US continues move to the right; Dems don't get it

[Kuciwalker]

We just turn it around. Freedom not to have to deal with Fred Phelps and his ilk.

I'm proud that we do deal with him, and can handle it like men.

Moments like this should be America's proudest.

[Asher]

I'm proud that we do deal with him, and can handle it like men.

Men tell Phelps to **** off at the border. Get out, stay out, never return.

Being too ***** to deal with the bastard and pretending it's being manly.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm proud that we do deal with him, and can handle it like men.

Moments like this should be America's proudest.

However, the court allowed the ban on displaying the swastika to stand, barring any flags or clothing with the symbol on it.

[KrazyHorse]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0428/p02s08-usju.html

[KrazyHorse]

ACLU

[Kuciwalker]

However, the court allowed the ban on displaying the swastika to stand, barring any flags or clothing with the symbol on it.

Agree.

[Kuciwalker]

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0428/p02s08-usju.html

Note that the suit wasn't on 1st Amendment grounds in this ruling. Those could still go to the Supreme Court.

This was just a ruling that the agency was within its Congressional mandate, not that said mandate was constitutional.

[KrazyHorse]

I'm assuming that the case for the FCC to be given the power to regulate speech on public airwaves has already been decided, and that the 1st amendment was examined and found wanting as an argument against it.

[Kuciwalker]

I'm assuming that the case for the FCC to be given the power to regulate speech on public airwaves has already been decided, and that the 1st amendment was examined and found wanting as an argument against it.

Sort of yes. That doesn't rule out a constitutional challenge that doesn't overturn the earlier decision: it could be that the mandate does authorize unconstitutional regulation, but previously the FCC's regulation had not fallen in that zone.

[KrazyHorse]

Well, I know that the FCC has been banning things on the airwaves for years which I'm allowed to say in a public place.

Seems to me that if the Court was going to find this unconstitutional they would have done so by now.

[Kuciwalker]

It's a matter of degree. FCC v. Pacifica Foundation appears to be the foundational case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_v._Pacifica_Foundation

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=438&invol=726

In 1973, a father complained to the FCC that his son had heard the George Carlin routine "Filthy Words" broadcast one afternoon over WBAI, a Pacifica Foundation FM radio station in New York City. Pacifica received a sanction from the FCC, in the form of a letter of reprimand, for allegedly violating FCC regulations which prohibited broadcasting "indecent" material.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC action in 1978, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruling that the routine was "indecent but not obscene". The Court accepted as compelling the government's interests in 1) shielding children from patently offensive material, and 2) ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts.

From the decision:

Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited First Amendment protection. Among the reasons for specially treating indecent broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium of expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend into the privacy of the home and it is impossible completely to avoid [438 U.S. 726, 728] those that are patently offensive. Broadcasting, moreover, is uniquely accessible to children.

[Kuciwalker]

Arguably, according to what I've read, the new regulations are much more likely to cover protected speech (in the context of broadcasting) than the old ones.

[KrazyHorse]

That's a bull**** explanation. It's very easy to remove broadcasting from your home: throw out your TV.

I am not at all satisfied that one form of speech should be less protected than others simply because some parents want to allow their children unrestricted access to a receiving device.

[Kuciwalker]

I agree in general; I don't necessarily agree that SCOTUS was wrong wrt the law.

The First Amendment doesn't provide for all the speech protections we should have; I believe it just guarantees all the ones we must have.

[KrazyHorse]

If I can say something on the street then I should CERTAINLY be allowed to say it on TV.