They have business licences concerning the commerce they're engaged in, not the particulars of what they're engaged in.
"And who determined that channels are "public" and subject to a restriction of the right to free speech?"
The channels refer to the use of EM radiation of particular frequency. Congress determined that EM radiation of particular frequency was a national/public resource to be allocated by a licensing scheme. Neither the resource, nor it's use is covered by the 1st Amend., except that it shall not be allocated in a fashion repugnant of the 1st, nor regulated that way.
"Newspapers require commercial licenses and permits involving the sale of papers."
A business licence. That allows them to engage in commerce. The licence may not restrict in a fashion repugnant of the 1st Amned.
"Laws exist which prevent the ownership of both print and broadcast media and which would seem to curb First Amendment rights."
No fiirst Amend rights can be violated there, because the matter is entirely a question of commerce and the allocation of EM rad use privaledges.
But if they chose not to purchase a business license, they would not be permitted to exercise their "First Amendment rights". In other words, they have restrictions.
The channels refer to the use of EM radiation of particular frequency. Congress determined that EM radiation of particular frequency was a national/public resource to be allocated by a licensing scheme. Neither the resource, nor it's use is covered by the 1st Amend., except that it shall not be allocated in a fashion repugnant of the 1st, nor regulated that way.
I will say I agree with you completely. In other words, the founding fathers did not see the future with all of its changes. They did not know what a machine gun was or how it could be used. So given that, just as with your argument of the airwaves, governments must make judgments based on the good to society as a whole, with little guidance from Madison, Hamilton and Jay.
A business licence. That allows them to engage in commerce. The licence may not restrict in a fashion repugnant of the 1st Amned.
I will guarantee you that if that newspaper printed pictures or words that were patently offensive to the senses, that business license would be revoked. Newspapers of today would simply not be permitted to print some of the stuff the papers of the 1800s frequently did.
No fiirst Amend rights can be violated there, because the matter is entirely a question of commerce and the allocation of EM rad use privaledges.
I don't see broadcast media restrictions anywhere in the First Amendment.