• 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
No, you're proving my point.

If the brightness -- the intensity -- of the sign changes the picture, then the brightness is part of the content of the picture.

If the volume -- the intensity -- of the soundtrack changes, then so, too, does the content, in the exact same way the brightness of the sign, as you say, changes it.

Now, I asked above --

If volume is not content, would you argue that volume is irrelevant to music? That, say, "Bolero" would be the same piece of music if it didn't start off very quiet and slowly gain volume as the intensity of the dance increased?

So there would be no First Amendment issue in requiring that a performance of "Bolero" be kept entirely to a uniform, quiet volume with no increase at all? That would not change the piece at all?

What about restricting sudden loud explosions in the middle of a movie? As in, you simply aren't allowed to have them in your soundtrack, period? No issues there?

Making a sign brighter does not block out more of the surrounding images the way a commercial can block out the surrounding noises. In fact, brightening an already clear picture can make said picture and words difficult to read.

As an experiment, try brightening your computer screen. No, billboard advertisers make their ads the brightness they want to make the picture appealing. When they want better visibility they go for a larger sign, not a brighter one.
 
Re: IQ test question

Ha ha, so you say. I don't believe you. Your analysis of my question was totally faulty.

Pfff. :rofl

I don't care if you believe me or not (as if your own word is golden). My analysis was spot-on, and I'm not the one 1) making childish, unfounded statements about the other's intelligence, nor 2) making the mistake of assuming that a higher IQ has any relevance on the strenght of one's arguments.


Lengthening a commercial is so utterly different than making it louder.

Did I say it was the same thing? Indeed, I did not. In fact, the two concepts being different factors into my argument. If you're going to brag about what you think is your superior IQ, you could at least make a stab at stating my argument correctly.


It would be equivalent to making a billboard have more content.

No, it would be equivalent to giving the billboard space for more content.


Making a billboard larger, but not changing the picture or words is the same as taking a commercial and changing nothing except for the volume. :2wave:

It would be the same as making the TV screen larger.
 
Making a sign brighter does not block out more of the surrounding images

Riiiight, which is why you can see the night sky just as clearly in Times Square as you can out in the middle of the outback.


In fact, brightening an already clear picture can make said picture and words difficult to read.

Yeah, and too much volume can distort sound, too.


No, billboard advertisers make their ads the brightness they want to make the picture appealing.

And commercial producers select their volume level to make their ads more effective.


When they want better visibility they go for a larger sign, not a brighter one.

You seem to think the loudness is about being heard from a greater distance. That's not why they're louder.

No answer to my "Bolero" question?
 
Dude. :roll:

I'm not talking about noise nuisances.
If the sound is to loud, and it is annoying, then what else should you call it, other than a Nuisance. Help me here. It seems to fit to me. What's your take.
 
If the sound is to loud, and it is annoying, then what else should you call it, other than a Nuisance. Help me here. It seems to fit to me. What's your take.

Nuisance laws are not about the people watching. It's about the people who aren't who are bothered by the noise coming from it. Or the people who aren't at your party being bothered by your loud music.
 
Nuisance laws are not about the people watching. It's about the people who aren't who are bothered by the noise coming from it. Or the people who aren't at your party being bothered by your loud music.
As with most ordinances, the one who makes the complaint is the one that the Cops respond to. If the neighbor complains that my music is to loud, the Cops tell me to turn it down. It's the noisy wheel getting the grease kind of thing.
 
As with most ordinances, the one who makes the complaint is the one that the Cops respond to. If the neighbor complains that my music is to loud, the Cops tell me to turn it down. It's the noisy wheel getting the grease kind of thing.

Strangely enough, that is what I just said.
 
Successful Consumer Boycotts

Consumer Boycotts Work—Just Ask French Winemakers


I can probably find you a tutorial on the use of Google, if that would be helpful?


I am amazed that others are so frail that they need the government to protect them from loud commercials. I stress yet again, that all Government actions are backed by the threat of deadly force, so that what we have here, is the Congress willing to guard your volume control with firearms. This is simply pathetic.
 
Advertisers keep the volume high because it ads to the effectiveness of the advertisement.

Wrong-o! The only affect initiated by loud commercials is me hitting the mute or changing channels. Show me one legitimate study that proves a commercial is more effective (i.e. an individual is more inclined to purchase/use said product/service due solely to the volume/loudness of a commercial) when the viewer is subjected to hearing damage. Just one.

