"The Government may, however, regulate the content of constitutionally
protected speech in order to promote a compelling interest if it chooses the
least restrictive means to further the articulated interest"

(Sable Communication V FCC). The court in Howard ruled that the ordinance
was in fact legal because it had the city's "compelling interest" and was
"least restrictive mean".

The reason many courts rule in favor of the city like in Howard is the
simple notion that a antenna and tower are not part of the radio apparatus.
A since it is not part of the radio apparatus it falls with in the
regulatory realm of the local government. You can ask any judge and they
will tell you the same thing. As for 42 USC 1983 in Orin Snook vs. The City
of Missouri City Texas the court stated that 42 USC 1983 only applied to
federal agencies and that Orin Snook like Howard wasn't entitled to it.

In other words you are not a lawyer but you like to play one in
public....

A pity that that "member of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunication" doesn't get his/her advice from real
communications attorneys who. like myself, have no other axe to
grind except to support quality communication regulation and
compliance therewith

I don't play "lawyer" I'm someone from his district who has a compelling
interest in radio. After all, unless you forgot it's the "public airwaves"
and those who are in the public should have a right to address some
concerns. As for being a lawyer..I could be one, I am intelligent enough to
become one however, I'm right now looking to possibly get my degree in
physics.



Todd N9OGL




----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

I hear all this crap about K1MAN violating the FCC rules but the FCC
violates their own rules..

Sec. 326. - Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or
signals
transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be
promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the
right
of free speech by means of radio communication

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.


What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look again try 47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs, Telephones, and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION), Subchapter 3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)


http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/usc...6----000-.html

You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has nothing
to do with radio or radio communication) but what I'm talking about is a FCC
rule and has been since long before the FCC. The Secretary of Commerce
Herbert Hoover, back when he regulated radio in the 1920's supported the
creation of that law because he believed the government shouldn't infringe
on the first amendment. That the government job when it regulated radio was
to set time, allocate frequencies, and issue licenses. He was the one to
push 47 USC 326 onto the Federal Radio Commission and then was it added as a
rule under the Federal Communication Commission. The only content the
governement (FCC) was and is allowed to regulate over radio, and televsion
is Obscene and Indecent material and that's it. The FCC thinks they can
regulate the content of amateurs or should I say restrict what they say
because it was thought out and believed that if you wanted to talk about
stuff beyond amateur radio service then that person should apply for a
broadcast license. That's why under part 97 it's illegal to broadcast in
the amateur bands, however amateur can run one way bulletins directed
towards amateurs. Broadcasting means programming that is directed towards
the public. There is however, a "grey line" betrween one way bulletins and
broadcasting. When does a one way bulletin become a broadcast? and again is
the FCC really allowed to regulate the content of that station? This idea
that all a person has to do is apply for a license is nothing more then a
sick joke created by the FCC to use against those who go on the air without
a license. It is a excuse created by the FCC to use in court. The FCC
licensing structure dealing with broadcasting has become complex and
expensive thus, making broadcasting beyond the reach of an average person.
The normal cost for a broadcast station is between $50,000 to as high a
$1,000,000. Amateur Radio should remain a place where free speech should be
allowed to continue to grow without FCC interference.

Todd N9OGL

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.

--
Phil Kane






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.


What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look again try 47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs, Telephones, and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION), Subchapter 3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)

You didn't quote an FCC Rule (which are codified in Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations). You quoted a Federal statute
(which is codified in the U.S. Code). THEY "AIN'T" THE SAME !!

As a wannabe lawyer you should know the difference. You have
demonstrated above that you do not.

You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has nothing
to do with radio or radio communication)

Looks to me like a statute, not a rule. Gotta keep the nominclature
straight if you want knowledgeable people to consider it.

Do you know the difference between substantive law and procedural
law ??

but what I'm talking about is a FCC rule and has been since long
before the FCC.

You quoted no FCC Rule, and in any event, no FCC Rules existed
before the formation of the FCC.

Go get your degree in physics.

Perhaps you will find a way to repeal Newton's Laws, which after
all can violate one's freedom of movement and expression.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

On 23 Dec 2004 20:30:29 GMT, N2EY wrote:

IT ALSO GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY ON HOWARD'S OTHER SEVEN CLAIMS,
WHICH IT TERMED "MAKEWEIGHT."

OK, I'll bite....

What does "makeweight" mean in that context?

My guess is that it's a formal term for "filler" or "bafflegab",
meaning stuff to fill out the claims so it looks impressive.

