|
Info on Free Radio Berkeley
NOTICE: TO ALL CONCERNED Certain text files and messages contained on this site deal with activities and devices which would be in violation of various Federal, State, and local laws if actually carried out or constructed. The webmasters of this site do not advocate the breaking of any law. Our text files and message bases are for informational purposes only. We recommend that you contact your local law enforcement officials before undertaking any project based upon any information obtained from this or any other web site. We do not guarantee that any of the information contained on this system is correct, workable, or factual. We are not responsible for, nor do we assume any liability for, damages resulting from the use of any information on this site.
*******************************************************************************
RECLAIMING THE AIRWAVES - APRIL/MAY 1995
*******************************************************************************
A publication of Free Radio Berkeley / Free Communications Coalition
Contact: Stephen Dunifer - [email protected]
Voice mail: (510) 464-3041
Mailing address:
Free Radio Berkeley, 1442 A Walnut St. #406, Berkeley, CA 94709
*******************************************************************************
Victory for Micro Power Broadcasting - Historical Defeat for the FCC
On Friday, January 20 Federal judge Claudia Wilken refused to
grant the Federal Communications Commission a preliminary injunction to
stop the micro power broadcasts of Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio
Berkeley. Stating serious constitutional concerns as her reason, Judge
Wilken denied the request, ordered the FCC to exhaust administrative
remedies and to rule on Dunifer's appeal of their $20,000 fine before
seeking any further court action. This ruling sets a historical
precedent: it is the first time the FCC has been denied an injunction to
stop the broadcasts of an unlicensed radio station. The Commission will
have to address the issue of the constitutionality of their regulations
when ruling on Dunifer's appeal. Any further court proceedings are
delayed until the FCC acts on the appeal which has languished in
Washington for more than a year. In the meantime the government's attempt
to enjoin broadcasting by non-licensed micro radio has been put on hold.
Luke Hiken, attorney for Stephen Dunifer, stated, "This is the
second time a Federal court has recognized the constitutional implications
of micro radio technology. We hope the FCC will recognize the importance
of facilitating the use of this technology for the benefit of the American
people instead of denying its existence and obstructing its use."
Speaking on behalf of the National Lawyers Guild Committee on
Democratic Communications, Peter Franck commented, "The CDC hopes that the
court's refusal to enjoin micro radio is the beginning of a recognition by
the country that any hope for democracy depends on free access to the
airwaves. Micro power broadcasting has the potential for creating a
'green movement' of low-cost, easy-to-use media. It is as totalitarian to
require expensive, hard-to-get licenses for micro radio as it would be to
say you can only speak from a soap box if it is made of gold."
Stephen Dunifer said, "Judge Claudia Wilken's decision affirms the
validity of our legal position. Further, this victory is a credit to four
years of work by the National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic
Communications and my attorney, Luke Hiken, on behalf of the micro power
broadcasting movement. Unlike FCC attorney, David Silberman, I do not see
irreparable harm resulting from micro power broadcasting. Instead, I see
an immeasurable benefit for all citizens if the micro power broadcast
movement prevails. For too long, media access and the tools of
communication have been concentrated in the hands of corporate and
essentially anti-democratic interests. If any harm results, it will be to
those monopoly interests."
*****************************************************************************
Seize the Airwaves !
With the FCC's recent loss in Federal District Court now is the
time to seize the space before this window of opportunity slams shut. If
micro power stations take to the air in massive numbers the FCC will be
confronted with a regulatory and enforcement nightmare at a time when they
are still trying to figure out how to respond to January's ruling.
Further, we must take other proactive steps to ensure our eventual
success. Consensus must be reached on what type of regulatory structure,
if any, we are willing to accept. At the moment, a simple two page form
has been proposed. You would: fill this out with name, address, etc.;
state that the equipment be used meet certain basic requirements for
frequency stability, harmonic attenuation, etc.; that the power level does
exceed a certain level (perhaps two ceilings, one for urban and one for
rural); list the frequency used, power and studio location. At that
point, after mailing the form back with a modest fee of $25 or so, the
burden of proof would be on the FCC for interference and other issues.
Let us know your ideas and thoughts on this. We need to have something in
hand when asked "Well, what do you propose ?"
More technically knowledgeable people are needed to provide
assistance and act as mentors for those who lack the requisite skills to
build the kits or put a station on the air. Everything possible must be
done to ensure that the micro stations are putting out a clean and stable
signal. Any sort of interference and instability will just be ammunition
for the FCC.
Finally, continued support for our efforts is crucial. We wish to
thank those who have already contributed to this effort. Our total costs
involved in putting out this edition are over $1000 including postage.
Much has been accomplished in the last three years. Your financial
contribution will help ensure the continued success of this movement to
take back the airwaves. Further, any donations of equipment are needed as
well. In particular we need: high speed tape duplicators; a good quality
copier; electronic test equipment such as a spectrum analyzer; tape decks
- portable cassette, studio type and DAT.
******************************************************************************
Giving Voice to the Voiceless - Micropower Broadcasting
As night rolls across San Franciso Bay and rushes westward,
micropower FM transmitters spring to life at the flick of a switch
bringing new voices to the FM broadcast band. Voices that defy and
challenge the FCC's control of the airwaves. Radio Libre (103.3)
operating from the Mission District offers a diverse and multicultural
programming mix in both Spanish and English. In the western portions of
the city San Francisco Liberation Radio (93.7 FM) provides the only
unlicensed call-in talk show broadcast along with excellent documetaries
on local and national issues. Comic relief is provided by the Jolly Roger
Radio Comedy Troupe who satirize everything from the Olympics to local
politicians. SFLR also produces the monthly Food Not Bombs Radio Network
program heard on a number of stations across the United States and Canada.
New voices will be soon taking to the air in the SOMA (south of Market
St.) district and the urban district known as Hunter's Point (107.3 FM) in
eastern San Francisco. A new voice (88.1 FM) has made its apperance in
North Beach as well.
To the north across the Golden Gate Bridge alternative voices are
heard in Sausalito, San Rafael and other areas of Marin County.
Meanwhile, covering the East Bay cities of Berkeley, Oakland El Cerito,
Albany and Alameda, Free Radio Berkeley (104.1 FM) is continuing its
Sunday night broadcasts, soon to be expanded to at least 3-4 nights a week
or more. Further to the south in areas populated by migrants and farm
workers voices of the mexicano, la Raza and Zapatista are taking to the
air as well. Much further to the South across the Rio Grande,
transmitters built by Free Radio Berkeley are on the air in the barrios of
Mexico City and the state of Chiapas.
Indeed, a revolution is underway here and other parts of the
country and world as well. Seeking to break the corporate media
stranglehold on the free flow of information, news, ideas, cultural and
artistic expression, these low cost and relatively low power (1 to 30
watts) FM broadcast stations are establishing themselves as voices of the
voiceless. Futher, most are urging everyone to fight back against a
racist and corrupt system by not only providing the poetry, music and
spoken word of inspiration but the vital information required for an
empowered struggle. Where else can one hear the voices and art of street
poets, gang members, homeless persons, activists, punkers, immigrants and
many more ? Truly, micropower broadcasting is technology for the people.
Inspired by Mabana Kantako of Black Liberation Radio, Free Radio
Berkeley was pivotal in the current micropower broadcasting movement by
its open defiance of the FCC and ongoing legal challenge to its regulatory
authority aided by the National Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic
Communications. Free Radio Berkeley offers a complete line of kits which
enable anyone with some degree of technical skill to assemble their own
tramsitters. A complete station can be put on the air for less than $1000
compared to the $50,000 to $100,000 under FCC guidelines. Workshops and
training are offered along with a growing list of technical mentors to aid
in the creation of micropower broadcasting stations. If you have
electronic skills you can make a very valuable and vital contribution to
this movement by teaching and training others.
Of course, this is not happening without reprisals from the
Federal Government. Stephen Dunifer of Free Radio Berkeley has not only
been threatened with a $20,000 fine by the FCC but was the target of a
preliminary injunction sought by the FCC to silence his broadcasts as part
of Free Radio Berkeley. On Friday, January 20th, 1995 Federal judge
Claudia Wilken refused to grant the FCC a preliminary injunction. Never
before in the history of the FCC have they ever been denied an injunction
to shut down an unlicensed station. A very important battle has been won,
more will follow. Other individuals such as Richard Edmondson of SF
Liberation Radio and Bill Dougan of Phoenix, Arizona have been threatened
with fines of $10,000 and $17,500 respectively but are not facing the
possiblity of court imposed sanctions at this time.
Micropower broadcasting is more than the leaflet of the 90's it is
a tool by which to organize and bring about fundamental social change.
For far too long the corporations have been allowed to steal and fence off
the natural resources of this planet, including the airwaves. It is time
to tear down the fences, grind the no trespassing signs into the ground
and take back what belongs to everyone on this planet. We need to use
these resources for the good of all instead of the self- agrandizement of
the few. If you want to make micropower broadcasting a reality and a
revolutionary force in your community, contact Free Radio Berkeley.
******************************************************************************
A TALE OF TWO BROADCASTERS
By Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon
Jack Welch oversees a project that fills America's airwaves with
millions of watts. His outfit has committed felonies that include bribery
and large-scale fraud.
Stephen Dunifer oversees a project with 15 watts of radio power. He
and his organization have never been found guilty of a crime.
Guess which man is in trouble with the Federal Communications Commission.
It isn't Welch, the chair of NBC's parent company, General Electric.
In spite of a criminal rap sheet as long as transmitting tower -- with
massive swindles involving sales of military equipment -- GE continues to
run NBC's broadcasting operations.
In theory, the FCC evaluates the "character" of would-be broadcast
licensees. A few years ago the agency declared it would "consider all
felony convictions" and sometimes even misdemeanors. But GE, a corporate
felon, has gotten no grief from the FCC about its criminal record.
On the other hand, Stephen Dunifer is one of the FCC's prime targets.
He has developed a low-cost, low-watt way that neighbors can use radio to
communicate with each other. For $600, he discovered, people can build a
mini-station and go on the air.
Dunifer takes seriously the idea that the airwaves belong to the
public, not just those with big bucks. Worst of all, from the FCC's
vantage point, Dunifer has spread the idea around.
His nonprofit newsletter recently touted gizmos like "a phase lock
loop controlled half-watt transmitter kit," designed to meet "all the
technical objections of the FCC regarding drift and harmonic
interference."
But Dunifer's emphasis is hardly technical; it's community oriented.
His newsletter hails micropower broadcasting as a tool that communities
can use to break down the barriers of "suspicion, mistrust, anger and
violence" bred by a lack of communication.
The micropower concept got a boost four years ago, when Mabana
Kantako -- living in a housing project in Springfield, Ill. -- founded
Black Liberation Radio, a low-watt station.
Dunifer, who lives in Berkeley, Calif., learned from Kantako's
example, and set to work refining the micro-technology. Now, he says, "We
are riding the wave of a movement that will not be stopped." He may be
right.
Across the bay, in San Francisco, two independent microbroadcasters
are on the radio every night.
In the Mexican state of Chiapas, microradio programs aligned with the
rebel Zapatistas can be heard, courtesy of equipment supplied by Dunifer.
In downtown Mexico City this fall, a central traffic island became the
base of Radio TeleVerdad ("Radio Tell- the-Truth"), providing five-watt FM
transmission while hundreds of thousands of vehicles passed by each day.
When we spoke with founders of Radio TeleVerdad a couple of weeks ago,
they seemed determined to continue their independent broadcasts -- despite an
Oct. 19 raid by 150 Mexican police, who swarmed over the traffic island and
confiscated the transmitter
In Taiwan a few months ago, several thousand government troops raided
14 unauthorized makeshift radio stations on the same day. Protests and
riots ensued.
Here at home, the FCC has slapped Stephen Dunifer with all kinds of
legal documents, threatening to fine him $20,000. The goal: to prevent him
from going into hills near his home and airing a mix of music and
political commentary. But Dunifer keeps transmitting "Free Radio
Berkeley."
A guiding principle of microbroadcasting is that small-scale
decentralized communication can nurture democracy. In contrast to media
behemoths, requiring huge financial resources and dominating wide
geographic areas, microbroadcasters don't need a lot of money -- and if a
listener wants to talk with the broadcasters directly, they're no more
than a bicycle-ride away.
The FCC contends that such unauthorized broadcasts interfere with
big-power licensed stations. But Dunifer points out that in neighborhoods
there are many openings on the dial. After about 100 of his broadcasts,
Dunifer says he has yet to receive a complaint of radio frequency
interference -- except for objections from FCC officials, who went out of
their way to intercept and monitor his signal with their radio gear.
San Francisco attorney Luke Hiken asserts that the FCC actions
against his client are "content oriented," motivated by government
hostility toward Dunifer's anti-establishment activism. Hiken cites
unlicensed radio broadcasters operating with FCC knowledge but without FCC
opposition -- such as an unauthorized Southern Oregon station airing Tommy
Dorsey music.
Even if the FCC is able to stop Dunifer -- who has invited federal
enforcers to "kiss my Bill of Rights" -- it's probably too late for the
feds to short circuit microradio. Says Dunifer: "It is our intent and
purpose to see thousands of transmitters taking to the air in an all-out,
no-holds-barred movement of electronic civil disobedience."
While Dunifer does battle with the FCC, the General Electric moguls
in charge of NBC are engaged in a very different turf battle -- with a
competing media giant, the Fox TV network.
In early December, Fox went to the FCC with a petition challenging
General Electric's control of broadcast licenses in view of GE's "pattern
of illegal activity." The Fox petition was a counterattack against GE,
which a week earlier had told the FCC that Fox's foreign ownership
violates federal rules.
The chances are tiny that the FCC will banish GE from the
broadcasting business. But if lightning strikes and GE loses its status as
a mega-broadcaster, Jack Welch might want to consider trying his hand at a
more humble role.
For a few hundred dollars, Welch can set up his own 15-watt radio
station. Stephen Dunifer would be glad to show him how.
___________________________________________
Jeff Cohen and Norman Solomon are syndicated columnists and the
authors of "Adventures in Medialand: Behind the News, Beyond the
Pundits" (Common Courage Press).
*****************************************************************************
Some Comments and Excerpts from The United States of America Vs Stephen
Dunifer
by The Black Hat, FRB Programmer
What happened on January 20, 1995 was a continuing play of historic
events that embraced the acts of those who were in attendance in the
United States District Court of the Northern District of California in San
Francisco.
These included (in spirit) the Plaintiff, the United States, an
oppressive geo- political entity that resides between the sovereign states
of Canada to the north and Mexico to the south and in body its
representatives: David Silberman, an attorney for the FCC and Patricia
Duggan, special assistant United States attorney. Also appearing for the
Defendant, Stephen Dunifer, a political activist, an anarchist and a
twenty five year veteran of street action: Louis Hiken, his attorney, and
Peter Franck, an attorney.
Sitting on the bench is a person who recent decisions have given hope
to many struggling groups and individuals: the (very) honorable Claudia
Wilken, United States District Judge.
Neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant speak as the drama of the day
unfolds: Ms. Duggan, Mr. Hiken and Mr. Silberman introduce themselves to
Judge Wilken, referred in the transcripts as "the court". She responds:
The Court: Well, it seems to me that there are some constitutional
issues here with respect to the FCC's regulatory scheme. It appears that
this Court is not the one that would rule those....it seems that what this
Court should do is allow the FCC to have its consideration of the issues,
which it could do in the context of the pending forfeiture action [the
$20K fine against Stephen Dunifer by the FCC]. If Mr. Dunifer or anyone
else doesn't like what the FCC does, it can appeal it, I presume.
Judge Wilken is making the case for the constitutional effects of the
FCC's restriction of broadcast under 100 watts. She is attempting to
redirect the FCC back to its own internal processes as a means to address
the issue before the court that day.
Mr. Silberman interrupts her thought and interjects peevishly:
Mr. Silberman: No, Your Honor. And we disagree that the pending
forfeiture matter has any effect on this Court's jurisdiction...to issue
an injunction to prevent a continuing irreparable harm...
He attempts the argument that all other FCC means to stop Stephen's
broadcasts have been "exhausted" and the FCC must ask the court to stop
him with an injunction.
Mr. Silberman: Your Honor, we believe that there is a major difference
between a preliminary injunction, which is to prevent further violations
of the law and the forfeiture matter which is pending at the agency.
Judge Wilken reminds Mr. Silberman of the FCC's "primary jurisdiction"
and he objects, claiming a "major difference" between the request for an
injunction and the $20,000 fine. Clearly Mr. Silberman has been taken by
surprise and indulges in a lengthy harangue at Judge Wilken.
Mr. Silberman: The forfeiture deals with two of the 24 illegal
broadcasts. And not to issue an injunction would allow the lawlessness to
continue...Section 504(a) of the Communications Act requires the
commission to ask the United States to file a complaint against the
Defendant, Mr. Dunifer to recover the amount of the [fine]. There would be
a trial...on that matter which could take some time...[I]n our view, the
case that we cite to you...addressed that issue about exhaustion. The
statute specifically authorizes this Court to issue an injunction if there
are violations of the statute. The substantive charges are not disclaimed
or denied in this case. there is an ongoing violation of Communications
Act because of making radio transmissions without a license...We've proved
irreparable harm because the statutory violation gives us that
presumption.
The Court: Not if the statute is unconstitutional.
Mr. Silberman: Your Honor, there is no facial challenge to the
constitutionality of the Communications Act, Section 301, in this case.
The Court: There's a challenge to the regulatory scheme.
Mr. Silberman: And if the defendant, or anyone else who wants to
operate a radio station, wants to challenge those regulations, they can
file a petition for rule- making at the commission...All of the cases
support us, your honor...In every case where an injunction has been
requested by the Government to prevent unlawful, unlicensed broadcasting,
the District Court has granted the injunction. There is no case that we
are aware of... [where] the Government has proved an unlicensed radio
operation where the Government has been denied that injunction. And
there's a very good reason for that. Unlicensed broadcasting creates chaos
on the airwaves. It's anarchy on the airwaves. And to allow and not to
enjoin this kind of operation, the Court should consider that in doing so
it encourages continuing violations not only by the Defendant, but by
those who would also see this as a signal that the law is not going to be
enforced.
Mr. Silberman is clearly beginning to squirm and chafe under the idea
that he may not only not get his injunction, but that Judge Wilken may
take the FCC to task for it's procedures and require some clarification of
Stephen Dunifer's rights under the present circumstances. The judge has no
problem admitting that she could in fact do something on behalf of the
situation, but turns the matter back to the FCC saying that they have
preempted their own available procedures and prematurely brought the
matter to the court.
The Court: I don't dispute that I have the jurisdiction. My concern is
that if there were--and I think there are--serious questions about the
constitutionality of [your] regulatory scheme, and if the FCC is meant to
address those before I do, or in fact to the exclusion of me addressing
them, how can we obtain the FCC's rulings on that so that they can then be
reviewed by some court...My thought was that we could do it in the context
of the forfeiture action. This action could be stayed. The forfeiture
action could be ruled upon. You say it would have to go to the District
Court first, right?
This bombshell from Judge Wilken sends Silberman into a panic and he
tries to demonize Stephen Dunifer and his broadcasts and criticizes the
actions of the court in this context.
Mr. Silberman: That's right. And then there would be an appeal to the
Court of Appeals and then the Supreme Court, all the while if there was no
injunction by this Court, Mr.Dunifer would have the freedom to violate the
law. And this Court, by not issuing an injunction, would permit him to
violate the law...Your Honor, the Defendant has a right to go to the
commission and ask it to change its mind. What this Court should do is
issue an injunction to prevent him from continuing to broadcast, because
each broadcast provides for irreparable injury.
Mr. Silberman is unable to resist throwing in a personal note that
reflects on his age and what he presumes to be the age of Judge Wilken.
Mr. Silberman: The constitutionality of Section 301 was established
right after I was born and before you were born, Your Honor, in 1943 in
the NBC case. The Supreme Court said, "No one has a right to operate a
radio station without a license, and the scheme for licensing is
constitutional." ...The law is clear, Your Honor. An injunction should
issue.
Judge Wilken now turns to Mr. Hiken, Stephen's attorney. In the course
of their conversation, Mr. Hiken makes it clear how the FCC will not
listen to requests for rule changes under its own regulations. He
punctures the argument that FRB broadcasts are any sort of "emergency",
given the nature and amplitude of micro- power broadcasting. He points out
the position of the FCC in not recognizing the "standing" of person to
challenge their "regulatory scheme".
The Court: Why don't you petition for a change in the rule to the FCC?
Mr. Hiken: We believe that...the forfeiture hearing is a perfectly
legitimate forum within which to raise this.
The Court: Maybe so, but why not file this petition to change the
rule, in addition to it?
Mr. Hiken: [refers Court to book] [This] book outlines the history of
the FCC from the period of 1928 to 1935 in which the radio industry...was
placed in the pockets of the corporations that have controlled them since.
The idea that the FCC does not have before them the information they need
to initiate rule proceedings on their own is ludicrous. There is a
broadcaster in Springfield [Illinois] who has been broadcasting 24 hours a
day, a blind African American man, for five years. They gave him a
forfeiture order five years ago. If there is an emergency, why is it that
they haven't done anything about that? There's no emergency in this case.
And we would point out to the Court that the suggestion you were making is
exactly what should occur here. We made a request in the forfeiture order
that "If there were proceedings or rules or means whereby we can raise
this issue for your consideration, please give them to us." We did that a
year and a half ago.
The Court: Right. But what they are saying is you're supposed to file
a petition for a change of the rules.
Mr. Hiken: But the petition for change of rules is a procedure which
is applicable...only if the constitutional standard is appropriate and
legitimate...
The Court: I don't follow that. Why can't you go to them and petition
that they change their rule that says they won't license a low amp station
or whatever it is?
Mr. Hiken: [T]he equivalent to...their law is if people can't go into
the parks and speak because we're finding...litter and things like that
and people are saying "That's unconstitutional." There's no need to go
petition the rule-making authority to say, "We asked you not to have this
unconstitutional rule and law." This microradio we're talking about. To
compare this...with something that Ted Turner or KCBS is using with
100,000 watts over the airwaves is ludicrous. Mr. Dunifer does not have
the kind of funds or the ability, nor do any of the people that are
involved in trying to regain just a voice over the radio, have the means
to go to the FCC and do this.
The Court: Maybe you don't have to do it, but what's the problem with
it?
Mr. Hiken: In the Duggan case that was argued a year ago, Justice
Kleinfeld asked Mr. Silberman to brief the question of: "Why does the FCC
regulatory scheme ignore microradio. Would you please explain why you're
dealing with this technology the same way you're dealing with megawatt
stations?" The FCC said that a person even who had received a forfeiture
order did not have the standing to go into court to challenge their
regulatory schemes...If you read the decision in Duggan you will see that
the Court...was saying, "No, that's not so." The second you issue a
[1/4] (AQR?D):
2/4 Email
Title: Re: HI HI HI HI HI
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:33:33 -0700 (PDT) (1 days old)
From: frbspd @crl.com Internet
To: bulldog #73 @1219000 VirtualNET <Received>
forfeiture order, the person has standing to go into Federal Court...Our
feeling is that the proper procedures to challenge the legality and
constitutionality of their scheme is before the FCC itself first...Their
own act gives them the authority to initiate rule-making procedures
anytime they feel it's appropriate.
