Getting the "F" out of Broadcasting

[n0ov]

Yes the FCC is at it again, enforcing the standards on the unsuspecting public.

Why is the government becoming involved? #Could it be that normal Americans have simply had enough of what is being dished out and called "normal?"

I'm not one for censorship. #However I am an advocate of common courtesy. #Many folks don't like hearing the "F-bomb" in private, let alone over public media. Time, place and audience makes all the difference in the world.

Consider this. #Broadcasters, just like Amateur Radio operators agreed to act responsibly in exchange for exercising the rights to broadcast (or communicate) over the airways. #Failure to do so comes with its penalties.

FCC is taking the appropriate action (although late). #In fact, their inactions over the years have created the environment implying this negative behavior is both acceptable and the norm in today society. (This inaction implies acceptance -- which will be tough to deal with legally)

Hey folks, isn't it time for the family and communities to start addressing these issues on their own so the FCC does not have to get involved?

LNU.. I second your comments. Folks like Stern and others have all the right they want to speak almost anythnig they like. They DON'T have the right to force others to listen to it.

(But I can turn the knob, you say!

Yes, I can.. BUT with the widespread proliferation of all that crud the ability to remove ONESELF from the exposure is IMPOSSIBLE. It is in print, TV, Radio, Film, and on public view.

So, unless you seek to ask us to be 'unreasonable' and lock ourselves away and eliminate our contact with other human beings, the comment 'you don't like it, change the station' doesn't wash anymore.

NOW.. those who think it's a 'witchhunt' better go back to the 1950's and look at some kind of records about the McCarthy hearings. THEN come talk about a witchhunt.. :-)

The cry and moan and gnashing of teeth by Stern and the minortiy loudmouths about the 'censorship' of their right to free speech is a red herring.

He is like all the others who cry, moan, bitch, and complain loudly 'UNFAIR! MEAN! BAD! NASTY!' etc when they find themselves FINALLY being restrained, controlled, and put in check by the adults who FINALLY woke up and realized that 'kiddies are running around being unruly, disruptive, and getting into things they shouldn't be getting into'.

These types (and their syncophantic supporters) don't get it!

They pushed the envelope. They pushed the boundaries. They pushed the limits to see 'just how far they could go'

Well, they went far enough that the ADULTS FINALLY started paying attention and said 'WHOA, KIDDIES!! THAT'S ENOUGH! TIME TO COME IN AND TAKE A TIME-OUT AND LEARN SOME MANNERS AND RESPECT!"

Kiddies don't like that! They don't like having to FINALLY obey some rules and restrictions. Like kiddies everywhere, who finally cause the adults to act, they whine

"YOU DON'T LOVE ME!" "YOU ARE MEAN!" "YOU'RE NOT PLAYING FAIR!" "YOU *NEVER* LET ME HAVE ANY FUN!"

"I'M NOT HURTING ANYONE!"

blah..blah. blah...

IF you are a parent.. you KNOW exactly what this is like. It's called a TEMPER TANTRUM. Leave Howard and his group to cry, moan, and whimper.

Eventually they will find that the adults are paying them no mind aside from watching them to make sure they don't misbehave again.

Eventually they'll cease their acts OR they'll continue and be restrained and put in the room for a nice long 'TIME OUT'.

IT'S ABOUT TIME!

GOOD!

K3FT
Free speech is one thing.. but there are reasonable limits when dealing with society.

[kc0ebm]

I wholeheartedly agree with both you guys. The "Freedom Without Accountibility" crowd have had it their way! And they have demonstrated repeatedly how far they are willing to go to Shock and Awe, both, on the broadcast bands and on the Amateur bands.

They themselves, by their own actions, have forced the pendulum to swing against them.

Now they expect to put us on the defensive by calling this a "Morality Witch Hunt", like their rights are being abused somehow, or that they are being unfairly discriminated against.

If common sense and decency and respect for the sensibilities of others had prevailed, we would not be here.

If the First Ammendment truly meant as much to these Howard Stern types as they claim, then they wouldn't have ABUSED that right. But they have, and in doing so, they have raised the Ire of the vast majority of Americans whom they have offended by word and deed for decades.

And I for one, cannot wait to enjoy the changes that the FCC is sure to bring about. And for those that are not wise enough to see the steamroller comming, despite endless warnings, then it will be extremely difficult for me to sympathize with them, or listen to their protests.

GO RILEY GO,

EBM

[KB9YCO]

"Why is the government becoming involved? Could it be that normal Americans have simply had enough of what is being dished out and called 'normal?' " KC0LNU

A minority population has elected to become more vocal and ignored the fundamentals of The Bill Of Rights by encouraging and endorsing government hindrance of the press. One person's version of normal can vary quite significantly from another's; therefore no definition is possible for the majority in a diverse population like the U.S.

"I'm not one for censorship. However I am an advocate of common courtesy." KC0LNU

The problem with that is there's no such thing as partial censorship, it's all or nothing. I agree that broadcasters should be sensitive to all potential listeners to some degree, but this does not mean that the government should be allowed to make those definitions for broadcasters or the public. The public makes that decision for themselves. According to the First Amendment that would be illegal anyhow. A little check of The Bill Of Rights for 2004.

"Broadcasters, just like Amateur Radio operators agreed to act responsibly in exchange for exercising the rights to broadcast (or communicate) over the airways. Failure to do so comes with its penalties." KC0LNU

Early broadcasters, and the original users of radio (before they were hams and licensed by the government) became regulated by the government within part of the spectrum for consistency and organization to the bands, not control over content. Any rights to regulate content by the FCC or Congress should have never been allowed as The First Amendment clearly states no law shall be passed abridging free speech or the press. TV and radio are part of the press.

"Hey folks, isn't it time for the family and communities to start addressing these issues on their own so the FCC does not have to get involved?" KC0LNU

Absolutely! It is the job of families and the community to support or ignore mass media and the press, not the government. The majority of entertainment or press available is commercially motivated, if we don't support it then that will determine its social value or if it is indeed contemporary to societal standards.

" Folks like Stern and others have all the right they want to speak almost anythnig they like. They DON'T have the right to force others to listen to it... the widespread proliferation of all that crud the ability to remove ONESELF from the exposure is IMPOSSIBLE. It is in print, TV, Radio, Film, and on public view." K3FT

No one has been forced to watch or listen to any part of the media. Last time I checked there was no Big Brother telescreen in my house that I was required to watch and not allowed to turn off. You can remove yourself from it; if you are so offended by the current level of entertainment and popular culture than perhaps you should'nt own a TV or radio at all. If you think it will cause such great harm than by all means eliminate this evil scourge from your life by choosing to ignore it and not support it. You have just as much right to access the press as you have to ignore it.

"those who think it's a 'witchhunt' better go back to the 1950's and look at some kind of records about the McCarthy hearings. THEN come talk about a witchhunt.."
K3FT

Some of the same nitwits that persecuted, and proscuted Lenny Bruce in the 50's for being a so-called "dirty comic" and a threat to society gauranteed to cause warts, insanity and deviance. All for telling jokes about religious leaders and politicians in private adult night clubs. These issues are no different, it is a game of governmental pressure and legal force against anyone supporting potentially politically incorrect or "indecent" material (defined different ways by different groups), and defined by the moral guidlines of a minority.
Make no mistake this is a minority of Americans making these complaints. A couple hundred thousand, out of many millions in this country, over the Janet Jackson incident; and Howard Stern being pulled from Clear Channel stations was a result of one person in Florida that complained about a racial slur that a caller used. That is a minority by a long shot.

"when they find themselves... put in check by the adults who FINALLY woke up and realized that 'kiddies are running around being unruly, disruptive, and getting into things they shouldn't be getting into."

