ABC's KSFO - The Empire Strikes Back at Blogs Charing "Hate" Speech

[fred flintstone]

Previously on Radio-Info:
ABC lawyers shut down Spocko's blog, which included some aircheck clips, after he accused KSFO, San Francisco of programming "hate" and "violent commentary." He urged advertisers to pull their spots (which some have done).

ABC lawyer's lost in court. Spocko's website came back online.

Yesterday (Friday), KSFO preempted Dr. Laura to take on - not the day - but the station's critics.

KSFO, which under singing cowboy Gene Autry, claimed to be the world's greatest radio station (and arguably might well have been) promised to air both sides but instead reportedly mostly offered station spokespersons who presented the company line and read friendly emails.

According to blogger Mike Stark, the ABC station offered its "defense" in a fashion that has become familiar on this board:

"KSFO hosts undertook to unfairly, dishonestly and, with a subtle air of desperation, demonize their opponents. The only time during the show that this strategy wasn't followed was when the KSFO hosts unfairly, dishonestly and with a subtle air of desperation sought to defend their irresponsible rhetoric and blatant hypocrisy."

IMHO: The Citadel take over can't come a moment too soon. To paraphrase ABC's Paul Harvey: "We hope they do better. They can't do worse." - Good Day.

_________________________________________________

BAY AREA
KSFO radio hosts take on blogger's allegations

With a gallon of defiance and a dash of apology, four personalities from San Francisco's conservative KSFO-AM went on the air Friday to respond to criticisms from a blogger who argued the station airs "violent commentary" and whose complaints to station sponsors led some to end their advertising. The controversy, fueled by liberal bloggers, showed the increasing power of new media to affect traditional outlets by going after their advertisers.
Full Article

Surreal KSFO "Special Broadcast" Defies Description

At times, the KSFO special radio afternoon was uproarious and side-splitting. At other times, it was darkly disturbing. Sometimes, it was both at the same time.

Unfortunately, "honest," "serious," and "relevant" aren't adjectives that immediately spring to mind after listening to KSFO hosts Melanie Morgan, Brian Sussman, "Occifer Vic" and Lee Rodgers engage in a three hour session of desperate and defensive damage control.
Full Article

 

[evnlee]

ABC lawyer's lost in court. Spocko's website came back online.

This is another intersting phenomena.. This liberal blogger copied audio snippets and sent advertisers a link to them on his blog. While I applaud his chutzpah, I question his motives.

He has every right to do these things, IMHO. If he finds commentary offensive, then he can and should do something about it. The problem, as I see it, is that he does not wan't these hosts to change what they are saying, to apologise for going too far, he want's them shut down completely. This is an affront to free speech, which exists even if you don't like what the host is saying.

I'm of the opinion that our populace is better served with both Rush Limbaugh and Fox News, as well as Air America or Al Jazeera. I find AAR programming boring and tedious, but I feel the same about Limbagh and Hannity. I wish they would go away, to be truthful, but I wish they would be replaced by someone saying the same things, only being entertaining as they do it.

This 'Spocko' character doesn't like ANY of the right wing speech, and qualifies it all as 'hate speech' and wishes for it's complete removal. That is wrong. I may not like AAR, but I am happy being served opinion by Stephanie Miller, who pretty much says the same things, only delivers it better. Same as I would rather hear Glenn Beck over Limbaugh, and they are doing the same thing. BUt I wouldn't want ALL of Prog/Lib talk to be banned as 'dangerous speech' and taken off the air, no matter how poorly AAR has been.

Here's his words from his own website :"The time of this kind of Talk Radio is over."

NOt good.

 

[AKLes]

One can but wonder how much it would cost KSFO to get this much publicity!

Ah, Barnum....you were sooooooo right.

While it might be possible that a few of KSFO's advertisers had never heard the programs they were paying for and were genuinely shocked, this is sure to turn into a ratings bonanza and attract advertisers whose targeted demographics might well agree with those hosts on many topics. In any case, no responsible advertiser (economically, not "socially" responsible) can afford not to advertise on KSFO now because that's where most of the radios will be tuned!

Look for KSFO to do everything possible to keep the party going.

 

[FightingIrish]

A clarification:

Spocko's Brain is back online not because of any court decision, he merely found another host (the guy who hosts Bartcop.com, who volunteered his services). The audio files are currently being hosted by several other sites as well as his own. There hasn't been anything in court since the initial C&D that scared his old ISP into closing his site.

And no, he's not trying to obliterate all conservotalk. He's explained his reasoning (he's rallied against the hate and racist speech and violent threats of the aforementioned KSFO hosts). He hasn't tried to get Rush and Hannity's sponsors pulled. The "kind of Talk Radio" he refers to is the kind that advocates racism and violent threats against people they don't like. And while I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment, I don't believe that freedom allows people to issue violent threats and spread racist propaganda across the airwaves. At least Rush, Hannity, etc. know where the line is drawn (for the most part). The actions of the KSFO hosts are perhaps even more 'obscene' and 'indecent' than the blue humor of shock jocks like Howard Stern, whom people like Donald Wildmon have waged similar campaigns against (by going directly to the FCC, in addition to sponsors). The hosts of KSFO are even more vulgar, IMO.

What Spocko is doing it showing the station's sponsors exactly what they're paying for. That's not stifling free speech. Here's what he has to say (since evn neglected to quote this):

I want to emphasize that if you withdrawal [sic] your ads you aren't limiting their free speech, just removing your paid support of it. Some other company without the values you describe on the AT&T website can support them. You can choose to advertise elsewhere. This is really about YOU. Do YOU want to be associated with these comments? Do you want your company and brand to be associated with these comments?

I urge you to discontinue advertising on KSFO during the shows hosted by Melanie Morgan, Lee Rogers, Tom Brenner and Brian Sussman.

 

[evnlee]

A clarification:

And no, he's not trying to obliterate all conservotalk. He's explained his reasoning (he's rallied against the hate and racist speech and violent threats of the aforementioned KSFO hosts). He hasn't tried to get Rush and Hannity's sponsors pulled. The "kind of Talk Radio" he refers to is the kind that advocates racism and violent threats against people they don't like. And while I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment, I don't believe that freedom allows people to issue violent threats and spread racist propaganda across the airwaves. At least Rush, Hannity, etc. know where the line is drawn (for the most part). The actions of the KSFO hosts are perhaps even more 'obscene' and 'indecent' than the blue humor of shock jocks like Howard Stern, whom people like Donald Wildmon have waged similar campaigns against (by going directly to the FCC, in addition to sponsors). The hosts of KSFO are even more vulgar, IMO.

What Spocko is doing it showing the station's sponsors exactly what they're paying for. That's not stifling free speech.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. Nice try. Would 'Spocko', the brave anymous blogger, be offended by Al Jazeera broadcasts, and mount the same kind of campaign?

To be sure, Al Jazeera say plenty of racist, vile, violent remarks, and I believe our public is better served hearing it then it being banned. Same with Stern, if you find his talk vulgar, there is a button on your radio to change the station.

Fighting Irish wouldn't cry if Rush was banned, nor wood Spocko, but Evn would be sad if AAR was banned. I'd rather they fail the freemarket way. It makes the failure so much sweeter! That's the difference between us.

This pretty talk about 'not being about censorship' is false. So, since Spocko targeted AT&T, we assume from his website that 'Some other company without the values you describe' would be free to advertise on KSFO without protest, right? Does anyone really buy that? C'mon.

If Haliburton stepped in and bought the ad time AT&T gave up, does anyone think 'Spocko' would be silent about it?

As I said before, he has every right to do what he feels is right, just as I have every right to point out that his actions do not reflect the liberal mindset that 'free speech is there to protect speech that you find abhorrent'. Nice try, though!

 

[fred flintstone]

As I said before, he has every right to do what he feels is right, just as I have every right to point out that his actions do not reflect the liberal mindset that 'free speech is there to protect speech that you find abhorrent'. Nice try, though!

Huh? Political correctness is the unapologetic and unremitting enemy of free speech. ???

I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment, I don't believe that freedom allows people to issue violent threats and spread racist propaganda across the airwaves.

You and Oliver Wendell Holmes. People can always find a good reason to pass a law against "bad" speech.
Me, I go with Hugo Black: "No law means .... No Law!" (Emphasis added)
As in the familiar phrase, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

 

[FightingIrish]

A clarification:

And no, he's not trying to obliterate all conservotalk. He's explained his reasoning (he's rallied against the hate and racist speech and violent threats of the aforementioned KSFO hosts). He hasn't tried to get Rush and Hannity's sponsors pulled. The "kind of Talk Radio" he refers to is the kind that advocates racism and violent threats against people they don't like. And while I'm a firm believer in the First Amendment, I don't believe that freedom allows people to issue violent threats and spread racist propaganda across the airwaves. At least Rush, Hannity, etc. know where the line is drawn (for the most part). The actions of the KSFO hosts are perhaps even more 'obscene' and 'indecent' than the blue humor of shock jocks like Howard Stern, whom people like Donald Wildmon have waged similar campaigns against (by going directly to the FCC, in addition to sponsors). The hosts of KSFO are even more vulgar, IMO.

What Spocko is doing it showing the station's sponsors exactly what they're paying for. That's not stifling free speech.

I'm sorry, but I'm not buying it. Nice try. Would 'Spocko', the brave anymous blogger, be offended by Al Jazeera broadcasts, and mount the same kind of campaign?

To be sure, Al Jazeera say plenty of racist, vile, violent remarks, and I believe our public is better served hearing it then it being banned. Same with Stern, if you find his talk vulgar, there is a button on your radio to change the station.

Fighting Irish wouldn't cry if Rush was banned, nor wood Spocko, but Evn would be sad if AAR was banned. I'd rather they fail the freemarket way. It makes the failure so much sweeter! That's the difference between us.

This pretty talk about 'not being about censorship' is false. So, since Spocko targeted AT&T, we assume from his website that 'Some other company without the values you describe' would be free to advertise on KSFO without protest, right? Does anyone really buy that? C'mon.

If Haliburton stepped in and bought the ad time AT&T gave up, does anyone think 'Spocko' would be silent about it?

As I said before, he has every right to do what he feels is right, just as I have every right to point out that his actions do not reflect the liberal mindset that 'free speech is there to protect speech that you find abhorrent'. Nice try, though!

First, although al Jazeera now has an English-language operation, hardly anyone in the U.S. can see it. Virtually no major cable systems and satellite providers are carrying it. So, the remaining few thousand or so people who have those old massive C-band satellite dishes in their backyards might have access, but are they watching it anyway? And why should anyone in this country really give a rip what people in Qatar are watching? This is America, DUH!

Fighting Irish wouldn't cry if Rush was banned, nor wood Spocko, but Evn would be sad if AAR was banned. I'd rather they fail the freemarket way. It makes the failure so much sweeter! That's the difference between us.

What are you talking about? And why is this turning into a personal attack on me? Run out of ammunition already?

As I said before, he has every right to do what he feels is right, just as I have every right to point out that his actions do not reflect the liberal mindset that 'free speech is there to protect speech that you find abhorrent'. Nice try, though!

So, you're admitting that "free speech" is no longer a conservative mindset? What would Barry Goldwater say?

And if Melanie Morgan and her phony political action group can try to get "Fahrenheit 9/11" banned from theaters (which she tried to do, BTW), then to piss and moan about some obscure blogger trying to stifle her free speech is pretty ridiculous. Then again, Ms. Morgan is pretty ridiculous anyway.

As I was saying, conservatives have been trying to stifle people they disagree with for years. To whine like little babies when the shoe is on the other foot is pure lunacy. Then again, why am I not surprised at the efforts of the "Crybaby Conservatives"?

WHAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!

 

[fred flintstone]

In their story on the KSFO reply to the bloggers, the New York Times quotes this exchange between KSFO host Lee Rogers and Blogger Mike Stark (who is quoted in my original post in this thread).

Mr. Stark: “You’ve spoken of the number of apologies you have tried to make. How many apologies does a professional get before they realize they are an incompetent and move on to another line of work?”

KSFO’s Lee Rodgers: “Well I haven’t apologized for anything and I am not going to start with you. How the hell do you like that, creep?”

Yup. Typical right-wing talk radio. Scott in DE reports lawyer Mark Levin typically cuts off callers who disagree with him with "Get off the phone, ya big dope." (Mark probably couldn't go anywhere else, so he went to Temple. They actually have a good communication program and radio station but, I guess, he couldn't be bothered.) What we have here is an example not only of the general nastiness of right-wing talk, but of its complete lack of originality. After 40 plus years, these guys can't come up with anything other than to imitate Joe Pyne. Pathetic.

 

[evnlee]

And if Melanie Morgan and her phony political action group can try to get "Fahrenheit 9/11" banned from theaters (which she tried to do, BTW), then to piss and moan about some obscure blogger trying to stifle her free speech is pretty ridiculous. Then again, Ms. Morgan is pretty ridiculous anyway.

I would agree with you on Morgan. Moore has every right to show his propaganda to the public. As I've said before, I believe we are better served with the ability to hear speech we disagree with. Any attempt to cut off advertisers or shame theater owners becuase you don't like what is being presented is pathetic. :

But, like it or not, what 'Spocko' is trying to do is the same as Morgan~ and just as shameful. If you don't want to view Moore's hatchet job, don't go to the theatre. If you don't like what those hosts are doing, change the channel.

 

[FightingIrish]

And if Melanie Morgan and her phony political action group can try to get "Fahrenheit 9/11" banned from theaters (which she tried to do, BTW), then to piss and moan about some obscure blogger trying to stifle her free speech is pretty ridiculous. Then again, Ms. Morgan is pretty ridiculous anyway.

I would agree with you on Morgan. Moore has every right to show his propaganda to the public. As I've said before, I believe we are better served with the ability to hear speech we disagree with. Any attempt to cut off advertisers or shame theater owners becuase you don't like what is being presented is pathetic. :

But, like it or not, what 'Spocko' is trying to do is the same as Morgan~ and just as shameful. If you don't want to view Moore's hatchet job, don't go to the theatre. If you don't like what those hosts are doing, change the channel.

Hearing different opinions is one thing. Broadcasting content that is racially offensive, incites violence and is degrading is irresponsible. Think of the uproar if, instead of Muslims they were telling listeners that we should kill all the Jews, or the blacks, or Catholics. Yeah, I would think people would get pissed off over that. What if the grand dragon of the Ku Klux Klan got his own show? Ditto.

Sure, they can air it. But if a radio host is trying to issue his/her own 'fatwa' over the airwaves, and listeners are offended by it, I see no problem with listeners organizing to persuade advertisers to pull out. This is not censorship. An obscure blogger will never stifle The Walt Disney Company's right to free speech. If you think otherwise, you're naive and narrow-minded.

And while I may make fun of the likes of Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly, I realize that much of it is purely entertainment, and it has its place on the radio. And I have the right not to listen to it.

 

[jcolletta275]

Just chiming in here... I've been watching this story unfold from day one, and I have to say that, as a conservative, I applaud Stark.

Why? Quite frankly, he's doing what's right, and he's working the capitalist system to a T in order to do it. I've read transcripts and heard the audio... in context, yes... of what the KSFO hosts have said, and it's deplorable. I would hope that if any advertiser heard these things, they'd drop the station from their ad time roster. What Stark is doing is no more or less right or wrong than starting a boycott of the station. It's simply more effective. That in no way makes it the wrong thing to do.

