It buy estrace online is possible to get a preemptive, or early, transplant, which generic betnovate occurs before a person needs to start dialysis. Compression sleeves generic dexamethasone for lymphedema need to be tight enough to encourage the clindamycin side effects pill flow of lymph up toward the shoulder but not so cialis buy drug tight that they cause numbness or tingling. Compared to standard purchase viagra working, i.e., not closing their eyes, people who perform blind viagra online without a prescription working reduce their eye fatigue and blurred vision. If making prozac pharmacy simple changes to diet and lifestyle or taking OTC constipation glucophage cheapest price remedies do not work, a person should speak with a clindamycin in australia doctor. While the FDA has not approved this medication for sale discount diclofenac hot flashes, it is an effective option for some individuals. get cheapest arcoxia low price canada Severe illness or pregnancy may mean a person is unsuitable for.

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.