Censorship

The Obsolescence of Federal Censorship

Do Americans really need protection from an onslaught of indecent broadcasting?

|

When former NFL player Pat Tillman was killed in Afghanistan, Americans were more moved by it than by any other soldier's death in that war. There was intense interest, particularly in Phoenix, where he had played. But local TV stations dropped coverage of his memorial service as it was going on.

Why? Because some of the speakers used bad words. His brother Richard, for example, said, "He's not with God. He's f—ing dead."

It was an honest statement at a public event. But airing it could have cost a TV station a large fine from the Federal Communications Commission—or even its license to broadcast.

The FCC has a policy against vulgar language, even in brief, unscripted outbursts. So broadcasters who know what's good for them do their best to avoid it, no matter how newsworthy, appropriate or even revealing it may be.

The Fox TV people need no reminder. In 2002, the network carried the Billboard Music Awards, where singer Cher used the F-word in reference to her detractors. The FCC moved to impose penalties on the network. But this week, a federal appeals court ruled the agency's ban on "fleeting expletives" unconstitutional.

Americans generally take a wary view of government interference and control in their lives. But for decades, federal regulators, acting at the behest of Congress and the president, have presumed to tell TV and radio stations what they can and cannot broadcast, which also means telling audiences what they may and may not hear.

Never mind that the First Amendment says Congress "shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech." Elsewhere, that means what it says. The government may not ban profanity in movies, CDs, e-mails, magazines, newspapers, websites, leaflets, T-shirts, or bumper stickers. Only broadcasters are subject to these paternalistic dictates.

The reason offered by the Supreme Court in days of yore is that broadcasting is "uniquely pervasive" in American life. But today, it's barely more pervasive than other media, like cable TV and the Internet, that are immune from censorship.

This selective treatment is beginning to look like Tyrannosaurus Rex: fierce and terrifying but unsuited for the 21st century. The rules for over-the-air media no longer make any sense, and the Supreme Court may no longer be able to avoid acknowledging that reality.

The FCC has excelled in proving that federal officials cannot be trusted to make sensible or even intelligible decisions about what should be allowed. They barred a common reference to bovine excrement, but allowed the insulting use of an equally coarse term for male genitalia.

They allowed very bad words in the TV airing of Saving Private Ryan but not in a documentary about blues musicians. They forbade the use of one barnyard expletive because it came during an interview on a morning news show—then allowed it because, well, it came during an interview on a morning news show.

That leaves station owners gambling with their most valuable asset. As the appeals court noted Tuesday, when an FCC lawyer was asked "if a program about the dangers of pre-marital sex designed for teenagers would be permitted," the attorney replied gingerly, "I suspect it would."

Would I survive a single game of Russian roulette? I suspect I would.

The FCC and its supporters seem to think Americans desperately need government assistance to protect themselves and their children against an onslaught of filth. But why? Since broadcasters have an interest in not alienating their audiences, they are bound to exercise discretion.

Even Jon Stewart's The Daily Show, which caters to a mature cable audience that is not easily offended, bleeps obscenities (which are frequent). Nickelodeon has a constitutional right to feature full-frontal nudity, but it doesn't.

Some networks are more graphic, because some viewers want such fare. But anyone who wants to avoid them can easily do so—by blocking those channels or by deploying V-chips (required on all new TVs since 2000) that filter programs based on a ratings system.

In practice, not many households bother with the V-chip. Apparently most Americans either don't feel much need for protection from coarse offerings or find other ways to shield themselves.

In other words, they've found that free expression, while sometimes distasteful, is not an intolerable nuisance. When will the FCC make the same discovery?

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM

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.

68 responses to “The Obsolescence of Federal Censorship

  1. Good morning reason!

    1. This is getting ridiculous. At least wait for sunrise.

      1. ? is a late riser. I never wait for him.

        1. Good morning!

          Do you ever sleep?

          1. Only my beloved knows for sure. Actually, he doesn’t know either.

  2. Americans generally take a wary view of government interference and control in their lives.

    But for the unfortunate and vocal few Americans who take a mouth-watering view of government interference and control in other people’s lives at their behest.

