Censorship

[nclib]

Option 8 for me.

[Brambila]

The government has no right to censor anything. Once again, the government's SOLE PURPOSE is to defend our rights.

[??????????]

The only speech that should be censored is Sedition.

[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).

[??????????]

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.

[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?

[dazzleman]

It all depends what censorship means.  People have a way of twisting the meaning of censorship to suit their own definitions.

Government should not be telling private citizens what they can say, but that doesn't mean that private concerns like television stations, hotel owners, etc. have to allow any type of performance in their medium, if it means they will lose money as a result.

Tipper Gore was vilified by the corrupt entertainment industry in the mid 1980s for advocating warning labels on obscene or violent records.  They called it censorship but it wasn't.  It was meant to warn parents about what was contained on the record, so they could decide whether to allow their children to have the record.  There never was anything wrong with that.

Of course, the same people who scream censorship inappropriately all the time are looking to impose censorship on those who don't agree with them by branding anything they don't agree with as "hate speech."  Anybody who admits, for example, that blacks have a higher crime rate than whites is practicing hate speech, according to these people.

I think we should agree on a definition of censorship before deciding whether and when it is appropriate.  The left in my opinion has a very distorted definition of this word, as well as many others.  As Orwell warned, the first step toward totalitarian is distortion of the language, and I have seen it in this country so many times it's scary.

[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.

[??????????]

Dibble,

You are partiall right. In my view the FCC is the landlord and the network is the renter. If the Landlord says "no dogs allowed" and the renter violates that rule the Landlord has every right to fine or expel the renter. IMHO.

[KEmperor]

Censorship means that the government declares the speech illegal.  I oppose virtually all forms of censorship.  That said, I believe that broadcasting compainies and newspaper companies should institute their own standards and refuse to publish/broadcast certain things.

[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.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

sexually explicit material, violent movies, hate speech

[specific_name]

I'm opposed to censorship in all forms. Especially when it comes to laws against "sedition" and "hate speech." Too many things could fall under that catergory.  

[opebo]

Its dismaying that so many people voted for the oppressive censorship of 'hate speech'!  What a ridiculous concept - the individual no longer has the right to hate people.

[??????????]

Its dismaying that so many people voted for the oppressive censorship of 'hate speech'!  What a ridiculous concept - the individual no longer has the right to hate people.

My problem with banning hate speech is everyone has a different definition of what hate is. I consider a lot of what the NAACP says as hate.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I don't think the government should censor anything, although it can regulate what is shown to children (in the form of movie ratings, etc.).

I also agree with laws against blatantly false speech, like libel and deceptive advertising.

[Horus]

Option 8.

[Akno21]

Zero censorship.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I'm opposed to any and all censorship.  People don't have to watch it, and the responsibility of kids not watching it lies completely in the hands of the parents and their opinions.  Personally, I don't give a crap if my kid listens to howard stern, no matter what age they'd have the right to, and I'm sick of these paranoid moms and dads trying to "cleanse" the airwaves.  Of all things that piss me off, censorship is right around #1.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I don't think the government should censor anything, although it can regulate what is shown to children (in the form of movie ratings, etc.).

I also agree with laws against blatantly false speech, like libel and deceptive advertising.

Movie ratings are ok, but the rule that you need to have a parent with you to see an R rated movie is absurd.  I actaully brought my mom in once to tell them it was ok for my friends to see it, and they still wouldn't let me in.  

[Scorpio]

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.

The FCC does not own the airwaves.


We the people do.


If you don't want to watch/listen.. change the channel.

[Scorpio]

The only speech that should be censored is Sedition.

Why?


As an American, it is my right to say the current government should be overthrown.

Isn't it?  

If I feel that the current government isn't working, it is my responsibility as a citizen to put one in place that will.

Besides, under the USA Patriot Act, anything could be considered sedition.

[YRABNNRM]

Censorship means that the government declares the speech illegal.  I oppose virtually all forms of censorship.  That said, I believe that broadcasting compainies and newspaper companies should institute their own standards and refuse to publish/broadcast certain things.

I couldn't have said it better.

[Gustaf]

Final option. The government has no business censoring stuff.

[??????????]

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.

The FCC does not own the airwaves.


We the people do.


If you don't want to watch/listen.. change the channel.

No, the government owns the airwaves. They are leased out to broadcast stations.