rmichael

I’d stick around and play, but American Idol’s* about to start and I need to get my baked potato, artichoke and king crab legs cookin’. Heh.

I’ll write thank you notes to the ‘responsible’ parties, um, later.

*Who you voting for? Vote early and vote often.

Another misconception is that this “unanimous approval” is the snowy white and pure manifestation of your–america’s will. your representatives havent heard you. did you vote on this? I bet you wrote dozens of letters right? Theyre hedging their bets and doing the expedient$$. Far from an example of representative govt working, its an example of it doing what suits itself. Eileen this makes you happy somehow?

Ive missed you Eileen.

Too many people base their censorship arguments on what the government ought to do rather than what it can do. Given the reality of today’s plethora of media outlets, notably the internet and cable tv, the government simply cannot meaningfully shape the content of media. Tighter restrictions are just going to drive more people to the internet and toward satellite radio and cable tv.

I am astounded that product boycotting isn’t a bigger deal these days. Bill O’Reilly has shown that it can be done effectively. As a father of small children, I deplore this filth on MTV. But until someone or group starts attacking the subsidizing advertisers, that garbage isn’t going away. Heck the DVR is going to turn this paradigm upside down anyway.

There’s no grey area here. When was the last time Congress set out to do something and actually achieved their objective - without wasting billions of taxpayer dollars or causing an array of negative externalities?

When was the first time?

As an aside, one of the most profound comments my Dad ever made was this: “When you’re young, everything in life is all very black and white. The older you get, the greyer things become.”

The law, as Usual Suspect notes, is ALL about grey tones. That is what makes ‘the law of the realm’ of our democracy such a beacon. The 1st Amendment isn’t black or white. nor is the 4th and etc. The executive, legislative and judicial branches of our government have been interpreting, updating and modernizing our living, breathing Constitution for more than two centuries now.

It is the amalgamation of our views and our orderly analysis and governance which is our greatest strength.

Jeff would have us all be strict constitutional constructionists with respect to the First. But the fact is our Constitution breathes.

I’m glad Jeff didn’t disagree with Captious, for that is the kernal of the debate; to wit: public vs. private domains, ownership and governance. As long as the public airways are licensed by the government, then WE will govern them. Hat tip to Usual as well.

Many of us do not accept the left’s suggested options of either turning off the tv or turning the channel in order to escape either indecency OR obscenity on the only channels some/many even have available for viewing, and particularly during only certain hours. ‘Your way or the highway’ isn’t the ’solution’ because it leaves too many people out, and because it imposes YOUR will instead of OUR representative government’s will. Geez, do parents have to turn the channel AFTER their kids have heard fuck and seen a steel nipple? By then they’ve already been ambushed. Who the hell knows when or where or what kind of edgy (in search of the 30 year old male demographic, ad revenue inducing) ‘incoming’ they’ll spring on us next?

Jeff wants to abolish the FCC. Is that pragmatic or even practical given the fact that someone needs to ‘take out the trash’ as long as our government licenses the use of OUr public airways? Jeff likes the fact that the Sopranos on cable used the word cunt. He thought it was dandy. In Jeff’s no-holds-barred world, apparently that would be equally fine during prime time on the public airways as well.

Unanimous votes by Senators and Legislators regarding this NEW legislation related to indecency fines not only support prior FCC administrative rulings and judicial decisions related thereto, but leave it up to the networks to evaluate the relative ‘value’ of injecting F and S and C, or wardrobe malfunctions and Etc. into prime time tv on the public airways. If they want to reap the rewards of holding those government rewarded, monopolistic licenses, then they need to recognize they answer to US, the public, too.

They get to choose.

It’s a beautiful life, really.

The Supreme court held that the FCC could fine broadcasters for indecent language.

What is your point Jeff?

Like hair-splitting is to argument losing.

Why won’t you argue for government divestiture of the public airwaves?

Wouldn’t that guarantee you the freedom of speech you clamor for?

It’s kind of tough to say “we, the public, own the airwaves” without having any government oversight. Do you think we could have National Parks with no tax-payer funded employees picking up the trash and whatnot?

Once you take the public monies out of the equation, 80% of your critics will go away.

As it stands now, the public DOESN”T own the airwaves any more than it owns the “land”, parks, monuments, etc.

The free market can’t decide anything until IT owns the spectrum - it needs to be auctioned off to the highest bidders.

As for Congress, have they ever voted against anything that gives them more power or the ability to levy fines/taxes?

Wrong. It does all the time. Obscenity is regulated in lots of places. You may not put pornography on a billboard. You may not engage in live sex acts in public (even with political content). These restrictions (and others) have been held as constitutional by the Supreme Court over and over again.

Why? Because it is PUBLIC space. Why did you. uh, “edit” my post out of existence, Jeff?

The public owns the airwaves. The public has a right to prohibit obscenity in a manner which is held by the courts as Constitutional. It’s a big fat whopping GREY AREA it’s a target which will move over time. (God Bless America). It will be litigated over and over again, such is our belief in Free Speech. (God Bless America again!)

