First Amendment, Round Two: Talk Radio Restricted

[Flyboy]

http://boortz.com/nuze/200507/07072005.html#seattle

Here's what happened. Washington recently enacted a 9.5-cent-per-gallon tax hike on gasoline. Two talk show hosts on Seattle's KVI were promoting Initiative 912 for the next election ballot in Washington. I-912 would repeal that gas tax hike. The pro-tax crowd didn't like it one little bit that these two talk show hosts were speaking out against their tax hike, so they filed a complaint and went to the judge. Last Friday Judge Christopher Wickham ruled that KVI must report the commercial value of any time these two talk show hosts spend talking about I-912 as an in-kind political contribution. This, of course, shuts down these two hosts. This effectively ends any conversation on the matter on John Carlson's and Kirby Wilbur's talk show.

You can argue the "confidential sources" case either way, but any way you slice it, this is wrong, plain and simple. Speech now has a dollar value, and McCain-Feingold (among others) put a cap on the dollar value you can "give" to a candidate.

 

[Pilgrim]

The time for 'committees of correspondence' has returned.

Pilgrim

 

[lunaslide]

By the way, it's perfectly fine for the Seattle PI to write pro-tax editorials against the initiative and have it protected as journalism, but apparently not ok for two radio talk show hosts to spend their own money to help an initiative that a lot of people in Washington want. Sound Politics covers the hypocracy here.

The issue here isn't the gas tax or the rebuilding of the Alaskan Way Viaduct or the 520 bridge. The problem is that the state has come up with no plan to fix either of these things, precluding the possibility that they have a cost estimate for the project based on real research and planning. They want us to pay into the general fund for a project that they haven't given any particulars on and to trust them to spend the money where they say they will. Of course, trusting them comes a little difficult for most Washingtonians, because the Governor who pushed for the tax and signed it is the same person who as a candidate priomised not to raise the gas tax. Not only was a campaign promise broken, which is nothing new, but in order for them to institute this gas tax, they gutted an initiative passed over a decade ago that requires the state legislature to get a 2/3 majority in both houses before raising taxes. The Democrats in power in Olympia knew they wouldn't get the votes, so they and a few turncoat Republicans essentially gave the people the finger and did what they wanted anyway. Even worse, the entire state is being billed for an expenditure that only benefits the Puget Sound area.

As for the viaduct, what they don't mention is that they want to revamp the entire area and put the viaduct underground to open up the waterfront for more tourist business. That would be fine as well, if they had at least given the people a say in it. Also, they claim that they need this money to fix the viaduct and must tax, but are wasting billions of dollars on a boondoggle public transportation system, also only in the Puget Sound, that hardly anyone uses. One of the most amusing commercials on the radio here is for Sound Transit and has a woman building a heloport at her home because traffic is so bad. The sad thing is that after the recent numbers have come out about the light rail project they plan to expand, it costs more per person to run that train than it would for each of those people to get a helocopter ride to and from work every day.

The elites in Olympia don't give a damn what the people want here in WA. They will do what they feel is best for us and consider us children too ignorant to manage our own affairs.

 

[TallPine]

But of course America will never come under the rule of an oppressive totalitarian dictatorship, because we have free speech rights protected by the first amendment

And in my opinion ... excuse, me somebody is knocking on the door ...

 

[Control Group]

Actually, the issue is the blatant violation of the First Amendment. This is precisely the violation that the amendment was written to prevent. If political speech is not protected, the First means nothing.

The republic is dead.

 

[TheEgg]

Oh, but you don't understand. The Supreme Court has made it clear that we are not talking about Freedom of Speech here, we are talking about campaign contributions. Thus it is subject to governmental control. And the S.C. has also made it clear that almost anything at all can be considered a contribution. AND we must make sure that there is no APPEARANCE of impropriety. (the reality of impropriety is ok, just so long as it does not look like it.)

Makes perfect sense.

 

[admar2]

Actually, the issue is the blatant violation of the First Amendment. This is precisely the violation that the amendment was written to prevent. If political speech is not protected, the First means nothing.

The republic is dead.

the 1st Amendment was killed by McCainFeingold. this is just icing on the cake.

 

[lunaslide]

This one is priceless. Even though the Seattle city council has rejected funding the monorail project (yet another transportation boondoggle), the Monorail Project council is going to push on. At a recent news briefing, the chairwoman was saying they would have an "open and transparent" public discussion at the same time the projects main opponent was being kicked out of the briefing.

http://www.soundpolitics.com/archives/004717.html

The news report that shows the critic being kicked out is here

 

[longeyes]

"History" didn't end when The Wall came down. "History" is just beginning.

Just a preview of the Age of Hillary.

 

[critter]

Perhaps this is a very good thing as in "depends on whose ox is getting gored". That is, we staunch Second Ammendment supporters may now FINALLY get some help from those who wish to support the First Ammendment. They have not been much help before now. You think this just MIGHT wake them up?

 

[taliv]

heh, so let me get this straight...

burning the flag is "speech"

but speech is actually campaign contributions

so instead of making a flag burning ammendment, we should just report how long we spent burning flags on our tax returns?



what the hell is going on here anyways?

 

[roo_ster]

what the hell is going on here anyways?

We have traded our birthrite:
* free political speech
* RKBA
* property rights
* limited gov't
for a mess of pottage:
* abortion
* civil unions
* free "expression" of obscenity
* welfare

Main Entry: pot·tage
Pronunciation: 'pä-tij
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English potage, from Old French, from pot pot, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English pott pot
: a thick soup of vegetables and often meat

 

[Control Group]

Eh, don't take it so hard, jfruser. We've still got the 3rd and the 7th.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

This is not a 1st Amendment issue.

The radio waves are the PUBLIC domain. They are controlled by the FCC. Stations are given a license to broadcast, but they do not own or pay for it's usage. It is regulated and controlled by the government. Radio airwaves belong to the people of the US, not to an individual station, broadcaster, DJ, or talkshow host.

Unlike newspapers or internet forums, there are a finite number of frequencies available to the public. Station license holders must hold a different standard as the playing field they play on is unequal. Opposing voices have no microphone if they can't get access to the airwaves. If a station wants to play favorites, it should either pay for it as a campaign contribution or provide, at no cost, opposing view points.

The FFC made a huge mistake when the deregulated the airwaves a few years ago and allowed groups to purchase multiple stations in the same market place. In essence, three groups control the majority of radio stations in the US.

Our family was in radio for over 30 years. This has always been a serious issue and dangerous ground to tread on.

 

[TheEgg]

So GnR, in your interpretation, every left wing or right wing talk show host in the country must be shut down, or they must give equal time to their opponents?

I can see it now -- Limbaugh gets 5 minutes, then Stuart Smalley gets his five, and then repeat.

I haven't been in radio for 3 minutes, much less 30 years, but by just looking around I can see that your interpretation of the law is at least not being followed. Otherwise how can you explain the numerous radio stations that vent nothing by right-wingers all day. How about AirAmerica?

 

[Gunsnrovers]

There is a difference between discussing politics on a talk show and "Vote No on Proposition X".

When the shoe is on the other foot and some idiot DJ wants to spend his 3 hour shift telling listeners to reject a piece of pro-CCW legislation and you find you have no voice to share you opposing view, let me know.

Radio and TV are unique in that there is no counter balance. You can go out tomorrow and start TheEgg's newspaper or TheEgg's magazine and print and promote any agenda you choose. You can't go out and do the same on TV or radio.

 

[nico]

When the shoe is on the other foot and some idiot DJ wants to spend his 3 hour shift telling listeners to reject a piece of pro-CCW legislation and you find you have no voice to share you opposing view, let me know.

huh? Try listening to Air America or ABC radio between noon and 6pm and tell me that's not someone spending 3 hours telling people what to think or how to vote.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Again, since you don't want to read the point, there is a difference between discussing a topic and promoting a specific issue.

You can go on the air all day and be pro or anti-gun, but you can't go out there and spend the time saying vote for/vote against Proposition XYZ unless you are willing to give the opposition the same air time.

 

[TheEgg]

Try listening to Air America or ABC radio between noon and 6pm and tell me that's not someone spending 3 hours telling people what to think or how to vote

Exactly!

GnR, I guess I just don't get your point? I understand the bit about licensing, and being required to "serve the public interest", etc. but I certainly don't see anyone being required by the FCC to be balanced.

I hear Radio jocks all the time pushing one side of a bill. They usually do get someone on to give the other side, but they may get 5 minutes out of a 3 hour block.

No, I think this really is a First Amendment issue. But I could be wrong -- I haven't been wrong yet this year, and I am about due.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Until someone calls them on it. These guys were called on it and now will have to shut up or play by the rules. If you want to air a political ad, pay for it or provide the same service for the others guys free of charge.

Unlike the print media or cable which are privately owned, public broadcast media is the publicly held for use for free at the will of the public (via the FCC).

It is a first amendment issue, but not as you're portraying it. They are protecting your rights because you don't have the ability to air your message on the same playing field as the DJ's do.

If these two guys want to bring on a guest supporting the tax and air a debate, that's a completely different issue.

 

[captain obvious]

Speech now has a dollar value, and McCain-Feingold (among others) put a cap on the dollar value you can "give" to a candidate.

Yeah, but we're not in a police state.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Yes speech has a dollar value. Especially when it's on my dime (the public).

 

[nico]

Again, since you don't want to read the point, there is a difference between discussing a topic and promoting a specific issue.

Again, since YOU don't want to read the point, and apparently have never listened to Hannity or Limbaugh, that's exactly what they do. If you listened to Sean Hannity during October and November last year, he CONSTANTLY talked about why it was so important to vote for Bush for president. Explain how that's different than what happened in this story.

 

[Gunsnrovers]

The laws are pretty vague for radio so it's not black and white. Radio is considered a local media. National shows like Hannity, etc are a relatively new issue. Shows like Hannity, Rush, etc. will walk a fine line on how they air an issue. Offering and providing on air interviews with the opposition is one way around it.

Much of the legislation and regulation were created and written when one person could own 6 stations and none could be in the same market. It was impossible to get a monopoly on news or view points due to the competative market. Competative stations would eat you alive if you goofed.

However, the National Association of Broadcasters (think teamsters) lobbied the FCC and were able to get the industry deregulated. Now, one person can own hundreds of stations even in the same market. It's created a media monopoly with very little control.

The governement and the TV media have done a fairly decent job of policing their actions. Follow up speaches for the opposition, special rate cards for political adds, etc. Radio is not set up the same way. It's a serious problem. A handfull of individuals have cornered the airwaves and the FCC let big business have their way.

 

[Flyboy]

Now, one person can own hundreds of stations even in the same market.

Contrast with:

Unlike newspapers or internet forums, there are a finite number of frequencies available to the public.

Now, I recognize that "hundreds" is still finite, but this sort of hyperbole isn't doing your argument any credit. In fact, there are approximately one hundred possible FM broadcast frequencies--ignoring the fact that you really need spacing greater than .2 MHz between stations--and about a hundred and ten possible AM stations--again ignoring the spacing requirements. That gives a total of approximately two hundred radio stations. Now, if memory serves (and please correct me if I'm wrong), the FCC reg limits ownership to 55% of the market (up from 45%); that means one person or organization can own one hundred and five stations, if every possible frequency is used. Of course, spacing being what it is, you're probably closer to, oh, thirty, in any given market, assuming that the market is saturated with stations. Bottom line: your statement doesn't pass the sniff test.

Now, on to more pressing matters. Do you really think the public can't find a radio station offering an alternative point of view on the issue? I would be willing to bet large sums of money that there's at least one station in Seattle that is in favor of the tax, and willing to say so. There's no reason whatsoever to claim that the "finite number of frequencies" is causing the public to only hear one side of the story--at least, there wasn't before this case.

In fact, this case brings to mind a similar situation out of Tennessee. It seems legislators in TN wanted to pass a statewide general income tax, but the citizens, sticks-in-the-mud that they are, were opposed to the idea. Solidly opposed to it. The legislature tried to pass it several times in hurried debate, but somehow, could never quite slip it under the radar. Know why?

Every time they started talking about it, somebody would report it to the local talk radio stations, and within minutes, everybody in the state knew what his elected official was up to. Capitol switchboards lit up like Christmas trees before they could even call for a floor vote. The tax never passed.

Needless to say, tax proponents nationwide learned from the Tennessee Legislature's experience, and justly fear talk radio. This is just their way of stopping those meddling kids^W^W nasty free-speech nuts from foiling their plans.