That's content.

I'm afraid you're wrong again.

con⋅tent
1  /ˈkɒntɛnt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kon-tent] Show IPA
Use content in a Sentence
See web results for content
See images of content
–noun
1. Usually, contents.
a. something that is contained: the contents of a box.
b. the subjects or topics covered in a book or document.
c. the chapters or other formal divisions of a book or document: a table of contents.
2. something that is to be expressed through some medium, as speech, writing, or any of various arts: a poetic form adequate to a poetic content.
3. significance or profundity; meaning: a clever play that lacks content.
4. substantive information or creative material viewed in contrast to its actual or potential manner of presentation: publishers, record companies, and other content providers; a flashy Web site, but without much content.
5. that which may be perceived in something: the latent versus the manifest content of a dream.
6. Philosophy, Logic. the sum of the attributes or notions comprised in a given conception; the substance or matter of cognition.
7. power of containing; holding capacity: The bowl's content is three quarts.
8. volume, area, or extent; size.
9. the amount contained.
10. Linguistics. the system of meanings or semantic values specific to a language (opposed to expression ).
11.
a. Mathematics. the greatest common divisor of all the coefficients of a given polynomial. Compare primitive polynomial.
b. any abstraction of the concept of length, area, or volume.

1b and 4 cover it quite nicely.

If it's "common sense" that volume is not content, would you argue that volume is irrelevant to music? That, say, "Bolero" would be the same piece of music if it didn't start off very quiet and slowly gain volume as the intensity of the dance increased?

Again, volume isn't content. See definition above.

And "respect for the audience"? That's a legitimate area for regulation of speech? Really?

a. What's wrong with identifying a standard and making advertisers stick to it, else be fined?

b. It's not regulation of speech (i.e., content), it's regulation of volume (i.e, manner of presentation).
 
Wrong-o! The only affect initiated by loud commercials is me hitting the mute or changing channels. Show me one legitimate study that proves a commercial is more effective (i.e. an individual is more inclined to purchase/use said product/service due solely to the volume/loudness of a commercial) when the viewer is subjected to hearing damage. Just one.

Plenty of research indicating that ads being louder increases their effectiveness. That's why it's done.



I'm afraid you're wrong again.

You want to take on my "Bolero" question head on? Is volume irrelevant to it? Is it the same piece of music if it remains at its initial quiet volume all the way through?

Would a movie be the same movie if an explosion were required to be at the volume of a church mouse?

Don't dodge.


1b and 4 cover it quite nicely.



Again, volume isn't content. See definition above.

Anything that's done to contribute to the effectiveness of the message is content.

Besides, MyOwnDrum already conceded the point when he admitted that changing the brightness of a sign changes its content.



a. What's wrong with identifying a standard and making advertisers stick to it, else be fined?

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. Pardon me; I take it seriously.


b. It's not regulation of speech (i.e., content), it's regulation of volume (i.e, manner of presentation).

Taken care of, above.

Look, I get that many of you are perfectly OK with simply outlawing things that annoy you personally. But that's not really the standard a free society is based on, like it or not.
 
By the way, MyOwnDrum, why are you thanking Glinda when her definition of "content" includes:

8. volume, area, or extent; size.
9. the amount contained.

This is what you argue the audio volume is, especially as you specifically compare the concept to the size or area of a sign.
 
Harshaw, how does this legislation violate the first amendment?
 
Harshaw, how does this legislation violate the first amendment?

Read what I wrote -- it's a content-based restriction on speech.

Before you argue with me on that, go back and read everything I've already written.
 
Read what I wrote -- it's a content-based restriction on speech.

Before you argue with me on that, go back and read everything I've already written.

Advertising is not covered under the first amendment. it never has been.
 
Advertising is not covered under the first amendment. it never has been.

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.
 
Plenty of research indicating that ads being louder increases their effectiveness. That's why it's done.

Bring it.

You want to take on my "Bolero" question head on? Is volume irrelevant to it?

Your Bolero question is irrelevant. We're talking about television commercials that are attempting to influence viewers to do something/take some sort of action.

But if you really want to embarrass yourself further...

Is it the same piece of music if it remains at its initial quiet volume all the way through?

Yes. It is the same piece of music at any volume. By cranking it up, you're not changing the content, only the manner of presentation.

Would a movie be the same movie if an explosion were required to be at the volume of a church mouse?

