• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Anti-loud commercial law passes the House

What would you like to see?

  • The "loud" bill passed

    Votes: 31 51.7%
  • The "loud" bill defeated

    Votes: 11 18.3%
  • Network executives tied down and forced to repeatedly listen to Crazy Train

    Votes: 14 23.3%
  • I clicked the link to get to this poll - LOL

    Votes: 4 6.7%

  • Total voters
    60
"I've been told." :doh So, nothing that's documented...?

I have no reason to doubt what they told me, considering it's their business, and it's not in their interest to do things which turn off customers. Do you think they sit around, Monte Burns-style, fingers steepled, laughing at the hapless masses?



No. I've used the proper language. Vast difference from your attempts to bend the meaning of words, my friend.

All you did was repeat yourself as though I hadn't even responded. Your "proper language" was the equivalent of "nuh-uh!!!!!!!!!!!!" said over and over.


Now here you go trying to change the subject, which is, may I remind you, the outside manipulation of volume for television commercials. But, because you need some schoolin'.....

That may be what you erroneously think I'm talking about, or what you're shifting TO in order to "save" your argument, but that's not at all what I'm referring to.

The text of the bill does not limit "the rule" to "outside manipulation," and I'm referring to the original sound mixes of the commercials themselves, which, if louder than this standard, would have to be mitigated.

Of course, general government mandating of particular volume levels for broadcasters, regardless of what it is, is entirely different issue, to which I also object. I'm perfectly capable of finding the volume control if it annoys me, and I don't need the government's help.


Sonny Jim, I'm completely cognizant of the piece in question. You pretending otherwise won't change the fact that you're still wrong - the song in question remains the composition in question, regardless of the volume.

Holy cow -- if you think the volume isn't part of the composition, you don't know a thing about music, and that's a fact . . . darlin'.


Find any recording of Bolero and the volume increases/decreases AS THE INSTRUMENTS ARE PLAYED, without anyone having to manually manipulate the volume of the technology that is reproducing the composition.

In other words, the musicians are playing their individual parts more vigorously and with more force in certain portions of the piece. The final recording is true to the volume increase that was intended by the composer. Changing the volume manually does not change the volume at which each of the instruments were played during the performance/recording. NOR does it change the musical piece in question.

Perhaps you're trying to say that you MANUALLY increase the volume as the song plays, because your physical manipulation of the recording will somehow "improve" on the original song.

Really?

Or maybe you're trying to tell me that Ravel instructed everyone (in perpetuity) that plays a recording/reproduction of his works should manually increase the volume at bars 36-42 (or whatever)...

Seriously, man. :roll:[/QUOTE]

Right, that fits exactly with how I've been describing the analogy, to a T. Precisely. Yeah. Now who's "bending the meaning" of things?

If you're right, you shouldn't have to make anything up. Or is this simply, like your premature sniggering that I'd "fallen for" the word "volume," another failure of yours to read properly?
 
The increase of volume during commercials serves two simultaneous purposes:

To pull your attention to the latest important feminine hygeniene erectile dysfunction products now available.

To punish you for not needing them.
 
I have no reason to doubt what they told me, considering it's their business, and it's not in their interest to do things which turn off customers. Do you think they sit around, Monte Burns-style, fingers steepled, laughing at the hapless masses? All you did was repeat yourself as though I hadn't even responded. Your "proper language" was the equivalent of "nuh-uh!!!!!!!!!!!!" said over and over. That may be what you erroneously think I'm talking about, or what you're shifting TO in order to "save" your argument, but that's not at all what I'm referring to. The text of the bill does not limit "the rule" to "outside manipulation," and I'm referring to the original sound mixes of the commercials themselves, which, if louder than this standard, would have to be mitigated. Of course, general government mandating of particular volume levels for broadcasters, regardless of what it is, is entirely different issue, to which I also object. I'm perfectly capable of finding the volume control if it annoys me, and I don't need the government's help. Holy cow -- if you think the volume isn't part of the composition, you don't know a thing about music, and that's a fact . . . darlin'. In other words, the musicians are playing their individual parts more vigorously and with more force in certain portions of the piece. The final recording is true to the volume increase that was intended by the composer. Changing the volume manually does not change the volume at which each of the instruments were played during the performance/recording. NOR does it change the musical piece in question. Perhaps you're trying to say that you MANUALLY increase the volume as the song plays, because your physical manipulation of the recording will somehow "improve" on the original song. Really? Or maybe you're trying to tell me that Ravel instructed everyone (in perpetuity) that plays a recording/reproduction of his works should manually increase the volume at bars 36-42 (or whatever)... Seriously, man. :roll: Right, that fits exactly with how I've been describing the analogy, to a T. Precisely. Yeah. Now who's "bending the meaning" of things? If you're right, you shouldn't have to make anything up. Or is this simply, like your premature sniggering that I'd "fallen for" the word "volume," another failure of yours to read properly?

Blahblahblahblahblah...

:yawn:

You've already convinced yourself that you cannot possibly be wrong about anything, and you're determined to believe your silly preconceived notions are correct, facts be damned. The bottom line is, volume is not content, no matter how many times you fall on the floor in a tantrum over it.

Continue your :fart fest on your own, my poor deluded man. My work is done here, and you know what they say about arguing with idiots.... ;)




P.S. Using the quote function properly might make your vapid argumentation easier to follow (but no less valid, sorry to say).
 
I'm not seeing the clause in the Constitution allowing the government to regulate the volume of cable television commercials.

And there have been plenty of times that the United States has engaged in unconventional constitutional behavior despite the lack of explicit authorization-and the public has not mourned such an interpretation (and have in fact, given it a round of applause).

