FCC Wary of Greeks Baring Gifts at Games (washingtonpost.com)
In response to one or more indecency complaints, the Federal Communications Commission has asked NBC to send it tapes of its coverage of the Summer Olympics Opening Ceremonies in Athens, the network confirmed late yesterday.
Ironically, the night before, NBC’s Summer Games coverage was named the family-friendliest special of 2004 during WB’s broadcast of the sixth annual Family Television Awards. The awards are given by the Family Friendly Programming Forum, a group of 46 major national advertisers working to encourage networks to produce more family-friendly prime-time fare…
Yet another example of how open we Americans are to free expression and ideas from other lands nowadays…
• 
Levine, who is president of Mt. Wilson FM Broadcasters Inc. in Los Angeles, says the dismissal amounted to a double standard by the FCC.
“The commission is saying it’s fine to have obscenity any time of the day or night on satellite radio even though satellite radio is being made available to people without subscriptions,” such as in rental cars that come with free service, Levine said in a telephone interview.
Actually, the FCC already fought this battle in the Supreme Court and lost. In 1996, The FCC “adopted an Order and Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (FCC 96-84) establishing interim rules to implement Section 505 of the 1996 Act. The interim rules established the hours of 6:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. as those hours when a significant number of children are likely to have access to and view the programming. However, before the rules could take effect, Section 505 was challenged in the courts and the Commission was subsequently prevented from enforcing the rules because of a temporary restraining order and a number of stays granted by the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. On March 24, 1997, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the District Court’s decision to deny the request for a preliminary injunction of section 505. Thus, on April 17, 1997, the Commission adopted an Order establishing May 18, 1997 as the effective date of our rules implementing section 505. However, on December 28, 1998, a federal court in Delaware issued a decision (Playboy Entertainment Group v. U.S.) which determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Therefore, the Commission’s rules based on Section 505 could not be enforced. An appeal of this decision was filed with the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 22, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court also determined that Section 505 is unconstitutional. Thus, the Commission
“I’m sure than in the 1930s, the Jews of Central Europe told themselves that things will swing back again.”
Oh, I can tell you of a certainty that they did. When my grandfather was preparing to pack up his wife and child (my father) and get out of Berlin, all the neighbors told him he was crazy. That things would improve, and he was overreacting.
He and his family left anyway. All the neighbors died in the camps.
pAD
PAD:
>Oh, I can tell you of a certainty that they did. When my grandfather was preparing to pack up his wife and child (my father) and get out of Berlin, all the neighbors told him he was crazy.
You recently shared this story with us and after hearing it the second time you have me very curious……. (only if the question isn’t too personal) did you ever have the opportunity to meet your grandfather?
Regulating public airwaves is not censorship.
Yes it is.
No, it isn’t.
Censorship is when you prevent an idea from being expressed.
Which is what the FCC does.
No, they don’t. they don’t stop ideas, just certain ways of expressing them. For instance,
you can say, “You stink, you moron.” You just can’t say, “You f***ing stink, you f***ing moron.” Same basic idea, expressed in a less “colorful” way.
You don’t have an unfettered right to discuss your ideas anywhere and anytime that you feel like it.
According to the First Amendment, I do. The only exception is shouting fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire, which isn’t expressing an idea, just making an exclamation.
From Judge Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for the majority, in Schenk v United States: The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent. It is a question of proximity and degree. When a nation is at war many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.
Basically, it boils down to what you say, why you’re saying it, and when you’re saying it.
For the record, there are some who believe that Holmes overreached the courts authority with this decision.
And so long as an alternative venue is provided for the expression of those ideas, there’s no censorship.
Bûllšhìŧ. If I tell you that you can’t hold a sign up to protest a particular candidate during a rally in a public place, but I tell you that you can hold your sign at a “free speech zone” on the other side of town where nobody is paying any attention, I’ve censored you.
Actually, that one’s kind of tricky. After all, you didn’t censor the content, just where the message is heard. I guess that’s still suppressing the message, but then again, you’re only guaranteed the right to speak, not be heard.
Historically, the Courts have granted more protection to political speach than to commercial speach.
speech
PAD and Craig Ries,
RUSS SAID:
“Just the other day I was watching some old show that featured Lucille Ball in a…I don’t even know if I can say this…a “motherly way”. This led to my child asking where babies come from. I was so embarrassed.”
PAD SAID: “Why? I mean it. My God. Why? How can people be embarrassed about human reproduction? Show of hands: Anyone reading this arrive on this planet by some means other than human reproduction?”
CRAIG SAID:”Well, heaven forbid you ever have another child and the mother, being 8 months along, forces your child to ask that question again. Then you can be embarrassed all over again for nothing. It sounds like you need to be a parent.”
And it sounds like you both need to reread the post in question. It was a post by Russ, in response to Jim In Iowa, and it was undeniably SARCASTIC. Read it again. The stuff about “those trampy Brady parents are often shown SLEEPING IN THE SAME BED not to mention those šlûŧš talking about their periods in tampon commercials.”
Closing with “What chance do the kids of today have. It’s good to see the FCC finally taking up the slack for my role as a parent” should have been dead giveaways.
I’m guessing you both
A.) Are not familiar with Russ’s posts
or you
B.) Mistakenly though it was Jim In Iowa and he was being serious.
Honestly, though, I know of no consistent poster on this board who is that much of an over-the-top conservative.
And actually, I agree with your points, epecially yours, PAD. We should be more relaxed about the human body.
I think you both just misinterpreted what was said and who said it, though.
Derek: And I am really perplexed by the phenomenon of forming an ironclad opinion on something that you have never seen, read or listened to that seems to pervade our culture.
Novafan: There are some things you don’t want to see, read or listen to but you have it forced upon you by certain groups with an agenda (i.e. allowing gay marriage).
Luigi Novi: What in the world does this have to do with what Derek said? Derek was talking about the woman Fred spoke to who never saw Desperate Housewives, but developed a litany of criticisms about it, a clear case of someone whose conclusions were completely misinformed. What does this have to do with gay marriage?
Moreover, gay marriage isn
So, I’ve been looking a little harder at the Free Speech/First Amendment issue.
First off, the First Amendmend (with the 14th Amendment) only prevents the passage of laws that abridge the “freedom of speech, or of the press….” So private individuals can clearly control what they allow, or don’t allow, expression on their property. This also extends (as discussed in relation to the Twist v Mcfarlane case) to the use of a person’s likeness.
I think the problem here is that the concept of the right of free speech is misunderstood. by its addition in the Bill of Rights, it’s clear that the people held back from the government the ability to pass laws that restrain the public’s ability to engage in the free expression and conversation of ideas and thoughts. What is less clear, is whether other rights retained by the public can in fact operate in ways to restrict free epxression.
As I just mentioned, it is pretty undisputed that a property owner has full power to restrict and control the use of his property when it comes to banning expression. You can’t go around planting signs on your neighbor’s yard without his permission. Niether can you just walk into his house and start reading The Lorax under the guise of the First Amendment. Clearly, certain other rights retained by the public trump the First Amendment.
And here’s where we get standards of decency from. The three pre-eminant rights listed by the Declaration are “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”
This is the basic bundle of rights that our government was formed around. And all other rights must, at some point, submit to these rights.
The Constitution offers protection from goverment regulation of the freedom of speech. But your right to free speech ends when it interferes with someone elses’s right to life, liberty, or the pursuit of hapiness. And having the government step in and enforce that intersection isn’t so much a violation of the First Amendment as it is a reinforcement of more primal rights, also retained by the people, which without governmental protection run the risk of being subjecated by lesser primal rights.
As to the FCC in particular, eclark has mentioned that you need a license to broadcast over public airwaves. And just like any other license, you agree to abide by the restrictions of the licensing agency, the FCC. The FCC isn’t banning any particular form of expression. No one has gone to jail for running afoul of the FCC, unless it was for failure to pay fines, which isn’t a free speech issue so much as it is a contemtp issue.
Likewise, no one has a right to broadcast over public airwaves without a license. It is a privilege granted to those that agree to abide by, and demonstrate an ability to maintain, a minimum level of decency determined by the public opinion of the day.
So, say what you will about fines issued by the FCC, but no one forces networks to broadcast shows. They aren’t mandated by any law to provide programming. They do so for a profit, and operate voluntarily under the supervision of the FCC. If they want to exercise their right to free speech, they are free to do so in any number of venues not regulated by the FCC.
