6 comments

• 

  Walt

  4 years ago

  The notion of the public owning the "airwaves" as a legitimate basis for regulation is mere rhetoric. The act of speaking is, for the most part, protected and utterly dependent on waves in the air, public or otherwise. Only so many can talk at any one time yet there are no laws restricting the use of the "speech spectrum."
  Of course, electromagnetic signals do not travel via "airwaves" at all, but don't get me started.
• 

  James Gattuso

  4 years ago

  Exactly right. Now we just need three people like you on the FCC...
• 

  Skip Oliva

  4 years ago

  The subtext of the indecency debate is media consolidation. It is the Democrats on the FCC--notably Michael Copps, a career government hack, who have been pushing for the stiffest indecency penalties. Their agenda is not right-wing puritanism, but rather left-wing micromanagement. Copps has been very clear that he wants to veto virtually any media merger that does not sufficiently promote "diversity". For example, he railed against a merger of two Hispanic media companies because of his belief that it would deny "competition" to Spanish-language media consumers. Copps went so far as to call proponents of the merger racist.
  
  The Copps-Democratic theory is that bigger media means more indecency, and that forcing media companies to emphasize "localism" will keep "community standards" enforced.
• 

  kyle hunter

  4 years ago

  Your irate reader seems to forget that he allows the TV signal into his home by either purchasing cable or using an antenna to capture free TV.
  
  Furthermore, when he goes to another's home, he implicitly agrees to rules of the other homeowner and that includes the other's choice of TV programming.
  
  Additionally, when he goes to a public (or private) business he again supplies his implicit agreement that he can not dictate to the owner except by refusing to purchase their products.
  
  Too often people complain about being incapable of avoiding "all that filth" by changing the channel or "getting out more often." But, so what? I have yet to find any mention of a right to "freedom from being inundated with filth from the 'public airwaves'" in the Constitution. But if there were, I'd demand that the government and your irate reader keep their hands of "my" slice of the public airwaves.
• 

  Mike Smith

  3 years ago

  You're all fucking sheep being led to the slaughter. The media poison is just one front in the multi-pronged attack on the Western world. It is designed to destroy Western values, Western dignity, and the race who created Western civilization.
  
  
  
  
  
  It doesn't matter what fucking channel you put it on morons - the same degrading, race-mixing, kike-inspired FILTH is there, to one degree or another. If it's not in the programming it's in the commericals. The argument "change the channel" is like saying if you don't like what you see in the world around you then gouge out your fucking eyes out.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  The media is being used to drag my race through the fucking mud, and I'm supposed to just "change the channel"? Fuck you. I bet you little dipshits wouldn't feel the same way if a show that degraded niggers, faggots, or Jews was broadcast would you? Then you'd be all up in arms over it. What would happen to "change the channel" then eh? Fucking hypocrites.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  At this point talk is useless, we will continue to see more and more of this disgusting trash pushed down our throats, until we White Men stand up and slaughter the sodomites and Hebes by stringing them up from their feet and gutting them in front of their loved ones while they're still alive.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  I am here merely to inform you of the pain and suffering that will be the end result of all this vile filth for those who purvey it. The only reason I'm not out murdering motherfuckers right now is that I have a good job and the economy is relatively strong. But that's changing.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  All you little commie "liberal" worms do is merely parrot what your Sheeny masters have taught you. Sweet dreams cunts.
  
  
• 

  Courtney Gidts

  3 years ago

  I've managed to save up roughly $64643 in my bank account, but I'm not sure if I should buy a house or not. Do you think the market is stable or do you think that home prices will decrease by a lot?