General Discussion

onenote

(46,151 posts)

28. How am I "stretching" by citing the applicable law?

Tue Mar 13, 2012, 10:55 AM

Mar 2012

Do you know how many times the FCC has revoked a station's license? Once, in the 1960s, for violations of the fairness doctrine. That route isn't available any more since there is no fairness doctrine to apply.

I'm not in any way suggesting FCC regulations be "dismantled" -- not sure how you got that idea. I'm saying the FCC can't ignore its governing statute and its regulations. The statute says it can't consider content except "indecent, obscene or profane" content. That's not to say that Congress might not have the Constitutional authority to give the FCC greater powers than it now has (although the Constitutional issues are not insignificant). But they haven't.

The FCC's "job" is defined by Congress and its rules. You want them to ignore the statutory and regulatory limits on its current authority and do a "job" that its not legally empowered to do.

That's not going to happen.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

87 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Does the FCC's failure to fine Limbaugh represent regulatory capture? [View all] shcrane71 Mar 2012 OP

yes diane in sf Mar 2012 #1

yes, I tried to register an online complaint last night Tumbulu Mar 2012 #2

I think it is time the FCC needs restructuring. Great Caesars Ghost Mar 2012 #3

I'm going to write my representative and Senators and suggest just that! shcrane71 Mar 2012 #7

I believe all broadcasting either through airwaves, digital, or satalite should be tiered regulated. Great Caesars Ghost Mar 2012 #63

You make perfect sense to me GCG. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #66

Regulation can take many forms onenote Mar 2012 #67

Thanks, didn't know about this. K & R. freshwest Mar 2012 #4

Let's get him off of AFN first and THEN worry about the FCC. HopeHoops Mar 2012 #5

Why not work on both? It would be difficult for AFN to justify keeping Rush's show if the FCC shcrane71 Mar 2012 #8

Good point. HopeHoops Mar 2012 #16

FCC is mandated to handle "obscene and indecent" EFerrari Mar 2012 #18

Yeah, the AFN thing is a stronger case from the perspective of disrespect for the CIC. HopeHoops Mar 2012 #19

There should be no place libtodeath Mar 2012 #6

Nice way to sneak in the Ron Paul advocacy. Welcome to DU!!! msanthrope Mar 2012 #9

My post says nothing about support for disbanding the FCC. I just want the FCC to work, shcrane71 Mar 2012 #10

Of course you want the FCC to work. Which is why you've used the latest meme..... msanthrope Mar 2012 #12

lol...wtf??? I have no idea where you're coming from, but have a good day (after you reread the OP) shcrane71 Mar 2012 #13

I am coming from the place where I question why-a low count poster might bring up the latest msanthrope Mar 2012 #14

Thanks for the vetting rather than responding to the post. Why not place me on your ignore list? shcrane71 Mar 2012 #15

The Janet Jackson FCC fine was thrown out in federal court DefenseLawyer Mar 2012 #38

yes, of course! librechik Mar 2012 #11

Yes, of course it does. n/t EFerrari Mar 2012 #17

Certainly seems to describe the current situation. calimary Mar 2012 #20

No. onenote Mar 2012 #21

Yes. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #22

Still no. onenote Mar 2012 #23

Still Yes. You're stretching, and you're missing the point. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #26

How am I "stretching" by citing the applicable law? onenote Mar 2012 #28

So you're saying that it's NOT regulatory capture that the FCC is failing to enforce the shcrane71 Mar 2012 #30

The FCC isn't failing to "enforce" the FD. The FD doesn't exist anymore onenote Mar 2012 #34

If the Fairness Doctrine doesn't exist anymore, why did lawmakers try to get rid of it in 2011? shcrane71 Mar 2012 #36

The FCC declared the FD was no longer in force in 1987 . onenote Mar 2012 #42

The FCC Doesn't Regulate Content... KharmaTrain Mar 2012 #24

Rhandi Rhodes is a false equivalency. She wouldn't be if you could name a non-subscription station shcrane71 Mar 2012 #25

