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

Ethereal · Apr 30, 2009

Grateful Heart said:
I'm all for free speech and free expression of ideas. I'm also for some minimum level of public decency standards.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. These broadcast signals are "owned" by private citizens, hence they are not public. Enforcing private citizens to abide by some arbitrary code of decency is not the proper role of government.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Ethereal said:
I'm not sure I understand your argument. These broadcast signals are "owned" by private citizens, hence they are not public. Enforcing private citizens to abide by some arbitrary code of decency is not the proper role of government.

Wrong, they are licensed to private companies by the Government and regulated.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

TheNextEra said:
Damn, what a big surprise, TD not coming back to confront the fact he accused me of wanting Fox News and Limbaugh censored, yet not providing proof.

One would say that is a "lie spreader".

Care to back up your proof TD? You are the one said I wanted Limbaugh and Fox News Censored? Or are you going to run away like the last time I confronted you with the truth?

With 3,000 plus posts and the inability to search through all your posts, this is a pretty safe demand on your part.

Suffice it to say that I am happy to see that you disagree with any Fairness Doctrine and believe in the 1st amendment rights of people like Rush and Fox News.

Carry on. :2wave:

Binary_Digit · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
With 3,000 plus posts and the inability to search through all your posts, this is a pretty safe demand on your part.

Maybe the problem here is not that he has asked you to prove what you said about him, but rather, that you carelessly made assumptions and assertions about him that you didn't really know were true.

Carry on. :2wave:

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
Maybe the problem here is not that he has asked you to prove what you said about him, but rather, that you carelessly made assumptions and assertions about him that you didn't really know were true.

Carry on. :2wave:

My assumptions about Nrexsts desperate defense of Liberal agendas are hardly careless. I am sure if one could go back and read ALL of his posts, one could find some assertion or suggestion that Fox or Rush should be taken off the air.

Suffice it to say, it is a safe demand to make on someone so I will type with more care in the future.

I am happy to see Liberals on the forum defending Rush's free speech rights and Fox News contributions to the media world.

Did you have a point related to the thread, or was this just another of your typical attempts to troll my posts?

:2wave:

Ethereal · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Wrong, they are licensed to private companies by the Government and regulated.

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.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Ethereal said:
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.

Because as stated by myself and others, there are frequencies used by the FAA for aircraft communications, Police and Fire and the subsequent anarchy and confusion there would be if the air waves were left "unfettered" by Government control and regulation.

Ethereal said:
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.

How does one parcel off a piece of the air? The transmission of sound waves through the air does not follow a specific path, in wanders aimlessly until it has been tuned in so-to-speak.

Does that help?

Once more, I cannot fathom what logical argument against such regulation except the absurd anger of those who claim that their 1st Amendment rights are somehow being denied by limiting what they can do, say or see over the public airwaves. Yet everything they want can be obtained by other media means.

Why the BIG deal, anger and foaming at the mouth denouncement of a Government entity that is NOT governed by partisan politics and is regulated by Congress; the body the people elect to regulate?

Binary_Digit · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Did you have a point related to the thread

Yes. It was quite clearly demonstrated that supporting the Federal censorship of TV and Radio airwaves while not supporting certain repercussions of such a policy (the Fairness Doctrine) is hypocritical. But rather than explain why it's not hypocritical in your view, you responded with "this coming from someone who wants to censure Rush & Fox." Not only is that a tu quoque fallacy, and not only have you failed to even support that assertion, but it has nothing to do with the argument that was presented to you. It's a dodge, nothing more.

Binary_Digit · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Because as stated by myself and others, there are frequencies used by the FAA for aircraft communications, Police and Fire and the subsequent anarchy and confusion there would be if the air waves were left "unfettered" by Government control and regulation.

I totally agree with that.

Truth Detector said:
How does one parcel off a piece of the air? The transmission of sound waves through the air does not follow a specific path, in wanders aimlessly until it has been tuned in so-to-speak.

We're not talking about sound waves, we're talking about electromagnetic waves. And I think you already answered this question: the airspace is naturally partitioned by different frequencies. Just like land is partitioned by space, and some land belongs to the government for its operations, the airwaves are partitioned by frequencies and some can belong exclusively to the government for those critical operations.

Truth Detector said:
Once more, I cannot fathom what logical argument against such regulation except the absurd anger of those who claim that their 1st Amendment rights are somehow being denied by limiting what they can do, say or see over the public airwaves.

There should never have to be a logical argument against limiting the rights and freedoms of citizens and businesses. There should have to be a logical argument for it instead.

If you want to limit my rights to broadcast what I want to, on a frequency that I've paid for and that only consumers who deliberately tune into that frequency can access, then the burden of proof is on YOU to explain why my rights should be limited. It's not up to me to explain why they shouldn't be.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
Yes. It was quite clearly demonstrated that supporting the Federal censorship of TV and Radio airwaves while not supporting certain repercussions of such a policy (the Fairness Doctrine) is hypocritical. But rather than explain why it's not hypocritical in your view, you responded with "this coming from someone who wants to censure Rush & Fox." Not only is that a tu quoque fallacy, and not only have you failed to even support that assertion, but it has nothing to do with the argument that was presented to you. It's a dodge, nothing more.

In other words you didn't read my comments.

Bravo; carry on. :rofl

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
If you want to limit my rights to broadcast what I want to, on a frequency that I've paid for and that only consumers who deliberately tune into that frequency can access, then the burden of proof is on YOU to explain why my rights should be limited. It's not up to me to explain why they shouldn't be.

Once more, we are talking about the REALITY of signing an agreement which limits your rights to broadcast offensive or lewd content over PUBLIC airwaves.

The strawman you keep attempting to put up just wont walk. The airwaves are not "private" they are of the "public" domain for OBVIOUS reasons already debated.

The desperate attempt to suggest that I need to explain why YOUR rights should be limited is beyond absurd; it is in the realm of the twilight zone here.

Carry on.

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

You didn't debate anything about the public/private nature of the electomagnetic spectrum. You've only said that it's public because it proves to help your point. But you've never demonstrated why or how they are public. Others have at least shown some reason as to believe the bandwidth in question was private as private companies pay to use it, others are forbidden to use that frequency, those companies buy and own the broadcast equipment, etc. So less you want to actually engage in the debate and try to show why and how the bandwidth in question is public, maybe you should rethink the your penchant for hyperbole and distortion.

You saying so doesn't make it true.

Binary_Digit · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Once more, we are talking about the REALITY of signing an agreement which limits your rights to broadcast offensive or lewd content over PUBLIC airwaves.

You're right. That's how things are right now. I never said that's not the case. I'm only arguing what should be, not what is. Because what is is wrong IMO.

Truth Detector said:
The strawman you keep attempting to put up just wont walk. The airwaves are not "private" they are of the "public" domain for OBVIOUS reasons already debated.

You're right. That's how things are right now. I never said that's not the case. I'm only arguing what should be, not what is. Because what is is wrong IMO.

Truth Detector said:
The desperate attempt to suggest that I need to explain why YOUR rights should be limited is beyond absurd; it is in the realm of the twilight zone here.

And that's part of the problem. When people think they can infringe on the rights of others unless they can provide a good reason not to allow that, it flies in the face of "don't tread on me." The burden of proof should be on YOU to show why other people's rights should be limited, it should not be on them to defend themselves and their rights against knee-jerk and tyrannical policies.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Ikari said:
You didn't debate anything about the public/private nature of the electomagnetic spectrum. You've only said that it's public because it proves to help your point. But you've never demonstrated why or how they are public. Others have at least shown some reason as to believe the bandwidth in question was private as private companies pay to use it, others are forbidden to use that frequency, those companies buy and own the broadcast equipment, etc. So less you want to actually engage in the debate and try to show why and how the bandwidth in question is public, maybe you should rethink the your penchant for hyperbole and distortion.

You saying so doesn't make it true.

You may wish to try reading comprehension before you spew:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ment-crackdown-airwaves-2.html#post1058005703

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ment-crackdown-airwaves-2.html#post1058005735

Your asinine attempts to avoid honest debate are hardly making your weak ineffectual diatribe any more palatable.

Zyphlin · Apr 30, 2009

So from reading this thread it appears...Truth Detector is fine with the Government playing "mommy and daddy" and the government, not the parents, raising our kids, telling them essentially what's "right and wrong", and limiting the freedoms of individual citizens because we must "Think of the Children".

And this is from someone that laughs at me about being "moderate"......

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Binary_Digit said:
You're right. That's how things are right now. I never said that's not the case. I'm only arguing what should be, not what is. Because what is is wrong IMO.

You're right. That's how things are right now. I never said that's not the case. I'm only arguing what should be, not what is. Because what is is wrong IMO.

And that's part of the problem. When people think they can infringe on the rights of others unless they can provide a good reason not to allow that, it flies in the face of "don't tread on me." The burden of proof should be on YOU to show why other people's rights should be limited, it should not be on them to defend themselves and their rights against knee-jerk and tyrannical policies.

