Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (128211)	4/2/2004 1:02:56 PM
From: redfish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

"What if your country was threatened with dominated by a group of individuals who's vision of the future is to turn them into suicide bombers bent on worldwide Jihad, insuring that there would be no place you could find sanctuary from their totalitarian and repressive vision of the future?" First, that was not the case in Iraq. It had one of the most secular governments in the region, and the means and willingness to keep it secular. Second, whether or not iraqis can find sanctuary is their lookout. I would certainly put what pressure I could on their government, but I would not invade. Did we invade apartheid South Africa? Do we invade the many nations in Africa where people are brutalized on a scale that Saddam never even imagined?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (128211)	4/2/2004 3:04:04 PM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But only most intellectually destitute and morally bankrupt individuals could believe that promoting democracy is something to be ashamed of. Hawk I guess that you don't see the irony of our promoting a system of government in other countries that we no longer have. And I imagine that you're all for the Patriot Act... (The most UNDEMOCRATIC legislation in US History) And why do we only seem to "promote Democracy" where we have major business interests? (Note: I don't expect a reasonable answer)

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (128211)	4/2/2004 3:14:21 PM
From: Rascal	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

But only most intellectually destitute and morally bankrupt individuals could believe that promoting democracy is something to be ashamed of. Better they should promote it at home. I've got a feeling our democracy is slipping. FCC brass uneasy over artist fines WASHINGTON (Hollywood Reporter) - The nation's top broadcast industry regulators are increasingly uneasy about a provision in legislation making its way through Congress that would fine individual performers as much as $500,000 for indecent speech aired on TV and radio. Republican FCC chairman Michael Powell and the panel's senior Democrat, commissioner Michael Copps, both said they are worried about exercising the authority Congress would grant the agency if the bills become law. Powell and Copps were attending an all-day broadcast industry summit to discuss the indecency issue. "I understand it," Powell said, referring to Congress' desire to make performers pay. "But I have some reservations with the FCC going after performers." Powell said artists have always enjoyed protection under the First Amendment governing free speech and slamming them with large fines would be "a very touchy area for the FCC." Copps agreed. "I think the primary onus has to be on the stations," Copps said. "That should be the first line of defense. They're going to find things through their contract negotiations so a wardrobe malfunction won't happen. I think that's ideally where the problem should be solved." While Powell and Copps expressed concern about the provision, artists' representatives said they are hoping to get the provision altered before Congress votes on the final bill. Currently, the FCC can fine an individual $11,000 for an indecent act aired on TV or radio after the performer is warned first. The FCC, however, has never used that authority. "Our primary concern is the legislation's provision that would completely change the enforcement regime for individual performers," said Tom Carpenter, national director for news and broadcast at the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA). While the union is considering a court challenge to the provision if it becomes law, Carpenter said it is to early to say one way or another. "There is the political will within AFTRA to take affirmative steps to protect our members," he said. Key supporters continue to push the bill. Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., and Rep. Bart Stupak, D-Mich., said they expected enactment. "I think the chance of the bill getting through and signed this year is better than 50-50," Brownback said. But he cautioned that amendments added to the bill that would include cable and satellite TV in the legislation would make it harder. Still, he did not rule out the chances of them being added. Under the legislation approved by the House and the Senate Commerce Committee, fines for broadcasters would rise to a maximum of $500,000 for each indecent action. The current level is $27,500. Reuters/Hollywood Reporter