From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 17:43:49 MDT
On Wednesday, August 28, 2002, at 05:10 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> Are you saying they had an employment contract for the commission of
> crime?
Yes. The contest was a binding offer. The couple applied to enter the
contest. They agree to perform this stunt for a chance to win. The
radio show approved their application and sent a radio crew with them to
record the event. The couple did not decide to commit the crime by
themselves. They were solicited by the radio crew and offered money to
do it. They could not get the money if they didn't do it. They had the
approval of the show before the event was scheduled. I still don't see
how this is free speech. They got in trouble for this illegal act they
hired people to perform, not for anything they said.
> 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?
Not at all. The airwaves are not private property which is being
confiscated by the government. It is public property which people can
share. If they commit crimes using this public property, they lose
their access to it. Just as a drunk driver loses their drivers'
license, and a gun felon loses their gun license, anybody using the
airwaves to commission crimes can lose their broadcasting license. I
don't see the problem. People have the right to free speech, and maybe
a right to broadcast their speech, but there is no guaranteed right to
get access to public airwaves to commit crimes.
> The FCC threatened to deprive citizens of their property without due
> process, and for political reasons, specifically, to suppress free
> speech.
For political reasons? Do you have some conspiracy theory to explain
how this was a political plot? I haven't heard this, but I should have
known. It seems every discussion on this list boils down to some
political conspiracy.
> 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.
You seem to have missed the point that I said it was a bad law. Are you
arguing that these shock jocks didn't break the law, or are you arguing
that the law was bad? You seem to have shifted gears here.
> ### 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.
I still don't see what speech was prevented. The station is still in
business. The jocks can still look for another job. Nobody has a gag
order on any topic. No speech has been supressed as far as I know. A
contest to see who can commit the worst public lewdness crimes has been
taken off the air, but it is a far stretch to claim a right to public
exposure as free speech.
-- 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 - 09:16:29 MST