NationStates Jolt Archive

Why do we need this particular bureaucracy? I couldn't find much on the internet, wondering if anyone has any insight.

You just didn't look right! ;)

http://law.indiana.edu/fclj/pubs/v52/no2/levine.pdf

It gives government an excuse to pull the plug on expressions it doesn't like.

IF the FCC represented the PEOPLE (like it was meant do but it doesnt) then they would oppose media consolidation and support far greater diversity in the media then what we have now with one guy who owns 99% of it all (which is totally sick) and the entire lamestream media speaking in the same irrelevant voice about absolute meaningless garbage (with the only exception being Air America and Pacifica and a handful of newspapers)

Why do we need this particular bureaucracy? I couldn't find much on the internet, wondering if anyone has any insight.

Partially to ensure(or attempt to ensure) that the broadcast waves are available in the event of emergency. Partial to prevent these waves from being used against us in the event of war, by infiltrators of whatever ilk.
Partially to ensure that all broadcasting stations have a fair range, so that one broadcaster is not allowed to usurp too much frequency, which would prevent others from offering opposing views/different programming, etc.

The Fcc is based on the Radio Act of 1927 ( http://showcase.netins.net/web/akline/pdf/1927act.pdf ) for the most part. When TV was added, the airwaves were overseen by different agencies, and this was consolidated to the FCC in 1934.

Why the FCC controls what is allowed to be broadcast is another question.

Why do we need this particular bureaucracy? I couldn't find much on the internet, wondering if anyone has any insight.

Partially to ensure(or attempt to ensure) that the broadcast waves are available in the event of emergency. Partial to prevent these waves from being used against us in the event of war, by infiltrators of whatever ilk.
Partially to ensure that all broadcasting stations have a fair range, so that one broadcaster is not allowed to usurp too much frequency, which would prevent others from offering opposing views/different programming, etc.

The Fcc is based on the Radio Act of 1927 (http://showcase.netins.net/web/akline/pdf/1927act.pdf ) for the most part. When TV was added, the airwaves were overseen by different agencies, and this was consolidated to the FCC in 1934.

Why the FCC controls what is allowed to bebroadcast is another question.

there are no opposing views in the corporate media thats the problem so they failed in that mission

there are no opposing views in the corporate media thats the problem so they failed in that mission Perhaps you should try changing the channel.

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

there are no opposing views in the corporate media thats the problem so they failed in that mission Perhaps you should try changing the channel.

I have and they ALL speak the exact same smack

there are no opposing views in the corporate media thats the problem so they failed in that mission Perhaps you should try changing the channel.

I have and they ALL speak the exact same smack

Then, if they're all the same, whats your particular gripe with Fox News?

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices. The restriction of not being able to own multiple stations within a listening/viewing area is important in our right to have information. Without this, we'd end up with no dissenting voice being broadcast and so would lose access to much thought provoking material.

there are no opposing views in the corporate media thats the problem so they failed in that mission Perhaps you should try changing the channel.

I have and they ALL speak the exact same smack

Then, if they're all the same, whats your particular gripe with Fox News?

Because foxnews represents a new low

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices. The restriction of not being able to own multiple stations within a listening/viewing area is important in our right to have information. Without this, we'd end up with no dissenting voice being broadcast and so would lose access to much thought provoking material.

what you descibe is exactly what we have now

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices. The restriction of not being able to own multiple stations within a listening/viewing area is important in our right to have information. Without this, we'd end up with no dissenting voice being broadcast and so would lose access to much thought provoking material.

Unfortunately, your argument is purely pragmatic and therefore not valid.

there are no opposing views in the corporate media thats the problem so they failed in that mission Perhaps you should try changing the channel.

I have and they ALL speak the exact same smack
Then turn off the television and read your news from papers and the web. Given the huge variety of newspapers and websites available, I am sure you can find news that fits your views.

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices. The restriction of not being able to own multiple stations within a listening/viewing area is important in our right to have information. Without this, we'd end up with no dissenting voice being broadcast and so would lose access to much thought provoking material.

what you descibe is exactly what we have now

And I fail to see anything wrong with that...if a company can legitimately acquire a shitload of media outlets, it has every right to do so and to use them to broadcast its views. If someone disagrees, they're free to broadcast their own views.

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices. The restriction of not being able to own multiple stations within a listening/viewing area is important in our right to have information. Without this, we'd end up with no dissenting voice being broadcast and so would lose access to much thought provoking material.

Unfortunately, your argument is purely pragmatic and therefore not valid.
Explain your statement, please? Don't define the words. Tell me why it is 'purely pragmatic and therefore not valid'.

Explain your statement, please? Don't define the words. Tell me why it is 'purely pragmatic and therefore not valid'.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices.

Good question. I don't see anything in the Constitution authorizing its creation.

And I fail to see anything wrong with that...if a company can legitimately acquire a shitload of media outlets, it has every right to do so and to use them to broadcast its views. If someone disagrees, they're free to broadcast their own views.

A company can have a "shitload of media outlets". They cannot have all the radio stations in one listening area.They cannot have all the TV stations in one area. They can have one of each in every broadcast area there is, which gives them a fair voice in every market. If they could have every outlet in any one area, then no one could broadcast there except them, so how would you suggest dissenting views get airtime?

And I fail to see anything wrong with that...if a company can legitimately acquire a shitload of media outlets, it has every right to do so and to use them to broadcast its views. If someone disagrees, they're free to broadcast their own views.

A company can have a "shitload of media outlets". They cannot have all the radio stations in one listening area.They cannot have all the TV stations in one area. They can have one of each in every broadcast area there is, which gives them a fair voice in every market. If they could have every outlet in any one area, then no one could broadcast there except them, so how would you suggest dissenting views get airtime?

By creating a new outlet that did not previously exist, or convincing the owners of an existing outlet to voluntarily transfer ownership of the outlet to them (most likely through a purchase of some kind).

Impractical? Perhaps. But so what? You're still free to do it.

Explain your statement, please? Don't define the words. Tell me why it is 'purely pragmatic and therefore not valid'.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was dealing with another soundbite devotee. Is it too much to ask for a coherent, written explanation of your views? You know, the sort of thing that might help me see your point of view.

there are no opposing views in the corporate media thats the problem so they failed in that mission Perhaps you should try changing the channel.

I have and they ALL speak the exact same smack
Then turn off the television and read your news from papers and the web. Given the huge variety of newspapers and websites available, I am sure you can find news that fits your views.

No--I wanna hear morally correct truthspeakers on tv and the radio insted of the liars we have now--I demand multiple opinions not propaganda--the airwaves belong to me the people

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices. The restriction of not being able to own multiple stations within a listening/viewing area is important in our right to have information. Without this, we'd end up with no dissenting voice being broadcast and so would lose access to much thought provoking material.

what you descibe is exactly what we have now

And I fail to see anything wrong with that...if a company can legitimately acquire a shitload of media outlets, it has every right to do so and to use them to broadcast its views. If someone disagrees, they're free to broadcast their own views.

but they cant do that because it becomes a monopoly

Explain your statement, please? Don't define the words. Tell me why it is 'purely pragmatic and therefore not valid'.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was dealing with another soundbite devotee. Is it too much to ask for a coherent, written explanation of your views? You know, the sort of thing that might help me see your point of view.

My point is, you gave a practical argument, and practical arguments are ipso facto invalid.

The right thing is desirable for its own sake, not because it produces a desirable outcome.

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices. The restriction of not being able to own multiple stations within a listening/viewing area is important in our right to have information. Without this, we'd end up with no dissenting voice being broadcast and so would lose access to much thought provoking material.

what you descibe is exactly what we have now

And I fail to see anything wrong with that...if a company can legitimately acquire a shitload of media outlets, it has every right to do so and to use them to broadcast its views. If someone disagrees, they're free to broadcast their own views.

but they cant do that because it becomes a monopoly

So?

Explain your statement, please? Don't define the words. Tell me why it is 'purely pragmatic and therefore not valid'.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was dealing with another soundbite devotee. Is it too much to ask for a coherent, written explanation of your views? You know, the sort of thing that might help me see your point of view.

My point is, you gave a practical argument, and practical arguments are ipso facto invalid.

The right thing is desirable for its own sake, not because it produces a desirable outcome.

I would love to hear you say that to a team of engineers.

It would make me smile to see them deck you.

The right thing is desirable for its own sake, not because it produces a desirable outcome.
Ah, I see. We view "the right thing" differently. To me, to qualify as 'right' the ends and the means both must be equitable. It is right that you should be able profit as much as your accumen allows for, but not at the expense of fair competition. I don't want a black Model T, thank you.

In more recent times, to stop Justin Timberlake from stripping down any female he rocks his body to...

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

Explain your statement, please? Don't define the words. Tell me why it is 'purely pragmatic and therefore not valid'.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was dealing with another soundbite devotee. Is it too much to ask for a coherent, written explanation of your views? You know, the sort of thing that might help me see your point of view.

My point is, you gave a practical argument, and practical arguments are ipso facto invalid.

The right thing is desirable for its own sake, not because it produces a desirable outcome.

I would love to hear you say that to a team of engineers.

It would make me smile to see them deck you.

Society is not an airplane.

(and so you know, I'm pursuing a degree in astronautical engineering right now, and I assure you that I haven't hit myself upside the head once)

Explain your statement, please? Don't define the words. Tell me why it is 'purely pragmatic and therefore not valid'.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices.
I'm sorry, I didn't realise I was dealing with another soundbite devotee. Is it too much to ask for a coherent, written explanation of your views? You know, the sort of thing that might help me see your point of view.

My point is, you gave a practical argument, and practical arguments are ipso facto invalid.

The right thing is desirable for its own sake, not because it produces a desirable outcome.

I would love to hear you say that to a team of engineers.

It would make me smile to see them deck you.

Society is not an airplane.

(and so you know, I'm pursuing a degree in astronautical engineering right now, and I assure you that I haven't hit myself upside the head once)

(I'm surprised.)

The principles of practicality apply, else idealism translates directly into dystopia.

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

Selling rights to a frequency. :roll:

Capitalism is the most retarded system out there. Selling rights to something such as a frequency. Sigh.

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

Selling rights to a frequency. :roll:

Capitalism is the most retarded system out there. Selling rights to something such as a frequency. Sigh.

What would you prefer, comrade?

Well first of all the idea of selling natural phenomenon/strucutres (which is what you're doing when you sell a frequency) seems inherently absurd to me. something like licensing temperatures or something....

Well first of all the idea of selling natural phenomenon/strucutres (which is what you're doing when you sell a frequency) seems inherently absurd to me. something like licensing temperatures or something....

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

Selling rights to a frequency. :roll:

Capitalism is the most retarded system out there. Selling rights to something such as a frequency. Sigh.

What would you prefer, comrade?

Indeed, Communism does rule and will rule the world after the majority of greedy people dies out and those that want to do good for all people becomes the overwhelming majority.

Anyway, I believe that there should be an FCC. It should regulate frequencies, etc. People that wish to broadcast should get a license and then they can get a frequency assigned to them by the FCC for free. Should the frequency become unused and/or unwanted by the owner, it reverts back to FCC control until it is assigned to someone else.

Airwaves were properly considered to be public property, to be licensed to regulated utilities.

Otherwise there would be chaos and no one could receive anything, one channel would try to overpower another, all most would receive would be static.

Well first of all the idea of selling natural phenomenon/strucutres (which is what you're doing when you sell a frequency) seems inherently absurd to me. something like licensing temperatures or something....

The problem of who gets to transmit on a particular frequency in a particular area is a real one. Without someway to distribute rights to use a certain frequency, there could be more than one organization trying to use the same frequency and they would be useless. (EDIT: The solution is not to) buy the frequency so much as (EDIT: to buy) the right to use a frequency.

The government is not required in order to make this happen. Making the assumption that radio frenquencies are "public property" because they are natural and in limited supply is flawed. Land falls under the same conditions; it is natural and in limited supply, yet a system of private property and market economics distributes land ownership/right-of-use just fine. The same can work for radio frequencies.

The radio frequencies themselves cannot be physically owned, however, deeds for their use can be owned and can be traded like any other property. Some will claim that private distribution of radio frequencies would lead to chaos on the airwaves. This is untrue, because if an organization buys and owns the right to use a frequency, it can defend this right in court against those who cause interference. The FCC is not required to do this because the system of private property can handle the matter itself just fine. This is how it works with land; owners of land defend against trespass in court, just as they defend all their other property.

Also, companies and others who run radio operations have a definate interest in making sure that the radio waves are useable. In order to assure useability, companies are likely to form their own organizations by which radio frequencies can be distributed, sold, bought, traded, etc. Companies already do this in the computer/internet sectors, creating organizations which keep track of technology standards and other matters. The idea that corporation can cooperate with each other might be a foreign one to some, but it does happen and happen often when companies realize that it is in their best interest.

Some will also claim that private distribution will allow only a few owners to scoop up all the frequencies. They ignore the fact that this very situation already exists with the FCC, which basically owns all frequencies by default. This monopoly by the government can and does lead the way to censorship and repression of ideas, as we are beginning to see with the FCC's new war on "indecency." Private property rights and competition can allow for those who own rights to a frequency to defend this right absolutely, which is a critical defense against monopoly. In the current situation where the government is the absolute authority, however, rights to use can be revoked easily (for doing/saying "bad" things, or whatever other excuse they can think of) which makes control much easier, and the coersive monopoly feared much more likely.

Why does the FCC exist? Because, I'd go ape on the ole Ham radio if they let me loose. I'd be like "waaa!" and.. "Yoooo!" You get the idea. :wink:

Indeed, Communism does rule and will rule the world after the majority of greedy people dies out and those that want to do good for all people becomes the overwhelming majority.


The world wide swing towards free market economics in the european "socialist" countries (EDIT: are there any really truely socialist countries in Europe anymore?) and even in the hardline Communist countries, like China, seems to suggest that the exact opposite is happening. They are all comming to realize the inevitable: the only thing that is going to sustain their countries is the market.

Sorry, but Communism has ceased to be and is no more. :D

Some will also claim that private distribution will allow only a few owners to scoop up all the frequencies. They ignore the fact that this very situation already exists with the FCC, which basically owns all frequencies by default. This monopoly by the government can and does lead the way to censorship and repression of ideas, as we are beginning to see with the FCC's new war on "indecency." Private property rights and competition can allow for those who own rights to a frequency to defend this right absolutely, which is a critical defense against monopoly. In the current situation where the government is the absolute authority, however, rights to use can be revoked easily (for doing/saying "bad" things, or whatever other excuse they can think of) which makes control much easier, and the coersive monopoly feared much more likely. Ah, this makes sense. I would still be concerned that the Idiot Broadcasting Company might be able to buy all the rights in an area if there were not laws in place to prevent that. But I can see that privatizing the rights to frequencies would, in most places, likely open up the variety rather than restrict it.

Thank you for taking time to write out an explanation.

Why does the FCC even exist?

So police, military, and emergency radio channels do not get cluttered with civillians.

So people don't hijack sattelites or overpower other broadcasts.

So radio isn't as dirty as an R-rated movie, where you'd need to be over 17 to listen to a hip-hop station.

So people can browse the internet without losing their computers to viruses.

To enforce decency laws on the airwaves.

So we don't have airwave chaos.

So people don't have free cell-phone service.

So any automated item with an EM field doesn't disturb your neighbor's radio.

So the government has information on every station and can shut them down if they start breaking the law, or advocating breaking the law.

Because many people believe that while we have the right to free speech, we should have the right to turn on our radios and be able to hear good music or talk, without hearing mindnumbing uncensored crap.

Good enough? That's just off the top of my head there.

Why does the FCC even exist?

So police, military, and emergency radio channels do not get cluttered with civillians.

So people don't hijack sattelites or overpower other broadcasts.

So radio isn't as dirty as an R-rated movie, where you'd need to be over 17 to listen to a hip-hop station.

So people can browse the internet without losing their computers to viruses.

To enforce decency laws on the airwaves.

So we don't have airwave chaos.

So people don't have free cell-phone service.

So any automated item with an EM field doesn't disturb your neighbor's radio.

So the government has information on every station and can shut them down if they start breaking the law, or advocating breaking the law.

Because many people believe that while we have the right to free speech, we should have the right to turn on our radios and be able to hear good music or talk, without hearing mindnumbing uncensored crap.

Good enough? That's just off the top of my head there.

He's right. I could do most of that stuff, too. 8)

So police, military, and emergency radio channels do not get cluttered with civillians.


Adherence to and protection of property rights can handle this just fine without the need for a special federal entity.


So people don't hijack sattelites or overpower other broadcasts.


Assuming the satellites are private property, they can be protected with strict private property rights in courts, again without the need for special federal entities.


So radio isn't as dirty as an R-rated movie, where you'd need to be over 17 to listen to a hip-hop station.


What is "dirty" is a matter of opinion, and the policing of the free communication leaves the door wide open for censorship and the repression of free ideas. If a government (like China for example) wants to repress something/someone all it has to do is declare it "dirty."


So people can browse the internet without losing their computers to viruses.


I'm not sure how the FCC has anything to do with this, however, private companies exist which produce anti-virus software, router and firewall software and other means to defend against mallicous programs. Also, and yet again, simple private property rights can be used to prosecute those who destroy private property without the need for a special federal entity.


So any automated item with an EM field doesn't disturb your neighbor's radio.


Again, just like private property rights ensure that my neighbor cannot dump his garbage on my lawn without reparing the damage, private property rights can allow said neighbor to seek damages if somone interferes with the operation of his property. No special federal entity required.