The Court: So if you get an adverse decision from the FCC...you would
take it to the District Court, would you?
Mr. Hiken: When and If they will finally give us a ruling before the
FCC, we'll be back here. That's why we request that you stay these
proceedings. If there's an emergency, they can rule on those issues so
that you will have the benefit of knowing their analysis.
At about this point Mr. Silberman objects and asks to interject that
only the Government can a initiate a lawsuit based on recovering a fine
and then the Defendant is subject to trial. The Defendant cannot start
this action. In effect, if the FCC chooses not to collect its fine, it
need not defend its regulations in court unless it decides to do so.
The Court: Would you do that?
Mr. Silberman: What?
The Court: Will you do that?
Mr. Silberman: It depends on what the commission does. And we do try
to recover forfeitures.
He waffles playing a what-if game. This is a topic Silberman would
clearly like to avoid. Just as they have avoided dealing with that other
matter in Springfield for five years. He shifts gears and goes on another
long whining harangue, citing the same cases and regulations, apparently
having played out his arguments he tries to give them added strength by
repeating them again ad nauseam. This proves too much for the attorney for
the defense.
Mr. Silberman: And we're entitled to an injunction because we've
proved in our papers that there is irreparable injury. And they don't
challenge that, really.
Mr. Hiken: Your Honor, he's repeating himself.
Mr. Silberman: Well, may I just....
Mr. Hiken: It's my opportunity to argue, I believe, sir.
Mr. Silberman: I'm sorry. I'm sorry.
The Court: That's all right.
Mr. Silberman: But irreparable injury...
The Court: Well, they do challenge...
Mr. Silberman: And there's no adequate remedy at law.
The Court: There's no adequate remedy at law for who?
Mr. Silberman: There's no adequate remedy at law for the Government
here.
The Court: For the Government?
Mr. Silberman: No. there is not, because every time there is a
broadcast it's irreparable harm.
The Court: Well, it's sort of an odd statutory scheme and regulatory
scheme, but what it leaves me with is I have to balance your likelihood of
prevailing and the harm to either side. And what I think is relevant to
that is the constitutionality of the regulatory scheme...So I think what I
have to do, in order to carry out the test I need to apply is to turn to
the FCC and ask them to do what they are supposed to do, and tell us
whether this regulatory scheme is required and proper and still correct in
light of existing technology. Then I can decide on the constitutionality.
Mr. Silberman indulges his previous arguments one more time. To
paraphrase Mr. Hiken, Silberman seems to think that if he repeats his
arguments often enough, someone will finally believe them.
The Court: Well, my inclination is to deny the preliminary injunction
and to stay the proceedings and turn to the FCC to act on it in the
context of the forfeiture proceedings, so that this Court will have their
guidance with respect to the need of those regulations and the balancing
of the need for the regulations against the constitutional interests of
the people who wish to broadcast and so forth.
As the matter begins to wind down, Ms. Duggan steps into the fray for
clarification and makes it possible for Mr. Silberman to makes his
penultimate "can of worms" argument.
Ms. Duggan: If I could ask for a point of clarification about when the
Court is saying "a stay" are you expressing an inclination towards denying
the preliminary injunction?
The Court: I'm denying it at this time. I would say without prejudice.
Ms. Duggan: [The injunction] is not being stayed, but the further
proceedings after the preliminary injunction are being stayed.
The Court: Right. Because I can't make a final ruling without turning
to the FCC first to do its statutory evaluation.
Mr. Silberman: Your Honor, I know you seem to make your decision. When
we have a rule-making proceeding...that could affect the public at large
and other broadcasters...there would be a requirement for notice and
comment. And it could take months to years to resolve that question. Is
Your Honor saying that we would have to have a rule-making proceeding,
open up for public comment, have the staff consider the recommendations,
provide a report...to the commission, and go through the judicial review
process if someone were to challenge any new rules or to challenge the
decision not to adopt new rules? This could take years.
The Court: That's not what I'm saying at this point.
Mr. Silberman: Because that's precisely what's going to happen, Your
Honor. Your Honor, this opens up such a can of worms. You don't realize.
I mean it. Your honor, what would happen would be that you've given carte
blanche to this group of people who think they can operate a radio station
without a license...This is turning it on its head, Your Honor. I know you
are inclined, and you've made a determination. But it opens up such
hazards to the public interest that I want you to realize what you're
doing...
The Court: I didn't find such egregious hazards on the records. I
mean, if there is some further showing that you want to make at some
point, I can't prevent you from doing that.
Though a court date was set for early March for a showing by the FCC,
this was later postponed. As of this date April 25, 1995, nothing has
emerged from the FCC, and something is expected within the first two weeks
of May. If ever. After all, to quote Silberman, this could take years.
Hold on to your transistors, it could be a bumpy ride.
*********************************************************************************
*****
FRB Interviews FCC on Fine Structure
by Carol Denney
FRB: One curious aspect of the current administration of the Federal
Communi- cations Commission is its seemingly arbitrary assignment of
uncollectible fines to people accused of broadcasting without licneses.
How does the FCC structure its fines? Is there actually some kind of
system? To find out, we asked an FCC agent shivering in a van frantically
twisting dials outside the suspected location of a pirate broadcaster. Mr.
FCC agent, is there actually some kind of system?
FCC AGENT: Of course we have a system. It's just too complicated for lay
people to understand. We take the average daily temperature divided by the
current interest rate, factor in the price of gasoline, premium gasoline,
that is, and then multiply by 14% of the amount of people who voted in the
latest mayoral election according to the municipality of the radio pirate
in question, subtract twenty-nine and there you have it; a rational, ob-
jective formula for the assignment of fines to pirate radio broadcasters.
FRB: Was this always the method used for the assignment of fines?
FCC AGENT: No, we used to use a dart board and a blindfold, but it was
sug- gested to us that this might be perceived as somewhat arbitrary. .
.being good public servants we began a course of serious study with
renowned experts to, uh, refine this method.
FRB: What other methods have been used?
FCC AGENT: Well, for a few years we experimented with an FCC secretarial
pool lottery system, after which we moved to more complicated formulas
based on the third horse race at Santa Anita, then for several months we
relied on adding up the numbers in the first forty license plates through
the Bay Bridge toll plaza at midnight. These are valuable indicators, of
course, but we believe our current methods offer a truly scientific
rationale.
FRB: Will the FCC be further improving its current fine selection method?
FCC AGENT: Well, we take our duty to discourage pirate broadcasting
extremely seriously so despite the fact that we have no way of actually
collecting any of these fines, we tirelessly continue to experiment with
fine structures hoping that someday the pirate broadcasters will surrender
their headphones in defeat. Our latest experiments involve an inverse
ratio of atmospheric negative ions to salt content in canned soup,
carefully factoring in other numerical indicators such as football scores
and stock prices. The American people can be proud.
FRB: Of course, of course. We've been listening to an FCC field agent ex-
plaining the creative aspects of the FCC fine structure. Back to you in
the studio. . .
******************************************************************************
Micro Radio on the Road
by Keith McHenry
As part of a Food Not Bombs tour of 22 cities I demonstrated a 5
watt FM transmitter at every location. It started up without a problem on
the first night in Dallas. The system was simple. I plugged my boom box
into the mixer and I connected the mixer to the transmitter. The power
supply went to the transmitter and the cable to the antenna hooked up to
the other side of the transmitter. It took only fifteen minutes to put
the system together. I had local Food Not Bombs people lock into a dead
frequency and tune the transmitter in themselves. They loved it. The
next night I broadcast the concert at the Engine Room in Fort Worth.
People were so excited about the live show going out over the air that
much of the audience went to the parking lot and listened to the event on
their car radios. Micropowered radio was a hit in all 22 communities.
The transmitter worked well even after it was dropped from a three foot
high table onto a hard wood floor three times in Kansas City. I broadcast
that concert as well. New York City and Chicago were the only two cities
that have very little dead space on the band. My hosts in Canada thought
we would lose the transmitter crossing the border. I left the mixer,
microphone, power supply, etc. in Burlington, Vermont when I went to
Montreal. The people in Burlington broadcast for 12 hours while I was in
Canada. They called their friends and had them tune in. They said it
went all over town.
The first video we presented showed C.T. and I talking about Food
Not Bombs International Gathering on San Francisco Liberation Radio. One
segment shows us receiving a call from one of the food servers who talks
about that night's meal. Another segment shows Stephen Dunifer building a
transmitter and encourages the viewer to attend the Gathering where
workshops will be held on setting up a micropower FM broadcast station.
Other workshops will cover all aspects of community organizing. Everyone
is invited to come to San Francisco for the Gathering from June 19th to
June 26th. A special Gathering station will on the air at 87.9 FM. For
more information call 1-800-884-1136.
*****************************************************************************
San Francisco Liberation Radio Rocks On After Two Years
by Richard Edmondson
From children's programming to talk shows on controversial issues, San
Francisco Liberation Radio continues to offer progressive broadcasting to
the people of west San Francisco as we get ready to celebrate our second
anniver- sary.
In our two years on the air we have gone through some unbelievable
changes--from broadcasting by flashlight one night a week while battling
wind and weather on Twin Peaks, to the smooth, steady seven night a week
operation we have now in the comfort of a Richmond District house.
It gave us an awesome feeling walking through Golden Gate Park after
the storms in January and March and seeing all the huge, tall trees that
had been knocked down by the wind. To think that our antenna made it
through all that --battered perhaps but still flying proud and high--well,
high fives all around. And we didn't miss a single night on the air!
San Francisco Liberation Radio continues to offer the best children's
pro- gramming anywhere in the Bay Area--on Annie Voice's program, "Time
Out!" In April Annie began reading "The Night of Wishes" by Michael Ende,
a metaphori- cal tale about the wealthy making deals with the devil. In
the story the devil is very upset because Beelzebub Preposteror, who in
exchange for extra- ordinary wealth and power over his fellow mortals, has
not been fully living up to his end of the bargain, so the devil sends his
servant, Maledictus Maggot, to lay down the law: more rivers polluted,
more trees cut, and more species rendered extinct. . .or else!
"We try to pick stories that are not only entertaining but also teach
children to care for the Earth," said Annie, who in addition to being a
micropower radio broadcaster, has also been a pre-school teacher for the
past eight years.
We'd like to welcome back Keith McHenry as host of "Voices of
Rebellion", our live weekly call-in talk show. Keith took a six week
hiatus from the show as he went on a nationwide tour for Food Not Bombs.
Very special thanks go out to Geoff McDonald and Nikki the Liberator of
Radio Libre for filling in as guest hosts in his absence.
In keeping with our policy of bringing you the interesting and the un-
usual, we feature in May a fifteen-part reading of the book, "Worlds in
Colli- sion" by Immanuel Velikovsky. Food for the mind, you might call
this one. Velikovsky, the original proponent of the theory of cosmic
catastrophism, proposes that in the year 1500 BC, the Earth was struck by
a giant comet, which went on to settle into an orbit around the sun as the
planet Venus. The event triggered astounding catastrophes of nature which
are ascertainable today in the geologic records of the Earth as well as
the folklores of an- cient peoples, according to Velikovsky.
Despite the impressive body of evidence Velikovsky presents to support
his thesis, "Worlds in Collision" was harshly and at times stridently
rejected by the scientific establishment when it first appeared in 1950.
Many of the nation's top scientists referred to Velikovsky as a charlatan
and threatened to boycott his publishers. Yet many of Velikovsky's
predictions, such as the existence of radio signals emanating from the
planet Jupiter, have since been borne out, and the book is fabulously rich
in the culture of ancient civili- zations, delving deeply into the secrets
of Hindu, Babylonian, and Mayan astronomers. Moreover, Velikovsky's
detractors found themselves sharply rebuked by no less than Albert
Einstein, who maintained a correspondence with Velikovsky until his death
in 1955.
We're looking forward to seeing all of you at our Second Anniversary
Party, May 11th at Cesar's Latin Palace. As of this writing, the Funky
Nixons have been booked for this joint anniversary celebration for
ourselves and Free Radio Berkeley, and it promises to be a festive
occasion. Micropower radio is now two years old in the Bay Area! So don't
forget--Cesar's Latin Palace, 3140 Mission St., Thursday May 11th at 9 pm.
See you there! And when in west San Francisco, keep your radio tuned to
93.7 FM, San Francisco Liberation Radio.
Kits & Accessories From Free Radio Berkeley
First, a word from our legal department: For educational purposes only.
These kits are offered for the furtherance of one's knowledge regarding
radio frequency design and principles. At all times during operation the
assembled unit must be connected to a dummy load. Part 15 of the FCC
rules prohibits an antenna being used with these units. All
responsibilities for the ultimate use of these kits are born solely by the
builder and/or operator.
KITS AVAILABLE NOW !
All kits are complete and come with professionally manufactured,
drilled and tinned PC boards. All coils are pre-wound. Each unit, unless
specified, requires 12 volts for proper operation. Full instructions and
diagrams included. Required tools include a 25-30 watt soldering iron
with a fine tip, diagonal cutters, needle nose pliers, assorted
screwdrivers and other small hand tools. Full assembly diagrams and
instructions are included with each kit. Antenna construction diagrams
are provided with each transmitter or amplifier order.
Certain kits are designed to work with each other. For those
whose wish to boost the output of their Ramsey FM-10 the 1/2-1 watt amp
will work very well for this purpose. The 30 watt amp is designed to be
driven by 3-5 watts and works extremely well with the 5 watt transmitter.
The 15 watt amplifier is designed to be driven to full power with about
1/2 watt of input power, hence it works very well with the 1/2 watt stereo
transmitter or PLL transmitter. If you wish to only boost a 1/2 watt
signal to 5-7 watts then choose the 6 watt amplifier kit. An amplifier
only increases the output power of a given input signal, it can not
produce an FM signal whereas a transmitter or an exciter creates the FM
signal at a suitable power level for possible further amplification by an
RF amplifier. 1/2-1 Watt PLL Transmitter - $105 Our newest kit. Full
digital PLL control locks the frequency and prevents any drift from
happening. Will easily drive the 6-8, 10-15, and 20-24 watt amplifier
kits. Easy to assemble and a major improvement over the Panaxis PLL kit.
If you have one of our 5 watt transmitter kits, they can be modified to be
driven by the PLL transmitter. Full instructions are provided for this
modification.
1/2 - 1 watt Stereo Broadcast Transmitter - $55
A vast improvement over the Ramsey FM-10. It uses the BA1404 IC as a
stereo modulator only to modulate a FET vfo, buffer and amp chain. Better
audio input filtering and bypassing. IC voltage regulation for the 2.5
volt supply for the BA1404. A very rugged output stage and collector
voltage bypassing make this unit stand out from all other transmitter
designs using the BA1404 chip. Requires 12 volts DC
5 Watt FM Transmitter - $65
This is a very good basic unit that is very compact, fits into a 4 x
6 inch enclosure (available punched and drilled). Frequency stability is
maintained by a well designed oscillator section. It is a mono unit that
accepts line level input (i.e. an audio signal from a tape deck, mixer,
etc.). A fine frequency adjustment control allows for easy adjustment of
operating frequency. To increase power of this transmitter use the 30
watt amplifier. Both will fit into a 7 x 7 inch enclosure (available
punched and drilled). Requires 12 to 14 volts DC at 3/4 to 1 amp for
operation.
6 watt RF Amplifier - $30
Uses the same output transistor as above. It is designed to boost
low wattage transmitters to a bit higher output power and will produce up
to 8 watts of output power. A very small and compact circuit measuring 3
x 1 1/2 inches for 1/2 watt input drive. Easy, quick assembly. Requires
12-14 volts DC at 3/4 to 1 amp for operation.
15 watt RF Amplifier - $55
Uses a very high gain (14dB, power gain of at least 25X) RF
transistor to boost a 1/2 watt input to 15 watts. Perfect for boosting
the 1/2 stereo transmitter to 15 watts. Measures 2 1/2 by 5 inches and
fits into a 4 x 6 enclosure (available punched and drilled). Includes
heat sink. Easy, point to point surface mount assembly. Requires 12-14
volts at 2 amps for operation.
20 -24 watt RF amplifier - $115
$115 might sound a bit steep, but for those who do not wish to do an
extensive amount of soldering and tuning, this is kit is for you. It uses
a broad band high gain, RF power module which will put out a 20-24 watt
signal for only a 100 to 200 miliwatt input. Kit requires less than 20
solder connections to complete, including a 5 element filter. Since the
module is broad band from 88 to 108 MHz no tuning is required, plug and
play as they say. Requires 12-14 volts at 3 to 4 amps.
25-30 watt RF Amplifier - $65
Will produce full power with an input drive of 3-5 watts. This
unit works very well with the 5 watt transmitter kit. In fact, next to
the 5 watt kit, it is our most popular item. Fits a 4 x 6 inch enclosure
(available punched and drilled). Easy point to point surface mount
assembly. Includes heat sink. Requires 12-14 volts DC at 4-5 amps for
operation.
30-40 Watt Amplifier - $95
30 to 40 watts of output power for an input of 1/2 watt. This is
a two stage unit with a 5 watt and a 40 watt amplifier on the same board.
Easy, large surface mount type assembly. Works very well with the PLL
transmitter. Requires 6-7 amps at 12 volts DC.
1/2 to 1 watt Amplifier - $30
1/2 to 1 watt output for an input power of 10 mw. Great for
boosting lower power VFOs and low power Ramsey FM-10 type kits. Very
compact size, 3 1/2 X 1 1/2 inches. An optional transistor can be
substituted to take the power up to 1 1/2 watts, add $5 for this option.
Output Filter Kit - $8.00
A seven element low pass filter, composed of 4 coils and 3
capacitors, to flatten those harmonics. Please use a filter on any
transmitter you to use to avoid possible interference with other services.
15 Watt Dummy Load Kit - $10.00
Essential for tuning up and testing transmitters and amplifiers.
Will handle 15 watts without any strain, higher powers for a briefer
period of time (i.e. shut down when it gets rather hot). Presents a
uniform 50 ohm impedance to the transmitter.
25 Watt Dummy Load Kit - $20
As above, use this with the 30 watt kit for testing and loading
purposes. Uses a single, film non-inductive resistor
50 Watt Dummy Load Kit - $35
Same design as the 25 watt unit, use this if you plan on running
the 30 watt unit for an extended period of time with a dummy load.
100 Watt Dummy Load Kit - $50
Same design as the 25 & 50 watt units. Uses 2 film resistors.
Stereo Generator Only - $30
Actually 1/2 of the above the stereo transmitter, will allow one
to broadcast in stereo using the 5 watt transmitter with a very minor
modification.
HIGH POWER AMPS - USE WITH CAUTION
75 Watt Amplifier - $200
Requires 28 volts DC (two car batteries in series or 28 volt DC
power supply). Point to point surface mount construction. Easy assembly,
includes heat sink. Amplifier measures 6 3/4 x 3 3/4 inches. Only 5
watts input power needed to drive to full power.
150 Watt Amplifier - $250
Requires 28 volts DC (two car batteries in series or 28 volt DC power
supply). Point to point surface mount construction. Easy assembly,
includes heat sink. Amplifier measures 6 3/4 x 3 3/4 inches. Use a power
FET RF transistor that requires only 3-5 watts of input power for 125
watts output.
ANTENNA KITS
These are partial kits, just go to your local plumbing supply or hardware store f
or
the copper pipe and/or wire needed for completion. Full construction diagrams
and instructions included.
J-Pole - $25
Metal box drilled with SO239 connector, tuning cap and tubing
clamps. This one is know as the "electricians special" since it uses
mostly electric hardware in its construction. Works very well for urban
areas. No soldering of copper pipe required for assembly. Can be
adjusted for operation over the entire FM band.
Slim Jim - $20
SO239 connector and clamps. Works very well for urban areas where
a powerful horizontal pattern is needed. If used at too great of height,
an area surrounding the antenna will be skipped over due to its low angle
of radiation. Even at a height of only about 12 feet mounted on a traffic
sign pole this antenna was able send a 5 watt signal 2-3 miles. Requires
soldering of copper pipe. Can be placed inside a 6" piece of black
plastic pipe for concealment. Provides a gain of 2-3.
Dipole - $20
Easy and quick design.
5/8 Ground Plane - $35
All necessary parts except copper element and ground radials.
This is a great design and works extremely well. It is very portable and
will boost the power by a factor of 2 to 4.
POWER SUPPLIES
Unless you are planning on operating from a 12 volt lead acid
battery or from the lighter socket in a vehicle you will need an AC
operated DC power supply. Wall adapter units can not be used. We have
the following units available.
2.5 Amp 13.8 V DC power supply - $35
Use this to power either the 1/2 watt transmitter or 5 watt
transmitter or the 1/2 watt stereo unit in combination with the 6 watt
amplifier.
4.5 Amp 13.8 V DC power - $45
Use this to power the stereo transmitter in combination with the
15 watt amplifier.
12 Amp 13.8 V DC power supply - $75
Use this to power the 5 watt transmitter in combination with the
30 watt amplifier or the PLL with a 40 watt amplifier.
METERS
Power & SWR Meters
These are essential to the proper tuning and setting up of both
transmitters and antennas. An antenna has to be fine tuned so that it
accepts the full power of the transmitter and reflects the lowest amount
possible back, that ratio of forward power to reflected power is know as
the standing wave ratio (SWR). The various stages of both transmitters
and amplifiers have adjustable capacitors which are used to tune the unit
to the frequency of operation. A power meter allows you to see the effect
of these adjustments on the power level and to set everything at an
optimum level.
Economy Power/SWR meter - $35
A compact in-line unit that works up to a frequency range of 150 MHz.
High Quality Daiwa Meter - $100
A dual cross needle meter that shows both forward and reflected
power on the same meter face. Makes tuning up very easy, no need to
switch back and forth between these two functions. Compact design with 12
volt connection for lighting the meter face.
FREQUENCY COUNTER
To accurately maintain your operating frequency a digital
frequency counter is highly recommended. A digital tuner with signal
strength indication can be used as a substitute. We have a frequency
counter available for $80.00
COAXIAL CABLES
A coaxial cable is a special type of wiring that has an inner
conductor surrounded by an insulating plastic sheath which is covered by a
braid of copper wire that is then covered by a plastic jacket. The 75 ohm
video cable used in home TV applications is one type of coaxial cable.
For most RF purposes, 50 ohm cable is used. Quite a number of 50 ohm
coaxial cables are available ranging from the rather small to cables over
1" in diameter. Regardless of the type, all such cables exhibit a loss
that increases with frequency of operation and the length of the cable.
