• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Free *beeep* Speech

Oliver said:
So? Which ones. There is only one that comes to my mind and I feel very okay with that because it's libel. You have laws for libel, too - don't you?
Click to expand...

Membership in a Nazi party, adherence to national socialist ideas, and Holocaust denial are illegal in Germany. Publishing, television, public correspondence (including lectures), and music are censored accordingly, with harsh legal consequences, including jail time.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Germany
 
Oliver said:
It's indeed pretty paradox and I guess that wasn't the case in the first generation of Television. So was there a lobby or discussion about it or did someone start it and the majority of the Media followed?
Click to expand...
No actually the FCC and censorship predates TV.

Regulating Television

Like radio broadcasters, television broadcasters operated under the authority of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC was established by Franklin Roosevelt with the assumption that the airwaves, the broadcast "bandwidth," belonged to the people, much in the same way as, for example, federal forest land belongs to the people. Broadcasters applied for a license to use a section of that public property, a specific frequency. In return, broadcasters had an obligation to serve the interest of the community. This obligation requires the licensee to 'ascertain the needs of the community' and then provide program service to foster public understanding of those issues. How the licensee provides programming to serve the needs [was] left to the licensee's discretion.

The FCC had the right to restrict content -- to censor obscene material, to require balanceand "fairness" in political programming, and to insist that a certain percentage of each broadcast week be devoted to what it termed "public use." The preceding link gives more information on the FCC and its political requirements. The fairness doctrine was eventually dropped in the 1980s.
 
Oliver said:
By that I mean this type of Media that lacks of truth and responsibility:
http://www.weeklyworldnews.com/international
Click to expand...


Which story are you trying to link to?

Zambonis Deployed to Dwindling Polar Ice Cap
New Book, 1, is all about the 'Partin' Spartan'
Paranormal Experts Baffled by 'Hypernatural' Beings

ETA

Ancient Israelites Snacked on 'Pizzoh,' Historians Reveal



?????
 
Last edited:
RandFan said:
So you wouldn't restrict you only bemoan it, right?

FIIK
Click to expand...


I wouldn't restrict this - but I see it as lack of responsibility if the Media can make things up because free speech.

And I think it's the reason for Alex Jones success. Which can be dangerous if someone believes in it. I also guess that's where the conspiracy and Ufo stories came from - from publications that pushed the Idea and added things instead insist on rather boring facts.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
I wouldn't ban this - but I see it as lack of responsibility if the Media can make things up because free speech.
Click to expand...
Not too many people take bat boy seriously. It's a "rag" and the bottom of the list at that.

And I think it's the reason for Alex Jones success. Which can be dangerous if someone believes in such things.
Click to expand...
Sure but that's the risk of free speech.

Free speech doesn't always gurantee that the truth will out or that the best ideas will always rise to the top. That said any alternative is very likely to always be worse. I'll take free speech any day.
 
RandFan said:
Not too many people take bat boy seriously. It's a "rag" and the bottom of the list at that.

Sure but that's the risk of free speech.

Free speech doesn't always gurantee that the truth will out or that the best ideas will always rise to the top. That said any alternative is very likely to always be worse. I'll take free speech any day.
Click to expand...


Well, I prefer the good old principle of the Media to tell the truth. Following the Media in America can be pretty confusing, especially on sources like Fox, Alex Jones and Co.
 
In the late 18th-century, the dissemination of 'speech' was markedly different than what we are faced with today. There were four methods only, and that's how the framers of the Constituion envisioned their world.
1. Talking between persons, or to an assembled group. The size of the gathering was limited to the extent of the maximum volume which the speaker(s) could project with their own voice.
2. Broadsides, or posted notices. Rarely did any one Broadside get distributed throughout all the 13 colonies, nor did they get viewed by most people (who, by and large, could not read).
3. Letters. The organization of a proper system to deliver them to addresses was not well-developed until Ben Franklin came along and devised the US Postal Department. Prior to that, letters got handled by random methods and would take an unknown duration of time to reach their destinations.
4. Newspapers and Pamphlets. Printing presses were rudimentary & laborious devices and as the old saying goes: "Freedom of the Press is Limited to those who Own one"

It was one pamphlet in particular that sparked the demand for "Freedom of Speech" -- Thomas Paine's Common Sense

Which, somehow, inspires me to offer George Carlin's famous monologue (FFC vs. Pacifica):
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/filthywords.html
 
Oliver said:
Because I want the money. :D But kidding aside - it's pretty contradicting to my experience with nearly every American who praises free speech. And quite frankly, I never heard about a similar free speech law outside the US.
Click to expand...

Aren't you in Germany? If so you have such a law.

Oliver said:
What was the initial intention? Religious censorship?
Click to expand...

You need to go back to England and follow two roots for the idea that there is "bad" and "good" words in English.

One root is the censorship that was imposed by the Christian Church in regards to profanity e.g. taking the Lord's name in vain, this was enforced for many centuries.

The other root is the origin of English as a national language - for many centuries English was the language of a subjugated people (the peasants) whilst various other languages (most predominantly the ancestor of today's French) was spoken by the rulers of the nation. What developed was an idea that the words used by the peasants were "uncouth" "nasty" "brutish" and so on. And we still see that reflected in the UK and the USA in the idea that some words are "bad" and shouldn't be heard in polite company. (And as usual the Victorians helped cement this hypocrisy.)
 
Allen Funt once said that he found bleeping people at the right time made things funnier because our minds automagically went to the naughtiest word.
 
Oliver said:
When I watch "The Daily Show" on Youtube, I have a hard time to understand what Jon Stewart actually meant whenever some nut jobs put a *beep* -sound in there every view seconds.
Click to expand...
Comedy Central didn't want to have that kind of language on their show.

Since this bothers me a lot, I looked what this free speech myth is that everyone is talking about - and I found out it says this:
Click to expand...
So you are actually going to look something up? OK, let's see how you do.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Click to expand...
Good! You found the relevant apassage in the Constitution.

So can I sue Comedy Central for some million bucks now for breaching the law or not? :confused:
Click to expand...
And you've completely misinterpreted it.

Congress has passed no law for Comedy Central. Comedy Central is free to use whatever language they want on their channel, they are also free to ban any language they want on their channel. It has absolutely nothing to do with the government, the FCC has no regulatory powers of the content of cable TV.

Is this clear Oliver?
 
To be clear - there is no law anywhere putting any kind of restrictions on Comedy Central. Comedy Central has decided that before 10 pm they will not air swear words.

This has nothing to do with free speech, Congress, or the Constitution!
 
RandFan said:
No actually the FCC and censorship predates TV.

Regulating Television

Like radio broadcasters, television broadcasters operated under the authority of the FCC, the Federal Communications Commission. The FCC was established by Franklin Roosevelt with the assumption that the airwaves, the broadcast "bandwidth," belonged to the people, much in the same way as, for example, federal forest land belongs to the people. Broadcasters applied for a license to use a section of that public property, a specific frequency. In return, broadcasters had an obligation to serve the interest of the community. This obligation requires the licensee to 'ascertain the needs of the community' and then provide program service to foster public understanding of those issues. How the licensee provides programming to serve the needs [was] left to the licensee's discretion.

The FCC had the right to restrict content -- to censor obscene material, to require balanceand "fairness" in political programming, and to insist that a certain percentage of each broadcast week be devoted to what it termed "public use." The preceding link gives more information on the FCC and its political requirements. The fairness doctrine was eventually dropped in the 1980s.
Click to expand...


**** the FCC.

Do not circumvent the auto censor.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Patricio Elicer
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RandFan said:
The FCC was established by Franklin Roosevelt with the assumption that the airwaves, the broadcast "bandwidth," belonged to the people, much in the same way as, for example, federal forest land belongs to the people.
Click to expand...
And this is why the FCC cannot regulate cable - it is not using any public bandwidth. I don't know why you're bringing the FCC into a thread about a cable station.
 
Oliver said:
When I watch "The Daily Show" on Youtube, I have a hard time to understand what Jon Stewart actually meant whenever some nut jobs put a *beep* -sound in there every view seconds.

Since this bothers me a lot, I looked what this free speech myth is that everyone is talking about - and I found out it says this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So can I sue Comedy Central for some million bucks now for breaching the law or not? :confused:
Click to expand...

No, but you CAN boycott the show and their advertisers. ;)
 
WildCat said:
And this is why the FCC cannot regulate cable - it is not using any public bandwidth. I don't know why you're bringing the FCC into a thread about a cable station.
Click to expand...
Because Oliver asked a question about the history of censorship in America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom