Amazon Kindle - a threat to our First Amendment rights?

[kovidgoyal]

As argued in Chapter 33, the spectrum should be auctioned off to private owners. If declaring the spectrum public property means that broadcasters cannot enjoy free speech rights, that is itself an excellent reason to privatize the spectrum.

This makes no sense to me, if the spectrum is auctioned off, that means that more than likely an oligopoly of some kind will end up controlling it, which means you wont have any rights whatsoever when it comes to using the spectrum, since it will be essentially private property.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by recycledelectron

Baloney

The F'ing Censorship Commission has strangled all voices that are not in the so-called main stream media. Their imact has destroyed my country.

First, look at the difference in the reporting done by ABC news (for example) and compare it to the forums that are discussing the same event. That's the impact of the F'ing Censorship Commission...

So, you're blaming the FCC for the fact that ABC has no stones? ABC is that way because their advertisers tell them not to be controversial, and they'd rather roll over (or bend over) and get their detergent money than stand their ground.

Originally Posted by recycledelectron

ABC News (for example) gets bandwidth for a tiny fraction of the cost that other companies would pay for it.

That's because of ABC lobbying and payoffs to the FCC.

I'm not saying the FCC is pristine, but blame the right problems on the right people, here. In this case, the FCC's system would be fine, if it weren't for big corporations taking advantage and gaming the system.

[i, Podius]

I disagree with the conclusion of this article. I enjoy the sentiment, certainly, and do feel it is worthwhile getting a little paranoid about one's rights every now and then, however, the whispernet is not like radio or television - it is a two-way data network, it does not simply put out information for all to see as radio and television do, rather, that information has to be requested, much like on the Internet. In terms of regulation, the content on the whispernet would have to be handled much like it is on the Internet, which is to say, not at all. At best, they'd be allowed to demand you perform some sort of age verification before downloading the saucier books.

I'm not saying we shouldn't keep an eye on it, but in the parlance of my nation's former government: Be alert, not alarmed.

[snookums]

It's not public airwaves unless everyone can access it for free. That's why they don't regulate satellite. It's the same principle.

[ylmrog]

Originally Posted by carld

Oh, I'm sure you're right, and that was kind of my point. The Kindle isn't really a threat to our First Amendment rights because we're already at a point where those rights are seriously under pressure. Whether it's the books we read, the internet sites we visit or the people we associate with, there's likely someone somewhere making a note of it.

I am so tired of this paranoid opinion, it is so prevelant on the net these days.


There are 300 Million Americans, the US Government is almost entirely transparent, in fact anything it tries to do in secret is outted fairly quickly. It is a system of checks and balances and no matter how overblown many try to make it, our First Amendment rights are NOT being trampled on.
"They" are not keeping secret records of your internet visits and "they" are not compiling lists and making citizens "dissapear" no matter what nutball delusion someone has, there are still laws that this governement abides by.


You are just not that important in the grand scheme of things and I think that is why so many of you subscribe to this type of paranoia.. to feel important in the sea of ants we have become.


No one gives a crapooie what you are downloading and reading and no one is making a check mark in your "file".

Get over yourselves .. please.

I came to this forum to read about the Kindle, to learn some new stuff and yet.. here like everywhere else we have the "anti" crowd making the day a little less bright for the rest of us...

Download whatever you want to your Kindle, stop worrying who looking over your shoulder and PLEASE stop posting bunk about how your First Amendment rights are being taken away...

afraid to speak in public... Ugg.

[jharker]

Originally Posted by snookums

It's not public airwaves unless everyone can access it for free. That's why they don't regulate satellite. It's the same principle.

Back in the the early 1900s, it became clear that almost anyone could broadcast at any frequency, and if left unregulated, there would be so much "radio pollution" that no one would be able to use radio waves for any purpose at all.

Since the radio spectrum is limited in size, it was considered to be a natural resource that must be "conserved". The FCC was given the power to designate different frequencies for different uses, and to license broadcasters in particular areas to avoid overlap and confusion.

Because of the highly public nature of the airwaves, certain minimum requirements are placed on broadcasters. These include: standards on signal quality (the station can't interfere with other stations); limitations on "indecent" language and content; a requirement to devote certain quantities of time to educational or public service programming; and more.

However, these rules only apply to broadcasters. So cable TV stations, for example, can get away with "indecent" or "adult" content (HBO, Showtime, various adult channels) because their signals are sent over wires, not broadcast wirelessly.

Note that those same channels broadcast from satellites with no problem from the FCC, even though technically they are using part of the broadcast spectrum. This is because such broadcasts are encrypted and only accessible to paying subscribers; hence, not really "broadcast" in the traditional sense.

Still, satellite broadcasters' use of the spectrum is licensed, just like any other broadcaster, and they are only allowed to use a certain designated range of the spectrum.

While it seems to push people's buttons to talk about the FCC censoring books sent via the cell network -- and theoretically it might be legally possible -- in reality it's ridiculous to the point of absurdity.

This one never got very far either:

[jharker]

Let me just add that if you want "free" broadcasting, there are areas of the spectrum designated specifically for that. You can buy a CB radio set and use it with no license or fee whatsoever. By passing an exam you can acquire a license as an amateur ham radio operator, allowing you to use many designated regions of the radio spectrum; although there are generally rules of etiquette and politeness involved in such usage.

In addition, you can set up your own low-power AM or FM radio station and operate it completely unlicensed, in accordance with Part 15.

One thing you'll notice, for example with CB radio, is that if too many people are on the same channel it can be quite confusing. This is a mild example of the "radio pollution" I mentioned earlier, and it's why the majority of the broadcast spectrum is regulated.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by jharker

One thing you'll notice, for example with CB radio, is that if too many people are on the same channel it can be quite confusing. This is a mild example of the "radio pollution" I mentioned earlier, and it's why the majority of the broadcast spectrum is regulated.

I used to be a radio astronomer, and that science can only exist because government regulation leaves certain frequency "holes" in the radio spectrum "open" for radio telescopes to "look through". Radio frequency allocation is something that it's absolutely essential for governments to do, and enforce the international agreements that leave the radio astronomy bands "quiet".

[cathyWeeks]

Originally Posted by crusader666

Oops, I guess I shouldn't have downloaded the Koran on my Sony Reader.

<LOL> I wonder what they'd make of me? I downloaded the Bible, the Koran, The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs, AND God is not Great by Christopher Hitchens.

[carld]

Originally Posted by ylmrog

I am so tired of this paranoid opinion, it is so prevelant on the net these days.

afraid to speak in public... Ugg.

Uh-huh, tell that to the guy who criticized Bush in his gym locker room and got a visit from the secret service, or the three guys who got tossed out of a political event for having anti-Bush bumper stickers on their cars. Or the woman who got fired from her job for having a pro-Gore bumper sticker, or any of the other numerous cases like that.

The administration is nothing if not heavy-handed in dealing with any sort of dissent. We already know that the government in intercepting *all* emails, except for their own, of course, which are being destroyed, despite laws to the contrary.

As for the rest of what you had to say, no, sorry you're wrong on every count. And if you didn't want to read political opinions why open and read a politically oriented thread?

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by jamesdmanley

fcc has been controlling what we see and hear for decades. i dont see why this is a scary though now

I think I see your point as being that because we have essentially come to accept this, that it is not scary.

I think I would say that it isn't any scarier now than it used to be, not that it isn't scary. If it's not scary, then perhaps we (as a nation) have become too complacent about how much control over our lives we relinquish to the government. To a rational person, that should be scary. To someone occupied with "bread and circuses", well, does it matter?

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

If it's not scary, then perhaps we (as a nation) have become too complacent about how much control over our lives we relinquish to the government.

Or perhaps we, as a nation, believe that we hold the ultimate say over these issues when we go to the voting booths. Why are there not a thousand nucler power plants in America right now? Because the people, who believe that radiation is dangerous, have consistently voted to keep the number of plants to a minimum. When a politician argues the point, he finds himself out of a job next election.

Americans are complacent, when they want to be. If they do not see a danger, they are content to allow the politicians to handle it. If they do see a problem, they act with their votes, and politicians listen. If you think there's a problem people should be aware of, it's your duty as a citizen to take action to alert the rest of the nation. The system may have flaws, but at its base, it's working just as it was intended to.

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

Or perhaps

Perhaps, but I disagree. Considering the voting public represents a minority of the potential voting population, I still suggest there is a significant amount of complacency or apathy. Many people just can't be bother with such things as political activism and voting.

The fact that things get done with the political process does not mean the right things get done or that the will of the masses is being served. I think it is perhaps a mistake to think we have any significant variation in political thought of the politicians we have to select from at an election. Are there really only two schools of thought (which become more indistinguishable over time) as to how this country should be run?

My beef is not with the system per se, it is with "the people" who do not take part in it. This is not because I think they have a duty to take part in it, it's because I think that would be in their rational self-interest to be aware and active in the political process. Vocal minorities get more things done than the masses.

Why are there not a thousand nucler power plants in America right now?

Because the market does not need a thousand nuclear plants. If it did, I would hope that ignorant fear would not stand in the way.

Because the people, who believe that radiation is dangerous, have consistently voted to keep the number of plants to a minimum.

Yes, people do believe radiation is dangerous. Radiation is factually dangerous in certain amounts of exposure so there really isn't even a need to believe that. However, nuclear power plants are not necessarily dangerous. Of the many nuclear power plants we do have, there have been very minimal problems. People are not dying in droves or growing extra arms because they have a nuclear power plant nearby.

Some of them also think video games, movies and music are dangerous. They think that the content of what could be seen on TV is dangerous. So rather than accept responsibility for their own lives and children, they vote for the government to control such things and force their sense of morality on others. I personally don't need the government to babysit me or my family when it comes to the TV.

If they do not see a danger

Perhaps that is the problem. Not seeing anything to worry about and there not being anything to worry about are two different things.

If you think there's a problem people should be aware of, it's your duty as a citizen to take action to alert the rest of the nation.

On the contrary, the only "duty" I have in that respect is to serve my rational self-interest. IF informing other people serves that purpose, then yes, I have that duty. The only "duty" I have as a citizen is to avoid violating other people's rights.

But because it is in my self-interest, I do "take action" in the form of discussing such issues on internet forums, discussing issues with people I know, and by staying somewhat informed before I vote.

[Steven Lyle Jordan]

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

Because the market does not need a thousand nuclear plants. If it did, I would hope that ignorant fear would not stand in the way.

Considering how much a complete shift from coal- and oil-based power to nuclear-fuelled electric power would serve to help reverse the problems of pollution and global warming, some consider that a thousand nuclear plants is exactly what this country needs. But even in areas where people want more reliable power, and new local job sources, they still turn down nuclear plants "in their backyard."

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

Some of them also think video games, movies and music are dangerous. They think that the content of what could be seen on TV is dangerous. So rather than accept responsibility for their own lives and children, they vote for the government to control such things and force their sense of morality on others.

Which supports my point... people vote for the things they are concerned about. (Whether or not they should be more concerned about other things, is another matter.)

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

Perhaps that is the problem. Not seeing anything to worry about and there not being anything to worry about are two different things.

No argument there.

Originally Posted by rationalbiker

On the contrary, the only "duty" I have in that respect is to serve my rational self-interest. IF informing other people serves that purpose, then yes, I have that duty. The only "duty" I have as a citizen is to avoid violating other people's rights.

Really? Then why do you bother voting? And why do you care if other people vote?

