Frank Gilliland wrote:
Whoa there, Peter! Who in this group -- Doug

included -- has ever -supported- any law that

restricts the freedom of communication? Or

the right to freedom of speech? Nobody, as far
as I can remember.



Google for a memory jog. I remember comments being made by nocodes that
cb should be done away with. Such a law would restrict that freedom.


If you are suggesting that the laws governing

radio communications are a violation of the

right to free speech then you are WAY wrong

because that has already been thrown out in

both the courts -and- in this newsgroup.





Tell it to Howard Stern or Bubba the Love Sponge. Their recent RECORD
fines from the FCC are testament to the law restricting exactly what
speech may be broadcast and how screwed up the law actually is. A few
examples,,,, one radio station may use an offensive term, but another
radio station may not say the same thing,,,,,this dj can say this, but
that dj over there can't say it. It's ok to say this on late night
radio, but if you say it in the morning, we're going to fine
you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's screwed up so bad and Stern took Powell to task
for it the other day. Now daddy Powell is ****ed at Stern.



Get this straight, Peter: You have freedoms,

but those freedoms are limited


Limited equals restricted.

to the extent

that you don't violate the rights of others.



Freedom of speech will always be tested in the courts, thank God. What
you consider violating the rights of others, others may disagree. For
example, what may offend you may not offend another, especially where
speech and/or obscenity law is defined.



You have freedom of movement -provided-

you don't tresspass on someone else's

property. You have the freedom of speech

-provided- you don't cause a public nuisance.




No, the word "nuisance" is to be found nowhere in either of the recent
record fines against Stern and BTLS (btls.com).



You can drive a car -provided- you stay in

your own lane. Etc, etc.



..resulting in possible serious injury and/or death, none which can be
attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech.


Your freedoms,

including the freedom to communicate, are not
restricted except to the extent needed to

provide those same freedoms to everyone and
not violate the rights of others.



As noted above.

On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:33:03 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

Frank Gilliland wrote:
Whoa there, Peter! Who in this group -- Doug

included -- has ever -supported- any law that

restricts the freedom of communication? Or

the right to freedom of speech? Nobody, as far
as I can remember.



Google for a memory jog. I remember comments being made by nocodes that
cb should be done away with. Such a law would restrict that freedom.


You are confusing the message with the messenger -- CB radio is not a
freedom. If CB radio is ever nixed (and I hope it isn't), you would
still be free to communicate, just not via CB radio.


If you are suggesting that the laws governing

radio communications are a violation of the

right to free speech then you are WAY wrong

because that has already been thrown out in

both the courts -and- in this newsgroup.





Tell it to Howard Stern or Bubba the Love Sponge. Their recent RECORD
fines from the FCC are testament to the law restricting exactly what
speech may be broadcast and how screwed up the law actually is. A few
examples,,,, one radio station may use an offensive term, but another
radio station may not say the same thing,,,,,this dj can say this, but
that dj over there can't say it. It's ok to say this on late night
radio, but if you say it in the morning, we're going to fine
you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's screwed up so bad and Stern took Powell to task
for it the other day. Now daddy Powell is ****ed at Stern.


Again, there's the difference between the message and messenger. There
is a similar confusion whenever a radio station decides not to play a
particular song for whatever reason. When that happens there is always
a crowd that whines about censorship. But if their cries had any
validity, every station would be forced to play every song from every
artist since the beginning of time just so some Perry Como fan doesn't
throw a fit.


Get this straight, Peter: You have freedoms,

but those freedoms are limited


Limited equals restricted.


.....stay within context....


to the extent

that you don't violate the rights of others.



Freedom of speech will always be tested in the courts, thank God. What
you consider violating the rights of others, others may disagree. For
example, what may offend you may not offend another, especially where
speech and/or obscenity law is defined.


And that's why the rights of citizens are defined in the Constitution.
Yes, even the Constitution is subject to interpretation, but that's
the job of the judicial system. So far that system has done a pretty
good job. Not perfect, but pretty good.


You have freedom of movement -provided-

you don't tresspass on someone else's

property. You have the freedom of speech

-provided- you don't cause a public nuisance.




No, the word "nuisance" is to be found nowhere in either of the recent
record fines against Stern and BTLS (btls.com).


