Licensing for the 2nd Amendment is bad, but for the 1st?

[BugI02]

It is a de facto attack on the 1A rights of that network. If you had a business on an island, and the government said "do business how we like, or we will close the bridge", then they are not restricting access to a public road for public safety. They are attempting to control your business, and using one of their tools to do it. Certainly you can buy a ferry and do an end around. But they have forced your customers to change their habits, which some will not. And you then have to make a major investment.

Telling CBS, for instance, they can't use the frequencies they own because you don't like what they say is restriction on the press. And it is unrealistic to say it isn't because they could just print a newspaper instead.



Frankly the FCC has one narrow purpose, and it isn't to decide what goes out on the airwaves. They simply make sure certain types of organizations are using the frequencies within certain bands, and then that not more than one user is on a particular frequency. In other words, they simply exist to prevent conflict. Anything they do beyond that is a waste of tax dollars and an over reach of government.

One quibble. No commercial entity owns a portion of the radio spectrum, they are licensed by the government to use it. That priviledge can be revoked, which is why the government can still control some behavior (profanity, adult programming start time etc)

 

[Woobie]

One quibble. No commercial entity owns a portion of the radio spectrum, they are licensed by the government to use it. That priviledge can be revoked, which is why the government can still control some behavior (profanity, adult programming start time etc)

True. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[2A_Tom]

Am I to understand tha some believe whatever Mr. Trump suggests will be taken up as a battle cry by the other branches and be imposed on us without question?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Am I to understand tha some believe whatever Mr. Trump suggests will be taken up as a battle cry by the other branches and be imposed on us without question?

True, so it ok then right? Nothing to worry about. Carry on folks.

 

[2A_Tom]

So, do we thke everything he says litterally or is it all rhetoric or is some rhetoric and sone literal and how do we know.

I suppose if you like him you give him the benefit of wait and see and if you hate him he is a racist, misoginist, xenophile, homophobe, anti first amendment &t.

 

[Kutnupe14]

So, do we thke everything he says litterally or is it all rhetoric or is some rhetoric and sone literal and how do we know.

I suppose if you like him you give him the benefit of wait and see and if you hate him he is a racist, misoginist, xenophile, homophobe, anti first amendment &t.

So just so I'm getting a sense of what you believe. If Donald Trump had the power to limit the speech of people critical of him, through law, you don't think he'd do it?

 

[2A_Tom]

Duh, NO!

Sorry, that could be construed a comment on the poster.

I always get tongue tied when I look at Kate.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Duh, NO!

Sorry, that could be construed a comment on the poster.

I always get tongue tied when I look at Kate.

I find that fascinating. My opinion (and it's just an opinion) is that you haven't seen Trump for what he is. I have no delusions that Obama, if he had the power (by law) to restrict the 2nd Amendment he'd do it. And actually, there's not a president I can think of that wouldn't have abused at least one the BoRs if they had the power, under law, to do so. For you to think that Trump wouldn't do the same, especially considering his history, and his words, directly attacking particular rights (based on who expresses them) is really, in my opinion, indicative of how much misplaced trust his supporters are willing to extend.

 

[2A_Tom]

I am out, because you are PREJUDICE and implacable on this subject. There is no room for conversation with you.

 

[Kutnupe14]

I am out, because you are PREJUDICE and implacable on this subject. There is no room for conversation with you.

Uh...ok?

 

[Liberty1916]

I am out, because you are PREJUDICE and implacable on this subject. There is no room for conversation with you.

You figured out his schtick. LOL

 

[Kutnupe14]

You figured out his schtick. LOL

 

[SSGSAD]

So we don't view the 1st Amendment in the say way we the 2nd? How is the FCC different from that of the BATFE? Reasonable restrictions on speech, I guess.

I have only read, to this post .....

MY OPINION,

The "Left wing Liberal news" will ALWAYS be that .....

When a "d", is "in", the will ALWAYS side with "them" .....

Now that "R" is "in", ANYTHING he or she does, is NOT good for the country .....

Ex., the tax overhaul, would pretty much give me ALL of my Federal Taxes, BACK .....

I can assure all of you, that I am NOT rich .....

Question, ..... Why have businesses, LEFT the U.S., in the last 8 - 10 years .....

SIMPLE, because the .gov, is trying to tax them OUT of business .....

To put people to WORK, the answer is simple .....

LOWER CORPORATE tax rates, the business owners, use that money,

to HIRE MORE employees .....

How many people "hire" things done, around the house .....

My guess, is NOT many ..... unless you are wealthy enough to do it .....

I cut my own grass, change my own oil, wash my own car, etc.,

BECAUSE I can't afford to hire it done .....

I have NEVER worked for a "poor" company .....

IF they were poor, they wouldn't be able to hire and pay me .....

Sorry for the rant, and long post, but I felt it needed .....

 

[Liberty1916]

LOL

 

[Kutnupe14]

I have only read, to this post .....

MY OPINION,

The "Left wing Liberal news" will ALWAYS be that .....

When a "d", is "in", the will ALWAYS side with "them" .....

