How the **** should SCOTUS rule?

[Hauldren Collider]

BTW my prediction is our right wing supreme court will rule in favor of censorship because they're enormous hypocrites. Maybe they'll surprise me though.

You're talking about the court that ruled 8-1 for Fred Phelps. Oerdin, this is another case of you always being wrong.

[Lorizael]

So is the atmosphere and the electromagnetic spectrum.

JM

The spectrum is not a tangible object. I suppose you could argue that photons are a public good, however.

[MRT144]

You're talking about the court that ruled 8-1 for Fred Phelps. Oerdin, this is another case of you always being wrong.

Broken clocks are right twice a day.

You never responded to that article I posted that clearly showed how not in favor free speech they are. I'm pretty disappointed that you aren't letting evidence affect your perception and you've retreated into cognitive dissonance when it come to the Robert's Court and Free Speech.

Here is that article again.

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-roberts-court%E2%80%99s-free-speech-double-standard

[MRT144]

Than vote someone else into office who will select a better bureaucrat. This needs done all around, I think, but if this is what will make you go out and vote then great.

JM

Already doing that. Doesn't justify the loopy bull**** done in the name of the public good or that ownership and lease confers oversight. A landlord can't evict people for sodomy, just as a government shouldn't be allowed to fine a network for showing sodomy.

[Jon Miller]

Already doing that. Doesn't justify the loopy bull**** done in the name of the public good or that ownership and lease confers oversight. A landlord can't evict people for sodomy, just as a government shouldn't be allowed to fine a network for showing sodomy.

But the government can do something if you are engaging in sodomy on top of your car on the side of the road...

JM

[MRT144]

But the government can do something if you are engaging in sodomy on top of your car on the side of the road...

JM

Because of puritanical bull****.

[Imran Siddiqui]

A landlord can't evict people for sodomy

Only because of government regulation. You know, that thing that you are arguing against .

[Jon Miller]

Because of puritanical bull****.

If you don't like the 'puritanical' regulations that are enacted, then vote for different politicians.

People, those that own the highways (and the airwaves) apparently want those 'puritanical' regulations because they keep on voting for those politicians.

JM

[Imran Siddiqui]

The people! Not some ****tarded puritan bureaucrat in DC. Are you trying to be dense.

It is ironic that you ask if he's trying to be dense considering you are doing a great job of it yourself.

[Lorizael]

There are a couple of questions here, I think. The first is, does the government have the right to own the spectrum? Secondly, if the government has the right, does it also have the right to censor that which it owns? And finally, if the government does have the right to censor, should it do so?

My answers to these questions are (1) I don't know, (2) probably, and (3) no.

[MRT144]

Only because of government regulation. You know, that thing that you are arguing against .

TV enjoyed in the comfort of ones own home is closer to sodomy laws than public nudity and sex cases.

Why should the government restrict what consenting adults watch in their own home? Because it lays ownership claim to the airwaves? That's not good enough to protect landlords from evicting sodomites, and it shouldnt be enough for the government to control content. Unless you'd like to make the grand argument that government property rights supersede and are extra more special than other property rights.

[MRT144]

If you don't like the 'puritanical' regulations that are enacted, then vote for different politicians.

People, those that own the highways (and the airwaves) apparently want those 'puritanical' regulations because they keep on voting for those politicians.

JM

They hate freedom and more than that, they refuse to acknowledge they have a choice when it comes to selecting content to watch that abides by their puritanical standards.

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's not good enough to protect landlords from evicting sodomites

That's because the government says you can't.

that government property rights supersede and are extra more special than other property rights.

Since the government makes the property laws and rights... yeah.

[MRT144]

It is ironic that you ask if he's trying to be dense considering you are doing a great job of it yourself.

http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2011/05/16/outgoing-fcc-regulator-defends-move-to-comcast/

[MRT144]

That's because the government says you can't.



Since the government makes the property laws and rights... yeah.

You think in-congruency in the application of rights and laws is okay, and that a certain level of arbitrariness when it comes to government is okay.