• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Morality in Media's Robert Peters, Idiot.

J

JohnnyMorganWXJX

Guest
Howard Stern's Move to Satellite Radio Still Has Foes
By Nathan Burchfiel

***

However, Morality in Media president Robert Peters is not willing to back off.

"There is no reason why Howard Stern should be regulated on one form of radio media but not the other," Peters said. "Whether broadcast from a tower or a satellite, it is still the public airwaves and The Howard Stern Show should still be subject to broadcast indecency laws."

Peters said the $12.95 per month subscription fee for satellite radio "does not necessarily immunize a form of communication from indecency regulation" and should be compared to telephone service. Indecency regulations prohibit indecent communications over telephone lines for commercial purposes even though telephone users must pay fees for the service.

***

<a target="_blank" href=http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=46321>http://www.townhall.com/news/ext_wire.html?rowid=46321</a>

Oh jeez, where to begin. It's obvious this guy isn't a lawyer, or really anything to do with media itself. Just a family group busy body, and as I always say: "What's good for family groups is bad for America."

Satellite is NOT public airwaves. Mr. Peters, I will repeat that because...well, it bears repeating: Satellite is not public airwaves. Re-read Title 47, USC please. Mostly Section 301, et seq. (and particularly Section 307). Then get back with me.

Peters' real issue is this statement: "He added that he hopes 'some of these [Supreme Court] changes are going to bring the court back to where I think it needs to be.'"

That's the problem with family groups--it's where they subjectively think America needs to be, and not ACTUALLY where America as a whole is, or wants to, or should be.

Mr. Peters--just remember, the same lawmakers that regulate indecency could tomorrow take every religious program off the non-comm air and there isn't a Goddamned thing you can do about it.

*************
This post, 1260, dedicated to two of the great Top 40 stations: WIXY 1260/Cleveland and KYA 1260/San Francisco. Superradio and the Boss of the Bay. Chuck Dunaway, Jack Armstrong, Jim Labarbra, Larry Morrow, Chuck Knapp, Lou King Kirby, Dick "The Wilde Child" Kemp, Billy Bass, Bill Bailey, Steve Hunter, Chip Hobart, Paxton Mills. Bill Drake, Tom Donahue, Bobby Mitchell, Peter Tripp, Johnny Holliday. The "Francine" Contest, the Music Explosion, the WIXY Triple Play, the Six-Pack. The KYA Jockey Races.

They sure don't make 'em like that anymore.<P ID="edit"><FONT class="small">Edited by Johnny Morgan on 12/21/05 02:28 AM.</FONT></P>
 
Good posting!

> This post, 1260, dedicated to two of the great Top 40
> stations: WIXY 1260/Cleveland and KYA 1260/San Francisco.
> Superradio and the Boss of the Bay. Chuck Dunaway, Jack
> Armstrong, Jim Labarbra, Larry Morrow, Chuck Knapp, Lou King
> Kirby, Dick "The Wilde Child" Kemp, Billy Bass, Bill Bailey,
> Steve Hunter, Chip Hobart, Paxton Mills. Bill Drake, Tom
> Donahue, Bobby Mitchell, Peter Tripp, Johnny Holliday. The
> "Francine" Contest, the Music Explosion, the WIXY Triple
> Play, the Six-Pack. The KYA Jockey Races.

What about Country Music station WWOK on 1260
in Miami, 1969-197? ... Which will be added to
South Florida Radio History next month or ASAP.<P ID="signature">______________
Just posted: <A href='http://www.univox.com/radio/2005december.html'>
December Edition, South Florida Radio News</A> ... from 954</P>
 
> Good posting!
>
> > This post, 1260, dedicated to two of the great Top 40
> > stations: WIXY 1260/Cleveland and KYA 1260/San Francisco.
>
> > Superradio and the Boss of the Bay. Chuck Dunaway, Jack
> > Armstrong, Jim Labarbra, Larry Morrow, Chuck Knapp, Lou
> King
> > Kirby, Dick "The Wilde Child" Kemp, Billy Bass, Bill
> Bailey,
> > Steve Hunter, Chip Hobart, Paxton Mills. Bill Drake, Tom
> > Donahue, Bobby Mitchell, Peter Tripp, Johnny Holliday.
> The
> > "Francine" Contest, the Music Explosion, the WIXY Triple
> > Play, the Six-Pack. The KYA Jockey Races.
>
> What about Country Music station WWOK on 1260
> in Miami, 1969-197? ... Which will be added to
> South Florida Radio History next month or ASAP.

