OT: Imus vs. TAFKAPacman

[Pujo]

You can't possibly be this clueless because I've stated that it's a matter or wielding one's right as a bludgeon against another's, so I'll simply assume that you either aren't bothering to read the posts or are simply being a contrarian. Either way, further discussion with you is useless. Have a nice evening.

And how do you not recognize that you hold the minority view??? Boycotting is not seen, by a large majority of people, as "wielding one's right as a bludgeon against another's".

 

[Gunnails]

Public airwaves are rented to corporations who are expected to give back to the public in the form of a service. The corporations do not own the airwaves, the public does. If the airwaves are being used against the public's interest then the public has the right not only as consumers but as citizens to revoke the privilege. As Madison would most likely say, the use of taxpayer-owned airwaves to suppress a discreet and insular minority would constitute tyranny of the majority. That's why it's not only ok to speak out against Imus' use of public airwaves for hate speech, it's morally and constitutionally supported. Terrestrial radio has a finite frequency spectrum that the public owns and doles out as it sees fit. And boycotting is a democratic function of the free market.

=================================

Kinda of off topic but,,,,

Wildo as you see it, is everything that is floating around in the air belong to you and I?

I think it is ours for free. And that is why I should be able to make my own satellite box, set up a dish, and get the Sunday Ticket for free.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Deus Irae]

Public airwaves are rented to corporations who are expected to give back to the public in the form of a service. The corporations do not own the airwaves, the public does. If the airwaves are being used against the public's interest then the public has the right not only as consumers but as citizens to revoke the privilege. As Madison would most likely say, the use of taxpayer-owned airwaves to suppress a discreet and insular minority would constitute tyranny of the majority. That's why it's not only ok to speak out against Imus' use of public airwaves for hate speech, it's morally and constitutionally supported. Terrestrial radio has a finite frequency spectrum that the public owns and doles out as it sees fit. And boycotting is a democratic function of the free market.

The licensing of the airwaves is was the creation of the government, and there is nothing specifically in the Constitution to support such action. It was, and is, based upon the theory that limited frequencies mean that the available frequencies need to be placed under government control. This argument has been expended to allow for the Federal Government, in its regulatory guise, to limit the free speech rights of both individuals and corporations.

As for the Madison argument, you are assuming that he'd be all for Federal Control over the airwaves when the evidence seems to lead to the precisely opposite conclusion. You are claiming things as facts when they are nothing but arguments for one side. The humorous claim that "it's not only ok to speak out against Imus' use of public airwaves for hate speech, it's morally and constitutionally supported" was very funny though.

 

[Deus Irae]

And how do you not recognize that you hold the minority view??? Boycotting is not seen, by a large majority of people, as "wielding one's right as a bludgeon against another's".

Ummmm..... of course it is. Pretty much everyone with a pulse who is capable of even rudimentary English skill knows that a boycott is precisely that. Hell, it's almost the very definition of a boycott.

 

[Pujo]

=================================

Kinda of topic but,,,,

Wildo as you see it, is everything that is floating around in the air belong to you and I?

I think it is ours for free. And that is why I should be able to make my own satellite box, set up a dish, and get the Sunday Ticket for free.

Agree or disagree?

You could say, "If you can break the encryption, it's fair game." That's not where the laws are right now, but you could claim that as a moral right if you wanted to. Let that be our starting point. Now you'd be opening the door to eavesdropping on any other over-the-air signal. Your cell phone, wireless router, Blackberry, etc all lose legal protection. If the encryption is defeated, someone would be free to take any information that crossed their air.

The implication of the idea that if the airwaves belong to all of us, they can't be regulated can also apply to transmission. Could anyone set up an unlicensed transmitter that could broadcast at arbitrary power? The entire spectrum would become useless; wireless would be no more.

Obviously the em spectrum is a shared resource and needs some regulation. You can legally receive the signal of a DirectTV satellite with your own homemade dish. But attempting to defeat the encryption on the signal is against the law. It still happens, and there's a game of cat and mouse always going on, but if legitimate companies could direct their substantial resources towards defeating satellite TV encryption, they would probably succeed. And then there would be no more satellite TV.

 

[Pujo]

Ummmm..... of course it is. Pretty much everyone with a pulse who is capable of even rudimentary English skill knows that a boycott is precisely that. Hell, it's almost the very definition of a boycott.

So let's get on the same page here. When I think of "wielding one's right as a bludgeon", that has a distinctly negative connotation for me. Are you saying most people have a negative opinion of boycotting a company to effect change?

 

[Wildo7]

The licensing of the airwaves is was the creation of the government, and there is nothing specifically in the Constitution to support such action. It was, and is, based upon the theory that limited frequencies mean that the available frequencies need to be placed under government control. This argument has been expended to allow for the Federal Government, in its regulatory guise, to limit the free speech rights of both individuals and corporations.

It's not limiting the right of free speech, it's limiting the transmission of speech through a publicly-owned medium. Just as transportation of goods is regulated on the publicly-owned highway system. Whether or not you agree or disagree with public-ownership of the airwaves is completely irrelevant.

As for the Madison argument, you are assuming that he'd be all for Federal Control over the airwaves when the evidence seems to lead to the precisely opposite conclusion. You are claiming things as facts when they are nothing but arguments for one side. The humorous claim that "it's not only ok to speak out against Imus' use of public airwaves for hate speech, it's morally and constitutionally supported" was very funny though.

As I said before, the airwaves are a finite medium, and are controlled by the public interest under federal law. I never said anything about Madison supporting or opposing public control of the airwaves. What I did say was that Madison would oppose tyrannous suppression of a minority through a government entity. In this case the collectively-owned airwaves are that entity, which leads to the "humorous" conclusion that the constitution provides for the protection of minorities against majority abuse of airwaves they pay taxes for. Not to mention that a boycott is only an effective "bludgeon" if it has popular appeal. Whether you like it or not, if a large enough segment of the population can threaten the profit margin of CBS, they will react. If the segment is too small, they won't. This is a vital social control of the free market and corporations (which have the rights of a person) that wield enough "bludgeons" of their own.

 

[Pujo]

The "airwaves" as a whole may belong to the public, but particular stations (the right to broadcast on a particular frequency, power, and location) are most certainly privately owned. Companies buy, sell, and swap spectrum all the time, and the market determines the price. Airwaves are public property in the same sense as the town land that's sold to a developer to build a strip mall.

 

[Wildo7]

The "airwaves" as a whole may belong to the public, but particular stations (the right to broadcast on a particular frequency, power, and location) are most certainly privately owned. Companies buy, sell, and swap spectrum all the time, and the market determines the price. Airwaves are public property in the same sense as the town land that's sold to a developer to build a strip mall.

That's not an accurate analogy. The public rents airwaves for free and in return they are expected to serve a public interest. They may swap and purchase different licenses from each other, but these license must still be approved by the FCC and can be revoked at anytime. The ownership of land is a different situation. FCC deregulation has allowed for the conglomeration of spectrum with greater ease, which is a different subject, but those airwaves are still being rented for free with the expectation of a public service in return. Corporations that hold such licenses must prove they provide such a public interest every 8 years in order for renewal.

 

[Disco Volante]

Who made this comment? What was his name?

Oh, Imus.

We'll there you go.

 

[Pujo]

That's not an accurate analogy. The public rents airwaves for free and in return they are expected to serve a public interest. They may swap and purchase different licenses from each other, but these license must still be approved by the FCC and can be revoked at anytime. The ownership of land is a different situation. FCC deregulation has allowed for the conglomeration of spectrum with greater ease, which is a different subject, but those airwaves are still being rented for free with the expectation of a public service in return. Corporations that hold such licenses must prove they provide such a public interest every 8 years in order for renewal.

You're absolutely right, much better explanation.

 

[Wildo7]

You're absolutely right, much better explanation.

Not really, I'm totally full of it, read my title

 

[Deus Irae]

So let's get on the same page here. When I think of "wielding one's right as a bludgeon", that has a distinctly negative connotation for me. Are you saying most people have a negative opinion of boycotting a company to effect change?

I'm saying that most people understand that boycotts are wielding one's first amendment rights against another person's lawfully protected activity. Few, if any, would be so clueless as to consider it anything less than coercive, given that its entire purpose is to coerce a wanted result through the use of intimidation by numbers and economic threats. As for what percentage of people are opposed to boycotts, I don't know of any survey on the general topic.

 

[Wildo7]

I'm saying that most people understand that boycotts are wielding one's first amendment rights against another person's lawfully protected activity. Few, if any, would be so clueless as to consider it anything less than coercive, given that its entire purpose is to coerce a wanted result through the use of intimidation by numbers and economic threats. As for what percentage of people are opposed to boycotts, I don't know of any survey on the general topic.

Democracy is coercive. That doesn't mean it's wrong. What "lawfully protected activities" is Imus' engaging in that are coercive? He has a pulpit provided to him by the public for one.

 

[Deus Irae]

It's not limiting the right of free speech, it's limiting the transmission of speech through a publicly-owned medium. Just as transportation of goods is regulated on the publicly-owned highway system. Whether or not you agree or disagree with public-ownership of the airwaves is completely irrelevant.

Actually, it's not irrelevant at all, since the discussion is about rights. Again, you put forward an opinion as if it's a fact. It's why your arguments hold no water when you try to root them in any Constitutionally sustainable base. I don't know what part of "Congress shall pass no law" you can't seem to accept, but that is the text of the Constitution.

As I said before, the airwaves are a finite medium, and are controlled by the public interest under federal law.

Yes, but you argue it as if it's a valid and complete restriction on the part of the Federal Government when it's clearly not. Even assuming that the federalizing of the airwaves is a Constitutionally legitimate action, it's abundantly clear that the Supreme Court feels there are limits on the limits, as it were.

I never said anything about Madison supporting or opposing public control of the airwaves. What I did say was that Madison would oppose tyrannous suppression of a minority through a government entity. In this case the collectively-owned airwaves are that entity, which leads to the "humorous" conclusion that the constitution provides for the protection of minorities against majority abuse of airwaves they pay taxes for.

But you continue to ignore the reality that your underlying premise is built upon a foundation of sand. Madison would, in all likelihood, reject the notion of public-owned airwaves, which would kill your argument in it's infancy. You build false arguments upon false assumptions and then act as if they are unassailable facts.

Not to mention that a boycott is only an effective "bludgeon" if it has popular appeal. Whether you like it or not, if a large enough segment of the population can threaten the profit margin of CBS, they will react. If the segment is too small, they won't. This is a vital social control of the free market and corporations (which have the rights of a person) that wield enough "bludgeons" of their own.

This is just plain false. Boycotts are not vital to anything other than boycotts.

 

[Deus Irae]

Democracy is coercive. That doesn't mean it's wrong. What "lawfully protected activities" is Imus' engaging in that are coercive? He has a pulpit provided to him by the public for one.

Democracy, per se, is not coercive any more than any other type of governance. Furthermore, boycotts are not inherently democratic by any stretch of the imagination.

As for Imus, I didn't say he was engaged in coercive activities, and his 'pulpit' was not provided to him by the public.

 

[Wildo7]

Actually, it's not irrelevant at all, since the discussion is about rights. Again, you put forward an opinion as if it's a fact. It's why your arguments hold no water when you try to root them in any Constitutionally sustainable base. I don't know what part of "Congress shall pass no law" you can't seem to accept, but that is the text of the Constitution.

The part where it applies to what can or cannot be transmitted through a publicly-owned medium.

Yes, but you argue it as if it's a valid and complete restriction on the part of the Federal Government when it's clearly not. Even assuming that the federalizing of the airwaves is a Constitutionally legitimate action, it's abundantly clear that the Supreme Court feels there are limits on the limits, as it were.

But you continue to ignore the reality that your underlying premise is built upon a foundation of sand. Madison would, in all likelihood, reject the notion of public-owned airwaves, which would kill your argument in it's infancy. You build false arguments upon false assumptions and then act as if they are unassailable facts.

No, you have no idea what Madison would say about the frequency spectrum, that's why I applied Madison to the principle of a public entity being used to suppress a minority group and not the issue of publicly owned airwaves.

This is just plain false. Boycotts are not vital to anything other than boycotts.

Corporations wield a great deal of power, as does collective public action. Without boycotts the public has no democratic power in the market place.

 

[Wildo7]

Democracy, per se, is not coercive any more than any other type of governance. Furthermore, boycotts are not inherently democratic by any stretch of the imagination.

As for Imus, I didn't say he was engaged in coercive activities, and his 'pulpit' was not provided to him by the public.

This is just false. And I wasn't implying that you said Imus was engaged in coercive activities, what I meant was that if you consider consumer cooperation through boycotts to be an abuse of first amendment rights then Imus' pulpit is also an unequally coercive platform granted to him by the same consumers. So the consumers are taking away what they gave to him in the first place.

Your main argument against boycotts seems to be that it's some abuse of power through first amendment rights reserved by the public. The same is true for Imus and his activities. Just because you say "boycotts are not inherently democratic by any stretch of the imagination" doesn't mean it's true. That would fall under "putting forward your opinion as if it were fact."

 

[JoeSixPat]

Democracy, per se, is not coercive any more than any other type of governance. Furthermore, boycotts are not inherently democratic by any stretch of the imagination.

As for Imus, I didn't say he was engaged in coercive activities, and his 'pulpit' was not provided to him by the public.

Why is there a right to free speech but there is something inherently wrong for individuals to excercise their rights as a consumer?

In this day and age that's as vital and important right as there is.

 

[Deus Irae]

The part where it applies to what can or cannot be transmitted through a publicly-owned medium.

NO LAW....

No, you have no idea what Madison would say about the frequency spectrum, that's why I applied Madison to the principle of a public entity being used to suppress a minority group and not the issue of publicly owned airwaves.

Actually, I've got a pretty good idea. I've read his correspondence. I've read the Federalist Papers. I've studied his presidency. Madison was a terrible choice on your part. You conflated arguments that didn't go well together. It's another example of building arguments upon assumptions. Madison was a "States' rights" president and a firm believer in individual rights.

Corporations wield a great deal of power, as does collective public action. Without boycotts the public has no democratic power in the market place.

This is just patently false, as has been proven time and again. We drive cars instead of riding horses because the public exercised its 'democratic power in the market place'. Betamax died and VHS became the videotape standard, and Blu Ray will now be the DVD standard because the public exercised its 'democratic power in the market place'. Boycotts were not necessary.