- bumadax
- Pilgrim
- Registered: 2001-06-11
- Posts: 9734
- Website
How the FCC has become an extension of the PTC
smile at people
- Katana Wielder:Avi Stetto
- Pilgrim
- From: United States
- Registered: 2004-05-16
- Posts: 62
- Website
Re: How the FCC has become an extension of the PTC
Anyone is welcome to complain to the FCC about "indecency" in media (by which I mean broadcast television and terrestrial radio). If the PTC finds something obscene under the three criteriae as listed below, they have the constitutional right to appeal to the FCC. You may not agree with their personal values, but they are the ones who are vocalizing the loudest.
Something is obscene if:
1. it lacks redeeming social value,
3. it appeals to prurient (i.e., sexually stimulating or exciting) interests
2. it is offensive according to contemporary community standards.
Here's a link to a nice explanation of FCC vs. Pacifica
As an aside, anyone has the right to go to a television or radio station (here in the United States) and take a look at the public inspection file. That's always fun to do.
"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."
Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. Hover pernicious as an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. (US 1974:339)
- bumadax
- Pilgrim
- Registered: 2001-06-11
- Posts: 9734
- Website
Re: How the FCC has become an extension of the PTC
but the PTC is a handful of people. if they're so morally superior to everybody, why can't they see that they're trying to change media content for EVERYONE based on just their views, and that this isn't very fair? you can't expect everyone to start fighting or arguing with the PTC. nobody even knows who they are. most people who don't mind indecency on the air aren't going to go out and voice their opinion on how they think the PTC is full of crap either way... errgh.
smile at people
- Katana Wielder:Avi Stetto
- Pilgrim
- From: United States
- Registered: 2004-05-16
- Posts: 62
- Website
Re: How the FCC has become an extension of the PTC
How do you mean "on the air?" Do you mean terrestrial radio and television, or are you including cable and other subscription-based media delivery systems? If you use that phrase, I have to believe you mean terrestrial broadcasting systems (i.e., conventional radio stations and television networks like CBS, ABC, and NBC) and not cable or satellite radio. The FCC does not regulate cable or satellite radio, only what goes out over the air waves. Cable is technically not broadcasting.
By their silence, people are passively agreeing with media watchdog groups like the PTC. Obviously, you disagree with the PTC's viewpoint on what is proper general entertainment, and you have every right to voice your sentiments. The purpose of the FCC is to regulate what content is allowed on broadcast networks and they operate under a "clean-up-the-mess" system rather than a preventive system.
Incidentally, the PTC likes the a la carte cable payment system that is under consideration. As expressed in an interview on NPR's Fresh Air, they recognize the constitutional right of individuals who would like to view material that the PTC finds questionable. So, at least according to their spokesman Tim Winter, they would rather that the individual gets to choose what cable networks they get rather than pay for packages, which is the practice now.
When asked whether or not the FCC should regulate cable, Mr. Winter said this:
"No, actually. We would prefer for. . . again, the a la carte solution really solves the problem comprehensively."
He then adds the caveat that perhaps limits should be enforced if the a la carte system is not enacted. Most cable networks don't like the idea of the a la carte system because of it would potentially not be cost-effective for them.
If you disagree with this system and would prefer that the cable system remains as it is, perhaps you should contact your national representatives.
[ April 23, 2006: Message edited by: Avi Stetto ]
"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."
Under the First Amendment, there is no such thing as a false idea. Hover pernicious as an opinion may seem, we depend for its correction not on the conscience of judges and juries, but on the competition of other ideas. (US 1974:339)
- Firsfron of Ronchester
- Mantis
- From: Ronchester
- Registered: 2001-06-04
- Posts: 9202
- Website
Re: How the FCC has become an extension of the PTC
Avi Stetto wrote:How do you mean "on the air?" Do you mean terrestrial radio and television, or are you including cable and other subscription-based media delivery systems? If you use that phrase, I have to believe you mean terrestrial broadcasting systems (i.e., conventional radio stations and television networks like CBS, ABC, and NBC) and not cable or satellite radio. The FCC does not regulate cable or satellite radio, only what goes out over the air waves.
If you mean to say that the FCC does not regulate content on Cable, you could be right, but the FCC certainly does regulate Cable TV: "The FCC [...] is charged with regulating all non-Federal Government use of the radio spectrum (including radio and television broadcasting), and all interstate telecommunications (wire, satellite and cable) as well as all international communications that originate or terminate in the United States." (source:Wikipedia).
In fact, one of the main reasons U.S. television was limited to three major networks for so long (40 years or so) is because the FCC heavily regulated cable television, and placed many restrictions on its usage until the 1980s.
[b]
Cable is technically not broadcasting.
That's also not really correct. Cable is a form of broadcasting thru the means of wire, while radio broadcasting uses the airwaves. When we think of broadcasting, we generally think of ABC, CBS, NBC, etc, but even these use a patchwork of satellite, radio broadcasting, and even coaxial cable lines. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcasting
[b]The purpose of the FCC is to regulate what content is allowed on broadcast networks
Among other things, including renewing station licences and issuing reports on all forms of broadcasting. Interestingly enough, the FCC is the main reason we had four terrestrial broadcast networks from 1948 to 1956, 3 from 1956 to 1986, and almost no cable at all until 1980.
Thanks for the A la Carte link.
- bumadax
- Pilgrim
- Registered: 2001-06-11
- Posts: 9734
- Website
Re: How the FCC has become an extension of the PTC
I'm glad we're getting in-depth here, but I don't really feel like getting into the details. The numbers speak for themselves. 99.9% of all these complaints come from the PTC. There's nothing OK about that. People are passive because they don't know. There is no media coverage on this stuff. I got that statistic from a conservative think tank's numbers. The left doesn't even realize it's a big deal.
[ April 27, 2006: Message edited by: m a x ]
smile at people
|
|
|
|
|
