USA Not Free - Will The Courts Fix It?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

A_Wanderer

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
12,518
Location
The Wild West
Reporting from Washington -- For the first time in 30 years, the Supreme Court took up the issue of indecency on television and radio broadcasts Tuesday, and its leading conservatives made clear they would like to uphold an official crackdown on the use of expletives during daytime and early evening hours.

U.S. Solicitor General Gregory G. Garre said the strict regulation of broadcast TV preserved it as a "safety zone" for families with children, particularly in an era of unrestrained free-speech rules on the Internet and on cable and satellite TV. "Broadcast TV is the one place where Americans can turn on the TV at 8 o'clock and . . . not expected to be bombarded with indecent language," he said.

He was defending a 4-year-old policy of the Federal Communication Commission to impose heavy fines on broadcasters who put on the air even a single expletive. He referred to the banned language as "the F-word" and "the S-word."

"The F-word is one of the most graphic, explicit and vulgar words in the English language for sexual activity," he said. Broadcasters can be fined more than $325,000 for a single utterance of the F-word, even if it is blurted out by a guest on a live program.

Last year, the TV networks won a ruling from the U.S. appeals court in New York that blocked the FCC policy from being enforced on the grounds it was arbitrary and possibly a 1st Amendment violation.

But Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Antonin Scalia dominated Tuesday's argument and strongly supported the FCC.

Roberts, who has two young children, referred to the use of the F-word by rock singer Bono at the Golden Globe Awards and Cher at the Billboard Music Awards. "Here is an awards show. Here is a celebrity. I want to listen to what they are going to say because I listen to their music," the chief justice said, portraying himself as the parent with "impressionable children" in the audience. "And he comes out with that," he said, referring to an expletive.

Scalia said he understood that foul words would be heard at a football or baseball game. "You don't have to have them presented as something that is normal in polite company, which is what happens when it comes out in television shows," he told a lawyer for the broadcast networks.

Scalia blamed television for "coarsening" public discourse. "I am not persuaded by the argument that people are more accustomed to hearing these words than they were in the past," he added.

Still, the outcome was hard to forecast because several members of the court, including Justices Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Anthony M. Kennedy, said little or nothing during the oral argument.

Representing the Fox TV network, Washington lawyer Carter G. Phillips urged the court to think twice before allowing the FCC policy to go into effect. "At the end of the day, you are regulating the content of the speech," he said.

The FCC has not explained its abrupt shift in the policy, he said, and it has been inconsistent in applying it. He also said broadcasters would be wary of airing live sports programs if an overheard expletive could result in a huge fine.

Despite earlier comments that he would be explicit, Phillips did not use the disputed words in the court on Tuesday.

In contrast to cable companies, traditional over-the-air broadcasters remain subject to regulation because they use the public airways.In their legal briefs, the broadcasters urged the court to rethink this doctrine.

But during Tuesday's argument, only Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg suggested the court delve into the 1st Amendment issues that underlay this dispute.

It is "the big elephant in the room," she said.

One bright spot for the broadcasters was Justice John Paul Stevens. He wrote a 1978 decision upholding the FCC's indecency restrictions, but he said Tuesday that he was not convinced that every use of the forbidden words was offensive. Cher, for example, said on the award show that she had outlasted her critics. "So, F . . . 'em," she said.

What if a "particular remark was really hilarious, very funny? Would that cause the FCC to think twice about imposing a fine?" he asked Garre.

The solicitor general was unswayed. When "celebrities use particularly graphic, vulgar, explicit, indecent language as part of the comedic routine," he said, there is "potentially greater harmful impact on children."

Later, when Garre said the S-word must be banned because it refers to excretion, Stevens probed further. "Do you think the use of the word 'dung' would be indecent?" he asked. Probably not, Garre replied, because it "wouldn't be patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting."

The court could rule narrowly by focusing only on whether the FCC's change in policy is arbitrary. Or it could delve into the 1st Amendment standard for the broadcasting industry.

Fox TV took the lead in challenging the FCC because the network had broadcast several of the award programs.
High court conservatives favor indecency rule - Los Angeles Times

When the next justice shuffles off at least there should be a progressive appointee.
 
USA not free?
Try China (and more than a few other countries) if we want to discuss the repression of free speech.

Is yelling "fire!" in a crowded hall, when the hall is not on fire, free speech?

Should young children be exposed to hearing words that if I typed them here, I think my post would be deleted?
 
Wouldn't a true libertarian believe that one should be able to say what they want, and that it's the responsibility of parents to shield their children from things they don't want them exposed to?


The Bill of Rights,in the first ammendment, grants you the freedom of speech.

As a libertraian I believe that with that freedom also comes responsibilty to be aware of who is hearing (or listening) to your speech.

We could fill this thread with all the four letter words and vulgar insults to the limit, but for what reason?

To shock who?

For what purpose?
 
The Bill of Rights,in the first ammendment, grants you the freedom of speech.

As a libertraian I believe that with that freedom also comes responsibilty to be aware of who is hearing (or listening) to your speech.

We could fill this thread with all the four letter words and vulgar insults to the limit, but for what reason?

To shock who?

For what purpose?

Thanks for responding. :)

Fair enough, I understand where you're going with this. You personally have the sense of awareness and responsibility. But do you expect everyone else to, as well? And should their personal limits be the same as yours? Where is the line drawn, and who gets to decide for everyone? Is that even fair, and is it really in keeping with libertarian ideals?
 
As a libertraian I believe that with that freedom also comes responsibilty to be aware of who is hearing (or listening) to your speech.

No, you aren't doing this as a libertarian, you are doing it for yourself. Who are you going to choose who decides what words are bad? Why is this word bad and not this one? Did your mother tell you it was bad therefore it should be banned? Did your church tell you?

Where do you draw the line? What if one day you decide the word Republican or Democrat is a bad word?

This is why libertarianisn works well in theory, but not in practice.
 
Thanks for responding. :)

Fair enough, I understand where you're going with this. You personally have the sense of awareness and responsibility. But do you expect everyone else to, as well? And should their personal limits be the same as yours? Where is the line drawn, and who gets to decide for everyone? Is that even fair, and is it really in keeping with libertarian ideals?


That's a fair question VintagePunk.
And one, I admit, is a tough one for a libertarian to answer.

-Limited and smaller governement
-Less intervention in personal affairs
-Liberty
-Freedom of choice
-And all the others as stated in the Bill of Rights


I guess, my answer is a desire for all of us to be more aware of our freedoms and with that, our responsibilty to exercise that freedom
 
Wouldn't a true libertarian believe that one should be able to say what they want, and that it's the responsibility of parents to shield their children from things they don't want them exposed to?

Most Americans are not "true libertarians." They're really what one would define as "paleolibertarians," who are mostly in it for the low taxes and limited government, as far as it means leaving themselves alone (but they can go after "other people," of course).

Really, I feel it's best described as organized self-centeredness, unburdened by conscience or consistency.
 
Most Americans are not "true libertarians." They're really what one would define as "paleolibertarians," who are mostly in it for the low taxes and limited government, as far as it means leaving themselves alone (but they can go after "other people," of course).

Really, I feel it's best described as organized self-centeredness, unburdened by conscience or consistency.

Right.

So are there any reasons to be sceptical of state authority?
 
That's a fair question VintagePunk.
And one, I admit, is a tough one for a libertarian to answer.

-Limited and smaller governement
-Less intervention in personal affairs
-Liberty
-Freedom of choice
-And all the others as stated in the Bill of Rights


I guess, my answer is a desire for all of us to be more aware of our freedoms and with that, our responsibilty to exercise that freedom


Indeed, it's pretty simple, when it comes down to it.

What I don't get is why more voters don't subscribe to this. I cannot get my head around it.

Why do most voters vote for parties which do the complete and diametric opposite of every single thing on your list? Are they afraid of more freedom, is that it? And if so, why is that?
 
No, you aren't doing this as a libertarian, you are doing it for yourself. Who are you going to choose who decides what words are bad? Why is this word bad and not this one? Did your mother tell you it was bad therefore it should be banned? Did your church tell you?

Where do you draw the line? What if one day you decide the word Republican or Democrat is a bad word?

This is why libertarianisn works well in theory, but not in practice.

And you think it's better for the government to decide all this?
 
Right.

So are there any reasons to be sceptical of state authority?

A complete non sequitor. I have issues with self-described "libertarians" who do not put sufficient value on positive rights, which is why I consider paleolibertarianism to not be truly "libertarian" at all. By definition, libertarianism must be both economically liberal and socially liberal. To support economic liberalism and be socially conservative is to be a modern-day conservative. Period.
 
A complete non sequitor. I have issues with self-described "libertarians" who do not put sufficient value on positive rights, which is why I consider paleolibertarianism to not be truly "libertarian" at all. By definition, libertarianism must be both economically liberal and socially liberal. To support economic liberalism and be socially conservative is to be a modern-day conservative. Period.

That's my understanding of it, as well. In my view, socially it involves positive rights in keeping with the no harm principle. Yet this seems to be sorely lacking in the US political brand of Libertarianism. The closest example I can come up with as far as someone espousing real libertarian views is Bill Maher, although in his case, he strikes me as skeevy sometimes, and I wonder if it's all just an excuse on his part to indulge in hedonism.
 
And you think it's better for the government to decide all this?

:huh: No, that was my point.

It seemed Iron Horse was arguing for the censorship, because of the children, so I was asking rhetoricals... but now looking back I'm not quite sure where Iron Horse stands.
 
A complete non sequitor.

No, it bloody well isn't a non sequitor. Your post implied libertarians are merely motivated by 'organized self-centeredness', you implied that libertarians have no good intentions and are only motivated by personal selfishness, that is a most unfair assumption to make. I asked for your thoughts on whether statism is involved in restricting freedom. This is a legitimate question. Don't get me started on how statists implement policies that restrict individual freedom. I would be here all day.

I have issues with self-described "libertarians" who do not put sufficient value on positive rights, which is why I consider paleolibertarianism to not be truly "libertarian" at all. By definition, libertarianism must be both economically liberal and socially liberal. To support economic liberalism and be socially conservative is to be a modern-day conservative. Period.


Libertarians aren't interested in positive rights, because positive rights imply state intervention. I would argue that what you call 'paleos' are actually completely faithful to the ideals of libertarianism, precisely BECAUSE they don't go down the road of social policy (granted, it may be problematic to implement strict libertariansm in practice, for all sorts of reasons.)

By definition, libertarianism must be both economically liberal and socially liberal. To support economic liberalism and be socially conservative is to be a modern-day conservative. Period.

No, logically, a libertarian is as opposed to statist meddling in the social as in the economic framework. Accordingly, the libertarian ought properly to be intensely sceptical of policies that advocate social meddling (even if he or she is personally in favour of them).
 
Libertarians aren't interested in positive rights, because positive rights imply state intervention. I would argue that what you call 'paleos' are actually completely faithful to the ideals of libertarianism, precisely BECAUSE they don't go down the road of social policy (granted, it may be problematic to implement strict libertariansm in practice, for all sorts of reasons.)

Complete logical nonsense. By this notion, then, we can argue that the current status quo of every government is, by definition, "libertarian," because the people have tacitly endorsed every current government action. Two libertarian-sponsored ballot initiatives to eliminate the state income tax in two states were roundly defeated by the people, for instance. In the case of Massachusetts, this is, at least, the second time that ballot initiative was rejected by the populace.

I guess that, if this is how you define "libertarianism," then it's a good thing that the entire movement is as moribund and unelectable as communism, and I guess I should reconsider my earlier sympathies for the movement. It clearly does take "state intervention" to hold back positive rights, after all; look at California.
 
Alex Jones' Prison Planet: The truth will set you free!

Congressman says president elect was chosen long ago to take care of the corporate elite

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Nov 5, 2008

Texas Congressman and 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul has warned that the euphoria surrounding the election of Barack Obama combined with the overwhelming fear of major international crises could facilitate a cataclysmic shift toward a new world order.

