|
Yes, and he IS HERE A LOT!!!
Even his fellow hams are about as anxious to be anonyed by him as we are--or, at least it seems that way... Regards, John |
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. 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. 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. 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. So the FCC avoids any constitutional challenge to the NAL, even to the point of settling before it goes to court. You suggested that there is some threshold they use to decide which actions to take, and I would suggest that you are right -- a critera based on the willingness and resourcefulness of the accused to mount a legal challenge against the FCC's NAL system. If, as you allege, the NAL system is constitutionally flawed, there would be far more people challenging FCC NAL's and winning. This goes beyond simple citizen's 2-way radio issues. Big guns like Howard Stern have been fined by the FCC, and his respective companies forced to pay. They can afford some heavy legal muscle. If the NAL system was unconstitutional, you would think that these fines would have been overturned in a legal battle on that basis. Then, of course, the FCC would have to refine their methods if they wish to remain effective in enforcement. "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). Recent examples are Proctor & Gamble's decision to pull their commercials from "Queer Eye" and "Will & Grace", and Bill Gates pulling his support of gay rights legislation, all because of boycotts by some culturally intolerant right-wing religious homophobes. 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. 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. 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. If you are a Christian, great, but don't push your religion on me. You have your values, I have mine, and others have theirs. And if you can't accept the concept of "E Pluribus Unum" then leave. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. And if my conclusions are true, the FCC wouldn't call it a conspiracy. 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. 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. 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. ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups ----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---- |
Freebandersblowgoats wrote: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:10:23 -0700, "John Smith" wrote: Forget that! Just write this down on a piece of paper, "REMEMBER! Next doctors visit, ask him about a medication for Alzheimers." And, pin it on your chest! John quote text, than you won't look so ignorant Hams Rules the world!!! freebanders are ignorant wanna be hams Wrong wrong wrong you hams are ignorant, while us freebanders RULE the universe |
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 |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:16:10 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (Dave*Hall) On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 12:04:46 -0400, (I AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (John*Smith) (You waste your time, attempting to show logic to Dave, he is obivously a ham or "ham groupie." He is just here to stop any progressive changes--write your congressmen!!! Anyway, whether he does what he does or not--the winds of change begin to blow.... Regards, John ) Dave is capable of giving good entertainment when he remains cool, stays on topic, and steers clear of emotional outbursts. Why thank you! That's the closest thing to a compliment that I've seen in a while. Now how 'bout a big hug? I'll settle for staying on topic in the future. I'll stay on topic if you will. Maybe it can even lead to a Fresca some day. You'd have to agree to a face-face for that. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 11:17:32 -0400, (I
AmnotGeorgeBush) wrote: From: (John*Smith) (I am afraid Dave is not even good entertainment... more of a boring/repetitive slug... He reminds me of an old woman with nothing better to do than harass anyone in disagreement with them. a Chihuahua, nipping at ones ankles--best ignored. However, when not here, he is most likely in his mobile, pursuing truckers (complete with a rotating caution light on his trunk and wearing a bunch of pseudo-official badges, patches and ball caps purchased at ham fests), I suppose it is better to have him here than out annoying the truckers, at least they can get some honest work done then! grin Regards, John) - Well, when he is here he isn't on the air, at least. Well that's true. I'm usually on the air at night..... Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 08:57:12 -0700, "John Smith"
wrote: Yes, and he IS HERE A LOT!!! Even his fellow hams are about as anxious to be annoyed by him as we are--or, at least it seems that way... Yet you have yet to justify your position that the FCC should just give away radio spectrum to unlicensed users. Taking pot shots at me tells me that you have no substance to back up your claims. Dave "Sandbagger" http://home.ptd.net/~n3cvj |
|
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:20 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com