stopfcc.com
#1
03-09-2004 | 09:44 AM
Thread Starter
|
Senior Member
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 789
Likes: 0
From: Leander TX
#2
03-09-2004 | 10:18 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
From: LaGrange, Kentucky
We the undersigned pledge our support for freedom of speech and expression on our airwaves, print, the Internet, broadcast, cable and satellite.
While we realize that the government has an obligation to protect our children, surely there needs to be a limit to what is regulated. Adults and parents are capable of making decisions about what to watch, read or listen to and are certainly capable of turning off or putting down anything that may offend them or their children.
As voting citizens, we ask our elected officials to consider your actions in attempting to further regulate television, radio, cable, satellite, print and Internet content.
We consider further censorship attempts to be unconstitutional and we will fight these actions by voting for a politician who cares about our rights as Americans.
While we realize that the government has an obligation to protect our children, surely there needs to be a limit to what is regulated. Adults and parents are capable of making decisions about what to watch, read or listen to and are certainly capable of turning off or putting down anything that may offend them or their children.
As voting citizens, we ask our elected officials to consider your actions in attempting to further regulate television, radio, cable, satellite, print and Internet content.
We consider further censorship attempts to be unconstitutional and we will fight these actions by voting for a politician who cares about our rights as Americans.
As far as free speech goes, you are free to say anything you want. Sometimes there will be consequences to your words - such as going into a crowded theater and screaming "fire". What are your thoughts?
runnert
#3
03-09-2004 | 11:44 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
First 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.”
I won’t sign it either for the simple fact there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional. The first amendment guarantees you the right to free speech “basically” when it concerns the government and/or religion.
However it does not guarantee that anyone can have access to the public airways and say anything they wish and do anything they wish. There are boundaries that can be set by the majority of the citizens. If the majority of citizens do not wish for **** to be readily accessible to children either on the web or by television broadcast then they can be censored out and considered unlawful.
For example, it is illegal to have a public assemble and then tell those gathered to go and blow up their neighborhood, or for someone to stand up in a theater and scream fire. In each of those cases a person could be fined and/or put in jail for their actions and thus it does not hinder the first amendment right in any way, shape or form.
The First amendment is met to insure everyone can practice the religion of their choice and tell their government that it sucks if that is how they feel with out worrying about being prosecuted or killed for those actions like in many countries around the world.
It was never intended to allow anybody to say or do anything they wish like a free for all.
Just because you have freedom of speech in NO way guarantees you have the right to be heard…
For those really concerned about their First amendment rights how many have protested to their elected officials about “Finance Reform” (Federal election laws) which is “specifically” against the First amendment because it LIMITS the ability of some to have their voice heard about “concerns” with their government and “to petition the government for a redress of grievances“…
”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.”
I won’t sign it either for the simple fact there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional. The first amendment guarantees you the right to free speech “basically” when it concerns the government and/or religion.
However it does not guarantee that anyone can have access to the public airways and say anything they wish and do anything they wish. There are boundaries that can be set by the majority of the citizens. If the majority of citizens do not wish for **** to be readily accessible to children either on the web or by television broadcast then they can be censored out and considered unlawful.
For example, it is illegal to have a public assemble and then tell those gathered to go and blow up their neighborhood, or for someone to stand up in a theater and scream fire. In each of those cases a person could be fined and/or put in jail for their actions and thus it does not hinder the first amendment right in any way, shape or form.
The First amendment is met to insure everyone can practice the religion of their choice and tell their government that it sucks if that is how they feel with out worrying about being prosecuted or killed for those actions like in many countries around the world.
It was never intended to allow anybody to say or do anything they wish like a free for all.
Just because you have freedom of speech in NO way guarantees you have the right to be heard…
For those really concerned about their First amendment rights how many have protested to their elected officials about “Finance Reform” (Federal election laws) which is “specifically” against the First amendment because it LIMITS the ability of some to have their voice heard about “concerns” with their government and “to petition the government for a redress of grievances“…
#4
03-09-2004 | 11:51 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Jun 1999
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
From: Houston
As far as free speech goes, you are free to say anything you want. Sometimes there will be consequences to your words - such as going into a crowded theater and screaming "fire".
) Screaming fire is a great example of this; I wouldn't put it under "free speech" more under stupidity, but it shows the limitations we have, but if there are limitations, then we really can't have "total free" speech. Which, I am not arguing is a bad thing at all....^%&!..... here come the helicopters!!!!!!!!
