| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
26 Feb 2006 09:43:47 PM |
| Object: |
Did you know that...? |
http://www.americandecency.org/indecency/didyouknow.htm
Did you know that...?
The first ever FCC fine of a broadcast television station for reasons of
indecency came down January 27, 2004!
On January 27, 2004, one day before the U.S. House of Representatives was
scheduled to hold a hearing to investigate the FCC's failure to enforce
congressionally mandated indecency laws, the FCC proposed a fine against a
San Francisco television station for indecency. This particular fine, if it
is actually approved and paid, will be the first such fine in the entire
history of the FCC!
It is highly likely , however, that this fine was strategic before it was
substantive. The history of the FCC evidences a egregious lack of concern to
the matter of decency on the public airwaves, a responsibility specifically
mandated to it by the Congress of the United States. Without drastic changes
to this body or a unprecedented level of public concern, we should expect it
to continue to serve the interests of corporate media before those of the
American citizen, which is essentially the capacity in which it has
performed since its inception.
Fines levied against radio broadcasters under current law are miniscule and
they often aren't even paid.
The FCC is granted by Congress the power to fine or even revoke licenses for
reasons of indecency. No television station has ever had its license revoked
because of indecency, and to the best of our knowledge, no radio station has
either. Whereas the FCC had not fined a broadcast television company until
January 27, 2004, it has fined radio stations for indecent broadcasts.
These fines however are miniscule and easily written off as a cost of doing
business by companies who have hundreds of millions and even billion dollar
revenue incomes. The current maximum fine is a measly $27,500 dollars! This
cost isn't even equal to the revenue of ONE advertisement in some markets!
The fines are so ridiculously small that many times they aren't even
collected. The offending companies know that the Justice Department is not
going to sue them for the measly sum of $27,500, and so they simply ignore
the fines. The statute of limitations will run, and the fine is simply taken
off the books.
This is not a credible enforcement process. It only goes further to show
that our government is not truly concerned for the maintenance of decency on
the public airwaves. If they were, this ridiculous sequence of events which
makes a mockery of government would never occur.
The FCC does absolutely no investigations of its own for reasons of
indecency.
Despite a subsidy of $280 million from the pockets of American taxpayers,
the FCC does absolutely NO independent monitoring of television or radio
broadcasts to enforce the bounds of decency. Given the technology available
today, the FCC could tape every single television and radio program as well
as monitor frequent offenders for less than 1% of its entire budget.
However, there really is no reason for the FCC to keep records of all
television and radio programming. They could simply require television and
radio station licensees to maintain copies of all programs for a specified
amount of time. But they don't do this either.
Instead, the burden of proof is placed entirely on the shoulders of the
individual filing the complaint. Any complaint must be furnished with a tape
or transcript of the indecency that must be detailed enough that the
"Commission can determine the context of the entire broadcast." So quite
frankly, in order to file a complaint, which is the basis for absolutely any
action of the part of the FCC, a concerned individual must tape or
transcribe every broadcast he or she chooses to listen to or watch. How
absurd!
In order to file a complaint, you must supply the FCC with an actual tape or
transcript of the offending broadcast.
The official FCC indecency enforcement policy, as it appears on the FCC
website, is misleading. It reads, "Complaints SHOULD include: (1) a tape or
transcript of the program or of significant excerpts (2) the date and time
of the broadcast (3) the call sign of the station involved. In practice,
however, the "should" means "must."
In fact, the FCC routinely dismisses any complaints that are not
substantiated by a tape or transcript of the supposed indecency. The FCC
qualifies this action as a failure on the part of the individual filing the
complaint to provide the FCC with "the certain elements required to make a
prima facia case of indecency." "Thus, for example, stating only that the
broadcast station 'discussed sex' or had a 'disgusting discussion of sex'
during a program is not sufficient. Moreover, the use of specific, isolated
words is not determinative of whether material is indecent."
The FCC does not report all indecency complaints to the public.
