Let's start again from the top, since clearly you missed it the first time:
12/19/2010 11:55:10 PM
The same part that gives them territorial authority over the land, air, and seas (also not addressed by the US Constitution either)It is part and parcel of being a sovereign nation, something well established by common law, and except for those aspects of common law that the constitution expressly overturned, common law was unchanged by the adoption of the US Constitution. It can't be any more clear than that. Your refusal to accept that fact doesn't make that fact disappear.
12/20/2010 12:02:10 AM
Except that the land, air and seas are physical parts of a nation. The airwaves are a method of communication and transmission. And last I looked, we have some significant restrictions on the government in regards to regulating communication.
12/20/2010 12:32:44 AM
1337 b4k4 redefining what is a sovereign state ITT
12/20/2010 9:48:08 AM
nutsmackr redefining a method of communication as property that someone can own ITT.For what it's worth, when they enacted the various laws that gave the FCC it's power, they didn't think the government "owned" the airwaves:http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/98059-The_Public_Airwaves_Myth.php
12/20/2010 1:33:34 PM
The us owns the radio spectrum, not the means of communication. And the bill in question came in 1934, Communications Act of 1934 (it created the FCC).Either way, you are advocating that the United States adopt a system that isn't utilized by the other 190 countries in the world.Continue to redefine sovereignty.And in case you are wondering: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."Why does that apply?Because the US is a signatory to the International Telecommunication Union which establishes: "the sovereign right of each State to regulate its telecommunication."Enjoy it ninja, no matter how many articles you post from groups who think it should be different. It's reality.[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 3:25 PM. Reason : .][Edited on December 20, 2010 at 3:29 PM. Reason : .]
12/20/2010 3:17:48 PM
12/20/2010 4:03:08 PM
12/20/2010 7:06:31 PM
Awesome, libertarians getting all butthurt about something completely meaningless that doesn't really hurt anyone. This is why the libertarian party is able to achieve such amazing results.
12/20/2010 7:46:19 PM
what, bitching about the volume?
12/20/2010 8:12:11 PM
12/20/2010 9:24:47 PM
so then, you agree, they can't regulate obscenity.
12/20/2010 9:37:49 PM
obscenity isn't protected speech, dumbass. That was the point of posting those supreme court rulings
12/20/2010 9:42:45 PM
ohhh. and silly me thought it said the gov't shall make no law abridging speech. i guess it REALLY said "as long as the speech isn't obscene." Man, I didn't see that partbut, you weren't defending the regulation on that grounds earlier. you were simply saying it was part of the law. so which is it?[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 9:46 PM. Reason : ]
12/20/2010 9:44:41 PM
It's both, which is the point. If obscenity was protected speech then those regulations couldn't exist. If the law was written to not allow the FCC to regulate obscenity on broadcast television and terrestrial radio then they wouldn't be allowed to. Since both of those conditions exist then the FCC has the authority to regulate it.I didn't realize I had to give you an entire lesson on what is and what isn't protected speech to make that clear. [Edited on December 20, 2010 at 9:51 PM. Reason : .]
12/20/2010 9:48:17 PM
only, not really. you, yourself said you can't sign away a right. and yet, you said the companies signed away their rights... hmmm...
12/20/2010 9:50:02 PM
Obscenity isn't a right[Edited on December 20, 2010 at 9:53 PM. Reason : .]
12/20/2010 9:52:52 PM
no, but speech is.
12/20/2010 9:59:37 PM
Yes, which is why the FCC has the authority to regulate obscenity, but not political speech. Understand?
12/20/2010 10:00:17 PM
nope. because the FCC is not qualified to say what obscenity is. you can't "regulate" something if such "regulation" requires a judgment call on it to distinguish it from an actual right. that was kind of the whole fucking point of the 1st amendment. If the gov't can simply say "that's obscenity" and get around it, then what the hell use was it in the first place?]
12/20/2010 10:01:14 PM
Go read Miller v. California, and FCC v Fox Television, and FCC v Pacifica. Good Christ almighty.
12/20/2010 10:05:45 PM
I'm curious libertarians, how would a private radio system work? He who has the most powerful transmitter wins?I suppose in the digital age, it's a little bit more practical in that you could build a sophisticated enough transmitter/receiver pair to communicate through the noise. But there would still be someone out there that could overwhelm your signal if they wanted to.
12/20/2010 10:11:40 PM
12/21/2010 8:05:10 AM
12/21/2010 9:48:39 AM
12/21/2010 1:46:55 PM
The supreme court will not overturn miller, nor will it overturn fcc v foxAnd as it stands, until the supreme court decides to do so, it is not unconstitutional. Again, you lose.
12/21/2010 1:58:05 PM
12/21/2010 8:31:22 PM