From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 14:02:18 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
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.
<snip>
### But paparazzi do not have employment contracts?
-----
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 something illegal, let the court decide, not a political
appointee, responding to political pressure.
------
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.
### If I pay for it, and I need it to make a living, arbitrarily denying
access to it *is* very much like property seizure, in the sense that I end
up impoverished. The state will use such tactics to cow individuals into
submission, waving the pretext of "public interest", and saying it's "public
property" (well, it is now, since the government took the use of the
airwaves away from the initial owners by fiat, last century, and maintains
control, excluding legitimate, private owners by force).
Drunk drivers kill people, which justifies extreme measures, even if they
damage the driver financially. Inflicting potentially multimillion dollar
losses on a station for an alleged involvement in a victimless, artificially
constructed crime, is a totally different matter.
------
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.
### Well, perhaps you might have read my previous posts where I invariably
deride conspiracy theories. In this case the FCC responds quite openly to
"concerned citizens", Christians, and other meddlers with no legitimate
interest, and threatens the use of force, a clear example of a political
process but not a 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.
### Just pointing out that you shifted gears - you want to punish O&A,
apparently agreeing with the law (the idea that the FCC can interfere in
what people say), but in a slightly different context, you start hemming and
hawing - yes, the TV station should be punished, but...etc. So is the FCC's
right to interfere good or bad? Maybe it's good as long as you like it but
bad if it hurts you?
Yes, I steadfastly claim that freedom of speech may not be infringed,
whether it protects a shock jock's station, or a police-filmer's station.
The FCC should not have the mandate to intervene in either case. Whether the
shock jocks broke the law is for a court to decide.
------
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.
### It's just like when they fired reporters from communist TV in Poland
after 1980. Yes, they said, go look for another job. There is an opening in
the garbage removal dept. And, to the remaining reporters they said, of
course, you can say whatever you want, especially if you like working with
garbage.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:31 MST