In this case, at least, it’s not a case of unconstitutional censorship, as the alternate venues available for unregulated transmission are still capable of reaching the intended audiences.
kingbobb, BÙLLSHÍT!
Religion attempts to convince people to get laws passed restircting other rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (like the attempted gay marriage ban.
Religion is trying to restrict others pursuit of happiness, ergo, by YOUR definition, religion MUST be banned and/or censored.
The problem with your standard as you presented it is that in a country of over 250 million people, EVERYTHING is offensive to someone’s “pursuit of happiness”. It’s a question of degree.
A gay getting married in NO WAY WHATSOEVER affects YOU. Therefore your ignorant susperstitious belief the it’s wrong has no bearing because you are not harmed by it.
Someone coming on your property or in your house and reading/speaking/posting signs is NOT a free speech issue, it’s called TRESSPASSING ON and/or VANDALIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Let me repeat that for you mentally impaired viewers (the rilgious “wrong” and im-moral “majority”) It’s NOT a free speech issue.
Also, the declaration is NOT the legal document portion, the Amendments are.
BÙLLSHÍT #2, the FCC DOES force the networks to broadcast shows. They require limits on certain commercials during childrens programming, they require stations to carry shows in the “public interest” (usually the garbage on at 2 or 3 am on a Sunday…), and they ridiculously unnecessary “tests” of the Emergency Alert System.
What are they doing testing this šhìŧ during Prime Time anyway, and on cable no less?
The constitution doesn’t say SHÍT about “Speech shall be abridged by “community standards” or “indecency” when on TV or Radio.
I hate to agree with Bladestar, but he is right about the trespassing issue.
And here’s where we get standards of decency from. The three pre-eminant rights listed by the Declaration are “certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness….”
This is the basic bundle of rights that our government was formed around. And all other rights must, at some point, submit to these rights.
Uh, no. The Declaration of Independence, while a wonderful statement of principles, was the document our founding fathers used to announce that they were severing ties with Great Britain. It is not the basis of our government and those three inalienable rights do not superceded anything in the law or the Constitution.
As to the FCC in particular, eclark has mentioned that you need a license to broadcast over public airwaves.
This is where I strongly agree with the current legal thinking. Just because the government declared that you airwaves are public property, does not mean that they have the legal authority to regulate content. Imagine if the government passed a law stating that all paper products were public property and only those people with a license from the Federal Bureau of Newspapers could publish one. How long do you think that arguement would stand?
And just like any other license, you agree to abide by the restrictions of the licensing agency, the FCC. The FCC isn’t banning any particular form of expression.
Again, no. The ability to fine somebody for an action will prevent them from engaging in the action, or, like Howard Stern, they will get fed up with being fined and quit the medium altogether. The whole purpose of a fine is to discourage that action. Why do you think several ABC affiliates declined to air “Saving Private Ryan”? Because they were afraid of being fined.
So, say what you will about fines issued by the FCC, but no one forces networks to broadcast shows.
Once again, incorrect. The FCC requires all licensees to include programming that’s in the public interest. In addition to the EBS that Bladestar mentioned, they are required to have broadcast things like weather alerts, traffic reports, and school closings. And, TV stations are also required to have a certain percentage of their programming be child’s programming that has some kind of “educational value.” And, like many of these mushy FCC terms, what is considered “educational value” changes with each administration.
If ignorance was bliss, you would think that Bladestar was the happiest person on the planet, not the most bitter.
First, Kingbobb’s post said NOTHING about gay marriage or religion. The first part talked about how some “rights” conflict with other “rights”. The second part talked about the FCC and regulations.
“Someone coming on your property or in your house and reading/speaking/posting signs is NOT a free speech issue, it’s called TRESSPASSING ON and/or VANDALIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Let me repeat that for you mentally impaired viewers (the rilgious “wrong” and im-moral “majority”) It’s NOT a free speech issue.”
Sooooo…are you saying that if an individual or group rents a building for a gathering, people not invited show up and start protesting or trying to drown out the speaker, are trespassers, and their freedom of speech rights aren’t being infringed on when they are asked to leave or prevented from attending in the first place?
Next, the FCC in no way forces networks or even local channels to broadcast shows. You think that Michael Powell went to CBS and, under penalty of death or losing their liscenses, to air CSI?
But, you did somehow manage to get a couple of points correct. Commerical time is limited on ALL broadcast programs, not just children’s programming. Also, stations are to air local “interest” programming. Stay with me here, it get’s complicated. This is to make sure the local stations stay local. It’s bad enough that more and more stations are becoming part of a megacorp and all start looking the same. Stations liscenses are dependent on local conditions, so local programs (even when aired at times no one other than the operator on duty is watching) are a necessity.
Finally, the EAS (Emergency Alert System) is not tested during primetime hours. Weekly tests are run during daylight hours (mornings/afternoons) and monthly tests are run either during the same daylight hours, or after midnight. Also, if you’re seeing these tests on your cable system, they are originating coming from that cable system.
Oh, and the EAS system is entirely voluntary to stations. There isn’t a requirement to be a member, although probably 90% of all stations (television and radio) participate.
Bladestar, no where did I say that any right was unlimited. Neither did I say that the basic rights ennumerated in the Declaration were ultimate trumo rights, always taking precedence over others. What I did was was “other rights must, at some point, submit to these rights.” Meaning that there is some intersection of rights where basic rights take precedence of ennumerated rights, such as free speech.
“Someone coming on your property or in your house and reading/speaking/posting signs is NOT a free speech issue, it’s called TRESSPASSING ON and/or VANDALIZING PRIVATE PROPERTY. Let me repeat that for you mentally impaired viewers (the rilgious “wrong” and im-moral “majority”) It’s NOT a free speech issue.”
I think I said this, and it’s a good example of the intersection of rights. You’re absolutely correct. Tresspass is a common law concept based upon the idea that property ownership trumps other’s rights, including liberty, the pursuit of hapiness, free speech, and in the case of Texas, even life. That doesn’t stop people from trying to invade another’s property under the guise of the First Amendment. To the tresspasser, they are trying to exercise their right of free expression. But their right ends at the property line of another. It IS a free speech issue in that there’s a clash of rights, and free speech loses out to the right to use your land as you desire.
“Religion attempts to convince people to get laws passed restircting other rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (like the attempted gay marriage ban.
Religion is trying to restrict others pursuit of happiness, ergo, by YOUR definition, religion MUST be banned and/or censored.”
Um, whatever? Where did I call for the censorship of someone interfereing with someone’s basic rights? As I just mentioned, no right is unlimited. If it were, we’d not have incarceration, economic fines, capital punishment, or ownership. As such, each and every right, even those retained by the people, can and are limited in the interests of the general welfare. Religious based activist groups are just as free to attempt to influence the government as any other group.
“The problem with your standard as you presented it is that in a country of over 250 million people, EVERYTHING is offensive to someone’s “pursuit of happiness”. It’s a question of degree.”
So? That’s why the 50s were a very restrictive period, followed by a very liberal period through the 60s and 70s, and now we’re swinging back conservative. Public opinion changes over time, and the extent to which the public will allow the government to regulate the retained rights is an indication of that opinion.
“A gay getting married in NO WAY WHATSOEVER affects YOU. Therefore your ignorant susperstitious belief the it’s wrong has no bearing because you are not harmed by it.”
I’m going to assume that this isn’t directed at me, since I didn’t mention anything about restricting marriage. But for the record, I think we should abolish all tax and inheritance laws and concepts regarding marriage, and place such unions totally and wholly within the purview of religions. If two people want to enter into a contract to deal with all that stuff about who gets what property when they die, or granting the power of attorney or health care decisions in the case of mental incapacitation, contract law can deal with that very nicely.
“Also, the declaration is NOT the legal document portion, the Amendments are.”
True, to a point. But much Constitutional analysis starts with an examination of the Declaration. And the Consitution is explicitly a constructive document. The only powers granted to the government are those listed in the Consitution. All other rights and powers are explicitly retained by the people. So, if the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness are enumerated in the Declaration, and not explicitly restricted in the Constitution, the effect is that those rights are still existant and in force.
