text:
Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
[ Footnote * ] Together with No. 717, United States et al. v. Radio Television News Directors Assn. et al., on certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, argued April 3, 1969.
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has for many years imposed on broadcasters a "fairness doctrine," requiring that public issues be presented by broadcasters and that each side of those issues be given fair coverage. In No. 2, the FCC declared that petitioner Red Lion Broadcasting Co. had failed to meet its obligation under the fairness doctrine when it carried a program which constituted a personal attack on one Cook, and ordered it to send a transcript of the broadcast to Cook and provide reply time, whether or not Cook would pay for it. The Court of Appeals upheld the FCC's position. After the commencement of the Red Lion litigation the FCC began a rule-making proceeding to make the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine more precise and more readily enforceable, and to specify its rules relating to political editorials. The rules, as adopted and amended, were held unconstitutional by the Court of Appeals in RTNDA (No. 717), as abridging the freedoms of speech and press. Held:
Roger Robb argued the cause for petitioners in No. 2. With him on the brief were H. Donald Kistler and Thomas B. Sweeney. Solicitor General Griswold argued the cause for the United States and the Federal Communications Commission, petitioners in No. 717 and respondents in No. 2. With him on the brief were [395 U.S. 367, 369] Assistant Attorney General McLaren, Deputy Solicitor General Springer, Francis X. Beytagh, Jr., Henry Geller, and Daniel R. Ohlbaum.
Archibald Cox argued the cause for respondents in No. 717. With him on the brief for respondents Radio Television News Directors Assn. et al. were W. Theodore Pierson, Harold David Cohen, Vernon C. Kohlhaas, and J. Laurent Scharff. On the brief for respondent National Broadcasting Co., Inc., were Lawrence J. McKay, Raymond L. Falls, Jr., Corydon B. Dunham, Howard Monderer, and Abraham P. Ordover. On the brief for respondent Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., were Lloyd N. Cutler, J. Roger Wollenberg, Timothy B. Dyk, Robert V. Evans, and Herbert Wechsler.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal in No. 717 and affirmance in No. 2 were filed by Melvin L. Wulf and Eleanor Holmes Norton for the American Civil Liberties Union, and by Earle K. Moore and William B. Ball for the Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ et al. J. Albert Woll, Laurence Gold, and Thomas E. Harris filed a brief for the American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations urging reversal in No. 717.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Federal Communications Commission has for many years imposed on radio and television broadcasters the requirement that discussion of public issues be presented on broadcast stations, and that each side of those issues must be given fair coverage. This is known as the fairness doctrine, which originated very early in the history of broadcasting and has maintained its present outlines for some time. It is an obligation whose content has been defined in a long series of FCC rulings in particular cases, and which is distinct from the statutory [395 U.S. 367, 370] requirement of 315 of the Communications Act 1 that equal time be allotted all qualified candidates for public office. Two aspects of the fairness doctrine, relating to personal attacks in the context of controversial public issues and to political editorializing, were codified more precisely in the form of FCC regulations in 1967. The two cases before us now, which were decided separately below, challenge the constitutional and statutory bases of the doctrine and component rules. Red Lion [395 U.S. 367, 371] involves the application of the fairness doctrine to a particular broadcast, and RTNDA arises as an action to review the FCC's 1967 promulgation of the personal attack and political editorializing regulations, which were laid down after the Red Lion litigation had begun.
As they now stand amended, the regulations read as follows:
There is a twofold duty laid down by the FCC's decisions and described by the 1949 Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F. C. C. 1246 (1949). The broadcaster must give adequate coverage to public issues, United Broadcasting Co., 10 F. C. C. 515 (1945), and coverage must be fair in that it accurately reflects the opposing views. New Broadcasting Co., 6 P & F Radio Reg. 258 (1950). This must be done at the broadcaster's own expense if sponsorship is unavailable. Cullman Broadcasting Co., 25 P & F Radio Reg. 895 (1963). [395 U.S. 367, 378] Moreover, the duty must be met by programming obtained at the licensee's own initiative if available from no other source. John J. Dempsey, 6 P & F Radio Reg. 615 (1950); see Metropolitan Broadcasting Corp., 19 P & F Radio Reg. 602 (1960); The Evening News Assn., 6 P & F Radio Reg. 283 (1950). The Federal Radio Commission had imposed these two basic duties on broadcasters since the outset, Great Lakes Broadcasting Co., 3 F. R. C. Ann. Rep. 32 (1929), rev'd on other grounds, 59 App. D.C. 197, 37 F.2d 993, cert. dismissed, 281 U.S. 706 (1930); Chicago Federation of Labor v. FRC, 3 F. R. C. Ann. Rep. 36 (1929), aff'd, 59 App. D.C. 333, 41 F.2d 422 (1930); KFKB Broadcasting Assn. v. FRC, 60 App. D.C. 79, 47 F.2d 670 (1931), and in particular respects the personal attack rules and regulations at issue here have spelled them out in greater detail.
When a personal attack has been made on a figure involved in a public issue, both the doctrine of cases such as Red Lion and Times-Mirror Broadcasting Co., 24 P & F Radio Reg. 404 (1962), and also the 1967 regulations at issue in RTNDA require that the individual attacked himself be offered an opportunity to respond. Likewise, where one candidate is endorsed in a political editorial, the other candidates must themselves be offered reply time to use personally or through a spokesman. These obligations differ from the general fairness requirement that issues be presented, and presented with coverage of competing views, in that the broadcaster does not have the option of presenting the attacked party's side himself or choosing a third party to represent that side. But insofar as there is an obligation of the broadcaster to see that both sides are presented, and insofar as that is an affirmative obligation, the personal attack doctrine and regulations do not differ from the preceding fairness doctrine. The simple fact that the attacked men or unendorsed candidates may respond themselves or through [395 U.S. 367, 379] agents is not a critical distinction, and indeed, it is not unreasonable for the FCC to conclude that the objective of adequate presentation of all sides may best be served by allowing those most closely affected to make the response, rather than leaving the response in the hands of the station which has attacked their candidacies, endorsed their opponents, or carried a personal attack upon them.
The fairness doctrine finds specific recognition in statutory form, is in part modeled on explicit statutory provisions relating to political candidates, and is approvingly reflected in legislative history.
In 1959 the Congress amended the statutory requirement of 315 that equal time be accorded each political candidate to except certain appearances on news programs, but added that this constituted no exception "from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views on issues of public importance." Act of September 14, 1959, 1, 73 Stat. 557, amending 47 U.S.C. 315 (a) (emphasis added). This language makes it very plain that Congress, in 1959, announced that the phrase "public interest," which had been in the Act since 1927, imposed a duty on broadcasters to discuss both sides of controversial public issues. In other words, the amendment vindicated the FCC's general view that the fairness doctrine inhered in the public interest standard. Subsequent legislation declaring the intent of an earlier statute [395 U.S. 367, 381] is entitled to great weight in statutory construction. 8 And here this principle is given special force by the equally venerable principle that the construction of a statute by those charged with its execution should be followed unless there are compelling indications that it is wrong, 9 especially when Congress has refused to alter the administrative construction. 10 Here, the Congress has not just kept its silence by refusing to overturn the administrative construction, 11 but has ratified it with [395 U.S. 367, 382] positive legislation. Thirty years of consistent administrative construction left undisturbed by Congress until 1959, when that construction was expressly accepted, reinforce the natural conclusion that the public interest language of the Act authorized the Commission to require licensees to use their stations for discussion of public issues, and that the FCC is free to implement this requirement by reasonable rules and regulations which fall short of abridgment of the freedom of speech and press, and of the censorship proscribed by 326 of the Act. 12
The objectives of 315 themselves could readily be circumvented but for the complementary fairness doctrine ratified by 315. The section applies only to campaign appearances by candidates, and not by family, friends, campaign managers, or other supporters. Without the fairness doctrine, then, a licensee could ban all campaign appearances by candidates themselves from the air 13 and [395 U.S. 367, 383] proceed to deliver over his station entirely to the supporters of one slate of candidates, to the exclusion of all others. In this way the broadcaster could have a far greater impact on the favored candidacy than he could by simply allowing a spot appearance by the candidate himself. It is the fairness doctrine as an aspect of the obligation to operate in the public interest, rather than 315, which prohibits the broadcaster from taking such a step.
The legislative history reinforces this view of the effect of the 1959 amendment. Even before the language relevant here was added, the Senate report on amending 315 noted that "broadcast frequencies are limited and, therefore, they have been necessarily considered a public trust. Every licensee who is fortunate in obtaining a license is mandated to operate in the public interest and has assumed the obligation of presenting important public questions fairly and without bias." S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 (1959). See also, specifically adverting to Federal Communications Commission doctrine, id., at 13.
Rather than leave this approval solely in the legislative history, Senator Proxmire suggested an amendment to make it part of the Act. 105 Cong. Rec. 14457. This amendment, which Senator Pastore, a manager of the bill and a ranking member of the Senate Committee, considered "rather surplusage," 105 Cong. Rec. 14462, constituted a positive statement of doctrine 14 and was altered [395 U.S. 367, 384] to the present merely approving language in the conference committee. In explaining the language to the Senate after the committee changes, Senator Pastore said: "We insisted that that provision remain in the bill, to be a continuing reminder and admonition to the Federal Communications Commission and to the broadcasters alike, that we were not abandoning the philosophy that gave birth to section 315, in giving the people the right to have a full and complete disclosure of conflicting views on news of interest to the people of the country." 105 Cong. Rec. 17830. Senator Scott, another Senate manager, added that: "It is intended to encompass all legitimate areas of public importance which are controversial," not just politics. 105 Cong. Rec. 17831.
It is true that the personal attack aspect of the fairness doctrine was not actually adjudicated until after 1959, so that Congress then did not have those rules specifically before it. However, the obligation to offer time to reply to a personal attack was presaged by the FCC's 1949 Report on Editorializing, which the FCC views as the principal summary of its ratio decidendi in cases in this area:
In light of the fact that the "public interest" in broadcasting clearly encompasses the presentation of vigorous debate of controversial issues of importance and concern to the public; the fact that the FCC has rested upon that language from its very inception a doctrine that these issues must be discussed, and fairly; and the fact that Congress has acknowledged that the analogous provisions of 315 are not preclusive in this area, and knowingly preserved the FCC's complementary efforts, we think the fairness doctrine and its component personal attack and political editorializing regulations are a legitimate exercise of congressionally delegated authority. The Communications Act is not notable for the precision of its substantive standards and in this respect the explicit provisions of 315, and the doctrine and rules at issue here which are closely modeled upon that section, are far more explicit than the generalized "public interest" standard in which the Commission ordinarily finds its [395 U.S. 367, 386] sole guidance, and which we have held a broad but adequate standard before. FCC v. RCA Communications, Inc., 346 U.S. 86, 90 (1953); National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 216 -217 (1943); FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 138 (1940); FRC v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266, 285 (1933). We cannot say that the FCC's declaratory ruling in Red Lion, or the regulations at issue in RTNDA, are beyond the scope of the congressionally conferred power to assure that stations are operated by those whose possession of a license serves "the public interest."
Just as the Government may limit the use of sound-amplifying equipment potentially so noisy that it drowns out civilized private speech, so may the Government limit the use of broadcast equipment. The right of free speech of a broadcaster, the user of a sound truck, or any other individual does not embrace a right to snuff out the free speech of others. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
When two people converse face to face, both should not speak at once if either is to be clearly understood. But the range of the human voice is so limited that there could be meaningful communications if half the people in the United States were talking and the other half listening. Just as clearly, half the people might publish and the other half read. But the reach of radio signals is [395 U.S. 367, 388] incomparably greater than the range of the human voice and the problem of interference is a massive reality. The lack of know-how and equipment may keep many from the air, but only a tiny fraction of those with resources and intelligence can hope to communicate by radio at the same time if intelligible communication is to be had, even if the entire radio spectrum is utilized in the present state of commercially acceptable technology.
It was this fact, and the chaos which ensued from permitting anyone to use any frequency at whatever power level he wished, which made necessary the enactment of the Radio Act of 1927 and the Communications Act of 1934, 16 as the Court has noted at length before. National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 210 -214 (1943). It was this reality which at the very least necessitated first the division of the radio spectrum into portions reserved respectively for public broadcasting and for other important radio uses such as amateur operation, aircraft, police, defense, and navigation; and then the subdivision of each portion, and assignment of specific frequencies to individual users or groups of users. Beyond this, however, because the frequencies reserved for public broadcasting were limited in number, it was essential for the Government to tell some applicants that they could not broadcast at all because there was room for only a few.
Where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. If 100 persons want broadcast [395 U.S. 367, 389] licenses but there are only 10 frequencies to allocate, all of them may have the same "right" to a license; but if there is to be any effective communication by radio, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. It would be strange if the First Amendment, aimed at protecting and furthering communications, prevented the Government from making radio communication possible by requiring licenses to broadcast and by limiting the number of licenses so as not to overcrowd the spectrum.
This has been the consistent view of the Court. Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. FRC v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933). No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech." National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 227 (1943).
By the same token, as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.
This is not to say that the First Amendment is irrelevant to public broadcasting. On the contrary, it has a major role to play as the Congress itself recognized in 326, which forbids FCC interference with "the right [395 U.S. 367, 390] of free speech by means of radio communication." Because of the scarcity of radio frequencies, the Government is permitted to put restraints on licensees in favor of others whose views should be expressed on this unique medium. But the people as a whole retain their interest in free speech by radio and their collective right to have the medium function consistently with the ends and purposes of the First Amendment. It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. See FCC v. Sanders Bros. Radio Station, 309 U.S. 470, 475 (1940); FCC v. Allentown Broadcasting Corp., 349 U.S. 358, 361 -362 (1955); 2 Z. Chafee, Government and Mass Communications 546 (1947). It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919) (Holmes, J., dissenting). "[S]peech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government." Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74 -75 (1964). See Brennan, The Supreme Court and the Meiklejohn Interpretation of the First Amendment, 79 Harv. L. Rev. 1 (1965). It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.
In terms of constitutional principle, and as enforced sharing of a scarce resource, the personal attack and political editorial rules are indistinguishable from the equal-time provision of 315, a specific enactment of Congress requiring stations to set aside reply time under specified circumstances and to which the fairness doctrine and these constituent regulations are important complements. That provision, which has been part of the law since 1927, Radio Act of 1927, 18, 44 Stat. 1170, has been held valid by this Court as an obligation of the licensee relieving him of any power in any way to prevent or censor the broadcast, and thus insulating him from liability for defamation. The constitutionality of the statute under the First Amendment was unquestioned. 17 Farmers Educ. & Coop. Union v. WDAY, 360 U.S. 525 (1959). [395 U.S. 367, 392]
Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to require a broadcaster to permit answers to personal attacks occurring in the course of discussing controversial issues, or to require that the political opponents of those endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public. 18 Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed. There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all. "Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945).
At this point, however, as the Federal Communications Commission has indicated, that possibility is at best speculative. The communications industry, and in particular the networks, have taken pains to present controversial issues in the past, and even now they do not assert that they intend to abandon their efforts in this regard. 19 It would be better if the FCC's encouragement were never necessary to induce the broadcasters to meet their responsibility. And if experience with the administration of these doctrines indicates that they have the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing the volume and quality of coverage, there will be time enough to reconsider the constitutional implications. The fairness doctrine in the past has had no such overall effect.
That this will occur now seems unlikely, however, since if present licensees should suddenly prove timorous, the Commission is not powerless to insist that they give adequate and fair attention to public issues. [395 U.S. 367, 394] It does not violate the First Amendment to treat licensees given the privilege of using scarce radio frequencies as proxies for the entire community, obligated to give suitable time and attention to matters of great public concern. To condition the granting or renewal of licenses on a willingness to present representative community views on controversial issues is consistent with the ends and purposes of those constitutional provisions forbidding the abridgment of freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Congress need not stand idly by and permit those with licenses to ignore the problems which beset the people or to exclude from the airways anything but their own views of fundamental questions. The statute, long administrative practice, and cases are to this effect.
Licenses to broadcast do not confer ownership of designated frequencies, but only the temporary privilege of using them. 47 U.S.C. 301. Unless renewed, they expire within three years. 47 U.S.C. 307 (d). The statute mandates the issuance of licenses if the "public convenience, interest, or necessity will be served thereby." 47 U.S.C. 307 (a). In applying this standard the Commission for 40 years has been choosing licensees based in part on their program proposals. In FRC v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266, 279 (1933), the Court noted that in "view of the limited number of available broadcasting frequencies, the Congress has authorized allocation and licenses." In determining how best to allocate frequencies, the Federal Radio Commission considered the needs of competing communities and the programs offered by competing stations to meet those needs; moreover, if needs or programs shifted, the Commission could alter its allocations to reflect those shifts. Id., at 285. In the same vein, in FCC v. Pottsville Broadcasting Co., 309 U.S. 134, 137 -138 (1940), the Court noted that [395 U.S. 367, 395] the statutory standard was a supple instrument to effect congressional desires "to maintain . . . a grip on the dynamic aspects of radio transmission" and to allay fears that "in the absence of governmental control the public interest might be subordinated to monopolistic domination in the broadcasting field." Three years later the Court considered the validity of the Commission's chain broadcasting regulations, which among other things forbade stations from devoting too much time to network programs in order that there be suitable opportunity for local programs serving local needs. The Court upheld the regulations, unequivocally recognizing that the Commission was more than a traffic policeman concerned with the technical aspects of broadcasting and that it neither exceeded its powers under the statute nor transgressed the First Amendment in interesting itself in general program format and the kinds of programs broadcast by licensees. National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190 (1943).
We need not and do not now ratify every past and future decision by the FCC with regard to programming. There is no question here of the Commission's refusal to permit the broadcaster to carry a particular program or to publish his own views; of a discriminatory refusal to require the licensee to broadcast certain views which have been denied access to the airwaves; of government censorship of a particular program contrary to 326; or of the official government view dominating public broadcasting. Such questions would raise more serious First Amendment issues. But we do hold that the Congress and the Commission do not violate the First Amendment when they require a radio or television station to give reply time to answer personal attacks and political editorials.
Scarcity is not entirely a thing of the past. Advances [395 U.S. 367, 397] in technology, such as microwave transmission, have led to more efficient utilization of the frequency spectrum, but uses for that spectrum have also grown apace. 20 Portions of the spectrum must be reserved for vital uses unconnected with human communication, such as radio-navigational aids used by aircraft and vessels. Conflicts have even emerged between such vital functions as defense preparedness and experimentation in methods of averting midair collisions through radio warning devices. 21 "Land mobile services" such as police, ambulance, fire department, public utility, and other communications systems have been occupying an increasingly crowded portion of the frequency spectrum 22 and there are, apart from licensed amateur radio operators' equipment, 5,000,000 transmitters operated on the "citizens' band" which is also increasingly congested. 23 Among the various uses for radio frequency space, including marine, [395 U.S. 367, 398] aviation, amateur, military, and common carrier users, there are easily enough claimants to permit use of the whole with an even smaller allocation to broadcast radio and television uses than now exists.
Comparative hearings between competing applicants for broadcast spectrum space are by no means a thing of the past. The radio spectrum has become so congested that at times it has been necessary to suspend new applications. 24 The very high frequency television spectrum is, in the country's major markets, almost entirely occupied, although space reserved for ultra high frequency television transmission, which is a relatively recent development as a commercially viable alternative, has not yet been completely filled. 25 [395 U.S. 367, 399]
The rapidity with which technological advances succeed one another to create more efficient use of spectrum space on the one hand, and to create new uses for that space by ever growing numbers of people on the other, makes it unwise to speculate on the future allocation of that space. It is enough to say that the resource is one of considerable and growing importance whose scarcity impelled its regulation by an agency authorized by Congress. Nothing in this record, or in our own researches, convinces us that the resource is no longer one for which there are more immediate and potential uses than can be accommodated, and for which wise planning is essential. 26 This does not mean, of course, that every possible wavelength must be occupied at every hour by some vital use in order to sustain the congressional judgment. The [395 U.S. 367, 400] substantial capital investment required for many uses, in addition to the potentiality for confusion and interference inherent in any scheme for continuous kaleidoscopic reallocation of all available space may make this unfeasible. The allocation need not be made at such a breakneck pace that the objectives of the allocation are themselves imperiled. 27
Even where there are gaps in spectrum utilization, the fact remains that existing broadcasters have often attained their present position because of their initial government selection in competition with others before new technological advances opened new opportunities for further uses. Long experience in broadcasting, confirmed habits of listeners and viewers, network affiliation, and other advantages in program procurement give existing broadcasters a substantial advantage over new entrants, even where new entry is technologically possible. These advantages are the fruit of a preferred position conferred by the Government. Some present possibility for new entry by competing stations is not enough, in itself, to render unconstitutional the Government's effort to assure that a broadcaster's programming ranges widely enough to serve the public interest.
In view of the scarcity of broadcast frequencies, the Government's role in allocating those frequencies, and the legitimate claims of those unable without governmental assistance to gain access to those frequencies for expression of their views, we hold the regulations and [395 U.S. 367, 401] ruling at issue here are both authorized by statute and constitutional. 28 The judgment of the Court of Appeals in Red Lion is affirmed and that in RTNDA reversed and the causes remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[ Footnote 1 ] Communications Act of 1934, Tit. III, 48 Stat. 1081, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 301 et seq. Section 315 now reads:
[ Footnote 2 ] According to the record, Hargis asserted that his broadcast included the following statement:
[ Footnote 3 ] The Court of Appeals initially dismissed the petition for want of a reviewable order, later reversing itself en banc upon argument by the Government that the FCC rule used here, which permits it to issue "a declaratory ruling terminating a controversy or removing uncertainty," 47 CFR 1.2, was in fact justified by the Administrative Procedure Act. That Act permits an adjudicating agency, "in its sound discretion, with like effect as in the case of other orders, to issue a declaratory order to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty." 5, 60 Stat. 239, 5 U.S.C. 1004 (d). In this case, the FCC could have determined the question of Red Lion's liability to a cease-and-desist order or license revocation, 47 U.S.C. 312, for failure to comply with the license's condition that the station be operated "in the public interest," or for failure to obey a requirement of operation in the public interest implicit in the ability of the FCC to revoke licenses for conditions justifying the denial of an initial license, 47 U.S.C. 312 (a) (2), and the statutory requirement that the public interest be served in granting and renewing licenses, 47 U.S.C. 307 (a), (d). Since the FCC could have adjudicated these questions it could, under the Administrative Procedure Act, have issued a declaratory order in the course of its adjudication [395 U.S. 367, 373] which would have been subject to judicial review. Although the FCC did not comply with all of the formalities for an adjudicative proceeding in this case, the petitioner itself adopted as its own the Government's position that this was a reviewable order, waiving any objection it might have had to the procedure of the adjudication.
[ Footnote 4 ] Because of this chaos, a series of National Radio Conferences was held between 1922 and 1925, at which it was resolved that regulation of the radio spectrum by the Federal Government was essential and that regulatory power should be utilized to ensure that allocation of this limited resource would be made only to those who would serve the public interest. The 1923 Conference expressed the opinion [395 U.S. 367, 376] that the Radio Communications Act of 1912, 37 Stat. 302, conferred upon the Secretary of Commerce the power to regulate frequencies and hours of operation, but when Secretary Hoover sought to implement this claimed power by penalizing the Zenith Radio Corporation for operating on an unauthorized frequency, the 1912 Act was held not to permit enforcement. United States v. Zenith Radio Corporation, 12 F.2d 614 (D.C. N. D. Ill. 1926). Cf. Hoover v. Intercity Radio Co., 52 App. D.C. 339, 286 F. 1003 (1923) (Secretary had no power to deny licenses, but was empowered to assign frequencies). An opinion issued by the Attorney General at Hoover's request confirmed the impotence of the Secretary under the 1912 Act. 35 Op. Atty. Gen. 126 (1926). Hoover thereafter appealed to the radio industry to regulate itself, but his appeal went largely unheeded. See generally L. Schmeckebier, The Federal Radio Commission 1-14 (1932).
[ Footnote 5 ] Congressman White, a sponsor of the bill enacted as the Radio Act of 1927, commented upon the need for new legislation:
[ Footnote 6 ] Radio Act of 1927, 4, 44 Stat. 1163. See generally Davis, The Radio Act of 1927, 13 Va. L. Rev. 611 (1927).
[ Footnote 7 ] As early as 1930, Senator Dill expressed the view that the Federal Radio Commission had the power to make regulations requiring a licensee to afford an opportunity for presentation of the other side on "public questions." Hearings before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce on S. 6, 71st Cong., 2d Sess., 1616 (1930):
[ Footnote 8 ] Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc., 358 U.S. 84, 90 (1958); Glidden Co. v. Zdanok, 370 U.S. 530, 541 (1962) (opinion of MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, joined by MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN and MR. JUSTICE STEWART). This principle is a venerable one. Alexander v. Alexandria, 5 Cranch 1 (1809); United States v. Freeman, 3 How. 556 (1845); Stockdale v. The Insurance Companies, 20 Wall. 323 (1874).
[ Footnote 9 ] Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 11 -12 (1965); Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 -18 (1965); Commissioner v. Sternberger's Estate, 348 U.S. 187, 199 (1955); Hastings & D. R. Co. v. Whitney, 132 U.S. 357, 366 (1889); United States v. Burlington & Missouri River R. Co., 98 U.S. 334, 341 (1879); United States v. Alexander, 12 Wall. 177, 179-181 (1871); Surgett v. Lapice, 8 How. 48, 68 (1850).
[ Footnote 10 ] Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U.S. 1, 11 -12 (1965); United States v. Bergh, 352 U.S. 40, 46 -47 (1956); Alstate Construction Co. v. Durkin, 345 U.S. 13, 16 -17 (1953); Costanzo v. Tillinghast, 287 U.S. 341, 345 (1932)
[ Footnote 11 ] An attempt to limit sharply the FCC's power to interfere with programming practices failed to emerge from Committee in 1943. S. 814, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (1943). See Hearings on S. 814 before the Senate Committee on Interstate Commerce, 78th Cong., 1st Sess. (1943). Also, attempts specifically to enact the doctrine failed in the Radio Act of 1927, 67 Cong. Rec. 12505 (1926) (agreeing to amendment proposed by Senator Dill eliminating coverage of "question affecting the public"), and a similar proposal in the Communications Act of 1934 was accepted by the Senate, 78 Cong. Rec. 8854 (1934); see S. Rep. No. 781, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 8 (1934), but was not included in the bill reported by the House Committee, see H. R. Rep. No. 1850, 73d Cong., 2d Sess. (1934). The attempt which came nearest success was a bill, H. R. 7716, 72d Cong., 1st Sess. (1932), passed by Congress but pocket-vetoed by the President [395 U.S. 367, 382] in 1933, which would have extended "equal opportunities" whenever a public question was to be voted on at an election or by a government agency. H. R. Rep. No. 2106, 72d Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1933). In any event, unsuccessful attempts at legislation are not the best of guides to legislative intent. Fogarty v. United States, 340 U.S. 8, 13 -14 (1950); United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 281 -282 (1947). A review of some of the legislative history over the years, drawing a somewhat different conclusion, is found in Staff Study of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, Legislative History of the Fairness Doctrine, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (Comm. Print. 1968). This inconclusive history was, of course, superseded by the specific statutory language added in 1959.
[ Footnote 12 ] " 326. Censorship.
[ Footnote 13 ] John P. Crommelin, 19 P & F Radio Reg. 1392 (1960).
[ Footnote 14 ] The Proxmire amendment read: "[B]ut nothing in this sentence shall be construed as changing the basic intent of Congress with respect to the provisions of this act, which recognizes that television and radio frequencies are in the public domain, that the license to operate in such frequencies requires operation in the public interest, and that in newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, on-the-spot coverage of news events, and panel discussions, all sides of public controversies shall be given as equal an opportunity to be heard as is practically possible." 105 Cong. Rec. 14457.
[ Footnote 15 ] The general problems raised by a technology which supplants atomized, relatively informal communication with mass media as a prime source of national cohesion and news were discussed at [395 U.S. 367, 387] considerable length by Zechariah Chafee in Government and Mass Communications (1947). Debate on the particular implications of this view for the broadcasting industry has continued unabated. A compendium of views appears in Freedom and Responsibility in Broadcasting (J. Coons ed.) (1961). See also Kalven, Broadcasting, Public Policy and the First Amendment, 10 J. Law & Econ. 15 (1967); M. Ernst, The First Freedom 125-180 (1946); T. Robinson, Radio Networks and the Federal Government, especially at 75-87 (1943). The considerations which the newest technology brings to bear on the particular problem of this litigation are concisely explored by Louis Jaffe in The Fairness Doctrine, Equal Time, Reply to Personal Attacks, and the Local Service Obligation; Implications of Technological Change, Printed for Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce (1968).
[ Footnote 16 ] The range of controls which have in fact been imposed over the last 40 years, without giving rise to successful constitutional challenge in this Court, is discussed in W. Emery, Broadcasting and Government: Responsibilities and Regulations (1961); Note, Regulation of Program Content by the FCC, 77 Harv. L. Rev. 701 (1964).
[ Footnote 17 ] This has not prevented vigorous argument from developing on the constitutionality of the ancillary FCC doctrines. Compare Barrow, The Equal Opportunities and Fairness Doctrines in Broadcasting: Pillars in the Forum of Democracy, 37 U. Cin. L. Rev. 447 (1968), with Robinson, The FCC and the First Amendment: Observations [395 U.S. 367, 392] on 40 Years of Radio and Television Regulation, 52 Minn. L. Rev. 67 (1967), and Sullivan, Editorials and Controversy: The Broadcaster's Dilemma, 32 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 719 (1964).
[ Footnote 18 ] The expression of views opposing those which broadcasters permit to be aired in the first place need not be confined solely to the broadcasters themselves as proxies. "Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them." J. Mill, On Liberty 32 (R. McCallum ed. 1947).
[ Footnote 19 ] The President of the Columbia Broadcasting System has recently declared that despite the Government, "we are determined to continue covering controversial issues as a public service, and exercising our own independent news judgment and enterprise. I, for one, refuse to allow that judgment and enterprise to be affected by official intimidation." F. Stanton, Keynote Address, Sigma Delta Chi National Convention, Atlanta, Georgia, November 21, 1968. Problems of news coverage from the broadcaster's viewpoint are surveyed in W. Wood, Electronic Journalism (1967).
[ Footnote 20 ] Current discussions of the frequency allocation problem appear in Telecommunication Science Panel, Commerce Technical Advisory Board, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Electromagnetic Spectrum Utilization - The Silent Crisis (1966); Joint Technical Advisory Committee, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and Electronic Industries Assn., Report on Radio Spectrum Utilization (1964); Note, The Crisis in Electromagnetic Frequency Spectrum Allocation, 53 Iowa L. Rev. 437 (1967). A recently released study is the Final Report of the President's Task Force on Communications Policy (1968).
[ Footnote 21 ] Bendix Aviation Corp. v. FCC, 106 U.S. App. D.C. 304, 272 F.2d 533 (1959), cert. denied, 361 U.S. 965 (1960).
[ Footnote 22 ] 1968 FCC Annual Report 65-69.
[ Footnote 23 ] New limitations on these users, who can also lay claim to First Amendment protection, were sustained against First Amendment attack with the comment, "Here is truly a situation where if everybody could say anything, many could say nothing." Lafayette Radio Electronics Corp. v. United States, 345 F.2d 278, 281 (1965). Accord, California Citizens Band Assn. v. United States, 375 F.2d 43 (C. A. 9th Cir.), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 844 (1967).
[ Footnote 24 ] Kessler v. FCC, 117 U.S. App. D.C. 130, 326 F.2d 673 (1963).
[ Footnote 25 ] In a table prepared by the FCC on the basis of statistics current as of August 31, 1968, VHF and UHF channels allocated to and those available in the top 100 market areas for television are set forth:
1968 FCC Annual Report 132-135.
[ Footnote 26 ] RTNDA argues that these regulations should be held invalid for failure of the FCC to make specific findings in the rule-making proceeding relating to these factual questions. Presumably the fairness doctrine and the personal attack decisions themselves, such as Red Lion, should fall for the same reason. But this argument ignores the fact that these regulations are no more than the detailed specification of certain consequences of long-standing rules, the need for which was recognized by the Congress on the factual predicate of scarcity made plain in 1927, recognized by this Court in the 1943 National Broadcasting Co. case, and reaffirmed by the Congress as recently as 1959. "If the number of radio and television stations were not limited by available frequencies, the committee would have no hesitation in removing completely the present provision regarding equal time and urge the right of each broadcaster to follow his own conscience . . . . However, broadcast frequencies are limited and, therefore, they have been necessarily considered a public trust." S. Rep. No. 562, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 (1959). In light of this history; the opportunity which the broadcasters have had to address the FCC and show that somehow the situation had radically changed, undercutting the validity of the congressional judgment; and their failure to adduce any convincing evidence of that in the record here, we cannot consider the absence of more detailed findings below to be determinative.
[ Footnote 27 ] The "airwaves [need not] be filled at the earliest possible moment in all circumstances without due regard for these important factors." Community Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 107 U.S. App. D.C. 95, 105, 274 F.2d 753, 763 (1960). Accord, enforcing the fairness doctrine, Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 328, 343, 359 F.2d 994, 1009 (1966).
[ Footnote 28 ] We need not deal with the argument that even if there is no longer a technological scarcity of frequencies limiting the number of broadcasters, there nevertheless is an economic scarcity in the sense that the Commission could or does limit entry to the broadcasting market on economic grounds and license no more stations than the market will support. Hence, it is said, the fairness doctrine or its equivalent is essential to satisfy the claims of those excluded and of the public generally. A related argument, which we also put aside, is that quite apart from scarcity of frequencies, technological or economic, Congress does not abridge freedom of speech or press by legislation directly or indirectly multiplying the voices and views presented to the public through time sharing, fairness doctrines, or other devices which limit or dissipate the power of those who sit astride the channels of communication with the general public. Cf. Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U.S. 131 (1969). [395 U.S. 367, 402]
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Citation: 395 U.S. 367
Docket No: No. 717
Decided: June 09, 1969
Court: United States Supreme Court
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
FindLaw for Legal Professionals
Learn more about FindLaw's newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw's Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you're ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)


