Glucocorticoids buy cialis on internet and immunosuppressive drugs may also be effective, as well as serevent alternative preventive measures against infections that may result in chronic pain. arcoxia prescription They can develop more severe symptoms as the cancer progresses, cheapest zithromax side effects dose such as bone pain, frequent infection, and easy bruising and spiriva online stores bleeding. Some people may find they cannot stop eating to cialis for sale help them manage a particularly sad or stressful period. The spiriva no prescription appropriate dosage can vary depending on the specific product and buy generic viagra the condition a person wants to treat. However, the National buy acomplia online Blood Clot Alliance advises people to avoid high-risk sports, such sale discount cream as contact sports, which may result in injury. But other buy (ovral canada anticoagulant (blood thinning) drugs, such as warfarin (Jantoven) and heparin, buy cheapest celexa alternative are known to cause hair loss. A surgeon may recommend find viagra online that people wait at least a few months after the purchase methotrexate no rx initial surgery to see if the breasts change as they discount zoloft no rx heal. As such, anyone at increased risk of developing high blood.

We make that argument (which we learned from a paper by Larry Lessig and Yochai Benkler) in Chapter 8 of Blown to Bits. The outcome of the Supreme Court case of Fox v. FCC, decided this week, suggests that the line of reasoning we outline has some traction on the Court.

The case, stimulated by Cher’s use of the F-word and Nicole Richie’s use of the S-word, was decided 5-4 in favor of the FCC, which would at first blush make it look like a loss for free-speech libertarians. But the case was decided on narrow administrative grounds; the only question on which the court took a position was whether the FCC had properly promulgated a reasonable regulation (its higher standard prohibiting even fleeting use of expletives at times when children were likely to hear them). The constitutional question of whether that regulation of free speech is in violation of the First Amendment the court let stand.

But the four in the minority seem not to support the restriction of broadcast speech at all. And one of the majority seems inclined in the same direction. That would be Justice Thomas. Although we might have expected him to have the least patience with foul speech on television, he takes the opportunity of writing his own opinion, concurring with the majority in its vote on the administrative question, but making plain that technological changes have shaken the court’s prior reasoning on the constitutional question.

The case has been sent back to the lower court, which will have to take up the constitutional question. Whatever it decides, if the decision is appealed, the Supreme Court may have an opportunity to come down once and for all on the federal government’s right to censor broadcast television.

A few passages from Justice Thomas’s opinion (full opinions here):

even if this Court’s disfavored treatment of broadcasters under the First Amendment could have been justified at the time of Red Lion and Pacifica, dramatic technological advances have eviscerated the factual assumptions underlying those decisions. Broadcast spectrum is significantly less scarce than it was 40 years ago. …

Moreover, traditional broadcast television and radio are no longer the “uniquely pervasive” media forms they once were. For most consumers, traditional broadcast media programming is now bundled with cable or satellite services.… Broadcast and other video programming is also widely available over the Internet. …  And like radio and television broadcasts, Internet access is now often freely available over the airwaves and can be accessed by portable computer, cell phones, and other wireless devices. …

These dramatic changes in factual circumstance swell support a departure from precedent ….

This entry was posted on Friday, May 1st, 2009 at 4:43 pm and is filed under Censorship and free speech, Radio and television, The role of government—laws and regulations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.