'Your First Amendment Right Can Be Terminated - Page 2 - Miata Turbo Forum - Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 03-22-2012, 12:25 PM   #21
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

Look like california has caught wind of it:

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/...in-talk-radio/
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 12:40 PM   #22
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

The government can regulate commercial speech on airwaves, Brainy.

It's nothing new and it's been going on for decades. No need to get your panties in a bunch bro.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 12:46 PM   #23
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 123
Total Cats: 2
Default

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...

Last edited by RattleTrap; 03-22-2012 at 12:58 PM.
RattleTrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:12 PM   #24
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
The government can regulate commercial speech on airwaves, Brainy.

It's nothing new and it's been going on for decades. No need to get your panties in a bunch bro.
oh cool thanks bro i didn't know. i thought i was a free human being, but it turns out im a sheep and im not allowed to hurt the other sheeps feelings.


---- you. youre such a ----.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:19 PM   #25
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,322
Total Cats: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RattleTrap View Post
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?
The content of broadcast signals is regulated at the federal level by the FCC, as broadcasting is considered to be inter-state commerce.

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.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:21 PM   #26
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
oh cool thanks bro i didn't know. i thought i was a free human being, but it turns out im a sheep and im not allowed to hurt the other sheeps feelings.


---- you. youre such a ----.
Calm down broski. You are getting hot under the color.

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.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:21 PM   #27
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

sue me bro. im just your typical well armed lamb contesting the vote.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:36 PM   #28
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
sue me bro. im just your typical well armed lamb contesting the vote.
Joe, with his usual superb articulation, managed to sum up the whole situation in a few paragraphs.

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.
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:40 PM   #29
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

no there's not. you're all -----s.
Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:49 PM   #30
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,322
Total Cats: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blaen99 View Post
On the other hand, there's a very good reason why libel and hate speech are not allowed. So, YMMV.
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.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 01:55 PM   #31
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
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.
That was meant within the context of your post, Joe, but point taken .
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 03:11 PM   #32
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 123
Total Cats: 2
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post

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.
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...
RattleTrap is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 03:49 PM   #33
Elite Member
iTrader: (6)
 
blaen99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 4,112
Total Cats: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RattleTrap View Post
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...
I'm going to quote from Joe for a moment.

Quote:
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
Quote:
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
Quote:
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
Quote:
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
Quote:
however the City of License is LA, and thus, the LA City Council does have jurisdiction over them.
/The repeated quote is really kind of trollish on my part and only needs one, but ignoring a major point central to someone's argument to make that post is sort of... :(
blaen99 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 04:20 PM   #34
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,322
Total Cats: 1,919
Default

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:

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.
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 04:59 PM   #35
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (61)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 72,872
Total Cats: 1,790
Default

Braineack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:01 PM   #36
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 4,682
Total Cats: 216
Default

Rights are bullshit they feed us to keep us in line.

The next time you catch yourself thinking about your "rights" just remember February 19, 1942
Full_Tilt_Boogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:03 PM   #37
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Delicious and Moist.
Posts: 26,322
Total Cats: 1,919
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Full_Tilt_Boogie View Post
The next time you catch yourself thinking about your "rights" just remember February 19, 1942
The bombing of Darwin, Australia?
Joe Perez is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:06 PM   #38
Elite Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Jacksonville, FL
Posts: 4,682
Total Cats: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
The bombing of Darwin, Australia?
Executive order 9066
Full_Tilt_Boogie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 05:09 PM   #39
Tour de Franzia
iTrader: (6)
 
hustler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Republic of Dallas
Posts: 29,114
Total Cats: 351
Default

Liberals and coloreds should have their First Amendment rights revoked.

In for blaen99's new signature, or a pairing.
hustler is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-22-2012, 08:04 PM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Central Florida, Land of the Giant Rat.
Posts: 123
Total Cats: 2
Default

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...



Quote:
Originally Posted by RattleTrap View Post
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...
Quote:
Originally Posted by RattleTrap View Post

No matter their intentions, it all just smacks of political posturing to me..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
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.
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
RattleTrap is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
First gen (white) megasquirt pnp 90-93 Miata firmware reflash Johnny Tater MSPNP 1 09-27-2015 01:38 AM
Help installing DDM HID kit thumpetto007 General Miata Chat 8 09-04-2015 06:25 PM
+ terminal nut on starter solenoid miatauser884 General Miata Chat 6 08-07-2013 07:12 PM
here's a list of senators who voted AGAIST precluding rape in contracting hustler Insert BS here 84 10-18-2009 12:39 PM
Ron Paul's economic revitalization plan JasonC SBB Insert BS here 140 01-31-2008 04:47 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:59 AM.