Allowing consolidation of broadcast and print media to the point where virtually all of it is controlled by 5 parties does not lead to a freer media in any sense that benefits the general populace.

An arena of free speech where Obama definitely has an upper hand that should matter to people here is on net neutrality (Obama for, McCain against).

Another would be on keeping and expanding Patriot Act provisions where again Obama is definitely the one in favor of more 1st and 4th amendment protections than is McCain.

I really don't see how anyone could think McCain is better on any of the 1st 10 other than the second, but particularly not the 1st or 4th.

The Fairness Doctrine, which many prominent Democrats want to reinstate, strikes me as unconstitutional but the Supremes never ruled it to be so. (I'm not sure there was ever a case brought on it.)

The Fairness Doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court in Red Lion v. FCC.

The whole thing is so 20th century. There is no shortage of opportunities for exposure in this era of cable, Internet, etc etc. What is crazy is that we give away billions of dollars worth of spectrum to broadcasters, like they are doing us some kind of "service" to pipe TV to the 15% of Americans who still don't have cable. If we sold the spectrum instead the market could decide whether that is really the best use of all of that bandwidth. I could be persuaded otherwise, but going into the discussion I'm not terribly sympathetic to broadcaster complaints about overregulation after they use regulation to pick the pockets of the taxpayers for their free airwaves.

As for why libertarians would vote for Obama, "Iraq" is the first thing that comes to mind.

Requiring equal time for opposing views certainly has, at very least, a hell of a chilling effect.

Here's another one I would like to see you elaborate on. What exactly would that "chilling" effect be?
Since when did more than one point of view (that of the highest bidder) become a detriment to rational discourse?

It's hard to see how. Are you making the argument that it's "too expensive" and therefore they wouldn't be putting out any views at all? Are you arguing that somehow requiring opposing views - in and of itself - is chilling? I mean, that just doesn't even make sense. Are you arguing that requiring opposing views would stop the original views from being made?

I think if you're going to make the charge that requiring opposing views would have a chilling effect, you should describe just what your theory is.

Again, no one is forcing them to make use of the spectrum. They're doing so to get value. The public has a right to extract concessions in return. Money isn't the only concession, and at least on the liberal side of thought, requiring equal time for opposing views is something that is a good thing for society.

One can certainly argue whether or not requiring opposing views is good for society and whether it is a mechanism we should require in exchange for using the spectrum. However, to claim that requiring opposing views has a "chilling effect" seems completely non-sensical and an unsupportable assertion.

A "chilling effect" on what? The ability to make unrestricted profit off a public resource? I don't recall that being a constitutionally protected right.

The spectrum has been long deemed a public resource

Agreed and in some senses it must be. We need to regulate who broadcasts on what frequency, for example, or we'd have anarachy. But the 1st Amendment also states rather clearly that Congress can't abridge freedom of the press. Requiring equal time for opposing views certainly has, at very least, a hell of a chilling effect.

I suppose that's a coherent argument as any can be made wrt libertarians.

infringe on a libertarian concept of speech.

Okay, fair enough. It's nice to be precise and note that this is not the same as the constitutionally protected form of free speech. Despite your opening sentence above, I think that is distinction lost in the minds of many - especially libertarians, but that's a different matter.

strikes me as unconstitutional but the Supremes never ruled it to be so.

It's hard to see how. The ability to require restrictions and additional behavior in exchange for the use of a public resource has been upheld repeatedly by the Supreme Court in many different forms. The spectrum has been long deemed a public resource and consequently it would be quite the surprising ruling to find that it's unconstitutional - even by this supreme court.

One can note that the internet isn't considered to be a public resource in the same way as the spectrum is and all attempts at regulating it as such have been clearly denied. Hell, we can't even tax trade on it. I think this makes a clear object lesson as to where the constitutional line is drawn and why.

What you're implying is the limitation of constitutionally protected free speech. Indeed, as this entire post is about the touch points of civil libertarians, this is hardly an accident.

Libertarians believe in liberty for its own sake. To the extent the Constitution protects it, it's a happy accident.

I think the restrictions imposed by McCain-Feingold are unconstitutional; the Supreme Court disagrees. I don't think most of the basic rules required of broadcasters are unconstitutional, although I do think some of them are unwise; some of them do, however, infringe on a libertarian concept of speech.

The Fairness Doctrine, which many prominent Democrats want to reinstate, strikes me as unconstitutional but the Supremes never ruled it to be so. (I'm not sure there was ever a case brought on it.)

Top marks, as always. However, it's hard to know whether to classify this as a cynical lie, simply a clever fraud. If you really do think this is constitutionally protected free speech, the I guess it's simply delusional argumentation.

As they say, "ignorance is a condition, stupidity is a strategy".

Obviously any conditions are restrictions. The question is whether these violate or "restrict" their right to "free speech" as it is understood as a constitutional right.

I'm not claiming it is, merely that Obama is "more inclined to limit speech" on such matters than McCain.

Ah, so now you're confusing two concepts. One is the general "restriction" where by someone imposes conditions of acceptance on a party in a contract of *choice*. The other is the constitutionally protected right of "free speech". Obviously any conditions are restrictions. The question is whether these violate or "restrict" their right to "free speech" as it is understood as a constitutional right.

Obviously, it doesn't.

What's your address, Bithead? I'm going to send you a complimentary copy of No-one Makes You Shop at Walmart.

This is the path that leads directly to a tyranny by the wealthy. This is 12 orders of magnitude more dangerous to free speach the anything in the McCain-Feingold act.

(Harumph)
This assumes, of course that the public has no choices in what they will and will not watch. That would be a tyranny. NAd certainly, it's how we ended up with most of the MSM in the last 40 years out of control leftist.

However the reality is, there is such a thing as a free market. Technology, combined with that free market, has provided us with a great deal of alternatives, to the point where only around 15% of people watching television get it by way of the bandwidth in question. Most get theirs by way of the bird, or the cable, anymore.

Hence, Fox.

Get the picture?

I'm simply suggesting that we charge them for it

.

Which would seem to ignore the massive investment in developing it, all of which comes back into the economy. We're talking the hardware... both the transmission and networking, plus the software investment... IE; the programming.

Consider also, the billions in electronic sales which would be impossible but for that investment. I'd say it's paying for itself.

Oh... and for the record, the 'Fairness" doctrine, isn't.