Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Communications Your Rights Online

Reason Interviews Michael Powell 221

Posted by samzenpus from the no-exposed-nipple dept.
Phlinn writes "In the Reason interview with Michael Powell, it is possible to develop a clearer understanding of the FCC's recent actions. It would appear that despite recent actions, he's not the pro censorship icon many people think. Beware of actions based on a "greater good" however."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Reason Interviews Michael Powell More

Reason Interviews Michael Powell

Comments Filter:

  • Flip-flop (Score:3, Insightful)

    by UnCivil Liberty ( 786163 ) * on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:09PM (#11163881)
    Wow, he is all over the place, one sentence he loves the first amendment, the next he is saying [paraphrased] "well, enforcing indecency laws are different, it was the will of the people, there is legislation!".

    To Michael:
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    • Re:Flip-flop (Score:3, Informative)

      by stratjakt ( 596332 )
      He's not a congressman, brain-train.

      He doesn't make laws, he regulates, as instructed by his mandate.

      • An act of Congress empowers the FCC.

    • Re:Flip-flop (Score:4, Insightful)

      by flabbergast ( 620919 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:28PM (#11164020)
      Well, the next time I scream out "Fire!" in a movie theatre, I'll remember to mention this to the arresting police officer.

      There are exceptions to the First Amendment and yelling fire in a crowded theatre is one of those exceptions. Likewise, obscenity (by its lawful definition) is not protected by the First Amendment.

      • Re:Flip-flop (Score:3, Insightful)

        by aztektum ( 170569 )
        The question that hasn't been answered is "How do you define obscene?" The 2nd question I would have is "Can't you just shut it off if you find it to be obscene?" I know parents would say "But think of my children!" Sorry, but it's up to you to reduce their access, not the rest of society, since I doubt not everyone else agrees with you. I'm all for helping the children when their lives could be at risk, but hearing a dirty word or seeing naked people, it's gonna happen. Try to teach them to deal w/ it a

        • Re:Flip-flop (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Kiryat Malachi ( 177258 )
          Actually, how do you define obscene has been answered pretty thoroughly.

          The Miller Test [mcgraw-hill.com] is the contemporary test for what is and is not considered obscene; it may not be a good test, but it is the law of the land.

          The problem is that dirty words and naked ladies aren't considered obscene, generally, only indecent. Indecent speech is protected; obscene speech is not. Whether or not you like it, this is how the Supreme Court has interpreted the 1st Amendment; since they are a court, there's no question of
      • Well, the next time I scream out "Fire!" in a movie theatre, I'll remember to mention this to the arresting police officer.

        Actually, there are many times in which you can do this, safely and legally. In fact, I personally don't think that either the act of yelling in a movie theatre, or the word yelled are critical to the classic example of yelling fire in a crowded theatre (presumably when there isn't a fire, of course). The critical part of that is willfully acting in a manner that endangers the safe

    • Re:Flip-flop - not at all (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FredThompson ( 183335 ) <fredthompson AT mindspring DOT com> on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:44PM (#11164148)
      Your comment shows a basic lack of understanding of the responsibilities of freedom and even what the concept of freedom entails.

      All "freedoms" include responsibility for associated consequences.

      Public standards of decency, while difficult to define ("I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it."), most certainly are the prerogative of the society.

      They screaming the words "anthrax" in an American airport as loudly as you can, repeatedly and see how long your "freedom of speech" lasts.

      Every action has an equal and opposite reaction applies not just to basic physics experiments but also to everything else in life.

      Society does not give YOU freedom from consequences. When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable. Sometimes that is immediate, sometimes it has less visible repurcussions but you will receive the consequences if every action you take.

      "Freedom of speech" does not mean others are forced to be exposed to such speech nor that the speaker will be free of responsibility.

      Homework assignments (since you seem to be living in a world of first week Civics 101):

      1) What would have been the result of you exposing yourself in public in 1777 America?

