FCC Agents Visit San Francisco Liberation Radio

Clear Channel: ``Michael Savage is a good performer, an excellent talent. He's got great numbers and is instantly credible to the marketplace. The guy is No. 1 in a culturally diverse city."

Savage had called the Chinese ``little devils,'' said the United States should drop nuclear bombs on China and said that Chinese-Americans should be put in internment camps if they wouldn't sign loyalty oaths.

Savage swore in Italian at the gay-pride movement, equated gays to child molesters and added, ``you want to celebrate anal sex and call that pride, you are sick in the head.''

What does the comments and actions of that idiot Savage have to do with the illegal broadcasts of SFLR?

approved application's illegal.

What was FCC's basis for delivering the "notice of illegal broadcasting"?

BTW. There're a few sick people out there who think highly of Mike Savager. MSNBC finally realized what a loser Savager is and fired him.

If you can't stick up for Michael Savage's right to
broadcast then how can you expect others to
respect San Francisco Liberation Radio right
to broadcast. Otherwise it is just a fight over who
controls the media. In this fight, who has the money
will win.

There is a limited radio spectrum out there folks. The Constitution gives the Congress the power to regulate interstate commerce, and they're regulating the media via the FCC.

As much as we love the notion of pirate radio, you can't really be arguing that the FCC control of licencing is not beneficial to all Americans because it fairly and efficiently splices the spectrum pie into as many pieces as possible, thereby increasing speech.

Take your position to the extreme - a million radio pirates in San Francisco. The result would be the destruction of radio as a medium because the product would be a incoherent jumbled mess.

90% of the advocacy I read on SFindymedia is arguing for the expansion of some 'right' by treading either on other rights or sensible civilized government. (see the thread on 'Free Speech in Fresno', for example.)

Dave - while your response sounds good in legal theory, do you seriously believe that there's "more speech" out there simply because the FCC has partitioned the spectrum?

For one thing, "more" in this case seems to consist of yet another cookie-cutter corporate top 40 programmed from a computer in Chicago, or another half a dozen religious translators from some cult based out of Twin Falls, Idaho.

Secondly, this is, after all, the same FCC that has utterly ignored its mandate to regulate in the public interest and now only serves that of media megacorporations. Look at basically every decision they've made, especially the recent deregulation. In the case of a (properly engineered) pirate radio station, no one else is having his or her rights stepped on by means of interference, so the FCC's continued interest even in the absence of interference complaints suggests even more strongly to me they're doing some other kind of bidding. (God help us - someone might like SFLR more than Clear Channel's cookie-cutter pabulum!)

Under the public interest theory, even so august a presence as Thomas Jefferson would tell us that when an institution becomes a tyranny, people have the freedom and moral obligation to cast off its authority. This particular act of casting off isn't even a violent revolution, just reoccupying the same airspace that has been sold to the highest bidder from under our feet.

Dave,

These people don't need to follow the rules or behave civily. They are smarter than the rest of San Franciscans and they know what is best for us. Leave them alone. Let them lead us to the promised land. Why should they care if they distort the airwaves? They cause traffic jams in the city center as often as they can (if there isn't a war or WTO to protest, they'll just cause a mess with Critical Mass).

They hate the regular people like you and me. Because we just don't understand things as well as they do. They have it all figured out and regular San Franciscans just get in their way.

Put the word out to regular San Franciscans that this is our chance to force these bandits off the air. Contact your Supervisor and ask that this station be shut down. If they want to play by the rules and obtain the proper permits, then fine. If they want to continue as thieves, shut em down.

Francis

First I love independent media(idea) but
bring me up to speed.

I need these things to be answered!

What was there power out put in Watts?

How close was the nearest radio station at the same frequency or inside the say Bandwidth spectrum?

