From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 15:10:44 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
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.
### Paparazzi's income does depend on their skill in illegally obtaining
information.
Are you saying they had an employment contract for the commission of crime?
Quote your source, please.
If they did, so what? Withdrawing a broadcast license is like the
confiscation of a large amount of property - are you then saying that the
spreading practice of "criminal" property seizure (like seizing a car of a
person who made calls regarding illicit drugs from the car) is the right way
of dealing with crime? Especially major property seizure, completely
incommensurate with the crime's destructive potential?
The FCC threatened to deprive citizens of their property without due
process, and for political reasons, specifically, to suppress free speech.
------
> 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 ability to exercise free speech by the TV station is a crucial
*prerequisite* for repealing laws that we might find "bad". If you allow
flimsy connections to alleged crimes, especially non-violent crimes, to be
used as an excuse to shut down ("if the TV station broke the law they should
be punished") courageous reporting, it would be the end of freedom.
-------
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?
### Do you have links to authoritative statements about the details of the
arrangements? Also, even if true, what would be the justification to shut
down the station - if the jocks invented the crime, they alone are liable.
--------
> 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.
### Can you quote the relevant chapters from FCC's charter? Do you mean the
FCC can shut down my cell phone provider if I solicit an illicit sexual
encounter on the phone?
-------
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.
### Well, our discussion started with my assertion that the FCC is
suppressing free speech. If indeed they are doing what their charter says,
then in the interest of free speech the FCC should be terminated.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:28 MST