Radio station fined for playing Eminem

[Undertoad]

I knew a guy who was broadcasting on 98.5 in King of Prussia. He was never bothered by the Feds. The locals knew he was doing it; in fact they gave him some equipment.

One guy called him up and just wanted to chat about stuff, intrigued by his setup. My friend said "okay, let me give you directions to my place." The guy said "No, let me try to find YOU." Five minutes later my friend had a knock on his door. The guy had the equipment to triangulate, I suppose, and find the signal.

HOWEVER

I wouldn't broadcast knowing it was against federal law. The risks are just not worth the payoff of having a little fun like that.

Also, as far as "community" goes, anyone can stop being a member of a "community" of radio station listeners simply by pressing the "off" switch. It's a hell of a lot easier than moving, and a hell of a lot more reasonable than saying others should conform to fit "your" opinion.

[wst3]

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
<snipped tale of pirates and triangles>
I wouldn't broadcast knowing it was against federal law. The risks are just not worth the payoff of having a little fun like that.

But that's the thing... as long as you aren't hurting anyone the FCC won't bother you. Some might call it selective enforcement, I suppose, but it's also reality.

Originally posted by Tony Shepps
Also, as far as "community" goes, anyone can stop being a member of a "community" of radio station listeners simply by pressing the "off" switch. It's a hell of a lot easier than moving, and a hell of a lot more reasonable than saying others should conform to fit "your" opinion.

A very reasonable solution!

[elSicomoro]

[quote]Originally posted by wst3

The stations that get bothered are the ones that trample all over other people's rights, and frankly, I think they get what they deserve!

I don't doubt that...I guess it just depends on how many waves you want to make.

(To be honest, I'm still a bit technologically-challenged. ;-) Not that I would want to step on anyone's toes in DC anyway, but still.)

[russotto]

Originally posted by wst3

There are a number of responsibilites associated with all of our freedoms, freedom of speech included. For the most part, the delineations have been made by the courts already (the famous example being that you are not free to yell fire in a crowded theatre... to do so would be irrespnosible!)

The "fire in a crowded theatre" standard was abused in the case in which it was set. The case was about a guy who was distributing pamphlets to potential draftees which alleged that the draft was a violation of the 13th amendment. This was found to be akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. In any case, there's certainly no way that shouting "fuck" on the radio is akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.

There are limits, however, and I can't think of a better place to establish them than my community! If you don't like my standards then one of us has to find a different community... which is kinda the key to making democracy work.

The limits are simple: "Congress shall make no law...".

While it is difficult indeed to put our rights into any specific order, I believe that freedom of speech and freedom of the press are two of the most important ones. The press may be irresponsible at times, and even clearly biased at other times, but I wouldn't trade that for any kind of control. Even when they publsh meaningless but sensational stories just to boost circulation or viewership.

Sure, if it weren't for meaningless and sensational stories, Inky subscribers would have to use the comics to start fires.

[wst3]

[quote]Originally posted by russotto
The "fire in a crowded theatre" standard was abused in the case in which it was set. The case was about a guy who was distributing pamphlets to potential draftees which alleged that the draft was a violation of the 13th amendment. This was found to be akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre. In any case, there's certainly no way that shouting "fuck" on the radio is akin to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.
[quote]
I beg to differ... shouting an obscenity in a place where that obscenity is inflamitory (couldn't resist) is an issue, as is shouting fire in a crowded theatre. That the standard gets abused from time to time shouldn't surprise anyone. We as a people are no more perfect that our elected and appointed officials.

As stated previously, the simplest solution is to turn off the radio, and that works in some settings (probably very few in reality), but a community still has the right to set standards for decency. If you find them to be too puritanical, then you move to somewhere more in tune with your views. Why in the world would you try to change other people's views to suit your own? Isn't that just a little bit arrogant?

In an ideal society, I suppose there would be no standards, and people would simply not listen to a radio station that offended them, thus voting with their wallets. But we don't live in an ideal society, and tolerance for others seems to be at an all time low, so we need to do something to address this.

The last thing we want is the setting of standards moved from the community to DC... unless of course you consider that DC appears to have no standards to speak of a plus.

The reasonable person, in my opinion, tries to find a community that shares their values, and then works to protect those values.

This whole thing just struck me as funny... while I don't particularly like eminem, neither does he bother me. I'm about as immune to vlugarity as most my age - may or may not be a good thing, that isn't the point!

The thing is, I don't want my 12 year old step-daughter exposed to that kind of crap just yet, but I know it won't be long, and that she in fact needs that exposure as much as she needs exposure to the Philly Art Museum and Orchestra.

I want, and deserve, the right to decide when to take off the blinders. That right is limited enough as it is, I don't need that kind of thing available over the air. That's one of the reasons I live where I live.

I've been involved in broadcasting for 23 years, and I've been involved with the recording industry for almost as long. Censorship is a very real threat, but so is obscenity. Striking a balance is difficult... to say the least.

I didn't want to see parental advisory stickers on recordings, but I appreciate a place where I can find out a little bit about the stuff my step-daughter is potentially exposed to.

My wife was very ill this past fall, and step-daughter really wanted to see this movie. Well, my wife didn't know anything about it, and she wasn't up to finding out, so she said OK. When she saw the movie (sorry, title escapes me at the moment) she was pretty horrified.

Step-daughter finally got to see the movie at a friends.

So ok, she wasn't stopped, but neither does she think that her mother approves of such things, which all-in-all is about the best you can hope for.

[quote]Originally posted by russotto
The limits are simple: "Congress shall make no law...".
[quote]

if only it were that simple!!! But it gets quite complicated as soon as the second person enters the country, and by last count we have a lot more than two people now, each with their own biases, opionions, etc.

Originally posted by russotto
Sure, if it weren't for meaningless and sensational stories, Inky subscribers would have to use the comics to start fires.

I never start a fire with the funnies<G>!

[elSicomoro]

This thread is over a year old, but I happened to think about it tonight when I heard about the incident at the HFStival in DC. I'm glad he didn't actually incite it.

This is my favorite line from the story: "Mosh pits usually are very crowded and include people who violently bang against each other."

[tw]

Originally posted by Chewbaccus
I have never been able to grasp how the Hidden Order of Puritans have managed to keep the FCC in power despite the most basic fact that it controls what we can broadcast, essentially say, to the people, our fellow Americans.

I believe this is expressed all backwards. Equivalent to the above statement is to say the IRS is the reason for an archaeic tax system. In both cases, IRS and FCC, a fundamentally sound system is subverted by those we all but encourage.

For example, the IRS mess is directly traceable to politicians - such at the ludicrous George Jr tax cut , a tax exemptions for Carnival Cruise lines, and 10,000+ other laws for special interests at the expense of society.

The FCC enforced purity of speech because government, especially with the current administration, tells you what you can and cannot say according to THEIR morality. Truly moral men, instead, would stand before a statue of a naked woman without a problem.

Who cares what Howard Stern broadcasts on his show? The extremists right wing religious zealots who wish to protect us from 'Stern's evil thoughts'. Evil - by whose standards? Clearly not by the standards of tolerant people. If zealots don't like what Stern says, then they should talk to those who listen to Stern - not the FCC. Ahh, but they cannot do that because then they will have the Constitution forced upon their ears. Other peoples rights are irrelevant to those more concerned with imposing their morality on all others. Better to hide behind big government where they also protect their 'right' to purchase power brokers.

How great is the double standard among these "Hidden Order of Puritans"? They would have you forget that original Puritans were evil - according to the "Hidden Order..." standards. Puritans advocated wife swapping. Does the "Hidden Order..." advocate same? Why not? Double standard?

Potty language is not ubiquitious. Among my circles, such language all but does not exist. Potty language is more frequent is where intelligence is lower. I have no use for stations that would 'F-this' ... waste good conversation with useless adjectives. Potty language is equivalent to listening to a person who says Ahhhh...hhh... hhh with every other word. Few are willing to wait for his low intelligence to finally decide what he is trying to say. Why can't he just learn to think, decide what needs be said, before speaking? Again, low intelligence.

But as moderates, we must have tolerance for such people. When potty language - typically an excessively useless adjective - is used, it must be reserved for conditions that justify its usage.

Try telling that to those whose life ambition is to protect us from anything that is contrary to their interpretaion of their Bible, Tora, or Koran. The FCC is only a victim of those so intolerant that they would subvet the first Amendment, in the name of morality, multiple times. In particular violate the phrases concerning religion and speech.