FCC promotes censorship, removing more rights

[Sputty]

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/4019483/detail.html
Radio Stations Face Fine For 'Naked Twister' Game
KQRC, KFH Could Pay $220K Indecency Fine

POSTED: 9:55 pm CST December 22, 2004
UPDATED: 10:33 pm CST December 22, 2004

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Popular Kansas City rock jock Johnny Dare has something in common with Howard Stern and Janet Jackson -- all three have been accused of indecency by the Federal Communications Commission.

Video


Video: Watch KMBC's Report





The FCC proposed a $220,000 fine Wednesday for Pennsylvania-based Entercom Communications.

The proposed fine comes in response to four 2002 broadcasts on two Kansas radio stations: KQRC in Westwood and KFH in Wichita.

They broadcast installments of the "Dare and Murphy Show" featuring "Naked Twister" with local strippers and graphic interviews with porn stars.

SURVEY
Do you think the proposed $220,000 indecency fine is appropriate?
Yes, I think it's fair.
No, I think it's excessive.

Results | Disclaimer


The FCC said the material was indecent and clearly intended to "pander to and titillate the audience."

Entercom officials were unable to comment on the proposed fine.

KFH program manager Tony Duesing said his station has not aired the show for the past six months because it was too costly.

Johnny Dare and Entercom would not comment to KMBC.

[k9k922]

http://www.thekansascitychannel.com/news/4019483/detail.html
Radio Stations Face Fine For 'Naked Twister' Game
KQRC, KFH Could Pay $220K Indecency Fine

POSTED: 9:55 pm CST December 22, 2004
UPDATED: 10:33 pm CST December 22, 2004

KANSAS CITY, Mo. -- Popular Kansas City rock jock Johnny Dare has something in common with Howard Stern and Janet Jackson -- all three have been accused of indecency by the Federal Communications Commission.

Video


Video: Watch KMBC's Report





The FCC proposed a $220,000 fine Wednesday for Pennsylvania-based Entercom Communications.

The proposed fine comes in response to four 2002 broadcasts on two Kansas radio stations: KQRC in Westwood and KFH in Wichita.

They broadcast installments of the "Dare and Murphy Show" featuring "Naked Twister" with local strippers and graphic interviews with porn stars.

SURVEY
Do you think the proposed $220,000 indecency fine is appropriate?
Yes, I think it's fair.
No, I think it's excessive.

Results | Disclaimer


The FCC said the material was indecent and clearly intended to "pander to and titillate the audience."

Entercom officials were unable to comment on the proposed fine.

KFH program manager Tony Duesing said his station has not aired the show for the past six months because it was too costly.

Johnny Dare and Entercom would not comment to KMBC.


The FCC Needs to back off. They allow warfare and blood but not interview with porn stars? i am lost on this one. The only place this can go is worse.

Censorship is allmost never a good thing. It will take America some where it does not need to go.

[MrVicchio]

Radio is just like BroadCast TV... could you show what they did vice what they said?

[Mr1337Duck]

I don't dig the FCC. I understand there need to be SOME limits on violence, but this doesn't sound like that big a deal.

[DaShiznit]

It's infractions on free speech like this that make us need the ACLU.

[Mr1337Duck]

Nah, the ACLU would bitch about how some stations have religiously-themed music, and it might offend some people. Send some letters and complain to them, and let the Stations hire their own lawyers. I don't like organizations that try to push a particular cause solely by filing lawsuits.

[MrVicchio]

Free Speech then, can I have a "How to make your own porn!" reality TV show on Broadcast TV?

No.

Same situation applies here with radio, its public airwaves and there are... conditions for useing them.

[Headrattle]

If you don't like it, turn it off.

And Duck, the ACLU fight for anyone who they feel is going against the Constitution. Even Republicans. (they were against Campaign Finance Reform for example.)

[Dieval]

The naked twister shouldn't be a big deal, especially since it was on the radio...the graphic interview that took place after wood could be a bit much though, depending on how graphic it got..

