What of Limbaugh's right to freedom of speech? That doesn't matter, the authors argue, because the radio "spectrum is a scarce government resource," properly licensed by the FCC for use "in the public interest." Limbaugh is "constitutionally entitled to his opinions," they write, "but he is not constitutionally entitled to the people's airways."

What if he went to SiriusXM? What if he could arrange a channel on cable TV? Would you also deny that he has a right to access publishers? What about laser printers?

That you don't like his opinion does not give you a right to silence him.

First Amendment to the United States Constitution: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

========================================

Instead of upholding property rights in this sphere, the government controls the radio waves, and the bureaucrats of the FCC serve as censors, granting and revoking permissions as they choose.

And that was why satellite radio was started. The left (and right) over the years has tried to institute decency standards, fairness doctrines, etc. to try to make sure their voices were heard. The FCC rules have been struck down by the primary, appellate, and supreme courts so many times, you'd think they would have a clue. Deconflict the airwaves; don't listen to the content.

[T]he radio "spectrum is a scarce government resource," properly licensed by the FCC for use "in the public interest."

No, no it's not. The government does NOT own the radio spectrum. That's like saying the government owns magnetic fields or weather patterns. It's also not "scarce." That's the most terrifying quote from these whack-jobs, as far as I'm concerned.

Well, useable spectrum is getting to be in short supply; we're getting close to bumping up against the infrared band as far as virgin spectrum is concerned. However, Kit's main point still stands. The government does not own the airwaves; the people do. We assign the government the job sorting out frequencies and preventing conflicts.

There's a sort-of related issue that I've been following at Ars Technica: the Lightsquared saga. For those who haven't been following this closet drama, Lightsquared is a company that wants to establish a national wireless data network, like the wireless network in your home except nationwide. They bought a spectrum license, and then wanted to use the spectrum in a way that would violate the terms of the license, from an engineering standpoint. The FCC told them that they could do that if they could demonstrate that their use of the spectrum would not cause interference to users of adjacent bands.

Lightsquared was unable to do so, so the FCC told them no. Now Lightsquared is trying to use political pressure to override the FCC's decision. Ars Technica ran an article a couple of weeks ago that basically summarized where the issue stands, and a bunch of their commenters jumped in with detailed explanations of the physics and engineering issues involved. However: some other commenters ripped Ars Technica for, get this: presenting both sides of the issue! "You can't show both sides! That's what Fox News does! You can only present the side that's correct!"

Hanoi Jane is demanding that the US government silence and punish someone for what they've said. This goes beyond lack of self-awareness and into the realm of Alzheimer's disease.

The government does NOT own the radio spectrum. That's like saying the government owns magnetic fields or weather patterns. It's also not "scarce."

That is shorthand for saying the government allocates frequencies within the radio spectrum which are (depending on which part of the spectrum and where you are) scarce.

This is one of the jobs that only government do.

The government does NOT own the radio spectrum. That's like saying the government owns magnetic fields or weather patterns. It's also not "scarce."

That is shorthand for saying the government allocates frequencies within the radio spectrum which are (depending on which part of the spectrum and where you are) scarce.

This is one of the jobs that only government do.

Jeff, I understand that. However, I doubt the idiots who say these things do. I also believe that words have an exact meaning, and while a slip of the tongue, a typo, and an occasional use of shorthand is all right, I first have to be convinced that the person in question actually knows what the hell they're talking about.

This is one of the jobs that only government do. -- Jeff Guinna at March 17, 2012 1:21 PM

Jeff,

I take it you meant "jobs that only the government can do."?

Now the next question: Why can only the government can do it?

Why couldn't the cell phone companies, the TV and radio broadcasters decide how to deconflict the airwaves?

The same thing with the FAA. Why?

Why couldn't there be a private overseer group that did the job? They would be paid for by the airlines.

But since the FCC already exists they should be limited to the deconfliction -- not the content.

The protesters of Limbaugh's comments should also be protesting Maher's comments as well.

It gets even nuttier.

Gloria Allred wants Rush criminally prosecuted under a 1883 Florida law that states "Whoever speaks of and concerning any woman, married or unmarried, falsely and maliciously imputing to her a want of chastity, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of the first degree"

When I first read about it I thought it must be from "The Onion"

"Why couldn't the cell phone companies, the TV and radio broadcasters decide how to deconflict the airwaves?

The same thing with the FAA. Why?"

I have a friend who was in tower law - the field of liability for data interference / encroachment of signal - and the idea is simple.

No one can provide a commercial service without licensing. In the case of radio emissions, the potential is so great for interfering with navigational aids (present by the thousand, but invisible to the public) controlled by the FAA that it serves as a precedent for other frequencies.

If you've never done this before: say you set up a transmitter at 1800MHz. It has harmonics at even multiples/divisors of that value, so interference with 900MHz and 2700MHz must be considered. So must the quality of the the modulated signal and so forth. I'm not really a radio guy, but the short story is that if WalMart was allowed to just pick a dial setting to send a directional radio signal to its warehouse, Channel 6 News and a hundred other stations in range will have been interrupted. Hope it's not the glideslope signal on your airliner.

I get the idea nobody here knows how many transmitters there are. It's not just AM/FM radio and TV, not by a long shot.

Do we get to apply this new law retroactively in the case of Hanoi Jane?

Gloria Allred is the poster child for loser pays in our legal system.

I get the idea nobody here knows how many transmitters there are. It's not just AM/FM radio and TV, not by a long shot. -- Radwaste at March 18, 2012 5:20 PM

I'm not so radical to say that we don't need the fed. I'm just trying to point out to always ask "Why?" before ceding the the right to the government.

• "Why " do we need the EPA?


• "Why " do we need the Dept of Ed?


• "Why " do we need the Dept of Energy?


• "Why " can't the NRC report to a different agency?


• "Why " do we need DOMA when it's a state's rights issue?


• "Why " do we need the NTSB?


• "Why " do we need HUD?


• "Why " do we need Department of Commerce?

Once you answer those questions, honestly, to yourself -- the rest falls into place.

If you answer in favor, then you want to be a slave. If you answer in opposition you want to be a free person with liberty and responsible to yourself.