The FCC exists (in part) to enforce a certain morality on public broadcasters. Whatever we think about that today, that was a core responsibility of the FCC when it started and that still exists today.
replies(9):
Source: https://www.fcc.gov/sites/default/files/the_fcc_and_freedom_...
"Last Reviewed: 12/30/19" (Trump's first term)
A list of words you can't say is about morality; it's a drag but at least it's objective. You either said the word or you didn't.
This is far more subjective.
As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
What part of that sentence qualifies as either indecent or profane?
When everyone is given a loudspeaker, and the power to create an audience of millions; when "journalism" is equivalent to any random opinion; when anyone with the will and a negligible amount of resources can promote their agenda... No amount of oversight can bring back balanced discussion about actual facts. Reversing a post-truth society cannot happen without radical disruptions to the system that got us here in the first place.
Whatever you think it did, it almost certainly did not do that. In practice it meant that J. Random Crazypants would be allowed to give an editorial -- sometimes in the middle of the night, and sometimes as 60 second after the news. Additionally the Doctrine never applied to Cable TV for obvious First Amendment reasons.
So the justification for federal intervention (interstate commerce) is there.
Of course, that doesn't prevent the feds from letting the states handle it, but it does create an incentive for some states to want the feds to handle it.
Olive Garden isn't given access to something it requires to operate at the pleasure of the government. Broadcast TV on the other hand...
All of broadcast TV is allowed because the government says it is. ABC/CBS/NBC/FOX don't own the radio spectrum they are operating on, the government does and they grant the right to use it to those companies. There's a long list of things that the government requires them to do in order to keep this pleasure. One of them used to be the Saturday morning cartoons. I miss those.
As a separate matter, it's long been clear the FCC was created to serve a very time, context and needs - most of which either no longer exist or have changed substantially. Most media no longer travels through the limited shared resource of "airwaves". The agency's whole charter is in need of a major rethink.
I think the New England states could manage this together fine.
I agree, the constitution grants the authority to the federal government to. But more and more, I think we should just let the states deal with as much as possible. It seems pretty clear we are far from a national consensus on many basic issues, and the constant winner take all grab for power is making things worse.
Jimmy Kimmel said that Charlie Kirk was killed by someone with the same political views as Charlie.
That is the lie.
Trump has been trying to get Kimmel removed for a while for making fun of him. This was just an opportunity.
https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/obscene-indecent-and-pr...
Kimmel's performance was clearly not obscene or indecent - it did not depict or describe sexual conduct or excretory organs - and it aired after 10 PM, so whether it was profane is irrelevant.
>As I said, the FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality. It seems clear that the morality being enforced would fall in line with the ruling power of the day.
Your next point about the FCC needing a major rethink is interesting. What are you thinking here? FCC also regulates internet-based communications (e.g. Youtube or podcasts)?
Not true. His ratings have him right in the middle of the pack: https://latenighter.com/news/ratings/late-night-tv-ratings-q...
In fairness to the provision, I think it's outdated, and I've argued against its relevance and that it seems unlikely to me to stand up in any court that interprets 1A jurisprudence to a modern standard, but the law exists and exists specifically to prevent against broadcast lies.
I also assert that the morality being enforced by the FCC [in a given time period] will fall in line with the morality of the rulers of [that time period]. That is a descriptive statement.
Which part am I wrong about?
Those angry people have power right now and used their power to punish Jimmy Kimmel.
If you don't understand that, it doesn't affect those people at all.
The thing about the FCC threatening Kimmel for this speech, is that someone needs to identify what was problematic about the speech other than "I didn't like that he said it." I would love for someone to explain to me what the problematic part of the statement was, because I think then we could have a more substantive discussion. As is, this is pretty clearly a 1st amendment violation by the FCC chair as his statements demonstrably chilled speech (it's hard to get much clearer an example than this legally).
I might've been swayed had you provided the actual quote, but I think davorak kinda won this argument without doing anything other than asking you for receipts. If your position was so certain you would've just provided the quote.
That's why I don't think davorak is here in good faith. Look how close he was to the quote.
What are you doing here? How did you get here without reading the quote?
> The FCC is allowed to enforce a certain morality.
As I said previously, the FCC is bound by the First Amendment. They do not have the power to restrict speech, whether on grounds of "morality" or otherwise.
Obscenity is not considered speech as far as 1A is concerned, so the FCC is able to ban it. I disagree with this categorization, but it is what it is.