Post by Deleted on Jun 27, 2017 17:22:08 GMT
Applying Law to Law
Many have claimed a "right to broadcast" under the 1st Amendment right to "free speech". The objective of this claim is to supersede FCC rules by way of the Constitutionally protected free speech right. Let's talk about it.
As a point of reference here is the 1st Amendment:
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.
I have bolded the sections we are concerned with at this time.
No. The right to speak freely is an individual liberty and when exercised as a sole individual does not obligate any other medium/media to carry such speech.
HOWEVER, what has been overlooked and is less understood is the freedom of the press, which in essence is the "freedom to publish", or, to put it in other words, to speak publicly by means of a medium (press).
A radio transmitter is as much a "press" as is a printing press, however one must own one's own press, it would be unlawful to commandeer the press of another owner to relay one's own message except by permission.
Also, utilizing a medium to transmit material other than one's own speech is not covered by the 1st Amendment, such as perhaps sending music which normally is the expression of a third party and itself requires permission to be employed.
Ownership of the "press", whether it be a printer or radio transmitter, enables the "freedom" protected by the 1st Amendment.
We can see no reason at this time to restrict any American citizen from broadcasting without permission (license) so long as he confines the content of the transmission to his own free speech.
Sorry music lovers.
Many have claimed a "right to broadcast" under the 1st Amendment right to "free speech". The objective of this claim is to supersede FCC rules by way of the Constitutionally protected free speech right. Let's talk about it.
As a point of reference here is the 1st Amendment:
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.
I have bolded the sections we are concerned with at this time.
No. The right to speak freely is an individual liberty and when exercised as a sole individual does not obligate any other medium/media to carry such speech.
HOWEVER, what has been overlooked and is less understood is the freedom of the press, which in essence is the "freedom to publish", or, to put it in other words, to speak publicly by means of a medium (press).
A radio transmitter is as much a "press" as is a printing press, however one must own one's own press, it would be unlawful to commandeer the press of another owner to relay one's own message except by permission.
Also, utilizing a medium to transmit material other than one's own speech is not covered by the 1st Amendment, such as perhaps sending music which normally is the expression of a third party and itself requires permission to be employed.
Ownership of the "press", whether it be a printer or radio transmitter, enables the "freedom" protected by the 1st Amendment.
We can see no reason at this time to restrict any American citizen from broadcasting without permission (license) so long as he confines the content of the transmission to his own free speech.
Sorry music lovers.
