How the **** should SCOTUS rule?

[rah]

The world is full of broadcasting pirates.

[Felch]

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?

You're pathetic. Do you think that's a persuasive argument for censoring profanity or nudity?

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're pathetic. Do you think that's a persuasive argument for censoring profanity or nudity?

On government owned property? Yeah.

[Felch]

You're mixing two separate issues. Yelling fire in a crowded theater could lead to people being trampled to death. It's no more protected by the first amendment than conspiracy to commit a felony. The government can't restrict speech on public property, simply because it's public property.

[Felch]

Hell, if the only exception to the first amendment was if the government owned it, then Apolyton would have to respect people's first amendment rights. And obviously that's the complete opposite of reality.

[Felch]

What law school did you go to? I want to make sure I never hire a lawyer from there.

[Aeson]

The world is full of broadcasting pirates.

Now imagine it's legal and the big boys start doing it. CBS airing the Superbowl? Well ABC and NBC are blasting commercials on the same frequency the whole time.

[Elok]

Neurotic moralism on the airwaves, quite apart from the mostly meh first amendment issues, is a waste of government funds. That strikes me as the far more serious issue than whether the guys on CSI can say "geez, we're dealing with a sick ****er here" when they look at a dismembered corpse spattered with blood.

[notyoueither]

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 have no dog in the fight, but...

I would point out that restrictions on use are standard parts of any lease I've ever seen.

[MRT144]

I have no dog in the fight, but...

I would point out that restrictions on use are standard parts of any lease I've ever seen.

And no lease ever includes something on the conduct and vulgarity of the tenants.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You're mixing two separate issues. Yelling fire in a crowded theater could lead to people being trampled to death. It's no more protected by the first amendment than conspiracy to commit a felony. The government can't restrict speech on public property, simply because it's public property.

censoring profanity or nudity

Please read FCC vs. Pacifica. Thanks.

Furthermore, this is a bit different than people simply hanging out in a public park as these broadcasters are BUYING leases from the government. Why can't the government put use restriction language in the contracts? That's not a law banning freedom of speech as much as it is a contractual agreement.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And no lease ever includes something on the conduct and vulgarity of the tenants.

My current apartment lease states I can't do things in violation of state and federal law and until Lawrence vs. Texas in a number of states sodomy was prohibited.

[Dinner]

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’s-free-speech-double-standard

Great article. I like how H.C. finds one case where the right wing supreme court upheld free speech (basically because they had to because it was so obvious) and yet their are literally dozens of cases where they restricted free speech in what seems to be arbitrary ways.

[MRT144]

My current apartment lease states I can't do things in violation of state and federal law and until Lawrence vs. Texas in a number of states sodomy was prohibited.

Ah yes, the "illegal things are illegal, legal things are legal, and I have no strong opinion one way or another because I'm a weasel milquetoast lawyer" mode of thinking.

[notyoueither]

And no lease ever includes something on the conduct and vulgarity of the tenants.

That would be completely incorrect. Landlords almost always control what sorts of businesses set up on their property. Most ask as a first question, 'what sort of business are you in?'