Although I concur with the fact that it is an abuse of “our” (scare quotes to be explained) First Amendment rights, IMHO “speech” is really a figure of speech in this, and many other, cases. Even SCOTUS uses (IMHO abuses it.Nobody is interfering with your ability to talk. You aren’t insisting on your right to talk. The true issue is the use of technical means of communication. “The press” was the only technical means of communication in common use in the founding era when the First Amendment was written and ratified. Now there other, far more sophisticated, means of doing so. Telegraph, telephone, radio, TV, Internet - and, like the printing press, all requiring money to set up and operate (and, unlike the press, all requiring equipment to receive). Is it legitimate to extend the meaning of “the press” to the other technical means? Yes, because the Framers/ratifiers also gave us
. . . which means that improvements in the means of communication cannot be taken as a surprise in principle to the Framers/ratifiers of the First Amendment. In addition, the Ninth Amendment codifies the historical fact that the Framers of the original document left out a bill of rights because they wanted and expected everything not specifically granted to the government to be left as was, not affected by the new Constitution. Finally, the prohibition of titles of nobility (and the implication of the First Amendment of no established priesthood) means that if anybody has a right to put up a web site then we all do.
- Article 1 Section 8.:
- The Congress shall have power . . . To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries . . .
Finally, it is not “our” freedom of the press which is being abused - it is only that of Jim Robinson. He is the one with the web site; he is the one who is in charge of what is and is not published in it. We may donate to it, but it is his. We post to it, at his pleasure. We have no recourse if he pulls our post or even bans us altogether. We would find another web site, or create our own, if we didn’t like that. But, Thanks Jim, we do like it.
If you look back in my posting history you will find that one of my constant objections is that the infrastructure of communication is completely in enemy hands, and that conservatives need to attack and destroy this enemy "air" force or we will never win this war.
I argue that when such communications systems did not exist, people would speak on the court house steps, and they were available to all regardless of their political opinions.
Technology has created a monopoly on the means of communications and given liberals an amplified voice to the public, while we must still make do by shouting from the steps of the court house.
I argue that this is inherently wrong, and that if any communication system exists, then the 1/3-1/2 of the population that agrees with conservative ideas should have just as much right to access as do the liberals who control it, regardless of whether they "own" it or not.
The spectrum, which is what is actually being signaled through by all those electronic devices, is the property of everyone, and this is why the congress has created the FCC to regulate it.