Yo Ho, Yo Ho, Pirates Vie With the FCC
Free Radio Santa Cruz's transmitter and other equipment was taken by the FCC in a recent raid and the operators of the Pirate Radio station are claiming their free speech rights were taken as well.
Sorry, but the operators of FRSC are wrong. The FCC and the Federal Marshals who seized the FRSC equipment were doing the lawful and correct thing. No one's free speech rights were violated because nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else is the right to seize a radio frequency and use it without first going through the proper legal channels given to anyone.
Skidmark Bob, whose real name is Robert Duran disagrees with that notion. In a story in the Los Angeles Times, Duran is quoted as saying "We decided to take this frequency because we felt the public airways belong to the people." They do. The problem for Mr. Duran is that the representative government of the people has established a process for licensing the use of these public airways and if you want to make use of them, you need to utilize that process. Now that process is time consuming, expensive and not easy. But those factors do not excuse seizing the property of the public for your personal use and then crying "Free Speech Foul" when you are caught violating the law.
Free speech is not absolute, particularly when it comes to the platform for said speech. Never mind the tried but true example about how you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Think about it this way. You can go to the park, mount the stage and give all the speeches you want to. As long as you haven't seized the stage when someone else happens to have a permit to use it, go for it.
Now move the location to the sidewalk outside of a department store. Give the same speech. As long as you don't block traffic, everything is just fine and dandy. But try and step inside the store, step up on the menswear counter and interrupt the shopping to give your speech. You'll be in handcuffs before the rack of ties you knocked over on your way up hits the floor, and rightly so. Your right to speak freely ends where the rights of the owners of that store to conduct their business free from your interference begins. It is exactly the same with the public airways. The regulations that require licensure for usage of the public airways exist to protect the rights of everyone, not just those with a desire to speak and the willingness and technical ability to buy and set up a transmitter.
The station is still available to its listeners, as long as they have access to the internet. They are streaming audio on the net, which is a form of broadcast that is not subject to FCC regulation and so their free speech rights seem remarkably intact. Only their ability to hijack the 101.1 FM frequency has been inhibited.
Their website has audio of the raid and they describe the Federal Marshal in charge as a "Feminzai". Hard to believe that a liberal bastion of broadcasting would borrow a term from the lexicon of Rush Limbaugh, but perhaps they were hard-pressed to come up with a better epithet for the woman who led the attack on their studio. The station's supporters certainly weren't at a loss as to how to respond to the attack when it comes to government property, the tires of five federal vehicles were reportedly slashed while agents were inside the home that housed the equipment. The federal agents complained of a lack of support from local law enforcement, butis that a surprise? The mayor of Santa Cruz, Scott Kennedy called the raid "...a gross distortion of priorities" and a member of Congress, Sam Farr, wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, expressing his regrets at the FCCs actions in the raid.
Well, the FCC has my support. I think it is just great for a group of people, in Santa Cruz, or anywhere, that wants to get together and spread a message is a wonderful thing. But if they want to do it on the public airways, they need to get a license first.
Sorry, but the operators of FRSC are wrong. The FCC and the Federal Marshals who seized the FRSC equipment were doing the lawful and correct thing. No one's free speech rights were violated because nowhere in the Constitution or anywhere else is the right to seize a radio frequency and use it without first going through the proper legal channels given to anyone.
Skidmark Bob, whose real name is Robert Duran disagrees with that notion. In a story in the Los Angeles Times, Duran is quoted as saying "We decided to take this frequency because we felt the public airways belong to the people." They do. The problem for Mr. Duran is that the representative government of the people has established a process for licensing the use of these public airways and if you want to make use of them, you need to utilize that process. Now that process is time consuming, expensive and not easy. But those factors do not excuse seizing the property of the public for your personal use and then crying "Free Speech Foul" when you are caught violating the law.
Free speech is not absolute, particularly when it comes to the platform for said speech. Never mind the tried but true example about how you can't shout "Fire" in a crowded theater. Think about it this way. You can go to the park, mount the stage and give all the speeches you want to. As long as you haven't seized the stage when someone else happens to have a permit to use it, go for it.
Now move the location to the sidewalk outside of a department store. Give the same speech. As long as you don't block traffic, everything is just fine and dandy. But try and step inside the store, step up on the menswear counter and interrupt the shopping to give your speech. You'll be in handcuffs before the rack of ties you knocked over on your way up hits the floor, and rightly so. Your right to speak freely ends where the rights of the owners of that store to conduct their business free from your interference begins. It is exactly the same with the public airways. The regulations that require licensure for usage of the public airways exist to protect the rights of everyone, not just those with a desire to speak and the willingness and technical ability to buy and set up a transmitter.
The station is still available to its listeners, as long as they have access to the internet. They are streaming audio on the net, which is a form of broadcast that is not subject to FCC regulation and so their free speech rights seem remarkably intact. Only their ability to hijack the 101.1 FM frequency has been inhibited.
Their website has audio of the raid and they describe the Federal Marshal in charge as a "Feminzai". Hard to believe that a liberal bastion of broadcasting would borrow a term from the lexicon of Rush Limbaugh, but perhaps they were hard-pressed to come up with a better epithet for the woman who led the attack on their studio. The station's supporters certainly weren't at a loss as to how to respond to the attack when it comes to government property, the tires of five federal vehicles were reportedly slashed while agents were inside the home that housed the equipment. The federal agents complained of a lack of support from local law enforcement, butis that a surprise? The mayor of Santa Cruz, Scott Kennedy called the raid "...a gross distortion of priorities" and a member of Congress, Sam Farr, wrote a letter to FCC Chairman Michael Powell, expressing his regrets at the FCCs actions in the raid.
Well, the FCC has my support. I think it is just great for a group of people, in Santa Cruz, or anywhere, that wants to get together and spread a message is a wonderful thing. But if they want to do it on the public airways, they need to get a license first.
posted by me at 2:13 PM
<< Home