Originally Posted by BroncoBeavis
Wow that's a lot of typing to keep going down a piss poor rabbit trail you created. So which public park have you gone to where when you go there you lease a chunk of it where from that point forward nobody else is allowed to use?
And if the mechanism is all about truly policing speech (instead of controlling allocation of very limited resources) why does the FCC do nothing to control what's posted on the internet?
Typical. I point out why you have no ****ing clue what you are talking about, and all you can retort with is bullsh*t posturing.
The FCC functions both as a spectrum steward and a censoring organization. Their censorship role is extremely limited, and NOT based on the ownership of the medium. They walk a very fine line in terms of free speech, and we've accepted as a society that information distributed in a manner that children have easy access to is acceptable to censor. Which is, of course, why information that takes special effort (i.e. a subscription) to access is not.
The FCC doesn't do jack for censoring the internet because;
1.) They have no authority to censor foreign content nor to prevent people from accessing lawful material.
2.) The "protect the children" loophole currently employed for freely distributed tv/radio broadcasts has not yet been successfully played -- though not from lack of trying by various interests.
Of course, the whole point, as I said, is that no "right" is absolute
. Not even the the most important: the "right" to life;