Man Charged With Relaying Hezbollah TV

[DavidEBernstein at aol.com]

I've probably said too much already, but this'll be my last one: It's not a 
no-subsidization rule.  It's a no subsidization rule for subsidies emanating 
from those who have no First Amendment rights to begin with.  And it's not that 
such subsidization is inherently illegal, it's that because there's an 
"outsider" distorting the market, the government is under no constitutional 
obligation to allow it when there are competing consideration (because it's enemy 
speech, because China is spending $20 billion annually on propaganda, or whatever).

In a message dated 8/25/2006 1:13:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
srbagenstos at wulaw.wustl.edu writes:
But a no-subsidization rule would keep many, many ideas out of the “
marketplace.”
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.ucla.edu/pipermail/conlawprof/attachments/20060825/a40df5e2/attachment.htm