Appearing live on the Alex Jones show earlier today, the Congressman spoke of a feeling of dread surrounding the change of guard both in the White House and on Capitol Hill:

“I do feel it but I don’t think it’s brand new, I didn’t wake up with it, I’ve had it for a while, I don’t think the election was a surprise, but the rhetoric is getting pretty strong and they are getting very bold.” he commented.

Speaking on the stage management of the election, and calling it a “huge distraction” from real issues, the Congressman outlined how both candidates were pre-positioned by the elite interests with the knowledge that either would satisfactorily serve their agenda:...
 
Right. The next thing Paul is going to tell me is that the Illuminati and the Priory of Sion are involved too. Those who evoke the "New World Order" are about as unstable as those who thought global civilization was going to collapse, because computer clocks just wouldn't handle going from 99 to 00/100, instead of 2000.

I respect that Paul has a sharp ideological opposition to how the financial crisis has been handled, but he just sounds like an unhinged conspiracy nut when he talks like this.
 
Libertarianism is nonsense, imo. It's becoming more and more popular to say that you're a libertarian but I'm not sure everyone applying that label to themselves even agrees on what it means. Personally, the biggest and most significant ideological commonality I have seen, judging from the way these people talk/write, is this: "Both parties are full of shit, and that's proof that government doesn't work, period."

Reality? In a country of 300 million people, YOU HAVE TO HAVE GOVERNMENT. But - and this is important - government can be big without being intrusive. I'll say it again, government can be big without being intrusive. Libertarians appear to be completely disbelieving of this vital fact. I am 100% against censorship. But I am 100% in favor of universal health care. I am 100% against the Patriot Act/FISA spying that the Bush administration has carried out. I am 100% in favor of stricter regulations for big business. Big government can be a tool for good as long as it is using its power to give people a higher quality of life and protect their freedom and their rights, and it can be the opposite as long as it is using its power to take away the peoples' rights, reduce their freedom, and weaken the democracy by intentionally misinforming the ignorant and less educated.

Libertarianism is when you believe that no big government is capable of the former and that therefore all government is corrupt. It is a movement devoid of hope. It is a movement based on negativity. Government is a powerful thing, and it's not all that difficult for it to be misused, and thinking of viable solutions for such problems is not easy, so let's just stop having government(except to fight wars with) and let our society devolve into anarchy.
 
Libertarianism is nonsense, imo. It's becoming more and more popular to say that you're a libertarian but I'm not sure everyone applying that label to themselves even agrees on what it means. Personally, the biggest and most significant ideological commonality I have seen, judging from the way these people talk/write, is this: "Both parties are full of shit, and that's proof that government doesn't work, period."

Reality? In a country of 300 million people, YOU HAVE TO HAVE GOVERNMENT. But - and this is important - government can be big without being intrusive. I'll say it again, government can be big without being intrusive. Libertarians appear to be completely disbelieving of this vital fact. I am 100% against censorship. But I am 100% in favor of universal health care. I am 100% against the Patriot Act/FISA spying that the Bush administration has carried out. I am 100% in favor of stricter regulations for big business. Big government can be a tool for good as long as it is using its power to give people a higher quality of life and protect their freedom and their rights, and it can be the opposite as long as it is using its power to take away the peoples' rights, reduce their freedom, and weaken the democracy by intentionally misinforming the ignorant and less educated.

Libertarianism is when you believe that no big government is capable of the former and that therefore all government is corrupt. It is a movement devoid of hope. It is a movement based on negativity. Government is a powerful thing, and it's not all that difficult for it to be misused, and thinking of viable solutions for such problems is not easy, so let's just stop having government(except to fight wars with) and let our society devolve into anarchy.

Fine words

butter no parsnips.
 
USA not free?
Try China (and more than a few other countries) if we want to discuss the repression of free speech.

Is yelling "fire!" in a crowded hall, when the hall is not on fire, free speech?

Should young children be exposed to hearing words that if I typed them here, I think my post would be deleted?
Shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker and tits, whoever suggests that I am holding a libertarian double standard is full of some of the above.
 
Back
Top Bottom