The big one follows
Where they approved or not because if not they broke the law big time and they deserved it! Sorry

See the rules are needed, anyone with a ham radio can tell you that. Bandwidth is very limited and has to be controlled otherwise you will have problems. I don’t think its about what you where broadcasting. Rules are Rules and just ask anyone that understand the system.

is
power out put in Watts

Here's what Reilly is doing:

First, he demonizes the FCC (ironically, for de-regulation) then he can classify them as tyrannical. Once we're dealing with a tyrant, he tries to appeal to patriotic Americans, by invoking the name of Thomas Jefferson, in order to ignore the law.

The big leap he makes is that the FCC is tyrannical. I don't think we all agree on that. For over half a century, the FCC has been allocating pieces of the limited radio spectrum. It's well-settled that this is the best way to get the most stations on the air - ergo, more voices are heard.

[I appreciate SFIndy for letting both sides of the story be told.]

All of you touting the wonderful job that the FCC does are missing the bigger picture. I agree- you can't really call the FCC a tyrant for engaging in deregulation, but you can definitely call the huge corporations backing that derregulation tryrants par excellence. The argument that engaging in acts of civil disobedience like challenging the FCC is tantamount to challenging the very legal fundment of our society is altogether ridiculous. There are no categorical imperatives on the road to a better society, no traditional system of legality or ethics to hide behind- if activists stick to hobgoblins like the defense provided by our wonderful legal system tailor made for our wonderfully people friendly corporations those accumulations of capital will usually get their say. But the law says this, but the law says that- social contract this, social contract that. We should stand up for the law because we live in a democracy don't we? Well, sort of, if your definition of democracy entails letting corporate interests buy out our political institutions. It's well known that many of the nation's federal organs are controlled by corporate interests. Just do some research on the USDA and the influence that cattlemen's associations (where are the cattlewomen?) and the dairy industry have on it will become apparent. Thanks to this nice unholy tryst, public school kids eat some of the unhealthiest shit that one could still call sustinance, the average American (who just so happens to be lactose intolerant) thinks drinking lots of milk "does a body good" and mad cow disease may have already entered our livestock- whoppee, go USDA!!! Similarly, the FCC's deregulation kick spurred on by corporate interests will compromise the FCC's attempt to do its job- much like the USDA has got a lot to work on in terms of actually protecting American's from being poisoned by what they eat. Deregulation just allows corporations to buy up more pieces of the bandwith. Certainly sounds like the FCC is going to ensure more voices will be heard to me!!! So what happens if everyone gets into pirate radio and crowds out the airwaves? Another ridiculous notion- only countercultural or fringe stuff is gonna have a listening audience to support it. Who needs to waste resources keeping a pirate radio station going just for the heck of it? There's no profit in an oligolopolistic bandwith market for newcommers. Yeah sure there may be some eccentric rich guys out there, but most likely they've got better things to do than keep a radio station a float- like hostile takeovers, swimming in their money or moving their companies overseas to exploit people elsewhere.
That said- go pirate radio- rock on!!!

The categorical imperative applies here perfectly. You are advocating breaking a law because you do not agree with other actions of the agency. The categorical imperative shows us that this is wrong because it would be clearly destructive to our society if everyone who disagreed with a government action broke laws in response.

Further, your "only a few guys will do it" is logically weak too. Congress created the FCC to allocate valuable and scarce bandwith and the above posters and the public agree with this prudent approach. To say that a law can be broken if only a few people will break it is an untenable (elitist) approach to social cooperation.

Well you hit on a lot of things what’s your point. Are you trying to justify this groups action’s. If so you are dead wrong. They broke the law and now they most pay the price.

They broke a damn fine law and they need to punished for it.

As an officer of the court, I should say Never Break the Law, but I did not.

You know Nessie, there does exist a sometimes admirable action were one breaks the law and then accepts the punishment if caught. Seems to me these guys want to break a law and get off scott free.

These idiots have been caught trying to shove their voices down our radio's throats. Now they want help. screw em.

Leaving the above philosophical side of the debate aside for the moment, that claim about trying to shove their voices into our radios was pretty ridiculous. Was SFLR stepping on an occupied frequency, thereby forcing out someone else's voice? No... Do they have ten thousand money-drenched lobbyists trying to turn the political system into one DOLLAR, one vote, and support massive deregulation policies that allow them to own thousands of stations across the country (and eight in a market the size of SF alone)? NO.

Again, say what you will from the legal or philosophical standpoint. But to accuse of "force" a single station broadcasting at a few dozen watts on an unoccupied frequency (with the simple aim of expanding the range of music and ideas that can be heard in a world slowly becoming mummified with prefabricated, nonparticipatory commercial culture) is ridiculous on its face.

hey what happened with the proposed board of supervisors resolution supporting sflr, havent heard any news

Come on Reilly. Don't follow your criticism of my metaphor with your crap about "a world slowly becoming mummified with prefabricated, nonparticipatory commercial culture".

The fact that they are insignificant does not give them leave to break the law.

"Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the
security of property, is in reality instituted for the
defence of the rich against the poor."
--- Adam Smith

Most of the airwaves are effectively controlled by capitalists. Within those terms, we get the vaunted "diversity" of the market-place.

Dave believes the market-place furnishes only what people "demand", and nothing more or less than that. It's a comforting tautology: Capital gives peple what they want because what people want is what capital gives them.

But what capitalist radio gives "the people" is the cheapest shit they can get away with while still attracting listeners who advertisers think will buy their crap. (Ever notice all the magic potions and miracle pills peddled on right-wing radio?) Shows that don't put listeners in a mood to be susceptible to ads don't fit the bill. Shows that appeal to people without much money and/or inclination to spend it on useless garbage don't see the light of day. People who're unwilling to listen to 20-25 minutes of ads an hour walk away.

That's market diversity in the real world.

I say take the airwaves without remorse.

Thank you for deeming 'capitalist' programming the "cheapest shit" and unlocking the radio airwaves to save the public. You might become Information Minister if the Commies on SFIndy ever get their way!

Maybe the jazz and information station I listen to - which is currently piping BBC Worldnews - should be crowded out by a bunch of anarchists with their quality programming. I have seen the light! Thanks Aar-buddy!

I'm not a big fan of the BBC but it's demonstrably better than 98% of the shit that jams up the air-waves.

You might note, Dave, that the BBC is gov't-backed, non-commercial radio; it's funny that you point to it to support your silly market fetish.

I mentioned the BBC in order to refute your inane anti-corporate rantings. There is more quality programming I could mention - but you would dismiss it with your little ad hominem remarks because they are corporately owned.

Your acknowledgement of the quality of programming on my corporately-owned radio station goes against your statement about 'cheapest shit'.

"your" radio station broadcasts the BBC and that refutes my criticism of capital's control of the air-waves? you're gonna have to try harder than that, dave.

i thought it would be assumed, but I'l make myself clear: when I said capitalist radio serves up crap i was making a general statement (that is true) about capitalist radio. there may be a few exceptions, but they are exactly that: exceptions.

take a spin down the radio dial. the vast majority of it is insultingly stupid garbage constantly punctuated with ads. Tell me that's not so. Dissidence, in-depth exploration of ideas, and iconoclasm of any sort is in very short supply (and to the extent that it exists is found almost exclusively on non-commercial sources). What we are offered instead is standardized, brain-dead mediocrity and ads, ads, ads and more ads.

we can look at another medium--cable TV--and see pretty much the same. if the market promotes quality, as you say, why does cable TV offer hundreds of channels of garbage?

get money, the market, and capital and their logic out and humans could do a lot better.

You know what - I will agree with your sentiments that a majority of radio and television programming is junk. This problem is not new, but a mere validation of the old saying "no one ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public."

Where you and I disagree is with the solution. Allowing radio piracy would only destroy the medium (and my beloved station's frequency.) While there may be some merit in destroying tv and radio, I think I'd have to say they have enough value to warrant their preservation.

So, what to do. The only solution is to use the market itself and aid quality stuff in winning in that arena. Spread the word regarding quality programming to everyone you know, support it in any way you can, and oppose the junk at every turn. I believe this is possible - for example, see the success of some programming on cable that is actually pretty good stuff (A&E, C-Span, etc..)