Page 1 of 1 [ 13 posts ] 

heffe1981
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 4 Oct 2015
Age: 42
Posts: 94
Location: Saratoga Springs

31 Mar 2016, 9:19 pm

I think this relates to Autism because it seems to be a black and white; yes or no issue to me. Why do we have the FCC tell us what we can or cannot say if we have the freedom of speech? I am 35 years old so I was not really aware of the whole cold war thing. I grew up thinking that communists and nazis were the "bad guys" because they were trying to suppress or take away freedoms from people in other countries. I always had the impression that if we were not careful then Americans would lose freedoms too. I thought every American of my generation and younger generations knew about these historical "bad guys" that wanted to take away our freedoms. And I, like many of my peers, took delight in exercising our freedom of speech whenever we could get away from the "tyranny" of parents, teachers, etc. Our slang, curse and swear words were more than bad words, at least to me. At that time, they symbolized freedom. As I grew older I realized they were part of my identity. I now understand that the FCC was responsible for most of these words.

I understand the need to regulate media. What I don't understand is why this regulation extends to words. It seems to be a result of a "grey" area that some people invent out of thin air. I try to explain to the average person that the FCC regulates companies. The FCC does not regulate private citizens. So why do I still hear people telling me that I can't say certain things? Is this a result of the FCC? I make a futile attempt to explain that I am a grown man. I am my own boss. No one has the right to tell me that I can't say certain things.


_________________
Email:[email protected]
use my Email to find me playing android games online
Nintendo friend code: SW-5745-7581-4503
Not really on Xbox live


kraftiekortie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 4 Feb 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 87,510
Location: Queens, NYC

31 Mar 2016, 9:23 pm

Because nasty words, sometimes, leads to nasty actions.

And also because there are certain people, especially older people, who do not delight in hearing such things as curse words over the airwaves. It protects their sensibilities.

I'm not a believer in censorship, by the way. I'm just stating their justification for it.

I'm not really a lover of "cursing for cursing's sake" myself.



Aspie1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Mar 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,749
Location: United States

31 Mar 2016, 10:49 pm

The FCC censoring swear words and hate speech is just an added bonus of sorts. The original purpose of the FCC is to protect communication channels. Anything being broadcast uses frequencies on the electromagnetic spectrum. Now, there is only one set of frequencies. If a large corporation, or even a criminal-minded natural person or business entity, decided to snap up all the frequencies for its own use, who would stop them? No one, really. At least not without a scenario resembling The Purge (movie reference).

That's where the FCC comes in. Their original role was to limit each natural person's or business entity's use of the electromagnetic spectrum, so that everyone gets equitable (not necessarily equal) access. They also leave some frequencies unregulated, to allow for limited free-for-all usage. CB (citizens' band) radio is one notable example. Also walkie-talkies, whose broadcast is too weak to reach the next town, let alone the ionosphere, as is the case for some radio and TV stations. They also reserve blocks of frequencies for maritime and aviation communications, as well as the police, firefighters, and medical personnel. And in national emergencies, they can also take over the entire electromagnetic spectrum, and broadcast critical updates on all frequencies, so everyone receives them.

Of course, like with any US government organization, corporate lobbyists ruin things for everybody. Large corporations end up grabbing large sets of frequencies for themselves, after having paid off the Congress. But even then, they can't grab all the frequencies, which could easily be the case if the FCC didn't exist.



xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

01 Apr 2016, 12:55 am

FCC purpose it to regulate the spectrum of channels to ensure they play nice with each other, approve devices that use spectrum or new communications technology such as LTE.

They also are required to regulate the telecommunications industry and landlines.

Lastly they are required to regulate and monitor Over The Air TV channels.

The FCC is only required by law to regulate the Over The Air channels and Standard Radio to prevent indecency (yes it was made law by Congress in the 1950s).
This is now weakening.

There is no regulation of speech on Cable/Satellite TV channels, Satellite Radio, Internet, Video Games, etc... because you pay for it willingly and it is outside the mandate of the FCC.

The FCC if anything is too weak at most regulations, especially industry regulations.

Depending on the polls, Americans want the FCC to go further on regulating public broadcast and adding paid formats to the list or they don't want it at all.


_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Apr 2016, 1:41 am

when I was in broadcasting class i was told the fcc was not generally in the habit of proactively enforcing rules [i.e., listening on all channels waiting for a "GOTCHA!"] regarding broadcast profanity but will indeed levy sanctions as long as there are complaints. they regard each complaint email or letter as quasi-statistically equal to 1000 complaints. Canada has a similar bureaucracy they call DOC [Department Of Communications] with similar criteria, but since Canadians in general are far more liberal-minded than most americans, they don't generally bother themselves with busting broadcasters over profanity and/or nudity like they do down here in puritanical amuurica. 2 court cases strengthened the fcc's hand in this regard- the "uncle Charlie walker" case in the early 60s, and the 1978 "FCC versus Pacifica" case- the former proscribed "indecent" language while the latter was about "obscene language."



ASPartOfMe
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Aug 2013
Age: 66
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,454
Location: Long Island, New York

01 Apr 2016, 3:12 am

They have no authority to tell us what to say. They have authority to tell TV stations what to say.


