Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: MACVSOG68
"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 business license itself does not infringe on any first Amend right. If the entity wishing to exercise it's right wishes to do so, it can finance it's speech without engaging in the commercial sale of it's speech.

Re: EM allocation.

"In other words, the founding fathers did not see the future with all of its changes."

No, not IOWs. EM allocation is a public resource. It is not covered by any amendment. It is "property" and covered in hte concept of eminent domain.

"They did not know what a machine gun was or how it could be used."

They sure did and the knew the concept of canon, canister and bombs well. Ever listen to the Star Spangled Banner? It was composed back then.

"governments must make judgments based on the good to society as a whole"

Govm'ts must stick to protecting rights. The "public good" and the "good of society" are empty, arbitrary concepts used by con men as scrumptious little treats to attract and snare bliss ninnies.

"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."

"patently offensive to the senses is an arbitrary and empty concept. If it's a matter covered by the first amendment, then the license can not be touched at all. Otherwise, it's a proper legislative matter.

"Newspapers of today would simply not be permitted to print some of the stuff the papers of the 1800s frequently did."

They had their arguments back then too. However, they didn't have the 14th Amend, which applied the BORs to all jurisdictions under the US. That was penned to provide extension of the BORs to those lower jurisdictions, because some were violating the rights of their citizens. It is also irrelevant that Plessy vs Ferguson ignored that attempted remedy and blessed a continuation of that widespread rights violation.

" don't see broadcast media restrictions anywhere in the First Amendment."

There are no 1st Amend restrictions on broadcast media, outside of the unconstitutional McCain Feingold. EM allocation restricts no one's rights. No one has a right to broadcast with EM. It's a privilege obtainable though bidding.

213 posted on 01/10/2007 6:27:03 PM PST by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies ]


To: spunkets
Govm'ts must stick to protecting rights. The "public good" and the "good of society" are empty, arbitrary concepts used by con men as scrumptious little treats to attract and snare bliss ninnies.

Governments that cannot ensure the safety and security of its society are doomed to fall.

There are no 1st Amend restrictions on broadcast media, outside of the unconstitutional McCain Feingold. EM allocation restricts no one's rights. No one has a right to broadcast with EM. It's a privilege obtainable though bidding.

Yet once gained, the government can control the speech and has used sanctions often. In other words, it can regulate free speech.

You can disagree but there are thousands of laws across the country which infringe on free speech, and they are likely constitutional.

300 posted on 01/11/2007 6:31:42 AM PST by MACVSOG68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson