This has been a thing in the USA for a long time hasn't it? Iirc, they have (legally not mandatory, but functionally mandatory) pledges at the start of every school day right?
I definitely never did it in high school in Denver, nor did any of the other schools that my friends went to in the city.
I don’t have a list of schools for you.
Sure peer pressure can be a thing (at the school I went to you would have been bullied for doing the pledge), but it is pretty firmly established law that a student has every right to not participate and not be pressured to participate by public school staff.
Interesting, didn't know that was a thing in Denver. No need for a list of schools.
In my case the pressure came from my teachers and the principal. I never got in any official trouble but I was sent to the principal's office for refusing to say it and it required a phone call with my dad for them to begrudgingly let me continue to not say it.
This seems like something the current SCOTUS might shut down in 13 months. Long enough to do some real damage to our country, but short enough that true believers will claim it was never given a chance.
The primary function of the FCC is in engineering compliance: HAAT, power, frequency, contour, allocation etc. Their other functions are secondary. Our broadcast regulatory infastruction is more like Canada, not North Korea. We only regulate content very nominally. A change in this philosophy is chilling.
They're not a rulemaking agency. They're very tightly bound by an entire dedicated section of the US Title Code.
More importantly licensees pledge to serve their _local_ communities and maintain _local_ standards. That's the entire well documented point of the license system. As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
Does this phrase have non obvious meaning? They are an agency and make rules.[1]
> As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
It’s pretty common of regulators to ask things of those they regulate. CMS asks for input regarding healthcare changes, EPA asks for input on new standards, and so one. Is there some impression that regulators just blindly bark orders and are punitive to those that don’t comply, even when compliance isn’t mandatory? Be as cynical as you want but I see this as pretty innocent and wish we still had a patriotic culture in America and I support finding ways to try to rebuild it. This seems reasonable and was only a request for common good of the nation. Make it political all you want but I don’t think that’s what it is.
I’m a cynical person but this is a reach. There’s a huge gap between what this is and how I interpret “mandatory”. There’s nothing even punitive being discussed. They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this. They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…” it’s not dictating anything particular in how the programming celebrates American just asking that they lean into it in some special way they deem appropriate.
> Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the
Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.
The article said Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
> They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this.
Carr's view of public interest included suspending Jimmy Kimmel for his criticism of Trump and other MAGA figures after Charlie Kirk was killed.[1]
> They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…”
There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat. And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
> There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat.
No reason to do any of it other than you want to. But, because some broadcasters will want to signal to their audience there is a difference between complying with FCC "mandate" and doing what the mandate says because they were planning on doing it anyway or are independently doing it. Stating disagreement is how you signal to your audience that you are participating but on your own free will.
> And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
Self realization that sleep is healthy, not a bad thing. Patriotism, or simply acknowledging major national milestones, is healthy in my opinion.
This has been a thing in the USA for a long time hasn't it? Iirc, they have (legally not mandatory, but functionally mandatory) pledges at the start of every school day right?
Some schools do it some don’t.
Participation is never mandatory and retaliation or forcing the pledge is an invitation for an expensive civil rights suit.
Wait, which schools don't do it? I've never heard of a school not doing it. Are there states that don't do the pledge?
Even if it's not strictly "mandatory" there can be substantial pressure in conservative areas. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47095381
I definitely never did it in high school in Denver, nor did any of the other schools that my friends went to in the city.
I don’t have a list of schools for you.
Sure peer pressure can be a thing (at the school I went to you would have been bullied for doing the pledge), but it is pretty firmly established law that a student has every right to not participate and not be pressured to participate by public school staff.
Interesting, didn't know that was a thing in Denver. No need for a list of schools.
In my case the pressure came from my teachers and the principal. I never got in any official trouble but I was sent to the principal's office for refusing to say it and it required a phone call with my dad for them to begrudgingly let me continue to not say it.
I don't think it is always "states" as much as individual school districts / schools.
I know some that don't, it's not announced that they don't and as long as nobody notices I don't think anyone local really cares.
They never made me say it but they did make me stand while the other kids did. That said... that was more than three decades ago.
I was only 9 the first time it happened but even back then it felt really weird.
It is certainly not mandatory. There's simply enormous social pressure to be a state toadie.
> This has been a thing in the USA for a long time hasn't it?
Yes, and it doesn't make it any less cult-like.
This seems like something the current SCOTUS would shut down very quickly, but I could be wrong.
This seems like something the current SCOTUS might shut down in 13 months. Long enough to do some real damage to our country, but short enough that true believers will claim it was never given a chance.
So was racial profiling for the sake of immigration enforcement, but, well...
The current SCOTUS has, so far, given the Trump administration a lot of rope to hang us by. If they use it to hang themselves remains to be seen.
Down the road they are taking us, there's rope for everyone. A-plenty.
Even for them, even though they may believe otherwise now. There's no loyalty among thieves.
Nothing mandatory, so no worries
With respect... the FCC is a regulatory agency. There is an obvious set of forcing functions here. It's not normal and is very concerning.
The primary function of the FCC is in engineering compliance: HAAT, power, frequency, contour, allocation etc. Their other functions are secondary. Our broadcast regulatory infastruction is more like Canada, not North Korea. We only regulate content very nominally. A change in this philosophy is chilling.
They're not a rulemaking agency. They're very tightly bound by an entire dedicated section of the US Title Code.
More importantly licensees pledge to serve their _local_ communities and maintain _local_ standards. That's the entire well documented point of the license system. As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
> They're not a rulemaking agency.
Does this phrase have non obvious meaning? They are an agency and make rules.[1]
> As such the FCC has very little actual authority over stations outside of general technical requirements of the radio broadcast itself and no authority over content unless prompted by local complaints.
To prompt local complaints would be trivial.
[1] https://www.fcc.gov/general/fcc-rulemaking
It’s pretty common of regulators to ask things of those they regulate. CMS asks for input regarding healthcare changes, EPA asks for input on new standards, and so one. Is there some impression that regulators just blindly bark orders and are punitive to those that don’t comply, even when compliance isn’t mandatory? Be as cynical as you want but I see this as pretty innocent and wish we still had a patriotic culture in America and I support finding ways to try to rebuild it. This seems reasonable and was only a request for common good of the nation. Make it political all you want but I don’t think that’s what it is.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47095073
I’m a cynical person but this is a reach. There’s a huge gap between what this is and how I interpret “mandatory”. There’s nothing even punitive being discussed. They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this. They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…” it’s not dictating anything particular in how the programming celebrates American just asking that they lean into it in some special way they deem appropriate.
> Broadcasters can voluntarily choose to indicate their commitment to the Pledge America Campaign and highlight their ongoing and relevant programming to their viewing and listening audiences.
> There’s nothing even punitive being discussed.
The article said Carr has repeatedly threatened to punish broadcast stations for violating the public interest standard.
> They’re free to meet their public interest obligations the normal way as well and not participate in this.
Carr's view of public interest included suspending Jimmy Kimmel for his criticism of Trump and other MAGA figures after Charlie Kirk was killed.[1]
> They could also participate in this in a rebellious way if they so pleased. “While we don’t agree with the FCC…. We do think this is an important milestone in our nation worth celebrating… not because the FCC told us to but because…”
There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat. And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
[1] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/after-jimmy-kimmels-sh...
> There would be no reason to state disagreement unless they thought it was a threat.
No reason to do any of it other than you want to. But, because some broadcasters will want to signal to their audience there is a difference between complying with FCC "mandate" and doing what the mandate says because they were planning on doing it anyway or are independently doing it. Stating disagreement is how you signal to your audience that you are participating but on your own free will.
> And it would have the effects of a child saying they will go to sleep but not because their parent told them to.
Self realization that sleep is healthy, not a bad thing. Patriotism, or simply acknowledging major national milestones, is healthy in my opinion.