General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsThe FCC finally got back to me. They don't mind people advocating assassination on the airwaves.
Now talking about boobies, that's a different story.
Back in early December I followed up on a DU post about Glenn Beck's ranting on a Nashville radio station, advocating the murder of progressives in general, Nancy Pelosi and Michael Moore in particular.
The FCC sent me a letter this week. Here's an excerpt:
The First Amendment and the Communications act bar the FCC from telling station licensees how to select material for news programs, or prohibiting the broadcast of an opinion on any subject.
All concerns and/or comments about a specific news broadcast or commentary should be directed, in writing, to the local station and network involved.
Censorship and Freedom of Speech
The FCC is barred by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution from trying to prevent the broadcast of any point of view, not matter how unpopular or distasteful that point of view may be to most people. Consumers often complain that certain broadcasts are "un-American," too violent, or ridicule or demean certain groups because of their race, gender, religion, or nationality. Such views that do not rise to the level of a "clear and present danger of serious substantive evil" are protected by the First Amendment.
...
FCC rules prohibit indecent or profane broadcasts between the hours of 6 a.m. and 10 p.m.
So Beck telling listeners to "shoot Nancy Pelosi" and "cut Michael Moore's head off" does not rise to a level that might get the FCC's attention, but mention of boobies when children might be listening is way too offensive to be ignored.
The FCC needs some new rules. Bringing back the "fairness doctrine" would be a good first step. Statements advocating shooting elected officials and beheading political activists should certainly be considered "clear and present danger".
Ending the practice of referring to "citizens" as "consumers" would be nice too.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
onenote
(42,693 posts)in many contexts its a better choice than the narrower and more exclusionary "citizen". There are a lot of folks in the US who are not "citizens" and if you substituted the word citizen every time you see consumer, I think the result would be an even greater marginalization and exclusion of those people than already is the case.
IMO, the FCC should be referring to "listeners and viewers".
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)While I can sympathize with your complaints and I find a lot of what I hear on hate radio as offensive, I also still believe in that same first ammendment the FCC claims to be supporting and that no matter how over-the-top the rhetoric is, once we start deciding what's "proper" or "threatening" or whatever we start down a slippery slope as to determining who and what is offensive and how.
If you want to express your concern, here's a suggestion...write to the station that aired the show (send the letter registered with a return receipt so you know the station recieved it) then go to the station and ask to see their "Public Inspection File". Your letter has to be in there or else the station is subject to a big time fine ($10,000). Also note who locally advertises on the show and pay that business a visit (do it in person) and make your opinion known to the manager. Wouldn't hurt to bring a couple friends to document your visit and don't be afraid to speak loud enough that others in the store hear it. Many sponsors don't like being connected with "controversial" programs and maybe the business didn't know they're money was being place in that snake pit.
Wanna get the corporate media...be it on the local level to pay attention, hit them in the pocketbook!
Scuba
(53,475 posts)
Greybnk48
(10,167 posts)I don't recall who originally posted about the Tennessee station that aired this Beck ad, but I sent my complaint based on that post as well. I'm shocked by the FCC response. I didn't realize I could call for someone's assassination over the airwaves and it was perfectly acceptable, my 1st amendment right as it were.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)Judging by the FCC's response, it sounds as if they didn't even read Scuba's letter.
We have already decided what is "threatening" and "proper" regarding
free speech, and that's we already have limits on the First Amendment.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)The FCC's mandate has never been to play content cop...and they have a piss poor record when they step into that area. Few stations have ever had a fine upheld and there hasn't been a license revoked due to content in nearly 30 years. Their perview is "spectrum" management...issuing licenses and making sure stations don't interfere with one another.
Please dont try to twist words...I said that I consider hate radio vile and disgusting, but we still have a First Ammendment that protects our ability of freedom of speech and expression. A couple years ago Alec Baldwin said something similar about booooosh on a talk show. Should that network and the stations that carried the show also lose their licenses?
According to my Constitution, I don't see any limits on the First Amendment. Yes, there's a need to clamp down on hate speech but who is to decide? You? Me? The Government? We get in a slippery slope here when we say this person's speech is "threatening" or "offensive" while ignoring someone elses.
Again...if you want to deal with these asshats...go for the pursestrings...you'll get faster and far better results.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... but maybe that's just me.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Dreck is totally reprehensible...but just like Rushbo, they know the more incindiary their rhetoric the more PR they get. Making a big stink about yet another round of bile spewing tends to draw more attention to the personality than the actual words.
whathehell
(29,067 posts)"Please dont try to twist words...I said that I consider hate radio vile and disgusting, but we still have a First Ammendment that protects our ability of freedom of speech and expression. A couple years ago Alec Baldwin said something similar about booooosh on a talk show. Should that network and the stations that carried the show also lose their licenses"?
I never said that the network and the stations that carried the show "should lose their licenses" and I'm not
sure that's what the OP was seeking either.
"According to my Constitution, I don't see any limits on the First Amendment"
Then maybe you should check this link:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/95-815.pdf
There certainly are some limits on freedom of speech, the most well-known
forbidding the creation of a public panic by "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" in an instance
where that danger doesn't exist.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)Those were laws added later. The problem is words meant to be rhetorical vs. actual threats. A big difference. Yelling fire in a crowded theater can set off an immediate panic and response...and yes a threat to public safety of anyone in the theater.
Please understand, I would love for all these douchenozzles to vanish from the public arena...and my hopes are that more and more people are tuning these blowhards out and their verbosity works against their candidatse and causes.
Again...the First Amendment only says "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Anything else has been added along the years.
The OP was looking at options to express his frustrations and anger...if you look, I offered him some suggestions, based on my too many years working in radio, that would be more effective than going to a toothless government agency that's mostly in the pockets of the large corporates...
whathehell
(29,067 posts)the founding fathers, so I'm not sure being an "originalist" counts for much anymore,
the upshot being, if you break those laws which were "put in later"
as you say, you will be charged with a crime.
I realize that your suggestions to the OP have merit, and I've used them myself.
That being said, I'm not a "First Amendment Absolutist" and I
do think that advocating violence to public figures (or anyone, really) can be a threat
to their safety and had Gabby Giffords been on Glenn Beck's "hit list", I think that
would be seen as transparent and indisputable.
KharmaTrain
(31,706 posts)I appreciate your thoughtful responses...and I agree with a majority what you say. We're mostly playing semantics here...as many do (especially rushpublicans) when it comes to Constitutional matters.
My concern always is who decides what is considered "free speech". We already see that the SCOTUS believes it applies to corporations and all but codified money = speech. Unfortunately this is especially the case now on the "public" airwaves where a majority of the best stations are owned by a handful of corporates, including Clear Channel that is owned by Bain Capital. That industry is the victim of "deregulation" that is slowly killing off the entire medium.
Again, I can and have drawn my own connections between shootings such as Congresswoman Giffords or the Dreck accolyte who went on a killing spree at the National Holocoust Museum and I know we can come up with a nice size list of where we can say these sick people were motivated by hate speech, but I don't think we can say that it was one person who instructed the attacks but the entire media culture where the same bile is echoed hour after hour, day after day. That's a problem of access and accountability of those who hold licenses...
Cheers!
whathehell
(29,067 posts)and though I appreciate what you've said about my thoughtful responses,
I do hope you're not conflating me with a "Rushpublican".
I think lines can be drawn about "free speech" -- and they already have been,
as I've pointed out, when it comes to issues of extreme personal danger.
All of the above have NOTHING to do with the horrible Citizens United ruling,
which is based on an absurd "stretch" in saying "money equals speech".
muriel_volestrangler
(101,306 posts)Or maybe to the Secret Service in Nancy Pelosi's case, since she's in Congress (I'm not sure what level they step in at).
snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL 
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)I jacked up a subnet in a router earlier too causing me grief for 15 minutes till I figured it out---
Time for another smoke and some coffee
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)lol
former9thward
(31,978 posts)You could post on DU "shoot Newt" or something like that or say that on your street corner and it is not against the law. Many SC rulings on this.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)former9thward
(31,978 posts)It is not against the law however. Two different things.
The Straight Story
(48,121 posts)
Gregorian
(23,867 posts)We're half free. And the will of the people isn't fully ours, but partially censored.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)or transcript to him actually saying this? (One that doesn't ultimately lead back to a DU post claiming it)?
Before I go off on a topic which seems somewhat incredible, I like to verify it is true.
Scuba
(53,475 posts)... broadcast by WLAC in Nashville on December 7, 2011.
Kellerfeller
(397 posts)goes back to early December, but there is no evidence besides the claim.
onenote
(42,693 posts)even if they were so inclined, which they're not.