Here's Your Answer, Todd....
K4YZ
QUOTE:
He gets my ISP to boot me the newsgroup, if he had a problem he should
of went to google it their system not consolidated. It is also my
humble opinion don't know @@@@ about free speech.....the little ####er
don't understand that the real concept of free speech, no instead he
gives us the nazi version of free speech.
UNQUOTE
Todd, >>MY<< free speech was to ask you over and over to stop
being profane, obnoxious and abusive in public. NO LAW in the United
States REQUIRES me to tolerate being abused in a public forum.
And please don't give me the "If you don't want to read it..."
silliness. If people let themsleves be pushed around by every creep
that thought that it was their "right" to be a bully or public potty
mouth this would be a very sad place to live indeed.
Sorry you don't agree.
There is a very painful and delicate balance between the lattitude
permitted by what we call "free speech" and where your "right" to be
abusive in public stops.
Unfortunately, even in the United States, there has to be limits to
ALL things if people are going to live in a productive and (relatively)
peaceful society.
You just can't have this many people with disparate ideas living
together unless there is a certain amount of tolerance AND a certain
amount of restraint.
I asked you (others asked you) over and over to watch your mouth
and tone it down. You didn't. You got what you deserved.
And I was serving the very same Constitution that you so
flagrantly abuse before you reached puberty, Todd. I know a bit more
about it than you.
QUOTE:
One thing more I would like to know from that ###hole what "wanton
violation of federal regulation" am I suppose to be promoting??? then
again coming from a ####ing liar.....
UNQUOTE
Todd, You've bragged about your "pirate" operations over and over
and have stated you'd do it again.
Operation of any type of RF radiator without a license that
doesn't fall within the few license-free categories (certain subparts
of Part 95 and Part 15) is a violation of federal law.
It really is THAT simple.
Enjoy life from the sidelines...There's nothing more to say to you
except see ya later...most likely under "enforcement actions".
Steve, K4YZ
KØHB
>
> Unfortunately, even in the United States, there has to be limits to
> ALL things if people are going to live in a productive and (relatively)
> peaceful society.
>
Spoken like a true control-freak.
Fortunately the US Constitution which we are blessed to live under places limits
on very FEW things, as opposed to the "there has to be limits to ALL things"
mindset often found in the "Constitutions" of petty dictators who have the need
to "regulate" their society.
ZBM2,
de Hans, K0HB
K4YZ
KØHB wrote:
> "K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
>
> >
> > Unfortunately, even in the United States, there has to be limits to
> > ALL things if people are going to live in a productive and
(relatively)
> > peaceful society.
> >
>
> Spoken like a true control-freak.
Too bad you don't watch the news on occassion, Hans...Or spent
some time in an Emergency Room or Sheriff's Department booking
department where you gt to see the results of "freedom of speech" and
living in excess gone bezerk.
Life's a lot cozier when you set yourself off from it.
Isn't it...?!?!
Steve, K4YZ
KØHB
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
>
> There is a very painful and delicate balance between the lattitude
> permitted by what we call "free speech" and where your "right" to be
> abusive in public stops.
>
"As it is an ancient truth that freedom cannot be legislated into existence, so
it is no less obvious that freedom cannot be censored into existence."
-- Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of speech and that cannot be limited without
being lost."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd US President
The only valid limitation of free speech under our Constitution is your
individual right not to listen.
ZBM2,
de Hans, K0HB
KØHB
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
> Life's a lot cozier when you set yourself off from it.
If you say so, Steve.
Personally I live life and pursue freedom to the fullest. Sometimes it isn't
cozy, but that's the price of liberty. If you want "cozy" you'll have to
sacrifice your freedoms --- I'm not into that kind of sacrifice, and so far our
beloved Constitution hasn't been repealed.
"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution
ZBM2,
de Hans, K0HB
Dee Flint
"KØHB" <grou...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:icTce.1770$BE3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
In a practical sense there are de facto limits. One is perfectly free to
commit slander and libel. It's not illegal and one cannot go to jail for
it. Yet people CAN be held finanicially liable for the effects of their
slander, etc. This liability for the effects of one's "free speech" are a
limit even though it is not censorship.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
>
>
KØHB
"Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote
>
> This liability for the effects of one's "free speech" are a limit even though
> it is not censorship.
>
There can be a PRICE for exercising free speech, but there is no LIMIT.
"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution
A limit is unconstitutional on it's face, and imposing a limit CAN put you in
jail.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Bill Sohl
Yet we all know yelling "fire" in a theater is illegal and forbidden by
law...yet no one has been able to overturn such a law as being
unconstitutional. Other limits on "free speech" include a whole
array of "hate crime" laws and other PC limitations on speech.
As for anyone being put in jail for imposing a limit on speech???
Frankly, I have no idea how that would even possibly come about.
The constitution ONLY restricts government from
imposing free speech limits. There is no such
limitation on private entities imposing all kinds of speech
limitations. Businesses do it all the time and fire employees for
violating their business speech limitations. That's also why ISPs
can take the action they do to ban people from their services if they
so choose based on things they have said in newsgroups,
email and/or on web sites. Happens all the time.
Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
speech limits.
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
KØHB
>
> Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
> white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
> speech limits.
>
Hi Bill,
Long time, no see! Hope you're well.
Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.
In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to say. The
price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel communications
channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say. The control freaks may
persuade the likes of "Consolidated" to decline to carry Todd's words to us, but
in no way can they prevent him from saying them. Unfortunately, rather than
engage in an honest two-way dialog with someone with the grapes to identify
himself, it is likely that Todd will become another of the many "Lloyd's" who
infest rrap.
"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution
I know that by pointing this out I stand in danger of the same treatment as
accorded to Todd, but let Steve do "his best" as he earlier alluded in relation
to a member of my family.
73, de Hans, K0HB
KØHB
"Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> A limit is unconstitutional on it's face, and imposing a limit CAN put you in
>> jail.
>>
>> 73, de Hans, K0HB
>
> Yet we all know yelling "fire" in a theater is illegal and forbidden by
> law.
Abridging freedom of speech means denying a person the right to express their
ideas. Yelling "fire" in a theater (when no fire exists) is not the expression
of an idea, but rather an act calculated to cause panic. The legal sanction is
not against stating the word "fire", but rather against "public endangerment".
I'm sure you can dig up all kinds of laws against "public endangerment", but I
challenge you to find one specifically against yelling "fire".
"Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
--Amendment I, US Constitution
73, de Hans, K0HB
K4YZ
KØHB wrote:
> "K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
>
> >
> > There is a very painful and delicate balance between the lattitude
> > permitted by what we call "free speech" and where your "right" to
be
> > abusive in public stops.
> >
>
> "As it is an ancient truth that freedom cannot be legislated into
existence, so
> it is no less obvious that freedom cannot be censored into
existence."
> -- Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President
>
> "Our liberty depends on the freedom of speech and that cannot be
limited without
> being lost."
> -- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd US President
I seriously doubt that Thomas Jefferson or ANY of the Founding
Fathers could have envisioned a society where thier cherished
principles would be so abused and misused as these.
Please, Hans...Show me SOME really GOOD reason why it's necessary
to allow the kind of conduct that Todd et al would shove down our
throats under the guise of "Freedom of Speech".
An entire nation was created without so much as one "MF", "GD" or
other profanity having made it into print or recorded as having been
said in any public forum.
Nor was it necessary for such "speech" to be recorded in history
duing the Civil War, the "War to End All Wars" or the Second World War.
We managed to save "democracy" from the Nazis, Communists and Facists
without worrying about whose civil rights we might be violating by not
allowing them to call someone a
> The only valid limitation of free speech under our Constitution is
your
> individual right not to listen.
There is no truly "free" society, Hans. "We" as a society decide
what standards we consider to be necessary for that society to be
judged a worthy entity.
There are valid limitations on "freedom of speech", Hans, and it
will be an ever-evolving concept.
I for one do not believe there's a single good reason to allow the
kind of profanity that spews forth from Taylorville, Illinois, to be
allowed in ANY forum.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
Nice quote, if itself not abridged!
The First Amendment says that CONGRESS shall make no law. Society
can set it's own standards, however.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
And the very Constitution you quote, Hans, is a man made document
subject to the "Ammendments" made by those same men (and now women...).
It needs a re-vamping.
Steve, K4YZ
Dee Flint
> "Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
>>
>> Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
>> white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
>> speech limits.
>>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Long time, no see! Hope you're well.
>
> Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.
>
In any practical sense a PRICE is a limit.
> In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to say.
> The price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel
> communications channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say. The
> control freaks may persuade the likes of "Consolidated" to decline to
> carry Todd's words to us, but in no way can they prevent him from saying
> them. Unfortunately, rather than engage in an honest two-way dialog with
> someone with the grapes to identify himself, it is likely that Todd will
> become another of the many "Lloyd's" who infest rrap.
>
Actually not only can anyone say anything anywhere anyway they want to if
they are willing to pay the price but they can also DO anything they want to
anywhere anytime if they are willing to pay the PRICE. In some cases that
is codified into law and in others it is not.
Todd has demonstrated that he is not capable of maintaining an honest
two-way dialog. At some point, especially when he is proven wrong, he goes
ballistic, stooping to behavior that is unbelievable in anyone.
> "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
> --Amendment I, US Constitution
>
Do you really think the framers of the Constitution meant anyone could say
anything at anytime? They wished to protect the publication and
dissemination of truth so that the citizenry could make informed decisions.
It's doubtful that they would have crafted this amendment for any other
reasons.
You have split hairs in another post about falsely yelling fire in a crowded
theater. That it is prosecuted under laws about public endangerment. But
that IS a limit on what a person can say or do. False distress signals are
also illegal. That too is a limit on when we can say what.
> I know that by pointing this out I stand in danger of the same treatment
> as accorded to Todd, but let Steve do "his best" as he earlier alluded in
> relation to a member of my family.
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
Unless you stoop to making insulting comments about people's deceased
children, extreme use of foul language, and the other antics that Todd has
demonstrated, it is unlikely that you would be treated the same as he is.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
K4YZ
KØHB wrote:
> "Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
> >
> > Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
> > white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
> > speech limits.
> >
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Long time, no see! Hope you're well.
>
> Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.
Sure it's a limit, Hans.
Know why there's no Hummer in my driveway? Becasue it costs over
$60,000 to get one equipped the way I'd like it.
If the price was half that, I'd have one.
Seems like a limit to me.
You can argue the language all day long, Hans, but whether it's a
line in a lawbook saying "Thou shalt not..." or the threat of monetary
forfiture or imprisonment, there ARE limits.
You can use your same "argument" to say that there is no "limit"
to commiting murder or bank robbbery.
> In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to
say. The
> price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel
communications
> channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say.
Stand up in a populated room and say "I am going to kill the
President" and see how far your "limit" on what you THINK you can say
goes.
> The control freaks may
> persuade the likes of "Consolidated" to decline to carry Todd's words
to us, but
> in no way can they prevent him from saying them.
You try to set your own limits on what others say, Hans, by
applying your own labels, ie: "control freaks", with the intention that
this will cause them to change what they say to avoid your labelling.
You are trying to set your own limits.
You are very much the same "control freak" that you accuse others
of being.
> Unfortunately, rather than
> engage in an honest two-way dialog with someone with the grapes to
identify
> himself, it is likely that Todd will become another of the many
"Lloyd's" who
> infest rrap.
Yes, Todd "identified" himself, and as you say, he had "the
grapes" to do it.
Todd's issues are not with signing his name. They are with his
lack of civility and his failure to recognize that his behaviour, both
in this forum and on the air, are not welcomed.
> "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
> --Amendment I, US Constitution
>
> I know that by pointing this out I stand in danger of the same
treatment as
> accorded to Todd, but let Steve do "his best" as he earlier alluded
in relation
> to a member of my family.
I offered you a sincere "best wishes", Hans, and as usual you
tried to turn it into something else. I have, in the past, refered to
you as "Lennie with a License", and that is exactly why.
As Bill aptly pointed out, the First Ammendment restricts the
government from arbitrarily making those laws.
NOTHING in the Constitution says that it can't be ammended if the
citizens it governs so choose to do so. Perhaps it's time.
Steve, K4YZ
Mike Coslo
> "Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote
>
>
>>Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
>>white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
>>speech limits.
>>
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Long time, no see! Hope you're well.
>
> Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.
>
> In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to say. The
> price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel communications
> channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say.
By that definition, Free Speech exists everywhere. In some places the
price can be very very high, tho' 8^)
- Mike KB3EIA -
KØHB
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
> There are valid limitations on "freedom of speech", Hans, and it
> will be an ever-evolving concept.
As much as I dislike the potty-mouth antics of Todd, he (and all citizens) are
protected by rights laid out in Ammendment I of the Constitution.
Until you repeal that Ammendment (pack a lunch, it'll be a long job) the only
limitation you can place on my Freedom of Speech is your right not to listen.
Feel free to start any time.
ZBM2,
de Hans, K0HB
KØHB
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
> And the very Constitution you quote, Hans, is a man made document
> subject to the "Ammendments" made by those same men (and now
> women...). It needs a re-vamping.
There are mechanisms in place for citizens to work toward repeal of the 1st
Ammendment, Steve. Go to work on that. In the meantime, accept it as the law
of the land.
Hans, K0HB
KØHB
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
> NOTHING in the Constitution says that it can't be
> ammended if the citizens it governs so choose to
> do so.
Absolutely true, Steve. Go to work on that.
In the meantime, Ammendment I is the law of the land, regardless of how
distasteful you find it.
de Hans, K0HB
Bill Sohl
> "Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote
>> Just some additional things to consider...it isn't just a black and
>> white issue. There's all sorts of grey areas in the realm of free
>> speech limits.
>>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Long time, no see! Hope you're well.
Doing fine...thanks.
> Everything you've described is a PRICE, not a limit.
I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on that. In order
to even determine if a "price" can be extracted from someone, the limit
must be there in law of some form. Slander and liabel are both
clearly defined in the law and that defines the limit. If I use
your logic, then muder, theft, etc are merely things that if done
have a price (jail, etc) yet they are clearly prohibited by law...as
is slander, liable, certain pornography, etc.... IMHO
> In accordance with the US Constitution I can say anything I want to say.
> The price I pay may be that I lose acess to a particular channel
> communications channel, but I am in no way limited in what I may say. The
> control freaks may persuade the likes of "Consolidated" to decline to
> carry Todd's words to us, but in no way can they prevent him from saying
> them. Unfortunately, rather than engage in an honest two-way dialog with
> someone with the grapes to identify himself, it is likely that Todd will
> become another of the many "Lloyd's" who infest rrap.
>
> "Congress shall make no law.... abridging the freedom of speech...."
> --Amendment I, US Constitution
Yet there are many laws that do exactly that. Laws against disclosure
of secret information, slander, liabel, etc
Cheers,
Bill K2UNK
KØHB
> Stand up in a populated room and say "I am going to kill
> the President" and see how far your "limit" on what you
> THINK you can say goes.
Nice Lennie-esque attempt at misdirection-by-outrageous-exaggeration, Steve.
Todd, however distasteful his language, did not threaten the life of the
President. He simply argued (in horribly crude language, and mostly without
logical basis) that his rights for free speech on ham radio were threatened.
You don't agree with his assertions, and neither do I (see we >>CAN<< agree on
something) but it's spookily ironic that your response was behaviour which
reinforced his contention, by suppressing his expression of ideas!
"Our liberty depends on the freedom of speech and that cannot be limited without
being lost."
-- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd US President
de Hans, K0HB
bb
The fifth amendment gives Steve the right to be silent, but he won't.
The only time he get's quiet is when it comes time to back up his
claims of MARS service or seven hostile actions, but he quickly fills
in the silence with more accusations.
Dee Flint
> "K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
>
>> Stand up in a populated room and say "I am going to kill
>> the President" and see how far your "limit" on what you
>> THINK you can say goes.
>
> Nice Lennie-esque attempt at misdirection-by-outrageous-exaggeration,
> Steve. Todd, however distasteful his language, did not threaten the life
> of the President. He simply argued (in horribly crude language, and
> mostly without logical basis) that his rights for free speech on ham radio
> were threatened.
>
> You don't agree with his assertions, and neither do I (see we >>CAN<<
> agree on something) but it's spookily ironic that your response was
> behaviour which reinforced his contention, by suppressing his expression
> of ideas!
>
Hans are you saying that Todd may say whatever he wants whenever where he
wants however he wants on the ham bands? Do you believe then that Part 97
is unconstitutional when it prohibits commericial use and foul language?
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
N9OGL
language on it either. Steve assumes that since I do it on the internet
then I do it on the ham radio. Steve has never heard my transmission
yet he claims that's what I'm doing.
Todd N9OGL
KØHB
"Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:5Omdndfq4dr...@comcast.com...
>
> Hans are you saying that Todd may say whatever he wants
> whenever where he wants however he wants on the ham
> bands?
No, Dee, I didn't say that (and of course you know that I didn't). The hams
bands aren't a right, but a regulated privilege.
>
> Do you believe then that Part 97 is unconstitutional when
> it prohibits commericial use and foul language?
>
No, I don't believe that (and of course you know that I don't). The amateur
bands aren't a right but a regulated privilege.
I do believe, however, that Todd has protections in the Constitution which allow
him to raise those issues here on rrap, just as Steve has protections for his
assertions that parts of the Constitution are not appropriate to his political
views. While I'm disgusted by Todds trashy language here, I am more disgusted
by the overt actions to deny him his Constitutional protections.
73, de Hans, K0HB
.
LenAn...@ieee.org
>"K؈B" <grou...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:icTce.1770$BE3...@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>> "K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote
>>
>>>
>>> There is a very painful and delicate balance between the lattitude
>>> permitted by what we call "free speech" and where your "right" to
be
>>> abusive in public stops.
>>
>>
>> "As it is an ancient truth that freedom cannot be legislated into
>> existence, so it is no less obvious that freedom cannot be censored
into
>> existence."
>> -- Dwight David Eisenhower (1890-1969), 34th US President
>>
>> "Our liberty depends on the freedom of speech and that cannot be
limited
>> without being lost."
>> -- Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), 3rd US President
>>
>> The only valid limitation of free speech under our Constitution is
your
>> individual right not to listen.
>>
>> ZBM2,
>>
>> de Hans, K0HB
>
>In a practical sense there are de facto limits. One is perfectly free
to
>commit slander and libel.
No, dear, "one is NOT perfectly free" in ANY practical sense.
By your logic, one is "perfectly free" to commit murder
or grand theft, etc.
You confuse "perfectly free" with BEING ABLE TO DO SOMETHING.
> It's not illegal and one cannot go to jail for it.
Slander (spoken) and libel (written) are NOT felonies.
Hello? There are TWO kinds of courts in our land and
under our (presumably you are a citizen of the USA)
laws: Criminal and Civil. [ask Phil Kane if you want
to make an issue of that...]
> Yet people CAN be held finanicially liable for the effects of their
>slander, etc.
It's a LOT stickier than that, Dee. FAILURE to carry out
a Civil COURT judgement order CAN result in both fines
and imprisonment.
The "financial" difference between Criminal and Civil
courts is that the State bears the legal costs of
Criminal prosecution...in Civil courts both sides
have to pay for legal representation (dependent on the
final decision of the court).
That's just basic civics information from public
school. I'm surprised you've forgotten that, being
a "parent" and all to the "children" in here...
> This liability for the effects of one's "free speech" are a
>limit even though it is not censorship.
Tsk. There's where you can't differentiate the Control
Freaks from the Free-speechers. The Control Freaks will
spend inordinate amounts of time in Harrassment,
Intimidation, Heckling, and Insulting certain groups...
all in an attempt to Assert Their Turf and try to force
all into "thinking" as they do (i.e., be of the same
opinions...or else). You can see them IN HERE. :-)
In Germany they once had "Krystalnacht." In here all
the glass-jawed Control Freaks bust their own chops
in spending all that "free time" on gratuitous
insulting, heckling, and general harrassement of
certain others. Their broken glass "tinkles" all
over each subject. "Free speech?" Only by a
technical definition.
Try to get with the program, Dee.
[message received and disposed of]
KØHB
"K4YZ" <k4...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1114949019....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Society can set it's own standards, however.
I wonder when you changed your mind about "freedom of expression", Steve. Not
too far back down the Google trail you were real high on the concept.
Witness the following gem!
>Easy, he just wait's until she crosses back out, then while clearly on the
>farmer's property, he exercises HIS second amendment rights and defends his
>property by force of arms. Of course, he doesn't need to kill her, but after
>he unloads several rounds of "Double Ought" into that Mercedes SUV, she will
>think twice about defiling another's property for her own benefit again.
>
>Simple freedom of expression.
Sunuvagun!
And you were giving "Mel" the song and dance about you don't believe in
violence!
Sunuvagun!
de Hans, K0HB
K4YZ
Where did I say I didn't believe in violence, Hans?
I >>DID<< say that Mel et al flatter themselves if they thought
I'd prejudice my freedom with an act of violence against them. That is
NOT the same as suggesting that I don't think that there is a time and
a place for constructive violence.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> I have never used my ham radio for commercial use nor have I used
foul
> language on it either.
I never said you used it for commercial purposes. I never said
you use profanity on the air...I said you have to POTENTIAL to be the
same potty mouth on the air as you are here.
> Steve assumes that since I do it on the internet
> then I do it on the ham radio.
I assume nothing. However people who insist on violating civil
decorum in one forum tend to do it in others.
Remember the Vice President's faux pas a few weeks ago...?!?!
> Steve has never heard my transmission yet he claims that's
> what I'm doing.
You continue to insist that I have never heard you on the air,
Todd, yet you've never been to my station to know if I have or not, nor
have you had any representitive in my home to attest one way or the
other.
Why do you keep making this assertion when you know it's not
true...?!?!
And what seventh grader did you pay to make that post for you,
Todd...?!?! No profanity...Proper grammar...You even got periods in
the right places. I am impressed...What ever you paid the kid, double
it and keep him/her around...
Congratulations.
73
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
>you use profanity on the air...I said you have to POTENTIAL to be the
>same potty mouth on the air as you are here.
Don't assume anything stevey, despite what YOU think the internet and
radio are two different media's are are regulated differently. What you
can not say on the radio you can say on the internet.
I'll ignore the rest of the crap you wrote.
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
Well, the beat goes on, and the question is who's threating who? Let's
start at he beginning, N9OGL (ME) announced on the newsgroup
rec.radio.amateur,policy that I was going to run an information
bulletin on HF. (An Information bulletin is not defined by the FCC
except that an information bulletin has to be directed to amateur radio
operators and consist solely of amateur radio material.(97.3(a)(26)
An "information bulletin" that you refer to as a "show". A "show"
that is nothing more than a showcase for your rhetoric..
It was then that control freak Steven Robbieson K4YZ began his nazi
style campaign against me and my information bulletin claiming it was
illegal and even had the balls to tell my internet service provider
that I was "promote wanton violation of federal regulations" (Letter to
Illinois Consolidated Communication). He claimed all this #### despite
the fact that I proved that he was full of ####.
Todd...I gave you a "pass" on this the first time around because I
know it was too easy for you to get confused with everything going
on...
You ARE promoting wanton violation of FCC rules and regulations.
You have stated, on numerous occassions, that you operated both a
"pirate" TV and FM station...You've said you'd do it again.
I gave a link to the FCC website that stated what I've been say the
whole time, that my staion is legal and there NOTHING he can do about
it.
So you have.
And >>I<< provided links to YOUR assertions of the aforementioned
"pirate" operations. Along with your gross profanities, razor blade
comments, references to my deceased daughter, etc etc etc.
Civil people don't act that way, Todd, and your ISP agreed. You
were warned but blew it off.
He claims that I'm abusive yet he has to cry and whine like the little
##### he is, to my service provider claiming I'm promote wanton
violation of federal law although he knows dam well that my information
bulletin are legal,
It's not about your shows, Todd....
If he doesn't then he is just as dumb as I thought he was. Speaking of
dumb, that brings us to steve's girlfriend Little Jimmy KC8GXW who
claims he's going to run two radio's on either side of my information
bulletin (malicious Interference).
And like I said...If he does, then that's on him...And my wife
won't let me have a girlfriend, Todd.
Although he might think it funny that he and his little #### K4YZ is
"yanking my chain" we will see if the FCC thinks their yanking my chain
is funny!
I am not yanking your chain, Todd...I told you it had BEEN
yanked...
So who's threating who? we have liar K4YZ and his little whore Jimmy
getting on the newsgroup acting like they own the place and suggestion
to cause malicious interference with my LEGAL station.
You SAY it's legal. We have no evidence of it. You randymouthed
other correspondents about being "appliance operators", yet when tasked
to list YOUR station, you balked.
I hope that people on that newsgroup wise up and kick Stevey and Jimmy
harassing ###es off the newsgroup.
The harrassing one already got booted, Todd. At least for a
while...The one who signed your name and call yesterday was actually
polite and civil. Was that you, or did you give someone your
password...?!?!
Steve, K4YZ
KØHB
"N9OGL" <tod...@consolidated.net> wrote
Todd,
Thanks for cleaning up your language.
73, de Hans, K0HB
PS: I think you "bulletin station" is an idea which should not be tossed aside
lightly. It should be hurled aside with great force. But that's just me.
N9OGL
>An "information bulletin" that you refer to as a "show". A "show"
>that is nothing more than a showcase for your rhetoric..
Despite what you hink steve and information bulletin doesn't have to be
a "newscast" it only has to be directed only to amteur radio operators
consisting solely of subject matter of direct interest to the amateur
service.
>Todd...I gave you a "pass" on this the first time around because I
>know it was too easy for you to get confused with everything going
>on...
>You ARE promoting wanton violation of FCC rules and regulations.
>You have stated, on numerous occassions, that you operated both a
>"pirate" TV and FM station...You've said you'd do it again.
First off I never ran a Pirate radio station, I applied for a LPFM
license, Secondly that's between me and the FCC, and as I stated before
they will NOT doing anything about, and finally You don't know what the
HELL was going on so I suggest you shut your fucking mouth, that does
concern you.
>And >>I<< provided links to YOUR assertions of the aforementioned
>"pirate" operations. Along with your gross profanities, razor blade
>comments, references to my deceased daughter, etc etc etc.
> Civil people don't act that way, Todd, and your ISP agreed. You
>were warned but blew it off.
First off you taking the razor blade too serious....I don't you name in
that post and was not directed towards you directly. The problem with
service porviders is they only respond to complaints they don't
investigate the complaint. if my ISP was on here and realize what a
PRICK you are perhaps they would change their mine.
>You SAY it's legal. We have no evidence of it. You randymouthed
>other correspondents about being "appliance operators", yet when
tasked
>to list YOUR station, you balked
Below there is a link to the FCC website where you and others on this
website can read all about information bulletins
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/about/communications.html
>The harrassing one already got booted, Todd. At least for a
>while...The one who signed your name and call yesterday was actually
>polite and civil. Was that you, or did you give someone your
>password...?!?!
Well steve on a final note I hope that people on this newsgroup wise up
and get sick of your harassment and boot your sorry ass off the
newsgroup
Todd N9OGL
N9OGL
anyone can do about it. I'm currently working with the House
Subcommittee on Telecommunication to resolve this information bulletin
problem.
Todd N9OGL
N9OGL
here's some light reading for you!!!
Todd N9OGL
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No. 96-511
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANET RENO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES, et al., APPELLANTS
v. AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION et al.
on appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania
[June 26, 1997]
Justice Stevens delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue is the constitutionality of two statutory provisions enacted
to protect minors from "indecent" and "patently offensive"
communications on the Internet. Notwithstanding the legitimacy and
importance of the congressional goal of protecting children from
harmful materials, we agree with the three judge District Court that
the statute abridges "the freedom of speech" protected by the First
Amendment. [n.1]
The District Court made extensive findings of fact, most of which were
based on a detailed stipulation prepared by the parties. See 929 F.
Supp. 824, 830-849 (ED Pa. 1996). [n.2] The findings describe the
character and the dimensions of the Internet, the availability
ofsexually explicit material in that medium, and the problems
confronting age verification for recipients of Internet communications.
Because those findings provide the underpinnings for the legal issues,
we begin with a summary of the undisputed facts.
The Internet
The Internet is an international network of interconnected computers.
It is the outgrowth of what began in 1969 as a military program called
"ARPANET," [n.3] which was designed to enable computers operated by the
military, defense contractors, and universities conducting defense
related research to communicate with one another by redundant channels
even if some portions of the network were damaged in a war. While the
ARPANET no longer exists, it provided an example for the development of
a number of civilian networks that, eventually linking with each other,
now enable tens of millions of people to communicate with one another
and to access vast amounts of information from around the world. The
Internet is "a unique and wholly new medium of worldwide human
communication." [n.4]
The Internet has experienced "extraordinary growth." [n.5] The number
of "host" computers--those that store information and relay
communications--increased from about 300 in 1981 to approximately
9,400,000 by the time of the trial in 1996. Roughly 60% of these hosts
are located in the United States. About 40 million people used the
Internet at the time of trial, a number that is expected to mushroom to
200 million by 1999.
Individuals can obtain access to the Internet frommany different
sources, generally hosts themselves or entities with a host
affiliation. Most colleges and universities provide access for their
students and faculty; many corporations provide their employees with
access through an office network; many communities and local libraries
provide free access; and an increasing number of storefront "computer
coffee shops" provide access for a small hourly fee. Several major
national "online services" such as America Online, CompuServe, the
Microsoft Network, and Prodigy offer access to their own extensive
proprietary networks as well as a link to the much larger resources of
the Internet. These commercial online services had almost 12 million
individual subscribers at the time of trial.
Anyone with access to the Internet may take advantage of a wide variety
of communication and information retrieval methods. These methods are
constantly evolving and difficult to categorize precisely. But, as
presently constituted, those most relevant to this case are electronic
mail ("e mail"), automatic mailing list services ("mail exploders,"
sometimes referred to as "listservs"), "newsgroups," "chat rooms," and
the "World Wide Web." All of these methods can be used to transmit
text; most can transmit sound, pictures, and moving video images. Taken
together, these tools constitute a unique medium--known to its users as
"cyberspace"--located in no particular geographical location but
available to anyone, anywhere in the world, with access to the
Internet.
E mail enables an individual to send an electronic message--generally
akin to a note or letter--to another individual or to a group of
addressees. The message is generally stored electronically, sometimes
waiting for the recipient to check her "mailbox" and sometimes making
its receipt known through some type of prompt. A mail exploder is a
sort of e mail group. Subscribers can send messages to a common e mail
address, which then forwards the message to the group's other
subscribers.Newsgroups also serve groups of regular participants, but
these postings may be read by others as well. There are thousands of
such groups, each serving to foster an exchange of information or
opinion on a particular topic running the gamut from, say, the music of
Wagner to Balkan politics to AIDS prevention to the Chicago Bulls.
About 100,000 new messages are posted every day. In most newsgroups,
postings are automatically purged at regular intervals. In addition to
posting a message that can be read later, two or more individuals
wishing to communicate more immediately can enter a chat room to engage
in real time dialogue--in other words, by typing messages to one
another that appear almost immediately on the others' computer screens.
The District Court found that at any given time "tens of thousands of
users are engaging in conversations on a huge range of subjects." [n.6]
It is "no exaggeration to conclude that the content on the Internet is
as diverse as human thought." [n.7]
The best known category of communication over the Internet is the World
Wide Web, which allows users to search for and retrieve information
stored in remote computers, as well as, in some cases, to communicate
back to designated sites. In concrete terms, the Web consists of a vast
number of documents stored in different computers all over the world.
Some of these documents are simply files containing information.
However, more elaborate documents, commonly known as Web "pages," are
also prevalent. Each has its own address--%rather like a telephone
number." [n.8] Web pages frequently contain information and sometimes
allow the viewer to communicate with the page's (or "site's") author.
They generally also contain "links" to otherdocuments created by that
site's author or to other (generally) related sites. Typically, the
links are either blue or underlined text--sometimes images.
Navigating the Web is relatively straightforward. A user may either
type the address of a known page or enter one or more keywords into a
commercial "search engine" in an effort to locate sites on a subject of
interest. A particular Web page may contain the information sought by
the "surfer," or, through its links, it may be an avenue to other
documents located anywhere on the Internet. Users generally explore a
given Web page, or move to another, by clicking a computer "mouse" on
one of the page's icons or links. Access to most Web pages is freely
available, but some allow access only to those who have purchased the
right from a commercial provider. The Web is thus comparable, from the
readers' viewpoint, to both a vast library including millions of
readily available and indexed publications and a sprawling mall
offering goods and services.
>From the publishers' point of view, it constitutes a vast platform from
which to address and hear from a world wide audience of millions of
readers, viewers, researchers, and buyers. Any person or organization
with a computer connected to the Internet can "publish" information.
Publishers include government agencies, educational institutions,
commercial entities, advocacy groups, and individuals. [n.9] Publishers
may either make their material available to the entire pool of Internet
users, or confine access to a selected group, such as those willing to
pay for the privilege. "No single organization controls any membership
in the Web, nor is there any centralized point from which individual
Web sites or services can be blocked from the Web." [n.10]
Sexually Explicit Material
Sexually explicit material on the Internet includes text, pictures, and
chat and "extends from the modestly titillating to the hardest core."
[n.11] These files are created, named, and posted in the same manner as
material that is not sexually explicit, and may be accessed either
deliberately or unintentionally during the course of an imprecise
search. "Once a provider posts its content on the Internet, it cannot
prevent that content from entering any community." [n.12] Thus, for
example,
"when the UCR/California Museum of Photography posts to its Web site
nudes by Edward Weston and Robert Mapplethorpe to announce that its new
exhibit will travel to Baltimore and New York City, those images are
available not only in Los Angeles, Baltimore, and New York City, but
also in Cincinnati, Mobile, or Beijing--wherever Internet users live.
Similarly, the safer sex instructions that Critical Path posts to its
Web site, written in street language so that the teenage receiver can
understand them, are available not just in Philadelphia, but also in
Provo and Prague." [n.13]
Some of the communications over the Internet that originate in foreign
countries are also sexually explicit. [n.14]
Though such material is widely available, users seldomencounter such
content accidentally. "A document's title or a description of the
document will usually appear before the document itself . . . and in
many cases the user will receive detailed information about a site's
content before he or she need take the step to access the document.
Almost all sexually explicit images are preceded by warnings as to the
content." [n.15] For that reason, the "odds are slim" that a user would
enter a sexually explicit site by accident. [n.16] Unlike
communications received by radio or television, "the receipt of
information on the Internet requires a series of affirmative steps more
deliberate and directed than merely turning a dial. A child requires
some sophistication and some ability to read to retrieve material and
thereby to use the Internet unattended." [n.17]
Systems have been developed to help parents control the material that
may be available on a home computer with Internet access. A system may
either limit a computer's access to an approved list of sources that
have been identified as containing no adult material, it may block
designated inappropriate sites, or it may attempt to block messages
containing identifiable objectionable features. "Although parental
control software currently can screen for certain suggestive words or
for known sexually explicit sites, it cannot now screen for sexually
explicit images." [n.18] Nevertheless, the evidence indicates that "a
reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent their children
from accessing sexually explicit and other material which parents may
believe is inappropriate for their children will soon be available."
