Left In Lowell

No More ‘Lost’ or ‘Boston Legal’

17 Responses to “No More ‘Lost’ or ‘Boston Legal’”

1. Josh Says:
   September 5th, 2006 at 7:28 pm

   Yea, if only they could be “reality based” like Michael Moore.

   “ABC should have its airwave licence taken away.”
   You talk about authoritarian right-wingers, but here you are advocating that a television station lose its license for airing material with which you disagree.
   The problem with democrats is that you’re all so self-righteous, but you’re not better than the conservatives you shit on.

2. K-R-S Says:
   September 5th, 2006 at 10:52 pm

   So, Josh..I take it you are an authoritarian ring winger? Both sides are self righteous, because both “side” beleive they are correct. Except. the “left wing” isn’t telling me what to do with my body, how and whom I should marry and that the American way is to squash
   everyone in my path to success…

3. Lynne Says:
   September 6th, 2006 at 10:48 am

   I have an issue with misinformation on such a scale going out to the public and peddeled as truth, yes. I don’t care WHAT side you’re on, you should be against such a thing. This guy is actually lying to the people in a “documentary”. At least Moore’s docs are based in real facts, notwithstanding that he has a point of view when he does his films. It’s fine to have a bias in a documentary, it’s NOT fine for a propagandist piece with lies to be aired on a station which is part of the public trust.

   The public airwaves belong to us and we CAN say “no more of that” and yank licences.

4. Josh Says:
   September 6th, 2006 at 1:18 pm

   KRS, I’m actually quite libertarian, so good luck trying to corner me. I don’t want the government telling me what to do with my body or my money. If you want to waste your money on grand social engineering schemes, then go right ahead. Just stay out of my wallet.

   Lynne, I have not seen the documentary. I’m not going to use the government to prevent someone from giving their point of view just because I may or may not disagree with it. Are you saying that you want the government to decide what is and what is not “the truth?” Don’t you see that this is exactly the problem with government funding and regulation? A license?? You need to go to the government and get permission to be able to say something?? That’s pretty authoritian to me.

   Personally, I don’t believe that there should be public airwaves. But you believe in them. Therefore, you must be subject to the will of the majority (the “we” you speak of). Last time I checked, it was the Republicans that had a majority in congress. So your “we” actually wants to air this documentary. You’re shit outta luck. Unless you’re anti-democratic? Because that’s what it seems like to me.

5. Mr Lynne Says:
   September 6th, 2006 at 1:44 pm

   Free copies online. Advanced copies to Right-Wing bloggers. No advanced copies to Clinton, Berger, or Albright,
   who have requested them. Claims to be based on the official commission record, while being denounced by commission
   members. This smells like propaganda. As far as “the truth:… it is actually very discernable in this case.
   The events pictured either did or did not happen. The events pictured are either consistent or inconsistent with
   the commission report.

   As for public airways… the airways were always available for private use, but competition and interference within
   the spectrum resulted in cries from private concerns that the government step in and regulate the spectrum. Knowing that
   there isn’t a real viable solution for the spectrum other than the government doling it out, the government, knowing
   the possible power it was about to dole out, was careful to ensure that the public interest is held up by those using
   the spectrum. There is no legal question in the ability of the government to take action in the public interest,… the
   FCC was created for just that purpose. The question is how far into the realm of propaganda can a broadcast go before
   it conflicts with public interest. Indeed… in the regulated spectrum you actually do need to secure permission from
   the govornment to broadcast and it was private interests that created that situation in the first place. Given this
   legal framework, there is indeed an argument for revocation of the network’s use of the spectrum. I don’t know if it
   is a good argument, but there is a case nonetheless.

6. Greg Says:
   September 6th, 2006 at 2:21 pm

   Why does Berger request an advanced copy? Couldn’t he just sneak into ABC and stick the tape down his pants?

7. Josh Says:
   September 6th, 2006 at 2:23 pm

   “There is no legal question in the ability of the government to take action in the public interest,… ”

   Where in the constitution does it say that congress has the power to regulate and have ownership of the airwaves?

8. Mr Lynne Says:
   September 6th, 2006 at 2:50 pm

   With all due respect, thats a dumb question. Where in the constitution does it say I have to pay my speeding ticket?

   The Constitution enables Congress to enact laws. Laws about airways, and speeding alike.

9. Josh Says:
   September 6th, 2006 at 3:12 pm

   With all due respect, that’s a stupid response. The constitution of the United States deals only with the powers of the federal government. Speeding tickets are are given out my state and municipal authorities.

   The constitution gives congress 18 specific powers (Article I, Section . They can enact laws within the boundries of these powers. Lemme lay it out for you:

   The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

   To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

   To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

   To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

   To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

   To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

   To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

   To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

   To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

   To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

   To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

   To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

   To provide and maintain a Navy;

   To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

   To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

   To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

   To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

   To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

   Just copy and past the part that mentions ownership of airwaves for me…

10. Mr Lynne Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 3:36 pm

    Here you go:

    http://www.senate.gov/civics/constitution_item/constitution.htm

    The “commerce clause” is one of the most far-reaching grants of power to Congress. Interstate commerce covers all movement of people and things across state lines, and every form of communication and transportation. The commerce clause has permitted a wide variety of federal laws, from the regulation of business to outlawing of racial segregation.

    http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/congpowers.htm

    The Court “…established that congressional exercises of power were valid if shown to regulate activities ’substantially affecting’ interstate commerce.”

11. Mr Lynne Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 3:47 pm

    Further Reading:

    http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/28.html#f631

    See also footnote 631

12. Mr Lynne Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 3:53 pm

    Ooops… link was meant to be http://supreme.lp.findlaw.com/constitution/article01/28.html

    See last paragraph before footnotes and also see footnote 632.

13. Josh Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 5:27 pm

    The commerce clause has to be the most abused and misinterpreted piece of the constitution.
    http://randybarnett.com/pdf/originalmeaning.pdf

    So basically you’re saying that congress can make a law about anything that it wants. If you interpret the commerce clause in this way then you believe that there are no limits on congress’s power. Thus, the constitution is useless to you. I, on the other hand, believe that the constitution says what it means and interpret it in that way.

    If you can admit that the constitution is -for all intents and purposes- useless, then I can stop commenting on this blog.

14. Mr Lynne Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 7:40 pm

    I was merely answering your question. Where is the authority? As legislated by congress and interperated by the
    Supreme Court, the authority is in the comerce clause. Granted, that isn’t a strictly originalist position, but it
    is certainly the case the originalism doesn’t form the basis for the bulk of 80 or so years of prescident in laws about
    radio broadcasts. Originalism would require a constitutional amendment to define explicitly what types of comerce is
    meant in article 1 section 8. If you want to assert that non-originalist prescident is by definition wrongly decided,
    thats a different conversation.

    If you will read what I posted earlier, you will note that I didn’t side one way or the other on the specific issue of
    this post. I merely stated that there was an argument to be made here. I think I’ve backed that statement up
    sufficiently now.

15. Mr Lynne Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 8:00 pm

    The issue of government stepping in may be a moot point, since it appears that civil law may have become more immediately
    relevant

    http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/09/disneyabc-flat-out-refused-to-provide.html

16. Josh Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 8:33 pm

    Ok, we’ll save the constitutional issues for another day, but I still don’t see any wrong-doing here.

    The parties that may allegedly be defamed by this documentary have no standing to bring a lawsuit before a tort has actually been committed. Basically, no one has been defamed yet as the documentary has not yet damaged anyone’s reputation.

    Given that Disney/ABC owns the documentary in question, it’s their right to give it to whom they please.
    Does their unwillingness to give advanced copies to any left-wingers give evidence that it has a right-wing bias? Probably. But it’s not illegal.

17. Mr Lynne Says:
    September 6th, 2006 at 9:11 pm

    They have already distributed the film, the specific defamations are all over the internet. Is it necessary for
    Disney to have made money on it for tort to have been committed?

    As far as giving it to whome they please… yeah. In the past this kind of hatchet hackery was reserved for direct
    to video releases you could get with a “donation” to Pat Robers.

    Within the regulatory framework that exists for broadcast, it could be argued that, although the broadcast is opinion,
    it might be deemed so far in the realm of propaganda to be deemed contrary to the public interest. I think such an
    argument might be a stretch, however.

Leave a Reply