FCC Silences Community Radio Station

(Brattleboro, Vermont, USA) On the cusp of celebrating five years of
community radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
unexpectedly entered the studios of radio free brattleboro on Tuesday,
June 24th and ordered the station to cease and desist from
broadcasting.

The staff of radio free brattleboro (rfb) regrets that its mission of
providing a community outlet for alternative music and news is now
interrupted. The staff is considering its options and welcomes public
input and comment.

Longtime DJ and trainer Steven Twiss, who coordinates monthly
community orientations, remarked, “it’s a real shame
because in addition to providing entertainment and information to the
community, we have trained hundreds of local citizens of all ages in
the art of radio broadcasting.”

Radio free brattleboro has grown in size since starting at the Teen
Center in July of 1998. The studio is currently located on Main
Street in downtown Brattleboro; rfb has a staff of about 70 DJs and 50
weekly shows.

The mission of radio free brattleboro is to uphold and exercise First
Amendment rights in the face of increasing homogenization of corporate
radio. David Long, co-founder and DJ explained “we’re
part of national movement to return the airwaves to the hands and
voices of the citizens as it was intended under the FCC’s
original mandate. The Bill of Rights explicitly states
‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of
speech,’ and it is clear to us and millions of Americans that
the FCC has failed all of us.”

To contact radio free brattleboro, please call (802) 258-9879 or email
. Correspondence and donations can be sent to PO Box
1951, Brattleboro, VT 05302.

*For more information please contact rfb members David Long (w)
802-463-1613 (h) 802-254-7676. Or Larry Bloch (h) 802-254-9106.

*Please view the Brattleboro Reformer’s article on the events of
6/24/03. http://www.reformer.com (article published 6/25/03 is at
http://www.reformer.com/Stories/0,14...478256,00.html)

*A video of the FCC visit of 6/24/03 and a current program guide is
available by contacting Radio Free Brattleboro.

"DJ UndahCovah" wrote in message
...
FCC Silences Community Radio Station

(Brattleboro, Vermont, USA) On the cusp of celebrating five years of
community radio, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)
unexpectedly entered the studios of radio free brattleboro on Tuesday,
June 24th and ordered the station to cease and desist from
broadcasting.

The staff of radio free brattleboro (rfb) regrets that its mission of
providing a community outlet for alternative music and news is now
interrupted. The staff is considering its options and welcomes public
input and comment.

How about getting a license and broadcasting legally?

On 3 Jul 2003 01:15:07 GMT, (DJ UndahCovah)
wrote:

The mission of radio free brattleboro is to uphold and exercise First
Amendment rights in the face of increasing homogenization of corporate
radio.

What a crock. It's a pirate station, period.

Rich

"Larkin" wrote in message
...
Ha, really strange when you think about it. "Pirate Station", huh? Who
is the bigger pirate, a small operation serving community needs or big
Clear Channel who couldn't care less about community needs? I would
love to see more people using THEIR airwaves to meet the needs of their
commnities. Perhaps it will give Michael "put the airwaves into the
hands of a few" Powell a wake up call, if congress won't.

Nice thought, but Congress wrote the laws, and the courts have interpreted
them. Fairly recently a court told the FCC that it's rules about multiple
ownership couldn't stand up since they didn't provide a legal reason for
restricting multiple ownership. Socially good didn't cut the ice in that
court, ie: "What basis do you have to claim that concentration of ownership
is bad?". With court decisions like that, what would you do if you were on
the FCC? [I think I'd resign.]

IIRC, the FCC does not represent itself in Federal court. IIRC the
Department of Justice represents all/most Federal agencies. The DoJ can
choose to not take on a case, leaving the FCC out in the cold.

In article , (Larkin) wrote:
Ha, really strange when you think about it. "Pirate Station", huh? Who
is the bigger pirate, a small operation serving community needs or big
Clear Channel who couldn't care less about community needs? I would
love to see more people using THEIR airwaves to meet the needs of their
commnities.

So, what local need were the busted station serving? Did they have credible
local news? Discussion of local issues that allowed ALL points of view to be
heard? Or were they just a juke box for "alternative" music?

Yea, what clear channel is doing to local radio is clearly wrong, but two
wrongs don't make a right, IMO.

--
Larry Weil
Lake Wobegone, NH

The mission of radio free brattleboro is to uphold and exercise First
Amendment rights...

It's almost comical, the number of people who still believe that the First
Amendment gives them an unvarnished "right" to operate a radio station without
a license. The Supreme Court stated explicitly, 60 years ago, that that was
not the case. The FCC has been hearing this argument for decades, and it's no
less wrong now than it was decades ago.

The Bill of Rights explicitly states Congress shall make no law abridging the
freedom of speech, and it is clear to us and millions of Americans that the FCC
has failed all of us.

"Us and millions of Americans" have apparently never read NBC v. United States,
in which the Supreme Court explicitly states that the First Amendment does not
apply to radio broadcast licensing procedures.

"Larkin" wrote in message
...
Ha, really strange when you think about it. "Pirate Station", huh? Who
is the bigger pirate, a small operation serving community needs or big
Clear Channel

Which one is broadcasting legally and which one isn't?

Rich Wood wrote:
On 5 Jul 2003 15:51:59 GMT, (Larkin) wrote:

Ha, really strange when you think about it. "Pirate Station", huh? Who
is the bigger pirate, a small operation serving community needs or big
Clear Channel who couldn't care less about community needs?

There's a big difference. Clear Channel has a license. The pirate
doesn't. What they do, with or without a license, is irrelevant when

In CC's case, I think it's more correctly called a "Letter of Marque".
A pirate wouldn't have one of them.

z!

Sid Schweiger wrote:

It's almost comical, the number of people who still believe that the First
Amendment gives them an unvarnished "right" to operate a radio station without
a license. The Supreme Court stated explicitly, 60 years ago, that that was
not the case. The FCC has been hearing this argument for decades, and it's no
less wrong now than it was decades ago.

The Supreme Court has been known to reverse its decisions when either
additional information or time suggests that the original ruling was in
error. So the fact that the Supreme Court made a ruling 60 years ago is
not an automatic guarantee that they might not rule differently today.

It would be interesting to see what sort of case could be made before
the Supreme Court that the current licensing system unfairly limits
freedom of speech by concentrating broadcast station licenses in the
hands of an increasingly small group of companies.

While my suspicion is that the courts would toss out that argument
pretty quickly, the Supreme Court certainly has issued rulings that have
surprised me in the past...the fairly recent past.

"Tom Desmond" wrote in message
...
Sid Schweiger wrote:

It's almost comical, the number of people who still believe that the
First
Amendment gives them an unvarnished "right" to operate a radio station
without
a license. The Supreme Court stated explicitly, 60 years ago, that that
was
not the case. The FCC has been hearing this argument for decades, and
it's no
less wrong now than it was decades ago.

The Supreme Court has been known to reverse its decisions when either
additional information or time suggests that the original ruling was in
error. So the fact that the Supreme Court made a ruling 60 years ago is
not an automatic guarantee that they might not rule differently today.

It would be interesting to see what sort of case could be made before
the Supreme Court that the current licensing system unfairly limits
freedom of speech by concentrating broadcast station licenses in the
hands of an increasingly small group of companies.

Freedom of Speech does not guarantee a soapbox, a podium, a newspaper or a
radio station to the citizens. It simply guarantees that the government will
not limit an individual's right to express him or herself, but does not
grant a forum to everyone.