FCC Targets Obscene Broadcasters

[n0ov]

Don't confuse freedom of speech with the right to broadcast "what you want" to folks who don't want to experience it. #If you do, there is a price to be paid!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">WASHINGTON - The government proposed a $755,000 fine against Clear Channel Communications on Tuesday for a sexually explicit radio show aired on four stations, the second-highest such fine ever proposed. [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'> Full Story at Yahoo News (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&e=7&u=/ap/20040127/ap_on_en_ot/fcc_obscenity_fine)

Some things are better left in private. #However, if you believe Freedom of Speech gives you the right to shock and awe -- don't be shocked or shout awe when you're asked to contribute to the FCC's bank account. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wow.gif

-------------------------
Personally, I am glad the FCC is doing this.
It also confirms the agreement we signed when our call signs were issued was the right thing to do.

Let the Freedom of Speech debates begin #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KB9YCO]

&quot;Don't confuse freedom of speech with the right to broadcast &quot;what you want&quot; to folks who don't want to experience it.&quot;

Don't confuse your right to turn it off with my right as an American to say, hear, and see what I want without government intervention. You don't have to experience it, you choose to experience it, turn it off if you don't like it. If it's the old 'what about the children' philosophy then you should probably pay more attention to what your children are doing instead of asking the government to do it for you.

&quot; However, if you believe Freedom of Speech gives you the right to shock and awe -- don't be shocked or shout awe when you're asked to contribute to the FCC's bank account. &quot;

I think you need to reread The Bill Of Rights.
&quot;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. &quot;

NO LAW means no law. The FCC does not have a right to control content; although they will more than happy to tell you otherwise. Don't get me wrong, any responsible broadcaster, or even just a person on a radio, will have some measure of sensitivity to what others may think and will practice at least a modicum of good behavior. But, it is NOT the government's place to make that decision for us.
Abridging the freedom of speech, for any reason, is simply put, un-American. I don't care what your reason is (or underlying reason), or what your personal philosphy or religion is, it is clearly stated that no law shall be made abridging this right. I am sure someone will post here that it is invading their rights, but no one is forcing you to listen, watch, veiw, etc. any particular program. Stop asking the government to set the limits for you, or your children, and do it for yourself by not supporting programming you may find objectionable. You and you alone retain that right and ANY part of the government should've never (according to The Bill Of Rights) been given the right to tell us otherwise. NO LAW SHALL BE MADE, it doesn't get any clearer than that.

&quot;It also confirms the agreement we signed when our call signs were issued was the right thing to do.&quot;

I don't think the majority of amateurs out there would disagree, we hold ourselves to a higher standard as we have been given a priveledge, and most of us are aware of the sensibilities of differing view points. So, while I don't advocate anyone getting on the air and spewing expletives or descriptive content, it still IS NOT the right of the government to draw that line for us. Who gets to decide that line? Who gets to decide where that line ends and begins? This is why our forefathers made it clear that NO LAW shall be made, the decision lies with us and how we wish to be perceived, not the government.

Let the free speech debate troll, I mean roll on.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ Jan. 27 2004,14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't confuse freedom of speech with the right to broadcast &quot;what you want&quot; to folks who don't want to experience it. #If you do, there is a price to be paid![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. Like KB9YCO said you need to reread the bill of rights. Maybe next we can all start goosestepping.

No where in the bill of rights does it state that some government official with a bad comb over has the right to tell me what i can and can't say.

[N0WVA]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kb1kso @ Jan. 27 2004,16:28)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ Jan. 27 2004,14:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Don't confuse freedom of speech with the right to broadcast &quot;what you want&quot; to folks who don't want to experience it. #If you do, there is a price to be paid![/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Freedom of speech means freedom of speech. Like KB9YCO said you need to reread the bill of rights. Maybe next we can all start goosestepping.

No where in the bill of rights does it state that some government official with a bad comb over has the right to tell me what i can and can't say.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That all depends on where you say it. The entire public owns the airwaves, and vulgarity and indecency should in no way be allowed on them. Do you think you should have the right to have sex on the courthouse steps? Get real.

[wb6bcn]

One quote from the news article:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;We believe the time has come for every sector of the media to join together and develop consistent standards that are in tune with local community values,&quot; [/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

I think that the standards are too low as for local community values, unless they refer to the Vatican as a local community.

[KB9YCO]

&quot;That all depends on where you say it. The entire public owns the airwaves, and vulgarity and indecency should in no way be allowed on them. Do you think you should have the right to have sex on the courthouse steps? Get real.&quot; N0WVA

You honestly think that is the same issue? One has nothing to do with the other, mixing issues is really clouding the issue.
You are right, the public owns the airwaves, and it's not the place of the government to tell us otherwise. No need for me to quote The Bill Of Rights again, persumably you've read it; hopefully anyway.
You talk of vulgarity and indecency, but by who's standards? Who gets to set that bar, high or low? That is the reason for the first amendment's line of 'NO LAW SHALL BE MADE', because government decree should not be allowed to determine what that line is, we determine it for ourselves by ignoring or not supporting something we may find objectionable. When you subvert The Bill Of Rights and take away our fundamental American values where does it end? Who determines that end? Again the reason for NO LAW SHALL BE MADE.

[kd5sdi]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ Jan. 28 2004,12:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;That all depends on where you say it. The entire public owns the airwaves, and vulgarity and indecency should in no way be allowed on them. Do you think you should have the right to have sex on the courthouse steps? Get real.&quot; N0WVA

You honestly think that is the same issue? One has nothing to do with the other, mixing issues is really clouding the issue.
You are right, the public owns the airwaves, and it's not the place of the government to tell us otherwise. No need for me to quote The Bill Of Rights again, persumably you've read it; hopefully anyway.
You talk of vulgarity and indecency, but by who's standards? Who gets to set that bar, high or low? That is the reason for the first amendment's line of 'NO LAW SHALL BE MADE', because government decree should not be allowed to determine what that line is, we determine it for ourselves by ignoring or not supporting something we may find objectionable. When you subvert The Bill Of Rights and take away our fundamental American values where does it end? Who determines that end? Again the reason for NO LAW SHALL BE MADE.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
The first amendment has exceptions that have been clear since its inception. They are: 1. clear and present danger
2. Libel 3. obscenity. Since these are very vague terms the courst have defined the one in question, obscenity, as &quot;Something patently offensive to the majority of individuals in that local area.&quot; This basically means that if they put you to task on it then you depend on the twelve jurors to define obscenity. Ideally these are people with similar tastes and values to yourself; however, in practice this does deviate somewhat.
You mention clouding the issue with an example that another person used then I will give you one on the same section of the bill of rights. You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because it is a clear and present danger to the health and welfare of individuals in that theater. You do not have the right to say that your neighbor entices little children into his or her house for lewd purposes with candy, because it is untrue(hopefully) and therefore libelous. The same applies here. If the majority do not find the f word offensive then say it all you like. It is kind of a time and place argument, dont you think?

[N0WVA]

Yes, certainly I do think it is the same issue. If we allow the general public to set there own tolerance level for the broadcasters, then should we also do the same for any other subject? Personally I believe that the broadcasters are setting thier own limits, and will continue to push it.
I am only defending my ideas on this subject, I suppose others will defend thier thoughts also, as I realize some are not offended by, nor think children would be damaged by such vulgar broadcasting. I realize that I could live my life without a television or radio even in my home. I do have that choice. But I would rather be able to have a television and be able to enjoy clean programming without having to be on the lookout for filth. I suppose that is unheard of in this era.