So the government has information on every station and can shut them down...[for] advocating breaking the law.


First Amendment says they can advocate all they want. So long as no actual act of real violence or coersion is enacted against a real victim, no crime is commited. This is simply one of those excuses I mentioned above for government to enact censorship and repress ideas. If they don't like what someone is saying, just make that saying a crime.


Because many people believe that while we have the right to free speech, we should have the right to turn on our radios and be able to hear good music or talk, without hearing mindnumbing uncensored crap.


One has the right to turn off the radio and to seek out other media if one doesn't like what is offered. Forcing others to change their ways to suit one's own needs, without even providing compensation as radio is free, how convienient, is selfish and contrary to the cause of freedom.

So police, military, and emergency radio channels do not get cluttered with civillians.


Adherence to and protection of property rights can handle this just fine without the need for a special federal entity.Really... who exactly would enforce these laws? The police? They're busy enough.


So people don't hijack sattelites or overpower other broadcasts.


Assuming the satellites are private property, they can be protected with strict private property rights in courts, again without the need for special federal entities.Same thing... how do you press charges if no one enforces the laws?


So radio isn't as dirty as an R-rated movie, where you'd need to be over 17 to listen to a hip-hop station.


What is "dirty" is a matter of opinion, and the policing of the free communication leaves the door wide open for censorship and the repression of free ideas. If a government (like China for example) wants to repress something/someone all it has to do is declare it "dirty."Dirty is a matter of POPULAR opinion. Vulgarity and Pornography are and basically always have been considered 'dirty.'


So people can browse the internet without losing their computers to viruses.


I'm not sure how the FCC has anything to do with this, however, private companies exist which produce anti-virus software, router and firewall software and other means to defend against mallicous programs. Also, and yet again, simple private property rights can be used to prosecute those who destroy private property without the need for a special federal entity.


So any automated item with an EM field doesn't disturb your neighbor's radio.


Again, just like private property rights ensure that my neighbor cannot dump his garbage on my lawn without reparing the damage, private property rights can allow said neighbor to seek damages if somone interferes with the operation of his property. No special federal entity required.The FCC regulates all EM-emitting products BEFORE they hit the market... surely someone can't be held responsible for a manufacturer's design flaw.


So the government has information on every station and can shut them down...[for] advocating breaking the law.


First Amendment says they can advocate all they want. So long as no actual act of real violence or coersion is enacted against a real victim, no crime is commited. This is simply one of those excuses I mentioned above for government to enact censorship and repress ideas. If they don't like what someone is saying, just make that saying a crime.Umm... as far as I know, promoting criminal activity is criminal...


Because many people believe that while we have the right to free speech, we should have the right to turn on our radios and be able to hear good music or talk, without hearing mindnumbing uncensored crap.


One has the right to turn off the radio and to seek out other media if one doesn't like what is offered. Forcing others to change their ways to suit one's own needs, without even providing compensation as radio is free, how convienient, is selfish and contrary to the cause of freedom.Whoa man, radio ain't free. Radio is paid for by sponsors... you know, those annoying advertisments... If a sponsor doesn't like a radio station, or users complain, then the station closes.

Well, i guess that last point does kind of support your cause... if we let capitalism run its course, yeah, I guess we could cut the censorship laws... but as far as all the interference and property rights problems go, that's why we have the FCC.

So police, military, and emergency radio channels do not get cluttered with civillians.


Adherence to and protection of property rights can handle this just fine without the need for a special federal entity.


So people don't hijack sattelites or overpower other broadcasts.


Assuming the satellites are private property, they can be protected with strict private property rights in courts, again without the need for special federal entities.



This is pretty funny. So.. everyone's gonna own their own fire-engine and we should disband the Police, then, eh? If the cops can't communicate with each other by radio, then we should all just take the law into our own hands. Pretty simple! Sounds fun. And about the satellites, we should file a lawsuit every time a satellite recieves malicious interference? We'd sure get a lot done... :roll:

This is pretty funny. So.. everyone's gonna own their own fire-engine and we should disband the Police, then, eh?


I'm having trouble finding the spot where I said we should disband the police and fire department. What I do recall saying, or at least trying to say, is that the police and fire departments can themselves use property rights to defend their use of whatever frequencies they have fairly purchased like every one else.


And about the satellites, we should file a lawsuit every time a satellite recieves malicious interference? We'd sure get a lot done... :roll:

It seems to work just fine for land, houses, planes, trains, automobiles, and other forms of private property...so yeah, why not? Person goes to their usual local/state court with the case that their property is being abused in a malicous manner, and said court sees to the elimination (EDIT: of said abuse). I fail to see why a special federal entity is required to do this.

Really... who exactly would enforce these laws? The police? They're busy enough.


The dude in the black robe and the 12 other dudes sitting to his left. :D

The point is that the local criminal/civil court system can handle the matter of private property rights just fine, without the need of special federal entities.


Same thing... how do you press charges if no one enforces the laws?


Press the charges in the local/state legal system. Federal entites are unnecessary as all the necessary legal facilities (EDIT: already) exist on the local/state level.


Dirty is a matter of POPULAR opinion. Vulgarity and Pornography are and basically always have been considered 'dirty.'


I don't recall going to the polls and voting on what is and isn't "dirty." Since the definitions of these things are created by largely appointed government officials within the FCC, and not by direct petition of the people, I fail to see how there is anything popular about them.


The FCC regulates all EM-emitting products BEFORE they hit the market... surely someone can't be held responsible for a manufacturer's design flaw.


No, but the manufacturer can be. And again, such things can be handled just fine by local/state legal systems, and a federal entity is not required.


Umm... as far as I know, promoting criminal activity is criminal...


It is. And I'm just saying that it shouldn't be. :D


Whoa man, radio ain't free. Radio is paid for by sponsors... you know, those annoying advertisments... If a sponsor doesn't like a radio station, or users complain, then the station closes.


The point is that it is free to the end user, the person who switches on their radio reciever. Since such an end user doesn't typically compensate the radio station in any way, said user has no right to make demands reguarding what is aired.

[dp

This is pretty funny. So.. everyone's gonna own their own fire-engine and we should disband the Police, then, eh?


I'm having trouble finding the spot where I said we should disband the police and fire department. What I do recall saying, or at least trying to say, is that the police and fire departments can themselves use property rights to defend their use of whatever frequencies they have fairly purchased like every one else.


And about the satellites, we should file a lawsuit every time a satellite recieves malicious interference? We'd sure get a lot done... :roll:

It seems to work just fine for land, houses, planes, trains, automobiles, and other forms of private property...so yeah, why not? Person goes to their usual local/state court with the case that their property is being abused in a malicous manner, and said court sees to the elimination there of. I fail to see why a special federal entity is required to do this.

Oh, ok. I get it now. If the cops can't communicate, they'll just call their lawyers. That'll work. My mistake.

If the cops can't communicate, they'll just call their lawyers.

No, just one lawyer. Typically refered to as "District Attorney."

(EDIT: Who, as it happens, isn't under the authority of the FCC :D )

(EDIT: given my previous arguments, this would be a district attorney of a local/state, not federal, government.)

This is pretty funny. So.. everyone's gonna own their own fire-engine and we should disband the Police, then, eh?


I'm having trouble finding the spot where I said we should disband the police and fire department. What I do recall saying, or at least trying to say, is that the police and fire departments can themselves use property rights to defend their use of whatever frequencies they have fairly purchased like every one else.Yeah, and while they're waiting for the courts to settle things, 1 in 10 broadcasts on an emergency dispatch radio will be some punk civillian kid with an unihibited CB, because no FCC was around to set the standards and electronic limits and safeguards.


And about the satellites, we should file a lawsuit every time a satellite recieves malicious interference? We'd sure get a lot done... :roll:

It seems to work just fine for land, houses, planes, trains, automobiles, and other forms of private property...so yeah, why not? Person goes to their usual local/state court with the case that their property is being abused in a malicous manner, and said court sees to the elimination (EDIT: of said abuse). I fail to see why a special federal entity is required to do this.Same thing.

Why exactly DO you want to get rid of the FCC? Is it just the censorship thing?

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

I think that would quickly result in one big channel and few or no choices. The restriction of not being able to own multiple stations within a listening/viewing area is important in our right to have information. Without this, we'd end up with no dissenting voice being broadcast and so would lose access to much thought provoking material.

what you descibe is exactly what we have now

And I fail to see anything wrong with that...if a company can legitimately acquire a shitload of media outlets, it has every right to do so and to use them to broadcast its views. If someone disagrees, they're free to broadcast their own views.

but they cant do that because it becomes a monopoly

So?

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

In more recent times, to stop Justin Timberlake from stripping down any female he rocks his body to...

http://www.skytowerpoet.net/pics/100_15.gif

The Deadlines of Tuesday Heights (http://www.xanga.com/home.aspx?user=skytowerpoet)

Justin Timberlake is a whimp whose afraid of boobs

Indeed, Communism does rule and will rule the world after the majority of greedy people dies out and those that want to do good for all people becomes the overwhelming majority.


The world wide swing towards free market economics in the european "socialist" countries (EDIT: are there any really truely socialist countries in Europe anymore?) and even in the hardline Communist countries, like China, seems to suggest that the exact opposite is happening. They are all comming to realize the inevitable: the only thing that is going to sustain their countries is the market.

Sorry, but Communism has ceased to be and is no more. :D

the "free" market system as practiced by republicans is only designed to benefit the parasite class and is just another form of cloaked communism but a communism that only benefits the rich

the "free" market system as practiced by republicans is only designed to benefit the parasite class and is just another form of cloaked communism but a communism that only benefits the rich

But this is only because the average republican wouldn't know what a free market is if one beat them over the head with it. By making the assumption that when I say "free market" I mean protectionist schemes and warfare, as seems to be the neo-conservative standard now, one is simply revealing one's ignorance of what a free market truely is.

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

no he's not, because despite the fact that airways are a natural occurence, the state has legitimized monopolization of these airways. Red could have all the necessary equipment to set up a radio station, but if someone else 'owns' (though it seems absurd to me) the radio waves, he's shit out of luck. If he tries to use them anyways, here come the men with guns.

Yeah, and while they're waiting for the courts to settle things, 1 in 10 broadcasts on an emergency dispatch radio will be some punk civillian kid with an unihibited CB, because no FCC was around to set the standards and electronic limits and safeguards.


Unless the FCC has the ability to call down lightining from the heavens upon a violator of these standards the very second a violation occurs, malicous attacks on emergency radio are going to happen and continue to happen until the violator can be tracked down and prosecuted. Frankly, this "waiting for the courts" is going to happen whether we have an FCC or not, as the actual tracking of the violator and the legal process both take time. No amount of FCC regulation is going to change this, and so, the presence of the FCC will make no difference is this reguard.

So again, I fail to see why the FCC is necessary.


Why exactly DO you want to get rid of the FCC?


Because it is completely unnecessary. The mechanism by which violations are tracked and prosecuted are not dependent on the existance of the FCC.

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

no he's not, because despite the fact that airways are a natural occurence, the state has legitimized monopolization of these airways. Red could have all the necessary equipment to set up a radio station, but if someone else 'owns' (though it seems absurd to me) the radio waves, he's shit out of luck. If he tries to use them anyways, here come the men with guns.And that happens quite often. Here in SF, there was a crackdown on "pirate" radio stations just last year.

[quote=Mallberta]
The radio frequencies themselves cannot be physically owned, however, deeds for their use can be owned and can be traded like any other property.

That's the idea...however, my problem lies with determining who INITIALLY holds the deed. Once that's done it's a simple matter of deed transfers and property rights; however, I can't think of any way to resolve the potential for conflicting claims to a certain frequency initially.

[quote=Mallberta]
The radio frequencies themselves cannot be physically owned, however, deeds for their use can be owned and can be traded like any other property.

That's the idea...however, my problem lies with determining who INITIALLY holds the deed. Once that's done it's a simple matter of deed transfers and property rights; however, I can't think of any way to resolve the potential for conflicting claims to a certain frequency initially.

Initial ownership of unproduced, tangible things is very difficult to justify. I think probably impossible, geolibertarians have that much right.

the "free" market system as practiced by republicans is only designed to benefit the parasite class and is just another form of cloaked communism but a communism that only benefits the rich

But this is only because the average republican wouldn't know what a free market is if one beat them over the head with it. By making the assumption that when I say "free market" I mean protectionist schemes and warfare, as seems to be the neo-conservative standard now, one is simply revealing one's ignorance of what a free market truely is.

good pint

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

not true--dissenting voices are censored on corporate media and only spin rules the day

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

no he's not, because despite the fact that airways are a natural occurence, the state has legitimized monopolization of these airways. Red could have all the necessary equipment to set up a radio station, but if someone else 'owns' (though it seems absurd to me) the radio waves, he's shit out of luck. If he tries to use them anyways, here come the men with guns.

true--they call that pirate radio

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

not true--dissenting voices are censored on corporate media and only spin rules the dayLOL Duh? It's called capitalism.

If you really want LESS spin, then get over your prejudices and watch Fox news.

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

not true--dissenting voices are censored on corporate media and only spin rules the dayLOL Duh? It's called capitalism.

If you really want LESS spin, then get over your prejudices and watch Fox news.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Come on now, really, Raysia. Fox doesn't even pretend that it's not spinning anymore. They're media whores and proud of it.

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

not true--dissenting voices are censored on corporate media and only spin rules the dayLOL Duh? It's called capitalism.

If you really want LESS spin, then get over your prejudices and watch Fox news.HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Come on now, really, Raysia. Fox doesn't even pretend that it's not spinning anymore. They're media whores and proud of it.At least it spins in the OPPOSITE direction. So if you watch CNN, AND Fox, then you'll be able to decipher the truth... or something like that :P

if you really want less spin, I'd think either the CBC (which I doubt you can get in most places in the states) or the BBC would probably be good options. Both have less incentive to spin because they don't have to compete for viewers, being government funded.

Both have less incentive to spin because they don't have to compete for viewers, being government funded.

Except when it comes to maintaining said funding.

if you really want less spin, I'd think either the CBC (which I doubt you can get in most places in the states) or the BBC would probably be good options. Both have less incentive to spin because they don't have to compete for viewers, being government funded.LOL Sorry man, BBC is known to be one of the left-spinners out there.

Come on now, really, Raysia. Fox doesn't even pretend that it's not spinning anymore. They're media whores and proud of it.At least it spins in the OPPOSITE direction. So if you watch CNN, AND Fox, then you'll be able to decipher the truth... or something like that :PTry again. Look at this article (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Ottawa/Michael_Harris/2004/04/02/405262.html) to see what the real problem is with the mass media. Here's the first paragraph:
According to a new book by Paul Rutherford, Weapons of Mass Persuasion, there are 20,000 more public relations experts in the United States doctoring the news than there are journalists trying to write it.
If you're interested in accuracy--not spin--that little fact ought to bug the shit out of you.

Come on now, really, Raysia. Fox doesn't even pretend that it's not spinning anymore. They're media whores and proud of it.At least it spins in the OPPOSITE direction. So if you watch CNN, AND Fox, then you'll be able to decipher the truth... or something like that :PTry again. Look at this article (http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Ottawa/Michael_Harris/2004/04/02/405262.html) to see what the real problem is with the mass media. Here's the first paragraph:
According to a new book by Paul Rutherford, Weapons of Mass Persuasion, there are 20,000 more public relations experts in the United States doctoring the news than there are journalists trying to write it.
If you're interested in accuracy--not spin--that little fact ought to bug the shit out of you.Like I said. Listen to the left spin, then listen to the right spin, then interpret the real ground :P

Personally, I have tend to put my faith in the real journalism going on at Fox News... but of course, Fox news is ridiculed as being right-wing spun... by who? Who is making fun of fox? The liberal media who has significantly dropped ratings since Fox News went on the air :P

Like I said. Listen to the left spin, then listen to the right spin, then interpret the real ground :P

Personally, I have tend to put my faith in the real journalism going on at Fox News... but of course, Fox news is ridiculed as being right-wing spun... by who? Who is making fun of fox? The liberal media who has significantly dropped ratings since Fox News went on the air :PYou're missing the point, and more importantly, Fox's idea of journalism is repeating whatever the Bush administration spews out without engaging in a little exercise real journalists like to call fact-checking. It was no surprise that a POPA study last year found that over 70% people who got the majority of their news from Fox had at least one misconception about the runup to the war in Iraq, while less than 20% of people who got their news from PBS or NPR--the groups traditionally accused of being left-leaning--were likely to have the same misconceptions.

Like I said. Listen to the left spin, then listen to the right spin, then interpret the real ground :P

Personally, I have tend to put my faith in the real journalism going on at Fox News... but of course, Fox news is ridiculed as being right-wing spun... by who? Who is making fun of fox? The liberal media who has significantly dropped ratings since Fox News went on the air :PYou're missing the point, and more importantly, Fox's idea of journalism is repeating whatever the Bush administration spews out without engaging in a little exercise real journalists like to call fact-checking. It was no surprise that a POPA study last year found that over 70% people who got the majority of their news from Fox had at least one misconception about the runup to the war in Iraq, while less than 20% of people who got their news from PBS or NPR--the groups traditionally accused of being left-leaning--were likely to have the same misconceptions.Really, what exactly was the misconception?

Really, what exactly was the misconception?Sorry--it was PIPA, not POPA, and the report can be found here. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf) I would cut and paste from it, but it's a pdf file, so you'll have to go look for yourself.

Here are the basics, though. A January, 2003 poll found that a majority believed that Iraq had played a major role in the 9-11 attacks and a minorty believed they had seen "conclusive evidence" backing up that claim.

A February, 2003 poll found that a majority believed that Iraq had provided substantial support to Al-Qaeda when the intelligence community at the time believed and still believes that was not the case.

Finally, polls conducted after the war had started and after Bush's famous "Mission Accomplished" moment showed that a majority believed that evidence had been found in Iraq definitively linking Hussein with Al-Qaeda. None of those situations were accurate.

For good measure, let's throw in that a substantial minority believed that WMD had not only been found in Iraq, but that Hussein had used them on US troops.

Now the fun part--scroll down to page 15 of the document and look at the charts. Respondents with one or more misperceptions about the war--80% got the majority of their news from Fox, 23% from PBS/NPR. The reverse is the case for people who had no misperceptions--20% got their news from Fox, 77% from PBS/NPR. The rest of the report goes on to break the question down into even greater specificity, and let's just say, it's not flattering to the folks at Fox "News".

So much for deciphering truth from opposing spin.

Why do we need this particular bureaucracy? I couldn't find much on the internet, wondering if anyone has any insight.
The FCC, an appointed body, not elected...answerable only to the President, decided on it's own that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the free speech provisions of the First Amendment of the constitution...I'd like to rrepeat that because it sounds VAGUELY IMPORTANT....
The FCC, an appointed body, not elected, decided on it's own that radio and television were the only two parts of American life not protected by the First Amendment. Why did they decide this? Becuase they got a LETTER, from a MINISTER...in MISSISSIPPI!!!

A Reverend Donald Wildmon, in Mississippi, heard something on the radio he didn't like. Well, Reverend...did anyone ever tell you that there were two KNOBS on the radio??

TWO KNOBS...on the radio!! 'Course, I'm sure the Reverend isn't too comfortable with anything that has two KNOBS on it, but, hey, Reverend, there are actually two knobs on the radio!! One of them turns the radio off...and the other one...CHANGES THE STATION!! Imagine that, Reverend, you can actually change the station!! It's called freedom of choice, look it up in the library, Reverend...that is if you have any of them left when you finish BURNING ALL THE BOOKS!!!

I dunno about you, but I have personally just about had it with these PHUCKING CHURCH PEOPLE!!! Just about HAD it!!!

And thank you, George Carlin, for those wonderful words of wisdom, on the subject of the FCC!!

Really, what exactly was the misconception?Sorry--it was PIPA, not POPA, and the report can be found here. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf) I would cut and paste from it, but it's a pdf file, so you'll have to go look for yourself.

Here are the basics, though. A January, 2003 poll found that a majority believed that Iraq had played a major role in the 9-11 attacks and a minorty believed they had seen "conclusive evidence" backing up that claim.

A February, 2003 poll found that a majority believed that Iraq had provided substantial support to Al-Qaeda when the intelligence community at the time believed and still believes that was not the case.

Finally, polls conducted after the war had started and after Bush's famous "Mission Accomplished" moment showed that a majority believed that evidence had been found in Iraq definitively linking Hussein with Al-Qaeda. None of those situations were accurate.

For good measure, let's throw in that a substantial minority believed that WMD had not only been found in Iraq, but that Hussein had used them on US troops.

Now the fun part--scroll down to page 15 of the document and look at the charts. Respondents with one or more misperceptions about the war--80% got the majority of their news from Fox, 23% from PBS/NPR. The reverse is the case for people who had no misperceptions--20% got their news from Fox, 77% from PBS/NPR. The rest of the report goes on to break the question down into even greater specificity, and let's just say, it's not flattering to the folks at Fox "News".

So much for deciphering truth from opposing spin.Umm... I don't remember Fox News ever saying Iraq had a direct relation to 9/11...

And that same article when it says "from fox news" that ALSO means the other major news networks, like CNN and MSNBC.

PBS and NPR wouldn't spread misconceptions simply because there are no talk shows where people discuss the issues on an open forum. With NPR and PBS, you tend to get just-the-facts, and you have no idea what anyone is thinking or how anyone is interpreting facts.

Really, what exactly was the misconception?Sorry--it was PIPA, not POPA, and the report can be found here. (http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03_Report.pdf) I would cut and paste from it, but it's a pdf file, so you'll have to go look for yourself.

Here are the basics, though. A January, 2003 poll found that a majority believed that Iraq had played a major role in the 9-11 attacks and a minorty believed they had seen "conclusive evidence" backing up that claim.

A February, 2003 poll found that a majority believed that Iraq had provided substantial support to Al-Qaeda when the intelligence community at the time believed and still believes that was not the case.

Finally, polls conducted after the war had started and after Bush's famous "Mission Accomplished" moment showed that a majority believed that evidence had been found in Iraq definitively linking Hussein with Al-Qaeda. None of those situations were accurate.

For good measure, let's throw in that a substantial minority believed that WMD had not only been found in Iraq, but that Hussein had used them on US troops.

Now the fun part--scroll down to page 15 of the document and look at the charts. Respondents with one or more misperceptions about the war--80% got the majority of their news from Fox, 23% from PBS/NPR. The reverse is the case for people who had no misperceptions--20% got their news from Fox, 77% from PBS/NPR. The rest of the report goes on to break the question down into even greater specificity, and let's just say, it's not flattering to the folks at Fox "News".

So much for deciphering truth from opposing spin.Umm... I don't remember Fox News ever saying Iraq had a direct relation to 9/11...

Wrong..Hannity....and O'reilly BOTH went on and on about it even trying to quote sources and events.

Both have less incentive to spin because they don't have to compete for viewers, being government funded.

Except when it comes to maintaining said funding.

In what sense exactly? I'm not sure exactly in terms of the BBC, but the CBC is public owned, publically acountable, and quite healthy, particularly the radio programming.

Wrong..Hannity....and O'reilly BOTH went on and on about it even trying to quote sources and events.Hannity and O'Reilly aren't really journalists, they're talk show hosts.

Umm... I don't remember Fox News ever saying Iraq had a direct relation to 9/11...Whether or not you remember it is irrelevant--I'm not saying that Fox did or did not ever make that claim. But people on that network did make some factually incorrect claims and those led to some misconceptions. I refer you to this article (http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/03/30/fox_news/index.html) by David Sirota of the Center for American Progress. IN it he writes :On the Saddam-al-Qaida connection, Fox never considered that the connection was nonexistent. Barnes declared on Oct. 9, 2002, that "the CIA now believes there's a real connection between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda, the terrorist group that attacked the United States." He provided no evidence. For years, in fact, the CIA was reporting the opposite.

Sean Hannity, host of the Fox talk show "Hannity and Colmes," claimed with no proof on Dec. 9, 2002, that al-Qaida "obviously has the support of Saddam." He specifically ignored a Los Angeles Times report of a month earlier that found "U.S. allies have found no links between Iraq and al Qaeda." Hannity later announced on April 30, 2003, that he possessed documents proving a "direct link between Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network" and the Iraqi regime, and disparaged critics of the war, saying, "If you listen to the people on the left, they're not fazed by this evidence." They may not have been fazed because earlier that month the Miami Herald reported that senior U.S. officials confirmed they had found "no provable connection between Saddam and al Qaeda."

Now when you go around connecting Hussein to Al-Qaeda, and the correct news reports have Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden as responsible for the 9-11 attacks, it's reasonable to assume that Hussein was responsible, even when he wasn't. It's rhetorically dishonest at the very least.

As to your point in another post about NPR where you said "PBS and NPR wouldn't spread misconceptions simply because there are no talk shows where people discuss the issues on an open forum. With NPR and PBS, you tend to get just-the-facts, and you have no idea what anyone is thinking or how anyone is interpreting facts." You obviously don't listen to NPR or watch the Jim Lehrer Newshour on PBS, or you would know that they deal in analysis and interpretation. They just do so with a higher degree of journalistic integrity, possibly because they're not competing for the corporate dollar like Fox and CNN and all the other major networks are.

so monopolies means the media speaks only with one voice

Again...so?

You're free to speak in opposition if you like.

not true--dissenting voices are censored on corporate media and only spin rules the dayLOL Duh? It's called capitalism.

If you really want LESS spin, then get over your prejudices and watch Fox news.

the problem is, in a democracy, you need an educated population that know what is going on in the world and how their elected officials are handling events. the media is part of the system of checks and balances. more independantly owned media outlets mean more people will be keeping the government responsible. the problem now is you only get three or four viewpoints, since all the media companies are owned by the same three or four companies. these companies want to contine to gain power, through lobbiests, etc, so they can get a bigger share of the market. so now there's a question of credibility, will the media treat fairly those that want to try to break up their monopolies? how will the public at large even learn of monopolies or the effort to break them up if all they hear is what is told to them by monopolies? media shouldnt be run by capitalist rules, its too central to democratic theory.

so, theoretically, the fcc should be there to make sure no company gets too much power, since those that control information control ideas. the media can make or break any candidate, since they control him getting his message out. i for one dont want rupert murdoch alone deciding how americans view candidates.... or mother theresa for that matter.

Wrong..Hannity....and O'reilly BOTH went on and on about it even trying to quote sources and events.Hannity and O'Reilly aren't really journalists, they're talk show hosts.That's no excuse, unless you're saying the fact that they aren't journalists gives them a license to lie. If that's what you're saying, then do you really want to continue to claim that you've been "Hannitized?"

Both have less incentive to spin because they don't have to compete for viewers, being government funded.

Except when it comes to maintaining said funding.

In what sense exactly? I'm not sure exactly in terms of the BBC, but the CBC is public owned, publically acountable, and quite healthy, particularly the radio programming.

but if they say something the government doesnt want to hear, what is stopping them from recieving less funding the next year? media needs to be independant of government. of course, it also needs to be prevented from being concentrated in the hands of too few. its a fine line to walk.

Wrong..Hannity....and O'reilly BOTH went on and on about it even trying to quote sources and events.Hannity and O'Reilly aren't really journalists, they're talk show hosts.That's no excuse, unless you're saying the fact that they aren't journalists gives them a license to lie. If that's what you're saying, then do you really want to continue to claim that you've been "Hannitized?"nonono, I am saying that where people get their information from and where people opinions from are two different things. Hannity's show is a debate or monologue show. it is VERY opinionated. It is also well balanced (because it has a very liberal co-host). It takes sides of every issue and debates on every aspect.

Every cable-news station out there has at least 3 or 4 shows like this... except that they might not all be balanced.

As far as information goes, that's what the journalists are for... you know, those guys who are on between shows. THESE guys are the ones that are supposed to be spin-less.

Your quoted articles might as well point out the fact that most people get their news from late-night comedy shows :P Which are, of course, VERY opinionated.

A big concern of mine lately has been working out whether government has a legitimate role in frequency allocation. If it does, then of course that allocation would be one time only, and after that bandwidth would be bought and sold like any other commodity.

That would effectively destroy amateur radio, which by definition (and by law) is noncommercial. In terms of media control, conglomerates, limited viewpoints, etc. that would make things much, much worse.

Good question. I don't see anything in the Constitution authorizing its creation.

There's no right to privacy in the Constitution either, nor the basis for many, many other laws and federal organizations. The document was intended as an outline, not a rulebook; to say something should not be allowed, one has to first take a careful look at the consequences and legal precedent.

Good question. I don't see anything in the Constitution authorizing its creation.

There's no right to privacy in the Constitution either, nor the basis for many, many other laws and federal organizations. The document was intended as an outline, not a rulebook; to say something should not be allowed, one has to first take a careful look at the consequences and legal precedent.

i think they justify it through the right to regulate interstate commerce. i could be wrong though.