montster Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) Sounds pretty lame. Personally, I don't think this would end live television llike the article is suggesting, but it sure might move all live television to the cable channels instead of the free broadcast networks. yeah, but what happens when they want to start going after cable/satellite channels, too? that's what conservatives want. satellite radio, too. dares you to censor him. Edited July 13, 2006 by montster Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loyalboyd Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Sounds pretty lame. Personally, I don't think this would end live television llike the article is suggesting, but it sure might move all live television to the cable channels instead of the free broadcast networks. Yeap, eventually they will either A pass a law on that, or B they will go out of bussiness because they all went to XM or Sirus. Or Cable. They will find a way to get around from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Maybe they think Bin Laden was at a Yankees game last summer? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Yeap, eventually they will either A pass a law on that, or B they will go out of bussiness because they all went to XM or Sirus. Or Cable. They will find a way to get around from it. Isn't the FCC trying to get jurisdiction over cable too? They have no right to claim jurisdiction, but Bush keeps appointing wackos with no knowledge of government to these posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Misfit Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Isn't the FCC trying to get jurisdiction over cable too? They have no right to claim jurisdiction, but Bush keeps appointing wackos with no knowledge of government to these posts. Yep. Basically, they want a country where if you say the F-word at 9:59 p.m., it'll cost you $325k. But if you use it at 10:01 p.m., you're a good American. It makes just as much sense as anything else this administration has done. I don't recall exactly, but I think that time condition may have come from the FCC v. George Carlin case (I forget the name of the radio corp) over the seven dirty words. I'm sure the Roberts court will see that decision as impermissable judicial activism concerning the first amendment that must be reversed (which would be pretty easily done, you just have to change its character from "political speech" to "commercial speech") so no one can ever utter bad words in America again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 The FCC has jurisdiction over braodcast TV because the broadcast frequencies are a limited resource, and the government controls who uses them. Cable TV is a pipeline that the cable companies paid to run from house to house, and it is not owned by the government. It is also very easy to prevent cable TV from coming onto your property (whereas broadcast signals are there whether you want them there or not). It's a communication from a private entity to a private individual over a non-government owned medium. Telling people what they can or can't do in that circumstance would be a severe limitation on the first amendment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kid Cid Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I was looking at my ticket this morning, and the cop wrote 9:30am instead of 8:30am. I can prove I was at work at 9:30am, what are the odds I could make this ticket go away just by showing up? If the odds are not high, screw it. It's 2 pts and $90 if I pay it by mail. Double the points and fines if I use my constiutional right to trial. I do love how the government tries to keep you from exercising your rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pope Flick Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Wouldn't that be a ex post facto law, which goes against the constitution? Haven't read the whole article, but if they're applying 2004 standards (which is the last time they were revised) to a 2003 broadcast that would violate expost facto. If they're digging for stuff said from 2004 on then a statute of limitations would apply depending on how the 2004 law was written. I'm no lawyer - do I have that right Huddler lawyers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I do love how the government tries to keep you from exercising your rights. Meh. I'm torn on that one. I see the value of having a plea bargain to save the courts and DAs from having to prosecute every little thing... but I also see a fine line between that and inflating the punishment for minor offenses to keep people from court. In my opinion, 4 points and $180 is a little extreme for failure to come to a complete stop in that situtaion. I almost got pulled over again this morning in the same neighborhood. Today the cops were hiding on a different street, radar gunning in a 25 mph zone. I was going about 35, and I waved to the guy. "Hi! Remember me from yesterday??" If I had been pulled over for doing 35, I think I just might have gone over the edge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Meh. I'm torn on that one. I see the value of having a plea bargain to save the courts and DAs from having to prosecute every little thing... but I also see a fine line between that and inflating the punishment for minor offenses to keep people from court. In my opinion, 4 points and $180 is a little extreme for failure to come to a complete stop in that situtaion. I almost got pulled over again this morning in the same neighborhood. Today the cops were hiding on a different street, radar gunning in a 25 mph zone. I was going about 35, and I waved to the guy. "Hi! Remember me from yesterday??" If I had been pulled over for doing 35, I think I just might have gone over the edge. I enforce the speed limit in my residential neighborhood myself. I used to throw full cans of beer at people that seemed to be driving over the limit. Now I have a bb gun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 . I almost got pulled over again this morning in the same neighborhood. Today the cops were hiding on a different street, radar gunning in a 25 mph zone. I was going about 35, and I waved to the guy. "Hi! Remember me from yesterday??" If I had been pulled over for doing 35, I think I just might have gone over the edge. The town I live outside of is notorious for speeding tickets at 3-5 miles over the limit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 I enforce the speed limit in my residential neighborhood myself. I used to throw full cans of beer at people that seemed to be driving over the limit. Now I have a bb gun. That makes me laugh cause my first house was on a culdesac... kids used to race down the hill and then have to come back up( not good for them) .... my wife made me stop throwing beer bottles at them after i hit the same car 3 times..... they were trying to scare me .... they called the cops... after a brief discusion with the local constable they were given reckless driving tickets....