On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 18:52:55 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:39:04 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 05:45:19 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 06:49:08 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote in :

snip
It's not a matter of taking someone to court on criminal charges, it's
about the NAL system of enforcement. The evidence may be overwhelming
and uncontested, but the procedure is probably unconstitutional as the
Supreme Court has suggested in at least one opinion.

"Probably" unconstitutional? How so?


For many of the same reasons Bush's Patriot Act is unconstitutional:
you don't have the right to a fair trial or to contest all evidence;
the accused is not afforded the right to be "presumed innocent until
proven guilty" because guilt is presumed (or, in the words of the FCC,
"liability" is "apparent"); and guilt is determined by the accuser
which is a conflict of interest.

It's not much different than getting a speeding ticket. You are
presumed guilty by virtue of the citation, and have to go to court to
prove innocence, if you are so inclined.


Not in my state. You aren't found guilty unless you admit to the
infraction, ignore the ticket, or lose the contest in court. I've
already hashed this out with Leland a while back.


I guess it all depends on your perspective. You are given a ticket.
You can either accept it (Admit guilt) or fight it. If you fight it,
your only chance is to hope that either the cop doesn't show up, or
that the conditions were such that the judge might agree that you
might not "deserve" the ticket. But it basically amounts to you
"fighting" for your innocence. The court tends to side with the police
barring concrete evidence to the contrary.


Nothing unusual about that.

Not only that, but the procedure was
concocted without any legal history or precedent -- they just came up
with the idea and made it law.

The idea that every law has to have "legal history" is ludicrous. At
some point in history a precedent has to be set based on little more
than circumstances. Laws which deal with technology which did not
exist 200+ years ago, cannot have much history. There has to be a
definite beginning.


Actually, the common and statutory laws of England were adopted for
the US, and the laws that were contrary to the Constitution were
thrown out.

Our whole system of government was modeled after the parliamentary
system in England. It was, after all, the most prevalent model for the
founding fathers at the time. They took the time to "correct" what
they perceived were the flaws in the English system.


You can't just make up laws on a whim -- they have to be
founded on pre-existing law, be it statute, common or case law.

But every law had to start sometime. If there was never a condition
that needed a specific law before, you can't very well have one to
base it on.





According the the Supreme Court, that's
not "due process of law".

Not in the sense of a criminal court. But then again, neither would
the handling of summary offenses such as littering or speeding.


Call them 'summary offenses' or 'civil infractions', they are still
violations of law and subject to due process under the Constitution.
You still have the right to appear in court, to contest the evidence,
to appeal the ruling, etc, etc. And unless you can find a state that
convicts upon being cited, you are still innocent until proven guilty.

But in most of those cases, the burden of proving that innocence is
yours, even if it might not be worded quite that way.


"Heavy muscle" costs money, and big businesses make their decisions
based on monetary values, not moral principles.

That may be true, but at some point, it becomes cheaper to fight the
charge than to continually pay fines as was the case with Stern.


It appears that they found it cheaper to eliminate Howard Stern than
risk further fines. Indirect censorship at it's finest (and no, I
don't like Howard Stern).

First off, WNBC thought it better to eliminate Stern. Then he moved to
infinity and the rest was history. He was such a cash cow for them
that the fines were justifiable compared to revenue realized. In fact
the publicity surrounding the FCC and Stern actually increased
interest (ratings) in his show.

Infinity did not "eliminate" Stern. Stern quit to move to Sirius
Satellite radio where, he feels, his "creativity" would not be so
constrained by the FCC rules of decency. The gamble he's making is
whether the tongue dragging set that lives and dies by his every
guffaw will shell out the money to listen to him on Sirius. Mel
Karmazin, Viacom's COO who jumped ship to become the CEO of Sirius,
seems to think so.

I'm waiting until the FCC gets into the Satellite radio scene.


What you call a "right wing homophobe", others might call correcting
blind acceptance of abhorrent behavior. You open that door, and it
becomes only a matter of subjective degree as increasingly more
decadent behavior is attempted to be justified by those who partake in
it.


Oh man..... I could stand on this soap box for hours, but I won't.

Probably a wise move. There's way too much subjectivity.


I'll just give you one glaring example of what's -really- abhorrent: A
TV censorship system where war and murder are suitable for all viewers
but Janet Jackson's nipples are strictly off limits. And if you need
more examples just ask, cause I have a long list of things "abhorrent"
ranging from the Bush administration to dandelions.