text:
Websites in both North and South Korea were hacked Tuesday, the 63rd anniversary of the Korean War. A number of South Korean government and media websites reportedly were brought down, including that of President Park Geun Hye and the South Korean Office of Government Policy Coordination.
Yonhap News of South Korea spoke with an official from the National Police Agency's cyber terror response team who observed early Tuesday that "it seems that a massive cyber attack has started."
"It all started at around 9:30 a.m., Korea time when a message saying 'the Great Leader Kim Jong-un" was scrawled in Korean in red letters across the (president's) website,' " writes Arirang News. "At 10 a.m., another message was posted alongside a picture of President Park Geun-hye reading 'Hooray to Kim Jong-un, the president of unification We will continue our attacks until our demands are met.' "
President Park's website seemed to be up and running within hours, but the policy office's was not — it was displaying a message in Korean apologizing for the inconvenience.
The Associated Press reports that some sites in North Korea also were hacked, including Air Koryo, the national airline.
It's unclear who is responsible for the attacks, although there's speculation that North Korea is behind it. Still, as Yonhap points out, the hacking group Anonymous had vowed previously to attack North Korean websites today.
The Associated Press also notes that Tuesday's hackings aren't as serious as a widespread cyber-attack in South Korea last March "that shut down tens of thousands of computers and servers at South Korean broadcasters and banks."
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
June 15, 2012
By The Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Obama administration will stop deporting and begin granting work permits to younger illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children and have since led law-abiding lives. The election-year initiative addresses a top priority of an influential Latino electorate that has been vocal in its opposition to administration deportation policies.
The policy change, described to The Associated Press by two senior administration officials, will affect as many as 800,000 immigrants who have lived in fear of deportation. It also bypasses Congress and partially achieves the goals of the so-called DREAM Act, a long-sought but never enacted plan to establish a path toward citizenship for young people who came to the United States illegally but who have attended college or served in the military.
Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was to announce the new policy Friday, one week before President Barack Obama plans to address the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials' annual conference in Orlando, Fla. Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney is scheduled to speak to the group on Thursday.
Under the administration plan, illegal immigrants will be immune from deportation if they were brought to the United States before they turned 16 and are younger than 30, have been in the country for at least five continuous years, have no criminal history, graduated from a U.S. high school or earned a GED, or served in the military. They also can apply for a work permit that will be good for two years with no limits on how many times it can be renewed. The officials who described the plan spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss it in advance of the official announcement.
The policy will not lead toward citizenship but will remove the threat of deportation and grant the ability to work legally, leaving eligible immigrants able to remain in the United States for extended periods.
"Many of these young people have already contributed to our country in significant ways," Napolitano wrote in a memorandum describing the administration's action. "Prosecutorial discretion, which is used in so many other areas, is especially justified here."
The extraordinary move comes in an election year in which the Hispanic vote could be critical in swing states like Colorado, Nevada and Florida. While Obama enjoys support from a majority of Hispanic voters, Latino enthusiasm for the president has been tempered by the slow economic recovery, his inability to win congressional support for a broad overhaul of immigration laws and by his administration's aggressive deportation policy. Activists opposing his deportation policies last week mounted a hunger strike at an Obama campaign office in Denver, and other protests were planned for this weekend.
The change is likely to cause an outcry from congressional Republicans, who are sure to perceive Obama's actions as an end run around them. Republicans already have complained that previous administration uses of prosecutorial discretion in deportations amount to back-door amnesty. Romney and many Republican lawmakers want tighter border security measures before considering changes in immigration law. Romney opposes offering legal status to illegal immigrants who attend college but has said he would do so for those who serve in the armed forces.
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll last month found Obama leading Romney among Hispanic voters 61 percent to 27 percent. But his administration's deportation policies have come under fire, and Latino leaders have raised the subject in private meetings with the president. In 2011, Immigration and Customs Enforcement deported a record 396,906 people and is expected to deport about 400,000 this year.
A December poll by the Pew Hispanic Center showed that 59 percent of Latinos disapproved of the president's handling of deportations.
The changes come a year after the administration announced plans to focus on deporting serious criminals, immigrants who pose threats to public safety and national security, and serious immigration law violators.
One of the officials said the latest policy change is just another step in the administration's evolving approach to immigration.
Under the plan, immigrants whose deportation cases are pending in immigration court will have to prove their eligibility for a reprieve to ICE, which will begin dealing with such cases in 60 days. Any immigrant who already has a deportation order and those who never have been encountered by immigration authorities will deal with the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.
The exact details of how the program will work, including how much immigrants will have to pay to apply and what proof they will need, still are being worked out.
In making it harder to deport, the Obama administration is in essence employing the same eligibility requirements spelled out in the proposed DREAM Act.
The administration officials stopped short of calling the change an administrative DREAM Act — the name is an acronym for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors — but the qualifications meet those laid out in a 2010 version that failed in the Senate after passing in the House. They said the DREAM Act, in some form, and comprehensive overhaul of the immigration system remained an administration priority.
Illegal immigrant children won't be eligible to apply for the deportation waiver until they turn 16, but the officials said younger children won't be deported either.
Last year, Napolitano announced plans to review about 300,000 pending deportation cases and indefinitely suspend those that didn't meet department priorities. So far, Immigration and Customs Enforcement has reviewed more than 232,000 cases and decided to stop working on about 20,000. About 4,000 of those 20,000 have opted to keep fighting in court to stay in the United States legally. For the people who opted to close their cases, work permits are not guaranteed.


text:
Escort Shenzhen
- Created:04-09-2020
- Modified:06-01-2021
- Total views:19799
- This month:89
Kitty (22) Fetish Teen Escort Babe in Shenzhen
Send message
Report fake
Click here for more information about Danae
- Location:China, Shenzhen
- Gender:Female
- Age:22
- Sexual Orientation:Heterosexual
- Eyes:Brown
- Hair:Black
- Tits:BNatural
- Pubic hair:Shaved completely
- Incall:Private Apartment
- Outcall:Hotel Visits Only
- Ethnicity:Asian
- Nationality:Chinese
- Weight:55 kg / 121 lbs
- Height:172 cm / 5.6"
- Smoking:No
- Meeting with:Available for men
- Languages:EnglishChinese
Adults Only!
This website contains nudity, explicit sexual content and adult language. It should be accessed only by people who are of legal age in the physical location from where you are accessing the site. By accessing this website, you are representing to us that you are of legal age and agree to our Terms & Conditions. Any unauthorized use of this site may violate state, federal and/or foreign law. While Topescort does not create nor produce any content listed on our ads; all of our advertisements must comply with our age and content standards. Topescort has a zero tolerance policy for child pornography or minors advertising or utilizing our site.
I agree to report any illegal services or activities which violate Terms of Use.
I also agree to report suspected exploitation of minors and/or human trafficking to the appropriate authorities.
This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies.


text:
6 Amazing Fun Facts About Our Eyes
It's easy to take our eyesight for granted! We don't think about it during a typical day. Here are some remarkable vision tidbits.
Be the life of the party with these facts that few people know about vision!
6 Crazy Facts
- Babies are born color blind. Their color perception develops gradually, usually reaching a full ability to recognize and distinguish colors at about 5 months.
- Our irises have over 256 unique characteristics. Compare that to fingerprints, which only have about 40. This is why many new security measures have iris scans instead of fingerprint scans.
- When we're attracted to someone, our pupils dilate as much as 45%. In addition, women with dilated pupils are judged to be more attractive. In fact, Italian women in the Middle Ages capitalized on this idea by using belladonna to dilate their own pupils. Don't try that at home, though; belladonna is toxic to your eyes!
- The colossal squid has the largest eyes on the planet, measuring 10.6 inches across!
- Why did pirates wear eye patches? It was actually a trick to help them see better. The eye with the patch was used to see in the dark below deck, while the uncovered eye was used for bright light above deck.
- Shark corneas are amazingly similar to humans'. They're close enough that shark corneas have been used for human transplant surgery.
More Cool Animal Eye-Facts
[iframe http://www.youtube.com/embed/cDgFIqI723o 620 349]
Share YOUR Interesting Eye Trivia With Us!
We would love to read the awesome eye facts you may know. Comment below to share your favorite! Check in later for more amazing trivia, as well as tips and helpful information about maintaining healthy eyesight.


text:
Marion Bartoli of France won the women's singles title at Wimbledon on Saturday, defeating Germany's Sabine Lisicki in straight sets, 6-1, 6-4.
It's Bartoli's first "Grand Slam" title.
Sports Illustrated was posting "live analysis" through the match. At the end, it wrote that:
"Marion Bartoli is your 2013 Wimbledon champion! Well deserved.
"Looking at the stats, the one number that stands out is this one: Lisicki won just 52 percent of her first serve points. Just an anemic serving performance from Lisicki today, who was clearly overwhelmed by the occasion. That's tough to see, but it's also nice to see experience rewarded. This was Bartoli's time. Lisicki will have many more shots at this title, no doubt about it.
"Bartoli looks absolutely stunned. She really doesn't know what to do. After shaking the umpire's hand she sprints to her box and after a precarious climb, finds her father Walter and gives him a huge."
Bartoli, 28, was ranked No. 15 in the world coming into The Championships at Wimbledon. Lisicki, 23, was ranked No. 24.
The men's final is Sunday. As we wrote earlier, Scotland's Andy Murray hopes to be "the first male British player to raise the Wimbledon trophy since Fred Perry ... in 1936." Murray is ranked No. 2 in the world. His opponent, Novak Djokovic of Serbia, is ranked No. 1.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Fullsize Titflash Display
Submitted from: Brazil
Titflash Photo ID: 247904
Search for more Tit Photos from N_pepper
Unfortunately N_pepper does not run a photo blog and guestbook at our free VCity Adult Amateur Community
Tags: Medium tits Natural tits Face & Titties Tits from Brazil
Our titflash pages are under heavy reconstruction. Some pages still have the old layout and will appear under the new layout soon. Please apologize the dust.
Voyeurclouds and VCity are our main adult lifestyle platforms. Join the fun and see hundreds of instant adult lifestyle and voyeur postings at VCity now.
We tolerate real amateur posters only. No lame internet copies - real pics and videos from real people only!
Please explain in a few words why this photo is not appropriate:


text:
Monday | December 20, 1999
Best Friend
Marlene's Story
Get A Job
The First Day of Work
College Kids Love T-Shirts!
May 25, 1977
Take Your Little Brother To Work Day
Weasels, Teen Idols, and Omnipotence
Babysitting Moneybags Richman
Almost Summertime = Going To The Beach
One-Shot Week #1
Trading Boardy
Vote Bob in '33
One-Shot Week #2
8,000 Stedman Graham Books
Rasputin Returns
Smelly Dog
The Janitor
One-Shot Week #3
Workin' In A Cool-Ass
Stealing From O.J.
Show and Tell 2000
One-Shot Week #4
Lil' Lil' Tots
Boardy Y2K
Inspector Drugged-out
Life with Moneybags
Masters of the Halloweeniverse
Chris Geeks Out
Goofin' on Andy
Thanksgiving '99
Dust Puppy Power
One-Shot Week #5
Fast Times at Super City Junior High
Y2K Christmas '99
Mighty Morphin' Nanorobotic Exo-Skeletons
The Jork
One-Shot Week #6
Meeting Paul Fusco
Cool-Ass Internet and Law Firm
One-Shot Week #7
The Janitor's Assistant
One-Shot Week #8
The Funnest Volleyball Tournament Ever!
One Disturbed Wiffle
One True Love
Bobby and Snap: Celebrity Pilots
One-Shot Week #9
Love and Fireworks
Weaslin' To Go!
Fear of Pirates and Other Things
One-Shot Week #10
American Sexys: Bobby's Adventures in the Screen Trade
Cool-Ass Internet vs. Our Heroes
Avertin' the U.S.-Snapalla War
One-Shot Week #11
Halloween Costumes are Sacred
All The Pres'dent's Look-Alike Man
Thanksgiving '00 With Old George The Hobo
One-Shot Week #12
Cooled-Ass Internet
Christmas '00
New Millenium II: Back in the Habit
Adventures in Malicious Mischief
Big Bad Turtle Daddy
Valentine's Day Double Dare
One-Shot Week #13
Crosby's The Kid
My Two Bobbys
Puppysitting Doggiebags Richman
Swedish Dueling Always Equals Death For Both Duelers
One-Shot Week #14
Pool Party at Moneybags' Mansion
Not Quite Human
Stiff as a Board
One-Shot Week #15
Shipwrecked on Weasels Island
Bobby and the Gang
Go Home Happy
How The Janitor Spent His Summer Vacation
Drive in the Country
Back To School Blues
One-Shot Week #16
Those Aliens
Tribute to Hollywood's Heroes
One-Shot Week #17
Thanksgiving '01
Return to Cool-Ass
Bobby Doesn't Like School For Some Reason
Christmas and Kwanza and New Years '01
One-Shot Week #18
Moneybags is in Detroit
Jury Duty
Boardy's Bored
One-Shot Week #19
The Baby is Back!
Funeral For A Flea
Boardy Gets Schooled
One-Shot Week #20
Rasputin Returns Yet Again
Meet the Crazy Aunt
The Real SW2
Ruining the Universe
Bob Crew in Full Effect, Ya'll!
Catchin' a Wave Back To The Beach Again
Bobby Creates The Most Popular Webcomic in History
One-Shot Week #21
Not Workin' In A Cool-Ass
Bobby Fights The Littlest Kid In The World
Chris Doesn't Like Work For Some Reason
Halloween is Good
One-Shot Week #22
Super City Junior High Romance Illustrated
Livin' La Vida Hibrida
New Year, New Universe
Bobby Sells Out
One-Shot Week #23
Former Best Friend
One-Shot Week #24
Oscar Gives Up Killin' Because of the War
Boardy The Third Wheel
The Janitor's Choice
Harvard Professor in Stomach-Land
Rich Kid Summer Camp
Chris Grows Up
One-Shot Week #25
Live Coverage of the W10 Premiere
Summertime Almost Over = Going To The Beach
One-Shot Week #26
Dad's Birthday Party
Back To School Blues and Insane Happiness
Never Forget
Buttering Up Brock
One-Shot Week #27
Lil' Lil' Tots: The Complete First Season
Candlelight Dinner
One-Shot Week #28 With Bonus Holiday Comics!
Bobby's Horrible Son
Meet The 2004 Democratic Presidential Candidates
Hooked on Dreamy Hamburgers
One-Shot Week #29
Pesh Me Twice, Shame On Me
Pro Skateboarders
One-Shot Week #30
Still The One True Love
Bobby's Funny Friends
Moon Trek III: The Search For Mr. Richman
One-Shot Week #31
Bob Crew Boredom
Back To The Beach: Board Origin Dot Com
One Productive Dog
One-Shot Week #32
Completely Pointless
One-Shot Week #33
Bobby Cakes
Thanksgiving '04
You Can't Go Work Again
Christmas with Two Beloved Secondary Characters
Dangerously Stupid People Can't Marry
One-Shot Week #34
You Gotta Have Hearts
Alien Monster
One-Shot Week #35
At Home With Hedrick
The One Where Boardy Builds a Robot Chris
The Mysterious Mr. Mayor
One-Shot Week #36
Space is Keen
Bad Religion
Zazno: Alien Tyrant
Toffee Trouble
Greatest American Sexys
Boredom, Giant Madballs, and Omnipotence
One-Shot Week #37
Selective Racism is Valid
An All-Powerful Halloween
Back in the Green
A South Dakotan Christmas
New Year, Old Apartment
The Raging American vs. The Great Satan
One-Shot Week #38
The Bob Crew Hang-Out
To The Millionth Century and Back Again
Snap's Place
One-Shot Week #39
An Imaginary Story
Questions For Alan
Those Aliens Get Scared
Thank You For Saving Pupkin
Summer Ends For Local Celebrities
Ghost Bad
Hedrick's Sad Week
One-Shot Week #40
A Tru Friend
One-Shot Week #41
A Very Normal Halloween
One-Shot Week #42
The Bob Crew Camp Out For Crap
Crazy Wedding Planner
Chris Watches TV While He Waits
B2's Christmas Vacation
10th Anniversary of 1997
No Place For Snap
One-Shot Week #43
Get A Job 2.0
One-Shot Week #44
The Bob Crew Tolerates Vomitland
Jork's Horrible Son
Work-For-Hire Hedrick
That Fat Bunny
One-Shot Week #45
Ghost Office
President Alan
One-Shot Week #46
Government-Funded Wormhole Adventure
Old-Fashioned Summer Fun
One-Shot Week #47
And Introducing Jetty
Lotsa Room For Magic
Halloween is Bee Night
Residual Evil
Alan Hangs Out At Hedrick's House
One-Shot Week #48
Bowling For Nothing
A Borgnine For Christmas
Wornald Joins The Bob Crew
Boardy Loves Barack
One-Shot Week #49
Bobby vs. Cody Jane Hart
New Costume Action Storyline
Field Trip To KTSC-TV
One-Shot Week #50
Original Movie
Savior of the Mices
Comic-Con '08 Lived
John's Korner
Bobby vs. The World
Jetty Kills a Cop
For Goldie Oldie
One-Shot Week #51
CHAMPFORCE #1 (first appearance of Super Champ)
Modern-Day Slavery
His Name is Albie
Santa Claus and His Brother
Happy Alternate 2009
One-Shot Week #52
One Magic Inauguration
Paul Blart: Mall Cop is a Real Man
Somebody Stole Boardy
One-Shot Week #53
Barton's Back (All Right)
Homeless Hedrick: A Short Graphic Novella
Emotion Capture
Holiday Roadkill
The Future Reboots
Mars Needs Wiffle: A Cool-Ass Epic
Mice War
Alan and Hedrick's Publicized Party
Beware of Boardy's Lab
One-Shot Week #54
One-Shot Week #55
Ruining The First Thanksgiving
One-Shot Week #56
Awesome New History Teacher
Christmas on the Sun
New Decade, New Dimensions (Same Old Mr. Richman)
Barton Buys Himself
Bobby's Special Opinions
One-Shot Week #57
Chris and Arcadia Get Married
Santa Meets A Genie Comma Moon Legacy
Snap's New Year's Eve Punk-Out LIVE on Hulu
Janitor Come Home (Too Tru)
The Invent-O-Matic 5000 by Boardy
Boardy's New Glasses
The First Lady Ruins School
Boardy Has Terrible Wedding Anniversary Ideas
Mr. Fuster Gets Fired
Arcadia's Parents Kidnapped!
Giz Runs Away From Home
Chris Nearly Kills Andy Richter
Bobby Gets PMS
Altered Barton
Washing Hobo Causes Bob Crew Strife
Grand Royal Assassin Chris
Alan Eats Big Bug
One-Shot Week #58
Cousin Clyde Ruins Thanksgiving
Robin Hood Versus The Scrooge: A Christmas Carol
YouTube Presents Snap's Streamin' New Year's Eve
Fear The Jeremy Revolution
One-Shot Week #59
Show and Tell 2012 Featuring Pupkin
Living with Shannon
Leprechauns Are Horrible
Fifty Shades of Cave
One-Shot Week #60
The Board Dimension
Bobby's New Friend Search
2012: The Year We Leap Forward
Super City Comic-Con 2013 Featuring Junko
One-Shot Week #61
The Bob Crew Goes To India
When Barton Met Prumahlor
Bulldog McBreast Kickstarter
Vote Bob in '33 Part II
One-Shot Week #62
Terrence Baum's Hollywood Holiday
One-Shot Week #63
Rich Kid Summer Camp Part II
The Giant Robot Digression
Visiting Janitor Jorge
President Obama Insults Chris
The Sad State of Bullying
The First Appearance of Duck The Duck
UFO Hunters History Unpaused
Shark Tank Halloween
One-Shot Week #64
The Veterans Day Digression
The Bob Crew and Truman Garrett Annoy Old Folks
Santa Claus Begins
An Android of Icelandic Ancestry
One-Shot Week #65
What If... The Bob Crew Were Superheroes?
Chris's Nutty Chocolate Factory
Alan's Dusty Dragon
One-Shot Week #66
My Super-Boring Life
Bobby Hates Captain Phillips
The RadioShack Saga
Failboys Live
This Comic Strip Is An Inside Job
The Invention of Christmas
One-Shot Week #67
Snap's Vault
Groundhog vs. Tiger
The Corn Dog Deception
One-Shot Week #68
Beverly Hills Bob Crew
Spider-Chris Begins
Paying For Poo-Pak
Will Rogers Hates The Janitor
Free Poo-Pak
No Bobs Allowed
Boardy's Comedic Evolution
Chris and Boardy At The Movies Part I
Alan and Hedrick Try To Cancel Bobby
Boardy Predicts President Trump
Alan The Smart Boy
One-Shot Week #69
Henry Arnold Imp
Bobby's Dog Painting Service
One-Shot Week #70
Trump Toys
Bigfoot Lives
Halloween 2015
Cowboy Barton Is Immortal
Bobby's Great Depression
One-Shot Week #71
Toxic Fandom Awakens
Christmas 2015
Snap Sucks Up To Trump
Bob Crew Flower Power
Uninventing The Internet
Leap Day
Bob Crew Funnies Ft. Honeybutter
Trapped In A World He Never Egged
Bob Crew Nerd Auditions
Treasure Ghost
The Kid From Arizona
One-Shot Week #72
California Primaries 2016
CNN Boring Morning: Dumbness Is Happy Time
Chris Runs Fox News
Popsicle The Dog Tells It Like It Is
One-Shot Week #73
Arcadia Interviews Trump
Creating The Badangel
Trump Wins Everything Everywhere
Bob Crew Christmas 2016
One-Shot Week #74
Chris The Cuck: Another Magic Inauguration
Underappreciated Alan
December 1999


text:
Thomas The Train Ride Sydney
Take a ride in 2024 with Thomas the Tank Engine, meet the railway controller Sir Topham Hatt, have fun in the Imagination Station, see authentic engines and enjoy tons of other activities in a city near you! This year some events are featuring Thomas's best friend Percy! All Aboard!
And more recently Thomas Welcomes Percy! America's favorite little blue engine is chugging and now talking his way into town with pal Percy by his side.
Check the schedule
for the railroad hosting Percy. Join Thomas for a special Day Out with Thomas as Percy travels from the Island of Sodor for his first national tour!
Get your tickets for the Thomas Train Ride 2024. Here is the schedule for Day Out with Thomas event. Join Thomas for this special event of miles of smiles for the whole family and introduce a new generation to the timeless excitement of railroading. Parents, grandparents and siblings join their aspiring engineers in the fun.
Advance purchase recommended.
Click Here To Order Thomas Tickets


text:
- How can I book a tee time?
Navigate to your preferred golf course. Select your date of play, tee time, rentals, and number of players – and then click Book.
You will receive an instant email confirmation and your tee time will be guaranteed at the course.
- Can I modify or cancel a booking?
- What is your cancellation policy?
You can typically cancel your booking for a full refund within 48 hours of your tee time, but this may vary slightly by course.
Cancellation policies are defined by each golf course and are clearly marked during the entire booking process as well as in your email confirmation.
- Why should I book with golfscape?
We are the only service who's technology operates at all our partner courses – that means tee times and rates on golfscape are sourced directly.
So when you make a booking, your reservation is confirmed instantly at the golf course.
- How can I get more help?
下のボタン、または[email protected]からメールでいつでもお問い合わせください - 喜んでお手伝いいたします!


text:
Johnny Was Teebee Tori Blouse C15123B7
- Regular
- $415.00
- Sale
- $415.00
- Regular
- Unit Price
- per
Johnny Was Teebee Tori Blouse, made in 100% silk, features a button down front, long bell sleeve and a gorgeous vintage inspired floral print. Pair it back with jeans or a trouser to get a more chic look.
Domestic Shipping
All domestic orders will be sent via Australia Post. (Express Post)
- We offer free shipping on all purchases over $200
- A flat rate of $15 applies to orders under $200.
All orders are sent with registered post. Australia Post guarantees next-day delivery within the network before 4pm via Express Post. We estimate your order should arrive at your address with 1-4 business days.
You will receive an email from us when you place your order and payment is accepted. You will receive a tracking number to identify your parcel.
When will my item(s) be dispatched?
We ship goods every weekday Monday to Friday. Orders received before 2pm will be posted that same day by Registered Post. If these days fall on a public holiday, we ship the next day.
International Shipping
We also ship internationally for a flat delivery fee of $35.
The estimated delivery time is 10-15 business days.
If you have any queries regarding an item you have purchased or require additional information, please contact us at email@example.com
Let us take the hassle out of returns.
If you purchased an item from us that you are unhappy with for any reasons, we will gladly refund**, exchange, or offer a store credit on full-priced items. Please note our store credits are valid for 12 months.
Sale Items are final – no exchange, or return.
The item(s) need to be returned to us within 7 days. Your item must be unused and in the same condition that you received it, with all the original tags attached.
Please email us at email@example.com and we will authorise the return. If you would like a different size in the same style or a different style, please note this in your email. If your item is faulty, please include a photo of the item in your email.
Please note there is an additional charge of $15 to any re-post on exchanges no matter the value of the purchase.
Return Address: Shop 62 Market Place Leichhardt
Cnr Flood & Marion St Leichhardt NSW 2040
Phone +61 2 9560 5795
How do I return an item?
- To request a return, email us at firstname.lastname@example.com
- Once the return is authorised, send your item(s) via express post to the address listed above or you can return the item in store.
Do I pay for my return shipping?
- If you have changed your mind, the item does not suit you or you have ordered the wrong size, you will need to pay for the return postage.
- If the item is faulty in some way or we have made a mistake with your order, we will be happy to reimburse you for the cost of the return postage.
When will my return be processed?
- As soon as your return arrives, we aim to process your exchange or refund within the next business day.
- Refunds will be issued in the form the purchase was made.
- Please allow 3-5 working days for refunds to show in your account due to PayPal and Bank processing time.
The item(s) need to be returned to us within 7 days. Your item must be unused and in the same condition that you purchased it, with the receipt and all the original tags attached.
Please note we do not refund for incorrect choice.
All Sales Items are final, no exchange, or store credit.
Store Credits are valid for 12 months.
We follow the ACCC guidelines regarding faulty products.
** Conditions apply


