FCC Settles Censorship Claims with ClearChannel

The Importance of writes "Earlier this week Slashdot debated whether the FCC should be abolished. One of the reasons many think the FCC should go away is because of censorship. Well, yesterday, the FCC settled all existing censorship investigations with Clear Channel for $1.75M and a promise to be better in the future, such as by firing DJs for their first offense. Clear Channel also plead guilty to violating indecency standards, but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong. On the other hand, the FCC seems to have forgotten that they decided a couple of months ago to regulate profanity in addition to indecency. In other FCC news, they've posted the internet section of the FCC History Project."

Comments

thats nice, but

[Spanyrd]

what about the fact that they own the entire market in some areas?

Re:thats nice, but

[rusty0101]

Unless they own over half of the "media" in the area, including TV, Cable, and local Print media, the FCC does not consider them to have a fraction to be concerned about.

This is one of the reasons US West (before merger with Qwest) had to drop interest in some of the Cable companies they had purchased when they had partner ownership with both Time Warner, and Disney. As a result some of the markets they were in included all of the media outlets.

-Rusty

Shakedown

[SIGALRM]

The Federal Communications Commission had already proposed almost $800,000 in fines against the radio giant ... but the settlement wipes the slate clean.

So the payoff wasn't for actual fines, it was for the threat of fines to come.

Sounds like a shake-down to me.

Re:Shakedown

[slashd'oh]

Actually, in the Reuters article, not all of the Commissioners were in agreement about this, since it lumped all the claims together into one settlement:

"FCC Commissioner Michael Copps voted against the settlement, arguing it failed to examine all the complaints against the company and the incidents could not be considered when deciding whether to renew the company's radio licenses."

Re:Shakedown

[zoobaby]

That was no shakedown. It was ClearChannel BUYING OFF the FCC. The FCC had already proposed $800,000 in fines and there were more complaints that would have lead to even more fines, most likely totalling more than $1.7 million. ClearChannel now has a clean slate and can probably get away with a few fine-able offences.

Re:Shakedown

[jdhutchins]

So there was going to be 1.7 million in fines, and Clear Channel payed 1.75 million. How is that "buying off"? I'd call it more of a plea bargin.

Re:Shakedown

[Zareste]

Interesting. FCC is definitely cashing in on their new 'we control what you say' regulations. Impressive. Nobody's buying their 'think of the children' act anymore but it really doesn't matter anymore, does it? Control what everyone's aloud to say and hear and make a load of money off it? I want that job.

Re:Shakedown

[black mariah]

No, you don't get it do you, man?!? ANY TIME money changes hands between two people, someone is being bought off. Like how you have to buy off those people at McDonald's to give you a hamburger. ITZ A11 AB0uT TEH m000000000n3y!"!!!!!1112

Or something like that. I've given up responding to morons like the grandparent.

Clean up the Air on the Tech Side, Too

[nyekulturniy]

I'm in favor of maintaining regulatory standards over programming. However, when is the FCC going to get its act together and clean up the technical mess on the medium-wave band?

How long before...

[Anonymous Coward]

...someone posts the inevitable "think of the children" post?

Re:How long before...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. No! Think of the parents who will actually have to pay attention to their children! They might even have to ask childcare providers on how they care for their children. All this participation, how will they ever get any work done!

Re:How long before...

[WormholeFiend]

are there any children who listen to the radio anymore? (on purpose, as opposed to collaterally when having to ride in their parents' car, for example)

Re:How long before...

[anachattak]

The idea that kids listen to radio is RIDICULOUS. According to the government, they're all out DOWNLOADING MUSIC!!! If that's the case, the FCC is really only in the business of protecting the ears of old fogies, who can't figure out how to download the latest Snoop song and are forced to wait for it to play on the air. Duh!

Re:How long before...

[Thud457]

Guy in a raincoat on a sunny day : "Hey lady, I think of the children all the time... I'm thinking of them right now! uhnn unhhhh uhnnnnnnn!"

Damn I wish I could have posted that annonymously!

Re:How long before...

[nyekulturniy]

However, what I am concerned about is not the programming as much as the quality of the signals. As late as a few years ago, there were "clear channel" stations (not the corporation) that had more or less exclusive rights to broadcast on one frequency at night, as well as regional stations and the "graveyard" channels from 1300 to 1490 kHz. Stations would get off the air at sunset and on at sunrise because of the way medium-wave radio propagates.

The FCC stopped enforcing the technical quality of these stations and now even "clear channels" have smaller stations operating on their frequencies, or even drifting out of channel, which prevents clear reception of any station. This may sound trivial, but in emergencies such as hurricanes, one state-wide station might be able to get a message through, while local FM stations and TV stations are off the air.

Our friends at Clear Channel have not helped, either. A good example of not thinking of the public service value of AM radio is their plan to move WWVA-1170 kHz out of Wheeling, West Virginia, to Ohio, to be a competition for the Cleveland market. Fine. But what about floods in West Virginia?

Or allowing WOWO's 1170 kHz signal in Fort Wayne to drop to 10 kW from 50 kW so that WLIB in New York could marginally penetrate the NYC metro area? (This was done pre-Air America. I think I got better reception of WLIB in the DC area than their purported audiences.)

The band has its unique characteristics that make it valuable. The FCC is ignoring these characteristics. The programming could actually get better if someone made the band worth listening to at night.

Re:How long before...

[lachlan76]

We listen to the radio!
Where else would we get most of our music from?

I find it ironic that as a 14-year-old, when i read an article saying that use of the word fuck, even when used in the context of fucking brilliant, is a jailable offense, my reaction is "what the fuck is wrong with people?".

Us kids don't need radio to swear.

Re:How long before...

[jred]

My 8yo daughter loves the radio. She gets 2/3 of the programmed stations.

I'm lucky, she hates pop music, and is more into metal & alternative, so we don't fight about stations.

I wouldn't let her listen to Stern, though. Not that it matters, if she happens upon me listening to it, her reaction is "this is stupid" and she changes the station.

But what about the BOOB

[Perianwyr Stormcrow]

Surely the dark foes upon Janet Jackson's chest lurk in the shadows to catch us unawares. Where, pray tell, are the myrmidons of the FCC, who so bravely took on the task of defending us from this satanic spectacle of mammary menace?

Re:But what about the BOOB

[nizo]

Sadly I missed the half-time show, but thank god for the replay action of the internet, since for some reason the evening news wouldn't show the un-edited version :-). Then again, censoring TV is pretty absurd considering all the insane things you can find on the internet. I can't wait until some dimbulb in Congress gets the idea that the FCC should try making the internet family friendly too.

Re:But what about the BOOB

[Simonetta]

I don't know what you men consider to be mammary menace, but the goons in DC are laying their heavy hand on our local radio station. An Afro-American DJ who had a Saturday evening slot for about 20 years was fired because the management couldn't trust him not to play the hip-hop records that he had been playing for years without harassment.
The station KNOWS that the goons in DC are just looking for any excuse to shut them down through means of insane fines for 'indecent' music. So they fired the DJ rather than take the chance that he would play a song with references to 'mo-fo's, ho's, blo's'.
Granted, years ago, his show was the only place in town where you could hear "Don't Fuck With The Nigga With The Finga On The Trigga!", but recently it's been all Earth, Wind, & Fire and Beyonce. So I feel that the firing actually is just racist cowardness on the part of KBOO's oversight committee.
Besides, if the fascist fuckheads in DC are going to shut you down, they'll do it whether you're playing Sistah Soldja or Olivia Newton-John. It's like when Hoover begged Otter not to do anything wild and crazy because they were on double-secret probation, and Otter said 'It doesn't matter, they're going to do what they want to do anyway. So let's Toga!'.

Re:But what about the BOOB

[GigsVT]

FCC has little juristiction over cable, and some high court (USSC IIRC) already ruled that the Internet is not considered "broadcasting", so the FCC has absolutely no juristiction over the Internet.

Re:But what about the BOOB

[a whoabot]

You mean, no one wants to think. Full-stop.

Hmm..

[7Ghent]

I don't know whether to boo or cheer, given that both the FCC and Clear Channel are BOTH EVIL.

Re:Hmm..

[The Importance of]

They are both evil. The FCC for censorship, Clear Channel for being a monopolist and not fighting for the First Amendment.

Re:Hmm..

[mattdm]

And Clear Channel for censorship too. Sure, they've got plenty of juvenile-level "dirty" humor shock jocks -- but criticize Bush and you're off the air.

Re:Hmm..

[gad_zuki!]

I'll take monopolists over theocratic moralists any day of the week.

At least I can appeal to people's better judgement by saying that ClearChannel is anti-free market, but try talking reason to the crazy religious people who think a nipple is evil.

Religion is simply not rational, its emotional. No offense, but thats a fact. If it was rational it could be proven and there would be no need for faith.

We really need to get remove censorship powers from the FCC and let the network censors take care of the job. I mean, we have TV ratings now and everything. The FCC's role of "moral policeman" is antiquated and not needed, and now its just being abused for what looks like purely political purposes.

Re:Hmm..

[blackmonday]

This doesn't hurt clear channel one little bit. They wanted this fine, to get anti-bush Howard Stern off the air. See, clear channel is chummy with GWB, and now they open the floodgates for fines on Viacom, Stern's main network. Clear Channel takes some pennies out, hands it to the FCC - The FCC completely doggystyles Viacom - Howard is gone, Clear Channel gets more listeners. What a nice world.

I can't wait to get GWB outta office and be done with these Christian Right Wing lunatics. They should all be in jail.

Re:Hmm..

[AME]

You've got to be kidding. Plenty of hosts on Clear Channel criticize Bush regularly. Removing the Dixie Chicks from playlists was done in response to listener demand, not some partisan decision from management.

Just because Natalie Maines says that she's being censored, it doesn't mean that she is. In her case, she said something that many didn't like and they decided not to listen to her anymore. That's not censorship.

Re:Hmm..

[Detritus]

The line for tin-foil hats forms at the right.

Re:Hmm..

[Triumph The Insult C]

not quite. depends on how you define "Pro-Bush"

stern started opposing bush *before* he was 'fired'. he's been in opposition of dubya for some time, especially when dubya went on about stem cell research. people seem to think he supported bush, that's flat out wrong. he voted for gore and he encouraged all of his fans to vote for gore. however, seeing as how 9/11 came not too long after President Vacation was sworn into office, and that it's been almost 3 years since 9/11, people operate under the misunderstanding that stern has supported bush since he became president. he did not. he supported the president after 9/11 because it was a difficult time for him (only recently have we learned it wasn't difficult at all). he would have done the same to any other president, and he still would call any other president on their shit if they messed up. stern happens to believe, as do many millions of other people, that it's not the job of the gov't to legislate morality. stern is pissed, i'm pissed, we both want dubya out.

it's only been in the past few months that stern has really laid into gwb and cc. he won a gubernatorial (sp?) race for one candidate, what makes you think he won't do the same for a presidential race?

howardstern.com and clearchannelsucks.info have lots of good info on this whole republican/christian-loony pissing match

Re:Hmm..

[Bobb Sledd]

Is love rational? Yet it exists, doesn't it.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

At least I can appeal to people's better judgement by saying that ClearChannel is anti-free market, but try talking reason to the crazy religious people who think a nipple is evil.

No one said it was evil. It just doesn't belong in a Super Bowl halftime show when everyone knows kids will be watching it. There are other channels where that type of content belongs..... *sarcasm*like on FX or SpikeTV or something *end sarcasm*.

Religion is simply not rational, its emotional. No offense, but thats a fact. If it was rational it could be proven and there would be no need for faith.

You mean like how some scientific and mathematical theories are so rational but they can't be proven and that's why they are called theories but we still believe they are right until they can be proven wrong? I know some people swear by evolution but, and stop me if I'm wrong, it's still just a theory.

You just consider any moral movement radical or fanatical when it doesn't agree with your own set of morals (if you even have any, I'd be surprised if you did or you wouldn't be making this an issue). Just because someone stands up for something they believe in which doesn't agree with you it doesn't mean they are a fanatic or a radical or irrational. They don't ever call you those things when you fight for something that you believe in. For you it's just an easy way to bash religion.

We really need to get remove censorship powers from the FCC and let the network censors take care of the job. I mean, we have TV ratings now and everything.

The network censors are failing at their job. The TV ratings give them a huge excuse to put anything on tv that they want so long as they warn viewers about what the content will contain. It gives them a cop out. Just like giving condoms to kids gives them an excuse to have sex. Instead of saying they shouldn't have sex we just tell them if they are going to do it make sure they are protected. That isn't how you lower teen pregnancy by condoning it but keeping them safe.

Giving the network censors free rein over what they include in their content and then letting them rate it themselves is like giving the fox the key to the hen house. And in case you haven't noticed, there are movies nowadays that are PG-13 that have the 'f' word in them. We didn't used to have that but the criteria for the ratings system for movies has been lowered and I imagine the TV ratings will also run into the same problem so pretty soon tv shows that are rated suitable for teenagers with no partial nudity will soon include partial nudity but be given the same rating because standards are lowered(by people like you saying everything is okay). At that point the ratings are useless and the networks can still keep putting in whatever content they want so long as they rate it.

