pseudolus:

Theoretically, you argue that a huge corporation that owns every radio station should be able to decide what gets played on the radio with the protection of freedom of speech laws. This only works because we have a weird idea in this country that corporations have human rights; they don't or at least they shouldn't. Why should "clear channel" have freedom of speech? It is not a citizen protected by the constitution. Constitutionally, each employee of clear channel has freedom of speech. But Clear Channel censors that freedom of speech by mandating an opinion to all its DJs.

To give a corporation human rights and freedoms is to create a dictatorship where the CEO determines what the whole corporation will "say" about any issue. So if I'm a clear channel DJ and I want to play the Chicks, I can't, because a big corporation has decided to exercise its "freedom of speech" over mine. That's the opposite of freedom of speech, no?

Theoretically, the air waves are public property held in trust by the gov't and parceled out to corporations for the public good. Therefore, the public interest should be taken into account much more than it is by radio and TV outlets.

Just my 2 cents!