Current Issue:

Current Issue

On The Cover:
Cumulus Chairman Jeff Marcus

Click here to subscribe to Radio Ink.

Radio Ink Writers

User Feedback


Add a Comment

(1/11/2012 7:33:07 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
Brian is right."Congress shall pass NO law..." Somehow this basic philosophy has served us well in the print media for over 200 years. What constitutional distinction could possibly be drawn between free speech in a newspaper and free speech over a broadcast? If broadcasting had existed in the days of the Constitution's framing, do you really think the founding fathers would have made a distinction? Before you answer that remember: the First Amendment protects: a.the right of assembly, b.the right of free speech, and c. freedom of the press, as close a definition of the constituent parts of broadcasting as was possible about 125 years before its existence. Shall a distinction be drawn between methods of communication that existed at the time of the Constitution's framing and those that came after? - I think not.
I for one am not looking forward to the onslaught of garbage that will ensue if if these rules are struck down, but I'd rather endure that than any exception to the First Amendment.
No citizen in a truly free country should ever need to worry about the government when they speak or express themselves.

- J.P. Ferraro
(1/11/2012 4:26:47 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
True liberty is more than just an individual’s freedom from constraint. It is also an individual’s responsibility to protect another person’s freedom from abuse. The tension that exists between the two allows for a civil discussion of pertinent issues which recognizes the need to protect the interest of the young, the vulnerable and those who hold opposing views. For decades celebrities and others who are morally challenged have been successful in jettisoning the true meaning of liberty replacing it with excessive, undisciplined behavior without concern or compassion towards others. The people have a compelling interest in preserving the true meaning of liberty, keeping the balance between personal freedom and responsibility towards others in tact in order to preserve both liberty and the stability of our nation.
- Jeff Atherholt
(1/11/2012 4:12:49 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
Say, how about if OUR government allows us to be treated like grownups and decide for ourselves what we want to see or listen to?

And how does the FCC get around the explicit Constitutional requirement that "Congress shall make NO LAW ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

By granting the FCC any power to address content places Congress in direct contradiction to the Constitution.

- Brian Battles
(1/11/2012 12:12:50 PM)   Flag as inappropriate content
- Brendan O'Maidian
(1/11/2012 10:52:23 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
Fleeting indecency and the written-and-planned episodes the TV Networks repeatedly defend are miles apart.

If we can't police ourselves into upholding common standards of decency on Public airwaves, the government has all but been invited to do it for us.

- Dan
(1/11/2012 9:35:05 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
I'd rather have the Supreme Court dictate standards than Cher. She thinks that morf kid of hers is normal
- Phil
(1/11/2012 8:40:31 AM)   Flag as inappropriate content
I don't see where the commercial networks are allowing any programming at all, other than live events where no delay is used, to air any of the offending words...they all get bleeped. Nudity and profanity are aired on the premium channels, but then these are all channels people pay for BY CHOICE in order to watch these films and other broadcasts unedited and uncensored. And the people who are dumb enough not to pay attention to the fact that they are ON THE AIR LIVE should know better to begin with...and are generally dealt with appropriately. And you and I both know the people appointed as censors use the same language you and I use daily...
- Andy Phillips

Add a Comment