[KC0REY]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ Jan. 27 2004,16:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;Don't confuse freedom of speech with the right to broadcast &quot;what you want&quot; to folks who don't want to experience it.&quot;

Don't confuse your right to turn it off with my right as an American to say, hear, and see what I want without government intervention. You don't have to experience it, you choose to experience it, turn it off if you don't like it. If it's the old 'what about the children' philosophy then you should probably pay more attention to what your children are doing instead of asking the government to do it for you.

&quot; However, if you believe Freedom of Speech gives you the right to shock and awe -- don't be shocked or shout awe when you're asked to contribute to the FCC's bank account. &quot;

I think you need to reread The Bill Of Rights.
&quot;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. &quot;

NO LAW means no law. The FCC does not have a right to control content; although they will more than happy to tell you otherwise. Don't get me wrong, any responsible broadcaster, or even just a person on a radio, will have some measure of sensitivity to what others may think and will practice at least a modicum of good behavior. But, it is NOT the government's place to make that decision for us.
Abridging the freedom of speech, for any reason, is simply put, un-American. I don't care what your reason is (or underlying reason), or what your personal philosphy or religion is, it is clearly stated that no law shall be made abridging this right. I am sure someone will post here that it is invading their rights, but no one is forcing you to listen, watch, veiw, etc. any particular program. Stop asking the government to set the limits for you, or your children, and do it for yourself by not supporting programming you may find objectionable. You and you alone retain that right and ANY part of the government should've never (according to The Bill Of Rights) been given the right to tell us otherwise. NO LAW SHALL BE MADE, it doesn't get any clearer than that.

&quot;It also confirms the agreement we signed when our call signs were issued was the right thing to do.&quot;

I don't think the majority of amateurs out there would disagree, we hold ourselves to a higher standard as we have been given a priveledge, and most of us are aware of the sensibilities of differing view points. So, while I don't advocate anyone getting on the air and spewing expletives or descriptive content, it still IS NOT the right of the government to draw that line for us. Who gets to decide that line? Who gets to decide where that line ends and begins? This is why our forefathers made it clear that NO LAW shall be made, the decision lies with us and how we wish to be perceived, not the government.

Let the free speech debate troll, I mean roll on.
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
That is allot of typing just to justify bad behavior.

[ac3p]

The problem with &quot;if you don't like it, turn it off or change the channel&quot; is that usually you can't predict that something offensive is about to be broadcast. So you are offended and the damage is already done. #

And the adage &quot;It's the parents' responsibility&quot; is only true up to a point. It's impossible to keep track of one's children 2040 minute/365 a year. #We as a society should have some standards that we can count on for the common good. When's the last time we heard that phrase.

Anyway if the two quotes above are to be in play, then the only thing we as adults can do is to destroy our televisions, radios,and PCs and to keep the kids in cages 2040/365.

Somewhere it was said that the First Amendment does not give one the right to yell fire in a crowded theater. The first Congress that drafted the Bill of Rights understood it to mean political speech not vulgarity.

IMHO.

73

Frank

[ai4ep]

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif well, you could always say &quot; would you talk that way with your MOMMA standing beside you &quot; ? * most folks whose MOMMA s would be standing beside them when they talk like that either cant read this post or never are here to READ it any way !! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif * . I let the language reflect the education and character of an individual. If one speaks from the gutter, then that is where they should lay their head to sleep. There are too many words in a dictionary / english ( or any other language ) language that can say ANYTHING in a nice polite way to have to use all those nasty words......back to my radio, and my &quot; anti vulgar cw communications &quot;...kd4amg

[n0ov]

Yep -- thinking back on a past time, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (founded on constitutional principles and US law) had a little thing called &quot;provocative speech or jesters&quot; that could be grounds for an arrest (apprehension).

Of course that was before you could say anything to anyone, as long as you said I'm sorry or quantified it at the end.

Wonder how this would fit into todays culture.

Example
Your an %$&amp;^#@!.
..................but I mean this in the kindest way.

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif X-Police. Have no gun, in it for fun!

[KG6OPR]

I don't think Clear Channel has enough money yet to buy off &quot;The Bill Of Rights&quot; until Rupert Murdock get his ways with his Fox Radio Network and Cheap Channel.

# # # # # # # # # #KG6OPR, former Cheap Channel Engineer
http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif

[KB9YCO]

“The first amendment has exceptions that have been clear since its inception. They are: 1. clear and present danger
2. Libel 3. obscenity. Since these are very vague terms the courst have defined the one in question, obscenity, as &quot;Something patently offensive to the majority of individuals in that local area.&quot; This basically means that if they put you to task on it then you depend on the twelve jurors to define obscenity. Ideally these are people with similar tastes and values to yourself; however, in practice this does deviate somewhat.
You mention clouding the issue with an example that another person used then I will give you one on the same section of the bill of rights. You do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater because it is a clear and present danger to the health and welfare of individuals in that theater.” KD5SDI

I’d like you to tell me where in The Bill Of Rights these ‘exceptions’ are because I don’t see them. What politicians, judges, and lawyers later added to justify their own morals, often in complete opposition of The Bill Of Rights, means nothing to me and should mean nothing to any true American that values the reasoning behind The Bill Of Rights as our fundamental freedoms. I don’t see The Bill Of Rights as being interpreted any other way; it says NO LAW SHALL BE MADE and it means just that, NO LAW; there is no provision for what a minority, or even a majority, find offensive, it says NO LAW. Politicians, or anyone for that matter, can try to rationalize away it’s meaning through good intentions, but anyone that values this great country and it’s core values should be disgusted by the constant erosion of our rights. Yelling fire is not the same as talking on radio, TV, etc. since there is only damage to the listener/viewer if they allow themselves to be damaged; causing a public panic is completely different.

“That is allot of typing just to justify bad behavior.” KC0REY

It is a lot of typing to justify the core values that this country was founded on. I never claimed these are the words I use in public, since I am sensitive to people of differing values, but I will defend anyone’s right to say what they want without being stifled by government interjection. Think what you want about me, I am only defending our rights as Americans in a time when it seems to be acceptable to trample The Bill Of Rights in the name of good intentions.

“And the adage &quot;It's the parents' responsibility&quot; is only true up to a point. It's impossible to keep track of one's children 2040 minute/365 a year. We as a society should have some standards that we can count on for the common good.” AC3P

These days we have more ways to control content on our own than ever before; parental controls on televisions, on computers, etc. Besides, children raised with any amount of common sense, instilled by their parents, will see ‘patently offensive’ material for what it is and not what they think they it should be and ignore it. If you have to watch your children 24/7 you may have more problems than what they hear on the radio. A word, a description, or an act cannot turn a normal, well-adjusted child into a raving lunatic, that concept is absurd and simply not realistic.

