[mrsmith]

Since I brought the subject up:
Look, this does not apply to FR. Period.

We are a website not a cable or satellite medium.

Considering the future effect of this law's definitions and more importantly it's whole philosophy on an internet that became a general mass media might be a useful way to critique the law.
But maybe not, it's certainly seems too early to do so here without causing undue anxiety.

[Beck_isright]

"Since I brought the subject up:
Look, this does not apply to FR. Period."

How do you know? Have you tested this in the 9th Circuit yet? If not, you have ZERO authority to make this statement.

"We are a website not a cable or satellite medium."

We are also not a "printed" medium which has been defined as "the press" in all previous 1st Amendment challenges. Do some homework.

"Considering the future effect of this law's definitions and more importantly it's whole philosophy on an internet that became a general mass media might be a useful way to critique the law."

Which means that liberal Clinton appointees will determine the future of the internet in many cases. Enjoy your freedoms now folks.

" But maybe not, it's certainly seems too early to do so here without causing undue anxiety."

When the ACLU or commie libs sue FR, remember your words.

[El Gato]

We are a website not a cable or satellite medium.

True, but more and more people are getting their internet service via cable modem. So, who wants to bet that the 9th Cirucus won't rule that makes it a "broadcast" over cable (or satellite). After all where does the internet end, at your ISP or at your computer? From a technical standpoint such distinctions may not make sense, since your computer has it's own numerical URL, so it really is a part of the internet. The fact that dial-up modems cause you to have different one every time you log on is beside the point. But that's technically, legally, meaning whatever a court will agree to, who knows? But I suspect we'll find out.