Agency Slammed For Inaction Against Ex-WNEW Shock Jocks

[yankeedem]

WASHINGTON -- A communications regulator accused his agency Thursday of ignoring complaints about indecent programming in the year since two disc jockeys broadcast an account of a couple allegedly having sex in New York's St. Patrick's Cathedral.

The encounter in the landmark Manhattan church was described on Aug. 15, 2002, during the "Opie and Anthony" show, which was the afternoon drive-time program at New York's WNEW-FM. The nationally syndicated show was canceled a week later.

snip

Copps said a decision pushed through by the FCC's three Republicans on June 2 that eased decades-old media ownership rules will lead to more indecency on the airwaves.

"As media conglomerates grow ever bigger and control moves further away from the local community, community standards go by the boards," he said.

http://www.wnbc.com/entertainment/2389844/detail.html

Even the wingnuts don't like corporate dominance of the "liberal media"

[Democat]

1. This is a stupid Democrat trying to punish free speech!

Copps, one of two Democrats on the five-member commission, has pushed for harsher penalties against radio and television stations that violate indecency laws.

http://www.salon.com/tech/wire/2003/08/07/fcc/index.html

Our party is supposed to be the one that protects free speech, but increasingly I have been seeing more comments from Democrats (like Lieberman) who seem just as socially right wing as the Republicans.

We are not going to win over the right wingers, so why support attacks on free speech?

[jiacinto]

2. What Opie and Anthony did was in extreme poor taste

And that did cross the line.

[Democat]

4. A Democrat should not be calling for censorship

Being in poor taste is something Republicans do all the time, big deal.

Whether or not you agree with what they did, having a Democrat publicly call for punishment for speech that was offensive to some is the wrong move. Free speech used to be one of the things that people thought the Democratic Party supported. More and more, it seems that Republicans and Democrats are not very far apart on this issue.

This is another case of a Democrat trying to out-Republican the Republicans.

It's bad for the party and bad for free speech.

[jiacinto]

6. What Opie and Anthony did was sick and offensive

What they did was more than "speech that was offensive to some"--it was speech that was offensive to 75-90% of the population. They deserved to lose their show.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

8. It was free speech

and no danger to the state, or the church for that matter. Catholics are very forgiving. Jesus was nailed to the cross. His bloodied effigy is displayed in most all Churches in the form of the crucifix. We can take it.
I am frankly surprised at your indignation Carlos. Free speech is all.

[jiacinto]

9. I am Catholic and found what they did to be sick

Would you have felt the same way if Opie and Anthony had had KKK member storm into a black church and burn crosses?

[NewYorkerfromMass]

10. That's a stretch

and where's the proof this sexcapade really happened? I mean it's radio!!!!
BTW: ex-Catholic here, school grades K-12, so I know the "drill".

[jiacinto]

11. Answer the question

Would you have felt the same way if Opie and Anthony had encouraged a KKK member to go into a black church and burn crosses?

[enki23]

14. oh, there's an inappropriate analogy if i've *ever* seen one

a burning cross is a *threat* that's the *only* reason that it, in some instances, isn't considered protected speech. offending people who voluntarily listen to your radio show is not in any way comparable to someone "storm<ing> into a black church and burn<ing> crosses."

not surprised to see it coming from you, of course.

[jiacinto]

15. It's just as offensive

Or do you just hate Catholics? I would love to see the reaction had Opie and Anthony advocated that thier listeners burn a cross in a black church. Oh yeah, as long as the people are white or Christian, it's okay to offend them. Offending non-minority groups and treating them badly is okay--but why do I have the feeling that if they advvocated this action in a black church, you would be screaming for their heads? Talk about a double standard.

It's not a bad analogy--it's equally offensive. But I guess that you must hate Catholics.

[alaine]

12. Why should the democratic party jump to the defense

of these ignorant morons? Free speech is not a partisan issue. Let the libertarians have them for crying out loud.

