"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

"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 =-----

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 =-----

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"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


Hello, Todd

I believe that 3rd party traffic is also restricted to most of the countries
in the world. Depending upon what country you pass 3rd party traffic to,
the FCC might be the least of your problems


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA

Jim,
Hello, Third party traffic is done through treaties. Treaties which the U.S.
have to abide by.
Todd






"JAMES HAMPTON" wrote in message
...

"Todd Daugherty" wrote in message
...

"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


Hello, Todd

I believe that 3rd party traffic is also restricted to most of the
countries
in the world. Depending upon what country you pass 3rd party traffic to,
the FCC might be the least of your problems


Best regards from Rochester, NY
Jim AA2QA







----== 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 =---

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


That's commercial broadcast radio and TV. Ham radio you
can't do "speech" that has pecuniary interest in it.
This is really a feature for hams, in that it keeps
businesses from invading our bands.

On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 21:27:10 GMT, robert casey wrote:

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


That's commercial broadcast radio and TV.

That was a trick question which we used to spring on new agents
during their training. Actually there is more, all with required
format and time, which are applicable to broadcast statsions:

Station ID (most radio services as well)
EAS/EBS weekly and monthly tests (cable systems as well)
Renewal filing announcements
Lottery/"gaming" activities (special rules apply)
Candidates for elective public office ("equal time" requirements)
Recorded material identification
Advertiser identification

(Rule sections available for those who are real masochists.)

Unfortunately, the "Fairness Doctrine" (requiring balanced viewpoints
on "controversial issues of public importance") has gone by the
wayside. More effort was spent on determining what a "controversial
issue of public importance" was than in presenting the "balanced
viewpoint".

And we hams think that the FCC rules pose burdens...... !!!

--
73 de K2ASP - Phil Kane

"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."

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.

Oh, I plan to, come January I will be running a program on the ham bands.
I'll let you all know when and time.

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





----== 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 =---