[Mr. Know It All]

I didn't say either form of speech should be regulated, I'm just explaining that the FCC monster we've created can wield anti-free-speech powers on the airwaves. We only complain about this when it does something we don't like.

People oppose freedom because it has uncomfortable side effects. "Hey! You said something I don't like!" "Hey! Your guns scare me!" "Hey! I don't like your religion!" "Hey! Those people are make me nervous, I want their car searched without a warrant or probable cause!" I'd like to see the FCC lose the power to enforce the Fairness Doctrine, but a lot of conservatives wouldn't be able to tolerate some of the side-effects of that increase in freedom. Hence, we will be stuck with an FCC that has the power to overreach.

The analogy in this post is flawed because the issue is public ownership of the airwaves. You can either support reducing the power of the FCC, and deal with the consequences, or you can support maintaining the power of the FCC and deal with the consequences.

[Congressman Billybob]

Under the Red Lion case, the fact that the airways are “public” does NOT give the FCC the power to violate the First Amendment. The FCC may try, but as long as the working, constitutional majority remains on the Court, the people and their freedoms can prevail over the FCC.

John / Billybob