It does and it doesn't. TV and radio stations lose sponsership (certain companys wont air commericals, as they don't want to be associated with what they may be saying). And you are correct, it also has to do with the public not wanting to hear curse words, etc. And it's also the goverment not wanting certain things being said, radio stations and tv stations can get fines for certain things aired. So in my opinion it is a little bit of their freedom and speech being violated, and the other half is the need for sponsership and viewers/listeners.
2007-06-17 14:07:14
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Yes, to a degree! Just look at the latest Federal Court of Appeals ruling. Saying that the rules, statues and laws enforced on Television and Radio stations. By the FCC is to subjective. That is the problem with censorship of any kind. By its nature it is extremely subjective and varies from person to person. Not to mention Judge to judge. We will never totally have the freedom of speech on these various mediums. Or that certain speech has not already been deemed not protected by the Supreme Court. Granted these decisions by the Supreme Court are limited in scope.
Not to mention some states have adopted additional laws outlawing some forms of what was thought to be protected speech. Excluding that already mentioned. Again yes!
Peace!!! Love!!!
2007-06-17 15:14:54
·
answer #2
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
One person said it best. You have a right to say what you want. Not the right to have a TV show. The major networks CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS and those other locals are broadcast on public airways and are subject to the laws of the public. Sure you have a right to say what you want and cuss like a sailor, but it has to be on your dime not on the publics. Just because a tv bleeps out a cuss word or a shock jocks are fired because they are simulating sex scenes on the radio does not mean you are being censored. Now if you were arrested because you wrote a book that preached how Communisim was good than that would be illegal censorship.
2007-06-17 14:07:20
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
There are some restrictions on what can be said or shown on TV and radio. These restrictions are chiefly to keep some material from children, such as explicit sex acts, nudity and certain words. The rules have been stretched quite a bit of late and more and more "objectionable material is getting on both radio and TV. Controlling what is said on public radio and TV is censorship, but it does not violate Free Speech.
2007-06-17 14:03:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by fangtaiyang 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well gee, let's think about this a moment. Freedom of speech says the government can't restrict what you say. Censorship is government restricting what someone can say. 2 + 2 = 4.
2016-05-18 02:08:35
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
In America, the airwaves [radio spectrum] are deemed to be onwed by the public as a whole. The government sells temporary use of select portions of them to broadcasters for their exclusive [monopoly] use while their licence is in force. [In theory -- factually, most broadcasters got their channel or frequency free or very cheap way back when and have had it ever since.]
In part exchange for the monopoly use of "their" segment of the airwaves, each broadcaster agrees to abide by rules put forth by the Federal Communicatons Commission, including those that regulate indecent, offensive, or illegal speech.
This is not a violation of the Freedom of Speech doctrine in two ways ... first (as mentioned above) FoS only applies to political speech. No one has the right to freely advocate lynching that person over there (yes, him!), for example -- that is inciting to riot or inciting murder and is a felony. Nor can you freely jump up in a crowded theatre and yell "Fire!" in order to move to a better seat.
The second way is that broadcasters give up some of what would otherwise be their freedoms in exchange for their monopoly use of 'their' channel or frequency. It is part of the deal to use public property for their exculsive private profit.
does this help?
2007-06-17 14:14:36
·
answer #6
·
answered by Spock (rhp) 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Freedom of speech is referring to Political Speech.
2007-06-17 14:01:06
·
answer #7
·
answered by East Lansing Brat 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
can anyone tell me what is the right answer for this question?
2016-08-24 05:59:05
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
YES
2007-06-17 13:59:40
·
answer #9
·
answered by Kylie 1
·
1⤊
0⤋