This violates free speech. I'm glad the internet allows for more freedom of speech than radio and tv
In this case it's the desire to have an effective warning system for extreme events such as heavy weather.
It obviously wouldn't work if advertisement industry would be able to condition people to ignore it as a false alarm.
The same is true for putting lights, writing and sirens on your car which imply you are a member of emergency services.
If you can only talk if you are prohibited from saying something don't you see how that violates free speech?
This absurdly absolutist conception of free speech bears no resemblance however remote to anything ever actually codified in US law, and I don't see what you mean to achieve by advancing it other than to give the impression of being entirely unserious.
Yes.
>This absurdly absolutist conception of free speech bears no resemblance however remote to anything ever actually codified in US law
It's not absurd. It's quite a simple ideal of being able to freely express things. Whatever US law is doesn't change my ideals of existing in a society which is not bound by a govemment on what they can and can not express.
>I don't see what you mean to achieve by advancing it other than to give the impression of being entirely unserious.
This could be said about any compromise of free speech. Many groups desire to take away people freedoms of speech and they start by taking away things people think would be absurd to want to express.
Not in the US. Even if your station or device does not require an individual license, you are still subject to US law and must comply with FCC rules based on that law (the Communications Act). There is no free speech right to broadcast by radio.