gman86 0 #51 October 12, 2004 Don't Liberals have remote controls? Change the channel if you don't like what is on TV. I had a choice to go see F911, I choose not too. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #52 October 12, 2004 Again, the difference being that movie theaters aren't a part of the public trust and don't have to follow the same rules. Or have you just decided to ignore all of that?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #53 October 12, 2004 QuoteOr have you just decided to ignore all of that? Ignore what? Your opinion? We'll let the people in charge decide if it gets to be shown on television or not. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
penniless 0 #54 October 12, 2004 QuoteDon't Liberals have remote controls? Change the channel if you don't like what is on TV. I had a choice to go see F911, I choose not too. Where did I say I didn't like it? Don't put words in my mouth. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #55 October 12, 2004 Tuna . . . it's not my opinion nor yours that matters. It's the FCC and the FEC. If you're going to jump into these threads, try to pay attention.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tunaplanet 0 #56 October 12, 2004 Ummm...that's what I said. Re-read my post. Forty-two Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #57 October 12, 2004 My apologies then. To me it read as if you meant the people in charge of the TV stations.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #58 October 12, 2004 QuoteCool, somebody with money to take on Soros (spelling) I think it's spelled, "S-O-R-R-Y A-S-S" -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #59 October 12, 2004 QuoteF911 was countered by another anti F911 DVD. Yes, and when I went to Hollywood Video on Saturday night, they had one entire section of wall space full of F911. Care to guess how many copies of the ANTI F911 movie they had? If you guessed "ONE SINGLE COPY," you win a prize. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sunman 0 #60 October 12, 2004 Well it looks like the republicans have one last punch before election day. Pretty sad that they have to go back 30 years to dig some shit up about a guy. At least F911 was current propaganda. Network TV, commercial free, prime time. Jesus Christ, they've got some big guns. I think most people will see it for what it is. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #61 October 12, 2004 QuoteNews, as defined by the regulations, is exempt. Ok, so the stations can have the film aired on one of their 'news' shows. Just like 60 minutes. Like a 'background' piece for a panel discussion. No problem.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #62 October 12, 2004 QuoteI guess you don't understand how broadcasting in the United States is supposed to work. ...according to what? The Constitution? I don't see how the Constitution grants the federal government the power to control the airwaves, who broadcasts on them, or what they SAY over those airwaves. QuoteSince the frequency spectrum is a limited resource granted by the federal government, broadcast radio and television are supposed to, among other things, serve the public trust. This makes sense if you think about it. You'd be pretty pissed off if somebody decided to start up a television station that knocked out air traffic control or caused medical equipment to malfunction. So, the government really does need to regulate it from a frequency spectrum point of view. I don't think you'll find too many folks that disagree with that. Could you bring this around to the justification for the government/FCC to regulate CONTENT, please? I'd sure like to see you manage to prove that! QuoteAlong with this are the concepts that there should be equal time, educational programming, emergency services . . . all things that serve the public trust. A made-up-on-the-spot claim that above all else, the airwaves must "serve the public trust" doesn't cut it. QuoteSo, no, just because a person owns the means of broadcasting, does NOT mean that they can do whatever they please with that means. Not insofar as to disrupt other broadcasts or interfere with ATC, etc. as you mentioned. That has NOTHING to do with regulating content, or who says what. A privately owned station can be left alone to broadcastwhatever it wants and still serve your "public trust" by being forced to comply with the Emergency Broadcast System stuff, so that in times of crisis or disaster, they can be used to disseminate emergency information. NOT to say who can or should broadcast support for a given political candidate! Satellite and cable is another thing altogether, they have far more freedom to do what they want and I'd agree that if FOXNews wanted to air the program 24/7 until the election they'd be perfectly within their rights to do so. If such a network, on a cable system, wanted to air, say, ads by the National Rifle Association that say vote for Bush, or vote against Kerry, the McCain-Feingold atrocity makes that illegal, so no, only CERTAIN groups are allowed to air their views -- even when not using public airwaves. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #63 October 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteBut I thought it was okay for people who own things to do what they wished with them... It is, they own the tv station and they can play it in their studios all they want. They DO NOT own the airwaves. They are in the public domain and they are given permission to use them by the gov't. If that section of "the airwaves" is designated for a given company to broadcast on, then once they are cleared to use that frequency (i.e. it won't interfere with air traffic control or medical equipment, among other things) then it IS theirs to put their chosen content on. Your argument that they should "own" designated frequencies, but have to capitulate to content rules, is like saying you can own your own car but the government can tell you where you have to drive it. Ridiculous. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #64 October 12, 2004 PJ I posted this already, but yes, there are federal regulations regarding equal time. See; http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/E/htmlE/equaltimeru/equaltimeru.htm http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/F/htmlF/federalcommu/federalcommu.htm http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/P/htmlP/politicalpro/politicalpro.htm If you don't like tha regulations, I'm sorry, but they do exist. As for; Quote Your argument that they should "own" designated frequencies, but have to capitulate to content rules, is like saying you can own your own car but the government can tell you where you have to drive it. Ridiculous. You misquoted me . . . badly. I never said the stations "own" the frequencies. They do own their stations and all of the equipment, but the spectrum on which they'd broadcast belongs to the US public. As for your car analogy, it's a bit like you being able to own an unregistered car . . . fine . . . just as long as you don't drive it on public roads. Yes, the government -can- tell you what you can do with your own property while it is on or using government property.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #65 October 12, 2004 Isn't the Sundance cable channel going to do a bunch of pro-Kerry stuff just before the election. Or is it actually the night before. I remember it being some sort of concert-rally-thing. Definitely not 'news'.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #66 October 12, 2004 AGAIN . . . cable has fewer regulations.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #67 October 12, 2004 QuoteBattle lines are drawing up on this one. The Kerry campaign is calling the broadcast a contribution in-kind. That's contrived so it doesn't pass the soft money reform muster. http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=37872 More and more interesting by the minute. Amazing that soft money finance reform is now being used to censor a broadcast by asserting that a broadcast is a campaign contribution. Wow, we're already there folks. Shit! We arrived there before the stewardess even got to me for my drink order! -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 15 #68 October 12, 2004 Cable gas fewer restriictions from the FCC rule since its a subscriber system. And Sundance will be playing the final "Concert for Change" event.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #69 October 12, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo you wouldn't be okay with them running a GWB documentary unless, in your opinion, it was as damaging as the one about Kerry, right? No, once again, let me repeat it slowly for you. They shouldn't air anything favorable or unfavorable to either candidate on public airwaves unless they are paid advertisements for which they provide equal time, or news stories. But the ACLU, AARP, AOPA, NRA... all of those groups are banned from "advertising" for their endorsed candidate within X period of an election -- courtesy of McCain Feingold -- equal time or not. They are not allowed to mention the candidate. And who decides what is "favorable or unfavorable"?! To me, telling me that Kerry supported extending the assault-weapons ban is extremely unfavorable, but to others, it's a reason to vote for him. And that's just one easy example. How the hell would you test "favorable versus unfavorable"?! QuoteSo stop trying to make me look like I'm being partisan on the issue. I'm not. It's wrong for broadcaster to use the public airwaves to further their own political agenda. That is all. No, that's crap. If the broadcaster has paid to have those airwave frequencies designated to that company, if you say that under those circumstances the government can step in and tell that broadcaster WHAT to broadcast or not broadcast, you are advocating fascist control of the media. Like I said, just because you own a car and drive it on a public highway, doesn't mean the government can dictate what route you drive, or where you go and visit. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
sundevil777 94 #70 October 12, 2004 QuoteAGAIN . . . cable has fewer regulations. According to Lummy, cable and satellite are included: Quoteaccording to the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, Source, Page 3 defines electioneering communications as : any broaddcast, cable, or satellite communications that (1) refers to any clearly identified Federal Candidate; (2) is publicly distributed within certain time periods before the election and (3) is targeted to the relevant electorate.People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #71 October 12, 2004 I don't know much about this topic, but I remember hearing something about airwaves by some cell phone users infringing upon the 911 systems (I think it was here in CA, but also elsewhere...) and the local channels they use to communicate on scene (different from broadcasting channels. used generally when there's a scene to control, or when there is a high number of personnel responding, or to coordinate a pursuit, either on foot or by car...[I]I think.) 'Twould seem that there could be a significant conflict if there is no regulation. On the topic at hand, I say go for it. Why not...and if any station will pay Moore the $$ he wants, I'm sure they can air it, as well. If it's not a campaign film, then what's the worry? Also, and just in passing, I heard (but haven't been able to substantiate it) that Moore is working on a PPV deal to air F911 on Election Eve...for $9.95 a pop. Which would explain why it wasn't submitted to the Academy Awards.... Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cloudseeker2001 0 #72 October 12, 2004 Quotehttp://money.cnn.com/2004/10/11/news/newsmakers/sinclair_kerry/index.htm?cnn=yes And the liberals are steaming. It's okay to make anti-Bush movies and release them on video weeks before the election, but this is not okay. Interesting either way. Cool....lets see it! "Some call it heavenly in it's brilliance, others mean and rueful of the western dream" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #73 October 12, 2004 cable content is not as regulated as broadcast tv is, simply because cable does not involve the use of "airwaves." Cities, on the other hand, can do a lot to regulate cable tv, because you have to use city property to put in the cable lines under the streets. It's part of the reason why cable tv is so pricey. the cable companies have to pay fees to the city for permission and regulation, so they pass those fees along to the viewers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peacefuljeffrey 0 #74 October 12, 2004 Quotecable content is not as regulated as broadcast tv is, simply because cable does not involve the use of "airwaves." Cities, on the other hand, can do a lot to regulate cable tv, because you have to use city property to put in the cable lines under the streets. It's part of the reason why cable tv is so pricey. the cable companies have to pay fees to the city for permission and regulation, so they pass those fees along to the viewers. I don't see what this has to do with the content that is permitted to be shown on the television, whether it's over airwaves, or cable, or whether the local government has rules in addition to the federal ones. NEWSPAPERS also may not run issue/candidate ads per McCain-Feingold... and as far as I can tell, newspapers do not use the airwaves either. It seems your test "Does It Use the Airwaves, and If It Does, It's Subject To Regulation" doesn't work, when you realize the fact that even non-broadcast, non-public-cable/pole-using media are also being strangled by these rules. -Jeffrey-Jeffrey "With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #75 October 12, 2004 PJ, I have an idea . . . you should become a legislator and try to change things.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