Kid mentality as defined by you? By the government or a staunch extremist religious right? Who gets to draw the line of where it starts and ends. The First Amendment forbids government involvement in that decision being made for the public. This has less to do with the moral implications of the content in question and more to do with cultural warfare and political conflict. You, nor the government, have the right to decide what is indecent in a society founded on free speech and a free press. Regardless of your's, or the government's, good moral intentions there is no place for cencorship in a free press; it's irrelevant what the content's potential unpopularity is to a minority or even a majority.

"Kiddies don't like that! They don't like having to FINALLY obey some rules and restrictions." K3FT
(nice double posting in two threads of this by the way)

I don't defend all the content of the mass media at large, I just defend their right to it without government intervention. Any amount of liberal interpretation of The Bill Of Rights will never convince me that 'Congress shall make no law' means anything other than that. It is such plain and obvious wording.

"Free speech is one thing.. but there are reasonable limits when dealing with society." K3FT

Again, as defined by who? It is not the right of one group, government or otherwise, to subvert The First Amendment for their version of what is or isn't moral versus another groups version. Who get's to decide what a "reasonable limit" is? All this enforcement activity and hype is a result of a minorities complaints; does that mean the minority gets to decide for us all?

"If common sense and decency and respect for the sensibilities of others had prevailed, we would not be here...If the First Ammendment truly meant as much to these Howard Stern types as they claim, then they wouldn't have ABUSED that right. But they have, and in doing so, they have raised the Ire of the vast majority of Americans"

These complaints have not been lodged by a "vast majority" of Americans, and they never have. They are a result of a blindly morally motivated vocal minority. The broadcasters don't "abuse" their right to free speech, they excersize it as gauranteed by The First Amendment to not be infringed upon by the government. If that bothers you so much than don't participate and stop asking the government to watch your kids for you at the price of violating my rights.
What the FCC and Congress is doing is purely illegal, un-American, and wrong.

[KC2HJN]

It's a shame how some show such disregard for our constitution. Funny how they'll run right to it though when it's them being wronged.

There are WAY too many "interpretations" of our constitution. KB9YCO is correct. How about we just read it. It's pretty clear.

I get real mad when I hear some lawyer saying something like.."what I think they were trying to say", or "what I think it means".

How about this... it means what it says. Words like "congress shall make no laws" or "shall not be infringed" are pretty clear.

Most know when it was written, but many forget WHY. The founding fathers just fought a revolution against an oppressive government. They knew what would happen without those guaranteed rights because it DID happen to them.

Someone wrote somewhere that the constitution actually guarantees very little. That's not the case. It's purpose is to limit government power, not the peoples.

[n0ov]

Common guys, get a clue.

Our consitution gives the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happyness -- but not at others expense.

Our forfathers also saw the importants of establishing guidelines vs rules so this fantastic document would live through time.

Bringing this back to reality -- like the amateurs, broadcasters received their license to operate based on an agreement of certain things they can and cannot transmit over the air. #This is the issue.

When I lived in Belgium I watched soap commercials with a full nude shot of a young lady bathing her self with a bar of soap. #Not an issue -- this is normal for the culture. #This same type of commercial, although harmless, is not considered the norm in Amercian culture. #

All of us need to give others a little common consideration -- else the extremists on both sides will rip this issue to shreads.

Little common sense needs to be applied. Specifically, when your person rights & freedoms interfere with others, some rules need to be applied to get a win-win.

Reasonable people can work things out. Those on the edge who like to push things to the limits are what drives folks to regulate and restrict!

CYO -- you're too far out on the edge, may want to find some common ground here.

[KB9YCO]

"Our consitution gives the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happyness -- but not at others expense."

