How the **** should SCOTUS rule?

[Lorizael]

I've always thought the idea of owning a range of frequencies to be kind of odd.

[MRT144]

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?

The US Government owning the frequencies is stupid though. There's no good reason for them to claim ownership except that they can by force.

Furthermore, no, the government is leasing that ****, they should not be in a position to be dictate what is okay and what isn't because no one is making the goddamn idiotic assumption that what is aired is construed as explicitly approved by the government. Only a sophist or an idiot would make that leap.

[Jon Miller]

Who owns the highway system, MRT144?

JM

[rah]

I think controlling it is a better way to look at it then ownership. Conflict of frequencies by broadcasters would destroy the system. And its a good way to raise additional funds for the government.

In the old days it almost made sense for the feds to set standards.
These days it doesn't make as much sense due to the way people receive their signals. Most people now use an alternate to over the air broadcast so there really isn't much differentiation. And most of the younger generation have never watched it over the air.

And standards have changed and are somewhat flexible. In the old days you would never have much of an argument that tits and asses weren't appropriate on TV. These days that's not considered an automatic.

So I think the standards should be lowered. If they want to protect the early evening hour, I'd have no problems with that. But it seems silly when on the same set the other cable channels maintain their own standards.

I do find it funny that some of the censorship on AMC or TBS is sometimes more stringent then NBC or ABC.

[Lorizael]

Who owns the highway system, MRT144?

JM

Highways exist on land. Land is real.

[giblets]

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?

Why doesn't the US government claim to own the letters in the alphabet? Then it can decide what gets to be published.

[Jon Miller]

Highways exist on land. Land is real.

So is the atmosphere and the electromagnetic spectrum.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Why doesn't the US government claim to own the letters in the alphabet? Then it can decide what gets to be published.

If the US gov wants to claim that paper is public, they can try, I don't think it could be argued well though.

They could make an argument that trees are, though.

Letters are completely different.

You don't understand what you are talking about (not unusual).

JM

[giblets]

I think controlling it is a better way to look at it then ownership. Conflict of frequencies by broadcasters would destroy the system. And its a good way to raise additional funds for the government.

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?

[MRT144]

Who owns the highway system, MRT144?

JM

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

[Jon Miller]

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

But the bureaucrat in DC is who administers them and decides how to run them. And he is selected by people who are sent to washington by the vote of the people.

Do you now understand how government works at all?

JM

[DinoDoc]

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?

History suggests otherwise as that was one of the reasons the forerunner of the FCC was created in 1927.

[giblets]

If the US gov wants to claim that paper is public, they can try, I don't think it could be argued well though.

They could make an argument that trees are, though.

Letters are completely different.

You don't understand what you are talking about (not unusual).

JM

I'd like to put you on my ignore list because you just insulted me (not unusual) but the website won't let me.

[MRT144]

But the bureaucrat in DC is who administers them and decides how to run them. And he is selected by people who are sent to washington by the vote of the people.

Do you now understand how government works at all?

JM

He's selected by a plutocrat politician and invariably has a conflict of interest in upholding the public good. Don't you understand government in practice vs. government in theory.

[Jon Miller]

He's selected by a plutocrat politician and invariably has a conflict of interest in upholding the public good. Don't you understand government in practice vs. government in theory.

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