(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:43 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:39 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:37 AM)john01992 Wrote:  i don't think i have ever seen more stupidity in a single post

Chances are you cannot elaborate on that.

dude you just make up **** time & time again.

chances are you can't back up that statement.

i would sure like an explanation on your zuckerberg statement

I meant Jeff Zucker. I had the word Zuckerberg in my head.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/29/cnn_hire...ff_zucker/

(04-29-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

resource availability IS economics.

And you're dead wrong on the internet piece. The FCC regulates internet providers which is why they're right there at the center of the net neutrality debate.

(04-29-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

The FCC is a regulatory agency created by an act of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it because of what I just mentioned.

The question of it being a resource or not isn't relevant to wether or not congress has the authority to regulate it.

I get what you're saying and all but ask yourself this, since channels and frequencies are resources, as you've defined them, then why are they regulated at a federal level primarily, unlike other resources who are still largely controlled by states?

(04-29-2014 11:59 AM)Hitch Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

resource availability IS economics.

And you're dead wrong on the internet piece. The FCC regulates internet providers which is why they're right there at the center of the net neutrality debate.

they regulate internet providers not internet content ==> big difference.

call it what you want but the reality is that resource availability is the key to the FCCs existence.

Who gives a f? NBC is not going to air the f word and the FCC will fine them if they do.

(04-29-2014 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:46 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC came about because of the Communications Act. It's an agency so it's entire mandate is wrapped up in that act.

and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

The FCC is a regulatory agency created by an act of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it because of what I just mentioned.

The question of it being a resource or not isn't relevant to wether or not congress has the authority to regulate it.

I get what you're saying and all but ask yourself this, since channels and frequencies are resources, as you've defined them, then why are they regulated at a federal level primarily, unlike other resources who are still largely controlled by states?

because radio waves can cross state lines.

congress can pass a law ==> but it is ultimately up to the courts to uphold them when their constitutionality is challenged. We are not talking about regulating a business, or the FBI ==> we are talking about free speech rights which is a whole different ball park.

(04-29-2014 12:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Who gives a f? NBC is not going to air the f word and the FCC will fine them if they do.

but they sure would like to not have to be able to worry about that.

(04-29-2014 12:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:49 AM)john01992 Wrote:  and the legal basis for making that act constitutional vs unconstitutional depends on the question of wether radio is a finite public resource.

Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

The FCC is a regulatory agency created by an act of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it because of what I just mentioned.

The question of it being a resource or not isn't relevant to wether or not congress has the authority to regulate it.

I get what you're saying and all but ask yourself this, since channels and frequencies are resources, as you've defined them, then why are they regulated at a federal level primarily, unlike other resources who are still largely controlled by states?

because radio waves can cross state lines.

congress can pass a law ==> but it is ultimately up to the courts to uphold them when their constitutionality is challenged. We are not talking about regulating a business, or the FBI ==> we are talking about free speech rights which is a whole different ball park.

I'm actually interests in this line of thought.

I'm not following you at all as to the importance of being a resource being relevant to Congress's authority to regulate it. I'm curious as to how you see that existing, or creating a separate authority, outside of the interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses.

Why are free speech rights implicated? Are they not even further implicated through strict regulation? Does every American have a fundamental due process style right to the airwaves?

(04-29-2014 12:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Who gives a f? NBC is not going to air the f word and the FCC will fine them if they do.

It violates the first and is a waste of the governments resources.

(04-29-2014 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC is a regulatory agency created by an act of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it because of what I just mentioned.

The question of it being a resource or not isn't relevant to wether or not congress has the authority to regulate it.

...

This is absolutely correct. And as HOD said, it was based on interstate commerce. Actually, it was specifically this basis due to the favorable SCOTUS rulings regarding ICC (interstate commerce commission) authority beforehand.

Just think it is important to get our agency basis correct before discussing the issues.

(04-29-2014 12:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Nah, it's an economic regulation that congress has the expressed authority to regulate through the idea of interstate commerce and the necessary and proper clause.

sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

The FCC is a regulatory agency created by an act of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it because of what I just mentioned.

The question of it being a resource or not isn't relevant to wether or not congress has the authority to regulate it.

I get what you're saying and all but ask yourself this, since channels and frequencies are resources, as you've defined them, then why are they regulated at a federal level primarily, unlike other resources who are still largely controlled by states?

because radio waves can cross state lines.

congress can pass a law ==> but it is ultimately up to the courts to uphold them when their constitutionality is challenged. We are not talking about regulating a business, or the FBI ==> we are talking about free speech rights which is a whole different ball park.

I'm actually interests in this line of thought.

I'm not following you at all as to the importance of being a resource being relevant to Congress's authority to regulate it. I'm curious as to how you see that existing, or creating a separate authority, outside of the interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses.

Why are free speech rights implicated? Are they not even further implicated through strict regulation? Does every American have a fundamental due process style right to the airwaves?

the importance of it being a finite public resource is the issue here. The purpose of the FCC was to save radio from itself. Radio channels were trying to drown each other out and spamming the air waves. not only that but there are only X amount of radio channels available and in the general interest of the public a govt agency was needed to not only assign channels but make sure the channels available were the ones best fit to serve the public. ==> that is the ultimate legal basis for what the FCC does.

(04-29-2014 12:11 PM)WPDAWG08 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:02 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  Who gives a f? NBC is not going to air the f word and the FCC will fine them if they do.

It violates the first and is a waste of the governments resources.

No, it doesn't

Obscenity laws do not violate the 1st amendment. The SCOTUS has already ruled on that.

(04-29-2014 12:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

The FCC is a regulatory agency created by an act of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it because of what I just mentioned.

The question of it being a resource or not isn't relevant to wether or not congress has the authority to regulate it.

I get what you're saying and all but ask yourself this, since channels and frequencies are resources, as you've defined them, then why are they regulated at a federal level primarily, unlike other resources who are still largely controlled by states?

because radio waves can cross state lines.

congress can pass a law ==> but it is ultimately up to the courts to uphold them when their constitutionality is challenged. We are not talking about regulating a business, or the FBI ==> we are talking about free speech rights which is a whole different ball park.

I'm actually interests in this line of thought.

I'm not following you at all as to the importance of being a resource being relevant to Congress's authority to regulate it. I'm curious as to how you see that existing, or creating a separate authority, outside of the interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses.

Why are free speech rights implicated? Are they not even further implicated through strict regulation? Does every American have a fundamental due process style right to the airwaves?

the importance of it being a finite public resource is the issue here. The purpose of the FCC was to save radio from itself. Radio channels were trying to drown each other out and spamming the air waves. not only that but there are only X amount of radio channels available and in the general interest of the public a govt agency was needed to not only assign channels but make sure the channels available were the ones best fit to serve the public. ==> that is the ultimate legal basis for what the FCC does.

Why is finite important?

The legal basis for constitutionality is the constitution itself, ie, commerce clause and necessary and proper.

The "ultimate legal basis for" the FCC is the wording of the communications act itself. An agency wields only the power it is given.

Here is the exact wording of that grant...

"regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."

To complicate this matter a bit, this is pre APA. It's also really before the expansive definition of the commerce clause. You'll notice they linked this to "national defense."

(04-29-2014 12:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:55 AM)john01992 Wrote:  sorry dude but you are wrong on this one. the limited amount of radio/tv channels is the only reason the FCC is allowed to exist.

Newspaper/internet is not a finite resource hence there is nothing like the FCC regulating newspaper/internet.

it has nothing to do with economics but resource availability

The FCC is a regulatory agency created by an act of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it because of what I just mentioned.

The question of it being a resource or not isn't relevant to wether or not congress has the authority to regulate it.

I get what you're saying and all but ask yourself this, since channels and frequencies are resources, as you've defined them, then why are they regulated at a federal level primarily, unlike other resources who are still largely controlled by states?

because radio waves can cross state lines.

congress can pass a law ==> but it is ultimately up to the courts to uphold them when their constitutionality is challenged. We are not talking about regulating a business, or the FBI ==> we are talking about free speech rights which is a whole different ball park.

I'm actually interests in this line of thought.

I'm not following you at all as to the importance of being a resource being relevant to Congress's authority to regulate it. I'm curious as to how you see that existing, or creating a separate authority, outside of the interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses.

Why are free speech rights implicated? Are they not even further implicated through strict regulation? Does every American have a fundamental due process style right to the airwaves?

the importance of it being a finite public resource is the issue here. The purpose of the FCC was to save radio from itself. Radio channels were trying to drown each other out and spamming the air waves. not only that but there are only X amount of radio channels available and in the general interest of the public a govt agency was needed to not only assign channels but make sure the channels available were the ones best fit to serve the public. ==> that is the ultimate legal basis for what the FCC does.

Don't want to argue with you, but I think you are confusing legislative intent with legislative authority. One of the reasons for the Act was as you say (however, there are several and the original 1934 Act was lengthy). However, the authority has to be Constitutionally based (i.e. the interstate commerce clause). Because Congress has the authority to legislate in this area, it has created an agency to regulate as provided for in the Act. That Act has been updated and changed and has many parts dealing with all manner of radio communications and the FCC's jurisdiction over it. Also, keep in mind that Congress cannot speak to every single issue that will arise before an Agency. Therefore most Agencies authority will extend to ancillary issues that may arise out of its primary authority.

(04-29-2014 12:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 11:59 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The FCC is a regulatory agency created by an act of Congress. Congress has the constitutional authority to regulate it because of what I just mentioned.

The question of it being a resource or not isn't relevant to wether or not congress has the authority to regulate it.

I get what you're saying and all but ask yourself this, since channels and frequencies are resources, as you've defined them, then why are they regulated at a federal level primarily, unlike other resources who are still largely controlled by states?

because radio waves can cross state lines.

congress can pass a law ==> but it is ultimately up to the courts to uphold them when their constitutionality is challenged. We are not talking about regulating a business, or the FBI ==> we are talking about free speech rights which is a whole different ball park.

I'm actually interests in this line of thought.

I'm not following you at all as to the importance of being a resource being relevant to Congress's authority to regulate it. I'm curious as to how you see that existing, or creating a separate authority, outside of the interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses.

Why are free speech rights implicated? Are they not even further implicated through strict regulation? Does every American have a fundamental due process style right to the airwaves?

the importance of it being a finite public resource is the issue here. The purpose of the FCC was to save radio from itself. Radio channels were trying to drown each other out and spamming the air waves. not only that but there are only X amount of radio channels available and in the general interest of the public a govt agency was needed to not only assign channels but make sure the channels available were the ones best fit to serve the public. ==> that is the ultimate legal basis for what the FCC does.

Why is finite important?

The legal basis for constitutionality is the constitution itself, ie, commerce clause and necessary and proper.

The "ultimate legal basis for" the FCC is the wording of the communications act itself. An agency wields only the power it is given.

Here is the exact wording of that grant...

"regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."

To complicate this matter a bit, this is pre APA. It's also really before the expansive definition of the commerce clause. You'll notice they linked this to "national defense."

finite is important because it is the difference between the FCC being necessary vs unnecessary. if the airwaves are not finite then radio/tv can argue in court that they are no different than newspapers and should have the same rights accordingly.

it doesn't matter what the FCC grant says ==> when it comes down to it the legal basis is not what congress can argue but what lawyers can argue.

if the concept of finite resource was eliminate what legal reasoning can the govt use uphold their stance that the new york times, fox news, & NBC should all fall under different limitations of speech?

(04-29-2014 12:51 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:32 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:24 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(04-29-2014 12:05 PM)john01992 Wrote:  because radio waves can cross state lines.

congress can pass a law ==> but it is ultimately up to the courts to uphold them when their constitutionality is challenged. We are not talking about regulating a business, or the FBI ==> we are talking about free speech rights which is a whole different ball park.

I'm actually interests in this line of thought.

I'm not following you at all as to the importance of being a resource being relevant to Congress's authority to regulate it. I'm curious as to how you see that existing, or creating a separate authority, outside of the interstate commerce and necessary and proper clauses.

Why are free speech rights implicated? Are they not even further implicated through strict regulation? Does every American have a fundamental due process style right to the airwaves?

the importance of it being a finite public resource is the issue here. The purpose of the FCC was to save radio from itself. Radio channels were trying to drown each other out and spamming the air waves. not only that but there are only X amount of radio channels available and in the general interest of the public a govt agency was needed to not only assign channels but make sure the channels available were the ones best fit to serve the public. ==> that is the ultimate legal basis for what the FCC does.

Why is finite important?

The legal basis for constitutionality is the constitution itself, ie, commerce clause and necessary and proper.

The "ultimate legal basis for" the FCC is the wording of the communications act itself. An agency wields only the power it is given.

Here is the exact wording of that grant...

"regulating interstate and foreign commerce in communication by wire and radio so as to make available, so far as possible, to all the people of the United States a rapid, efficient, nationwide, and worldwide wire and radio communication service with adequate facilities at reasonable charges, for the purpose of the national defense, and for the purpose of securing a more effective execution of this policy by centralizing authority theretofore granted by law to several agencies and by granting additional authority with respect to interstate and foreign commerce in wire and radio communication, there is hereby created a commission to be known as the 'Federal Communications Commission', which shall be constituted as hereinafter provided, and which shall execute and enforce the provisions of this Act."

To complicate this matter a bit, this is pre APA. It's also really before the expansive definition of the commerce clause. You'll notice they linked this to "national defense."

finite is important because it is the difference between the FCC being necessary vs unnecessary. if the airwaves are not finite then radio/tv can argue in court that they are no different than newspapers and should have the same rights accordingly.

it doesn't matter what the FCC grant says ==> when it comes down to it the legal basis is not what congress can argue but what lawyers can argue.

if the concept of finite resource was eliminate what legal reasoning can the govt use uphold their stance that the new york times, fox news, & NBC should all fall under different limitations of speech?

Being necessary or unnecessary isn't part of a constitutional analysis here. It's 'necessary' if Congress says it is. That's part of the regulatory power congress wields. It can regulate just about anything with only a few restrictions barred by the Bill of Rights. It's exercising that authority here through the commerce clause. That is to say it is now, it wasn't really then and that's why you see the wording you do in the mandate.

Lawyers argue statutes, promulgated by congress.

I'm not seeing the connection with free speech. How is free speech being implicated here? Do you have a due process right to the tools of free speech, newspapers, or radio waves?

The only way I'm seeing that connected is that you are arguing state v private action and that regulation is so intrusive and complete as to render Fox, ABC, and such state actors. Thus, as a state actor they limit your free speech etc. Those are essentially the arguments that have been thrown out in regards to public utilities etc.