      2) Explain how your selected excerpt from the Bill of Rights could possibly have included a definition of speech which meant anything other than sound made from human lips absent of any recording of transmission technologies as none existed in the 1770s.

      3) Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions in which individuals are granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive when using community-owned resources.

      4) In the case your are unable to properly answer assignment #3, demonstrate through the presentation of historic documents that "freedom of speech" in late 1770s America guaranteed lack of repurcussion from any and all public speech.
      • "2) Explain how your selected excerpt from the Bill of Rights could possibly have included a definition of speech which meant anything other than sound made from human lips absent of any recording of transmission technologies as none existed in the 1770s."

        See writing [wikipedia.org] and printing [wikipedia.org].

      • Re:Flip-flop - not at all (Score:4, Insightful)

        by jafac ( 1449 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @08:46PM (#11164596) Homepage
        Society does not give YOU freedom from consequences. When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable.

        yeah. let me know when someone in the Bush administration is held accountable for exposing an undercover CIA agent working on nuclear proliferation, as a means of "punishing" Joe Wilson for speaking out against the Administration's policies.

        Oops! there's another exception to the First Amendment. You're *not* free to reveal identities of undercover CIA agents. But as a conveeeenient side effect of First Amendment, Robert Novak doesn't have to reveal his source "within the Bush Administration".

        "Freedom of speech" does not mean others are forced to be exposed to such speech nor that the speaker will be free of responsibility

        It's called an off-switch.

        Explain and demonstrate a preponderance of American court decisions in which individuals are granted complete and total absence of repurcussion from actions deemed offensive when using community-owned resources

        Activist Judges.
        • Do some research and you'll find that Jow Wilson's wife wasn't an undercover CIA agent nor was she "outed" as a way to "punish" him. Read the Senate and 9/11 commission reports, in full. Additionally, all that yellowcake which Joe Wilson supposedly "proved" wasn't being sought by Saddam's Iraq conveniently showed up. So did the paper trail. Oops to your comment.

          The First Amendment right of free speech does not give anyone the right to endanger the life of someone else. The legal ability for reporters to pr
          • The motives behind outing Plame and the degree to which she was undercover may be arguable, but are you saying that there is solid evidence that Saddam had, or was even actively seeking, uranium? Could you back that up? You do know that the original document was a forgery, right?

            Man, this getting off topic.

      • "Freedom of speech" does not mean others are forced to be exposed to such speech


        Exactly. Now tell me if Howard Stern does something naughty on the radio, who was forced to be exposed to it?

        • You've proven my point with your words, "on the radio."

          "on the radio" means using public property. Broadcasters are given exclusive right to aspects of the specturm and geography. In exchange, they are subject to the law which holds them accountable to societal standards of what is acceptable.

          Howard Stern and anyone else can SAY whatever they want. They have right to force others to listen nor to be unaccountable for the repurcussions of their words.

          It's the same concept as having a driver's license. It'
      • Could you explain what meaning "Freedom of Speach" has left after all that?
        • "Freedom of speech" means people can express opinions in all circumstances. It does not mean they have no accountability when their "speech" injures others nor do they have a "right" to be heard. This includes funding or access to the means of transmission of speech.

          Do you remember the "Piss Christ" things from a few years ago? IIRC, the National Endowment for the Arts funded a public display of "art" which included crosses in containers of urine or something like that. The major issue was that public asse
          • I've just thought of some more examples of accountability for speech.

            Do you remember the TV ads for Miss Cleo, the "psychic?" She wasn't overtly offensive but her words and the associated activities were deemed unacceptable by society so the government forced her off the air along with other punishments.

            Were her "free speech rights" violated?

            No, she was still subject to being accountable for the results of her speech. "Free speech" doesn't mean she or anyone else can lie as a means to trick people out of
            • miss cleo, actually the companies that had hired her, were fined(which took them off the air) for scamming people. More specificly they were fined for engaging in deceptive advertising, billing, and collection practices.
              By leaving that out you are deliberatly impling that here "psychic" abailities were the reason.
              • This is what I typed:

                "No, she was still subject to being accountable for the results of her speech. 'Free speech' doesn't mean she or anyone else can lie as a means to trick people out of their money."

