More on the FD

[Don A]

>> Since the beginning of this country we have used the courts to address
>> disputes, justice and fairness.
>
> If this argument is sufficient to justify FCC regulation of speech, then 
> there should be no objection to any form of bureaucratic regulation of any 
> kind in any sphere of life, since all cases ultimately are subject to 
> judicial appeal.

The difference here being that broadcasters are using the public's airwaves, 
as a public trustee...so it cannot be compared to "regulation of any kind in 
any sphere of life".

> The real cost of such regulation is people give in to avoid the cost of 
> fighting the regulators.

That can be said at all levels whenever we seek justice.

Simply make a good faith effort not to be unfair....especially if you are 
using public resources.   As in the past, virtually any genuine attempt to 
be fair and balanced is usually sufficient.

If you DO want to be unfair, and simply promote a single perspective at the 
expense of serving the public, then put up a podcast, write a book, publish 
a newspaper, rent out Boston Garden.....all at your own expense.

Once you are allowed the temporary right to use the public airwaves (to make 
a profit no less), then the public has a say in how those resources are 
used.