Re:Hmm..

[sugar and acid]

Love is rational from a evolutionary aspect. A strong bond between a man and a women to first pursue a compatible mate, then produce offspring and to make sure that they both stay together for the good of their children, and of course love for those children so that the parents will devote a huge amount of attention and resources to their children and guarantee a healthy and prosperous new generation.

Within a single persons life the intense feelings that love is seems irrational, as it is not from conscious thought and is a source of much anguish. But the reason it exists is perfectly rational as long as we are sexually reproducing animals with children that require a lot of care to raise to maturity.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

I can't wait to get GWB outta office and be done with these Christian Right Wing lunatics. They should all be in jail.

Not every person who is religious is a lunatic. You just like calling us that because you don't like religion to begin with. Just because someone doesn't agree with YOUR view doesn't mean they are a lunatic or irrational. It means they believe in what good is left in the world and would like to keep what is left of it w/o tainting it with immoral acts like murder,stealing, raping, and sex for everyone to see (including our kids). No one calls you a lunatic just because you fight for someting you believe in. Do you call everyone a lunatic that fights for something they believe in or just the people who do it because of their religious beliefs? I say it's because it has to do with their religion and you just hate that and it gives you an easy way of striking them down. You may want to find a better reason for calling them lunatics other than just because they fight for something they believe in which happens to be different than what you believe in.

The Christians have done nothing wrong in this country, especially nothing illegal, therefore there is no reason to be put in jail. Contrary to that we have the liberals who think that getting rid of a baby just because it isn't born yet is not murder, even though it has a beating heart that is keeping it alive while in the womb. Pick on a group of people who have actually done something wrong, instead of a group of people that you just don't like because they have something they believe strongly in and will fight to keep it.

Re:Hmm..

[AlgUSF]

I love the stupid shit some people post on /. GWB is a good president, and has done a much better job than his predecessor.

Re:Hmm..

[black mariah]

You just don't fucking get it, do you? You have absolutely no fucking clue how rights actually work, no clue about the spirit of the Bill of Rights, and basically no fucking idea about the principles this country is founded on, do you?

What am I saying... of course you don't. You just need an excuse to whine like a fucking pussy anytime you don't get your way. Boo-fucking-hoo.

Re:Hmm..

[black mariah]

Yeah, because just firing Stern would be too easy and make sense.

Re:Hmm..

[AME]

making sure that NO ONE could listen

Bull. Clear Channel does not own all country music stations. Just pick a different one. Or else go get their albums and listen all you like.

Re:Hmm..

[AME]

I don't understand how someone could see Clear Channel as anything but a part of the Republican Party.

And I don't understand how someone could see the New York Times as anything but a part of the Democratic Party.

So there.

Re:Hmm..

[merky1]

The Christians have done nothing wrong in this country, especially nothing illegal, therefore there is no reason to be put in jail.

Yeah I geuss state sanctioned murder is not illegal... But then again, those nutty christians are mostly harmless.

Remember, fanaticism in any sense means the trampling of anothers rights

Re:Hmm..

[swv3752]

Our knowledge of antibiotics and thier effects is just theory. Are you not going to take penicillin if catch pneumonia?

Maybe if the US was not a bunch of prudes, things would be better. Rather being ashamed of God's Image, we should be celebrating the glory of the human form.

If you understaood evolution, you would realize that languages and societies evolve. Words change. Words thhat were profane become less so. Words that weren't profane become so. If i were t cal you, special, would you take it as a compliment, or an insult? Things that are acceptabble in society change. Women vote; people cannot be slaves; there are no arranged marriages; swimsuits do not cover the whole body; men no longer have to kill a man to pass a rite of passage. One can rail against change, or one can attempt to guide change. Rail against changes in society and watch it morphh into some random pattern. Guide the change, and watch society move onto something better.

Re:Hmm..

[financialguy]

You make an interesting point, but by your logic showing footage of little kids being sexually abused would've been ok, because hey, who are we to say what someone else can't or shouldn't see, even if 99.9% of us think it's heinous? Short of complete anarchy, we have laws/regulations, and any law/regulation curtails someone's liberty. In most cases, those laws protect the majority of us. In others they protect the minority from the "tyranny of the majority". In my opinion, sometimes the minority gets away with things that essentially tyrannize the majority.

However, this is debatable, and this comes back to my point. Just because having a rule or regulation is debatable doesn't mean we shouldn't have it all, because in the end, and I'll say it again, every law or regulation is a curtailment of someone's liberty.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

Maybe if the US was not a bunch of prudes, things would be better. Rather being ashamed of God's Image, we should be celebrating the glory of the human form.

Man was made in God's Image. Who says we are ashamed of Him? We are not and no one said otherwise. Celebrating the human form isn't done by a white kid grabbing the breast of a black woman on network television during the biggest sports event in the US. There are better ways to celebrate the human form as to not sexualize it when we know damn well when the kids are going to be watching and aiming it directly at them to see.

Re:Hmm..

[Bobb Sledd]

Not all love is sexual, and I knew after I posted that you'd think that's what I meant.

What about the love that one has for another; when he gives his life up for another person -- a soldier who takes a bullet for his friend? How is it rational for him to do this? This goes against the idea of self-preservation and the instinct of survival - irrational.

What about a firefighter who risks his life to save a pet for a young child? This is rational? Isn't it love for the child that he does it?

I could go on all day on stories of love that are irrational, yet love does exist (love can be both rational and irrational at times, but when it is irrational it does not prove that it does not exist.)

But you also said that if religion was rational then it could be proven.

Religion is simply not rational, its emotional. No offense, but thats a fact. If it was rational it could be proven and there would be no need for faith.

I disagree, but I'll try to prove that it is rational on some level using your own argument:

Religion is rational from an evolutionary aspect. With religion comes a force on morality, and morality is certainly a logical element if a society is to grow, be productive, and remain stable. Is it possible to achieve a moral society without religion? Possible, but not likely. Thus, the institution of religion gets better results.

But I think if you look, you'll find it is not those who are religious who think a nipple is evil, but the act of lewdness itself; afterall even many churches have nude statues and paintings in them. In other words, it's not that the nipple was shown, it's how.

Re:Hmm..

[Mycroft_VIII]

You've shown a reason why the existance of religeon might have rational underpinnings, but not that religeon itself is rational. It's not.

Mycroft

Re:Hmm..

[Mycroft_VIII]

You don't seem to understand the difference between rational and factual.
You also seem to misunderstand the scientific process, Everything is eigther theory or lesser. Saying somthing is just a theory as if that reduced it's credibility is a clear sign of ignorance.
It's still just theory that describe how the planets orbit the sun, yet the predictions sofar verify withing the limits of measurement.
Religeon fails this test in that it makes claims without substantiation in most criticle aspects and make few testable, repeatable predictions.
Sorry religeon largely fails to go beyond speculation or logical fallacy and circular reasoning.

Mycroft

Re:Hmm..

[Cobralisk]

I've had Christians, ministers even, tell me that homosexuality is immoral and a sin against god, and that it is a sin to question the absolute truth of creation of heaven and earth and mankind in 7 days. 7 fucking days? Add to that the "fact" that the world is only a few thousand years old (if it was older, it would be written about in the bible by the people who were there). Radio-carbon dating on dinosaur skeletons? No problem there, its Satan telling us lies to make us question our faith. This has the implication that human beings and dinosaurs were contemporaries. All species were created at the same time, some just went extinct already. They also tell me all women should be subservient to their husbands. Barring a husband, they should listen to their father. If their father is dead, the order goes brother, uncle, closest living male relative, male friend. Under no circumstances are women to be allowed to make their own decisions about their lives or beliefs. Questioning any of these things with an open mind is a sin equal to rape and murder in the eyes of God. All who do not believe this way are going to hell. All Muslims hate all Jews and all Christians. God doesn't like us much either, he just puts up with us until the Jews can accept Jesus. I wish I was making this up. These are real people who believe this way, and they live on your street. They teach your children in our schools, and they will be voting in November.

The problem with those who call themselves Christians is they get all stuck on the details and miss the big picture. Jesus didn't hate anyone. He doesn't give a fuck what you want to think or feel or believe, just be happy and get along with everyone else. Don't fuck anyone over. Everyone lives their own lives. Eat, drink, fuck, and be merry, just look out for each other and don't be a selfish prick.

Re:Hmm..

[Mycroft_VIII]

Maybe you meant nothing buy it counciously but stil I have to point out:
"a white kid grabbing the breast of a black woman"
Now what does it matter what skin color the participants had?
And of course you indirectly atack sex. But yet would you be as concerned about violence on tv? Some (not me!) would consider the superbowl a glorification of violence.

Mycroft

Re:Hmm..

[AlgUSF]

My company is hiring, and I know of three or four other companies that are hiring. You might have to move.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

It's still just theory that describe how the planets orbit the sun, yet the predictions sofar verify withing the limits of measurement. Religeon fails this test in that it makes claims without substantiation in most criticle aspects and make few testable, repeatable predictions. Sorry religeon largely fails to go beyond speculation or logical fallacy and circular reasoning.

So that is reason to consider anyone who has a religious faith a lunatic? I don't think so. There are religious extremists but those are people who kill for their religion, especially those who say God wanted them to do it. God does not make us carry out his dirty work. So those people do have something wrong with them. But that represents probably 1-5% of the religious population in the US. Of course the Middle East is a bit different with the Muslims on a Jihad against Christians but that's a different topic. The point is not everyone is a religious fanatic just b/c they believe in protecting the sanctitiy of life, the morallistic aspect of life, etc. I'm sure you have other people you can pick on and with better reason, than waiting on some religious person to stand up for their faith and then knock them down by calling them a fanatic.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

Those who on purposely hurt another person in the game are penalized. Those who hurt accidentally realize it's part of the game. Players who hurt on purpose do not get rewarded and therefore it is not glorification of violence. Glorification of violence is when a basketball or football player can hurt or kill their girlfriend off the field and be allowed to come back to play the game as if nothing happened.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

Yeah I geuss state sanctioned murder is not illegal... But then again, those nutty christians are mostly harmless. Remember, fanaticism in any sense means the trampling of anothers rights

Remember, the actions of the few do not represent the beliefs or actions of the group as a whole. You people seem to forget about that part and call all religious people fanatics just because a small group of them may act that way. I pity you. If you want to talk about trampling of rights, the homosexuals of this country are deciding they want to put their lifestyle in the spotlight all of a sudden and when Christians speak out they get trampled on with the homos saying we are being too judgmental. I'd like to know exactly why they feel they need to have their homosexual lifestyle out in public and with all the attention, so much so that they like to change laws specifically for their own agenda.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

Obviously you have no faith in anything beyond knowing your head will stay attached to your neck when you wake up every morning. Eat,drink, fuck, and be merry, is exactly what the secular attitude is in this country, although it doesnt represent the view of the public as a whole, thank goodness.

From what I see we have people on the street who will be voting this November who like to kill babies as long as they aren't born yet (and it's gov't sanctioned to be legal), they like both men and women, they encourge others to like either just men just women or both, they push their lifestyle on the rest of the country like we asked for it when we didn't, they think that giving condoms to kids somehow lowers teen pregnancy when if anything it just lowers STD counts but increases sexual activity by saying it is okay, etc. Now what is really the worse of the 2 sets if problems? Everything you mentioned is dealt with in private. Everything I mentioned involves society as a whole.

By the way, there are very old stories of English sea captains seeing serpents in the waters of the Atlantic. I don't see why those *couldn't* be dinosaurs, especially when people think that there is a Loch Ness monster that is reminiscent of the plesiosaur dinosaur.

Re:Hmm..

[Bobb Sledd]

OK, I'll try again.

Perhaps I am a king of an unruly and immoral society. Nothing ever seems to get done, nothing ever improves because my subjects are killing and stealing from each other. They spend all their time fighting and not building.

Though I have tried to appeal to their humanitarian side, they will not let their differences go long enough to be productive. What will I do?

Invent a religion! I have nothing to offer them now in reward for being good citizens, so how can I get them to be civil without compensating them?

Easy! I create a set of carefully constructed rules that would flourish society, and anyone who breaks the rules is subject to eternal damnation when s/he dies, anyone who lives by the rules lives in paradise.

Plus, it helps if my religion has ways of cleansing the conscience of my subjects - we don't need any unwarranted guilt burdening productivity. I can create other elements that would help society either mentally or economically - charity, praise and music, etc.

So why is it rational for my subjects to practice the religion? Because they know that if they don't, they risk the chance of eternal damnation if I'm right, and if I'm wrong then nothing happens. If they do practice religion and I'm wrong, the worst they get is a better functioning society.

I think emotion really has little to do with it. It's really a logical decision on chance that if I'm right, you go to hell. If I'm wrong, then nothing.

Re:Hmm..

[tilleyrw]

Obviously your hate your life, your body, and generally don't enjoy life.

1. You don't approve of abortion? Don't have one.
2. You don't like sex? How does is your life affected by others enjoying life?

3. Live your life your way. Let me live my own life.

Show respect to everyone you meet. Even if you don't like them, they'll say "That was a nice guy.".

Re:Hmm..

[sumdumass]

How is support your troops pro bush. I would like to think i could support them in any capacity when thier lives are in danger without having to be in alignment with some political organization.

Granted the men and women that joined the military did so in knowing they might be called to goto in harms way. Supporting them in an attemp to help make them stay confident, secure and alive when comming home should be a duty of an american citizen that cares about fellow citizens without reguard to wether or not they support the war or the people pushing the war. The soldiers didn't start it, and most likley they only joined the military to find a way to better thier standing in life as oposed to wanting to fight a war.

When a large organization cares enough about those protecting thier freedoms and holds a rally to support them when they might be in danger, it should be viewed as just that. Don't diminish their contribution just because your pissed at the ones that ordered the war. Thousands if not millions of brothers, sisters, husbans and wives, mothers and fathers are caught up in the war in one way or another. They need and deserve the support that helps them stay confident and alive. Many sacrifices are being made to protect your freedoms first, then fight the war second.

One of the worst things about vietnam was the public desemination about the military causeing politicions to cut funding and make other regulations that cost more american lives then what would have otherwise happened. If the soldiers are there, they need and deserve the support of the american people even if you disagree with the war. The goal is to have them come home and more imprtantly come home alive!

Re:Hmm..

[BandwidthHog]

So that is reason to consider anyone who has a religious faith a lunatic?

Uhh yeah, pretty much.

Re:Hmm..

[swv3752]

A certain level of violence is a part of the game. Do you never go "ouch" during a tackle? Up to a point violence is expected and celebrated.

If there was no violence then they would be playing flag football or baseball or something.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

I dont like killing people either and dont do it but that doesn't mean everyone else should be allowed to. Luckily murder is illegal because the world population realizes taking another human's life is wrong, except that for some reason they don't consider an unborn baby a human.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

Then I guess I'll have to call you a fanatic for using such a stupid small excuse for calling someone a lunatic when they are only defending their beliefs. Let me know the next time you defend your beliefs (not even necessarily religious beliefs because I know you don't even have a religion) so I can be there to call you a lunatic.

Re:Hmm..

[BandwidthHog]

Sorry to offend, but superstition is just inexcusable when one ought to know better. As for my beliefs? I believe that life is the most amazing thing of which we can conceive, and more precious than anything else could ever be. So when people squander what precious little time they have because of some misguided fairy tale meant to frighten small children, I think that's a tragedy of the highest order. To relate to the topic at hand, by squander I mean to put forth inordinate effort in denying one's self simple pleasures simply because said fairy tale tells you the ghost in the sky doesn't approve, or even worse, that you'll get the really good pleasures after you cease to exist as long as you can resist them while you're alive.

Marveling at the wonder that is life is my religion. Ridicule away, old chap.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

Sorry to offend (and I know you were not sorry) but we aren't talking about superstition. We are talking about religion. Get on topic and don't try offending at the same time you are apologizing. It makes your apology worth nothing.

Re:Hmm..

[Mycroft_VIII]

Just curious, who are you replying to. It's obviously not me despite your quoting my post as nothing you said is connected to anything I actually said. It seems to be about nutcases and picking on people. I called no-one a lunatic, and wasn't picking on any person.
My post (the part you quoted that is) was about how scientific reasoning works to clear up the common missunderstanding(often deliberate) of what theory means. And about how religeon does not meet the requirements of even a hypothesis.
If you did mean to reply to me, try reading what I said and not what you think I meant.

Mycroft

Re:Hmm..

[Mycroft_VIII]

Some don't see the difference between religeon/mythology and superstition.
Religeons/mythologies is/are usually adopted by larger groups with specific person designated to be experts and are trained in the specif details.
Mythological structers also usually involve anthropomorphic or animistic intelligence(s) of supernatural origin as key figures. Also superstition is often much less formal and more subject to briefer and less vigorous observance.

Mycroft

Re:Hmm..

[merky1]

Wow, I never said anything about Homo's. I agree with you that the whole same sex marriage is a horrible idea, mainly because if we lower the standards for marriage, then what becomes the test for acceptable behavoir.

I agree with you that christians for the most part get blasted immediately, while we accept deviants without a peep. I just want to remind you that even christianity has done some pretty crazy things. So just remember, while its not right for others to abuse the right to express opinions, there is no reason to get all extremist. As my friend the fundalmentalist says, "I pray that they find the folly of their ways."

Re:Hmm..

[BandwidthHog]

As Mycroft already pointed out, some, including myself, don't recognize a distinction between religion and superstition. Other than, you know, the collection plate. Kinda like that old joke:

Cult: A small, unpopular religion.
Religion: A large, popular cult.

Now I'm certain that Webster & Co. will give slightly different definitions for the terms Cult, Religion and Superstition. But if that's not splitting hairs, then what is?

You are, however, right about one thing: the apology was insincere. I see no more reason to want to spare the feelings of a superstitious fool than those of a neo-nazi. Both of those people are undereducated twits who, although often believing that they mean well, are actively pulling the society around them down the freakin' drain.

Re:Hmm..

[glitch23]

Some don't see the difference between religeon/mythology and superstition.

Some, as in those who don't believe in either one, and therefore you don't count.

Re:Hmm..

[Mycroft_VIII]

Isn't that EXACTLY like saying because I can't hear the voices in your head, I don't count?
BTW I said some, then showed how I differentiate between the two. Try reading a whole post before commenting on it, elswise you give people a impression that's not the best about your comprehension skills.
I might add to that distinction that religeon/mythology is also often concerned with why and origins, whereas superstition often focuses on cause and effect.

Mycroft

The FCC?

[Cow007]

Forget about the FCC, ClearChannell should be abolished.

Re:The FCC?

[Rei]

I find it funny that of all companies, Clear Channel is fighting the FCC. This is the company that sent the memo telling its stations not to play anti-war songs after Sept. 11th, organized the pro-war rallies in the runup to the Iraq war, and whose owner, Tom Hicks, was involved in several of Bush's major scandals from his early life and is a big contributor.

Specifically, Hicks first heavily funded both of Bush's gubernatorial campaigns. Then, Bush appointed Hicks chair of UTIMCO, which manages UT's financial money. Bush also got regulations so that Hicks wouldn't have to disclose where he was putting the University's money. It was later revealed that he had put 525 million dollars into assets owned by himself and major GOP donors (Carlyle Group, Maverick Capital, Bass Brothers Enterprises, etc). In 1998, he made Bush a multimillionaire by buying the Texas Rangers for far more than it was estimated to be valued at (and which Bush had been given twice as many shares as he put money in). Hicks resigned under pressure in 1999, but has been a huge donor still.

I'm not surprised that they got a nice settlement from the FCC. Not surprised at all. I'm not even sure why the FCC bothered to start anything to begin with. 1.75 million dollars for a company the size of Clear Channel? Why didn't they just make them say "My Bad!" in public and call that enough?

Re:The FCC?

[Rei]

(erm.. "investment money", not "financial money". Must have misread that when I porfraed my message. ;) ).

Re:The FCC?

[TheCarp]

The two are not mutually exclusive.

It could be a vast rightwing conspiracy... which is why they chose clear channel. Because they were a good old chum that could be counted on to fold when it was needed for them to fold...

They pay up some pittance (which is nothing compared to clear channels assets or debt), and in return the right wing conspiracy (to which they are a part) gets what it wants, and clear channel gets what they want - namely the FCC now has a nice case to hold up when they go after clear channels competitors...

and the conspiracy rolls on....

-Steve

Re:The FCC?

[black mariah]

Hicks also overpaid for the Dallas Stars. Bush had money before he bought into the Rangers. What's your point, exactly?

Re:The FCC?

[Rei]

Oh, come on. He bought the Stars for a little over 80 million dollars (they're worth about four times as much now); he paid 250 million for the Rangers.

Bush got most of his money to invest in the rangers from another shady deal, Spectrum 7, which he bailed from right before the company tanked (with an Enron-style "fictional income" scandal around it), and which he was investigated for insider trading for (and, no, he was *not* cleared - they just stopped the investigation due to lack of evidence, and made clear note that it was not a clearing of him). This was the third company that he helped tank, by the way - he lost tons and tons of Bush family allies' money, from Arbusto to Harken to Spectrum 7 in one spectacular failure after another. But this is a side topic.

Bush took the 500,000$, and bought 1.8% of the 86 million dollars spent on the team (yes, you do the math, and note how incredible of a deal he was given). And, it gets better: they later *gave* him 10% more of the team before they tried to get public support because, to quote Tom Schieffer (the Rangers' former president), ""He had a well-known name, and that created interest in the franchise. It gave us a little celebrity.""

And lets not even get into how they fleeced the public and landowners for the money to get the stadium....

Re:The FCC?

[black mariah]

Yeah, they did it the exact same way that sports teams have always got new stadiums. They put it to a vote. The people in the city decided they wanted a new stadium. They got the money for it.

That's a hell of a snowjob. Using democracy like that.

I'm not saying you're completely wrong on everything, just that you're a moron that seriously needs to walk outside for a while.

Re:The FCC?

[Rei]

Wait, wait, wait a minute. I mentioned several dozen things, and then said lets not get into the stadium, and the ONLY thing you respond about is the stadium?

Wow, you really must feel secure about your argument there!

Re:The FCC?

[black mariah]

Or maybe I just don't care if two friends and businessmen help each other make money? Ever think of that? "OMG! TEH BUSH GOT TEH MON3Y$$$ FROM H1CKS!!!1111!!" I don't know about any of that shit, and I don't care. What I DO know is that you were completely wrong on the stadium issue.

Re:The FCC?

[Rei]

Good. You acknowledge that Bush was given about 12% of a company for investing 1/150th of the investment. You also acknowledge that you don't care that Bush used *gubernatorial powers* to allow someone to enrich himself and other members of his party at the University's expense, and used this money to help him stay in office. That's pretty much a textbook definition of corruption. Now, continuing...

I didn't even discuss the stadium issue, so I find it funny that you're focusing on it Do you want to? Ok, lets go!

You are absolutely right that team owners often get taxpayers to pay for new stadiums. It is a widely decried practice - threatening to leave without a new stadium - and is generally viewed as immoral. But it is done (so are things like Enron, but that's hardly an excuse). However, that wasn't the half of it.

After threatening to move the team, the city agreed to raise 135 million dollars if the investors would put in 50 million of their own money. Naturally, the investors didn't pony up extra money, but added a dollar surcharge to tickets and used the threat of moving to help get fans to keep coming.

The purchasers wanted land for the stadium, of course. But they also wanted to make a profit from land around the stadium whose price would be driven up. So, they paid the people fairly for the land, right? Nope. Again, by threatening to break the deal, they got Arlington to create the Arlington Sports Facilities Development Authority with the power of forclosure and eminant domain, and placed it under the investors' control. The appraiser for the land for the eminant domain cases, Mike Reilly, also worked for the investors, and consistantly underballed the property's value *before* the stadium was built (let alone after). The net result was that a number of the landowners went to court. The court agreed with them in entirity, and ordered the investors to pay 11 million dollars in additional compensation. Naturally, they paid right? Nope!!!! They refused to pay, and continually tried to pass the bill off to Arlington (just two years ago, under completely different ownership, they paid).

Is this the sort of role model of how business should be run? Because Bush ran on his record as a "CEO president". 3 companies that tanked, and one in which he was given 12% of the stock for a tiny percentage of the investment money so that he could be a public face. Is this the sort of record to boast about? It is borderline scandalous.

FedSpeak 101

[Giant Ape Skeleton]

It's interesting that the FCC distinguishes between obscenity and mere profanity.

Kind of gives you insight into the bureaucratic mindset in general, especially as applied to subjective matters like decency....

Re:FedSpeak 101

[tindur]

Seems like soon only approved christian broadcasting is allowed.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[garcia]

As I have said before, I find it far more interesting that the FCC has anything to say about any of this anyway. Who the hell decided that because they "oversee" the frequencies that they get to decide for the rest of the country what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

Sorry but it isn't up to government bodies to decide what's best for us. We're quite capable of doing that ourselves.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[RealAlaskan]

The two words have very different definitions, so it's not surprising to me that the FCC distinguishes between them. In fact (adding some words here to beat the lameness filter), I'd be surprised if they didn't.

The FCC seems to concentrate on definitions 1 and 2 for obscene, and definition 1 for profane. I'm not sure that Janet Jackson's breast is obscene by definition 2 (``Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.''), so they must be relying on definition 1 there. Offensive I can believe.

Definitions courtesy of Dictionary.reference.com

obscene ( P ) Pronunciation Key (b-sn, b-) adj.

1. Offensive to accepted standards of decency or modesty.
2. Inciting lustful feelings; lewd.
3. Repulsive; disgusting: "The way he writes about the disease that killed her is simply obscene" (Michael Korda).
4. So large in amount as to be objectionable or outrageous: "local merchants in nearby stores get hammered by stratospheric rents and obscene taxes" (Joe Queenan).

profane ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-fn, pr-) adj.

