Turning down the volume on TV commercials

[2Parties]

The broadcasters' and advertisers' rights to the USE of the PUBLIC's airwaves, by contrast, IS dependent on a lease from the government.

As soon as permission is required it is no longer a right UNLESS it is a positive right.

If it do not care for CNN or MSLSD, I am not obligated to turn on their biased shitty programming. And I don't.

They broadcast on the public's airwaves.

But if I am enjoying, at a comfortable decibel level, some show broadcast over those PUBLIC airwaves, then I damn well DO have a right to TELL the broadcaster and the advertisers not to blast my eardrums.

Sure you can tell them not to blast your eardrums. They also would be perfectly justified to tell you to pound sand and completely eliminate all of their broadcasts.

And in a representative democracy, I can tell them that in a number of ways including having my congresscritters draft appropriate laws or give proper REGULATORY power to an agency along those lines.

So you resort to violence when a peaceful broadcaster provides you with a service you don't approve of.

I think I've seen this somewhere before. In fact I've seen it numerous places.

There is not a hint of analog between that and having the government impose universal public healthcare on us.

If I believed in the right to be provided a certain level of health care (decibel level of advertisements), and believed that the current system (they are too loud) was inadequate of I may just force insurance providers (television broadcasters) to do what I want because I deserve it.

 

[elvis]

what is exactly involved in this scenario? If the people taking over and conquering were better than what we have now i'd support paying those people, if they were the same 0%.

If they were worse i don't really know, but i guarantee it's less than 100%. If it was 100% for "just compensation" i'm nothing but a slave.

nazi germany, soviet russia, or iran under the current mullahs.

what's your number?

I don't have one because i oppose all governments.

312-867-5309.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Taxes are not without compensation.

Good luck proving that out. It's supposed to be "just compensation" and I'm sure you could find tens of millions of Americans who would tell you (and rightly) they are not being justly compensated for them.

The government cannot infringe on freedom of speech.

They do.

Do you not consider national defense just compensation? or crime prevention?

They take my taxes to build another state's bridge to nowhere, give themselves golf carts, bailn out AIG, fly first-class on their vacations...

Cut Federal Spending First. Here, For Example. And Here… And Here… « Stop the Pork!

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.

 

[Liability]

The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.

The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate. But, it serves its purpose as legal fictions go. It is intended to connote that the airwaves cannot be held by a private company or companies thereby depriving all of us of the use of that medium. So, it is not the "government" that "owns" the airwaves. WE do and we ask the government to regulate its use so that none of us can be denied access to it.

Since they are OUR airwaves, we DO have the right to regulate their use (in terms of access). That's why stations get leases for their use, not ownership.

But WE do object if and/or when the government attempts, on that basis, to improperly regulate content.

That might get us into a debate on censorship and the actual meaning (original intention of the phrase) "freedom of speech." That's a worthy topic of discussion in its own right.

But WE do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc. By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."

 

[The T]

The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.

The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate. But, it serves its purpose as legal fictions go. It is intended to connote that the airwaves cannot be held by a private company or companies thereby depriving all of us of the use of that medium. So, it is not the "government" that "owns" the airwaves. WE do and we ask the government to regulate its use so that none of us can be denied access to it.

Since they are OUR airwaves, we DO have the right to regulate their use (in terms of access). That's why stations get leases for their use, not ownership.

But WE do object if and/or when the government attempts, on that basis, to imporperly regulate content.

That might get us into a debate on censorship and the actual meaning (original intention of the phrase) "freedom of speech." That's a worthy topic of discussion in its own right.

But WE do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc. By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."

*

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.

The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate...

But WE do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc. By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."

You seem to agree with me, then restate the refuted premise.

To say that the State or the masses as a singular entity 'own' the radiation emitted is simple absurd. However, the Fed regulates many things that are not 'owned' the the public as property. For instance, nobody 'owns' the vibrations in the air called sound, and music remains the intellectual property of the artists/studio (or whoever owns the rights to the material), yet we allow the goverrnent to regulate how loudly a person may play that music so as not to disturb the peace.

 

[Liability]

The Fed does not ''own the airwaves'. How can they own the radiation emitted by privately owned equipment? They simply regulate that emission
so that no party prevents another from exercising their own rights.

The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate...

But WE do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc. By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."

You seem to agree with me, then restate the refuted premise.

To say that the State or the masses as a singular entity 'own' the radiation emitted is simple absurd. However, the Fed regulates many things that are not 'owned' the the public as property. For instance, nobody 'owns' the vibrations in the air called sound, and music remains the intellectual property of the artists/studio (or whoever owns the rights to the material), yet we allow the goverrnent to regulate how loudly a person may play that music so as not to disturb the peace.

Nah. You just have some problem keeping up is all.

WE do own it. Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own, to be controlled in its way by transmitters. But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so. If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same. But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access. So, our society has collectively held that you cannot "own" it. As a legal fiction, we all own it. We then permit ABC or NBC or CBS, etc., to USE it upon terms and conditions of our collective choosing.

If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance. The point remains. You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it. WE own all of the frequencies, and we permit you to USE one of them (or perhaps more than one of them) per the terms of a temporary lease.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

The phrase "the public owns the airwaves" is a bit unfortunate...

But WE do "own" the airwaves, not NBC, CBS or ABC, etc. By our leave, they get a lease on that public "property."

You seem to agree with me, then restate the refuted premise.

To say that the State or the masses as a singular entity 'own' the radiation emitted is simple absurd. However, the Fed regulates many things that are not 'owned' the the public as property. For instance, nobody 'owns' the vibrations in the air called sound, and music remains the intellectual property of the artists/studio (or whoever owns the rights to the material), yet we allow the goverrnent to regulate how loudly a person may play that music so as not to disturb the peace.

Nah. You just have some problem keeping up is all.

WE do own it. Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own, to be controlled in its way by transmitters. But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so. If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same. But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access. So, our society has collectively held that you cannot "own" it. As a legal fiction, we all own it. We then permit ABC or NBC or CBS, etc., to USE it upon terms and conditions of our collective choosing.

If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance. The point remains. You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it. WE own all of the frequencies, and we permit you to USE one of them (or perhaps more than one of them) per the terms of a temporary lease.

My ownership of land also excludes anybody else from owning it, yet we don't supposedly all own all of the land.

 

[Liability]

You seem to agree with me, then restate the refuted premise.

To say that the State or the masses as a singular entity 'own' the radiation emitted is simple absurd. However, the Fed regulates many things that are not 'owned' the the public as property. For instance, nobody 'owns' the vibrations in the air called sound, and music remains the intellectual property of the artists/studio (or whoever owns the rights to the material), yet we allow the goverrnent to regulate how loudly a person may play that music so as not to disturb the peace.

Nah. You just have some problem keeping up is all.

WE do own it. Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own, to be controlled in its way by transmitters. But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so. If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same. But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access. So, our society has collectively held that you cannot "own" it. As a legal fiction, we all own it. We then permit ABC or NBC or CBS, etc., to USE it upon terms and conditions of our collective choosing.

If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance. The point remains. You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it. WE own all of the frequencies, and we permit you to USE one of them (or perhaps more than one of them) per the terms of a temporary lease.

My ownership of land also excludes anybody else from owning it, yet we don't supposedly all own all of the land.

True, but ownership of land does not implicate control of speech. Ownership of a medium of communication of a very finite variety kinda sorta does.

All analogies limp, of course. But there are still some fair and reasonable bases out there upon which to draw distinctions.

And the legal fiction that we all own the airwaves has been a pretty serviceable one for a whole array of reasons.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own

When did we nationalize photons?

to be controlled in its way by transmitters. But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so.

Uh... we do grant exclusive right to use certain frequencies. That's why FOX and MSNBC aren't allowed to jam eachother.

If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same. But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access.

You purchase the rights to another frequency- as you've said repeatedly.

If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance

Because you're losing

Regulation and ownership are not equivalent terms, you twit.

. The point remains. You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it

Yes, you do. That's the whole point of the system.

 

[Liability]

Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own

When did we nationalize photons?

Never. No need to. That's why it is just a creative legal fiction.

to be controlled in its way by transmitters. But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so.

Uh... we do grant exclusive right to use certain frequencies. That's why FOX and MSNBC aren't allowed to jam eachother.

