Slashdot Mirror
Reason Interviews Michael Powell
Phlinn writes "In the Reason interview with Michael Powell, it is possible to develop a clearer understanding of the FCC's recent actions. It would appear that despite recent actions, he's not the pro censorship icon many people think. Beware of actions based on a "greater good" however."
To bad reason didn't come up and kick him in the ass.
But what about the recent actions taken by the FCC that in response to previous recent actions?
Wow, he is all over the place, one sentence he loves the first amendment, the next he is saying [paraphrased] "well, enforcing indecency laws are different, it was the will of the people, there is legislation!".
To Michael:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
The article's nice. He sounds like a smart, reasonable guy, who's not in any way interested in being an Orwellian nightmare come to life. He's just doing his job. He's just enforcing the law.
His actions speak to me far more loudly than his words. His actions tell me he's interested in enforcing certain aspects of the law in a manner which suits those who put him where he is today.
Just like his daddy does. It seems, sadly, to be a Powell family legacy that they're perfectly willing go along with orders of very dubious morality. Even if those orders are legally correct.
Sad to see good men knuckle under to the evil ones in charge of them.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
He is known for saying one thing that he thinks you want to hear, then doing the opposite that he had intended to do all along.
See Martin Niemöller
You know what?
He's just a republican lackey.
.
I don't know what he's contributed
Affordable broadband ? I don't see it. He's stopped competition in that industry.
He's 'DESTROYED' radio with monopolies like Clear Channel.
So here's a toast to those that think everything should be allowed by corporate america without regard of the greater public good.
These FCC people are pretty persuasive. This guy clearly talks a good "uncensored airwaves" talk, but their actions are clearly not in line with this. While I applaud his apparently more liberal stance, we need to be careful not to get totally suckered by his rhetoric. I'll believe the FCC are being more open-minded when the TV, radio et al start reflecting it.
apterous.org
How long before websites are targetted by the FCC and FEC under the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act. Something tells me that the nipple slip isn't the tip of the iceberg, but a cover for a general push toward censorship and the FCC will no doubt be one of the agencies that spearheads such an assault. Unbeknownst to many, the greatest attack on free speech under Bush wasn't related to terrorism or "homeland security," or even nipplegate, but the CFR bill which outright bans many forms of political speech before an election.
The FCC serves no legitimate purpose today. The best thing that could happen would be for the federal government to take back all of the frequencies and then make them availible to local ISPs to provide high quality wireless service. The applications for such would be amazing. Imagine, a combination of RSS and mp3/ogg streaming so that a college radio station in bumblefuck nowhere can be heard out in NYC, Chicago, LA, etc maybe even in London, Tokyo and other major cities around the world.
But of course, as they say, what is good for GM is good for America. Being motivated political in part by Judao-Christian morality, I have to ask in rebuttal, if GM said that sacrificing our children to Molech were good for GM, would we still be saying that GM's interests are America's?
Click here or a puppy gets stomped!
Not to mention Reason is a big "deregulate everything now!!!" nutcase group.
Of course they love Powell. Shame, deregulation means crap on the radio, media consolidation, monopolies,etc. But these guys are ideology first and reality second.
Slashdot just got trolled by Reason. Classic.
did michael powell really say that about oprah? i cannot find any credible website to find him being quoted. just a bunch of blogs and quotes about stern talking about it.
stern vs powell on kgo radio was pretty funny tho.
i really dont like stern or powell, i hate the fcc's censorship, lack of telling people what they can or cannot say, lack of any scrutiny on complaints sent by form letters from one family group.
"May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
From Star Trek TNG 4x21 - The Drumhead
Picard: You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.
Picard: We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then, before you can blink an eye, suddenly it threatens to start all over again.
Worf: I believed her. I helped her. I did not see what she was.
Picard: Mr Worf, villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot.Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.
Worf: I think, after yesterday, people will not be so ready to trust her.
Picard: Maybe. But she, or someone like her, will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness.
Vigilance, Mr Worf, that is the price we have to continually pay.
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
I used to really respect his dad and would have loved to see him as president. OTOH I had great disdain for michael powell when I first saw the direction things were heading and the way the right seemed to embrace him.
Then his daddy went in front of the UN and lied through his teeth rather than stand his ground and resign. Because he was so widely respected that act alone could have raised enough stink to both prevent us entering this stupid war so soon and possibly even have prevented the re-election of the potted plant in the white house.
In the same time I've seen powell jr take a principled stand toe to toe with both sides of the aisle. Lots of people screamed about the broadcaster deregulation, fact is if the corporations make broadcast such a wasteland that's just more beer for this "new media" thing. If they lock up their signals behind encryption so people get frustrated just trying to use their tvs the way they're used to they'll find alternatives. In every action where he's taken the most vocal stand I've agreed in principle 100%. I don't like the crackdowns re: censorship, but you can thank talk radio and a housefull of pandering politicians for that nonsense. On matters where it came down to actual leadership, michael has shown twice the cojones of retired soldier daddy.
So there's the irony. I've lost all respect for dad, but likewise would throw my otherwise very old school liberal vote for jr. in a heartbeat if he proved even reasonably knowledgable on presidential matters. I doubt he'll run, but I'd love to see it. I'd love to be able to help put a geek in the whitehouse.
What he *says* is irrelevant. What he *does* is what counts.
People like this - politicians, every one of 'em - are inveterate liars. You can only identify their agenda by looking at their actions.
And Powell's actions are unambiguous.
No, Powell is no Orwellian nightmare, he's more of a soma Brave New World nightmare. The same top-40 droning on and on with media companies buying up all the frequencies and ticket outlets. As long as Joe and Jane Sixpack get their Britney/flavor of the month fix they're happy, even if it costs them two days salary.
Now the AM band is truly Orwelian, with its right wing hate voices blaring on and on. A finer propaganda outlet the world has never seen.
So, did you actually read the article, where he came off as way more intelligent than the thin lines that you're portraying him through, or are you coming out with the tired "OMG OMG HATE REPUBLICANS" argument again? I may not like some (actually, most) of the stuff he's done, but I do have a little more respect for him after actually taking the time to see that he's candid about his views and has honest, principled reasons for his feelings. And no, I'm not Republican, nor do I subscribe to their newsletter, so please don't play that card.
ShortFormBlog: Writing a little. Saying a lot.
What a load of bull. Check the statistics. Something like 99% of the complaints are from the same group who spend all day watching TV just to complain about "indecency" based on their own standard. The FCC only gets something like 200-300 "real" complaints a year. The sudden increase is soley due to this one group. I personally don't want one narrow minded group deciding what is best for me.
One of the biggest firestorms was over this national cap [on what percentage of the national television audience a single owner can reach], whether it was 35 percent [the former cap], 45 percent as we suggested, or 39 percent, which Congress picked. Going to 45 percent means maybe one to two more stations per network in the United States. That's all that means. So a broadcast network is only allowed to reach with its product 45 percent of America.
But why can cable reach 100 percent? Satellite television can reach 100 percent. The Internet reaches 100-plus, if you want to go outside the U.S.
