Todd Daugherty wrote:
"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:
(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.
What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look again try
47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs, Telephones, and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION), Subchapter 3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)
You didn't quote an FCC Rule (which are codified in Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations). You quoted a Federal statute
(which is codified in the U.S. Code). THEY "AIN'T" THE SAME !!
So that's means no one should have to abide by Section 301 sense it's not a
FCC rule. right?
and secondly where in any of my ****ing post did I state I'm a lawyer?
NOWHERE! So my in my ****ing opinion don't put words in my mouth.
Phil asked you the following:
"Where do you practice Communications Law, Todd?"
You replied:
"As for your question I have been very active in the micro broadcasting
movement and I'm very knowledgeable when it comes to radio law. I am
current working with a member of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunication in regards to the FCC and the licensing processing
including filing windows and waivers."
You didn't really provide an answer to Phil's question. Now you've
resorting to multiple occurrences of the "eff" word in defending the
indefensible. You've done so in barely corherent sentences. Do you
really want to argue communications law with an expert in the field?
There is really a heuristic approach you could try, Todd. Go ahead an
push the envelope on the free speech issue on the air and see if the ax
falls on you. If it never does, your theory is right or the feds aren't
paying any attention to you right now.
By the way, what does the micro broadcasting "movement" have to do with
amateur radio? I'm set on sticking with the amateur radio "movement".
Dave K8MN
As a wannabe lawyer you should know the difference. You have
demonstrated above that you do not.
You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has
nothing
to do with radio or radio communication)
Looks to me like a statute, not a rule. Gotta keep the nominclature
straight if you want knowledgeable people to consider it.
Do you know the difference between substantive law and procedural
law ??
but what I'm talking about is a FCC rule and has been since long
before the FCC.
You quoted no FCC Rule, and in any event, no FCC Rules existed
before the formation of the FCC.
Go get your degree in physics.
Perhaps you will find a way to repeal Newton's Laws, which after
all can violate one's freedom of movement and expression.
--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----