FCC vs. Martin Scorsese

Modemac · External Since: Jul 03, 2003 Posts: 28

This message is not archived

james.i.mcanespy · External Since: May 07, 2006 Posts: 4

What is the actual point of the FCC? Is it just to preserve Christian
values of decency, or is it a amicable institution?

In Britain, there is the ITC (Independent Television Commission), which
takes complaints from the public and decides whether the Broadcaster
(apart from the BBC, which is self-regulating), has breached standards
of taste. Basically, they will allow anything short of an erection if
its broadcast at a reasonable time (e.g. between 10pm, and 3am.), and
if it done with a genuine artistic/educational intent.
It preserves free speech much better than is evident in the American
System...

Rev. Richard Skull · External Since: May 07, 2006 Posts: 6

<<On top of that, there are limits to bandwidth across the
broadcast frequencies that have to have a central
authority, to put some kind of order to things. And this
bandwidth is so limited that they want every bit of it to
be used--so no buying it without proving you can use it
and will continue to use it. And the federal government
*rents* it for this reason. If you rent some, they
expect you to use it for many years. >>

So limited that if you lobby Congress with enough Bribes, you can
almost get a law passed that take frequencies that are being used every
day (in this case by railorads) and reasign them to those Big Media
Companies who gave you all that cash and hookers.

Luckly the Railroads were able to come up with more hookers, and photos
of said congessmen with said hookers to convince Congress not to do it.

Thats why there's a big rush to Digital TV. Congress wants to sell the
FM Frequency band used fro TV sounds to the BIG MEDIA Companies.

nu-monet v8.0 · External Since: May 07, 2006 Posts: 11

Rev. Richard Skull wrote:
>
> Thats why there's a big rush to Digital TV. Congress
> wants to sell the FM Frequency band used fro TV sounds
> to the BIG MEDIA Companies.

No argument there. Big money to be grafted.

--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"YOU BELONG TO US NOW!"
"GET DOWN WITH MY SICKNESS!!"

--Kino Beman, brand name

nu-monet v8.0 · External Since: May 07, 2006 Posts: 11

james.i.mcanespy RemoveThis @googlemail.com wrote:
>
> What is the actual point of the FCC?

It's based on a very early Constitutional axiom, that
being that if things overlap individual States, or they
also involve other nations, then they are in the purview
of the Federal Government.

For that reason, navigable waterways, interstate highways,
interstate commerce, the post office, communications and
other things are all federal.

On top of that, there are limits to bandwidth across the
broadcast frequencies that have to have a central
authority, to put some kind of order to things. And this
bandwidth is so limited that they want every bit of it to
be used--so no buying it without proving you can use it
and will continue to use it. And the federal government
*rents* it for this reason. If you rent some, they
expect you to use it for many years.

This inherently opens the door to content control, which
covers the gamut from sensible to censorial to propaganda.

Sensible content control in past included things like
requiring station identification at 15 minute intervals,
mandating emergency broadcast messages, prohibiting speech
that was otherwise unlawful (creating a public panic, etc.),
and requiring a log to be maintained of outages.

Censorial content control included pornography, violent
content, bad language, and speech that while not necessarily
illegal was offensive enough to create a public disturbance.
Of course, all of this is perpetually up for debate and
varies wildly by location.

Propagandistic content can include in past demanding that
broadcasters incorporate patriotic themes, and that "equal
time" be given to what by an individual broadcaster seems
to be unpopular political opinion *or* to air no political
opinion at all. Virtually any mandated political events
could be regarded as propagandistic.

In any event, all of this, and much, much more is done by
the FCC, a very small organization with immense power and
responsibility.

--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"Soylent Brown is made of Poo-Poo!"
-- nu-monet

Bhagwan Shree SODDI · External Since: May 07, 2006 Posts: 1

"Rev. Richard Skull" <mshotz.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1147025304.964689.274200@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> <<On top of that, there are limits to bandwidth across the
> broadcast frequencies that have to have a central
> authority, to put some kind of order to things. And this
> bandwidth is so limited that they want every bit of it to
> be used--so no buying it without proving you can use it
> and will continue to use it. And the federal government
> *rents* it for this reason. If you rent some, they
> expect you to use it for many years. >>
>
> So limited that if you lobby Congress with enough Bribes, you can
> almost get a law passed that take frequencies that are being used every
> day (in this case by railorads) and reasign them to those Big Media
> Companies who gave you all that cash and hookers.
>
> Luckly the Railroads were able to come up with more hookers, and photos
> of said congessmen with said hookers to convince Congress not to do it.
>
> Thats why there's a big rush to Digital TV. Congress wants to sell the
> FM Frequency band used fro TV sounds to the BIG MEDIA Companies.

Wait 'til the HDTV thing fizzles out... one channel 98% of the population
can't watch vs. the FOUR digital channels you can pack per HDTV band?

You KNOW the fix is in on this one.

And I bet the broadcasters'll find a way to get Kongress to let them keep
their original channels on top of that.

Doc Martian · External Since: May 07, 2006 Posts: 26

huh-huh. you said 'television'.

cheers!
Doc

"Modemac" <modemac.RemoveThis@modemac.com> wrote in message
news:m7sr5254mptbqmklepf73e1tquh9kveuoo@4ax.com...
> The FCC is trying to force legendary director Martin Scorsese to
> remove naughty words from his documentary on blues music:
>
>
>
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6332444.html?display=Breaking+New
s
>
>
> --
> The High Weirdness Project
> http://www.modemac.com

BTR1701 · External Since: May 07, 2006 Posts: 94

In article <1147011924.823112.263650.TakeThisOut@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"james.i.mcanespy@googlemail.com" <james.i.mcanespy.TakeThisOut@googlemail.com>
wrote:

> What is the actual point of the FCC? Is it just to preserve Christian
> values of decency, or is it a amicable institution?
>
> In Britain, there is the ITC (Independent Television Commission), which
> takes complaints from the public and decides whether the Broadcaster
> (apart from the BBC, which is self-regulating), has breached standards
> of taste. Basically, they will allow anything short of an erection if
> its broadcast at a reasonable time (e.g. between 10pm, and 3am.), and
> if it done with a genuine artistic/educational intent.
> It preserves free speech much better than is evident in the American
> System...

Of course your courts have the ability to order newspapers and the media
not to report on certain stories. And people can be criminally
prosecuted for saying things that aren't politically correct.

So in the balance, free speech thrives more here than in Merry Ole
England.

BTR1701 · External Since: May 07, 2006 Posts: 94

In article <1147011924.823112.263650 DeleteThis @u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com>,
"james.i.mcanespy@googlemail.com" <james.i.mcanespy DeleteThis @googlemail.com>
wrote:

> What is the actual point of the FCC? Is it just to preserve Christian
> values of decency, or is it a amicable institution?
>
> In Britain, there is the ITC (Independent Television Commission), which
> takes complaints from the public and decides whether the Broadcaster
> (apart from the BBC, which is self-regulating), has breached standards
> of taste. Basically, they will allow anything short of an erection if
> its broadcast at a reasonable time (e.g. between 10pm, and 3am.), and
> if it done with a genuine artistic/educational intent.
> It preserves free speech much better than is evident in the American
> System...

Of course your courts have the ability to order newspapers and the media
not to report on certain stories. And people can be criminally
prosecuted for saying things that aren't politically correct.

So in the balance, free speech thrives more here than in Merry Ole
England