That's a ridiculous argument. The major difference here is that while it's true that you can have 100% internet saturation, so does everyone else! You can't really cut anyone out. It's a similar situation with the other services he mentions. The broadcast spectrum is limited.
Time makes more converts than reason
"Most of the property right-esqe thingsyou're talking about in public spectrum are our initiatives. " It's spelled right-esque. How can I trust the man if he can't even speak without mispelling words. And this man is in control of the FCC?
First he tries to allow for big corporations to own EVEN MORE of the media. Look at Clear Channel and the virtual monopoly they have in the radio market.
Then he (and all of his cronies) push the DTV standard down our throats so they can sell off the spectrum to the highest bidder, at the same time mandating DRM technology with the broadcast flag.
Then, he arbitrarly decides to enforce (for the first time in a while) some "decency" bullshit with the Super Bowl and all the rest of that stuff, making Europeans chuckle that we are so prudish, "it's for the children"
They don't seem to care much about broadband over power lines cutting into HAM frequencies, or allocating emergency frequencies close to 800 MHz dangerously close to some cellphones.
I think the FCC is a mess. This is something that Congress has shunted it's responsibility on. It's much easier to pass a regulation when you only need to bribe 3 people (on the board) instead of the 300 or so for a majority in Congress.
In short, Michael Pwoell is a corporate shrill, using the "morality" game to distract from his true agenda, corporate power consolidation.
Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
In October Michael Powell was on a call-in radio show. Stern called, here's what transpired...
http://www.jimgilliam.com/audio/2004-1-26_stern_po well.mp3 - MP3 of Stern vs. Powell
Transcript from Buzz Machine - http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_10_26.htm l
Stern: Ronn, hi.
Owens: Is this who I think it is?
Stern: Yeah, and I want to say hi to the commissioner and a friend of mine told me the commissioner said he was going to be on the show....
The commissioner has fined me millions of dollars for things I have said and consistently avoids me and avoids me and I wonder how long he will stay on the phone with me.
Owens: Go ahead and ask your questions.
Stern: Hi, Michael, how are you?
Powell: Hi, Howard, how are you?
Stern: Does it make you nervous to talk to me?
Powell: It does not....
Stern: All right, so well, I've got about ten zillion questions for you because you honestly are an enigma to me.
The first question being: How did you get your job? It is apparent to most of us in broadcasting that your father got you your job. And you kind of sit there:
You're the judge, you're the arbiter, you're the one who tells us what we can and can't say on the air and yet I really don't think you're qualified to be the head of the commission. Do you deny that your father got you this job?
Powell: Well, I would deny it exceedingly. You can look at my resume if you want, Howard. I'm not ashamed of it and I think it justifies my existence. I was chief of staff of the antitrust division, I'm an attorney, I was a clerk on the court of the United States I was a private attorney I have the same credentials that virtually anyone who sits in my position does and I think it's a little unfair that just because I happen to have a famous father and other public officials don't that you make the assumption that is the basis on which I sit in my position.
Owens: Caller already asked this question so move on....
Stern: So out of all the people that sit on the commission, you were moved to the head of the class. I don't buy your explanation but OK.
You know, the thing that amazes me about you is, you continually fine me but you're afraid to go to court with me and I'll explain myself if you give me a second:
Fine after fine came and we tried to go to court with you to find out about obscenity and what your line was and whether our show was indecent, which I don't think it is. And you do something really sneaky behind the scenes. You continue to block Viacom from buying new stations until we pay those fines.
You are afraid to go court. You are afraid to get a ruling time and time again.
When will you allow this to go to court and stop practicing your form of racketeering that you do by making stations pay up or you hold up their license renewal?
Powell: First of all, that's flatly false.
Stern: It's not false. It's true.
Powell: I'm afraid it is. There's no reason why Viacom or any other company who feels that they have been wrongly fined can't sue us in court. We have no basis whatsoever to prevent them from going to court.
Stern: You're lying. I've lived through your fines, Michael. And Mel Karmazin came to me one day and said, Howard, we're gonna have to pay up some sort of cockamame (sp?) bunch of fines that we don't we're wrong because we can't get our paperwork done. We are finding it increasingly difficult to boy radio stations. I know you're not telling the truth. And I question why you are selected to be one who is the FCC commissioner....
I'm going to Sirius satellite radio....
Owens: That's the question I was going to ask. Now he's going to go to satellite. One of the things that I read is that there are people who said cable TV, satellite rad
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
without regard of the greater public good.
What does that mean exactly? People trash Wal-Mart all the time because they sell non-American-made stuff and extort their suppliers, but they provide generally good merchandise at cheap prices. So do they serve the public good or not?
Microsoft has helped lure many a non-techie into the tech world, stoking broad markets that many software engineers and support people make their living on. Do they serve the public good?
And what about radio/TV? People (At least those without Tivo) complain about commercials and the corporations that sponsor them, but by and large, you have enjoyed years of essentially cheap/free entertainment. Isn't that in the public interest?
So what do you define as doing things for the public good? As far as I'm concerned, people vote every day with their dollars. They can use that vote more effectively than voting for any politician.
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
Your comment shows a basic lack of understanding of the responsibilities of freedom and even what the concept of freedom entails.
All "freedoms" include responsibility for associated consequences.
Public standards of decency, while difficult to define ("I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it."), most certainly are the prerogative of the society.
They screaming the words "anthrax" in an American airport as loudly as you can, repeatedly and see how long your "freedom of speech" lasts.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction applies not just to basic physics experiments but also to everything else in life.
Society does not give YOU freedom from consequences. When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable. Sometimes that is immediate, sometimes it has less visible repurcussions but you will receive the consequences if every action you take.
"Freedom of speech" does not mean others are forced to be exposed to such speech nor that the speaker will be free of responsibility.
Homework assignments (since you seem to be living in a world of first week Civics 101):
1) What would have been the result of you exposing yourself in public in 1777 America?
2) Explain how your selected excerpt from the Bill of Rights could possibly have included a definition of speech which meant anything other than sound made from human lips absent of any recording of transmission technologies as none existed in the 1770s.
3) Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions in which individuals are granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive when using community-owned resources.
4) In the case your are unable to properly answer assignment #3, demonstrate through the presentation of historic documents that "freedom of speech" in late 1770s America guaranteed lack of repurcussion from any and all public speech.
The original remit of the FCC was to regulate "non-Federal Government use of the radio spectrum". Most notably, this meant the issuing and revoking of licences permitting broadcasting and ensuring that electronic equipment did not interfere with other electronic equipment owned by someone else. However, laterly (and this predates the Powell regime) regulation of the radio spectrum has been interpreted to mean regulation of the content of any messages broadcast over the radio waves. There is no democratic remit for this, it is simply how the original remit is now interpreted.
Whether this is good or bad is but a point of view but clearly it is a position that has evolved over the years and not one that has been arrived at as a result of democratic debate. It is my opinion however, that this is an example of how seemingly innocuous regulation can be usurped to an authoritarian government's advantage, resulting in a official scheme in which free speech can be controlled and consequently, how thought can also be controlled.
