No. The role of the FCC should be limited to prevention of interference (a property/interstate commerce issue). Regulation of transmitters should be a state/local issue, as it really only concerns local zoning. Any effort by the FCC to regulate content beyond the usual limits on public speech is clearly a First Amendment violation.
Not at all, Blue Rectangle. What these regulations do is ensure that speech is available to the non-rich as well as the rich. They increase and distribute the right to speak, they do not limit free speech.
Wow. I really didn't think you'd support a government agency that demands that the word "tits" can't be said on TV.
I'm all for allowing the word tits, as you may well imagine. I am not, however, for a complete lack of protection of the first amendment rights of the working class.
Turning private property into public property is the first step in taking rights away, especially First Amendment rights:
I may freely exercise my religion--on private property, not public property.
I may speak freely on private property, but many limits are put of speech when it is public.
I may peaceably assemble with others on private property, but on public property we have to apply for a permit ahead of time.
A private press is free from almost all regulation, but when the press is using public property (as in the case of the "public" airwaves), restrictions may apply (such as the topic of this thread).
And that's just the First Amendment. Second Amendment rights can also be heavily limited on public property. The Third obviously only applies to private property, and the Fourth does little to protect one from searches when on public property.
If that's not convincing enough, we could look at Communist states, where private property is banned and the people have almost no rights on the public land they supposedly own.
Poll
