Land of the Free

Written by Joyce C. Lock


Continued from page 1
If our forefathers could see us now, they'd surely think they'd served and died in vain. The shame that has been brought upon America is heard and seen inrepparttar news and is coming into our neighborhood and homes. For every occasion we remain silent, indifferent, or divided (due to religious differences), we have nobody to blame but ourselves. It is a myth to expect God's continued blessings when our faith is a joke to Him. Instead of asking God to Bless America, perhaps we should be asking why He would. If we don't care enough to stand, then why should He? Mt.12:25-30, I Sa. 12:16. It makes no difference whether in our home, school, church, job, community, state, or country ... wherever God is excluded, Satan has free reign (I Ki. 18:18b). In our land ofrepparttar 113465 free, we have set Satan free.

© by Joyce C. Lock http://our.homewithgod.com/heavenlyinspirations/ This writing may be used in its entirety, with credits in tact, for non-profit ministering purposes.

Joyce C. Lock is a published author, poet, and columnist. In addition, she founded and maintains the e-mail ministries "Heavenly Inspirations" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HeavenlyInspirations/ and "Share a Smile" http://groups.yahoo.com/group/smilesharing/. Joyce's writings encourage us in our relationship with God and each other.


Government Overregulation of Broadcast Content Could Backfire

Written by Terry Mitchell


Continued from page 1
Many people forget thatrepparttar FCC and Congress are notrepparttar 113464 final arbiters of these matters. The courts are. Inrepparttar 113465 past,repparttar 113466 courts have vigorously defendedrepparttar 113467 First Amendment and I believe they will continue this trend. By playing hardball,repparttar 113468 FCC and Congress will leave broadcasters with no other option but to take them to court. Even thoughrepparttar 113469 courts have, inrepparttar 113470 past, upheldrepparttar 113471 FCC's reasonable jurisdiction over broadcast TV, things could change ifrepparttar 113472 government's newly attempted heavy-handed penalties are challenged. Long ago,repparttar 113473 courts stripped awayrepparttar 113474 government's "right" to regulate indecency on cable and satellite channels. Ifrepparttar 113475 government decides it really wants to play hardball with broadcasters, it could ultimately lose any jurisdiction over broadcast content as well. But let's supposerepparttar 113476 government's more restrictive regulations are upheld byrepparttar 113477 courts. That's definitely a possibility. However, because ofrepparttar 113478 greatly increase fines andrepparttar 113479 possibility of license revocation,repparttar 113480 courts will likely forcerepparttar 113481 FCC to be more specific and draw up more detailed indecency guidelines. They are currently vague, to sayrepparttar 113482 least. Iíll userepparttar 113483 following illustration to demonstrate how vaguerepparttar 113484 FCCís current guidelines really are. Letís suppose that none ofrepparttar 113485 roads or highways we all drive on everyday had posted speed limits. Instead, letís suppose they just had signs warning us not to drive too fast. Then letís suppose thatrepparttar 113486 police were allowed to subjectively write tickets whenever they thought someone was driving too fast, but would never actually define what they thought ďtoo fastĒ really was. Thatís similar to howrepparttar 113487 FCC operates. It doesnít provide any specific guidelines and only investigates a claim of indecency when someone files a complaint. It never explicitly states what a broadcaster can and cannot do. Now, going back to our speeding analogy, letís suppose that we (along withrepparttar 113488 courts) tolerated this kind of speed enforcement becauserepparttar 113489 fines were relatively small and no oneís license was ever revoked. However, what do you think would happen ifrepparttar 113490 governing authority decided to greatly increaserepparttar 113491 fines for speeding and allowrepparttar 113492 possibility of license revocations for such violations, without giving us specific speed limits? We would not stand still for such a thing and neither wouldrepparttar 113493 courts. Posted speed limits would be mandated. Withrepparttar 113494 FCC forced to write more specific rules governing indecency, it could find itself in a very precarious position. If, for example,repparttar 113495 FCC strictly forbids specific words from being used and/or specific body parts from being shown on broadcast TV, it will invite another court battle that it will probably lose. However, if it explicitly lists situations in which certain words can be used and/or certain body parts can be shown, broadcasters will begin to find loopholes in these rules and exploit them. We all know thatrepparttar 113496 more specific a law or rule is,repparttar 113497 easier it is to find loopholes in it. The bottom line is that more aggressive enforcement of indecency regulations on broadcast TV and radio could backfire and actually lead to even racier content. Members of Congress would be advised to look before they leap.

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.




    <Back to Page 1
 
ImproveHomeLife.com © 2005
Terms of Use