|
Tell Us What You Think
name: Bart Meltzer
email: bartman99@iname.com
Saturday, 15-Jan-2000 17:07 PST
Free speech needs to be preserved for every one no matter what their beliefs are. It is what this country stands for but is all too often set aside for a personal agenda.
It's tempting to ignore violations of free speech to some religious groups because a lot of them have no consideration for Atheist (among others) and in fact preach animosity toward us. However, we set an example by our action (or inaction). If we ignore incursions of the right to free speech against anyone, it will ultimately come back to us like a virus because we did not try to stop it.
The FCC is wrong to allow any religious groups to operate public broadcasting stations. PBS stations are supposed to be for the entire population. Not just a few groups that fulfil their own agenda and suppress opposing views. It will be interesting to watch the FCC fumble with trying to determine what is educational and what is religious. Like any bureaucratic agency, they are sure to botch it up. They already have a poor track record and it doesn't appear to be getting better.
name: withheld
email: singedfur@yahoo.com
Saturday, 15-Jan-2000 21:51 PST
I disagree with the FCC guidelines on constitutional grounds.
Even though I disagree with the content of religious programming and hope for predominately socially aware programmming, I see a need for some way other then trampling 1st amendment rights.
Educate the public and such programs hold no power but hot air anyway. As always, certain elements wish to provide a direct solution for a major problem, rather then contemplating the benefits of indirect action.
name: Doug Schiffer
email: laotzu@dreamscape.com
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 00:54 PST
The radio spectrum is a a regulated government
owned commodity, like it or not. From what I
have heard of religious radio, it is not
educational but is more akin to infomercials.
Most are saturated with real commercials for non-
religious items (gold coins, health aids of
dubious utility, political newsletters, etc)
Come hell or high water [ :-) ] I think
restrictions on religious radio **classed as
educational** are justified. If religious
radio owners don't like these restrictions, they
should not attempt to utilize the category
of "educational" radio.
The situation is similar to that of my driver's
license. I have freedom of movement in this
country, but my government granted
driver's licence places restrictions on what
I can do with it. I can't use it to drive an
18-wheeler, for example. For that, I need
a license of the proper commercial class.
name: Monty Gaither
email: MLGATHEIST@aol.com
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 07:01 PST
The FCC have the right to regulate Broadcast licenses. But, Educational licenses should not be for religious indoctrination.
In my opion Educational channels should follow the same regulations that are on the public schools.
name: Shelly H
email: rocketgrrl@freethought.org
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 07:14 PST
The issue is a matter of abusing the public broadcasting *license*. It is cheaper for a religious organization to use the PB license as opposed to the commercial license.
I view public broadcasting as government sanctioned. It is my understanding that the reason why we even have a public broadcasting license is to encourage EDUCATIONAL broadcasting. There are strict guidelines the FCC has put on the stations in order to maintain their public broadcasting status. Sounds like the FCC staff is doing their jobs by enforcing the rules the religious stations have agreed to play by. I feel that the FCC has a duty to keep the public broadcasting license as secular as possible.
If the religious organizations want to push their wares, they can do it with the commercial licenses. Isn't commercialism *really* what the religious broadcasting is all about?
name: gary kern
email: 359gpk@excite.com
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 08:22 PST
I would agree that the government should not ever be involved in telling
broadcasters what the contnt of their stories should be. However, it sounds as if the
license which these stations operate under is called an educational license.
If this is so, it doesn't sound outlandish to me that the FCC would require at
least half their time as ecucational. If this is not acceptable, perhaps the station could
apply for a religious license.
name: D. L. Ferguson
email: bridges@madisoncounty.net
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 09:10 PST
The FCC may be violating the free speech rights of some religious broadcasters. Good. They have the time and certainly the money to fight the FCC. The rest of us should keep out of it, this is a lose-lose situation.
name: neal camp
email: hugger@uswest.net
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 17:11 PST
This is not a free speech issue, it is,once again, a separation of church (religion) and state issue.
name: Dave Sypolt
email: tymlofp@access.mountain.net
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 17:58 PST
I agree that the decision of FCC is dangerously
broad and may allow censorship or religious
organizations. Since the organizations affected
are operating under a "special" license, I am
convinced, however, that FCC should be allowed
to make special stipulations on the content of
their programming. If they (educational/religious
licensees)wish not to fall under the new
regulations, they may apply for and obtain a
general broadcasting license.
name: Don Hirschberg
email: dhirsch@centurytel.net
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 18:37 PST
A regulation which in any way even appears to
reduces the First Amendment, or even seems to
errode the principle of separation of church
and state needs extraordiary, and overwhelming
justification, such as is the case for shouting
"fire" in a theatre. This regulation has no
compelling purpose and does not come close to
being justified by the goverment.
name: Howard A. Pellett
email: cpellett@cnw.com
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 18:48 PST
Dear Friends:
We must remain consistent in supporting our beliefs,
regardless of the context. I agree with the
American Atheists position and commend them for
having the courage to speak out. We support
freedom of speech under all circumstances.
name: Kevin B. Walker
email: kwalker@mgfairfax.rr.com
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 18:59 PST
Unless you take the position that the Government (FCC) has no authority to set aside a designated number of communication frequency bands for "educational broadcasting," and to restrict licenses to those who demonstrate compliance with the Government established criteria for these broadcasts, then this is not a first amendment, free-speech issue, but a licensing issue. American Atheists would be foolish indeed to rush to defend the claims of religious proselytizers that these FCC guidelines are somehow infringing on their freedom of speech.
This is a first step in halting some of the flagrant propaganda abuses that the religious broadcasters have inflicted on the general populace with our own tax dollars. Let them buy commercial licenses for their sectarian messages.
name: Bobbi
email: Nogods4me@ga.prestige.net
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 19:18 PST
We must defend freedom of speech anywhere we find it being challenged, even if it means defending the free speech rights of those whose message we find personally odious.
name: Frederick E. Green
email: penelope@erols.com
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 20:35 PST
Ethics, Human Rights, and Free Speech is everyones busintess. One's view on religion should not affect their stance on these subjects. That the reporter thought it unusual for American Atheists to be taking such a stand is evidence that we must keep speaking out against any and all outrages.
name: Doug Schiffer
email: laotzu@dreamscape.com
Sunday, 16-Jan-2000 23:06 PST
An aside - I just got off the FCC web site, and
I think this whole issue boils down to a way to
save the religious TV station about $15,000
(the annual fee needed to have a normal UHF
TV station). By having an "educational"
license, they are exempted from that.
name: Timothy Brown
email: destination@pensys.com
Monday, 17-Jan-2000 06:44 PST
I cannot completely agree with the argument that the FCC is tampering with anyone's freedom of speech here. The issue is the type of broadcasting license that must be held, and presumably paid for, by a group wishing to overtly flood the airwaves with proselytization in the guise of education. I support the FCC in its decision, and would still support it if the ruling affected an American Atheist broadcasting station if it were 'sliding by' on an inappropriate 'education, non-profit' license.
name: Diane Wahto
email: dwahto@prodigy.net
Monday, 17-Jan-2000 07:48 PST
When the government seeks to curtail the free speech rights of one group, the government then has the green light to curtail the free speech of all groups.
name: Scott Rodgers
email: phoneman@usmo.com
Monday, 17-Jan-2000 18:48 PST
The FCC already has its hand in too many pots. If I am an owner of a Telvision station, I should be allowed to run any type of programming I choose. Are the stations breaking some law that we don't know about, or is this another way for the government to flex it's censoring muscles? Regardless of my religion or lack there of, I take offense to the government poking its nose into the beliefs and teaching of any orginization that is not breaking any formal law. In my opinion this "Guideline" is the same as the government telling a preacher what he/she is allowed to preach in church. Just because it is on television and available to more citizens than a local religious building, the government feels it has the right to dictate what we the people are allow to view.
However, as a frustrated Atheist, who is tired of being chastized by the religious bible thumpers. It is nice to see them get a taste of their own medicine. But, in the grand scheme of things this is not a step in the right direction for the first ammendment.
Thank you for listening.
SDR
name: robert hawthorn
email: rhawth5754@aol.com
Tuesday, 18-Jan-2000 15:15 PST
As much as i disagree with the content of religious broadcasts i believe in their right
to them and i've been blessed with the ability
to turn them off. Free speech is just that free
for everyone not just what you hold to be true.
name: dogon
email: dogon@iserv.net
Tuesday, 18-Jan-2000 16:00 PST
Although Atheists have a stake in free speech issues as well as believers, educational stations should be reserved for unbiased educational purposes. Commentary on religion in the form of comparative religious studies would be acceptable, but proselytization cannot be considered as educational.
name: G. Wesley Bennett
email: Covert407@aol.com
Tuesday, 18-Jan-2000 16:20 PST
In this instance I agree with the FCC. If religious organizations are obtaining certain classes of licenses, and the stipulation for those licenses are that those organizations provide a certain amount of "educational" content, then in my opinion the FCC is correct in enforcing these stipulations. I understand that the guidelines issued may be "vague" to some extent, however, the intentions of the guidelines are to hold those that obtain these licenses responsible for meeting the conditions under which the licenses were issued.
name: Bart Meltzer
email: bartman99@iname.com
Tuesday, 18-Jan-2000 21:25 PST
The problem with the FCC regulating religious content is they (government) are are the ones that determine what is religious and what is not. They don't have a "prayer" of getting it right. They've placed themselves in a dilemma, and no matter how they regulate it, the personnel in the government that are forced to carry out this will take the heat from both sides.