When the attorney charges by the word (or by the pound) it's an
essential ingredient in any filing. ggg

Look at the stuff that Todd has been throwing out here on this
thread. He can certainly use a session or two on how to write
acceptable Points and Authorities and convincing argument if he
still wants to continue playing lawyer.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On 23 Dec 2004 20:30:29 GMT, N2EY wrote:

IT ALSO GRANTED
SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO THE CITY ON HOWARD'S OTHER SEVEN CLAIMS,
WHICH IT TERMED "MAKEWEIGHT."

OK, I'll bite....

What does "makeweight" mean in that context?

My guess is that it's a formal term for "filler" or "bafflegab",
meaning stuff to fill out the claims so it looks impressive.

When the attorney charges by the word (or by the pound) it's an
essential ingredient in any filing. ggg

Look at the stuff that Todd has been throwing out here on this
thread. He can certainly use a session or two on how to write
acceptable Points and Authorities and convincing argument if he
still wants to continue playing lawyer.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane


Hello, Phil

I may not be the sharpest knife in the drawer, but when purchasing a home
and one time in traffic court, I hired a real lawyer. Funny thing, all the
lawyer jokes aside, if you need one, don't go in trying to do it yourself.

Balance a couple of hundred bucks per hour for an attorney against the
repercussions that might occur if you save that bit of money )

Of course, one never knows. We just had a nurse's aide arrested for
impersonating a *registered* nurse. She had worked for several *years*
without being caught.

I suspect she will not pass go, nor collect $200.00 LOL



Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 21:43:17 -0500, JAMES HAMPTON wrote:

Of course, one never knows. We just had a nurse's aide arrested for
impersonating a *registered* nurse. She had worked for several *years*
without being caught.

One of the first questions on the Bar Admission form in most if not
all states is whether you have ever been prosecuted for the unlicensed
practice of law (which includes giving legal opinions and interpretations
to others).

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.


What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look again try
47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs, Telephones, and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION), Subchapter 3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)

You didn't quote an FCC Rule (which are codified in Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations). You quoted a Federal statute
(which is codified in the U.S. Code). THEY "AIN'T" THE SAME !!

So that's means no one should have to abide by Section 301 sense it's not a
FCC rule. right?
and secondly where in any of my ****ing post did I state I'm a lawyer?
NOWHERE! So my in my ****ing opinion don't put words in my mouth.

As a wannabe lawyer you should know the difference. You have
demonstrated above that you do not.

You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has
nothing
to do with radio or radio communication)

Looks to me like a statute, not a rule. Gotta keep the nominclature
straight if you want knowledgeable people to consider it.

Do you know the difference between substantive law and procedural
law ??

but what I'm talking about is a FCC rule and has been since long
before the FCC.

You quoted no FCC Rule, and in any event, no FCC Rules existed
before the formation of the FCC.

Go get your degree in physics.

Perhaps you will find a way to repeal Newton's Laws, which after
all can violate one's freedom of movement and expression.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.


What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look again try
47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs, Telephones, and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION), Subchapter 3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)

You didn't quote an FCC Rule (which are codified in Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations). You quoted a Federal statute
(which is codified in the U.S. Code). THEY "AIN'T" THE SAME !!

So that's means no one should have to abide by Section 301 sense it's not a
FCC rule. right?
and secondly where in any of my ****ing post did I state I'm a lawyer?
NOWHERE! So my in my ****ing opinion don't put words in my mouth.

As a wannabe lawyer you should know the difference. You have
demonstrated above that you do not.

You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has
nothing
to do with radio or radio communication)

Looks to me like a statute, not a rule. Gotta keep the nominclature
straight if you want knowledgeable people to consider it.

Do you know the difference between substantive law and procedural
law ??

but what I'm talking about is a FCC rule and has been since long
before the FCC.

You quoted no FCC Rule, and in any event, no FCC Rules existed
before the formation of the FCC.

Go get your degree in physics.

Perhaps you will find a way to repeal Newton's Laws, which after
all can violate one's freedom of movement and expression.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=-----

"anon" wrote in message
...

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
news.com...
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 06:11:04 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

I hear all this crap about K1MAN violating the FCC rules but the FCC
violates their own rules..

Sec. 326. - Censorship

Nothing in this chapter shall be understood or construed to give the
Commission the power of censorship over the radio communications or
signals
transmitted by any radio station, and no regulation or condition shall be
promulgated or fixed by the Commission which shall interfere with the
right
of free speech by means of radio communication

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.

(b) look up the case law based on that section and see why there is
no "free spech" right in an amateur license.

--
Phil Kane









----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

Todd Daugherty wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.


What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look again try
47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs, Telephones, and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION), Subchapter 3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)

You didn't quote an FCC Rule (which are codified in Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations). You quoted a Federal statute
(which is codified in the U.S. Code). THEY "AIN'T" THE SAME !!

So that's means no one should have to abide by Section 301 sense it's not a
FCC rule. right?
and secondly where in any of my ****ing post did I state I'm a lawyer?
NOWHERE! So my in my ****ing opinion don't put words in my mouth.


Phil asked you the following:

"Where do you practice Communications Law, Todd?"

You replied:

"As for your question I have been very active in the micro broadcasting
movement and I'm very knowledgeable when it comes to radio law. I am
current working with a member of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunication in regards to the FCC and the licensing processing
including filing windows and waivers."

You didn't really provide an answer to Phil's question. Now you've
resorting to multiple occurrences of the "eff" word in defending the
indefensible. You've done so in barely corherent sentences. Do you
really want to argue communications law with an expert in the field?

There is really a heuristic approach you could try, Todd. Go ahead an
push the envelope on the free speech issue on the air and see if the ax
falls on you. If it never does, your theory is right or the feds aren't
paying any attention to you right now.

By the way, what does the micro broadcasting "movement" have to do with
amateur radio? I'm set on sticking with the amateur radio "movement".

Dave K8MN



As a wannabe lawyer you should know the difference. You have
demonstrated above that you do not.

You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has
nothing
to do with radio or radio communication)

Looks to me like a statute, not a rule. Gotta keep the nominclature
straight if you want knowledgeable people to consider it.

Do you know the difference between substantive law and procedural
law ??

but what I'm talking about is a FCC rule and has been since long
before the FCC.

You quoted no FCC Rule, and in any event, no FCC Rules existed
before the formation of the FCC.

Go get your degree in physics.

Perhaps you will find a way to repeal Newton's Laws, which after
all can violate one's freedom of movement and expression.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----

"Dave Heil" wrote in message
...
Todd Daugherty wrote:

"Phil Kane" wrote in message
ganews.com...
On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 18:45:19 -0600, Todd Daugherty wrote:

(a) it's not an FCC rule and is open to court interpretation.


What do you mean it's not an FCC rule?? I think you better look again
try
47
USC 326 or Title 47 of the United States Code (Telegraphs, Telephones,
and
Radiotelegraphs), Chapter 5 ( WIRE OR RADIO COMMUNICATION), Subchapter
3
(SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO RADIO), Part 1 (General Provisions),
Subsection 326 (Censorship)

You didn't quote an FCC Rule (which are codified in Title 47 of
the Code of Federal Regulations). You quoted a Federal statute
(which is codified in the U.S. Code). THEY "AIN'T" THE SAME !!

So that's means no one should have to abide by Section 301 sense it's not
a
FCC rule. right?
and secondly where in any of my ****ing post did I state I'm a lawyer?
NOWHERE! So my in my ****ing opinion don't put words in my mouth.


Phil asked you the following:

"Where do you practice Communications Law, Todd?"

You replied:

"As for your question I have been very active in the micro broadcasting
movement and I'm very knowledgeable when it comes to radio law. I am
current working with a member of the House Subcommittee on
Telecommunication in regards to the FCC and the licensing processing
including filing windows and waivers."

And if you read my other post I stated
"I don't play "lawyer" I'm someone from his district who has a compelling
interest in radio."
Just like everyone else who has concerns can write and petition the
government. After all it is the "PUBLIC AIRWAVES" and the public has the
right to be concerned about what's going on.

You didn't really provide an answer to Phil's question. Now you've
resorting to multiple occurrences of the "eff" word in defending the
indefensible. You've done so in barely corherent sentences. Do you
really want to argue communications law with an expert in the field?

There is really a heuristic approach you could try, Todd. Go ahead an
push the envelope on the free speech issue on the air and see if the ax
falls on you. If it never does, your theory is right or the feds aren't
paying any attention to you right now.

As I stated the only speech on the radio the FCC is allowed to regulate is
Obscene and indecent material.


Todd N9OGL
By the way, what does the micro broadcasting "movement" have to do with
amateur radio? I'm set on sticking with the amateur radio "movement".

Dave K8MN



As a wannabe lawyer you should know the difference. You have
demonstrated above that you do not.

You went on stating 42 USC 1983 (which is in a set of rules that has
nothing
to do with radio or radio communication)

Looks to me like a statute, not a rule. Gotta keep the nominclature
straight if you want knowledgeable people to consider it.

Do you know the difference between substantive law and procedural
law ??

but what I'm talking about is a FCC rule and has been since long
before the FCC.

You quoted no FCC Rule, and in any event, no FCC Rules existed
before the formation of the FCC.

Go get your degree in physics.

Perhaps you will find a way to repeal Newton's Laws, which after
all can violate one's freedom of movement and expression.

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News
==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers
=-----





----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---


-----------== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Uncensored Usenet News ==----------
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----= Over 100,000 Newsgroups - Unlimited Fast Downloads - 19 Servers =-----