If a station's advertisers disagree with what is being said on the station, why should they continue to pay for it? If the listeners want to continue hearing such things, let them pay for it. They could take KSFO non-comm if they must.

Now let me make this clear: I'm not for the government stepping in here, and I can surmise from Stark's actions that he isn't either (which, surprisingly enough, is another conservative standpoint). I have to agree with fred (how often does that happen?!) and his quote of Hugo Black: no law means no law. I include the court system in the list of entities that law applies to. The courts have no business telling anyone what they can or cannot say.

I can understand the station taking this to court, but they have zero basis... and it would have helped their public image a lot if they had come out and told everyone the real reason why they were taking Spocko to court: they're losing ad revenue. This had nothing to do with Stark posting audio clips on his blog. It had everything to do with the fact that he was sending links to those clips to station advertisers, who in turn dropped their ads from the station faster than flies hitting a bug lamp. There's no basis for a lawsuit there... the companies could have just as easily told Stark to get lost. But they didn't.

Quite frankly, I really don't see why there's any objection to Spocko's actions coming from the public. Once you're given the facts, it's pretty easy to see who's in the right here.

 

[DaleGriffin]

The objection albeit a petty one, which doesn't make it any less credible, is posting their broadcast without their permission on a website. They are right he is wrong. This is not about the Empire Striking Back or censorship. It is about one guy who has an agenda against a bunch of other guys and their agenda. He is trying to take them down by going after advertising, the other guys are using their lawyers to stop him from posting their content on the internet. He can go after their advertisers all day, what he can't do is post their content online.

 

[fred flintstone]

The objection albeit a petty one, which doesn't make it any less credible, is posting their broadcast without their permission on a website. They are right he is wrong.

Unless, such posting is permitted as "fair use."
And right-wrong is a call for a judge to make.
However, it a bunch of lawyers are predicting a judge will say he is right, Disney is wrong.

 

[DaleGriffin]

That is like me saying I copied an NFL game as fair use. It is their content who is this Spock guy to take it and repost it. This is not a fair use argument. Talking to the adverts is fine, reposting their proprietery content is not. If you do not see that you are letting your political beliefs cloud your judgement.

 

[fred flintstone]

That is like me saying I copied an NFL game as fair use. It is their content who is this Spock guy to take it and repost it. This is not a fair use argument. Talking to the adverts is fine, reposting their proprietery content is not. If you do not see that you are letting your political beliefs cloud your judgement.

Let's just say my understanding of the DMCA differs from yours.
Judgment belongs to the courts.

 

[evnlee]

The objection albeit a petty one, which doesn't make it any less credible, is posting their broadcast without their permission on a website. They are right he is wrong.

Unless, such posting is permitted as "fair use."
And right-wrong is a call for a judge to make.
However, it a bunch of lawyers are predicting a judge will say he is right, Disney is wrong.

Fair use is a defense against an infringement suit; it does not restrain anyone from suing. The copyright holder may legitimately disagree that a given use is fair, and they have the right to have the matter decided by a court. If a defendant feels he is being targeted by Disney's lawyers ( especially in california) he can file a 'Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation' http://casp.net/cal425-3.html

trust me on this one, he would lose this case if it really went to subsequent trials.

the real interest is that he posted it online. That's a new 'gray area' that hasn't been fully worked out yet. It's like the Wild West, and Disney just might have the qucker draw

 

[jcolletta275]

1) Is he claiming the content as his own? No.
2) Is he generating revenue by posting the audio? I'm not sure. Last I checked, his blog didn't contain any advertising, so I'm assuming the answer is no.

If the answer to those two questions is "no," and so long as he's crediting each file to KSFO, I believe he's within his rights. What you're arguing is basically saying I have no right to post an aircheck I made of a local radio station (which is something people do on these boards all the time)... that's just not true.

Additionally, the NFL analogy doesn't stand up. The National Football League is an organization entirely separate from the network airing it's broadcasts, and therefore has the right to deny the rebroadcast of it's material. On the other hand, the KSFO programs being complained about are local programs aired and produced solely by KSFO employees. Therefore, this is a different case from the NFL's copyright.

Now if Stark were complaining to advertisers, calling on them to drop their ads from the station due to something a syndicated host said, your NFL analogy would be valid.

 

[evnlee]

1) Is he claiming the content as his own? No.
2) Is he generating revenue by posting the audio? I'm not sure. Last I checked, his blog didn't contain any advertising, so I'm assuming the answer is no.

If the answer to those two questions is "no," and so long as he's crediting each file to KSFO, I believe he's within his rights. What you're arguing is basically saying I have no right to post an aircheck I made of a local radio station (which is something people do on these boards all the time)... that's just not true.

Additionally, the NFL analogy doesn't stand up. The National Football League is an organization entirely separate from the network airing it's broadcasts, and therefore has the right to deny the rebroadcast of it's material. On the other hand, the KSFO programs being complained about are local programs aired and produced solely by KSFO employees. Therefore, this is a different case from the NFL's copyright.

Now if Stark were complaining to advertisers, calling on them to drop their ads from the station due to something a syndicated host said, your NFL analogy would be valid.

If somebody used copywritten NFL footage to attempt to damage the NFL, they would be in the right to sue for said damages, so the analogy does hold up.

Spocko was using copywritten material in a blatant attempt to discourage advertisers.

The precendent was set in the famous 'Betamax case'. They ruled that is was ok to copy movies or tv programs at home, but not ok to use these copies in any way that would damage,say, Universal studios.

We saw the same argument in peer to peer file sharing.

Josh, you left out the biggie, #3: Is he damaging KSFO by posting thier copywritten audio? The answer to that is yes.

Of course, most adults would just change the channel :

 

[jcolletta275]

The difference here, though, is in the use of the Internet. As I see it, the only case KSFO would be able to argue in that vein is that Stark posted the clips publicly, which violates their copyright of the material. Had Stark sent the clips to the advertisers directly, the copyright issue wouldn't have come up at all. Bad judgement on his part, maybe, but in my eyes it affects the case greatly.

Why? Well, if I were the judge, I'd easily see through KSFO's attempt to go down the copyright route. If the station's management saw the clips as potentially damaging, they would have reprimanded the hosts in question and would have made it clear that such things are not to be said on the air. But apparently they care less about how offensive the remarks are and more about the money from the advertisers (as if we didn't know that already). KSFO doesn't care about their copyright, they want their ad money back.

Quite frankly, coming to that conclusion, I would rule in favor of Stark and add to that ruling that KSFO would not be allowed to sue him in the court for copyright infringement relating to the basis of this case. Suing Stark for copyright infringement is not KSFO's intent here, and they shouldn't be allowed to disguise it as such.

 

[DaleGriffin]

The difference here, though, is in the use of the Internet. As I see it, the only case KSFO would be able to argue in that vein is that Stark posted the clips publicly, which violates their copyright of the material. Had Stark sent the clips to the advertisers directly, the copyright issue wouldn't have come up at all. Bad judgement on his part, maybe, but in my eyes it affects the case greatly.

Why? Well, if I were the judge, I'd easily see through KSFO's attempt to go down the copyright route. If the station's management saw the clips as potentially damaging, they would have reprimanded the hosts in question and would have made it clear that such things are not to be said on the air. But apparently they care less about how offensive the remarks are and more about the money from the advertisers (as if we didn't know that already). KSFO doesn't care about their copyright, they want their ad money back.

Quite frankly, coming to that conclusion, I would rule in favor of Stark and add to that ruling that KSFO would not be allowed to sue him in the court for copyright infringement relating to the basis of this case. Suing Stark for copyright infringement is not KSFO's intent here, and they shouldn't be allowed to disguise it as such.

here is exhibit A of why you will never be a judge. Judges are suppose to be fair and unbiased, claiming the content is offensive when deciding whether or not Spocko violated the copyright is irrelevant.