Ron Paul

Indecent Legislation

|

The House has passed the Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Act by the extraordinarily narrow margin of 391 to 22. Among the dissenters was libertarian favorite Ron Paul of Texas, who denounces the bill here.

NEXT: Zero-Sum Bioethics

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Imagine actually being proud of the politician who represents you? Wow, what a cool concept…

  2. thoreau,

    A libertarian can take a moral stand on things, but not want to use the gov’t to force others to take that stand.

    I know you know that, yet just wanted to point it out again. The guy is consistent.

  3. Shanep-

    I know, I just wanted to take issue with him on a non-political point. I especially wanted to do it because Ron Paul knows that the content of entertainment is a non-political point. Maybe I should write to him directly. It would be nice to debate a Congressman on something that isn’t political, and have him recognize that this is a non-political point rather than a subject for legislation.

  4. But didn’t he vote against it? In essence he would agree that it wasn’t appropriate for legislation.

    The people you need to be writing to are the Senators who will take up this nonsense and hopefully kill it.

    I worry though because they seem more authoritarian than the House.

  5. Here’s a bit about the Howard Stern show. Apparently he played part of the House debate on this silly bill during his broadcast today. Found it on Drudge. http://www.fmqb.com/Article.asp?id=20860

  6. We’re living in a cultural rennaisance, thoreau?
    Watched UPN lately?

  7. Critic-

    I’d wager that the amount of really good art and literature being created today exceeds the amount produced in any other portion of history, even on a per-capita basis. Likewise, I’d wager that the amount of crap being produced far exceeds the amount of crap being produced at any other time.

  8. “We’re living in a cultural rennaisance, thoreau?
    Watched UPN lately”

    LOL!

    I agree somewhat with your assertion though thoreau.
    It seems that there is alot of good programming out there……..and alot of bad stuff.

    There’s just more of it all.

  9. Now I am scratching my head, my congressman, Jim McDermott, voted for this??? I thought the guy was really for Freedom of Speech. He’s been known to use it in other countries!

  10. thoreau’s point reminds me of Jacob Sullum’s just say yes stuff. While we’re arguing the principle of the matter, it doesn’t hurt to also make the point that the supposed scourge being suppressed by inappropriate means isn’t even really so bad in the first place.

  11. With trepidation the Founders stuck the First Amendment in there. All the preachers on the gummint teat as they still are today in the UK were agin it just as Baptist preachers and bootleggers united to be agin demon rum around the beginning of the twentieth century.

    Lo and behold the First Amendment gave birth to a cornucopia of religiosity.
    Gag me with a spoon, but freedom of religion was for religion a good thing. (Martha)

    Today, in the ‘hood here, my neighbors are so happy when baby first utters “mother.” The out-of-wedlock daddy shouts, “Leshawniquatella just said half a word! Ah now be perdictin’ she’ll be able to say her name in just ten more years.”

    In that vein, I’m not looking forward to the overuse of two half words, but I would hate it if mah fellow ‘mericans could not express theyselves without looking over they ebony shoulders.

    May Hit and Run be forever the home of the brave and the land of the Patrick Henry’s.

    Play ball!

  12. Is it my alcohol induced delusions or is “LOL” appearing more often here?
    It’s making me all warm and fuzzy–the phrase, not the alkee.
    It do mean “lots of love” don’t it?
    Humour me.

  13. The man is a hero.

  14. Yes he is. (Even if he does write “airways” instead of “airwaves”.)

  15. I’m 56 years old and the end of the world as we know it has been coming ever since I can remember. At some point I realized “the PROPHETS are full of shit”.

    I worked on the “Ron Paul for President” campaign in ’88. I don’t recall when I have supported a candidate who I more thoroughly respected. Ron Paul personally has extremely conservative views of how people “ought” to behave. I’m sure he thinks Howard Stern is a thoroughly disgusting individual. He also thinks that much of modern culture is disgusting.

    He also seems to follow HL Mencken’s dictum to the effect that sometimes the defense of liberty depends on the defence of scoundrels.

    Ron Paul is the most consistent and ethical politician I know of. His soul standards for voting yes are 1) is Congress authorised by the Constitution to act in this matter and 2) if and only if 1) is true is it good public policy.

    Ron Paul knows where the “OFF” switch is on his radio.

  16. My congressman! Always Constitutionaly correct.

  17. Holly shit they killed Southpark

    You Bastards!

  18. Yes, Ruthless, it does – except in joe’s case. Then we use WOW (wots of wove).

  19. I agree 100% with Paul’s legal take on this. But I take issue with how he laments that modern entertainment is part of a “decaying society.” Yes, he has the right to his views, and no, he isn’t suggesting a coercive remedy. But I have the right to take issue with his views, as I shall do now:

    Anybody who thinks that modern entertainment is smut on a scale unprecedented in history REALLY needs to go watch some Shakespeare plays. I suggest Macbeth. The body count alone would make the governor of California cringe. And the chamberlain’s monologue on erections and alcohol (act III, I think) is priceless. Actors don’t always deliver it in its explicit glory, but there are some who really get to the…um…bone of Shakespeare’s work. Right in the middle of a violent play, some dude’s talking about alcohol and erections.

    So, Congressman, by all means continue to champion the First Amendment. But your case may be a little more persuasive if you point out that the entertainment industry protected by the First Amendment isn’t some unprecedented smut machine.

  20. Two questions: 1) Is Congressjerk Fred Upton up for election this year and 2) who running against him? Whoever the guy is, I’d like to send him a donation.

    PS: Ron Paul is a true American hero.

    PPS: Fred, you’re an asshole…go fuck yourself.

  21. Thoreau:

    Shakespeare was a piker. Consider the Tower of London, and the snuff entertainment they used to put on there. And yes, it was considered educational and “for the children.”

  22. Must be nice to have Ron Paul as your Congressman. Mine’s Joe Pitts!

  23. What animates much of the indecency debate is the view of many regulators–notably the Democratic FCC commissioners–that large media companies are squelching localism, by which they mean local standards of “decency”. Thus, this entire debate isn’t really about a breast or a curse, but whether media consolidation is a proper subject of government regulation.

    But the flaw in the argument, of course, is that the media was far more rigid in its content standards when there was less competition–i.e., when the “big three” networks dominated the television market. When the market opened up to cable (and later satelite), broadcasters were no longer constrained by the need to market to a mass audience, which by necessity tends to make programming more rigid. Most cable programming is targeted at specific audiences with varying tastes and mores.

  24. EMAIL: nospam@nospampreteen-sex.info
    IP: 212.253.2.205
    URL: http://preteen-sex.info
    DATE: 05/21/2004 06:05:30
    It’s never right to say always, and always wrong to say never.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.