1. Marked by contempt or irreverence for what is sacred.
2. Nonreligious in subject matter, form, or use; secular: sacred and profane music.
3. Not admitted into a body of secret knowledge or ritual; uninitiated.
4. Vulgar; coarse.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[Jameth]

"Sorry but it isn't up to government bodies to decide what's best for us. We're quite capable of doing that ourselves."

No, I'm fairly certain people have shown that they're just as incapable of doing that as the government is.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[Patrik_AKA_RedX]

Shit, I'm so fucking happy to not live in the fucking US. At least here we've got the fucking right to use fucking obscene words when we fucking feel like it. No shit.

Can't they just leave choice-of-words to the people themselves? What's the whole thing about curse words? I've always seen them as mere exclamation marks. Oh well, I guess some people's hobby is limiting other people's freedoms.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[garcia]

This is INSIGHTFUL? In a country that is supposedly built on "freedoms"? We aren't allowed to control our own content?

We are supposed to cover "indecent" *ART* because it gives some conservative a hardon? We are supposed to hide "boobs" from children who used to suckle them for food? We are supposed to shelter ourselves from hearing four-letter words because they might make us sinners?

Come on.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[Planesdragon]

No.

We hide all those things becase we, collectively, decided that they should be hidden.

The USA is a democracy, not an anarchy. If you want change, make "being able to see topless women on broadcast TV" the issues that decides your vote, and inform your congrisscritters about that.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[CrimsonAvenger]

As I have said before [slashdot.org], I find it far more interesting that the FCC has anything to say about any of this anyway. Who the hell decided that because they "oversee" the frequencies that they get to decide for the rest of the country what is "right" and what is "wrong"?

That would be the US Congress. You remember them? Your elected representatives....

Re:FedSpeak 101

[jandrese]

You might want to read up on "The Tragedy of the Commons". Hint: The Radio spectrum is like a public park.

I'm not particularly thrilled at how the FCC is also the decency police. I think they should stop at regulating how much power you're allowed to emit at various frequncies and other such related tasks. I don't even mind them testing people to insure they know how to not mess up the spectrum before they hand out licenses. Heck, I'm even mostly OK with them specifying that certain radio bands are not for commercial use. I just don't like them getting all messed up with trying to determine if something is "decent" or not. That should be decided by local authorities (perhaps even the broadcaster himself). If people have a problem they should talk to the broadcaster, not the FCC.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[AK Marc]

The USA is a democracy, not an anarchy. If you want change, make "being able to see topless women on broadcast TV" the issues that decides your vote, and inform your congrisscritters about that.

Well, since breasts on TV has never been voted on in Congress, how will that help?

Re:FedSpeak 101

[kfg]

The obscene is that which is repulsive, lewd and against common decency.

The profane is that which is vulgar and irreverant to that which is sacred.

Thus, The Boob on the Tube was obscene. Reacting to it by saying, "Jesus Fucking Christ!" was profane.

KFG

Re:FedSpeak 101

[monkeydo]

You have a tragedy of the commons problem with content as well. The radio spectrum is a scarce public resource and one of the requirements for licensees is that they provide programing in the public interest and they abide by community standards.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[comedian23]

>Well, since breasts on TV has never been voted on in Congress, how will that help?

You could run for government office with that as your platform. Eventually you could get to Congress and propose a change in policy. Or you could lobby your Congressperson.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[Phillup]

Why can't christian broadcasting be considered obscene?

I would think that there are just as many people in the community that would want to listed to Stern as Fallwell...

I think most of it should be banned because of fraud myself. Seriously... isn't that one of the jobs of the FCC? Or, is it the FTC?

Re:FedSpeak 101

[glitch23]

Sorry but it isn't up to government bodies to decide what's best for us. We're quite capable of doing that ourselves.

Oh sure, that's the best joke of the year. We're doing such a *great* job of knowing what's best for us by binge drinking, having sex with strangers and contracting diseases, getting drunk and hurting our loved ones, cheating on our spouses, killing people because they stole our tv, killing people because they looked at us the wrong way, having sex and getting pregnant at age 13. The list goes on and on.

Sure, we are batting 1000. The US population as a whole doesn't care about what is best for them. The people just want to have fun and enjoy as much pleasure as they can, no matter who it might hurt or affect. Without the government there would be no laws and murder would be legal (murder of babies in the womb however is still legal for some reason). And by the way, even though they don't do it quite often enough they thankfully agree with the Christian Bible as far as what is considered right and wrong. If you don't believe in that then I guess you have a problem since the majority of the country is religious and are some denomination under Christianity.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[Khaed]

Yeah, man. God knows you can't swear in the United States. I mean, fuck, you'd be hanged. Wait, I just said fuck.

The FCC is dealing with public airwaves. Right or wrong, that's what they deal with. Example? HBO. Have you ever seen the Sopranos? They fucking say fuck a lot!

One of the things Howard Stern was in hot water for was a racist remark made on air by a caller(I believe it was a caller; I doubt it was Stern himself, but it may have been a guest). In some countries, racist speech is not protected. So you can take your "yay I can swear" thing and stick it.

The FCC doesn't control just every single area of "speech" in this country. Another example? Playboy. I've got a whole damn stack of them.

Oh, and it isn't anyone's hobby -- the FCC people get paid. (And yes, it bugs the shit out of me that they get tax dollars.)

So glad not to live in the "fucking US"? See what would happen to Janet Jackson if her tit-covering was removed in, oh, Iran or Saudi Arabia. Hell, her face covering. Oh wait, she doesn't wear one. Because she's in the "fucking US" where women aren't kept as property.

Do we have a long way to go? Yes, we do. And progress has been made from a time when Buddy Holly wasn't played because he was singing "jungle music." But we're a whole, whole lot better off than a whole fucking lot of people.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[PMuse]

binge drinking (legal)

having sex with strangers (legal)

contracting diseases (legal)

getting drunk (legal, except minors)

hurting our loved ones (assualt is illegal)

cheating on our spouses (legal, but grounds for divorce)

killing people because they stole our tv (illegal)

killing people because they looked at us the wrong way (illegal)

having sex (legal, except minors)

getting pregnant at age 13 (pregnancy legal, but not the sex)

If you believe that these things are all bad for us and we need help avoiding those choices, what do you propose? Should the government outlaw them all?

Looking at the 4-5 of these that are now illegal, would you do any of them if the laws were dropped? Looking at the 7 or so of these that are legal, are you doing them now? If not, doesn't that suggest that there are things better than laws (such as personal morals) for deciding whether or not to do these things?

Me, I'm not planning on showing my breasts on TV anytime soon, but what if I want to breastfeed my baby in public? Less (of rules) is more (freedom for us). Let's not make any more than we have to. As I recall, Christ's list of commandments was considerably shorter than Deuteronomy.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[black mariah]

You use the public park analogy, so let's run with it.

Let's say some dude is running naked around the park with a Ron Jeremy-level erection going on, hitting random women in the back with his gigantic wang. Would you politely ask this obvious moron to put his pants back on, or would you find a cop and have him deal with it? The FCC makes policy based on public input. If everyone stood up tomorrow and said "I WANT BOOBIES ON TV!", then the FCC would probably allow boobs on TV. To return to the park analogy, there are probably a lot of people that think it's funny the naked guy is going around playing baseball with his wedding tackle and some random person's leg, but the MAJORITY probably wouldn't appreciate it very much. Even if they did, it's only the VOCAL majority that gets any attention. One annoying self-righteous bastard/bitch (you chosse) can fuck up the fun for everyone.

The point is, don't sit on your ass and complain without actually DOING ANYTHING about it. If you want to defend my... I mean... SOMEONES right to play 'pin the wang on that chicks back' in public, write the FCC. Call them. Call your congresspeople, fax them, email them, send incriminating photos of them, whatever. Just don't sit around and complain and expect things to get better.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[glitch23]

God's list of commandments are not the only rules to live by. There are another 999+ pages to the Bible that could be used to guide you in your life, not just the 30 words that make up the 10 commandments.

The point of my list wasn't to list things legal or illegal but to show just exactly what we do that is never in our best interest but we do them anyway so saying we know what's best for ourselves is a stupid thing to say because if we knew we don't care as evidence of my list.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[tindur]

Why can't christian broadcasting be considered obscene?

It can be obscene but not profane (=secular).

Re:FedSpeak 101

[Planesdragon]

Well, since breasts on TV has never been voted on in Congress, how will that help?

It was at least once. The FCC didn't suddenly decided that it was going to regulate broadcast decency--Congress at one point or another said "yes, we want this regulated, and yes, you're going to do it."

OTOH, it might have been the courts--the extant decency laws could have been interpreted to apply to broadcast medium, and the federal courts told the FCC to do it.

Here's the funny part--we USED to be able to show breasts on TV, with the very same kind of nipple cover that Jackson allegedly had on. The feds (somewhere) said that we could only do that if we made it abundantly clear that there was a cover--and, thus, came the introduction of nipple tassles.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[jandrese]

Uh, your analogy doesn't apply very well. We don't have little always-on radios embedded in our skulls, it's not like we won't have a choice in what radio/tv/etc... we listen to. Even if the FCC didn't mandate decency standards, there would be many places where you could find "decent" radio and TV, since decency is profitable. You don't think Mickey Mouse is going to say "wang" on TV just because the FCC isn't breathing down Disney's back do you?

Now, there will be people who listen to the XXX Hot Smut Dirty Talk Hour with their kids, and then call up the station to complain; but that's better than passing legislation decreeing that nobody can listen to it (and forcing the FCC to enforce this legislation).

Re:FedSpeak 101

[PMuse]

I do not dispute the point that people do things that are deterimental to them. However, I suggest that writing more laws for the purpose of protecting them from themselves is often a bad idea. The freedom to make mistakes is valuable. It is valuable both in its own right and because it generates experience which may lead to wisdom. So long as the mistake in question is one the person will recover from making, let them make it.

Since this is a discussion about whether the obscene should be permitted in the media, let me say specifically that I don't believe that the things that were penalized by the FCC recently were either particularly obscene or harmful. Thus, they are a good place for personal liberty rather than more regulation.

One side note:
There are another 999+ pages to the Bible that could be used to guide you in your life, not just the 30 words that make up the 10 commandments.

When I said "Deuteronomy", I meant Deuteronomy. The whole book. I was suggesting that people who make too many rules wind up making some silly rules. For example, consider the wisdom of each verse of chapters 22-23.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[black mariah]

What's your point? You don't like the dude's flinging his meat near your head, you get up and walk away. Hey, that's analogous to changing the channel! It still doesn't change the fact that if some dude randomly started dry-humping your leg, you'd call the cops and/or kick his ass.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[monkeydo]

The point is that you can only change the channel (assuming OTA broadcasts) a finite number of times before you run out of channels. Since the licensees are using up a certain amount of my and your scarce resource they need to be accountable to me and you. The FCC is acting as our agent, and if you aren't happy with how they are acting on your behalf, you should tell them so.

Re:FedSpeak 101

[jandrese]

That was my point. People think that if you allow smut on the air the airwaves will be filled with nothing but smut. In reality, there probably won't be much more smut on the air than there is now. People want decent content they can listen to with their whole families. In some ways, the situation with radio is similar to the situation with old movies. Back in the 50's before the MPAA rating system was invented, all movies had to follow some rather restrictive decency standards. Once the rating system was invented, movies were free to explore other possiblities (including stuff that got an R rating) that improved the general quality of the films considerably (IMHO).

Settlements

[mfh]

Shouldn't all the details of settlements be published by the FCC? There's not enough info here...

Re:Settlements

[Zareste]

Heh, maybe there's a dialogue in it where a DJ says a naughty evil bad word, so they weren't allowed to show it to us.

Open Letter to ClearChannel

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear ClearChannel, It's called a spine. Get one.

Suspicion is all it takes

[Grrr]

From Powell's statement...

In addition, those accused of violating the Commission's rules will be suspended and if ultimately found to violate our rules, will be terminated.
!
... and Ernest Miller made a great catch, there:

"That's great. Accusations lead to suspension. And, one foul-up and you're fired. How many people could handle a situation where one accidental word that is commonly used could get you suspended and/or fired? That's something to be proud of."

Further down, same page, he also came up with the pithy "Apparently, self-censorship forced upon us by government is better than direct censorship."

Now, if only we could find out exactly what CC admitted to doing wrong, why, we'd all have a better chance of not committing the same horrible acts ourselves.

<grrr>

Re:Suspicion is all it takes

[Detritus]

How many people could handle a situation where one accidental word that is commonly used could get you suspended and/or fired?

The vast majority of radio talent did it successfully for many decades. It's called self-discipline.

Re:Suspicion is all it takes

[Grrr]

You're right, of course - but self-discipline won't save the day if the talent doesn't know which words are currently verboten. Some examples are certainly obvious, but a lot of the talent is complaining that they don't know where the line is being drawn. Disingenuous, in some cases, sure. But not all.

<grrr>

A great government / private sector partnership!

[greg_barton]

See, this is what happens when you get across the board influence of one political party in government and large private sector businesses. Clear Channel is basically rolling over to give the FCC a great legal precedent for censorship advocates.

Howard

[BlindSpy]

I may be bias because I get my info from howard stern but I think the FCC is completely off base. If you listened to howard stern this morning, they had a very good example of a WMMS employee that committed a federal offence and the only person that had to pay in any way was the guy that directly committed the offence. WMMS's licenes should have been revoked or at least suspended by their own rules. Now with howard stern, the FCC does not even have a specific offence that he is being charged for yet Clear Channel is being fined for over a million dollars? It just doesnt make sense.

Re:Howard

[thebra]

"I may be bias because I get my info from howard stern"

It is possible :)

Um, because

[truthsearch]

...but no one is saying what, exactly they said that was wrong...

Um, that's cause it's indecent and therefore censored... duh! ;)

Violating indecency standards

[paulproteus]

I agree with the FCC's ruling today that Clear Channel Communications has long ignored the standard in indecency. Hopefully the FCC ruling with give Clear Channel the strength to be indecent in the future.

(Or did the writer of the submission mean "decency standards"?)

Re:Violating indecency standards

[BlindSpy]

I agree with the FCC as well on their ruling but they need to do 2 things. 1) Be more clear on what exactly was said that was offensive and 2) be consistant between different "offenders."

This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[Mz6]

As a fan of Howard Stern's show from years ago I now live in an area where I cannot hear his show anymore unless I watch it on TV. Anyways, I now live in an area where we have another great morning show team "Todd and Tyler". Since the shake down from Clear Channel and the FCC they have had to lighten most of their content up. They still have found creative ways to bring the subject across to the listener in other ways, but sometimes I just wish they could say it.

What I don't seem to get is why this is happening. I mean.. I know that some of it is not meant for kids, but PARENTS need to learn to turn those programs off in front of their kids. No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[thebra]

"No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it."

I do agree that it is the parents (of the child, not the post) decesion to decide what the kids can listen to but on the other hand I feel that I should not have to worry about some thing profane, sexual, or such be on public radio/tv. I don't have kids yet but I would like to be able to enjoy radio/tv with out having to screen it. But then we get in to the problem of who decides what is obscene and I don't want the government deciding this for me. I guess I'll just TIVO every thing and only play cds. But if you are suprised when Howard Stern says some thing offensive/obscene then you should stay away from the internet and email (they have prOn in email!). If you listen to him you know what your getting in to.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[Jameth]

"No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it."

Just a question: What if they put it on a billboard? Would it be a problem then?

Broadcasts are fully public, in every way the same as a billboard, there is no way to be certain when and where they are without significant personal effort. I have often run into shows I would rather not listen to while skimming radio stations, and was once even force to sit through almost a minute of country music because of a button being jammed.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[detritus.]

What I don't seem to get is why this is happening. I mean.. I know that some of it is not meant for kids, but PARENTS need to learn to turn those programs off in front of their kids. No one is forcing you, or your kids, to watch it.

Or for parents who are too busy with themselves, get a set with the v-chip. What gets me is, IIRC, the cable channels aren't under the same FCC guidelines, which is why HBO can run movies uncensored, and why Comedy Central got away with the infamous "shit" episode, in which the writers manage to work the uncensored word "shit" into the episode 162 times (with a counter and all). For the most part, the cable networks are censoring their content voluntarially. I, for one, would hope that the viewer populace/ad revenues definitely would make it worth their time.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[j-turkey]

Just a question: What if they put it on a billboard? Would it be a problem then?

Can Howard Stern's face be on a billboard? Sure. If he wanted to put an ad up for "Lord of the Anal Rings"...well -- I wouldn't have a problem with it, but I'd understand if someone did.

I still think there's a technical solution to this though. Make people get radios with something similar to the V-chip. If you don't want mature broadcasts -- lock 'em out. Then, just enforce the rating system...same goes for TV.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[FirstTimeCaller]

I almost hate to suggest this, but maybe we need a vchip for radios. Broadcasters could then transmit a rating code and the listener could then decide what they wished to hear and no one would accidentally run across objectionable material. If you tune into a show that has a rating other than what was set, maybe the radio could play Feelings over and over again.

Manufacturers could even add password protection to the rating settings, but I don't really think that would be necessary.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[comedian23]

Good post. The problem with Stern, et al is that they are broadcast, so anyone with a radio, or a home electronics kit can listen making enforcement by parents tough. That's why cable TV can say and do whatever they want( or at least closer to it), like play the unedited South Park movie on Comedy Central, but companies which broadcast, such as radio, ABC, etc. cannot.

Actually, someone correct me if I am wrong, but I think that even broadcaster's rights get a little more relaxed after 10PM and before 6AM, when typically children are asleep.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[Triumph The Insult C]

there was a technical solution to this problem in 2437BC actually

it's called no power. it's an amazing feature

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[Triumph The Insult C]

the cable channels aren't under the same FCC

not for long. the FCC wants to oversee cable and premium channels as well. oh, and satellite radio. oh, and lest we forget, the Internet. the 5 commissioners have all posted their opinions on the matter on fcc.gov. it's just waiting congressional debate/vote

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[Triumph The Insult C]

you're making an exception to something because you agree with it. how convenient. so, whenever something you don't like is aired, no one should be able to listen to it?

my parents had cable/premium channels when i was growing up. they sure as hell had it when i started taking an interest in women *cough red shoe diaries cough* too. they were active in my upbringing and made sure i didn't watch things *THEY* didn't want me to watch. the few times they caught me, i caught hell for it

this problem is not for the gov't. to think that the gov't would even consider enforcing/legislating it's idea of morality is scary. this problem is for the parents.

yes, the law is more lax later in the evening.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[comedian23]

>you're making an exception to something because you agree with it. how convenient.

Actually I wasn't explaining because I agree with it. I was explaining the reasoning behind the law itself, by the people who wrote the laws. Their reasoning is that since Stern is broadcast and can get picked up by anyone of any age that it should be forced to edit it's content.

I should have said "What the FCC considers the problem...", rather than just saying "The problem is...".

Personally I think we should do away with laws like that and make up some sort of rating system, so parents can know the contents of a show before listening in case children are present. H.S. can be on the air and say whatever he wants completely unedited as long as parents can look up the show, see it is rated NC17(or some similar thing), and then decide if their children are allowed to watch it/hear it. Just like video games and movies. With technology we could do that by encoding a few bits of "ratings data" in with each signal, and make radios more customizable so they won't play content you don't want(like you can tell it to block anything PG-13 rated or worse, for example). That way parents are happy because the don't get suprised by something they find really offensive, and broadcasters can have their creative freedom.

BTW: The shift key should be right above your control key on your keyboard.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[Triumph The Insult C]

shift key? what are you, an english prof? =)

even with a ratings system, who's going to set that standard? mmm, gov't. great, gov't legislates what's ok and what's not ok. how about industry? two words, clear channel.

it's really simple. this is not a problem that laws or a ratings system need to solve. parents need to solve this. not a computer, a human. god forbid parents spend time with their children these days.

Re:This kind of stuff just pisses me off

[comedian23]

You mean all those genius kids who know how to turn on a radio when their parents are at work? Your logic(or complete lack of it)amazes me. The point is, that ABC, etc are legally liable because ANYONE can get their signal. Cable on the other hand is covered, because you have to PAY for their service, and sign a contract. Even though these concepts may be over your head, companies who broadcast to millions of people actually have to worry about getting sued by people.

Finally, I was trying to explain the law since some people obviously don't understand it, NOT express my personal opinion.

We've gotta get over this.

[slusich]

These puritanical attitudes make us the laughing stock of the entire world. I can't see us being taken seriously until we stop acting like 12 year olds every time a breast pops out on TV, or some shock jock says something naughty.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[User 956]

These puritanical attitudes make us the laughing stock of the entire world.

Hey, the same type of draconian policy worked for the Taliban in Afghanistan, right?

... right?

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[slusich]

Exactly. We can talk about bringing freedom to the world, yet we continually decide to limit free speech here in this country because of outdated views of what is "decent".

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[Mike Hawk]

Yes, because its always in the best interest of our state to do what other states want us to. Is that really the main point of your arguement? That we should form policy under the threat of being laughed at?

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[RealAlaskan]

These puritanical attitudes make us the laughing stock of the entire world.

I'd say that as long as the rest of the world is laughing at us, we're doing just fine.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[toiletmonster]

i don't agree with the fcc, but i find it wierd that so many liberals worry about what the rest of the world thinks. we aren't running for prom queen here. when jobs founded apple, how many people in the world thought you could make money selling a personal computer? just because 90% of the people don't agree doesn't mean they are right.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[stang7423]

no, his point is that we as a country are childlike and ignorant.
Here is a shocker, girls have breasts....Wow...get over it, the rest of the world has. Children in other countries are exposed to sex and nudity at a young age but you don't see them running around humping everything in site like the neighbor dog. Its repression not expression that causes the most damage.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[asdfghjklqwertyuiop]

That we should form policy under the threat of being laughed at?

No. The point is that we should stop enacting and enforcing moronic "decency" policies. And the right wing religous fundies in this country ought to stop acting like 11 year olds every time they see a boob.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[gfxguy]

Quiet you! The liberal, progressive, free-thinking intellectual elite is always right!

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[AK Marc]

In honor of your moderation, I've changed my sig. There are spiteful people on both sides of the religion debate that will mod you down no matter what your stance.

Christianity is based on spreading the word. Some churches take this to mean spreading your morality as well. There is a difference between teaching morality and forcing morality. Some evidently haven't figured out the distinction.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[Mike Hawk]

That's weird. Because none of what you just said here was in your original post. Also weird is that I have never once heard god used as the justification for the policy. That statement you just made is brought about merely from your bias against certain groups prohibiting you from questioning your own beliefs. Using racist stereotypes also helps your point.

Precisely, how did what happened in the aftermatch of Ms. Jackson's indiscretion affect your freedom? Please give something specific.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[alcmena]

You're right, because a boob popping out will cause irreperable harm to a kid where as the good wholesome game of beating the shit out of each other is just good ol' family fun.

Not that I have anything against football specifically, but jeezus, let's put some things in perspective. Chances are the kid saw a boob already since most people are breast fed at least once in their lives. I really don't get the big deal. Honestly, why is it ok to show a man's chest, but showing a woman's will corrupt our youth?

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[black mariah]

COCK CUNT ASS FUCK SUCK LICK DAVE NIPPLE TITTIES BOOBS BEER CLIT ASS ASS ASS ASS ASS

No... I think my speech is pretty free right now. Suck a cock. The lameness filter can suck a fucking cock too. I know it's like I'm yelling, assfuck. I AM yelling.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[black mariah]

No, you just don't get it. Don't even bother talking to idiots like the grandparent. They don't understand the concept of ACCOUNTABILITY. You can stand in a park and say "FUCK A GOAT!" all you want, but eventually someone is going to get annoyed and call the cops on your weird ass. Free speech does NOT mean being completely unaccountable for your words or actions.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[praksys]

I know this will come as a surprise to most people but the US has fewer restrictions on the content of what can be published, broadcast, or otherwise communicated than almost any country in the world. Certainly far fewer than any other industrialized nation.

You can be prosecuted in Canada for quoting the wrong parts of the bible in print. In Germany you can get prison time for singing pro-Nazi songs anywhere. In the UK you can be fined for making racist comments. In fact racist speech is illegal in most of the "free" world.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[glitch23]

As I just put in another post concerning the "celebration of the human form", the issue at hand is the context in which it was done. To reiterate one point, there wasn't any need for it anyway. If you can find one, please by all means tell me. Secondly, the way it was done was in a sexual manner and that is why everyone is up in arms about it. If a kid saw a breast before that it doesn't make it any more acceptable. Maybe he did grab a Playboy from an older brother or something and when seeing it on tv never thought anything of it but does that make it okay? Are you trying to say one bad thing is made acceptable by another bad thing? Using breastfeeding is a pathetic excuse since that is done while a child is still innocent and not only does he/she not realize what the breast is but obviously does not view it in a sexual manner yet. By publicly doing things like the halftime show we just tell the kids that sexualizing women is okay, especially when done in front of a nationwide audience. Watching National Geographic you can sometimes see women in the Amazon who obviously don't wear clothes and the reason it is shown is because it is in a nonsexual form. It is their natural living environment. In the US the only time people want to show a woman's body is because we want to do it in a sexual way to advertise whatever we want to sell or exhibit. It's all in the context in which it is done and the US always aims for the wrong context. What's worse is that we have younger and younger women getting involved and making younger teenage girls think it is okay to be exploited for your body by dressing with skimpy clothes and kissing other girls.

You are right about the violence in the game however the violence is in an indirect way and not meant to purposely hurt anyone and when it is on purpose we have those things called penalties don't we?

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[meadowsp]

Quite right too sir. I say get burka's for those harlots.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[BandwidthHog]

I don't think anybody's really worried that people in Borneo don't think we're the cool kids, or anything like that. But when it comes to issues like this where we have this collective neurosis about some question of supposed morality, it is kinda odd that such a free society should be so uptight and repressive on such inconsequential matters.

Re:We've gotta get over this.

