On the recordMarch 20, 2002
I think that is the part that is going to go first under the constitutional challenge. We have been, for over 200 years in this country, protective of every media outlet, trying to assure that there is no outlet that will be closed--other than the person who yells ``Fire!'' in a crowded theater, who could do harm. But other than that, to pick one medium and say you are going to have severe restrictions and redtape and bureaucracy before anything can be heard on your medium, but the other medium would have no restrictions whatsoever, is beyond comprehension when you read the Bill of Rights. It is beyond comprehension. I can't imagine that our Founding Fathers would have envisioned we would even attempt something such as this. At least they had the foresight to put speech as our most important right and gave the Supreme Court the capability to check the Congress when they would violate such an important right. The court decisions over the years have made it very clear that, while we do have freedom of the press--I support that, and the Senator from Texas supports that--everyone else has a right to speak at any time without undue interference.
Source
govinfo.gov




