'Your First Amendment Right Can Be Terminated
03-22-2012, 11:46 AM
#23
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 122
Total Cats: 2
American politics: Greasin' the squeaky wheels with the blood of our liberties...
I want to see how a city is going to regulate the airwaves. If a station is outside of their jurisdiction...
Speaking of which, why and how would this be in the scope of a municipality or county?
While they can 'condemn' all they want, it adds up to zilch. Excepting that it's purely a political move by incumbents to uphold 'community standards' by doing what is politically correct.
Also see: waste of time...
I want to see how a city is going to regulate the airwaves. If a station is outside of their jurisdiction...
Speaking of which, why and how would this be in the scope of a municipality or county?
While they can 'condemn' all they want, it adds up to zilch. Excepting that it's purely a political move by incumbents to uphold 'community standards' by doing what is politically correct.
Also see: waste of time...
Last edited by RattleTrap; 03-22-2012 at 11:58 AM.
Reply
0
0
03-22-2012, 12:12 PM
#24
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
---- you. youre such a ----.
Reply
0
0
03-22-2012, 12:19 PM
#25
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
However, these regulations only cover obscenity and indecency (eg: The Seven Dirty Words). They don't specifically cover things like insulting a person or calling them a Crack Ho. That would fall under libel law (criminal defamation) which applies to all published speech, be it in print or broadcast. Technically, you could even libel someone in an encyclopedia.
Libel is generally prosecuted at the state or local level rather than the federal level, so the LA city council is entirely within its rights to enact a law forbidding libel in any form.
The question would be whether broad racist or sexist remarks constitute libel. My gut feeling is that they do not, as libel is usually directed at an individual, rather than a group. It is also worth noting that in order to be libel, a statement must be false. So calling a specific person a crack ho on the radio is entirely permissible, provided that the person does in fact perform sexual services in exchange for crack. Taking this to the logical extreme, even calling a person a ------ on the air would probably not be libel, provided that the person in question is in fact black. (It would, ironically, be libel if the person were white, and if the allegation were made in a context which causes harm to the reputation of the person.)
This is more like Hate Speech. And Hate Speech is generally considered to be protected in the US, although there is one specific exception. The US Supreme Court has held that, under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, an employer can be held liable for hate speech made by its employees which is sexist or discriminatory in nature (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson). So under this clause, the Council would again appear to be within its rights in regulating hate speech which is generated as a commercial media product, either in print or broadcast.
Also, RattleTrap, the radio station in question (KFI) has its studios at the Warner Music building in Burbank, CA (I designed them), however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
Reply
1
1
03-22-2012, 12:21 PM
#26
I said nothing about any of that. But being able to regulate commercial speech on airwaves has been a power the gov't has had since 1927.
You are getting outraged over something that's been here for almost a century and was passed by a crop of politicians that were around before anyone on this forum was born.
Reply
0
0
03-22-2012, 12:36 PM
#28
There's nothing really here to get outraged about bro, short of a desire to repeal certain government regulations (Which I do support repeal of) on the airwaves.
On the other hand, there's a very good reason why libel and hate speech are not allowed. So, YMMV.
Reply
0
0
03-22-2012, 12:49 PM
#30
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Thanks, but remember that there's a distinction here. Libel is never permissible. Hate speech, by comparison, is almost always permissible, except under certain specific conditions.
Reply
0
0
.
03-22-2012, 02:11 PM
#32
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 122
Total Cats: 2
Nothing like ineffective redundancy in law I suppose.
Does the council presume to assume representation for the offended party?
They can bring pressure to bear by threatening licensing and appealing to the FCC, but that is about all. Seems they're trying to establish accountability, with LA city government as the authority. I'm assuming they are not attempting to establish a precedent wherein they become the 'beneficiary' in punitive damages.
But I could be wrong. I've been wrong before...
No matter their intentions, it all just smacks of political posturing to me.
BTW, Libel is permissible, just penalizable...
Reply
0
0
03-22-2012, 02:49 PM
#33
Precisely my point. Laws regarding libel and slander already exist.
Nothing like ineffective redundancy in law I suppose.
Does the council presume to assume representation for the offended party?
They can bring pressure to bear by threatening licensing and appealing to the FCC, but that is about all. Seems they're trying to establish accountability, with LA city government as the authority. I'm assuming they are not attempting to establish a precedent wherein they become the 'beneficiary' in punitive damages.
But I could be wrong. I've been wrong before...
No matter their intentions, it all just smacks of political posturing to me.
BTW, Libel is permissible, just penalizable...
Nothing like ineffective redundancy in law I suppose.
Does the council presume to assume representation for the offended party?
They can bring pressure to bear by threatening licensing and appealing to the FCC, but that is about all. Seems they're trying to establish accountability, with LA city government as the authority. I'm assuming they are not attempting to establish a precedent wherein they become the 'beneficiary' in punitive damages.
But I could be wrong. I've been wrong before...
No matter their intentions, it all just smacks of political posturing to me.
BTW, Libel is permissible, just penalizable...
