Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

FCC decides Congress may give FCC more powerFollow

#1 Apr 26 2007 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Congress could regulate violence on cable, satellite and broadcast television without violating the First Amendment, the Federal Communications Commission said in a report released Wednesday.

The report, which had been requested by Congress, contains suggestions for action by lawmakers, but it stops short of making specific recommendations.
[...]
Concluding that "exposure to violent programming can be harmful to children," FCC Chairman Kevin Martin wrote in a statement accompanying the report that "Congress could provide parents more tools to limit their children's exposure to violent programming in a constitutional way."

Among those tools, Congress could require cable companies to sell their programming on a per-channel or family tier basis, rather than only in pre-bundled packages.

As for broadcast television, the report cites Supreme Court precedent to suggest the agency could regulate violent programming much as it regulates sexual content and profanity -- by barring it from being aired during hours when children may be watching. Or it could create a family-viewing hour.
My vote to the man who declares that he will change the FCC's mandate to simply licensing, policing and maintaining the paperwork for stations to have specific frequencies. By policing I do not mean a censorship office but rather saying that if a station is licensed to broadcast at a frequency then no one else is allowed to use the same frequency.

We do not need a federal office devoted to knee-jerk censorship of half-time boobs and reactionary power grabs to college campus tragedies.

Edited, Apr 26th 2007 12:11pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Apr 26 2007 at 11:17 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts


We do not need a federal office devoted to knee-jerk censorship of half-time boobs and reactionary power grabs to college campus tragedies.


No way, you'd have girls kissing on Sesame Street in no time.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#3 Apr 26 2007 at 11:27 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Jophiel wrote:
My vote to the man who declares that he will change the FCC's mandate to simply licensing, policing and maintaining the paperwork for stations to have specific frequencies. By policing I do not mean a censorship office but rather saying that if a station is licensed to broadcast at a frequency then no one else is allowed to use the same frequency.

We do not need a federal office devoted to knee-jerk censorship of half-time boobs and reactionary power grabs to college campus tragedies.


What a conservative thing to say.

Preserving family values is important, but that's up to the family to do, not the government. Though, I'd love to see cable companies make channels available in smaller groups, or one by one.
#4 Apr 26 2007 at 11:28 AM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Preserving family values is important, but that's up to the family to do, not the government.


Yay, noontime gay **** for everyone!
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#5 Apr 26 2007 at 11:33 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Metastophicleas wrote:
What a conservative thing to say.
Don't let it be said that I'm not multifaceted Smiley: grin

Although both parties suck at reigning in such Nanny-state aspects as TV, radio and video games.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Apr 26 2007 at 11:38 AM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
That's true.
#7 Apr 26 2007 at 11:44 AM Rating: Good
Leave my cable TV alone, and send the darn kids to bed earlier!!
#8 Apr 26 2007 at 11:59 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
FCC should be strictly for frequencies. They should have no control over what is shown. All they should be doing is telling which company what frequencies they are allowed to broadcast on.

If you want to regulate anything else it should be done by a separate body if at all.
#9 Apr 26 2007 at 12:02 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

They should have no control over what is shown. All they should be doing is telling which company what frequencies they are allowed to broadcast on.

If you want to regulate anything else it should be done by a separate body if at all.



Well, I think we'd all agree that some level of regulation is required. Like, for instance, that broadcasting the live ******* to death of infants by robot elephants with razor blade studded penises would probably be something we'd want to limit to after 3pm.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#10 Apr 26 2007 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,593 posts
Smasharoo wrote:

They should have no control over what is shown. All they should be doing is telling which company what frequencies they are allowed to broadcast on.

If you want to regulate anything else it should be done by a separate body if at all.



Well, I think we'd all agree that some level of regulation is required. Like, for instance, that broadcasting the live @#%^ing to death of infants by robot elephants with razor blade studded penises would probably be something we'd want to limit to after 3pm.



But my daughter likes that show. :)

I understand where you're coming from but I personally don't think the FCC should be the ones to do it. You need to have a group that concentrates on the technical parts and a separate group that handles moral issues. I think it's cleaner that way.
#11 Apr 26 2007 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Some **** too...wow...to quote.


Holy fUck dude... You're in a rare mood today, aren't you?
#12 Apr 26 2007 at 12:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Some sh*t too...wow...to quote.


Holy fUck dude... You're in a rare mood today, aren't you?


Are you new here or something? I wouldn't say this is rare, I'd just thought he was going soft in his old age...apparently he just needed coffee.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#13 Apr 26 2007 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

I'd just thought he was going soft in his old age


Come now, you know that's certainly not true.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#14 Apr 26 2007 at 12:29 PM Rating: Decent
***
2,501 posts
He's more colorful in his wording today than I've seen in months. I'm just amazed at some of the imagery. Nipple filled scrotums...razor penises...funny stuff, but just imagine that, just for a moment.
#15 Apr 26 2007 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Nexa
*****
12,065 posts
Metastophicleas wrote:
He's more colorful in his wording today than I've seen in months. I'm just amazed at some of the imagery. Nipple filled scrotums...razor penises...funny stuff, but just imagine that, just for a moment.


He hasn't gotten laid in a couple weeks.

Nexa
____________________________
“It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes. But a half-wit remains a half-wit, and the emperor remains an emperor.”
― Neil Gaiman, The Sandman, Vol. 9: The Kindly Ones
#16 Apr 26 2007 at 12:31 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

He hasn't gotten laid in a couple weeks.


It's true. The cat's really nervous lately.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#17 Apr 26 2007 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Well, I think we'd all agree that some level of regulation is required.
Probably. Although I disagree with the idea that, without it, every single station would be filled with goat-rape or whatever.

I realize that admitting to some level of regulation erodes some of my inital bile in the OP but I need to hook you all into the OP somehow Smiley: grin Suffice to say that I'm displeased with this continous creeping of censorship power by the FCC.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#18 Apr 26 2007 at 12:35 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts

Suffice to say that I'm displeased with this continous creeping of censorship power by the FCC.


Me too, but really, there's far too much money wrapped up in adult targeted TV to be very worried about it. I mean I've had the option to buy **** on my TV (not that I ever have) for the last 20 years.

____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#19 Apr 26 2007 at 12:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Well, I think we'd all agree that some level of regulation is required.
Probably. Although I disagree with the idea that, without it, every single station would be filled with goat-rape or whatever.

I realize that admitting to some level of regulation erodes some of my inital bile in the OP but I need to hook you all into the OP somehow Smiley: grin Suffice to say that I'm displeased with this continous creeping of censorship power by the FCC.


Or at most, only in Ohio and West Virginia.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#20 Apr 26 2007 at 3:13 PM Rating: Decent
This thread reaks of onions.

EDIT: In case 59 posts doesn't imbue trust.

Quote:
Bush Grants Self Permission To Grant More Power To Self
WASHINGTON, DC—In a decisive 1–0 decision Monday, President Bush voted to grant the president the constitutional power to grant himself additional powers.

"As president, I strongly believe that my first duty as president is to support and serve the president," Bush said during a televised address from the East Room of the White House shortly after signing his executive order. "I promise the American people that I will not abuse this new power, unless it becomes necessary to grant myself the power to do so at a later time."

The Presidential Empowerment Act, which the president hand-drafted on his own Oval Office stationery and promptly signed into law, provides Bush with full authority to permit himself to authorize increased jurisdiction over the three branches of the federal government, provided that the president considers it in his best interest to do so.

"In a time of war, the president must have the power he needs to make the tough decisions, including, if need be, the decision to grant himself even more power," Bush said. "To do otherwise would be playing into the hands of our enemies."

Added Bush: "And it's all under due process of the law as I see it."

In addition, the president reserves the right to overturn any decision to allow himself to increase his power by using a line-item veto, which in turn may only be overruled by the president.

Senior administration officials lauded Bush's decision, saying that current presidential powers over presidential power were "far too limited."

"Previously, the president only had the power to petition Congress to allow him to grant himself the power to grant more power to himself," Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez said shortly after the ceremony. "Now, the president can grant himself the power to interpret new laws however he sees fit, then use that power to interpret a law in such a manner that in turn grants him increased power."

In addition, a proviso in the 12th provision of the new law permits Bush the authority to waive the need for any presidential authorization of power in a case concerning national security, although legal experts suggest it would be little exercised.

Despite the president's new powers, the role of Congress and the Supreme Court has not been overlooked. Under the new law, both enjoy the newly broadened ability to grant the president the authority to increase his presidential powers.

"This gives the president the tools he needs to ensure that the president has all the necessary tools to expedite what needs to be done, unfettered by presidential restrictions on himself," said Rep. John Cornyn (R-TX). "It's long overdue."

Though public response to the new law has been limited, there has been an unfavorable reaction among Democrats, who are calling for restrictions on Bush's power to allow himself to grant the president more powers that would restrict the powers of Congress.

"This is a clear case of President Bush having carte blanche to grant himself complete discretion to enact laws to increase his power," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said. "The only thing we can do now is withhold our ability to grant him more authority to grant himself more power."

"Unless he authorizes himself to strip us of that power," Reid added.

Despite criticism, Bush took his first official action under the new law Tuesday, signing an executive order ordering that the chief executive be able to order more executive orders.

In addition, Republicans fearful that the president's new power undermines their ability to grant him power have proposed a new law that would allow senators to permit him to grant himself power, with or without presidential approval.


Edited, Apr 26th 2007 7:19pm by Defaulty
#21REDACTED, Posted: Apr 28 2007 at 8:26 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) FUck The FCC.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 295 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (295)