The FCC is the recognized arbiter for determining if a licensed station is "serving the public interest" with "the public airwaves." A federal court stepping on the FCC's power would force a constitutional crisis, I'd guess. (Didn't study law)
We ask for these things to happen by not advocating the airwaves be auctioned off to people who would actually own the airwaves as property. It isn't like television broadcasting in particular is actually hold accountable to FCC standards, so we might as well auction the rights for good, and provide the profits to the citizens as a dividend (or deposit into Hillary's "Baby Bond" plan).
What you've argued is actually called "federal preemption" based on The Supremacy Clause in the U.S. Constitution. When Congress has enacted federal law on a matter, that law trumps any state or local law. This also includes lawsuits. Hence, Congress has authorized the FCC to regulate the airwaves, and as a result, a plaintiff should not be able to go to the courts to complain how the FCC is doing their job.
Further, this lawsuit seems incredibly stupid in light of the fact that it was filed in California. California has one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws: Strategic lawsuits against public participation. Such laws are designed to prevent lawsuits designed to chill free speech. California courts are notorious for awarding defendants their counsel fees in defending such lawsuits.
It's also stupid from the aspect that Air America has a strong presence in California, so would that also shut them down? If I were on the defense team, that would be something I'd bring up, should the court ignore the rest.
Comments 7
We ask for these things to happen by not advocating the airwaves be auctioned off to people who would actually own the airwaves as property. It isn't like television broadcasting in particular is actually hold accountable to FCC standards, so we might as well auction the rights for good, and provide the profits to the citizens as a dividend (or deposit into Hillary's "Baby Bond" plan).
Reply
Further, this lawsuit seems incredibly stupid in light of the fact that it was filed in California. California has one of the strongest anti-SLAPP laws: Strategic lawsuits against public participation. Such laws are designed to prevent lawsuits designed to chill free speech. California courts are notorious for awarding defendants their counsel fees in defending such lawsuits.
Reply
Reply
http://www.npr.org/programs/waitwait/aboutpanelists.html
Somebody needs to do a write up of the Common Sense tract when created in accordance to this ordinance.
Reply
Our local station is too busy pimping for the Democrats to show anything other than NOW and similar low-brow fair.
Reply
Reply
It's really pretty shameless.
Reply
Leave a comment