From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue Aug 27 2002 - 10:02:22 MDT
On Tuesday, August 27, 2002, at 10:53 am, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> 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.
Paparazzi are not hired to commit crimes. Although many of them do, it
is not required for the job and their pay does not depend on it. In the
case of this radio program, people were hired to commit crimes and could
not get paid if the crime were not committed. This is a pretty direct
link.
> 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).
Technically, yes, if the TV station broke the law they should be
punished. However, in this case, I would argue that the law itself is
bad, not that the station didn't break the law.
> 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.
I don't follow this. The jocks invented the crime, gave instructions
for the crime, solicited perpetrators to commit the crime, offered to
pay them for the crime, and assigned a crew to help commit and record
and broadcast the crime. How can they claim to be only peripherally
involved later?
> The FCC is not competent to tell whether having sex
> in a cathedral is a crime.
The FCC has always been the organization tasked with preventing the
airwaves from being used in the commission or solicitation of a crime.
The police arresting the couple determined if they thought a crime was
committed. The FCC decides if the airwaves were used to solicit that
crime.
> 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.
As far as I can tell, the FCC did exactly what they were supposed to.
Your real argument seems to be that you don't want them to exist at all
or do anything. This seems unrelated to this case.
-- 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 - 09:16:26 MST