    1. The problem is that on any given issue there is a minority that want government interference and control in their lives. But when you start looking at all the different issues those minorities don’t overlap, so you have a healthy majority that are in favor of some degree of control on some issues, but just can’t agree on where it’s good. The number of Americans who are truly wary is quite small and corresponds to libertarians. Everybody else claims to be wary but isn’t really.

      1. She may get wary.
        Young girls do get waried
        Wearing that same old shaggy dress.

  3. Part of the problem with this is civility. With the broadcast of “Saving Private Ryan” there were warnings to potential viewers that the movie was not censored. When someone like Cher ignores politeness and drops an F-bomb in the middle of a live show where the viewer is not expecting it wil be offputting.

    I think its probably good that the FCC won’t be controlling this, but that also means that watchdog groups complaining about obscenities will be more important in keeping the networks honest. The thing is, I don’t see a lot of libertarian pundits having any more tolerance for private censorship of obscenity than governmnet censorship.

    1. there were warnings to potential viewers that the movie was not censored

      I have an idea. Categorize every show on every channel as “news,” and provide periodic warnings to all who might be offended by reality that the show has not been “censored.”

    2. The networks will broadcast what sells. Controversy attracts viewers. Paternalist groups may find themselves mostly ignored.

    3. Exactly.

      The first hour of prime time is a classic example. On the East and West coast, this hour happens after the kids go to bed. Hollywood never has to personally deal with the consequences of the vividly decomposing corpses on NCIS. Their kids are in bed. In the central time zone, we do this every Tuesday night.

      If the people setting TV schedules think so little of us that they don’t care, where else are we going to go in the pre-DVR era? The FCC. Today, we have multiple options. The FCC’s role is less critical. Though, I would bet that without the FCC, Hollywood would be worse.

      1. You are aware that the TV comes with an OFF button correct?

        1. Only if you are a member of the inner party.

      2. You are aware that the FCC dose not has no control over movies, only things that are broadcast over public air waves like TV and radio.
        Another thing to think about is that most of the movies that have came out in the last few years have been PG-13. This is not because of goverment presure, it is because movies with that rateing make the most money.

    4. Frankly, if I had kids, I’d beat the little shits if I caught them watching any show with Cher in it.

  4. Thanks For posting,Very Nice Keep up date a more article.

    1. Huh?

      1. Anonbot’s “slow” cousin…

        1. I thought maybe Borat had dropped by to comment.

  5. Since when does it matter that a government activity is obsolete?

  6. Federal censorship is a shitty idea.

    1. A better idea would be some anal retentive idiot spamming us with internet chain letters:

  7. Born 1776, Died 2008
    It doesn’t hurt to read this several times

    Professor Joseph Olson of Hamline University School of Law in St. Paul , Minnesota , points out some interesting facts concerning last November’s Presidential election:
    Number of States won by: Obama: 19 McCain: 29
    Square miles of land won by: Obama: 580,000 McCain: 2,427,000
    Population of counties won by: Obama: 127 million McCain: 143 million
    Murder rate per 100,000 residents in counties won by: Obama: 13.2 McCain: 2.1
    Professor Olson adds: “In aggregate, the map of the territory McCain won was mostly the land owned by the taxpaying citizens of the country.
    Obama territory mostly encompassed those citizens living in low income tenements and living off various forms of government welfare…”

    Olson believes the United States is now somewhere between the “complacency and apathy” phase of Professor Tyler’s definition of democracy, with some forty percent of the nation’s population already having reached the “governmental dependency” phase.

    If Congress grants amnesty and citizenship to twenty million criminal invaders called illegals – and they vote – then we can say goodbye to the USA in fewer than five years.

    If you are in favor of this, then by all means, delete this message.

    If you are not, then pass this along to help everyone realize just how much is at stake, knowing that apathy is the greatest danger to our freedom.

    1. Many blue states are net tax donors. I’m no obama fan, but it isn’t right to argue that the blue states add nothing to the system.

  8. VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

    AP – WASHINGTON D.C. –
    In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
    This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…

    LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !

    Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

    While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

    So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

    And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

    Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

    Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

    If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

    Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

    Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

    If you Don’t care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

    If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! THE COMMANDER.THE END OF AMERICA.

    =

  9. VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

    AP – WASHINGTON D.C. –
    In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
    This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…

    LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !

    Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

    While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

    So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

    And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

    Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

    Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

    If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

    Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

    Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

    If you Don’t care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

    If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! THE COMMANDER.THE END OF AMERICA.

    =

  10. VERY QUIETLY OBAMA’S CITIZENSHIP CASE REACHES THE SUPREME COURT

    AP – WASHINGTON D.C. –
    In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama’s qualifications for the presidency, the group “Americans for Freedom of Information” has Released copies of President Obama’s college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California. The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.
    This document would seem to provide the smoking gun that many of Obama’s detractors have been seeking. Along with the evidence that he was first born in Kenya and there is no record of him ever applying for US citizenship, this is looking pretty grim. The news has created a firestorm at the White House as the release casts increasing doubt about Obama’s legitimacy and qualification to serve as President article titled, “Obama Eligibility Questioned,” leading some to speculate that the story may overshadow economic issues on Obama’s first official visit to the U.K. In a related matter, under growing pressure from several groups, Justice Antonin Scalia announced that the Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear arguments concerning Obama’s legal eligibility to serve as President in a case brought by Leo Donofrio of New Jersey . This lawsuit claims Obama’s dual citizenship disqualified him from serving as president. Donofrio’s case is just one of 18 suits brought by citizens demanding proof of Obama’s citizenship or qualification to serve as president.

    Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama’s campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U..S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter…

    LET OTHER FOLKS KNOW THIS NEWS, THE MEDIA WON’T !

    Subject: RE: Issue of Passport?

    While I’ve little interest in getting in the middle of the Obama birth issue, Paul Hollrah over at FSM did so yesterday and believes the issue can be resolved by Obama answering one simple question: What passport did he use when he was shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi ?

    So how did a young man who arrived in New York in early June 1981, without the price of a hotel room in his pocket, suddenly come up with the price of a round-the-world trip just a month later?

    And once he was on a plane, shuttling between New York , Jakarta , and Karachi , what passport was he offering when he passed through Customs and Immigration?

    The American people not only deserve to have answers to these questions, they must have answers. It makes the debate over Obama’s citizenship a rather short and simple one.

    Q: Did he travel to Pakistan in 1981, at age 20?
    A : Yes, by his own admission.

    Q: What passport did he travel under?
    A: There are only three possibilities.
    1) He traveled with a U.S. .. Passport,
    2) He traveled with a British passport, or
    3) He traveled with an Indonesia passport.

    Q: Is it possible that Obama traveled with a U.S. Passport in 1981?
    A: No. It is not possible. Pakistan was on the U.S. .. State Department’s “no travel” list in 1981.

    Conclusion: When Obama went to Pakistan in 1981 he was traveling either with a British passport or an Indonesian passport.

    If he were traveling with a British passport that would provide proof that he was born in Kenya on August 4, 1961, not in Hawaii as he claims. And if he were traveling with an Indonesian passport that would tend to prove that he relinquished whatever previous citizenship he held, British or American, prior to being adopted by his Indonesian step-father in 1967.

    Whatever the truth of the matter, the American people need to know how he managed to become a “natural born” American citizen between 1981 and 2008..

    Given the destructive nature of his plans for America, as illustrated by his speech before Congress and the disastrous spending plan he has presented to Congress, the sooner we learn the truth of all this, the better.

    If you Don’t care that Your President is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.

    If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! THE COMMANDER.THE END OF AMERICA.

    =

  11. Subject: Wake Up America Before it is TOO LATE!!!!!
    Date: Jul 2010 ,OBAMA goes about his business by speaking the lie.

