HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » City Council Warns ‘Crack...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 01:36 AM

City Council Warns ‘Crack Ho’ Comments ‘Intolerable’, Calls For Diversity In Talk Radio

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/03/21/city-council-warns-crack-ho-comments-intolerable-calls-for-diversity-in-talk-radio/

"City Council members were one step closer on Wednesday to becoming the first in the nation to adopt a resolution condemning certain types of speech on public airwaves."

"Councilmember Jan Perry introduced legislation this week that would call upon media companies to ensure “on-air hosts do not use and promote racist and sexist slurs” on radio and other broadcasts."

--------------------------------------------------

What is worse - sexist and bigoted fools running their mouth and offending people, or government officials playing speech cop?

I gotta go with defending the First Amendment on this one, even if it means letting stupid people be stupid.

6 replies, 1614 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 6 replies Author Time Post
Reply City Council Warns ‘Crack Ho’ Comments ‘Intolerable’, Calls For Diversity In Talk Radio (Original post)
FrodosPet Mar 2012 OP
JDPriestly Mar 2012 #1
crunch60 Mar 2012 #2
Sherman A1 Mar 2012 #3
malaise Mar 2012 #4
certainot Mar 2012 #5
Tsiyu Mar 2012 #6

Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:25 AM

1. The First Amendment does not require radio stations to broadcast racist and sexist comments.

Private organizations are not bound by the First Amendment. The government is.

The FCC legally enforces prohibitions against the use of certain words in certain broadcasts. That has not yet been ruled to violate the First Amendment. I suppose the FCC could enlarge the list of words if it wanted to. Personally, I don't think the prohibitions should be viewed as complying with the First Amendment, but I think they are.

Personally, I think the best way to get offensive language off the air is to let the station know you turn off the radio if they broadcast a personality who repeatedly uses it.

I don't think the LA City Council's resolution will change the radio stations' programming standards. The FCC could. I don't think it should, but it could apparently.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 02:57 AM

2. Radio stations should advise their employees that certain language is not

 

acceptable. Hate, racist and overt sexist comments, not allowed. If that personality does not like the rules, let them work at another station. We certainly don't need another twenty years of the Limbaugh's and Beck's just to name a couple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JDPriestly (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 06:50 AM

3. Agreed, but

radio stations operate on the Public Air Waves regulated and licensed by the FCC, therefore they are within the realm of being monitored & told what and what is not acceptable. Granted the LA City Council has no authority over those airwaves (any more than any other citizen... the right to file a complaint), yet they have in their own way made their collective voices heard and that is important.

I do believe the best form of action is to write the station(s) letters of complaint, with a copy to the FCC for their licensing file on the station. While I certainly support everyone's first amendment rights, I also realize that some speech is less helpful (and potentially hurtful) than others and that when that type of speech is broadcast over airwaves in the public domain, I have a right (and I believe an obligation) to object to that speech.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 06:57 AM

4. About fugging time

The First Amendment was there decades ago when the John Birch types could not promote hatred the way Rush Scumbaugh et al do daily today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:13 AM

5. the shame factor is gone with this RW radio monopoly. these blowhards are 'acceptable' now because

they have a monopoly and no one is talking back to them. they hide behind call screeners and use paid callers. the GOP think tanks routinely send them talking points using framing strategies that incorporate race baiting and hate of all sorts.

these dicks are comfortable using the hate speech because it is officially sanctioned by the new GOP and it is acceptable because 1000 coordinated radio stations skirt it every day and there has been NO organized opposition from the left. acorn and immigration and obama/muslim are all part of the voter suppression/election theft and get-out-the talk radio base (dittohead/teabaggers) strategy.

we'll always have racist hatemongers and money in politics but it's only as big as it is now because the left ignore talk radio.

until recently the talk radio monopoly that has been kicking democracy's ass has been getting a total free speech free ride, invisible to those who are attacked by it until the damage is done. then the left reacts as if it was fox, or the result of some political shift instead of coordinated repetition to 50 mil a week, supplied by think tanks to create pro-corporate constituencies and pass whatever the 1% wants.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FrodosPet (Original post)

Thu Mar 22, 2012, 07:20 AM

6. It's about community standards and public ownership

The First Amendment doesn't protect school-sponsored prayer in a PUBLIC school.

The First Amendment doesn't protect porn on PUBLIC airwaves.

The AM and FM frequencies licensed by hate talk radio are not PRIVATE airwaves. They belong to the people of the United States. As part of licensing agreements, station owners must broadcast IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

Explain to me how 1510 AM Nashville - which has broadcast calls to kill progressives and shoot members of Congress - or 99.7 Talk from Nashville - which aired a show last night on which the host was frothing at the mouth about liberals being upset about a 17-year-old kid named Trayvon Martin being shot in cold blood with no punishment for his murderer - please explain to me how these programs are in any community's best interest?

These Nashville Hate Radio stations do not reflect the values, interests, concerns or reality of the Nashville community. Only the views of white, straight, hate-filled Caucasian male goons are reflected on the PUBLIC airways in Nashville. But people of different gender/color/faith/political party also live in Nashville. Where is THEIR access to broadcast?

The chilling effect on free speech is being felt by anyone not a white, straight, hate-filled caucasian male. It is a violation of the agreement to serve the community to shut everyone else out of public broadcast.

Anyone who doesn't get that now is lost. Or is an apologist.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread