
Judge: Not running an ad is an exercise in free speech - 6stringmerc
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/thr-esq/judge-agrees-broadcasters-have-first-amendment-right-refuse-advertisements-1007317
======
valuearb
It would be an easier decision if most broadcasters weren't using public
property to broadcast with. Long ago it was decided in exchange for the gift
of free airwaves they'd accept strict regulation along with the obligation to
run "public service" announcements, and to curry favor with powerful
politicians.

I say grant the airwaves as property to their current controllers, and stop
regulating them altogether. Then it's private property and clearly they can
broadcast what they and their customers want. Or they can sell to some data
service to use their frequencies for high performance networks. Or find even
better uses.

Public control of broadcasting is just a hidden tool for our political
organizations to maintain their power.

~~~
TheCoelacanth
Selling part of the spectrum is theft from future generations. At the absolute
most there should be leases lasting maybe a decade or two.

~~~
valuearb
It's no more theft than allowing you to own the property under your house.

~~~
ninju
Very different "the property under your house" is very tangible discrete thing
that you pay to own The airwaves (and the signal being transmitted over it)
are nebulous flowing item and giving perpetual ownership rights to what can be
delivered on those airwaves is a _very_ powerful right..maybe leasing is the
right way

~~~
valuearb
They can treated effectively as property and there are good reasons to do so.
TV and radio frequencies are losing value for media broadcast, but can't be
repurposed for better uses such as competing with cable monopolies in data
transfer. Ownership rights would make that feasible.

------
Mz
_InfoStream argued the broadcaster 's refusal was "pretextual," one designed
to garner favor from SiriusXM's preferred customers._

God forbid that a business should cater to its best customers. I mean, for
shame and all that.

/s

------
mesozoic
Does this imply that adblocking is also free speech

~~~
moomin
That'd be my interpretation...

------
exabrial
This seems the opposite direction in the cake baking decisions that have come
up of late.

~~~
moomin
You make a good point. I think the difference is that the cake refusal case is
founded on 14th amendment rights, whereas the advertiser can't argue that in
this case.

------
lolc
Obligatory [https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

"Not listening to my bullshit is violating my free speech rights" actually
means "I should be able to force people to listen to my bullshit."

~~~
graphememes
This runs a thin line where orders of powers are in play, what has the most
power in a certain realm and what conditions are to be followed or met. Are we
arguing legality of Freedom of Speech or are we arguing order of power and
rights to all irregardless of ownership and power structures?

If it is the former then yes, the law cannot arrest you for speech. If it is
the latter, that is harder to ascertain, and I don't think (nor will I assume
or paint a broad brush on these individuals) that people mean they want to
force people to listen, but they want the same and equal opportunity to voice
their opinion.

Having the opportunity is not the same as forcing, and I would never conflate
these in my mind.

If we are arguing that America is the originating power structure and the
servers are hosted in American soil, does that mean they must follow these
bills to rights? Does the rights of those who claim ownership of the servers
factor into the equation and do they have authority to govern whether someone
should be capable of censorship? What about the network the opinion travels
over? What about the country that the opinion comes from? What about...

Many of these cases renders down to ownership case, and Capitalism at times is
at disagreement with rights, and in this case, capitalism is what allows these
to propagate in a way due to monetary ownership of grounds where opinions are
being voiced.

It's a very difficult conversation and road to navigate. It's not as simple as
your statement renders.

~~~
lolc
Yes my statement is too simplistic looking at all the issues around free
speech. I meant the first amendment in particular and the mistaken belief that
"shut up or leave" is a violation of it.

So yeah, I criticized people for mistaking the first amendment to mean their
absolute right to free speech all while confusing the terms myself.