I'm sure I missed God knows how many great (and not-so-great!) stations on the 1260 frequency. Tell me more about WWOK...:)
 
>
> What about Country Music station WWOK on 1260
> in Miami, 1969-197? ... Which will be added to
> South Florida Radio History next month or ASAP.
>

WWOK lasted through about July of 1980, when it became WHTT and adopted a Spanish format. My recollection was pulling the plug on July 31 on country.

Remember when 1260 was WAME, ¨Whammy¨ and did R&B in the early 60´s?
 
> >
> > What about Country Music station WWOK on 1260
> > in Miami, 1969-197? ... Which will be added to
> > South Florida Radio History next month or ASAP.
> >
>
> WWOK lasted through about July of 1980, when it became WHTT
> and adopted a Spanish format. My recollection was pulling
> the plug on July 31 on country.
>
> Remember when 1260 was WAME, ¨Whammy¨ and did R&B in the
> early 60´s?

Actually, no. I wasn't here. I do remember that there was a
Whammy. I wrote about it here back in 1998:

http://www.univox.com/radio/1998nov.html

<marquee>Happy Holidays and have A Nice Day</marquee><P ID="signature">______________
Just posted: <A href='http://www.univox.com/radio/2005december.html'>
December Edition, South Florida Radio News</A> ... from 954</P>
 
Devil's advocate checking in...

The FCC's entire problem is that the radio spectrum is a natural occurring phenomenon in the universe. Laws are obviously man-made. The question really comes down to what are "Public Airwaves".

Regulation of the content of the electro-magnetic spectrum essentially would have to include visible light. So I'm of the opinion that SADRS should be regulated as much (or as little as) terrestrial radio.

That having been said, I don't believe a man made law should have the power of regulation of content unless we are able to receive such content in a natural way (much as our eyes are able to see color). Pretend you could receive signals via the fillings in our teeth or mental telepathy... you wouldn't want somebody piping in porno 24/7 would you? O.K., so maybe some of us would :).

It's already been made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court that people have a choice in purchasing (or not purchasing) Hustler magazine, so they continue to have a right to publish. Having free-will, we are able to see (or not see) what is available on the news stand. Essentially that same argument should be applied to radio (both terrestrial and SADRS).

Purchasing a receiver, turning it on and tuning it to pick up terrestrial broadcasting is in reality no different than purchasing a SADRS receiver and subscription. It's all a matter of choice and luckily there is an off button.
 
Re: Devil's advocate checking in...

> The FCC's entire problem is that the radio spectrum is a
> natural occurring phenomenon in the universe. Laws are
> obviously man-made. The question really comes down to what
> are "Public Airwaves".
>
> Regulation of the content of the electro-magnetic spectrum
> essentially would have to include visible light. So I'm of
> the opinion that SADRS should be regulated as much (or as
> little as) terrestrial radio.
>
> That having been said, I don't believe a man made law should
> have the power of regulation of content unless we are able
> to receive such content in a natural way (much as our eyes
> are able to see color). Pretend you could receive signals
> via the fillings in our teeth or mental telepathy... you
> wouldn't want somebody piping in porno 24/7 would you?
> O.K., so maybe some of us would :).
>
> It's already been made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court
> that people have a choice in purchasing (or not purchasing)
> Hustler magazine, so they continue to have a right to
> publish. Having free-will, we are able to see (or not see)
> what is available on the news stand. Essentially that same
> argument should be applied to radio (both terrestrial and
> SADRS).
>
> Purchasing a receiver, turning it on and tuning it to pick
> up terrestrial broadcasting is in reality no different than
> purchasing a SADRS receiver and subscription. It's all a
> matter of choice and luckily there is an off button.

I agree policy-wise. It was one of Justice Stevens' flaws in the Pacifica decison. His "pervasiveness" argument took into consideration the "turn off the radio" argument--and promptly, and ineffectively, dismissed it, relying on the damage already done by hearing indecent speech.

See, Stevens' jurisprudence on indecency turns out to be that Stevens likes "levels" of speech. That is, different types of speech deserves different protection. (For the record, he--and maybe Justice Thomas--are the only ones who believe such a thing.) To Stevens, political speech is the most protected--the First Amendment is at its apex there. Obscenity is never protected. Indecency, while protectable, is of a lower class than political speech--thus, channelling (safe harbor).

But the "pervasiveness" argument was the only way Stevens could reach behind himself to bring his lesser speech argument within regulation outlines. Indecency was either allowed or not allowed. But he wanted to restrict it without calling it a restriction--so he did a bit of legal magic with 47 USC 307 and the physical characteristics of radio waves, and VOILA! The suspect regulation of speech we have now.

But to uphold that regulation and its genesis, broadcast (radio/TV) HAS TO BE different that every other medium of delivery. Stevens practically assured it. Which is why any regulation of satellite, cable, internet, etc. will be met with a successful First Amendment challenge.
 
Re: Devil's advocate checking in...

> The FCC's entire problem is that the radio spectrum is a
> natural occurring phenomenon in the universe. Laws are
> obviously man-made. The question really comes down to what
> are "Public Airwaves".
>
> Regulation of the content of the electro-magnetic spectrum
> essentially would have to include visible light. So I'm of
> the opinion that SADRS should be regulated as much (or as
> little as) terrestrial radio.

Satellite radio and TV cannot be received by conventional means (e.g. a simple superhet AM, FM, or SSB receiver). They are digitally-scrambled broadcasts and are paid for by subscribers. They are not services accessible to the general public without specialized equipment. They shouldn't be regulated the way conventional (free) broadcasters are since it is 100% voluntary if a person wants to buy the equipment and pay the fees to received them.

IBOC services will still be regulated since there is no charge to hear them other than the cost of the receiver.

Also, frequencies above 300 GHz are totally unregulated, including infrared and visible light.

> That having been said, I don't believe a man made law should
> have the power of regulation of content unless we are able
> to receive such content in a natural way (much as our eyes
> are able to see color). Pretend you could receive signals
> via the fillings in our teeth or mental telepathy... you
> wouldn't want somebody piping in porno 24/7 would you?
> O.K., so maybe some of us would :).
>
> It's already been made abundantly clear by the Supreme Court
> that people have a choice in purchasing (or not purchasing)
> Hustler magazine, so they continue to have a right to
> publish. Having free-will, we are able to see (or not see)
> what is available on the news stand. Essentially that same
> argument should be applied to radio (both terrestrial and
> SADRS).

Bad analogy. A better one would have been non-adult magazines.

In most, if not all, states, Hustler and their ilk are restricted to being placed behind a checkout counter and proof of age is required to purchase them. They are free to publish but access to them is restricted to folks over 18.

> Purchasing a receiver, turning it on and tuning it to pick
> up terrestrial broadcasting is in reality no different than
> purchasing a SADRS receiver and subscription. It's all a
> matter of choice and luckily there is an off button.

It takes extra effort (buying a subscription, getting it authorized, and paying the fee) to hear satellite radio. That's the difference. But beyond that, it is the same (you still don't have to listen to Howard Stern if you don't want to).
 
Re: Devil's advocate checking in...

> Also, frequencies above 300 GHz are totally unregulated,
> including infrared and visible light.

They would regulate and tax visible light if they could figure out how.<P ID="signature">______________
Just posted: <A href='http://www.univox.com/radio/2005december.html'>
December Edition, South Florida Radio News</A> ... from 954</P>
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom