FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » A great day in the legislative history of the USA...

   
Author Topic: A great day in the legislative history of the USA...
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
...Senate votes to turn down volume on TV commercials

Sure, the law is obsolete almost before it's passed, what with DVRs, Hulu, and Netflix, but still.

[Party]

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
Wow. The Democrats really need to change their strategy. Isn't there 50 more important things that they could be working on???
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
Apparently it was the first thing on the list the Republicans were willing to not filibuster.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rollainm
Member
Member # 8318

 - posted      Profile for rollainm   Email rollainm         Edit/Delete Post 
Burn...
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
Can't networks simply claim they turned the volume WAY up during that second of silence that precedes the transition to commercials thus allowing for a continuation of the status quo?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Goody Scrivener
Member
Member # 6742

 - posted      Profile for Goody Scrivener   Email Goody Scrivener         Edit/Delete Post 
I thought there already were laws requiring that the commercials could be no louder than the loudest portion of the program. The commercials are relatively deafening because a show very rarely breaks for commercial during an explosion.

Rather than a volume limit that's comparative to the program they accompany, commercials should be volume-restricted to a specific setting. A decibel level, for example.

The other commercial-targeted law I would love to see is an absolute ban on certain sounds in radio commercials. For example, sirens of any sort, car horns, and other similar road noises.

Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
The reason most commercials sound loud isn't because their loudest sound is particularly loud, but because the distance between their loudest and softest sounds is small. A commercial's loudest sound would have to be particularly soft to prevent the effect.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
BILLY MAYS HERE
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Apparently it was the first thing on the list the Republicans were willing to not filibuster.

probably because it doesnt advance the liberal agenda of 'social justice'. the volume of the television means little with regards to the redistribution of wealth or open illegal immigration.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Nighthawk
Member
Member # 4176

 - posted      Profile for Nighthawk   Email Nighthawk         Edit/Delete Post 
Bet the State of the Union is going to be blaring now...
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post 
what the heck is 'open illegal immigration'
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
what the heck is 'open illegal immigration'

I assume it's where technically immigration without following the proper channels is illegal, but the realities of our execution do not sync with what we are saying.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
what the heck is 'open illegal immigration'

any belief or policy which turns a blind eye to illegal immigration and/or exhibits indifference towards the use of identity theft and fraudulent documentation by criminals to reside within the country illegally. thats an adequate summary..
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
what the heck is 'open illegal immigration'

I assume it's where technically immigration without following the proper channels is illegal, but the realities of our execution do not sync with what we are saying.
thats an excellent definition as well.

its the end result of a defunct system but i think it was a lot of hand-wringing, foot dragging and shoulder shrugging that resulted in what we have now in america.

Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post 
I am happy about this. I hate watching Chuck and then going deaf when the show goes to commercial. Bravo to Congress for passing this. Harry Reid totally gets my vote now.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
On the subject of the law, I'm okay with it for broadcast television (though think it more than a bit silly); that space is rented.

For cable television, I think the idea is ridiculous. Just because something is annoying does not mean it makes sense (much less right) to regulate it. There isn't even the "airwave landlord" justification that avails for broadcast television. If you don't like (and avoid) loud commercials, tell the television companies and tell the advertisers.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Herblay
Member
Member # 11834

 - posted      Profile for Herblay           Edit/Delete Post 
The government has no place regulating televison.
Posts: 688 | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
Do you think that this is substantively different than, say, the government's ability to regulate my use of a bullhorn at 3am?
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, and abundantly so. I cannot choose whether or not to accept the bullhorn into my house if someone blasts it, but I can choose whether or not to accept commercials into my house. Additionally, I have control over the volume of the television, including with the option of mute -- I cannot so control the volume of someone else's bullhorn. I can go on, if you like.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
In the city, loud televisions can be quite an annoyance. You don't always have the option to keep someone else's TV noise outside.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
Please.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
What? Haven't you lived in an apartment building? Not the same volume as a bullhorn perhaps, but still audible and annoying.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
Oh, sorry. We cross-posted. I was asking for fugu to continue his thoughts.

EDIT - and your point was one I had intended to bring up myself. [Smile]

Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Blayne Bradley
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post 
No I'll vouch for that one I've been kept awake some nights due to people's televisions that were on, from across the street.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Ah. Sorry.

I am more likely to be the one keeping people up as I am a nightowl and often fall asleep with the TV on. When awake I have to jump on the remote to hit mute as even at a fairly low setting, the commercials can be pretty loud.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
Yes, and that's a good reason to complain to the television company and the advertiser. If a particular person's tv noise is too loud, that's a good reason to complain to the person. The idea of government regulating television volume to protect us from those who leave the volume too high is disturbing to me.

If a television commercial was so loud as to cause a noise violation when the television was set soft enough it did not, I don't see a problem with a civil suit over the issue.

Lets see, a few other differences with a bullhorn. The television industry is already extremely sensitive to outside pressure, avoiding swearing and nudity despite effectively no legal restrictions (speaking about most cable television). There are straightforward technological adaptations: if you don't want your television putting out a sound above a certain level, there are fairly cheap devices you can obtain to ensure that (heck, some of them even do more complicated equalizing).

In other words, except that both relate to sound and volume, the bullhorn example is almost entirely unlike the television situation in ways that matter legally and socially.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by fugu13:
The idea of government regulating television volume to protect us from those who leave the volume too high is disturbing to me.

Prepare to be disturbed.


<small> By a loud television </small>

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Raymond Arnold
Member
Member # 11712

 - posted      Profile for Raymond Arnold   Email Raymond Arnold         Edit/Delete Post 
The point is that we AREN'T leaving the volume too high. Leaving the volume at a reasonable level results it being obnoxiously loud
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
I think you've made good points, fugu. There's no elegent way to extend the bullhorn analogy here, but imagine if someone were to randomly appear and put a bullhorn in front of your mouth as you were speaking in a normal volume.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DDDaysh
Member
Member # 9499

 - posted      Profile for DDDaysh   Email DDDaysh         Edit/Delete Post 
While I can see some points about it being "government censorship", I'm not sure it really is. Overly loud commercials could actually be thought of as a safety concern for hearing damage. The government regulates tons of other things for safety (think mandatory seat belts in autos), so I'm not sure this is really much different.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Juxtapose
Member
Member # 8837

 - posted      Profile for Juxtapose   Email Juxtapose         Edit/Delete Post 
I actually consider it a form of coercion, the goal of which is your attention, however brief. In much the same manner as a flasher uses coercion.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Overly loud commercials could actually be thought of as a safety concern for hearing damage. The government regulates tons of other things for safety (think mandatory seat belts in autos), so I'm not sure this is really much different.
Please provide evidence that any person, ever, has had hearing damage due to loud commercials. There are many things that can (and do) hurt people. The government's job is not to ban everything that has the potential to hurt someone, possibly, in some hypothesized scenario that does not occur in reality.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Sterling
Member
Member # 8096

 - posted      Profile for Sterling   Email Sterling         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by MattP:
Apparently it was the first thing on the list the Republicans were willing to not filibuster.

Democrats: *sigh* Is there anything we can agree on?

Republicans: Well, we hate car salesmen.

Democrats: It's a start.

Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2