That's more of a market issue than a content issue. Preventing that kind of thing is sort of the point of allocating frequencies in the first place and, for instance, limiting the signal power so you don't have giant radio stations that drown out everything within 100+ miles and you can hear them in your teeth braces and on a barbed wire fence (like some of the super size Mexican radio stations).
Yeah, that makes sense.
Afterwards I was thinking of a more concrete example of the problem I was thinking of, and I thought of political groups renting out or requesting access to city facilities.
Like let's say some political group wanted to use the park. I do agree that once they get their permit, they should be unrestrained in what they say there (noise ordinances and blah blah blah aside).
But what if some hippies then decide never to permit that again, and then take it upon themselves to reserve the park continuously from then on. Or maybe just at the best times. (Kind of a contrived example, but you get the idea.)
I agree that content is a bad standard to use, but I just think that there's room for fuckery.
I guess what I'm saying is that there's a better argument for government intervention when the market narrows with public resources like that. I don't know what the solution is though. Or I don't know, there's probably some conservative radio stations around me and I just don't pay attention to them, and the FCC's approach to licensing currently works just fine.
On the other hand, if it's a wide-open market, I think there's zero argument for government intervention.
But to get back to my original point: things like ISPs are in a narrower market than newspapers and individual websites. They have to argue harder to make a first amendment argument to deny people service. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this should be a handwavy excuse to start nationalizing stuff. But still, at the extreme end, when we're talking a T1 bandwidth provider (the largest global IP network, in fact) I'm not really sympathetic to the first amendment argument. They run cables, they aren't selling teddy bears to sick kids. (or selling dilators to trannies, to bring this back to the subject matter)
(Edit: Well, and more than just "narrower market", but also one with a lot of government intervention. Running cables is difficult without a lot of government help.)
Comcast has a contractual monopoly from the city of Baltimore on cable tv. This has more or less trickled down to cable internet as well. If they started blocking KF, I'd want the city to take action and I think they'd have a good argument to do so.