What expense would that be, your right to not be offended? No one is forcing sensitive listeners/viewers to participate in the mass media or popular culture. You have every right to ignore it as much as I have the right to receive it. If you are that sensitive or worried about the program in question you have the right to not listen or not own a TV or radio. Besides, there is intentionally no provision for culturally or politically unpopular speech or material within The First Amendment, it was written that way to protect all speech, not just politically correct speech.
A half second breast flash, a Belgian soap commercial, or a "dirty" word will not turn any normally adjusted person into a raving lunatic or begin any large scale decline in respect for others or morality. The longer that we prosper this attitude that American's can't handle it, the more disservice we do to ourselves. No one has ever proven a connection between "edgy" entertainment and a decline in society's intelligence level or basic human courtesy and respect, just extremist rhetoric about how "it's wrong" (in one group's opinion), or "it's evil" (another highly subjective term) and should be looked down upon as some lower form of entertainment.
Regardless of all of that, the government still does not have the right to make that determination for us, we make that decision for ourselves by what we choose to support.

"Little common sense needs to be applied. Specifically, when your person rights & freedoms interfere with others, some rules need to be applied to get a win-win."

The only right being interfered with is the right of the people to access a free press. It does not interfere with your rights in any way, you choose what you or your family watches or listens to and are not forced into participating.
I agree that extremists on both sides may warp the situation to justify their version of right or wrong, moral or obscene; the extreme religious right has been doing that for years and continues to do so.

"CYO -- you're too far out on the edge, may want to find some common ground here."

My common ground is the common bond we all share as Americans, it's called The First Amendment of The Bill Of Rights and it is the basis of our society. I find it sad that you consider me extreme for my conservative interpretation of The First Amendment, no amount of liberal interpreting can change "Congress shall make NO LAW... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." The common ground has always been here (The Bill Of Rights) and continues to be ignored and disregarded under the guise of good intentions and one group's version of morality.

[n0ov]

CYO (focus YCO) -- my eyes are tired. #What's the short version? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KC7HDE]

If you have a problem with the FCC enforcing the rules just buy any CB from any Radio store and listen to what unenforced rules sounds like.
There are certain channals that are unusable, but if the FCC came down on these people would that be against the their first amendment rights?
After all they did pay for the radio and hooked it up and put out extra money for funny channels in to the radio.
I guess it you don't like it change the channel, right.
Maybe go to another service?

'' Why"? the FCC will by then have it's hands tied and Commercial, amatuer,and family radio service will all be as bad as what you heard on the CB earlier.

Maybe we all need to vote on an amendment to the amendment to make the first amendment more direct in what it is stating.

Norm. T.

[KC2HJN]

Here's some of Thomas Jeffersons thoughts on the first ammendment. Seems like the only thing he thinks inappropriate is lying and slander.

Read the last one twice.

"Considering [the] great importance to the public liberty [of the freedom of the press], and the difficulty of submitting it to very precise rules, the laws have thought it less mischievous to give greater scope to its freedom than to the restraint of it." --Thomas Jefferson to the Spanish Commissioners, 1793. ME 9:165

"It is so difficult to draw a clear line of separation between the abuse and the wholesome use of the press, that as yet we have found it better to trust the public judgment, rather than the magistrate, with the discrimination between truth and falsehood. And hitherto the public judgment has performed that office with wonderful correctness." --Thomas Jefferson to M. Pictet, 1803. ME 10:356

"[This is] a country which is afraid to read nothing, and which may be trusted with anything, so long as its reason remains unfettered by law." --Thomas Jefferson to Joseph Milligan, 1816. ME 14:463

"[If a book were] very innocent, and one which might be confided to the reason of any man; not likely to be much read if let alone, but if persecuted, it will be generally read. Every man in the United States will think it a duty to buy a copy, in vindication of his right to buy and to read what he pleases." --Thomas Jefferson to N. G. Dufief, 1814. ME 14:128

"A declaration that the Federal Government will never restrain the presses from printing anything they please will not take away the liability of the printers for false facts printed." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"Printing presses shall be free except as to false facts published maliciously either to injure the reputation of another (whether followed by pecuniary damages or not) or to expose him to the punishment of the law." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes for a Constitution, 1794.

"Printing presses shall be subject to no other restraint than liableness to legal prosecution for false facts printed and published." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft of Virginia Constitution, 1783. ME 2:298, Papers 6:304

"Since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press confined to truth needs no other legal restraint. The public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions on a full hearing of all parties, and no other definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion." --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381

[KB9YCO]

"CYO -- my eyes are tired. What's the short version?"

Not that you care, but it is YCO, as in KB9YCO. Not sure why you join the debate, then when answered on all your points don't want to read it.
You want the short version? Well, here goes:

The FCC and Congress have no right to control content in the press. The First Amendment clearly states that, the words of Thomas Jefferson (and many others) plainly emphasize the reasons, and no amount or re-interpretation of a clear statement like 'Congress shall make no law' will change the fact that what the FCC and Congress are doing is not only illegal, it's un-American. Enjoy, hope that satisfies your short attention span a little better.

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC2HJN @ Mar. 09 2004,14:37)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">&quot;Printing presses shall be free except as to false facts published maliciously either to injure the reputation of another (whether followed by pecuniary damages or not) or to expose him to the punishment of the law.&quot; --Thomas Jefferson: Notes for a Constitution, 1794.

&quot;Printing presses shall be subject to no other restraint than liableness to legal prosecution for false facts printed and published.&quot; --Thomas Jefferson: Draft of Virginia Constitution, 1783. ME 2:298, Papers 6:304

&quot;Since truth and reason have maintained their ground against false opinions in league with false facts, the press confined to truth needs no other legal restraint. The public judgment will correct false reasonings and opinions on a full hearing of all parties, and no other definite line can be drawn between the inestimable liberty of the press and its demoralizing licentiousness. If there be still improprieties which this rule would not restrain, its supplement must be sought in the censorship of public opinion.&quot; --Thomas Jefferson: 2nd Inaugural Address, 1805. ME 3:381[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Wise words.

Would have been very interested in how he would have approached broadcast media capabilities that exist today.

I guess the penetration potential of today's mass media is what makes this such an issue. #I have not read any post (on numerous postings) that suggest the FCC should censor materials. #However, there are great concerns over how this material is being made available.

In the old days, if someone wanted to read a book that was &quot;controversial or X rated&quot; that was their call -- folks doing the reading had the common sense to remove this material from view from others that could be offended. #They exercised their rights and acted responsibily.

Today, the same situation exists. #Lots of materials exist that are both controversial and offensive to large segments of our population. #This would not be an issue if those who enjoyed reading, watching or listening gave others the same common courtesy as those in the past. #This is not the case.

To maintain the argument that Freedom of Speech gives folks the right to broadcast material over &quot;open airways&quot; (Not cable or sat where access can be restricted) in complete disregard for those who could be offended is inconsiderate and wrong.

Comes back to the bottom line -- a little consideration can go a long way. #Don't assume your freedom gives you the right to FORCE your language, morale or sexual preferences on others. #

A fine line...............one that assumes cultural values and common consideration will drive actions.

Want to see what happens when values and common consideration get disregarded? Take a look at IRAC. (Good example of how both extremes can be misused)

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KC0LNU @ Mar. 09 2004,10:50)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">CYO (focus YCO) -- my eyes are tired. #What's the short version? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Long responses to sensitive issues are like a bad car wreck -- don't want to look but can't help it.

Hey -- how about doing the response in CW. Perhaps that would keep things a little shorter.

(Ha .... who say's you can't include CW in all conversations!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

[KB9YCO]

Again Dan, no one is forcing you to watch, listen or read anything. The airways are only open if you choose to receive them. If you find it all so highly offensive and morally corruptive then don't participate in it. You make that choice for yourself, the same as the general population, and it isn't the government's job to decide what is appropriate or not in a free press, it's your choice.

[n0ov]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KB9YCO @ Mar. 09 2004,15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Again Dan, no one is forcing you to watch, listen or read anything. The airways are only open if you choose to receive them. If you find it all so highly offensive and morally corruptive then don't participate in it. You make that choice for yourself, the same as the general population, and it isn't the government's job to decide what is appropriate or not in a free press, it's your choice.[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
YCO

Why do you feel the constitution gives you the right to negatively impact the freedom I also wish to enjoy? (Honest question, not intended to be a personal attack)

From an Amateur Radio perspective, would you also defend the right to use demonstrate this behavior and language over the airwaves allocated for amateur use?
-- if not, why?

[KB9YCO]

-.-. . -. ... --- .-. ... .... .. .--. / .. ... / ..- -. -....- .- -- . .-. .. -.-. .- -. .-.-.- / -.-. --- -. --. .-. . ... ... / ... .... .- .-.. .-.. / -- .- -.- . / -. --- / .- -... .-. .. -.. --. .. -. --. / - .... . / ..-. .-. . . -.. --- -- / --- ..-. / ... .--. . . -.-. .... --..-- / --- .-. / --- ..-. / - .... . / .--. .-. . ... ... .-.-.-

Edited for your viewing pleasure. CW is not dead, it's just taking a really long nap.

[n0ov]

Bravo http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif Now that's keeping with the Amateur Radio spirit.

Wonder how many who don't know CW will look this up just to see what you said!

Well Done!!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KB9YCO]

I haven't taken any of what you've said as a personal attack. What better way to celebrate that this is the greastest country in the world by noting the fact that we are allowed to even have this discussion at all. (And of course many thanks go to QRZ and it's moderators for tolerating me at all.) http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif (And thanks for running such an excellent and useful site for so much information in amateur radio and beyond. Keep up the good work!http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/wink.gif

What right am I infringing on? Your right to not be offended is not gauranteed in The Bill Of Rights. You have the right to not indulge in mass media and popular culture, no one is forcing you to participate in it. If people are so easily offended or manipulated by television and radio then perhaps they have much more important problems to consider than whether Howard Stern wants to spank a stripper with a dead fish, or Janet Jackson shows her breast for half a second. This also is not a personal attack, just a statement.
America grants you the right to ignore, and not be forced, into seeing or hearing something you dislike. Taking that right away from everyone else for your own (or the current administration's) moral reasons seems not only selfish and narrow minded, but against everything this country stands for.

[n0ov]

Why?

That's all well &amp; fine except censorship is spelled censorship,,,,,,,, not cencorship.......

[KB9YCO]

What can I say, CW isn't exactly my strong suit. It's all nice and edited and even spelled correctly now.

[KC2HJN]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Wise words.

Would have been very interested in how he would have approached broadcast media capabilities that exist today.
[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>

Yes they were. And as you infer, modern media's exposure is part of the problem.

I think where we differ in opinion is not so much as what is appropriate or not, but who should decide for us if it is. I don't, nor do I believe YCO, want a free for all. The problem lies (IMO) in that there are already plenty of rules and laws governing the media. If they would just enforce a few simple laws that are already on the books instead of encroaching more and more based on the complaints of loud minority, few would be complaining.

This kind of stuff is on the air because people want it. You can choose to watch it or not. If you prefer, you can switch to the discovery channel, or national geographic, or PBS. They all have educational, good for the kids type programs. There are kids networks, classic movie networks, news, and informational networks. Even the sometimes racy channels also have 'normal' shows on.

What if tomorrow the gov't decided to stop allowing something you enjoy because someone ELSE got offended? Would you still feel the same?

Remember the whole pledge of allegience &quot;one nation under god&quot; thing. The christians were very upset that someone dared try to take away their freedom , even though someone who wasn't christian might have been offended to have to say it. Now they do just the opposite. By trying to silence things that they feel are offensive while fighting someone else who did the same thing, they are exposed. You can't have it both ways. You can't expect to be able to express yourself freely while denying that same right to another.

[KB9YCO]

The even funnier thing is the &quot;UNDER GOD&quot; portion of the Pledge of Allegiance was added in 1954 by pressure in Congress from the Knights of Columbus. It was never intended to be there in the first place.

[KG4CGC]

Knights of Columbus? I thought it was McCarthy(sic) You know, in the fight against the Godless communists.

