[BC] then and now

[Clive Warner]

Ron wrote:
>Transmitting an electromagnetic signal was
>never a 'right' put into the Constitution

D'oh! Did they have 'electromagnetic signals' at that time? Considering the
President had wooden false teeth, 'electromagnetic' technology seems a
trifle out of their reach.

>and as a conservative, I am a 'strict constructionist'.

Not quite sure what this means . . . I trust it does not mean, you are one
of the people who tell the rest of us, that 'unless something is
specifically permitted we are to assume it is not permitted?'

My personal opinion is that the UN has declared that Free Speech is a basic
right; but that right cannot be exercised without the means to do so; and
therefore that access to public media, (and this includes the right to the
electromagnetic spectrum), is a basic human right; subject of course, that
such use should not infringe the rights of others.

For example, so far as pirate radio is concerned, if a pirate is not
infringing the rights of others (i.e. by interfering with their signals)
then that should be permitted.
Your 'nasty pirates' might be my 'free citizens invoking their rights to
free speech'. If infringement takes place, then the station should be
removed. There is nothing in the Constitution to the effect that access to
the e-m spectrum should be reserved for a privileged elite.

I believe there is about to be a massive explosion of multimedia of all
kinds, facilitated by super-cheap bandwidth. That's what 'HD radio' is all
about, they're trying to add bandwidth (in their terms; but they don't see
that content is king). My local provider just doubled access speeds
(256->512, 512->1M, 1M->2M, 2M->4M) and high speed wireless is spreading
across the city.

Clive