No no. Stop being obtuse. Fox or MSLSD or ABC or CBS have TEMPORARY exclusive rights to use, which is the point I was making. But they do not OWN jack shit. I do not OWN an apartment, either, if I rent one. When I rent, I have the right to exclude others from my TEMPORARY dwelling, true. But it's still just a LEASE and not a fee simple ownership.

I snipped, at this point, the balance of your rather carelessly spewed post since you seem unwilling to be serious.

You can quibble all you wish, but the facts are not so easily swept under the proverbial rug. Without this legal fiction that we all collectively own the airwaves, we could face radio/broadcast TV cacophony. The legal fiction we chose to employ has been quite serviceable.

I'd be interested in reading a serious suggestion for how to revise the system (along the line preferred by the "purists") that would not lead, inevitably, to the very problems the PRESENT SYSTEM successfully circumvents.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Nah. You just have some problem keeping up is all.

WE do own it. Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own, to be controlled in its way by transmitters. But the point is, if we were to allow any individual or corporate entity to lay claim to ownership (exclusive right to use) that frequency, it would deny the rest of us the chance to do so. If you print a newspaper, your doing so deprives me of no right to do the same. But if you own the radio frequency (and other private companies own the other available radio frequencies) then your "ownership" does deprive me of that kind of access. So, our society has collectively held that you cannot "own" it. As a legal fiction, we all own it. We then permit ABC or NBC or CBS, etc., to USE it upon terms and conditions of our collective choosing.

If you want to quibble about the meaning of "ownership," I decline the invitation to that dance. The point remains. You have no ownership right to that frequency in the sense of being able to exclude anybody else from using it. WE own all of the frequencies, and we permit you to USE one of them (or perhaps more than one of them) per the terms of a temporary lease.

My ownership of land also excludes anybody else from owning it, yet we don't supposedly all own all of the land.

True, but ownership of land does not implicate control of speech. Ownership of a medium of communication of a very finite variety kinda sorta does.

All analogies limp, of course. But there are still some fair and reasonable bases out there upon which to draw distinctions.

And the legal fiction that we all own the airwaves has been a pretty serviceable one for a whole array of reasons.

Control of speech? It is government control of the airwaves that limits speech on those airwaves.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Yes, it is but potential radio frequency energy that we own

When did we nationalize photons?

Never. No need to. That's why it is just a creative legal fiction.

So you're saying the masses don't own the energy radiated by radio/tv transmitters?

The key part of your post is 'fiction'.

No no. Stop being obtuse. Fox or MSLSD or ABC or CBS have TEMPORARY exclusive rights to use, which is the point I was making. But they do not OWN jack shit. I do not OWN an apartment, either, if I rent one

You purchase the rights to it and it becomes your property (though not solely so) during the course of the contract. That is why there are restrictions on the landlord entering your apt.

. When I rent, I have the right to exclude others from my TEMPORARY dwelling, true. But it's still just a LEASE and not a fee simple ownership.

The difference is that the building is owned by a person or group of people. Purchasing the rights to a bandwidth more closely resembles paying a fee for the gov'ts service in enforcing your right to free speech, using an allotted bandwidth to do so in a manner that does not conflict with the rights of other persons.

 

[Liability]

My ownership of land also excludes anybody else from owning it, yet we don't supposedly all own all of the land.

True, but ownership of land does not implicate control of speech. Ownership of a medium of communication of a very finite variety kinda sorta does.

All analogies limp, of course. But there are still some fair and reasonable bases out there upon which to draw distinctions.

And the legal fiction that we all own the airwaves has been a pretty serviceable one for a whole array of reasons.

Control of speech? It is government control of the airwaves that limits speech on those airwaves.

Incorrect. The government does NOT own the airwaves. WE do. We ask and permit the government to make laws and rules and regulations regarding how that use may be apportioned in order to prevent individuals from seizing complete control over those airwaves since THAT would deprive US of OUR access -- thereby impeding free speech.

The government similarly does not control the airwaves, per se. It REGULATES corporate access in a very limited way.

To the extent that an entity like the FCC goes beyond that function, then at that point I start to share your concerns.

However, that leads to a very different discussion and debate.

