You've got gumption Redeemer...I'll give you that. How are you not a Libertarian? I would have bet dollars to donuts you were a Libertarian. Regardless, your points on decency standards is an important point because there are some important social political factors that your apparent politics do not acknowledge. I really don't want to get into a discourse in political philosophy, but generally speaking societies are based on the concept of the social contract. We knwo what that is: give a little to get a little. Implicit in that contract is the role of the arbitrator, e.g. government. So besides being the arbitrator of the social contract, it is also the caretaker of the resources that benefit everyone. Without that caretaker we are faced witht tragedy of the commons and the disintegration of the social contract and a regression in chaos. The airwaves are one such resouce. In our great nation we have chosen to manage and govern through a democratic republic form of government. You apparently do not like our governemnt and country so I wonder why you choose to live in what you see as a despotic authoritarian government. What is your fear of our government based on? What country do you believe has a better, more free, and open governemnt and civil society?

To get back to the issue of decency standard, they are not censorship. Regulation of speech? Yes...but they are not censorship, which is the blocking and suppression of speech. So we have decency laws that place regulations on the manner of speech over the public airwaves that are governed on behalf of everyone and therefore require some compromises. So nudity and bad language (all constitutionaly protected speech) cannot be made over the airwaves. But the speech isn't suppresses or outlawed. There are adult clubs, comedy clubs, and then of course came cable. Those expressions or forms of speech are regulated on our public airways. No question. So is our ability to protest and rally. I believe that when it comes to time and place speech regulations should be elimminated. They are only in place to protect vested interests. I am firm believer that social and political protest should be absolutely as disruptive as they can be without resorting to violence. But the popint is that the idea or belief or political ideology being expressed is not censored.

I went through that recitation to point out that ultimately the government (ours at least) is responsive and accountable to its citizenry. Can it, and should it, be more responsive? Sure...but we also intentionally went with a republic to mitigate some of the excesses of true democracy. On the other hand, I would love to know the period of history where the people that controlled the capital were ever responsive to those without capital? I'm not a communist or socialist, and neither are most Democrats or Republicans. Most of us are happy with the push and pull of society and the roles of each sector. But based on our history, I am more fearful of the corporations than I am of our government.

But you have to stop talking about punishing competition. On this topic there is no competiton. And don't be so hard on your local governement. They are far more responsive to you than D.C. is.