Originally posted by Blax_HydraliskWell in the examples that you gave they were not convicted by the government, but punished by civilians and private industry. You can say what ever you want but that doesn’t mean that it also says that you can’t be penalized for what you say.
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?
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 Bardiel13The FCC moderating this is certainly unconstitutional.
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?
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Maybe my version is outdated?
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.
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.
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 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.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect, or somehow improper political, economic, or social statements. Often consumers complain that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system, or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these attacks are “un-American” and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, “stereotype,” or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane, or otherwise offensive.
(The FCC mission statement or whatever)
That's not just stupid and unconstitutional it's really quite dangerous. In fact that looks open ended enough to rationalize taking down any television/radio network broadcasting in the US.
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 Symmetric Chaos
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) receives numerous complaints that television and/or radio networks, stations or their employees or guests have broadcast extreme, incorrect, or somehow improper political, economic, or social statements. Often consumers complain that certain broadcast statements may endanger the United States or its people, or threaten our form of government, our economic system, or established institutions like family or marriage. They say these attacks are “un-American” and an abuse of freedom of speech. The FCC also receives complaints that some broadcast statements criticize, ridicule, “stereotype,” or demean individuals or groups because of the religion, race, nationality, gender, or other characteristics of the group or individual. Finally, many consumers complain that television or radio broadcasts are obscene, indecent, profane, or otherwise offensive.(The FCC mission statement or whatever)
That's not just stupid and unconstitutional it's really quite dangerous. In fact that looks open ended enough to rationalize taking down any television/radio network broadcasting in the US.
Well, it plays into what Ush is saying. If they interpret it and define the Constitution might as well just give you no rights. Taken literally it is against the first amendment though.
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.