Bill tries to turn down TV commercials' volume

[ixnay]

By the way, I'd love it if you could do spots with captions only! ;D

I'd love it if more than a small handful of spots and promos on Univision would have captions for this dude trying to translate Spanish.

ixnay

 

[JayR]

FYI that's the Fort Myers (FL) News-Press.

Have you picked up a copy of The News-Press lately?

 

[BRNout]

I think that you'd flunk the bar exam if that's your understanding of the First Amendment.

Really? And what do you have to back up such an assertion? No, I doubt that I could pass the bar exam, but I'm not a lawyer. I'm a communicator.

The courts have dealt with audio levels in one case--Ward v. Rock Against Racism. In it, the city of New York was granted power to control audio levels at concerts, but only because the guideline they instituted was "narrowly tailored to serve governmental interests" in that the sound was violating noise standards in nearby residential areas (see the O'brien test).

So what governmental interest, O beacon of law knowledge, would you attribute to a law that seeks to limit the volume of content that can ALREADY be limited through the use of, oh, I don't know, THE MUTE BUTTON?!

Would this mandate also apply to shout caps? 'Cause I hate dealing with dummies. Especially on a four-day work week. :

Laws associated with ambient noise and permissible decibel levels are generally addressed either under OSHA/MSHA regs (Federal) and/or local ordinances. What we're talking about here have to do with broadcast audio levels and whether they are within permissible tolerances. The lowest-hanging fruit on my side of the argument has to do with cable cut-ins which are clearly MUCH louder than the ambient level during programming and are not within the FCC regs. However, even directly broadcast ads have been pumping up the volume to offensive levels; which is the reason that (for once) I support government action. At the minimum, the direct broadcast audio levels are an annoyance and they're probably often in violation of the FCC regs too. As such, the O'Brien case would not apply as there are almost certainly more recent examples of varying decibel levels (between programming and ads) that would indicate that more than mere perception is in play here. It would not be hard to prove.

By the way, I am not the dummy who misinterpreted the most fundamental amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Best to keep it civil, lest you should look foolish.

 

[whit979]

I think that you'd flunk the bar exam if that's your understanding of the First Amendment.

Really? And what do you have to back up such an assertion? No, I doubt that I could pass the bar exam, but I'm not a lawyer. I'm a communicator.

The courts have dealt with audio levels in one case--Ward v. Rock Against Racism. In it, the city of New York was granted power to control audio levels at concerts, but only because the guideline they instituted was "narrowly tailored to serve governmental interests" in that the sound was violating noise standards in nearby residential areas (see the O'brien test).

So what governmental interest, O beacon of law knowledge, would you attribute to a law that seeks to limit the volume of content that can ALREADY be limited through the use of, oh, I don't know, THE MUTE BUTTON?!

Would this mandate also apply to shout caps? 'Cause I hate dealing with dummies. Especially on a four-day work week. :

Laws associated with ambient noise and permissible decibel levels are generally addressed either under OSHA/MSHA regs (Federal) and/or local ordinances. What we're talking about here have to do with broadcast audio levels and whether they are within permissible tolerances. The lowest-hanging fruit on my side of the argument has to do with cable cut-ins which are clearly MUCH louder than the ambient level during programming and are not within the FCC regs. However, even directly broadcast ads have been pumping up the volume to offensive levels; which is the reason that (for once) I support government action. At the minimum, the direct broadcast audio levels are an annoyance and they're probably often in violation of the FCC regs too. As such, the O'Brien case would not apply as there are almost certainly more recent examples of varying decibel levels (between programming and ads) that would indicate that more than mere perception is in play here. It would not be hard to prove.

By the way, I am not the dummy who misinterpreted the most fundamental amendment in the U.S. Constitution. Best to keep it civil, lest you should look foolish.

*sigh* It's like talking to a brick wall. Never mind, interpret the Constitution in whatever way makes you feel good. I understand the Constitution just fine, thank you. And yes, I'll keep it civil. If you'd like to talk any more about your own lack of professionalism, you know how to PM me.

 

[FreddyE1977]

the Muzzle Billy Mays Act of 2009!