[steevytraunse]

That's not good enough to protect landlords from evicting sodomites

That's because the government says you can't.

that government property rights supersede and are extra more special than other property rights. Since the government makes the property laws and rights... yeah.

[Teareerah]

That's because the government says you can't.



Since the government makes the property laws and rights... yeah.

You think in-congruency in the application of rights and laws is okay, and that a certain level of arbitrariness when it comes to government is okay.

[illetrygrargo]

TV enjoyed in the comfort of ones own home is closer to sodomy laws than public nudity and sex cases.

Why should the government restrict what consenting adults watch in their own home? Because it lays ownership claim to the airwaves? That's not good enough to protect landlords from evicting sodomites, and it shouldnt be enough for the government to control content. Unless you'd like to make the grand argument that government property rights supersede and are extra more special than other property rights.

The government is not restricting what you can watch in the privacy of your home.

You can have all the sex channels you want.

JM

[johobuo]

That's because the government says you can't.



Since the government makes the property laws and rights... yeah.

Right, it's only wrong for the landlords to evict sodomites if the government says so. Morality is decided by the state

[TineSeign]

It's somewhat of a tough case, IMO. Mostly because, if I understand correctly, the broadcast networks are using broadcast frequencies owned by the US Government. In that case, can't the government decide on what should be aired on its property?

Law school sophistry rears its ugly head. The highest law of the land is the Constitution, and the Constitution forbids Congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech.

[Stetbrate]

The government is not restricting what you can watch in the privacy of your home.

You can have all the sex channels you want.

JM

The government absolutely is abridging what can be watched over the airwaves it leases to companies, clearly supporting the notion that ownership confers ability to dictate behavior of lessees, only when it comes to the government. Arbitrary government is arbitrary.

[JackTimQSR]

Law school sophistry rears its ugly head. The highest law of the land is the Constitution, and the Constitution forbids Congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech.

Imran probably supports indefinite detainment so long as the person is defined as something which the government can assert no rights to. Government makes the rules, they get to break the rules and who they apply to and all.

[Beerinkol]

I covered that in my earlier post. #19

Yes I agree that the current is excessive and it should be loosened up.

[Dndjzirw]

Law school sophistry rears its ugly head. The highest law of the land is the Constitution, and the Constitution forbids Congress from making any law that abridges the freedom of speech.

Which is exactly why Congress can't make any laws involving yelling fire in a theater .

Does that mean to you, that the government can't restrict anything on their own airwaves? So a broadcast network can broadcast racial violence incitement?

[Pinkman]

The world is full of broadcasting pirates.

[RichardFG435]

You're pathetic. Do you think that's a persuasive argument for censoring profanity or nudity?

On government owned property? Yeah.

[masaredera]

Hell, if the only exception to the first amendment was if the government owned it, then Apolyton would have to respect people's first amendment rights. And obviously that's the complete opposite of reality.

[Roorseprate]

The world is full of broadcasting pirates.

Now imagine it's legal and the big boys start doing it. CBS airing the Superbowl? Well ABC and NBC are blasting commercials on the same frequency the whole time.

[Searmoreibe]

The government absolutely is abridging what can be watched over the airwaves it leases to companies, clearly supporting the notion that ownership confers ability to dictate behavior of lessees, only when it comes to the government. Arbitrary government is arbitrary.

I have no dog in the fight, but...

I would point out that restrictions on use are standard parts of any lease I've ever seen.

[86GlSqSK]

You're mixing two separate issues. Yelling fire in a crowded theater could lead to people being trampled to death. It's no more protected by the first amendment than conspiracy to commit a felony. The government can't restrict speech on public property, simply because it's public property.

censoring profanity or nudity Please read FCC vs. Pacifica. Thanks.

Furthermore, this is a bit different than people simply hanging out in a public park as these broadcasters are BUYING leases from the government. Why can't the government put use restriction language in the contracts? That's not a law banning freedom of speech as much as it is a contractual agreement.

[infarrelisam]

Broken clocks are right twice a day.

You never responded to that article I posted that clearly showed how not in favor free speech they are. I'm pretty disappointed that you aren't letting evidence affect your perception and you've retreated into cognitive dissonance when it come to the Robert's Court and Free Speech.

Here is that article again.

http://www.acslaw.org/acsblog/the-roberts-court’s-free-speech-double-standard

Great article. I like how H.C. finds one case where the right wing supreme court upheld free speech (basically because they had to because it was so obvious) and yet their are literally dozens of cases where they restricted free speech in what seems to be arbitrary ways.

[tevyrefficy]

And no lease ever includes something on the conduct and vulgarity of the tenants.

That would be completely incorrect. Landlords almost always control what sorts of businesses set up on their property. Most ask as a first question, 'what sort of business are you in?'