Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[elvis]

I don't know if this has been addressed in the 11 pages that are currently in this thread but private interests do not own the airwaves. The government owns the airwaves and leases them to private interests.

It's been mentioned, but I've not found anything in the Constitution that says the government may own the airwaves and lease them to anybody. One unconstitutional action does not legitimize another.

It is your interpretation of the constitution that the government cannot own the airwaves. Others would have a different interpretation.

The 5th amendment says that the government shall not take private property without just compensation. That implies that the government can own property. Thus, the government can own the airwaves.

they would have to buy them, which they could do anytime they like, whether the networks like it or not.

 

[Zoom-boing]

What I really hate is when one post is 10 times louder than the preceding one.

I turned your volume down. That was easy.

I muted you both

Ah, but did you crush my head as well?

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kbETsbv1NZ4[/ame]

 

[Screaming Eagle]

I hate the way the commercials are always loud as hell and the show is quiet and you have to turn your tv up all the way just to hear it and then get blasted by the commercials. I only watch tv after leaving it paused long enough to skip all the commercials in a show.

But I don't think it is the government's job to regulate television broadcasting volume levels unless there is a real public danger involved. Otherwise, federal, state, and local governments should all butt the hell out.

 

[Toro]

they would have to buy them, which they could do anytime they like, whether the networks like it or not.

Not if the government established domain over the airwaves before they were commercialized. Isn't that how the federal government became the largest landowner in the West?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Bullshit? You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube? I can and I do.

or watch PBS.

Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.

You're right, better to remain motionless and let the noise of the network adverts pop an ear drum. Seriously the remote is sitting right there, on the sofa or coffee table. Just pick it up and lower the volume, change the channel, or hit mute. It really works I just did it.

 

[Ravi]

It's been mentioned, but I've not found anything in the Constitution that says the government may own the airwaves and lease them to anybody. One unconstitutional action does not legitimize another.

It is your interpretation of the constitution that the government cannot own the airwaves. Others would have a different interpretation.

The 5th amendment says that the government shall not take private property without just compensation. That implies that the government can own property. Thus, the government can own the airwaves.

they would have to buy them, which they could do anytime they like, whether the networks like it or not.

Buy them from whom?

We the people own the airwaves. The airwaves are vital for national defense. We may regulate the airwaves as long as we don't infringe on someone's civil rights. There is no right to make things louder than they are...I really, really don't understand the problem some of the posters here are having with this concept.

 

[Liability]

Bullshit? You can't press the mute button and silence the boob tube? I can and I do.

or watch PBS.

Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.

You're right, better to remain motionless and let the noise of the network adverts pop an ear drum. Seriously the remote is sitting right there, on the sofa or coffee table. Just pick it up and lower the volume, change the channel, or hit mute. It really works I just did it.

As I noted before, yes, we can all do that.

BUT, why should we be compelled to do so?

By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?

If they have no particular right do do that (and they don't) then why can't we just impose a rule on their obnoxious asses that forces them to be civil?

 

[Zoom-boing]

or watch PBS.

Waiting attentively with the remote in hand so as to be able to hit mute before your ears get blasted is not a practical solution. Complaints to advertisers and TV stations apparently had no effect. I'm glad the government stepped in.

You're right, better to remain motionless and let the noise of the network adverts pop an ear drum. Seriously the remote is sitting right there, on the sofa or coffee table. Just pick it up and lower the volume, change the channel, or hit mute. It really works I just did it.

As I noted before, yes, we can all do that.

BUT, why should we be compelled to do so?

By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?

If they have no particular right do do that (and they don't) then why can't we just impose a rule on their obnoxious asses that forces them to be civil?

You do realize that they will just find others ways to be obnoxious, right? Maybe loud commercials are better than whatever else they'll come up with . . . like the little adverts they have now for shows in the corner of the tv while your show is on. They'll start putting ads for coke and sham-wow there. Personally I find that way more annoying than a loud commercial because I have no control over it at all. I do with commercials.

 

[2Parties]

By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?

The same right you have to not own or even turn on a television.

Just like the libbies you believe in positive rights. Your angle is the same one used by them for universal health care, censorship, and any government take over of any private property.

It's quite amusing, contradictory, and flat out funny.

 

[Ravi]

By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?

The same right you have to not own or even turn on a television.

Just like the libbies you believe in positive rights. Your angle is the same one used by them for universal health care, censorship, and any government take over of any private property.

It's quite amusing, contradictory, and flat out funny.

Censorship is not allowed under the constitution.

Fail.

Nor is taking private property without compensation.

Have you ever actually read the constitution?

I didn't think so.

 

[2Parties]

Censorship is not allowed under the constitution.

Just like the government not infringing on the right to bear arms. Fail indeed.

Nor is taking private property without compensation.

What are taxes?

Have you ever actually read the constitution?

I didn't think so.

Yes, and I understand how pointless and worthless it really is. It says censorship isn't allowed. So what? Censorship happens.

It says they can't take private property without compensation. So what? They do.

 

[Ravi]

Taxes are not without compensation.

The government cannot infringe on freedom of speech.

How may more red herrings are you going to toss out before you admit that we own the airwaves and can regulate them in this manner?

 

[2Parties]

Taxes are not without compensation.

Good luck proving that out. It's supposed to be "just compensation" and I'm sure you could find tens of millions of Americans who would tell you (and rightly) they are not being justly compensated for them.

The government cannot infringe on freedom of speech.

They do.

 

[elvis]

Taxes are not without compensation.

Good luck proving that out. It's supposed to be "just compensation" and I'm sure you could find tens of millions of Americans who would tell you (and rightly) they are not being justly compensated for them.

The government cannot infringe on freedom of speech.

They do.

Do you not consider national defense just compensation? or crime prevention?

 

[2Parties]

Do you not consider national defense just compensation? or crime prevention?

Assuming I supported the national defense or crime prevention group in charge what would be just compensation? 10% of my income? 20%? 50%? 80%? 99%? 100%?

We all know that isn't the only thing we pay for with taxes, and it never has been and never will be.

 

[elvis]

Do you not consider national defense just compensation? or crime prevention?

Assuming I supported the national defense or crime prevention group in charge what would be just compensation? 10% of my income? 20%? 50%? 80%? 99%? 100%?

We all know that isn't the only thing we pay for with taxes, and it never has been and never will be.

how much of your income would you be willing to pay to prevent another country from invading and conquering the US?

 

[2Parties]

Do you not consider national defense just compensation? or crime prevention?

Assuming I supported the national defense or crime prevention group in charge what would be just compensation? 10% of my income? 20%? 50%? 80%? 99%? 100%?

We all know that isn't the only thing we pay for with taxes, and it never has been and never will be.

how much of your income would you be willing to pay to prevent another country from invading and conquering the US?

What is exactly involved in this scenario? If the people taking over and conquering were better than what we have now I'd support paying those people, if they were the same 0%.

If they were worse I don't really know, but I guarantee it's less than 100%. If it was 100% for "just compensation" I'm nothing but a slave.

 

[elvis]

Assuming I supported the national defense or crime prevention group in charge what would be just compensation? 10% of my income? 20%? 50%? 80%? 99%? 100%?

We all know that isn't the only thing we pay for with taxes, and it never has been and never will be.

how much of your income would you be willing to pay to prevent another country from invading and conquering the US?

What is exactly involved in this scenario? If the people taking over and conquering were better than what we have now I'd support paying those people, if they were the same 0%.

If they were worse I don't really know, but I guarantee it's less than 100%. If it was 100% for "just compensation" I'm nothing but a slave.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iran under the current Mullahs.

 

[Liability]

By what right do the networks and the advertisers impose on my eardrums like that?

The same right you have to not own or even turn on a television.

Just like the libbies you believe in positive rights. Your angle is the same one used by them for universal health care, censorship, and any government take over of any private property.

It's quite amusing, contradictory, and flat out funny.

There is no analog in your analogy. Thus, it fails miserably.

No. My right to own a TV is not dependent on any lease from the government. You are wrong.

The broadcasters' and advertisers' rights to the USE of the PUBLIC's airwaves, by contrast, IS dependent on a lease from the government.

If it do not care for CNN or MSLSD, I am not obligated to turn on their biased shitty programming. And I don't.

But if I am enjoying, at a comfortable decibel level, some show broadcast over those PUBLIC airwaves, then I damn well DO have a right to TELL the broadcaster and the advertisers not to blast my eardrums. And in a representative democracy, I can tell them that in a number of ways including having my congresscritters draft appropriate laws or give proper REGULATORY power to an agency along those lines.

There is not a hint of analog between that and having the government impose universal public healthcare on us. Your contention is simply fraudulent. There is also no valid hint of analog in anything I have said and any claim of power by the government to impose "censorship." Control of volume, in the context we have been discussing it, is NOT even remotely akin to imposing censorship. One can both agree with so much of the FCC's existence as achieves legitimate ends and disagree with any efforts by the FCC to censor free speech.

And no, the government is NOT properly allowed to "take" private property EXCEPT by eminent domain for properly limited purposes. Somebody should have advised the fucking SCOTUS of that fact, however. Under proper circumstances, and given proper fair payment, the government CAN take private property under eminent domain; but there is NO analog worthy of the name between that Constitutional authority and the regulatory limitation of the audible volume of a commercial on broadcast television.

 

[2Parties]

how much of your income would you be willing to pay to prevent another country from invading and conquering the US?

What is exactly involved in this scenario? If the people taking over and conquering were better than what we have now I'd support paying those people, if they were the same 0%.

If they were worse I don't really know, but I guarantee it's less than 100%. If it was 100% for "just compensation" I'm nothing but a slave.

Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or Iran under the current Mullahs.

What's your number?

I don't have one because I oppose all governments.