patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | reply to RadioDoc
Re: This is a great idea
said by RadioDoc  :Instead of trying to stick it to licensees with what amounts to regulatory extortion, the FCC should simply require local content again, produced for the community of license. Ascertainment Interviews, Issues and Programs lists, news and public affairs requirements, et. al. were a pain in the ass but it did get at least basic service to the CoL. And it helped localize radio and to a certain extent TV. Radio sold its soul when it eliminated the local DJ. BBBBUTTTTTTT THATS VIOLATING FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS AND CENSORSHIP TO DIRECT ON AIR CONTENT!!!!!!!
*statute struck down in federal court* |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11 | Wrong. |
|
EPS
join:2008-02-13
Hingham, MA | reply to patcat88
No first amendment on television- all airwaves are legally controlled by the FCC and they can do whatever they want with the licenses. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
| said by EPS :No first amendment on television- all airwaves are legally controlled by the FCC and they can do whatever they want with the licenses. Not when you get an activist federal judge or the supreme court involved and your a mega corporation.
Verizon Wireless has used the first amendment to control and filter content on its network by claiming it has a right to express itself (which is interpreted to mean controlling its image). |
|
RadioDoc
58ef2c0
Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
 ·AT&T Midwest
| said by patcat88 :said by EPS :No first amendment on television- all airwaves are legally controlled by the FCC and they can do whatever they want with the licenses. Not when you get an activist federal judge or the supreme court involved and your a mega corporation. Verizon Wireless has used the first amendment to control and filter content on its network by claiming it has a right to express itself (which is interpreted to mean controlling its image). Again, Wrong. Broadcast and cell phones aren't even in the same regulatory planetary system.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. |
|
patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
1 edit | Nope, explain this.
»www.verizonwireless.com/pdfs/wel···uide.doc
quote:
FCC Rules And Regulations
The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) requires that wireless phones be operated in accordance with FCC rules and regulations and under supervision of the licensee.
Severe punishment can result from failure to comply with the following regulations:
...........
No person shall utter any obscene, indecent or profane language by means of radio communication.
EDIT
Regarding first amendment rights. Here is a quote from a FCC filing by Verizon.
(OCR may have screwed up some things and bold is by me source: »fjallfoss.fcc.gov/prod/ecfs/retr···19866994 )
quote:
VII. THE RELIEF PETITIONERS SEEK WOULD VIOLATE THE FIRST
AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF WIRELESS OPERATORS.
The Commission should also reject Petitioners' invitation to exercise its Title I discretion
to impose common carriage obligations because any such action would violate the First
Amendment. Petitioners argue that Section 202 obligations are needed to protect "new modes of
speech,,,74 but they have the First Amendment issue precisely backward: the non-discrimination
duty they propose would undercut the free speech rights of wireless operators.75 In managing
short code campaigns, wireless operators exercise editorial discretion by choosing to feature
certain content, while refraining from providing other content. Under settled principles, such
activity constitutes expression protected by the First Amendment.76 Because a duty of nondiscrimination
would preclude wireless operators from making editorial judgments and indirectly
burden their interests as speakers, that duty must satisfy searching constitutional review-at least intennediate scrutiny.77 In addition, a court would accord the Commission no Chevron
deference given the presence of a serious constitutional question surrounding its actions.78
footnote 75
quote:
Cf. Motion Picture Ass'n of Am., Inc. v. FCC, 309 F.3d 796, 805 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (holding that rules requiring broadcasters to provide video content for blind customers were outside the Commission's Title I authority, in part because regulation of content raises serious First Amendment issues); Audio Communications, Inc. Petition for a Declaratory Ruling that the 900 Service Guidelines of US Sprint Communications Co. Violate Section 201(a) and 202(a) of the Communications Act, 8 FCC Rcd 8697, 8700-02, ~~ 30-31 (1993) (noting that First Amendment prohibition does not apply "to business decisions by private entities," and rejecting petitioners' request to exercise Title I jurisdiction in order to impose Section 202 obligations, in part because the challenged action did not "harm First Amendment values," as the petitioners contended).
|
|
