From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 15:46:00 MDT
On Thursday, August 29, 2002, at 04:02 pm, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> ### If they did something illegal, let the court decide, not a political
> appointee, responding to political pressure.
It is apparent that you don't seem to care whether a crime was committed
or not. Your agenda is to dismantle the FCC and have only elected
officials. That is a fine argument for you to hold, but it leads you to
make the same points no matter what the merits of any individual case
might be. There is no point in discussing whether these particular
people are guilty or not, because it doesn't affect your agenda either
way.
> 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.
This is a bit of a stretch, don't you think? It was the Christian's
property that was invaded by people intending to disrupt their service
and expose their body parts. For the crime of indecent exposure, the
Christians were the victim of that crime who were exposed to the scene.
How can you say they have no legitimate interest?
> 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?
That's because I believe in real free speech and want it protected. I
still can't see how these people have a right to expose their genitals
to people who don't want to see them, or how this is protected free
speech. So yes, in the case of what I consider free speech, I want it
protected. In the case of what I consider to be a senseless crime, I
want the perps punished.
> 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.
Yes. But courts don't arrest people. The police first decide if they
think there is a crime and arrest the perps. The courts later judge
that decision. Are you against police? They are not elected
officials. The FCC are the police of the airwaves, just as the cops are
police of physical jurisdictions. They take action to stop illegal
activity occurring on their beat. Then it is up to the courts to decide
if the people were guilty of a crime. I see no problem with this setup,
unless you want to ban all police along with the FCC.
> ### 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.
Analogies hardly ever make a point except to people who already believe
in them. I don't know what speech you claim was impeded. What exactly
was the message that was suppressed here? What exact political claim
was disputed and covered-up. This is a conspiracy theory with no
story. I see punishment for indecent exposure and related crimes. I
don't see any speech suppression. Could you be a little more specific
about what exact statements or message was suppressed?
-- 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 - 09:16:31 MST