Via Roger L. Simon's link to BoiFromTroy, I am sorry to see evidence that Howard Stern and Jeff Jarvis (who's not PTC approved) were apparently right about this administration's plans to expand the role of the FCC. (Not a new issue for me.)

BoiFromTroy also links to Brendan Loy:

This attempt to expand the power of the federal government is yet another example of the Republican Party abandoning its core principles of federalism in service of the "moral values" side of its agenda. It's politics over principle, again. True conservatives should be disgusted.

Even more importantly, the idea of expanding the government's anti-"indecency" jurisdiction to non-broadcast entities is a blatant affront to the First Amendment. The only justifiction for the FCC's existence is the notion that over-the-air broadcasters use the airwaves -- the electromagnetic spectrum, a publicly owned and inherently limited commodity -- and, as a result, content-based regulation that would not otherwise pass constitutional muster is necessary because of the public's interest in its airwaves. None of those justifications exist if we're talking about regulation of cable or satellite broadcasters. (Remember, we're not talking about obscenity, which has no constitutional protection; we're talking about the much broader category of indecency.)

Seems to me, if the government can regulate the content of non-broadcast TV, there is no reason why it can't also regulate, say, blogs or newspapers. Argh. It's a slippery slope to Hell, people.

I complained about the same thing just last month, because it worried me to see two of the president's congressional allies displaying a crass misunderstanding of federal jurisdiction:

The FCC's regulatory power derives from the public airwaves theory. Cable and satellite are private. You get what you pay for. Anyone who does not understand this strikes me as unqualified to hold federal political office.

And why the hell is it that if you disagree with the Big Government Republicans on issues of "morality" regulation, you're said to be a "RINO," whereas if you disagree with them on something like immigration, you're the "base?"

As I say this, I recognize that many Democrats (as Glenn Reynolds has reminded) are equally in favor of an expanded government role in policing private morality. Unfortunately, that makes it only more likely to happen. As I keep saying, when you're forced to choose between two bad "sides," it's really not an either/or choice.

You get both!

But alas! How I wish the Republicans would let the Democrats be the party of the unconstitutional expansion of government regulatory power! At this rate, they'll lose the South Park Republicans, and with that, their creative spirit. (By default this will leave Democrats with a sort of tired, Hollywoodish, cultural hegemony.)

I'll close by quoting Ace, who posted the best warning to Republicans I've seen thus far:

Any party that tries to take away the titty-channels from a red-blooded American man is a party that's looking to go the way of the Whigs.

Careful, guys. Tread lightly. This is how coalitions fall apart.

Even over something as trivial-seeming as a television show about the uglier side of the Wild West.

A lot of conservatives are not part of the religious right, but we agree to help you pass parts of your agenda anyway. Not because we are strong believers in your agenda, necessarily -- sometimes we believe in the agenda, but weakly; other times we go along just to get along.

We help you because we're in this coaltion together, and we respect you.

But do us a favor-- respect us, too, huh?

You're not going to get everything you want. That's life-- we South Park Republicans, we Kid Rock Conservatives, don't get everything we want, either.

And if you push it -- if you actually try to force your values on us -- you may find you suddenly aren't part of a winning coalition passing the most-widely-accepted parts of its agenda, but rather part of a losing coaltion, and watching another coalition -- this one liberal-leaning -- passing much of its own.

(Via Glenn Reynolds.)

Sheesh. At this rate, pretty soon the Constitution will be in exile.

MORE: My frustration over these fake political choices has been expressed in innumerable posts like these.

Hell, at least blogging provides an outlet which can't be found in either major party, nor in the MSM. (And they all want to keep it that way.)