“I let the language reflect the education and character of an individual. If one speaks from the gutter, then that is where they should lay their head to sleep. There are too many words in a dictionary / english ( or any other language ) language that can say ANYTHING in a nice polite way to have to use all those nasty words” KD4AMG

While I tend to agree with this comment it doesn’t negate the right of someone else to say what he or she wants to say without government hindrance. It is not our place, or the government’s, to determine where that line is drawn. There does seem to be a contingent of people out there that use an expletive because they aren’t smart enough to think of something else, but I even defend their right to it regardless of how ignorant it may seem to me. Again, it’s not my place to make that determination for them. People that act inappropriately to what is considered contemporary to societal standards will persecute themselves anyhow, there is no need for a law to determine that for us. And as The Bill Of Rights clearly states without provision, there should never be a law determining that line.

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ Jan. 27 2004,13:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">“The first amendment has exceptions that have been clear since its inception. They are: 1. clear and present danger
2. Libel 3. obscenity. Since these are very vague terms the courst have defined the one in question, obscenity, as &quot;Something patently offensive to the majority of individuals in that local area.&quot;[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
This is where I agree with you. #

The good folks who wrote the first amendment recognize that change will occur and had the wisdom to establish constraints in such a manner that would grow with the times.

One thing no one ever expected is the impact of mass media and effectiveness of public and private communications systems.

It modern times, the same basic rules can be applied with a little common sense. #

It takes two folks to communicate -- the sender and receiver. #

Senders must consider the audience and adjust to ensure effective communications. #Folks that grew up on the knotch in the bible belt have a different perspective on what may or may not be obscene than those folks who live in major urban areas. #When talking with folks overseas, some words &quot;like bloody&quot; may have different meanings than where you happen to be standing, or transmitting. #Receivers have the responsibility to consider the source, request clarification when needed, and act appropriately. A little consideration can go a long way and reduce the potential for unnecessary or inappropriate laws or regulation.

If you consider the audience, how they may receive the message, and adjust the delivery accordingly communications can be much more effective (and much less offensive)

However, if the purpose of your communication is to shock, take someone out of contect, or cause harm -- the basic &quot;general&quot; guidance of the first amendment applies.

Cause and effect relationships. #If the words or statement is intended to cause harm, the effect may be restrictions, fines, or law suits.

All comes back to intent.

--------------------------------------

I guess this is what makes broadcast restrictions such a potent issue -- the receiver has no way to provide this feedback. Thus, the FCC has identified restrictions on what is and is not appropriate in broadcast scenarios -- as a condition of the licensing process.

These rules are not intended to restrict free speech, just to protect the rights of the receiver.

73

(Whoa - that's long winded............even for me!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (N0WVA @ Jan. 27 2004,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Yes, certainly I do think it is the same issue. If we allow the general public to set there own tolerance level for the broadcasters, then should we also do the same for any other subject? Personally I believe that the broadcasters are setting thier own limits, and will continue to push it.
#[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wow -- that opened up a different way to look at things.

I agree there will always folks that will push the limits. #This is not necessarily a good thing.

Consider this. #If the FCC has no legal right to put reasonable constraints on broadcasters, how will this impact communities within reception range?

Who is defining what is acceptable or not -- local communities or the broadcasters who have access to everyone without accountability?

Does this give the broadcasters the right to redefine community standards?

#http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/confused.gif
----------------------------------------------------
The pendulum swings both ways -- answers on the extreme edges are usually not good for all. #Need to find some place in the middle.

[w1tai]

hmmmmmmm...

Depends on what you feel is offensive. I hear more offensive language on HF then I do on TV. So much for holding to the majorities higher standards.

[w5klb]

I guess my definintion of &quot;freedom&quot; may be a little different than some. I thought that &quot;freedom&quot; meant that anyone may do anything they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others and this, in my view, includes &quot;freedom of speech&quot;. There are some things that just shouldn't be uttered in front of mixed company. I wouldn't talk to a stranger using vulgar words. This includes Amateur Radio. Besides, it shows poor use of the English language. I'm not saying that someone couldn't use it in interpersonal commnication among friends. If someone feels that it won't offend their friends, then, by all means, go ahead. But if they use it in front of strangers, on radio, or on TV, then they may be violating the rights others and more particularly children who might be listening or watching. The US Constitution covers the rights of these individuals too. In short, I think that the FCC is right to cite ANYONE who uses vulgarity over the airwaves.

[KB9YCO]

&quot;I thought that &quot;freedom&quot; meant that anyone may do anything they want as long as it doesn't infringe upon the rights of others...&quot;
if they use it in front of strangers, on radio, or on TV, then they may be violating the rights others and more particularly children who might be listening or watching.&quot;

What right would that be infringing on? What rights are they violating by so called 'objectionable' talk or display? Who determines where that right begins and ends and what is acceptable and not acceptable? Who gets to write up that list? That is exactly the problem and the reason for NO LAW SHALL BE MADE part of The Bill Of Rights. Our forefathers understood that the potential for government abuse begins with differing viewpoints determining where others should draw the line. In their vision of a truly free society it was understood that sometimes freedom of speech includes allowing 'politically incorrect' or objectionable material that others may find offensive. You have to accept the good with the bad in order to maintain consistency with The Bill Of Rights and our core American values. I see no provision in The Bill Of Rights saying that it's alright to stifle someone's freedom of speech to protect sensitive individuals, in the majority or not. It just isn't there, and just because someone later came along and made laws contrary to The Bill Of Rights doesn't mean we should think it is acceptable to continue to do so. If anything we should go back and revisit any laws that do directly contradict The Bill Of Rights and get rid of them. America isn't America if we continue to erode our basic freedoms under the guise of safety, security, good intentions, &quot;morality&quot; (as determined differently by different people), or any other reason. Modern law is based on precedence in the law; the more we set these precedents and ignore the fundamentals as out lined in The Bill Of Rights, the less free we become.
Again, I have to say that I don't personally use words (especially in amateur radio) that I think others may find offensive because I am sensitive to differing viewpoints. But, I also know that IT IS NOT the job of the government to make a list of what they think is acceptable or not, we make that decision for ourselves in a truly free society.

KB9YCO asks, in reference to the broadcast of language and such over TV/RADIO - #&quot;What right would that be infringing on? What rights are they violating by so called 'objectionable' talk or display?&quot;

K3FT responds - YOU would be violating MY right to an environment UNFETTERED and UNENCUMBERED by language and visual images that I, in my own determination (call it 'community of one' standards) have judged to be 'offensive and without redeeming social value.

**I might also add that WE, the PEOPLE, elect the Government to make and enforce those laws as our elected representatives. So the PEOPLE DO as you noted but we do it THROUGH our elected Governmental represetatives**

THEREFORE - it is, patently, illegal - according to my definition and also fits with YOUR statement as well. #So you are INFRINGING on my right to quiet, peaceable, non-offended living by your speech or visuals. So, again.. according to YOUR question.. YOU are violating MY rights and YOU must cease and desist.

The broadcast medium is a ONE WAY medium.. they send but they don't receive and they have VERY little control over the audience that they will be impacting.

The broadcasters hold a license to USE those frequencies to SERVE the PUBLIC INTEREST, CONVIENENCE, and NEED (PICON).

By virtue of having been GRANTED the priveledge to USE the resource in a MONOPOLISTIC fashion (how many local stations can you get on TV channel 2 in YOUR town? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif # they have agreed to abide by certain rules of the road.

The Founding Fathers were SMART cookies! They wrote a set of rules that are both decidely specific AND decidely vague. Why? To allow room for changes within the strict boundaries and times changed.