[kc0ebm]

YCO,

You constantly suggest, that if I don't like what I see and hear on radio and TV, that I should exercize my freedom to sell my radio and my TV.

In other words, YOU should have more right and access to the public airways than I should because YOU are not offended by the filth, filth which you claim is fully protected by the Bill of Rights.

In other words, YOU don't believe in full and equal access by all. Since the BOR guarantees protection of filth, then decency has no protection, and therefore, it should voluntarilly YIELD to filth.

I just love the logic here.

YCO, lets try the shoe on the other foot. Lets imagine that we don't live in a depraved society. Lets imagine that it is YOU in the minority looking for a little access. You tune the TV and all you find from one end of the BC band to the other is Jimmy Swaggart wanabes. You look high and low in every time slot, and all you find are Jesus freaks. You only want a little access, a few channels where you can watch people have illicit sex and laugh at dirty jokes. But sex doesn't sell in this society. The sponsors who wish to market their wares won't support porn shows. Their customers only like Jesus programming. And the Jesus freaks all tell you, &quot;YCO, if you don't like what's on TV and radio, you are free to sell your TV and radio and read porn magazines, that is IF you can find any&quot;.

The logic just doesn't seem to click just right....does it?
Why should the Jesus freaks have all the access and then drive all the porn freaks off the air?

YCO, just be lucky I'm not that extreme. Because if I were, I might use your own logic against you.

But I've got a better idea, why don't we all subscribe to the common sense notion that there is a time and a place for everything. Full and equal access for all.

YCO, I'll bet you can't name me one individual that won't get on HF because of all the do gooders and rules and frequency cops. I'll bet you can't name me ONE!

But I can name you at least a dozen of my own personal friends that won't get on HF anymore because of the lawlessness.

I think its high damn time to level the field and give equal access to the public airways.

And I'll tell you something else! There is a time and a place for everything, YCO. But amateur radio is neither the time nor place for filth.

OUT

EBM

[KG4CGC]

Mr. Friess,
Sir, with all due respect. I for one would like to know. Why do you choose to always make your points in the form of what appears to be a flame?
Thank You,
Charles Chackal

[kc0ebm]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (KG4CGC @ Mar. 11 2004,00:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Mr. Friess,
# # # # # # #Sir, with all due respect. I for one would like to know. Why do you choose to always make your points in the form of what appears to be a flame?
# # # # #Thank You,
# # # # # # # # # # # # Charles Chackal[/QUOTE]<span id='postcolor'>
Its not my intent to flame. Its just that, when this issue is broached on QRZ, those on the other side of this issue seem so insensitive to the rest of us.

YCO makes some good points. I don't wish to tear down the BOR, because it protects my rights too.

But to continually use the BOR as blanket protection for limitless filth and more and more violations of the rights of others, and doing it even in the face of common sense is rediculous.

Honestly, its not my intent to flame. This is what I hate about communicating via the printed media. I can't express myself with voice inflection, or facial expression or body language to enhance meaning or express intent. Consequently, often times my tenor seems harsh to people. I don't mean to disrespect people, but I do think its time to offer a little respect to those of us on this side of the debate.

Also, I have been a &quot;Target&quot; for those on the other side of this debate because of my stand against inappropriate language and behavior on ham radio. They also despise me for calling on amateurs to take seriously their appropriate role in rules enforcement. Those that oppose my message are anything but respectful of me. They are in my face.

For decades, the free speech movement has prevailed at the cost of those of us who are more conservative. I just think its time for our side to be considered respectfully for a change. But I don't sense a respectful attitude coming from the other side.

All I want is a little respect and consideration for those of us on this side of the fence. But its hard not to retalliate in kind when that respect never comes.

All I want is for a little common sense to prevail. Deep down inside, even the most liberal minds on the other side have to agree that recent events in the media, and even recent events on ham radio have crossed the reasonable line of decency. That being the case, why is there so much resistence to some long overdue objection?

Another reason I'm mistaken for a hot head is because, many times, I use words similar to those that Mr Hollingsworth uses. When the man wants to be fully understood, he doesn't mince words. And when it comes to rules violations on ham radio, I don't mince words either. In my view, its not a matter to mince words over. And those who are resistent to those rather harsh words better take heed. The MAN is coming! And I intend to do all I can to help him. And I'm not alone. Its not a matter to take lightly. Bitter regret awaits those who continue to violate the rules of ham radio. This is no time to waste words.

I'm sorry if my passions are mistaken for hostility. Please forgive.

Tom

[KB9YCO]

KC0EBM, you are clouding the issue here; the issue is whether the government, or a minority of people that complain have the right to determine what their version of moral or decent is for everyone else.

&quot;In other words, YOU should have more right and access to the public airways than I should because YOU are not offended by the filth, filth which you claim is fully protected by the Bill of Rights.&quot; KC0EBM

Free access to the press has nothing to do with what you or I consider to be appropriate. You have the right to be offended and not support something you may find objectionable, but you don't have the right to take away other people's access to it just because it doesn't fit your version of decent . No one is forcing you to watch or listen.
The FCC's recent actions are a result of a half a second breast flash that most people didn't catch (and only about 200,000 people in a country of many millions complained about) and a caller on Howard Stern's show that satirically used a racial slur and a sex joke.(Howard's potential fines are a result of ONE person, that chose to listen, in Florida.) No graphic pornography, no overtly descriptive sexual talk, no indiscriminate swearing or dialogue intended to stimulate prurient interest or endanger the public.
You're right, there is a time and place for everything, but that fact does not give the government or a vocal minority, a right to restrict access to a free press.
You mention that there is no place for filth in amateur radio and I agree. Operators that practice that kind of conduct only isolate and persecute themselves. Also, they are missing the cooperative spirit of amateur radio by not being sensistive to others of differing values and thusly causing division within the service.
I'm not sure what recent events in amateur radio you refer to but the issues in the press are rather minor. No child will be turned into a raving lunatic rapist as a result of a half a second breast flash or a sexual or racial joke. This so called enforcement of decency standards seems to have more to do with politically unpopular statements than &quot;dirty&quot; talk.
In amateur radio on the other hand we agree, for the benefit of order to communications, and goodwill to the community at large, to conduct ourselves according to certain rules of conduct. That does not compare to government pressure and fines being forced on a free media, both without even the benefit of due process in court determing any specific rules, just one vocal minority's version of what morality is.

I'm on vacation for a week, you all have fun now. Vacation is good mmmmkay...

[kc0ebm]

OK YCO!

Maybe you and I are beginning to understand one another.

But take HEED!

If those of you on your side of this issue don't come up with a workable solution quickly, ie voluntary standards, then the people will demand that the Government come up with a solution without you. And its already happening!

See my most recent thread entitled, &quot;The Score! 319 to 22&quot;.

EBM

[KG4CGC]

Mr Friess,
Thank You for your reply. I agree with you on the ideal to uphold the spirit of communication and to keep Amateur radio a place for anyone who wants to participate. We all need to be setting the example. I agree that the media needs to tone it down a bit and keep the more risque' stuff in the appropriate hours and that this requires them to restrain themselves. The media is controlled by corporations and as such, they respond to money and ratings. Nothing new there. There are over a million places to access filth smut porn whatever, and I have no problem with that. Television and radio already have rules in place and they need to be followed and I have no problem with that. It is just my opinion that if you want to draw people to your cause, you'll attract a lot more flies with honey.
Sorry you feel those on the other side of the fence are in your face. They're not really. They are being defensive and need to be lead to an open dialog so that both sides can communicate effectively, and there, you may find a resolution.
People respond better to your cause when they don't feel the need to be defensive. Often times it's just a reaction, a first reaction. It's a part of human nature we should be aware of. Just My Opinion.
Thank You and 73
KG4CGC, Charles Chackal

Do not forget to write your anti-BPL letters,
encourage new amateur radio participation and generally be nice
to one another. That is all.