    I spent three weeks in a hospital in Naples, Florida with my wife I couldn’t help noticing what was going on in the hospital and I had a lot of time to talk to the doctors and nurses about what I had observed. Below is a commentary from an ER Doctor. Do you think this might be a big reason our health care system and our social security system are so screwed up? Do you think this might be a big reason our taxes keep going up? Who do you think these people are going to vote for?
    From a Florida ER doctor:
    “I live and work in a state over run with illegals. They make more money having kids than we earn working full-time. Today I had a 25-year old with 8 kids – that’s right 8; all illegal anchor babies and she had the nicest nails, cell phone, hand bag, clothing, etc. She makes about $1,500 monthly for each; you do the math. I used to say, We are the dumbest nation on earth. Now I must say and sadly admit: WE are the dumbest people on earth (that includes ME) for we elected the idiot ideologues who have passed the bills that allow this. Sorry, but we need a revolution. Vote them all out in 2010. ”
    ——————————————————————————–
    — REMEMBER —
    IN NOVEMBER 2010, WE HAVE A GOLDEN OPPORTUNITY TO CLEAN OUT THE ENTIRE HOUSE AND ONE-THIRD OF THE SENATE!
    ——————————————————————————–
    This is an insult and a kick in the butt to all of us…

    Get mad and pass it on – I don’t know how, but maybe some good will come of this travesty.
    If the immigrant is over 65, they can apply for SSI and Medicaid and get more than a woman on Social Security, who worked from 1944 until 2004.
    She is only getting $791 per month because she was born in 1924 and there’s a ‘catch 22.’
    It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee with a monthly allowance of $1,890. Each can also obtain an additional $580 in social assistance, for a total of $2,470 a month.
    This compares to a single pensioner, who after contributing to the growth and development of America for 40 to 50 years, can only receive a monthly maximum of $1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement.
    Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!
    Consider sending this to all your American friends, so we can all be ticked off and maybe get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the pensioners up to $2,470. Then we can enjoy some of the money we were forced to submit to the Government over the last 40 or 50 or 60 years. And not to receive a increase for 2010 Vote them all out of office.
    Please forward this to every American to expose what our elected politicians have been doing for the past 11 years to over-taxed Americans.
    SEND THIS TO EVERY AMERICAN TAXPAYER YOU KNOW.THE COMMANDER, THE END OF AMERICA !!! ,,=====If you Don’t care that Your President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.=== If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! the commander,=== THE END OF AMERICA !!

  12. OBAMA goes about his business by speaking the lie. II Thessalonians 2 says that he comes “with all deceivableness of unrighteousness.” Revelation 13:12 says, “and he spoke as a dragon….” Revelation 17 tells us that he was a false prophet, a prophet being one whose calling it is to speak and to teach. The armies of the world may have guns and tanks and bombs to bring people into submission; but the power of speech and ideas is a mighty power. In his initial attempts to destroy the cause of God, obama used a serpent to deceive the woman with crooked speech: “You will be like God.” Now he uses a “dragon” who speaks crafty, lying words. His speeches will be heard by millions who will hang on his persuasive rhetoric. The content as well as the form of his speech will attract. Like most false prophets, he will even be sincere and passionate. But he is a liar. He adds dashes of truth to the mix, so that his lie tastes like truth. He will use all the right catchwords, using the language of the church, even throwing in a Bible text or two. But he is the ultimate Liar, and will deceive many. OBAMA will use every tool available: school teachers, politicians, news broadcasters, artists, musicians, scientists and doctors, lawyers and businessmen. All will be pressed into the service of OBAMA to deceive men. But especially he will use those whose calling it is to persuade and to teach — men who claim to be preachers of the gospel of Jesus Christ. ================================================================= By the beast, then, coming up out of the earth, he means the kingdom of obama; and by the two horns he means him and the false prophet after him. And in speaking of “the horns being like a lamb,” he means that he will make himself like the Son of God, and set himself forward as king. And the terms, “he spake like a dragon,” mean that he is a deceiver, and not truthful.—————- What does this beast from the sea represent?Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama But obama as a world government, a political power, the likes of which this world has never seen. The origin of this beast is the sea, which represents the restless nations and peoples of the earth. “The wicked are like the troubled sea, when it cannot rest, whose water cast up mire and dirt.”That the beast has power and a throne and great authority. obama is a political reality, a new world order a global unity,,GOD OPEN YOUR EYES.///For us there are only two possiblities: either we remain american or we come under the thumb of the Mmslim Barack Hussein OBAMA. This latter must not occur.—————-If you Don’t care that Your President Mmslim Barack Hussein Obama is not a natural born Citizen and in Violation of the Constitution, then Delete this, and then lower your American Flag to half-staff, because the U.S. Constitution is already on life-support, and won’t survive much longer.=== If you do care then Forward this to as many patriotic Americans as you can, because our country is being looted and ransacked! the commander,=== THE END OF AMERICA !!

