Close Topic Options

Amendment I

The Bill of Rights

The first ten amendments make up the Bill of Rights. They define our rights as US citizens.

The first Amendment has long been used to justify any thing from freedom to criticize the government, to spreading messages of hate. However, it has also been suppressed and stifled so that the press keeps things quiet such as the government spy program that the president asked the New York Times to no report, and they didn't for nearly a year. Discussion of the first Amendment has cause more arguments among more people than any other argument due to the volatile and flexible nature of interpreting it.

I Amendment

My only disagreement with you is with this statement. I don't believe that the Bill of Rights defines our rights, rather that it defines certain, specific rights, and forbids the government from tampering with them. Since the whole purpose of the US Constitution is to restrict the government, the Bill of Rights is designed to outline some specific areas that the Federal government cannot interfere with.

However, that doesn't mean that the government has not been very successful in breaking each one of these amendments.

Amendment I History & Civil Business Politics

Unfortunately thats true, they are wonderful at finding loop holes. However, I believe they are the broad spectrum definition of what rights we have and we are supposed to maneuver within them. Some times, that doesn't happen and its a shame when it doesn't.

I have a question regarding the first amendment for you Bill of Rights nuts (like myself). Does the FCC have the right to censor what gets said on radio and TV broadcasts? It is the speech of private citizens on privately own stations, how can they legally have this right? Is not the right to free speech to protect that which is considered offensive? That which others disagree with is what this law was made to protect, not what the majority thinks is acceptable. If the majority doesn't like it, they turn it off, then the show gets cancelled, its that easy.

The FCC's original purpose was to censor what was perceived as a small market. In other words, there were not allot of TV/radio options to chose from, so they made sure everyone could listen and watch. There were plenty of papers so they didn't get set up to censor that. But now, there are more than enough radio and TV stations to watch. People really can just turn the channel and not watch anything distasteful to them. So the FCC should not even be censoring TV or radio anymore, right?

I Amendment

I have some difficulty dealing with the FCC and the way it works. For one thing, it is supposed to have some control over what is published in the open air. That is, its charter seems to be designed to control what is said and shown in an otherwise uncontrolled medium. In some ways, this seems to be something that we should support. It means to protect our children from certain influences.

However, the FCC has greatly exceeded what I think is its basic function. I think that there are too many regulations on which bands can be used for what purposes. I also think that the fuss about "indecency" was/is way out of bounds. Not that I want to see television stations playing R or X rated movies, or the television equivalent, but the proposed fines for stations that don't have control over what they get from networks, or what live entertainers do, is ridiculous.

I do agree that there are some pretty bad encroachments on speech by the FCC.

I Amendment

Thats a very interesting point. Originally the FCC was created to inform listeners and viewers of what they were about to see or hear. It was to enable you to make the choice of whether or not you wanted to view something. But it quickly became an avenue for determining what can and can't be shown or said on TV and radio. I question their constitutional right to do that. What gives them the power to censor what someone says or does?

Amendment I

It is a very easy jump to go from being responsible of informing what is about to be seen or heard to being responsible for what is seen or heard. They , the FCC, miss something and the some of the masses are upset that they were subjected to objectionable material without prior knowledge, then it is the FCC's fault for allowing this to go by unchecked. Because they really cannot obviously check all materials presented, it is a VERY easy jump to begin regulating the airwaves, so that the companies are responsible for all the programming. The FCC just maintains and adjust the regulations while listening for infractions. Much easier on their part to do it this way! I believe that this became much more of a problem when shows stopped being taped and started going live or with only seconds delay.

Of course, it way oversteps the original intent of the organization, but I can easily see how it has happened. And with the first regulation in place, the second one and so on only became easier.

I am sure the FCC will have to review Bill Maher's recent programming:

https://newsbusters.org/stories/maher_sorry...mpt_failed.html

Regardless of if you agree with Bill's statement, it is really interesting on how this will be handled. The first ammendment still wanted us to be able to group and fight off tyranical governmental control should it every happen. However, should Cheney be assassinated at home following this broadcast and someone mentions this broadcast as a inspirational wake up call, what then? However, we all know it is against the law to go on the air and call for the VP's or the President's assassination.

What I have seen lately is that the FCC tries to let the public regulate what goes on the air in some cases. Where we elect to spend our money really does drive what is seen and what can be seen and or heard on TV, Radio and Movies. I believe that this is the best thing and the way that the founding fathers would have wanted it...the people can decide what they want to watch. Notice how the public effectively censored the showing of OJ Simpson's "What if" tv special.

Edited: Vincenzo on 4th Mar, 2007 - 3:25am

Amendment I

EDITORIAL: AMERICANS NEED CIVICS LESSON

The latest yearly survey by the First Amendment Center provides a chilling snapshot of the average American's knowledge - and appreciation - of his or her rights.
Ref. https://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,...10112,00.html

Amendment I Politics Business Civil & History

Death of the First Amendment - The Nazification of the United States
By Paul Craig Roberts

Encouraged by its success in breaking the law, the executive branch early this year announced that the Obama regime has given itself the right to murder Americans abroad if such Americans are considered a "threat." Ref. Source 8