Julian Sanchez | February 28, 2005
John Nichols over at The Nation blasts House Democrats for selling out free speech by rallying behind the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act. Only a handful of Dems opposed the measure in the House, joined from across the aisle (as nobody here will be surprised to learn) only by Rep. Ron Paul.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
As often as I hear about Ron Paul being the sole voice of reason
in congress, I find myself very curious the makeup of his
congressional district. People who'd repeatedly vote for someone
like him I wanna meet, if only to confirm that they exist.
Anyone on here live there, or know someone that lives there?
Yeah, good one, Nichols, but you're just about a month early... How could anyone honestly be that shocked by the "progressive" embrace of censorship and censorious moral intimidation in our society?
Give 'em hell Ronnie!
Hey b-psycho, sounds like a road trip...if only Texas wasn't so
dull.
Paul's district is close to (and I believe contains part of) the metropolitan area of Austin. Austin is hardly dull. I lived there when R. Paul was first elected (but did not have the proper addrerss to vote for him). We supported him of course. One big reason he was elected: his opponent publicized the fact that Ron Paul had (at one time) supported repealing all federal drug enforcement laws. The Democrats thought this would erode Paul's support. He won huge.
B psycho, I think there are marketers' web sites (damned if I can remember their names) where you can get demographics (plural) by zip code.
"The Democrats thought this would erode Paul's support. He won
huge."
Tommy, Glad to hear it. For some reason I thought Ron Paul was from
the other 99% of Texas which really is dull.
I believe that redistricting has reduced the 14th Congressional district to the Gulf coast now. I'm also not so sure that the district ever included a part of Austin. I think it used to have most of the land between Houston, Austin, San Antonio, and Corpus Christi, without actually going into any of those cities.
San Marcos is or was part of the district, and it's about half an hour from Austin.
"I'm also not so sure that the district ever included a part of
Austin."
That's why I said Austin metro area, not Austin. The drug law ads
were on Austin local TV & radio and in the Austin papers (back
in 1996).
I wrote earlier something about the meaning of "liberalism" in my blog.
If you think this law is bad, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) wants
to have it apply to satelite radio, cable TV and subscription TV
(HBO, showtime, etc.) One question - do we still have a bill of
rights?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62725-2005Mar1.html
I live in Ron Paul's district. This was surprising to me, as I thought I lived in Tom Delay's district, but apparently, during the last redistricting in Texas, they took my little sliver of Ft. Bend County, Texas, near Katy, and added it to Paul's district. This is a pretty conservative, surburban area, where often the Democrat candidate is weak, unknown, or non-existent. I can say that for once, I had no qualms about pulling the lever (ok, punching the chad) for a Republican. However, as a registered Dem who voted for Bush, I can't say that I'm the typical voter out here.
Where exactly do people come by the quaint idea that Democrats
believe in "free speech"?
I disagree that this legislation "sells out" free speech. The
principle was already thrown out long ago when the FCC was first
given the power to impose fines for violations of content standards
of any sort. The current legislation is just about the details
about how that power is to be exercised, not whether it exists.
Combustible noted:
"If you think this law is bad, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) wants to
have it apply to satellite radio, cable TV and subscription TV
(HBO, showtime, etc.)"
Well, this would be intellectually consistent. If decency regs
allow the FCC to monitor the FINAL leg of program delivery, why not
ANY leg that uses the "public's spectrum"? While we are at it, the
FCC *MUST* monitor cell phone conversations. Actually, many
land-lines use microwave links, so they should be monitored too.
Then there's wireless internet, so that must be monitored
too.
Let's get serious about this abuse of the "public's spectrum". No
indecency shall be permitted. Fines for anyone, any time. Stamp out
the corruption of pristine spectrum!
(If such broad-based decency fines occur, I want to rent a search
light and use it flash Morse Code "FUCK YOU" messages until someone
prosecutes me on indecent use of spectrum.)
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245