Sometimes despite people calling Americans lazy or supportive of unconstitutional behavior, the American public is in support of action in one regard, and produces little if any unintended consequences that may make us regret such a choice.

Frankly, lowering the volume will be a supported measure, probably help advertisers, give further legitimacy to Dolby's attempts, and create a more enjoyable viewing experience for millions of Americans.

The random idea of cutting off one's access to television for it is unlikely because despite the fact that Americans don't like loud commercials, they have to put up with it to receive the service that is in limited providers' hands.

A relatively harmless measure goes through, and people complain out of the sheer principle of it. It's nearly amusing.
 
Last edited:
Don't like loud commercials?

Tell your cable company that when they stop the BS with the advertisements they can call you and you'll resubscribe.
There--the voice of reason---no sense in making a Federal case of it.
 
Blahblahblahblahblah...

:yawn:

You've already convinced yourself that you cannot possibly be wrong about anything, and you're determined to believe your silly preconceived notions are correct, facts be damned. The bottom line is, volume is not content, no matter how many times you fall on the floor in a tantrum over it.

Continue your :fart fest on your own, my poor deluded man. My work is done here, and you know what they say about arguing with idiots.... ;)

P.S. Using the quote function properly might make your vapid argumentation easier to follow (but no less valid, sorry to say).

I see. Your entire rebuttal to everything I said is "nyaahhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!! You're wrooooong!!!!!!!!!!!"

And going to a dig about a formatting error? I'm sure I have at least one typo somewhere above. Want to bring that up, too? Because that has a huge bearing on the substance of any argument, of course.

Look, all you've done is declare I'm wrong and address an argument I didn't make. To say volume is not content is to say that if the orchestra played "Bolero" at the same low volume all the way through the piece, it would be the same piece. You want "vapid"? That's vapid, and I think you know that. If you think it's not, you want to explain in detail how it's wrong? You want to get a composer's opinion on that?

And apparently, you're proceeding from a false assumption anyway, as I pointed out, because you think this is only about "outside manipulation" of volume levels. It isn't. Read the bill.

Besides, the broadcaster doesn't do squat to raise the volume of commercials. The original sound mix of the commercials is what's loud, not "outside manipulation." The creator does it, not the broadcaster. In fact, even if the broadcaster leveled peaks, the commercials would still be louder because their peaks been compressed.

So, in the end, I guess all you DO have left is to march off in a huff, like what you just did.
 
Last edited:
And there have been plenty of times that the United States has engaged in unconventional constitutional behavior despite the lack of explicit authorization-and the public has not mourned such an interpretation (and have in fact, given it a round of applause).

Whatever "unconventional constitutional" behavior may be, you claim it's still constitutional.

Since the Constitution does not permit the federal government to regulate the electromagnetic spectrum, all such laws are indeed unconstitutional.

Since the Constitution does not permit the federal government to control the volume of a human public speaker, it cannot be construed to permit the federal government to control the volume of a mechanical device intended to transmit human speech and other forms of audible communication.

Sometimes despite people calling Americans lazy or supportive of unconstitutional behavior, the American public is in support of action in one regard, and produces little if any unintended consequences that may make us regret such a choice.

Until you discover that said law will be manipulated and interpreted in the courts to punish radio talk show hosts from raising their voices to stress a point.

Also, the very fact that Congress can waste time discussing a issue as minor as television volume control should bother everyone, given that the issue isn't anywhere on the nation's Top Ten List of Real Problems.

Currently that list looks something like this:

Jobs
Economy
Jobs
Government destruction of health care
Jobs
Invasion of the US by Mexico
Jobs
War in Afghanistan
Jobs
Obama's incompetence
Jobs

Frankly, lowering the volume will be a supported measure, probably help advertisers, give further legitimacy to Dolby's attempts, and create a more enjoyable viewing experience for millions of Americans.

If millions of Americans want it, then millions of Americans can exercise their power through the free market place to influence their cable TV companies and advertisers to clean up their act.

Congress has not only no business interfering but it actually has important things it should be doing instead.

The random idea of cutting off one's access to television for it is unlikely because despite the fact that Americans don't like loud commercials, they have to put up with it to receive the service that is in limited providers' hands.

Ah, you mean the Congress should pass legislation ending the local monopolies cable companies have in many of their distribution areas so they can become subject to market forces, therefore forcing the reductions in prices and improvements in service that free markets always impose when competition is allowed.

Also, Americans have a choice, several of them: sit around and whine about loud commercial segments between segments of television programming that can in no wise be construed as essential to their health, or they can turn off the idiot box until their service providers and advertisers learn who's in control of that oh-en-slash-oh-eff-eff switch, or they can participate in yet another gang-bang on the Constitution to expand Congressional authority into areas it has no place being.

A relatively harmless measure goes through, and people complain out of the sheer principle of it. It's nearly amusing.

Yes, the principle that the Congress is limited is nothing important. Why, what would have happened if government had been limited as the Constitution directs? There wouldn't have been a federal reserve, hence no Great Depression. There wouldn't have been FHA, and hence no Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac, and thus the banks would have been risking their own money all these years, and hence there would have been no 2008 economic meltdown. There would have been no deficit spending and hence no fifty trillion dollar national debt and unfunded obligations.

Awful thing, limiting Congress, isn't it?
 
That's not correct.

Now, commercial speech is a less-protected form of speech -- and to be honest, I was waiting for someone to bring it up, just to see if they actually knew anything about First Amendment jurisprudence -- but it's still speech and it's still protected, just not the same degree as political speech.

What protection exactly does the First Amendment cover to advertisements?
 
Back
Top Bottom