View Poll Results: Should the Supreme Court Find that random F-bombs that are uttered on live television can be punishe
Voters: 69. You may not vote on this poll
F-bombs and Free Speech
11-04-2008, 11:55 AM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 9,409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^SWEARER!!! 
Maybe edit that though because it will cause issues in the filters of some companies and cause s2ki to get on some blacklists.
I don't know why cable TV isn't the same as satellite radio. In fact, there are more options on televisions for parental controls than on most XM or Sirius radio units. I don't care if they want to swear, I just want to know where I should and shouldn't expect to hear it so it can be avoided if need be.
Maybe edit that though because it will cause issues in the filters of some companies and cause s2ki to get on some blacklists.I don't know why cable TV isn't the same as satellite radio. In fact, there are more options on televisions for parental controls than on most XM or Sirius radio units. I don't care if they want to swear, I just want to know where I should and shouldn't expect to hear it so it can be avoided if need be.
11-04-2008, 02:38 PM
#17
Moderator
As PrimoGen was alluding to, there's a matter of due diligence, that if followed, would remove 90%+ of the foul language on conventional broadcast TV.
Make the "dump button" mandatory. 'Nuff said.
Make the "dump button" mandatory. 'Nuff said.
11-04-2008, 03:09 PM
#18
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by magician,Nov 4 2008, 02:15 PM
The case is not about punishing the celebrities; it's about punishing the broadcasters.
And
you for pointing that out!!!!!!!!!
11-04-2008, 05:35 PM
#19
Originally Posted by CrazyCracker82,Nov 4 2008, 12:47 PM
just excercising my fucking free speech...
....carry on
....carry on
he he he
11-05-2008, 12:42 PM
#20
Registered User
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana
Posts: 434
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has nothing to do with free speech anymore than requiring a drivers license is about the freedom to assemble. You can go from point "a" to point "b" without a car. You can express your opinion, profanity and all, without having to broadcast your words over electronic transmissions.
Just as the Government can set rules to drive by, they can also set rules to broadcast by. The individual frequency groups are licensed by the Government and they can dictate content to an extent. To argue that banning profanity is a restriction of free speech is the same as arguing that frequency licenses are a restriction of free speech. Everyone in the broadcasting industry seems to be content with the current method of licensing frequencies so that they can get a clear signal sent out. By agreeing to being licensed, they are defacto agreeing to be censored as dictated by the licensing body, specifically the FCC.
It is similar to the argument that the telemarketing industry tried to use to negate the "do not call" lists. They said it was a restriction of free speech. Since I am the one paying for my phone, I have the right to dictate how it is used. If I decide that I want to place a blanket restriction on the used of my phone by a particular group, that is my right.
By the same token, if a large group of viewers decide that they do not want profanity on the air, and they want the FCC to do something about it, they can. I am sure that if you can show the FCC that more than 50% of the people viewing "over the air" TV broadcasts do not want profanity restricted, then they would no longer impose fines for that action.
Just as the Government can set rules to drive by, they can also set rules to broadcast by. The individual frequency groups are licensed by the Government and they can dictate content to an extent. To argue that banning profanity is a restriction of free speech is the same as arguing that frequency licenses are a restriction of free speech. Everyone in the broadcasting industry seems to be content with the current method of licensing frequencies so that they can get a clear signal sent out. By agreeing to being licensed, they are defacto agreeing to be censored as dictated by the licensing body, specifically the FCC.
It is similar to the argument that the telemarketing industry tried to use to negate the "do not call" lists. They said it was a restriction of free speech. Since I am the one paying for my phone, I have the right to dictate how it is used. If I decide that I want to place a blanket restriction on the used of my phone by a particular group, that is my right.
By the same token, if a large group of viewers decide that they do not want profanity on the air, and they want the FCC to do something about it, they can. I am sure that if you can show the FCC that more than 50% of the people viewing "over the air" TV broadcasts do not want profanity restricted, then they would no longer impose fines for that action.