It was just an example, and it wasn't even intended to be specific to
radio. Radio is not the only venue for speech, as Howie has recently
learned.


You can drive a car -provided- you stay in

your own lane. Etc, etc.



.resulting in possible serious injury and/or death,


.....and therefore violating the rights of someone else.


none which can be
attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech.


It's not a matter of degrees. The right to free speech does not equate
to the right to life, or the right to vote, to freedom of religion, to
peaceably assemble, to keep and bear arms, etc. And most importantly,
the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


Your freedoms,

including the freedom to communicate, are not
restricted except to the extent needed to

provide those same freedoms to everyone and
not violate the rights of others.



As noted above.



My compliments on your choice to adopt the generally accepted method
of Usenet quoting.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

From: (Frank=A0Gilliland)
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 14:33:03 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :
Frank Gilliland wrote:
Whoa there, Peter! Who in this group -- Doug
included -- has ever -supported- any law that
restricts the freedom of communication? Or
the right to freedom of speech? Nobody, as far as I can remember.
_
Google for a memory jog. I remember comments being made by nocodes that
cb should be done away with. Such a law would restrict that freedom.

You are confusing the message with the

messenger -- CB radio is not a freedom.


The right to say what you will on it most certainly is. Taking it away
would certainly
"restrict the freedom OF communication".



If CB radio is ever nixed (and I hope it isn't),

you would still be free to communicate, just

not via CB radio.

If you are suggesting that the laws governing

radio communications are a violation of the

right to free speech then you are WAY wrong

because that has already been thrown out in

both the courts -and- in this newsgroup.

Tell it to Howard Stern or Bubba the Love Sponge. Their recent RECORD
fines from the FCC are testament to the law restricting exactly what
speech may be broadcast and how screwed up the law actually is. A few
examples,,,, one radio station may use an offensive term, but another
radio station may not say the same thing,,,,,this dj can say this, but
that dj over there can't say it. It's ok to say this on late night
radio, but if you say it in the morning, we're going to fine
you,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,it's screwed up so bad and Stern took Powell to task
for it the other day. Now daddy Powell is ****ed at Stern.

Again, there's the difference between the

message and messenger. There is a similar

confusion whenever a radio station decides

not to play a particular song for whatever

reason. When that happens there is always a

crowd that whines about censorship. But if

their cries had any validity, every station would
be forced to play every song from every artist

since the beginning of time just so some Perry
Como fan doesn't throw a fit.



You and I both know it comes down to legalized, large scale payola.

_
Get this straight, Peter: You have freedoms,

but those freedoms are limited

Limited equals restricted.

....stay within context....

to the extent

that you don't violate the rights of others.

Freedom of speech will always be tested in the courts, thank God. What
you consider violating the rights of others, others may disagree. For
example, what may offend you may not offend another, especially where
speech and/or obscenity law is defined.

And that's why the rights of citizens are

defined in the Constitution. Yes, even the

Constitution is subject to interpretation, but

that's the job of the judicial system. So far that

system has done a pretty good job. Not

perfect, but pretty good.



Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the
"goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC.


You have freedom of movement -provided-

you don't tresspass on someone else's

property. You have the freedom of speech

-provided- you don't cause a public nuisance.

No, the word "nuisance" is to be found nowhere in either of the recent
record fines against Stern and BTLS (btls.com).

It was just an example, and it wasn't even

intended to be specific to radio. Radio is not

the only venue for speech, as Howie has

recently learned.


Sirius, isn't it?

You can drive a car -provided- you stay in

your own lane. Etc, etc.

resulting in possible serious injury and/or death,

....and therefore violating the rights of

someone else.

none which can be
attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech.

It's not a matter of degrees. The right to free

speech does not equate to the right to life, or

the right to vote, to freedom of religion, to

peaceably assemble, to keep and bear arms,

etc.


It's a matter of government legislating morality. They knew they were
fighting a losing battle when they allowed "We may not be able to
define obscenity, but we know it when we see it." The US is behind the
times when compared to the rest of the world and what is deemed
acceptable broadcast. The Janet Jackson thing and its fallout was a
social step backwards.


And most importantly, the right to petition the

government for a redress of grievances.

Your freedoms,

including the freedom to communicate, are not
restricted except to the extent needed to

provide those same freedoms to everyone and
not violate the rights of others.

As noted above.

My compliments on your choice to adopt the

generally accepted method of Usenet quoting.


It happens time to time.



----=3D=3D Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News=3D=3D---- http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! 100,000 Newsgroups ---=3D

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:56:51 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

snip
since the beginning of time just so some Perry
Como fan doesn't throw a fit.



You and I both know it comes down to legalized, large scale payola.


Bingo.


snip
that's the job of the judicial system. So far that

system has done a pretty good job. Not

perfect, but pretty good.



Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the
"goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC.


Slightly OT, here's an interesting tidbit I read last night: It was
JFK who signed the bill permitting the FCC to levy fines for minor
violations without due process. The fines were $100 per violation with
a maximum of $500 (Popular Electronics, September 1962). I also read
that the distance rules were established for two reasons: First, the
Canadian hams were still using 11m; and second, to discourage the use
of CB radio as a method of international communication, which was a
big deal during the cold war. Well, the cold war is over, and the
internet is crossing the communication barriers between borders much
more than CB ever could. It's time the FCC took a second look at that
rule.


...... Radio is not

the only venue for speech, as Howie has

recently learned.


Sirius, isn't it?


I'm sure he thinks it is....:-O


You can drive a car -provided- you stay in

your own lane. Etc, etc.

resulting in possible serious injury and/or death,

....and therefore violating the rights of

someone else.

none which can be
attained via what another may deem offensive or illegal speech.

It's not a matter of degrees. The right to free

speech does not equate to the right to life, or

the right to vote, to freedom of religion, to

peaceably assemble, to keep and bear arms,

etc.


It's a matter of government legislating morality. They knew they were
fighting a losing battle when they allowed "We may not be able to
define obscenity, but we know it when we see it." The US is behind the
times when compared to the rest of the world and what is deemed
acceptable broadcast. The Janet Jackson thing and its fallout was a
social step backwards.


It's a matter of government enforcement of current moral standards to
public venues. Non-public venues are wide open to free speech, as
cable TV and the internet prove millions of times each day. And while
the internet and cable TV may be considered to be public venues by
some, the broadcast stations have, and will always have, a much
broader public domain simply because they are not subscriber-based
services.






----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:12:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:56:51 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the
"goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC.


Slightly OT, here's an interesting tidbit I read last night: It was
JFK who signed the bill permitting the FCC to levy fines for minor
violations without due process. The fines were $100 per violation with
a maximum of $500 (Popular Electronics, September 1962). I also read
that the distance rules were established for two reasons: First, the
Canadian hams were still using 11m; and second, to discourage the use
of CB radio as a method of international communication, which was a
big deal during the cold war. Well, the cold war is over, and the
internet is crossing the communication barriers between borders much
more than CB ever could. It's time the FCC took a second look at that
rule.

You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international"
two way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of
Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were
prohibited on CB.


Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 14:12:52 -0700, Frank Gilliland
wrote:

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 10:56:51 -0400, (Twistedhed)
wrote in :

Yes, I agree, but one of the "bads" we must take in order to have the
"goods" is the current incarnation of the FCC.


Slightly OT, here's an interesting tidbit I read last night: It was
JFK who signed the bill permitting the FCC to levy fines for minor
violations without due process. The fines were $100 per violation with
a maximum of $500 (Popular Electronics, September 1962). I also read
that the distance rules were established for two reasons: First, the
Canadian hams were still using 11m; and second, to discourage the use
of CB radio as a method of international communication, which was a
big deal during the cold war. Well, the cold war is over, and the
internet is crossing the communication barriers between borders much
more than CB ever could. It's time the FCC took a second look at that
rule.

You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international"
two way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of
Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were
prohibited on CB.

Hi Dave,

The ITU treaty agreement applied to the amateur radio, not the CB. I found
this out when Alan Dixon petitioned the FCC to drop the 155.3 mi. rule,
RM-9807. Which leads me to...

Over the past few mos., every candidate/incumbent for public office has sent
a campaign flyer of some sort and we've all had out mailboxes filled with
this stuff. One of the best things we can do for the CB is to set up a form
letter asking said candidate/incumbent to "inquire" about dropping the 155.3
mi. limit for the CB radio service and why the FCC acknowledged that the
majority of CBers were in favor of this yet chose to cater to a few private
interest groups.

Simply fill in the name and address and send this to every
candidate/incumbent who sends you a flyer. All that's really needed is for
them to make a casual inquiry. Having now been somewhat involved with
lobbying and witnessing how these "inquiries" are generated, I can say with
some certainty that ten (Yep, just 10.) letters usually warrants a casual
phone call or letter.

Try researching how the amateur radio vanity call program came into
existence...just a letter to the right desk (Non-FCC) after having an
official RM-petition turned down. It's an amusing story in any case and
demonstrates what can be accomplished if more than a few people get of their
duffs and just make an effort.

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782

You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international" two
way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of Morse
Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were
prohibited on CB.
Dave
"Sandbagger"
_
The ITU clause never applied to cb.

On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:48:35 GMT, "Bert Craig"
wrote:


You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international"
two way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of
Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were
prohibited on CB.

Hi Dave,

The ITU treaty agreement applied to the amateur radio, not the CB. I found
this out when Alan Dixon petitioned the FCC to drop the 155.3 mi. rule,
RM-9807. Which leads me to...

As it was explained to me some time ago, the ITU requirement covered
ALL personal two-way radio services (Including ham, CB, land mobile,
maritime etc.) This was even given as one reason why the FCC was not
willing to eliminate the 150 mile limit for CB. They basically "passed
the buck" by stating that they were prevented by international law
from making a change which would allow the CB service to have contacts
which could be international. If that's no longer correct, there there
is really no reason to keep the 155 mile limit.


Over the past few mos., every candidate/incumbent for public office has sent
a campaign flyer of some sort and we've all had out mailboxes filled with
this stuff. One of the best things we can do for the CB is to set up a form
letter asking said candidate/incumbent to "inquire" about dropping the 155.3
mi. limit for the CB radio service and why the FCC acknowledged that the
majority of CBers were in favor of this yet chose to cater to a few private
interest groups.

With all the really major issues surrounding this year's campaign, I
doubt if something so relatively trivial in nature would be given much
consideration.

Dave
"Sandbagger"

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 01 Nov 2004 12:48:35 GMT, "Bert Craig"
wrote:


You forget that there was/is an ITU requirement that "international"
two way radio services require the operator to have a knowledge of
Morse Code. That was a primary reason why long distance contacts were
prohibited on CB.

Hi Dave,

The ITU treaty agreement applied to the amateur radio, not the CB. I found
this out when Alan Dixon petitioned the FCC to drop the 155.3 mi. rule,
RM-9807. Which leads me to...

As it was explained to me some time ago, the ITU requirement covered
ALL personal two-way radio services (Including ham, CB, land mobile,
maritime etc.) This was even given as one reason why the FCC was not
willing to eliminate the 150 mile limit for CB. They basically "passed
the buck" by stating that they were prevented by international law
from making a change which would allow the CB service to have contacts
which could be international. If that's no longer correct, there there
is really no reason to keep the 155 mile limit.

That's what was told to me at first too, until Alan enlightened me and the
difference between the amateur radio vs. land mobile service as they relate
to the ITU was clarified. (No pun intended.)


Over the past few mos., every candidate/incumbent for public office has
sent
a campaign flyer of some sort and we've all had out mailboxes filled with
this stuff. One of the best things we can do for the CB is to set up a
form
letter asking said candidate/incumbent to "inquire" about dropping the
155.3
mi. limit for the CB radio service and why the FCC acknowledged that the
majority of CBers were in favor of this yet chose to cater to a few
private
interest groups.

With all the really major issues surrounding this year's campaign, I
doubt if something so relatively trivial in nature would be given much
consideration.

That's the beauty of it, Dave. It wouldn't take "much" consideration at all.
BTW, when an elected official receives more than nine letters/calls
regarding ANY issue, it ceases to be "trivial in nature"...that, from the
horses mouth. Remember, all that's needed is a casual inquiry. Did you check
out the origins of the amateur vanity call program?

--
Vy 73 de Bert
WA2SI
FISTS #9384
QRP ARCI #11782

"Peter" wrote:
I get the idea that you select a certain part and twist

Him and dogie worship Twist. Hell, we -ALL- worship Twist! :-& lol

--
http://NewsReader.Com
30GB/Month