                In the example of Robert Tilton I touched on the aspect of inability to prove his claims that a person sending him money will result in that person having a blessing. That's the same thing she was doing. (BTW, I call that kind of thing "Christian witchcraft." They're basically claiming God can be controlled
      • Powell says he supports the First Amendment, and he also willingly enforces laws that go counter to its spirit. I hate the term 'flip-flopping', but that does fit my definition of hypocrisy.

        No one is arguing for freedom from responsibility, only against government sponsored censorship. The goverment is not the only thing that can hold people responsible, and many examples show that it often isn't very good at it.

        One important lesson from high school: focus on your thesis. You start out by saying the pa
      • "All "freedoms" include responsibility for associated consequences."

        Hence civil lawsuits and slander/libel laws on the books. Note that, while you are held responsible for what you say, you are not actually prevented from saying it.

        "("I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it.")"

        The Supreme Court only says things like that because it has ruled that pornography isn't speech, whcih is why those "decency" laws you mention are allowed to stand. Something nobody talks much about is that what
      • When your actions harm others, you will be held accountable.

        That's the point: no harm was and will be ever done by someone through swearing (or being nude, another ridiculous taboo in US television).

    • And yet, you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court's interpretations have held that those laws do not abridge freedom of speech; since they are the final arbiter of what is and is not Constitutional in this country, they say that those laws don't violate the 1st Amendment.

  • actions vs. words (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the arbiter ( 696473 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:10PM (#11163888)
    The article's nice. He sounds like a smart, reasonable guy, who's not in any way interested in being an Orwellian nightmare come to life. He's just doing his job. He's just enforcing the law.

    His actions speak to me far more loudly than his words. His actions tell me he's interested in enforcing certain aspects of the law in a manner which suits those who put him where he is today.

    Just like his daddy does. It seems, sadly, to be a Powell family legacy that they're perfectly willing go along with orders of very dubious morality. Even if those orders are legally correct.

    Sad to see good men knuckle under to the evil ones in charge of them.

    • Err, you do know Colin Powell was the man who covered up/whitewashed the My Lai massacre and the famous story didnt break until after the war. Oh and he was in Iran contra. Whoops! And holds the record for the most lies per second at the UN.

      Great men indeed!

      Try other sources of media than Fox News and CNN and you might learn something.

      • Re:actions vs. words (Score:5, Insightful)

        by the arbiter ( 696473 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @08:30PM (#11164513)
        This will suprise you, but I'm about as liberal as it gets, and would far rather shoot myself in the head then watch either Faux News or the Corporate News Network.

        The My Lai coverup was merely the first of many incidents where Mr. Powell, Sr., followed orders rather than his conscience. He did it again and again. Really, it's how he got to where he is. I'd like to attribute his abrupt retirement to pangs of conscience, but he may be just looking out for his career again. I don't know.

        As to whether he's a good guy, I rather think that, fundamentally, he is. When left to his own devices, he tends to make fairly good, reasoned decisions. When following orders, not so much. The problem, really, is that he's been following orders most of his life. And regardless of what the judges at Nuremburg said, there are a lot of situations in life where you do have to follow immoral orders. Or else. Is it evil to allow yourself to be a tool for those are perpetuating evil? I can't answer that either.

        What I do know is that you owe me an apology for implying that I watch Fox News and CNN. I'll take a lot of abuse, but that is really hitting below the belt.

  • Watch what he does, not what he says he is doing.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by QuietLagoon ( 813062 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:19PM (#11163941)
    It would appear that despite recent actions, he's not the pro censorship icon many people think.

    He is known for saying one thing that he thinks you want to hear, then doing the opposite that he had intended to do all along.

    • Not to mention Reason is a big "deregulate everything now!!!" nutcase group.

      Of course they love Powell. Shame, deregulation means crap on the radio, media consolidation, monopolies,etc. But these guys are ideology first and reality second.

      Slashdot just got trolled by Reason. Classic.
      • Not to mention Reason is a big "deregulate everything now!!!" nutcase group.

        Um, they're fairly moderate liberatarians, who are not nutcases unless Mao is your idea of a centrist.

        deregulation means crap on the radio

        If by "crap" you mean "stuff that other people like but I don't", then yes, quite possibly. I don't see why the FCC should be imposing your individual preferences on the public though.

        Of course they love Powell.

        No, actually, they don't. Deregulation implies opposition to censorship, for
    • The man is a politician. He is not going to say "I am for censorship". he isn't going to say 'I have to keep the christian right happy".

      he is going to say what he expects you to hear. It's not like he has principles or morals or anything. he is a politician.
    • In other words, he's a politician.

  • Don't get suckered (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mistersooreams ( 811324 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:28PM (#11164014) Homepage
    These FCC people are pretty persuasive. This guy clearly talks a good "uncensored airwaves" talk, but their actions are clearly not in line with this. While I applaud his apparently more liberal stance, we need to be careful not to get totally suckered by his rhetoric. I'll believe the FCC are being more open-minded when the TV, radio et al start reflecting it.
  • did michael powell really say that about oprah? i cannot find any credible website to find him being quoted. just a bunch of blogs and quotes about stern talking about it.

    stern vs powell on kgo radio was pretty funny tho.

    i really dont like stern or powell, i hate the fcc's censorship, lack of telling people what they can or cannot say, lack of any scrutiny on complaints sent by form letters from one family group.
    • >sent by form letters from one family group.

      That just shows you either how mismanaged the FCC is or how they knew these letters were from the same people, but used them as an excuse to get their the censorship ball running for the Jebus GOP crowd.

      Either way, its an organization that needs to be immediately reformed and made into a public issue. Turn on the TV, the big debate isnt Iraq, FCC, etc its Christmas vs Happy Holidays.

      Government and media together. Talk about corruption.

  • Umm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Deviant Q ( 801293 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:34PM (#11164072) Homepage
    This quote just made me pause and re-read it, because it was so totally wrong.
    Reason: What about the price consumers are bearing by having government regulation of electronic equipment, like the broadcast flag for Hollywood? Powell: Specifically what? Reason: The price of innovation being reduced by someone having to come and beg your agency for approval to implement a new consumer-friendly device like TiVo. Powell: I think the premise of your question is false. The notion that a complete laissez-faire deployment of equipment always will produce a quicker and more optimal, more innovative solution is not accurate.
    You wouldn't have a personal computer if there weren't a standard. You wouldn't have the production of content if there weren't protections for the creators of content.
    Um... that standard was produced by IBM and Microsoft, without governmental standardization. It evolved in a totally laissez-faire market.

    • Re:Umm... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Fahrenheit 450 ( 765492 )
      Yeah, I had to shake my head at that one too. I also liked this particular exchange:

      Reason: Can you give an example of that?

      Powell: There's Standard Oil.

      Reason: Most of the revisionist histories of Standard Oil show that by the time it had its maximum market penetration, it was actually charging less for oil.