If you were riding a motorcycle, were pulled over by the local authorities, and told that according to local laws you were violating their decibel limit laws, and you had to shut off your bike and walk it/flatbed it to the border of their state... would you really just quietly get off and start walking, to avoid violating their legally-established rights? Do you really feel that it is not worth bothering to argue? If you knew a vote on such a measure were forthcoming, wouldn't you vote against it? (I'm betting yes.)

If you didn't ride a bike... but had a friend who did, who felt these laws needed to be changed, and whom you agreed with... would you not bother to vote, just because it wasn't your problem? (I'm betting no.)

(Cue "Battle Hymn of the Republic")

If you vote, you are explicitly saying that it's not enough to simply avoid violating other's rights... you are exercising your duty as a citizen to record your say on those rights, with the intent to have them reflect your opinion. You do have a duty, as an American citizen, to do more than just get out of other people's way. It's your duty to participate in elections, to pay your taxes, and to obey the law (even when it is not violating someone else's rights).

Saying you "don't violate other's rights" is a far cry from "doing your duty."

[rationalbiker]

Originally Posted by Steve Jordan

But even in areas where people want more reliable power, and new local job sources, they still turn down nuclear plants "in their backyard."

Ahh, perhaps the ignorant fear I was talking about.

(Whether or not they should be more concerned about other things, is another matter.)

No, it's exactly the point that I'm making.

Really? Then why do you bother voting? And why do you care if other people vote?

Yes, really. However, I vote because that involves taking responsibility for my situation rather than relegating it to other people. I would hardly be in a position to criticize a process, a law, or an official if I had simply thrown up my hands and surrendered my fate to the masses. "Becoming more indistinguishable over time" and being entirely indistinguishable are two different things. This particular comment refers mostly to elections on the federal level (whereas on the local level politicians may be somewhat more individual). There may exist one significant difference between two different candidates that makes it worthwhile to vote for that one. Or, it may be that one candidate will lead us down a bad road slower than the other one. And I care if other people vote because it tends to have an impact on me.

However, the larger point lost in translation is the notion that there are only two ways to lead this country; Democrats or Republicans. I would much prefer viable candidates that evaluate each issue on it's own merit rather than boxes their set of views to fit into one or the another of those two categories.

If you knew a vote on such a measure were forthcoming, wouldn't you vote against it? (I'm betting yes.)

Yes, but not out of your notion of my "duty" to the country or to others, out of my own self interest. It goes without saying (I would hope) that in order for my rights to be protected, some notion of rights must exist on a legal level. This does nothing to contradict what I have already said. When I say "rational self-interest", it does not involve taking a world view that I'm the only person that exists and that every one else walking around is just a figment of my imagination. Reality demands that I consider the existence of other people in my evaluation of my self-interest. I assume you understand the idea that a person can act in their self-interest and that other people can secondarily benefit from such action.

Since it is relevant and you left it off the quote, let me requote myself;

But because it is in my self-interest, I do "take action" in the form of discussing such issues on internet forums, discussing issues with people I know, and by staying somewhat informed before I vote.

Back to you;

Saying you "don't violate other's rights" is a far cry from "doing your duty."

No, that is my only duty (as in the meaning "unchosen obligation"). Your notion of my "duty" is what I suspect is wrong here. You may have a whole package deal of things you think involve "doing my duty" that I do not share. As I said, my only "duty" as a citizen is not to violate the rights of others. Any other duty you imagine that I have towards other people or this country is just that, imagined. Please understand that that sounds more confrontational than I intend it to be, I'm just trying to get you to check your premises before you tell me what you think is my "duty".

You do have a duty, as an American citizen

No, I don't.

It's your duty to participate in elections

No. I do choose to do so though in so much as it serves my self-interests.

... to pay your taxes,

No, but I do so under threat of force.

... and to obey the law (even when it is not violating someone else's rights).

No, but I do so under threat of force and frequently because it still serves my rational self-interest not to waste my life paying fines or serving time.

Are there any other duties you think I have?