[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Victory for Microbroadcasting
The federal war against Microbroadcasting should be studied by all
InfoWarriors who plan to shed their ElectroBlood defending the coming
attacks against MicroWeb free speech.
The Intenet Content Coalition (ICC) made a cheap grab at trying to form
a corporate FCC to put the InterNet media-power brokering in the hands
of those who already rule the roost overseen by the FCC. (Eliminating
the middle-man, so to speak.)
The fact of the matter is, the mainstream media is not going to have
a lot of trouble herding the majority of the sheeple into their feeding
pens, given the power, money and position that they already have, so
it is a bit tacky for them to have made an attempt to put themselves
in a position to 'enforce' standards favorable to themselves.
The difference between MicroBroadcasting and the MicroWeb/WebRings
that are being independently formed, is that MicroBroadcasting is
trying to get back what was stolen, and those on the InterNet are
trying to keep from getting what we already have, stolen in the
future.
TruthMonger
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
JUDGE WILKEN DENIES FCC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT!!!
National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications
558 Capp Street, San Francisco 94110
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
COURT REJECTS FCC's CONSTITUTIONAL CATCH 22
United States District Court Judge Claudia Wilken has rejected
another attempt by the Federal Communications Commission to
silence Berkeley Micro Radio Broadcaster Stephen Dunifer, founder
of Free Radio Berkeley.
In a 13 page opinion released on November 12, 1997, Judge Wilken
once again rejected the government's motion for an injunction to
silence micro radio broadcasts by local radio pioneer Stephen
Dunifer.
In 1995, Judge Wilken rejected the government's first motion for a
preliminary injunction against Dunifer's broadcasts. At that time
the Court found merit in Dunifer's argument that the FCC's ban on
low power, affordable FM broadcasting was a violation of the First
Amendment's guarantee of free speech to all in the United States.
In a blatant attempt to avoid facing its First Amendment
obligations the FCC then urged Wilken to permanently enjoin
Dunifer from Broadcasting and at the same time argued that she
could not even consider the issue of whether its rules, which
prevent him from getting a license, are unconstitutional. In a
Kafkaesqe argument, the Commission argued that Wilken had
jurisdiction to issue an injunction, but no jurisdiction to hear
Dunifer's constitutional arguments. The government claimed that
only the higher federal courts could consider the constitutional
question.
In her November 12 decision rejecting the Government's position,
Judge Wilken pointed to the fact that the FCC had taken exactly
the opposite position in the 1994 case of Dougan vs FCC. In that
case, an Arizona micro radio broadcaster had appealed an FCC fine
(for broadcasting without a license) to the 9th Circuit Federal
Court of Appeal, and the FCC had argued that the Court of Appeal
had no jurisdiction over the case, and that it had to be heard by
the District Court. The Court of Appeals agreed with the FCC and
sent the case back to the District Court.
Judge Wilken noted that the Arizona broadcaster had raised the
same constitutional arguments in the Court of Appeals that Dunifer
is raising. The Court ruled that in sending all of the issues in
the Arizona case to the District Court, the Appeals Court
recognized that the District Court had jurisdiction over all
aspects of the case.
In denying the Government's motion for an injunction "without
prejudice," Judge Wilken ordered the Government to file a further
brief on the question of whether the unconstitutionality of the
FCC's ban on micro radio is a valid legal defense to an injunction
against broadcasting at low power without a license. Dunifer's
attorneys, Louis Hiken and Allen Hopper of San Francisco, will
have an opportunity to rebut the government's arguments on this
point.
In response to pressure from the commercial broadcaster's lobby,
the National Association of Broadcasters (N.A.B.), the FCC has in
recent months been stepping up its campaign of harassment against
the thousands of micro radio stations now on the air in this
country. Hiken commented "The broadcast industry is clearly afraid
of these little community stations which are speaking truth to its
power. In trying to do the N.A.B.�s bidding, the FCC demonstrates
that it is nothing but an enforcement arm of the commercial
broadcast industry and the multi-national corporations which own
it."
The National Lawyers Guild's Committee on Democratic
Communications has represented the Lawyers Guild, San Francisco's
Media Alliance, and the Women's International News Gathering
Services as a "Friend of the Court" (Amicus) in this case. In its
Friend of the Court brief the Lawyers Guild pointed out that FCC
regulations make it impossible for all but the very wealthy to
even apply for a broadcast license. This, they told the Court, is
the equivalent of saying anyone could speak from a soap box in the
park, but the box had to be made of gold. Guild attorney Peter
Franck commented "In an era when Disney owns ABC, the world's
largest defense contractor owns NBC and CNN merges with Time which
merges with Warner, and when 'public' broadcasting is told to get
its money from corporations, micro radio may be our last best hope
for democracy on the air ways." He continued "Judge Wilken's
decision is a courageous rejection of the Government's attempt to
use a legal Catch-22 to avoid facing the fact that its ban on
micro radio flies in the face of the Constitution."
The legal team representing Dunifer and the Amicae are very
pleased with Judge Wilken's reasoned and thorough decision denying
the FCC's motion to have the case resolved without a trial on the
merits. For almost 70 years, the FCC has catered solely to the
interests of commercial corporate giants, through their
mouthpiece, the National Association of Broadcasters. These are
the pirates, who have stolen the airwaves from the American
people, and who represent corporate interests valued at more than
60 billion dollars. Only the Pentagon, the Silicon Valley and the
transportation industries possess the financial wallop represented
by the NAB and its constituents.
Judge Wilken's decision represents a vision of what it would be
like for the American people to be given back their own voice. The
decision suggests the likely unconstitutionality of the entire
regulatory structure underlying the FCC's ban on low power radio.
It forewarns of the total failure of that agency to carry out its
statutory obligation to regulate the airwaves in the public
interest -- that is, in the interest of the American people,
rather than the media monopolies that control our airwaves.
The legal team welcomes the opportunity to have a court identify
the real pirates of the airwaves -- not the thousands of
microradio broadcasters who seek to communicate with the people of
their communities, but rather the billionaire commercial interests
that control the airwaves as if they own them. Is it General
Electric, Westinghouse and the Disney Corporation that have the
right to control local community radio, or is that a right that
belongs to all of the American people, regardless of economic
status?
FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Peter Franck, Counsel for Amicus
415-415-995-5055
[email protected] (days)
[email protected](evs, wknds)
http://www.368Hayes.com/nlg.cdc.html
Alan Korn, Counsel for Amicus
415-362-5700
[email protected]
Stephen Dunifer, Free Radio Berkeley
415-644-3779
[email protected]
http://www.freeradio.org
Louis Hiken
Counsel for Stephen Dunifer
415-575-3220
[email protected]
http://www.368Hayes.com
Allen Hopper
Counsel for Stephen Dunifer
415-575-3222
[email protected]
http://www.368Hayes.com
TO STEPHEN DUNIFER/FREE RADIO BERKELEY INFORMATION PAGE
TO FREE RADIO BERKELEY LEGAL BATTLE PAGE
TO NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD INFORMATION PAGE
TO THE OFFICIAL NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD WEB SITE
TO NLG COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS PAGE
TO FREE RADIO BERKELEY WEB SITE
BACK TO LAW OFFICES AT 368 HAYES STREET