Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[Samson]

Are you understanding me yet, or must i babble on?

What's amazing to me is there's no other USMB poster that appears more like you than Zoom-boing.

Now you know what's its like!!!!

 

[Paulie]

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.

Holier than thou? Big business??

Please, Ang.

How is saying that wanting government to regulate something as insignificant as TV volume is ridiculous BECAUSE it's insignificant, considered "holier than thou"?

We ARE in the worst recession since the great depression. There's millions of people without jobs, many lost their homes, and this is somehow IMPORTANT?? That's holier than thou?

I don't think I'm better than ANYONE. I'm just glad I still have what I have. You can do whatever you want with that statement, I really don't care.

 

[Paulie]

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.

You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.

The overall aspect of freedom of speech might play a part in that, but volume levels have exactly ZERO to do with "national security".

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card.

 

[Paulie]

You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.

And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.

In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.

Advertisers don't have rights?

Not at the expense of others' rights.

Show me the clear and concise part of the constitution that says we have the right to a volume level of our choice on TV?

Or at least anything that somehow pertains to that in your opinion...

In the meantime, here's what I'll give you..

We have the right to PURSUE happiness. This means that we have the right to lobby the FCC to regulate the airwaves for us in a manner that we desire.

So get off your ass and go do your civic duty if it's that important to you. If you win, I'll be more than happy to congratulate you on such a victory.

No matter how much some of you might think I favor big business, you're sorely mistaken. I'd LOVE to see the people defeat them. I simply don't think the people have what it takes to get something like that done. That's why they go crying to congress to do it FOR them.

Come on Rav, go do it.

 

[Ravi]

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.

You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.

The overall aspect of freedom of speech might play a part in that, but volume levels have exactly ZERO to do with "national security".

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card.

No, you are correct, they don't. But since we can agree that we can regulate the airwaves, we should agree that we can regulate them however we see fit as long as we don't infringe on free speech rights.

If you'd like to make the case that forbidding uberloud commercials infringes on anyone's free speech rights, please do so.

 

[Paulie]

You totally overlook the fact that the airwaves are vital to national security.

The overall aspect of freedom of speech might play a part in that, but volume levels have exactly ZERO to do with "national security".

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card.

No, you are correct, they don't. But since we can agree that we can regulate the airwaves, we should agree that we can regulate them however we see fit as long as we don't infringe on free speech rights.

If you'd like to make the case that forbidding uberloud commercials infringes on anyone's free speech rights, please do so.

At this point, the only reason I disagree is because I believe the companies have a certain "right" as well, considering they paid very good money to air the ad in the first place.

We already see what a waste of time and resources banning cigarette ads on TV has been. Those things are killing MORE people than they did before that was illegal. So what did it really accomplish?

Heart disease and cancer are responsible for half the deaths in the country, and cigs are probably responsible for a majority of those causes. We regulated cig ads off of the TV, and those numbers have only INCREASED.

The government isn't always the answer to every problem. You're going to get rid of commercial volume loudness, and STILL find something to complain about.

This is just strange to me, Rav. When those loud commercials come on, I laugh because of how ridiculous it is. I have never once thought that I needed to contact the government and have them put a stop to it. I just don't understand why it's that big of a deal.

If the best you can come up with is "we shouldn't have to put up with it" then you better buy yourself a big note pad and start making a long list of things the government needs to regulate, because you could literally make a list of infinite things we "shouldn't have to put up with".

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The advertisers have no right to blast their commercials at volumes higher than what we've set on our stereo systems.

They're not, you idiot. The volume setting on your TV stays the same the whole time.


How can you be so stupid?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Paulie, I don't buy their products

Stealing cable is illegal...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Since it's a given that unregulated airwaves are unusable, who should regulate them?

Or should we just not use them at all so that we can be sure we don't run afoul of your 1830's academic states rights argument?

How are unregulated airwaves unusable? Would the equipment radio and television stations use suddenly malfunction if the government didn't regulate airwaves? All we need are property rights. Someone owns the frequency they broadcast on, and they use it in whatever way they want.

And when two parties broadcast on the same frequency, who arbitrates?

I explained all this shiit long time ago in this very thread

 

[☭proletarian☭]

You claim that it unconstitutional for the government to regulate the airwaves. It isn't...because the airwaves are vital to national security.

And since they have the right to regulate them...they may do as they see fit as long as they aren't violating anyone's civil rights.

In this case they are not violating anyone's civil rights, no matter how much you insist that advertisers have a right to volume level.

Advertisers don't have rights?

Not at the expense of others' rights.

Are they preventing you from pushing mute or turning the damned tv off and picking up a book without pictures for the first time in your life?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?

fyi


The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

And here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Damn, you're stupid. No powers or authority are granted by those words. The powers granted are listed elsewhere, you illiterate twit.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

. That's why i get so aggravated when i start to fall asleep and..... BAM, BUY SHAM WOW!

Grow the fuck up and turn off the tv.

 

[Zoom-boing]

Are you understanding me yet, or must i babble on?

What's amazing to me is there's no other USMB poster that appears more like you than Zoom-boing.

Now you know what's its like!!!!

HEY, are you saying I'm a babbler?

 

[Zoom-boing]

How can you tell me that's not true??????

You said that the programs don't get as loud as the damn commercials:

Of course some programs get a little louder at times, but still not as loud as the damn commercials.

Yes, shows DO get as loud as the damn commercials . . . . how do I know this is true? I thought I made that pretty clear. Again, because Nip/Tuck got louder than the damn commercials when I was watching it last night. I didn't specifically say the History channel got louder nor was I calling you a liar. You also weren't specific that the History Channel does or doesn't get louder than commercials. Was I to assume that you were just talking about the History Channel? Cause I didn't. Just saying that shows DO, in fact, get just as loud or louder than some commercials, as it happened on Nip/Tuck. Last night. When I was watching it.

I watched soaps years ago when my kids were little and I put them down for a nap. lol, of course I probably always fell asleep because I was tired from being a mom to little kids.

Oh my goodness..... i'm not sure how many times i must explain this. Yes some show's like Nip Tuck and others get louder at times during the program. I do not watch loud and exciting and entertaining shows to fall asleep to! I put on something boring and mild and quiet. In most cases it remains the same volume while the program is on, yes occasionally a women who just found out she got the house of her dreams on hgtv, might get a little excited, when she gets the news, but still even then it's not as loud as the commercial that follows it. I can handle the women who yell's i got the house, or else i would'nt put the show on. And is if she yell's " i got the house!" it's very briefly, not several minutes of loud commercials. I cannot name you every channel that does or does not get louder during commercials bc i don't watch every channel. I do not watch alot of tv, other then to fall asleep to. Sometimes i don't even use the tv for that , sometimes i just read a book till i can no longer keep my eyes open. And actually in all honesty, not every single commercial during the break get's loud. Sometimes it's a loud one, then a regular one, and then another loud one. But i feel that the one's that do get louder should be quiet like other normal commercials, that stay the same volume as the show i'm watching. Are you understanding me yet, or must i babble on?

Lol , it was probably just bc you were tired from being a mom to little kids! I have a daughter but unfortuately i also have mild insomnia. It's difficult most of the time for me to go to sleep. That's why i get so aggravated when i start to fall asleep and..... BAM, BUY SHAM WOW!

I got yer point . . . was just making mine.

Have you ever tried a 'white noise' machine? Or even a fan? When my son was little I used to turn a fan on because it was summer and hot and he always slept better when it was on. He was/is a light sleeper. 16 years later the fan still goes on at night for background noise. Also did you ever try this? It's available in most drug or grocery stores, is safe, no side effects and it works to quiet restless minds (if that's what's keeping you from sleeping).

Quietude® combines homeopathic medicines traditionally used to treat sleeplessness and restless sleep. Homeopathic medicines are made of very dilute substances and are regulated as drugs by the FDA.
Quietude® is made by Boiron, world leader in homeopathy. For more than 70 years, Boiron has been committed to funding scientific research and education the public and health care officials about homeopathic medicines.

Made according to the Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia of the United States.

Buy Boiron Quietude, for Sleeplessness and Restless Sleep Online at drugstore.com

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Where in the Constitution does it give government the power to regulate it?

fyi


The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". Courts and commentators have tended to discuss each of these three areas of commerce as a separate power granted to Congress. It is common to see the Commerce Clause referred to as "the Foreign Commerce Clause," "the Interstate Commerce Clause," and "the Indian Commerce Clause," each of which refers to a different application of the same single sentence in the Constitution.

And here:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_note-0 promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Which gives absolutely no power whatsoever, and is simply a pronouncement of why they created the Constitution in the first place.

 

[Ravi]

The overall aspect of freedom of speech might play a part in that, but volume levels have exactly ZERO to do with "national security".

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to play that card.

No, you are correct, they don't. But since we can agree that we can regulate the airwaves, we should agree that we can regulate them however we see fit as long as we don't infringe on free speech rights.

If you'd like to make the case that forbidding uberloud commercials infringes on anyone's free speech rights, please do so.

At this point, the only reason I disagree is because I believe the companies have a certain "right" as well, considering they paid very good money to air the ad in the first place.

We already see what a waste of time and resources banning cigarette ads on TV has been. Those things are killing MORE people than they did before that was illegal. So what did it really accomplish?

Heart disease and cancer are responsible for half the deaths in the country, and cigs are probably responsible for a majority of those causes. We regulated cig ads off of the TV, and those numbers have only INCREASED.

The government isn't always the answer to every problem. You're going to get rid of commercial volume loudness, and STILL find something to complain about.

This is just strange to me, Rav. When those loud commercials come on, I laugh because of how ridiculous it is. I have never once thought that I needed to contact the government and have them put a stop to it. I just don't understand why it's that big of a deal.

If the best you can come up with is "we shouldn't have to put up with it" then you better buy yourself a big note pad and start making a long list of things the government needs to regulate, because you could literally make a list of infinite things we "shouldn't have to put up with".

You're a hoot!

 

[Paulie]

No, you are correct, they don't. But since we can agree that we can regulate the airwaves, we should agree that we can regulate them however we see fit as long as we don't infringe on free speech rights.

If you'd like to make the case that forbidding uberloud commercials infringes on anyone's free speech rights, please do so.

At this point, the only reason I disagree is because I believe the companies have a certain "right" as well, considering they paid very good money to air the ad in the first place.

We already see what a waste of time and resources banning cigarette ads on TV has been. Those things are killing MORE people than they did before that was illegal. So what did it really accomplish?

Heart disease and cancer are responsible for half the deaths in the country, and cigs are probably responsible for a majority of those causes. We regulated cig ads off of the TV, and those numbers have only INCREASED.

The government isn't always the answer to every problem. You're going to get rid of commercial volume loudness, and STILL find something to complain about.

This is just strange to me, Rav. When those loud commercials come on, I laugh because of how ridiculous it is. I have never once thought that I needed to contact the government and have them put a stop to it. I just don't understand why it's that big of a deal.

If the best you can come up with is "we shouldn't have to put up with it" then you better buy yourself a big note pad and start making a long list of things the government needs to regulate, because you could literally make a list of infinite things we "shouldn't have to put up with".

You're a hoot!

That's one hell of a rebuttal Rav, I guess I'm beat.

The old 'i'll just laugh at you instead' routine. The Harvard debate team would be jealous.

 

[Ravi]

I asked you to make a case that regulating the volume of commercials violated someone's freedom of speech rights and you went into a rant that made no sense and was full of untruths.

 

[Paulie]

What was untrue?

And I think you're confusing me with someone else. I have not been debating freedom of speech in this thread.

 

[Anguille]

No matter how much some of you might think I favor big business, you're sorely mistaken. I'd LOVE to see the people defeat them. I simply don't think the people have what it takes to get something like that done. That's why they go crying to congress to do it FOR them.

Come on Rav, go do it.

Hey clueless, this is what democratic government is, people getting together to defeat tyranny. Crying to congress, as you call it, is the the people taking steps to defeat big business.