KartRacerBoy Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/business/media/29indecency.html?_r=1&hp Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 Doesn't anyone care anymore? Oh, the huge manatee! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crawdaddy79 Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 It's for the children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_rex Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 I'm with my girl Ruth and her camp. “The F.C.C.’s shifting and impermissibly vague indecency policy only imperils these broadcasters and muddles the regulatory landscape,” Justice Stevens wrote. For 30 years, the F.C.C. has had the power to keep “indecent” material off the airwaves from 6 a.m. to 10 p.m., and those rules “have not proved unworkable,” he wrote. Justice Breyer dissented separately. The law “grants those in charge of independent administrative agencies broad authority to determine relevant policy,” he observed. “But it does not permit them to make policy choices for purely political reasons nor to rest them primarily upon unexplained policy preferences.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_rex Posted April 28, 2009 Share Posted April 28, 2009 motherf*ckers!!!111 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted April 28, 2009 Author Share Posted April 28, 2009 I'm with my girl Ruth and her camp. Predictable. You have a favorite word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 And I think that the "Indecency Rule" is offensive. What does that make me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted April 29, 2009 Author Share Posted April 29, 2009 Bork, bork! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dark_rex Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 It's cinimonny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerboa113 Posted April 29, 2009 Share Posted April 29, 2009 I oppose the FCC and any and all censoring from the federal govt of broadcast media. If the private media chooses to censor thats fine.. its their media.. I fail to see how the sct can rule that the FCC at all is constitutional. lets see.. the feds can print money.. they have 3 branches.. people have free speech they can mount bear arms on their wall.. hrmm.. oh here it is mythical amendment 12380123809182308890761241-39 B sub section S paragraph 4000 line 13.. "the federal govt shall have the power to create a communications commission that routinely violates the right to free speech by censoring at the federal level what can and cannot be seen heard or written in any medium that we deem "the peoples" medium." silly me.. I should have known to look in amendment B subsection S for this one.. "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosco Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 i told you it was a nasty word now i have proof. Stay Stock Stay Happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 It's only a nasty word when not used in proper context. I'm proud to f*ck my baby's mama! Viva la difference! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ehsnils Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 Naughty as always! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerboa113 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 what amendment to the constitution allows the federal govt to ban "naughty" things? "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinlsb Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 what amendment to the constitution allows the federal govt to ban "naughty" things? The same part the RWs always use when it fits THEIR needs. Common Good:lol::lol: The "FCC" was created in 1927 by Silent Cal. Another free market, small Gov type, unless corporate money was involved.:lol: "Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerboa113 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 well its unconstitutional and needs to gtfo. "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinlsb Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 well its unconstitutional and needs to gtfo. That a go from DF for anarchy in the electromagnetic spectrum:lol: "Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vimy101 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 i told you it was a nasty word now i have proof. But not prior. Ex post facto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerboa113 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 the only people on earth that describe free markets as "anarchy" are communists. its none of your business what it would do.. the constitution does not allow for the federal govt to regulate communications mediums.. infact it guarantees a right to free speech.. something that could be construed as being disrupted by organizations like the FCC. this is not a role of the federal govt. and due to amendment 1 may not be a role of the state either. "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinlsb Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 the only people on earth that describe free markets as "anarchy" are communists. its none of your business what it would do.. the constitution does not allow for the federal govt to regulate communications mediums.. infact it guarantees a right to free speech.. something that could be construed as being disrupted by organizations like the FCC. this is not a role of the federal govt. and due to amendment 1 may not be a role of the state either. Let me know when Jamming transmissions becomes free speech:lol: Say bye bye to your cell phone:lol: "Belief does not make truth. Evidence makes truth. And belief does not make evidence." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 Excellent point, Robin. Let everyone try to transmit without a license and watch the airwaves become useless as everyone tries to transmit over one another. But to df, there's no role for govt in the issue. df, you are getting crazier and crazier. Having an allergic reaction, are you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bosco Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 But not prior. Ex post facto. i'm not getting in a pissing match with you over this issue again. i did what i thought was right for the forum and it's members. btw saying motherfucker is one thing out and out calling another member a motherfuker is another and i will not tolerate that, then or now. it's over you still have your health your job and your family is Ok please move on. Stay Stock Stay Happy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 And you can use "motherf*cker" in a thread title! What more could anyone want!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerboa113 Posted April 30, 2009 Share Posted April 30, 2009 I feel sorry for you krb.. so hopelessly indoctrinated tha tyou cant think for yourself.. yo uhave total faith in your oppressors but no faith in your fellow man. Let me ask you krb.. is the DNS regsitry federally mandated and controlled? no.. it is not.. a private governing body manages the DNS system.. in fact.. its distributed throughout the world. so.. by your definition.. there should be thousands of websites all having the same ip.. dogs and cats living together.. mass hysteria! and yet there is not.. this is because when there is a need.. there is a market.. and when there is a market.. there is innovation creation and organization. In the absence of an oppressive federal regime there would be an organization similar to the IANA that would manage with a hands-off approach to keeping things organized.. rather than a heavy handed imperial regime telling people what can and cannot be said. "The penalty good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." - Plato Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KartRacerBoy Posted April 30, 2009 Author Share Posted April 30, 2009 Do you understand radio and television AT ALL? Limited number of frequencies. I know you're a computer guy but try to think a little more broadly. Wtf do you think the FCC was invented in the first place? Feel sorry for me all you want. At least I'm not delusional like you! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.