Tom Desmond wrote:
Sid Schweiger wrote:


It's almost comical, the number of people who still believe that the First
Amendment gives them an unvarnished "right" to operate a radio station without
a license. The Supreme Court stated explicitly, 60 years ago, that that was
not the case. The FCC has been hearing this argument for decades, and it's no
less wrong now than it was decades ago.


The Supreme Court has been known to reverse its decisions when either
additional information or time suggests that the original ruling was in
error. So the fact that the Supreme Court made a ruling 60 years ago is
not an automatic guarantee that they might not rule differently today.

It would be interesting to see what sort of case could be made before
the Supreme Court that the current licensing system unfairly limits
freedom of speech by concentrating broadcast station licenses in the
hands of an increasingly small group of companies.

But even if the Supreme Court did agree to that....perhaps the best result
of such a ruling would be to force a breakup of the existing broadcast
companies, Ma Bell style....

It's still a *long* way from being able to just put a transmitter on the
air and broadcast away.

On 7 Jul 2003 14:57:48 GMT, Tom Desmond wrote:

It would be interesting to see what sort of case could be made before
the Supreme Court that the current licensing system unfairly limits
freedom of speech by concentrating broadcast station licenses in the
hands of an increasingly small group of companies.

I believe the court has ruled on that issue. Someone with legal
research tools could easily find it. The bottom line is is they say
you have to have a license. I think the Dunifer case made a similar
argument without including the consolidation issue.

The original court refused to shut him down. You know how them
lib'ruls in Berkeley can be.

Rich

Charles Hobbs wrote:
But even if the Supreme Court did agree to that....perhaps the best result
of such a ruling would be to force a breakup of the existing broadcast
companies, Ma Bell style....

....which would never happen, as long as there is more than one broadcast
company out there. Ma Bell was one company, and that was also a good
while ago. The government wouldn't even split up Microsoft, for as
big and as imposing a behemoth as they are.

If, say, Viacom and Clear Channel were to merge (!), then maybe you'd
be able to argue it's a monopoly. So long as the two of those remain
independent competitors, not a chance.

-Shawn Mamros
E-mail to: mamros -at- mit dot edu

In article , (Larry Weil)
wrote:

In article , (Larkin) wrote:
Ha, really strange when you think about it. "Pirate Station", huh? Who
is the bigger pirate, a small operation serving community needs or big
Clear Channel who couldn't care less about community needs? I would
love to see more people using THEIR airwaves to meet the needs of their
commnities.

So, what local need were the busted station serving? Did they have credible
local news? Discussion of local issues that allowed ALL points of view to be
heard? Or were they just a juke box for "alternative" music?

Yea, what clear channel is doing to local radio is clearly wrong, but two
wrongs don't make a right, IMO.

--
Larry Weil
Lake Wobegone, NH


As if playing music that wasn't prepackaged crap isn't of value to the
public?

Bueller