If you operate a TV or radio station, you have to have a license. It has nothing to do with fundamental freedom. It has to do with protection of the average citizen against abuses.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A free public broadcast license is a privilege.
By placing discretion in the hands of an official to grant or deny a license, such a statute creates a threat of censorship that by its very existence chills free speech.
I think if you open the door to government control of television, then you let in a host of questions about rights.
There are obviously legal restrictions on what you can do on TV in the States, as there are everywhere.
So the system we have in radio and television today is the direct result of government policies that have been made in our name, in the name of the people, on our behalf, but without our informed consent.
The whole process of getting licenses to broadcast, which took place decades ago, was done behind closed doors by powerful lobbies, and wealthy commercial interests got all the licenses with no public input, no congressional input for that matter.
Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do.
The Federal Communications Commission licensed satellite radio to be a national-only radio service.
So long as you do not achieve social liberty, whatever freedom is provided by the law is of no avail to you.
The threat to free television. The reason television is free is because it is a life support system for commercials. That fundamental aspect is about to change.
No opposing quotes found.