Bill Clinton Supports Return Of Fairness Doctrine

[Drixxx]

Ok, dipshit, since it's not getting through to you. Airwaves are a spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, like light from the sun. The FCC grants a license to a CORPORATION to buy (with their own money) electronic equipment to produce a signal at a certain frequency that contains programming you can "decode" with a radio. The FCC makes sure no one else is using that frequency so Station A doesn't jam Station B's signal.

Quit being such a fucking moron.

Taxpayers own the public airwaves. When you grant a license you are not selling something, you are dictating terms of use. End of story.

 

[miles]

Ok, dipshit, since it's not getting through to you. Airwaves are a spectrum of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation, like light from the sun. The FCC grants a license to a CORPORATION to buy (with their own money) electronic equipment to produce a signal at a certain frequency that contains programming you can "decode" with a radio. The FCC makes sure no one else is using that frequency so Station A doesn't jam Station B's signal.

Quit being such a fucking moron.

Shut the fuck up, me.

 

[off2bed]

Taxpayers own the public airwaves. When you grant a license you are not selling something, you are dictating terms of use. End of story.

No, nobody "owns" airwaves. Can you even define "airwave"?

Take the FAA - they regulate aviation, but we don't own the fucking sky, dipshit.

 

[cjh]

No, nobody "owns" airwaves. Can you even define "airwave"?

Take the FAA - they regulate aviation, but we don't own the fucking sky, dipshit.

your condescension is both pedantic and unfounded. the FAA specifically states the USA has exclusive sovereignty of the airspace above the united states. and property owners have reasonable air rights of the air above their building. you own the "sky" above your house.

but, if you want to be pedantic and legalistic, here is what the last legal ruling on the matter was:

Where there are substantially more individuals who want to broadcast than there are frequencies to allocate, it is idle to posit an unabridgeable First Amendment right to broadcast comparable to the right of every individual to speak, write, or publish. If 100 persons want broadcast [389] licenses but there are only 10 frequencies to allocate, all of them may have the same "right" to a license; but if there is to be any effective communication by radio, only a few can be licensed and the rest must be barred from the airwaves. It would be strange if the First Amendment, aimed at protecting and furthering communications, prevented the Government from making radio communication possible by requiring licenses to broadcast and by limiting the number of licenses so as not to overcrowd the spectrum.

This has been the consistent view of the Court. Congress unquestionably has the power to grant and deny licenses and to eliminate existing stations. FRC v. Nelson Bros. Bond & Mortgage Co., 289 U.S. 266 (1933). No one has a First Amendment right to a license or to monopolize a radio frequency; to deny a station license because "the public interest" requires it "is not a denial of free speech." National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U.S. 190, 227 (1943).

By the same token, as far as the First Amendment is concerned those who are licensed stand no better than those to whom licenses are refused. A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a radio frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.

http://epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

smells a lot like public ownership to me.

 

[unregistered]

 

[off2bed]

your condescension is both pedantic and unfounded. the FAA specifically states the USA has exclusive sovereignty of the airspace above the united states. and property owners have reasonable air rights of the air above their building. you own the "sky" above your house.

but, if you want to be pedantic and legalistic, here is what the last legal ruling on the matter was:

http://epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

smells a lot like public ownership to me.

That proves my point - you own the sky above your house, not the government or the taxpayers. Aircraft navigate through the air, subject to federal regulations.

"Airwaves" is a colloquialism for the medium of TV and radio broadcasting. To say "we" own them is simply a false statement. Where do those "airwaves" travel through? The air above your house, which you own.

Taxpayers don't own the aircraft flying overhead, do they? Nope.

The other quote contains

There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others and to conduct himself as a proxy or fiduciary with obligations to present those views and voices which are representative of his community and which would otherwise, by necessity, be barred from the airwaves.

But the 10th amendment says powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. So there may be nothing in the 1st Amendment saying the FCC can't regulate on-air content, the 10th says they can't.

You cite a case arguing for the FD in 1969, without citing the reasons why it was done away with in 1987. I hope you're not a lawyer and you don't argue to judges this way.

In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision, which was upheld by a different panel of the Appeals Court for the D.C. Circuit in February 1989.[11] The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters ... [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, because of the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional.

Oh, and you can stick your "unfounded condescension and pedantry" up your ass. With Drixx it is not only well founded but necessary since pedantry apparently overwhelms him.

 

[cjh]

That proves my point - you own the sky above your house, not the government or the taxpayers. Aircraft navigate through the air, subject to federal regulations.

"Airwaves" is a colloquialism for the medium of TV and radio broadcasting. To say "we" own them is simply a false statement. Where do those "airwaves" travel through? The air above your house, which you own.

Taxpayers don't own the aircraft flying overhead, do they? Nope.

The other quote contains

But the 10th amendment says powers not granted to the National government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states and to the people. So there may be nothing in the 1st Amendment saying the FCC can't regulate on-air content, the 10th says they can't.

You cite a case arguing for the FD in 1969, without citing the reasons why it was done away with in 1987. I hope you're not a lawyer and you don't argue to judges this way.


Oh, and you can stick your "unfounded condescension and pedantry" up your ass. With Drixx it is not only well founded but necessary since pedantry apparently overwhelms him.

who did away with it?

your analysis does not work.

it's not nuanced and ignorant.

but, who did away with it?

 

[Drixxx]

No, nobody "owns" airwaves. Can you even define "airwave"?

Take the FAA - they regulate aviation, but we don't own the fucking sky, dipshit.

Look moron, if you completely control something and and can license it's use to others, you own it.

 

[off2bed]

Define "own."

Look at the black lines on this aeronautical chart.
http://www.flyaas.com/acatalog/EHUS.JPG

The lines are established airways used for the safe, orderly flow of air traffic. The taxpayers don't own the airways. They are theoretical vectors in space. The black lines are analogous to radio wave frequencies, which I guess you're calling "airwaves." The government says frequency bands should be parceled out far enough apart so signals don't overlap, similar to the airways, which are drawn so planes don't hit each other. Both are nothing more than hypothetical constructs until two or more people use them.

Radio waves don't even exist (in a form you can tune in on a radio) until a station broadcasts something. So until that happens, there's nothing to "own." EM waves of all frequencies are zinging through the universe all the time, produced by nature; we've merely decided that certain flavors of them can be useful for radio and TV, and needed to establish some standards to make it easier and less chaotic. There's simply nothing about them anyone can "own."

If you can't comprehend that, I'm done here.

 

[cjh]

Define "own."

Look at the black lines on this aeronautical chart.
http://www.flyaas.com/acatalog/EHUS.JPG

<snip>
If you can't comprehend that, I'm done here.

Your analogies are wrong. But we will work with "own." Here you go:

United States Code Annotated
Title 49. Transportation
Subtitle VII. Aviation Programs
Part A. Air Commerce and Safety
View the full text of all sections at this level Subpart I. General
View the full text of all sections at this level Chapter 401. General Provisions
Current Section§ 40103. Sovereignty and use of airspace


(a) Sovereignty and public right of transit.--(1) The United States Government has exclusive sovereignty of airspace of the United States.

(2) A citizen of the United States has a public right of transit through the navigable airspace. To further that right, the Secretary of Transportation shall consult with the Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board established under section 502 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (29 U.S.C. 792) before prescribing a regulation or issuing an order or procedure that will have a significant impact on the accessibility of commercial airports or commercial air transportation for handicapped individuals.

(b) Use of airspace.--(1) The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration shall develop plans and policy for the use of the navigable airspace and assign by regulation or order the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. The Administrator may modify or revoke an assignment when required in the public interest.

It's like the King of England owning all the game in the forests centuries ago. Sovereign rights are ownersip rights.

The Fed's rights are not unlimited, though.

We have said that the airspace is a public highway. Yet it is obvious that if the landowner is to have full enjoyment of the land, he must have exclusive control of the immediate reaches of the enveloping atmosphere. Otherwise buildings could not be erected, trees could not be planted, and even fences could not be run. The principle is recognized when the law gives a remedy in case overhanging structures are erected on adjoining land. The landowner owns at least as much of the space above the ground as the can occupy or use in connection with the land.

U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946).

you're full of shit, off2bed. you're just too ignorant to realize it.

 

[JohnnySavage]

Your analogies are wrong. But we will work with "own." Here you go:



It's like the King of England owning all the game in the forests centuries ago. Sovereign rights are ownersip rights.

The Fed's rights are not unlimited, though.



U.S. v. Causby, 328 U.S. 256, 66 S. Ct. 1062, 90 L. Ed. 1206 (1946).

you're full of shit, off2bed. you're just too ignorant to realize it.

Truer words were rarely spoken.