• 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
It's so crystal clear that this proposed law won't change content of ads, it's hilarious to me that anyone would argue otherwise. :D
 
MyOwnDrum said:
It's so crystal clear that this proposed law won't change content of ads, it's hilarious to me that anyone would argue otherwise. :D
Click to expand...

Fortunately, "crystal clear to MyOwnDrum" is not a legal standard.
 
IQ test question

Harshaw said:
Fortunately, "crystal clear to MyOwnDrum" is not a legal standard.
Click to expand...
Allow me to put this in the form of an IQ test question.

Size is to Billboard Advertising as ______ is to Audio Advertising

A) Words
B) Color
C) Volume
D) Content
 
Re: IQ test question

MyOwnDrum said:
Allow me to put this in the form of an IQ test question.

Size is to Billboard Advertising as ______ is to Audio Advertising

A) Words
B) Color
C) Volume
D) Content
Click to expand...

None of the above. The correct answer would be "length."
 
Oftencold said:
I agree that this is silly waste of lawmakers' time and yet another intrusion into areas they have no business involving themselves in.
This would not be necessary if our businessmen knew how to behave themselves and were respectful of others. The protection of and the well being of the citizens are very much the governments business.

The best response for consumers, would be a national pledge, so easy in the Internet Age, to boycott any product or service so advertised. Advertisers would respond with the predictability of guppies rising in an aquarium for their food.
Click to expand...
In the long storied history of our nation, has such a boycott ever worked??
 
I keep waiting for them to install that "intelligence knob"--that Gallagher always talked about---just turn it up. :mrgreen:
 
Re: IQ test question

MyOwnDrum said:
Allow me to put this in the form of an IQ test question.

Size is to Billboard Advertising as ______ is to Audio Advertising

A) Words
B) Color
C) Volume
D) Content
Click to expand...
Volume
Billboard advertising is very much regulated, thank goodness. No tears if it were to be 100% banned. But then there is always Victoria's Secret which must never be banned...lol..lol:rofl
 
Volume is intensity, which is part of content. For a sign, the corresponding element would be brightness.

Space is space, the size in which you have to fit your content. For a commercial on TV or the radio, that's length. Print ads are sold by space; on-air ads are sold by length of time.
 
Harshaw said:
No. Controlling volume is controlling content, directly, as volume is part of content.Common sense says it is not.

Controlling the size of the sign doesn't control what's on it.The problem is one of taste, size, and other advertisers.

And besides, there are about thousand other different issues between the two. Controlling the size of a sign or billboard may well meet conditions of scrutiny that a commercial volume restriction wouldn't.
Click to expand...

Wrong in all counts. On a technicality the advertisers keep the volume high. A different standard (real world conditions) should be used.
Is it really that hard for these SOBs to be respectful of their audience ?
 
Advertisers keep the volume high because it ads to the effectiveness of the advertisement. That's content.

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?

And "respect for the audience"? That's a legitimate area for regulation of speech? Really?
 
Volume is not speech---they can still use the same content---Here Volume is what determines if the cops come and shut you down--not content. they have a meter, not a dictionary
 
Last edited:
So there would be no First Amendment issue in requiring that a performance of "Bolero" be kept entirely to a quiet volume?

What about sudden loud explosions in the middle of a movie?
 
Last edited:
We have laws about loud volume now--under "disturbing the peace, and public nuisance".---I have gotten tickets.
 
But blanket ban on loud TV ads isn't in that sphere. That is one of the "thousand things" which is different between the example of restrictions on billboard size and this.

If the sound from the TV doesn't leave your living room, there is no public issue. Yet this ban would still be in effect.

But I will ask the same questions again:

So there would be no First Amendment issue in requiring that a performance of "Bolero" be kept entirely to a quiet volume?

What about restricting sudden loud explosions in the middle of a movie?
 
It would be so simple---put a meter on the program, and then one on the commercial---adjust the volume on the commercial to match that of the program---we have accelerator pedals on our cars, but we also have a brake.
 
Skateguy said:
It would be so simple---put a meter on the program, and then one on the commercial---adjust the volume on the commercial to match that of the program---we have accelerator pedals on our cars, but we also have a brake.
Click to expand...

The technical ease of it is entirely beside the point. There are a lot of things that would be very easy to do, but would still be unconstitutional.

You haven't answered the questions, by the way.
 
Harshaw said:
The technical ease of it is entirely beside the point. There are a lot of things that would be very easy to do, but would still be unconstitutional.

You haven't answered the questions, by the way.
Click to expand...
Sorry, didn't see one---I'll go back and look.--about the laud Movie noise---that also has been addressed here in H-town, after people complained they were to loud. which is why I still don't see the need for gubment intervention here. We have plenty of laws now to address this problem. Just get them enforced.
 
Last edited:
Skateguy said:
Sorry, didn't see one---I'll go back and look.--about the laud Movie noise---that also has been addressed here in H-town, after people complained they were to loud. which is why I still don't see the need for gubment intervention here. We have plenty of laws now to address this problem. Just get them enforced.
Click to expand...

You misunderstood the question. Your example, too, is about public nuisance. I'm talking about a blanket ban on sudden loud noises in movies, no matter where or what they're played on, no matter whether they can be heard outside the walls of the room being viewed in. That's what an "anti-loud commercial law" would be.

Meaning, no movie could contain sudden loud noises, at all.
 
Re: IQ test question

Harshaw said:
None of the above. The correct answer would be "length."
Click to expand...

That must be why my IQ is 146 and yours is most likely less than that.
 
Harshaw said:
Volume is intensity, which is part of content. For a sign, the corresponding element would be brightness.

Space is space, the size in which you have to fit your content. For a commercial on TV or the radio, that's length. Print ads are sold by space; on-air ads are sold by length of time.
Click to expand...

Not equivalent because that would change the picture. Increasing the size of the exact same sign does nothing to change content but it makes it more visible, and blocks more of the rest of the landscape. Increasing the volume of a commercial does nothing to change the content, but blocks out more of the surrounding sound.
 
Harshaw said:
You misunderstood the question. Your example, too, is about public nuisance. I'm talking about a blanket ban on sudden loud noises in movies, no matter where or what they're played on, no matter whether they can be heard outside the walls of the room being viewed in. That's what an "anti-loud commercial law" would be.

Meaning, no movie could contain sudden loud noises, at all.
Click to expand...
I got ya---Movies here have noise, or sound limits. they started with all that Lucas THX stuff, and star wars. People complained, so they enforced the ordnance. they now have sound meters monitoring them.
 
Dude. :roll:

I'm not talking about noise nuisances.
 
Re: IQ test question

MyOwnDrum said:
That must be why my IQ is 146 and yours is most likely less than that.
Click to expand...

160-65, if you want to pull a ruler out, but no matter. :doh
 
MyOwnDrum said:
Not equivalent because that would change the picture. Increasing the size of the exact same sign does nothing to change content but it makes it more visible, and blocks more of the rest of the landscape. Increasing the volume of a commercial does nothing to change the content, but blocks out more of the surrounding sound.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Re: IQ test question

Harshaw said:
160-65, if you want to pull a ruler out, but no matter. :doh
Click to expand...

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

Lengthening a commercial is so utterly different than making it louder. It would be equivalent to making a billboard have 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:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom