I liken Buckley columns to portraits, depictions of the face of controversies, where the issues relevant to conservatives stand out in relief. First Amendment absolutism is not a feature of National Review conservatism, despite a certain partnership with libertarianism. The handiwork of the absolutists is the absolute extinction of obscenity as a legal distinction. That extinction is a fact, whether we like it or not, whether or not the issue was anyway inevitably intractable.
Yet, the breakdown of any standards whatsoever is a detriment and it is a good sign that the American people are demanding the return of standards. We shall see what develops.
Further indication of the National Review position was the appearance of a humorous article on the effects of the new standards. I took this to be solidarity with the change, a softening of the blow.
You may infer the absence of a hard-line First Amendment stand regarding Howard Stern.
but doesn't advance an argument regarding FCC charges against Bono or more importantly, Howard Stern. Am I missing something?
I miss the same point you do.:) It appears to be the common thread in his recent writing:
Here is what someone said; this persaon is wrong; because of sepsis, homomorphism, quixotic, idiomocyncratic...., hence wrong. I am great. Sincerely, WFB.