They retin-a medicine work by binding to specific opioid receptors in the brain find cheap cialis and spinal cord, leading to a reduction in pain perception buy arcoxia and even a sense of euphoria. Staying hydrated is critical, advair online but people may benefit from drinking between meals to avoid where to buy cialis filling up on liquid when eating. There is a pudendal buy cafergot online nerve for each side of the body, arising from the cheap quinine sacral plexus, the lowest part of the spine above the discount cialis overnight delivery tailbone. For more information about the possible side effects of augmentin for sale colchicine, talk with your doctor or pharmacist. Regular follow-up appointments buy generic erythromycin problems with healthcare professionals are essential to monitor progress, assess respiratory order xalatan function, and determine the appropriateness of tracheostomy removal or ongoing mirapex in malaysia care needs. The effectiveness of HIV treatment is now such cheapest tetracycline that people who take the medication regularly will not pass buy cheap diclofenac on the virus. Examples in other animals include scrapie, in sheep.

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.