The Constitutionality of the FCC

[Nexus]

This point was brought up to me the other day, and I wanted to know what you might think. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a government appointed agency that regulates what is said on radio, television, and other forms of media. They impose regulations on companies that prohibit the use of language deemed inappropriate for the general audience, and fines those who do so without proper permission. The question posed to me (and now to you) is how constitutional is this in light of the 1st Amendment of Free Speech in the United States? Is is constitutional for the government to regulate what can and cannot be said on the media?

[Valiyn]

You actually are constitutionally able to say anything, no matter how damaging it could be to the government or the public. Here's the thing though, with every right we have, we have it because the government will not take action or protect us from those of us who would violate those rights. As such, they have the final say of the interpretation of those rights. They could theorically not honor any of them, but would be left with an uprising. They could honor them to the point of it being self-destructive for them by what they let us accuse them of. So it really is a balancing act the judges have to do, and we don't have a say in that process and is treated like a capital market. So a population that is content with how their rights are scene will not cause much trouble over them but the government with happy with what they are able to surpress. A population that isn't consent is going to cause alot of problems for the legal system and try to force an indirect change, probally through politicians. Judges, being reactive, have a muilti-tier system that can overrule itself if a legal problem is created by the population. If that fails, the laws can be changed by represented officals.

Basically, no it isn't. But there is so little the population can do quickly it would take many years of mass public whining and problem causing to change it. On the other hand, it's a reactive system....so you can say unappropriate things and run.....

[redbaren]

All the FCC is for is to with hold the constitutional rights we as Americans have, It is totally useless other than the fact it teaches kids not to us the words and actions the FCC are withholding.

[Beery Swine]

I don't think it's at all constitutional or legal, and when I'm in charge, heads will roll.

I don't think any broadcaster should be forced to censor anything other than personal information or other things like that. I also don't think anyone should be forced to wear clothes in public and copulate in private, but that's another thread.

[Jagger]

This point was brought up to me the other day, and I wanted to know what you might think. The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is a government appointed agency that regulates what is said on radio, television, and other forms of media. They impose regulations on companies that prohibit the use of language deemed inappropriate for the general audience, and fines those who do so without proper permission. The question posed to me (and now to you) is how constitutional is this in light of the 1st Amendment of Free Speech in the United States? Is is constitutional for the government to regulate what can and cannot be said on the media?

The Constitution grants the Federal Government no authority over communications, or religion. It does however grant Congress authority over commerce among the several states.

[MacGuffin]

Wot's all this then?

The FCC regulates the radio spectrum and therefore can regulate "speech" as allowed (however misguided) by the SCOTUS.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

/thread