Re: FCC gives "guidelines" on indecency

[Norm Rosen <inorm99@earthlink.net>]

I downloaded the text from the FCC decision, and skimmed over it.
I agree that the FCC should concern itself more with the regulatory side, not the 
programming side.
Furthermore, as a government bureau, they should uphold our first amendment
rights, not threaten them.
Those that feel the need to complain to the FCC about something aired that
they feel is offensive, should take comfort in knowing that however offensive the
comment, it won't compare to the oppression that we will feel if our rights to
free speech are whittled away.
But the point that Ms. Halper is making,
 is Mr. Powell on one hand, says he is backing off, and other he issues decency
guidelines. That scenario needs an explanation.

Dan Billings wrote:
> 
> I'm a loyal Republican, but I don't share my parties view on these issues.
> I think we need less government involvement on both the business side and
> the programming side.  We don't need a government bureaucrat to reign in
> Howard Stern when he goes too far, the market does that pretty well.  We
> need an FCC to license frequency use because their is a limited spectrum.
> The government shouldn't concern itself with what is broadcast on those
> frequencies.
> 
> -- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Donna Halper" <dlh@donnahalper.com>
> To: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 1:28 AM
> Subject: FCC gives "guidelines" on indecency
> 
> >
> > > > FCC RELEASES INDECENCY STATUTE POLICY STATEMENT
> > >
> > > >
> (http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Enforcement/News_Releases/2001/nren0109.html)
> >
> > The new chairman, Michael Powell, has stated he believes in less
> involvement rather
> > than more-- and he wants the FCC to stand back and let the marketplace
> > decide.  And then, he and his commission issue this document, which is,
> well let's just >say it's somewhat strange.  I'd appreciate opinions on it.