#5
03-09-2004 | 12:09 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
As I kind of pointed out in my previous post the First amendment and free speech is about religion and government, not “free” speech in general…
Say what ever you wish about your government and practice any religion you wish and that is protected under the First amendment, all other speech is subject to the laws of the land and not “necessarily” protected by the Constitution…
Say what ever you wish about your government and practice any religion you wish and that is protected under the First amendment, all other speech is subject to the laws of the land and not “necessarily” protected by the Constitution…
#6
03-09-2004 | 02:55 PM
Member
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
From: Oxford, MA
[QUOTE]Originally posted by 01 XLT Sport
[B]First 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.”
Burt you missed the last line of the 1st amendment:
"...Nor shall Congress make any law prohibiting the exposing of one's areola during a world televised event."
[B]First 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.”
Burt you missed the last line of the 1st amendment:
"...Nor shall Congress make any law prohibiting the exposing of one's areola during a world televised event."
#7
03-09-2004 | 03:12 PM
Senior Member
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 0
From: Titusville, FL
Trending Topics
#8
03-10-2004 | 01:12 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,823
Likes: 1
From: Hollywood, CA
”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.”
It addresses free speech seperately from establishing and exercising your religion, and it's seperate from the next listed item, the freedom of the press. This, to me, means, freedom of speech, no exceptions, no `but that's not what it meant`, that's what it says. The Constitution CLEARLY states that there shall be no law abridging my freedom of speech, but I do agree that I don't have the right to be heard. Everyone else has the right to ignore me if they don't want to hear me. I don't think that what is on tv should be regulated, I think that parents should decide what their children should be allowed to see, it shouldn't be cut off before anyone gets a chance to see it. I am against censorship in any way, shape form or fashion. I do agree that limits should be on what you can say and when you can say it, when it comes to a situation that could cause people harm in any way. Then I can see drawing a line. But to say that I can't have boobies on tv? Then there's a problem.
I didn't sign, anyway.
It addresses free speech seperately from establishing and exercising your religion, and it's seperate from the next listed item, the freedom of the press. This, to me, means, freedom of speech, no exceptions, no `but that's not what it meant`, that's what it says. The Constitution CLEARLY states that there shall be no law abridging my freedom of speech, but I do agree that I don't have the right to be heard. Everyone else has the right to ignore me if they don't want to hear me. I don't think that what is on tv should be regulated, I think that parents should decide what their children should be allowed to see, it shouldn't be cut off before anyone gets a chance to see it. I am against censorship in any way, shape form or fashion. I do agree that limits should be on what you can say and when you can say it, when it comes to a situation that could cause people harm in any way. Then I can see drawing a line. But to say that I can't have boobies on tv? Then there's a problem.
I didn't sign, anyway.
#9
03-10-2004 | 01:41 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 918
Likes: 0
From: south western NYS Latitude: 42.34 N, Longitude: 78.46 W
How far do we (the people) let the FCC go to censor what we listen to and or watch. We (the people) must draw a line in the sand somewhere or our freedom of speech is compromised which leads to more censorship and eventually we will have little say in what goes on in the ole USof A. Like korea, china, etc.. we will just be the unspoken, outsourced, very low paid vegetables just growing on the vines waiting to be harvested.
I signed it. Maybe you should to...
I signed it. Maybe you should to...
#10
03-10-2004 | 05:52 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 1,823
Likes: 1
From: Hollywood, CA
#11
03-10-2004 | 06:33 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 918
Likes: 0
From: south western NYS Latitude: 42.34 N, Longitude: 78.46 W
#12
03-10-2004 | 06:40 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 918
Likes: 0
From: south western NYS Latitude: 42.34 N, Longitude: 78.46 W
Originally posted by lifeguardjoe
Clear Channel took away one of my regular personalities in the morning. Although it upsetted me, I didn't care becuase they started playing music again!
Clear Channel took away one of my regular personalities in the morning. Although it upsetted me, I didn't care becuase they started playing music again!
I didn't care because they started playing music again!
