Well done to the Supreme Court.

[Sava]

Real quick Felch. Do I have a right (in your mind) to broadcast a pirate radio signal? Is that "speech"?

Like, if I was a deranged billionaire and set up a 50kW broadcasting station and just starting spamming my message over public airwaves... would you defend me?

[Felch]

I didn't sign the UDHR.

I think it also says internet access is a human right.

FREE INTERNET FOR EVERYBODY!?!!?

I'm assuming you support free internet for everyone.

Your assumption is wrong, just like everything else you've said.

The fact that you are conflating two distinct acts into a single act is hilarious. I can't get on a blowhorn at 2am and spout off a bunch of political bull****. The restriction on that speech is more egregious than the issue in the CU case.

Of course you can spout of political bull**** at 2am. Local noise ordinances may prohibit you from disturbing your neighbors, but those are concerned with physical effects of your actions, not with their political content.

Broadcasting a television signal is not speech.

Broadcasting a television signal is "speech" under the section 326 of the Communications Act, but it's not entirely protected from censorship if it is over public airwaves. CU wasn't broadcasting a television signal over public airwaves. They were advertising and delivering a signal over cable networks. The law treats them differently, even if you're too ignorant to realize that.

Face facts, Sava. You're wrong. You're wrong about everything you say. Just go back to talking about Burnout Paradise in that other thread, and let the grownups have a real discussion in here. I'm such a nice guy, I won't even ask you to humble yourself by admitting that you're wrong.

[Sava]

Your assumption is wrong, just like everything else you've said.



Of course you can spout of political bull**** at 2am. Local noise ordinances may prohibit you from disturbing your neighbors, but those are concerned with physical effects of your actions, not with their political content.



Broadcasting a television signal is "speech" under the section 326 of the Communications Act, but it's not entirely protected from censorship if it is over public airwaves. CU wasn't broadcasting a television signal over public airwaves. They were advertising and delivering a signal over cable networks. The law treats them differently, even if you're too ignorant to realize that.

Face facts, Sava. You're wrong. You're wrong about everything you say. Just go back to talking about Burnout Paradise in that other thread, and let the grownups have a real discussion in here. I'm such a nice guy, I won't even ask you to humble yourself by admitting that you're wrong.

The whole point of this is that current government policy is wrong. Using government policy to argue your point is a new level of retardation. I don't think Ben has even done it ever.

Let me know if you come up with a legitimate argument.

or some reading comprehension

[Felch]

Real quick Felch. Do I have a right (in your mind) to broadcast a pirate radio signal? Is that "speech"?

Like, if I was a deranged billionaire and set up a 50kW broadcasting station and just starting spamming my message over public airwaves... would you defend me?

I don't know how public airwaves are distributed to broadcasters. If they are given away for free to politically connected broadcasters, then I would support the pirate radio station. If they are auctioned in a marketplace, then the pirate station would be unjustified.

[Felch]

The whole point of this is that current government policy is wrong. Using government policy to argue your point is a new level of retardation. I don't think Ben has even done it ever.

Let me know if you come up with a legitimate argument.

or some reading comprehension

The whole point of this is that you are wrong. Using your private definition of free speech to argue your point is a new level of retardation. I don't think Ben has even done it ever.

Let me know if you come up with a legitimate argument.

[Sava]

I don't know how public airwaves are distributed to broadcasters. If they are given away for free to politically connected broadcasters, then I would support the pirate radio station. If they are auctioned in a marketplace, then the pirate station would be unjustified.

Oddly enough, finding out how much the FCC charges big media companies for licensing is very difficult.

[Sava]

The whole point of this is that you are wrong. Using your private definition of free speech to argue your point is a new level of retardation. I don't think Ben has even done it ever.

Let me know if you come up with a legitimate argument.

"NO YOU!"

I can't believe you let our threadjack die like this.

[Felch]

I suspect that the airwaves are given away for free.

[Felch]

"NO YOU!"

I can't believe you let our threadjack die like this.

You're the one who couldn't come up with a cogent argument against my position.

[Sava]

I suspect that the airwaves are given away for free.

If so, I know a great way to reduce the deficit.

NFL broadcast rights are in the tens of billions... and that's for, what, 12 hours of programming a week during the season? Seems like taxpayers should charge at least that much.

[Sava]

You're the one who couldn't come up with a cogent argument against my position.

What position? You don't have a position. Your "position" is the incorrect assumption that a television broadcast is speech. It isn't.

Between this and the whole "voting isn't a right" thing... I really think you've got a winning platform for the GOP in 2016. Kick it up the food chain... PLEASE

[Ben Kenobi]

Even I'm not dumb enough to endorse Sava's position. Felch.

[Sava]

And my victory is complete. Thanks BK

[Sava]

Also, it's 9am and I haven't been bored yet.

[DinoDoc]

Court: Public Union Can't Make Nonmembers Pay Fees

Supreme Court rules in favor of Hobby Lobby in birth-control mandate case

Well done!