( the officer was a frequent visitor to our local poker game) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Now I have a bb gun. paintball gun workd well also Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hat Trick Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 the city has set up an online system for paying tickets. after i got it, i checked online, and the ticket was under the mis-written license plate, not my own. you can request an "online hearing" instead of going in front of the judge, so i did. at the time, this made total sense to me -- until i realized later how much of a moran i was for contesting a ticket for which i figured they had no way of tracking back to me. in any case, i never heard any more from it. maybe i didn't clarify in my other post, but the cracked-mirror ticket was while my car was parked. some cop walking down the street noticed the mirror and ticketed me for it. nobody pulled me over, so it wasn't like they copied my license down or anything. the only indentifier was the license plate, which was incorrect. Don't they write down the VIN #? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 paintball gun workd well also Plus you can keep track of recidivism better. Good idea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Plus you can keep track of recidivism better. Good idea. Exactly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitman Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) people please go to church You're as sharp as a wet sack of mice. Your bumbling (no pun intended), incoherent act has played out..... Edited July 13, 2006 by Hitman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Misfit Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 The FCC has jurisdiction over braodcast TV because the broadcast frequencies are a limited resource, and the government controls who uses them. Cable TV is a pipeline that the cable companies paid to run from house to house, and it is not owned by the government. It is also very easy to prevent cable TV from coming onto your property (whereas broadcast signals are there whether you want them there or not). It's a communication from a private entity to a private individual over a non-government owned medium. Telling people what they can or can't do in that circumstance would be a severe limitation on the first amendment. Yeah. People used to think that about private property, too. It's technically not because its a limited resource, it's because the airwaves are public domain. Several things can happen: 1. Congress can (and has) write legislation that gives FCC the power to limit cable broadcasts which could withstand Supreme Court scrutiny. This has already been proposed: Basically, the distinction has been made between basic cable and pay cable. Basic cable may be subject to censorship with the government essentially arguing it has a compelling interest in protecting children from obscene language -- a point they already won in the Carlin case. (Even John Kerry said he supported this at one time.) This is one of the reasons Comedy Central will bleep language before 11 p.m., but not on a movie it shows a couple of hours later -- basic cable stations want to keep the FCC from crawling on their backs, so they are acting as if the FCC rules already apply. Pay cable channels aren't so concerned -- at the moment. 2. There are lobbying efforts to have any cable, including phone, hookups to your house declared as public domain. This allows for further competition -- so the phone companies can offer TV, for instance -- but paradoxically would also take away the whole "private" issue. 3. Private communication is not immune from government regulation. You can't send child porn over cable, for instance. Again, if the USSC cares to decide that anything broadcast over a pay medium is by nature commercial speech -- a not illogical argument when people are paying for the delivery of content -- instead of political speech, then the government again has great latitude in deciding what content they can control. 4. A la carte programming was originally an idea to allow people to get family-friendly programming without buying the "bad" channels, which would eliminate the need for government intervention in content. Problem is, once the fundies figured out that could also mean much of their religious programming would go off the air because no one would pay to see it, they reversed and have become opponents of a la carte. The FCC has repeatedly said that it feels that having different first-amedment protections based on the technology used is absurd -- and it's hard to argue that. One answer would be for the FCC to stay out of everyone's business -- but it is obviously going in the opposite direction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clubfoothead Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Your bumbling (no pun intended), incoherent act has played out..... Not, it has not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 You're as sharp as a wet sack of mice. Your bumbling (no pun intended), incoherent act has played out..... odin will strike u down... oh sorry hes doesnt travel south of the idiot line Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 (edited) 3. Private communication is not immune from government regulation. You can't send child porn over cable, for instance. Right... but private ownership of child porn is illegal. Private swearing isn't. If cable becomes public domain, I'm switching back to dish immediately. I'm sure I don't have to tell you this... but this "protection of children" crap that the government is taking on is ridiculous. Parents need to protect children. It shouldn't be legislated to the point where I can't hear a swear, smoke a joint, or gamble because of fear that children are doing it. Screw the children... I'm an adult. I'll watch my own kid, thank you very much. If someone is too stupid to keep their kids from watching a MA show, then they deserve the kind of kid they raise. Edited July 13, 2006 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 Don't they write down the VIN #? not anywhere i noticed on the ticket. if the guy can't copy down a six-character license plate correctly, what chance is there that he'd get the VIN number right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big John Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 not anywhere i noticed on the ticket. if the guy can't copy down a six-character license plate correctly, what chance is there that he'd get the VIN number right? New York plates have 7 characters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montster Posted July 13, 2006 Share Posted July 13, 2006 New York plates have 7 characters. yes, they do. i guess i wouldn't make a good traffic cop. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.