FCC Regulation of Broadcast Media Content.

"In your last argument you essentially conceded the first level - when I brought up the case of Schenck v. United States, you did not argue that the Supreme Court was wrong to rule the way it did." I was not saying that the government SHOULD have this right, nor am I agreeing with the ruling. I am saying that the court ruling does not apply to FCC content standards. The charge in Schenck v. United States was that his speech was interfering with the war effort. Whether someone can be censored for such speech is not what I am debating; I am debating whether the government should set decency standards in television and radio. "Although no longer as sweeping as the "clear and present danger" standard established in that case, the government's infringements upon the freedom of speech still indicate that there are justifiable regulations of this right." Simply because a government does exercise this power does not mean it is "justifiable." "This is a totally different debate, and is irrelevant to the main point being made here - that the government ought to have the right to regulate freedom of speech when it is in the best interests of the people. Naturally, you can make the "slippery slope" argument, but in practice slippery slopes are, more often than not, simply untrue. The government isn't going to start saying "you can't express liberal views on television;" the issue here is simply protecting the well-being of our nation's minors." I am not saying that one day it will be illegal to express liberal views on television. I am saying that, by allowing the FCC to regulate what is and is not "decent," you are allowing one person to impose THEIR standards of decency on many, many others. It is not far-fetched to say that some FCC board members might consider homosexuality to be immoral and indecent. As far as they see it, they would be keeping society safe by keeping depictions of homosexuality off the air. Should their views of what is and is not an acceptable lifestyle define what everyone else is allowed to say or watch? "Many parents are simply too busy with working more than one job, or are simply ill-equipped to be parents, among other reasons. Since at the most fundamental level, the role of any government is to protect its citizens, society must take into consideration this issue." Not every parent is perfect, and no parent need be around 24/7 to ensure their children's wellbeing. However, every parent has the ability, at one point or another, to shape their child's character. And even if they do not, other role models do. Grandparents, teachers, family friends, coaches, religious or community leaders, and so on, can all serve as role models. Some people do choose bad role models, but they could and would find bad role models even if there was nothing on TV at all. To say that we need to attempt to suppress all depictions of indecency and decadence in the name of keeping society safe is the credo of Nazis and religious extremists. "If the government can justifiably regulate our food industry in the name of protecting the citizenry's well-being, an analogous argument can be made for regulating media content." I still do not see how the two are connected. My argument is that the government should not regulate people's standards of decency. The issue is not about businesses harming people, but about people having the right to express what they want, how they want.