Besides which, the First Amendment does not grant or discuss a right of free speech. It merely foribs the passing of any law that abrdiges “freedom of speech.”
“BÙLLSHÍT #2, the FCC DOES force the networks to broadcast shows. They require limits on certain commercials during childrens programming, they require stations to carry shows in the “public interest” (usually the garbage on at 2 or 3 am on a Sunday…), and they ridiculously unnecessary “tests” of the Emergency Alert System.
What are they doing testing this šhìŧ during Prime Time anyway, and on cable no less?”
Well, you’re right, in a way. Those agents that opt to broadcast over public airwaves must abide by all the terms and restrictions of the regulating and licensing agency. To that extent, the networks are required to provide a certain amount of programming as determined by the FCC/goverment.
But the basic point is that no one makes ABC broadcast over public airwaves. HBO is under no obligation whatsoever to provide X hours of children’s programming per week. It’s only those agents/networks that voluntarily opt to use public airwaves to reach a larger audience that must abide by the FCC’s determinations.
The emergeny alert system? It’s there to warn you of an emergeny situation, dûmbášš. Networks test it during primetime to make sure, that in the event of an emergency, it works. So that when they spot a tornado bearing down on the Bladestar household, they know the system works, so they can broadcast an emergency warning so you can get your butt into a shelter. How much would it suck if they didn’t test it during prime time conditions, an emergency arose, and you didn’t get the warning because you didn’t want to see Desperate Housewives interrupted?
Again, it goes the concept that they are broadcasting over public airwaves. One use that public airwaves must be kept free for is the rapid dissemination of emergency information such as extreme weather situations and worse.
“The constitution doesn’t say SHÍT about “Speech shall be abridged by “community standards” or “indecency” when on TV or Radio.”
It also is strangely silent as to radio and television entirely. Maybe we can take from that that the Constitution isn’t intended to apply to TV or radio at all, only “the press,” since that’s specifically mentioned? The Constitution doesn’t need to say anything about it, because there is a fundamental understanding that when two or more rights clash, one will trump the other. And that’s what our court system is for.
For good or ill, our country has decided that broadcasting access on the public airwaves should not be available for everyone. If your problem is that you disagree with that, it’s a more fundamental issue that I don’t think we can really argue about.
Let’s look at the actual 1st Amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
True, to a point. But much Constitutional analysis starts with an examination of the Declaration. And the Consitution is explicitly a constructive document. The only powers granted to the government are those listed in the Consitution. All other rights and powers are explicitly retained by the people. So, if the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of hapiness are enumerated in the Declaration, and not explicitly restricted in the Constitution, the effect is that those rights are still existant and in force.
Again, you’re reasoning is faulty. The Declaration is a statement of principles, not of law. The Declaration is not binding on the federal goverment.
Besides which, the First Amendment does not grant or discuss a right of free speech. It merely foribs the passing of any law that abrdiges “freedom of speech.”
These statements are contradictory. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to state which rights were to protected. So, the basic purpose of the 1st amendment was to protect to right of free speech and freedom of religion.
Den, pretty much none of my arguments re: the FCC apply if you’re stating that the basic principle of public airwaves should be reformed. I view that as a totally different discussion, one which I’m ambivilent to. But, under our current structure, I think I’m hitting the right notes.
You’re technically correct about the Declaration: you won’t find any lawyers citing to it exclusively when defedending their positions. However, in depth Constitutional discussions ofter use the Declaration as a starting point, especially when discussing the fundamental rights held by the people. The right of privacy, not mentioned at all in the Constition, leans heavily on the enumeration of life, liberty, and hapiness found in the Declaration.
Heck, the right to own property is only tangentially mentioned in the Constitution, yet its one of the most powerful rights we retain. The rights of the people are one of those things that is so ingrained that we just assume that people understand them, and listing them in any document was not necessary. The Declaration is one of the few examples contemporary with the Constitution that lists any rights held by the people.
Legally binding, no. Highly persuasive, yes.
We’re both right about forcing broadcasting, depending on your point of view. Once an agent accepts a license to broadcast over public airwaves, you are correct in that certain types of broadcasting are required. My point was that the FCC isn’t going into ABC’s offices saying “your license is about to expire. Renew NOW, or we’re going to fine you. OH, and don’t wait till the end of the season to air why Mary Alice was killed on Desperate Houseviwes, air it in March. And for crying out loud, show us what the monster is on Lost!”
The FCC can only control those networks that choose to brodcast over public airwaves. The government isn’t coming to the Kingbobb house with an edict that I have to develop the New Seasame Street.
Den,
I have to concede that you’re correct on the First Amendment. It is faulty to say it doesn’t state there’s a right to free speech, it’s implied in the purpose of the Bill. My bad.
While the Declaration is not a legally binding document, that does not mean that the rights listed within it are invalid or waived. Nor does it invalidate any legal discussion that includes an examination of the Declaration.
Bûllšhìŧ Jeff.
They ran a test at 9:27PM Tuesday, I was watching Poker Royale on GSN at the time they ran it.
Don’t lie and say they don’t run the tests during Prime Time.
So Bladestar, reading comprehension is still not your strongest point?
Like I said, your local cable system might have originated the EAS test. The federal and state ageincies that send EAS messages do not send tests during primetime.
Jeff, it’s you who lacks reading comprehension, and reasoning skills, the whole point was that they’re required by the FCC to test it period. Tests should be mandated to commercial time rather than program time. ALthough if you’re too stupid to pay attention to your surroundings, you don’t deserve the “Alert”…
While the Declaration is not a legally binding document, that does not mean that the rights listed within it are invalid or waived. Nor does it invalidate any legal discussion that includes an examination of the Declaration.
Perhaps, but to say that the Phrase “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” supercedes that legal protections of the Bill of Rights is incorrect.
You’re technically correct about the Declaration: you won’t find any lawyers citing to it exclusively when defedending their positions. However, in depth Constitutional discussions ofter use the Declaration as a starting point, especially when discussing the fundamental rights held by the people. The right of privacy, not mentioned at all in the Constition, leans heavily on the enumeration of life, liberty, and hapiness found in the Declaration.
Actually, it leans heavily ont he enumeration of life, liberty, and property in the 14th amendment and protections against search and seizure in the 4th.
Heck, the right to own property is only tangentially mentioned in the Constitution, yet its one of the most powerful rights we retain.
Actually, it’s expressed pretty clearly in the 14th Amendment: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
My point was that the FCC isn’t going into ABC’s offices saying “your license is about to expire. Renew NOW, or we’re going to fine you.
Actually, each of ABC’s affiliates have to renew their licenses and every complaint about things like “Saving Private Ryan” is a black mark against their renewal.
No, they won’t tell dictate to them specific plot points for shows, but they do evaluate whether the shows that each affiliate serve the “public interest.” Another ill-defined term in the law.
I think Heinlein had a rather strong point concerning the “inalienable rights” in The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress. His basic point was that “life” is not inalienable; consider, for example, two men stranded in a distant mountain range. There is nothing there to eat, except each other. The only way for either one to survive is by killing the other. Which one’s “right to life” is “inalienable”? And is it “right”?
“Liberty”, similarly, is frequently restricted, and those of us who enjoy reading Jhonen Vasequez’ Johnny the Homicidal Maniac should be very happy – it’s one of the factors that keeps JTHM from becoming a biography…
The “pursuit of happiness” is the only truly inalienable right in that list. It cannot be taken away. Chain me as you will, torment my flesh, pour whatever drivel you like into my television; I can still pursue happiness in whatever form is available to me at the moment. However, neither can that happiness be guaranteed. Nothing can ensure that I will ever capture happiness for more than a few moments at a time, but nothing can keep me from pursuing it, either.
Bladestar, I work with the EAS system on a daily basis, so I do have quite a bit of knowledge on how it operates. When your cable system ran a test, it went over all of the channels I’m guessing. At least that’s how it works where I am. There’s nothing like just about falling asleep with the TV on and the cable system sending out an EAS test. However, they are NOT required to. Just about the only dealings cable operators have with the FCC are about “must carry” complaints. That is, a cable company must carry a small station in your market, when if they actually bumped it in favor of a national cable service, they could make more money.
