Pirate Cat Radio Article

[Lkeller]

Some of you who post here were talking recently about Pirate Cat Radio, which I knew nothing about.

Here's a link to an article about Pirate Cat in the Culture Blog at sfgate.com (Chronicle).  Interesting.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/culture/detail?entry_id=52075

[DavidKaye]

They should be fined. I have found that many of these folks in low power radio are anti-social and anti-establishment, and that photo of the ripped FCC sign shows their disrespect for our industry and its engineers. [....]

And you have something against the First Amendment, freedom of speech, and all that?  Isn't that an unAmerican sentiment you have there?

There is legal LPAM and LPFM with the technical rules displayed very clearly on the FCC web site.

Well, yes.  Have you never violated the letter of the law?  I happen to like the programming they were doing.  It was a good local community service.  This is the only time I can think of when I heard a pirate station that was doing anything worthwhile.  Most are just garbage.  Pirate Cat was not.

[SFStatic]

They should be shut down, as should all pirates. As for Free Speech, broadcasting has never been afforded these rights. Play Carlin's 7 words on the air during prime time, and see how fast you get a notice from the FCC, and will have to cough up a hefty fine.

[weav]

Well, yes.  Have you never violated the letter of the law?  I happen to like the programming they were doing.  It was a good local community service.  This is the only time I can think of when I heard a pirate station that was doing anything worthwhile.  Most are just garbage.  Pirate Cat was not.

How about if you get busy and help Monkey put up a mesh network of Part-15 transmitters fed off their web stream? 

[DavidKaye]

They should be shut down, as should all pirates. As for Free Speech, broadcasting has never been afforded these rights. Play Carlin's 7 words on the air during prime time, and see how fast you get a notice from the FCC, and will have to cough up a hefty fine.

To quote the U.S. Constition:  "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." 

Yeah, I know the document is over 230 years old and a little dusty, but we still tell ourselves that we govern this country by it.  To go against the Constitution is to be unAmerican.  Would you want to be branded as unAmerican? 

[weav]

So where's it say in there about the right of the people to radiate electromagnetically?  If you wanna stand at say 16th & Mission and shout anti-administration (even Newsom administration) views, probably no one will stop you.   

[SFStatic]

David's quote above of the Constitution makes it quite clear that we have freedom of speech and the press...however, the Supreme Court has never included over the air broadcasting as part of either. That's why the FCC rules apply, and you can't say anything you want on the radio or television...or broadcast Janet Jackson's bare boob for a nanosecond, and not get fined. Howard had a collection of fines levied on him before he moved to satellite.

I am glad to have had a couple kids overseas, guarding David's right to complain about this and getting shot at. Please watch who you call Un-American, you may be badly mis-informed.

[DavidKaye]

So where's it say in there about the right of the people to radiate electromagnetically?  If you wanna stand at say 16th & Mission and shout anti-administration (even Newsom administration) views, probably no one will stop you.   

Good question.  The 9th Amendment covers this nicely:  "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

In other words, those rights not specifically spelled out in the Constitution belong to the people.  This was done, we're told by scholars, to provide for situations which did not yet exist at the time the Constitution was written.

[DavidKaye]

David's quote above of the Constitution makes it quite clear that we have freedom of speech and the press...however, the Supreme Court has never included over the air broadcasting as part of either.

The Supreme Court claims jurisdiction based on interstate commerce, the concept that radio signals do not know state boundaries and thus the federal government has a right to regulate them.  That's the only way the feds have been able to secure their ability to regulate broadcasting.  In fact, the predecessor to the FCC was the Department of Commerce.

I think a valid argument can be made that non-commercial radio and TV stations do not engage in commerce (as long as they do not broadcast underwriting announcements, etc) and thus are exempt from the federal government's jurisdiction. 

(As for your kids "fighting and dying" for me, please ask them not to do it for me.  For one, they're not even in the right countries to begin with.  The September 11 terrorists came from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and one from Egypt, but NONE from Iraq or Afghanistan.)

[SFStatic]

The 9th Amendment is often cited, primarily by conservatives, but has never really been applied by the Supreme Court. The federal government grants licenses for all spectrum, including public broadcasters, and as condition of the licenses, the stations must submit to FCC regulations. This, in fact, has never been before the Supreme Court to my knowledge (at least with regard to free speech). Some feel that if it ever does, the Court might rule against the FCC. Until that happens, the FCC regs will continue to be enforced, including against public broadcasters. The commerce clause is never reached as an issue, because the licensing regulations control here, as noted above.