The Supreme Court has ruled that you 'can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre' as an example of prohibited or regulated speech. Why? Becuase it needed defining becuase some schmuck decided to 'push the envelope' and test the waters.

As a prior post noted 'CAUSE AND EFFECT' are TWO parts of the eqution that are MOST often (by design and purposeful intent) IGNORED by those who would push for unfettered or unrestricted/unregulated activites on the public airwaves.

As one man said years ago.

&quot;Your rights END at my nose!'

If you are NOT willing to acknwledge that 'checks and balances' are required to maintain an orderly, prosperous, and growing society.. then you are one stop away from anarchy.

For if YOU find what I do offensive and make me stop.. then I have the right to force you to stop whatever I find offensive. Trust me.. that results in anarchy.

Legitimate restrictions on actions and words put forth in the public venue are both reasonable and proper. (The 'fighting words' doctrine comes to mind)

If you remove those.. - which is what KB9YCO is promoting - bottom line - then you remove any and all restrictions on limitations of speech and action.

K3FT

[KB9YCO]

&quot;&quot;What right would that be infringing on? What rights are they violating by so called 'objectionable' talk or display?&quot; KB9YCO

K3FT responds - YOU would be violating MY right to an environment UNFETTERED and UNENCUMBERED by language and visual images that I, in my own determination (call it 'community of one' standards) have judged to be 'offensive and without redeeming social value.&quot;

Therein lies the problem, one person's definition of what is 'offensive' or without 'redeeming social value' can be vastly different; thusly the reason for the obvious wording (I see nothing 'vague' about NO LAW SHALL BE MADE) of The Bill Of Rights. Through your own philosophy or religion you can justify censorship all you want to, it doesn't make it any less of a complete contradiction to The Bill Of Rights, or any less un-American.

&quot;The Founding Fathers were SMART cookies! They wrote a set of rules that are both decidely specific AND decidely vague. Why? To allow room for changes within the strict boundaries and times changed.&quot; K3FT

A ludicrous notion, there is nothing vague about &quot;Congress shall make no law...&quot;, that means no law. It's the re-interpretation, a thousand times over, and this idea that there should be room to change our fundamental rights that has ruined the signifigance of The Bill Of Rights in our legal system. How can anyone think there's room for interpretation in &quot;...shall make no law...&quot;, there's no room, or a need for room, to further subvert The Bill Of Rights.

&quot;The Supreme Court has ruled that you 'can't yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theatre' as an example of prohibited or regulated speech.&quot; K3FT

Again, this is not in any way the same as freedom of the press. There is no physical damage, there is no direct correlation between 'objectionable material' (again, defined differently by different people) and deviance in our society. There is no negative cause and effect unless the listener allows it to effect them that severely or raises a child without even a modicum of common sense that can't differentiate for themselves between something 'bad' and a positive image/message and then becomes a raving lunatic as a result; another ridiculous notion with zero proof.

&quot;For if YOU find what I do offensive and make me stop.. then I have the right to force you to stop whatever I find offensive. Trust me.. that results in anarchy.&quot; K3FT

Exactly the reason that our fundamental rights should not be abridged. You talk of anarachy yet the view you prosper is more anarchist in nature. When we take our core legal system, and it's obvious wording, and then decide it is open game for re-interpretation a thousand times over, we get much closer to anarchy. Then anyone can find a reason, philosophy, or moral to just ignore, or write away through further legislation, ANY of our guaranteed rights under this guise of good intentions. When checks and balances go beyond the obvious wording, conditions, concerns, and obvious wording of The Bill Of Rights we have bigger problems than supposed vulgarity being damaging to our society.
As far as the Janet Jackson thing, who cares?! A bigger deal is being made out of something that lasted literally two seconds and that most people didn't even notice. I think the nitwits at all the major news outlets played it over and over, about fifty times in five minutes in slow motion, making it a much bigger issue. Then Michael Powell jumps on the bandwagon and makes it even worse. The more we have this backwards attitude in our society the more the real damage is done.
Look at the statistics from countries like Holland where there is little or no censorship, incidences of sexual deviance, rape, molestation, etc. are much lower than they are here. What does this say about our further suppression of nudity, profanity or supposedly objectionable material. When you create a society of repression and suppression you create a major backlash effect that only gives this supposed 'bad' material more power then it deserves.

[n0ov]

Bret

I lived in Belgium and the Netherlands for a few years.

Seen some soap commercials that didn't say a word and left you with a strong desire to buy some some and give it a try http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

These issues are linked -- entertainers pushing the envelop to see what they can get away with.

Their freedom to get some &quot;free publicity&quot; impacted a lot of folks who were not expecting this type of behavior.

Those folks, who live in communities where this standard of behavior is not considered acceptable, had THEIR rights violated by the content of this broadcast.

Linking it back to Amateur radio -- both Amateurs and broadcasters have been licensed to use this spectrum. When we accepted these licenses we also agreed to the limits placed on us.

The broadcasters are legally obligated to monitor their content and are being held accountable for their actions.

Freedom does not mean what is good for me and the heck with everyone else!

[KB9YCO]

&quot;I lived in Belgium and the Netherlands for a few years...Seen some soap commercials that didn't say a word and left you with a strong desire to buy some some and give it a try.&quot; KC0LNU

I have also spent sometime in the Netherlands and I have seen the statistics as compared to ours. If all these things are so horrible to the psychology of children then why isn't the Netherlands full of rapists, molesters, drug abusers and other deviants as a result of seeing something as awful as the human body? Because, for the most part, they have been raised in an environment of understanding and instilled with some measure of common sense; enough to realize there is nothing inherently horrible about the human body or people of differing value systems and philosophies saying something we don't happen to agree with. What does that say about our current suppression and the effect that it has? Children raised to think something as minor as a breast is dirty will grow up to be parents with the same backwards ideas.
That is what our forefathers fought for, the right to say it, see it, do it regardless of how unpopular. I am referring only to freedom of speech and the idea of NOT abridging the press, regardless of licensing issues. Licensing, and the FCC, was put into place for structure only, not content. We need to have some measure of organization to the spectrum and that is their job. Yelling fire and potentially causing a stampede or other physical harm is not the same as something seen on TV or heard on the radio. Performers should not have to 'push the envelope' to stir controversy; although I agree with the inappropriateness and bad timing of the event it still does not give the government the right to control content or tell us what is permissible in a public forum.

&quot;Those folks, who live in communities where this standard of behavior is not considered acceptable, had THEIR rights violated by the content of this broadcast.&quot;

What rights of theirs were violated, the right to not be offended? The right to not see something they didn't plan on seeing? I say again, I agree that it was inappropriate and more than likely a publicity stunt (they're all denying that now) but it still does not give the right to ANY part of the government to tell us it is inappropriate for us; it's simply not their job, nor is it legal according to The Bill Of Rights. We make that decision ourselves by not again supporting something we may find objectionable. I understand that it was surprising to many and therefore they didn't necessarily have the choice to tune out, (I didn't see any major increase in raving maniacal children as a result of this) but that is the price of living in a truly free society. Sometimes things may not be the way you want them to be, but this attitude of no tolerance of something you may not like and a black and white definition of 'socially redeeming' or 'contemporary standards' is ridiculous. The government has no right to draw that line and determine what is acceptable for us, or for public broadcasters; that is our job.

