Comments on: When is it OK to say “shit” on the radio?

By: elchupacabras

elchupacabras — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:50:58 +0000

Glad I could keep some fireworks alive in this thread. :-) Too bad there isn’t a PACIFICA station in Idaho.

By: jerr

jerr — Wed, 19 Sep 2007 16:01:24 +0000

I’m glad i have gun rights so I can shoot myself. Quantity has never equaled quality

By: Buster Bronco

Buster Bronco — Tue, 18 Sep 2007 04:32:20 +0000

Who cares what the Clinton’s or Bush’s may or may not have done regarding the regulation of speech. I have made it clear the judicial branch of government has ruled offensive speech is too ambigious to accurately define and control therefore protecting such verbage. Is it right to use such verbage on the air? I think not. But, I don’t believe any court will control it. They may ask it be used on satellite or other stations, but total control won’t take place.

By: Knows Don's Dad

Knows Don's Dad — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 21:36:15 +0000

elchupacabras
“I think there is a case for getting the government out of regulating speech. The facist Bush administration, bolstered by Collin Powell’s kid (former commissioner) decided…”

“Facist”? “Bushbots”? I think somebody needs to stop reading so many north end bumperstickers and pick up a dictionary and a history book or two.

By: Gina

Gina — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 22:25:39 +0000

Back to the original intent of the thread “When is it OK to say “shit” on the radio?” For all of the stations that I worked for in the past… usually it’s a “fireable” (sp) offense. But then again, I’ve always worked in slots where kids WERE listening.

By: Buster Bronco

Buster Bronco — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:59:37 +0000

It was not my intent to enter into a discussion of politics or censorship. My intent is simply to define what indecency is and ask who or what should determine what is indecent in our community. If it is the government that should control indecent speech, which the precedent established in Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) seems to imply, then I believe our discussion proves the government is failing miserably in regulating indecent speech. Free speech advocates would point out that such speech is protected by many legal precedents, including Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971). In this case, Cohen was convicted of violating that part of Cal.Penal Code § 415 which prohibits “maliciously and willfully disturb[ing] the peace or quiet of any neighborhood or person . . . by . . . offensive conduct,” for wearing a jacket bearing the words “Fuck the Draft” in a corridor of the Los Angeles Courthouse. The Court of Appeal held that “offensive conduct” means “behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace,” and affirmed the conviction.
The United States Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the “the State may not, consistently with the First and Fourteenth Amendments, make the simple public display of this single four-letter expletive a criminal offense.” In the opinion Justice Harlan famously wrote “one man’s vulgarity is another’s lyric.”
So, the question of controlling indecent speech was answered by Justice Harlan, who implied that offensive or indecent speech, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. If one does not find such verbage encourages behavior which has a tendency to provoke others to acts of violence or to in turn disturb the peace then it is not vulgar or indecent to that person. If one finds such verbage to be contrary to that opinion, then it is offensive to them. So, how would government regulate speech that may or may not be indecent? It seems it depends upon the likes and dislikes of people and the community standards they adhere to.

By: AJ

AJ — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 21:12:24 +0000

Tell us how you really feel elchupacabras…

If I recall correctly…

This entire post was about *indecency*… Not censorship…

Those of you who fail to realize there is a clear and defined difference… Well… I’ll just leave it at that…

The CA, as ammended in 1996, was under Chairman Hundt, who was appointed by President Clinton and sworn in by VP Gore in 1993… The CA, as ammended, is what drives the enforcement of decency standards. It’s not a matter of the “bushbots” making up new laws – it’s enforcement of existing laws put in on the books by a democratic congress.

By: elchupacabras

elchupacabras — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 17:51:54 +0000

I think there is a case for getting the government out of regulating speech. The facist Bush administration, bolstered by Collin Powell’s kid (former commissioner) decided to start targetting and fining TALENT themselves. The fines have become exhorbitant and send a draconian message to our industry. We as an industry, should do a better job self-policing and not leave it up to the Washington types. Even though I am one of the few self-proclaimed “left wingers” in Idaho broadcasting (yes, I’m a former “Bircher”), I am not in favor of the Fairness Act being restored either. I am disgusted by the lack of balance, and am sick of the BUSHBOTS like Hannity and Laura Ingraham. Bush can never do wrong, according to them. But, as for my own politcally-charged show, I like to try and invite all sides into the debate, regardless. But what happens if you can’t get somebody to appear? Would you be fined? I thought I would bring up this issue as we debate censorship in this thread, in addition to fines. I hope somebody responds. Don’t forget, I sometimes like to “bait,” for the hell of it!

By: Buster Bronco

Buster Bronco — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:50:26 +0000

So, if the FCC does not regulate the internet then it becomes incumbent for individuals to govern and regulate themselves in accordance to community standards. What will those standards be and who in the community will be setting those standards?
Just something to think about.

By: The

The — Fri, 14 Sep 2007 07:50:55 +0000

“OK, so if ‘…FCC has no authority over streaming regardless of the source’ then they are pretty much worthless and just another impotent governmental body raiding the tax rolls.”

Well, no. See, the whole thing about regulating the airwaves is that they are SCARCE and therefore need to be regulated, which is why you have to have a license to broadcast using them and you DON’T have to have a license to have a “radio station” on the Internet. There is no scarcity of bandwidth on the Internet.

The creators of the FCC (back when it was the FRC, the Federal Radio Commission) obvious didn’t anticipate something like the Internet. Nor should the Internet be regulated, in my opinion, as that would have killed the thing in its cradle.