|
FCC busts Southern VT Community Radio Station
FCC Silences Community Radio Station
(Brattleboro, Vermont, USA) On the cusp of celebrating five years of community radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unexpectedly entered the studios of radio free brattleboro on Tuesday, June 24th and ordered the station to cease and desist from broadcasting. The staff of radio free brattleboro (rfb) regrets that its mission of providing a community outlet for alternative music and news is now interrupted. The staff is considering its options and welcomes public input and comment. Longtime DJ and trainer Steven Twiss, who coordinates monthly community orientations, remarked, “it’s a real shame because in addition to providing entertainment and information to the community, we have trained hundreds of local citizens of all ages in the art of radio broadcasting.” Radio free brattleboro has grown in size since starting at the Teen Center in July of 1998. The studio is currently located on Main Street in downtown Brattleboro; rfb has a staff of about 70 DJs and 50 weekly shows. The mission of radio free brattleboro is to uphold and exercise First Amendment rights in the face of increasing homogenization of corporate radio. David Long, co-founder and DJ explained “we’re part of national movement to return the airwaves to the hands and voices of the citizens as it was intended under the FCC’s original mandate. The Bill of Rights explicitly states ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,’ and it is clear to us and millions of Americans that the FCC has failed all of us.” To contact radio free brattleboro, please call (802) 258-9879 or email . Correspondence and donations can be sent to PO Box 1951, Brattleboro, VT 05302. *For more information please contact rfb members David Long (w) 802-463-1613 (h) 802-254-7676. Or Larry Bloch (h) 802-254-9106. *Please view the Brattleboro Reformer’s article on the events of 6/24/03. http://www.reformer.com (article published 6/25/03 is at http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,14...478256,00.html) *A video of the FCC visit of 6/24/03 and a current program guide is available by contacting Radio Free Brattleboro. |
"DJ UndahCovah" wrote in message ... FCC Silences Community Radio Station (Brattleboro, Vermont, USA) On the cusp of celebrating five years of community radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) unexpectedly entered the studios of radio free brattleboro on Tuesday, June 24th and ordered the station to cease and desist from broadcasting. The staff of radio free brattleboro (rfb) regrets that its mission of providing a community outlet for alternative music and news is now interrupted. The staff is considering its options and welcomes public input and comment. How about getting a license and broadcasting legally? |
|
"Larkin" wrote in message ... 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. Perhaps it will give Michael "put the airwaves into the hands of a few" Powell a wake up call, if congress won't. Nice thought, but Congress wrote the laws, and the courts have interpreted them. Fairly recently a court told the FCC that it's rules about multiple ownership couldn't stand up since they didn't provide a legal reason for restricting multiple ownership. Socially good didn't cut the ice in that court, ie: "What basis do you have to claim that concentration of ownership is bad?". With court decisions like that, what would you do if you were on the FCC? [I think I'd resign.] IIRC, the FCC does not represent itself in Federal court. IIRC the Department of Justice represents all/most Federal agencies. The DoJ can choose to not take on a case, leaving the FCC out in the cold. |
|
The mission of radio free brattleboro is to uphold and exercise First
Amendment rights... 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 Bill of Rights explicitly states Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, and it is clear to us and millions of Americans that the FCC has failed all of us. "Us and millions of Americans" have apparently never read NBC v. United States, in which the Supreme Court explicitly states that the First Amendment does not apply to radio broadcast licensing procedures. |
"Larkin" wrote in message ... 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 Which one is broadcasting legally and which one isn't? |
Rich Wood wrote:
On 5 Jul 2003 15:51:59 GMT, (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? There's a big difference. Clear Channel has a license. The pirate doesn't. What they do, with or without a license, is irrelevant when In CC's case, I think it's more correctly called a "Letter of Marque". A pirate wouldn't have one of them. z! |
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. While my suspicion is that the courts would toss out that argument pretty quickly, the Supreme Court certainly has issued rulings that have surprised me in the past...the fairly recent past. |
"Tom Desmond" wrote in message ... 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. Freedom of Speech does not guarantee a soapbox, a podium, a newspaper or a radio station to the citizens. It simply guarantees that the government will not limit an individual's right to express him or herself, but does not grant a forum to everyone. |
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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:34 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com