FCC Regulation of Broadcast Media Content.

Thank you for accepting my challange. "Additionally, if we accept that the existence of the FCC is a legitimate operation of Congress from the start, then there is no logical conclusion but for the FCC to carry out its mandate." I do not deny that airwaves need to be regulated for logistical reasons, such as keeping each broadcaster on his or her own frequency. The issue I am raising is with the government regulating CONTENT, something it does not have the power to do. "However, this is unfair and an arbitrary conclusion; how can my opponent know specifically why the First Amendment to the Constitution was written in this way? The Constitution was meant to distinguish itself from other forms of governance, specifically the kind in Great Britain, and so perhaps the things written in it were exaggerated for effect." You say I cannot know the Framer's intentions, then claim that "The Constitution was meant to distinguish itself from other forms of governance." Are you not making as large an assumption as a I? "The debate about whether the Constitution is unsuited for today's society is one that has been going on for decades. Since the Constitution was written over 200 years ago, there is no way it could have possibly envisioned the things that were to come. Television, the Internet, and other forms of mass media have allowed people to access information at unparalleled levels compared to previous times in history." It is fair to say that television is not the same as a town crier, but that in no way implies that speech issued over airwaves is different from speech that is simply yelled. Times have changed, but simply because mediums of expression change is no reason to say that levels of expression should. Take the classic case of Schenck v. United States in 1918. At stake were the full freedom of speech of Americans versus the protection of life and property of those same people. Schenck v. United States in 1918 was a case involving political literature, not broadcast indecncy. The case dealt with free speech interfering with an ongoing war; this is not analogous to the FCC deeming various words or images "inappropriate." "However, since the Internet and television are not newspapers (where consumers are looking for specific things), and nearly anything can be published, we risk harming children and exposing them to indecency." Ashcroft v. ACLU and Reno v. ACLU both found that the internet is a "free speech zone," and is more similar to print media, making it protected speech. "We routinely protect children from things we consider unsafe or taboo; for instance, minors are not allowed to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, or engage in other dangerous activities," To say that hearing Eric Cartman curse can harm a child as much as a cigarette is laughable. The issue of parents comes into play here: Parents have the responsibility of raising their children such that all their lessons cannot be undone by one episode of "South Park." If parents are so concerned with where their children get their values, the will be sure to raise them such that the children have character too strong to be destroyed by chancing across a "violent" song on the radio. "Look at the late 19th century, where major companies abused their workers because of a lack of a regulation." I am uncertain as to the relevance of this argument. This is not an issue of capitalism, it is an issue of freedom of expression. My opponent is correct: Society must maintain a standard of decency. But who decides what that standard is? Why should the question of "acceptable" expression be put in the hands of an unelected committee of bureaucrats, when it is just as easy to simply not watch shows that offend one's morals?