On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:33:03 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Whoa there, Peter! Who in this group -- Doug

included -- has ever -supported- any law that

restricts the freedom of communication? Or

the right to freedom of speech? Nobody, as far
as I can remember.



Google for a memory jog. I remember comments being made by nocodes that
cb should be done away with. Such a law would restrict that freedom.


You are confusing the message with the messenger -- CB radio is not a
freedom. If CB radio is ever nixed (and I hope it isn't), you would
still be free to communicate, just not via CB radio.


If you are suggesting that the laws governing

radio communications are a violation of the

right to free speech then you are WAY wrong

because that has already been thrown out in

both the courts -and- in this newsgroup.





Tell it to Howard Stern or Bubba the Love Sponge. Their recent RECORD
fines from the FCC are testament to the law restricting exactly what
speech may be broadcast and how screwed up the law actually is. A few
examples,,,, one radio station may use an offensive term, but another
radio station may not say the same thing,,,,,this dj can say this, but
that dj over there can't say it. It's ok to say this on late night
radio, but if you say it in the morning, we're going to fine
you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's screwed up so bad and Stern took Powell to task
for it the other day. Now daddy Powell is ****ed at Stern.


Again, there's the difference between the message and messenger. There
is a similar confusion whenever a radio station decides not to play a
particular song for whatever reason. When that happens there is always
a crowd that whines about censorship. But if their cries had any
validity, every station would be forced to play every song from every
artist since the beginning of time just so some Perry Como fan doesn't
throw a fit.


Get this straight, Peter: You have freedoms,

but those freedoms are limited


Limited equals restricted.


.....stay within context....


to the extent

that you don't violate the rights of others.



Freedom of speech will always be tested in the courts, thank God. What
you consider violating the rights of others, others may disagree. For
example, what may offend you may not offend another, especially where
speech and/or obscenity law is defined.


And that's why the rights of citizens are defined in the Constitution.
Yes, even the Constitution is subject to interpretation, but that's
the job of the judicial system. So far that system has done a pretty
good job. Not perfect, but pretty good.


You have freedom of movement -provided-

you don't tresspass on someone else's

property. You have the freedom of speech

-provided- you don't cause a public nuisance.




No, the word "nuisance" is to be found nowhere in either of the recent
record fines against Stern and BTLS (btls.com).


It was just an example, and it wasn't even intended to be specific to
radio. Radio is not the only venue for speech, as Howie has recently
learned.


You can drive a car -provided- you stay in

your own lane. Etc, etc.



.resulting in possible serious injury and/or death,


.....and therefore violating the rights of someone else.


none which can be
attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech.


It's not a matter of degrees. The right to free speech does not equate
to the right to life, or the right to vote, to freedom of religion, to
peaceably assemble, to keep and bear arms, etc. And most importantly,
the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Your freedoms,

including the freedom to communicate, are not
restricted except to the extent needed to

provide those same freedoms to everyone and
not violate the rights of others.



As noted above.



My compliments on your choice to adopt the generally accepted method
of Usenet quoting.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---