"misterfact" wrote in message
...

If you were to broadcast that the "earth is flat" and were so
persuasive as to use the argument to sell products in an
under-developed country- I'de say you were a crook- and ought to be
prosecuted. Of course- it appears you will stand by your "argument"
that the statement is your legal opinion. Give me a break. What I am
saying has noting to do with the opinions of an idiot.

We are not talking about an underdeveloped country. Please don't build a
straw man here.

We are talking about regulation of what might be broadcast on the radio in
the US. The FCC has no jurisdiction outside the US, and you specifically
addressed violations of "FCC laws (sic)" in your post.

The fact remains that the FCC has no jurisdiction over any of this.

From the FCC:
The FCC and Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment and federal law generally
prohibit us from censoring broadcast material and from interfering with
freedom of expression in broadcasting. Individual radio and TV stations are
responsible for selecting everything they broadcast and for determining how
they can best serve their communities. Stations are responsible for choosing
their entertainment programming, as well as their programs concerning local
issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports events, and other subjects.
They also decide how their programs (including call-in shows) will be
conducted and whether to edit or reschedule material for broadcasting. We do
not substitute our judgment for that of the station, and we do not advise
stations on artistic standards, format, grammar, or the quality of their
programming. This also applies to a station's commercials, with the
exception of commercials for political candidates during an election (which
we discuss later in this manual).

As Bob mentioned, there is the possibility that someone is receiving,
unknown to station management, compensation for expressing certain views.
This is the crime of plugola, which has to do with violating sponsorship ID
rules, not the content of the message.

However, a point of view, whatever it is, is allowed. If a "Flatworldite"
wants to do a show, and someone puts he/she/it on, they can rant all they
want. Their rant is protected.

If the position or a paid ad breaks a law, it is not the FCC's jurisdiction.
Other entities are responsible.


I highly doubt that "styrofoam is bio-degradable" passes a personal
opinion. It may be the personal opinion of an idiot. However- the talk
show host I am quoting appears not to be an idiot.

This statement is just stupid. If I had a dollar for everything stupid I
have heard and read, I would have retired. There is no law against
stupidity, or a substantial portion of the population would be in jail, be
ex-convicts or stand awaiting trial, including myself.

In fact- millions
of people who have heard him believe that he is not an idiot!

So? Again, "stupid" is not a crime.

His
numerous lies concerning consumer products tend to indicate that
something else is at work.

How do you know he is lying? He may just be ill-informed as well as stupid.

As far as I know, there is no styrofoam lobby trying to soborn talk hosts
into lying about coffee cups.

That something else is the distinct
possibility that he is lining his bank account by promoting consumer
products by lying about them.

If this is true, and the station does not know about the compensation, there
is a violation of plugola rules. If the statements were purposely and
maliciously made despite contrary knowledge of fact, then there is a truth
in advertising related issue. The FCC does not deal with the latter.

From the Commission:
False or Misleading Advertising. The Federal Trade Commission has primary
responsibility for determining whether an advertisement is false or
deceptive and for taking action against the sponsor. Also, the Food and Drug
Administration has primary responsibility for the safety of food and drug
products. You should contact these agencies regarding advertisements that
you believe may be false or misleading.

I'm not sure why you would dismiss a
pattern of intententional medical, chemical,consumer product.. LIES-
as personal opinion.

Because in the USA, there is a presumption of innocence. If there is illegal
activity, then the appropriate authorities should intervene. Otherwise,
listeners will discover the show is full of inacuracies, and not listen.

Most people who witness continuous lies- label
the person a pathological liar or a liar who appears to have something
to hide. I wonder if talk show hosts are just something special in
your mind and simply just ought to be left alone and always given the
benefit of the doubt.-i.e. EVERYTHING they say, is by definintion- an
opinion! Give me a break!

Again, I ask: what FCC "law" was broken?

"The FCC has no rules (the only "law" the FCC has is called
"administrative
law" unless I am sorely mistaken) against this. The FCC basically has
rules
about technical operation, and the programming "rules" concern indecency,
station IDs, etc. There is just about nothing on content other than
indecency. Other government agencies, ranging from local to Federal, have
jurisdiction on the areas you are mentioning, but not the FCC."

You are certainly wrong on that point. Falsification of the news by
intent is illegal.

From "The Public and Broadcasting"
Broadcast Journalism. Under the First Amendment and the Communications Act,
the FCC cannot tell stations how to select material for news programs, and
we cannot prohibit the broadcasting of an opinion on any subject. We also do
not review anyone's qualifications to gather, edit, announce, or comment on
the news; these decisions are the station's responsibility.

Criticism, Ridicule, and Humor Concerning Individuals, Groups, and
Institutions. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech protects
programming that stereotypes or otherwise offends people with regard to
their religion, race, national background, gender, or other characteristics.
It also protects broadcasts that criticize or ridicule established customs
and institutions, including the government and its officials. If there is to
be genuine free speech, people must be free to say things that the majority
may abhor, not only things that the majority finds tolerable or congenial.

The FCC prohibits haoxes. It does not regulate news reliability.

It says so on the FCC website. It says that "when
the FCC receives extrinsic information from witness(es) that
INTENTIONAL falsification of news events or product promotion occurs
for any reason (i.e. personal gain, subjective views, etc)- THE FCC
WILL TAKE ACTION !"

Please cite, especially about product promotion. The FCC actually states
that false advertising is NOT their domain.

I have highlighted the WILL TAKE ACTION- because that is in their
literature.

I doubt it.

I will go to their website and post it here in the next few days.

Please do. And post links, preferably in this dimension, not the parallel
one you are living in.