NationStates Jolt Archive

The United States, it seems, has a censorship agency called the FCC. Both sides use it to further their agenda. The left uses it to try and stiffle the free market in that area, while the right attempts to create moral censorship. We have seen the results of this. None of the four major networks are allowed to merge, and cross ownership of newspapers and TV stations is extremely regulated. Furthermore, when Janet Jackson chose her disgusting act of bearing it all, she was not punished by anyone, nor was Justin Timberlake. Rather, the government, and they alone, shot the messanger, and fined CBS.
If such a majority were to really dislike what happened at the Super Bowl, here's what would happen: CBS would see its ratings plummet. The free market can regulate the media by itself, by adjusting it to consumer's taste. It would prevent TV stations from pushing the moral envelope (in their viewers' eyes), and prevent monopolies. Of course, this would also apply to all other media.
This great nation was the first to go as far as to protect the press in its very own constitution. We value the freedom of expression, so why does the government try to restrict it? Let the United States live up to its principles of free press to its fullest, by ending the FCC, and abolishing all other media regulations.

...None of the four major networks are allowed to merge, and cross ownership of newspapers and TV stations is extremely regulated. ...

This great nation was the first to go as far as to protect the press in its very own constitution. We value the freedom of expression, so why does the government try to restrict it? Let the United States live up to its principles of free press to its fullest, by ending the FCC, and abolishing all other media regulations.

The press would not be very free if it was owned by one player only, would it?
The idea behind antitrust law.

Liberal paradox: only by restricting freedom can freedom survive...or something like that

The press would not be very free if it was owned by one player only, would it?
The idea behind antitrust law.

Liberal paradox: only by restricting freedom can freedom survive...or something like that
It'd never be owned by one person, because someone will run their communications networks more efficiently, or report better, or something of the nature. It is the essence of competition. After all, there will be no market cap on the media without Congressional oversight.

Why, with Napalm, Cluster Bombs and Marines of course.

... It is the essence of competition...

It is also the essence of competition that somone wins. That is why there is competition law.

The FCC is WAY too powerful . . . it should NOT have the right to censor tv content

It is also the essence of competition that somone wins. That is why there is competition law.
Ah, but the beauty of the market is that, no matter how hard you play, no one wins. You can gain, but you can never win.

dont get rid of the fcc
get rid of those in power in the media
now who would that be?....

Ah, but the beauty of the market is that, no matter how hard you play, no one wins. You can gain, but you can never win.

hmm... to clarify, by winning, I mean gaining enough market power to eliminate competition, thus win. What is that if not a victory?

hmm... to clarify, by winning, I mean gaining enough market power to eliminate competition, thus win. What is that if not a victory?
Any victory is very temporary. No one can be all things to all people, and one business is no exception. Besides, anyone with an antenna can probably send out radio or TV waves. And now, with the rise of the internet, anyone with a bit of computer savvy can host a website about whatever the hell they want.

...anyone with a bit of computer savvy can host a website about whatever the hell they want.

for now...

the FCC has a legitimate role to play in the management of the airwaves. it assigns "channels" and frequencies. i would also like, in the interest of letting more people have a chance to own the limited number of channels in any one area, to limit the number of stations any one owner can have.

the advent of cable and satellite stations have made the FCC's role as censor useless. 90% of those who could see janet jacksons breast also have channels on their tv that show much more. daytime soaps are WAY more sexual than that little vignette on monday night football the other day.

we should stop pretending that we are censoring anything and just let the free market take control. there will still be plenty of shows that responsible families can let their children watch. they will just have to grow up and stop expecting the government to choose shows for them.

for now...
Well what makes you think that will change? History shows us that technology actually becomes even more freely used as time goes on. That's why the toltalitarian states of the 20th century used communication networks to their advantage, but it was turned against them later on. Radio transmissions from the outside helped eat the fabric of communism, and the internet is beginning to politically liberalize China.

The United States, it seems, has a censorship agency called the FCC. Both sides use it to further their agenda. The left uses it to try and stiffle the free market in that area, while the right attempts to create moral censorship. We have seen the results of this. None of the four major networks are allowed to merge, and cross ownership of newspapers and TV stations is extremely regulated. Furthermore, when Janet Jackson chose her disgusting act of bearing it all, she was not punished by anyone, nor was Justin Timberlake. Rather, the government, and they alone, shot the messanger, and fined CBS.

If such a majority were to really dislike what happened at the Super Bowl, here's what would happen: CBS would see its ratings plummet. The free market can regulate the media by itself, by adjusting it to consumer's taste. It would prevent TV stations from pushing the moral envelope (in their viewers' eyes), and prevent monopolies. Of course, this would also apply to all other media.