SOME folks insist that the government cannot limit the ability of a broadcaster to air Carlin's Dirty Words -- because, they claim, that amounts to censorship.

OTHER folks deny that contention and insist, instead, that free speech as that term was understood at the Founding and the Framing is concerned not with some dubious "right" to air nudity or vulgar jokes, but with the right of a free people to openly and fully discuss matters of general political concern.

As things stand, CBS or ABC or MSLSD or CNN can USE the airwaves for capitalistic profit motives and the SPEECH they air on political matters is not limited (except by way of some Federal Regulations [like McCain/Feingold] that themselves arguably violate the First Amendment). That is a serious concern worthy of serious discussion. But CBS, MSLSD, CNN, ABC, etc., do not OWN the frequencies they use and their "lease" on those frequencies is periodically subject to possible competition. If they were to lose their temporarily granted monopoly right over a frequency as a form of retaliation for any political content of something they broadcast, however, then I would flatly agree with you that the government's actions would be entirely invalid.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

The government does NOT own the airwaves.

AMERICAN CIVICS: LESSON 1

the government = 'we the people'

 

[Liability]

The government does NOT own the airwaves.

AMERICAN CIVICS: LESSON 1

the government = 'we the people'

Actually, the Federal government is WE, the States. The phrase "we the people" is a bit misleading. In America, we, the PEOPLE are sovereign, but that doesn't mean that we did not create a government. And we recognize that governments take on powers -- and this poses dangers. So we deliberately restricted the authority of the government and diligently went about setting up lots of impediments to the improper use of powers by the federal government.

The PEOPLE reserve onto themselves certain authority and deny it to the gubmint.

The PEOPLE own the airwaves. We ask the government, in our name, to do the business of regulating it, in terms of access, in order to prevent individuals or corporations from effectively denying us access to OUR airwaves. But the federal government, technically, doesn't "own" shit.

It does lay claim in various ways (like national parks, etc) to "ownership" of property, but when we scratch the surface of such claims, we see that it is just an imprecise use of language. Much like what you just did.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

True, but ownership of land does not implicate control of speech. Ownership of a medium of communication of a very finite variety kinda sorta does.

All analogies limp, of course. But there are still some fair and reasonable bases out there upon which to draw distinctions.

And the legal fiction that we all own the airwaves has been a pretty serviceable one for a whole array of reasons.

Control of speech? It is government control of the airwaves that limits speech on those airwaves.

Incorrect. The government does NOT own the airwaves. WE do. We ask and permit the government to make laws and rules and regulations regarding how that use may be apportioned in order to prevent individuals from seizing complete control over those airwaves since THAT would deprive US of OUR access -- thereby impeding free speech.

The government similarly does not control the airwaves, per se. It REGULATES corporate access in a very limited way.

To the extent that an entity like the FCC goes beyond that function, then at that point I start to share your concerns.

However, that leads to a very different discussion and debate.

SOME folks insist that the government cannot limit the ability of a broadcaster to air Carlin's Dirty Words -- because, they claim, that amounts to censorship.

OTHER folks deny that contention and insist, instead, that free speech as that term was understood at the Founding and the Framing is concerned not with some dubious "right" to air nudity or vulgar jokes, but with the right of a free people to openly and fully discuss matters of general political concern.

As things stand, CBS or ABC or MSLSD or CNN can USE the airwaves for capitalistic profit motives and the SPEECH they air on political matters is not limited (except by way of some Federal Regulations [like McCain/Feingold] that themselves arguably violate the First Amendment). That is a serious concern worthy of serious discussion. But CBS, MSLSD, CNN, ABC, etc., do not OWN the frequencies they use and their "lease" on those frequencies is periodically subject to possible competition. If they were to lose their temporarily granted monopoly right over a frequency as a form of retaliation for any political content of something they broadcast, however, then I would flatly agree with you that the government's actions would be entirely invalid.

This is taking us away from the point. That point being that there should be private ownership of the airwaves. Private ownership does not impede anyone's rights, and would solve the dilemma of anyone else using that frequency and jamming transmissions. The market remains better at regulation than government.

 

[Liability]

Control of speech? It is government control of the airwaves that limits speech on those airwaves.

Incorrect. The government does NOT own the airwaves. WE do. We ask and permit the government to make laws and rules and regulations regarding how that use may be apportioned in order to prevent individuals from seizing complete control over those airwaves since THAT would deprive US of OUR access -- thereby impeding free speech.

The government similarly does not control the airwaves, per se. It REGULATES corporate access in a very limited way.

To the extent that an entity like the FCC goes beyond that function, then at that point I start to share your concerns.

However, that leads to a very different discussion and debate.

SOME folks insist that the government cannot limit the ability of a broadcaster to air Carlin's Dirty Words -- because, they claim, that amounts to censorship.

OTHER folks deny that contention and insist, instead, that free speech as that term was understood at the Founding and the Framing is concerned not with some dubious "right" to air nudity or vulgar jokes, but with the right of a free people to openly and fully discuss matters of general political concern.

As things stand, CBS or ABC or MSLSD or CNN can USE the airwaves for capitalistic profit motives and the SPEECH they air on political matters is not limited (except by way of some Federal Regulations [like McCain/Feingold] that themselves arguably violate the First Amendment). That is a serious concern worthy of serious discussion. But CBS, MSLSD, CNN, ABC, etc., do not OWN the frequencies they use and their "lease" on those frequencies is periodically subject to possible competition. If they were to lose their temporarily granted monopoly right over a frequency as a form of retaliation for any political content of something they broadcast, however, then I would flatly agree with you that the government's actions would be entirely invalid.

This is taking us away from the point. That point being that there should be private ownership of the airwaves. Private ownership does not impede anyone's rights, and would solve the dilemma of anyone else using that frequency and jamming transmissions. The market remains better at regulation than government.

No. That is NOT "the point." It is your merely contention. And your contention is based on a false premise.

I have already addressed that mistake you make.

The "market," in actuality, cannot be expected to effectively serve to prevent the undue control over access to the airwaves by corporate entities.

The market may well be better at regulating SOME things: but it is silly and quite baseless to presume that it could "regulate" access to the airwaves in any way that wouldn't deprive most of us OF that access.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Incorrect. The government does NOT own the airwaves. WE do. We ask and permit the government to make laws and rules and regulations regarding how that use may be apportioned in order to prevent individuals from seizing complete control over those airwaves since THAT would deprive US of OUR access -- thereby impeding free speech.

The government similarly does not control the airwaves, per se. It REGULATES corporate access in a very limited way.

To the extent that an entity like the FCC goes beyond that function, then at that point I start to share your concerns.

However, that leads to a very different discussion and debate.

SOME folks insist that the government cannot limit the ability of a broadcaster to air Carlin's Dirty Words -- because, they claim, that amounts to censorship.

OTHER folks deny that contention and insist, instead, that free speech as that term was understood at the Founding and the Framing is concerned not with some dubious "right" to air nudity or vulgar jokes, but with the right of a free people to openly and fully discuss matters of general political concern.

As things stand, CBS or ABC or MSLSD or CNN can USE the airwaves for capitalistic profit motives and the SPEECH they air on political matters is not limited (except by way of some Federal Regulations [like McCain/Feingold] that themselves arguably violate the First Amendment). That is a serious concern worthy of serious discussion. But CBS, MSLSD, CNN, ABC, etc., do not OWN the frequencies they use and their "lease" on those frequencies is periodically subject to possible competition. If they were to lose their temporarily granted monopoly right over a frequency as a form of retaliation for any political content of something they broadcast, however, then I would flatly agree with you that the government's actions would be entirely invalid.

This is taking us away from the point. That point being that there should be private ownership of the airwaves. Private ownership does not impede anyone's rights, and would solve the dilemma of anyone else using that frequency and jamming transmissions. The market remains better at regulation than government.

No. That is NOT "the point." It is your merely contention. And your contention is based on a false premise.

I have already addressed that mistake you make.

The "market," in actuality, cannot be expected to effectively serve to prevent the undue control over access to the airwaves by corporate entities.

The market may well be better at regulating SOME things: but it is silly and quite baseless to presume that it could "regulate" access to the airwaves in any way that wouldn't deprive most of us OF that access.

Yes, my contention, or my point. Same thing.

It doesn't deprive you of access at all. You would be free to purchase a different frequency, or not to purchase a different frequency.