Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How the **** should SCOTUS rule?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    The government is not 'owning the spectrum'. If you go outside of the US you can do whatever you want (well, not in practicality, but in theory, I guess maybe in practicality if you go far enough (like the moon)).

    The government is controlling the air space (just like land space and sea space) (and in that air space, allows different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to be used for different things, and in a certain part has more detailed rules of use.).

    JM
    Jon Miller-
    I AM.CANADIAN
    GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by MRT144 View Post
      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.
      The government is not restricting what you can watch in the privacy of your home.

      You can have all the sex channels you want.

      JM
      Jon Miller-
      I AM.CANADIAN
      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by MRT144 View Post
        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.
        Some probably do hate freedom.

        Some also probably want the freedom to not see someone people engaging in sodomy on the side of the road...

        JM
        Jon Miller-
        I AM.CANADIAN
        GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
          That's because the government says you can't.



          Since the government makes the property laws and rights... yeah.
          Right, it's only wrong for the landlords to evict sodomites if the government says so. Morality is decided by the state

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
            The government is not 'owning the spectrum'. If you go outside of the US you can do whatever you want (well, not in practicality, but in theory, I guess maybe in practicality if you go far enough (like the moon)).

            The government is controlling the air space (just like land space and sea space) (and in that air space, allows different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum to be used for different things, and in a certain part has more detailed rules of use.).

            JM
            Photons are pertubations of the electromagnetic field, so really air has nothing to do with it.
            Click here if you're having trouble sleeping.
            "We confess our little faults to persuade people that we have no large ones." - François de La Rochefoucauld

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui View Post
              It's somewhat of a tough case, IMO. Mostly because, if I understand correctly, the broadcast networks are using broadcast frequencies owned by the US Government. In that case, can't the government decide on what should be aired on its property?
              Law school sophistry rears its ugly head. The highest law of the land is the Constitution, and the Constitution forbids Congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech.
              John Brown did nothing wrong.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                Some probably do hate freedom.

                Some also probably want the freedom to not see someone people engaging in sodomy on the side of the road...

                JM
                Lets turn this back to what consenting adults watch in their own home before you go too off tangent.
                "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Jon Miller View Post
                  The government is not restricting what you can watch in the privacy of your home.

                  You can have all the sex channels you want.

                  JM
                  The government absolutely is abridging what can be watched over the airwaves it leases to companies, clearly supporting the notion that ownership confers ability to dictate behavior of lessees, only when it comes to the government. Arbitrary government is arbitrary.
                  "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                  'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I think the issue is more determined by the public aspect and not the ownership aspect.
                    It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                    RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Felch View Post
                      Law school sophistry rears its ugly head. The highest law of the land is the Constitution, and the Constitution forbids Congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech.
                      Imran probably supports indefinite detainment so long as the person is defined as something which the government can assert no rights to. Government makes the rules, they get to break the rules and who they apply to and all.
                      "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                      'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by rah View Post
                        I think the issue is more determined by the public aspect and not the ownership aspect.
                        Which is just as quizzical considering content is only censored based on puritanical values. For god's sake, lying is protected free speech according to the government, but cursing is not.
                        "I hope I get to punch you in the face one day" - MRT144, Imran Siddiqui
                        'I'm fairly certain that a ban on me punching you in the face is not a "right" worth respecting." - loinburger

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          I covered that in my earlier post. #19

                          Yes I agree that the current is excessive and it should be loosened up.
                          It's almost as if all his overconfident, absolutist assertions were spoonfed to him by a trusted website or subreddit. Sheeple
                          RIP Tony Bogey & Baron O

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Dinner View Post
                            Or if a non-white person wants to actually vote in an election.
                            It was the Republicans who gave us the Fifteenth Amendment.
                            John Brown did nothing wrong.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Felch View Post
                              Law school sophistry rears its ugly head. The highest law of the land is the Constitution, and the Constitution forbids Congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech.
                              Which is exactly why Congress can't make any laws involving yelling fire in a theater .

                              Does that mean to you, that the government can't restrict anything on their own airwaves? So a broadcast network can broadcast racial violence incitement?
                              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by gribbler View Post
                                I don't understand why a new broadcaster would choose a frequency that conflicts with an already existing broadcaster in the area. Wouldn't it be in their interest to avoid doing that?
                                Build your own listener base (as a latecomer to the market)... or just leech off of an existing listening base by broadcasting on a well known frequency, duping listeners who were expecting to listen to something else... which is more difficult?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X