[sailaway21]

If anything good is to come out of this it will be a re-visiting of the actual meaning of free speech. From a constitutional perspective, free speech is political speech. You still have no free speech right to call a man's wife ugly and remain unscathed. the classic case being the yelling of, "Fire!" in the theater.

We propagate our free speech through the use of money. How else do we reach a wider audience for our speech. Perhaps someone with standing will eventually bring suit before the SC over campaign finance reform and it will be declared unconstitutional based upon it's limiting of free speech. The debate over talk radio should follow much the same path. Conservative talk radio is able to operate on a pay as you go basis largely due to the size of it's listenership and their apparent willingness to buy the products advertised on those shows. For whatever reason, liberal talk radio is unable to draw enough of an audience to attract advertisers. Advertisers don't care whom they sell to; they're just looking for the greatest market penetration per advert dollar. Liberals just need someone or some peoples to assert their free speech rights and financially back their talk radio programs. That they choose not to do so might have something to do with the fact that they've already got a nationwide, taxpayer subsidized, talk radio network; it's called NPR.