Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

I realize that the title is slightly misleading.. so lemme explain my question.

Is it against an American's freedom of speech for someone to be persecuted for saying something on TV, if it's non-scripted or something? For example, Don Imus losing his job and Dog the Bounty Hunter getting in trouble for saying derogatory things toward blacks. If we have the freedom to say pretty much anything then why can we get in trouble for saying such things on the TV? Is there some law that you lose your right to freedom of speech in national television?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I realize that the title is slightly misleading.. so lemme explain my question.

Is it against an American's freedom of speech for someone to be persecuted for saying something on TV, if it's non-scripted or something? For example, Don Imus losing his job and Dog the Bounty Hunter getting in trouble for saying derogatory things toward blacks. If we have the freedom to say pretty much anything then why can we get in trouble for saying such things on the TV? Is there some law that you lose your right to freedom of speech in national television? Yes.


Though Imus was on a private station it's certainly not unconstitutional to fire him for that.

Yes to what, that there is a law or that it is unconstitutional?

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
Yes to what, that there is a law or that it is unconstitutional?

It is unconstitutional.

There's also a law establishing the censorship, obviously. That law is unconstitutional, too.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I realize that the title is slightly misleading.. so lemme explain my question.

Is it against an American's freedom of speech for someone to be persecuted for saying something on TV, if it's non-scripted or something? For example, Don Imus losing his job and Dog the Bounty Hunter getting in trouble for saying derogatory things toward blacks. If we have the freedom to say pretty much anything then why can we get in trouble for saying such things on the TV? Is there some law that you lose your right to freedom of speech in national television?

Depends on the type of censorship.

The two examples you mention above are not, as they weren't actually censored, they said what they said and the powers that be -- the people who run the channels and who have the absolute right to decide what they want on their channels -- decided that they didn't want to be seen as supporters of racist comments. Again, this is well within their rights, and isn't really censorship.

Things like the FCC, however, are unconstitutional, imo, because they are actually taking choice away from the people who own the channels and who SHOULD have the right to decide what goes on their channels. As opposed to some authoritative third party who is deciding for them.

That said, personally I don't like any of these examples, I'd much prefer if they would simply just allow anything/everything (legal) to go on TV and let the viewers decide what they want to watch.

Ah. Thank you for your input. Please come back again.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I realize that the title is slightly misleading.. so lemme explain my question.

Is it against an American's freedom of speech for someone to be persecuted for saying something on TV, if it's non-scripted or something? For example, Don Imus losing his job and Dog the Bounty Hunter getting in trouble for saying derogatory things toward blacks. If we have the freedom to say pretty much anything then why can we get in trouble for saying such things on the TV? Is there some law that you lose your right to freedom of speech in national television?

No. Private employer has a right to do business and make money and fire their employees for causing problems that inhibits their making of money.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I realize that the title is slightly misleading.. so lemme explain my question.

Is it against an American's freedom of speech for someone to be persecuted for saying something on TV, if it's non-scripted or something? For example, Don Imus losing his job and Dog the Bounty Hunter getting in trouble for saying derogatory things toward blacks. If we have the freedom to say pretty much anything then why can we get in trouble for saying such things on the TV? Is there some law that you lose your right to freedom of speech in national television?

Government enforced censorship is completely unconstitutional. Businesses do have the right to fire people who act contrary to their interests and they do have the right to enforce their own standards of decency.

People should get in trouble for saying stupid things on TV (as those who disagree have the right to voice their opinions as well) but they should not be censored for it.

I don't think it's unconstitutional, in theory.

I think the idea is that most people want there to be regulations and that's why they exist. But, the problem comes when you consider there are 300 million different opinions on the subject.

What is needed in this country is a better way for its citizens to have input on this and any number of other issues.

Originally posted by Devil King
I don't think it's unconstitutional, in theory.

I think the idea is that most people want there to be regulations and that's why they exist. But, the problem comes when you consider there are 300 million different opinions on the subject.

What is needed in this country is a better way for its citizens to have input on this and any number of other issues. I believe it is very unconstitutional in theory. The FCC seems to have no basis in anything I read in the US constitution. In fact it seems to go against it in parts.

There are certain rights granted by the constitution that even a majority of people can not regulate. Freedom of Speech being one of them. And since you can always change the channel, TV censorship is without a doubt unconstitutional.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I believe it is very unconstitutional in theory. The FCC seems to have no basis in anything I read in the US constitution. In fact it seems to go against it in parts.

There are certain rights granted by the constitution that even a majority of people can not regulate. Freedom of Speech being one of them. And since you can always change the channel, TV censorship is without a doubt unconstitutional.

A lot of our government has no basis in the constitution. This is why public opinion is supposed to matter.

I'm against all forms of censorship basically so yeah, this for me is definitely unconstitutional.

The whole freedom of speech thing is a bit of a tricky subject. The main point against it is that in-sighting hatred is against the law and given public stand, such as television, in-sighting something can be very easy (or so people claim).

But also remember that these people are not being arrested, or dealt with in a fashion that would be associated with incriminating behaviour. I could call my boss a **** tomorrow, I'm fairly sure I'd lose my job.

Originally posted by Devil King
A lot of our government has no basis in the constitution. This is why public opinion is supposed to matter. Sadly. But in here it actually contradicts the constitution, which is quite the definition of unconstitutional.

Originally posted by chillmeistergen
The whole freedom of speech thing is a bit of a tricky subject. The main point against it is that in-sighting hatred is against the law and given public stand, such as television, in-sighting something can be very easy (or so people claim).

But also remember that these people are not being arrested, or dealt with in a fashion that would be associated with incriminating behaviour. I could call my boss a **** tomorrow, I'm fairly sure I'd lose my job.

Personally I feel that law should be stricken from the record. If a person on a television station, radio station, whichever medium the statements are made on do not represent or reflect the feelings of such a medium then they have the right to fire him if the owner sees fit. Also, I agree that they shouldn't be treated with criminal indictment.

Originally posted by Kram3r
Personally I feel that law should be stricken from the record. If a person on a television station, radio station, whichever medium the statements are made on do not represent or reflect the feelings of such a medium then they have the right to fire him if the owner sees fit. Also, I agree that they shouldn't be treated with criminal indictment.

Yeah, I agree.

On a social level, I agree. I want totally uncensored television, it's my descision to watch what ever I want, or what my kids watch. But the majority of people would want there to be censorship, but that really boils down to a matter of public opinion. They want censorship because they can't take responsability for raising their own children. But, that's what the public wants, so that's what they've gotten.

So, we have commercials and censorship and tv ratings plastered all over our television screens. Even on the channels like HBO and Showtime we have TV ratings. (Although it can be helpful when they tell you a movie has nudity, I just might watch it then.) I just hate that you have to pay more for uncensored television. THAT's a crime.

If we fail to understand this is what people want, then our only recourse is to either follow the money or buy into the conspiracy theories.

Originally posted by Devil King
On a social level, I agree. I want totally uncensored television, it's my descision to watch what ever I want, or what my kids watch. But the majority of people would want there to be censorship, but that really boils down to a matter of public opinion. They want censorship because they can't take responsability for raising their own children. But, that's what the public wants, so that's what they've gotten.


They shouldn't.That's what the constitution is for. To protect the minority from that sort of bullshit. But since your politicians nowadays feel the need to urinate on individual rights it makes sense I suppose.

Originally posted by Devil King
So, we have commercials and censorship and tv ratings plastered all over our television screens. Even on the channels like HBO and Showtime we have TV ratings. (Although it can be helpful when they tell you a movie has nudity, I just might watch it then.) I just hate that you have to pay more for uncensored television. THAT's a crime.


Well, actually the thing is that there is a niche for uncencored television now, that's why you have to pay. Ratings are a good thing a TV station can do for their viewers, it should not be imposed.

Originally posted by Devil King
If we fail to understand this is what people want, then our only recourse is to either follow the money or buy into the conspiracy theories.

I don't ****ing care what the people want. A dictarorship of the majority is still a dictatorship.

Originally posted by Bardock42



I don't ****ing care what the people want. A dictarorship of the majority is still a dictatorship.

You do realize you just defined democracy right?

Originally posted by Bardock42
I don't ****ing care what the people want. A dictarorship of the majority is still a dictatorship.

I have never denied that. This is why I have always disagreed with people when they call the US a democracy. What peopl eneed to do is look up the difference between a democracy and a Republic. But they don't. So we get what we want, and what we want is censorship.

No doubt there is a market for pay television, but to get that market to realize why they want it is another matter.

Originally posted by chithappens
You do realize you just defined democracy right?

Yes. I am sadly aware of that.

Originally posted by Devil King
I have never denied that. This is why I have always disagreed with people when they call the US a democracy. What peopl eneed to do is look up the difference between a democracy and a Republic.

Isn't the US a Democratic Republic though? (not either or)

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Isn't the US a Democratic Republic though? (not either or)

Yeah it is. I had an excessive debate with Alliance and Janus Marius about that before. Obviously the United States are a Democracy.

As others have said, no it's not unconstitutional. TV channels are private businesses that can choose what kind of content they want to air. The FCC moderates this. Also, the reason most prime-time, easy accessable channels do not frequent sexual content or harsh language is because many parents would not like the fact that their 4th Grader can turn to the nudey channel any time the feel like (regardless of the V-Chip's existance). If others want their nudey channel, they can pay for it, which is how said nudey channels make money.

Make sense?

Originally posted by Bardiel13
As others have said, no it's not unconstitutional. TV channels are private businesses that can choose what kind of content they want to air. The FCC moderates this. Also, the reason most prime-time, easy accessable channels do not frequent sexual content or harsh language is because many parents would not like the fact that their 4th Grader can turn to the nudey channel any time the feel like (regardless of the V-Chip's existance). If others want their nudey channel, they can pay for it, which is how said nudey channels make money.

Make sense? The FCC moderating this is certainly unconstitutional.


Really, I read the constitution again and again, and yet, the amendment never changed to "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech except one in which the FCC is established to limit just that".

Maybe my version is outdated?

No, I agree with you, Bardock. I too think the FCC is unconstitutional, not to mention a waste of money/time.

I think this should answer most of the questions.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/freespeech.pdf

It comes down to what is considered a risk to the public; this is not protected under the Constitution.

I feel calling it unconstitutional only works if you have personally defined the meaning of the constitution to make it so; that claim doesn't really stand up to legal scrutiny (which is why it has not been struuck down).

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think this should answer most of the questions.

http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/freespeech.pdf

It comes down to what is considered a risk to the public; this is not protected under the Constitution.

It is actually though. They are taking out parts to control what you can say and what you can see and justify it with "risk to the public". Even if that was true (and it isn't, it's just fascists trying to control free people), how on this planet is the word **** a risk to the public?

It is unconstitutional, no matter how they are trying to bend it. It's freedom of speech, not freedom of speech except for what a random comittee decides is not appropriate on a medium that can be ignored easier than any other medium in the history of the world.

The prblem is that that is YOUR definition of freedom of speech, Bardock. And no offence but that is entirely irrelevant.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I feel calling it unconstitutional only works if you have personally defined the meaning of the constitution to make it so; that claim doesn't really stand up to legal scrutiny (which is why it has not been struuck down).

Well, that is true, they can of course define it in any way they want. They could say that Freedom of Religion just means Christianity...but obviously the intent was to give people the right to say something (at least that doesn't harm anyone) without fear of persecution. As long as you can switch the channel, the word **** will not harm you and at least in my opinion it should be covered under freedom of speech.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
The prblem is that that is YOUR definition of freedom of speech, Bardock. And no offence but that is entirely irrelevant. It's just as relevant as anyone else's really.

Well that it is your opinion is fine., But to therefore say it is 'definitely' unconstitutional is a long way off.

The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court, and its job is to interpret not only what is written in the Constiution, but also what was meant by those who wrote it. And so therefore taking these things literally is a bad idea. Freedom- whether of the press or of speech- has never been literal, constituitionally speaking.

You can say it should, but that's a whole different ball game.

Originally posted by Bardock42
It's just as relevant as anyone else's really.

No it really isn't- there's only one body whose members' opinions are relevant.

Taken literally is absolutely not what was meant, though, so that is, again, not relevant.

The constitution's a bit shit, really.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No it really isn't- there's only one body whose members' opinions are relevant.

No. There's one body that the US lets decide about it. But the constitution can be interpreted by anyone. Obviously my opinion doesn't decide whether it is deemed unconstitutional, but it is still relevant all the same.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Taken literally is absolutely not what was meant, though, so that is, again, not relevant. Oh right, I see your opinion is relevant obviously.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. There's one body that the US lets decide about it. But the constitution can be interpreted by anyone. Obviously my opinion doesn't decide whether it is deemed unconstitutional, but it is still relevant all the same.

What SHOULD be in it can be debated by anyone.

But what, factually, actually is or is not constitutuonal... that is absolutely decided by just one body. It's not up for debate. What should or should not be can be debated. What is or is not... cannot, it is set for you.

If the FCC was unconstitutional it would not exist. You can want it to be so, you can feel it should be so, but the stark fact is that it is not.

In any case, your view that it should be is based onn a very basic reading of the Constitution which is worth very little.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that it is your opinion is fine., But to therefore say it is 'definitely' unconstitutional is a long way off.

The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court, and its job is to interpret not only what is written in the Constiution, but also what was meant by those who wrote it. And so therefore taking these things literally is a bad idea. Freedom- whether of the press or of speech- has never been literal, constituitionally speaking.

You can say it should, but that's a whole different ball game.

Obviously that was implied. I am sure everyone is aware of the fact that it is not de facto unconstitutional, seeing as it exists in the US.

My wording might have been radical, but obviously every of my posts that's on an opinion issue has an unwritten "imo" behind.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Oh right, I see your opinion is relevant obviously.

Just reflecting the Court's opinion I am afraid. I didn't write the damn thing.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well that it is your opinion is fine., But to therefore say it is 'definitely' unconstitutional is a long way off.

The Constitution is decided by the Supreme Court, and its job is to interpret not only what is written in the Constiution, but also what was meant by those who wrote it. And so therefore taking these things literally is a bad idea. Freedom- whether of the press or of speech- has never been literal, constituitionally speaking.

You can say it should, but that's a whole different ball game.

Seems like a clear abuse of the government system. Yes they do have the power to do that but to redefine it in such an abstract way should not be within that power (in my opinion) because it makes the Constitution irrelevant to law makers.

Why does it make it irrelevant to law makers?

You are making an error here in thinking the Constitution is not being used in the way it was meant to.

Far from it- working like this is exactly what was intended.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
What SHOULD be in it can be debated by anyone.

But what, factually, actually is or is not constitutuonal... that is absolutely decided by just one body. It's not up for debate. What should or should not be can be debated. What is or is not... cannot, it is set for you.

If the FCC was unconstitutional it would not exist. You can want it to be so, you can feel it should be so, but the stark fact is that it is not.

In any case, your view that it should be is based onn a very basic reading of the Constitution which is worth very little.

I figured the person meant what we think about whether it is unconstitutional.

I still figure that. You think he meant whether it is actually unconstitutional, in the US, today?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why does it make it irrelevant to law makers?

You are making an error here in thinking the Constitution is not being used in the way it was meant to.

Far from it- working like this is exactly what was intended. In your opinion.

In my and a few others used as it is now was not intended.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Just reflecting the Court's opinion I am afraid. I didn't write the damn thing.

Yes, we can agree that the courts find the FCC to be constitutional. Should we end the thread here or can we talk about why we think it should or should not? I promise I will use less absolute words.

I feel your comment that it definitely IS unconstitutional warranted a comment about such views.

I am a little worried by those who feel that the Constitution was ever intended to be read literally.

Frankly I think such consttutions are horrible things.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I feel your comment that it definitely IS unconstitutional warranted a comment about such views.

I am a little worried by those who feel that the Constitution was ever intended to be read literally.

Frankly I think such consttutions are horrible things. Fair dos. I take it back.

I meant to say "I think it should definately be unconstitutional".

Originally posted by Bardock42
In your opinion.


Nope. Once more, just reflecting the opinion that matters. The Court was set up for just that purpose and its remit to bear in mind the reasoning behind parts of the Constitution- not just its literal meaning- was there from the start.

This is all just fact.

Well one of the problems is that even the Constitution is not clear and is open ended on the subject and is subject to interpretation by the courts. Such as the wording between indecent and obscene, where one is protected and the other is not.

As for a basic comment about the question asked- no, it's not unconstitutional, and the reason it has not been heldf to be so is because it is a mistake to misread the freedoms of speech and the press to think you are allowed to say whatever you like. That;s not what they mean, it's never what they meant, and if people have since used the prhease "freedom of Speech" to mean something different, that is of no relevance to the constitution.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Nope. Once more, just reflecting the opinion that matters. The Court was set up for just that purpose and its remit to bear in mind the reasoning behind parts of the Constitution- not just its literal meaning- was there from the start.

This is all just fact.

No. I am pretty sure the constitution was crafted to assign the roles to different parts of the government (for one) but also to give people certain rights that should only be trampled on in the way the constitution assigns for it (2/3 of Congress changing it, I believe). I am close to certain it was meant to give people rights that could not just be interpreted away. Obviously they can be, as I suppose is the case with all laws.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Well one of the problems is that even the Constitution is not clear and is open ended on the subject and is subject to interpretation by the courts. Such as the wording between indecent and obscene, where one is protected and the other is not.

I'd agree that is a problem.

Originally posted by Bardock42
No. I am pretty sure the constitution was crafted to assign the roles to different parts of the government (for one) but also to give people certain rights that should only be trampled on in the way the constitution assigns for it (2/3 of Congress changing it, I believe). I am close to certain it was meant to give people rights that could not just be interpreted away. Obviously they can be, as I suppose is the case with all laws.

Well, if you genuinely were in ignorance of the Supreme Court's role in that, and the importance of interpretation of the Constitution to the whole process, I am happy to have put you right on that.

I am surprised you think it is a bad thing though.. A dogmatic reading of it would be horrendous. The importance of the Constitution was what the Founders (and later writers) intended; a literal reading was not that- which can be very clearly seen by some of their commentary on the matter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Why does it make it irrelevant to law makers?

Because in the FCC can be created with a mission statement like that it means anyone can have anything censored (I could take down CNN for getting a fact wrong if enough people got behind me according to the FCC mission statement). If the same thing can be extended to other parts of the Constitution (and it can) any freedom can be summarily suspended which is an abuse of the government system and makes the Constitution far more malleable than I think it was ever intended to be.

Of course it was meant to change with the times but when the Courts allow freedom of speech to be suspended in the case of "extreme, incorrect, or somehow improper political, economic, or social statements" that aspect of the Constitution simply ceases to exist.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
You are making an error here in thinking the Constitution is not being used in the way it was meant to.

I think the interpretation currently being used is manipulative and dangerous.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Far from it- working like this is exactly what was intended.

I understand that. That doesn't mean I can't impotently ***** about the direction it is being taken in.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Well, if you genuinely were in ignorance of the Supreme Court's role in that, and the importance of interpretation of the Constitution to the whole process, I am happy to have put you right on that.

I am surprised you think it is a bad thing though.. A dogmatic reading of it would be horrendous. The importance of the Constitution was what the Founders (and later writers) intended; a literal reading was not that- which can be very clearly seen by some of their commentary on the matter.

Doesn't say that in the constitution of course. Still, they might believe that that's what the writer's of the constitution intended, but though their believe is final on what happens in the US, it doesn't mean that it has to be accurate.

Explain how literal reading would be worse than what we have today, please.

I'm really fuzzy on why you think the Constitution becomes irrelevant to lawmakers just because there are exceptions to it. The fact that it can be interpreted doesn't mean it will be nullified on all mattters- that's the old 'slippery slope' approach used to argue against legalising gay marriage and so on.

There also comes a point where by championing freedom of speech you have started to champion the less moral side.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm really fuzzy on why you think the Constitution becomes irrelevant to lawmakers just because there are exceptions to it. The fact that it can be interpreted doesn't mean it will be nullified on all mattters- that's the old 'slippery slope' approach used to argue against legalising gay marriage and so on.

When the exceptions are virtually all encompassing why have the law at all?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
There also comes a point where by championing freedom of speech you have started to champion the less moral side.

I don't follow.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Doesn't say that in the constitution of course. Still, they might believe that that's what the writer's of the constitution intended, but though their believe is final on what happens in the US, it doesn't mean that it has to be accurate.

Explain how literal reading would be worse than what we have today, please.

There's more to the fundamentals of how the US is run than just the Constitution, you know. The reason it's not in the Constitution is because the Supreme Court's role was not put into all this until some two decades later. Precedent is as important as origin, in any civilised society.

How would it be worse? Slander, libel, racial hatred, incitement to illegal (not to mention immoral) acts... even just yelling out "Fire!" in a crowded cinema and causing a stampede that gets people trampled to death... frankly that;'a a ludicrous question, there is a huge range of heinous ills that would be allowed with a literal reading.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
I'm really fuzzy on why you think the Constitution becomes irrelevant to lawmakers just because there are exceptions to it. The fact that it can be interpreted doesn't mean it will be nullified on all mattters- that's the old 'slippery slope' approach used to argue against legalising gay marriage and so on.

There also comes a point where by championing freedom of speech you have started to champion the less moral side.

The fact is it could be, which makes it much less powerful, obviously. But I guess that is a danger that comes with judicial systems.

Well, if you include such things as screaming fire in crowded cinemas and ordering death sentences for people I agree with you. But, that point is, imo, really only reached when the usage of freedom of speech probably results in the death or severe harm of another person. So, really, I'd be with the FCC if they could just bring up one case where a person died because of the word ****.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If it is found that it was likely that, that would happen and it is fabricated, maybe. Contrary to popular believe, I don't own the perfect code of law.

But I don't see what that has to do with the idea of the FCC at all. The thing is no one is forced to watch any of the programs, so it can't be harmful to you unless you choose to subject yourself to that. And incitements of hatred are covered by general laws already. So what is the constitutional point of the FCC? I mean, at least in my opinion, the first amendment was there to protect you from being censored on subjective moral basis. I think much of the idea is that if uncontrolled or regulated TV would broadcast what sells which is sex and violence. While I do agree with you that it is the right of responsibility of the parents to regulate what is watched by their kids and in the end it is their responsibility to parent their kids. The sad fact is that many do not and use the TV as a baby sitter and kids being kids will still watch what they want to and get around the parental blocks or watch it somewhere else. Many believe the constant bombardment of violent and sex on TV has an impact on youth so that is a risk to the individual and to society.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
I think much of the idea is that if uncontrolled or regulated TV would broadcast what sells which is sex and violence. While I do agree with you that it is the right of responsibility of the parents to regulate what is watched by their kids and in the end it is their responsibility to parent their kids. The sad fact is that many do not and use the TV as a baby sitter and kids being kids will still watch what they want to and get around the parental blocks or watch it somewhere else. Many believe the constant bombardment of violent and sex on TV has an impact on youth so that is a risk to the individual and to society. If those people believe that they can stop their children from watching it. Besides, if there are that many people that don't want to see sex and violence then there would be channels. The free market, once again, would just take care of it, if what we are told is true. What the FCC is, is imposing a few people's Religious and Moral believes, on everyone.

It's too bad that there are 2 people arguing the constitutionality of the American FCC, neither of which are Americans.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
That is a very generalize statement, the Constitution is not clear on the subject of sex or violence so how can you expect the FCC to be. They follow the rulings of the courts and the general public, the FCC has been taken many times to court for this very issue and the courts have ruled in favor of the FCC.

I'm not debating whether the FCC exists or was found unconstitutional by your courts, that would be a ridiculous debate. But the FCC mandates what opinions and what language can be expressed. It's not like I am the only one that takes the constitution to mean that. The FCC has huge powers that do not protect people in any real way, but force some to give up their freedoms to express themselves. People that are not forcing anyone to hear their opinion.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
And your point is?

That Americans are too apathetic when it comes to their own country.

We really are.

As long as I have the internet I don't really care about what goes on on TV, though.

This question has just been bugging for me for awhile.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Some yes and others no, that is to general to be a valid statement. Most everybody is apathetic to something that not directly involving them.


Some no, far too many, yes. Of course it's a general statement, it addresses 300 million people. How many people out of those 300 million, that are eligible to vote, actually vote?

Everyone being apathetic about something is irrelevant.

Nah, not really.

Originally posted by Devil King
Nah, not really. Not really what?

I'm not bothered by a cussword getting bleeped out.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Not really what?

An invalid statement.

Way too many Americans don't care about how this country is run.

Originally posted by Devil King
An invalid statement.

Way too many Americans don't care about how this country is run. Care, yes they do. Are they pro-active in the government, not as much as they should, many care more about their local government or just working from paycheck to paycheck trying to keep a roof over their head and can't see much more than that.

unconstitutional or not, censorship is prevalent and always will be.

Originally posted by ragesRemorse
unconstitutional or not, censorship is prevalent and always will be.

I have no idea what the **** you're talking about *****.

Originally posted by Da Pittman
Care, yes they do. Are they pro-active in the government, not as much as they should, many care more about their local government or just working from paycheck to paycheck trying to keep a roof over their head and can't see much more than that.

You mean they have an opinion? Yeah, everyone does. Do they do a damned thing about it? Not enough. And most, not at all.

Not being able to see that there is a world outside their little town or their job, is exactly what I'm talking about, thank you.

And when they get home, they answer the phone and tell the pollsters that race and gender are important, rather than interrupting the questionaire to tell the guy what issues thay have with this candidate's or that one's particular issues. If you interupt that pollster and start preaching at him the way he does to you, I PROMISE you, he'll hang up.

We're all reading the ticker on the bottom of the screen that tells us Brittany went back to rehab for the 4th time and we're too busy listening to talking heads to seek out what we want to know, what matters to us, and we're settling for what we hear on the "news".

If that were not the case, not one of these people would be running for president, republican OR democrat.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I realize that the title is slightly misleading.. so lemme explain my question.

Is it against an American's freedom of speech for someone to be persecuted for saying something on TV, if it's non-scripted or something? For example, Don Imus losing his job and Dog the Bounty Hunter getting in trouble for saying derogatory things toward blacks. If we have the freedom to say pretty much anything then why can we get in trouble for saying such things on the TV? Is there some law that you lose your right to freedom of speech in national television?


Neither Imus nor "Dog" got in any legal trouble over their comments- the government didn't come after them. They got b***h slapped by their EMPLOYERS- who were facing pressure from sponsors. In other words, they were perfectly FREE to say what they said... but they also had to face public opinion.
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from public outrage. I hope you get the distinction.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I have no idea what the **** you're talking about *****.

That sucks
I guess i can break it down in retard for you. Shit be monitored and manipulated and peeps on a big scale like dont care enough or have resources or stature to be doin nuttin bout it.

lol, dont mean to be a dick, but what about my previous post is broken that causes a communication breakdown?

I think it is safe to say that censorship has been around as long as government. I am not, however, suggesting that big brother is soley responsible. I must admit, that i am not very familiar with the constitution. Thus, i cannot begin to speculate whether or not there is an amendment that contradicts the 1st amendment, allowing for censorship to be constitutional. I can honestly say that i believe it will always be apart of society. Whether to protect against political objectives, slander, individual offense or even to promote these things. To those with power, censorship offers more. As an individual, there is nothing one can do to fight censorship. I believe, most individuals whom have witnessed or been victim to censorship just dont care though. It has become accepted...,long before democracy.

Originally posted by Blax_Hydralisk
I realize that the title is slightly misleading.. so lemme explain my question.

Is it against an American's freedom of speech for someone to be persecuted for saying something on TV, if it's non-scripted or something? For example, Don Imus losing his job and Dog the Bounty Hunter getting in trouble for saying derogatory things toward blacks. If we have the freedom to say pretty much anything then why can we get in trouble for saying such things on the TV? Is there some law that you lose your right to freedom of speech in national television? are you saying being racist is ok i thought all men/women are born equal and it is up to the people who run the station to decide what is ok to have on set station

Originally posted by Devil King
You mean they have an opinion? Yeah, everyone does. Do they do a damned thing about it? Not enough. And most, not at all.

Not being able to see that there is a world outside their little town or their job, is exactly what I'm talking about, thank you.

And when they get home, they answer the phone and tell the pollsters that race and gender are important, rather than interrupting the questionaire to tell the guy what issues thay have with this candidate's or that one's particular issues. If you interupt that pollster and start preaching at him the way he does to you, I PROMISE you, he'll hang up.

We're all reading the ticker on the bottom of the screen that tells us Brittany went back to rehab for the 4th time and we're too busy listening to talking heads to seek out what we want to know, what matters to us, and we're settling for what we hear on the "news".

If that were not the case, not one of these people would be running for president, republican OR democrat.

To be fair, Talking Heads are pretty awesome.