Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (22700)	7/3/2006 5:47:15 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541622

Local communities should not have the right to decide what programming comes from national broadcasters and travels through local cables to local residents, for example. I don't think its totally unreasonable to have a situation where they did have that legal power, but overall I think it better that they do not, and the constitution would seem to back up the federal government being able to preclude such regulation if it wants to because of the interstate commerce clause. We wouldn't let them make racial or gender decisions about who should run a business or run for office in their town - discrimination violates our national principles now. The 14th amendment would seem to take care of that one. Before that it legally would have been a state issue, and the states could if they wanted to turn it over to the local governments. We don't let them allow 100mph speed limits if they feel like it, or ignoring helmet and seatbelt laws, LOL. That is properly, and is currently a state issue. The feds have no constitutional power to order a lower speed limit. They got around that by withholding highway funds for states that didn't have a 55 mph speed limit but that law is now gone. I have no major issue with the states allowing local jurisdictions to have more say in the speed limits, but practically it could result in a lot of speed traps so its probably best the states handle it, or at least set parameters of the local jurisdictions. I have no problem with states setting the speed limit at 100mph or not having laws requiring helmet or seatbelt use. I have never understood why those same local communities should be able to weave their own standards for public speech and performances. That freedom of expression and action is a right for all US citizens. The exact point where such expression or action becomes constitutionally protected is fuzzy. Allowing state or local authorities to regulate in the gray areas, in theory at least allows people to choose to live in areas that fit in better with their own ideas and principles. I might support some latitude for state and local authorities but it would be minimal. I generally favor a rather strong interpretation of the 1st amendment. Also even if the state or local jurisdiction did have the legal power to regulate heavily in this area I would still call for them to refrain from doing so.