Interesting... KharmaTrain Mar 2012 #27

You're not entitled to your own facts. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #29

LPFM Wasn't Legal Til 2000... KharmaTrain Mar 2012 #31

K, I'll go back and tell the community stations that said they started out as LPFM shcrane71 Mar 2012 #32

Not The FCC's Mandate... KharmaTrain Mar 2012 #33

Under FCC legal definitions and regulations, Rush did no wrong. MadHound Mar 2012 #35

What is considered obscene is not static. Women vote. Women can be appointed to the FCC. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #37

Actually, what is considered obscene by the FCC is pretty static MadHound Mar 2012 #39

You're correct. It has been static, but these are unprecedented times, and precedents have been shcrane71 Mar 2012 #44

As I've shown, before you can enforce the FD you need to get it reinstated onenote Mar 2012 #46

You've not shown it until you provide a link to the news article. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #55

Here you go. onenote Mar 2012 #57

Thanks onesie. You have my apology. Did you see this: shcrane71 Mar 2012 #58

I have mixed feelings about bringing back the FD onenote Mar 2012 #59

The fairness doctrine need only cover public / non-subscription stations. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #62

These are unprecedented times, but not in the way you are thinking onenote Mar 2012 #52

It may not be static, but it is governed by what is in the Constitution. onenote Mar 2012 #43

If that is the definition, then yes imo. Rex Mar 2012 #40

This is one of those melm00se Mar 2012 #41

There are not many times that I long for the "good-ol' days" of the 50s or 60s, but shcrane71 Mar 2012 #45

can't enforce what is no longer on the books. melm00se Mar 2012 #47

It's still on the books. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #49

WRONG. onenote Mar 2012 #51

Link please. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #53

Here you go. onenote Mar 2012 #56

Not since August 2011 melm00se Mar 2012 #60

High time to bring it back, don't you agree? n/t shcrane71 Mar 2012 #61

its not a popular opinion here melm00se Mar 2012 #64

The Left has ceded a monopolization of public airwaves to the Right for decades, and we see shcrane71 Mar 2012 #65

in some aspects yes. melm00se Mar 2012 #68

Thanks for the long, meandering justification for the Left handing the public airwaves to the Right. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #69

you know melm00se Mar 2012 #70

huh??? AM radio carries jazz?? Where you from?!?! And, you're missing the point. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #71

I am near unionworks Mar 2012 #72

Oh, you lucky dawg... 1. It's beautiful up there. 2. Canadians are really nice aren't they??? shcrane71 Mar 2012 #73

If the thugs win unionworks Mar 2012 #74

Take me with you!!! I want to live amongst the Canadians and their good AM radio shcrane71 Mar 2012 #76

I will send you unionworks Mar 2012 #78

That would be great! Thank You! shcrane71 Mar 2012 #79

Well put,melm00se. onenote Mar 2012 #77

If ever Americans resolve the issue of regulatory capture (the FCC rolling over while giving the AM shcrane71 Mar 2012 #80

I think its prudent to be scared of undefined "regulation" of speech onenote Mar 2012 #81

I know you want to compare of very different media outlets, but those comparisons don't shcrane71 Mar 2012 #82

I'm not ducking the question: What will this "regulation" you are advocating entail? onenote Mar 2012 #83

LMAO You've ducked the OP question since this thread started. shcrane71 Mar 2012 #84

I've been practicing communications law for 35 years. You have a very flawed understanding onenote Mar 2012 #85

Duck, duck, duck... duck, duck, duck... shcrane71 Mar 2012 #86

You keep digging yourself in deeper don't you? onenote Mar 2012 #87

Reimposing the FD isn't going to be a panacea onenote Mar 2012 #48

Welcometo D.U. unionworks Mar 2012 #50

I really appreciate that. Thanks Unionworks! shcrane71 Mar 2012 #54

Thank you!!! Puzzledtraveller Mar 2012 #75