguish between visual indecency/obsenity and oral/written? I wouldn't regulate any of them, but there seems to be a difference between seeing two people screw and hearing or reading a description of it.

Sorry to intrude, and I don't mean to be insulting, beacuse you probably know this already --

I presume you are aware that the FCC only regulates the broadcast airwaves because those are the limits of its jurisdiction per the statutory scheme establishing the agency. Thus, it doesn't and can't regulate newspapers or magazines.

There is no federal agency regulating what newspapers and magazines publish.

[Sorry, but the form of your questions did not make it entirely clear that you knew this.]

The original justification for the differerent treatment has been set forth by Burger above.

I can add that the obscenity laws (or at least the Constitutional analyses of said laws) do not distinguish between media for the purpose of determining obscenity. Thus, as AG noted, obcenity laws whcih pass constitutional muster can be used against obcenity in media both regulated and unregulated by the FCC. In practical terms, however, the FCC never lets broadcast media get that far.

BTW -- Clear Channel's actions re Stern may also be precipitated by the $750,000 fine the FCC levied last week for the antics of one lesser shock jock "Bubba the Love Sponge." Not surprisingly, Bubba is now on the street.

S_A_M

P.S. I would be pleased if Howard stayed off the air in our area, because at least then my wife couldn't listen to him with our (pre-verbal) toddler around. I think she was tapering that off anyway.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
AGain, it's not a distinction in what constitutes indecency, but rather what the gov't can regulate. I think when Atticus said TV/Radio, he implicitly limited it to broadcast TV/Radio. The indecency restrictions do not apply, to my knowledge, to cable channels.

Powell's problem in all of this is that any regulatory effort will be challenged, and may well pave teh way for the complete overrule of Red Lion.

Understood, I've moved on to better understand the parameters of indecency/obsenity.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
At the very least I think it would make it a little more sticky when he tried to paint Kerry as a flip-flopper during the general election.

No reason to use the subjunctive. Four years ago, he said the states can do what they want to.

Of course, that was during his "no nation building" phase. Maybe this is part of his post-9/11 growth.