|
Posted on 02/26/2004 9:40:46 AM PST by Tumbleweed_Connection
LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH THU FEB 26 2004 12:28:21 ET THE NATION'S TOP RADIO HOST RUSH LIMBAUGH WARNED OF GROWING GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION IN BROADCASTING CONTENT. LIMBAUGH MADE THE COMMENTS AFTER HIS PARENT COMPANY CLEAR CHANNEL DROPPED VIACOM'S HOWARD STERN FROM ITS STATIONS. 'SMUT ON TV GETS PRAISED. SMUT ON TV WINS EMMYS. ON RADIO, THERE SEEMS TO BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS,' LIMBAUGH EXPLAINED. 'I'VE NEVER HEARD HOWARD STERN. BUT WHEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GETS INVOLVED IN THIS, I GET A LITTLE FRIGHTENED. 'IF WE ARE GOING TO SIT BY AND LET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT GET INVOLVED IN THIS, IF THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO 'CENSOR' WHAT THEY THINK IS RIGHT AND WRONG... WHAT HAPPENS IF A WHOLE BUNCH OF JOHN KERRYS, OR TERRY MCAULIFFES START RUNNING THIS COUNTRY. AND DECIDE CONSERVATIVE VIEWS ARE LEADING TO VIOLENCE? 'I AM IN THE FREE SPEECH BUSINESS. ITS ONE THING FOR A COMPANY TO DETERMINE IF THEY ARE GOING TO BE PARTY TO IT. ITS ANOTHER THING FOR THE GOVERNMENT TO DO IT.' MORE
Why, it's the work of the Wonderful Magical Commerce Clause. It breathes life into the Constitution!
It will become a self-fulfilling prophecy. ;-)
It's not that hard to understand. The radio frequency sector of the electromagnetic spectrum is a limited natural resource somewhat like navigable waterways and airspace. It is also a commercially valuble commodity that crosses state lines, which places it within the realm of interstate commerce. The Constitution grants congress the right to regulate interstate commerce, therefore congress has authority to regulate what are called the "airwaves" in popular vernacular.
In 1932 (I believe) congress placed the publicly owned airwaves under the supervision of the newly created Federal Communications Commission. The FCC was given authority to license specified slices of the radio frequency spectrum to individual commercial, private, and public service users. It also bears the responsibilty of determining what is in the best interest of the public regarding the use the various licensees make of their slice of the spectrum, and also has authority to impose rules and regulations and enforce those rules and regulations by fines and/or revocation of licenses.
IMHO, over the course of the last two or three decades the FCC has to a considerable degree gradually abdicated its assigned responsibilty to police the publicly owned airwaves and enforce rules and regulations that were intended to benefit the general public which corporately owns those airwaves. Hopefully the recent furor over the Superbowl halftime fiasco has awakened the public to the problem and made it aware that it's watchdog has been napping.
But I'm not holding my breath while I wait for the watchdog to be awakened by an aroused public. The culture war that has raged since the Woodstock generation arrived on the scene is in full swing, and the good guys have been on the losing end of the fight for most of the war. The same sector of the public which was outraged by the display on publicly owned property of a stone tablet inscribed with ten laws, which incidentally are the models for many of the basic laws of most civilized nations, is the same sector which doesn't see any irony in it's demand that unscrupulous broadcasters be allowed to use publicly owned airwaves to slake it's insatiable thirst for pornography and salacious "humor". As I mentioned before, the good guys have been on the losing side of the culture war almost from it's beginning, and I don't hold out much hope for the tide of battle to turn in our favor anytime soon.
In the meantime, our children are being taught in an oblique but effective manner that illicit sex and illegal drugs are merely recreational pastimes and subjects of humorous anecdotes, and that no harm can result from their use. What an awful way to utilize a publicly owned asset.
Howard has several delays, and according to a fan site which describes the show each day, he constantly gripes about the delays, and that things are being cut off before they're broadcast over the air. Why the comment in question wasn't bleeped is beyond me.
The thing that's most telling about this caller's comments is that none of the newspapers (in New York, at least) has printed them verbatim. If they were no big deal to be heard over the airwaves, then why is every paper showing such restraint on telling readers what the comments are?
It's an awfully big stretch to call a radio transmission an act of "commerce". That's the whole problem with the federal government. Their motto seems to be, "When in doubt, it's ours."
Right now, the matter belongs to the states, as per the 10th amendment. Maybe that's inadequate, and there should be some federal supervision. Fine, then get a constitutional amendment. But they need to stop this business of just assuming that just because there's some perceived need for them to do something, it must be constitutional.
Should I take that to mean you would like to see the commerce clause repealed? If so, don't you think it might be a wee tad presumptive of you to imply that you have a better idea regarding interstate commerce than that company of singularly astute men who carefully crafted that clause after exhaustive debate and discussion of it's implications? No offense intended, I just want to understand the meaning of your post.
I know as well as you that the courts have "found" broad powers and dimensions in that clause the authors never intended it to have. The owner or possessor of any item of merchandise, oh let's say a firearm, that was ever connected in any way with interstate commerce is now made forever subject to federal restrictions and regulations that could not be imposed by any other part of the Constitution, and that was not the intended purpose of the clause. That isn't surprising given the judicial branch's proclivity to grasp at any straw that promises to enlarge the scope of government's power at the expense of our liberties.
But I hardly think that improper employment of the clause renders it ineffective for the actual purpose for which it was intended, do you? I am no economist, but the idea of 50 sovereign states, each with a different slate of trade laws designed to benefit that individual state at the expense of the others doesn't seem to me to be conducive to a healthy national economy, nor to a healthy economy within the various states for that matter.
I don't know about you, but I am perfectly willing to defer to the authors' wisdom in every matter addressed by their masterpiece document, including the matter of interstate commerce. Now if the U.S. judiciary would just adopt that attitude when interpreting the old document we would all be much the better for it don't you think?
Except for the billions and billions of public (as in "the public" as in "you and me") dollars already "invested" in analog radio and television equippment (including two-way radio -- we pay an exhorbitant amount of money for our GMRS license every five years).
There is no reason to force the obsolescence of all of this perfectly servicable equipment. There is essentially unlimited bandwidth in the 5GH+ region, perfectly suited to DSS applications.
As opposed to what we have now - a few conglomerates that own almost all of the radio stations that brodacast 24/7 with content restricted by the government. I prefer to let the market rule.
OK, then I'll put you in for an "O" vote in the three-way election (Mobocracy, Constitutional Republic, Oligarchy).
BTW, I'm a "CR" man myself.
The only difference between "M" (AKA "D") and "O" is who's directing the pitchforks and torches. Is it "the mob", acting on it's own, or is it "the mob", just "acting on orders".
No, it's just a commentary on the way the "living, breathing" crowd uses the commerce clause to cover just about every type of federal law or policy imaginable.
|
Think about that one for awhile. Commerce means exchange of goods. Unless there's been some major technological breakthrough, it's pretty tough to exchange goods via the airwaves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.