Politics: Onward from New Hampshire

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
The problem with strict liability is that unknowing violations always get over-penalized, while knowing ones are under-penalized.

You're thinking about this the wrong way. "Strict liability" exists where it does not to punish negligence or intentional torts, but to properly allocate the cost associated with the risk of harm. It exists because the common law, in its wisdom, concluded that no amount of due care could necessarily avoid injury when engaging in a particular activity that could not be banned outright for economic reasons, such as dynamite blasting. It is unfair for person A to profit from dynamite blasting while person B bears the economic cost of lost limbs, notwithstanding person A's exercise of utmost care.

In the context of an FCC fine, the conclusion has been made that it is fair to impose on the broadcaster all burdens of avoiding the airing of inappropriate conduct, not because it's dangerous, but because Congress said so. To do otherwise would leave everyone with no incentives to avoid airing inappropriate content. A local station here just got hit with a massive fine for inadvertently airing a millisecond of penis when they did a story on the Puppetry of the Penis people. They bore the risk of putting Australians on live TV. It's only fair.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The fact that he has not been asked to explain his past is appauling. If David Duke was in the race, do you not think that would be question number 1?

While many things in Sharpton's past are "deeply regrettable", to say the least, [Not least, but not only, the whole Tawana Brawley episode] I think it is both mistaken and unfair to equate him with David Duke.

So, although I could not vote for the man, I will offer certain points of distinction that suggest that the Reverend should not be treated quite so harshly by the media as Mr. Duke quite properly is treated.

(a) Unlike Mr. Duke, Rev. Sharpton has to my knowledge, never been a member of, much less a leader in, an organization that: (1) promotes the idea that one particular race is genetically and morally superior to the others, (2) seeks to eliminate the mixing of the races, and (3) promotes the political and social dominance of one race over the others.

(b) Unlike with Mr. Duke, I am aware of no evidence that the Rev. Sharpton has exploited the contributions of his followers for his own personal financial gain.

(c) Unlike with Mr. Duke, the Rev. Sharpton has engaged in significant social and community action and activism in his hometown which has helped bring tangible improvements to the lives of many people.

(d) Unlike with Mr. Duke, the Rev. Sharpton appears to have learned, matured and moderated his positions over time.

However, the real answer that you want to hear, club, which has some validity to it, is: "Because Sharpton is black -- and the mainstream media is generally liberal and/or painfully conscious of race."

Even with those provisos -- I'll tell you that if anyone believed that Sharpton was a serious candidate with the slightest chance to win, or even to emerge as a power broker, the media would dredge up the Brawley incident, the various New York riots, etc., and rake him over the coals on them. I just think that -- because Sharpton is seen as a side-show -- everyone thinks - "Jeez, why play with that fire?"

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by andViolins
Sharpton was asked about Tawana on NPR recently. In the last few weeks I believe. He stated, with no hesitation, that he "believed" her. Not much of an answer and obviously ignores the fact that the legal system did not. Do you think if he were a stronger candidate in the race that he would be getting pressed on it more?

aV

Yes. I also think if he was white he would not only be pressed, but would have been forced out by now.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The Red Lion Broadcasting rationale for FCC regulation of Why are otherwise intelligent people still debating whether it was intentional or not? Have none of you ever tried to rip off a bodice? The leather was snapped on, sure; but that doesn't explain how JT was able to cleanly rip off the lacy underthings to get at the chewy chocolate center. Bodices have structural wire, people. You can't just pull one cup off, unless it's designed that way.

Yes, but you're forgetting the TV Entertainer Coda to that general rule: When thrusting on national television, all clothing is to be pull-away.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
(a) Unlike Mr. Duke, Rev. Sharpton has to my knowledge, never been a member of, much less a leader in, an organization that: (1) promotes the idea that one particular race is genetically and morally superior to the others, (2) seeks to eliminate the mixing of the races, and (3) promotes the political and social dominance of one race over the others.

True, but what about the inciting of race riots? Is that not just as bad if not worse?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man (b) Unlike with Mr. Duke, I am aware of no evidence that the Rev. Sharpton has exploited the contributions of his followers for his own personal financial gain.

You need to do your homework.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man (c) Unlike with Mr. Duke, the Rev. Sharpton has engaged in significant social and community action and activism in his hometown which has helped bring tangible improvements to the lives of many people.

Like what? Sure he has talked the talk, but mostly to fill his own pockets.

In short, your distinctions are laughable.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch

Why are otherwise intelligent people still debating whether it was intentional or not? Have none of you ever tried to rip off a bodice? The leather was snapped on, sure; but that doesn't explain how JT was able to cleanly rip off the lacy underthings to get at the chewy chocolate center. Bodices have structural wire, people. You can't just pull one cup off, unless it's designed that way.

Perhaps she was wearing a nursing bra?

But it was clearly intentional; the relevant question is whether to buy the "wardrobe malfunction" explanation, which, based on your reasoning, we should not, as, at a minimum, her shoulder would have been pulled down as the bra fabric ripped.

Next question: Why was revealing a nipple clip, or whatever her hardware was, more objectionable than Lil' Kim's boob, which was hanging out with only a pastie?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
The Red Lion Broadcasting rationale for FCC regulation of content of "airwaves" as a public good is only tenuously connected with the rationale for regulating cable content. I'm not an FCC lawyer, but as I understand it the Red Lion rules are waning as applied to cable; it's just a gradual process.

Put alternatively, though, the emergence of cable undermines significantly the reasoning of Red Lion. That case, from the 60s (or sometime well before most cable) relied on teh allocation of scarce spectrum to justify fair and balanced political coverage. That doesn't hold much water any more, and applies not at all to obscenity.

Even if it does--we can ask more of broadcasters who were given free licenses--it seems thin at best: We're not saying "give a little back, in the form of required fair coverage, in exchange for your license" we're saying "you can't use certain words on broadcast tv." But the rationale is not an NEA/golden rule matter of "if you want the gov't handout you can say only x". Rather, it's protection of hte viewing public. Given that's the rationale, why doesn't it apply to allregulated broadcasting (whether OTA or otherwise) entities?

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
her shoulder would have been pulled down as the bra fabric ripped.

I hadn't thought of that, because I assumed it was an actual bodice and not a bra (think strapless). Could be. I was actually thinking there would have been a ton more laterial torsion required --- it would have peeled the entire bra right to left, and her body would have twisted toward him, unless the fabric had been intentionally weakened (or, more likely, never attached in the first place). Try ripping your clothing, and see how much force is required. She should have been pulled off her feet, or off balance at least.

ETA: Is JT left handed? Need more info. Putting aside the effect on the wearer, I probably couldn't rip an eight-inch seam clean off in one stroke with my non-dominant hand. Certainly couldn't manage it if all I was "expecting" to do was yank the buttoned portion off the leather outer garment.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Put alternatively, though, the emergence of cable undermines significantly the reasoning of Red Lion. That case, from the 60s (or sometime well before most cable) relied on teh allocation of scarce spectrum to justify fair and balanced political coverage. That doesn't hold much water any more, and applies not at all to obscenity.

No, VHF remains a scarce public resource of significant value, notwithstanding the existence of other means of communication. But I don't think the reasoning of Red Lion depends on how scarce the resource, or how hot the competition for it. It depends on the FCC's right to allocate bandwidth. I think Red Lion justifies government regulation of satellite transmissions to the North American continent, for example, even if an unlimited number of satellite providers can code their transmissions for receipt only by subscribers. It has to do with the fact that the FCC has a right to regulate the use of the electromagnetic spectrum, and always will.

Cable is a different story, and I think the cases treat it differently.

[The Larry Davis Experience]

Originally posted by sgtclub
In any event, the budget director said that the percentage reduction will not be materially affected by any additional Iraq spending.

And that's good enough for you? I just don't see how that could be. This is a cost that is estimated to run up to 10% of the total deficit number. That's more than just rounding error. I guess Reagan also proved that deficit math doesn't matter either.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The fact that he has not been asked to explain his past is appauling. If David Duke was in the race, do you not think that would be question number 1?

I don't like him any more than you do, and am annoyed that his presence takes coverage away from other candidates. I'm just trying to explain how the press works. If they thought he was a serious candidate, they would bust him for his past. Duke has come close to winning. Sharpton isn't going to win, even in South Carolina, and everyone knows it. I'm sure there are reporters who have asked him about his past, but those are his funniest lines -- by design, I'm sure -- and so no one runs them.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by The Larry Davis Experience
And that's good enough for you? I just don't see how that could be. This is a cost that is estimated to run up to 10% of the total deficit number.

Yes and no. If it turns out to be a material misstatement, I'll be pissed. But there are factors which tilt me to believing they actually believe this. For one, 10% is the high end, it could be much less. Second, this is not a straight line calculation. Meaning that even if we hit $50B in additional spending, the net number will be something less than $50B, as the additional $50B in outlays will need to be netted against additional corresponding revenue increases at both the corporate, individual level, and sales tax level.*

*This is not voodoo economics

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone_Slothrop
I don't like him any more than you do, and am annoyed that his presence takes coverage away from other candidates. I'm just trying to explain how the press works. If they thought he was a serious candidate, they would bust him for his past. Duke has come close to winning. Sharpton isn't going to win, even in South Carolina, and everyone knows it. I'm sure there are reporters who have asked him about his past, but those are his funniest lines -- by design, I'm sure -- and so no one runs them.

But they would run them for Duke, and not just because he has been a more successful candidate, but because of his skin color.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
But they would run them for Duke, and not just because he has been a more successful candidate, but because of his skin color.

Fortunately, after the first 600 posts, I've learned to better recognize the point at which you stop engaging with Tyrone about some substantive point, and move on to simply vent outrage at the way the world works.

Without additional signposts that you too recognize this point of departure, this is usually where the yelling starts.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Fortunately, after the first 600 posts, I've learned to better recognize the point at which you stop engaging with Tyrone about some substantive point, and move on to simply vent outrage at the way the world works.

Without additional signposts that you too recognize this point of departure, this is usually where the yelling starts.

Please tell me how this is not substantive.