The Instigator
lifesaglitch911
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
drafterman
Pro (for)
Winning
23 Points

" inappropriate lyrics should be banned from the radio "

Do you like this debate?NoYes-1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 6 votes the winner is...
drafterman
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 10/9/2011 Category: Entertainment
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 820 times Debate No: 18703
Debate Rounds (1)
Comments (0)
Votes (6)

 

lifesaglitch911

Con

Currently so called " inappropriate" language is banned from the radio and television, which violates the first amendment of the Unites States Constitution. I have proof of this because the exact deffinition of Freedom Of Speech is " freedom to speak freely without censorship ". The key word being censorship. This means that the media has no right whatsoever to validate what is " good " and " bad " language.
drafterman

Pro

The "exact" definition of Freedom of Speech may well be the "freedom to speak freely without censorship" [1]. But that is most certainly not the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. There are a variety of limitations to our Freedom of Speech.

Determining whether or not radio censorship violates the First Amendment, we need to acknowledge that such determinations are an official function of the Judiciary branch. With their interpretive powers, the Courts determine if a law or regulation is unconstitutional.

The most applicable court case here would be FCC V. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073, 98 S. Ct. 3026 (1978) wherein the FCC issued sanctions against a radio station for airing an obscene broadcast [2]. Note that the FCC does not censor, even if it takes punitive actions. Censorship is provided by he broadcasting company itself (which does not violate the First Amendment, as a private entity) as a proactive measure to avoid FCC fines and sanctions.

Until a new case overturns this decision, the FCC's authority to punish broadcasting companies for such content remains valid and, even if this authority was invalidated, private companies would still retain the authority to censor their own broadcasts, as the First Amendment only applies to government entities.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
[2] http://www.ala.org...
Debate Round No. 1
No comments have been posted on this debate.
6 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 6 records.
Vote Placed by kkjnay 3 years ago
kkjnay
lifesaglitch911draftermanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: One round?
Vote Placed by Ore_Ele 3 years ago
Ore_Ele
lifesaglitch911draftermanTied
Agreed with before the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 points
Agreed with after the debate:-Vote Checkmark-0 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 Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:05 
Reasons for voting decision: A complete win for Pro. Con really should have made this more than one round, so that there could be a back and forth, but, oh well.
Vote Placed by F-16_Fighting_Falcon 3 years ago
F-16_Fighting_Falcon
lifesaglitch911draftermanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Same as below, and Con is a troll.
Vote Placed by dcarvajal1990 3 years ago
dcarvajal1990
lifesaglitch911draftermanTied
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 Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:-Vote Checkmark-2 points
Total points awarded:06 
Reasons for voting decision: pros stance was more informed than cons was
Vote Placed by Man-is-good 3 years ago
Man-is-good
lifesaglitch911draftermanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro proved that Con's point about the extent of the First amendment was limited due to an opposing entity, the court case FCC V. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726, 57 L. Ed. 2d 1073, 98 S. Ct. 3026 (1978), which has the ability of punishing inappropriate broadcasts...Due to the structure of the debate, Con couldn't address it and thus lost...
Vote Placed by thett3 3 years ago
thett3
lifesaglitch911draftermanTied
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 
Reasons for voting decision: Don't do one round debates kids