• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

There should be no debate......

ecofarm said:
Are you one of those anarchists that doesn't understand limited national open public resources and the need to regulate them?
Click to expand...

Well you don't seem to understand that the ability to regulate limited national open public airwaves for differentiation of signals in order to ensure proper functioning of those signals does not include the need to regulate the content that gets aired on those signals.

Yes, the government needs to regulate radio and television signals to ensure that the signals from the 1200 AM station in one area does not interfere with the 1200 AM station in another area. But you still have yet to assert how the government's ability to ensure proper functioning of radio and television signals also gives them the right to prohibit nudity, depictions of sex, and the broadcasting of the words "****," "piss," "****," "****," "********er," "mother****er," and "tits."

What does the licensing of broadcast companies to ensure proper broadcast and reception of signals have anything to do with the content of those signals?
 
samsmart said:
Well you don't seem to understand that the ability to regulate limited national open public airwaves for differentiation of signals in order to ensure proper functioning of those signals does not include the need to regulate the content that gets aired on those signals.
Click to expand...

Who cares? The government is mandated to regulate the content because the use of it, that content, is the use of a limited national open public resource. The regulation of that content is public and open to public change.

I could give a crap if they use 3/8" or 1/2" bolts.
 
ecofarm said:
Do I need to go into the constitution and find every general and specific clause that CLEARY mandates the government to regulate limited national open public resources??

Do you think people should be able to go into a National Park and just do whatever they want? Maybe build a cabin, a parking lot and start growin' some crops? No. Why?

Limited national open public resource.


Now, class, is a gun a limited national open public resource? No, it isn't - is it. So... regulation of it does not derive from the same sources and cannot be expected to be similar because...

DIFFERENT PREMISE
Click to expand...

Let me know when you are finally able to comprehend the difference between regulation of limited national public resources and the regulation of the content broadcasted on limited national public resources.
 
ecofarm said:
Who cares? The government is mandated to regulate the content because the use of it, that content, is the use of a limited national open public resource. The regulation of that content is public and open to public change.

I could give a crap if they use 3/8" or 1/2" bolts.
Click to expand...

I don't see where in the Constitution is gives the government that right to regulate speech over limited national open public resources.
 
samsmart said:
Let me know when you are finally able to comprehend the difference between regulation of limited national public resources and the regulation of the content broadcasted on limited national public resources.
Click to expand...

Let me know when you understand the premise of regulating the content of limited national open public resources. "Regulating" meaning providing the infrastructure is dumb. That has no meaning.
 
samsmart said:
I don't see where in the Constitution is gives the government that right to regulate speech over limited national open public resources.
Click to expand...

The people regulate that. It's public policy and subject to public change. Why? Limited national open public resource.



Is a gun a limited national open public resource? No... of course not! That's a different premise.
 
ecofarm said:
Let me know when you understand the premise of regulating the content of limited national open public resources. "Regulating" meaning providing the infrastructure is dumb. That has no meaning.
Click to expand...

I think providing that infrastructure is enough, and doing merely that and no more is not necessary to infringe on people's fundamental constitutional rights to speech.
 
ecofarm said:
The people regulate that. It's public policy and subject to public change. Why? Limited national open public resource.



Is a gun a limited national open public resource? No... of course not! That's a different premise.
Click to expand...

But the freedoms of speech are just as protected in the Constitution as the right to bear arms, regardless of whether it's a limited national open public resource or not.
 
samsmart said:
I think providing that infrastructure is enough, and doing merely that and no more is not necessary to infringe on people's fundamental constitutional rights to speech.
Click to expand...

Are you done insisting that FFC regulations of a limited national open public resource has anything to do with gun regulation beyond "freedom of speech and gun ownership are both constitutional rights"?
 
ecofarm said:
Are you done insisting that FFC regulations of a limited national open public resource has anything to do with gun regulation beyond "freedom of speech and gun ownership are both constitutional rights"?
Click to expand...

Are you done insisting that the freedom of speech in the Constitution is a qualified right but the right to bear arms is an absolute right?
 
samsmart said:
But the freedoms of speech are just as protected in the Constitution as the right to bear arms, regardless of whether it's a limited national open public resource or not.
Click to expand...

Both are freedoms!
Both are freedoms!


Yeah, we got it dude. We know that too! When you get to an understanding of how and why rights are limited, and the premise of such limitations, let me know. But as long as you think public airwaves are the same as a gun we're not gonna get anywhere.

I'm sorry if you want the government mandate to regulate a right spelled out specifically and completely within the amendment itself. That's not how the constitution works. Government responsibilities are found elsewhere and sometimes affect freedoms, depending on specific context and PREMISE.
 
ecofarm said:
Both are freedoms!
Both are freedoms!


Yeah, we got it dude. We know that too! When you get to an understanding of how and why rights are limited, and the premises of such limitations, let me know. But as long as you think public arwaves are the same as a gun we're not gonna get anywhere.

I'm sorry if you want the government mandate to regulate a right spelled out spicifically and completely within the amendment itself. That's not how the constitution works. Government responsibilities are found elsewhere and sometimes affect freedoms, depending on specific context and PREMISE.
Click to expand...

It's not that I think public airwaves are the same as a gun.

Rather, I think the content of public airwaves are the same as a gun.

And both receive constitutional protection to the same degree.
 
samsmart said:
It's not that I think public airwaves are the same as a gun.
Click to expand...

Then why should the regulation of one have anyting to do with such of the other? It shouldn't. You just make that false claim, based on "freedoms!"

I think the content of public airwaves are the same as a gun.
Click to expand...

WHAT? Who has open public access to my gun and how is it a national resource?!

And both receive constitutional protection to the same degree.
Click to expand...

Haha. A false equivalence (that completely ignores premise, nonetheless). You made this up yourself, didn't you? Do you have any citation that agrees with this abortion of logic.
 
Last edited:
ecofarm said:
Then why should the regulation of one have anyting to do with such of the other? It shouldn't. You just make that false claim, based on "freedoms!"
Click to expand...

Well, you are the one who asserted that the regulation of public signals also leads to the regulation of the content of those public signals, not me.

ecofarm said:
WHAT? Who has open public access to my gun and how is it a national resource?!
Click to expand...

It has been asserted by gun rights advocates that the right to bear arms in the 2nd Amendment is a blanket right, and that it does not discern between types of firearms, such as pistols, semi-automatic firearms, and automatic firearms.

But if that's the case, then the 1st Amendment is a blanket right as well, and it does not discern between types of speech, whether it is spoken by a person in private, made on a public bench, or spoken by a broadcaster on the specific frequency of public airwaves he purchases the license for.

So, again, you are getting the resource and how that resource can be regulated mixed up with the content within that resource and how it is constitutionally protected.

ecofarm said:
Haha. A false equivalence (that completely ignores premise, nonetheless). You made this up yourself, didn't you? Do you have any citation that agrees with this abortion of logic.
Click to expand...

Actually, the network television companies agree with me.

High court to take up FCC indecency policy | First Amendment Center
 
samsmart said:
Are you done insisting that the freedom of speech in the Constitution is a qualified right but the right to bear arms is an absolute right?
Click to expand...

Actually both are absolute rights, the fact that the criminals in congress have adopted the idea of 'clause baised legislation' to circumvent the constitution is simply an intellectually dishonest argument.
 
ecofarm said:
So you admit, you invented this position yourself? You don't have anyone that agrees with you to cite, do you?
Click to expand...

Well, can you show me in the Constitution where it enumerates to the government that speech broadcasted on the public airwaves may be censored, despite the First Amendment's protection of free speech?
 
samsmart said:
Well, can you show me in the Constitution where it enumerates to the government that speech broadcasted on the public airwaves may be censored, despite the First Amendment's protection of free speech?
Click to expand...

I did my best to explain the OBVIOUS flaw in your reasoning. I explained where the regulation of public airwaves comes from - you know, the premise of such.

I'm asking you to show me one person who believes this crap ("the content of public airwaves are the same as a gun") before I go any further, citation please.
 
ecofarm said:
I did my best to explain the OBVIOUS flaw in your reasoning. I explained where the regulation of public airwaves comes from - you know, the premise of such.

I'm asking you to show me one person who believes this crap ("the content of public airwaves are the same as a gun") before I go any further, citation please.
Click to expand...

I already told you. The Constitution does.
 
Aight, keep ****ing that chicken.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom