Well, you did a fine job of ignoring my post except for one sentence..
Because the one sentence is wrong. And the rest of your post follows from that one sentence. It matters very much how the show comes into your home.
You want to make this a technicality as to the means to an end- and I say (as well as historical case law) it doesnt matter what FORM the communication is in. Cable counts as much as broadcast does.
And yet you repeat the incorrect assertion. It matters very much how the signal enters your home as it relates to the FCC censuring content. If it is a broadcast signal, then the FCC has control over content under the guidelines they have established. This is because the signal is being broadcast over "government owned" frequencies., essentially leased to the broadcast companies. And the signal is free and clear to be picked up by anyone with a television receiver.
If the signal enters your home via cable or satellite, then the FCC has very little regulatory power over content. This is because the user pays for the right to access the signals, and by doing so consensually agrees with the content being sent.
I do not know what argument you are continually trying to make. But it seems to have nothing to do with mine. That is that the FCC has no regulatory control over content of cable and television signals. I suppose that the FBI does, if the companies sent out illegal images, and I suppose that using cable/satellite signals in the commission of a crime might violate something in the FCC guidelines, but this is not what is being discussed.
But that is the POINT of what is being discussed...
And I think that you are just not seeing the forest for the trees is all. I do not claim that the FCC has dominance over anything and everything that the First Amendment entails..
I just see the need for the FCC historically, as a means to ending jurisdictional battles, regardless of the original wording of what types of signals are sent, or by whom..
You yourself said that the government owns the air, that these signals are sent by. You disagree with that. Your contention is that the government does not have power over the stuff that happens in the air. Then why not push to do away with the FAA, also? Because the atmosphere belongs not just to one state, but to all states, and since aircraft have to communicate with other aircraft that are in the air above a state other than one they are going to be landing in, this causes problems in regulations, on a state by state basis, and thus presents a need for the FAA.
Let me explain some things about property ownership to you..
Your property extends not just to the surface area of that your fence surrounds.. But also all the way to the core of the earth, and to the uppermost reaches of Earth's atmosphere. This is considered your personal property..
We are an individually governed country, meaning that we govern ourselves. We choose how to live our lives, what property we want and where, what kind of structures will exist there, etc. We may choose to have a property with an 800 story building on it, if we choose to... But we do that with the understanding that trying to do this in a suburb where the HOA agreement prohibits such a thing, will inevitably be rejected..
Also, the "air up there" above your property is very difficult for one owner to be able to enforce jurisdiction towards. Thus, this air is not OWNED by the government, but is under the jurisdiction of the federal government, in order to resolve complaints. This is entirely a jurisdictional matter, and the jurisdictional problems with would end up occurring if the FCC was eradicated would be the same as before- Chaotic and unnecessary. To say otherwise is asinine.
Cont- Do not compare yourself to a libertarian. You are an anarchist. Libertarians are not at all anti-law, anti-government. We are against BIG government, and unjust legislation that infringes upon inalienable rights to the people.
Both- I am very sorry to break it to you, but publicly airing shows full of obscenity, profanity, hate speech, etc, is not within anyone's first amendment rights. Censorship of such does not infringe on any single person's inalienable freedom of expression, religion, or political speech. There is nothing about this that type of censorship that is harmful to you or anyone else. You are both just going to have to deal with it.