Your local broadcast stations do schedule their tests during commerical breaks. The weekly tests are scheduled by each individual station and are generally scheduled for weekday mornings or afternoons. Monthly required tests come from the originating station (sent by the local authorities) and your local station has up to an hour to run the test. These can occur anytime except during primetime viewing hours, and on weekends. This way, the test can be put pretty much anywhere during that hour. It used to be a 15 minute window to run the monthly test, but changed a couple of years ago. Most stations (including mine) will take the commerical loss to run the test, but some will air the test over programming. Remember though, in commerical television, programs are just filler material between commericals.
If an actual alert comes thru, the alert gets run as soon as possible. This is because they are mostly weather related and very time sensitive.
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigationfbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
fbi Federal Bureau of Investigation
Den, the 14th amendment isn’t about the right to own property, it’s about the right to due process. The right to own property is one of those unmentioned rights, like life and liberty, that is so ingrained in our legal heritaget that there was no perceived need to include it in the Bill of Rights, because none of the framers could conceive of a time where it would need to be.
The right of privacy is located, as described by the Supreme Court, in the “penumbra” of rights enveloped by the Constitution, but not mentioned in it. While that discussion does also draw upon the Bill of Rights, it likewise scrutinizes the statements made in the declaration.
And are you suggesting that the right of free speech is greater than the right to life? Doesn’t it make more sense that, if there is an unlimited right retained by the people, that it would be the right to life? If free speech trumped life, then it would be OK to shour “fire” in a crowded theater when there was no such fire. Our system clearly falls on the side that free speech is not absolute, and that other rights, including ones not mentioned in the Bill of Rights, supercede the right to free speech under some circumstances.
Kingbobb, read some legal precedents SC rulings. When the SC talks about the “penumbra” that encompasses the right to privacty they are specifically talking about the 14th Amendment.
You have a point that the right to ownproperty is ingrained in the common law, but the 14th Amendment codified the idea that a person’s property cannot be taken away from them without “due process.” In other words, the government can’t just seize your home for back taxes without following the proper procedures described in the law. And 4th protects your property against unreasonable searches and seizes, thereby ensuring that your personal property remains secure and yes, private.
And are you suggesting that the right of free speech is greater than the right to life?
There’s that reading comprehension problem again. No, what I’m saying is that just because something is mentioned in the Declaration does not mean that it automatically “trumps” something the Constitution.
Repeat after me: The Declaration was a statement of principles. The Constitution is the basis for our government.
Yes, the old “shouting fire in a theater” example is not protected speech, but not because of anything in the Declaration. It is because common law and common sense says that you can’t create a situation that recklessly endangers other people. If you want to say that the “right to life” of people trumps freedom of speech in this case, fine, but use the correct reasoning for it.
Zap2it has a report on the supposed contents of the Olympics complaints to the FCC. http://tinyurl.com/65jv4
Den, after you’ve attend law school for a few years, then come back and talk to me about what reasoning the Supreme court uses. Until then, I’ll just have to brush up on my reading comprehension (and typing, since it’s taking me like 5 tries to get this sentence out correctly) skills so i can get your meaning.
’cause when you say
“Perhaps, but to say that the Phrase “life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness” supercedes that legal protections of the Bill of Rights is incorrect.”
it pretty much sounds to me like you’re saying that the Bill of Rights has some legal superiority over other unnamed rights not specifically mentioned in the Constitution. Which is why I posted a question to you, because you’re meaning wasn’t very plain to me, and it’s through no fault of any reading comprehension difficulty on my part.
This is the second or third time you’ve made an attempt to level an attack against me, rather than discuss the points I bring up. You have some interesting points, but I’m afraid they get lost when you have to resort to attaking me, rather than my statements. sod off.
1) I’ve seen more disturbing bøøbš on the beach, on the hairy backs of overweight men than I have ever seen on TV…
2) “Somehow nude black women in Africa (refer to the following movies Shaka Zulu, or Roots) is deemed acceptable due to the fact that the indigenous people are not seen as civilized.”
—By that statement, one would assume that JJ’s breast would have been “deemed acceptable” – unless her brother’s skin pigmentation disorder is genetic, in which case she may not qualify as “black” under those rules.
3) Except for a certain hostile, dry, oil-rich region of the planet, America seems to be the only country afraid to admit that people have either a “pëņìš” and/or a V A G I N A and BREAST! (or both, in some cases), and that they are used FOR PLEASURE, and (even) FOR SEXUAL INTERCOURSE!
I remember when I was 6 y/o hearing about “rubbers” (the condom, not the boot) from a classmate. I also met a teacher of KinderG who once told me one of her female 5-y/o students approached her and announced, “Billy has a pëņìš and I have a pussy” Point being, the sooner you can introduce your kid to the Birds & Bees, the better off you will be, especially if you get to do the educating/creative control. Nothing worse than a kid learning that kissing can get you pregnnt or worse…
The added benefit is that anything that should happen to “pop” up – or – out will not require an explanation or an eye-covering, since it won’t be anything he/she’s not already familiar with, (hard-core pornography, notwithstanding -hopefully).
Besides, if any station(s) or programs should be investigated, the FCC shoud start with the hispanic channel(s) and program(s)!! There is so much thong-wearing, ášš-cheek-showin’, daisey-duke-short-wearin’ going on there, I can’t even begin to mention! AND, to top it off (so to speak) this is on kid-programming! Ever see that one chick’s variety show, “SHUSHA” or “SHOOSHA” (or something like that)?? Talk about T & A for DAYS! Hers is a show that Dad is happy to sit with the kids and watch!
I’ve actually seen – AREOLA – for an entire song! And the cameraman/director/mc did nothing but make certain tv land could enjoy it!
I agree with taking off the commercials that advertise tampons, birth control, femenine sprays, etc. That’s got to be embarrassing for women, and is absolutely something with which little, imature boys like to torture little girls, who are just getting their 1st period!
I also think if you are gonna ban breasts, then ban spandex, because it can be pretty unsightly seeing someones junk swinging back and forth as he clears a hurtle and, worse, fat rolls in what is supposed to be one-size-fits-all (myth – one size does NOT fit all, so stop fooling yourselves)
By the way… My background is in special FX – the male statues are not wearing “pëņìš pants” that’s the real deal! Look, Ma! I’m on TV!
J/K – They are “pëņìš pants”! Well done, I might add! They are probably “snaps” (a quick mold/casting)taken from someone of larger body mass, then molded/cast up in polyurethane or latex, and painted, and then worn by someone a few sizes smaller. I’d say what you are seeing is about as naked as you can get, if you count a mold taken from the real deal…
Den, after you’ve attend law school for a few years, then come back and talk to me about what reasoning the Supreme court uses.
Why? Not having a degree in science or engineering or even a basic grasp of the scientific method doesn’t stop Bush from having an opinion on things like global climate change, space-based missile defense, or evolution. 😛
For the record, I did take a graduate level course on the law and I did have to read and understand Supreme Court rulings. It was enough to convince me not to become a lawyer.
Den, are you sure you really want to use Bush as a role model?
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a graduate level course on law, even one that includes Supreme Court rulings, isn’t going to give you enough exposure as, say, a full term of Constitutional law in law school.
I’ll say again, you are correct when you say that the Declaration is not a legally binding document. However, since you mentioned common law somewhere, I’ll take that to mean that you also understand that not everything in our legal system is codified. It’s becoming more that way, but we still have a legal system that is evolved from a common law system, which means that there are legal principles, including basic rights, that are binding and in force despite the fact that they are not written down explicitly. The principles stated in the Declaration embody these concepts, which is why the Declaration is (or maybe I should say was, as it’s less common today) often consulted when such discussions as basic rights are discussed.
See Kingbobb, now you’re actually saying something that makes sense, rather than before when you were just saying that the Declaration trumps the Bill of Rights. 😛
Sometimes it takes me a lot of babble to get to the stuff buried underneath. one of those “that sounded a lot better in my head” things.
Drives my wife crazy.
I had to check the White House page to get the scoop on Bush. For some reason, since he was a Nat’l Guard pilot, I thought he had some engineering background. but other than whatever he was supposed to learn in pilot school, he’s got…
A History degree…
How can someone with a degree in history keep making such blunders? Maybe he skipped the first day, when the prof. goes over the basics of the course. That would be a good place for the “the point of studying history is to learn from past mistakes so as to not repeat them” statement.
Well he was a C student.