PC Speech Is Against The First Amendment

[Pogo]

How is 'PC speech' against the first amendment?

Enforcing or demanding even mandating PC speech takes away right of the person to speak freely.

When the government says you can't say the N word, you let us all know, okay?

Until then, just STFU already.

The FCC is government and they fine you if you use it on TV.

Bullshit.
It doesn't work that way -- never did. What FCC does is respond to public complaints. If a tree falls on a lumberjack's foot on TV and he goes "fuuuuck" and no one complains --- as far as FCC is concerned it never happened. If someone does complain then they look at whether it was handled responsibly. That's how it's always worked.

There is no such requirement to censor anything per se. There's only a guideline to keep reasonable public standards, as judged by the public.

And that is bullshit and the government should not be doing it. Speech should not be regulated unless it presents a clear and immediate danger to those that are around it aka yelling fire in a crowded theater.

To say it is not censorship is rather asinine. That is exactly what it is. Just because they use the public to track it rather than doing it themselves does not change that basic fact. You place something not kosher in a TV show then they fine you for it. It is not even based on what you say is 'public standards, as judged by the public' as those standards are set by the FCC itself and not by the public. If I complained that American Dad featured an alien and I found that offensive the FCC wouldn't give a damn. It only cares if the standards it set are violated. Offspring said it best in one of their album's opening tracks followed by George Carlin:



If you are offended then don't watch it.

Of course, none of this even approaches the asinine idea that we can't bear to hear the word n*gger or fuck, can't bear to see an ass or a penis but we certainly can watch that crazy axe murderer lop heads off and senselessly murder rooms full of people. The standards do not make a lick of sense.

Of course I don't disagree with the moralistic sensibilities --- who would --- but the fact remains, it's the public perception that drives that, not the government. Let's delve into why that is.

First of all "the public perception" cited above is the same unwashed masses hypocritical-puritannical bullshit that thinks saying "shit" on TV is verboten, that thinks a blowjob in the oval office is an impeachable offense, that thinks WWE and Donald Dump are things to take seriously rather than freak shows, that generates cockamamie bullshit bait shows like "Cops" and Jerry Springer and naked people on an island forced to eat bugs. If the unwashed had any discretion none of that bullshit would sell.

Second, the structure of the airwaves and the FCC is thus: when broadcasting became a viable thing, Congress declared that the airwaves are a public resource, owned literally by We the People. As such, the Federal Radio Commision, and its descendant the FCC, were created to regulate -- on our behalf -- who gets a license to use those airwaves, and what their guidelines are for getting them. Obviously you and I and the guy down the street cannot on our own regulate who gets to broadcast on 99.1 or 1270 or TV channel 9. Before that was done, the airwaves were chaos, an endless anarchy of power one-upmanship, literally, with whoever could afford a bigger more powerful transmitter drowning out the previous one, and both of them interfering with each other. So the FCC, again, on behalf of the People who own the airwaves, decided who can use them and to what degree.

At NO time does that FCC declare what the content can be as far as political slant, opinions expressed, etc, except obvious abuse such as that a broadcaster may not engage in fraud or libel or perpetuate a hoax. And I can state this categorically as I have been through the entire licensing process. What the FCC wants to know is that the entity is able to, and will provide, a service the community needs, a standard that is in practice, arguably woefully lax anyway, and leans heavily to the rich and powerful. When such an "obscenity" event occurs, the FCC doesn't address it on the basis of content --- it addresses on the basis of whether the licensee had control over what it was broadcasting, "in the public interest, convenience and necessity" in its original phrase. In other words, whether saying "fuck you" on the air is in the public interest -- since the public owns the airwaves.

The various "obscenity" exercises noted above are, as already stated, are public-driven. If the unwashed would simply accept the honesty as expressed in the George Carlin rant, it would simply be accepted, as it is in less puritannical-bullshit cultures. Don't blame the FCC for doing its job --- if anything blame it for not doing it enough. And by that I mean this:

What the FCC wants to know is that the entity is able to, and will provide, a service the community needs, a standard that is in practice, arguably woefully lax anyway, and leans heavily to the rich and powerful.

Content controlled by corporate monopolies out to pick the puritanical public's pocket are laughing all the way to the bank. See the cause and effect. Again, if puritannical bullshit didn't sell ----- no one would be selling it.

Edit --- I see a later post summed up how this works perfectly -- to wit:

Taboo is something that the people themselves have rejected - and the people have free reign to do this with anything at all. It has nothing to do with regulation at all.

 

[Timmy]

How is 'PC speech' against the first amendment?

Enforcing or demanding even mandating PC speech takes away right of the person to speak freely.

When the government says you can't say the N word, you let us all know, okay?

Until then, just STFU already.

The FCC is government and they fine you if you use it on TV.

Th old bit wh the 7 words u can't say in TV . None of them are racial slurs .

 

[FA_Q2]

Of course I don't disagree with the moralistic sensibilities --- who would --- but the fact remains, it's the public perception that drives that, not the government. Let's delve into why that is.

Sadly, I think a lot of people would and do. Violence is widely accepted whereas sexuality if almost frowned upon. It boggles the mind.

First of all "the public perception" cited above is the same unwashed masses hypocritical-puritannical bullshit that thinks saying "shit" on TV is verboten, that thinks a blowjob in the oval office is an impeachable offense, that thinks WWE and Donald Dump are things to take seriously rather than freak shows, that generates cockamamie bullshit bait shows like "Cops" and Jerry Springer and naked people on an island forced to eat bugs. If the unwashed had any discretion none of that bullshit would sell.

And?

What bullshit the general public swallows really does not bolster the idea that the FCC is acting on our behalf anyway. How wonderful or idiotic the general public happens to be does not really have anything to do with the FCC and it's job.

Second, the structure of the airwaves and the FCC is thus: when broadcasting became a viable thing, Congress declared that the airwaves are a public resource, owned literally by We the People. As such, the Federal Radio Commision, and its descendant the FCC, were created to regulate -- on our behalf -- who gets a license to use those airwaves, and what their guidelines are for getting them. Obviously you and I and the guy down the street cannot on our own regulate who gets to broadcast on 99.1 or 1270 or TV channel 9. Before that was done, the airwaves were chaos, an endless anarchy of power one-upmanship, literally, with whoever could afford a bigger more powerful transmitter drowning out the previous one, and both of them interfering with each other. So the FCC, again, on behalf of the People who own the airwaves, decided who can use them and to what degree.

And this is a concept that is totally different from the one that I have commented on. ACCESS to USE the airwaves has little to nothing to do with controlling the actual content that is broadcast.

At NO time does that FCC declare what the content can be as far as political slant, opinions expressed, etc, except obvious abuse such as that a broadcaster may not engage in fraud or libel or perpetuate a hoax. And I can state this categorically as I have been through the entire licensing process. What the FCC wants to know is that the entity is able to, and will provide, a service the community needs, a standard that is in practice, arguably woefully lax anyway, and leans heavily to the rich and powerful. When such an "obscenity" event occurs, the FCC doesn't address it on the basis of content --- it addresses on the basis of whether the licensee had control over what it was broadcasting, "in the public interest, convenience and necessity" in its original phrase. In other words, whether saying "fuck you" on the air is in the public interest -- since the public owns the airwaves.

Of course they control content. I have never claimed that they control opinions or political slant - that is not part of this particular conversation. They do, however, make an asinine moral judgment on what is against the people by the use of certain buzz words. This is not only asinine but should be utterly beyond the scope of governmental purpose - they are not supposed to be the nanny that ensures our sensibilities are not assaulted. You can replace the word fucking with frelling, fracking, or any other placeholder and it is suddenly just fine. The judgement that particular words are against the public's interest is asinine to say the least.

The local fishing show is no more or less in the public's interest if they say that is a fucking huge fish or ig they say that is a huge fish. The addition of a particular word is immaterial.

The various "obscenity" exercises noted above are, as already stated, are public-driven. If the unwashed would simply accept the honesty as expressed in the George Carlin rant, it would simply be accepted, as it is in less puritannical-bullshit cultures. Don't blame the FCC for doing its job --- if anything blame it for not doing it enough. And by that I mean this:

What the FCC wants to know is that the entity is able to, and will provide, a service the community needs, a standard that is in practice, arguably woefully lax anyway, and leans heavily to the rich and powerful.

Content controlled by corporate monopolies out to pick the puritanical public's pocket are laughing all the way to the bank. See the cause and effect. Again, if puritannical bullshit didn't sell ----- no one would be selling it.

The focus here is not what the public consumes - it is what the government has decided to regulate. Those are 2 entirely different concepts. It is obvious that the people do somewhat reduce the use of such language by watching cable television but that is not the same thing as allowing the government to come in and outright regulate such content away. That should not be the purpose of the FCC.

Edit --- I see a later post summed up how this works perfectly -- to wit:

Taboo is something that the people themselves have rejected - and the people have free reign to do this with anything at all. It has nothing to do with regulation at all.

The PEOPLE. The FCC is not the people and never has been.

 

[Pogo]

And?

What bullshit the general public swallows really does not bolster the idea that the FCC is acting on our behalf anyway. How wonderful or idiotic the general public happens to be does not really have anything to do with the FCC and it's job.

It has everything to do with the point here since, and I thought I pointed it out but apparently not repeatedly enough, the public DRIVES what the FCC does in regard to "obscenity". If you and I have a talk show and you tell me "fuck you" and I tell you "fuck you too" ---- and nobody complains to the FCC -- then as far as the Commission's concerned, it never happened, or if it did, so what.

That's the whole point of describing that mentality of the unwashed up there. Without that mentality ---- it doesn't happen. The FCC reacts to what the public says. And by the same token, takes no reaction if the public doesn't.

Of course they control content. I have never claimed that they control opinions or political slant - that is not part of this particular conversation. They do, however, make an asinine moral judgment on what is against the people by the use of certain buzz words. This is not only asinine but should be utterly beyond the scope of governmental purpose - they are not supposed to be the nanny that ensures our sensibilities are not assaulted. You can replace the word fucking with frelling, fracking, or any other placeholder and it is suddenly just fine. The judgement that particular words are against the public's interest is asinine to say the least.

See above; no they do not. They react to what the public (says it) wants. Reaction = action... no reaction = no action.

The focus here is not what the public consumes - it is what the government has decided to regulate. Those are 2 entirely different concepts. It is obvious that the people do somewhat reduce the use of such language by watching cable television but that is not the same thing as allowing the government to come in and outright regulate such content away. That should not be the purpose of the FCC.

I'm not sure you're grasping the concept that the people and the government are not, in theory at least, some kind of oil-and-water separate entities that operate in mutual opposition to each other. Government, again in theory, operates as an agent of the People, to do the People's business in matters that require institutional structure that the People individually do not have. Things like regulating air traffic with the FAA or ensuring food and drug safety with the FDA. So in that sense, yes the FCC is the People, and always has been. In theory anyway; that is what it's designed for.


What regulation the FCC does is keep broadcast traffic from becoming chaotic, as the FAA does with air travel. It does regulate whether a given entity is competent to run, and will provide, a public service to its community. But it does not regulate language and it does not regulate content.

 

[Pogo]

Whether you consider such rules on a private message board to be ‘equal’ or ‘fair’ is irrelevant, if you don’t like it you can go somewhere else.

But however unfair or inconsistent you might perceive the rules on a private message board to be, or however unfairly or inconsistently those rules might be applied, no free speech ‘rights’ have been ‘violated,’ no manifestation of the ‘PC’ myth has occurred.

But we are not talking about this board now are we moron? We are talking public use of a word in daily life. She wanted to use government as a proxy to BAN that word moron and that's ILLEGAL, sorry that's the "I" word.

Quote her saying that. Back up your claim for once in your life.

From the 1:30 to 2 minute mark. And she is from the "Drop The "I" Word Movement" stated in the first 30 seconds. So it IS an organized movement to BAN the use of a word.

Now you can take your lying bullsh#t and shove it up your ass because it IS there..

They are discussing illegal immigration in that time frame not the campaign she represents. I have never heard of that organization so I don't know if that is their intent. I doubt it is to ban a word. Make it taboo, like racial slurs and such maybe. Illegal sounds like a stretch.

Is making it taboo not regulating it?

Not at all. A "taboo" is a cultural standard, evolved by the masses over time. It may be something that is legal or illegal, but legality is irrelevant to whether something is "taboo" A "regulation" is a law created by legislation. It may be taboo or not taboo but tabooity is irrelevant to whether it's "illegal".

 

[NYcarbineer]

Aww, c'mon C_Clayton_Jones , just this once, respond to my list of honest liberals against PC. Every time you pretend PC is a myth, I provide that (ever-growing) list, and you never respond. Just this once, attack 'em for their opinions. Let 'em have it. I won't tell anyone.
.

I can't get him to respond!

I'm so LONELY!

What you call PC amounts to just being speech you don't like.

 

[FA_Q2]

And?

What bullshit the general public swallows really does not bolster the idea that the FCC is acting on our behalf anyway. How wonderful or idiotic the general public happens to be does not really have anything to do with the FCC and it's job.

It has everything to do with the point here since, and I thought I pointed it out but apparently not repeatedly enough, the public DRIVES what the FCC does in regard to "obscenity". If you and I have a talk show and you tell me "fuck you" and I tell you "fuck you too" ---- and nobody complains to the FCC -- then as far as the Commission's concerned, it never happened, or if it did, so what.

That's the whole point of describing that mentality of the unwashed up there. Without that mentality ---- it doesn't happen. The FCC reacts to what the public says. And by the same token, takes no reaction if the public doesn't.

This is false because it takes just a few in a multitude of MILLIONS to complain. They do not react to what the public says - they react to what a minuscule minority says. A threshold of nobody complaining is asinine. There are people that complain for a million reasons. There are complaints about Grand Theft Auto (a game with a federal crime as the title) that there is violence in the game. there are people that complain that The Walking Dead contains a lot of corpses and violence. EVERYTHING is complained about by someone. Describing the mentality of the 'multitudes' is pointless when you are not referring to the multitudes at all.

Of course they control content. I have never claimed that they control opinions or political slant - that is not part of this particular conversation. They do, however, make an asinine moral judgment on what is against the people by the use of certain buzz words. This is not only asinine but should be utterly beyond the scope of governmental purpose - they are not supposed to be the nanny that ensures our sensibilities are not assaulted. You can replace the word fucking with frelling, fracking, or any other placeholder and it is suddenly just fine. The judgement that particular words are against the public's interest is asinine to say the least.

See above; no they do not. They react to what the public (says it) wants. Reaction = action... no reaction = no action.

False - see above.

The focus here is not what the public consumes - it is what the government has decided to regulate. Those are 2 entirely different concepts. It is obvious that the people do somewhat reduce the use of such language by watching cable television but that is not the same thing as allowing the government to come in and outright regulate such content away. That should not be the purpose of the FCC.

I'm not sure you're grasping the concept that the people and the government are not, in theory at least, some kind of oil-and-water separate entities that operate in mutual opposition to each other. Government, again in theory, operates as an agent of the People, to do the People's business in matters that require institutional structure that the People individually do not have. Things like regulating air traffic with the FAA or ensuring food and drug safety with the FDA. So in that sense, yes the FCC is the People, and always has been. In theory anyway; that is what it's designed for.


What regulation the FCC does is keep broadcast traffic from becoming chaotic, as the FAA does with air travel. It does regulate whether a given entity is competent to run, and will provide, a public service to its community. But it does not regulate language and it does not regulate content.

Yes it does. Saying that it does not does not make it so. This is fact and there is no way around it.

Fining an entity for use of a particular word is the very definition of regulating content.

 

[NYcarbineer]

How is 'PC speech' against the first amendment?

Enforcing or demanding even mandating PC speech takes away right of the person to speak freely.

So you believe there's no constitutional, legal remedy to deal with a grade school teacher who injects every obscene word imaginable into his classroom instruction?

 

[Pogo]

And?

What bullshit the general public swallows really does not bolster the idea that the FCC is acting on our behalf anyway. How wonderful or idiotic the general public happens to be does not really have anything to do with the FCC and it's job.

It has everything to do with the point here since, and I thought I pointed it out but apparently not repeatedly enough, the public DRIVES what the FCC does in regard to "obscenity". If you and I have a talk show and you tell me "fuck you" and I tell you "fuck you too" ---- and nobody complains to the FCC -- then as far as the Commission's concerned, it never happened, or if it did, so what.

That's the whole point of describing that mentality of the unwashed up there. Without that mentality ---- it doesn't happen. The FCC reacts to what the public says. And by the same token, takes no reaction if the public doesn't.

This is false because it takes just a few in a multitude of MILLIONS to complain. They do not react to what the public says - they react to what a minuscule minority says. A threshold of nobody complaining is asinine. There are people that complain for a million reasons. There are complaints about Grand Theft Auto (a game with a federal crime as the title) that there is violence in the game. there are people that complain that The Walking Dead contains a lot of corpses and violence. EVERYTHING is complained about by someone. Describing the mentality of the 'multitudes' is pointless when you are not referring to the multitudes at all.

Continuum fallacy. Nobody files a "non-complaint". There's no such thing.

Of course they control content. I have never claimed that they control opinions or political slant - that is not part of this particular conversation. They do, however, make an asinine moral judgment on what is against the people by the use of certain buzz words. This is not only asinine but should be utterly beyond the scope of governmental purpose - they are not supposed to be the nanny that ensures our sensibilities are not assaulted. You can replace the word fucking with frelling, fracking, or any other placeholder and it is suddenly just fine. The judgement that particular words are against the public's interest is asinine to say the least.

See above; no they do not. They react to what the public (says it) wants. Reaction = action... no reaction = no action.

False - see above.

The focus here is not what the public consumes - it is what the government has decided to regulate. Those are 2 entirely different concepts. It is obvious that the people do somewhat reduce the use of such language by watching cable television but that is not the same thing as allowing the government to come in and outright regulate such content away. That should not be the purpose of the FCC.

I'm not sure you're grasping the concept that the people and the government are not, in theory at least, some kind of oil-and-water separate entities that operate in mutual opposition to each other. Government, again in theory, operates as an agent of the People, to do the People's business in matters that require institutional structure that the People individually do not have. Things like regulating air traffic with the FAA or ensuring food and drug safety with the FDA. So in that sense, yes the FCC is the People, and always has been. In theory anyway; that is what it's designed for.


What regulation the FCC does is keep broadcast traffic from becoming chaotic, as the FAA does with air travel. It does regulate whether a given entity is competent to run, and will provide, a public service to its community. But it does not regulate language and it does not regulate content.

Yes it does. Saying that it does not does not make it so. This is fact and there is no way around it.

Link it then. You'll find the broadcast regs under 47 CFR part 73. Show me where an FCC license regulates content.
Because again, I've been through the entire process and I already KNOW that's not the case, but it's your assertion, so you have the burden.