[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dvd-discuss] ClearChannel Plays It Safe




On Thu, 20 Sep 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> My argument is that regarding the use of public resources, Congress
> defines the objective subject only to a rational basis test. Promoting
> commerce and increasing tax revenue is a basis that will pass this
> test. Courts would (rightly) look with scorn upon a party who tried to
> ask them to overturn the democratic process because it is bad policy.

To restate your argument, "What's good for American business is good for
the American people".

This is the argument that gives us government "by the Exxon, of the
General Motors, and for the DuPont".

I guess Article I Section 8 needs both the copyright AND the commerce
clause removed.

> > Claiming that entertainment constitutes public service is absurd
> > except perhaps to lotus eaters or those in Hollywierd. 
> 
> I think I said entertainment and news.

And I think Michael was conceding "news" and challenging "entertainment".

> As I said, I consider it only a small service to me personally, since
> I don't do TV or radio much, but I recognize that joe sixpack does
> rationally consider free access to media to advance his interests. You
> can call it absurd all you want, but you would be laughed out of court
> if you tried to make that argument.

Um, the President of CBS was laughed down at the Gore Commission hearings
when he suggested that sit-coms were a public service.  And he was
co-chair of the commission.

(The Commission and their report of conclusions was, by the way, a
travesty, a sham, and a national shame.)

> The bottom line is that "public service" requirements for use of
> public resources are defined by Congress.

Actually, the public service requirements for the use of the broadcast
spectra are set by the FCC and approved by Congress.

However, Congress has consistently denied the FCC the right to hold public
hearings on any of these subjects.

When the Telecom Act of 1996 was under discussion in Congress, Bob Dole
and John McCain were two of the most vocal opponents.  However, in closed
session, Dole more or less admitted that he was opposed to the giveaway of
public spectra to the existing broadcast industry because he was treated
poorly, in his view, by the media during his 1992 Republican Presidential
nomination bid.  He was assured there would be public hearings if he went
ahead and resigned from Congress to pursue the White House.  Dole resigned
and the public hearings were scrapped that week.

McCain continued to oppose the Telecommunications Act and gave a rousing
speech in the Senate (which fell mostly on ears deafened by the promising
whispers of the broadcast industry) in which he stated, "I hope the
broadcast conglomerates and their PROXIES here in the Senate are pleased
with the legislation they've bought and the treasure they've stolen from
the American people."  (That's a paraphrase from memory.)

The Gore Commission was established AFTER the spectrum was handed out and
any suggestion to hold public hearings or raise the public service
requirements of broadcasters was dismissed and the basic output was that
broadcasters should VOLUNTARILY do more public service broadcasting... and
political candidates will get a tiny bit of free time.

So, people 0, broadcasters 50, politicians 100.

> You are repeatedly arguing nothing beyond that the US government has
> made bad policy. The foundation of democratic government is that
> arguments about "bad policy" is not a sufficient argument to enforce
> the will of a dissenting minority.

These bad policies show that our government is NOT acting in the best
public interest.  Rightly, such a government should be replaced.

> I certainly agree Congress is often influenced by special interests.
> Only when this crosses the line of violating rights do I agree that
> the results are illegitimate.

How about not being in the public interest?

How would you feel if Congress voted to give half of all of our tax
dollars to Microsoft and send the army to Colombia to fight on behalf of
agribusiness or to the Middle East to fight for subsidies for our oil
industry?  (Oh, wait... the US DOES send its military overseas to fight
for big business interests.)

Neither of those are a violation of your rights, but both of them are
government acting in individual interest to the detriment of the general
public.

While none of that violates my indivdiual rights, it DOES violate the
public trust.

> People, including those labeled as "special interests" have a
> Constitutional right to advocate their policy beliefs to Congress. To
> the extent that this results in a divergance from what people think is
> the public interest, they should advocate the changing of the
> policital process to reduce the influence of special intersts.

This is a Catch-22 and you know it.

Every attempt to remove the influence of big money from politics is
resoundingly squashed by the big money.  Broadcasters mock it in the news
or give creedence to absurd rebuttal and loads of corporate money floods
the opposition.

It can easily be shown that, overwhelmingly, the campaign with the most
money wins.  A campaign to remove money from the process will be defeated
by all the money that flows into the opposition.

> I support this strongly, but I also support the rule of law under the
> US Constitution, even when it means that policy that I disagree with
> is enforced.

The US Constitution is not a perfect document.  And this has ALWAYS been
recognized (that's why they included an amendment process).

To simply say that the process is RIGHT because it is Constitutional is to
reject the most important feature of the Constitution: its malleability.

> > [H]aven't you ever seen an MBA's mind work? <do until retirement
> > :maximize profits for quarter; update resume; get new job; enddo>
> 
> I know many MBA's and entrepenuers. To a large extent, I find them to
> be highly honorable. Corporations create value, employ people, and
> promote trade. Trade allows me to improve my life. Your incessant
> corporation bashing marginalizes your entire argument.

To speak to your earlier challenge 'Show me a mission statement that says
"to maximize profits"':

Usually this is phrased such as "to improve shareholder value" or the
like.  And it's at the end of MOST mission statements written these days.

And from the "Creed" of the Clear Channel corporation (owner of 1200 radio
stations and 20 TV stations in the US alone):
We are in the business of selling goods and services for our advertising
customers.

Broadcast companies do not even view the public as their customers, but as
potential customers for their advertisers.  In other words, they're not in
the public service business AT ALL.

> Are you prepared to argue that if you wanted to form a radio station
> to play only the Clear Channel banned songs that Clear Channel would
> stop you?

Absolutely.  Clear Channel and their dogs in Congress would make sure that
no dissenting voice is heard.

And now, since Congress has given the President authority as judge, jury,
and executioner, we might have the National Guard to tangle with as well.

> Unless there are no available frequencies in your area, I think the
> quote has no impact to your argument. Even if there aren't any more
> available, my guess is that it is FCC policy and not technical
> limitations that make it so.

Why is it you argue that we cannot question Congress because they have a
right to set these policies, however bad, and then blame the FCC for the
state of things?  The FCC was created by an act of Congress... and the FCC
is kept in line by constant threat of disbanding by Congress.

If you believe, as you say, in supporting the rule of law, then you
support the limitations on small broadcasters set forth by the FCC.

You're also EXTREMELY naive (as if your statement that broadcast rights
were "owned" and not subject to public service requirements didn't prove
that already) if you think that small broadcasters would exist for
long.  As soon as they became popular, they would be gobbled up by the
largest media conglomerates and slowly pulled back in line with the
corporate business model.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org