FCC Regulation of Broadcast Media Content.

"The first is whether free speech is something the government can regulate in the first place, and the second is, if so, does that justify the government restricting the use of indecency in one form of free speech, television. Implicitly, you've allowed the government to pass the first test; you don't seem to have an issue with the idea of regulation of freedom of speech, when necessary, in general. This means that, by definition, it definitely is justifiable for the government to restrict speech in such a way." I no way I am saying that the government should be allowed to regulate free speech! I never suggested that it should have that power, nor would I. I pointed out that your examples of previous government abridgment of free speech was different, not justified. For what it is worth, I do not think the government should be able to restrict free speech, except in cases where the speech is a direct, actionable threat (i.e. "I am going to kill you.") The topic of the debate, however, was not as vague as this, and I was attempting to keep us on the topic of decency standards. "The extent to which it regulates speech is one thing; but this is irrelevant to the issue of whether the government has that power in the first place, which we clearly have established it does." We have established that the government has used this power, but not that it is desirable. That is the point of contention. "In my last argument I made an analogy between Schenck v. United States and the current debate; both are regulations on speech rights in order to protect the well-being of the populace." Regulating free speech to "protect" people from expression is both a flawed premise, and a dangerous premise. If people have the ability to censor themselves (changing the channel), the government is not needed. And again I raise the point that allowing the government to brand certain ideas too "dangerous" to be expressed is in no way exemplary of a free society. "As I've mentioned, unfortunate as it may be, many parents simply do an inadequate job raising their children. I do not think the correct response is to say, "Oh, well, nothing we can do," and just accept this." Again, this is not my argument. My point was that people do not need protection from indecent media, not even children. Even if parents are too negligent to impress any sort of morals on their children, the children will find OTHER people to emulate. True, some will emulate unsavory acts they see on television. But I raised the point that children who are attracted to negative role models will always find them; even if the only people on TV were Superman and Jesus, those children who find evil characters appealing will simply start to imitate Macbeth or Professor Moriarty. (If your goal is to protect people from negative role models, Shakespeare would be the first media to go.) "Why can't that village be American society?" The village can be American society, but that is not to say it has to involve the government. "However, you cannot think of "society" as an abstract construct - society is a group of individuals, and we come up with societal standards of decency based on what the majority believe." If a company wanted to broadcast hardcore shock pornography, it would only stay in business if that was what society wanted to pay to see. If enough people find such content reprehensible, then any broadcaster who put such content forward would have no audience to sell to and would go out of business. The best judge of what society is willing to see is society itself, not a handful of people on the FCC board. So why not let society itself be the judge? "What you see on TV is the product of corporations already determining what they think is fit for society, which is actually not always in our best interest. " Corporations determine what they initially broadcast, but if media giants were not responsive to what society found acceptable, then they would be driven out of business by someone else who IS responsive. To say that corporations would never censor themselves is absurd. The video game industry voluntarily regulates itself through ESRB; this is because they know that if they do not keep within the scope of what people already accept as "decent," they will offend too many people and attract no customers. "Allowing governmental regulation is one way of combating the ineffable power of the free market to put the interests of corporate wallets in front of societal interests." You accuse the free market of having "ineffable power," and then contrast that with the government?! How many corporations do you know that have a police force? "The second reason is that sometimes, we do need majority rule, in that sense of the word. We as a society have determined a collective set of standards that we mostly all agree on; there's no reason not to enforce these if they are beneficial standards." Very well. Let us have a majority rule. I have demonstrated that broadcasters who do not show what people want to see will not be able to keep broadcasting too long; the free market is more democratic than an unelected board of regulators. In closing, I would like to make three points: 1) Any quest to "clamp out" indecency is doomed to failure. One can find violence, foul language, sex, drugs, and unethical behavior not just in television, but in great works of literature, historical accounts, and even real life. To say that one can keep children well-behaved by sheltering them from all depictions of any unsavory activity would necessitate the banning of everything other than Sesame Street, and it still would not work. 2) Broadcasters depend on viewers to make a profit. They cannot simply show whatever they want; they have to regulate themselves according to what their viewers find acceptable to watch. If enough people want to watch Cartman swear at 3 PM, that is what society has decided for itself. You may not like it, but as you said, "majority rules." 3) The FCC is not elected, and therefore it is not representative of the views of society. Allowing a small group of people to impose their moral views and standards on the rest of society is not democratic. Free and open societies are fueled by the free and open exchange of ideas, no matter how unsavory some may find them.