The FCC receives hundreds of thousands of complaints about indecency every
year. However, it only reports to the public the number of different
programs complained about; all complaints about the same program are counted
as one.
For example, the FCC reported that it only received 351 complaints about
broadcast indecency during the second quarter of 2003. However, during that
same time period, members of the Parents Television Council filed over 8,000
complaints alone. The FCC counted the 18,000 complaints of PTC members
following the Golden Globes incident in which the f-word was broadcast as a
single complaint.
This method of accounting allows the FCC to justify its lack of decency
enforcement on the basis of the small number of complaints that it reports
to receive. When hundreds of thousands of Americans file complaints,
acknowledging that their efforts will probably not even result in the common
courtesy of an acknowledgement letter let alone substantive investigation by
the FCC, it is safe to say that the level of concern is far higher than even
than even the total number of complaints would indicate.
The FCC has, up to this point, been extremely successful in deflating
controversy and removing themselves from the responsibilities we depend on
them to fulfill. By manipulating the numbers, the FCC is able to deflate the
level of concern as it is reported in media, a strategic method that has
worked in the past and will into the foreseeable future.
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
26 Feb 2006 11:59:28 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:LdCdnd3ZKPv66J_ZRVn-jg@giganews.com:
http://www.americandecency.org/indecency/didyouknow.htm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8571264745182828656
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
26 Feb 2006 11:14:48 PM |
|
|
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in
news:LdCdnd3ZKPv66J_ZRVn-jg@giganews.com:
http://www.americanindecency.org/decency/didyouknow.htm
Did you know that...?
The first ever FCC fine of a broadcast television station for reasons of
indecency came down January 27, 2004!
And you wanting until now to tell us this bit of old news?
Why are you trolling?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
27 Feb 2006 10:47:41 AM |
|
|
*And you wanting until now to tell us this bit of old news?
*
*Why are you trolling?
Because J Young is a useless moron with way too much time and way too
little friends and access to a computer... Hence his daily rants...
Sad, isn't it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
27 Feb 2006 11:47:51 AM |
|
|
"Parsifal" <jeanpascalvachon@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1141058861.138714.243550@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
*And you wanting until now to tell us this bit of old news?
*
*Why are you trolling?
Because J Young is a useless moron with way too much time and way too
little friends and access to a computer... Hence his daily rants...
Sad, isn't it?
Yes it is as a matter of fact but I had to ask the question to see if he is
in the least bit honest.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Parsifal" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
27 Feb 2006 10:49:06 AM |
|
|
*Did you know that...?
*
*The first ever FCC fine of a broadcast television station for reasons
of
*indecency came down January 27, 2004!
Besides proving once again that you are a fascist, this is supposed to
interest us in which way exactly?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thurisaz, Germanic barbarian" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
26 Feb 2006 10:45:21 PM |
|
|
Coming from one who knows absolutely positively nothing of any worth
whatsoever, this subject is just a _little_ bit ironic...
--
"To his friend a man a friend shall prove, and gifts with gifts requite;
But men shall mocking with mockery answer, and fraud with falsehood meet."
(The Poetic Edda)
Must have been written with fundies in mind...
Why I am not a christian:
http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus/nojebus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
27 Feb 2006 12:24:53 PM |
|
|
In <LdCdnd3ZKPv66J_ZRVn-jg@giganews.com>, "J Young"
<youngopinions@aol.com> wrote:
http://www.americandecency.org/indecency/didyouknow.htm
Did you know that...?
The first ever FCC fine of a broadcast television station for reasons of
indecency came down January 27, 2004!
Did you know that most all "complaints" registered with the FCC about
"decency" are engineered by a tiny handful of Chrisitanist radicals in
response to orders from their imams?
Materials acquired under the FOIA have shown that "the public" is *not
complaining. That web generated form emails are almost the only complaints
coming in and these are coming from only a handful of organizations.
Such as the fine for "Married by America:"
http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_11_15.html
The FCC leveled a $1.2 million dollar fine based on:
"William H. Davenport, chief of the FCC's Investigations and Hearings
Divison, admits in his letter that because the complaints were sent to
multiple individuals at the FCC, it turns out there actually were only 90
complaints. It gets better: The FCC confesses that they come from only 23
individuals."
And...
"But it gets even better: I examined the complaints and found that all but
two of them were virtually identical....They all came from an automated
complaint factory like the one I write about here. Only two letters were
not the form letter.
"So in the end, that means that a grand total of three citizens bothered
to take the time to sit down and actually write a letter of complaint to
the FCC."
Your "decency" posture is actually about power over others. I'm wondering
how long before you people will be out beating women in the streets for
not wearing their burquas...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
Churches are closing...
http://makeashorterlink.com/?M611110AC
Mardi Gras is rolling...
http://www.nola.com/mardigras/
Now, what was this about god's judgement?
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wildbluskies" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
27 Feb 2006 12:29:10 PM |
|
|
J Young wrote:
Did you know that...?
The first ever FCC fine of a broadcast television station for reasons of
indecency came down January 27, 2004!
What for? showing Jesus being butchered on a cross?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
27 Feb 2006 12:43:16 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:43:47 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://www.americandecency.org/indecency/didyouknow.htm
Did you know that...?
....'J. Young' is a worthless troll? Yep.
Who'll join me in plonking this waste of oxygen?
.
|
|
|
| User: "J Young" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
27 Feb 2006 02:52:59 PM |
|
|
"John Baker" <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:1m7502pg3deavmbftm5rgrf2klpg41fi9o@4ax.com...
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:43:47 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://www.americandecency.org/indecency/didyouknow.htm
Did you know that...?
...'J. Young' is a worthless troll? Yep.
Who'll join me in plonking this waste of oxygen?
Have you already forgotten that you have? Be gone, you hypocritical flea.
Path:
g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!cycny01.gnilink.net!cyclo
ne1.gnilink.net!gnilink.net!cyclone.rdc-nyc.rr.com!news-wrt-01.rdc-nyc.rr.co
m!news-wrt-01.ohiordc.rr.com!news-server.columbus.rr.com!tornado.ohiordc.rr.
com.POSTED!53ab2750!not-for-mail
From: John Baker <n...@biziniz.net>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.california,alt.politics.homosexuality,seattle.politics,soc.c
ulture.jewish,talk.politics.misc,tx.politics
Subject: Re: Sheehan Announces She Will Chain Herself to White House
Message-ID: <v5aql11o4q61uad0f7lon0v2hn5t78k01t@4ax.com>
References: <5uCdnUiwadaAvsDeRVn-ow@giganews.com>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.0/32.763
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 12
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:32:52 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.25.5.73
X-Complaints-To:
X-Trace: tornado.ohiordc.rr.com 1130178772 65.25.5.73 (Mon, 24 Oct 2005
14:32:52 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:32:52 EDT
Organization: Road Runner High Speed Online http://www.rr.com
On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:06:32 -0400, "J Young" <youngopini...@aol.com>
wrote:
If she carries through with this protest, I hope they call this publicity
seeking *****'s bluff. Let's see how long she can last shitting her pants
and not bathing while chained to this fence. This will get better ratings
than any of those reality shows.
<PLONK!>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Pierce Butler" |
|
| Title: Re: Did you know that...? |
27 Feb 2006 11:48:59 AM |
|
|
John Baker <nunya@bizniz.net> wrote in
news:1m7502pg3deavmbftm5rgrf2klpg41fi9o@4ax.com:
On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 22:43:47 -0500, "J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com>
wrote:
http://www.americandecency.org/indecency/didyouknow.htm
Did you know that...?
...'J. Young' is a worthless troll? Yep.
Who'll join me in plonking this waste of oxygen?
I am about ready to. If his posts get any more inane I will have to.
pierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