[DaShiznit]

Nah, the ACLU would bitch about how some stations have religiously-themed music, and it might offend some people. Send some letters and complain to them, and let the Stations hire their own lawyers. I don't like organizations that try to push a particular cause solely by filing lawsuits.
I know. Defending free speech is such a horrible cause.

[MrVicchio]

Free Speech doesn't give you the right to use public air waves to say what ever you like.

Sorry.

[DaShiznit]

Free Speech doesn't give you the right to use public air waves to say what ever you like.

Sorry.
Riiight. So if you can't publicly say whatever you like, how is it free speech again?

[MrVicchio]

Riiight. So if you can't publicly say whatever you like, how is it free speech again?


It's not. Public AirWaves are not free speech. Never have been. they are provided by the Government with certain restrictions. Namely decency restrictions because the public at large wanted them.

You won't be prosecuted or even bothered by the government for political dissent, religious beliefs or the like over the air. But if you have a couple of strippers cursing over the air and describing in detail some of the things they do "on the job" you will get harrassed.

If that bothers you, call your congress man, your senator and demand that all decency laws be revoked.

[Baneblade]

I'm anti censorship, that said I don't see the problem here. They are enforcing existing laws, not creating new ones.

[DaShiznit]

It's not. Public AirWaves are not free speech. Never have been. they are provided by the Government with certain restrictions. Namely decency restrictions because the public at large wanted them.

You won't be prosecuted or even bothered by the government for political dissent, religious beliefs or the like over the air. But if you have a couple of strippers cursing over the air and describing in detail some of the things they do "on the job" you will get harrassed.

If that bothers you, call your congress man, your senator and demand that all decency laws be revoked.
This is why living in Ohio sucks. I have Mike Dewine, George Voinovich and Steve LaTorrette.

First if all, Public airwaves are not provided by the government. They are provided by whomever chooses to broadcast on them. Second, if you don't like what you're hearing, here's a novel idea, turn it off. Third:

Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech.
Now, it has been decided that when free speech endangers the public good, such as shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, it can be limited. That would cause pandemonium, and quite possibly death. Hearing a stripper on the radio describing her experiences won't cause panic, injury, or death.

And of course, there is the matter of opinion. I don't really find what was said that indecent. I think lying to your country to send them to an unnecessary war is indecent. But you don't see anyone fining Bush. Indecency is 100% subjective, and as such, it is niether the duty nor the right of the government to take what it sees as indecent, and force it onto those who it sees as violators.

[MrVicchio]

Actually, you are wrong. Teh Federal government liscences the airwaves. Go ahed, try to put up a radio tower and start broadcasting without approval, you'll be taken down ASAP.

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you are free to say anything you want where ever you want. There are proper forums for such speech. In those forums you will not be touched by the government, or others, PERIOD.

Outside of them, you will.

There is a difference.

[DaShiznit]

Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you are free to say anything you want where ever you want.
Wrong. That is EXACTLY what it means. Again, there are exceptions where it endangers the public good. However, I don't think we'll see corpses strewn in the street because some stripper talked on the radio.

[MrVicchio]

And you are missing the point of decency laws. They do not STOP you from speaking however you want, they restrict WHERE you can say such.

[DaShiznit]

I suppose that fits in somewhere with Bushie "Free Speech Zone" logic?

[MrVicchio]

It has nothing to do with Bush, these rules have been on the books since Radio went commercial.

[DaShiznit]

That doesn't make them justified. They still infringe on the right to speak freely.

[MrVicchio]

So does banning prayer before a football game, and thats doubley protected by the Constitution, your point?

They ARE free to say what they want too, thats the point YOU are missing. they are free to discuss whatever they want, whenever they want too. They just are not allowed to dicuss it over publicly liscenced airwaves.

Thats why Satillite Radio and Cable TV is free from the FCC, those are PRIVATE bands of communication. Thus not subject to the same rules as BROADCAST.

You are mistaking regulation of medium with censorship.

[Headrattle]

So does banning prayer before a football game, and thats doubley protected by the Constitution, your point?

We teach you the truth and you still hang on to the lies. We teach you where you are wrong, you still refuse to see the light. Amazing. See previous threads for why you are wrong. Thank you.

THEY ARE free to say what they want too, thats the point YOU are missing. they are free to discuss whatever they want, whenever they want too. They just are not allowed to dicuss it over publicly liscenced airwaves.

Thats why Satillite Radio and Cable TV is free from the FCC, those are PRIVATE bands of communication. Thus not subject to the same rules as BROADCAST.

You are mistaking regulation of medium with censorship.

And the FCC is the exact reason that Satillite Radio and Cable TV are going to CRUSH the local television and radio stations. Because of some atiquated idea of decency that wasn't given because of popular opinion, but because a few whiney bitches decided that it was wrong. Hmm, I wonder if there is a corrolation there somewhere? Yeah... Looks like Political Correctness BEFORE Political Correctness.

I find it amazing how so many people are against Government Involvement unless it comes to Your Speech, Your Religion, or Your Morality being pushed on someone else. Then, if the government wants to help you SPREAD THE WORD! then by all means they should!

Conservitives my ass.

[MrVicchio]

Standards of deceny in a society change, and yes when these laws were written the word Damn being spoken in Gone with the Wind caused a rukus.

That being said despite your prattle about how anything is being forced on you, the basic desire of society in general is to keep the airwaves realitively free of obscenity. Until enough people feel otherwise, that's how it is.

Also the school prayer thing, all you showed me is that you are more then willing to cencor speech you find offensive (religious) but are up in arms obsence speech is not acceptable over the publicly owned radio bands.

Tit for Tat we both have our opinions of what is acceptable speech, you feel that anything religious has no place on/in/around public domain, and I think obsenity should stay off the public airwaves. The difference being, only one of us is denied 2 constitutionally protected rights be denied over the right not to be offended.

Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Religious Expression

All denied by? A very loose interpritation of :

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion;

How we came to the point where students on thier own time and of their own freewill giving a prayer before a H.S. football game is establishing a religion... scares me. Seriously.

And this screaming for the right to be obscene over the radio is censorship... scares me even more.

[k9k922]

How we came to the point where students on thier own time and of their own freewill giving a prayer before a H.S. football game is establishing a religion... scares me. Seriously.


I have to agree with you on that one. If there was no one leading a prayer its fine. Even then a small prayer may not have been that bad. Hanging your head in silence before a game helps to find yourself and relax, prepare for the upcoming battle.


And this screaming for the right to be obscene over the radio is censorship... scares me even more.

To me that is like saying we should put a law against flag burnning. I may not agree with it but it must be something we are allowed to do. If radios are obscene and all that people stop going ot the station. I know many people who do not listen to some satations because of them being crude during some times of the day.

[MrVicchio]

Changing the obscenity laws is why we have representatives. If enough people want them changed, then they'll change. It's not censorship, its restricting the medium to a level of acceptablity. If they want a show like that, there are other mediums where it is acceptable. period.

[Headrattle]

Standards of deceny in a society change, and yes when these laws were written the word Damn being spoken in Gone with the Wind caused a rukus.

That was during a simular Standards and Practices that was forced upon the Movie industry by the... Minority.

That being said despite your prattle about how anything is being forced on you, the basic desire of society in general is to keep the airwaves realitively free of obscenity. Until enough people feel otherwise, that's how it is.

What is being forced upon me is censorship. My right to choose, my freedom to choose what I want is being taken away from me because a few people can't stand to see a nipple.

Also the school prayer thing, all you showed me is that you are more then willing to cencor speech you find offensive (religious) but are up in arms obsence speech is not acceptable over the publicly owned radio bands.

Wrong. The government is not a private citizen and therefore the rules do not apply to them. What you want is YOUR religion under different rules then other religions. What you want is YOUR religion to be more free then the other religions. What you say is that All religions are equal, just some are more equal then others. You try to muddle it by saying that you can use a loudspeaker to preach at people who might not agree with you as your freedom of speech, when you won't let anyone else do it. They won't let me Talk about how there isn't a God and that Religions are a refuge of the weak, so why should they let you talk about it? (I don't believe it, but that is an example.)

Tit for Tat we both have our opinions of what is acceptable speech, you feel that anything religious has no place on/in/around public domain, and I think obsenity should stay off the public airwaves. The difference being, only one of us is denied 2 constitutionally protected rights be denied over the right not to be offended.
Incorrect. I believe that the Government should have Religious neutrality. I believe in the equality of Religions. What that means is that if you want to have an area that ALL religions can speak with equal volume, then yes, you can do it. But it also mean that you can't favor any religion above any other. Because doing so steps upon the freedom of religion. And that only takes place when it comes from the Government.

Now when you quoted the Constitution, you didn't put in Bold the important part.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

When you only let Christians up there on that GOVERNMENT platform then you are prohibiting the free exercise therof; But in your little "America" I guess it doesn't matter if they aren't Christian.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

How we came to the point where students on thier own time and of their own freewill giving a prayer before a H.S. football game is establishing a religion... scares me. Seriously.

It is establishing a religion because it
To place or settle in a secure position or condition; install:
To make firm or secure.
To cause to be recognized and accepted:
To introduce and put (a law, for example) into force.
Your religion and your religion only.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=establishes
DOH!

And this screaming for the right to be obscene over the radio is censorship... scares me even more.
And you choosing what I should listen too scares the SHIT out of me. Anyone choosing what I should listen too, watch, believe, Read, is stepping upon my Rights as an American.

Like I said, you are all for Freedom of Speech, and Religion, or beliefs... Unles they conflict with yours.

"You have the freedom to choose whatever you want. As long as I agree with it."

For the record, I am ok with a moment of silence. But Vic is talking about a Preacher preaching over a loudspeaker. Which isn't right.

[MrVicchio]

WRONG HR DOG GONE IT!

Son of a bisquit. How many times are you gonna repeat that freaking lie?

"your religion only!"

What mularky. Can you prove that LIE? No you cannot. When I played Football in Texas we heard Christian and Jewish Prayers before each game, there were no single church/religion rules. ANY STUDENT that wanted to say a prayer was granted the right.

GRRRR. You wanna fire me up, keep lying on that issue. It was never about one religion exclusion. It was about students exersizing THIER RIGHT to religious expression. Something we should CHERISH, not condemn.

Also, you are banned from seeing a nipple? News to me? Did someone pass a law saying no nipples?

If you want nipple rent a porn, watch an R or NC-17 movie, surf the web, ask your wife/Gf to lift her shirt. No one is stopping you.

[Headrattle]

WRONG HR DOG GONE IT!

Son of a bisquit. How many times are you gonna repeat that freaking lie?

"your religion only!"

What mularky. Can you prove that LIE? No you cannot. When I played Football in Texas we heard Christian and Jewish Prayers before each game, there were no single church/religion rules. ANY STUDENT that wanted to say a prayer was granted the right.

You never stated that before. However I HAVE stated that as long as you are going to allow other religions to pray there, then it is OK. There is a difference between Religious Neutrality and No Religions at all. In the past there were only CHRISTIAN prayers in Schools. That was wrong. But if your school wants to have any religion that is able, no matter how few, to pray then fine. For example, if you want to have a Christmas Play that is NOT funded by the School, but happens to be on School Grounds, great... as long as you are willing to have a play by otehr religions happen on those grounds AND it isn't during class time. If the school wants to have a "Holiday Show" where anyone can have their religions plastered on a poster, fine. You see, that is giving everyone the ability to express their religion, while NOT telling other religions that they can't. That means that The School its self can't put up Christmas posters. Only the students can.

GRRRR. You wanna fire me up, keep lying on that issue. It was never about one religion exclusion. It was about students exersizing THIER RIGHT to religious expression. Something we should CHERISH, not condemn.

Blah blah blah. You never stated that. Thus it wasn't a lie. I am OK with an individual's right to express their freedom. Hey, go for it. I am NOT OK with any sort of favoritism toward one religion or another. And it HAS HAPPENED. I have also admited that if you let all other religions in the area do the same, then it is OK. I have also admited that it goes too far in the other way when Those PC assholes want to get rid of Christian symbols or scenes on their own property.

Now, if you had stated that you let otehr religions up there (and I noticed) I would have said it is OK. Because That is what I have stated before. That if anyone there wants to preach as well, or objects then it is fine.

Also, you are banned from seeing a nipple? News to me? Did someone pass a law saying no nipples?

If you want nipple rent a porn, watch an R or NC-17 movie, surf the web, ask your wife/Gf to lift her shirt. No one is stopping you.

My wife won't let me see her nipples anymore.
But you are missing the point. The FCC is censorship, and that is the freedom of speech. Especially today there are TV show ratings out the ASS, and V-Chips in every TV. If you DON'T want to see a Nipple you DON'T have too. If you DO want to see a Nipple, you CAN. And don't pretend that Censorship is JUST nipples and naughty words. Take for example the first Interracial Kiss was only let through because the Censors were told that they were under mind control. The same goes with Gay Characters, and a shit load of other stuff. Censorship goes a lot farthur then then dirty words and naughty bits. And guess what, the FCC is dying. Yeah, that is right. Comedy Central has played the word "shit" on prime time, and played the South Park Movie uncut with all of the words (including the F-Bomb) in fabulous craptastic animation.

The FCC was a bad idea from the Get Go. As is Ron Blagoyhoweveryouspellitivich deciding that the Government has the right to crack down on Computer Stores when they sell Violent Games. And the FCC is going to be useless in a few years anyway, with the Satilite Radio and the increase in Cable Popularity. I am ALL FOR IT! I feel that we should be given a choice, and the government shouldn't make it for you. Defending them is wrong. Saying that I have to go into the basement in order to see a nipple. I also believe that the Entertainment companies can control themselves with only a few guidelines. Ratings are great. The V-Chip is great. That gives someone information before they have to choose. Hell, a program that won't let people play violent games on their computer would be great. That I don't mind. What I do mind is a Government Organization that was not elected, but appointed, choosing what I see, read, hear, watch, or masturbate too. That is what I have a problem with. The government making my choices for me.

[MrVicchio]

You know where the obscenity laws came from don't you?

Parents not wanting thier 5 year olds to hear curses, see porn.. that sort of thing.

If ALL porn/cursing and the like were banned everywhere, I would agree with you. Since its not, I will have to openly disagree with your view that it is censorship. It's not.


Also I am so against rules against movies/games being banned or restricted. Just put an age check on it, and those of the approriate age should be free to purchase whatever they want(within reason, child porn for example, is illegal, would you argue against censoring that?)

[Headrattle]

Child porn is exploitation of a minor and thus illegal. I would also be against comiting any illegal activity and putting it on TV. Since you can't really fake Child Porn, it doesn't fall under how Murder is treated.

My point is that the FCC should be DEAD. Even in the past it went much further then just five year olds seeing a nipple. That is why I am saying with the heavy ratings that is prevailent on all TV shows, and the fact that the V-Chip is on almost every TV, the FCC is a drain on our Government finances, AND depriving us of Freedom of Speech and Choice. They should get back to regulating Frequency Bandwidth like they were created for. We have the ability to choose better now. Though before we could also choose by changing the channel or turning it off (what a concept) now we can make that decision befor the Show even comes on.

This is why I think that the FCC should be gotton rid of. And I think that Janet Jackson is just an excuse that they are using to try and pretend like they are still needed in order to save their own ass.