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?

On 3 Jul 2003 01:15:07 GMT, (DJ UndahCovah)
wrote:

The mission of radio free brattleboro is to uphold and exercise First
Amendment rights in the face of increasing homogenization of corporate
radio.

What a crock. It's a pirate station, period.

Rich

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.

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:
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.

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

"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.

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