Top 10 reasons I don't like George W

[Nepa]

1. I don't trust him
2. Millions of Jobs, Gone
3. Buddies with the Enron boys
4. Dick Cheney
5. The way the FCC is being run, Leave Howard Alone!
6. Not a good speaker unless he is in front of a teleprompter
7. I didn't really care for his dad
8. Doesn't seem to have a grip on the budget
9. Wants to cut overtimes pay
10. His attacks on Kerry instead of addressing the issues

[Sincere]

You forgot:

11. The skyrocketing gasoline prices.

[jokerswild]

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
6. Not a good speaker unless he is in front of a teleprompter

[/ QUOTE ]

he is a poor speaker with or without a teleprompter

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[GWB]

Why don't you guys like me?

I'm a good guy. I swear! Scouts Honor!



http://www.doctor-malpractice.com/Pres%20Bush%20podium%20salute.jpg

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you guys like me?

[/ QUOTE ]

oops - sorry - i forgot that you posted on these boards

nothing personal - i'm impressed you get time for poker - it seems there should always be better things to do - not that i can talk

but as we are discussing reasons - how about that Quantanamo bay business ? - i'm unhappy about that - no fair to lock people up in that fashion - stupid too because the whole world is watching

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[GWB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Why don't you guys like me?

[/ QUOTE ]

oops - sorry - i forgot that you posted on these boards

nothing personal - i'm impressed you get time for poker - it seems there should always be better things to do - not that i can talk

but as we are discussing reasons - how about that Quantanamo bay business ? - i'm unhappy about that - no fair to lock people up in that fashion - stupid too because the whole world is watching

stripsqueez - chickenhawk



[/ QUOTE ]

Read my Loc: - I am on poker hiatus.

I post on the boards to pick up a few votes - I just might need them.

Rummy says those guys are guilty.
I trust Rummy.

[stripsqueez]

[ QUOTE ]
Read my Loc: - I am on poker hiatus

[/ QUOTE ]

she who must be obeyed reckons that spending time posting on these boards is "poker time"

[ QUOTE ]
I trust Rummy

[/ QUOTE ]

Rummy might have got it wrong - have a look into it is my advice

stripsqueez - chickenhawk

[ChristinaB]

Nice Picture, here are some more:

http://shirtmagic.com/images/bushliar2.jpg ....... ............ http://shirtmagic.com/images/1evildoers.gif

http://shirtmagic.com/images/nobloodforoil.gif ............ http://shirtmagic.com/images/1electoralcol.gif

http://shirtmagic.com/images/1stopBUSH.gif .............http://shirtmagic.com/images/1warcriminal.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I don't trust him

[/ QUOTE ]

Kerry is trustworthy?

[ QUOTE ]
2. Millions of Jobs, Gone

[/ QUOTE ]

Millions of jobs created. Net almost all jobs lost are in the manufacturing sector which has seen a downtrend in net jobs created for the past 40 years. Recession started during Clinton administration.


[ QUOTE ]
3. Buddies with the Enron boys

[/ QUOTE ]

Enron and other corporate scandels occurred during Clinton administration due to lax Clinton policy in overseeing corporate behavior. Can't remember one significant prosecution by the Feds during Clinton's administration. Currently many Enron types have been convicted and/or indicted including CEO Skilling & CFO Fastow. The Enron scam is complicated and the government no doubt needs cooperation from people like Fastow. What you saw was that when Fastow cut a deal (I believe he has to do 10 years in prison minimum and pay a monster fine) you saw Skilling indicted. I predict that Lay will follow when Skilling cuts a deal. The facts are that the Bush administration are vigorously prosecuting cases involving corporate malfeasance.


[ QUOTE ]
4. Dick Cheney

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard Dean, Al Gore /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[ QUOTE ]
5. The way the FCC is being run, Leave Howard Alone!

[/ QUOTE ]

Except that Stern is clearly violating FCC rules. The penalty for breaking the rules has been stiffened. No new rules have been created. The ones that exist are being enforced. Stern's free speech is not being infringed on.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
6. Not a good speaker unless he is in front of a teleprompter

[/ QUOTE ]

Kind of like Kerry. Not even relevant to performing as a President.

[ QUOTE ]
7. I didn't really care for his dad

[/ QUOTE ]

What does that have to do with anything?

[ QUOTE ]
8. Doesn't seem to have a grip on the budget

[/ QUOTE ]

The National Taxpayers Union has estimated that Kerry proposals would INCREASE the budget deficit by $264 billion. The Washington Post ran a story a few weeks ago that stated the Kerry proposals would increase the budget deficit by $195 billion+. When has Kerry stated he'll cut spending of any sort. And I have news for you, raising the highest marginal tax bracket (Kerry's proposal) won't narrow the budget deficit significantly and may even widen it.


[ QUOTE ]
9. Wants to cut overtimes pay

[/ QUOTE ]

Here's a little light on the overtime issue:

The President is doing no such thing. Under a Labor Department proposal to update and reform the 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, the 40 hour workweek would remain in place, and so would overtime pay.

Here's how the Department of Labor describes what its proposal would do:

"For the first time since 1975, the Department's proposed regulations would raise the salary threshold -- below which workers would automatically qualify for overtime -- from $155 a week to $425 a week, or $8,060 per year, to $22,100 per year The impact of this revision will be to increase the wages of 1.3 million lower-income workers and reduce the number of low-wage salaried workers currently being denied overtime pay. Other proposed changes include revising job duties required to qualify for the exemption to better correspond to 21st century workplace realities. The old regulations, written in 1949, mention job classifications that no longer exist, such as key punch operators, straw bosses, leg men and gang leaders. Clarifying which job duties qualify for overtime pay will help workers and employers easily determine overtime entitlement for millions of workers whose status is currently unclear." (1)

Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao is adamant that organized labor's scare campaign represents what the DOL calls "myths, distortions and inaccuracies": "The Department's overtime reform proposal will not eliminate overtime protections for 8 million workers, will not eliminate overtime protections for police officers, firefighters, paramedics and other first responders, will not eliminate overtime protections for nurses, will not eliminate overtime protections for carpenters, electricians, mechanics, plumbers, laborers, teamsters, construction workers, production line workers and other blue-collar employees; and will not affect union workers covered by collective bargaining agreements. The Department's reform will strengthen overtime protections for millions of low-wage and middle-class workers, will empower workers to understand and insist on their overtime rights, will enable the Department of Labor to vigorously enforce the law, will prevent unscrupulous employers from playing games with workers' overtime pay, and will put an end to the lawsuit lottery that is delaying justice for workers and stifling our economy with billions of dollars in needless litigation."(2)

Analyst Paul Kersey of the Heritage Foundation agrees: "by raising the minimum salary level needed for 'white collar' status, the Labor Department is returning to the original intent of the Fair Labor Standards Act - to protect unskilled manual laborers from the dangers of overwork. By limiting work hours, Congress meant to reduce the dangers of fatigue and workplace accidents and allow workers more time for recreation, family and education. Executives, administrators and professionals were excluded because they were seen as having both higher compensation and greater job security, giving them better control over their own work hours."

Kersey adds: "The drafters of the original Fair Labor Standards Act probably would be shocked to learn that, under today's rules, a cook earning $13,000 a year can be considered an executive because he supervises two kitchen workers, while a technician with a $70,000 salary can receive mandatory overtime pay. More straightforward regulations will make enforcement of the wage-and-hour laws easier. Thus unskilled workers, the employees who have the least control over their working hours and conditions, will receive the maximum level of protection. Under the new rule, any worker receiving a salary of less than $20,000 will be eligible for overtime, regardless of his or her job duties."(3)

Heritage Foundation President Ed Feulner says "Chao [is] trying to make life better for low-income laborers... Today, companies can classify employees who make just $8,061 per year as 'exempt' meaning they would be ineligible for overtime. Chao has proposed raising that threshold to $22,000, a step that would immediately make an additional 1.2 million workers eligible for time-and-a-half. While that change would help the poorest laborers, it wouldn't hurt most blue-collar workers. Union members who work under collective bargaining agreements would make at least as much under the new proposal as they do today. This includes most firefighters, nurses and police officers."

So why the fuss over a proposal designed to help low-income workers?

Feulner pins responsibility on a group that benefits financially from the current outdated system: Trial lawyers.

Feulner writes: "Because current law is so confusing, many companies struggle to determine which jobs are eligible for overtime, and which are not. Trial lawyers exploit this confusion: They pore over work roles until they find groups that seem mislabeled, and then file class-action lawsuits. It's a booming business. In 2001 there were more suits filed over overtime pay than suits alleging discrimination in the workplace. And why not? If a lawyer can convince a court to agree that a company has made a mistake, he can force that company to shell out millions of dollars in back pay. For example, two years ago, the Farmers Insurance Exchange of California was slapped with a $90 million judgment because it hadn't been paying overtime to its claims adjusters. More recently, Radio Shack and Starbucks surrendered without a fight. Those companies coughed up $30 million and $18 million, respectively, to settle out of court with store managers."

Concludes Feulner: "Under Chao's changes, those white-collar workers who make more than $65,000 would lose their right to overtime under the new laws. But keep in mind the original reason for such laws: To benefit poor laborers. Middle-class managers and professionals were never supposed to be covered."(4)


The truth of the matter is that exempt, professional employees (I know of what I speak here) overtime is basically at the discretion of the company they work for. This Bush eliminating overtime statement by the left is total baloney.

[ QUOTE ]
10. His attacks on Kerry instead of addressing the issues

[/ QUOTE ]

With all the vile things Bush opponents state about Kerry and Kerry's constant Bush bashing this is simply the pot calling the kettle black.


Ok just another misinformed Kerry supporter. Par for the course.

[adios]

10. His attacks on Kerry instead of addressing the issues

I guess you don't have a problem with 10 then.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
11. The skyrocketing gasoline prices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hanging this one on him is truly absurd given the pro environmentalist sentiment in this country (sentitment which I basically support btw), the increased demand from Asia, the fact that there's a real possibility that oil production has peaked in the world, and that the US $ has declined against the Euro by around 40%. If you look at the price of the oil vs. the Euro you'll see that it's up about 5% since 2002. Next we can discuss how a much stronger US $ hurts the US manufacturing sector and hurts US exporters, costing the US more jobs. In economics there's a saying that due to limited resources there's "no free lunch." The US consummer has been spoiled by cheap fossil fuel for a long time. Chickens are coming home to roost. Ultimately the US consummer has to pay up or consume less. Right Taxman.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Except that Stern is clearly violating FCC rules. The penalty for breaking the rules has been stiffened. No new rules have been created. The ones that exist are being enforced. Stern's free speech is not being infringed on.


[/ QUOTE ]

Please tell me what rule he violated? You cant. He has broken no laws nor violated any rules. None. The FCC doesn't even know. They can't even define what is decent or not. They're making it up as it goes along and it's affecting it industry-wide. No warnings, no parameters to use. You obviously haven't followed any of that debate too much or you'd know this.

If you dont like him, fine, turn the channel. As a soldier once said, 'He doesn't like what someone says, but he'd die for their right to say it.'

Most recently, they wouldnt let Stern replay a clip from Oprah, which aired on daytime tv. It was a brilliant move if he couldve pulled it off. They wouldnt have been able to fine him without Oprah also. He got censored, Oprah didnt. Oprah hasnt heard anything from the FCC. hmm interesting.

The FCC is a damn joke and it's out of control.

BTW...Stern has been so bad, the only thing they are even stretching for a fine on him happened 3 years ago. Most of this conveniently came down on him after his harsh criticism of Bush and the senator from New mexico.

But maybe before condemning it, you oughtta listen to it a little more rather than read the local National Enquirer or watching the oversensationalized local news for the scoop.

Go to howardstern.com and check some stuff out. But that may be toward making an educated opinion on the matter. Howard actually used to support bush before all of this.

b

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
10. His attacks on Kerry instead of addressing the issues

I guess you don't have a problem with 10 then.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no problem with political attacks - both sides do it and it is a long tradition here. Of course both sides are also arguing the issues.

I don't think this forum is going to change anybody's mind, so I'll let you argue issues, while I have fun.

http://shirtmagic.com/images/1stopBUSH.gif

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Please tell me what rule he violated? You cant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong I can.

FCC 73.3999
Revised as of October 1, 2003
Goto Year:2002 | 2004
Sec. 73.3999 Enforcement of 18 U.S.C. 1464 (restrictions on the transmission of obscene and indecent material).

(a) No licensee of a radio or television broadcast station shall broadcast any material which is obscene.
(b) No licensee of a radio or television broadcast station shall broadcast on any day between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. any material which is indecent.

[ QUOTE ]
The FCC doesn't even know. They can't even define what is decent or not. They're making it up as it goes along and it's affecting it industry-wide. No warnings, no parameters to use. You obviously haven't followed any of that debate too much or you'd know this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you're wrong. This rule has been challenged in court before. Here's a 1995 decision:

Action Child TV vs. FCC (http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/indecency/93-1092b.html)

I tried posting the document but it's too long so if you're interested go the link and read it.

And this isn't the first time Stern has been fined.

Commission Gets Very Serious About the Broadcast of Indecent Materials (http://www.shawpittman.com/News.nsf/0/8525689a0075669085256dd6004dbd17/$FILE/EM%20No.%2003-10.pdf)

The fines are among the highest ever
levied for violations of Section 73.3999 of the FCC
Rules, with the exception of the Howard Stern fines
in 1992 and 1993.

Whether you like it or not there's plenty of case law definig "indecent."

[ QUOTE ]
If you dont like him, fine, turn the channel. As a soldier once said, 'He doesn't like what someone says, but he'd die for their right to say it.'

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not the point. The rule is to limit the access of Stern's material to children so that parent's can excercise parental control. Stern can go on plenty of other broadcast mediums between 6:00 A.M and 10:00 P.M and say whatever he wants.

[ QUOTE ]
Most recently, they wouldnt let Stern replay a clip from Oprah, which aired on daytime tv. It was a brilliant move if he couldve pulled it off. They wouldnt have been able to fine him without Oprah also. He got censored, Oprah didnt. Oprah hasnt heard anything from the FCC. hmm interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oprah's show was intended to educate parents.

[ QUOTE ]
The FCC is a damn joke and it's out of control.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why because they're enforcing the rules? What a joke your statement is.

[ QUOTE ]
BTW...Stern has been so bad, the only thing they are even stretching for a fine on him happened 3 years ago. Most of this conveniently came down on him after his harsh criticism of Bush and the senator from New mexico.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares? Stern can say whatever he wants. The right to free speech IS limited though.

[ QUOTE ]
But maybe before condemning it, you oughtta listen to it a little more rather than read the local National Enquirer or watching the oversensationalized local news for the scoop.

[/ QUOTE ]

Show me one time where I condemned Stern. I stated Stern violated the rules, that hardly qualifies as a condemnation. It's called a fact.

[ QUOTE ]
Go to howardstern.com and check some stuff out. But that may be toward making an educated opinion on the matter. Howard actually used to support bush before all of this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Go check out the FCC rules and the case law behind them. Hey I'm no lawyer but it seems obvious to me that the FCC rule in question has case law behind it establishing legal precedents that are relevent to it. Howard Stern is pandering and I'm quite sure he knows about prior cases involving this rule especially since fines were levied before for previous infractions by him.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
so I'll let you argue issues, while I have fun

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.... Posting something that more or less states that Bush is the equivalent of bin Laden and that Bush is a war criminal is your way of having fun. Others call it hateful and offensive.

[ChristinaB]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
so I'll let you argue issues, while I have fun

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm.... Posting something that more or less states that Bush is the equivalent of bin Laden and that Bush is a war criminal is your way of having fun. Others call it hateful and offensive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmm... I must have linked the wrong pictures.... yep, here are the correct ones:

http://www.nirvani.net/misc/flowers.gif

http://www.nirvani.net/misc/rotsnake.gif

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Whether you like it or not there's plenty of case law definig "indecent."

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, there isn't. Other than the 7 dirty words (which is defined as obscenity, not indecency). Everything supposedly defining it is extremely vague. Did you read that court case you linked? They only vaguely define it in there also. It actually has a very compelling case against the court. I remember when they came out with the V chip. It was very shaky ground that they passed it on. Still is.
As far as general indecency and obscenity, remember the case law about Larry Flynt?

[ QUOTE ]
Oprah's show was intended to educate parents

[/ QUOTE ]

Suure it was. Wasnt it sweeps week? But that's a nice umbrella to try and allow her to hide under. Since when is Oprah part of anything to 'legitmately' educate parents other than to provide her advertisers with viewers. Please. Btw, Howard could say he was just passing on 'useful' information for the listening parents. Same argument.

[ QUOTE ]
Why because they're enforcing the rules? What a joke your statement is.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're not enforcing the rules. They are cherrypicking at best while making them up as they go along. Knowing full well that no station will challenge it in court since the government will freeze the companies assets and suspend/revoke their liscense until it's out of court. Which they can easily tie up in court until the defendant goes broke. There's alot more going on than just seemingly 'enforcing' rules.

After all , isnt that a form of extortion or racketeering?

They are trying to make it so they can fine not only a station owner, but any affiliates in other markets along with the boradcaster themselves. Trying to go so far as to even fine a caller to a station if they can. The FCC has yet to define the parameters instead taking a 'we'll know it when we hear it' stance. Which is wrong.

This also isnt just about stern, but about media in general. You do remember Mccarthy, dont you? It's almost a direct parallel. Except everyone is afraid to stand up the way Morrow did. Stern even had an editor from the NYPOST on his show confirming this.

Do you know what the most recent fine for stern was about? It was from 3 years ago. Why wasn't it obscene/indescent then?

Another one under scrutiny was a caller saying the word 'nigger'. Big whooop.

The one before that was 10 years ago.

Personally, i find Christian radio very offensive. Just on premise alone. But i dont think they ought to be fined or anything as i can, and this may be groundbreaking, change the channel.

The court has ruled against indecency, yet has never defined it. That's a fact. Otherwise, they'd be able to send at least a memo to stations stating, in detail, what is considered indecent/obscene. They haven't done that.

b

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, there isn't. Other than the 7 dirty words (which is defined as obscenity, not indecency). Everything supposedly defining it is extremely vague. Did you read that court case you linked? They only vaguely define it in there also. It actually has a very compelling case against the court. I remember when they came out with the V chip. It was very shaky ground that they passed it on. Still is.
As far as general indecency and obscenity, remember the case law about Larry Flynt?


[/ QUOTE ]

I quit counting after 8 cases were cited in the document as the basis for their opinion. Have you read the document?


[ QUOTE ]
Suure it was. Wasnt it sweeps week? But that's a nice umbrella to try and allow her to hide under. Since when is Oprah part of anything to 'legitmately' educate parents other than to provide her advertisers with viewers. Please. Btw, Howard could say he was just passing on 'useful' information for the listening parents. Same argument.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's not the same arguement at all. The way the material presented makes a difference. You're entitled to your opinion but I think it's fair to say most people would see a big difference in Oprah Winfrey and Howard Stern.

[ QUOTE ]
They're not enforcing the rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

They most certainly are.

[ QUOTE ]
They are cherrypicking at best while making them up as they go along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely not true. Do you think Stern will take to court. Nope not a chance.

[ QUOTE ]
Knowing full well that no station will challenge it in court since the government will freeze the companies assets and suspend/revoke their liscense until it's out of court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong. Where do you come up with this stuff?

[ QUOTE ]
Which they can easily tie up in court until the defendant goes broke. There's alot more going on than just seemingly 'enforcing' rules.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got good imagination. The tougher enforcement laws have revolking licences for repeated violations. Other than these new laws I haven't the faintest idea as to what you're referring to. What incident do you have in mind as a precedent?


[ QUOTE ]
After all , isnt that a form of extortion or racketeering?

[/ QUOTE ]

Again do you have a specific example?

[ QUOTE ]
They are trying to make it so they can fine not only a station owner, but any affiliates in other markets along with the boradcaster themselves. Trying to go so far as to even fine a caller to a station if they can. The FCC has yet to define the parameters instead taking a 'we'll know it when we hear it' stance. Which is wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again do you have anything to back this up?

[ QUOTE ]
This also isnt just about stern, but about media in general. You do remember Mccarthy, dont you? It's almost a direct parallel. Except everyone is afraid to stand up the way Morrow did. Stern even had an editor from the NYPOST on his show confirming this.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's ridiculous.

[ QUOTE ]
Do you know what the most recent fine for stern was about? It was from 3 years ago. Why wasn't it obscene/indescent then?

[/ QUOTE ]

So when a rule is enforced it's wrong if people were lax about it previously? That's insane.

[ QUOTE ]
The one before that was 10 years ago.

[/ QUOTE ]

So ?

[ QUOTE ]
Personally, i find Christian radio very offensive. Just on premise alone. But i dont think they ought to be fined or anything as i can, and this may be groundbreaking, change the channel.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't violate the FCC rule.

[ QUOTE ]
The court has ruled against indecency, yet has never defined it. That's a fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is so wrong I don't know where to start. The rule is in regards to readily available TV channels and radio channels between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. If Stern does a radio show between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM he doesn't have a problem. Likewise local TV. He could go on satellite radio anytime he wants, he could go on a cable TV network anytime he wants, or a satellite TV network anytime he wants. The court hasn't rule against indecency, it's backed the FCC rule regarding indecent content between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm on local tv and radio. So your statement that the court has ruled against all indecent broadcasting is just plain wrong. Of course indecency has been defined read the cases.

[ QUOTE ]
Otherwise, they'd be able to send at least a memo to stations stating, in detail, what is considered indecent/obscene. They haven't done that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again you're wrong:

FCC Policy Statement Regarding Indecency (http://ftp.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/Orders/2001/fcc01090.pdf)

I'm going to sign off on this one because it's clear to me that you haven't a clue as to what the Stern case is about. Which is btw that Stern can air his show with it's "indecent content", he just can't do it wherever he wants to. He actually can do it whenever he wants to. Furthermore I will never convince you that your viewpoint is faulty. Have a nice day.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
Which is btw that Stern can air his show with it's "indecent content", he just can't do it wherever he wants to. He actually can do it whenever he wants to.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it's about much more than just Stern. It's about McCarthy era in radio broadcasting. It's about an unregulated commission being able to interpret a vague law and levy fines against anyone they wish with little chance of being called on it. It's about who is pushing said commission to instigate such fines. This has alot more ramifications than just Stern. This has made most media at this time very gunshy for airing anything questionable. Like CSI (tv) not showing an elderly corpse's bare breast.

But, staying in the frame...

First off, the legal definition for indecency is extremely vague and open to interpretation. If you really read the document, you'd have noticed no definitive statement. It is peppered with 'could be found indecent...may be considered...might be in certain situations...' Nothing definite. Could/May/Might are not words of literal definition.

You brought up the child act. Which also doesnt define indecency. It's purpose was for a safe harbor time for kids (which is a joke) and to a lesser extent, the V chip in new tv's of the time. Most examples were visual. There have been clear cut cases of indecency on a visual medium. ie...porno. Not so in radio broadcasting other than, 'the 7 dirty words.' Again, those are the only ' literally defined' examples of obscenity.

If you can find the literal translation of indecency in the legal definition, you're better than most lawyers/judges in the country and the ACLU should fear you if you ever go in the legal field. Ever watch lawyers analyze legal cases involving 'indecency'? It's a very gray area. Except for you, i guess. More power to ya. The FCC interpretting the law is like the Vatican interpreting the bible.

Next we bring up the fines.

[ QUOTE ]
I quit counting after 8 cases were cited in the document as the basis for their opinion. Have you read the document?

[/ QUOTE ]

First, most of those fines were in correlation to using some of the 7 dirty words which are defined as obscene. Second, their opinion is not law. The FCC has no legislative power to make law. When they levy a fine, it does not become a part of the legal definition of indecency. It has to go through a court to do that. The problem is no one has challenged it yet.

You ask if Stern will fight it in court. Why would he? He's not being fined personally. That's up to his broadcasting company to do. Why wont they do it? In a conversation Stern had with Mel Karmizen (president/Ceo of Viacom/CBS), Mel mentioned how after 30 days if the fine is not paid, your broadcasting liscence is suspended. Which basically can make it financially devastating to a company.
So before, it was like paying a parking ticket rather than taking the day off work to fight it. It really wasnt worth it. (primarily based on cost of the fine) This conversation was well detailed during one of his broadcasts.

You asked about affiliates and broadcasters (on air talent) being held personally responsible for fines (which is ridiculous as employees).

It's the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (SB 2056) that the senate is voting on next week. Can you fathom the doors this can open? Maybe you can't. This can go well beyond just radio broadcasters. There has been speculation about going after callers too. Wont do it? They've gone after kids downloading music of the net...

Where do they stop once they start?

[ QUOTE ]
So when a rule is enforced it's wrong if people were lax about it previously? That's insane

[/ QUOTE ]

It has nothing to do with being lax. It's about consistency. Which the FCC is greatly lacking. The case, their own case, against Bono (awards show where he dropped an 'F' bomb and FCC initially ruled not indecent) is a perfect example. Why change the initial ruling?

[ QUOTE ]
This is so wrong I don't know where to start. The rule is in regards to readily available TV channels and radio channels between 6:00 AM and 10:00 PM. If Stern does a radio show between 10:00 PM and 6:00 AM he doesn't have a problem. Likewise local TV. He could go on satellite radio anytime he wants, he could go on a cable TV network anytime he wants, or a satellite TV network anytime he wants. The court hasn't rule against indecency, it's backed the FCC rule regarding indecent content between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm on local tv and radio. So your statement that the court has ruled against all indecent broadcasting is just plain wrong. Of course indecency has been defined read the cases.


[/ QUOTE ]

This is not a definition of indecency. Once again, the FCC levying fines does not make it definition by law. It has to be challenged in court for that to happen. The above, again, just states the times this vague law is in effect. You seem to be the only one i know or heard from who doesnt think this law is vague. Again, i think you missed your calling as a lawyer. You should reconsider your current occupation. The legal field needs you.

Now as for the Oprah deal.

You're dead wrong. There was no liscensed educator nor any liscensed doctor on her show when her situation occured. BTW having a doctor on a show, you can get away with much more graphic stuff. Just listen to Loveline sometime. Adam Corolla corroborated this on Stern's show when he was asked about that loophole.

Have you heard/read the comparisons from Oprah and Stern (for what he got fined for)? Obviously not.

Here's Oprah's

Oprah transcript (http://www.howardstern.com/Oprah%20Oral%20Anal.htm)

Here's howards

howards transcript (http://www.howardstern.com/H%20Stern%20FCC%20Transcript.htm)

I've actually heard both audios. There was just as much tittering and giggling on Oprah as there was on Stern.

I havent even gone into the timeline for when they really cracked down on howard. Which was exactly 1 day after harsh criticism of Bush. Which 1 day before Stern was told to stop railing against the senator from NM that he was picking apart for 2 days. Not sure who told him to stop on that one, but for stern to go from using prime drops from her speech at a congressional hearing relentlessly to hardly, if at all, it must've come from someone very high up.

That along with the religious right's role in all this, since they are the prime funders for many involved in the chain for the clean up of the airwaves. Starting at the top.

Stern's influence can swing an election. He has many listeners. Many listeners who, in markets where he was #1, are pissed about his being taken off the air and what is happening to not only him, but radio in general.

There are many more tangents this spreads into. But I've wrote enough. Needless to say, i won't be voting republican this year. I want Bush/Ashcroft/and the holy spirit out of office.

ill end with a quote...

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore I will never convince you that your viewpoint is faulty. Have a nice day.

[/ QUOTE ]

b

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it's about much more than just Stern. It's about McCarthy era in radio broadcasting.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not, it's not anywhere close to it. Stern can go on the same station between 10:00 p.m and 6:00 a.m. and say the things that he can't say between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm.

[ QUOTE ]
It's about an unregulated commission being able to interpret a vague law and levy fines against anyone they wish with little chance of being called on it.

[/ QUOTE ]

The FCC isn't unregulated.

[ QUOTE ]
It's about who is pushing said commission to instigate such fines.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok the conspiracy theory rears its head now.

[ QUOTE ]
This has alot more ramifications than just Stern. This has made most media at this time very gunshy for airing anything questionable. Like CSI (tv) not showing an elderly corpse's bare breast.

[/ QUOTE ]

You mean they're using more discretion on what is broadcast on certain TV channels and radio channels between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. So what? That's good.


[ QUOTE ]
First off, the legal definition for indecency is extremely vague and open to interpretation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I saw the definition tonight it's actually not vague.

[ QUOTE ]
If you really read the document, you'd have noticed no definitive statement. It is peppered with 'could be found indecent...may be considered...might be in certain situations...' Nothing definite. Could/May/Might are not words of literal definition.

[/ QUOTE ]

So ? They're called guildlines.

[ QUOTE ]
You brought up the child act.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did? What child act?

[ QUOTE ]
Which also doesnt define indecency.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you say so.

[ QUOTE ]
Most examples were visual. There have been clear cut cases of indecency on a visual medium. ie...porno. Not so in radio broadcasting other than, 'the 7 dirty words.' Again, those are the only ' literally defined' examples of obscenity.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny who 99.99% of programs where this rule applies have no problems and Stern is a repeat offender. Again Stern can go on the air at the same station between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am to put on the exact same content.

[ QUOTE ]
If you can find the literal translation of indecency in the legal definition, you're better than most lawyers/judges in the country and the ACLU should fear you if you ever go in the legal field. Ever watch lawyers analyze legal cases involving 'indecency'? It's a very gray area. Except for you, i guess. More power to ya. The FCC interpretting the law is like the Vatican interpreting the bible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Howard Stern represent a battleground for the First Amendment? Too funny. Again a point you've never acknowledged is that Stern only has a problem at certain times and certain broadcast mediums.

[ QUOTE ]
First, most of those fines were in correlation to using some of the 7 dirty words which are defined as obscene.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this statement is incorrect.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, their opinion is not law.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume you mean the court opinions are not law. Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
The FCC has no legislative power to make law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say they did.

[ QUOTE ]
When they levy a fine, it does not become a part of the legal definition of indecency.

[/ QUOTE ]

No the courts helped clear that up.

[ QUOTE ]
It has to go through a court to do that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this statement isn't true either.

[ QUOTE ]
The problem is no one has challenged it yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually there have been court challenges to the FCC rule and it's authority.

[ QUOTE ]
You ask if Stern will fight it in court.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually I didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Why would he? He's not being fined personally. up to his broadcasting company to do.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then why isn't he complaining about Viacom not challenging the ruling? I can see a conspiracy theory brewing here.

[ QUOTE ]
In a conversation Stern had with Mel Karmizen (president/Ceo of Viacom/CBS), Mel mentioned how after 30 days if the fine is not paid, your broadcasting liscence is suspended.

[/ QUOTE ]

So ? Pay the fine and dispute the ruling. The fine is chump change to Viacom.

[ QUOTE ]
So before, it was like paying a parking ticket rather than taking the day off work to fight it. It really wasnt worth it. (primarily based on cost of the fine) This conversation was well detailed during one of his broadcasts.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your implication is that anyone who disputes a ruling by the FCC will be removed from the air is plain wrong. Why isn't Stern railing against Viacom for being a buch of gutless wonders?


[ QUOTE ]
You asked about affiliates and broadcasters (on air talent) being held personally responsible for fines (which is ridiculous as employees).

[/ QUOTE ]

No I did not.

[ QUOTE ]
It's the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (SB 2056) that the senate is voting on next week. Can you fathom the doors this can open? Maybe you can't. This can go well beyond just radio broadcasters. There has been speculation about going after callers too. Wont do it? They've gone after kids downloading music of the net...

Where do they stop once they start?

[/ QUOTE ]

See I knew the conspiracy theory was just around the corner. Actually it makes the rules more easily enforcable which is good thing.

[ QUOTE ]
It has nothing to do with being lax.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure it does. Now the rules will be more easily enforcable.

[ QUOTE ]
It's about consistency. Which the FCC is greatly lacking.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it's not about consistency.

[ QUOTE ]
The case, their own case, against Bono (awards show where he dropped an 'F' bomb and FCC initially ruled not indecent) is a perfect example. Why change the initial ruling?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the public demands that the rules be enforced?


[ QUOTE ]
This is not a definition of indecency. Once again, the FCC levying fines does not make it definition by law. It has to be challenged in court for that to happen. The above, again, just states the times this vague law is in effect. You seem to be the only one i know or heard from who doesnt think this law is vague. Again, i think you missed your calling as a lawyer. You should reconsider your current occupation. The legal field needs you.

[/ QUOTE ]

A non sequiter in response to what I wrote.

[ QUOTE ]
I've actually heard both audios. There was just as much tittering and giggling on Oprah as there was on Stern.

I havent even gone into the timeline for when they really cracked down on howard. Which was exactly 1 day after harsh criticism of Bush. Which 1 day before Stern was told to stop railing against the senator from NM that he was picking apart for 2 days. Not sure who told him to stop on that one, but for stern to go from using prime drops from her speech at a congressional hearing relentlessly to hardly, if at all, it must've come from someone very high up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep I knew the conspiracy theory was coming. Again a point that you haven't acknowledge is that Stern's free speech rights are not being impugned. He can say all of this on the same radio stations between 10:00 pm. and 6:00 am and there's no problem. He can go on cable tv, satellite tv, or sattelite radio between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm and say whatever he wants.

[ QUOTE ]
You're dead wrong. There was no liscensed educator nor any liscensed doctor on her show when her situation occured.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say there was?

[ QUOTE ]
BTW having a doctor on a show, you can get away with much more graphic stuff. Just listen to Loveline sometime. Adam Corolla corroborated this on Stern's show when he was asked about that loophole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stern ought to have more on doctors on his show I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
That along with the religious right's role in all this, since they are the prime funders for many involved in the chain for the clean up of the airwaves. Starting at the top.

[/ QUOTE ]

More of the conspricay. Apparently you're not for enforcing the rules that exist, you don't care about what children have access to on the airwaves, and have no concern about parents excercising any kind of control over what children have access to. You imply that Stern's broadcast content is limited but it isn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Stern's influence can swing an election. He has many listeners. Many listeners who, in markets where he was #1, are pissed about his being taken off the air and what is happening to not only him, but radio in general.

[/ QUOTE ]


You do have a sense of humor.

[ QUOTE ]
There are many more tangents this spreads into.

[/ QUOTE ]

For you perhaps, not for me.

[ QUOTE ]
But I've wrote enough.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's amazing someone can say so little in so many words.

[ QUOTE ]
Needless to say, i won't be voting republican this year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? You're kidding!!! I'll bet you were voting Republican until the Howard Stern story developed.

[ QUOTE ]
I want Bush/Ashcroft/and the holy spirit out of office.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. I guess the Stern crackdown didn't influence the way you were voting in the least did it.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The FCC isn't unregulated.


[/ QUOTE ]

Who regulates the FCC for who they can levy fines against?

[ QUOTE ]
You mean they're using more discretion on what is broadcast on certain TV channels and radio channels between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. So what? That's good.

[/ QUOTE ]

You dont think cutting a scene of an elderly corpse's breast isnt a little ridiculous? Is that breast a turn on? It's well into the context of the show. Why not add a little realism without wondering if lil' johnny is running to the bathroom over a corpse. This is a little too uptight of thinking.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually I saw the definition tonight it's actually not vague.


[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it is.

[ QUOTE ]
I did? What child act?


[/ QUOTE ]

You dont even know what link you posted? What do you think the safe harbor link that you've been quoting is?

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Most examples were visual. There have been clear cut cases of indecency on a visual medium. ie...porno. Not so in radio broadcasting other than, 'the 7 dirty words.' Again, those are the only ' literally defined' examples of obscenity.


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



It's funny who 99.99% of programs where this rule applies have no problems and Stern is a repeat offender. Again Stern can go on the air at the same station between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am to put on the exact same content.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stern doesnt use the 7 dirty words so he doesnt have to worry about the safe harbor times.

[ QUOTE ]
Second, their opinion is not law.


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



I assume you mean the court opinions are not law. Ok.


[/ QUOTE ]

Since when is the FCC considered a court of law? The fines are based on the FCCs translation of loose guidelines. again, the fine does not constitute defining the law.

[ QUOTE ]
When they levy a fine, it does not become a part of the legal definition of indecency.


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



No the courts helped clear that up.

[/ QUOTE ]

The fines listed were not challenged in court, hence, they are not law. So how did they clear that up?

[ QUOTE ]
Actually there have been court challenges to the FCC rule and it's authority.

[/ QUOTE ]

Mostly in regards to visual media or the audio use of the 7 dirty words. What radio fine has gone to court lately? If any...

[ QUOTE ]
So ? Pay the fine and dispute the ruling. The fine is chump change to Viacom.


[/ QUOTE ]

It's about the next fine that could cost viacom up to 3 million. Along with other affiliates, other stations airing the show, being fined up to $500,000 per utterance. Not exactly chump change. The way the bill is written, it could go after talent for language. Even if it's not intended for that.

[ QUOTE ]
You asked about affiliates and broadcasters (on air talent) being held personally responsible for fines (which is ridiculous as employees).


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



No I did not.