[PHP]becuase[/PHP]
#13
03-10-2004 | 07:26 AM
Member
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 96
Likes: 0
From: Pflugerville
I'm not for censorship either, but I am for networks being responsible, moral and tasteful (which they no longer are). I don't think that kids should be bombarded with sex, drugs and violence. If the FCC said they didn't care what networks did, and ABC decided to become the All Breast Network and show hardcore **** all day, would you be against that? I could just see little Timmy coming home from school before mom & dad get home and turning on the tube...or you turn your back for a minute and your 6 year old grabs the remote, before you know it you are no longer watching The Love Boat but now you've got The Shut Up and Screw Sin Ship. While I myself may enjoy that every once in awhile, it's nothing that I would want anybody's young childrend to watch, especially mine if I ever have them. And becuase I get home from work after my kids, or if I don't have my eyes on my kids 24 hours a day, would that make me a bad and irresponsible parent?
I'm not voting for it just yet. I've always got cable or XM Comedy if I want to hear the F bomb.
I'm not voting for it just yet. I've always got cable or XM Comedy if I want to hear the F bomb.
#14
03-10-2004 | 07:46 AM
Senior Member
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 4,867
Likes: 0
From: NH
I for one would defend the entire Constitution until the day I die and that included the First amendment. I think what many people are forgetting is that the First amendment does not in any way, shape or form guarantee the right to be heard.
You as an individual have “freedom of speech” however you do no have the right to broadcast your speech as you wish. This is not the government coming in and trying to “censorship” anybody, well to a point it is since we are all a part of the government. It is a majority of citizens through their “freedom of speech” asking for some limits on what can be “heard” over “broadcast”.
This is nothing new, nor is it evil. It has been practiced since the invent of TV and radio. There have always been limits on what can be said over public airwaves and what can be seen on public TV.
It there were none you could have shows that shows you how to blow up things, kill animals and/or people, gay sex on TV, any kind of sex on TV, you name it and everyone would be coming in and trying to sale it through broadcast and TV claiming they have a First Amendment right to do so.
They do NOT have a First amendment right to be heard and that is what broadcast and TV are for, they are a platforms for being heard and there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anybody that right.
If you want to market that kind of crap you first need the permission of the “majority” of Americans then it should be clearly labeled “Animal slaughter TV” not on a family channel like the Super Bowl with a washed up singer showing a old saggy breast for everybody to see. There was no warning nothing. Did it bother me personally? No, except it wasn’t very perky from the pictures on the web…
But it was uncalled for and that is why there are rules in society to insure proper behavior.
Let me ask this to those who seem to believe “freedom of speech” also guarantees “freedom to be heard” which is what broadcast and TV are for:
Would you be willing to defend a child predators “freedom of speech” if he wished to start a TV show or radio broadcast that explained to other sick bastards how to lure in a child for your sexual pleasure?
If you are going to state that “freedom of speech” means NO censorship or rules on broadcast and TV then you better be answering YES you would absolutely FIGHT TO THE DEATH to protect the child predictors rights to teach others how to lure children in for sexual pleasure on your TV where your kids and grandkids view as well as radio…
You as an individual have “freedom of speech” however you do no have the right to broadcast your speech as you wish. This is not the government coming in and trying to “censorship” anybody, well to a point it is since we are all a part of the government. It is a majority of citizens through their “freedom of speech” asking for some limits on what can be “heard” over “broadcast”.
This is nothing new, nor is it evil. It has been practiced since the invent of TV and radio. There have always been limits on what can be said over public airwaves and what can be seen on public TV.
It there were none you could have shows that shows you how to blow up things, kill animals and/or people, gay sex on TV, any kind of sex on TV, you name it and everyone would be coming in and trying to sale it through broadcast and TV claiming they have a First Amendment right to do so.
They do NOT have a First amendment right to be heard and that is what broadcast and TV are for, they are a platforms for being heard and there is nothing in the Constitution that guarantees anybody that right.
If you want to market that kind of crap you first need the permission of the “majority” of Americans then it should be clearly labeled “Animal slaughter TV” not on a family channel like the Super Bowl with a washed up singer showing a old saggy breast for everybody to see. There was no warning nothing. Did it bother me personally? No, except it wasn’t very perky from the pictures on the web…
But it was uncalled for and that is why there are rules in society to insure proper behavior.
Let me ask this to those who seem to believe “freedom of speech” also guarantees “freedom to be heard” which is what broadcast and TV are for:
Would you be willing to defend a child predators “freedom of speech” if he wished to start a TV show or radio broadcast that explained to other sick bastards how to lure in a child for your sexual pleasure?
If you are going to state that “freedom of speech” means NO censorship or rules on broadcast and TV then you better be answering YES you would absolutely FIGHT TO THE DEATH to protect the child predictors rights to teach others how to lure children in for sexual pleasure on your TV where your kids and grandkids view as well as radio…