This great nation was the first to go as far as to protect the press in its very own constitution. We value the freedom of expression, so why does the government try to restrict it? Let the United States live up to its principles of free press to its fullest, by ending the FCC, and abolishing all other media regulations.

First point: paragraphs are a good thing. Now on to the meat.

I agree with your premise generally - I really don't like the censorship that the FCC chooses to impose. Honestly, will it really change our society that much from the direction its already going if we drop censorship? I don't think so. After Monday Night Football's recent debacle I think people are way too up tight about this sort of thing. A bare woman's back was shown for two seconds. TWO SECONDS! And the nation was in an uproar. Oh get over it people. Its a back for chissake!

I think we should go the way of Europe. If it's not blatent sex, its okay for TV.

To the economic points made here: Free market economy does not work the way most people think it will. Monopolies do form in free-markets. They're called natural monopolies and they tend to be the worst. In the absence of a government or regulating body, the monopoly can just take off and crush all opposition.

The market also does not self-regulate. It will eventually correct itself but that takes several decades. In the mean time we're in a great depression for 60 years instead of ten. The United States restricts freedom due to mostly republican, conservative, christian values. Drop those and we have the freedom you so desire.

the FCC has a legitimate role to play in the management of the airwaves. it assigns "channels" and frequencies. i would also like, in the interest of letting more people have a chance to own the limited number of channels in any one area, to limit the number of stations any one owner can have.
But I don't see why that is a problem. Both AM and FM frequencies go down to the thousandth of a decimal point. The bigger stations will, of course, advertise their frequencies. As for TV stations, the amount available is nearly infinite with cable and sattelite, and will continue to grow in the future. For basic cable, larger companies would pay service providers for a channel. The easier a channel is to get, the greater its price.
the advent of cable and satellite stations have made the FCC's role as censor useless. 90% of those who could see janet jacksons breast also have channels on their tv that show much more. daytime soaps are WAY more sexual than that little vignette on monday night football the other day.
It's the principal of the matter, though. The FCC shoots the messanger.

First point: paragraphs are a good thing. Now on to the meat.

I agree with your premise generally - I really don't like the censorship that the FCC chooses to impose. Honestly, will it really change our society that much from the direction its already going if we drop censorship? I don't think so. After Monday Night Football's recent debacle I think people are way too up tight about this sort of thing. A bare woman's back was shown for two seconds. TWO SECONDS! And the nation was in an uproar. Oh get over it people. Its a back for chissake!

I think we should go the way of Europe. If it's not blatent sex, its okay for TV.
We let viewers decide that one.
To the economic points made here: Free market economy does not work the way most people think it will. Monopolies do form in free-markets. They're called natural monopolies and they tend to be the worst. In the absence of a government or regulating body, the monopoly can just take off and crush all opposition.

The market also does not self-regulate. It will eventually correct itself but that takes several decades. In the mean time we're in a great depression for 60 years instead of ten. The United States restricts freedom due to mostly republican, conservative, christian values. Drop those and we have the freedom you so desire.
It goes much faster today, because money flows faster. Someone always does something better, and as long as that happens, the market works. While I believe that monopolies form, I don't believe that they can ever last more than a few years without serious competition. Just recently, many market analysts say that the merger of Sears and K-Mart will challenge the dominance of Wal-Mart in retail. And they aren't even a monopoly. If they were, the pressure for innovation by other retailers would be even greater.

Well what makes you think that will change? History shows us that technology actually becomes even more freely used as time goes on. That's why the toltalitarian states of the 20th century used communication networks to their advantage, but it was turned against them later on. Radio transmissions from the outside helped eat the fabric of communism, and the internet is beginning to politically liberalize China.

And what of the totalitarian states/corporations of the 21st? Any fabric can be eaten by winning over the minds of the people/consumers. Means of public broadcasting, frequencies etc. are a limited resource. Those will be subject to ownership, being of financial value. Ergo, someone will be want to own it all, in order to be able to promote his/her interests. Why not?

And what of the totalitarian states/corporations of the 21st? Any fabric can be eaten by winning over the minds of the people/consumers. Means of public broadcasting, frequencies etc. are a limited resource. Those will be subject to ownership, being of financial value. Ergo, someone will be want to own it all, in order to be able to promote his/her interests. Why not?
I know someone that operates a radio station. It's nothing fancy, just something out of his study. His frequency is something like AM 1091.326. There are plenty of frequencies out there.

I know someone that operates a radio station. It's nothing fancy, just something out of his study. His frequency is something like AM 1091.326. There are plenty of frequencies out there.
I will buy them all!

It goes much faster today, because money flows faster. Someone always does something better, and as long as that happens, the market works. While I believe that monopolies form, I don't believe that they can ever last more than a few years without serious competition. Just recently, many market analysts say that the merger of Sears and K-Mart will challenge the dominance of Wal-Mart in retail. And they aren't even a monopoly. If they were, the pressure for innovation by other retailers would be even greater.

The market still takes just as long to correct itself. Its not how fast the money flows that makes a difference, its how fast the various affect on GDP, GDPPI, NI, PI, and other factors in the economy change.

K-Mart and Sears cannot challenge Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart still has them outdistanced by a huge margin.

The monopolies form and retain power because they have the power to crush any competition. When a new firm enters the market (which, by the way has impossible entries to the market) The monopoly can just drop its prices far below those of the new firm and absorb the losses. Since this happens, the new competator drops out of the market and the monoploy remains unchallenged.

The market still takes just as long to correct itself. Its not how fast the money flows that makes a difference, its how fast the various affect on GDP, GDPPI, NI, PI, and other factors in the economy change.

K-Mart and Sears cannot challenge Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart still has them outdistanced by a huge margin.

The monopolies form and retain power because they have the power to crush any competition. When a new firm enters the market (which, by the way has impossible entries to the market) The monopoly can just drop its prices far below those of the new firm and absorb the losses. Since this happens, the new competator drops out of the market and the monoploy remains unchallenged.

Big business will not last forever. Just look at Enron and what happened to them.

The market still takes just as long to correct itself. Its not how fast the money flows that makes a difference, its how fast the various affect on GDP, GDPPI, NI, PI, and other factors in the economy change.

K-Mart and Sears cannot challenge Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart still has them outdistanced by a huge margin.

The monopolies form and retain power because they have the power to crush any competition. When a new firm enters the market (which, by the way has impossible entries to the market) The monopoly can just drop its prices far below those of the new firm and absorb the losses. Since this happens, the new competator drops out of the market and the monoploy remains unchallenged.
But if any monopoly becomes inefficient, or does not satisfy anyone's needs, they loose influence. No company can be all things to all people. If anything can do something this monopoly can't (and that is probably quite a bit), then there are plenty of investors out there willing to keep this infant company afloat. Microsoft was seen as a monopoly for Operating systems, but now there's Linux, and maybe a few others. That took less than a decade to happen.
I also think that, if investment rules were looser and more even, Standard Oil and US Steel wouldn't make it as monopolies past 1900.

I will buy them all!
Good luck.

I voted other. We need to get rid of the censorship. However, without the FCC, there would be 1 supercomapany. Some CEO would control all that we see and hear. I shuddder to think of that. Someone like Rupert Murdoch (Austrailian who makes Cheyney look like a Democrat) Got control of all the airwaves, we would be in deep s*it!

Simple. Reduce the FCC to something around the authority of ICANN (channel and frequency assignment, rather than IP addresses and class/country codes), end favouritism of any business entity or group of business entities over any other, and make it time for corporate welfare recipients to pay it back - with interest.

As for censorship, the FCC shouldn't be applying any of this to PAY SERVICES. Yeah, keep the actual no-charge public airwaves to a government standard (because guess what - RF is a government domain, so uncharged air is kinda their sandbox), but satellite and cable are PAY SERVICES (and wires and satellite are hardly government domain in the first place) and so shouldn't be regulated beyond what baseline ethics and maybe international law require. At that point, though, it would fall to the companies to maintain and either enforce and/or aid in the enforcement of a ratings system.

Ironically, I'd actually side with the FCC on the Super Bowl thing (see RF thingy), if - and only if - they had gone after the performers and their crew, unless the network intentionally set it up. Going after the carriers for anything other than gross and willful negligence is stupid.

But I don't see why that is a problem. Both AM and FM frequencies go down to the thousandth of a decimal point. The bigger stations will, of course, advertise their frequencies. As for TV stations, the amount available is nearly infinite with cable and sattelite, and will continue to grow in the future. For basic cable, larger companies would pay service providers for a channel. The easier a channel is to get, the greater its price.

It's the principal of the matter, though. The FCC shoots the messanger.
satelite and cable are out of the equation. does the FCC even regulate them?

the airwaves need regulating. SOMEONE has to decide who gets 98.6 eh? cant have 2 stations on the same frequency too close to each other. more so with TV stations.

but there is also bands for cell phones, cb radio, ham, military, im sure there are more that i cant think of right now.

we have laws about what goes where and we need an agency that enforces the rules. the fbi cant do EVERYTHING.

Censorship goes against the Constitution of the United States. If some soccar mom in Ohio doesn't want her kids hearing some bad language then she can get a parental block put on the tv. The government shouldn't be able to restrict what I watch and hear, they should leave that to parents or guardians. Maybe it would force parents to be around for more than 5 seconds. Sex up tv, free the airwaves and end bleeping, have Britney Spears pole dance at the Olympics, I don't really care. People can always push the power button if they find something offensive. The FCC can maintain things like channels and things and make sure everyone has a parental blocking device installed. That way people have control and not the government. Keep in anti-trust laws though. I really don't want to see ABC-CNN, ABC-FOX, ABC-BBC, ABC-NBC, etc.

the fcc doesnt prevent newspaper and television from merging, thats called "anti-trust legislation" and has been on the books for a while now, its what microsoft has been repeatedly sued for

satelite and cable are out of the equation. does the FCC even regulate them?

the airwaves need regulating. SOMEONE has to decide who gets 98.6 eh? cant have 2 stations on the same frequency too close to each other. more so with TV stations.

but there is also bands for cell phones, cb radio, ham, military, im sure there are more that i cant think of right now.

we have laws about what goes where and we need an agency that enforces the rules. the fbi cant do EVERYTHING.
Well, we can have a copywright system for channels. The more precise the frequency, for example, the greater the fee for copywrighting. Same principle applies for the lower of the channels. We won't have to make it necessary, but we'll safeguard that particular station to exclusive use of that channel/frequency. Call names are a hinderance in their present form, as I feel frequency and location are enough to identify any station.

bump

bump

No one is interested in this anymore?

I think the majority of Americans believel that the FCC has overstepped its boundaries. But in some respects, it's better than having government actually OWN the airwaves, like the BBC.

The press would not be very free if it was owned by one player only, would it?
The idea behind antitrust law.

Liberal paradox: only by restricting freedom can freedom survive...or something like that
Indeed, the idea is that freedom must be closely regulated by committee, with a view to preventing its exploitation. The fine line between authoritarianism and anarchy. Inevitably there will always be those who will disagree with where the line is drawn.

The FCC is WAY too powerful . . . it should NOT have the right to censor tv content
exactly.

that's what parents are for. if they don't want their kids watching something, then they should get off their asses and do some parenting.

and if they don't want to watch something, then they can turn off the t.v.


and on the subject of janet's breast: 1. the nipple was covered, 2. it was like 10 seconds of boobage, 3. i don't know why people are so offended by that, the pop starlets of the u.s. do all but show all their breasts, hell, christina aguilerra showed everything if not for a strategically placed guitar on rolling stone. she was showing more boobage than janet. furthermore, it's the human fucking body! half of the world's adult population have breasts, so what if one was on television for a brief instant?

But in some respects, it's better than having government actually OWN the airwaves, like the BBC.
i thought the bbc was like one channel.

i don't think they own everything britan sees.

i thought the bbc was like one channel.

i don't think they own everything britan sees.
The BBC comprises four numbered TV channels, upwards of half a dozen radio stations bearing the name, and a large website.

Compare this to the alternative media available on cable and satellite digital TV and the rest of the Internet.

World domination? Hardly?

The BBC comprises four numbered TV channels, upwards of half a dozen radio stations bearing the name, and a large website.

Compare this to the alternative media available on cable and satellite digital TV and the rest of the Internet.

World domination? Hardly?
oh no!

four channels. that's such a state owned media, i'm surprised they get any freedom. and if i knew how to make the eye rolling icon, i would place it here.

The BBC comprises four numbered TV channels, upwards of half a dozen radio stations bearing the name, and a large website.

Compare this to the alternative media available on cable and satellite digital TV and the rest of the Internet.

World domination? Hardly?
It's not domination, but it certainly restricts freeom of the airwaves in that country, and diverts media resources to something that can easily be state influenced.

I think the majority of Americans believel that the FCC has overstepped its boundaries. But in some respects, it's better than having government actually OWN the airwaves, like the BBC.
It's called PBS. It doesn't own them, but it does divert resources that could be used to enrich the media, not stiffle it.

What could be the results (I want to say "ramifications", but due to new obnoxious threads, I'll refrain from the term) of completely removing the FCC?

What could be the results (I want to say "ramifications", but due to new obnoxious threads, I'll refrain from the term) of completely removing the FCC?
Well, I personally see a more market-driven industry, more variety on the media, and a more dog-eat-dog atmosphere. Indecency may be rampant at first, but as no one will watch/listen/read indecent crap for too long, they will fail in a heartbeat.
And btw, I've changed my mind a bit. There still needs to be a body to regulate government channels, liike for the military, or intelligence collecting. Otherwise, I see it as unecessary.

In Corporate Utopia, how easy is it to get a frequency? Or in North Korea? Similarly maybe...

It's a joke, all this over a tittie.

In Corporate Utopia, how easy is it to get a frequency? Or in North Korea? Similarly maybe...
As I said, though, the frequencies out there are nearly infinite. All one needs to do is to build an antenna that broadcasts on that frequency.

Censorship goes against the Constitution of the United States. If some soccar mom in Ohio doesn't want her kids hearing some bad language then she can get a parental block put on the tv. The government shouldn't be able to restrict what I watch and hear, they should leave that to parents or guardians. Maybe it would force parents to be around for more than 5 seconds. Sex up tv, free the airwaves and end bleeping, have Britney Spears pole dance at the Olympics, I don't really care. People can always push the power button if they find something offensive. The FCC can maintain things like channels and things and make sure everyone has a parental blocking device installed. That way people have control and not the government. Keep in anti-trust laws though. I really don't want to see ABC-CNN, ABC-FOX, ABC-BBC, ABC-NBC, etc.
It is reasonable, I believe, as a parent, to expect that a Super Bowl halftime show, being run during the day, will not have any material that would be inappropriate for children to see. My 11-year-old daughter was very upset after the Janet Jackson incident. Am I a bad parent because I let her watch a halftime show, during the day, on a Sunday, and expected to not see any X-rated material?

It is reasonable, I believe, as a parent, to expect that a Super Bowl halftime show, being run during the day, will not have any material that would be inappropriate for children to see. My 11-year-old daughter was very upset after the Janet Jackson incident. Am I a bad parent because I let her watch a halftime show, during the day, on a Sunday, and expected to not see any X-rated material?

Hope she gets over it. X- rated material, especially nudity, can practically destroy a child.

Hope she gets over it. X- rated material, especially nudity, can practically destroy a child.
nudity is hardly xrated material, plain nudity is more pg-13, clothed sexual inuendo should be logically higher than plain nudity, and if you consider a breast flash x rated theres you answer why america is fucked

Perhaps people should refer to this "FCC" as "fascist censorship commission"?

nudity is hardly xrated material, plain nudity is more pg-13, clothed sexual inuendo should be logically higher than plain nudity, and if you consider a breast flash x rated theres you answer why america is fucked

Nudity is Evil!

bump

There is a huge problem with this poll. To myself, the expansion/abolishment of the FCC is a moralistic issue. I think 5-10 years ago I would have agreed the the FCC should have been abolished (I was young and wanted to see some T&A). The difference now, is I've been raising a child and I don't want him to see "naughty" things on TV. I would rather have him watching some moralistic shows like I was when I was his age. Something like the Smurfs or Carebears.

I have no prob with boobies on TV and think there should be more. That said though I think that it is unfair to viewers to ambush them like was done in the Superbowl and Desperate football promo. - it was akin to opening a Pepsi and finding it full of beer; It's not bad, but you were expecting a Pepsi!

You should be able to know what you will see when you tune in a show - you can't 'unsee' something you didn't want you (or your child) to view - even if you turn it off.

Shows and their commercial content should be clearly defined in advnace as to their content. Having guidelines around channels oand/or daytime is not a bad idea.

That said though I think that it is unfair to viewers to ambush them like was done in the Superbowl and Desperate football promo.
Is it really that special? I was watching Tora! Tora! Tora! on the History Channel, and I saw at least 3 commercials promising 4-hour erections. I really don't care about erectile dysfunction while I'm watching a movie about Pearl Habor, but I'm not saying "OMFG THS B4S4RD5 R KORUPTIN MAI MID!!!!11!1" Is seeing the back of a woman really so inappropriate? That is what I like to call an "overreaction" Damnit, we're disproving physics! "For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction". (Please don't criticise any fallacies in that, I was just trying to make a point. I specialise in biology at the moment, not phsyics.)

eek, a titty!

Wow, people getting killed, cool!

There's something wrong with this picture. Seriously wrong.

There is a huge problem with this poll. To myself, the expansion/abolishment of the FCC is a moralistic issue. I think 5-10 years ago I would have agreed the the FCC should have been abolished (I was young and wanted to see some T&A). The difference now, is I've been raising a child and I don't want him to see "naughty" things on TV. I would rather have him watching some moralistic shows like I was when I was his age. Something like the Smurfs or Carebears.
I do see your point. There is, however, an easy solution in my proposed context, and that is to turn off that particular station. Like-minded parents will do the same thing, and the station will bleed money. In the meantime, as this frees TV much more, it'll be easy to find a station matching your criteria. Perhaps there'll be a retro station with the Smurfs.