From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
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.


The right to say what you will on it most certainly is. Taking it away
would certainly
"restrict the freedom OF communication".



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.



You and I both know it comes down to legalized, large scale payola.

_
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.



Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the
"goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC.


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.


Sirius, isn't it?

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.


It's a matter of government legislating morality. They knew they were
fighting a losing battle when they allowed "We may not be able to
define obscenity, but we know it when we see it." The US is behind the
times when compared to the rest of the world and what is deemed
acceptable broadcast. The Janet Jackson thing and its fallout was a
social step backwards.


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.


It happens time to time.



----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News=3D=3D---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---=3D