FCC Regulation of Broadcast Media Content.

There are two tiers to consider in terms of regulation of the freedom of speech. The first is the principle itself - does the government have the right to infringe upon freedom of speech at all (i.e., is there any justifiable reason); the second is the level to which it regulates. In your last argument you essentially conceded the first level - when I brought up the case of Schenck v. United States, you did not argue that the Supreme Court was wrong to rule the way it did. Classic examples like that, as well as the infamous falsely yelling "fire in a crowded theater," are justifiable regulations on the freedom of speech. Although no longer as sweeping as the "clear and present danger" standard established in that case, the government's infringements upon the freedom of speech still indicate that there are justifiable regulations of this right. Once we have established that, we only need debate the arbitrary level to which the government can regulate. This functionally means that at this point, we are not debating about whether the FCC can regulate South Park, but rather things like how many times Cartman can swear per episode. This is a totally different debate, and is irrelevant to the main point being made here - that the government ought to have the right to regulate freedom of speech when it is in the best interests of the people. Naturally, you can make the "slippery slope" argument, but in practice slippery slopes are, more often than not, simply untrue. The government isn't going to start saying "you can't express liberal views on television;" the issue here is simply protecting the well-being of our nation's minors. The other major point I would like to expand on is the argument about whose job it is to raise children - parents', or society's. In your argument, you state "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." While this is certainly true, I believe it fails to acknowledge the point I tried to establish in my first argument, which is that some parents do not raise their children well, unfortunate as it may be. Many parents are simply too busy with working more than one job, or are simply ill-equipped to be parents, among other reasons. Since at the most fundamental level, the role of any government is to protect its citizens, society must take into consideration this issue. However, correct as you may be, there is no fundamental harm in regulating broadcast media content. Assuming that we can accept that watching television isn't a "right," there's no reason why the government shouldn't regulate it to some degree, and only reasons why regulation should occur. Swearing, drugs, sexual content, and other imagery do threaten to harm our children to some extent. We as a society have long recognized as taboo showing these things to young children. For this reason, it is necessary that society take an active stance in protecting the well-being of its children. I'd like to reiterate that this is not something we do willingly; it is not necessarily something anyone enjoys doing to restrict freedom of speech. However, when this restriction is not too great and is clearly outweighed by the benefits to society, it is necessary. Finally, the reason I brought up the general debate about capitalism is to show that there needs to be some level of government regulation in all industry. Government regulation in the food industry is the only reason why conditions aren't still like they are in Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle," for the most part. If the government can justifiably regulate our food industry in the name of protecting the citizenry's well-being, an analogous argument can be made for regulating media content.