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
Reply
0
0
03-22-2012, 03:20 PM
#34
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,020
Total Cats: 6,588
Hehe.
One thing to bear in mind is that there are (as an oversimplification) two types of law, and two types of court.
In civil law, one party can "sue" another party to seek compensation for some wrongdoing, in the form of "damages." However, one cannot, for instance, be sentenced to prison or required to pay a fine to a municipality in a civil case. Civil suits are always between one person and another person. A personal injury case would be one example of a civil suit.
Criminal law is a different affair. In criminal law, the plaintiff is always "the people" (as represented by the district attorney of the city, county, state, etc). In criminal law, the defendant, if found guilty, can be sentenced to incarceration, be compelled to pay fines, etc. Traffic court is probably the most common example of the criminal court system. (Yes, technically you are "under arrest" when you get a traffic ticket, and are a criminal defendant until you either pay the fine or see the judge.)
Usually, libel is tried in the civil court, wherein the "victim" attempts to seek a remedy (usually in the form of money and an apology / retraction) from the person who libeled them.
It would not, therefore, be redundant for a city council to pass a law which allows for libel to be prosecuted in the criminal court.
In re-reading the article which Braineack posted, however, I noticed something which I'd missed before, despite being in the lead paragraph:
A resolution doesn't mean jack ѕhіt. It's just a motion that says "this is how we feel about such-and-such." It isn't law, and has absolutely zero force in any court. The city council could pass a resolution stating "We don't like gay Jewish black people from Ireland" and it would make no difference at all.
Also, for what it's worth, the resolution already passed on a 13-2 vote yesterday.
One thing to bear in mind is that there are (as an oversimplification) two types of law, and two types of court.
In civil law, one party can "sue" another party to seek compensation for some wrongdoing, in the form of "damages." However, one cannot, for instance, be sentenced to prison or required to pay a fine to a municipality in a civil case. Civil suits are always between one person and another person. A personal injury case would be one example of a civil suit.
Criminal law is a different affair. In criminal law, the plaintiff is always "the people" (as represented by the district attorney of the city, county, state, etc). In criminal law, the defendant, if found guilty, can be sentenced to incarceration, be compelled to pay fines, etc. Traffic court is probably the most common example of the criminal court system. (Yes, technically you are "under arrest" when you get a traffic ticket, and are a criminal defendant until you either pay the fine or see the judge.)
Usually, libel is tried in the civil court, wherein the "victim" attempts to seek a remedy (usually in the form of money and an apology / retraction) from the person who libeled them.
It would not, therefore, be redundant for a city council to pass a law which allows for libel to be prosecuted in the criminal court.
In re-reading the article which Braineack posted, however, I noticed something which I'd missed before, despite being in the lead paragraph:
City Council members were one step closer on Wednesday to becoming the first in the nation to adopt a resolution condemning certain types of speech on public airwaves.
A resolution doesn't mean jack ѕhіt. It's just a motion that says "this is how we feel about such-and-such." It isn't law, and has absolutely zero force in any court. The city council could pass a resolution stating "We don't like gay Jewish black people from Ireland" and it would make no difference at all.
Also, for what it's worth, the resolution already passed on a 13-2 vote yesterday.
Reply
0
0
03-22-2012, 03:59 PM
#35
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,493
Total Cats: 4,080
no more besties:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...t-friends.html
No more hugging it out:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...-bans-hugging/
No more yelling at your cat:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/0...elling-at-cat/
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...t-friends.html
No more hugging it out:
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/03/...-bans-hugging/
No more yelling at your cat:
http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2012/0...elling-at-cat/
Reply
0
0
03-22-2012, 07:04 PM
#40
Junior Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 122
Total Cats: 2
Blaen, dude, decaf...
You'll live longer...
I'm not takin' it that serious, and I don't think Joe is either. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, mmkay?
BTW, what Brain is doing is hilarious...
Right Joe, I saw 'resolution' and that's what I was referring to in my comments above.
A difference that has come to my attention; apparently California, among others, have City Prosecutors. I'm only familiar with Florida law, which prosecution comes through the State Attorney's office.
In light of this, city regs/laws while being 'redundant', make sense in Calif's system.
Sorry for the confusion. Maybe you can understand my bewilderment in the city law issue.
Case in point http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/l...0#.T2uuuGHlNuM
You'll live longer...I'm not takin' it that serious, and I don't think Joe is either. I'm not trying to be deliberately obtuse, mmkay?
BTW, what Brain is doing is hilarious...
A resolution doesn't mean jack ѕhіt. It's just a motion that says "this is how we feel about such-and-such." It isn't law, and has absolutely zero force in any court. The city council could pass a resolution stating "We don't like gay Jewish black people from Ireland" and it would make no difference at all.
A difference that has come to my attention; apparently California, among others, have City Prosecutors. I'm only familiar with Florida law, which prosecution comes through the State Attorney's office.
In light of this, city regs/laws while being 'redundant', make sense in Calif's system.
Sorry for the confusion. Maybe you can understand my bewilderment in the city law issue.
Case in point http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/l...0#.T2uuuGHlNuM
Reply
0
0