text:
Blå Elefant Gift Cards
Order Blå Elefant gift cards in bulk right here - without any fees. You only pay the face value of the gift card.
If you are looking for a more brand-specific type of gift card yet you still wish to give some freedom, the gift card for Blå Elefant is the right choice for you. This gift card offers the perfect solution to express your appreciation for your employees or your customers.
Purchasing a Blå Elefant gift card guarantees the receiver access to a wide variety of different goods to choose from. With this broad selection, it is almost clear the Blå Elefant gift card is a great idea if you are looking for a corporate gift.
Thousands of businesses are already ordering Blå Elefant Gift Cards in bulk with Huuray
At Huuray you can buy Blå Elefant egift card
Huuray is an agile company, so we like to adapt our offer to the world we live in. That's why our Blå Elefant gift card can be purchased in digital form as an Blå Elefant e-gift card. We believe that this form is much more convenient for you, and also your gift card receiver.
How long does it take to buy a digital Blå Elefant Gift Card?
Getting an Blå Elefant gift card is fast and easy. You can order a digital Blå Elefant gift card that can be delivered via email or as a text message code. Customize it with a personal message, add the denomination you wish the gift card to hold you, and you will have it in no time. If you are looking for a corporate gift, an Blå Elefant gift card is a perfect choice. It offers a variety of options, quick and efficient delivery, and the assurance of a gift that will be appreciated.
Huuray provides you with a safe and secure way to purchase the card and you can even track the delivery through our customer service. We offer great customer service and provide help with any questions you may have. Furthermore, to make it easier for you, Huuray offers a quick and easy checkout process.
Get your Blå Elefant gift card customized with your company's branding
You can customize your Blå Elefant gift card to your recipient, making it even more special. You can choose from a variety of designs or add a personal message to make the gift card even more thoughtful. Whether you're looking for a thank-you gift or simply a present for a special occasion, an Blå Elefant gift card is sure to be appreciated. See all our gift card options here.
Send yourself a Blå Elefant Gift Card
Blå Elefant Gift Card API
Our platform is compatible with API, which allows you to integrate your applications with our system to make the order process even easier for you. You can simply connect two systems and just enjoy all the benefits! Now you can easily create an Amazon gift card API, which will make the delivery process even quicker. Your orders can be simply placed and also sent out automatically. Your recipients can enjoy their rewards immediately and don´t have to wait to receive them any longer.
To create an Blå Elefant gift card API, you need to create a developer account. After that, you will find all the necessary and important documentation in your profile. If you have a specific request about integrations, do not hesitate to contact us.
Order Blå Elefant gift cards in bulk
We know that for some occasions, it is more convenient to order gift cards in bigger amounts. For businesses or organizations who wish to send gift cards as employee incentives, customer awards, or promotional presents, ordering Blå Elefant gift cards in bulk can be easier and more convenient. With Huuray, ordering Blå Elefant gift cards in bulk is simple and only just takes a few clicks. To help you get the most for your money, we offer discounts for large orders. Also, you can add your own branding and message on the cards to make them unique. Why then wait? Make your corporate gifting procedure easy and stress-free with Huuray. Read more about our gift cards in bulk here or our research incentives.
Maybe you are wondering - Do they have other gift cards?
We have a selection of 5000+ international gift cards brands


text:
Model Nia Sanchez crowned as 63rd Miss USA
Miss Nevada Nia Sanchez, a fourth-degree black belt in the Korean martial art of taekwondo and familiar to our camera lenses, was crowned Miss USA 2014 on Sunday night.
She beat out 50 other contestants from all the states and the District of Columbia for the title of 63rd Miss USA. First runner-up was Miss North Dakota Audra Mari.Erin Brady, of South Glastonbury, Connecticut, the 2013 winner, gave up her crown to Sanchez after a three-hour telecast from the Baton Rouge Civic Center in Louisiana.
Other runner-ups, judged on interviews, evening gowns and swimsuits were: home state beauty queen, Miss Louisiana Brittany Guidry; Miss Georgia Tiana Griggs, Miss Florida Brittany Oldehoff ((STC One-on-One session model with Dr. Dan) and Miss Iowa Carlyn Bradarich. Bradarich got a second chance when the viewing audience gave her the most votes on Twitter in the pageant's first-ever "Save the Queen" option.
Sanchez will go on to represent the U.S. at the Miss Universe competition later this year. In a vibrant red floor-length fishtail gown, Miss Nevada talked about the importance of women being able to defend themselves when asked a question about the high rate of sexual assaults on college campuses. Judge Rumer Willis, the 25-year-old daughter of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore, said 19 percent of U.S. undergraduate women are victims of sexual assault and asked Sanchez why she thinks this is being swept under the rug and what should be done about it.
Sanchez said bringing awareness to the issue was important, as well as women taking it upon themselves to learn how to defend themselves. The subject of sexual assault was also on the mind of Miss Pennsylvania Valerie Gatto. She made headlines this week when she said she was the product of rape. During a taped segment that aired when her name was called, Gatto said her mother was 19 when she was attacked leaving work in Pittsburgh and became pregnant.
Gatto said she is living proof "that your circumstances do not define your life." First runner-up Mari said she overcame being bullied in high school by competing in ice hockey. The Fargo, N.D., native wore a green floor-length evening gown and in her final interview talked about the importance of getting an education and going to college.
Contestants entered the stage on a glitzy float as Louisiana native singer-songwriter Marc Broussard sang the New Orleans hits "Iko Iko" and "Hey Pocky Way" to kick off the 2014 contest. The women introduced themselves while holding Mardi Gras masks in their hands as purple, green and gold confetti fell in the background. The pageant also included musical acts by the country music duo Florida Georgia Line, rapper Nelly and Latin pop band Camila.
Celebrity judges walked a red carpet in evening gowns and tuxedos before the start of the show, posing for pictures and talking about the qualities they would be looking for in the beauty they crown the winner. "It's very important that she has confidence," said Barbara Palacios, Miss Universe 1986 and a coach and judge for the new Telemundo reality show, "Miss Latina Universo." "The right attitude and perseverance are also very important."
"It's all about the eyes," said Lance Bass of the pop singing boy group NSYNC. "I just want to see a girl that is just really having a good time up there." Others who walked the red carpet were former NBA star Karl Malone; actors Ian Ziering, Melissa Peterman and Rumer Willis; pageant show host Jeannie Mai; and Donald Trump, who owns the Miss Universe Organization, which includes the Miss USA pageant.
Looks like Nia Sanchez will be off the market for some time due to her Miss USA schedule. But you can always show her some love via her Facebook page.
© 2014 Copyright ShootTheCenterfold.com. All rights reserved.


text:
460 puzzle
Template for 460 puzzle single line, cut pattern. Buy this template, design, pattern. This cut pattern, is perfect for laser cutting. It can be use from interior design decor, wall art, gift puzzles, invitations, paper art, packaging, kids puzzles, gifts, valentine, mothers day, or add to your range of products. Cut out of wood, paper, hardboard, Perspex acrylic. Download VECTOR file PDF, AI, EPS, SVG, CDR x4. Use your favorite editing program to scale this vector to any size. You can add and remove elements or personalize the design. Our templates are all tested. Free designs every day.


text:
For many, sex is a joyful part of life, and a critical part of a healthy intimate relationship. Sexual problems of any kind are a sore subject, with the potential to bring about embarrassment and shame, despite being quite common. Sexual dysfunction broadly refers to any problem which occurs at any phase of the sexual response cycle to prevent the individual or couple from experiencing satisfaction from the sexual activity.
- Desire disorders—lack of desire or interest in sex
- Arousal disorders—inability to become physically aroused or excited during sexual activity
- Orgasm disorders—delay or absence of orgasm (climax)
- Pain disorders—pain during intercourse
Sexual dysfunction, despite its stigma, is treatable, with a variety of options existing to address the underlying cause or causes of your sexual dysfunction. To schedule a consultation with a qualified healthcare provider in Plymouth that specializes in sexual dysfunction treatment, call (248) 453-7229 or contact Robert Grafton online.
Causes of Sexual Dysfunction
Sexual dysfunction may be caused by a number of factors, usually relating to a physical or psychological issue.
Physical issues include:
- Diabetes
- Cardiovascular disease
- Neurological disorders
- Hormonal imbalance
- Kidney or liver failure
- Alcoholism and drug abuse
Psychological issues include:
- Work-related stress and anxiety
- Concern about sexual performance
- Marital or relationship problems
- Depression
- Guilt
- Concerns about body image
- Past sexual trauma
Sexual Dysfunction Symptoms
Sexual dysfunction is typically characterized by the following general sexual dysfunction symptoms in both men and women:
- Lack of interest in sex or no interest at all (low libido)
- Inability to become aroused
- Pain associated with intercourse
Additionally, sexual dysfunction symptoms present distinctly in men and women.
Sexual Dysfunction in Men
Male sexual dysfunction is typically associated with any of the following symptoms:
- Inability to achieve or maintain an erection suitable for intercourse (erectile dysfunction )
- Absent or delayed ejaculation despite adequate sexual stimulation (retarded ejaculation)
- Inability to control the timing of ejaculation (premature ejaculation)
- Ejaculation in which semen is forced back into the bladder rather than the end of the penis at orgasm (retrograde ejaculation)
- Lack of interest in sex or no interest at all (low libido)
Sexual Dysfunction in Women
Sexual problems in women may be indicated by any of the following symptoms:
- Lack of interest or desire in sex (hypoactive sexual desire disorder, or female sexual arousal disorder, which is characterized by low libido)
- Inadequate vaginal lubrication before or during intercourse
- Inability to relax the vaginal muscles enough to allow intercourse
- Inability to achieve an orgasm (female orgasmic disorder)
- Pain associated with sex (dyspareunia)
Sexual Dysfunction Treatment
Sexual dysfunction treatment typically aims to correct and treat the underlying physical or psychological issue that is causing your sexual dysfunction. Treatment options for men and women include sex therapy and couples counseling to address psychological factors causing sexual dysfunction, as well as hormone balance to address hormonal deficiencies (such as testosterone or estrogen) that could be causing dysfunction. Treatment for male- and female-factor sexual dysfunction also exist and varies.
For male sexual dysfunction, treatment may include:
- Phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitors to improve erectile function by increasing blood flow to the penis. Popular medications include Viagra®, Cialis®, Levitra®, Staxyn® and Stendra®
- Mechanical aids such as vacuum devices and penile implants
- Blood vessel surgery (though uncommon) to bypass obstructed penile arteries
- Testosterone hormone replacement therapy which replenishes depleted testosterone hormones which may be involved in causing your low libido and overall fatigue
- Platelet-rich plasma therapy (PRP) which repairs damaged penile tissues by injecting platelets extracted from your own body
- Shock wave therapy which uses low-intensity acoustic waves to stimulate blood flow to the penis
For women, sexual dysfunction treatment could include:
- Bioidentical estrogen hormone replacement therapy to combat the symptoms of menopause including diminished sex drive, vaginal dryness, fatigue, stress, anxiety and depression, among others
- Lubricants to help relieve vaginal dryness and increase pleasure during sex
- Platelet rich plasma (PRP) to regenerate new tissue and rejuvenate reproductive health
- Radiofrequency and ultrasound therapies to improve vaginal laxity for increased sexual pleasure and function
For both men and women, certain lifestyle changes—such as losing excess weight, exercising regularly, quitting smoking and limiting alcohol consumption—may help improve sexual function. It is important to meet with a healthcare provider who can address your sexual dysfunction and provide advice, counseling and effective treatment. Schedule a consultation at a sexual health clinic in Plymouth today. Call (248) 453-7229 or contact Robert Grafton online.
PSI Medical
28345 Beck RoadSuite 311
Wixom, MI 48393
(248) 453-7229


text:
Stack trace
General usage
Recent versions of GHC allow a dump of a stack trace (of all cost centres) when an exception is raised. In order to enable this, compile with -prof
, and run with +RTS -xc
. (Since only the cost centre stack will be printed, you may want to add -fprof-auto -fprof-cafs
[1] to the compilation step to include all definitions in the trace.) Since GHC version 7.8, the function errorWithStackTrace can be used to programmatically dump the stack trace, see How to get (approx) stack traces with profiled builds.
A more detailed list of options can be found in the RTS section of the GHC user's guide.
-- test.hs
crash = sum [1,2,3,undefined,5,6,7,8]
main = print crash
> ghc-7.6.3 test.hs -prof -fprof-auto -fprof-cafs && ./test +RTS -xc *** Exception (reporting due to +RTS -xc): (THUNK_2_0), stack trace: GHC.Err.CAF --> evaluated by: Main.crash, called from Main.CAF:crash_reH test: Prelude.undefined
Printf and friends
The simplest approach is to use Debug.Trace.trace:
trace :: String -> a -> a
- "When called, trace outputs the string in its first argument, before returning the second argument as its result.'"
A common idiom to trace a function is:
myfun a b | trace ("myfun " ++ show a ++ " " ++ show b) False = undefined myfun a b = ...
The advantage is that disabling and enabling the trace takes only one line comment.
You must keep in mind that due to lazy evaluation your traces will only print if the value they wrap is ever demanded.
The trace function is located in the base package. The package htrace defines a trace function similar to the one in the base package, but with indentation for better visual effect (see the mailing list thread for examples). Other tools can be found at the debug category in Hackage.
A more powerful alternative for this approach is Hood. Even if it hasn't been updated in some time, Hood works perfectly with the current ghc distribution. Even more, Hugs has it already integrated, see the manual page. Add an import Observe and start inserting observations in your code. For instance:
import Hugs.Observe f' = observe "Informative name for f" f f x = if odd x then x*2 else 0
And then in hugs:
Main> map f' [1..5] [2,0,6,0,10] >>>>>>> Observations <<<<<< Informative name for f { \ 5 -> 10 , \ 4 -> 0 , \ 3 -> 6 , \ 2 -> 0 , \ 1 -> 2 }
outputs a report of all the invocations of f and their result.
I have a handy bogus Hugs.Observe module with no-ops for the observations so that I don't need to remove them manually, expecting that the compiler will optimize them away.
The GHood package adds a graphical back-end to Hood. See also the GHood homepage.
The Safe Library
There is a safe library of functions from the Prelude that can crash, see the safe library. If you get an error message such as "pattern match failure, head []", you can then use headNote "extra information" to get a more detailed error message for that particular call to head. The safe library also has functions that return default values and wrap their computation in Maybe as required.
Offline analysis of traces
The most advanced debugging tools are based in offline analysis of traces.
Haskell Tracer HAT
Hat is probably the most advanced tool for this, offering a comprehensive set of tools. Neil Mitchell has made available a Windows port of Hat at his site.
The disadvantage of traditional Haskell tracers is that they either need to transform the whole program or require a specialized run-time system. Therefore they are not always compatible with the latest libraries, so you can put them to use only in some cases.
Hoed - The Lightweight Haskell Tracer and Debugger
Hoed is a tracer/debugger that offers most of HATs functionality, and works with untransformed libraries. Hoed can therefore be used to debug much more programs than traditional tracer/debuggers.
To locate a defect with Hoed you annotate suspected functions and compile as usual. Then you run your program, information about the annotated functions is collected. Finally you connect to a debugging session using a webbrowser.
Dynamic breakpoints in GHCi
Finally, the GHCi debugger enables dynamic breakpoints and intermediate values observation.
This tool allows to set breakpoints in your code, directly from the GHCi command prompt. An example session:
*main:Main> :break Main 2 Breakpoint set at (2,15) *main:Main> qsort [10,9..1] Local bindings in scope: x :: a, xs :: [a], left :: [a], right :: [a] qsort2.hs:2:15-46> :sprint x x = _ qsort2.hs:2:15-46> x
This is an untyped, unevaluated computation. You can use seq
to force its evaluation and then :print
to recover its type
qsort2.hs:2:15-46> seq x () () qsort2.hs:2:15-46> :p x x - 10
Once a breakpoint is hit, you can explore the bindings in scope, as well as to evaluate any Haskell expression, as you would do in a normal GHCi prompt. The :print
command can be very useful to explore the laziness of your code.
Source-located errors
LocH provides wrappers over
for generating source-located exceptions and errors.
Consider the use of a located fromJust
import Debug.Trace.Location
import qualified Data.Map as M
import Data.Maybe
main = do print f
f = let m = M.fromList
s = M.lookup 4 m
in fromJustSafe assert s
fromJustSafe a s = check a (fromJust s)
This will result in:
$ ./a.out
a.out: A.hs:12:20-25: Maybe.fromJust: Nothing
This can be automated, using the 'loch' preprocessor, so a program failing with:
$ ghc A.hs --make -no-recomp
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( A.hs, A.o )
Linking A ...
A: Maybe.fromJust: Nothing
Can be transformed to a src-located one by adding:
import Debug.Trace.Location
and then recompiling with the preprocessor on:
$ ghc A.hs --make -pgmF loch -F -no-recomp
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( A.hs, A.o )
Linking A ...
A: A.hs:14:14-19: Maybe.fromJust: Nothing
Other tricks
- If you use GHC, you can get a stack trace in the console when your program fails with an error condition. See the description of relevant runtime options.
- Some tips how to use GHCi debugger are also in this message.
Locating a failure in a library function
The simplest way to provide locating in the source code a mismatch run-time error in the library functions:
head, tail, fromJust
and others is to avoid these functions and to use explicit matching instead.
For example, consider:
g x = h $ fromJust $ f x,
ghc-6.6 often loses the reference to g
, f
and h
in its run-time error report, when f
returns Nothing
But for the program:
g x = let Just y = f x in h y,
GHC reports:
Main: M1.hs:9:11-22:
Irrefutable pattern failed for pattern Data.Maybe.Just y
Indicating the source of the failure.
Mysterious parse errors
GHC provides `-ferror-spans`, which will give you the exactly position of the start and end of an offending statement.
Infinite loops
On glasgow-haskell-users on 21 Nov 2007, pepe made the following suggestion for detecting the cause infinite loops in GHCi. Assuming the offending function is named `loop`, and takes one argument:
- enable the flag -fbreak-on-error (`:set -fbreak-on-error` in GHCi)
- run your expression with :trace (`:trace loop 'a'`)
- hit Ctrl-C while your program is stuck in the loop to have the debugger break in the loop
- use :history and :back to find out where the loop is located and why.
(For which versions? ghci >= 6.8?)
- ↑ was
-auto-all -caf-all
in previous ghc versions (now deprecated)


text:
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a federal whistleblower law, enacted after the collapse of Enron Corporation, protects not just the employees of a public company, but also company contractors like lawyers, accountants, and investment funds.
Writing for the six-justice majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that in enacting the Sarbanes-Oxley law in 2002, Congress provided protection from retaliation for employees and contractors alike to ensure that they would not be intimidated into silence when they knew of corporate wrongdoing.
The decision was not along liberal/conservative lines, with three of the court's conservatives joining Ginsburg's opinion, and the usually liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor writing the dissent for herself and two of the court's conservatives. Sotomayor said that the majority's interpretation of the law was so sweeping that it could lead to whistleblower suits by "nannies, housekeepers, and caretakers," who allege wrongdoing by their corporate employers.
The majority dismissed such concerns as nothing more than hypothetical and noted that there is not even a single case in which a private contractor has made a claim based on allegations unrelated to shareholder fraud.
Copyright 2021 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.


text:
Eva Jinek
Sorry, we couldn't find any results! But... that doesn't mean that we don't have what you're looking for. Our items often have fabulous, creative and mostly foreign names, therefore we suggest that you select a category from our main menu first and then narrow your search by using the different filters available at the top, like colour, style, brand, size and price.
If you are looking for something particular and you still can't find it, please don't hesitate to ask: we're happy to help, gorgeous!