Re: [microsound] [OT] FCC Insanity

[precursor <precursor@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

on 12/16/04 12:08 AM, Jason Thomas at mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

> There are two points to be made. The first of which I
> don not believe I have made clear enough, which is the
> extent to which the FCC Chairman (who happens to the
> the son of Colin Powell) will not state ANY
> guidelines, even if asked beforehand for comment on a
> potential broadcast.  They wish, rather, to use their
> power as a political tool. For example, on Veterans
> day, ABC decided to air the film Saving Private Ryan,
> which they had done in 2001 and 2002.  Twenty ABC
> affiliates, however, decided not to show the film due
> to concern the FCC may levy a fine after the recent
> Super Bowl fallout.  The real problem is that the
> stations approached the FCC to ask if what their
> position on showing the film would be. The response?
> Nothing. The FCC refused to say if it would or would
> not consider the content of Saving Private Ryan
> "indecent."  Why is it so unreasonable to expect that
> the FCC say what it thinks one way or the other? Why
> does there need to be a lurking fear of arbitrary
> enforcement?  If the FCC is really concerned with
> protecting us from indecent content, wouldn't they
> jump at the offer to do it BEFORE something is aired
> rather than giving a fine later?
> 
> The reason is because often censorship has nothing to
> do with the content at all, but rather the individual
> responsible for distributing the content.  Stern, for
> example, who openly supported Kerry, is unlikely to
> receive the same treatment as another creater of
> similar content.  The FCC increases it's power because
> and potential for abusing it because it is impossible
> to defend oneself against a subjective opinion.  If I
> say "statement x" and it is determined indecent, I
> have no way to defend myself since one can not
> factually disprove a subjective opinion.  This is a
> weapon for political use, a McCartney style witch hunt
> with zero accountability on the part of the accuser.
> Your recommendation that I make a "logical assesment"
> based on previous examples is not possible because the
> FCC is not basing it's judgemnt on logic, but
> subjective opinion.
> 
> BTW, Regarding the Private Ryan issue, Speilberg's
> contract with ABC forbids editing, thus the "all or
> nothing" decision to broadcast...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> =====
> Jason Thomas 
> 346 N. Vermont Ave. # 615
> Los Angeles, CA 90004
> (323) 661-8093
> http://www.jason-thomas.org
> mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> website: http://www.microsound.org
> 

 what does any of this have to do with microsound,-- Snoop(who knows maybe
hes a swell fellow),Stern, Private Ryan, ABC, Powell, Bush, Kerry ???, how
does this in any way involve mostly instrumental post-digital music
construction and its associated aesthetics? Its a politically charged thread
that no doubt raises issues outside my expertise and only builds on loose
speculation from all others, i admit i cannot handle politics and the
insanity of the FCC, jeezz i cant handle me. if you look hard enough for
negativity in all the right places that is all you will see, sometimes you
just have to place trust in people, write a letter to your senator and move
on :)... why do i always get self into trouble. Momma always said , son you
need to finish that school of yours, boy was she right.  good nite


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: microsound-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
For additional commands, e-mail: microsound-help@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
website: http://www.microsound.org