From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Sat Aug 24 2002 - 08:11:33 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.
I still don't understand how this is a free-speech issue. These people
paid money to hire other people to commit crimes. They are guilty of
soliciting and financing the commission of a crime. This is clearly
illegal and not protected by free speech.
Should hiring a hitman be considered free speech? Should Osama bin
Ladin be protected by free speech because he merely solicited and
financing terrorists?
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> Principal Security Consultant <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:23 MST