Let's start again from the top, since clearly you missed it the first time:

Quote :

"I must have missed the part of the constitution that granted the government exclusive ownership of the airwaves. ... we developed a foundation of government which clearly outlined the specific things the government could do. Regulating speech was not one of them."

So again, where in the constitution is the federal government given ownership of the airwaves?

12/19/2010 11:55:10 PM

The same part that gives them territorial authority over the land, air, and seas (also not addressed by the US Constitution either)

It is part and parcel of being a sovereign nation, something well established by common law, and except for those aspects of common law that the constitution expressly overturned, common law was unchanged by the adoption of the US Constitution. It can't be any more clear than that. Your refusal to accept that fact doesn't make that fact disappear.

12/20/2010 12:02:10 AM

Except that the land, air and seas are physical parts of a nation. The airwaves are a method of communication and transmission. And last I looked, we have some significant restrictions on the government in regards to regulating communication.

12/20/2010 12:32:44 AM

1337 b4k4 redefining what is a sovereign state ITT

12/20/2010 9:48:08 AM

nutsmackr redefining a method of communication as property that someone can own ITT.

For what it's worth, when they enacted the various laws that gave the FCC it's power, they didn't think the government "owned" the airwaves:

http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/98059-The_Public_Airwaves_Myth.php

Quote :

"Sen. Clarence Dill, one of the co-authors of the Radio Act of 1927, on the subject of ownership of the airwaves: “The government does not own the frequencies, as we call them, or the use of the frequencies. It only possesses the right to regulate the apparatus. We might declare that we own all the channels, but we do not.” ... the Congressional Research Service, which conducted a study of the problems raised by proposals to assess fees from broadcasters for use of the spectrum, concluded that “the notion that the public or the government owns the airwaves is without precedent. We find no case that so holds. Furthermore, when enacting the Radio Act of 1927, the Congress specifically deleted a House-passed “declaration of ownership.”"

12/20/2010 1:33:34 PM

The us owns the radio spectrum, not the means of communication.

And the bill in question came in 1934, Communications Act of 1934 (it created the FCC).

Either way, you are advocating that the United States adopt a system that isn't utilized by the other 190 countries in the world.

Continue to redefine sovereignty.


And in case you are wondering: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

Why does that apply?

Because the US is a signatory to the International Telecommunication Union which establishes: "the sovereign right of each State to regulate its telecommunication."

Enjoy it ninja, no matter how many articles you post from groups who think it should be different. It's reality.

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2010 3:17:48 PM

Quote :

"Either way, you are advocating that the United States adopt a system that isn't utilized by the other 190 countries in the world. Continue to redefine sovereignty. "

It worked for us in 1787. Everyone jumping off a bridge and all that.

Quote :

"Enjoy it ninja, no matter how many articles you post from groups who think it should be different. It's reality."

Ah yes, the classic argument that we do it this way now, so we should continue to do it that way. I believe you used the same argument to justify taking rights away from classes of citizens by legislative fiat.

So fine, the government "owns" the spectrum. We still have that pesky 1st amendment about them not regulating speech, not that I expect it to matter, I'm sure you will simply dismiss it as "we already violate that, it's reality, deal with it"

12/20/2010 4:03:08 PM

Quote :

"The FCC, as the regulatory body sanctioned by congress, has the lawful right and obligation to impose the obscenity rules in regards to broadcast television and terrestrial radio, since it is part of the contract those companies agreed to when they entered into the leasing agreement with the United States' government for those frequencies."

So, if part of the agreement said "you can broadcast whatever you want, as long as you don't say anything bad about the gov't," then that's A-OK with you, right? After all, they agreed to it when they signed the lease, right?

12/20/2010 7:06:31 PM

Awesome, libertarians getting all butthurt about something completely meaningless that doesn't really hurt anyone. This is why the libertarian party is able to achieve such amazing results.

12/20/2010 7:46:19 PM

what, bitching about the volume?

12/20/2010 8:12:11 PM

Quote :

"It worked for us in 1787. Everyone jumping off a bridge and all that."

radio frequencies were unknown in 1787. Still doesn't change the fact that you are advocating that the United States engage in a system that would be entirely unique and without precedent in regards to complete privatization of the radio spectrum.

Quote :

"Ah yes, the classic argument that we do it this way now, so we should continue to do it that way. I believe you used the same argument to justify taking rights away from classes of citizens by legislative fiat. So fine, the government "owns" the spectrum. We still have that pesky 1st amendment about them not regulating speech, not that I expect it to matter, I'm sure you will simply dismiss it as "we already violate that, it's reality, deal with i"

It's held by the government in trust for the people.

The 1st Amendment doesn't apply. For starters, the licensees agree to the terms in relationship to educational material, and obscenity regulations they are free to accept those terms or not. Also, the Government isn't stopping the material from being made or distributed. Other outlets exist for the distribution for that material, whether it is cable/satellite/internet TV.

It would be awesome if people understood the documents they wish to cite.

Quote :

" So, if part of the agreement said "you can broadcast whatever you want, as long as you don't say anything bad about the gov't," then that's A-OK with you, right? After all, they agreed to it when they signed the lease, right?"

Roth v. United States.

FCC v. Fox Television Stations

FCC v Paciica

And a contract cannot make you sign away your civil rights. political speech is a civil right.

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 9:29 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 9:32 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2010 9:24:47 PM

so then, you agree, they can't regulate obscenity.

12/20/2010 9:37:49 PM

obscenity isn't protected speech, dumbass. That was the point of posting those supreme court rulings

12/20/2010 9:42:45 PM

ohhh. and silly me thought it said the gov't shall make no law abridging speech. i guess it REALLY said "as long as the speech isn't obscene." Man, I didn't see that part

but, you weren't defending the regulation on that grounds earlier. you were simply saying it was part of the law. so which is it?

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM. Reason : ]

12/20/2010 9:44:41 PM

It's both, which is the point. If obscenity was protected speech then those regulations couldn't exist. If the law was written to not allow the FCC to regulate obscenity on broadcast television and terrestrial radio then they wouldn't be allowed to. Since both of those conditions exist then the FCC has the authority to regulate it.

I didn't realize I had to give you an entire lesson on what is and what isn't protected speech to make that clear.


[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 9:51 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2010 9:48:17 PM

only, not really. you, yourself said you can't sign away a right. and yet, you said the companies signed away their rights... hmmm...

12/20/2010 9:50:02 PM

Obscenity isn't a right

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 9:53 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2010 9:52:52 PM

no, but speech is.

12/20/2010 9:59:37 PM

Yes, which is why the FCC has the authority to regulate obscenity, but not political speech. Understand?

12/20/2010 10:00:17 PM

nope. because the FCC is not qualified to say what obscenity is. you can't "regulate" something if such "regulation" requires a judgment call on it to distinguish it from an actual right. that was kind of the whole fucking point of the 1st amendment. If the gov't can simply say "that's obscenity" and get around it, then what the hell use was it in the first place?

12/20/2010 10:01:14 PM

Go read Miller v. California, and FCC v Fox Television, and FCC v Pacifica. Good Christ almighty.

Quote :

"Because of the pervasive nature of broadcasting, it has less First Amendment protection than other forms of communication. - FCC v Pacica"

Quote :

"If the gov't can simply say "that's obscenity" and get around it, then what the hell use was it in the first place?"

It would have to pass the Miller Test.

[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 10:14 PM. Reason : .]

12/20/2010 10:05:45 PM

I'm curious libertarians, how would a private radio system work? He who has the most powerful transmitter wins?

I suppose in the digital age, it's a little bit more practical in that you could build a sophisticated enough transmitter/receiver pair to communicate through the noise. But there would still be someone out there that could overwhelm your signal if they wanted to.

12/20/2010 10:11:40 PM

Quote :

"radio frequencies were unknown in 1787. Still doesn't change the fact that you are advocating that the United States engage in a system that would be entirely unique and without precedent in regards to complete privatization of the radio spectrum. "

And an entirely unique form of government predicated on the idea that the people are the ones with the power and that the government derives its power from the people, and is therefore limited in what it can do is a considerably bigger deal than radio frequencies.

Quote :

"Also, the Government isn't stopping the material from being made or distributed. Other outlets exist for the distribution for that material, whether it is cable/satellite/internet TV. "

Except the first amendment doesn't say "shall not be infringed if there are no other means of conveying the speech"

Quote :

"Roth v. United States. FCC v. Fox Television Stations FCC v Paciica "

The fact that we have failed to uphold our own constitution in the past is not reason to continue to fail to uphold it in the future. See also Dred Scott.

Quote :

"If obscenity was protected speech then those regulations couldn't exist. If the law was written to not allow the FCC to regulate obscenity on broadcast television and terrestrial radio then they wouldn't be allowed to. Since both of those conditions exist then the FCC has the authority to regulate it."

This is circular reasoning. The argument at hand is that the government has no authority to enact these regulations, and is prohibited by the constitution from ever gaining that authority. You argue that because they gave themselves the authority, that they have the authority.

Quote :

"I'm curious libertarians, how would a private radio system work? He who has the most powerful transmitter wins? "

Well, there's a considerable difference between regulating access to the spectrum in the interests of allowing everyone to use the spectrum and regulating what is broadcast over that spectrum. At the moment I'm arguing against the latter. Its possible to simply say that it would be a free for all, but I imagine that it would be a lot more like trademarks are handled, where whoever demonstrates constant, personal or business usage in a given market (in this case a physical market) first has the primary right to that chunk of the spectrum within their market. That right lasts only as long as you can prove you are using that spectrum for a purpose, so simply turning on your transmitter for 2 hours a month to keep ownership doesn't count. But as I said, that isn't the real discussion here.

12/21/2010 8:05:10 AM

Quote :

"And an entirely unique form of government predicated on the idea that the people are the ones with the power and that the government derives its power from the people, and is therefore limited in what it can do is a considerably bigger deal than radio frequencies."

And in that you have your answer. The people own the radio spectrum. The Constitution didn't invalidate common law.

You are tilting at windmills. The Supreme Court is the final say when it comes to the Constitution. You lose.

12/21/2010 9:48:39 AM

Quote :

"And in that you have your answer. The people own the radio spectrum. The Constitution didn't invalidate common law."

But it did severely restrict the powers of the federal government to certain enumerated powers. It also recognizes the federal government, the states and the people as 3 distinct entities.

Quote :

"You are tilting at windmills. The Supreme Court is the final say when it comes to the Constitution. You lose."

And the supreme court has been, and will be in the future, wrong. The fact that the supreme court has ruled a certain way does not mean that the supreme court is right, or that the debate is over. In addition to future rulings based on new precedent (in turn based on new law or changes in the public approach to a given situation) like Dred Scott, there are cases like Chisholm v. Georgia and Oregon v. Mitchell, which were essentially overturned with a constitutional amendment.

For a few other examples, see Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce, overturned just recently by the Citizens United ruling; orWolf v. Colorado , overturned in Mapp v. Ohio; Bowers v. Hardwick, overturned in Lawrence v. Texas; Pace v. Alabama overturned by Loving v. Virginia; and don't forget, Plessy, overturned in Brown.

12/21/2010 1:46:55 PM

The supreme court will not overturn miller, nor will it overturn fcc v fox

And as it stands, until the supreme court decides to do so, it is not unconstitutional.

Again, you lose.

12/21/2010 1:58:05 PM

Quote :

"No one is forcing them to use the public airwaves. If they don't like it they can go the cable/satellite route."

Those are entirely different means of communication. There is no private option for radio, so if you want to broadcast by radio, you will be restricted in what you are allowed to say.

Quote :

"The public owns the airwaves. The public (government) gets to make the rules that licensees have to abide by and agree to when they get a license for those public airwaves."

Do you really think the government is right in censoring curse words on the radio? I sure don't, and I'm part of the public.

Here's a poll from 1989 with a majority disagreeing with TV censorship. Couldn't find a more recent one but I can only imagine the gap has widened.
http://articles.latimes.com/1989-09-24/news/mn-268_1_times-poll

Quote :

"And as it stands, until the supreme court decides to do so, it is not unconstitutional. "

Yes. The Supreme Court always rules in line with the Constitution. Right.

[Edited on December 21, 2010 at 8:39 PM. Reason : .]

12/21/2010 8:31:22 PM