Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 166

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

  1. #131
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,989

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

    Oh, as a note, I don't have many issues with the FCC in theory. I do see how the airwaves are "public" domain and protecting from people pirating it and such is needed. My issue is more with the over censoring and regulation of content than anything else.

  2. #132
    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
    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.
    So all you have for defense of your nanny state government is insult. Noted.

    It doesn't take a lot of intellect to insult, and that seems to me to be all your posts are ever composed of.
    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. #133
    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 Zyphlin View Post
    I do see how the airwaves are "public" domain and protecting from people pirating it and such is needed.
    I'm not sure I could make the public argument out of necessity to protect against pirating though. In fact, to me it seems that the anti-pirating thing is a good argument for private instead. If it's public, then the public can use it. It's like the parks. The people as a whole pay taxes, those taxes go towards some thing like parks. Everyone is free to use the park. That's clearly public. It's a tad more difficult when what you are talking about is electromagnetic radiation. I mean, who owns that? Is it the owner of the broadcast equipment which sourced that radiation? I would say yes, it seems reasonable especially given that they are the ones which pay the government in order to be able to use a certain frequency and power in an area. I haven't heard convincing argument as to why it should be considered public. And if it's public, why aren't taxpayer dollars going towards it?
    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."

  4. #134
    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
    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".
    Well then you fail in reading comprehension and have chosen to view my arguments out of context from the inane assertions of the typical DP cabal of libertarian and liberal thought police.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Why do you insist this is JUST about children as Ikari so desperately keeps referring to? Do you naively believe that adults do not want to be subjected to uncensored content?

    If you do you are living in a pretend world like Ikari.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    Well how could you be MORE wrong? One can indeed obtain pornographic material and uncensored movie productions on cable and from satellite; things that are not permitted through PUBLIC Broadcasts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    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.
    I am hardly against "free market" principles, but that is not what this is all about. I also don't leave my brains behind when it comes to the "public" and the understanding that we all share this world and are entitled to a principle of "quiet enjoyment;" therefore the notion that I should be able to play my guitar at full blast regardless of my neighbors desire for peace and quiet should hardly be viewed as an "infringement" of my free speech. It is called respect.

    This same respect is shown in FCC regulations, created by Bureaucrats who are empowered to do so by our elected representatives, which encompass the views of the entire population and the knowledge that many people find exposure, pornographic material and cussing objectionable.

    It's not that hard a concept to comprehend is it? But my main issue is the notion that the airwaves can be privatized which I feel is an absurd argument based on the REALITIES of how the airwaves work.

    Such notions are not well thought out.

  5. #135
    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
    Well then you fail in reading comprehension and have chosen to view my arguments out of context from the inane assertions of the typical DP cabal of libertarian and liberal thought police.
    Is this anything like when you were asserting that some of us were clamoring for anarchy with the airwaves? Cause it seems maybe a bit hypocritical that you would bitch about "reading comprehension" and taking arguments out of context when it appears that you primarily use that as your main technique in "debate".

    maybe those in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Why do you insist this is JUST about children as Ikari so desperately keeps referring to? Do you naively believe that adults do not want to be subjected to uncensored content?
    How would I be subjected to uncensored content? I control my TV, if there's something on it that I don't like I change the channel. Adults can act like that...you know make informed and responsible choices. You're arguments came down to "won't someone please think of the children". Don't go blaming others for your terrible debate skills.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    If you do you are living in a pretend world like Ikari.
    If I lived in a pretend world, people like you wouldn't be allowed it. So obviously, I'm living in the real world.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Well how could you be MORE wrong? One can indeed obtain pornographic material and uncensored movie productions on cable and from satellite; things that are not permitted through PUBLIC Broadcasts.
    Basic cable is censored. Comedy Central and that stuff...they can get away with it sometimes, but many channels are actually censored. John Stewart couldn't show porn on the Daily Show without getting in trouble from the FFC. And actually probably Comedy Central...they themselves probably wouldn't be to pleased. Which is why I also think that if the FCC were relegated to only its proper role in property, things wouldn't be horribly different than they are now.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I am hardly against "free market" principles, but that is not what this is all about. I also don't leave my brains behind when it comes to the "public" and the understanding that we all share this world and are entitled to a principle of "quiet enjoyment;" therefore the notion that I should be able to play my guitar at full blast regardless of my neighbors desire for peace and quiet should hardly be viewed as an "infringement" of my free speech. It is called respect.
    I would hardly claim you are any source of respect. Do you see any of your posts? Do they sound respectful? No, they don't. You don't appear to be arguing from "respect" or that other people are around. You're arguing based on what you want on TV, what you think is appropriate to be shown, and for reason which are all together your own. Don't try to play the philanthropist here, you're very easy to see through.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    This same respect is shown in FCC regulations, created by Bureaucrats who are empowered to do so by our elected representatives, which encompass the views of the entire population and the knowledge that many people find exposure, pornographic material and cussing objectionable.
    The only thing shown by the FCC control is government power over business and what they think should be seen and heard.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    It's not that hard a concept to comprehend is it? But my main issue is the notion that the airwaves can be privatized which I feel is an absurd argument based on the REALITIES of how the airwaves work.