Yes. It is the same movie at any volume. By cranking it up, you're not changing the content, only the manner of presentation.

Anything that's done to contribute to the effectiveness of the message is content.

No. You're simply wrong. I've already shown how you're wrong. Accept it or don't; it's your misunderstanding and your problem, not mine.

Besides, MyOwnDrum already conceded the point when he admitted that changing the brightness of a sign changes its content.

Well, then, MyOwnDrum was wrong, too. *shrug*


her definition of "content" includes:

8. volume, area, or extent; size.
9. the amount contained.

:rofl I knew you'd fall for this, Harsh. :2wave:
 
Last edited:
Bring it.

I'm guessing you're not going to find the research conducted by marketing companies themselves "legitimate," right? This is what the marketing firms I've consulted for have told me. (Of course, why would they be interested in anything but good data?)


Your Bolero question is irrelevant. We're talking about television commercials that are attempting to influence viewers to do something/take some sort of action.

But if you really want to embarrass yourself further...



Yes. It is the same piece of music at any volume. By cranking it up, you're not changing the content, only the manner of presentation.



Yes. It is the same movie at any volume. By cranking it up, you're not changing the content, only the manner of presentation.



No. You're simply wrong. I've already shown how you're wrong. Accept it or don't; it's your misunderstanding and your problem, not mine.



Well, then, MyOwnDrum was wrong, too. *shrug*

I see. So, you just say the same things with sharper language, and that puts it to rest. I dun bin told. Yee-haw!

The "Bolero" question is perfectly relevant.

You're obviously not familiar with it, so I'll explain -- the piece of music depicts a woman doing a dance which becomes more and more intense, and she eventually dies from doing it. The gradual increase in volume over the duration of the piece represents the increasing intensity, and lethality, of the dance, so it is absolutely, 100% part of the music. No, it is NOT the same if you play it all at the same volume.

Similarly, a quiet explosion detracts from the impact of the film. Frankly, only someone stubbornly locked into an indefensible position would argue that it doesn't.

It doesn't matter what the commercial is meant to do when the matter is over whether or not volume is content.


:rofl I knew you'd fall for this, Harsh. :2wave:

Uh . . . fall for what? Do you think I'm "falling" for the word "volume" as used there? Perhaps you should read I wrote pertaining to it a bit more carefully.
 
Before people bring on the official research, how many of you have honestly been turned off by advertising before, during, after a program you:

1) Keep the volume as is

2) Mute

3) Turn down volume to acceptable level

In my experience once the volume has become irritating enough, people mute the commercials and pay close to zero attention to the ads-simply because they created an irritating viewing experience. Unless the ad is funny or interesting enough, I think most people do not have enough of a value upon advertising to deal with the continuous effort of lowering or muting the volume to maintain an equal field with their programming.
 
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.
 
I'm guessing you're not going to find the research conducted by marketing companies themselves "legitimate," right? This is what the marketing firms I've consulted for have told me. (Of course, why would they be interested in anything but good data?)

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

I see. So, you just say the same things with sharper language

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

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'.....


You're obviously not familiar with it, so I'll explain -- the piece of music depicts a woman doing a dance which becomes more and more intense, and she eventually dies from doing it. The gradual increase in volume over the duration of the piece represents the increasing intensity, and lethality, of the dance, so it is absolutely, 100% part of the music.

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.

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:
 
Last edited:
I dare say, this law most likely reflects the will of 90% of television viewers. Isn't our representative government supposed to make laws that the people want? This law is an easy call. Most people would want this law.

I'm not seeing the clause in the Constitution allowing the government to regulate the volume of cable television commercials.
 
This is reminiscent of a science fiction book (I forget the name or the author) I read, back in the early '70's. in the book, an inventor became famous for inventing "Adnix", a device which, when attached to the TV set, muted all commercials. Advertisers were up in arms over it, but to no avail. But the inventor's downfall was when he invented another device called "Preachnix", which muted everything said by televangelists, and that just pissed off too many people. LOL.

Carl Sagan, "Contact"
 
We have had those Law in Texas for quite awhile. ---New bill boards are hard to get approved, and have strict size standards. Which is cool. why should we have to look at some guys sign as we roll down the Highway? Put it on his own lot.

"Put it on his own lot"....hmmmm.....so if someone purchases a quarter acre next to I-10 he can put up a gigantic billboard, but if he wants to lease someone else's quarter acre he can't?
 
Back
Top Bottom