Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 166

Thread: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

  1. #141
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    You continue fabricating arguments where none were made; I stated very clearly that NOT having any control over radio frequencies would lead to anarchy in transmission resulting in conflicting and garbled junk.

    Imagine if you will, what the landscape would look like if anyone who wanted to could just set up a HUGE transmission tower wherever they pleased to transmit on whatever frequency they desired knowing that by having a MORE powerful megawatt transmission, they can out broadcast everyone else. Then in response another entrepreneur decides to put an even HIGHER and LARGER tower up with even MORE megawattage...oh yeah ugh ugh ugh.

    That is what I meant by anarchy. Did you know that these towers also affect air traffic and are also subject to FAA regulations?

    Carry on.
    And that was clearly no one's arguments. You keep trying to make believe that people made these arguments; but no one has. I for sure haven't. In fact, if you read people's posts many agree that this should be the ONLY job of the FCC; to police property rights. No one said to take that part of the FCC away. That's you making **** up to try to get your point across. If all you have is hyperbole, distortion, and lie to back up your arguments; well so be it. But don't get your panties in a twist when people refuse to accept them as credible argument.

    Carry on.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  2. #142
    Androgyne
    Dr_Patrick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Montana
    Last Seen
    12-16-15 @ 11:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,349
    Blog Entries
    7

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Of course they can "change the channel" just as you suggest they can do on the TV, they can go somewhere else.

    :cool
    Yes, but they turned on the television and changed to that channel that they found offensive in the first place. They aren't being "subjected" to it like they would be in your example.

  3. #143
    Sage
    Ikari's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    12-08-17 @ 01:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Left
    Posts
    54,124

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Of course they can "change the channel" just as you suggest they can do on the TV, they can go somewhere else.

    :cool
    There are a few distinctions. While people can go elsewhere, they can not do so instantaneously. Thus it's not exactly as changing the station (well it's not instantaneous either, but it's on a much faster time scale). Public streets are also clearly public streets, and thus certain rules can be made. The public pays for the streets and the public is given "free" (nothing above taxes) access to them for use. That's not true with the electromagnetic spectrum.
    You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo

    Quote Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
    "I should have loved freedom, I believe, at all times, but in the time in which we live I am ready to worship it."

  4. #144
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 02:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    There are a few distinctions. While people can go elsewhere, they can not do so instantaneously. Thus it's not exactly as changing the station (well it's not instantaneous either, but it's on a much faster time scale). Public streets are also clearly public streets, and thus certain rules can be made. The public pays for the streets and the public is given "free" (nothing above taxes) access to them for use. That's not true with the electromagnetic spectrum.
    Safeguards can also be put into place. For example, many websites warn you that provocative content is contained on their page before allowing you to enter. The same information can be used for digital television or a public list can be provided.

    All public TV shows are required to have ratings displayed anyways.
    Last edited by scourge99; 04-30-09 at 06:39 PM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  5. #145
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Ventura California
    Last Seen
    11-15-11 @ 11:17 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    8,706

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    I have your solution people: all of you can write to your congress people and tell them how angry you are that THIER regulations are interfering with your 1st amendment rights to see and listen to smut.


  6. #146
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I have your solution people: all of you can write to your congress people and tell them how angry you are that THIER regulations are interfering with your 1st amendment rights to see and listen to smut.

    You think that you're being funny, but I bet there are a lot more letters sent to Congress from independent citizens saying exactly that, than there are indecency complaints sent to the FCC from independent citizens (i.e. not the Parents Television Council).
    Last edited by Kandahar; 04-30-09 at 09:38 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  7. #147
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    There is some form of ownership inherent to a licensure, but I understand your point. However, it brings up an interesting question: Why should certain frequencies be considered public property? They are not essential to life and they are physiologically inutile. It seems the reasonable thing to do would be to treat them the same as we do land. They are finite resources which cannot be utilized simultaneously by different individuals with divergent interests. A sound argument establishing the "public" nature of broadcast signals does not appear to exist; perhaps you could convince me otherwise.
    The problem is though why should they be considered private property then? In the sense of owned by one individuaul/group. Why should I respect the someone else's ownership of these frequencies? How did they come to own them? Obviously by paying the state.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

  8. #148
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I have your solution people: all of you can write to your congress people and tell them how angry you are that THIER regulations are interfering with your 1st amendment rights to see and listen to smut.

    Savings Private Ryan is "Smut?"

    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  9. #149
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Chicago
    Last Seen
    04-02-15 @ 06:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,211

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wessexman View Post
    The problem is though why should they be considered private property then? In the sense of owned by one individuaul/group. Why should I respect the someone else's ownership of these frequencies? How did they come to own them? Obviously by paying the state.
    This argument can be applied to any form of property. Needless to say, the land I live on now must be respected regardless of the Iroquois who lived on it hundreds of years ago. A free market allocation of such frequencies is the most efficient and fair method available. Utopian ideals of "non-ownership" need not apply.

  10. #150
    Dorset Patriot
    Wessexman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Sydney, Australia(but my heart is back in Dorset.)
    Last Seen
    10-17-17 @ 04:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    8,468

    Re: The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ethereal View Post
    I see no reason to view frequencies as being any different than land. Both are constrained and defined by the same basic principles: neither can be utilized simultaneously by different people with divergent interests, and both are finite resources.

    If I purchase a specific frequency - just as I would purchase a specific piece of land - I should be able to transmit whatever I like, just as I should be able to build whatever I like on my land. Obviously, the manner in which one utilizes their frequency or land would necessarily be constrained by the rights of others but anything beyond that is an infringement. The FCC should protect property rights and nothing more. Censorship is the responsibility of parents.
    But people have different views on land. I myself am a Georgist.

    What is really being said is the state should interfere greatly to set up these few owners and maintain them but then shouldn't interfere at all.

    Now I don't believe much in censorship but I can't say I'm that fond of the above view.
    "It is written in the eternal constitution that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." - Edmund Burke

Page 15 of 17 FirstFirst ... 51314151617 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •