From: Chuck Kuecker (ckuecker@ckent.org)
Date: Fri Aug 23 2002 - 14:21:39 MDT
At 10:34 AM 8/23/2002 -0400, you wrote:
>Freedom of speech does not extend to forcing others to print or air your
>words...despite federal laws requiring "equal time" and such.
>
>### This is indeed true but hardly relevant to the case at hand.
>
>Let me present my analysis: The owners of the station knew very well what
>kind of content is being offered on the show. They knew that the authors
>encourage having sex in all kinds of risky situations, including legally
>risky ones. This apparently didn't bother them, and the popularity of the
>show increased their ad revenue. It is hard to imagine that the owners had
>any moralistic attitude about the content. Now, in a situation where thanks
>to gratuitous media exposure the monetary value of the show is greater, the
>show was axed. A rational businessman wouldn't do it. The owners are no
>prigs, either. So why did they stop the show?
>
>I'd say, the only explanation is the threat of losing their license, which
>is a form of censorship. The FCC employees involved in this attack on free
>speech should be fired, all of them. The shock jocks would soon return to
>the airwaves, where they belong. And the religious ones can always listen to
>their Sunday school broadcasts.
>
>Rafal
I agree entirely - the comment was to those who seemed to be saying that
anyone should be able to say anything, anywhere, regardless of the desires
of the owner of the communication media.
The FCC has no business mandating any kinds of "standards" on what content
might be broadcast. No one is forced to listen if they find it
objectionable. They also have no business enforcing any kind of "equal
access" laws, and Congress has no business passing same.
So much for the Libertarian view. In reality, you broadcast "questionable"
material at the risk of your FCC license. That's why the show got
cancelled. Like you said.
Chuck Kuecker
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:22 MST