3 ms·

Compliance with EAS regulations is a condition of broadcast licensure. This isn't a free speech issue under law; it's a violation of a term in a contract freely

Compliance with EAS regulations is a condition of broadcast licensure. This isn't a free speech issue under law; it's a violation of a term in a contract freely entered upon by a broadcast network with the US government, and fines are one of the possible penalties enumerated for such violations.

charcircuit 4y ago
Is there a way to broadcast on the radio or tv without getting into such contract that limits what you can broadcast? If you can only talk if you are prohibited from saying something don't you see how that violates free speech?
- brewdad 4y ago
  Pirate radio is a thing but there’s a reason it’s illegal.
- throwanem 4y ago
  You would about as reasonably argue that laws prohibiting espionage violate free speech, because one should be able to say what one likes to an agent of a hostile foreign power with no need to fear any consequence. This absurdly absolutist conception of free speech bears no resemblance however remote to anything ever actually codified in US law, and I don't see what you mean to achieve by advancing it other than to give the impression of being entirely unserious.
  - charcircuit 4y ago
    >You would about as reasonably argue that laws prohibiting espionage violate free speech Yes. >This absurdly absolutist conception of free speech bears no resemblance however remote to anything ever actually codified in US law It's not absurd. It's quite a simple ideal of being able to freely express things. Whatever US law is doesn't change my ideals of existing in a society which is not bound by a govemment on what they can and can not express. >I don't see what you mean to achieve by advancing it other than to give the impression of being entirely unserious. This could be said about any compromise of free speech. Many groups desire to take away people freedoms of speech and they start by taking away things people think would be absurd to want to express.
    - throwanem 4y ago
      That's well and good, but arguing with deliberate disregard for the entire history of US jurisprudence dating all the way back to the Federalist produces results not meaningfully different from arguing in complete ignorance of same.
- palmscenter 4y ago
  > Is there a way to broadcast on the radio or tv without getting into such contract that limits what you can broadcast? Not in the US. Even if your station or device does not require an individual license, you are still subject to US law and must comply with FCC rules based on that law (the Communications Act). There is no free speech right to broadcast by radio.

charcircuit 4y ago

Is there a way to broadcast on the radio or tv without getting into such contract that limits what you can broadcast? If you can only talk if you are prohibited from saying something don't you see how that violates free speech?

brewdad 4y ago
Pirate radio is a thing but there’s a reason it’s illegal.
throwanem 4y ago
You would about as reasonably argue that laws prohibiting espionage violate free speech, because one should be able to say what one likes to an agent of a hostile foreign power with no need to fear any consequence. This absurdly absolutist conception of free speech bears no resemblance however remote to anything ever actually codified in US law, and I don't see what you mean to achieve by advancing it other than to give the impression of being entirely unserious.
- charcircuit 4y ago
  >You would about as reasonably argue that laws prohibiting espionage violate free speech Yes. >This absurdly absolutist conception of free speech bears no resemblance however remote to anything ever actually codified in US law It's not absurd. It's quite a simple ideal of being able to freely express things. Whatever US law is doesn't change my ideals of existing in a society which is not bound by a govemment on what they can and can not express. >I don't see what you mean to achieve by advancing it other than to give the impression of being entirely unserious. This could be said about any compromise of free speech. Many groups desire to take away people freedoms of speech and they start by taking away things people think would be absurd to want to express.
  - throwanem 4y ago
    That's well and good, but arguing with deliberate disregard for the entire history of US jurisprudence dating all the way back to the Federalist produces results not meaningfully different from arguing in complete ignorance of same.
palmscenter 4y ago
> Is there a way to broadcast on the radio or tv without getting into such contract that limits what you can broadcast? Not in the US. Even if your station or device does not require an individual license, you are still subject to US law and must comply with FCC rules based on that law (the Communications Act). There is no free speech right to broadcast by radio.