Your comical and uninformed assertions irregardless of the facts are only superseded by Ikari thanking your posts.

Carry on. :rofl

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Zyphlin said:
So from reading this thread it appears...Truth Detector is fine with the Government playing "mommy and daddy" and the government, not the parents, raising our kids, telling them essentially what's "right and wrong", and limiting the freedoms of individual citizens because we must "Think of the Children".

And this is from someone that laughs at me about being "moderate"......

I see you suffer from the same malady Ikari suffers from; here is a reading summary for you so that you can be informed with your idiotic assertions about what I am attempting to argue:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058005703 (The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058005735 (The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.)

The only thing more comical than your typical trolling would be seeing you and Ikari thanking each other; that would be a class act.

Carry on. :rofl

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
You may wish to try reading comprehension before you spew:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ment-crackdown-airwaves-2.html#post1058005703

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ment-crackdown-airwaves-2.html#post1058005735

Your asinine attempts to avoid honest debate are hardly making your weak ineffectual diatribe any more palatable.

You may wish to use the hunk of gray matter between your ears.

neither of those are reasons why the airwaves are public. Those are things by which the government currently conducts itself. But those are not reason why the airwaves are public. In fact, the second one was exactly what everyone else is saying should be the only duty of the FCC (do you want to go off on your ridiculously stupid "anarchy" deflect now?). That's protection of property rights and is not a reason why the bandwidth is public. You have not offered any argument as to why it should be considered public, what you linked there were not reasons why it should be considered public. Those are just pathetic, intellectually dishonest deflects; which is typical of your argument style. Regulation does not mean public, lots of private things work under regulation. Government should have interest in protecting property, there is a point to the FCC and that is to enforce property rights. Those aren't arguments for the bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum being public.

So, again, less you want to actually engage in the debate and try to show why and how the bandwidth in question is public, maybe you should rethink the your penchant for hyperbole and distortion.

You saying so doesn't make it true.

scourge99 · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
Once more, we are talking about the REALITY of signing an agreement which limits your rights to broadcast offensive or lewd content over PUBLIC airwaves.

Its obvious they are arguing that such terms in the agreement are not consistant with the stated purpose of the FCC. That is, the FCC was created to maintain order in broadcasting and not to censor content. Therefore, it has no compelling reason for censoring the leased airwaves even though it can stipulate whatever terms and conditions it would like.

It would be like arguing that if you purchase land for a home then the government can regulate what sexual positions are allowed while on the land. Sure, they can put that in the contract and its legally binding but It just doesn't make sense why they would when they are merely overseeing the distribution of land.

Zyphlin · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
I see you suffer from the same malady Ikari suffers from; here is a reading summary for you so that you can be informed with your idiotic assertions about what I am attempting to argue:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058005703 (The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.)

http://www.debatepolitics.com/breaki...post1058005735 (The U.S. Supreme Court gives OK to government crackdown on the airwaves.)

The only thing more comical than your typical trolling would be seeing you and Ikari thanking each other; that would be a class act.

Carry on. :rofl

Neither of your links are working. Point me to post numbers perhaps? I'd be interseted to see exactly where in this thread you think you've said something that goes against you thinking that the government should be children's "nanny" and that they should act as "mom and dad", using government agencies to enforce rules and regulations limiting the freedom of citizens "For the children" and taking the choice and responsability away from Parents and vesting it instead to the great good and just government.

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

Ikari said:
You may wish to use the hunk of gray matter between your ears.

neither of those are reasons why the airwaves are public. Those are things by which the government currently conducts itself. But those are not reason why the airwaves are public. In fact, the second one was exactly what everyone else is saying should be the only duty of the FCC (do you want to go off on your ridiculously stupid "anarchy" deflect now?). That's protection of property rights and is not a reason why the bandwidth is public. You have not offered any argument as to why it should be considered public, what you linked there were not reasons why it should be considered public. Those are just pathetic, intellectually dishonest deflects; which is typical of your argument style. Regulation does not mean public, lots of private things work under regulation. Government should have interest in protecting property, there is a point to the FCC and that is to enforce property rights. Those aren't arguments for the bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum being public.

So, again, less you want to actually engage in the debate and try to show why and how the bandwidth in question is public, maybe you should rethink the your penchant for hyperbole and distortion.

You saying so doesn't make it true.

I see, so the link to the FCC website explaining what they do AND the link to how radio is broadcast were not enough for you, you need it in crayon perhaps?

About the FCC
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is an independent United States government agency. The FCC was established by the Communications Act of 1934 and is charged with regulating interstate and international communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable. The FCC's jurisdiction covers the 50 states, the District of Columbia, and U.S. possessions.

Radio broadcasting is an audio (sound) broadcasting service, traditionally broadcast through the air as radio waves (a form of electromagnetic radiation) from a transmitter to an antenna and a thus to a receiving device. Stations can be linked in radio networks to broadcast common programming, either in syndication or simulcast or both. Audio broadcasting also can be done via cable FM, local wire networks, satellite and the Internet.

Good lord, I am not sure I have ever seen a physicist so lacking in basic common sense and inability to grasp simple concepts like reading comprehension.

How ironic to watch you claim others need to use the grey matter betwene thier ears when making such inane comments.

Why don’t you just attempt some honesty for once in your life and admit you just like baiting me regardless of the facts and truth?

Carry on; your clownish attempts to drag the thread IQ any lower are wasting EVERYONE’s time here.

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

So you have nothing. K. You can copy and paste from the FCC, but the arguments are not what the FCC does (ironic, isn't it, that you're trying to be insulting over reading comprehension when it seems that yours is the one at fault), the arguments are what the FCC should be relegated to and why the bandwidth of the electromagnetic spectrum in question should be considered private.

Good god, I've never known a human so unable to grasp the basics of argument before.

So once again, less you want to actually engage in the debate and try to show why and how the bandwidth in question is public, maybe you should rethink the your penchant for hyperbole and distortion.

You saying so doesn't make it true.

Ethereal · Apr 30, 2009

Because as stated by myself and others, there are frequencies used by the FAA for aircraft communications, Police and Fire and the subsequent anarchy and confusion there would be if the air waves were left "unfettered" by Government control and regulation.

I don't disagree, which is why I'm not advocating the complete absence of regulation. The FCC can protect these frequencies from being pirated without having to censor their content.

How does one parcel off a piece of the air?

By restricting its access to the owners of said parcel.

The transmission of sound waves through the air does not follow a specific path, in wanders aimlessly until it has been tuned in so-to-speak.

Does that help?

I don't believe we're talking about sound waves but I understand your question. Access to certain frequencies is already restricted by the FCC - the same as land - so there's no reason to believe the underlying principles guiding the public use of frequencies would not apply to private use.

Once more, I cannot fathom what logical argument against such regulation except the absurd anger of those who claim that their 1st Amendment rights are somehow being denied by limiting what they can do, say or see over the public airwaves. Yet everything they want can be obtained by other media means.

Why the BIG deal, anger and foaming at the mouth denouncement of a Government entity that is NOT governed by partisan politics and is regulated by Congress; the body the people elect to regulate?

I believe the issue is whether or not frequencies should be considered public property. Just because something can be utilized by the public does not necessarily mean it must be public property. They are not essential to our health and they are not readily utile. In order to make use of these frequencies one must dedicate capital, labor, and entrepreneurial ability; it seems a clear-cut case of private "property."

Truth Detector · Apr 30, 2009

scourge99 said:
Its obvious they are arguing that such terms in the agreement are not consistant with the stated purpose of the FCC. That is, the FCC was created to maintain order in broadcasting and not to censor content. Therefore, it has no compelling reason for censoring the leased airwaves even though it can stipulate whatever terms and conditions it would like.

Do you have any facts to support your assertion? If that is their argument, I haven't seen evidence of it.

I have seen a lot of hyperbole, OPINION and empty headed assertions, but I have yet to see anything that supports what you claim.

Why don't you add to the debate and provide a link that states clearly that the FCC was NOT created to censor content?

scourge99 said:
It would be like arguing that if you purchase land for a home then the government can regulate what sexual positions are allowed while on the land. Sure, they can put that in the contract and its legally binding but It just doesn't make sense why they would when they are merely overseeing the distribution of land.

No it would NOTHING like purchasing land for a home; we are talking about the AIR and content broadcast to the public.

Ikari · Apr 30, 2009

Truth Detector said:
No it would NOTHING like purchasing land for a home; we are talking about the AIR and content broadcast to the public.

It's not air, it's radiation. And you keep talking as if you are passive in all of this. Yes, there is broadcast information, but you just don't pick it up. You have to have machines for it, you're not a passive element in the equation; you have dynamics on your side which are necessary for the reception of the signal. You're not some poor guy just walking down the street and then BAM, a commercial for Light Speed Briefs appears in your head. This all has the hallmark of private business. Someone pays for the rights to a certain frequency and power, they have a studio and broadcast equipment, other people are not permitted to use that same frequency in the area purchased by that private owner. At no point is the public funding any of this, it's all private. As such, it should be considered private property. Same as bars and restaurants.