For most purposes we will concern ourselves with RG8 and RG8x (mini
version of RG8). In very short runs RG58 can be used, but we prefer RG8x
due to its lower loss and ability to stand a bit more abuse. RG8 has the
lowest loss of the group. Under no circumstances should the cables be
twisted, kinked or crushed, this will cause major problems. We supply
both RG8X and RG8 in the following lengths. Each end is terminated with a
PL259 plug. RG8X: 25 feet - $15, 50 feet - $25, 75 feet- $35, 100 feet -
$40 RG8: 50 feet - $32, 75 feet - $42, 100 feet - $52
ENCLOSURES
4 x 6 aluminum chassis punched and drilled for 5 watt xmtr, 15 watt
amplifier or 30 watt amplifier - $20
7 x 7 aluminum chassis punched and drilled for 1/2
watt stereo transmitter or 5 & 30 combo or PLL 1/2 watt. - $25
The Brick Enclosure - 15 to 30 watt size -$35 / 40 watt size -$45
Combined heat sink and enclosure made from extruded aluminum. Will
support a 1/2 or 5 watt transmitter and any of the booster amplifiers.
VARIOUS & SUNDRY ITEMS
Tweak stick - $2.50
Essential to tuning transmitters and amplifiers. Non-conductive
body with tiny metal blade at end. In tuning these transmitters and
amplifiers a metal screwdriver will cause false tuning to happen due to
the interactive effects of the metal and the holder of the screwdriver
with the circuit. A plastic TV tuning tool kit can be found at Radio
Shack as well.
NEW ITEMS
1-5 Watt AM & SW Transmitter - $60
A well designed AM & SW transmitter which uses standard
microprocessor crystals with a switichable 1-10 frequency divider. I.e.
[2/4] (AQR?D):
3/4 Email
Title: Re: HI HI HI HI HI
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:33:33 -0700 (PDT) (1 days old)
From: frbspd @crl.com Internet
To: bulldog #73 @1219000 VirtualNET <Received>
an 8 Mhz cyrstal yields frequencies of 4, 2.66, 2, 1.6, 1.33, 1.14, 1,
8.8, .8 Mhz. Specific frequency crystals can be ordered from various
sources. Supplied with 8, 6 and 4 Mhz crystals. Ouput power is
adjustable from 0 to 5 watts.
25 watt AM & SW amplifier kit - $55
Broadband up to 10 Mhz. Requires only 2 watts of drive power for
25 watts out. Needs 28 volts DC for operation.
150 watt AM & SW amplifier kit - $275
Broadband to 30 Mhz. Requires 5 watts of drive power. Requires
12-14 volts at 18-20 amps.
Proceeds from the sales of these kits go to the furtherance of
micro power broadcasting, bringing a voice of empowerment to every
community.
Please add $6.00 for handling and shipping for each kit. $6.00
for the 2.5 & 4.5 amp power supply and $15.00 for the 12 amp power supply.
Normal shipment is UPS 3 day select. COD orders add $8.00. Air mail to
other countries, $12.00 per kit.
Payment to be made out to Free Radio Berkeley Foreign orders please pay by
money order drawn on US bank Free Radio Berkeley 1442 A Walnut St., #406
Berkeley, CA 94709 Voice mail: (510) 464-3041 Net mail: [email protected]
=========================
The Legal Victory of Free Radio Berkeley
"All of the cases support us, Your Honor. The Weiner case, the Red
Lion case, the NBC case, the Nutri-Cology case, the Medina case in the
Southern District of Florida. In every case where an injunction has been
requested by the Government to prevent unlawful, unlicensed broadcasting,
the District Court has granted the injunction. There is no case that we
are aware of -- and the Defendant cites none -- where a District Court has
been asked to issue an injunction and the Government has proved an
unlicensed radio operation where the Government has been denied that
injunction.
"And there's a very good reason for that. Unlicensed broadcasting
creates chaos on the airwaves. It's anarchy on the airwaves. And to
allow and not to enjoin this kind of operation, the Court should consider
that in doing so it encourages continuing violations not only by the
Defendant, but by those who would also see this as a signal that the law
is not going to be enforced."
-- Federal Communications Commission (FCC) lawyer David Silberman
speaking at a January 20, 1995 court hearing for an injunction against
Free Radio Berkeley
In what can only be termed a shocking January 30, 1995 opinion,
federal judge Claudia Wilken considered the constitutional issues raised
by defendant Stephen Dunifer of Free Radio Berkeley (FRB) and declined to
grant an injunction against FRB. This was the first instance of a federal
court failing to grant the government an injunction to prevent unlicensed
broadcasting
The immediate and dramatic result is that Radio Free Berkeley is
now broadcasting 24 hours a day from a location in Oakland. For the
moment, there is nothing the government can do to stop it. Gone are the
days when the radio station had to be forever moved to evade detection.
The FCC presumably knows exactly where the station is. With a stable
studio location, a diverse group of folks put on creative and radical
shows and take calls over the studio phone line. The station is community
based, alternative and participatory. The Legal Battle
Founded by Stephen Dunifer two years ago, FRB was originally on
the air three hours per week. On June 1, 1993, the FCC filed a "Notice of
Apparent Liability" (NAL) against Dunifer seeking a $20,000 fine. The
fine was based on two broadcasts that Dunifer made without securing a
license from the FCC. Dunifer's lawyers, connected with the National
Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communication, filed an argument
against the fine based on free speech rights. The FCC did not address the
constitutional issues and as of yet has not enforced the fine against
Dunifer.
When Dunifer continued the broadcasts following the NAL, the FCC
filed a separate lawsuit in federal court for an injunction against
further FRB broadcasts. If issued, an injunction would have put the full
weight of the government against FRB, probably preventing further
broadcasts.
Dunifer's lawyers again raised constitutional arguments against
the injunction. The FCC asserted that it merely had to prove (1) that
Dunifer had no license to broadcast and (2) that he had made broadcasts
nonetheless. Even Dunifer's lawyers admitted to this. Dunifer's lawyers
argued, however, that the injunction should not issue because the FCC
regulations were unconstitutional. They made it impossible for Dunifer to
seek a license for microradio broadcasts.
To obtain a preliminary injunction (which would stay in force
until a trial on the merits resolved the ultimate questions of law and
fact allowing the court to issue a permanent injunction) the FCC had to
show that they were likely to win and there might be "irreparable harm" to
the public or they had to show that while they might or might not win, the
government hardships in the absence of an injunction were severe.
In this case, the court saw the "merits" of the case involving not
the two factors cited by the government (no license and broadcasts) but
whether Dunifer would prevail on the constitutional issues. The FCC
clearly didn't want to look at constitutional issues and expected the
court to just consider the two, relatively simple questions. Probably the
most surprising aspect of the judge's decision is that she considered the
constitutional issues at all, rather than resolving the case with the more
simple method of merely looking at the two government factors.
The judge found that there was not "probable success on the
merits" given the constitutional issues raised by Dunifer. Moving to the
second part of the test, she found that the hardships to the government
from continued broadcasts were not severe. The FCC cited two instances
when FRB interfered with licensed broadcasts to show that continued
broadcasts "hurt the public." However, FCC officials had to practically
trip over the transmitter in order to register the interference.
Additionally, Dunifer claimed that the transmitter has since been improved
and that no future interference was likely. Given this, the judge found
that the constitutional issues raised were too great, and the showing of
hardship too slight, to justify an injunction. The judge did not want to
address the constitutional issues in the absence of arguments regarding
them from the FCC. Although Dunifer raised the constitutional issues in
his briefs, the FCC lawyers completely ignored these issues. The Least
Restrictive Means?
Dunifer's lawyers has not argued that the FCC lacks authority to
regulate radio broadcasts. Rather, he argues that the complete ban on
micropower radio (the FCC does not issue licenses for stations with less
than 100 watts of power) is unconstitutional.
Past Supreme Court cases dealing with FCC laws and regulations
have found that radio broadcasting involves free speech (first amendment)
questions. When first amendment free speech rights are impacted by
government regulation, the government must establish that the contested
regulations are the least restrictive means available to further a
compelling state interest.
The traditional justification for FCC regulation is that there are
a scarce number of frequencies available on the radio dial and that the
FCC must regulate to prevent stations from interfering with each other.
Dunifer argues that, due to technological improvements in
equipment, microradio broadcasts can be made without interference to
high-power broadcasters and that there is sufficient space on the radio
dial to accommodate micropower radio broadcasts. He points to regulations
in Canada, where micropower stations were legalized in urban areas in
1993. (Micropower broadcasters in Canada merely submit a 2 page form and
affirm that their equipment meets technical standards to avoid
interference.)
Dunifer argues that completely banning micropower radio
broadcasts, rather than developing a system for regulating them, is
unconstitutional because it is not the least restrictive means of
achieving the government interest, in this case preventing interference.
Dunifer's lawyers also argued that by completely banning
micropower radio, the FCC has eliminated opportunities for community based
alternatives to mainstream -- usually corporate -- radio broadcasting.
Federal law requires the FCC to regulate "in the public interest," which
Dunifer argues should include the whole public, not just the economically
powerful. Supreme Court law supports the argument that the FCC must
regulate to attempt to achieve a "balanced presentation" of information.
In the end, the judge found that the FCC had not addressed the
constitutional questions and that they were sufficiently convincing, and
that harm had not been sufficiently shown, that the injunction should not
issue. The court indicated that the FCC should address the constitutional
issues in proceedings to enforce the $20,000 fine against Dunifer, and
that the court would then consider those proceedings in making a final
decision on an injunction. The court phrased the question as "[I]n light
of current technology, is a total ban on new licensing of micro radio
broadcasting the least restrictive means available to protect against
chaos [o]n the airwaves?"
What Now?
The victory in court is very significant but it does not end the
legal struggle. The government has the ball and will make the next move.
There are a number of options open to them:
1. The government could follow the judge's suggestion. This
would mean they would move forward with the fine against Dunifer and
address his constitutional arguments. This process would likely take a
long time. Only then would the court consider granting an injunction.
The government cannot seek an injunction in a different court (thereby
getting around this ruling) because of legal rules. Once a case is
assigned to a particular judge in federal court, the case stays with that
judge.
If the government follows this course of action, there is no
certainty that FRB would eventually win on the "merits." Dunifer's legal
argument, while extremely clever and creative, is somewhat "novel."
However, while the slow wheels of justice turn, FRB will remain on the air
and can build political and community support.
2. The government could decide to ignore FRB and try to win a
similar case before a different judge elsewhere. Such a victory elsewhere
might influence the court in Oakland, although a victory elsewhere would
only be binding on the court in Oakland if the decision came from (a) the
Ninth Circuit court of appeals or (b) the US Supreme Court.
From the government's perspective, the last thing they want is for
the court in Oakland to rule in favor of FRB on the "merits" of the case
after considering the constitutional issues. If that happened, the case
would be "persuasive" to other courts considering similar cases.
Judge Wilken is probably the worst possible judge for the FCC
because she appears to honestly and seriously consider the constitutional
issues raised by FRB. Therefore, the FCC might decide to just drop the
case against FRB and look for a greener pasture. Under this scenario, FRB
might again stay on the air for a long time. The FCC has ignored pirate
stations in many other areas and there is nothing that requires them to
act against FRB. The more public FRB and its violation becomes, the more
pressure there will be for the FCC to do something.
3. The FCC might return to court and try to show a higher level
of "harm" to the public interest from FRB than they showed in their
original papers. Assuming that FRB does not interfere with other
stations, the FCC could possibly make a creative argument finding some
other factor creating "harm" to the public.
One possibility, which FRB DJs might consider, is that the FCC
could argue that the public interest is "harmed" by "obscene" language on
the air. The FCC would argue that "children" could get the broadcasts and
that this harm, even in the absence of interference, justifies an
injunction. As to the simple use of words like "fuck" on the air, this
argument is pretty silly. The FCC would have to argue that such words
offend community standards in order to be found "obscene." However, it is
conceivable that some things going out over the air might offend community
standards. We have to assume that (1) the FCC badly wants to get an
injunction and (2) that they are listening to and taping everything that
goes out over FRB. DJs should think about this if they want the station
to stay on the air. Implications
One potential long term flaw with Dunifer's legal arguments is
that they conceded the FCC's authority to regulate microradio broadcasts.
This concession is probably unavoidable given the legal system. However,
it raises long term questions.
If the FCC loses and the complete prohibition on microradio
licensing is found unconstitutional, the FCC would presumably have to
license microradio stations. They might do this like in Canada: with a
simple 2 page form and minimal or no fees. However, they might agree to
license microradio stations, but make the standards and fees so difficult
as to effectively prohibit real "grassroots" community access to the
medium. For instance, a $20,000 fee (including technical studies) would
completely prevent access to the airwaves by radicals. While such a fee
structure would be subject to a similar legal challenge to the one
currently underway (such fees would not be the least restrictive
alternative), it could take years and thousands of dollars to fight such a
legal battle.
Since the radio band would still be limited there is some kind of
limit on the number of microradio stations even if the FCC agreed to
license them. How would the FCC decide who got these limited stations?
Would stations have to comply with all the FCC content regulations that
apply to corporate stations?
As Dunifer's lawyers argue, microradio is the "flyer of the 90s."
We need to fight for access to this medium just as past revolutionaries
fought for free access to printing presses. Even if the battle is finally
won, there are going to be difficult questions down the road. --PB Floyd
=========================
From [email protected] Jul 15 01:24:41 1995
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 21:29:18 -0700
From: Alan Korn <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: JULY 1995 CDC NEWSLETTER
/* Written 2:56 PM Jul 9, 1995 by aakorn in igc:nlg.cdc */
/* ---------- "JULY 1995 CDC NEWSLETTER" ---------- */
:-) :-) REVOLUTION IN CYBERSPACE ;-) ;-)
JULY 1995 NEWSLETTER OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD
COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS
COMMITTEE ADDRESS:
558 Capp Street
San Francisco, California 94110
(415) 267-6174
e-mail: [email protected]
Coordinator: John Tirpack
Newsletter Editors: Alan Korn and John Tirpack
Steering Committee: Peter Franck, Matthew Morbello, Howard Beckman, Alan Korn,
John Tirpack
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
CDC PRESENTS GUILD CONVENTION WORKSHOP
MICRO RADIO UPDATE
MICRO RADIO LEGAL IN JAPAN
GIVING VOICE TO THE VOICELESS - MICRO POWER BROADCASTING
SHUTDOWN OF INTERNET PROVIDERS IN HONG KONG
ELECTRONIC CENSORSHIP THREAT IN U.S.
A QUESTION FOR THE CDC AND THE GUILD
REVIEWS
CDC PRESENTS GUILD CONVENTION WORKSHOP
CUTTING EDGE ISSUES IN CYBERSPACE is the title of the workshop the National
Lawyers Guild Committee on Democratic Communications will present on Friday,
August 11, 1995, 1:30 p.m. at the Guild
convention in Portland.
The CDC is wrestling with the question of how progressive and
radical lawyers can contribute to the fight to build a democratic
cyberspace universe and what the unique contribution of the Guild
can be.
The workshop will discuss privacy, Free Speech, access, elitism and the move to
take a potential tool for democracy (i.e. the Internet) away from public access
and control.
Speakers will include:
Jonathan Rosenoer Mr. Rosenoer is Executive Editor of Lexis Counsel
Connect California, formerly in-house counsel for Robert Half
International Inc. and an attorney with Fenwick & West in Palo Alto,
CA.at Lexis Counsel Connect. He is the founder and editor of
Cyberlex and Cyberlaw, on-line legal and educational journals
focusing on the Internet, privacy, First Amendment and intellectual
property issues. Mr. Rosenoer is a frequent lecturer and author of
many articles on computer privacy.
Deborah Floyd Ms. Floyd is the Program Coordinator at PeaceNet and
is also their Director of African American Networking. She is
concerned with the issues of access of communities of color to
cyberspace, the use of cyberspace for community empowerment, and
issues concerning the information rich and information poor.
Lee Felsenstein Mr. Felsenstein designed the Osborne computer, the
first portable computer ever made. Political since the early New
Left, he is active with Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility, roughly to the computer profession what the Guild is
to the legal profession. Mr. Felsenstein takes a skeptical view
towards computers and the future.
Moderator: Amy Ruth Tobol Ms. Tobol is a veteran of the Civil
Rights Movement and a long time Guild activist. She says that law
students have been instrumental in bringing her into cyberspace.
MICRO RADIO UPDATE
By: Peter Franck
"...the FCC is arguably violating its statutory mandate as well
as the First Amendment, by refusing to revisit the issue [of
the ban on very low power FM broadcasting]...The Court finds
that the harm to the First Amendment rights of Defendant and
the public at large which may result from enforcing the current
regulations, outweighs the slight showing of interference
proffered by the government...."
- Memorandum and Opinion, U.S. District Court
In an almost textbook example of partnership with a growing and
vital movement of committed activists, the National Lawyers Guild
through its Committee on Democratic Communications (CDC) has been
forging a new area of law and giving a vital democratic movement the
legal and moral space in which to grow.
>From "pirate" radio to "micro" radio; from defiantly tweaking the
nose of authority to developing grass roots, effective, cheap means
of piercing the media screen, the Guild and the micro radio movement
have joined together to open the radio spectrum.
In July 1994, the FCC served a notice of apparent liability on
Stephen Dunifer of Free Radio Berkeley in the amount of $20,000 for
alleged illegal broadcasts. Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley are
part of a rapidly growing movement which uses inexpensive and low
power radio transmitters (1/2 watt to 30 watts) to reach local
communities.
"They can kiss my Bill of Rights" was Stephen Dunifer's initial
response to the FCC's action. Dunifer went on to say, "Neither
myself nor the movement to liberate and reclaim the airwaves from
corporate control will be deterred one bit by the FCC's latest
action. It is a matter of free speech and human rights. No where
in their prodigious legal tome does any aggrieved party come forth,
other than the FCC, to assert damage or harm. FCC, in my opinion,
stands for fostering corporate control. We shall not be moved nor
stymied by a justice system which means, in reality, just us
corporations."
Stephen Dunifer, represented personally by CDC member Luke Hiken,
formally challenged the FCC's noticed of apparent liability on a
variety of procedural and constitutional issues. His case was then
left pending before an FCC administrative panel for over a year.
Simultaneously, in July 1994, a Federal Appeals Court in the
District of Columbia ruled that the FCC's current fine structure was
invalid. As a result, the FCC's fine process remains in a state of
limbo until new hearings are held. This in part explains why the
FCC attempted to seek to enjoin micro radio in Federal court.
Not content with the $20,000 fine it levied against Dunifer, and
impatient with its own procedures, the FCC turned to the weight of
the Federal Courts to squelch this emerging democratic media. In
one of the many ironies of this case, the court calendared the FCC's
Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the 30th anniversary (to the
day) of the birth of the Free Speech Movement at U.C. Berkeley. At
the hearing, Luke Hiken argued on behalf of Stephen Dunifer and Free
Radio Berkeley, while the CDC itself prepared an Amicus Brief
addressing some of the larger issues on behalf of the Guild and
Media Alliance. In an unprecedented move, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of California, on January
20, 1995, refused to grant the government an injunction against the
admittedly unlicensed low power broadcasting of Free Radio Berkeley.
Citing the constitutional issues raised by Dunifer, the District
Court ordered the FCC to address the arguments raised in Dunifer's
previous response to the FCC.
THE CDC'S ROLE IN THE MICRO RADIO BATTLE
In an era of multinational controlled mass media, micro power
broadcasting is the voice of the community; the voice of the people.
For four years the government has been trying to squelch this
movement with escalating (but uncollected) fines. Clearly, it sees
broadcasting which anyone can do as a threat to centralized control
of information, ideas and culture.
The CDC had been looking at issues of media reform and held a major
symposium at the 1989 Guild convention on the responsibility of the
media under international covenants (against racism, for women's
rights and the like). The CDC understood the importance of radio
operated cheaply and easily by everyday citizens, and recognized
micro radio as the grass roots "green media" of the future.
Since the 1932 Communications Act was enacted, the law has required
that one have a license in order to broadcast over the air. Since
the late 1970's, the FCC has refused to even consider an application
for a license for less than one hundred watts of power. The first
level of the license application process involves a pile of forms
half an inch thick and a $2,900.00 filing fee. In short, without
mega bucks and access to high-priced Washington lawyers, there is no
way a citizen can obtain a license to broadcast.
Five years ago, the CDC received a plea for help from Mbanna
Kantako, an unemployed, blind African American who had scraped
together a few hundred dollars for a couple of black boxes which
when connected to a microphone and an antennae wire out his housing
project window, put him on the air with one watt of power. Mbanna
had been involved in organizing the tenants in the John Jay Homes
public housing project in Springfield, Illinois. He went on the air
as WTRA (W. Tenant's Rights Association). WTRA was the only station
serving Springfield's African American Community. The station
broadcast music, community news, recorded speeches and more. Much
of the programming and operation of the station was done by Mbanna's
sons and other youth from the community. Mbanna's unlicensed
station broadcast 24 hours/day without interruption for almost two
years, until several youths from the projects reported that housing
authority police had beat them up. Mbanna put them on the air to
tell their story and within one week the FCC, backed by the local
police, arrived to shut him down. Although the government fined
Mbanna Kantako $750 for his unlicensed broadcasts, the government
made no attempt to collect, and Mbanna and the CDC decided against
bringing an affirmative action. As a result, the Committee's
extensive legal research was unused for a little while.
Like many of us, Stephen Dunifer was outraged by the media screen
and distortion of events surrounding the Gulf War. An electrical
engineer by training, Dunifer decided there was nothing to do but go
on the air himself. When he called, the CDC was ready with its
legal brief. Over subsequent months, the Committee worked with
Dunifer and other micro broadcasters to advise them of their rights
if and when the FCC knocked on their door. CDC lawyers developed
the expertise to deal with the arcane FCC administrative structure
when, unsatisfied with their uncollected $750 fine against Mbanna,
they assessed Dunifer, Richard Edmundson of San Francisco Free Radio
and others, fines in the range of $17,500 to $20,000.
Dunifer began building micro radio kits to sell to other grassroots
media practitioners and began broadcasting (literally, on the
internet) about the possibilities and desirability of micro radio.
When asked "Is it legal?" Dunifer referred them to the CDC. In true
Guild tradition, the CDC assured no one that they could win but we
did assure them that under the Constitution and International Law
they had a Right to Communicate, and that we would do our best to
find them legal back-up. We committed to being backup, in turn, for
local counsel. All this helped the movement take itself seriously,
and make the transition from "pirate" to "micro" radio.
In a widely circulated article, Alexander Cockburn comments:
"There's nothing that so horrifies the Federal
Communications Commission as freedom of speech - unless
its backed by the billions now required to exercise that
right on the airwaves...For more than 60 years, it's been
the role of government to restrict access to airwaves to
those powerful enough and rich enough to stake out and
hold their slice of the resource. The excuse for
restriction has always been 'chaos.' But in the eyes of
the FCC, chaos is not 5,000 shopping channels or 200,000
easy listening stations. Chaos is political, possibly
seditious, broadcasting."
In refusing to grant the government's injunction against Free Radio
Berkeley, the Court ordered the FCC to act on Dunifer's much-delayed
appeal of their $20,000,00 fine. The judge required the Commission
to assist the district court by addressing the constitutional and
technical arguments (relating to the legal impact of recent
technological changes) raised by the CDC and Dunifer. The judge
continued the hearing on the government's motion.
A hearing date was set for February 1995, but the FCC requested and
was granted a continuance. Another hearing date set for May, but the
FCC, again not ready to address the compelling arguments in favor of
micro radio, requested another continuance. At press time, the
hearing is set for July 14, Bastille Day. This could be an important
day for liberty, fraternity and equality on the airwaves. Stay
tuned.
*****
MICRO RADIO LEGALIZED IN JAPAN
According to an article in the May 3, 1993 issue of Radio World, the
Japanese government has moved to deregulate low-power FM radio
stations. According to Radio World:
Low-wattage FM radio stations, what the Japanese call
"community FM," is the latest move toward deregulation by
the staunchly bureaucratic Japanese government. The
licensing requirement for 1 to 10 watt FM transmitters is
being eased this year, and radio stations are expected to
be popping up all over the country.
Community FM is bringing a level of individuality to
broadcasting that Japan has never seen. Unlike
established radio stations that try to please all tastes,
the low-wattage FM stations are doing all sorts of things
the large stations would never dream of."
Previously, a loophole in Japan broadcast regulations permitted
unlicensed 1 watt FM broadcasts provided that the station did not
interfere with other broadcast signals. Because of the Japanese
government's new policy, many of these Mini-FM stations are expected
to upgrade to full time "community FM" stations.
The Radio World article goes on to state that companies like Teac
and Sony are starting to offer "Community FM Sets" which are small,
low cost broadcast kits that include everything from the transmitter
to CD players. Because of their government's new broadcast policy,
it is likely that Japan will soon possess more radio stations, and
[3/4] (AQR?D):
4/4 Email
Title: Re: HI HI HI HI HI
Date: Wed, 19 Jul 1995 14:33:33 -0700 (PDT) (1 days old)
From: frbspd @crl.com Internet
To: bulldog #73 @1219000 VirtualNET <Received>
greater content diversity, than any other nation.
*****
GIVING VOICE TO THE VOICELESS - MICROPOWER BROADCASTING
By Stephen Dunifer, Free Radio Berkeley
Editor's Note: Stephen Dunifer is currently at the forefront in the
fight to legitimize micro radio broadcasting. In light of his
ongoing court battle with the FCC, we are proud to reprint a recent
article by Stephen concerning his work with Free Radio Berkeley.
As night rolls across San Francisco Bay and rushes westward,
micropower FM transmitters spring to life at the flick of a switch
bringing new voices to the FM broadcast band. Voices that defy and
challenge the FCC's control of the airwaves. Radio Libre (103.3)
operating from the Mission District offers a diverse and
multicultural programming mix in both Spanish and English. In the
western portions of the city San Francisco Liberation Radio (93.7
FM) provides the only unlicensed call-in talk show broadcast along
with excellent documentaries on local and national issues. Comic
relief is provided by the Jolly Roger Radio Comedy Troupe who
satirize everything from the Olympics to local politicians. SFLR
also produces the monthly Food Not Bombs Radio Network program heard
across the United States and Canada. New voices will be soon taking
to the air in the SOMA (south of Market St.) district and the urban
district known as Hunter's Point (107.3 FM) in eastern San
Francisco. A new voice (88.1 FM) has made its appearance in North
Beach as well.
To the north alternative voices are heard in Sausalito, San Rafael
and other areas of Marin County. Meanwhile, covering the East Bay
cities of Berkeley, Oakland, El Cerrito, Albany and Alameda, Free
Radio Berkeley (104.1 FM) is continuing its broadcasts, now 24 hours
a day! Further to the south in areas populated by migrants and farm
workers voices of the Mexicano, La Raza and Zapatista are taking to
the air as well. Much further to the South across the Rio Grande,
transmitters built by Free Radio Berkeley are on the air in the
barrios of Mexico City and the state of Chiapas.
Indeed, a revolution is underway here and other parts of the country
and world as well. Seeking to break the corporate media
stranglehold on the free flow of information, news, ideas, cultural
and artistic expression, these low cost and relatively low power (1
to 30 watts) FM broadcast stations are establishing themselves as
voices of the voiceless. Further, most are urging everyone to fight
back against a racist and corrupt system by not only providing the
poetry, music and spoken word of inspiration, but the vital
information required for an empowered struggle. Where else can one
hear the voices and art of street poets, gang members, homeless
persons, activists, punkers, immigrants and many more? Truly,
micropower broadcasting is technology for the people.
Inspired by Mbanna Kantako of Black Liberation Radio, Free Radio
Berkeley was pivotal in the current micropower broadcasting movement
by its open defiance of the FCC and ongoing legal challenge to its
regulatory authority aided by the National Lawyers Guild Committee
on Democratic Communications. Free Radio Berkeley offers a complete
line of kits which enable anyone with some degree of technical skill
to assemble their own transmitters. A complete station can be put
on the air for less than $1000 compared to the $50,000 to $100,000
under FCC guidelines. Workshops and training are offered along with
a growing list of technical mentors to aid in the creation of
micropower broadcasting stations.
Micropower broadcasting is more than the leaflet of the 90's; it is
a tool by which to organize and bring about fundamental social
change. For far too long the corporations have been allowed to
steal and fence off the natural resources of this planet, including
the airwaves. It is time to tear down the fences, grind the no
trespassing signs into the ground and take back what belongs to
everyone on this planet.
If you want to make micropower broadcasting a reality and a
revolutionary force in your community, contact Free Radio Berkeley.
Mailing address: Free Radio Berkeley, 1442 A Walnut St. #406,
Berkeley, CA 94709
Email: [email protected]; Voice mail: (510) 464-3041; Direct: (510)
644-3779 (11am to 7pm PST, Mon. - Sat.)
Newsletter, catalog of kits, audio tapes, video tapes, media packets
and other materials provided upon request.
*****
SHUTDOWN OF INTERNET PROVIDERS IN HONG KONG
In early March 1995, the CDC was informed by the NY Transfer News
Collective that Hong Kong authorities as part of a what the
Collective aptly calls a "new skirmish in the international war on
against free telecommunications by those who would like to see it
completely commercialized, homogenized, and out of the reach of
alternative viewpoints." In this instance, Hong Kong police
presented warrants, searched their files, and confiscated equipment
from seven of the eight internet providers located in the territory.
The closure left about 10,000 customers without their usual access
to international e-mail and other services. In addition, many of
these internet providers expressed concern about the confidentiality
of customer's e-mail stored on computers confiscated by police.
The police informed the media that the raids were carried out
because the services were not "properly licensed," and in some cases
were "allegedly" involved in hacking offenses. Many of the
providers had tried for weeks to secure these licenses from the
government, but were not able to obtain the necessary forms. These
providers had been assured by authorities that their lack of
licenses would not pose any threat to their operations. The one
remaining provider after the raids had apparently been the only one
to succeed in securing a license five months prior to the raids.
This raid came on the heels of raids on internet facilities in
Italy, the push to pass repressive legislation such as Senator
Exon's S.314 [see below] in the United States, lawsuits by
fundamentalists against system operators for providing sexually
explicit material, and the much publicized work of federal agents
hunting down "hackers" while claiming that mere possession of openly
available information constitutes a serious breach of national and
international law.
The NY Transfer News Collective can be contacted at 339 Lafayette
St., New York, NY 10012
(e-mail: nyt@blythe.org).
*****
ELECTRONIC CENSORSHIP THREAT IN THE U.S.
In June of 1995, the United States Senate voted overwhelmingly to
pass Senator Jim Exon's (D-NE) S.314, the Communications Decency Act
of 1995. This bill attempts to wipe out digital pornography, by
making all U.S. telecommunications providers (from the telephone
companies all the way down to offices that use LANs) liable for the
content of anything sent over their networks. This bill would force
networks and individuals to monitor in advance all messages sent
over their networks in order to avoid criminal penalties and/or
excessive fines.
Senator Exon offered S.314 as an amendment to the pending
telecommunications deregulation legislation in the U.S. Senate. A
more conservative U.S. Congress is unlikely to challenge an
amendment aimed at regulating "morality," and its legislative
vehicle, the telecommunications deregulation legislation, is likely
to pass this year. S.314 will not stop digital pornography, but is
merely another attempt by members of Congress to demonize the
internet community and permit Big Brother to have greater access and
control over information content on the internet. The CDC urges
persons interested in fighting this legislation to write their
members of Congress and alert others about the impact of this
repressive legislation.
*****
A QUESTION FOR THE CDC AND THE GUILD
By: Peter Franck and Alan Korn
What is the unique contribution of the Lawyers Guild and the
Committee on Democratic Communications to the area of
communications, media, and the "information highway"?
Much political activity is currently going on in these fields.
Numerous conferences are being planned; we know the
Telecommunications Roundtable is meeting in Washington and trying to
play a role in the congressional and regulatory debates. The
consumer movement also appears to be waging a battle against the
communications giants.
What do we have to contribute?
Traditionally the Guild's unique contribution has been its radical
perspective, one which sees the interconnection between many issues
and larger questions concerning the structure of society. In the
last couple of years there has been much discussion concerning how,
in a variety of fields from criminal defense to immigration, the
initially pioneering work of Guild committees and task forces has
been taken over by more mainstream groups. In each of these cases
the Guild pushed the parameters of the debate, and after mainstream
acceptance of these issues, it again became necessary to look at the
issue from a radical grassroots perspective to determine the next
legal frontier.
Most Guild members feel that our societal problems stem from the
structure of our society, and that long-term, permanent change comes
from changing that structure, not from tinkering with particular
problems, nor from ameliorating the worst impact on the weakest
citizens. E.g. in order to eradicate poverty what is needed is a
social and economic system which ensures full meaningful employment
rather than increased welfare or unemployment benefits which serve
merely as a stopgap measure.
What would this analysis mean for the positions and work of the CDC?
In his brilliant essay Re-Inventing Socialism: From Dictatorship to
Consensus, From Class to Community former NLG Executive Secretary
(and now national leader in the field of mediation) Ken Cloke
suggest that among the errors of traditional socialism was the
thought that things could be fundamentally changed by one group of
leaders (socialists or communists) wresting control of the state
from another set of leaders (aristocrats, in the case of Russia,
business in the case of capitalist states). Ken suggests that the
nature of the state itself, a big organization which had a monopoly
on violence and must be run centrally and bureaucratically, is a
major part of the problem.
While the courts, the legislature, and FCC rule-making proceedings
provide valuable forums for our positions on democratic media, it
appears that a Guild position on the media and cyberspace cannot
rely on the power of the state to get it right. This is because
powerful institutions contain the built in contradictions of
centralization and bureaucracy. In addition, with big business
competing for the enormous amounts of money at stake in the arena of
media and communications, we face an overwhelming array of power
against us if we choose to fight solely within this one centralized
arena.
Robert McChesney's book [reviewed in this newsletter] documents how
in the 1920s the fight for people's radio system was narrowly lost
due to the enormous array of commercial interests which brought
their political and economic power to bear on Congress. Those
players, including General Electric and RCA, continue to wield
enormous power today. The big difference is that the concentration
of corporate control over the media and society today is now
enormously greater than it was in the 1920s.
If the above makes sense, we need to ask what all this means for our
work? Micro radio seems to be an important starting point and
example. It suffers from none of the weaknesses discussed above,
and has all of the strengths of guerrilla warfare. Micro radio
practitioners do not ask business and the state for permission, and
they do not wait for Congress to pass a law before acting to reclaim
the airwaves. Micro radio creates a space, and supported by the
Constitutional and human rights rationale the CDC has been creating,
it may in time be recognized by the System. Conversely, we would
have gotten absolutely nowhere if the CDC had tried to get prior
approval for micro radio by petitioning the FCC or the legislature,
particularly in light of the massive amounts of money which
commercial broadcasting companies would be willing to spend in order
to protect their financial investment - the public airwaves.
Although most Guild attorneys know less about it, the Internet
appears to be somewhat similar, partly in its history, and partly in
what could happen as business and the government try to close it
down and/or commercialize it. The Internet is a distributed system,
connecting literally thousands of host computers, to which millions
of people can connect. Most important, the Internet does not have
a central governing authority, at least not in the traditional
sense. Perhaps it is the computer hackers, even those who break
codes and explore places they are not "supposed to be," who are the
cyberspace equivalent of Micro radio broadcasters. Perhaps we need
to be looking at "the right to hack" as the Internet system starts
to close down.
It may be that for cyberspace, this is the historical and political
equivalent of the 1920s. The defeat of the public forces in the
fight over radio's future in the 1920s provides the lesson that
their mistake was that of the Bolsheviks. Just as it may be
strategically wrong to rely on the state for leadership on issues
concerning progressive change, it may also be a mistake to make the
centralized apparatus of the state, i.e. Congress and the FCC, the
major battlefield on the technology and communications issues that
will shape our social, cultural, political and economic fabric well
into the 21st Century.
We are not sure how such a Guild analysis might apply to other areas
of democratic communications, but perhaps if we identify other areas
we can start to talk about what a Guild position would look like.
*****
REVIEWS
RADIO RESISTER'S BULLETIN
The June 1995 issue of the Radio Resister's Bulletin is out. The
Radio Resister's Bulletin is available over the internet (with
copies also available by subscription). RRB covers national and
international news and issues pertaining to volunteer community
radio. The current issue features a focus on right wing radio, with
pieces by Kevin Berger and information on Radio for Peace
International's program the Far Right Radio Review. Also included
are articles on womens' radio collectives, a focus on "Pacifica at
the Crossroads," and a micro radio update featuring an earlier
version of the article by Peter Franck in this newsletter on the
CDC's involvement in the micro movement.
For more information, write Frank Haulgren, Radio Resister's
Bulletin, PO Box 3038, Bellingham, WA 98227-3038
([email protected]).
*****
SONIC OUTLAWS, a documentary film by Craig Baldwin (1995, 87
minutes).
Craig Baldwin is one of the foremost independent film makers of our
era. In Sonic Outlaws, Baldwin uses his enormous collection of
found footage to document an emerging cultural and artistic movement
that manipulates existing media images in order to uncover the truth
behind media manipulation.
Sonic Outlaws, which premiered at the San Francisco Film Festival in
May 1995, is a significant film in part because Craig Baldwin
himself is one of the leading practitioners of image manipulation in
cinema today. Baldwin serves as the curator behind San Francisco's
ATA (Artist's Television Access) alternative film series, and is
well-known in independent film circles for his critically acclaimed
"pseudo-documentaries" which utilize a vast assortment of "found"
footage and collage techniques. In conspiracy-laden films such as
Tribulation 99 (1992), O No Coronado and Rocketkit Kongokit (the
latter a sadly comical critique of imperialist fantasies run amuck
in Zaire), Baldwin randomly juxtaposes images from '50s sci-fi, B-
movies, TV advertisements and propaganda films to reflect the
"paranoid delusions of superpowers and the historical misadventures
of delirious conquistadors".
Sonic Outlaws begins innocently enough as a semi-documentary on the
David vs. Goliath battle between Oakland-based musicians Negativland
and Island Records, which sued the band for copyright infringement
based on Negativland's commercially released parody of the band U2.
Using this lawsuit as a starting point, Baldwin takes the viewer
through the world of copyright law, "fair use" and the history of
artistic appropriation (extending from 19th century "collage"
postcards to Dadaism and Andy Warhol) while focusing on the
suppression of criticism, critical analysis, parody and free speech
by (typically) corporate interests who retain exclusive copyright
control over the sounds and images which bombard our consciousness
and comprise our cultural universe. Sonic Outlaws subsequently
appropriates images culled from cinematic history to explore the
phenomenon of "culture jamming" -- guerilla media practices aimed
at critiquing the media and providing an understanding of the
psychological and ideological forces behind consumer capitalism.
The film includes interviews with a number of artists, musicians and
media analysts, including CDC member Alan Korn who provides a legal
perspective on issues such as micro radio broadcasting, free speech
and artistic expression.
Sonic Outlaws is unique in that the film's subject matter correlates
precisely with Baldwin's chosen narrative technique. Baldwin uses
footage from a half century of film history in order to analyze and
comment upon the issues at stake in the ongoing battle between
monied intellectual property owners and a new generation of media
savvy collage artists. As a result, Sonic Outlaws alternatively
works as an entertaining "how to" guide on liberating the media and
as a survey of creative political activism in our post-modern age.
Baldwin covers everything from commercial billboard "improvement" to
the Barbie Liberation Organization, an anonymous group of parents
who perform "do-it-yourself" surgery on toy dolls and use guerilla
public relations tactics to bring their critique of gender
construction to the mainstream news media.
Ultimately, Craig Baldwin's latest film is an entertaining and
educational survey of "appropriation techniques" which advance both
artistic and progressive social and political goals. Sonic Outlaws
is a refreshing reminder of how media activists can playfully
transform our media environment in order to expose the more
dangerous truths lurking below the surface.
******
BOOK REVIEW by Matthew Morbello
TELECOMMUNICATIONS, MASS MEDIA AND DEMOCRACY: THE BATTLE FOR THE
CONTROL OF U.S. BROADCASTING, 1928-1935. By Robert W. McChesney.
New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.
Most broadcast historians have assumed that the corporate character
of broadcasting was cemented with the Radio Act of 1927 and that
this legislation was the result of a happy consensus between
Congress, broadcasters and the American public. Introducing a
wealth of evidence from the archives of national educational
associations, labor federations, newspaper associations, and
universities, Robert McChesney forces his readers to reexamine their
assumptions about the origins of our commercial broadcasting
industry.
McChesney argues that the Radio Act of 1927 was seen as a temporary
measure, intended to alleviate the chaos on the airwaves in the wake
of the Zenith decision that held regulation by the Commerce
Department unconstitutional in 1926. The Radio Act vested authority
to regulate broadcasting in the Federal Radio Commission, which was
immediately dominated by commercial interests, eager to stake out
"clear channels" -- frequencies allocated to a single broadcaster
nationwide -- and establish networked chains of stations. McChesney
traces the opposition to this corporate movement, primarily from
non-profit broadcasters and, at least initially, from within
Congress.
In the years between 1927 and the passage of the 1934 Communications
Act, the corporate radio lobby -- including NBC, CBS, GE, and AT&T
-- battled with non-profit organizations, universities, newspapers,
and labor organizations (all of whom operated stations in the 1920s)
for the favor of the listening public. In the end, the corporate
lobby's united front proved too powerful for non-profit stations and
the 1934 Communications Act essentially recodified the Radio Act of
1927.
McChesney's most important contribution is his illumination of the
political forces that shaped American's understandings of the
"public interest" and the modern interests that the consensus
"history" of broadcasting serves. The notion that commercial
broadcasting was inevitable or welcomed gladly -- even after NBC and
CBS began to dominate the airwaves -- is the product of a
revisionist history that serves the interests of the "contemporary
broadcasting deregulation movement" - a movement which argues that
commercial broadcasters should be given exclusive property rights to
the radio spectrum.
Today, the "public interest" is brandished as trade protection by
commercial broadcasters, but the public interest was once invoked by
Congress and the public to protect their vision of a broadcasting
system free from commercial influence. Moreover, McChesney
documents a period of history when the public discourse did not
marginalize critiques of capitalism. McChesney's book effectively
points out that arguments against the corporate control of
broadcasting are not necessarily new or so radical.
*****
COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS RESOURCE LIST
ORDER FORM
__ Brief on the Constitutional and Human Right to Practice Micro
Radio Without Government Interference 122 pages ($20.00 + $4
S&H)
__ What to Do When the FCC Knocks on Your Door Pamphlet ($2.50)
__ CDC Bibliography / Resource Guide ($2.50)
__ A Passion for Radio, Radio Waves and Community, Edited by Bruce
Girard, Black Rose Books, 1993, essays exploring Community
Radio. 212 pages ($22.00 + $4 S&H).
__ Communications and Culture in War and Peace, SAGE Publications,
1993, explores the history of mass media research and the
communication debate in war and peace, 274 pages ($21.95 +$4 S&H).
__ The Guild Practitioner, Vol. 46, No. 1, Special Issue "Law,
Peace, and the Mass Media" ($10.00).
__ The Guild Practitioner, Vol. 48, No.1, Special Issue "Mass Media
and the First Amendment" ($10.00).
__ Sonic Outlaws, Craig Baldwin, 1995, VHS videocassette ($35.00 +
$4 S&H)
__ Total of Items Ordered = $ ___________
REMINDER
The CDC needs support in the form of active membership in addition
to the active dollars of those who cannot commit to participation.
One of the best things to come out of our successful work with micro
radio is the galvanizing effect it has on encouraging people to join
the committee. It isn't necessary for active members to live in the
SF Bay Area. We can use research, writing, fundraising, and
newsletter contributions from everywhere.
- Contact the committee and ask to be admitted to the NLG.CDC on-
line conference on Peacenet.
- Come to this year's committee planning meeting for the year to
come immediately following our workshop at the Guild convention
on Friday, August 11th, at 1:30 p.m.
- If you are unable to do so, please support us financially.
DO YOU WISH TO BE A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE OR SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER?
MEMBERSHIP IS DEFINED AS PARTICIPATION IN COMMITTEE MEETINGS, REGIONAL
CONFERENCES AND CONVENTIONS. YOU WILL RECEIVE MEETING MINUTES.
YOU CAN BE A MEMBER OR JUST A SUBSCRIBER FOR $25 A YEAR.
PLEASE CHECK ONE: ~ MEMBER & SUBSCRIBER ~ SUBSCRIBER
NLG COMMITTEE ON DEMOCRATIC COMMUNICATIONS
558 Capp Street
San Francisco, California 94110
[4/4] (AQR?D):
(EMAIL) Time left = 16: G
Confirm - Log Off? (Yes/No/Enter=Yes) Yes
???????????
???? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ? ? ????
???????? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ???? ???? ??
???????? ???? ???? ? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????
???? ??????????? ? ?
???? ??????? ??????? ???? ???? ???? ?????
O ??? ?????????? ?? ???? ? ? ? ? ?
??? ???? ???? ? ? ? ???? ? ? ?
????????????? ??? ??????????
? Hammond ? O ??????????? ???
? Indiana ? ??????????? ?????
?????????????????????? ?????????? ????? ????????????
? Psycho & Z Pegasus ? O ????? ????????????
? Joint - SysOps ? ????? ????
???????????????????????????????????? ??? ???? ?????????
Session length: 11 minutes
NO CARRIER
|
|