“Linking it back to Amateur radio -- both Amateurs and broadcasters have been licensed to use this spectrum. #When we accepted these licenses we also agreed to the limits placed on us.”

The original point of that licensing was for structure, not to tell us what content we are allowed to provide. I agree that we as amateurs agreed to a certain code of conduct, and I don’t think it’s the same when it comes to public broadcasters and their right to the unhindered flow of information or art, regardless of unpopularity. That is freedom of the press; government involvement in curtailing that flow, for any reason, is purely un-American and unacceptable.
I know the FCC has drawn some parallels between amateurs and broadcasters, but can you honestly tell me that it’s the same? Amateur society is a rather specific audience and is done by amateur people (not professionals) not having the same legal issues, concerns and judgments. It is done with a hobby and service concept in mind and obviously we need to maintain some measure of conduct when it comes to what we say or do. Again, this is done by us and not by government legislation, even though those government restrictions may be there. We choose to do it for ourselves because we can appreciate differing viewpoints and sensitivities and not because we are told that we have to. At least that’s the way it should be. Amateurs that don’t conduct themselves properly are quickly persecuted and more than likely it is rightfully so. Besides, most amateurs hold themselves to a higher standard just because of the nature of the service. Why do you think we are a mostly self-policed service anyway? Most complaints come from other amateurs and not from an ‘always listening’ radio Big Brother guiding us along the path of righteousness. You can’t compare a licensed service with a purpose, by amateurs (not professionals), to the free flow of the press; it just isn’t the same issue. While I would say ideologically that we retain the same right to free speech I see a differentiation between a service designed for a specific purpose and freedom of the press without government hindrance.

[n0ov]

Eyes are getting tired -- shorter replys will work.

Major difference -- Netherland has a different culture, different standard. #Jacksons display would be no big thing over there.

Folks in the US are different.

Here's a thought for you -- a weakness is a strenght over done.

[kc0ebm]

Ever notice how those who are the most visceral proponents of the unfettered use of Profanity, Indecency, Vulgarity, and Obscenity over the public airways are always self proclaimed Constitutional Scholars? #

They pound the Constitution to pulp to justify the most infantile abuses of their right to free speech, no matter who is offended. #

And the rest of us can get on our knees and literally beg them for just a little freedom from their Constitutionally protected verbal and image atrocities over the public airways, and the minute we do, out comes the Constitutional Scolars again with their pulverized copy of the Constitution and we are given yet another worn out dissertation justifying the most infantile filth.

I wish I had the resources to finance a study to determine just how many of these Free Speech Fanatic Extreemists would turn right around and use that same Constitution and literally pound it to pulp again to justify the argument that they have a Constitutional Right to be FREE FROM RELIGION, MORALITY, DECENCY, AND GOOD OLE COMMON SENSE!

They insist on their right to be free FROM decency and morality, and they angrily reject any sensible and responsible limitation to the exercize of their Constitutionally protected freedom of speech rights. #But just imagine the war that would ensue if we suggested to them to change the channel if they don't like what they see and hear!

Your filth has even turned amateur radio into the Jerry Springer show. #We have to lock our kids out of our ham shacks because of YOU!

NOW....Here is a dose of reality! #You fanatics of freedom to be filty have had it your way! #But you've gone too far, as predicted, and now you've brought upon yourselves some well deserved momentum in the opposite direction. #You've abused your freedom of speech rights, and in doing so, you've also abused OUR rights in the process! #

You've offended our children, having no consideration for their youth and innocence. #You have fought tirelessly to lower our community standards. #

Your filth is everywhere! #Its on our televisions. #Its in our theaters, school textbooks, magazines, and newspapers. #Your filth dominates our news. #

Its on our computers. #It dominates the WWW. #Its in our e-mail and we have to spend money on software programs to keep it OUT! #

Imagine! #I have to spend MY money to keep YOU out of my home and my life! #

You and your filth have infiltrated every aspect of our lives. #You have been an uninvited guest in our homes far too long! #And you show your filth at the most unexpected times making it nearly impossible to protect ourselves and our children from your limitless hunger for abusing YOUR freedom while deminishing OUR freedom!

You know what you can do with that pulp you incessantly pound every time somebody begs for a little freedom from you and your filth?

You can shove it right where the sun don't shine!

KCØEBM

[n0ov]

Think these are the same folks who are outraged when a judge puts a copy of the 10 commandments on government property. (The same basic standards that have been used to govern right and wrong for 1000's of years)

Here's a thought -- many of the protections put in place were intended to protect us from governments who want to dictate what churchs we MUST go to and protect us from going to prison for telling our elected officials they are wrong.

These protections were NOT put in place to eliminate religion or justifies someones right to be obscene, hostile, or cause harm.

Don't believe me? Threaten the President and see how quickly you get a visit from the Secret Service! Same goes with fines levied by the FCC for obscene language over the open &quot;public&quot; airwaves.

I'm not a prude, nor do I want to give up any of our freedoms. #

However, the quickest way to lose our freedoms are to abuse them! (Let's not go there! Lets stop and apply some commen sense before it get to this.)

Wake up America!

[kc0ebm]

KCØLNU

Right ON Brother! #You said it WELL!

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The remainder of this vulgar post has been removed by the QRZ staff.

-editor[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

[KB9YCO]

“Netherland has a different culture, different standard. #Jacksons display would be no big thing over there…Folks in the US are different.” KC0LNU

So then I ask again, what does that say about the suppression this country uses and it’s effect. You know the answer yet you probably refuse to admit it to yourself, sadly. Short answer, good way to ignore issue.

“Ever notice how those who are the most visceral proponents of the unfettered use of Profanity, Indecency, Vulgarity, and Obscenity over the public airways are always self proclaimed Constitutional Scholars? … They pound the Constitution to pulp to justify the most infantile abuses of their right to free speech, no matter who is offended… “…out comes the Constitutional Scolars again with their pulverized copy of the Constitution and we are given yet another worn out dissertation justifying the most infantile filth.” KC0EBM

I don’t recall claiming to be a Constitutional scholar; unfettered use of speech regardless of content perhaps, but I never said I was a scholar. How am I pounding the Constitution to a pulp by believing in the obvious wording of The Bill Of Rights and having an understanding of why our forefathers believed these rights should not be infringed on by any government. Ever notice it’s the people, with these so-called ‘moral’ motivations that are the quickest to disregard our fundamental rights to serve their own purposes? You talk about justification while I see that your ancient argument has been the same justification to constantly erode our rights under your version of what is or isn’t moral. It doesn’t take a scholar and I see no pulverized copy of The Bill Of Rights, just the original which says ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…’ nothing vague or worn out about that; it’s even in the original version, check it out sometime. Pretty obvious wording there, nothing vague about it.

“I wish I had the resources to finance a study to determine just how many of these Free Speech Fanatic Extreemists would turn right around and use that same Constitution and literally pound it to pulp again to justify the argument that they have a Constitutional Right to be FREE FROM RELIGION, MORALITY, DECENCY, AND GOOD OLE COMMON SENSE!”

Actually we do have the right to be free from religion in this country, that’s all part of freedom of religion, the freedom to choose not to be religious. That freedom works both ways, if you are going to embrace it over all others you should be able to at least appreciate that. I don’t deny anyone their right to religion but I guess you know what my religion or philosophy is, presumptuous trash with no basis and adding nothing to the issue.
You presume that I am immoral, indecent and have no common sense and yet I am not the one letting my personal philosophy override the importance of our basic, fundamental freedoms as guaranteed by The Bill Of Rights. I am not an extremist because I believe in the importance of our core values in this country. You seem to have it backwards, take your pointless insults and say them into the mirror.

“They insist on their right to be free FROM decency and morality, and they angrily reject any sensible and responsible limitation to the exercize of their Constitutionally protected freedom of speech rights. #But just imagine the war that would ensue if we suggested to them to change the channel if they don't like what they see and hear!”

I change the channel constantly and I have no problem with it at all, not everyone is going to meet my personal standards and I would never expect them to. That is the price of a free society and something Americans that understand the basis of our system should be able to appreciate, those that don’t understand it won’t appreciate it, sadly.

“Your filth has even turned amateur radio into the Jerry Springer show. #We have to lock our kids out of our ham shacks because of YOU!”

Me personally? You know what I say or do in amateur radio? My ‘type’ maybe, or whatever you assume fits the rigid stereotype you are trying to prosper and falling way far of the mark from. Stop assuming you know anything about me just because I defend one of our most important, fundamental rights. The Bill Of Rights was not written so you could whittle it away with your idea of what is or isn’t moral.

“NOW....Here is a dose of reality! #You fanatics of freedom to be filty have had it your way! #But you've gone too far, as predicted, and now you've brought upon yourselves some well deserved momentum in the opposite direction. #You've abused your freedom of speech rights, and in doing so, you've also abused OUR rights in the process!”

Again, you assume I am filthy because I defend basic American principles and the right to freedom of speech without government intervention. #The ‘opposite direction’ you speak of is the momentum going away from our guaranteed rights as Americans to a society dictated by a select morality and designated by a select few. That is about as un-American and contrary to The Bill Of Rights as it gets and that is just sad.
I keep hearing this argument that content deemed obscene by some has violated YOUR rights. What right would that be exactly? I asked once before in thread and still have not gotten an answer, that I can find anywhere in The Bill Of Rights, that says you have the freedom to stifle someone based on your sensitivity to certain issues. You know why I can’t find it? Because it isn’t there; that’s because it is a direct contradiction to The Bill Of Rights and to the concept of a free society.

“You and your filth have infiltrated every aspect of our lives. #You have been an uninvited guest in our homes far too long! #And you show your filth at the most unexpected times making it nearly impossible to protect ourselves and our children from your limitless hunger for abusing OUR freedom.”

It obviously isn’t YOUR freedom since you seem to think there is such a thing as partial censorship. Is that like partial murder, or partial pregnancy? It’s all or nothing and you seem to be leaning toward nothing instead of freedom. There is no place for censorship in our society and the further encouragement that it is in any way acceptable to prosper one group’s view of morality through legislation is just sickening, wrong, and wholly un-American. Objectionable material is only an ‘uninvited guest’ in your house if you allow it to be; you control that content and it isn’t the right or job of the government to do it for you. Stop wasting your time going on about the disastrous effect on the children and start using that energy to raise kids with common sense that are able to wade properly through the free flow of information that is out there.
Do you mean to tell me you have children, or know children, so un-informed that a simple word or gesture that their parents don’t catch will turn them into raving maniacs? Sounds like there might be other issues there if that’s the case.

“Think these are the same folks who are outraged when a judge puts a copy of the 10 commandments on government property. (The same basic standards that have been used to govern right and wrong for 1000's of years)” KC0LNU

The same basic standards one particular group used to govern right and wrong, not all. Our forefathers fought for the right to not be persecuted because you have a different religion, or no religion at all, and intentionally left overt references to a strictly Judeo-Christian god or philosophy out. That judge was a prime example of someone willing to subvert the basis of our society to justify his own version of morality. I say good riddance to him and his little statue from taxpayer supported government property.

I refuse to indulge in your presumptions and insults, but I will say that your ‘type’ (since you love to generalize so much) is the problem, not the solution. If you want a controlled society and a safe environment for your children try a bio-dome or a lovely dictatorship where they will tell you everything you need to know, and not know. This is America and as far as I’m concerned your type of talk is un-American and extremist in nature because it fosters the idea that our society is open game for interpretation and therefore not a solid foundation on which to build a truly free society. #Farewell… you kids can argue into oblivion, and I’m sure you will, but the truth and value of The Bill Of Rights still stands regardless of the mud you sling at me or what your narrow version of what reality is or should be. I think I'll go with The Bill Of Rights, what a concept, buhbyenow.

[kb8wcn]

KB9YCO
You actually believe there is some redeeming value in sexually perverted crap broadcast to the public? You support that? Do you really believe the founding fathers would defend this? If you answered yes to any of them, GET A CLUE!

KC0LNU

Well said! KB needs to read more than his OWN self centered interpretation of the Bill of Rights. Read the book, &quot;Original Intent&quot; by David Barton. Read about what the FF's and other wise men throughout the history of this nation up to the present felt and understood the BOR to mean. Read there many letters and memoirs amongst themselves. Clear and documented FACTS about the truth of freedom and the enemies who's ill founded ways erode it.

[kc0ebm]

KB9YCO

NOWHERE in my previous post did I specifically include you. #YOU did that! #NOT me!

But you are right in your assumption that I am a Christian, and I consider His Word to be of infinitely greater authority than any other document, including OUR (yours and mine) precious Bill of Rights.

But, since you are unfamiliar, let me tell you unequivically that the God I serve NEVER forced His will, OR His moral laws upon ANYBODY! #And as a true servant of His, NEVER would I impose upon you His moral law. #Every man was born with a FREE will to do, or not to do whatever he chooses.

But what those of your ilk don't realize is that there are unavoidable consequences for the choices you make. #And those consequences are suffered by ALL (you and me). #I won't bother you with the mile long list of consequences, because you already know what they are, you just don't care. #And therein lies much of the difference between those of your ilk, and me. #You don't care!

Those of your ilk champion the cause of human freedom. #In a world of so many lawless murderous dictators who enslave people and exploit them mercilessly for their sole benefit like so many cattle until they are ready for the slaughter, your defense of freedom is an extreemely noble cause on its face. #

But if you look beneath the skin, your limitless exercise of freedom, just because it is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, isn't noble at all. #You take a good thing WAY too far! #

For the sake of freedom, your ilk creates a prison for the rest of us. #That's right! #You surrender freedom for the sake of freedom. #The insatiable hunger for unlimited freedom drives those who seek limitless freedom to say and do things that will eventually imprison all of us. #That's right....ALL of us!

We are by far the most free nation that has ever existed on the planet. #And because of freedom unrestrained, we must build drug and alcohol rehab centers, homes for unwed mothers, abortion clinics, prisons, gas chambers, half way houses, psych wards, orphanages, geriatric wards, the list is endless. #And the cost of supporting the consequences of freedom without restraint is unfathomable. #That unfathomable cost is why I may only keep 30 cents of every dollar I earn. #How about YOU? #Is that what YOU call freedom? Sounds more like slavery to me! And in case you didn't know it, you're just as enslaved as I am!!!

