Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[manifold]

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs. It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time. I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible. It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd. I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.

 

[Ravi]

LOTS OF LIBERTARIAN HOT AIR THAT I'LL IGNORE.

No.

I don't understand why you people can't hit a damn button on your remote. You're acting like it's causing you pain and heartache to have to pick up the remote and hit the fucking volume button for 2 seconds

It's SAD.

Because we shouldn't have to do it. The advertisers have no right to blast their commercials at volumes higher than what we've set on our stereo systems. And since we own/control the airwaves we are perfectly free to regulate them in this manner.

Obviously you read nothing on this thread or you are so married to your own idiotic beliefs that you've stagnated.

So we the viewers have a right to a certain volume level, but some company doesn't?

Explain that logic to me, Rav. What makes a viewer somehow more important than an advertiser?

What makes the advertiser more important than the viewer? The viewer that FREAKING owns the airwaves?

Nothing, nothing at all.

 

[Ravi]

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs. It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time. I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible. It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd. I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.

I dunno, his last post skated rather close.

 

[Paulie]

Btw, I just loooove the "we shouldn't have to do it" argument.

Do you realize how many analogies could be used to make that argument look ridiculous?

What it comes down to is how willing are you to give more power to the government vs. how willing are you to handle your own damn business.

Personally, I don't care enough about TV to actually want to give congress that power.

I'll tell you this, though. If you were able to successfully get a collective together and lobby congress to do this, I'd give you props. Because what it ends up being is the little people vs. the corporate lobbyists.

If you can beat the lobbyists, more power to you. Regardless though, I still think both sides have just as much of a right to those airwaves. So whoever has the power in numbers to win their case, so be it.

 

[Anguille]

Pauli,

Why don't you try this at home and then report back. Perhaps you will discover the flaw in your logic.

You and Ang aren't getting it.

It's not YOU who uses a limiter, it's the broadcaster. The fact that commercials are louder is because those companies PAID for the air time and decided to raise the volume level.

No one is forcing you to buy their products. You want the government to control it because you want to have your cake and eat it too. This way, you can continuing buying their products without feeling guilty about it.

Paulie, I don't buy their products nor would I feel guilty about making them stop blasting my eardrums even if I did.

That's the only explanation here.

Whatever happened to people taking a stand for themselves in this country? It used to be that if people had a collective complaint about companies, they'd simply not buy the products and voice their discontent.

Because boycotts are a last resort, when government is not doing it's job.

Now everyone wants the government to do their dirty work FOR them. WHY???

Why do you call it dirty work? We pay taxes so the government will protect us.

Stop wasting the government's time on this fucking stupid ridiculous bullshit, already.

Why not ask that of the abusive advertisers? They are the ones who created the problem.

Again, if commercial volume levels are THAT much of a bother to you, you're probably watching WAY too much TV.

Lame. Offensive advertisers are actually doing us a favor by making us turn off our sets. Do you really want offensive advertisers regulating how much TV we watch, Paulie?

Should the government regulate what products we get hit with ads by? What if enough people don't like seeing a certain product on TV because they simply don't like it...should the government step in and regulate it off the air?

I don't understand why you people can't hit a damn button on your remote. You're acting like it's causing you pain and heartache to have to pick up the remote and hit the fucking volume button for 2 seconds

It's SAD.

Again. Pathetic and lame way of excusing bad behavior on the part of advertisers.

 

[Paulie]

I'll only go so far as to say the commerce clause is too vague to solely rely on as distinct constitutionality.

I'm all for an amendment that clears that clause up and makes it air tight concise.

Same with "general welfare".

I think it's way past time we started fixing some of the vagueness in the constitution.

 

[Ravi]

Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.

It is really that simple.

 

[manifold]

Paulie,

Do you honestly believe that unregulated airwaves is practical?

 

[Liability]

Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.

It is really that simple.

In broad terms, I agree.

The narrowing limitations I would add, though are these:

1. When we say that we "own" the airwaves, I believe we are actually using a term of legal fiction. It is a serviceable legal fiction, however, and based on common sense.

2. The "regulations" are properly limited to the accessibility of the airwaves for preseerving OUR freedom of speech rights. Thus, if we lease frequencies to a broadcaster (thereby preventing any competitor from using THAT particualr frequency), the regulations should be limited to broadcast signal strength, public access rules, etc. Whatever else they SHOULD include, they should NOT be so broad as to allow the government to restrict free political discourse.

All the rest can be fine tuned.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs. It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time. I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible. It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd. I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.

It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this? If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.

 

[Ravi]

Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.

It is really that simple.

In broad terms, I agree.

The narrowing limitations I would add, though are these:

1. When we say that we "own" the airwaves, I believe we are actually using a term of legal fiction. It is a serviceable legal fiction, however, and based on common sense.

2. The "regulations" are properly limited to the accessibility of the airwaves for preseerving OUR freedom of speech rights. Thus, if we lease frequencies to a broadcaster (thereby preventing any competitor from using THAT particualr frequency), the regulations should be limited to broadcast signal strength, public access rules, etc. Whatever else they SHOULD include, they should NOT be so broad as to allow the government to restrict free political discourse.

All the rest can be fine tuned.

Agreed.

 

[Paulie]

Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.

It is really that simple.

Have you contacted the FCC about this issue yet?

The FCC says the public owns the airwaves, so the public should simply contact them and put in the request. There's really no need for congress to get involved. There's already a regulatory body.

Like I said, if the public can outnumber the corporate lobbyists, more power to them. I don't agree that it's necessary, though. It's just TV, Rav.

Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in. Especially during times like these. I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.

 

[manifold]

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs. It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time. I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible. It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd. I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.

It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this? If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.

Airwaves cross state borders. The commerce clause applies.

Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.

 

[Anguille]

Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in. Especially during times like these. I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.

OMG! The holier than thou tactic! St Paulie martyrs himself for the sake of big business.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Cut Paulie some slack here Ravs. It's perfectly reasonable to be of the opinion that this is an unnecessary waste of time. I might disagree, but at least that position is defensible. It's the idea that it's somehow unconstitutional that is absurd. I guess I might have missed it, but so far I haven't seen Paulie make that claim.

It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this? If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.

Airwaves cross state borders. The commerce clause applies.

Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.

Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border. It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another. This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.

 

[manifold]

Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in. Especially during times like these. I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.

OMG! The holier than thou tactic! St Paulie martyrs himself for the sake of big business.

A true company man.

 

[manifold]

It's absurd to realize that the Constitution doesn't give the federal government authority to do this? If it's absurd then perhaps you can find for us where in the Constitution this authority is given.

Airwaves cross state borders. The commerce clause applies.

Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.

Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border. It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another. This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.

So you'd have no issue with state governments regulating commercial volume?

 

[Ravi]

Since we own the airwaves we are free to regulate them.

It is really that simple.

Have you contacted the FCC about this issue yet?

The FCC says the public owns the airwaves, so the public should simply contact them and put in the request. There's really no need for congress to get involved. There's already a regulatory body.

Like I said, if the public can outnumber the corporate lobbyists, more power to them. I don't agree that it's necessary, though. It's just TV, Rav.

Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in. Especially during times like these. I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.

Now you're just being silly. Should we also contact the CIA and tell them what we want them to do?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Airwaves cross state borders. The commerce clause applies.

Not to mention ample precedent that you conveniently ignore.

Except the commerce clause was never intended to mean that the federal government could regulate anything it wants in any way it sees fit just because something crosses a state border. It simply means that the federal government can stop the states from enacting protectionist policies against one another. This was put in the Constitution because the framers saw this as one of the failures of the Articles of Confederation.

Unconstitutional precedent is no precedent at all.

So you'd have no issue with state governments regulating commercial volume?

That would be the way to properly get government involved, though I'm sure that would require an amendment to the state constitutions as well. But no, I would not support an amendment to my state's constitution giving them that authority.

 

[Ravi]

Personally, I'm just thankful that I have a TV and a house to watch it in. Especially during times like these. I'm sorry that some of you don't feel the same way.

OMG! The holier than thou tactic! St Paulie martyrs himself for the sake of big business.

Yes, times like these that the banks created. He sounds like a good little corporate drone. Thank you master! Use me as you please and I will lick your ass.