      1. Bravo Maxx, Bravo.

    1. Please take your medicine. Or stop taking so much, whatever the case may be.

    2. Maybe u should emigrate & sponge off some foreign country

    3. …..Hmm. Your ideas are intriguing to me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter…..

    4. COMMANDER, before posting read this prayer aloud to yourself:

      I do my thing and you do your thing.

      I am not in this world to live up to your expectations,
      And you are not in this world to live up to mine.
      You are you, and I am I, and if by chance we find each other, it’s beautiful.
      If not, it can’t be helped.
      (Fritz Perls, 1969)

  13. Gah! I hope this isn’t going to be the agenda today.

  14. Although you *must* admit that
    Barack | Hussei | n Obama -> 666,
    COMMANDER lost me with “Mmslim”.

    1. I keep trying to find some holy book or tracts to help me become a Mmslim, but the commander won’t give me any links. I’m thinking that being a Mmslim gives one great spiritual powers so that women will find themselves uttering “Mm, Mm, Mm, Slim!” after I perform my religious duty on their bodies.

  15. COMMANDER, I feel you have more to tell us.

    1. Oh God, no, please…

      1. Thankfully, Commander Krazy seems to have moved on to greener pastures.

  16. Best ever TV parody of FCC: Family Guy episode where the FCC starts off censoring Peter’s private network & then starts censoring his actual life. Topped off by the brilliant song: “The Boys From the Freaking FCC.”

    1. It’s the Hamlet of animation.

      1. To be [crude] or not to be [crude].
        That is the freaking question.

    2. I found that entire episode to be kind of lame, even though I agree with it to a large extent. Family guy went through a really shitty phase, but now it is starting to get better.

      1. Hmm, might concede your point on the episode but the song was one of the two best all time.

  17. “In other words, they’ve found that free expression, while sometimes distasteful, is not an intolerable nuisance. When will the FCC make the same discovery?”

    Can’t we ask a similar question for all other obsolete and/or useless government agencies? The answer is never. This is job security to them.

  18. 1. We admitted we were powerless over alcohol the governemnt?that our lives had become
    unmanageable.
    2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves the government could restore us to
    sanity.
    3. Made a decision to turn demand our will and our lives over to the care of God as we
    understood Him. be returned to us.
    4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves. the abuses of governemnt.
    5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature
    of our wrongs. desire to [use government t control other people’s lives].
    6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character government.
    7. Humbly asked demanded Himto remove our the shortcomings of government [and return our freedoms].
    8. Made a list of all persons [whose lives] we had harmed wished to control, and became willing to make amends to them all.
    9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do
    so would injure violate the freedoms of them or others.
    10. Continued to take personal inventory [of our desires to control others] and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.
    11. Sought through prayer and meditation strict constructionism to improve our conscious contact with God interpretation of the Constitution, as understood Himthe Founders designed it, praying desiring only for knowledge of His will for us the Founders wishes,
    and the power to carry that out resist the Statist views others might have.
    12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to
    carry this message to alcoholics Statists, and to practice these principles in all our
    affairs.

  19. In other words, they’ve found that free expression, while sometimes distasteful, is not an intolerable nuisance. When will the FCC make the same discovery?

    Surely the reverse is also true – is the occassional mild censorship really that much of a nuisance? Why this obsession over the FCC? Its importance is deliberately magnified by publications such as Reason in order to keep their libertarian base excited. Libertarians end up worrying more about relatively benign elements of the government like the FCC, than the institutions that are transforming the country in fundamental ways.