    Such notions are not well thought out.
    The REALITIES of how the airwaves work is that someone, a private company or person, BUYS from the government the RIGHTS to broadcast on a frequency at power in an area. They OWN the broadcast equipment, they OWN the ability to use that frequency and power. No public money has been used or spent, the use of the bandwidth is not open to the public at large, and the viewers are not passive elements in a circuit. That's reality.
    Last edited by Ikari; 04-30-09 at 06:19 PM.
    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. #136
    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
    Oh, as a note, I don't have many issues with the FCC in theory. I do see how the airwaves are "public" domain and protecting from people pirating it and such is needed. My issue is more with the over censoring and regulation of content than anything else.
    Okay, let's deal with the "idea" of censor as it is being abused in this thread so here are some questions to ask yourself;

    Do you think people should be allowed to get drunk and wander around in public?

    Do you think that people should be allowed to undress and wander about naked in public streets?

    Do you think people should just have sex when the notion compels them in a public street?

    Do you think someone should just be able to take a **** on the sidewalk; after all, when you have to go, you have to go right?

    Do you think a person should be allowed to yell obscenities at you while you are standing in line at a movie theatre?

    Do you think it is okay to hurl obscenities at the person taking your money in the movie ticket booth?

    These are all behaviors we could say are "censored" for the most part public decency laws. But alas, you say, why have such laws! After all, we are all adults here aren't we and we know how to NOT behave. Unfortunately, the real world just doesn't fit that idealistic point of view.

    The PUBLIC airwaves are not that much different. If you want to take a ****, you can do that all day long in the privacy of your own home, just don't do it on the sidewalk where I am in line at the movies. The same thing can be said for Cable and Satellite; you want Howard Stearn to freely express himself, subscribe to his satellite broadcast.

  7. #137
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Why do you insist this is JUST about children as Ikari so desperately keeps referring to? Do you naively believe that adults do not want to be subjected to uncensored content?
    But adults have the ability to change the channel if they don't want to view something that they find distasteful. Why should we have to censor things just because some people may get offended? It's silly. Plus, people get offended over many different things. If we were to cater to what everyone considered offensive there would be very few things left.

    I am hardly against "free market" principles, but that is not what this is all about. I also don't leave my brains behind when it comes to the "public" and the understanding that we all share this world and are entitled to a principle of "quiet enjoyment;" therefore the notion that I should be able to play my guitar at full blast regardless of my neighbors desire for peace and quiet should hardly be viewed as an "infringement" of my free speech. It is called respect.
    That's hardly a valid comparison. People aren't "subjected" to offensive things on television. They are the ones choosing to tune into that channel. Whereas playing guitar at full blast is subjecting people to something that they have no control of, which is why it is disrespectful.

  8. #138
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Okay, let's deal with the "idea" of censor as it is being abused in this thread so here are some questions to ask yourself;

    Do you think people should be allowed to get drunk and wander around in public?

    Do you think that people should be allowed to undress and wander about naked in public streets?

    Do you think people should just have sex when the notion compels them in a public street?

    Do you think someone should just be able to take a **** on the sidewalk; after all, when you have to go, you have to go right?

    Do you think a person should be allowed to yell obscenities at you while you are standing in line at a movie theatre?

    Do you think it is okay to hurl obscenities at the person taking your money in the movie ticket booth?

    These are all behaviors we could say are "censored" for the most part public decency laws. But alas, you say, why have such laws! After all, we are all adults here aren't we and we know how to NOT behave. Unfortunately, the real world just doesn't fit that idealistic point of view.

    The PUBLIC airwaves are not that much different. If you want to take a ****, you can do that all day long in the privacy of your own home, just don't do it on the sidewalk where I am in line at the movies. The same thing can be said for Cable and Satellite; you want Howard Stearn to freely express himself, subscribe to his satellite broadcast.
    Except that people have no control over the items that you listed. A person can't just "change the channel" or choose not to tune into it in any of those situations. The examples you listed are examples of people actually subjecting others to things that they may find distasteful.

  9. #139
    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
    Is this anything like when you were asserting that some of us were clamoring for anarchy with the airwaves? Cause it seems maybe a bit hypocritical that you would bitch about "reading comprehension" and taking arguments out of context when it appears that you primarily use that as your main technique in "debate".

    maybe those in glass houses shouldn't cast stones.
    You continue fabricating arguments where none were made; I stated very clearly that NOT having any control over radio frequencies would lead to anarchy in transmission resulting in conflicting and garbled junk.

    Imagine if you will, what the landscape would look like if anyone who wanted to could just set up a HUGE transmission tower wherever they pleased to transmit on whatever frequency they desired knowing that by having a MORE powerful megawatt transmission, they can out broadcast everyone else. Then in response another entrepreneur decides to put an even HIGHER and LARGER tower up with even MORE megawattage...oh yeah ugh ugh ugh.

    That is what I meant by anarchy. Did you know that these towers also affect air traffic and are also subject to FAA regulations?

    Carry on.

  10. #140
    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 dclxvinoise View Post
    Except that people have no control over the items that you listed. A person can't just "change the channel" or choose not to tune into it in any of those situations. The examples you listed are examples of people actually subjecting others to things that they may find distasteful.
    Of course they can "change the channel" just as you suggest they can do on the TV, they can go somewhere else.

    :cool

Page 14 of 17 FirstFirst ... 41213141516 ... 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
  •