[/ QUOTE ]

sure ya did. you asked where i came up with the stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
See I knew the conspiracy theory was just around the corner. Actually it makes the rules more easily enforcable which is good thing.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesnt define indecency any better. It makes it so they can go after more people, at their discretion, over a very vague law. It does nothing to help the situation.

[ QUOTE ]
The case, their own case, against Bono (awards show where he dropped an 'F' bomb and FCC initially ruled not indecent) is a perfect example. Why change the initial ruling?


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



Because the public demands that the rules be enforced?


[/ QUOTE ]

There was not a majority public demand for Bono to be indecent. Where do you get that from?

[ QUOTE ]
I've actually heard both audios. There was just as much tittering and giggling on Oprah as there was on Stern.

I havent even gone into the timeline for when they really cracked down on howard. Which was exactly 1 day after harsh criticism of Bush. Which 1 day before Stern was told to stop railing against the senator from NM that he was picking apart for 2 days. Not sure who told him to stop on that one, but for stern to go from using prime drops from her speech at a congressional hearing relentlessly to hardly, if at all, it must've come from someone very high up.


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



Yep I knew the conspiracy theory was coming. Again a point that you haven't acknowledge is that Stern's free speech rights are not being impugned. He can say all of this on the same radio stations between 10:00 pm. and 6:00 am and there's no problem. He can go on cable tv, satellite tv, or sattelite radio between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm and say whatever he wants

[/ QUOTE ]

So can Oprah. Did you even read the transcripts? They are almost identical. Except only one show got fined.

[ QUOTE ]
Apparently you're not for enforcing the rules that exist, you don't care about what children have access to on the airwaves, and have no concern about parents excercising any kind of control over what children have access to. You imply that Stern's broadcast content is limited but it isn't.


[/ QUOTE ]

What im for is if one is going to enforce the rules, define what the rules are. They are not clearly defined. Escept for you, i guess. And no, i dont think Stern's show is harmful to children and there is no data to prove that it is.

Parents have alot of control. They can change the channel on the station. Or are their hands broken? Most kids are in school when stern's show is on. If a parent has his show on in the car driving the kids to school, who's fault is that?

[ QUOTE ]
Stern's influence can swing an election. He has many listeners. Many listeners who, in markets where he was #1, are pissed about his being taken off the air and what is happening to not only him, but radio in general.


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




You do have a sense of humor.


[/ QUOTE ]

Evidently, so do alot of political analysts who agree with the above.

[ QUOTE ]
There are many more tangents this spreads into.


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



For you perhaps, not for me.


[/ QUOTE ]

Perhaps because you have your head in the sand thinking the gov't crackdown is being done in the interest of the people. It's not.

It seems you want a squeeky clean, disney-fied country. The taliban thought they had that.

Good luck in the crusade.

b

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
It seems you want a squeeky clean, disney-fied country. The taliban thought they had that.


[/ QUOTE ]

Finally we've got another bad guy we can use to describe people instead of the tired-old --- "well the Germans started by going after..." or "Hitler was an excellent orator too...."

Overall, I think your argument is good (it happens to be an argument with which I agree); however, you dumb it down significantly by your last sentence.


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

If the FCCs rules chill otherwise protected speech they should be held unconstitutional. My suspicion is that the vague nature of the definition of indecent coupled with the enormity of the fines will make business owners choose to "play it safe." Instead of walking the line just shy of unprotected speech, they will choose (and require their talent to) work in the "safe zone" a safe distance from the line. That is, definitionally, chilling of free speech.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Who regulates the FCC for who they can levy fines against?

[/ QUOTE ]

If you don't understand this given the new law being debated in Congress now there isn't much hope for you.


[ QUOTE ]
You dont think cutting a scene of an elderly corpse's breast isnt a little ridiculous? Is that breast a turn on? It's well into the context of the show. Why not add a little realism without wondering if lil' johnny is running to the bathroom over a corpse. This is a little too uptight of thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

A non sequiter to what you quoted.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it isn't

[ QUOTE ]
You dont even know what link you posted? What do you think the safe harbor link that you've been quoting is?

[/ QUOTE ]

?????????

[ QUOTE ]
Stern doesnt use the 7 dirty words so he doesnt have to worry about the safe harbor times.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently he does.


[ QUOTE ]
Since when is the FCC considered a court of law?

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say it was?

[ QUOTE ]
The fines are based on the FCCs translation of loose guidelines. again, the fine does not constitute defining the law.

[/ QUOTE ]

So?


[ QUOTE ]
The fines listed were not challenged in court, hence, they are not law.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stating fines are laws? Ok I guess.

[ QUOTE ]
So how did they clear that up?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah no.

[ QUOTE ]
Mostly in regards to visual media or the audio use of the 7 dirty words. What radio fine has gone to court lately? If any...

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Fines can certainly be challenged in court. There was a ruling I believe in April 2003 stating that FCC fines could be.

[ QUOTE ]
It's about the next fine that could cost viacom up to 3 million.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually this isn't a law yet but probably will be. It's funny the argument seems to be by those who oppose this new law is that since there are so many other mediums that don't have the rule regarding indecent content 10:00 pm and 6:00 am, why pick on a select few. Amazing bit of logic applied there. Again what you've never acknowledged in any of these posts is that Stern can go on any medium he wants between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am and say basically whatever he wants to. He's restricted somewhat between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. Those who oppose the new laws being debated in Congress readily admit this.

[ QUOTE ]
Along with other affiliates, other stations airing the show, being fined up to $500,000 per utterance. Not exactly chump change.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it is chump change to Viacom. That isn't the real problem that companies like Viacom have with the law. It's the 3 strikes and you're out provision of the law. I remind you that it's not a law yet either and I'd say the odds are much better than 50-50 that we'll see some sort of court challenge if the new law is passed.

[ QUOTE ]
The way the bill is written, it could go after talent for language. Even if it's not intended for that.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
sure ya did. you asked where i came up with the stuff.

[/ QUOTE ]

?????

[ QUOTE ]
It doesnt define indecency any better. It makes it so they can go after more people, at their discretion, over a very vague law. It does nothing to help the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually you're probably wrong about that. We'll see what law if any actually comes into being.


[ QUOTE ]
There was not a majority public demand for Bono to be indecent.

[/ QUOTE ]


How do you know?


[ QUOTE ]
Where do you get that from?

[/ QUOTE ]

The way congress acts regarding the demands of it's constiuencies on issues like this.


[ QUOTE ]
So can Oprah. Did you even read the transcripts? They are almost identical. Except only one show got fined.

[/ QUOTE ]

I addressed this earlier.

[qoute]What im for is if one is going to enforce the rules, define what the rules are. They are not clearly defined. Escept for you, i guess.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've got news for you I'm not the only one.

[ QUOTE ]
And no, i dont think Stern's show is harmful to children and there is no data to prove that it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're going to make that decision for all parents. What a load of crap. Again something you have never acknowledged and addressed in any of your posts is that Stern can go on the air between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am on any broadcast medium and say basically whatever he wants. He is somewhat restricted between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. Apparently this fact is something that you don't care to address because it makes most of your statements mute.



[ QUOTE ]
Parents have alot of control. They can change the channel on the station. Or are their hands broken? If a parent has his show on in the car driving the kids to school, who's fault is that?

[/ QUOTE ]

I see now you just don't want to have the rule in place at all. Are you advocating that parents constantly monitor what their children are watching or listening to when their is no restrictions on content on certain select airwaves? That's nuts. The problem manifested itself during the infamous Super Bowl halftime show. Parents had the reasonable expectation that Jackson wouldn't do what she did. This is just one example. Parents don't want to have certain content during family hours. But apparently you feel you have the right and the knowledge to speak for all parents. Again the fact that you've haven't acknowledged one time in these posts is very revealing and makes most of your issues mute. Stern can say whatever he wants to between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. He's somewhat restricted between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm.



[ QUOTE ]
Evidently, so do alot of political analysts who agree with the above.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones?

[ QUOTE ]
Perhaps because you have your head in the sand thinking the gov't crackdown is being done in the interest of the people. It's not.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm the one that has his head in the sand? Ok.

[ QUOTE ]
It seems you want a squeeky clean, disney-fied country. The taliban thought they had that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again the fact that you've haven't acknowledged one time in these posts. Stern can say whatever he wants to between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am. He's somewhat restricted between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. When will you acknowledge this point?

[ QUOTE ]
Good luck in the crusade.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a crusade at all. Just maintaining the status quo and making the enforcement of the rules easier.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Again what you've never acknowledged in any of these posts is that Stern can go on any medium he wants between 10:00 pm and 6:00 am and say basically whatever he wants to. He's restricted somewhat between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's only restricted two-thirds of the time...so it's okay. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[adios]

Actually he's not restricted 2/3 of the time if you think about it /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
If the FCCs rules chill otherwise protected speech they should be held unconstitutional. My suspicion is that the vague nature of the definition of indecent coupled with the enormity of the fines will make business owners choose to "play it safe."

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually it's probably not the fines. It's the three strikes and you're out provision. It's not a law yet either.

[ QUOTE ]
Instead of walking the line just shy of unprotected speech, they will choose (and require their talent to) work in the "safe zone" a safe distance from the line.

[/ QUOTE ]

Between 6:00 am and 10:00 pm on certain mediums? I don't think much will change at all given the rule that is currently in place. We'll see what the law if any actually is. Anyways I think this article is decent:

Indecent Proposal?

Broadcast-Standards Bill
Might Come With
Dirty Little Secret
By ANNE MARIE SQUEO
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
March 24, 2004; Page A4

WASHINGTON -- At a recent congressional hearing on imposing tougher broadcast-decency standards, First Amendment attorney Robert Corn-Revere warned Congress to be careful what it wished for: The bill could provoke a Supreme Court ruling limiting lawmakers' ability to enforce such standards.

The Supreme Court hasn't directly addressed the issue of broadcast decency since 1978, when, in the landmark case of FCC vs. Pacifica Broadcasting, it famously immortalized the comedian George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words" as indecent. Mr. Corn-Revere, a former Federal Communications Commission official who now represents broadcasters, told lawmakers they were in effect inviting a reversal of the government's right to regulate such talk. "The real question is whether Pacifica would even be affirmed today," he said.

He and an army of free-speech activists are champing at the bit to prove it wouldn't -- especially in a world where cable, broadcast and Internet media regularly commingle. In their view, the new legislation moving through Congress -- which would drastically boost sanctions for radio and television broadcasters who violate indecency laws -- provides a vehicle for a fresh judicial review.

For years broadcasters have had few options and even less incentive to challenge the FCC, which levies indecency fines and approves lucrative broadcast licenses and acquisitions, among other things. There was no way to argue the validity of an FCC indecency fine unless the Justice Department agreed to file suit to collect, since the FCC doesn't have authority to sue on its own behalf. Given that few fines were more than $7,000, none of these cases made it to trial.

Now Congress is weighing drastically higher fines that almost certainly would be challenged in court, industry officials and free-speech advocates say. If enacted, the Broadcast Decency Act of 2004 would allow the FCC to levy fines of as much as $3 million a day on a radio or TV station. And it would have a so-called three-strikes provision, automatically triggering license-revocation hearings for those with three offenses in eight years. The House approved its version, the Senate is set to vote, and the White House has signaled its support.


Landmark broadcast indecency decisions

• 1969: Supreme Court says free-speech protections for broadcasters are narrower than those for publishers and pedestrians.

• 1978: Court upholds FCC ban on George Carlin's "seven dirty words" and other indecencies on radio, TV "when there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience."

• 1995: Appeals court validates a broader FCC indecency ban, but limits it to between 6 a.m.-10 p.m.

• 1997: Supreme Court strikes down law that criminalizes the sending of "indecent or obscene" material to minors online.

• 2000: Court invalidates part of 1996 law that relegated pornography on cable TV to late-night hours.




Industry executives and lawyers, speaking on the condition of anonymity, say such measures raise the stakes, putting them in a position of having to fight a fine even if they are inclined to pay. "The way the law reads now if you pay a fine, it's an admission," said one industry attorney. "Anyone who gets into a three-strikes situation knows they're headed for a revocation hearing, because the law doesn't permit any other result."

Broadcasters have always been held to a higher standard than other forms of media when it comes to material considered indecent. While courts have defended broad free-speech rights of print media, the government has argued -- and courts have backed -- the notion that tighter TV and radio restrictions are needed because publicly licensed broadcast airwaves pervade homes uniquely.

The basic tenet of these indecency regulations is to protect children from exposure to sexually explicit or other "patently offensive" material. As the laws have evolved, indecent material has been deemed a form of protected speech under the Constitution's First Amendment. But its broadcast is limited to the hours of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., when children are least likely to see or hear it. Attempts to extend such rules to other hours and other forms of media have been knocked down by the courts.

Broadcasters and free-speech advocates argue that much has changed since the Supreme Court last looked at this issue head-on in the Pacifica case, when the court ruled that Mr. Carlin's monologue on a New York radio station was indecent. Since then, new media such as cable television and the Internet have proliferated.

"The only speakers in the marketplace that are subject to the indecency standard are the broadcasters," says Marjorie Heins, director of the Free Expression Policy Project in New York and author of a book on the topic titled "Not In Front of the Children." "The question is whether the Supreme Court will say, 'We've got so much else out there now that it's silly and unfair to subject broadcasters to this indecency standard.' "

Legal experts say that anyone affected by the regulations could contest them as unconstitutional, and that it wouldn't be long before the issue was back before the Supreme Court.

The court's guiding precedent, Pacifica, involved the midday airing of Mr. Carlin's riff on bad language, during which he repeatedly used words he said probably aren't OK to say over the public airwaves. In their 5-4 ruling the justices decided he was right. In particular, the court singled out the special nature of the public airwaves to invade "the privacy of the home where the individual's right to be left alone plainly outweighs the First Amendment rights of the intruder." The majority opinion, written by Justice John Paul Stevens, emphasized "the narrowness" of the ruling and said it "requires consideration of a host of variables."

It was a close call, and dissenting justices were strident in their rebuke. The majority's attempt "to impose its notions of propriety on the whole of the American people [is] so misguided, that I am unable to remain silent," wrote Justice William Brennan, joined by Justice Thurgood Marshall.

Since then, the high court has refused attempts to use this opinion to extend its protection-of-children argument to cable television and the Internet. In 1997, the court struck down a federal law seeking to protect children from pornography and other harmful material on the Internet. In the 7-2 decision, also written by Justice Stevens, the court noted the "emphatically narrow holding" in Pacifica, finding that its extension to the Internet would "suppress a large amount of speech adults have a constitutional right to receive." Three years later, the justices ruled 5-4 to strike down a federal law seeking to restrict adult programming to overnight hours if cable operators couldn't fully scramble the signal.

Even without the new law, another legal avenue opened in April 2003 for those who want to challenge indecency fines. In an unrelated ruling, a Washington appeals court decided that paying any FCC fine would allow a company to seek judicial review.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
First off, the legal definition for indecency is extremely vague and open to interpretation
------------------------

Actually I saw the definition tonight it's actually not vague.


[/ QUOTE ]

Here's the standard (broken out by each element):

The language must
Depict or Describe
Sexual or Excretory
Activities and Organs
in ways Patently Offensive
measured by Contemporary Community Standards
for the Broadcast Media

--------

I think it would be hard for a radio personality to know when they've crossed the line. Because of that, many will play it safe. Once many start doing that, I fear that the "contemporary community standards" are changing (not as a result of actual "community standards," but rather as a function of regulation.) This type of chilling effect is damaging to Free Speech.

[elwoodblues]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually he's not restricted 2/3 of the time if you think about it

[/ QUOTE ]
Okay I'm thinking about it...

There are 24 hours in a day.
6am - 10pm represents a span of 16 hours.
2/3 of 24 = 16.

[adios]

You need to think a little harder and bring in more variables to your equation. The number of broadcast hours on cable TV, satellite TV, satellite radio, regular public access TV, and regular public radio is:

24 * 5 = 120

He's restricted 16 hours on public access TV and public access radio = 32

32/120 is approximately 27% of the available hours.

[bernie]

I almost used the hitler line. Ever read his book? /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

Anyways, the fact the other side cant reasonably respond to the exact similarities between the Oprah transcript and the howard one, and why one was fined and the other wasnt, says volumes. The FCC is picking and choosing who they fine for whatever reason. If the law was so definitive, as the opponent seems to like to suggest, both Oprah and howard would be fined.

The 6-10 time slot means nothing since they cant defing indecency. So what is it they 'can't' say between those times? Exact phrasing please. Hell, even just words other than the 7 dirty words...

hmm? Cant come up with anything?

I asked this a couple times on this merry-go-round. To basically no response, yet the law is soooo clear on this issue.

If parents cant keep their kids in line, and teach them context of decency, they shouldnt have kids hoping the gov't will raise them.

Im done in this thread. Good luck Elwood should you continue. Evidently, some like the government to have way too much control in their lives. It makes their decisions easier.

have fun

b

[bernie]

Yes, stern can say what he wants between 10 and 6. I think he should be able to anytime. He also hasnt broke any laws.
The safe harbor law is based on a vague decency law.

[ QUOTE ]
Just maintaining the status quo and making the enforcement of the rules easier.

[/ QUOTE ]

The status quo? Based on ratings and revenue dollars generated by these types of shows indicates otherwise. If these shows were so bad, no one would listen and their market would evaporate. Now there's a concept! Why are these shows so popular if no one wants them? Are they auditorily addicted? Unable to turn the channel because they hate the show so much?

I dont think seeing a sliver of nipple for 2 seconds is going to cause the children of the US to become mass criminals with low moral standard. Children were not littering the streets screaming and covering their eyes as a result. It wasnt as big a deal as was made out of it. Gross ovrreaction is a good term for it.

b

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, stern can say what he wants between 10 and 6.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yep.

[ QUOTE ]
I think he should be able to anytime.

[/ QUOTE ]

He can say what ever wants anytime, just not anyplace. All you and Elwood want to do is change the FCC rule that's in effect to allow any programming content at any time on any channel. From what I read that courts have repeatedly stated that the government has a right to limit content on certain broadcast mediums. I'd actually have a lot more respect for your position if you just stated you wanted to over turn previous court decisions and do away with the FCC rules.

[ QUOTE ]
He also hasnt broke any laws.

[/ QUOTE ]

Did I say he had.

[ QUOTE ]
The safe harbor law is based on a vague decency law.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's an FCC rule.

[ QUOTE ]
The status quo?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah the status quo, the FCC rules haven't changed just the penalties for violating them MAY change. Write your congressman to urge he/she to vote the way you want them to. It's the American way.

[ QUOTE ]
Based on ratings and revenue dollars generated by these types of shows indicates otherwise. If these shows were so bad, no one would listen and their market would evaporate.

[/ QUOTE ]

So what? Another one of your non sequiters.

[ QUOTE ]
Now there's a concept!

[/ QUOTE ]

An obvious one.

[ QUOTE ]
Why are these shows so popular if no one wants them?

[/ QUOTE ]

????? You're off on one of your tangents again.

[ QUOTE ]
Are they auditorily addicted? Unable to turn the channel because they hate the show so much?

[/ QUOTE ]

???? See what I mean?

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think seeing a sliver of nipple for 2 seconds is going to cause the children of the US to become mass criminals with low moral standard. Children were not littering the streets screaming and covering their eyes as a result. It wasnt as big a deal as was made out of it. Gross ovrreaction is a good term for it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're a true hypocrite, you talk about freedom of speech and then want to decide what moral content parents can and should expose their children to and what's best for their children. Shame on you.

[bernie]

[ QUOTE ]
The safe harbor law is based on a vague decency law.


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



No it's an FCC rule.


[/ QUOTE ]

built on a vague decency law. It's not a self standing rule. Remember the 'guidelines' it uses?

[ QUOTE ]
You're a true hypocrite, you talk about freedom of speech and then want to decide what moral content parents can and should expose their children to and what's best for their children.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not hypocritical at all. I think the parents should decide. Not the government. Parental decisions dont need government involvement. They can act for themselves without the gov't holding their hands. The parents cant decide what to let their kids listen to without the gov't telling them? Id like to give parents more credit than that. Maybe i shouldnt. Says alot about parenting skills these days though. No one is forcing parents to have their kids turn on a radio/tv and listen/watch the shows. No one is forcing a parent, should they find their kid consuming these shows to have the tv/radio left on said channel. No one is forcing a parent not to parent a kid who uses certain subjects at times to tell them when it's more appropriate to use subjects in conversation. I guess parents want to shirk responsibility in teaching a kid whats right and wrong in social situations based on what they may hear on the street. My parents told me when i was a kid and used less than 'acceptable' language, how/when it's appropriate to use it. Why cant parents today?

I also dont think those shows are damaging to kids. Funny how there's very little restriction on violence in media, especially if it's a religious depiction, but sex is just abhorrent. Great priorities.

b

[Cyrus]

I would have expected at least 20.

/images/graemlins/cool.gif

[Kenrick]

Thank you, Adios, for stating things I no longer have the time nor patience to state over and over again. Lots of people tend to hop on touchy-feely bandwagons instead of using logic and reason.

Want to know a key reason why we invaded Iraq? Because thanks to Hussein disregarding every UN sanction against him for the past ten-freakin'-years, Desert Storm never ended. Plenty of Democrats and even the UN itself a few years ago all agreed that Iraq had WMD's, and now they all jump ship like the little weasels they are. The UN said it was Saddam's job to show his WMD's were destroyed; It wasn't the U.S.'s job to find them.

Any time you start to feel a little sorry for Iraq or terrorists or whoever else, go look at some footage of the Kuwait invasion and Iraq's torture chambers and the footage of the planes crashing into the Twin Towers on 9/11 and watching people holding hands as they jump to their death.

Also, Bush is for putting more of YOUR money into your pocket. Anyone notice their paycheck got a little bigger this past year after his tax cuts kicked in? Yeah, yeah, "a guy who makes a dollar more than me got more back in taxes." boo hoo hoo. Stop being so selfish. Any tax cut is a good tax cut. When was the last time you got a tax cut? 15 years? The only way Congress will learn to stop spending money on stupid crap is to take it away from them. Every time I hear on the news that government jobs are being cut, I say, "Good." Government is a bloated pig.

And to dare to say that high gas prices are Bush's fault... Al Gore wrote in his book that he'd raise gas taxes as high as he could in order to abolish the engines we have in our cars today. Absurd. The main people those gas taxes would hurt are the very people he claims he fights for. People like that have no concept on reality.

[adios]