Everybody is so concerned about the longevity of ham radio. #But they don't stop to think that their limitless exercise of their Constitutionally protected freedom of speech is largely what drives people away from amateur radio. #They hear so much of this kind of filth all day long that they do something else with their free time to get away from it for awhile. #

In my local area here in central Iowa, the vast majority of area hams who are General class and greater don't even use HF. #Why? #Because it isn't FIT!!! #I belonged to 3 amateur radio clubs here in central Iowa. #I know whereof I speak!

Go ahead! #Pound the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to a pulp in support of limitless freedom without restraint, or responsibility, or concern for the freedom of your fellow man and watch YOUR freedom become YOUR prison.

Why? #Because there is one thing that you have not yet considered.....and that is...that our Government is OF.....BY.....and FOR the people. #And who are the people you ask? #Its the majority of people in a democracy. #So far, you and your ilk have been the majority. #But soon, if common sense and a healthy regard for the freedoms of your fellow man don't change your behavior, WE will be the majority! #And WE will change the LAW that has thus far imprisoned US while you and your ilk wallowed selfishly and unwisely in YOUR freedom!

Ever wonder why the Islamists of the world call the USA the Great Satan? #I wonder if it has anything to do with the way we willingly trample and abuse the freedom that they don't have? #Just a thought.

Tom Friess KCØEBM

Too may people.. KB9YCO included.. Tend to define 'LIBERTY' by the definition of 'LICENSE'..

Just becuase one has the LIBERTY to do something does not mean that you have free and unfettered LICENSE to do whatever it is.

Boundaries are there for a reason. IF they are ignored/flaunted/destroyed.. you will have the crap you see today.

LIberty WITHOUT boundaries is anarchy.
LIbery WITH Boundaries promotes coherency and order.

Boundaries MUST be flexible enough to accomodate the ebb and flow of the human condition YET be stable and strong enough to deal with things that extend BEYOND the reasonable nature of order and decency.

Boundaries WITHOUT Liberty is what Dictators provide.
Boundaries WITH Liberty are what we, in the USA have. (albeit they are being eroded in both directions, sadly)

The Founding Fathers WERE smart cookies. Read 'The Federalist Papers' sometimes and READ for yourself the flexibility they built into the Constitution. The background and thinking of the Founding Fathers will amaze you!

without knowledge of the WHY you can't understand the WHAT of those things they did.

An inspired group of men, indeed.

k3FT

[kc0ebm]

Wonder if the Obscenity hearings will be covered by the media or C-SPAN?

I want to hear the silent majority roar like a lion for a change.

Anybody know if these hearings will be covered, and what media outlet?

I wanna be in the Front Row!

I fired off an e-mail to Mr Powell and the Commission in protest of the recent rash of Obscenities on TV. #And you can bet your sweet hide that I put in a word or two about the deplorable lack of enforcement on amateur radio and the resulting destructive behavior caused by LIDS who have taken advantage of such neglect.

Wanna join the war?

Here are the e-mail addresses:

mpowell@fcc.gov
mcopps@fcc.gov
kjmweb@fcc.gov
jadelste@fcc.gov
kabernat@fcc.gov

Don't miss out on this fantastic opportunity to speak your mind! #Mr Powell is outraged, Congress is outraged, and you can bet your life President G.W. Bush is outraged, and last but by no means least, the vast majority of &quot;we the people&quot; are outraged!!! #The momentum is clearly OURS and we darn well need to sieze the moment!

And don't forget to throw in a good word of support for Mr Riley Hollingsworth either. #Ham radio needs a bath, and all Riley needs is some long overdue support from the amateur radio community and some money and other resources to get the job done! #We've got a pit bull on a chain at the FCC, and all we gotta do is demand that he be turned loose!

Let's ROCK!

Tom Friess KCØEBM

[AB8RU]

Ok people the Broadcasters Associations are looking at the laws and made their comments as to really comes down to big fines that they really cannot afford to pay this out of their operating expenses, let alone answer to the other board members as well having to file these documents for public inspection.

I also understand that these comments by the Public when it time to renew their license, you have the Public organizations who will monitor things under a microscope and have in record past have a whopping 1.5 Million complaints just on the Bono Case , and the FCC and Mr. Copps as well the politicians who the FCC has to review every 2 years what they were up to.

Janet Jackson made a Public Appology anyway.

the Broadcaster Assns are advising the membership just to really watch themselves the $250K fine is enought to do some literal hole burn in their pocketbook, piture yourself in their shoes, If you owned a big company of TV &amp; Radio Stations would you want to risk that much money over a fine that cannot be a return investment ?

Probably not !

[AB8RU]

By the way this business of free speech comments made by a Harvard Attorney ..

He thinks its a Big JOKE !

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/smile.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

nuff sed

[KC0OFZ]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (kc0ebm @ Feb. 07 2004,20:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wonder if the Obscenity hearings will be covered by the media or C-SPAN?

I want to hear the silent majority roar like a lion for a change.

Anybody know if these hearings will be covered, and what media outlet?

I wanna be in the Front Row!

I fired off an e-mail to Mr Powell and the Commission in protest of the recent rash of Obscenities on TV. #And you can bet your sweet hide that I put in a word or two about the deplorable lack of enforcement on amateur radio and the resulting destructive behavior caused by LIDS who have taken advantage of such neglect.

Wanna join the war?

Here are the e-mail addresses:

mpowell@fcc.gov
mcopps@fcc.gov
kjmweb@fcc.gov
jadelste@fcc.gov
kabernat@fcc.gov

Don't miss out on this fantastic opportunity to speak your mind! #Mr Powell is outraged, Congress is outraged, and you can bet your life President G.W. Bush is outraged, and last but by no means least, the vast majority of &quot;we the people&quot; are outraged!!! #The momentum is clearly OURS and we darn well need to sieze the moment!

And don't forget to throw in a good word of support for Mr Riley Hollingsworth either. #Ham radio needs a bath, and all Riley needs is some long overdue support from the amateur radio community and some money and other resources to get the job done! #We've got a pit bull on a chain at the FCC, and all we gotta do is demand that he be turned loose!

Let's ROCK!

Tom Friess KCØEBM[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Tom, I may not always see eye to ey exactly with you but I do on this one. Lets get ham radio and TV just to name two to the point a 5 year old can listen and not hear all of that dirt. If Mr. Hollingsworth is willing I think we should pat him on the back and say get 'em (building on the pit bull analogy). I fully believe the trash that is on the air now is not the fault of any testing failure but the lack of enforcement of rules and regulations.

73
KCØOFZ

[kc0ebm]

KCØOFZ

Thanks for the support. Just remember! Amateur radio is a &quot;self policing&quot; service. Enforcement is extremely limited in manpower and money and other essential resources to do it alone. That's why WE are expected to pick up the slack and do OUR part!

Riley Hollingsworth is only one PIT BULL! He is an attorney and the lions share of his valuable time is spent doing the paperwork (enforcement letters) and litigation. He doesn't have time to do all the monitoring and evidence gathering. And the OO's (Official Observers) heretofore refered to as &quot;Official Ostriches&quot; are impotent for the most part.

Why? Because they only like to send out attaboys to good hams who already know they are good hams. They don't want to send out the bad news!

Why? Because they don't have the b##ls to subject themselves to the threats and other verbal assaults that I experience on a daily basis. They lack commitment and courage and boldness to do what MUST be done. They love the status of their title, but they are afraid to stick their toe in the water!