_________________
Professionally Identified and joined WP August 26, 2013
DSM 5: Autism Spectrum Disorder, DSM IV: Aspergers Moderate Severity

It is Autism Acceptance Month

“My autism is not a superpower. It also isn’t some kind of god-forsaken, endless fountain of suffering inflicted on my family. It’s just part of who I am as a person”. - Sara Luterman


auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Apr 2016, 3:21 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
They have no authority to tell us what to say. They have authority to tell TV stations what to say.

in theory, they have no real power of "prior restraint." a tv station can go ahead and broadcast problematic material and in theory the FCC will act when it receives the first complaint about it. and they can tell what what we're not supposed to say, for example if we use a two-way walkie talkie or ham radio, but they can't prevent us from saying what we wanna say in the first place.



Chichikov
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Mar 2016
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,151
Location: UK

01 Apr 2016, 4:28 am

ASPartOfMe wrote:
They have no authority to tell us what to say. They have authority to tell TV stations what to say.


Pepsi have more power over what your TV programs are allowed to say than any government organisation but I don't see Americans up-in-arms about that? If Pepsi, McDonlands etc don't like what a show is saying they threaten to remove advertising revenue and boom...the content that Pepsi don't like is dropped. Want to talk about abortion on your show? We won't advertise. Mythbusters have never looked into the credit card security features of things like RFID chips because VISA threatened to withdraw advertising if they did...and if big corporations don't like what you're saying, you can't say it.

Yet all the Americans are running around complaining that the government is stopping free speech? :D All the while the real culprits are ignored.



naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,126
Location: temperate zone

01 Apr 2016, 5:04 am

There are only so many "channels"- so many places on the spectrum of radio waves. So someone has to be empowered to dole the frequencies out to all of the FM, AM, television, CB radio, police radio, military communication, WiFi, and so on, interest groups.

Also back in the 1936 half of the nation fled to the hills because Orson Welles convinced America that it was being wiped out by genocidal Martian invaders when he turned H.G.Wells "War of the Worlds" into a radio play, and neglected to include disclaimers in his broadcast.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Apr 2016, 3:08 pm

^^^ I slightly beg to differ in that there was at least two disclaimers in the broadcast. it is just that, in the words of h.l. Mencken, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." because of that, we have our government doing its damndest to hide the UFO truth from us. and advertisers hold 99% of the puppet strings controlling expression but not all- NBC in the 50s bravely broadcast sans commercials, a season of nat king cole in prime time when no advertisers were brave enough to pay for ad time for fear of upsetting racists.



xenocity
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Dec 2014
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,282
Location: Metro Detroit Michigan

01 Apr 2016, 4:25 pm

auntblabby wrote:
when I was in broadcasting class i was told the fcc was not generally in the habit of proactively enforcing rules [i.e., listening on all channels waiting for a "GOTCHA!"] regarding broadcast profanity but will indeed levy sanctions as long as there are complaints. they regard each complaint email or letter as quasi-statistically equal to 1000 complaints. Canada has a similar bureaucracy they call DOC [Department Of Communications] with similar criteria, but since Canadians in general are far more liberal-minded than most americans, they don't generally bother themselves with busting broadcasters over profanity and/or nudity like they do down here in puritanical amuurica. 2 court cases strengthened the fcc's hand in this regard- the "uncle Charlie walker" case in the early 60s, and the 1978 "FCC versus Pacifica" case- the former proscribed "indecent" language while the latter was about "obscene language."

Generally the FCC is very reactive to situations on OTA and Radio broadcasts.

The FCC will only respond if enough people file a complaint or make a big enough fuss over the issue.


_________________
Something.... Weird... Something...


naturalplastic
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Aug 2010
Age: 69
Gender: Male
Posts: 34,126
Location: temperate zone

01 Apr 2016, 4:46 pm

auntblabby wrote:
^^^ I slightly beg to differ in that there was at least two disclaimers in the broadcast. it is just that, in the words of h.l. Mencken, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." because of that, we have our government doing its damndest to hide the UFO truth from us. and advertisers hold 99% of the puppet strings controlling expression but not all- NBC in the 50s bravely broadcast sans commercials, a season of nat king cole in prime time when no advertisers were brave enough to pay for ad time for fear of upsetting racists.


Yeah - he put in two wimpy easy to miss disclaimers during the whole long show while carefully crafting the show sound like a newscast. He got reprimanded, but he also got his first sponsor after the stunt. So he didnt suffer much at the hands of the government. Someone did a Spanish language version of his show in Ecuador a few years later, and the locals burned the radio station down So you get a balancecd diet of...BS. :)

But thats incredible about Nat King Cole.

I used to watch RT (Russia today)a lot. Its a mouthpiece for Moscow, but it has no commericals. So its NOT a mouthpiece for American advertisers. So you may get BS, but its different BS than you get from American news.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 113,725
Location: the island of defective toy santas

01 Apr 2016, 6:46 pm

naturalplastic wrote:
Someone did a Spanish language version of his show in Ecuador a few years later, and the locals burned the radio station down

gee, what a bunch of soreheads :alien:
naturalplastic wrote:
I used to watch RT (Russia today)a lot. Its a mouthpiece for Moscow, but it has no commericals. So its NOT a mouthpiece for American advertisers. So you may get BS, but its different BS than you get from American news.

i'll buy THAT for a dollar! :mrgreen: