Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 166

Thread: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

  1. #121
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    You may wish to use the hunk of gray matter between your ears.

    neither of those are reasons why the airwaves are public. Those are things by which the government currently conducts itself. But those are not reason why the airwaves are public. In fact, the second one was exactly what everyone else is saying should be the only duty of the FCC (do you want to go off on your ridiculously stupid "anarchy" deflect now?). That's protection of property rights and is not a reason why the bandwidth is public. You have not offered any argument as to why it should be considered public, what you linked there were not reasons why it should be considered public. Those are just pathetic, intellectually dishonest deflects; which is typical of your argument style. Regulation does not mean public, lots of private things work under regulation. Government should have interest in protecting property, there is a point to the FCC and that is to enforce property rights. Those aren't arguments for the bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum being public.

    So, again, less you want to actually engage in the debate and try to show why and how the bandwidth in question is public, maybe you should rethink the your penchant for hyperbole and distortion.

    You saying so doesn't make it true.
    I see, so the link to the FCC website explaining what they do AND the link to how radio is broadcast were not enough for you, you need it in crayon perhaps?

    About the FCC
    The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.


    Radio broadcasting is an audio (sound) broadcasting service, traditionally broadcast through the air as radio waves (a form of electromagnetic radiation) from a transmitter to an antenna and a thus to a receiving device. Stations can be linked in radio networks to broadcast common programming, either in syndication or simulcast or both. Audio broadcasting also can be done via cable FM, local wire networks, satellite and the Internet.

    Good lord, I am not sure I have ever seen a physicist so lacking in basic common sense and inability to grasp simple concepts like reading comprehension.

    How ironic to watch you claim others need to use the grey matter betwene thier ears when making such inane comments.

    Why don’t you just attempt some honesty for once in your life and admit you just like baiting me regardless of the facts and truth?

    Carry on; your clownish attempts to drag the thread IQ any lower are wasting EVERYONE’s time here.
    Last edited by Truth Detector; 04-30-09 at 04:56 PM.

  2. #122
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    So you have nothing. K. You can copy and paste from the FCC, but the arguments are not what the FCC does (ironic, isn't it, that you're trying to be insulting over reading comprehension when it seems that yours is the one at fault), the arguments are what the FCC should be relegated to and why the bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum in question should be considered private.

    Good god, I've never known a human so unable to grasp the basics of argument before.

    So once again, less you want to actually engage in the debate and try to show why and how the bandwidth in question is public, maybe you should rethink the your penchant for hyperbole and distortion.

    You saying so doesn't make it true.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  3. #123
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Because as stated by myself and others, there are frequencies used by the FAA for aircraft communications, Police and Fire and the subsequent anarchy and confusion there would be if the air waves were left "unfettered" by Government control and regulation.
    I don't disagree, which is why I'm not advocating the complete absence of regulation. The FCC can protect these frequencies from being pirated without having to censor their content.

    How does one parcel off a piece of the air?
    By restricting its access to the owners of said parcel.

    The transmission of sound waves through the air does not follow a specific path, in wanders aimlessly until it has been tuned in so-to-speak.

    Does that help?
    I don't believe we're talking about sound waves but I understand your question. Access to certain frequencies is already restricted by the FCC - the same as land - so there's no reason to believe the underlying principles guiding the public use of frequencies would not apply to private use.

    Once more, I cannot fathom what logical argument against such regulation except the absurd anger of those who claim that their 1st Amendment rights are somehow being denied by limiting what they can do, say or see over the public airwaves. Yet everything they want can be obtained by other media means.

    Why the BIG deal, anger and foaming at the mouth denouncement of a Government entity that is NOT governed by partisan politics and is regulated by Congress; the body the people elect to regulate?
    I believe the issue is whether or not frequencies should be considered public property. Just because something can be utilized by the public does not necessarily mean it must be public property. They are not essential to our health and they are not readily utile. In order to make use of these frequencies one must dedicate capital, labor, and entrepreneurial ability; it seems a clear-cut case of private "property."

  4. #124
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    Its obvious they are arguing that such terms in the agreement are not consistant with the stated purpose of the FCC. That is, the FCC was created to maintain order in broadcasting and not to censor content. Therefore, it has no compelling reason for censoring the leased airwaves even though it can stipulate whatever terms and conditions it would like.
    Do you have any facts to support your assertion? If that is their argument, I haven't seen evidence of it.

