The Left's Long War on Conservative Free Speech

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Do I really have to start directly quoting from a dictionary, again? And because you are being chintzy and intellectually lazy, you are unwilling to accept the short title of a law as a citation? Oh, you want a full citation chapter and verse!
That is your problem and not mine. You're the one that admitted that they were unwilling to look it up on their own, after being provided with a source and appropriate tools to use the source. And I know that you have to tools available to assist you in the endeavor, since you are using one or more services (both paid and 'free') provided by one or more 'private' enterprises to have this discussion.

SSG Robert Webster - You made the claim. It is your responsibility to defend it. I understand you don't like responsibility or the fact you made a claim you can't defend. You can't cite a regulation because it does not exist. You can dance around all you like, but you are wrong. Accept it and move on. Or don't and continue to be a jackwagon.

That is the frustrating thing with you people. You don't possess the integrity or fortitude to concede a point or admit when you are wrong.

MSgt Steve Sweeney - Now, it is 'jackwagon?'
I have proven my claim, you have not proven yours.
"That the federal government impose regulations on private industry to correct this situation?" is what your question/statement was at the beginning of this. Sad to say that I have proven that the US Government has been doing just that since 1934 (actually before that, but 1934 is when it was codified into federal law). All you need to do is actually read the law, but you explicitly stated that you refuse to do that - that is your problem and not mine. I have shown the integrity and fortitude to continue to engage you on this matter despite your refusal to even acknowledge it, since you refuse to even read the relevant law. It is also highly revealing that you also refuse to understand basic language and semantics. To wit, that regulation is a direct synonym for law. Look it up in a thesaurus (there are many available both in print and digital format).
I have defended my statement and provided proof that you refuse to accept. Since you actively refuse to accept it or actually even disprove it, it is you who is lacking in integrity and fortitude, not I as you try to claim.
You are now trying to claim that the Communications Act of 1934 (Chapter 5 of Title 47 of the United States Code, 47 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.), with modifications of subsequent acts to include the Telecommunications Act of 1996 does not exist? That is very interesting since I provided a link to it in a previous statement.

And last but not least, who are the people that you refer to in your derogatory comment - "That is the frustrating thing with you people."?

SSG Robert Webster - I never said they do not exist. What you have failed to do is make a linkage between the law and your spurious claim, because you cannot. You cannot point out any regulation contained in the law that affects or effects the loosely defined "situation" you claim exists... which it does not. So you have failed on two counts. Add it to your long list.

The "jackwagon" remak insults you because it reflects you. You recognize this and thus your tender feelings are hurt. As for who I am referring to - You, and people like you. See what I did there? I clarified the general and made it specific, because I could. It is easy when one knows how and the evidence is prominent.