[conservatism_IS_compassion]

In this case, it appears that the government is following the directions by regulating use of the airwaves. Without that regulation there would be no communication through the airwaves at all. Use a bit of common sense.

Let's just apply that logic more broadly and see its implications.

Without government roads there wouldn't be any practical way to distribute newspapers. The obvious conclusion is that it is up to the government to make sure that the roads are used properly to transmit newspapers in the public interest. </sarcasm>

The fact is that radio communication is one thing, and broadcasting is a only a special case of radio communication. The government bans radio communication by we-the-people at most frequencies, for the purpose of making "roads" which enable its favored noblemen known as FCC licensees to make their "communication" receivable (one-way only) by the many.

The First Amendment says nothing about a "right to listen," is declares a right to speak--and the right to listen is implied. The First Amendment declares a right to print--and only derivatively, the right to read what is printed. The FCC, however, says you have a right to listen--and a duty to be quiet. Anyone who confuses the First Amendment with the FCC regulations is smoking something which should be illegal.

[templar]

The First Amendment says nothing about a "right to listen," is declares a right to speak-

You support the ownership and free use of broadband radio jammers I presume? After all, that is unregulated use of the airwaves. Get some common sense into your thinking. Without regulation and regulatory standards there would be no practical use of the airwaves at all. Why do you think the FCC was set up to start with?