These are not "give me liberty or give me death" types. These are overgrown boys stuck in a permanent adolescent rut angry at who knows who for who knows what and making sure the rest of us pay for it.

If they want to disrepect people and incite controversy for no other reason but the hell of it and broadcast it over the public airwaves, then fine. You can do whatever you want as long as you are willing to pay the price. They were trying to see how far they could push they envelope and they hit the wall. No sympathy here.

[NashVegas]

18. Public Interest, Necessity and Convenience

In what way did the stunt they pulled fit into the charter for which broadcasters are granted a license to operate?

[yankeedem]

16. There is no line in a country with freedom of speech

As long as it puts noone in danger, and noone is forced to view/listen to the message.

[GAspnes]

3. I wish people would get "free speech" straight

Freedom of political and religious speech is protected -- mostly.

Everything else is limited ('fire' in theater, slander, 'fighting words') to one degree or another.

"Free" speech does not mean the unlimited right to say anything, anywhere, anytime, to anyone.

[Democat]

5. Free speech means any speech that doesn't directly harm someone else

The reason yelling fire is illegal is because it is a false claim and it will cause specific direct harm.

Any free speech that does not cause direct specific harm is protected by the Constitution.

If you don't think so, that's your problem, but don't try to stop everyone else from saying things just because you don't like them.

Just because the government has, in the past, been allowed to infringe on people's free speech rights, does not mean that it's right.

The point of this thread was that having a Democrat come out against free speech hurts the party and the idea that Democrats support free speech. Do you disagree?

[alaine]

7. I disagree. I think having a democrat come out in favor

of the right to listen to people fucking over the public airwaves would do alot more harm to the party than opposing it or just ignoring this event completely.

I highly doubt there will be a candidate adding "freedom for fm fucking" to his or her platform any time soon.

Don't worry, the ACLU is here for things like this.

[GAspnes]

13. is that your definition, or a legal one?

if the topic of our discussion is "constitutionally protected free speech", then speech is legally restricted all the time without necessary regard for harm.

(And, I might inquire, what kind of harm, harm to whom or what, and to what degree?)

If you are proposing a more general and universal right to freedom of speech, then by all means, have at. But that doesn't really relate to the issue at hand.

The FCC is chartered to regulate broadcast media, including the appropriateness of non-political speech thereof, and whether the commissioner is a Democrat or a Republican doesn't matter -- he was doing his job, as required by the people of the united states.

[Democat]

17. The issue at hand is why Democrats are publicly calling for censorship

Whether you and I disagree on what free speech is or not, it is a Republican party platform to stand up against free speech.

Democrats are supposed to fight for our rights, not against them.

Having a Democrat try to out-Republican a Republican is detrimental to our party and our image.

[GAspnes]

20. you didn't answer my questions

you just made another statement. Please reply logically.

[Democat]

21. The constitution does not make exceptions for speech you don't like

Speaking of logic, your comments continue to ignore the main point here.

You either support a Democrat trying to out-Republican a Republican or you don't.

In this case, these statements are contained in an article showing the Democratic party to be more conservative than the Republican party.

This is not my opinion, that is a fact.

My opinion is that the Democratic Party should not try to be more socially conservative than the Republican Party.

Do you disagree?

[GAspnes]

22. you're making my point for me

The 1st Amendment has not been interpreted legally as permitting all and any kind of speech. It's not a Dem/Repub issue. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. Note the use of the word "regulate" -- this means regulate methods, technologies and content.

The FCC commissioner was doing his job as required by law, regardless of party.

Now, answer my questions:

1) If, as you claim, all speech is permitted except that which does harm, please specify what kind of harm, harm to whom or what, to what degree, and who decides?

2) Are you proposing a more general and universal right to freedom of speech than is currently allowed under the law?

[NashVegas]

19. Free Speech My ASS

This is more akin to Nike's "We're Not Running Sweatshops" PR campaign - ie, business speech. This was nothing more than a publicity/ratings stunt, intended to beef up their "outlaw" image.

Shit, this weren't even performance art.