Now that "R" is "in", ANYTHING he or she does, is NOT good for the country .....

Ex., the tax overhaul, would pretty much give me ALL of my Federal Taxes, BACK .....

I can assure all of you, that I am NOT rich .....

Question, ..... Why have businesses, LEFT the U.S., in the last 8 - 10 years .....

SIMPLE, because the .gov, is trying to tax them OUT of business .....

To put people to WORK, the answer is simple .....

LOWER CORPORATE tax rates, the business owners, use that money,

to HIRE MORE employees .....

How many people "hire" things done, around the house .....

My guess, is NOT many ..... unless you are wealthy enough to do it .....

I cut my own grass, change my own oil, wash my own car, etc.,

BECAUSE I can't afford to hire it done .....

I have NEVER worked for a "poor" company .....

IF they were poor, they wouldn't be able to hire and pay me .....

Sorry for the rant, and long post, but I felt it needed .....

You're good. We all need to rant sometimes. And while I sympathize with what you said. This shouldn't be a "left" nor a "right" thing. It defeats the purpose to pick and choose when we have issue with the infringement of our rights, depending on whether or not we agree who is proposing the infringement.

 

[JAL]

Probably already mentioned by others . . .

I have an FCC station and operator license. The station itself must have a license and whoever is in (direct) "control" of its operation must also be licensed. Individual broadcast TV and radio stations all have FCC licenses (as do other services that operate transmitters). The networks, e.g. Fox, NBC, CBS, ABC, etc., do NOT have FCC licenses. The FCC only regulates the transmitter and who is directly operating it via licensing. The authority to do so is under the Communications Act of 1934, which grants the FCC control to regulate the radio telecommunications spectrum "in the Public interest, convenience, and necessity." Everything, and I mean everything, the FCC commissioners do with establishing regulations will reference that phrase in the justification for it. Regulation can be challenged in Federal court and the court will examine whether or not the FCC has overstepped that basic authorization.

The POTUS tweets regarding pulling FCC licenses is hollow. He is obviously frustrated with the fake news being generated from whole cloth. It's his means of raising their blood pressure to apoplexy in return. Trump is not ignorant about this. He knew exactly what buttons he was pushing when he tweeted those remarks. It puts the next several news cycles into a dither and they're oblivious to having been manipulated. Whether or not it helps or hinders achieving his real objectives as POTUS can be debated, as it derails them from real issues. However, he knows exactly how to blow their corks and can do so at the drop of a tweet. He did it repeatedly as a candidate.

Donald Trump is a consummate Twitter Troll.

John

 

[BugI02]

So just so I'm getting a sense of what you believe. If Donald Trump had the power to limit the speech of people critical of him, through law, you don't think he'd do it?

So just so I'm getting a sense of what you believe. If [Clinton and Pelosi] had the power to [confiscate the firearms of people whose views they object to], through law, you don't think [they'd] do it?

Why do they get the benefit of the doubt and Trump does not. And "They're not President" doesn't cut it, one of them certainly came close

"Let him who is without a hidden agenda cast the first aspersion" , to paraphrase

 

[Kutnupe14]

Why do they get the benefit of the doubt and Trump does not. And "They're not President" doesn't cut it, one of them certainly came close

"Let him who is without a hidden agenda cast the first aspersion" , to paraphrase

ha ha

 

[Woobie]

Federal employees, sure. (I actually either wasn't aware of that, or had forgotten.)

But your straw man is really more what I'm arguing against. Both the president and the secretary down the hall retain their first amendment-protected rights.

Not a straw man. Many federal employees relinquish rights while employed by .gov. Military members lose all kinds of rights, those in possession of classified information can't talk about it, and so forth. It's just part of the gig. It isn't permanent, but there are certain things you just can't do when your paycheck says U.S. Treasury. And no matter how much of a distorted purist view you want to take on this, you really don't want POTUS spouting off whatever comes to mind. "**** China, we're gonna nuke the NorKs" might be something we all want to say from time to time, but it isn't something we need someone who speaks for the country voicing out loud. And no matter how tongue in cheek, or "figurative" (the classic Trumpist cop-out), there are some things better left unsaid. A desire to limit 1A protected activities is definitely on that list. He might have a right to say what he did. But he should be censured by Congress.

 

[2A_Tom]

Woobie;7269275]Not a straw man. Many federal employees relinquish rights while employed by .gov. Military members lose all kinds of rights, those in possession of classified information can't talk about it, and so forth. It's just part of the gig[/COLOR]. It isn't permanent, but there are certain things you just can't do when your paycheck says U.S. Treasury. And no matter how much of a distorted purist view you want to take on this, you really don't want POTUS spouting off whatever comes to mind. "**** China, we're gonna nuke the NorKs" might be something we all want to say from time to time, but it isn't something we need someone who speaks for the country voicing out loud. And no matter how tongue in cheek, or "figurative" (the classic Trumpist cop-out), there are some things better left unsaid. A desire to limit 1A protected activities is definitely on that list. He might have a right to say what he did. But he should be censured by Congress.

The first part of your post does not apply to POTUS. The second part is pure opinion.

In many cases it is.