The Instigator
Logos
Con (against)
Winning
18 Points
The Contender
Einstein
Pro (for)
Losing
15 Points

FCC Regulation of Broadcast Media Content.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Vote Here
Con Tied Pro
Who did you agree with before the debate?
Who did you agree with after the debate?
Who had better conduct?
Who had better spelling and grammar?
Who made more convincing arguments?
Who used the most reliable sources?
Reasons for your voting decision
1,000 Characters Remaining
The voting period for this debate does not end.
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 1/13/2008 Category: Politics
Updated: 9 years ago Status: Voting Period
Viewed: 5,184 times Debate No: 1766
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (3)
Votes (11)

 

Logos

Con

Freedom of speech is one of the most sacred rights to any free society. People have fought and died for the right to express what they want, how they want. The Framers of the Constitution knew the dangers of allowing the government control over speech and press. That is why they used the very First Amendment to the Constitution to guarantee the right to speak freely to all American citizens. Today we are throwing that right away so that some people won't have to hear coarse language on television before eleven PM.

I put forth the idea that the government should have no more power over broadcast media than it does over print media. The state cannot tell you want you can and cannot say on paper, so why can it tell you want you can and cannot say over the airwaves?

The right to speak freely is too important to give up, for any reason. Those who are offended by the content of "South Park," for example, can change the channel, but they cannot suppress the expression of ideas simply to protect their definition of "decency."
Einstein

Pro

Logos brings up a very reasonable argument; however, there are several reasons why this point of view is flawed; both for semantical/legal reasons, and for important, real life reasons as well.

First of all, I would like to point out that although one may think the intent of the First Amendment is clear, it specifically states "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech..." While the FCC is controlled and created by Congress, the FCC's powers are mainly executive in scope and do not necessarily reflect Congressional laws. Additionally, if we accept that the existence of the FCC is a legitimate operation of Congress from the start, then there is no logical conclusion but for the FCC to carry out its mandate.

The debate about whether the Constitution is unsuited for today's society is one that has been going on for decades. Since the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, there is no way it could have possibly envisioned the things that were to come. Television, the Internet, and other forms of mass media have allowed people to access information at unparalleled levels compared to previous times in history. Logos argues that the framers of the Constitution "knew the dangers of allowing the government control over speech and press." However, this is unfair and an arbitrary conclusion; how can my opponent know specifically why the First Amendment to the Constitution was written in this way? The Constitution was meant to distinguish itself from other forms of governance, specifically the kind in Great Britain, and so perhaps the things written in it were exaggerated for effect. To conclude on this particular part of the debate, I would argue that we must liberally interpret the Constitution; a strict constructionist point of view is simply unsuitable for a society that is so radically different from the one which the Constitution was written for.

The most compelling argument is related to this last point. Reluctant though my opponent will most likely be, we have traditionally, as both a society and a race, have accepted reasonable infringements on the freedoms listed in the Constitution to protect the well-being of the citizens. The Declaration of Independence and Constitution make it quite clear that the well-being of Americans is to be protected; and this creates a clash in many instances. Take the classic case of Schenck v. United States in 1918. At stake were the full freedom of speech of Americans versus the protection of life and property of those same people. The Supreme Court recognized that a full freedom of speech is simply an untenable position; and although I, and certainly no one else, would prefer to see an abridgment of the right to freedom of speech, we must recognize that it is necessary in some instances.

The most damning argument here is that we have so many different restrictions on the freedom of speech here in America, that the FCC's regulation of broadcast media content should be no different. We routinely protect children from things we consider unsafe or taboo; for instance, minors are not allowed to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or engage in other dangerous activities, and we restrict their access to materials such as pornography vociferously. While we may not like the abridgment of speech rights, as mentioned above, these are certainly necessary for the protection of certain parts of our society. Now, the argument can be made that we should not, at any cost, allow any infringement on this right, and that current regulation of media content is unjustified. This is a debate we can certainly engage in if my opponent so chooses; to preface my response if this comes up at a later time, though, I would argue that since print media is effectively regulated by consumers via things like civil liability for libel, the same chance for harmful content is unlikely to be seen. However, since the Internet and television are not newspapers (where consumers are looking for specific things), and nearly anything can be published, we risk harming children and exposing them to indecency. If parents wish to hide content from their children which they deem indecent, it is their choice; but we as a society need to have a general stance on the things that we deem indecent, because unfortunately, many parents are unwilling to take on this responsibility for themselves.

To conclude my arguments, I would add that every time we allow capitalism to run rampant, it has harmed the citizenry. Look at the late 19th century, where major companies abused their workers because of a lack of a regulation. Time and time again, society has shown that a purely capitalistic system is not in the interests of the majority. There must be some level of state regulation.
Debate Round No. 1
Logos

Con

Thank you for accepting my challange.

"Additionally, if we accept that the existence of the FCC is a legitimate operation of Congress from the start, then there is no logical conclusion but for the FCC to carry out its mandate."

I do not deny that airwaves need to be regulated for logistical reasons, such as keeping each broadcaster on his or her own frequency. The issue I am raising is with the government regulating CONTENT, something it does not have the power to do.

"However, this is unfair and an arbitrary conclusion; how can my opponent know specifically why the First Amendment to the Constitution was written in this way? The Constitution was meant to distinguish itself from other forms of governance, specifically the kind in Great Britain, and so perhaps the things written in it were exaggerated for effect."

You say I cannot know the Framer's intentions, then claim that "The Constitution was meant to distinguish itself from other forms of governance." Are you not making as large an assumption as a I?

"The debate about whether the Constitution is unsuited for today's society is one that has been going on for decades. Since the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, there is no way it could have possibly envisioned the things that were to come. Television, the Internet, and other forms of mass media have allowed people to access information at unparalleled levels compared to previous times in history."

It is fair to say that television is not the same as a town crier, but that in no way implies that speech issued over airwaves is different from speech that is simply yelled. Times have changed, but simply because mediums of expression change is no reason to say that levels of expression should.

Take the classic case of Schenck v. United States in 1918. At stake were the full freedom of speech of Americans versus the protection of life and property of those same people.

Schenck v. United States in 1918 was a case involving political literature, not broadcast indecncy. The case dealt with free speech interfering with an ongoing war; this is not analogous to the FCC deeming various words or images "inappropriate."

"However, since the Internet and television are not newspapers (where consumers are looking for specific things), and nearly anything can be published, we risk harming children and exposing them to indecency."

Ashcroft v. ACLU and Reno v. ACLU both found that the internet is a "free speech zone," and is more similar to print media, making it protected speech.

"We routinely protect children from things we consider unsafe or taboo; for instance, minors are not allowed to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or engage in other dangerous activities,"

To say that hearing Eric Cartman curse can harm a child as much as a cigarette is laughable. The issue of parents comes into play here: Parents have the responsibility of raising their children such that all their lessons cannot be undone by one episode of "South Park." If parents are so concerned with where their children get their values, the will be sure to raise them such that the children have character too strong to be destroyed by chancing across a "violent" song on the radio.

"Look at the late 19th century, where major companies abused their workers because of a lack of a regulation."

I am uncertain as to the relevance of this argument. This is not an issue of capitalism, it is an issue of freedom of expression.

My opponent is correct: Society must maintain a standard of decency. But who decides what that standard is? Why should the question of "acceptable" expression be put in the hands of an unelected committee of bureaucrats, when it is just as easy to simply not watch shows that offend one's morals?
Einstein

Pro

There are two tiers to consider in terms of regulation of the freedom of speech. The first is the principle itself - does the government have the right to infringe upon freedom of speech at all (i.e., is there any justifiable reason); the second is the level to which it regulates. 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. Classic examples like that, as well as the infamous falsely yelling "fire in a crowded theater," are justifiable regulations on the freedom of speech. 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. Once we have established that, we only need debate the arbitrary level to which the government can regulate. This functionally means that at this point, we are not debating about whether the FCC can regulate South Park, but rather things like how many times Cartman can swear per episode. 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.

The other major point I would like to expand on is the argument about whose job it is to raise children - parents', or society's. In your argument, you state "If parents are so concerned with where their children get their values, the will be sure to raise them such that the children have character too strong to be destroyed by chancing across a "violent" song on the radio." While this is certainly true, I believe it fails to acknowledge the point I tried to establish in my first argument, which is that some parents do not raise their children well, unfortunate as it may be. 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. However, correct as you may be, there is no fundamental harm in regulating broadcast media content. Assuming that we can accept that watching television isn't a "right," there's no reason why the government shouldn't regulate it to some degree, and only reasons why regulation should occur. Swearing, drugs, sexual content, and other imagery do threaten to harm our children to some extent. We as a society have long recognized as taboo showing these things to young children. For this reason, it is necessary that society take an active stance in protecting the well-being of its children. I'd like to reiterate that this is not something we do willingly; it is not necessarily something anyone enjoys doing to restrict freedom of speech. However, when this restriction is not too great and is clearly outweighed by the benefits to society, it is necessary.

Finally, the reason I brought up the general debate about capitalism is to show that there needs to be some level of government regulation in all industry. Government regulation in the food industry is the only reason why conditions aren't still like they are in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," for the most part. 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.
Debate Round No. 2
Logos

Con

"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.
Einstein

Pro

The problem I am facing with your arguments is that you are essentially taking a contradictory point of view. In my last argument I established two tiers that need to be established if we are to regulate media content; in other words, you can think of it as two "tests" the government needs to pass to justify 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. 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. So, at this point, it becomes a question of whether it is desirable or not at the most fundamental level, and I would answer that it is desirable on two levels.

The first is that in a good majority of cases, the right to regulate freedom of speech is a reason the government should do it. 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. Of course, in detail they are much different, but the principle is much the same. I am not attempting to justify this based on Schenck, but only to say that this is clearly something that would not be unprecedented.

Second, I would argue that it is actually a good thing to regulate indecency in this way. 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. That is the definition of libertarianism, and I don't think it's the correct response. If we can take action that would benefit society, I don't see why we oughtn't do so. To quote a cliche, "It takes a village to raise a child." Why can't that village be American society? If the government takes proactive action to help raise its children, the results can only be positive.

Finally, you make the argument that society should not impose its standards of decency on individuals. 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. Naturally, any democracy is about letting minority points of view be expressed; but there are two reasons why this doesn't matter here. The first is that in such corporate-controlled media such as television, you won't see minority points of view anyway. 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. 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. 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.
Debate Round No. 3
Logos

Con

"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.
Einstein

Pro

In my last argument, I intentionally made the distinction between corporations and the government. You seem shocked at the idea that corporations have more power than the government, but if you actually think about it, this seems to be the case. Governments are directly reprehensible for their actions. If a government passes an unjust law or persecutes someone unfairly, they never get away with it (note that it is corporate media who always exposes government corruption). Yet you never see the government do anything to the media - and the reason should be fairly obvious. Large media corporations control the information of the majority of Americans. Research shows that even as of now, more Americans get their news information from television than from the Internet. As a result, any information you see on television is carefully filtered down to represent the views of the corporation. Yet no one ever talks about the power of the media. The power of the government to enforce itself is obvious - policing forces make themselves apparent to society. The media's power, however, is invisible - and this is exactly why it is so powerful. No one ever questions the media; it is nowhere near as transparent as the government is. As a result, the media is inherently so much more powerful than the government at controlling what Americans think that it's actually somewhat scary. This is why I made the argument that the government is actually a check on the power of corporate media. If you refer back to when I mentioned the example of monopolies and other problems in industry in the late 19th century and early 20th century, you'll notice that had no one stepped in, companies like the oil giants would still have unparalleled power - but when the government stepped in and passed the Sherman Antitrust Act, reform actually happened. I find it quite evident that the government is society's only check against the power of corporations. It is naive to think that it is "society vs. the government" - it more often seems to be society vs. itself.

Now, on the topic of debate, Logos is essentially conceding the point I am making on the distinction between the principle of regulation of free speech and the action of it. He claims that the government should not be able to regulate free speech; but then concedes that, "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.")" This concession is crucial. Once you legitimize any regulation of freedom of speech, then the only question is to what extent free speech should be regulated, not whether it should be regulated in the first place. You cannot have it both ways - either the government never regulates, or it can regulate. You cannot wholeheartedly support freedom of speech in all instances, and then say, "Oh, but it's okay in that situation right there." That is contradictory to the point you would be making.

In response to this, my opponent continues to make the argument that there is no correlation between the case of Schenck vs. United States, and this scenario. However, there absolutely is, and it is this argument itself. The only difference between Schenck and this situation is what specifically is being restricted - at stake is not the issue of freedom of speech itself. This means that the only thing we have to debate about is whether restricting the freedom of speech, in this case, is a desirable thing.

To conclude my justifications and this debate, I will reiterate my two main points that illustrate why restricting freedom of speech, in this case, is a good idea. Logos makes the argument that this is the government "imposing its will" upon society. However, this is simply not the case. He claims that the FCC, being unelected, does not represent the majority of society. However, this is false for two reasons; first is that the FCC is regulated by Congress, which is directly elected by the people. If my opponent questioned the authority of every government organization that wasn't directly elected by the people, he would essentially be saying that the FBI locking people who commit murder up wouldn't represent what the majority of society want - clearly, not the case. The second reason is that the FCC is made of American citizens themselves, and as you can see, they obviously are implementing the standards most Americans want. Ask any responsible American parent whether they would prefer their children to be exposed to things like drugs, swearing, sexual content, and the like, and they obviously say no. Obviously Hollywood does a good enough job exposing our children to it, something I'll refer to in my second argument, but this is not a reason to not do this. If you read through my opponent's arguments, you will notice that he never gives very many specific reasons why not to do this, only passive defensive reasons why it's a bad idea. For instance, he makes an ambiguous Nazi reference, but let's be reasonable here. First, my opponent already conceded that some regulation of speech is justified - if this is a Nazi principle, might as well just bring him to Nuremberg now. More importantly, obviously there won't be any slippery slope where the government starts regulating free speech left and right. This is simply instigating talk that is unjustified - my opponent never gives an example of where the government has previously abused such a power, and cannot, since there is no reasonable expectation that this would lead to the abridgment of civil rights. All we are doing is attempting to protect the nation's children. These are good intentions, so we would be all right. As an 18-year-old, even now I am surprised, and slightly horrified, to see the differences between people my age and people 5 to 10 years younger. When I was in elementary school, swearing was certainly taboo, something one would do to challenge authority and to look cool. Now, a lot of elementary school and middle school children swear out of habit. Movies have not gotten any worse since then, but the nature of television shows has certainly changed dramatically in the last decade, where more raunchy, suggestive content is allowed now than has ever been. This is one indication that regulation of content is a good thing. It is the view of any reasonable parent that their children should not be exposed to these things in elementary school, and rightly so. However, with more parents working longer and longer hours to support their children, it's impossible for even responsible parents to fully regulate the information their children see. This action would fully be in support of making sure our children grow up in a healthy manner, and at negligible cost otherwise. But 9- and 10-year olds are impressionable enough that this is necessary.

The second point, which I brought up at the beginning of this argument, is that often, corporate points of view are far different from those of society. This is why corporations can lay off thousands of low- to middle-class workers, and no one fights back. Corporations are not representative of American society - they are representative of the shareholders and the people who are paying the money. For this reasons, corporations put on shows like South Park with almost wanton disregard for the well-being of our children; they put these shows on because they know it makes them money. For this reason, the government is much more representative of society's interests than corporations are. We at least get to elect members of Congress, whereas corporations do whatever they want - I illustrated how and why earlier in this argument. For this reason, combating the power of corporations, who regulate our speech more than the government ever could, as well as protecting the well-being of our children, I must firmly recommend that we regulate broadcast media content.
Debate Round No. 4
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
True, but then the problem becomes who gets to define "community standards."

I don't really like how I tried to argue this one. Too much pathos, not enough logos.
Posted by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
FCC regulation is necessary to uphold community standards. Using the "censorship" argument any number of things that are unacceptable from a community standards standpoint would become legal. Bars located next to schools. Pornographic stores in shopping malls. Liquor stores next to drug rehab centers. Strip clubs next to Chuck E. Cheese.

Freedom of speech is not to protect you from any regulation at all.
Posted by Nichon 9 years ago
Nichon
This debate was an interesting read on both sides.

In all things moderation would be a good way to guide FCC censorship.
11 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Vote Placed by GaryBacon 9 years ago
GaryBacon
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by SportsGuru 9 years ago
SportsGuru
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Ristaag 9 years ago
Ristaag
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by C-Mach 9 years ago
C-Mach
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by Einstein 9 years ago
Einstein
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Sogol 9 years ago
Sogol
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by solo 9 years ago
solo
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by C4747500 9 years ago
C4747500
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03 
Vote Placed by Logos 9 years ago
Logos
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Vote Placed by mmadderom 9 years ago
mmadderom
LogosEinsteinTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:03