[glitch23]

I don't hear anyone complaining about the rest of the 3.5 hours or whatever it was that the super bowl took up on the tv; only the few seconds that was part of the halftime show.

could anybody explain...

[User 956]

Could someone explain to me why Howard Stern can say something, and it's "indecent", but if Oprah uses the same language, in the same setting, in the same way, it's magically *not* indecent?

...yeah, that's what I thought. Somehow the current administration seems to have forgotten about "equal protection under the law". Maybe it was that big Constitution-burning party they had right after stealing office.

Re:could anybody explain...

[thebra]

My only guess is because it was "educational", but I really beleive it's because the person speaking was Oprah.

I can't stand Dr.Phil

Re:could anybody explain...

[Jameth]

I think Howard Stern should bring charges of sexual discrimination. First off, it'd be a funny publicity stunt. Second off, it's half true. Men are often considered less decent than women, and she is being treated significantly differently. It'd be a hilarious trial if he really pushed it.

Re:could anybody explain...

[nizo]

You should have heard me screaming after I started to read that site you listed. I will never be able to walk by a lipstick counter again.

Re:could anybody explain...

[nizo]

Men are often considered less decent than women

I have to admit I would think of Howard Stern as being more obscene in general, I mean who would you invite over to dinner with grandma, Howard Stern or Oprah??? Then again, if you were expecting a big inheritence, maybe Howard Stern....

Re:could anybody explain...

[Rytr23]

I believe one of the FCC employees stated in print that they "could not fine Oprah, because she is so beloved, whereas Howard Stern is a lightning rod" or something very much to that effect. Kind of scary if you ask me...

Re:could anybody explain...

[gfxguy]

The current indecency push is being led by Copps after his "outrage" from the superbowl incident. No one blamed Eisenhower for McCarthy, and I'm not saying republicans are innocent, I'm just telling you who the one who got all riled up about it is.

Re:could anybody explain...

[bullitB]

Because Howard Stern has made "being censored" part of his image.

Does anyone honestly think Clear Channel or anyone is actually being hurt by this? Of course not. People see a headline "Show fined for $1.7 million" and its free advertising. Notice how the show hasn't been removed anywhere except in places where regional demand was minimal?

Censorship? Give me a big fucking break. If he were really all about being as raunchy as possible, Stern could go onto satellite radio. He wants to make a scene and spew political nonsense.

And before someone makes some absurd political point about this all being the current executive branch's fault somehow (either because they own the FCC, are own by ClearChannel, or both), they've been fined before, specifically while Clinton was in office.

Re:could anybody explain...

[Fnkmaster]

Could you get real please? Aside from Tipper Gore, have you ever heard of or met a real liberal who supports this kind of shit? I mean, where do you think the support for this comes from? Urban liberal areas like New York and Massachusetts? Because I can assure you with absolute certainty that isn't the case. Or the rural Republican midwest and south?

Get it through your head - most Republicans are NOT freedom loving libertarians, okay? The freedom loving libertarians are much closer to moderate liberals on many issues than they are to the populist bulk of the Republican party.

Re:could anybody explain...

[gfxguy]

Aside from Tipper Gore, have you ever heard of or met a real liberal who supports this kind of shit?

I just told you... Michael Copps. John Kerry is pretty much on board with this sort of thing, too.

Get it through your head - most Republicans are NOT freedom loving libertarians, okay?

Where did I say they were? I did say democrats support more government controls over our lives.

Re:could anybody explain...

[Kingfox]

Lieberman? Senator from an ``urban liberal area'' that borders on both of the states you mentioned? You might have heard of him, ran for a national office recently. He's attacked video games, music, and tons of ``offensive'' media.

Re:could anybody explain...

[Ohreally_factor]

Why were you screaming? Was someone giving you a blumpkin?

And, seriously, what is a "strawberry shortcake"? or a "Nasty Sanchez"?

Does the FCC understand the FCC

[Da_Slayer]

Honestly I think the FCC has no idea what they are doing. Censor certain things, and not others. Go after profanity but not sexual theme speech. Allow violence and sex on TV but only at certain times and only certain things allowed.

Just trying to follow what they say and then do and not do is a headache all in itself. I believe the FCC needs a serious revision. A re-write from source if you will. Get rid of everything they have now and start over with a new rule book that is designed with current idealogy and forsight when dealing with newer techonologies.

It will be painful for them but better for us overall the sooner this happens. Furthermore it would be nice to read a concise brief on the regulations of what you can or cannot do in a medium.

Kissing butt in Texas

[RobertB-DC]

Here in Dallas, we've lost our last Hard Rock station, Clear Channel's 97.1 The Eagle. They turned it into Sunny 97.1, playing a fully automated mix of 70s and 80s. My 13-year-old daughter and all her friends were devastated, but I told her it's really pretty simple.

It's George W's fault.

Clear Channel vice-head-honcho Tom Hicks made Dubya a rich man indeed when he bought the Texas Rangers from Bush's ownership group. That freed up Bush to run for Governor, and the rest, as they say, is history (though he was a decent governor, as they go). Short story: Hicks and Bush are buds.

Now, you have Janet Jackson's Right Breast suddenly stirring up the bible-thumpers (the ones that give us Christians a bad image). Fired up, they went after an easy target -- the shock jocks that Clear Channel and others put on the air to cover up the fact that their corporate music sucks.

Bush calls Hicks with a proposal: act like they're sorry, pay a little fine, shut down some jocks and stations, so that the bible thumpers will feel like they've won. Bush gets his base energized, and Hicks gets buddy Bush re-elected.

And for the icing on the cake, Clear Channel turns off the last rock station in conservative Dallas.

They'd been letting it rot in the ratings for years (details here), so they had an excuse. So maybe my tinfoil hat is on too tight. But if they'd supported the music, KEGL would have *had* ratings... and top 15 in the Dallas market still isn't anything to sneeze at.

Bottom line: Republican politics killed Rock in Dallas. The Eagle joins Q102 and The Zoo in radio oblivion.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[deanj]

Nice conspiracy theory, but the big flaw in all this is that the person in the FCC pushing all the indency stuff is Michael Copp, a democrat. He was part of the Ersnt Hollings' staff before going to the FCC.

This all reminds me of Tipper Gore back in the 1980s.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[Mz6]

You can blame Bush all you want.. but Kerry feels the same way about it. Pulled from Drudgereport.com (Jun 4)

"In an interview set for broadcast Sunday on C-SPAN, presidential hopeful John Kerry says he supports the current FCC crackdown on television indecency, but comes out against the greater scrutiny of pay cable channels like HBO and Showtime.

"I think there is a distinction between public broadcast and the notions we've had historically about family time, family hour -- and what you buy privately and personally."

"I am not in favor of government interference and censorship and restriction of what an individual privately can decide to do in their home, in their own space, so to speak," Kerry said, but he did seem to be OK with indecency regulation "where you have children involved, where you have a broader cross-section of the public, where there is sort of a sense of family time or hour."

On media concentration:

"I wasn't there for the vote, but I was 100% in favor of overturning this rule.

"I think that too much media in the hands of one powerful entity or one individual is a mistake. I think it runs counter to the foundation of our country. I think it runs counter to the need for Americans to know what they are getting news and information from multiple sources that are not singularly controlled."

On the Janet Jackson Super Bowl 'nipple' incident:

"I thought that was in poor taste and wrong -- wrong venue, wrong timing, wrong place, wrong audience. So, there are some standards and pretty generally people should know what they are."

Think what you will.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[RobertB-DC]

You can blame Bush all you want.. but Kerry feels the same way about it.

You are exactly right. As bad as Bush is, on most core issues, there's hardly a flicker of difference between the two halves of our one-party system. That's why I'm voting for the Green Party candidate (hopefully David Cobb).

Of course, YMMV.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[Mz6]

"Oh, so this makes it oK, then? You do realize that is what you are implying, don't you? Come on, think for yourself, the world really isn't an either-or situation."

No.. It doesn't make the matter OK and that's not what I was implying. I am just sick of hearing people blame it all on Bush and push off their vote for Kerry on just this issue alone in the upcoming election. Kerry seems to feel the same way Bush does on this very issue.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

So what you're saying is, politics killed the radio star?

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[timothv]

That's why I'm voting for the Green Party candidate (hopefully David Cobb).

Wow, great! Thanks for keeping Bush in office.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[Moofie]

Did my grandparent poster even mention the FCC? If not, what is your argument?

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[RobertB-DC]

It's not part of their handful of remotely-programmed formats. They acquired it because it already had a license to broadcast at that frequency. When they needed the frequency, they killed it.

You've got a point, there. Of course, that makes it a tossup between "corrupted by money and political connections" and "corrupted by money and more money".

It also means that Tulsa's legendary KMOD, now owned by you-know-who, could go the way of KELI any day.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[PMuse]

Right on.

All things being equal, the simplest explanation is probably the correct one. Here, there was more money to be made as a "sunny" station than as a "hard" station. Or, the lack of a tinfoil hat could have made me hopelessly naive.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[glitch23]

It's George W's fault. Clear Channel vice-head-honcho Tom Hicks made Dubya a rich man indeed when he bought the Texas Rangers from Bush's ownership group. That freed up Bush to run for Governor, and the rest, as they say, is history (though he was a decent governor, as they go). Short story: Hicks and Bush are buds.

So even though Hicks ponied up the cash it's Bush's fault? Keep dreaming with your convoluted cause and effect aimed at blaming people just b/c you don't like them.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[jafac]

Al Gore is irrelevant.

That said - the difference between Republicans and Democrats is an illusion. No, third parties are not a viable option. In short - America is screwed, and there's nothing anyone can do about it short of trying to relax and enjoy the assraping.

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[Thing 1]

All things being equal, [...]

This is OT, but to be pedantic, it's "All other things being equal." In other words, you're saying start with the same assumptions/variables, and change just this one variable; all other things remain equal to the starting condition of the scenario.

That said, even "All other things being equal" doesn't really fit in your sentence; it's concisely written as merely: "The simplest explanation is probably the correct one."

Re:Kissing butt in Texas

[PMuse]

Thanks for correcting the axiom.

There were other some things in the parent post that weren't quite equal, namely the political connections, etc. I was unable to evaluate the quality and relevance of that information. Thus, the caveat.

More insulting

[sielwolf]

was the Clear Channel CEO saying that all content, including pay cable and satelite radio, should be held to the same standard as public broadcast. His rationale: for the kids.

*pfff* Sorry but there's a reason why there is "public" standards on "public" channels. This wasn't about any sort of moral or ethical standard. This guy was just pissy because all adults were voting with their $$$ and going off to adult-level content on HBO or XM radio that he, as bound by public broadcast, could never provide.

So his whole thing is to level the playing field by screwing everybody else. What a nimrod.

Re:More insulting

[evilned]

If I remember right, XM is partially owned by clear channel. Go buy a sirius instead ;)

Uncensored, uncut...

[cuzality]

For those needing a reminder of this event, here is an ASCII pic: (*)(/) You'll always get the straight skinny on /.

Re:Uncensored, uncut...

[Obsequious]

I dunno, man; that looks a bit too perky. What I saw looked more like this:

| |(/)
(.)

Re:Jack has hit the road...

[Anonymous Coward]

I moded this up

From the Moderator FAQ:

Moderators can not participate in the same discussion as both a moderator and a poster.

You spoiled a perfectly good troll by claiming you'd violating one of ./'s rules. Way to go.

Obligatory...

[Ikn]

Step 1 - Create horridly strict yet notoriously undefined industry-wide regulations Step 2 - Sue like it's gonna bring in millions (oh, and it will) Step 3 - Gold-plated Ferrari

Howard Stern

[ogewo]

From howardstern.com:

"Howard attacked Clear Channel for paying the $1.7 million fine to the government over his show and other's. Howard wants to know why they are paying the government but not paying him and honoring his contract. He says that Clear Channel didn't even fight the fines, they just kowtow to the Bush Administration to stay on their good side. And last year, Clear Channel was defending that same show to the FCC. Only after Howard started bashing Bush did Clear Channel suspend him for those shows, before any fines even came down. It's really scary how a major company like Clear Channel just seemingly does whatever the government asks. And how come the FCC hasn't fined Oprah yet over the same things Howard got fined for? Howard said that Clear Channel is full of sickening cowards."

Four paragraphs from the bottom

Cyclist? Too bad...

[cornice]

Too bad the FCC can't do anything about Clearchannel DJs inciting violence against cyclists.

Slashdot and black kettles.

[Anonymous Coward]

Considering how little steel Slashdot showed with the Scientology debacle, they have no right criticizing other regarding censorship.

The FCC Should be Aboloished

[DarkHazard]

Even though I do not agree with FCC censorship it would be better if they were not a corrupt organization. Any attempts at 'censorship' and policing the airwaves are easily swayed with money. If ClearChannel really had commited the supposed crime of violating indecency rules then the FCC should've continued with charges rather than allowed themselves to be bought off.
One of these days the FCC will have to go once they've become so corrupted they'll first ask for a settlement before trying to fine them.

FCC and CC?

[Mad Man]

FCC: F****ing Clear Channel

Guess what happened to Oprah!!!?

[Nuge]

Absolutely NOTHING!!! "The Oprah Winfrey Show Transcript Thursday, March 18, 2004 Clip One Oprah: Lets talk about that secret language Michelle. Michelle: Yes Oprah: I didn't know any of this Michelle: I have yea, I have gotten a whole new vocabulary let me tell ya Oprah: I did not know any of this Michelle: Salad tossing, cucumbers, lettuce tomatoes ok Oprah: ok so so what is a salad toss? Michelle: ok a tossed salad is, get ready hold on to your underwear for this one, oral anal sex, So oral sex with the anus is what that would be. Clip Two Michelle: a rainbow party is an oral sex party it's a gathering where oral sex is performed and rainbow comes from all of the girls put on lipstick and each one puts her mouth around the penis of the gentleman or gentlemen who are there to receive favors and makes a mark um in a different place on the penis hence the term rainbow"

Government censorship

[Kutsal]

We're in the 21st century, right? Why do we still need censorship by the government? Can we not trust the people who make these shows to show some self-restraint?

So what if Fox shows people screwing eachother on live TV over the public waves?.. It'll be for a short time before people get bored of seeing it and start looking for better shows... Eventually, when their ratings drop, the producers will realize that overdoing something will have adverse effects..

Banning/censoring something never worked before.. Why should it work now?

Big Trouble

[awhelan]

Either way, my next door neighbors are in big touble. I use their wi-fi to get all my pr0n, so technically they've publicly broadcasted things far worse than the Howard Stern show.

Firing DJ's for a first offense...

[haplo21112]

...Yeah there's an answer...bring on plain vanilla radio...it will be all talk shows and ex-cheerleaders on the air in a year...

Good radio on good stations always pushes the line, its a fact of entertainment. I am sick of the best DJ's that are the most fun to listen too getting railroaded by stupid rules...

American PUBLIC...DUMBASSES...there is a knob on the radio if you don't like what you are listening to, turn it!

Re:Firing DJ's for a first offense...

[Detritus]

Good radio on good stations always pushes the line, its a fact of entertainment.

A fact? I've listened to many years of radio programming that managed to be good or excellent without once needing to use crude language, risque jokes, or scatological humor.

In the old days, a "shock jock" wouldn't have lasted a week. The FCC would have shut down the station pending a serious talk with its management about whether there were any reasons why the FCC shouldn't pull the station's license.

Re:Firing DJ's for a first offense...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Good radio on good stations always pushes the line, its a fact of entertainment.

Really? Best talk shows I can recall over the last ten years said nothing more shocking than "You, sir, are an idiot. Don't ever call this show again." I still miss that show....

Re:A great government / private sector partnership

[Valar]

Or it could be that 1.75 million is a drop in the bucket for CC (it is), and so they decided that not pissing off the FCC was worth it. After all, they pay up this time and the issue basically goes away (the FCC probably won't go after them for a long, long time). If they fight it, chances are the FCC is going to enforce the rule every chance they get (to collect more legal precedent for censorship, to flex the beaurocratic muscle, because idle lawyers are a dangerous thing...).

Re:Cyclist? Too bad...

[StressGuy]

Yes but, apparantly, something was worked out via bikeleague.org [http://www.bikeleague.org/index.cfm]

Selective enforcement destroys the rule of law.

[Thud457]

A bazillion pecune laws and selective enforcement are critical tools for a corrupt bueracracy. That's how China was ruled for centuries.

Let the free market sort it out..

[dustinbarbour]

If the residents of a certain locale don't like the profanity and/or indecency, they won't listen. If rhey don't listen, advertisers will soon abandon the station and the station will shutdown. The free market, that which got America where it is today, is a powerful machine capable of incredible change. Why government tries to regulate and fight against this machine, I have no freakin' idea. let the peple decide, damnit!

Re:A great government / private sector partnership

[gfxguy]

Exactly! If only Michael J. Copps, the FCC chairman who is fighting so hard against this "indecency", were replaced by a republican who supports first amendment rights.

I guess Copps got his training when he worked for "Fritz" Hollings (D-Disney).

Luke Skywalkker represent!

[Thud457]

We went through the same shit the last time the conservatives had control of the government! But that didn't stop Two Live Crew from going on to be the enduring supergroup that they are today!

Re:Clear Channel thinks the FCC is right

[dustinbarbour]

Comparing the Bush administration to Hitler is outright ludicrous. If I had mod points I'd nail you with a -1 Troll. There is no comparison betwixt GW Bush and hitler, the man who orchestrated the systematic deaths of more than 6 million Jews and millions of other "undesirables." Get off the fucking (Bush == Hitler) trip and start thinking for yourself.

Re:Jack has hit the road...

[The Ultimate Fartkno]

Offtopic? Hardly. The FCC is the death of sensibility and personal responsibility. Clear Channel is the death of radio. The death of Ray Charles is the... well, it's the death of Ray Charles. They're all huge losses to the music world.

And sadly, one of the three can't be reversed. /me goes off to listen to "Georgia On My Mind"

Re:Clear Channel thinks the FCC is right

[Facekhan]

I did not say Bush is hitler. I said they want a police state in US.

Anyone? Anyone? (crickets chirping)

[deacon]

Defending Howard Stern?

As Instapundit said:

In 1992 the FCC fined Infinity Broadcasting $600,000 after Stern discussed masturbating to a picture of Aunt Jemima. Is that better or worse than asking a Nigerian woman if she eats monkeys, or hosting a discussion of whether, when you have sex with a black woman, it smells like watermelons? I guess you can argue that point, but I'd be a lot more impressed with Stern's defenders if they'd quote these comments verbatim in the process of defending him.

You, sir, are wrong.

[gfxguy]

You can't let facts get in the way of a liberal G.W. haters rant!

The fact of the matter is it's all about control, and both parties want control. Democrats, and people with a liberal, socialistic agenda want the government to have more control. I'm not saying conservatives are free from guilt, but I have a big problem trying to pin this on the current administration and Bush in particular.

Surely they can find something about the current administration with more substance to whine about.

Re:You, sir, are wrong.

[DarkVein]

I realize this is a mental epidemic, and I probably won't cure it here. :P

Liberalism and socialism have next to nothing to do with each other. You'd get very very oddly looks for suggesting it in most countries. You use "liberal" and "social" interchangable. Why? Because the Socialists, if they want ANY political voice at all, have to join one of the two parties.

Just like the economic fascist policy folk had to join the respectable Republicans to have any voice at all.

At the heart of it, we've got liberals in the Democratic party stuck with socialists, and we've got liberals (aka conservatives) in the Republican party stuck with fascists. The love-child of this perverse union is that Republicans tend to emphasis individualist policies and Democrats tend to emphasis common-infrastructure initiatives, and both of their efforts are utterly destroyed by their respective leeches.

I think if we broke the two-party system (Duverger's Law; abandon the Plurality voting system [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law ]), the parties could naturally divide and we could re-unite the classicaly-defined liberal party. Pipe dream, maybe. Ideally, political parties should be banned, but that's a longer post.

What a disgrace!

[jbrasch]

One of the largest media companies in the US will not stand up for freedom of speech! What good is a media company that does not protect that freedom. Instead they bend over and hand over cash to secure their empire.

It sure seems like there is a lot of similarities between the fcc indecency crusade (at least someone interpretation) and DRM crusade.

People we need to vote in november and with our dollars.

We, the corporation...

[ChozCunningham]

Clear Channel's PR regarding this.(.pdf) The best part:

"In out view, industry-developed guidlines should be as effective as Government-imposed regulations without running afoul of the First Amendment protections that we all respect," John Hogan CEO, Clear Channel Radio.

Well, isn't it nice that the monopoly and ourt government have found a viable soulution to that pasky First Amendment? I was so worried that our Constitution might interfere with censorship. God bless these clever, clever boys.

We need to stop selling our airwaves to BIG BIZZ

[zymano]

Corporate america owns 'our' airwaves. We need to stop this. We need to quit having FCC sell off our airwaves to the highest bidder and change paradigms. We need something like democracy for our airwaves akin to having a wireless internet. Government needs to build this network like they build the roads of our country. Then we can better utilize our airwaves with more efficiency ,choice and freedom.

Infinity and Viacom not fined, they carry Stern

[cjmnews]

Not that I like Clear Channel any more than any other broadcaster, but I find it interesting that the other major broadcasters that also carry the Stern show were not fined.

Is Clear Channel being targeted?

Do Inifinity and Viacom have some hold over the FCC?

What's the story behind this?

Re:Infinity and Viacom not fined, they carry Stern

[taustin]

Clear Channel provides Stern's studio for recording. The others are just rebroadcasting. Stop it from being recorded, and nobody can rebroadcast.

Re:Infinity and Viacom not fined, they carry Stern

[AveryT]

Ummm, no.

Stern broadcasts from WXRK, which is part of Infinity Broadcasting (Viacom). Stern was broadcast on only six ClearChannel stations before being dropped.

FCC cases are probably still pending against Infinity, who may not lie down as fast as ClearChannel since Stern represents a big chunk of their bottom line.

Re:Infinity and Viacom not fined, they carry Stern

[/dev/trash]

I think it was because no one that listens to those owned stations complained.

Re:Ray Charles dead at 73

[harborpirate]

Ok, at first I thought this was another in a long line of trolls..

I was going to post "Its supposed to be Stephen King you idiot! Or was it Larry King..."

But this looks legit, a quick google search turned up several articles, including one which actually doesn't require an infuriating online registration:

http://www.eonline.com/News/Items/0,1,14285,00.htm l?tnews

Yes, E online, that bastion of stone solid, accurate information...

Regardless, it appears the parent post is not a troll.

Ah now i understand america

[t_allardyce]

I always thought "America land of the free" ment something about freedom of speech but now i understand, its about the freedom for anyone to freely trade no matter who they are or what agency, commission, organisation or government department they are from. America is about having the freedom to capitalise on your position of power, having the ability to take bribes and make deals. Its more than free speech its about having the right to buy free speech! Im not trolling ive seriously been given an insight into your countries system.

MOD UP MZ6!!

[mrbrown1602]

Someone with mod points needs to give them to MZ6's post. People need to stop blaming this mess on "Dubya", because its the Democrats' fault as much as the Republicans'... I'd like to remind people that the Decency Enforcement Act was passed by the House of Representatives by a margin of 391 to 22. So stop blaming Dubya for all of your problems, gripes, and issues, and start blaming those responsible - soccer moms from the hippie generation that can't take responsibility and expect the government to do it for them.

Re:MOD UP MZ6!!

[mrbrown1602]

According to THOMAS, the DMCA was passed in the Senate in the 105th session of Congress by a 99-0 vote. Kerry, along with every other Senator (except for Gregg, a Republican from New Hampshire), including current attorney general John Ashcroft (who, even as a Republican, I loathe) voted for it.

Re:Clear Channel thinks the FCC is right

[CrimsonAvenger]

If they do, they're pretty incompetent.

Last attack on US soil before 9/11 was Pearl Harbor. It didn't take FDR anywhere near three years to take control of the majority of the economy, toss 100,000 people into concentration camps, and invade seven other countries (only two of which were our enemies)....

Open letter to parents

[eyeball]

In case there's anyone out there that thinks that exposure to so-called obscene or profane content, be it on the radio, TV, movies, music, or Internet, look at me. I'm in my mid-30s, happily married, make close to 6 figures, a great contributor to society, do plenty of charity work, I don't do anything illegal, and I recycle. Yet from the ages of 13 till 17 I listened to Howard Stern every afternoon. Sure I learned the meaning of things like "slippin' a mickey" when I was 15, but it never affected my life. And those few individuals whose activities would be somehow tainted by such things are the exception, and would be eventually be affected by something anyway.

Stop "thinking about the children." They're fine.

Re:Ray Charles dead at 73

[pyropaul]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3796085.s tm If it's on the BBC site, it is more than likely true. Paul.

Doesn't free speech apply here?

[ripsnorta]

Not being a US citizen, even though I currently reside in the US, I'm not sure of where the constitution does and does not apply. I thought that unhindered free speech was something that Americans proudly adhere to.

How then can the FCC fine ClearChannel for Howard Stern exercising his constitutionally protected rights?

Re:Doesn't free speech apply here?

[Hank Reardon]

From what I understand about the issue, it doesn't have to do as much with free speech as it does with the use of the public airwaves.

All broadcast media licenses are granted with an understanding that the airwaves will be used "for the common good", whatever that means. That's why radio and television stations still play those Public Service Announcements. It's also why there was such flack over the Superbowl Nipple Flash(tm).

In accordance with the "common good" standards, there are certain decency standards that all broadcasters must uphold. Subscribers are the reason that the cable channels can show whatever they want; FCC public broadcasting is supported, in a roundabout way, by the people of the US.

Re:Doesn't free speech apply here?

[ripsnorta]

Thanks Hank, that does explain things.

So, it appears that the FCC "owns" the airwaves and leases them on the condition that they are not used in certain ways.

Still strange with basic cable though. I didnt think that was broadcast through the airwaves. Unless the FCC owns cable bandwith as well?

Re:Doesn't free speech apply here?

[Hank Reardon]

So, it appears that the FCC "owns" the airwaves and leases them on the condition that they are not used in certain ways.

I suppose you could look at it in that way, but it's kind of off. We, the People, "own" the airwaves. What is broadcast over those airwaves is regulated by a set of rules, which the FCC governs. For example, the 10-meter and 11-meter radio bands are governed by a set of laws that are completely different. The 10-meter band requires a license (HAM radio), while the 11-meter band (CB, or citizen's band) is open for public use. The power limits and such on the 10-meter band are different from those of the 11-meter band.

When you talk about "public" broadcasting (i.e. ABC, NBC, CBS, etc.), their purpose is chartered differently than the HAM radio bands. In order to broadcast television via the airwaves, you have to have specific things in your charter, one of them being that you will serve the public's interest. The FCC is the group that enforces the rules and charters.

Still strange with basic cable though. I didnt think that was broadcast through the airwaves. Unless the FCC owns cable bandwith as well?

I have to wonder what your definition of "basic cable" is. If it is the major networks, then they are governed just like their "broadcast" equivelants. For example, CBS in my area is exactly the same if I use a VHF reciever or a cable box. If, however, you're talking about MTV, the situation is different. It's not possible to recieve MTV without some specialized equipment (cable box or dish), where it is possible to recieve the standard "broadcast" television without the equipment.

As a general rule, figure that anything that you pay for, and that you couldn't get without some sort of cable or sattellite coverter, is governed by the FCC more strictly. Cable is still regulated, but in a different matter. The standards, being a subscription service, are far more lenient as to what's allowable.

Re:Doesn't free speech apply here?

[ripsnorta]

The basic cable package that I receive does of course have the local channels as well as CBS, ABC, etc. But I've noticed heavy censorship of TV and movies on channels like SciFi, SpikeTV, AMC, and the other channels that I wouldn't have thought broadcast over the air.

Of course the digital package with HBO and the like isn't censored at all, but it surprised me when I arrived here that so much was.

Re:Doesn't free speech apply here?

[Hank Reardon]

I did a bit more research, but I couldn't come up with any real regulation of language, nudity, suitability, or anything else for SciFi, Spike and the rest.

Then, it hit me: advertisers. They're able to gather a wider base of advertising support, and less worried about pissing somebody like Pepsi off, if they keep to similar standards as regular "broadcast" television. Since they're cable-based, they can get away with things that broadcasters can't. For example, Comedy Central recently played "South Park: Bigger, Longer and Uncut" late at night without any censoring.

Rights are for those that vote

[adzoox]

"merican PUBLIC...DUMBASSES...there is a knob on the radio if you don't like what you are listening to, turn it!"

When I was 6, read that SIX, cable TV was new. The only channels were TBS, CNN, WGN, HBO, Showtime, and local TV. At 9PM Playboy would come on. Do you know who would try to sneak in and catch a peak late at night? My brothers and I. I would be HORRIFIED if my 6 year old was watching that!!

This is not censorship, nor is it a freedom of speech issue. Freedom of Speech (constitutionally) does NOT give you the right to say anything, "artistically" create anything for public display. It gives you the right to say it - PERIOD - YOU have the obligation to find an audience. PUBLIC PERFORMANCE or FREE performance in public is REGULATED - it always has been.

I think the best way to decide issues APART from the FCC would be to let the public decide on Presidential ballots. Because to me, the only people WORTHY of living in the US and being GRANTED their constutional rights are those that vote.

Re:Rights are for those that vote

[Firethorn]

And you are horrified about your six year old seeing the playboy channel why? Did you have severe nightmares for weeks after your exposure to the channel? Did you have to have years of expensive therapy to repair the damage done to your immature neurons?

The biggest problem with youthfull access to 'adult' material is that the parents might have to explain sex to their kids before they're 'ready' too. Not the 'Birds and the Bees', not the 'Stork', but SEX. If a kid is too young to understand, they'll be bored and change the channel.

Heck, when I was about 10 I borrowed a movie that turned out to be in the wrong box from a friend's house. Turned out to be a wierd Caluga video in spanish. It was only soft core in what it showed, but for the inuendo... Well, you know how the decadent romans were...

About the only effect it had on me was a raised awarness that there are perverts out there.

Re:Rights are for those that vote

[plutonic]

Here's a good question for you then... can you please explain what damaged was caused by you witnessing "Playboy" at that young age? How about your brothers, how are they? Was any harm done at all? I highly doubt it, in fact you probably enjoyed it.

Dood.. Hes been dead for hours!!!

[corsican]

Pay attention, PLEASE!

Re:Clear Channel thinks the FCC is right

[riptide_dot]

Last attack on US soil before 9/11 was Pearl Harbor. It didn't take FDR anywhere near three years to take control of the majority of the economy, toss 100,000 people into concentration camps, and invade seven other countries (only two of which were our enemies)....

I sincerely hope you're not arguing that putting 100,000 Japanese people into concentration-style camps was a GOOD idea. Or are we (Americans) so superior now that we don't need to learn from past mistakes anymore? We (society as a whole) should have learned from the mistakes of the past, no matter how well intentioned they might have been - hence the expression that hindsight is always "20/20". Allowing for and/or encouraging the mistreatment/incarceration of an entire ethnic group of people is ALWAYS wrong.

Re:Anyone? Anyone? (I'm chirping)

[riptide_dot]

I'm not a huge Howard Stern fan, but in the name of free speech I'll defend him 'till the day I die. Take away my free speech and you take away my primary reason for living in a free country. I don't necessarily agree with Howard or even like what he says. I definately think there's better things that small children can be doing with their time. But what children listen to should be decided by their parents, not the government.

What I DO think is that censoring him and/or anyone should not be tolerated by a free public (or anyone for that matter). It's not the Howard Sterns we really care about, it's the idea that protecting free speech (not just popular speech) should be one of the foundations of our American society.

If the FCC needs a way to keep children from hearing adult content, there are better ways to accomplish that goal than censorship. Like the Vchip, for example. But this is slashdot - couldn't we be discussing other technical ways to prevent children from hearing adult content without having to censor that adult content? Hard problems call for ingenious solutions, and I can't think of a better forum for those types of ideas to be discussed.

Re:Clear Channel thinks the FCC is right

[CrimsonAvenger]

No, I'm arguing that if Bush wants a police state, he's doing a much worse job than FDR (who did NOT want a police state) of forming one.

Disclaimer: I do not approve of putting people in concentration camps. {Does that help?]

the obscene and the profane...

[uqbar]

The two are very different. Profanity has more to do with offending religious sensibilities. The fact that the FCC is now placing themselves in the position of deciding whose religious sensibilities matter enough to warrant censorship is disturbing to me.

Separation of Church and State, anyone?

Re:The F word on South Park

[certsoft]

I think there is a time range where profanity is allowed. I know I've heard "fuck" used on PBS late night, and that's a broadcast, not cable, station.

While i still can...

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

Hey FCC... While i still can, this ones for you.

Suck my mother fucking dick you faggot ass raping baby fucking nazi hypocrit little bush muff diving anti American frequency regulating asshole poking cunt strangling upper class criminals who shit on the consitution.

And here is a special one for you Powell... May you inherit your fathers ass cancer.

In all seriousness.. i'm just trying to make a point and that point is... maybe censorship is a good thing?

If you think so... Fuck off. ;)

Listener demand?

[gad_zuki!]

Listener demand? Oh please. They created the dixie chicks issue.

Clear Channel also supported and ran their own pro-war/pro-bush political rallies. I bet that was listener demand too.

"Umm, yeah, I got a request, can we do some political rallies? I mean I know you guys do music, but Im just an average joe.."

Its called corporate media for a reason, by kissing GOP ass they get favors. And it paid off this time.

Re:We need to stop selling our airwaves to BIG BIZ

[reverius]

i think you just hit it on the nail right there with "like wireless internet". why even go through traditional airwaves, when we can (still, i hope) control some of the digital airwaves? :)

start your own -internet radio- station. with the proliferation of wireless internet hotspots in municipalities and around major cities, this could be more effective than a traditional "radio" station.

democracy on internet radio... how about Air America Radio?

What Dixie Chicks ban ??

[green pizza]

You've got to be kidding. Plenty of hosts on Clear Channel criticize Bush regularly. Removing the Dixie Chicks from playlists was done in response to listener demand, not some partisan decision from management.

You know, I keep hearing about this Dixie Chicks ban too, but from the two Clear Channel country stations (in two different cities) I've listened to, both have been playing the Dixie Chicks quite a bit over the past 18 months. And, from what I understand, Clear Channel HQ has access to all playlists and logs, so it's not like they don't know about it...

Re:Anyone? Anyone? (I'm chirping)

[Thing 1]

But this is slashdot - couldn't we be discussing other technical ways to prevent children from hearing adult content without having to censor that adult content?

Cut off their ears.

FCC's decision on Clear Channel

[jwkckid1]

All,

A number of our members have made me aware
that the FCC was most likely in a bit of a
pickel here as they must have had a fairly
large number of complaints from citizensp
as well as special intereset groups as well
as other media comepetitors. They had to do
something that made a point.

Regards,

Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders strong!)

Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Registered Email addr with the USPS
Contact Number: 214-244-4827

Re:Stern turned on AWOL BUSH before CC fired him

[Cobralisk]

And here I thought the pussy was the thing that sleeps on my monitor and tries to catch the mouse pointer.

Pragmatism As A Form Of Relief

[tilleyrw]

I've only read a few comments but already feel sufficiently informed so that I can spew opionated memes into the discussion.

Whatever your beliefs regarding decency, obscenity, sex, and etc., we need to only react to actual events. Attempts to be proactive, by creating "broadcast standards", is obviously not creating the desired outcome -- especially in the sick, retarded, childish culture of America. (You doubt my words? What's better for your kids to watch, a nipple at half-time or violent crime on the evening news?)

After news programs are penalized for focusing on negative events such as crime and neglecting the positive (latest technology, inventions, the business down the street needs more customers, etc.), and begin focusing in true community interest subjects -- life can begin. Your job is not reality, reality is the people around you whom you impact everyday of you life!

I am an intelligent, rational person with a fair modicum of self-control. I don't need arguments along the lines of Rev. Donald Wildman regarding objectional material.

If I don't like something...I can change the fucking channel!

Christianity As Violence

[tilleyrw]

Christianity is such a collection of mangled mores that is has no relationship to the original teachings of Jesus.

In its current form in America, it is only body/sex hatred. Anything bad is worshipped (crime/violence on TV, etc.) and anything good (sex, nudity, pleasure, etc.) is feared and hated.

If God could visit for a day, She would say "Enjoy life and don't hurt each other". God (or whatever invisible friend you desire) has no relation to life and is only only an object for armchair and professional theologians to consider.

Live in the moment. Think about sex. Often. What is better than loving other people? Your stocks and bonds?

Nothing is more important than living fully in the moment and not caring about right or wrong. If you truly respect life, you can do no wrong.

Live life, enjoy life, respect life.

Regulations are programming for an open system

[rlglende]

When you think about how hard it is to get a control program to work for a carefully closed system (OS, hardware, ...), it isn't any surprise that all gov regulatory agencies are complete failures, and their attempts result in more contrary outcomes than intended outcomes.

The FDA, for example, is probably responsible for 50% of the deaths in the US every year, maybe more around the world. There is a lot of academic research on the FDA, must be equivalent research for the other agencies.

For those of you who are SHOCKED, you haven't been thinking or paying attention:

All smoking-related deaths have to be attributed to the FDA, which has prevented development of 'smoke-sticks' which provide nicotine (adult ritalin) without tar. There are 500,000 deaths per year, and this has been going on for 50+ years.

Almost all deaths from infections, ditto, because the cost of developing drugs is so high that drug companies only do so for $1B markets. Thus, only the broad-spectrum antibiotics get developed, there are only a few of these possible, and the germs out-innovate the drug companies.

Drugs for malaria, a major killer of children throughout the third world, don't even get considered because there is no $1B market for them.

Govs around the world kill and improverish their subjects at a hell of a rate, and the US is no exception.

You guys get upset about the FCC's censorship, when this is is a very minor example.

Lew

Re:To quote some cartoon from Spike TV.

[jtev]

The left calls it a vast right wing conspircy, but it's realy a conspiricy of only the elite right wingers who mostly lean left. Those of us right enough to think the second ammendment allows us to own an Abrams tank of F-22 are being left out. They are also leaving out the ones who think we should nuke Washington and start over with a government who has acutaly read and unstood the Constitution. I'm all for opening the whole can of whup ass, and destroying the terrorists, but dammit I want it to be withing the scope of the constitution. I'm also all for expantionism and impreialism. We have to be imperialistic over seas since we're friendly with CA and MX though. my RealPolitik only steaches so far.

FCC

[tool_army]

What makes me so mad about the FCC's way of operations is that they benefit by fining businesses. Of course, I'd fine Clear Channel for $1.75 million if I could get away with it. If a government agency obtains that type of money from finds, it should be used in a way that everyone benefits from, such as tax relief, GAS PRICE RELIEF, and the like.

Please tell me that makes sense.