K4YZ said...
There's no "thin line".
It's either an "information bulletin" or it's broadcasting.

There's a BIG difference between an information bulletin and a
broadcast. A broadcast is directed to the general public as a whole
while an information Bulletin is directed to a small group.

Once it's "opinonated" it stops being an "information bulletin"
and becomes an editorial. Editorials are broadcasting.

Not necessary, You can get information out of an opinion, it's up to
the person hearing the opinion to determine if he go's along with that
train of thought.A good example is look at court cases, a ruling by a
court is not called a ruling but an opinion. At any rate Society is
based on two input General information and Opinions you can't just have
one.

But an information bulletin has to have INFORMATION in it.
Once tainted by editorialization, it's no longer objective

There is nothing in the FCC rules that stated that, Nor does the FCC
rules state that an Information Bulletin has to be a pure piece of
facts.
The Definition that YOU have given is the Genreral definition of the
word Information bulletin, However, It is NOT defined in the FCC rules.
The FCC has the power to define what a definition is in the rules, for
example the FCC can stated that an informational bulletin may only be a
bono fide newscast, but that is not what we see here. In other words
the FCC can limit what something is provided it the lease restrictive
means necessary to promote govenment interest.

"97.1369 When in doubt about what constitutes an "information
bulletin" as opposed to a "broadcast", anything Todd McDaugherty says
is wrong."

Your going to have to quote that rule for me steve, I looked in the
rules and couldn't find it. here's what I found

97.3(a)(10)

"(10) Broadcasting. Transmissions intended for reception by the general
public, either direct or relayed. "

97.3(a)(25)

"(25) Information bulletin. A message directed only to amateur
operators consisting solely of subject matter of direct interest to the
amateur service."

97.111(b)(6)

"(b) In addition to one-way transmissions specifically authorized
elsewhere in this Part, an amateur station may transmit the following
types of one-way communications:

(6) Transmissions necessary to disseminate information bulletins; "

97.113(b)

"(b) An amateur station shall not engage in any form of broadcasting,
nor may an amateur station transmit one-way communications EXCEPT as
specifically provided in these rules; nor shall an amateur station
engage in any activity related to program production or news gathering
for broadcasting purposes, except that communications directly related
to the immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may
be provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to
the public where no other means of communication is reasonably
available before or at the time of the event. " [EMP. ADDED]

But I didn't see the rule you stated.

And one has to be relatively objective in what constitutes
"amateur interest".

Toiddie, the opinions of a foul mouthed, immature, basement
dwelling domestic parasite such as your self are of zero-point-squat
interest to the Amateur Radio service.
Set up 1000 blogs if you want to...Internet bandwidth is almost
limitless...Once your tripe hits the airwaves it's QRM.

That's YOUR opinion, and who said I use profanity on the air??? I very
civil on the radio. As for as QRM, as long as I'm using a unused
frequency it's legal.

Which in this case does not apply.
The only "content" issues were Baxter's pecuniary use of Amateur
Radio. Those are clearly within the FCC's purview to limit

K1MAN would of been legal if he would of these things

1. pick an Unused frequency
2. didn't discuss or promote his website
3. remained at the control point.

appart from that his INFORMATION BULLETINS were legal.

Again...You keep avoiding the fact that the FCC C L E A R L Y is
allowed to prohibit commerical use of the Amateur Service.
This isn't about Baxter discussing religious preferences or the
color of his wallpaper

First the FCC over the last 10 to 15 years has allowed more commerical
use of the amateur radio service. The point of arguement isn't really
about "commercial use" but the other subject matter which the FCC has
over the last 15 to 20 years has question regarding general content of
the person transmitting the information. K1MAN is not only one the FCC
has gone after, they have gone after others not because of commercial
use but of use they felt could be used by other forums and media. Back
in the 90's the FCC went after BBS operators because of certain content
as well as other people. Commercial use isn't the issue I'm trying to
raise. Secondly there seems to be two different definitions regarding
non-commercial, non-commercial normal means a station can't make a
profit off of it's transmission, but can raise money to support itself.
As a matter of fact a club station running CW practice or an
Information bulletin 40 hours per week can compensate the operator. So
some "commercial" operations are allowed.

Todd N9OGL