“The old broadcast-into-the-livingroom argument is outmoded; see the post above; my kids have no idea what’s broadcast and what’s not”

Sorry the ignorance of your children has no importance in this question. “Public Space” in terms of obscenity has a long history of clear (though changeable) definition in statute and in precedent. The airwaves constitutes public space because of its passivity and *public* ownership.

“(and, no, that’s not an excuse to spread the same government control of speech across other media… or they will, indeed, be the ones censoring your comment here on the internet).”

Printed media is not considered public space unless it is on open display (ie. Billboards, etc). This is irrational and unsubstantiated fear mongering on your part.

“Millions watch and enjoy the shows a few hundred prigs don’t like and so why should the FCC enforce the alleged community standards of the few against the many?”

Speaking of “alleged” you have no real idea what most or many or few people think in this regard. Decide public policy by opinion poll? Sorry, Jeff a republic doesn’t work that way. I am surprised I have to point that out to you.

“Let the market decide, I say. That should be the conservative mantra, no?”

In all things? No. I don’t know where you got that idea, from your kids?

Usual Suspect’s answer to that question bears repeating.

“Jeff denies to the people what he takes for himself.

He [as owner]has a right to block obscenity from his blog, they [as owner]have the right to block obscenity from the airwaves.”

[as owner]” inserts were mine - Ravo

JJ says:We would not tolerate it on the bookshelf; there is no good reason to tolerate it on the air.

The bookshelf is passive. It requires action from the participant to read it. The bookshelf doesn’t intrude into unsuspecting ears in public places.

But I take issue with any absolutist who declares the world “grey”.

“Jeff’s point about editing/censoring is more that just semantical.”

Not in the case of his actions. He censored my post. Rightly so. Why? It was *obscene*!

Broadcast television comes into the public’s living rooms. Jeff denies to the people what he takes for himself.

He owns the blog, the public owns (and more importantly, licenses the use of) the airwaves.

He has a right to block obscenity from his blog, they have the right to block obscenity from the airwaves.

It’s the last refuge of the “absolutist” - semantics.

Edited huh? The “one click of the delete key” kind of “editing”, eh?

You properly censored (to the point of deletion) the post I made because it was obscene! I made it so, chock-a-block FULL of graphic, vulgar obscenity, on purpose. It HAD to be censored.

Internet discussions, blogs, etc. breed a kind of blind and absolutist “logic” whereby any problem in the world can be reduced to a black and white absolute rule. Like other solitary soapbox platforms it’s the danger of the medium. After all how could one, say, “solve” the genocide in Darfur by “internet debate” if the causes and effects are not simplified to ridiculous and absolute positions. What would Limbaugh do if he admitted the benefits of feminism. What would Franken do if he acknowledged some successes in Iraq. What would Jarvis do if he accepted the notion that not all speech is created equal. It happens all the time, NSA data mining? Black and White. The War on Terror? Black and White. Freedom of speech? Black and White.

“It is dangerous and downright unconstitutional for government to control speech. We would not tolerate it on the bookshelf; there is no good reason to tolerate it on the air.”

Black and white!

The problem, Jeff, is that the world is really a big, gooey, inconsistent blob of grey. Almost *nothing* is absolute or - black and white. This fact makes it much more hard to have tidy logical absolutist positions on a blog. You just don’t sound as “smart” or “snarky” or “concise” if your blog articles are mostly “well, it depends…”.

Like the rest of your ilk, Limbaugh, Franken, Hannity, Dowd it puts you in a corner. A reductivist, absolutist, absurd simple-minded consistency. Consistency being the coin of the pontifical realms!

And in this case, like so many others, the answer actually is “it depends”. You certainly don’t maintain that my post, full of graphic sexual (pornographic) and excretory “imagery” used as an insult to Bush would be fit for broadcast, do you? It’s not even fit for the actively sought and voluntary read “pages” of a blog. So even you, Jeff, must admit there is a “borderline” of acceptable speech in the public sphere. You removed my post within a minute of its posting. I doubt you had to think much about it.

So if there is a borderline, how shall it be set? Since you, Jeff, are most likely too busy pontificating to spend your days at the FCC mediating every instance, what shall we, the public, do?

In fact, since your “edit” removed not only the obscenity, but the political content as well (the part about Bush and the Military Industrial Complex) perhaps you wouldn’t be a good choice even if you were available.

How could we remove obscenity without overreaching like Jeff Jarvis?

Perhaps we might have our elected representatives set community standards in a democratic process? A process subject to the Constitution and the rule of law as interpreted by the Supreme Court. In order to prevent the censorship (or Jarvisian “editing”) of the content, we might have the laws focus on the obscene words rather than the implications or the *content* (political or otherwise) of the statement. Hmmmm? How do we do that? How do we avoid censoring the content but block obscenity the public finds offensive? How about a list of words we all agree are obscene? And instead of a government filter, we’ll simply impose fines when words on the list are used and let the media police themselves. Since only the listed offensive words are at issue the media will most likely just “bleep” out those words (to avoid the fines) and leave the rest of the content alone.

(Something even Jeff Jarvis couldn’t manage.)

I’ll respect the law of this blog if I can figure out what it is.