[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: wilkenrules.html
This entire issue speaks to whether we neeed government or not. The power
of the judiciary is part and parcel of the power of Government, and in many
cases -this is an excellent example- is all that stands between The
Oligarchy and Freedom.
Imagine if there _were_ no government per-se, and it was the Disney, or
Westinghouse, or GE, or whoever the fuck, corporate security forces taking
action on their own against FRB.
At 09:08 AM 12/14/97 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> JUDGE WILKEN DENIES FCC MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT!!!
>
> Press Release Follows. To Go Directly To The Full Text Of Judge Wilken's
> Decision, Click Here
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>SEE THE FULL TEXT OF JUDGE WILKEN'S DECISION
>
> 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
>
>
>