    I have seen a lot of hyperbole, OPINION and empty headed assertions, but I have yet to see anything that supports what you claim.

    Why don't you add to the debate and provide a link that states clearly that the FCC was NOT created to censor content?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    It would be like arguing that if you purchase land for a home then the government can regulate what sexual positions are allowed while on the land. Sure, they can put that in the contract and its legally binding but It just doesn't make sense why they would when they are merely overseeing the distribution of land.
    No it would NOTHING like purchasing land for a home; we are talking about the AIR and content broadcast to the public.

  5. #125
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    No it would NOTHING like purchasing land for a home; we are talking about the AIR and content broadcast to the public.
    It's not air, it's radiation. And you keep talking as if you are passive in all of this. Yes, there is broadcast information, but you just don't pick it up. You have to have machines for it, you're not a passive element in the equation; you have dynamics on your side which are necessary for the reception of the signal. You're not some poor guy just walking down the street and then BAM, a commercial for Light Speed Briefs appears in your head. This all has the hallmark of private business. Someone pays for the rights to a certain frequency and power, they have a studio and broadcast equipment, other people are not permitted to use that same frequency in the area purchased by that private owner. At no point is the public funding any of this, it's all private. As such, it should be considered private property. Same as bars and restaurants.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  6. #126
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Neither of your links are working. Point me to post numbers perhaps? I'd be interseted to see exactly where in this thread you think you've said something that goes against you thinking that the government should be children's "nanny" and that they should act as "mom and dad", using government agencies to enforce rules and regulations limiting the freedom of citizens "For the children" and taking the choice and responsability away from Parents and vesting it instead to the great good and just government.
    Once more you attempt to bait and inflame the debate with the specious use of words like "nanny," "mom and dad" which are actually nothing more than hyperbolic condescension and hardly intended for honest debate.

    The notion that PORN should be broadcast across public airwaves can only be supported by the tiny minority of loons who typically infest web site debate forums and make their rabid claims of "perceived" freedoms of expression that few in the REAL world would support as being an idea unique to me requires the willful suspension of disbelief wouldn't you agree?

    But to place things in better perspective, my argument is for the need to have regulation and that also entails rules of decency based on the public consumption.

    Those "rules" have to draw the lines and some here think there should be no lines; I am fine with their OPINIONS, but that hardly makes it a reality or can be supported by the general public and it is hardly a uniquely “Conservative” point of view as those here so desperately try to assert.

    It is also trite for certain members to argue about parental responsibility regarding children based on their personal narcissistic views, compounded by an equally naive and uninformed notion about how to raise children, dealing with child behavior and the responsibilities and difficulties that go with having children and raising them.

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058005703

    http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058005703

  7. #127
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Children are not part of the debate. Your children are your responsibility, not mine. I should not be expected to abdicate any of my rights so you can have an easier time raising your kid. That argument has been sufficiently put down, continual regurgitation of the tripe is nothing more that intellectually dishonest argument made to deflect from the actual core. The fact of the matter is, you need the children thing because the "Oh won't someone PLEASE think of the children" is the base of your argument. I prefer to think of the rights and liberties of the individual and let people handle the rearing of their own kids themselves. You want to sit there and say how you can't watch your kids all the time, you can't control them all the time, thus you need the government to censor and regulate images and words broadcast on TV and radio media. You want the government to nanny over people, it's not baiting when it's true.

    It doesn't matter how many people want nanny government, if the actions of that government infringe upon the rights of the individual which does include property and speech, then the action of the government can not be rightfully taken. That's the base. Not all of us think that we need to government to save us from nasty stuff. It's like saying that the FCC should be censoring video games. I mean, you can't control your children all the time right? You can't control them always, right? What if they get Grand Theft Auto...maybe some hot coffee mod action going. Shouldn't the government protect you from that too? It's the same base argument you place forward; it's why "decency" arguments aren't good to base government policy off of. The "decency" is too variable. Instead, one should base things in the rights and the liberties of the People and aim to restrict government intervention. Not proliferate it so that we can have nanny state government take care of us and all the nasty, unpleasant things we may be able to be exposed to at some time.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  8. #128
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,998

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    So lots of words and it still comes down to "Think of the Children", "Government knows best", "Mom and Dad can't monitor or handle what the kids watch so the government needs to do it for them".