What I find abhorrent is a decline in social morality, and a growing
sense that tolerance should be universal and unlimited.


But back to the topic, it's not up to you or any right-wing fanatic
group to dictate how others should live their lives.

Why not? A group of people sat together and drew up the framework of
the laws that we live under today.


If you are a
Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me.

This has little to do with any specific religion.


You have your
values, I have mine, and others have theirs.

So, then who get's to pick the "right" choices?


And if you can't accept
the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave.

I accept the concepts of "one nation Under God", and "endowed by our
creator".



The god-squads do not represent the
majority by any means, but they can put a dent in the profits of these
corps who, BTW, will eventually reverse their decisions after the gay
rights groups begin their own boycotts.

Most businesses don't care what they think.


Hogwash. I just gave you two recent examples of major corps bowing to
pressure from these fanatics.

Gay fanatics? That's who I was referring to. They don't represent
enough buying power to make any difference.


The most vocal of these
activists do not represent significant buying power. And, as you
pointed out so accurately, it's all about money.


They don't represent a -significant- part of the economy but they
-can- put a dent in the profits, which is what I already said.

So who would you rather **** off, a group of abhorrent activists, or
mainstream Christians?


Corps
make their decisions based on numbers, and if they think that dropping
ads from a couple shows is going to be less expensive than a dent in
profits from a small boycott then you can bet your bottom dollar that
the ads will be yanked.

Well sure. It is all about money. So far mainstream Christians still
outnumber gay groups.


Money, not constitutionality,
is the motivating factor behind the decisions of big business.

True in most cases.


Back to the topic.... The FCC fines have increased over the years but
have never exceeded the cost of mounting a full-scale legal challenge;

I'm not so sure of that. But if it is true, that only serves to
illustrate just how lawyers have corralled the legal field beyond the
means of anyone who wishes to challenge perceived unfair practices.


That's a very good point. Justice is for the rich because lawyers are
greedy *******s.

Exactly! And that only underscores the point that with enough money
you can hire enough defensive legal power to beat almost any criminal
or civil charge. ABSCAM alumnus Ozzie Meyers was once quoted as
saying "If you have enough money in this country, you can do almost
anything".

O.J. is a free man today because of such practices.


so the companies just take the hit, pay the fine and kiss FCC butt.
I'm sure that someday the FCC will slap someone with an NAL based on a
faulty financial assessment of a company and get challenged, but I'm
also sure they have a contingency plan in case that ever happens.

Are you implying that the FCC only contemplates fining those who they
feel cannot mount a successful legal challenge?


Cannot or will not.


I'm not sure I buy
into this level of conspiratorial thought.


Well, conspiracies do exist.

Yes, but I'm concerned about the ones you choose to believe in.


And if my conclusions are true, the FCC
wouldn't call it a conspiracy.

In this case "IF" is a mighty big word. One that is not
interchangeable for fact.


In fact, I wouldn't either. I -would-
call it a grossly unethical and unfair method of law enforcement. The
FCC would probably call it "cost effective management" or some similar
euphamism.

There have been cases over the years brought by people who tried to
claim that the IRS and income tax itself was unconstitutional. There
seems to be some credibility to the claim. But in every case, it gets
shot down. I suspect that a similar claim against the FCC would be
treated in a similar fashion.


After all, they have had plenty of time to plan strategies to defend
against any possible legal confrontation. But until that day comes,
the FCC will continue operating as a rouge government outside the
boundries of the Constitution.


Down with the man!



The Constitution does not specifically define many agencies and
policies in the federal government, such as the NSA, black ops, Area
51etc.. The Constitution could not possibly foresee the need for many
of them, including the FCC. The creation of the FCC is perfectly
legal, as it falls under the discretion of the congress, even if you
may disagree with their tactics.


I never claimed the FCC was established illegally. My contention is
that they are using procedures that are unconstitutional.

I would be very interested in the hows and whys of this alleged
unconstitutionality.

I suspect a great deal of subjectivity in this interpretation. Many
people who claim to adhere to the strict wording of the constitution,
would find many of our laws and governmental agencies to be
"unconstitutional". The whole abortion law, as a result of Roe V.
Wade, is one such example, as it was established as a result of a
judicial ruling rather than a legislative action.

Like the Bible, and religion in general, it's surprising at how many
different interpretations you can find from a single source of
information.

Dave
"Sandbagger"
http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj