Bungee Jumper Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 That's why they held two Senate hearings on the issue, to see if they had violated the first amendment. And while Cumulus and Clear Channel were not officially charged with a federal crime, that is where it was headed. And now they are selling off some of their stations. The article linked doesn't refer to the specific exchange I am referring to, but during the hearings McCain got Renshaw to talk about the ban, and then brought up the crossing state lines issues, which would make it a federal crime. That's how McCain got the whole Dixie Chicks issue into the hearings. http://foi.missouri.edu/firstamendment/radio.html That is complete horseshit. The First Amendment was NOT intended to cover the actions of private organizations, whether they cross state lines or not. Unless they found some sort of FCC involvement where Clear Channel was specifically told to boycott the Dixie Chicks (doubtful...but I've heard it expressed as a popular conspiracy theory), the First Amendment doesn't even begin to apply. And yes, the Senate hearings may have said otherwise. But anyone who's read my posts in the past knows what I think of Congressional investigations. All the hearings tell me is that they don't have even the merest understanding of what the First Amendment actually means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 well a company having a monopoly and deciding the products it sells IS an anti trust violation. Think hard about that statement, and get back to me on what's wrong with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 That is complete horseshit. The First Amendment was NOT intended to cover the actions of private organizations, whether they cross state lines or not. Well, it's not as if the government has no say in it. CC and the like are private organizations who are licensed to use the public airwaves. I will agree with you more that it's an issue of anti-trust or de-regulation and I think the quality of radio has suffered immensely due to the likes of CC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 That is complete horseshit. The First Amendment was NOT intended to cover the actions of private organizations, whether they cross state lines or not. Unless they found some sort of FCC involvement where Clear Channel was specifically told to boycott the Dixie Chicks (doubtful...but I've heard it expressed as a popular conspiracy theory), the First Amendment doesn't even begin to apply. And yes, the Senate hearings may have said otherwise. But anyone who's read my posts in the past knows what I think of Congressional investigations. All the hearings tell me is that they don't have even the merest understanding of what the First Amendment actually means. First of all, I am clearly not a constitutional authority, and I wasn't at these hearings. I am just saying, in the most simple terms, what happened at the hearings from a guy that was part of it. What happened was that McCain grouped his first amendment issue, with the FCC. I don't know if he was right or wrong about it. But he basically said that we, the government, granted you a license to broadcast, but it isn't ours, or yours, it is the people's. And you're violating their rights. Especially since the edict came from corporate headquarters and crossed state lines. He thought it was fine if any station decided that they shouldn't play the Chicks, but thought it was a federal violation for the blanket order for 275 stations for Cumulus and however many Clear Channel had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 The free speech issue aside, these gals deserve all the awards they get. They are great musicians. Can't you get one thing right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Can't you get one thing right? Now we must be correct on what music is 'good' and 'bad'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Now we must be correct on what music is 'good' and 'bad'? Now you're getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 McCain (I can't believe I am sticking up for the bastard but he was great in this) called it a first amendment issue I believe. Perhaps both. Kelly, w/ all due respect, McCain would have been, or more accurately is, wrong if he stated that. The 1st Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS (i.e. the government) cannot abridge the rights of free speech. There is nothing in it that says individuals (or corporations) can't limit what is said (and allowed to be said through their own property). 1st amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. If Scott wanted to ban you, or I, or any other poster; he would be well within his rights. Clear Channel is no different (although it is a heck of a lot bigger). People also could have protested CC's decision if they so desired and provided they weren't threatening anyone or blowing anything up would have been within their rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 True enough. I was going to describe them to Coli as "Britney Spears with banjos." Musical genious they might not be, but they can at the very least play an instrument and sing a twangy tune. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Clear Channel is no different (although it is a heck of a lot bigger). People also could have protested CC's decision if they so desired and provided they weren't threatening anyone or blowing anything up would have been within their rights. Why doesn't clear channel ban Kenny Chesney for being a gay? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Kelly, w/ all due respect, McCain would have been, or more accurately is, wrong if he stated that. The 1st Amendment clearly states that CONGRESS (i.e. the government) cannot abridge the rights of free speech. There is nothing in it that says individuals (or corporations) can't limit what is said (and allowed to be said through their own property). 1st amendment: If Scott wanted to ban you, or I, or any other poster; he would be well within his rights. Clear Channel is no different (although it is a heck of a lot bigger). People also could have protested CC's decision if they so desired and provided they weren't threatening anyone or blowing anything up would have been within their rights. McCain is saying that if Scott wanted to ban me it is his right. But if a corporation with a federal license to house message boards (if there were such things) decided that no message board could have any Bills fans, across the country, and ordered Scott and all other message board owners that have a federal license to ban all Bills fans, that is a violation of citizens rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 Didn't the stations hold CD burning parties or sh-- like that? Not saying its illegal, but I think garbage like that is what the media stories are refering to in the Chicks great comeback. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 Why doesn't clear channel ban Kenny Chesney for being a gay? For the same reason they don't ban Pearl Jam who are fairly anti-Bush. It serves no purpose for them as a company. I know you were being sarcastic, but it brings up an important distinction. The radio stations that banned the Dixie Chicks did so in large part for publicity and ratings, and not really so much because of some misguided and over-zealous patriotism. They knew that the majority of their country station listening audience would applaud such a move, and it would probably reflect well on the station and their advertisers. Or, in other words: $. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 For the same reason they don't ban Pearl Jam who are fairly anti-Bush. It serves no purpose for them as a company. I know you were being sarcastic, but it brings up an important distinction. The radio stations that banned the Dixie Chicks did so in large part for publicity and ratings, and not really so much because of some misguided and over-zealous patriotism. They knew that the majority of their country station listening audience would applaud such a move, and it would probably reflect well on the station and their advertisers. Or, in other words: $. Gay-lover. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 First of all, I am clearly not a constitutional authority, and I wasn't at these hearings. I am just saying, in the most simple terms, what happened at the hearings from a guy that was part of it. What happened was that McCain grouped his first amendment issue, with the FCC. I don't know if he was right or wrong about it. But he basically said that we, the government, granted you a license to broadcast, but it isn't ours, or yours, it is the people's. And you're violating their rights. Especially since the edict came from corporate headquarters and crossed state lines. He thought it was fine if any station decided that they shouldn't play the Chicks, but thought it was a federal violation for the blanket order for 275 stations for Cumulus and however many Clear Channel had. I know, and I'm not saying your position is complete horseshit, as your position seems to be nothing more than "This is what the Senate said." I'm saying McCain's position is complete horseshit. Even the way you paraphrase it above. Especially the way you paraphrase it above: the federal government grants license to use frequencies, it does NOT determine what programming goes over those airwaves (beyond the caveats I've already mentioned - and I stipulate that "decency" laws and censorship related to such are a different topic.) Furthermore, McCain's position, if your paraphrase is accurate (I have no reason to believe it's not), is doubly horseshit, as he is as a legislator interpreting the Constitution in a manner that is not within his powers as a legislator as specified by the Constitution. Deciding if the First Amendment applies to a government-licensed private corporation is a function of the courts (specifically the Supreme Court, which is where any such challenge would end up ultimately), not the Senate. McCain was talking out of his ass on this issue. Clear Channel is well within their rights to restrict their programming however they want. That they acted stupidly (and counter to their purpose - the Dixie Chicks in general and their politics in particular probably got MORE exposure from Clear Channel's censorship than they would have if CC had just ignored the issue) is another discussion...but they were well within their rights to act stupidly, as there's no First Amendment prohibition against being morons, either. In fact, the First Amendment rather encourages it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 McCain is saying that if Scott wanted to ban me it is his right. But if a corporation with a federal license to house message boards (if there were such things) decided that no message board could have any Bills fans, across the country, and ordered Scott and all other message board owners that have a federal license to ban all Bills fans, that is a violation of citizens rights. In your example, the actions of the licensee still wouldn't fall under 1st amendment protections. It could fall under some civil rights statute, although I don't know what one, as "Bills fans" are not, ttbomk, a protected class, although I think we should be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 Gay-lover. I actually pushed for him to be hanged. Since he wants to pretend he is a cowboy, I always felt he deserved frontier justice for being a horse thief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 I actually pushed for him to be hanged. Since he wants to pretend he is a cowboy, I always felt he deserved frontier justice for being a horse thief. Rene Zelweiger is a fag hag. Weirdest. Marriage. Ever. (not really but it sure was surreal) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yall Posted February 12, 2007 Author Share Posted February 12, 2007 Rene Zelweiger is a fag hag. Weirdest. Marriage. Ever. (not really but it sure was surreal) That makes my joke even more funny, for a completely different reason! I was referring to when he stole that cops horse here in Buffalo and took it for a joyride. To call her a horse is even better. Then again, since his rumored gay lover is Manning, and Peyton has a horse face too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inkman Posted February 12, 2007 Share Posted February 12, 2007 To call her a horse is even better. That was not my intent, but it was funny none the less. I think she's pretty hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts