Originally Posted by Fedaykin
Hey thanks, another nice piece of support for my position.
That piece showcases a situation where the FFC tried to assert authority to do something based on 'protecting the children' from inadvertent exposure to indecent material (via signal bleed) that the supreme court didn't accept because they found it unconstitutional given that that were other reasonable means to prevent that inadvertent access.
Has exactly nada to do with RF spectrum use.
Please read the decision and apply some critical thinking. Cable has, as a fully contained and private transmission method, the advantage of people being able to select the signals which do or don't enter their house. This is not possible with radio transmission which is why the FCC (as mandated by the Court) treats it differently. RF is a privileged avenue into your home that you have no control over. Arguing that this first amendment "restriction" confers something upon the second amendment might only apply if we were talking about the right to shoot through your neighbors' windows.