The FCC never should have been placed in this position in the first place. The government should admit their previous mistake and revoke the licenses of religious organizations to operate public broadcast channels.
I'll fight for freedom of speech for religious groups. The FCC should not be able to alter any religious programming Nor should they grant them special broadcasting privileges either.
name: Kenneth F. Flaherty
email: Sirecho@MSN.com
Wednesday, 19-Jan-2000 08:39 PST
If the licenses are issued for educational purposes, no religious indoctrinating should be allowed under those licenses.
No one's right to free speech, would be denied. There are endless other outlets, for their free speech. We are constantly getting their, free speech, poured down our throats; While constantly being deprived of our own free speech, by them.
This is not a free speech issue. It is an issue of, obeying the requirements of that license.
Atheist should be helping to force them to stick to the regulations, instead of helping them to ignore the regulations.
name: Rafaello
email: qrgezus@aol.com
Wednesday, 19-Jan-2000 17:11 PST
The Mythically Disabled are discriminated against so much! Just counter the maggots at every turn.
name: Norman Abrams
email: Omniwrte@netscape.net
Thursday, 20-Jan-2000 00:32 PST
I'm not an atheist, I actually do believe in God. However, I strongly support the separation of church and state. The constitution is a perfectly sound document. I don't want to see it trashed by moronic religious zealots.
NA
name: Mary Davidson
email: wildiris@toccoa.com
Thursday, 20-Jan-2000 03:19 PST
If we're bombarded w/religious crap on our airwaves and have NO control over content,
then someone has to. Even tho this ruling does come precariously close to controlling free
speech, it's at least a beginning on curtailing the mass bombardment of religious rubbish.
I'm SICK of it on my tv when I want to watch a program that is NOT religious in content.
Nor would I opt for same.
name: G. Zeinelde Jordan
email: gzjordan@bellsouth.net
Thursday, 20-Jan-2000 09:39 PST
As a libertarian, I'm opposed to the FCC's very existence. One reson is because of this kind of action such power allows. I say down with the FCC and PB altogether. Then atheists and theists have one less thing to argue about.
name: Dave Mallinder
email: dmall@usa.net
Thursday, 20-Jan-2000 13:18 PST
I choose not to apply vague and noble sentiments of free speech in this case. The religious lobby has enough power and muscle on its own. Rather than any slight curtailing of their freedom of speech I fear the equation of proselytizing with education. The two should never be linked and it is with this in mind that I agree with the FCC and think American Atheists should not step in.
name: Jim Lynch
email: james.p.lynch@worldnet.att.net
Thursday, 20-Jan-2000 16:59 PST
Free speech is free speech, whether it's "God exists, and hates atheists,"
or "I think all Estonians are evil," or "Rational
examination should be the test of truth." To abridge free speech, or any other of
the rights of an individual, is to weaken the republic.
name: Bob Neifert
email: bobneifert@mail.com
Friday, 21-Jan-2000 12:19 PST
To my understanding the FCC guidleine is not
intended to constrain religion. Rather, to make
the broadcasters use their frequencies for their
designated purpose: education.
I might like to broadcast sci-fi flicks, but if
operating an educational station I too would have
to spend more than half of my time broadcasting
educational material. Much as I like sci-fi, it's
educational value is dubious.
In general yes we should stand up for the rights
of others, and hope they would do the same for us.
In this case, however, are we protecting someone's
ability to abuse a priviledge, simply because the
abuse is of a religious nature? Who are we anyway?
name: Tania
email: tania@ucla.edu
Friday, 21-Jan-2000 19:03 PST
Why stand up for religious groups that constantly
demonize us? Let's fight our own battles before we
get involved with theirs.
Go to Poll/Results.
![[back]](../backarrow.gif) Back
to Top of Forum.
![[top]](/uparrow.gif)
Copyright
© 1996, 1997, 1998, 1999, 2000 by American Atheists.
|
