Does it bother anyone else that the head of the Federal Communications Commission can't even put a sensible sentence together? What the hell was he trying to say with these two gems?
"I don't think you should reduce something as facile and vague as indecency to clear cause-and-effect consequences. I don't like the idea that we could trip into license revocation."
"I don't believe the First Amendment should change channels when it goes from seven to 107. I don't want to defend that distinction because I don't believe in it."
And my favorite:
"'You do not want the government to write a red book of what you can say and what you can't say," Powell said.
He compared such legislation to the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, which spell out mandatory minimum sentences for specific crimes. While such standards make things clearer, they also take away the ability of decision makers to reach their own judgment, he said.
What the article fails to mention is the "decision makers" he's referring to are almost certainly the enforcement officials in the FCC. God forbid the government actually provide notice of what is and is not illegal. It's not like we have some sort of fancy-pants Due Process Clause in our Constitution that requires such things. It's much better to leave enforcement up to the arbitrary morality of whatever obese son-of-cabinet-member happens to be sitting in the driver's seat at the FCC.
Bush should be defeated in November if only to get Mr. Potatohead the hell out of power.