From: Rafal Smigrodzki (rms2g@virginia.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 29 2002 - 17:40:13 MDT
Harvey Newstrom wrote:
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.
### This is correct.
------
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?
### Their legitimate interests were served by the cops who arrested the
perps.
------
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.
### But the station didn't show its genitalia, so you shouldn't punish the
station, right?
I am OK with fining or even incarcerating the copulators - they entered
private property to perform acts detested by the owners. It's OK to consider
a small fine for the jocks (small, because the public nature of the crimes
involved means enforcement is cheap).
------
> 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.
### The FCC is like the cop who is also judge, jury and executioner. Bad
combination. Take from the FCC the ability to shut down a station, give it a
court, for offenses consisting only of infringing on frequencies owned by
others (and similar technical matters), and I'll be with you. Matters of
content must be a separate issue. You don't want fanatics to shut down your
ISP, because somebody transmitted some porn, do you?
--------
> ### 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.
### How can you punish an entity devoid of genitalia for indecent exposure?
The analogy pertains only to the suppression of speech (similar to the kind
of speech that the enemies of Larry Flynt tried to suppress), political
claims were not part of the suppressed speech, and there is no conspiracy.
Rafal
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:16:32 MST