LIMBAUGH WARNS OF DANGER TO FREE SPEECH

Drudge ^ | 2/26/04 | Drudge/Limbaugh

[Sabertooth]

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.

Commercial airtime.

Been around a while now.

[blackbart.223]

"Totally disagree with Rush, and that doesn't often happen. Just because TV is in the sewer, doesn't mean that radio that kids can turn on ANYWHERE, ANYTIME has to also be in the gutter. I'd be happy to see BOTH radio and TV censored more."

People like you scare the hell out of me. I hope you don't vote.

[Brimack34]

Howard Stern was fined 1.7 million in 1995 under Clintoon.
So the people who think it is right wingers fault {like Howard said} are wrong.

[blackbart.223]

"If *WE* allow the government to control speech it's only a matter of time before they start shutting down "Christian" radio and television."

BTT. It's happend before and is happening now. Communist China comes to mind.

[epow]

That's the whole problem with the federal government. Their motto seems to be, "When in doubt, it's ours."

I agree, see my post #334. But the fact is that the courts have affirmed that the creation of the Federal Communications Commission and the powers granted to it are within the Constitutional authority granted to congress by the commerce clause. Personally, although I believe, actually I know, that congress has in countless instances involving countless matters overstepped the powers granted to it by the Constitution, in the case of it's creation of the FCC and it's authority to regulate broadcasting I tend to think the authors would agree with the courts.

IMHO the benefit to the public of regulating such a naturally limited and commercially valuable commodity as the radio frequency spectrum overrides any question about the applicability of the commerce clause to commercial broadcasting. If regulation of commercial traffic on the public waterways is within congressional authority, and it is, certainly regulation of traffic on the natural electromagnetic spectrum is as well. Without regulation, the "airwaves" would be an unintelligible jumble of words, music, and mayhem produced by millions of users attempting to get their message out by using the most transmitting power they could afford. IOW, a vitally important national asset would be useless for any commercial or other practical purpose.

I am all for individual liberty in every area where one person's liberty doesn't impose an intolerable burden on the liberties of others. But there must be practical limits to individual liberty in areas where injury to the greater good of the national society as a whole will inevitably result from the individual's uninhibited practice of his or her liberty in that area.

I am not expressing my ideas very well, so let me cite a well known illustration. The USSC long ago ruled that my 1st amendment right to free speech doesn't include yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater lest there be a panic and other people are deprived of their right to continue living. IOW, my right to speak doesn't trump their right to life. I don't think even the most radical libertarian could find much fault with that ruling.

[inquest]

Even that's a bit of a stretch, but at most it would mean that the feds can only regulate the transactions involved in purchasing commercial airtime.

[inquest]

If regulation of commercial traffic on the public waterways is within congressional authority, and it is, certainly regulation of traffic on the natural electromagnetic spectrum is as well.

But they're not the same thing. One is commerce, the other is not. Perhaps you might mean to say that if commerce on public waterways is within congressional authority, then communications on public airwaves ought to be within congressional authority. Well, maybe it should, but currently it is not. Power should not just be assumed.

[Sabertooth]

Even that's a bit of a stretch, but at most it would mean that the feds can only regulate the transactions involved in purchasing commercials

You're straining too hard at this.

The airwaves are a commercial commodity that cross interstate lines. They certainly fall under the commerce clause, and you can't regulate a part of them without regulating all of them.

For that matter, the airwaves are a defense resource and also fall under the defense clause. They're also used on emergency channels, bringing them under the welfare clause.

If the airwaves weren't regulated they would be useless because, as has been explained several times in this thread, you'd have nothing but transmitter wars across the spectrum. In fact, that's what was happening before the FCC was created.

Obviously Congress has overreached numerous times with the Commerce Clause, but the FCC is not one of those places.

[inquest]

You're straining too hard at this.

Not at all. I'm just calling a duck a duck. You and epow are arguing from (alleged) necessity, describing what would happen if the feds didn't regulate radio broadcasts. That in no way changes the fact that they haven't been given that power by the Constitution, however necessary it may be for them to exercise it.

The Constitution includes an amendment clause precisely for situations like this, where new situations arise that would call for a change in the way things are done.

[Sabertooth]

You and epow are arguing from (alleged) necessity, describing what would happen if the feds didn't regulate radio broadcasts. That in no way changes the fact that they haven't been given that power by the Constitution, however necessary it may be for them to exercise it.

Commerce Clause. It's been explained, you prefer not to see it.

[epow]

But they're not the same thing. One is commerce, the other is not

Sabretooth has answered that so well I can't add anything more, but I'll give it a shot.

Turn on your TV, watch a few commercials which earn money for the station or network, watch a program for which the station or network paid millions of dollars for the right to broadcast. Turn on a radio, listen to a DJ play music which the station pays for in royalties. Listen to a commercial which earns money for the station and helps pay the DJ's salary.

If you had the right equipment you could decode some of the the countless streams of encoded, commercially valuable information that is passing through the ether at any given moment on the highy regulated so-called "airwaves". What you are seeing and hearing is COMMERCE. Got it? OK, good.

That's it for me. Good night to all, it's been fun.

[inquest]

I guess I also "prefer not to see" that shouting through a bullhorn also isn't an act of commerce. It seems my problem is that I haven't developed the fine art of allowing others to do the seeing for me.

[SauronOfMordor]

Stalin once said something to the effect of "It doesn't matter who votes -- what matters is who counts the votes"

The people who advocate controls naively assume that they, or people who think like them, will be the ones who decide how the policy is enforced. Before giving power to government, consider how it would be used by somebody who hates you and opposes everything you stand for

[Tricorn]

Well, surely we can easily mount a solid defense that differentiates between indecency and political/social commentary. We've all been brainwashed by this talk of being so non-discriminatory that we actually seem to think that we can't discriminate between anything, including types of speech. Sheesh...

[cyncooper]

Save your "naively" crap.

[E Rocc]

Not only is everything you say true (Rush as well, though I have doubts about him never hearing Howard Stern), this is politically insane in an election year.

The fact is, mandatory "decency" is an issue the Republican Party can ride right out of power. It's not going to gain them any votes. Even if it did, it wouldn't attract voters away from the Democrats, but the disaffected far-right which was likely to hold its nose and vote Bush anyway.

However, it stands to lose the party votes. In my circles, I'm already hearing people that would otherwise vote Republican grumbling about censorship. The people we're talking about are not as unwilling to vote Democratic as you or I. Every one that switches is a two vote swing, that's simple electoral math. President Reagan was smart enough to realize that prudery costs the GOP votes. His FCC took a deregulatory approach to broadcasting. He was highly popular among young voters, that's parts of the reason. His heirs haven't been as smart. Does anyone remember 1992? All that crap about "family values" and "culture wars" cost us nearly as many votes as Bush the Elder's anti-gun views, and unlike the gun owners, the anti-prudes voted for Clinton.

Howard Stern himself was a target of that crusade. He demonstrated that he was quite willing to back a Democrat over pro-censorship Republicans. Normally he leans Republican. Does he have influence? Ask Mario Cuomo.

This strategy wasn't a winner in 1992 and would work even worse this year, if it continues I'm worried about our chances.

-Eric

[hchutch]

Agreed. This is the one issue that can swing the youth vote to Kerry - a demographic that George W. Bush would otherwise win by a decent margin due to his leadership ability.

Pinging a few folks to look over your Post 357.

People, read this sentence: "In my circles, I'm already hearing people that would otherwise vote Republican grumbling about censorship. The people we're talking about are not as unwilling to vote Democratic as you or I. Every one that switches is a two vote swing, that's simple electoral math."

The culture warriors and their prude patrol are costing the GOP votes and making an enemy of a person who has shown much influence in the past. This is Custer-style conservatism.

[Prodigal Son]

We've all been brainwashed by this talk of being so non-discriminatory that we actually seem to think that we can't discriminate between anything

I haven't been brainwashed. I'm just the type to change the channel if I don't like what I'm hearing.

[Tricorn]

"I haven't been brainwashed. I'm just the type to change the channel if I don't like what I'm hearing."

I guess anything goes then. Why not public nudity? If you don't like what you see happening on your street, don't go outdoors. Or move.