3 ms·
That always felt like a dubious standard. Parkland is a public good, but the Supreme Court would insta-smackdown any FD-style restriction on political speech in
by SilasX 6y ago
That always felt like a dubious standard. Parkland is a public good, but the Supreme Court would insta-smackdown any FD-style restriction on political speech in parks.
- ineedasername 6y agoThe nature of each "public good" could be evaluated to determine what was appropriate to ensure all citizens equal access to a public good. FD just required a media outlet to make sure the media basically gave another candidate the opportunity to access, it didn't actually require equal time, not unless that candidate wanted to, or in the case of advertisements was willing to buy them. Certainly parkland should be equally available to members of different political parties, but it's not like you have to use the same standard either: the nature of a "public good" would determine the nature of what fair equal access meant. For airwaves it's one thing. For a limited physical resource it's another.
- SilasX 6y agoParkland is a limited physical resource.
- pythonaut_16 6y agoBut limited in a different way than radio spectrum.
- ineedasername 6y agoSo is radio spectrum. Regardless, as I said, you determine for each "public good" what appropriate fairness means. You don't back down from it just because doing the right thing isn't as easy as doing the easy thing.
- SilasX 6y agoRight, so you haven't identified what's different about one that makes the FD the right answer in one case.