      Powell: You may know more about the specifics of Standard Oil than I. But I do believe in the cases and the theories that show that at a certain level of monopolistic control people can extra

      • I doubt he would expect the interviewer to know nothing about one of the most famous anti-trust cases in history. He probably mentioned it because it is viewed as a good example of when government should regulate the industry. The interviewer points out that the monopoly was actually good for prices, which is not something that is widely known. In some ways, I think the interviewer is trying to get into an theoretical economics discussion with him on his views on regulation, but as it turns out, he just doe
    • When I read that the first time in TFA, I didn't presume he meant "government standardization". If Mr Powell meant "government standardization" and if you take "laizzez-faire" literally (something like "people rule" as I recall) then I think you're right, the market place (consumers) pretty much decided on their favorite hardware/software of the time among that which was available (having been there at the time myself). I'd have a hard time believing Mr Powell would make that kind of error.
    • Whilst you're right on the money, the funniest aspect of this is that the x86 architecture is horrible and it thats what IBM etc (I know it's not what they camne up with but x86 is a market standard too rather than a government one) came up with maybe the government should have had ago at it :-)
    • Yeah, it's too bad the interviewer didn't jump on that terrible response.

      There is a case to be made for his point about content creators needing protection. But, the PC standards thing is irrelevant to the Broadcast Flag argument, and is completely wrong from a historical perspective.

      It is also completely at odds with his previous point about the FCC trying to kill new competitors (cable TV, MCI, etc.) in the past, and how they have changed and are embracing new things like WiFi. The broadcast flag is
    • It evolved in a totally laissez-faire market.

      I agree with your main point, but government was heavily entangled in the market 20 years ago, just as government is heavily entangled in the market today. Laissez-faire means that government is completely seperated from the market. Our society has elements of capitalism, but it would be entirely wrong to say we live in a "capitalist" society. True capitalism would requrie true seperation of market and state.

  • Reminds me of something Picard onces said on TNG (Score:5, Interesting)

    by aardwolf204 ( 630780 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:36PM (#11164083)
    From Star Trek TNG 4x21 - The Drumhead

    Picard: You know, there are some words I've known since I was a schoolboy. "With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." Those words were uttered by Judge Aaron Satie as wisdom and warning. The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

    Picard: We think we've come so far. Torture of heretics, burning of witches, it's all ancient history. Then, before you can blink an eye, suddenly it threatens to start all over again.

    Worf: I believed her. I helped her. I did not see what she was.

    Picard: Mr Worf, villains who twirl their moustaches are easy to spot.Those who clothe themselves in good deeds are well camouflaged.

    Worf: I think, after yesterday, people will not be so ready to trust her.

    Picard: Maybe. But she, or someone like her, will always be with us, waiting for the right climate in which to flourish, spreading fear in the name of righteousness.

    Vigilance, Mr Worf, that is the price we have to continually pay.

  • No, Powell is no Orwellian nightmare, he's more of a soma Brave New World nightmare. The same top-40 droning on and on with media companies buying up all the frequencies and ticket outlets. As long as Joe and Jane Sixpack get their Britney/flavor of the month fix they're happy, even if it costs them two days salary.

    Now the AM band is truly Orwelian, with its right wing hate voices blaring on and on. A finer propaganda outlet the world has never seen.
    • A finer propaganda outlet the world has never seen.
      Go read up on Edward Bernays, George Creel, and the Committee on Public Information. Then get back to me.
    • Oh come on.

      In some markets, there's, Air America! [airamericaradio.com]
    • The same top-40 droning on and on with media companies buying up all the frequencies and ticket outlets. As long as Joe and Jane Sixpack get their Britney/flavor of the month fix they're happy

      So the general public likes things that you don't. What exactly do you expect Powell to do about that?

      • Re:Orwell vs Huxley (Score:2, Insightful)

        by CurlyG ( 8268 )
        So the general public likes things that you don't. What exactly do you expect Powell to do about that?

        The general public likes whatever they're told to like by Clear Channel and the recording industry.

        That's what the debate is about. It's hard to like music that you never hear.

  • What a bunch of nonsense (Score:5, Informative)

    by Xabraxas ( 654195 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:39PM (#11164110)
    Yeah. It's quite consistent, actually. The indecency laws, first of all, are statutes. The people of the United States, through legislation, have made indecent speech between the hours of 6 a.m. and 11 p.m. over only one medium, broadcasting, unlawful. They have invested in this commission authority to enforce that law. The commission does it in response to the complaints from the public. Many people have tried to argue that we should be like the FBI on indecency and be affirmative, that we should go out and listen to television and radio. We don't do that. We wait for the American people to complain, and then we act on complaints. What has happened in the period you've identified is indecency complaints have skyrocketed.

    What a load of bull. Check the statistics. Something like 99% of the complaints are from the same group who spend all day watching TV just to complain about "indecency" based on their own standard. The FCC only gets something like 200-300 "real" complaints a year. The sudden increase is soley due to this one group. I personally don't want one narrow minded group deciding what is best for me.

    One of the biggest firestorms was over this national cap [on what percentage of the national television audience a single owner can reach], whether it was 35 percent [the former cap], 45 percent as we suggested, or 39 percent, which Congress picked. Going to 45 percent means maybe one to two more stations per network in the United States. That's all that means. So a broadcast network is only allowed to reach with its product 45 percent of America.

    But why can cable reach 100 percent? Satellite television can reach 100 percent. The Internet reaches 100-plus, if you want to go outside the U.S.

    That's a ridiculous argument. The major difference here is that while it's true that you can have 100% internet saturation, so does everyone else! You can't really cut anyone out. It's a similar situation with the other services he mentions. The broadcast spectrum is limited.

    • The best part is that he can't even get the hours right - the legal safe harbor hours are 10 PM to 6 AM.
    • Something like 99% of the complaints are from the same group who spend all day watching TV just to complain about "indecency" based on their own standard.

      Whereas I watch TV all day in search of indecency. That you, Showtime, for bringing us "The L Word", which made hot girl-on-girl action classy (again).
    • As long as government has the power to censor, government will claim that censorship is agreed upon by the people. As long as government has any type of power, it will claim that it uses that power on belalf of "the people". This is true of any government, not just democratic republics.

      Trying to convince government that censorship is not what the people want is an uphill battle. The real solution is to limit the scope and power of government, so they wouldn't posess the "right" to do it in the first place.

  • I hate this man, and everything he stands for (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nebaz ( 453974 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:41PM (#11164126)
    First he tries to allow for big corporations to own EVEN MORE of the media. Look at Clear Channel and the virtual monopoly they have in the radio market.

    Then he (and all of his cronies) push the DTV standard down our throats so they can sell off the spectrum to the highest bidder, at the same time mandating DRM technology with the broadcast flag.

    Then, he arbitrarly decides to enforce (for the first time in a while) some "decency" bullshit with the Super Bowl and all the rest of that stuff, making Europeans chuckle that we are so prudish, "it's for the children"

    They don't seem to care much about broadband over power lines cutting into HAM frequencies, or allocating emergency frequencies close to 800 MHz dangerously close to some cellphones.

    I think the FCC is a mess. This is something that Congress has shunted it's responsibility on. It's much easier to pass a regulation when you only need to bribe 3 people (on the board) instead of the 300 or so for a majority in Congress.

    In short, Michael Pwoell is a corporate shrill, using the "morality" game to distract from his true agenda, corporate power consolidation.

  • LIVE! Stern vs. Powell (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mattkime ( 8466 ) on Wednesday December 22, 2004 @07:41PM (#11164127)
    In October Michael Powell was on a call-in radio show. Stern called, here's what transpired...

    http://www.jimgilliam.com/audio/2004-1-26_stern_po well.mp3 [jimgilliam.com] - MP3 of Stern vs. Powell

    Transcript from Buzz Machine - http://www.buzzmachine.com/archives/2004_10_26.htm l [buzzmachine.com]

    Stern: Ronn, hi.

    Owens: Is this who I think it is?

    Stern: Yeah, and I want to say hi to the commissioner and a friend of mine told me the commissioner said he was going to be on the show....

    The commissioner has fined me millions of dollars for things I have said and consistently avoids me and avoids me and I wonder how long he will stay on the phone with me.

    Owens: Go ahead and ask your questions.

    Stern: Hi, Michael, how are you?

    Powell: Hi, Howard, how are you?

    Stern: Does it make you nervous to talk to me?

    Powell: It does not....

    Stern: All right, so well, I've got about ten zillion questions for you because you honestly are an enigma to me.

    The first question being: How did you get your job? It is apparent to most of us in broadcasting that your father got you your job. And you kind of sit there:

    You're the judge, you're the arbiter, you're the one who tells us what we can and can't say on the air and yet I really don't think you're qualified to be the head of the commission. Do you deny that your father got you this job?

    Powell: Well, I would deny it exceedingly. You can look at my resume if you want, Howard. I'm not ashamed of it and I think it justifies my existence. I was chief of staff of the antitrust division, I'm an attorney, I was a clerk on the court of the United States I was a private attorney I have the same credentials that virtually anyone who sits in my position does and I think it's a little unfair that just because I happen to have a famous father and other public officials don't that you make the assumption that is the basis on which I sit in my position.

    Owens: Caller already asked this question so move on....

    Stern: So out of all the people that sit on the commission, you were moved to the head of the class. I don't buy your explanation but OK.

    You know, the thing that amazes me about you is, you continually fine me but you're afraid to go to court with me and I'll explain myself if you give me a second:

    Fine after fine came and we tried to go to court with you to find out about obscenity and what your line was and whether our show was indecent, which I don't think it is. And you do something really sneaky behind the scenes. You continue to block Viacom from buying new stations until we pay those fines.

    You are afraid to go court. You are afraid to get a ruling time and time again.

    When will you allow this to go to court and stop practicing your form of racketeering that you do by making stations pay up or you hold up their license renewal?

    Powell: First of all, that's flatly false.

    Stern: It's not false. It's true.

    Powell: I'm afraid it is. There's no reason why Viacom or any other company who feels that they have been wrongly fined can't sue us in court. We have no basis whatsoever to prevent them from going to court.

    Stern: You're lying. I've lived through your fines, Michael. And Mel Karmazin came to me one day and said, Howard, we're gonna have to pay up some sort of cockamame (sp?) bunch of fines that we don't we're wrong because we can't get our paperwork done. We are finding it increasingly difficult to boy radio stations. I know you're not telling the truth. And I question why you are selected to be one who is the FCC commissioner....

    I'm going to Sirius satellite radio....

    Owens: That's the question I was going to ask. Now he's going to go to satellite. One of the things that I read is that there are people who said cable TV, satellite rad
  • Comes across as a really intelligent, likeable guy when I hear him speak or read interviews, but many FCC decisions infuriate me.

    Slashdot's got a pretty decent index of decisions I disagree with:

    Google slashdot for FCC [google.com]

    - VOIP regulation (how about linux voip clients? Can't regulate them; the good bad guys will not use a monitored communication method. Why drive up the cost for the rest of us?

    - Broadcast flag: He argues this will increase HDTV adoption by pleasing the manufacturers/content owners.

  • Take and American glamour periodical paper. What is that you don't see? Tits. Now take any glamour paper from Europe. What do you see? Tits. So that's the difference. And now, do Americans _really_ see fewer tits than Europeans? I wouldn't put in on paper...
  • This makes me think far worse of Micheal Powell. At the top of the article, Reason manages to sum up why everyone claims he's simultaneously pro-censorship, pro-government regulation, and pro-big business. You know, not a libertarian, not a conservative, but a Bush-ite. In the the interview, Powell denies each of these, but the only defense he can offer are vague policiy initiatives and newspeak.

    The best part was when he said "To suggest that we bend the First Amendment for one industry singularly is to

  • It would appear that despite recent actions, he's not the pro censorship icon many people think.

    Are you going to judge him by his words, which dissemble, or by his actions, which demonstrate his acceptance of the influence of the PTC [buzzmachine.com]?

Slashdot Top Deals

A Fortran compiler is the hobgoblin of little minis.

Close