Censorship

[John Dibble]

I say if something on television or radio offends you, change the channel. Companies will self-censor if they believe it profitable to do so - driving down ratings through boycott, written and organized protest, ect. will keep companies in line. I'm fine with the FCC enforcing a ratings system, so you know if what you are about to watch is offensive or not, but they have no right to tell you that you can't broadcast something. About the only thing that should be censored is stuff relating to national security(battle strategies, secret military technology, stuff like that).

[John Dibble]

I say if something on television or radio offends you, change the channel. Companies will self-censor if they believe it profitable to do so - driving down ratings through boycott, written and organized protest, ect. will keep companies in line. I'm fine with the FCC enforcing a ratings system, so you know if what you are about to watch is offensive or not, but they have no right to tell you that you can't broadcast something. About the only thing that should be censored is stuff relating to national security(battle strategies, secret military technology, stuff like that).

The FCC owns the airwaves. Broadcast stations are leasing the airwaves from the government. The government has the right to control content in that respect.

"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. "

What part of this does the government not understand?

[John Dibble]

This is a good definition of censor:  to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.

Also, on the airwaves - I'm fine with government 'owning' them in a sense. They are a resource, and unlike iron, lumber, or oil they are not tangible. Somebody has to decide who gets them. There are many frequencies that can be used, but not all of them are used within an area(the demand for radio stations is not so great as to bring lots of new producers into the market). So, let's say the FCC(or perhaps a state substitute, with the FCC intervening in cases of interstate stations interfering with eachother) is the distributor of the airwave resource. If you would like to open a new radio station, you apply, tell them what range you want to broadcast at, and they give you a price per year to own that airwave - the airwave is now yours to do with as you please until you decide to stop paying, you can say anything you like no matter how offensive(national security information being the one exception). The FCC's job after that is to ensure that nobody else uses the frequency you own within your broadcast range.

Now, of course there would have to be some safeties - a company could buy up all the airwaves in an area and become the only game in town. A good safety would be that you would have to use any airwave you bought, and that each one must be used for a different station. Nobody could afford to do that, and it wouldn't be profitable even if they could. Just my two cents on how the system should work.

[John Dibble]

Well, I view the FCC less as a landlord and more as a mining company. The mining company produces the iron ore and sells it to someone else - after that they have no say as to how it is used. Of course, once used the iron ore can't be used again. This is why I say companies should pay the FCC yearly for the use of the airwaves(not to mention it makes it possible for the FCC to fund itself with little or no taxpayer money), plus stations that go under shouldn't keep the resource for themselves(though perhaps they could sell the rights to the frequency for the remaining portion of their time slot). Also, if the mining company doesn't like what the person did with the last batch of ore they bought, they don't have to sell ore the next time around. So, if the FCC decides they don't like station X's programming they can threaten not to accept the station's wishes to continue use of the frequency once their contract is up. Of course, this too could be abused, so I think it would be better to keep the system at a state level with the FCC only dealing with interstate issues.

[John Dibble]

Remember when people bitched about wanting a V-chip and when it was finally released nobody used it?

[John Dibble]

Remember when people bitched about wanting a V-chip and when it was finally released nobody used it?

I think my TV has one but I never use it.

Exactly - television comes standard with them nowadays(by law if I'm not mistaken) and yet people still complain about their children being exposed to stuff. All they have to do is open their television manual and find out how to use it. There was a series of add lately in my area on FOX informing people 'go here to learn how to use your v-chip', sadly I don't think anyone listened.