    1. The FCC is part of that list of institutions to which you refer, and they are NOT “benign”.

      1. Sure it’s benign. As Steve points out in the article, “Since broadcasters have an interest in not alienating their audiences, they are bound to exercise discretion.” So all this so-called “censorship” has little real world effect on what is actually broadcast. There is no evidence that what people have seen and heard on broadcast TV would be significantly different if the FCC was not involved. Broadcast TV viewership is not populated by obscenity seekers, after all, so it’s unlikely that they missed hearing anything they would have wanted to hear in the first place. No, this focus on the FCC is merely a rhetorical device to inflame libertarians, to the detriment of other issues which they should be paying far more attention to. Like voting rights, for instance.

        1. The chilling effect of their current uncertainty is worse than most harsh regulations.

          My cousin works as a local radio host. They are *terrified* of the FCC, because one thing that they thought was innocuous (and might have annoyed some viewers, and been apologized for later) can suddenly kill the entire company. There was no guideline for companies to work with.

          1. So you’re saying that even though on the surface no harm appears to be done, there is a deeper issue involved that really does effect the rights and liberty of companies, and possibly individuals? That by allowing arbitrary enforcement and even minor encroachments into protected liberties, you can end up with a climate of fear and intimidation far greater than the original offense itself?

            Hmmm, perhaps I’ll have to think very hard about that and reconsider my position.

            1. Well that, and that we can’t be expected to bitch and moan about only the economy and foreign wars. I mean, is it really so awful we chime in on issues surrounding the FCC and porn?

        2. “No, this focus on the FCC is merely a rhetorical device to inflame libertarians, to the detriment of other issues which they should be paying far more attention to. Like voting rights, for instance.”

          Um, last time that I checked, freedom of speech was the cornerstone of our society. True, getting rid of the FCC would not create a whole new world, but at least we could hear “fuck” or “cunt” without a bleep, and we could see unblurred ass cracks and tits like fucking adults. I don’t know about you, but I feel like I have something to gain from not living out my adulthood in Kindergarten. The more people realize that these words and images are no excuse for government control, the more people will realize that government control is unnecessary in other situations.

        3. The FCC would *love* to have power over the internet, and over political speech on every other broadcast spectrum. If you don’t believe that, you’re way too comfortable in your trust of that particular tentacle of government.

    2. “is the occassional mild censorship really that much of a nuisance?”

      YES!

  20. YES WE NEED THE FCC!

    In the psych test with the people passing the ball and the man in a gorilla suit walking through it proves it. 50% of the people taking the test have so few brain cells that they can’t count the ball passes and see the gorilla at the same time! Those people, the sons and daughters of “mama grizzlies,” have to be taken care of and protected. Otherwise they will overload those few neurons and “blow out.”

    Wake up America! Do you really want 50% of the population exposed to obscenity and Sarah Palin at the same time!

    God bless you FCC!

  21. See Donald Wildmon and Brent Bozell stomp their feet and send out fund-mailing letters in 3…2…1…

  22. When referring to the age of government programs perhaps “obsolescence” shuld be replaced by “petrification.”

  23. If you want to see the FCC’s handiwork, turn on the closed captioned for the hearing impaired for almost any show.

    Actual Dialogue:
    John Connor: The cops will never find us. We’re safe.
    Sarah Connor: Don’t you think that, John! Don’t you ever think that! Look at me! No one is ever safe.
    Sarah Connor: Half an hour; one bag, plus the guns. I’ll make pancakes.

    FCC Close caption version:

    Te coos wrv not fids ums!9uw9 mzarx 84w 0w7!

    enoo rp efoi eew mqk penickw!

  24. What we’re in desperate need of is protection from our government. If we compare the threat from terrorism, to the reality of our governments usurpation of every right guaranteed by our constitution, the true danger is evident.

  25. In the psych test with the people passing the ball and the man in a gorilla suit walking through it proves it. 50% of the people taking the test have so few brain cells that they can’t count the ball passes and see the gorilla at the same time! Those people, the sons and daughters of “mama grizzlies,” have to be taken care of and protected. Otherwise they will overload those few neurons and “blow out.”

    David Mayer
    geo news | books

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.