    Seriously, what it comes down to is you're saying that the government should have an agency dedicated in part to telling private business what they can and can not do and telling private citizens what they can and can not consume based on the "Children" possibly being damaged by it, which should only really happen if a parent is so derelict in their duties as to allow their children to watch any show and any channel they wish.

    If the FCC was limited only to the couple "broadcast" networks I'd even possibly be okay with enforcing some kind of base level of rules upon it. But to my understanding basic Cable Channels also have requirements placed upon them by the FCC in terms of what can and can not be said, shown, or depicted. If I am wrong in this understanding, and I fully admit I can be, then I'll be happy for you to correct me if there is no government agency that regulates and restricts what basic cable channels can and can not do.

    And, even on broadcast TV, it would seem that the FREE MARKET...wonderful thign that....would actually dictate to them that it is likely in their best interest not to have porn going on at 3:00 in the afternoon or airing a George Carlin "7 words you can't say on TV" segment in the middle of TGIF.

  9. #129
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    It's not air, it's radiation. And you keep talking as if you are passive in all of this. Yes, there is broadcast information, but you just don't pick it up. You have to have machines for it, you're not a passive element in the equation; you have dynamics on your side which are necessary for the reception of the signal. You're not some poor guy just walking down the street and then BAM, a commercial for Light Speed Briefs appears in your head. This all has the hallmark of private business. Someone pays for the rights to a certain frequency and power, they have a studio and broadcast equipment, other people are not permitted to use that same frequency in the area purchased by that private owner. At no point is the public funding any of this, it's all private. As such, it should be considered private property. Same as bars and restaurants.
    Your trite and simplistic assumptions about how waves arrive at their destination aside, what part of PUBLIC consumption do you continue to so willfully ignore.

    No one gives a rats buttocks about your narcissistic notions about how you personally feel or that you should be entitled to whatever content your heart desires, you just cannot expect it to be transmitted over PUBLIC airwaves.

    It goes along with your equally absurd and simplistic notions about making broadcast communications private or de-regulated.

    But then based on your absurd and simplistic notions about child rearing, I am hardly surprised that you can have such "simple" ideas.

    Suffice it to say, that even if I were to beat into your head the fact that transmission of signals over the air REQUIRES regulation in order to prevent anarchy of the airwaves, in other words pirating signals that will interfere with other signals resulting in a useless pile of garbled transmissions and transmission pole blight across the country, I still doubt you would get it.

    Yes, you could possibly put a SINGLE private company in charge of all signalization, but now we are back to where we started; thus the circle of futility every argument with you seems to head because you are so arrogant, so patently uninformed, so condescending and so incredibly stubborn that even if I stated that my eyes are blue, you would desperately argue that in actuality they are grey.

    You are hardly interested in a debate using the facts and dealing with societal realities, you are interested in absurdity for the pure sake of being absurd and your equally nonsensical personal narcissism that suggest that regardless of your behavior's effect on others, you are entitled to act any way you desire and society has no right to place limits on it. But alas, we live in a real world where the law tends to disagree with your naive and simplistic notions about freedom of expression.

    Do a little test of this some time so we can laugh at you; stand outside your neighbors house on public property and start screaming what an asshole they are repeatedly for several nights in a row at say, about midnight; let's see how far your freedom of expression gets you.

    And lest we forget, my comments were never directed to you; you interjected your rabid nonsense which surpassed even that made by Nerxst basically claiming that it was a "Conservative" conspiracy.

    Dismissed.

  10. #130
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Do you have any facts to support your assertion? If that is their argument, I haven't seen evidence of it.
    see link below

    I have seen a lot of hyperbole, OPINION and empty headed assertions, but I have yet to see anything that supports what you claim.
    This is blathering. Blather count = 1.

    Why don't you add to the debate and provide a link that states clearly that the FCC was NOT created to censor content?
    http://www.fcc.gov/Reports/ar2008.pdf

    Page 4: Mission
    Page 9: Strategic Goals and Objectives

    I suppose the FCC doesn't clearly state that the FCC was not created to generate a 500' mecha-Godzilla to take over the world either. Hmmmmm.

    No it would NOTHING like purchasing land for a home; we are talking about the AIR and content broadcast to the public.
    So you don't understand what an analogy is? That is what you are saying? Shall I spell out how the analogy works?

    I think you understand exactly what I said. You are just being purposely obtuse in hopes that I'll waste my time explaining the obvious.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

Page 13 of 17 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •