From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 08:53:03 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
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?
### You had me stumped for a few moments but on some deliberation I can
offer you an answer:
Regardless of whether the persons arrested for public lewdness were indeed
hired by the shock jocks, or (indirectly) by the station owners, being
forced to cancel a show on pain of loss of license is a clear violation of
free speech. One could extend your argument to say that the tabloids which
pay paparazzi should be forced to close, since paparazzi frequently commit
crimes (such as trespassing and digging in garbage dumps), and as you say,
soliciting and financing crime should not be tolerated. You could extend
this idea further: since filming inside police stations, or filming
policemen on duty may be a crime in some jurisdictions, if a TV station
shows an illegally obtained tape of police brutality, the station should be
punished for the solicitation and financing a crime (e.g. you could let the
journalists visit the police station, without cameras).
The mere fact that a statement or a form of speech can be linked by a more
or less indirect route to the commission of a crime may not be a
justification to prohibit that form of speech. If indeed crimes are
committed, or plotted, the actual perpetrators or conspirators should be
apprehended and punished with due process. Extension of punitive action to
persons or organizations only peripherally involved, the guilt by
association, or group responsibility is to be used only against the direst
threat to the community.
Another element here is that the FCC is not a court and should not determine
whether a station is indeed involved in the commission of crimes. Only a
court should be allowed to make such determination and to order appropriate
remedies and punishment. The FCC is not competent to tell whether having sex
in a cathedral is a crime. Extending the reach and power of administrative
agencies to the detriment of the judiciary is another dangerous trend in
this country, as it deprives the citizens of due process, and the
truth-finding function of the appeal system.
Indeed, there is no reason for the FCC to exist at all, except as a
clearinghouse for standards proposed by the communications industry and a
place for auctioning time-limited contracts on the use of the spectrum.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:26 MST