Does not anyone wish to question what this phrase means?
This concept that just because a private property owner makes their product or service available to all citizens, this some how makes it a "public" product or service where everyone is entitled to equal access is just plain wrong.
There is no constitutional basis for this declaration. It is nothing less than judicial dictum.
It is a communist/socialist concept.
The "public airwaves," as so flippantly stated, would not be available to anyone of the "public" if it was not for private property owners risking the loss of their private property, money, to purchase transmission equipment enabling them to broadcast speech and music over certain radio frequencies for all of those private individuals who which to purchase another piece of private property, a receiver, to listen to that speech and music, broadcast to them over privately owned broadcast equipment
With that being said, what is the constitutional jurisdiction for Congress, through the FCC, to regulate the content of speech spoken by private property owners?
Some would say Article I, Section 8, Cl 3, the "commerce clause."
Ok, let's accept that delegated power to be true, though I believe that conclusion is dubious.
And so did the anti-federalist in 1789.
Because the anti-federalist feared that future federal politicians would expand the "Powers of Congress" in Article I, Section 8, beyond their original intention, they would not ratify the Constitution until there was a Bill of Rights to specifically prohibit the unintended consequences of future expansion of that power and subsequent loss of liberty, life, and property that would result from that expansion of federal power not orignally intended.
So, in this case of Howard Stern's employer, a private property owner, being censored and fined for exercising their right of free speech, using private property to exercise that right, two amendments contained in the original Bill of Rights, insisted by the anti-federalist, are applicable to halt and stop Congress' unconstitutional action promulgated through the FCC.
Amendment I and Amendment V.
Free people, let me repeat that phrase, free people, as individuals, make the decision what speech that are going to listen to, without interference from their government.
To all of you "conservatives" here at FreeRepublic.com, what would you say if Rush Limbaugh was "fined" for using the phrase "enviromental wacko's" as being offensive by Congress, through the FCC?
Free speech and private property rights are the fundamental philosophical basis for the exertion of the twin, uniquely U.S.A., enviable actions of liberty and capitalism, which are the fundamental building blocks for individuals to live prosperous, happy, and free lives. (see Milton Friedman, "Free to Choose, circa 1980)
Support of any action by Congress, through the FCC, to the contrary is nothing less than totalitarianism, anti-constitutionalist, and anti-U.S.A.
You got it wrong. The radio station does not pay a cent for its use of the bandwidth. The "public" is in a sense subsidizing these owners
If the bandwidth was privatized, one or two corporate entities could end up owning all of the frequency range (a finite thing) . This was deemed "not in the Public's interest" (a reasonable regulatory impulse, IMO).
Therefore , in the same way that Public untilities can not raise rates whenever they wish, radio station owners have to abide by rules dictating "decorum". Agree or not (and you can always vote the Executive Branch officeholders, who assign FCC board members, out), this is not "un Constitutional".