Another point, the airwaves belong to the people not the corporations.

betrays a fundamental lack of grounding in the science of radio waves. It does, however, lead to populist claptrap, such as the FCC.

“I was simply stating what the argument on the other side would probably be, not arguing for it.”

Fair enough…devil’s advocates are important to debate too :)

NBC is a private entity, and as far as I’m concerned they should be able to disallow anyone for any reason. If the market doesn’t like their decisions, the market will make them pay.

I was simply stating what the argument on the other side would probably be, not arguing for it.

Yeah, I hear about the gulags they run for dissidents all the time. I hear one of them is going to be the focus of a new reality show now that the writers are on strike.

Yeah, because I certainly trust the government to tell me what’s “fair” or “equal”. Especially since the government is a group of politicians and bureaucrats who have an incentive to suppress viewpoints that endanger their continued employment.

“if monopolies control who and who is not allowed on the public airwaves.”

The only private monopolies that exist are those that receive government support (through regulations, licensing or decree) to create barriers to entry that bar competitors from the marketplace. Want to get rid of the “monopoly” on the airwaves? The first step should be getting rid of the FCC.

NBC is a monopoly because the theory of public airwaves led to the regulation of broadcasting by the government, which led to the creation of a monopoly. If you want competitive elections, get rid of the government regulation creating the monopoly.

How about free elections, based on equal access/equal time?

The power is taken away from the people to decide their own elections, if monopolies control who and who is not allowed on the public airwaves.

NBC is acting like the Stalinist Soviet Union here.

Sec 315 of the equal opportunity law: Section 315 [47 U.S.C. §315] Facilities for candidates for public office.

(a) If any licensee shall permit any person who is a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use a broadcasting station, he shall afford equal opportunities to all other such candidates for that office in the use of such broadcasting station: Provided, That such licensee shall have no power of censorship over the material broadcast under the provision of this section. No obligation is hereby imposed under this subsection upon any licensee to allow the use of its station by any such candidate. Appearance by a legally qualified candidate on any –

(1) bona fide newscast,

(2) bona fide news interview,

(3) bona fide news documentary (if the appearance of the candidate is incidental to the presentation of the subject or subjects covered by the news documentary), or

(4) on-the-spot coverage of bona fide news events (including but not limited to political conventions and activities incidental thereto),

shall not be deemed to be use of a broadcasting station within the meaning of this subsection. Nothing in the foregoing sentence shall be construed as relieving broadcasters, in connection with the presentation of newscasts, news interviews, news documentaries, and on-the-spot coverage of news events, from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate in the public interest and to afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of issues of public importance.

As Doug correctly says, as a judge, he is bound by the law. The United States Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of the press from government control. Kookcinich has no business at the debate tonight.

It is up to the states to run elections, not the feds. The argument could be made that he is making sure that his state is running a fair election.