SO.....I and others have decided to step in and do their jobs for them. We don't care about any stinking title, or notoriety. We intend to do the grass roots enforcement efforts because WE know that enforcement is vital to the health and longevity of ham radio. We willingly accept that it is OUR job in this self policing service. ITS OUR JOB to monitor, tape, and file against violators who seek to dilute and pollute the original purpose of amateur radio and deminish its usefulness and reduce it to the radio version of the Jerry Springer Show, and put our priveleges in jeopardy in the process!

We think its time to quit finding fault with Riley Hollingsworth and accept the fact that, if we really want to clean up ham radio, we need to give Riley some desperately needed support. And part of that support is performing our duties and fulfilling our legitimate role in enforcement, and quit expecting him to do everything alone.

The violators love to be regarded as the &quot;bad boys&quot;. They love notoriety. They love to be the center of attention. They love to shock and awe. They love to come in and steal the frequency in the middle of your QSO. They love to out talk you with their big amps, illegal power, and excessive power, just because they can. They love to measure their manhood by the deflection of the needle on your S-meter. They love to make a reputation for themselves. They absolutely love the notoriety.

QRZ won't allow me to do it anymore, but I believe the solution is to give them even more notoriety than they ever bargained for. QRZ doesn't have the staff or the time to monitor all the complaints from MY KIND OF NOTORIETY. But Mr Hollingsworth doesn't mind at all. Here on QRZ, I can't mention specific violations and link them directly to the names and the call signs of the violators. But Riley Hollingsworth doesn't mind. He loves to link specific violations to the names and call signs of the violators and then publish them for all the world to see.

Why? Because it works! And I intend to help him. You can too.

EBM

[AB8RU]

By the way the Broadcasters have associations that do discuss issues here is a partial list.

National Association of Broadcasters

Society of Broadcast Engineers

Michigan Broadcasters Association

National Public Broadcasting Association

inside on what one comment was paying a fine that would affect their budget, then you have the people filing or asking to see documents that has to be on file in order to get their renewal license. true about ham radio we at least self police ourselves..

but you have people who are elmers that show you how to do it right.

I would not say every broadcaster is at fault here is the list.

CBS is on the seat

NBC covered it.

ABC decided not to play the tape .

FOX well No Comment I did not see theirs...

Al Copps the FCC head Honcho made his comment.

Janet Jackson issued an appology at least everyone knows whos on the hot seat in their family facing a Job in License Plate Making for the next 20 years and no musical career except Folsum Prison Blues. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[KB9YCO]

“…let me tell you unequivically that the God I serve NEVER forced His will, OR His moral laws upon ANYBODY! #And as a true servant of His, NEVER would I impose upon you His moral law.”

Yet you will try to use the legal system, that clearly forbids government (or religious) involvement in content, to justify your version of what is or isn’t moral. Some people that have posted in this thread seem to think I support, or participate, in potentially offensive material; I don’t, but I support The Bill Of Rights and abhor people that do not see it’s constant degradation as having a seriously negative effect on our freedoms. Most people are aware of the differing values of others and sensitive to being offensive, something many broadcasters should think about with their target audience, but that still doesn’t give the government the right to control it for us.

“LIberty WITHOUT boundaries is anarchy… Boundaries WITHOUT Liberty is what Dictators provide. Boundaries WITH Liberty are what we, in the USA have. (albeit they are being eroded in both directions, sadly)” K3FT

It is not limitless, as those boundaries have been CLEARLY established in The Bill Of Rights; anarchy is allowing them to be trampled as a justification for one group’s version of what “moral” or “decent” is. Further on you admit that liberties “are being eroded in both directions, sadly”, and yet you continue to think it alright to erode them more if it fits your version of what should be done or what is “right”. That is hypocrisy in the highest degree my friend, I say what I say out of a love for our country and a belief in what The Bill Of Rights clearly says.
Did you ever read Animal Farm by George Orwell? Give it a read sometime and then perhaps you will understand what is happening time and time again, and why it should be unacceptable to allow ANY law that is in direct contradiction with our core system of laws, namely The Bill Of Rights, to be enacted. You must understand that every time a precedent is set in the law, directly in opposition of The Bill Of Rights, it opens the door to further erosion of our core rights, and justifies that precedent as a positive thing even though it may be blatantly illegal. I have to say again that there is nothing vague about NO LAW SHALL BE MADE; it means what it says for a reason.

“KB9YCO - You actually believe there is some redeeming value in sexually perverted crap broadcast to the public? You support that? Do you really believe the founding fathers would defend this? If you answered yes to any of them, GET A CLUE!” KB8WCN

I don’t recall defending “sexually perverted crap broadcast to the public”, what I defend is freedom of speech without government hindrance, or caving in to what a minority calls to complain about because of what their version of what is or isn’t acceptable is. Yes folks, it is a minority of the population that complains about something as minor as Janet Jackson’s breast for half a second. Probably most of them didn’t notice until the news people were nice enough to play it in slow motion over and over and over for hours on end. The same with the Bono comment, a well-adjusted child will not instantly start screaming F*** in public because a singer did, that is just a ridiculous notion.
The founding fathers were defending the right of free speech, for anyone, regardless of its controversial nature. So yes, I think they would realize the importance of not doing further damage to the whole reason this country was founded in the first place. Why do you think zealots like the KKK, extremists like the Black Panthers or Nation of Islam, are allowed to march, and rant, and protest, talk about the “great Satan”, or talk against what we believe? Because that is the price of a truly free society that our forefathers were smart enough to design. Even in their time many people spoke out against them, they allowed it because to do otherwise would have been blatant contradiction.

“For the sake of freedom, your ilk creates a prison for the rest of us. #That's right! #You surrender freedom for the sake of freedom. #The insatiable hunger for unlimited freedom drives those who seek limitless freedom to say and do things that will eventually imprison all of us. #That's right....ALL of us!… Go ahead! #Pound the Constitution and the Bill of Rights to a pulp in support of limitless freedom without restraint, or responsibility, or concern for the freedom of your fellow man and watch YOUR freedom become YOUR prison.” KC0EBM

My ilk eh? Hmm, that sounds like a sweeping generalization with no real basis in reality, a presumption that anyone defending free speech fits your little picture of wrong or right, good or evil. It also sounds inaccurate and stemming purely from a biased viewpoint. The insatiable hunger for power drives those who seek their version of morality to also be the word of law and anyone who thinks otherwise becomes a criminal or a non-patriot, therefore being imprisoned literally or socially. Besides, that is pure rubbish since me (or my ilk if you prefer) are defending the exact wording of The Bill Of Rights as it was written, and not as we would prefer it to be; although I prefer the original version. The “pounding” of The Bill Of Rights is being done by those that choose to contradict it, or altogether ignore it’s obvious wording and value and make it into an outdated and irrelevant document because of their version of what is moral or decent.

&quot;Amendment 1-
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.&quot;

[kc0ebm]

KB9YCO

The pendullum has begun to swing in the opposite direction. #Its gaining momentum.

DEAL!

But, if its any consolation to you, or those of the limitless freedom without concern for others persuasion, the forthcoming decisions by Congress and the FCC will place the same &quot;reasonable&quot; limitations upon me, as they do you.

K?

EBM