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."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.