From: Samantha Atkins (samantha@objectent.com)
Date: Sat Aug 24 2002 - 00:15:00 MDT
E. Shaun Russell wrote:
> Rafal wrote:
>
>> I'd say, the only explanation is the threat of losing their license,
>> which
>> is a form of censorship. The FCC employees involved in this attack on
>> free
>> speech should be fired, all of them. The shock jocks would soon return to
>> the airwaves, where they belong. And the religious ones can always
>> listen to
>> their Sunday school broadcasts.
>
>
> Those are my sentiments exactly. Despite the assertion of others on
> this thread, I don't really see how this *isn't* a free speech issue;
> while I, or others on this list, may not like such programming, it
> should still be allowed to exist. And, as Rafal points out, it seems
> that the station had no choice to fire the shock jocks, lest their
> license be removed.
>
Then it is an issue of whether licensing of the airwaves is
reasonable and whether that licensing should be contingent on
content or not and in what manner. This is still a bit
different from a freedom of speech issue.
- samantha
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:23 MST