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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
Umm... dude? If you don't know the details of the issue, why would you bring it up as an example? I guess he just expected the interviewer to know nothing about the Standard Oil situation (like me, but at least I admit that I'm a dumbass).
-30-
Powell is a much better speaker then Stern... Stern does come across as a whiny stuipd guy in that call.
One issue you address I disagree with; 'forcing it into someone's home'. The US decided that portions of the spectrum were the property of the people and would be managed by the FCC.
The signal is forced into your home (unless you have lots've EM shielding), but if you ask them to stop that, you're also in effect forbidding someone who wants the signal in their home. I think the 'greater good' scenario would be for you to turn off your radio or change the channel.
I agree. While I like Stern, I think his show is indecent and is more appropriate for the more controlled access that satellite broadcast provides (for the time being). I was struck how Stern's statements about being kept out of court were third-hand information over and over again. IANAL, but I don't see how the government/FCC could prevent someone from suing them or making a big enough stink in the media to force it if such was the case. On the other hand, if Viacom was late with paperwork or through some legal requirement if they must pay legally prescribed fines before a second action can occur, that's hardly the FCC's fault.
No man's an island, unless he's had too much to drink and wets the bed.
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
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.
So the general public likes things that you don't. What exactly do you expect Powell to do about that?
The general public likes whatever they're told to like by Clear Channel and the recording industry.
That's what the debate is about. It's hard to like music that you never hear.
You know they call 'em fingers but I've never seen 'em fing. Oh, there they go.
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.
'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
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)?
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."
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).
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.