How the **** should SCOTUS rule?

[Jon Miller]

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]

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]

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

[giblets]

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

[Lorizael]

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.

[Felch]

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.

[MRT144]

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.

[MRT144]

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.

[rah]

I think the issue is more determined by the public aspect and not the ownership aspect.

[MRT144]

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.

[MRT144]

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.

[rah]

I covered that in my earlier post. #19

Yes I agree that the current is excessive and it should be loosened up.

[Felch]

Or if a non-white person wants to actually vote in an election.

It was the Republicans who gave us the Fifteenth Amendment.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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?

[Aeson]

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?