Lackey? More like "Oreo".
Allowing a few corporations to control most of the spectrum and most of broadband is 'wrong'. They have crossed the line in allowing monopolies. We have less choices everyday. What next ? Get rid of PBS and use those frequencies for another shopping channel ? That i want to see.
He's 'DESTROYED' radio with monopolies like Clear Channel
Actually, I hope this continues further. In about 10 more years, people will stop watching and listening to the ONE media empire that's left, knowing full-well that it's nothing but an empty void of self-promoting garbage.
It's not obvious to most people now, because there's the ILLUSION that there's competition and that the Free Market has things under control.
I say, stop trying to fight it. Let it all glom together, and the Free Market will REALLY come into play. I'm not usually a big believer in the whole "Monopolies eventually destroy themselves" meme. But if less people watch and listen to the media we have today, I can't help but think that we'll ALL be far better off.
But I still think Michael Powell has his head up his ass.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Last I remember, Reason was a nuclear-powered gauss gun or something that fired depleted uranium rounds.
help a poor college grad get a free Mac Mini
See writing and printing.
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Suppose your unemployed with no money and riding your bike one day and car doesn't see you and hits you breaking many bones and puts you in critical situation. Someone takes you to the hospital and they ask you for cash on the spot or they wont admit you.
Thankfully not in this country. Maybe you don't like that law either. It's definitely a money loser.
Now you understand the greater good.
Slashdot's got a pretty decent index of decisions I disagree with:
Google slashdot for FCC
- VOIP regulation (how about linux voip clients? Can't regulate them; the good bad guys will not use a monitored communication method. Why drive up the cost for the rest of us?
- Broadcast flag: He argues this will increase HDTV adoption by pleasing the manufacturers/content owners... I thought the FCC was supposed enforce this by mandate, not ecenomic incentive.
- TV ownership: While I in principal agree with deregulation, I think media is one of the most powerful forces in the country, is biased, and has too much control over the world. It's too hard for independent media these days (exception: internet). Good interview concerning this with Ted Tuener (he's a bit of a kook but informative interview):
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/040 7.turner.html
- Cable modem tax (DSL is already taxed)... the intent is to make it cheaper for rural areas but I say let the market figure it out.
- Requiring bradcasters to keep tapes of shows (hurts indy media badly)
More, but I'm too lazy.
Simply quoting Chief Justice Rehnquist's famous example of freedom of speech not applying to yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre ignores the principle of "No harm, no crime." If I yell "Fire!" and everyone either laughs or ignores me, the law might accuse me of committing a crime, but if there's no harm there is no actual crime. That doesn't mean I won't be punished for a "crime." It just means that I will be punished for a victimless crime.
To punish someone for something that might have caused harm ("You could have started a stampede. You're lucky no one took you seriously!") is to start going down a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line on punishing people for speech that might have caused harm? And give me an objective reason for drawing the line there. You enter a realm where the definition of "crime" depends upon societal whim.
User Training for Busy Programmers
I don't think using racial epithets is an appropriate way of expressing your disagreement. If you think they are empty suits mimicing the party line fine, but calling them porch monkeys is uncalled for. Why is it liberals all think they can call black conservatives anything they want since the NAACP won't say anything.
The question was not, "What are definitions of 'wrinting' and 'printing.'"
Sigh, I guess I'll have to give the class the answer.
The quoted excerpt from the Bill of Rights can only be interpreted to have meant verbal language created from human lips and printing presses. There was no form of recording of sound and no method of amplified transmission. All printing presses in the Colonies were controlled by the Monarch of England. (sidebar: there were lots of other limits placed on the Colonists including a prohibition on owning metal tools. Imagine trying to dig in rocky soil with a wooden shovel. That exact situation led to illegal manufacture and sale of metal tools by the Colonists. The offset handle common to shovels was a Colonial invention as well.) The very fact that the list includes the two specific items of speech and printing presses reinforces these definitions. The concept of "speech" to include recorded or non-verbal expression came far later.
Not to mention Reason is a big "deregulate everything now!!!" nutcase group.
Um, they're fairly moderate liberatarians, who are not nutcases unless Mao is your idea of a centrist.
deregulation means crap on the radio
If by "crap" you mean "stuff that other people like but I don't", then yes, quite possibly. I don't see why the FCC should be imposing your individual preferences on the public though.
Of course they love Powell.
No, actually, they don't. Deregulation implies opposition to censorship, for example.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
As far as I can see the FCC's push to penalize "indecency" on the airwaves has two motivations. It pleases right wing X-tians, who are too fucking stupid to change the channel on their TV or radio or turn the thing off, and it transfers money out of the pockets of broadcasters and into the coffers of the FCC.
You're missing something here. It's also encouraging the obsolescence of broadcast TV and radio, which the FCC regulates, in favor of cable/satellite TV and radio, which it doesn't.
What better, and more politically palatable, way to deregulate than to obsolete regulated industries?
There's a method to the madness here.
Progressivism: Parasites helping parasites to help themselves - to other people's stuff.
Take and American glamour periodical paper. What is that you don't see? Tits. Now take any glamour paper from Europe. What do you see? Tits. So that's the difference. And now, do Americans _really_ see fewer tits than Europeans? I wouldn't put in on paper...
The best part was when he said "To suggest that we bend the First Amendment for one industry singularly is to do hazard to our most cherished principle." He then tells us why he is doing exactly that--because Congress passes a law saying he can. Apparently, he is completely unaware that the First Amendment overrules Congression law.
The thing is, my belief is contraryto Reason's--and, I thought, in line with Powell's censorship actions. I think the public owns the airwaves, the public can censor them as they see fit. Maybe you agree with me, maybe you agree with Reason. But either way, Powell is flip-flopping worse than Kerry ever did. When he blames MoveOn.org for the firestorm over broadcast limits, he forgets to note that the NRA, Christian Coalition, and Senator Trent Lott were also against loosening the limits.
There are many liberals who also appreciate government regulation when it comes to game/movie ratings, parental advisories, etc. It's not simply an artifact of the "right wing X-tians (sic)".
If money is being transfered out of broadcaster pockets and into the coffers of the FCC, who's fault is that? I suspect broadcasters are well versed in the various "naughty words" (Carlin's phrase, not mine) that shouldn't be broadcast. I for one am not such a fool to think that Jackson/Timberlake pulled off their stunt without any prior knowledge/approval of CBS.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
An article in Media Week reports that the complaints about the famous wardrobe malfuction at the superbowl was all from the same group -- a bunch of copies of the same letter. The FCC claims they didn't notice they were getting a bunch of near photocopies, I figure it pleases both the Religious right and liberals (or did you all forget Sen. Liberman vs. video games and Tipper Gore with the PMRC). This is the perfect bipartisan issue that can't fail.
Nice troll. I am in awe.
http://persianews.on.nimp.org/?u=Tar_Baby
Well, I'm definitely setting myself up for an intellectual beating by posting this in front of so many smart people, but let's see what happens anyway. I submit to you that the entire concept of a "greater good" is a logical fallacy. There is an "individual good," which exists. But logically, there is no "greater good;" it's an abstraction and has no real existence.
Anything that's real, that is, anything that is not just an abstraction or intellectual construct, has a defineable limit between it and the rest of the world. The monitor you're reading this on, by virtue of the definition of "monitor," has a boundary that delineates it from the rest of the world. You know objectively and certainly where that monitor ends and the rest of the world begins.
"The Greater Good" has no such objective definition. Exactly who is this "Greater" who is experiencing the "Good" you speak of? The majority of Americans? The majority of humans? White people? Black people? The composition of this "Greater" changes with every situation. It's no more definable than the concept of "warmth." Prove to me objectively where "warmth" ends and "heat" begins. You can't, and that makes it arbitrary.
When you base law upon the "Greater Good" you base it upon something that's arbitrary, upon the shifting sand of an intellectual construct. If you do that, what makes your laws better than any other arbitray system?
"Individual Good," however, does pass at least one test for a real, objective, existent "thing." It has a defineable boundary. My individual good, my individual rights, end where yours begins. We may argue about where my rights end, just as we may argue about where the monitor ends and the computer begins (at which end of the cable?). But we both agree that such a boundary exists and that it's defineable.
I would be suspicious of anyone passing regulations for the "greater good," and so were the founders of this country. They recognized that the only "good" and the only "liberty" that is not subject to a whimsical redefinition by society is that of the individual. Our politicians and schools push the idea of the "greater good," but I think they unwittingly do us a disservice.
User Training for Busy Programmers
Are you going to judge him by his words, which dissemble, or by his actions, which demonstrate his acceptance of the influence of the PTC?
7 November 2006: The day Americans realized corruption and incompetence weren't addressing 11 September 2001
samzenpus, you're confused. You said "It would appear that despite recent actions, he's not the pro censorship icon many people think." You should have said "The lying weasel claims to not be the pro ccensorship icon many people think, so nothgin else he says can be taken seriously."
Remember: Guns don't kill people; the government does. Powell is our version of Gerbels. He must be stopped, arrested tried, convicted, and sentenced.
Andy Out!
Just pointing out, if you had tried these things in the late 1770's, you would not have been protected under the bill of rights; The constitution wasn't written until the 1780's, and the bill of rights was ratified over the next few years.
Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
Your first point (re: wal-mart) is concerning just who is the public. This is actually a reasonable point. What it comes down to is, however, that cutthroat business practices like those practiced by Wal-Mart have historically damaged the industry (see: standard oil). You do, however, have a somewhat valid point there.
Your second point (re: MS) is a classic fallacy -- you are claiming that MS would not be able to cause any of their beneficial effects without causing all of the detrimental ones. Technology is powerful; people can see that without Microsoft having to show them.
Your third point (re: mass media) is also flawed. It is based on the assumption that, because you are not directly shelling out cash to the provider of a service, you do not bear the cost. The money that pays for advertising must come from somewhere -- and in this day and age, it comes from everywhere. Advertising is an effective tax -- if you don't advertise, you don't make money. If you don't make money, and are a for-profit corporation, you cease to exist. Basic economics tells us that it doesn't matter where the taxes come from, as long as they do come. The burden is felt by all.
You sound like a Libertarian. Don't get me wrong, I probably agree with the Libertarian party on more issues than any other. I just think that the concept of "The market will police itself" has a lot of classic problems. Most notably, it only works long-term if most people are not shortsighted.
-Amalcon
Society does not give YOU freedom from consequences. When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable.
yeah. let me know when someone in the Bush administration is held accountable for exposing an undercover CIA agent working on nuclear proliferation, as a means of "punishing" Joe Wilson for speaking out against the Administration's policies.
Oops! there's another exception to the First Amendment. You're *not* free to reveal identities of undercover CIA agents. But as a conveeeenient side effect of First Amendment, Robert Novak doesn't have to reveal his source "within the Bush Administration".
"Freedom of speech" does not mean others are forced to be exposed to such speech nor that the speaker will be free of responsibility
It's called an off-switch.
Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions in which individuals are granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive when using community-owned resources
Activist Judges.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Goebbels
In french.
"It's Dot Com!"
Walmart supplies itself from regions like China with low regard for human rights, where workers are treated badly. If you think about it, American workers and small businesses would have a hard time competing with slavery like prison labor.
Walmart poverty is such a problem, that frequently its employees can only afford to shop at... Walmart.
Not likely. Microsoft aims whenever possible to limit competition. For example, Microsoft probably still uses its monopoly position to have hardware manufacturers like Dell sign secret contracts which specify prohibitive penalties if they choose to sell a computer without a Windows license (the "Windows Tax"), or retaliates in some other manner.Also, they attempt to apply "embrace, extend, extinguish" strategies to technologies developed for decades under enormous public expense, like the internet.
As a huge, public corporation without a mandate to do public good, its only goal is to maximize shareholder returns. It is not out to "do good"; any good things it does are incidental to its real goal.
No. The business model of huge, public corporations like Clear Channel is to sell people to other corporations (advertisers). Since Clear Channel is a corporation without a mandate to do public good, it will not likely air content (news, etc) which would anger too many of its advertisers.
The New York Times learned not to anger too many businesses at once.
The airwaves are publicly owned. These corporations only lease it from us. Therefore it is important we manage those airwaves to maximize our interests, just as any CEO would.
Many industries are oligarchies. In mainstream personal computing, there are only two main commercial OS choices, Microsoft and Apple. The only competition, which would not exist if software weren't so unusual, is from the Free Software world. Because Microsoft and Apple have an enormous lock on the market.Nothing to see here. More al.... splat.
Your second point (re: MS) is a classic fallacy... Oh great, I've always loved the classics. I hate all the neo-fallacy stuff you see everywheres these days.
Ahem. My point, generally, was just to express that corporations provide jobs, goods, and services, so they do serve the public interest. What is less clear is "which public" they serve.
With respect to the mass media: they provide entertainment for the masses and leave it up to the masses to decide if they wish to pay for it by purchasing products from their sponsors. This is about as public-friendly of a business model as can be constructed without giving it away for free. We can argue quality all day, but look at ratings of the public TV stations versus commericial ones. As I said in my original post - people vote with their dollars.
"The market will police itself" has a lot of classic problems. As does poorly conceived tax incentives, regulations and bureaucratic (sp?) tampering (see patent law for example).
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
I never said that someone should be punished for something they "might" say. Of course its all context: if I yell fire in a movie theatre and I'm not taken serious there are no repercussions, but causing a stampede is obviously harmful. I was simply pointing out to the GP that freedom of speech does not constitute a carte blanche to simply say anything you want.
As for an "objective reason for drawing a line there," all of our laws are social constructs. Why is murder illegal? Because we as a society find it reprehensible to take a human life and we've agreed that its within our best interest to try to prevent it whenever possible. What is the objective reason to outlaw murder?
There needs to be a +1 for super-geeky!
You, sir, are correct.
In a better government, every policy would have some tangible goal which has some metric by which the policy's success can easily and reliably be measured. Goals that do not satisfy this criterion are generally invoked, whether intentionally or not, to pursue one's own interests.
Saying a policy is for the sake of the greater good is not acceptable. But if you can get a reasonable assessment of its costs and benefits you actually have something other than dogma to work with. With this sort of information you can actually have a conversation that doesn't break down into an ideological circle-jerk.
Actually, I hope this continues further. In about 10 more years, people will stop watching and listening to the ONE media empire that's left, knowing full-well that it's nothing but an empty void of self-promoting garbage.
Yeah. It's sort of like yeast in the grape juice. They eventually pickle themselves in their own excrement.
Wansu, th' chinese sailor
Exactly. Now tell me if Howard Stern does something naughty on the radio, who was forced to be exposed to it?
Could you explain what meaning "Freedom of Speach" has left after all that?
But people can only vote with their dollars if there's a range of goods and services to choose from. If there's a monopoly or oligopoly, there just aren't enough choices to make voting with ones wallet a reasonable approach. You can view this as an economic counterpart to complaints about the lack of choices in our current two party political system. If major parties (or businesses) can squeeze out most of their competitors, then voters (or consumers) aren't necessarily presented with any acceptable choices.
This is particularly important in an area like broadcast media. Whether or not there are good reasons for it, our current system places a sharp limit on the total number of broadcast outlets in a given area. That makes the broadcast market a ripe target for monopolies or oligopolies to take over. The same government that restricts the number of broadcast outlets must ensure that limited number of outlets aren't concentrated into too few hands, or the public won't be able to vote with their dollars.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
No. Providing low prices is not a public good, if by doing so they damage most of the customers (and nation) they ostensibly serve.
There's lots of stuff I could probably comment about in your post, but I think this is the most representative about your perspective.
If Wal-Mart had high-prices, you'd probably complain that they serve only the elite by oppressing the working class. Wal-Mart provides pretty good quality items at reasonable prices. That's not a bad thing. People living at the lower income levels can afford to purchase merchandise that makes their lives better. You seem to suggest more people are hurt by this than benefit - I disagree. With respect to China - working conditions there have always been harsh, and yet now, because of western capitalist commerce, the standard of living in China is rising dramatically. Is that bad too?
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
The man is a politician. He is not going to say "I am for censorship". he isn't going to say 'I have to keep the christian right happy".
he is going to say what he expects you to hear. It's not like he has principles or morals or anything. he is a politician.
evil is as evil does
Do some research and you'll find that Jow Wilson's wife wasn't an undercover CIA agent nor was she "outed" as a way to "punish" him. Read the Senate and 9/11 commission reports, in full. Additionally, all that yellowcake which Joe Wilson supposedly "proved" wasn't being sought by Saddam's Iraq conveniently showed up. So did the paper trail. Oops to your comment.
The First Amendment right of free speech does not give anyone the right to endanger the life of someone else. The legal ability for reporters to protect sources is exactly what gives the U.S. the most government-free press in the world. Don't forget, that's the same press who conveeeeniently falsified reports of Vietnam atrocities, engineered vehicles to fall over during testing (20/20, wasn't it?) and knowingly tried to influence the most recent Presidcential election with obvious forgeries.
The presence of an off switch has nothing to do with the topic. Stay on topic. Freedom of speech does not mean anyone is forced to listen to speech. It does not mean the public is forced to allow the public property of the "ether" to be used to carry all speech.
"Activist Judges." A preponderence of precidence is not a predictable sound bite. You've referred only to anomoly.
It's an interesting tactic to put words in my mouth. I said and believe no such thing: charging higher prices would be absolutely fine, because it wouldn't kill local small business, and Walmart would probably pay employees more reasonable wages.
Further, I don't talk about "oppressing the working class." That's boring college-talk. In fact, I don't even "complain" about Walmart. I just think they're anti-American; and you asked after all. I'm answering your question, and I thought you asked out of genuine curiosity. (Then again, this is Slashdot. ;)
Go ahead and comment, just do me the favor of not setting up and burning down strawmen, extrapolating what you think I mean. I wrote a long post, and you should be able to hold up specific examples taken from what I actually said. To clarify, are you claiming Walmart refuses suppliers which use prison labor and other human-rights abuses? That would give me enough information to fully answer this point of yours. Assuming of course we're discussing out of genuine interest in truth, rather than "debating."Incidentally, if I sound combative, excuse me. I think of this place as one big flamewar -- and if I mistakenly perceived yours to be, that's my fault.
You've proven my point with your words, "on the radio."
"on the radio" means using public property. Broadcasters are given exclusive right to aspects of the specturm and geography. In exchange, they are subject to the law which holds them accountable to societal standards of what is acceptable.
Howard Stern and anyone else can SAY whatever they want. They have right to force others to listen nor to be unaccountable for the repurcussions of their words.
It's the same concept as having a driver's license. It's not a right, it's a limited privilege granted by the state. Use of spectrum is not a right, it is a limited privilege with conditions of use.
"Freedom of speech" means people can express opinions in all circumstances. It does not mean they have no accountability when their "speech" injures others nor do they have a "right" to be heard. This includes funding or access to the means of transmission of speech.
Do you remember the "Piss Christ" things from a few years ago? IIRC, the National Endowment for the Arts funded a public display of "art" which included crosses in containers of urine or something like that. The major issue was that public assets were used to fund the show, tantamount to transmitting and endorsing it.
In Hyde Park it is illegal to state disaproval of the Queen of England. America has no such laws. IOW, it's allowable to disagree in America, there are repurcussions for being disagreeable.
As with many other questions of "values", there is significant grey area. The example of Howard Stern and Oprah Winfrey both discussing breasts shows how context is important.
One of the reasons the FCC isn't charged with enforcing content standards over satellite transmissions is the encrypted access authorization. Broadcasts in the clear don't have any form of acces restriction so the broadcasters are held to a tighter standard of behavior.
Think of it this way, with encrypted satellite or landline transmissions, there is far less chance of Jenna Jameson movies being viewed by unaccompanied children on Saturday morning. If they see that stuff, it's a direct result of adults not providing proper controls within their homes.
You are overlooking, seemingly quite deliberately, the fact that they enumerated all modes of expression known at the time. The extension to new modes of expression as they are created are implied.
I really despise people that read the bill of rights as being the sole definition of our rights, instead of what it was intended to be - a non-exclusive statement of rights that they felt important at the time to make sure were clearly delineated, so as to prevent extravagant re-interpretations (such as has happened many times since) of the enumerated government powers into some all-inclusive powers. Just look at some of the powers the feds have assumed in the name of interstate commerce.
Do you interpret the interstate control rights in the limited manner intended, or do you support the expansive interpretation?
Why do we allow expansions beyond reason for clearly enumerated powers (which were intended to be sharply limited), yet try to apply the most restrictive interpretations to the bill of rights (which were intended to be a non-exclusive set of examples of civil rights)?
Some of our founding fathers (like Hamilton) didn't want to muck up the Constitution with the Bill of Rights. They felt that by putting in writing that congress could not abridge freedom of speech, for example, there was the implicit statement that without such a Bill, that the government *could* legislate speech. I'm beginning to think he was right.
My country has lost its way. Instead of people having freedom and rights except those explicitly given to the government, I see the government saying what rights and freedoms people have.
What right does the FCC have to even exist? Where in the constitution does it say anything about indecency? Or "broadcast flags"? Why does the government think it can do these things? Are we not a free country?
I guess if I don't like them pissing on the first amendment, there's always the second amendment...
I've just thought of some more examples of accountability for speech.
Do you remember the TV ads for Miss Cleo, the "psychic?" She wasn't overtly offensive but her words and the associated activities were deemed unacceptable by society so the government forced her off the air along with other punishments.
Were her "free speech rights" violated?
No, she was still subject to being accountable for the results of her speech. "Free speech" doesn't mean she or anyone else can lie as a means to trick people out of their money.
Have you ever seen Robert Tilton during the afternoon. He's the televangelist who comes on in the afternoon around 1 PM or so and tells frustrated housewives he can "feel their pain" (OK, I stole that phrase from Slick Willy but you get the idea) and they'll "get that new car" or their "marriage will be healed" or whatever if they just send him that large lover offering. He's been taken down a few times as well. There's no way to legally prove his claims that God will give someone material blesing if they send him lots of material are false but he has been caught striping money from envelopes and throwing the letters away.
The basic concepts of consumer protection in the U.S. are based on the accountability resulting from public speech. Warranties and the ability to return a defective or unwanted item after purchase both have their root in accountability resulting from public speech.
Make sense? How so. It's not as if there is no freedom of speech. It's a balance between ability to express and accountability for the manner, means and mode of expression.
(If you live in the U.S. and have an opportunity to spend a significant amount of time in other countries, ask people about the concept of returning something after it's purchased. The U.S. has English Common Law as a basis and the history of muckrakers and trust busters. Others countries don't necessary have the same balance of accountability that exists in the U.S. countries which have the Napoleonic COde as their basis are much more "buyer beware." In most of the Middle East, expressions of disagreement with the government aren't treated the same as in the U.S. People who disagree with the government in those areas have a tendency to get lost, if you know what I mean.
Every "intelligent" series eventually does the obligitory witch-hunt episode. BattleStar Galactica already had its (Cylon/Not-a-Cylon). Babylon 5 stretched it over a season (are you with President Clarke? Or Against?).
Power to the Peaceful
Über-liberal Lawrence Lessig's recent article profiling Powell came to similar conclusions about the guy.
Murder, rape, and theft are Big Problems. Homelessness is a Big Problem. AIDS and other diseases are Big Problems. Vulgarity is little shit, and not really that big of an issue in the long run, ya know?
To sum it up: if you're afraid that radio (or TV, or Rock and Roll, or Video Games) will ruin your kids, then you have done a lousy fucking job as a parent, and deserve any disrespect handed your way. You're probably the same type that is happy to send your kids off to public schools where someone you can't fire gets to tell your kids how the world works.
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
No apologies necessary. I get annoyed when people put words in my mouth or otherwise classify me, so I'm sorry that I did it to you.
:-)
I'm too tired to respond to your specific arguments now tho
Yeah? Well I think you're overrated too.
No, I don't have kids, thank the fuck Christ (to quote Billy Bob Thornton from Bad Santa). But if I did I wouldn't let them watch any TV. My stepsister and stepbrother strictly ration the TV they allow my nephews and nieces to watch, with the result that they have children who are very well read for their age and have decent attention spans and are a positive joy (OK, I'm a biased uncle, so sue me). I have no use for people who punch out children without thinking of the great and grave responsibility they are undertaking and then sit the little heathens down in front of the idiot box all day long and expect it to raise them while they go do something else. Note that this is not a function of socio-economic status. I know plenty of people who are very well off and who have children and who seem to feel that they are some sort of lifestyle accessory rather than a huge responsibility.
Sure, there are lots of people out there who are lousy parents, on the other hand the US government is a lousy surrogate parent and I'm damned if I want my tax dollars to be used to pay for the government as a surrogate parent for all of the idiots out there who spawned without thinking.
As for the Timberlake/Jackson nipple flap did anyone actually see it? I was watching the Superbowl, through a Tivo and I didn't see the nipple until the next day, when it was spread all over the news media. I guess I was more interested in what the Pats and Cats were doing on the field than I was in the half-time show, which is always a noisome load of crap. But I did sit through the halftime show, and mocked it with my friends I was watching the game with, and none of us saw that brief flash of Janet Jackson's titty. And it's not as if any child who was ever breast fed has never seen one of those before. Perhaps they've never seen one with a ninja shuriken around the nipple.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
lol yuo
Powell-"I am not free to be nothing but an academic about the way I think about the world."
I wish we could all not know people who can't code like that.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions in which individuals are granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive when using community-owned resources.
Ummm...
KKK rallies on public streets, parks, etc?
Civil rights rallies in some areas in the 60's...(Streets are community reources you know)
Liberal demonstrators around the Republican convention...
The very concept of free speech is to protect even and especially speech that is considered "offensive" to community standards, much as the concept of the world being round was.
What would be the result of dressing up in 1777 period clothing and carrying your rifle around New York today?
Hmm, Maybe times and concepts of morality change.
How anyone in their right mind can equate the word "fuck" with yelling fire in a theater is beyond me.
Let's see, yelling fire in a theater was demonstratred to cause death, saying fuck is proof of...poor taste? limited vocabulary?
Typically, the longer the lines of logic required to justify something, the less likely the logic is sound.
I also like the "Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions" which I can only guess is meant to scare off any actual replies. Nice!
This is nice too, "granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive"
Of course you realize that such a place exists legally in Washington DC! Hell, a senator could even shoot someone!
The limitations stated in the US Constitution are limits on government, not on private citizens. It may make sense to extend those limitations to corporations, though, since a corporation is a legal fiction created by government that grants special rights to its owners.
Tell me Mr. Powell, why does the FCC still require Morse code testing to get an Amateur radio license capable of transmitting below 30MHz?
The FCC has stated long ago that the only reason the requirement has existed for so long is that is was required by international treaty. That treaty requirement has been eliminated over a year ago and the FCC has done nothing. Well they have "looked" at the issue, taken petitions and comments on those petitions, but no ruling is expected for 2 more years. Numerous other countries have dropped the requirement within days of the ITU eliminating the requirement, but the US continues to be stuck with pre-WWII rules.
Of course since I'm posting as an AC no one is going to read this. Just in case someone actually reads this and wants to read up on this issue go look at the ARRL and No Code International web sites.
Powell says he supports the First Amendment, and he also willingly enforces laws that go counter to its spirit. I hate the term 'flip-flopping', but that does fit my definition of hypocrisy.
No one is arguing for freedom from responsibility, only against government sponsored censorship. The goverment is not the only thing that can hold people responsible, and many examples show that it often isn't very good at it.
One important lesson from high school: focus on your thesis. You start out by saying the parent's point is wrong and calling him an idiot, then start talking about how freedom requires responsibility, which is a completely different point.
The motives behind outing Plame and the degree to which she was undercover may be arguable, but are you saying that there is solid evidence that Saddam had, or was even actively seeking, uranium? Could you back that up? You do know that the original document was a forgery, right?
Man, this getting off topic.
Hence civil lawsuits and slander/libel laws on the books. Note that, while you are held responsible for what you say, you are not actually prevented from saying it.
"("I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it.")"
The Supreme Court only says things like that because it has ruled that pornography isn't speech, whcih is why those "decency" laws you mention are allowed to stand. Something nobody talks much about is that what the Court is also saying is "I can't define speech but I know it when I see it."
"They screaming the words "anthrax" in an American airport as loudly as you can, repeatedly and see how long your "freedom of speech" lasts."
You will be charged for the effects of the action (inciting a riot, etc.) but not for the action itself (saying the word "anthrax.")
"Every action has an equal and opposite reaction applies not just to basic physics experiments but also to everything else in life."
If it was always equal and opposite, there'd be no need for the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.
"Sometimes that is immediate, sometimes it has less visible repurcussions"
There is no "more visible/less visible," there is only "can/cannot be proven in court." If the supposedly harmful effects of an action cannot be demonstrated, then what is the justification of ignoring the whole "shall make no law" bit?
"Explain how your selected excerpt from the Bill of Rights could possibly have included a definition of speech which meant anything other than sound made from human lips absent of any recording of transmission technologies as none existed in the 1770s."
It doesn't matterRights in the United States are, by default, retained by the people. The Ninth Amendment tells us that simply because electromagnetic broadcasts are not specifically mentioned in the First Amendment does not mean that Congress automatically has the power to regulate them as it sees fit. The Tenth Amendment tells us that Congress can only do what it is explicitly allowed to do by the Constitution. Personal rights are implicit and it's the government's rights that need to be explicit.
"using community-owned resources."
Explain how exactly the electromagnetic spectrum is a "community-owned resource," especially when you need private property (namely, a receiver) to access it.
"in late 1770s America"
Doesn't matter. The United States Constitution is a living document and as such both its content and its application changes with time. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion, since, as Thomas Jefferson himself pointed out as he tried to silence Federalist detractors, the First Amendment by itself does not prevent state governments from "abridging the freedom of speech."
miss cleo, actually the companies that had hired her, were fined(which took them off the air) for scamming people. More specificly they were fined for engaging in deceptive advertising, billing, and collection practices.
By leaving that out you are deliberatly impling that here "psychic" abailities were the reason.
This is what I typed:
"No, she was still subject to being accountable for the results of her speech. 'Free speech' doesn't mean she or anyone else can lie as a means to trick people out of their money."
In the example of Robert Tilton I touched on the aspect of inability to prove his claims that a person sending him money will result in that person having a blessing. That's the same thing she was doing. (BTW, I call that kind of thing "Christian witchcraft." They're basically claiming God can be controlled by conditions imposed upon Him by humans. It's very similar to casting a spell to control a demon in D&D or some other game except people like Tilton take advantage of other people's emotional weaknesses to enrich themselves.)
I wasn't "deliberately implying" her "psychic abilities" were the basis for the punishment. That thought never entered my mind. I do see how you could have read it that way, though.
"Likewise, obscenity (by its lawful definition) is not protected by the First Amendment."
Bullshit.
There is no lawful definition of "obscenity". The word "fuck" is not obscene.
I'll tell you what's obscene...sending thousands of servicemen to die in the desert for a man's ego. That's obscene.
But that's okay.
But some broken down middle-aged singer shows her tits and all the sudden we have obsceneity.
Which just confirms that people, in general, are pretty stupid.
When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable.
That's the point: no harm was and will be ever done by someone through swearing (or being nude, another ridiculous taboo in US television).
"He's 'DESTROYED' radio with monopolies like Clear Channel" What definition of monopoly are you using? Clear Channel controls less than 8% of radio stations nationwide. Using this kind of definition, Apple Mac OS has a monopoly on the personal computer desktop.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It has exactly such a mandate. It must serve the public, or the public will turn their dial elsewhere to the 92% of radio stations which are not Clear Channel.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Definition of an Activist Judge: One who gives forth a judgement you don't like.
Vote Quimby!
In other words, he's a politician.
Yes, yes he is.
I don't know what he's contributed.
"Contributed"? Hmmm, "contributed" to the betterment of communications and to the benefit of the general public: nothing.
Affordable broadband ? I don't see it. He's stopped competition in that industry.
I don't think he's actively stopped it as so much as he hasn't encourged it. IMO, affordable broadband came about from the healthy competition between regionalish telephone and cable companies. He could have done more though. Much more.
He's 'DESTROYED' radio with monopolies like Clear Channel.
Oh man, has he ever messsed up the FM band. Between allowing so very few to control the FM air waves and killing off Low Power FM he has set back competition to something like AM in the 1940s when your only real two choices were NBC "Red" and NBC "Blue". Point to you on that one.
So here's a toast to those that think everything should be allowed by corporate america without regard of the greater public good.
Well said. While your post is "fiery" it's, IMO, hardly worthy of the "troll" rating.
"And a voice was screaming: 'Holy Jesus! What are these goddamn animals?'" - HST
Just like Iraq is the reason that 9/11 happened. Pssst, hey kid, wanna buy a flying pig?
"Population 1,656"
"Constant Vigilance!"
-Alastar Moody
Maybe the comment about being a republican lackey might be a troll but there is some other valid arguments here, espesially the one about radio.
OTOH dosen't he want to keep VOIP free from taxiation?
Huh? Clear Channel only controls 8% of radio stations nationwide. Even in markets where they have a lot of stations, like NYC, they still control about 1/4 of the stations in that market.
So few are controlling the FM airwaves? I've got about 20 stations across my FM dial. More being added all the time. Some are pairs (one company owns a country & light jazz, another public radio outfit has a classical & a news, and there are one or two rock stations with two frequencies). Clear Channel controls none of them.
This reminds me of the other phony claims of "media concentration". In the last 25 years, we've seen the national news outlets on TV more than double in number. Only one has been lost/gobbled up.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
You got it: Definition of propaganda: opinion you don't like.
Definition of biased news: news where people don't have your exact opinions, or where they report stories you don't wnat reported.
Definition of rhetoric: speech you don't like.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It does appear there was more to the story than the forged docs, which are an interesting issue in themselves.
Second, the reason Wilson was sent on the trip was that his wife landed him the job. The most likely reason for someone mentioning her CIA status is thus that, well, they were trying to explain how the hell Wilson ended up in Africa in the first place. (Wilson of course lied about this repeatedly until the e-mails turned up. Then his website quitely got shut down and redirected to the kerry campaign. Strange...)
There are restrictions in place on those forms of speech - exactly because they take place on public land, and thus incovinience lots of other people when they take place. Hence, a permit is usually required for mass assembly on public property.
After reading that, I think there should be a +5 super-geeky so you can spend all your mod points on that one geeky gem.
If I had a billion bucks, 60 Gmail invites, and Tara Banks' private cell phone #, I'd give them to you too! It's the thought that counts.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Instead of requiring YOU to actively prevent your children from seeing/hearing things YOU find offensive, society as a whole will bend over and accept your simpleton standards. That sounds fair.
Blar.
Joe Lieberman is about as liberal as Rush Limbaugh.
Religion is the opiate of the masses. The wealthy smoke the real stuff.
Except when it comes to the economy, abortion, affirmative action, nominations, domestic policy... Well, aside from these tiny little issues, he's just like Rush, right?
There's nothing "liberal" about Liberman. Being a Democrat doesn't make you automatically "liberal". He's to the right of Richard Nixon. Gore and his wife aren't exactly from Berkeley, either. Clinton was pretty middle-of-the-road: he supported the V-chip and the cursed copyright law changes. Liberal points of view about freedom of speech can exist in either party, and ditto the itch to control what people are saying about their naughty bits. And frankly, if you want to be elected to public office nationally, you can't buck the Bible Belt too hard. You won't get elected dogcatcher early in your career, let alone a congressman or a President. Democracy has its bad points. People who have lots of kids tend to be conservative, and they constitute a majority large enough to swing the country their way.
Measured from the far left, he's conservative. Measured from the middle, however, he's quite liberal.
"Clinton was pretty middle-of-the-road"
Clinton was also strongly left wing, as shown by his attempt to have government take over and wreck health care.
"Liberal points of view about freedom of speech can exist in either party"
Generally, no. Liberal views tend to flourish in the Democrats, only.
"Democracy has its bad points. People who have lots of kids tend to be conservative, and they constitute a majority large enough to swing the country their way"
Translation: you think that conservatives are bad, and if they are represented in democracy, that is bad.
Your homework assingment: Provide a citation for the section of the law against revealing the identities of CIA agents which supports this exemption.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Your homework assignment: Use this line of reasoning to convince the governing board of the National Rifle Association that the Second Amendment applies only to muzzle-loading black-powder firearms.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
The VTR was invented in 1951.
Powell said in the article:
Is it 2006-2011 already? Or did he just mis-speak? Shouldn't the head of the FCC know the difference between a VTR and a VCR?
Omaha? 4 stations owned by CC. I found about 30 total radio stations in a directory. Assuming the list is complete, that's leaves CC with control of only 13%.
New York City? 5 CC stations out of about 71 total. ----------- These are the first and only three cities I checked. CC is a small player in each of them.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I totally agree with you that we as a society live the high life where obesity is our #1 killer :O As for your ad hominem attack on who you *suspect* I think I am, well your wrong.
Sorry, wasn't meant as an ad hominem... the 'you' in this case was meant to be rhetorical, aimed at any and all readers. Just figured I'd clarify. :)
Self-referential sigs are rarely entertaining.
I can tell you are extremely to the right if you think that way. Almost the entire democratic party holding national office are not even left wing. Real left-wingers are few and far between in Washington. They tend to thrive in smaller communities. Washington democrats are pretty middle of the road and are attempting to push the party further to the right.
Lieberman is one of the more conservative democrats in Washington. He is not even close to reflecting the term "liberal". It seems that all the crazy right wingers out there want to associate any Democrat with the word "liberal" in order for them to make it easier to trash them, as they've demonized the word.
Clinton was also strongly left wing, as shown by his attempt to have government take over and wreck health care.
Yeah sure, he was so liberal that not only did he NOT reform healthcare, but he supported NAFTA which is about the furthest thing from liberal there is. Anyone who considers themself a liberal would not consider Clinton OR Lieberman as liberal. Gore, on the other hand was closer to being a real liberal (superfund, etc), too bad he hid it so much in 2000.
Generally, no. Liberal views tend to flourish in the Democrats, only.
You're not arguing the point that he made, which is that either party can have liberal views on freedom of speech. I would say that libertarians are both conservative AND care about free speech.
Translation: you think that conservatives are bad, and if they are represented in democracy, that is bad.
Here's my translantion of your post. Everyone to the left of Trent Lott is a far-left nutbag bent on destroying America by giving everyone healthcare.
Time makes more converts than reason
Me objecting to racist remarks is modded down and labled flamebait. Making further racist remarks gets modded up as interesting.
Please don't answer this question with scorn or emotionalism. It's an honest question. I'm genuinely curious how most slashdotters characterize their politics.
Can you make a thumbs up? Try doing it right now. Do it. Do it. No, seriously, do it. Okay, now lower your thumb down to your index finger. Now, imagine a remote in your hands, and making the same motion. Its that easy.
The first time your kids have to spend signifigant time away from you is when they start going to school. Before that, you have a great deal of control. If we filtered all media to make everyone happy all of the time, all we'd have is Watching Organic Paint Dry on PBS, so stop expecting others to do your parenting for you, and take some responsiblity. The V-chip has been avaliable for what, 10 years now? And any digital cable box also comes with parental controls. Its really not that hard.
When your kids start going to school, there are even odds they'll be exposed to words worse than "ass" in a matter of hours. The world is not going to wait on your children until you think they are ready, so you better make your children ready for the world.
And many of us think a few words, including "ass", should be kept of the public's airwaves.
And I think that Fox should be taken off the air for journalistic malpractice (if there isn't such a thing, there should be). But the point of free speech isn't to protect popular speech, its to protect unpopular speech.
There have been cultural luddites for thousands of years, wringing their hands over foul language and how the younger generation shows no respect for their elders. And for thousands of years they've been wrong, every step of the way.
I figure it pleases both the Religious right and liberals (or did you all forget Sen. Liberman vs. video games and Tipper Gore with the PMRC)
Bzzt! Those are the only prominent luddites in the Democratic party, versus many in the GOP. Yes, the Democrats have Libberman (who, as another poster pointed out, is NOT liberal), and Tipper Gore. Actually not so much Tipper anymore, because even if she still wants to censor cds, she has no platform to speak from.
So we have the conservative Liberman for the Democrats, and on the right we have....Ashcroft, Powell, Santorum, Bennett and Falwell, off the top of my head. And yes, you can find Democrats from Bill Clinton to Jesse Jackson making moralistic comments, but making a couple of pandering comments does not a luddite make. Jerry Falwell and William Bennet spend more time moralizing on their days off than Jackson does in ten years.
No, the GOP has firm control over being the party of luddites; they don't have any other choice if they want to continue pandering to Southern Babtists and members of the Moral Majority.
It sounds like you'd be okay if I sat down in front of your parents or significant other and just started spewing forth a bunch of obscenities without regard to what they think or feel about listening. And if I followed them around wherever they went so that they couldn't escape, that would be okay too, right? All in the name of free speech. And it would be okay if I parked outside your bedroom door and blasted a stereo at nerve-deadening volumes, because hey, it's free speech? And if I wanted to advocate/solicit for your early demise, that would be alright as well, correct?
I suspect you wouldn't entertain your teachers/colleagues/parents/bosses with your vast repertoire of 4-letter words.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.