[n.19]
Age Verification
The problem of age verification differs for different uses of the
Internet. The District Court categorically determined that there "is no
effective way to determine the identity or the age of a user who is
accessing material through e mail, mail exploders, newsgroups or chat
rooms." [n.20] The Government offered no evidence that there was a
reliable way to screen recipients and participants in such fora for
age. Moreover, even if it were technologically feasible to block
minors' access to newsgroups and chat rooms containing discussions of
art, politics or other subjects that potentially elicit "indecent" or
"patently offensive" contributions, it would not be possible to block
their access to that material and "still allow them access to the
remaining content, even if the overwhelming majority of that content
was not indecent." [n.21]
Technology exists by which an operator of a Web site may condition
access on the verification of requested information such as a credit
card number or an adult password. Credit card verification is only
feasible, however, either in connection with a commercial transaction
in which the card is used, or by payment to averification agency. Using
credit card possession as a surrogate for proof of age would impose
costs on non commercial Web sites that would require many of them to
shut down. For that reason, at the time of the trial, credit card
verification was "effectively unavailable to a substantial number of
Internet content providers." Id., at 846 (finding 102). Moreover, the
imposition of such a requirement "would completely bar adults who do
not have a credit card and lack the resources to obtain one from
accessing any blocked material." [n.22]
Commercial pornographic sites that charge their users for access have
assigned them passwords as a method of age verification. The record
does not contain any evidence concerning the reliability of these
technologies. Even if passwords are effective for commercial purveyors
of indecent material, the District Court found that an adult password
requirement would impose significant burdens on noncommercial sites,
both because they would discourage users from accessing their sites and
because the cost of creating and maintaining such screening systems
would be "beyond their reach." [n.23]
In sum, the District Court found:
"Even if credit card verification or adult password verification were
implemented, the Government presented no testimony as to how such
systems could ensure that the user of the password or credit card is in
fact over 18. The burdens imposed by credit card verification and adult
password verification systems make them effectively unavailable to a
substantial number of Internet content providers." Ibid. (finding 107).
The Telecommunications Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-104, 110 Stat. 56, was
an unusually important legislative enactment. As stated on the first of
its 103 pages, its primary purpose was to reduce regulation and
encourage "the rapid deployment of new telecommunications
technologies." The major components of the statute have nothing to do
with the Internet; they were designed to promote competition in the
local telephone service market, the multichannel video market, and the
market for over the air broadcasting. The Act includes seven Titles,
six of which are the product of extensive committee hearings and the
subject of discussion in Reports prepared by Committees of the Senate
and the House of Representatives. By contrast, Title V--known as the
"Communications Decency Act of 1996" (CDA)--contains provisions that
were either added in executive committee after the hearings were
concluded or as amendments offered during floor debate on the
legislation. An amendment offered in the Senate was the source of the
two statutory provisions challenged in this case. [n.24] Theyare
informally described as the "indecent transmission" provision and the
"patently offensive display" provision. [n.25]
The first, 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a) (Supp. 1997), prohibits the knowing
transmission of obscene or indecent messages to any recipient under 18
years of age. It provides in pertinent part:
"(a) Whoever--
%(1) in interstate or foreign communications--
. . . . .
"(B) by means of a telecommunications device knowingly--
%(i) makes, creates, or solicits, and
%(ii) initiates the transmission of,
%any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient
of the communication is under 18 years of age, regardless of whether
the maker of such communication placedthe call or initiated the
communication;
. . . . .
"(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under his
control to be used for any activity prohibited by paragraph (1) with
the intent that it be used for such activity,
%shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years,
or both."
The second provision, §223(d), prohibits the knowing sending or
displaying of patently offensive messages in a manner that is available
to a person under 18 years of age. It provides:
"(d) Whoever--
"(1) in interstate or foreign communications knowingly--
"(A) uses an interactive computer service to send to a specific person
or persons under 18 years of age, or
"(B) uses any interactive computer service to display in a manner
available to a person under 18 years of age,
%any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image, or other
communication that, in context, depicts or describes, in terms patently
offensive asmeasured by contemporary community standards, sexual or
excretory activities or organs, regardless of whether the user of such
service placed the call or initiated the communication; or
"(2) knowingly permits any telecommunications facility under such
person's control to be used for an activity prohibited by paragraph (1)
with the intent that it be used for such activity,
%shall be fined under Title 18, or imprisoned not more than two years,
or both."
The breadth of these prohibitions is qualified by two affirmative
defenses. See §223(e)(5). [n.26] One covers those who take "good
faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions" to restrict
access by minors to the prohibited communications. §223(e)(5)(A). The
other covers those who restrict access to covered material by requiring
certain designated forms of age proof, such as a verified credit card
or an adult identification number or code. §223(e)(5)(B).
On February 8, 1996, immediately after the Presidentsigned the statute,
20 plaintiffs [n.27] filed suit against the Attorney General of the
United States and the Department of Justice challenging the
constitutionality of §§223(a)(1) and 223(d). A week later, based on
his conclusion that the term "indecent" was too vague to provide the
basis for a criminal prosecution, District Judge Buckwalter entered a
temporary restraining order against enforcement of §223(a)(1)(B)(ii)
insofar as it applies to indecent communications. A second suit was
then filed by 27 additional plaintiffs, [n.28] the two cases were
consolidated, and a three judge District Court was convened pursuant to
§561 of the Act. [n.29] After an evidentiary hearing, that Court
entered a preliminary injunction against enforcement of both of the
challenged provisions. Each of the three judges wrote a separate
opinion, but their judgment was unanimous.
Chief Judge Sloviter doubted the strength of the Government's interest
in regulating "the vast range of online material covered or potentially
covered by the CDA," but acknowledged that the interest was
"compelling" with respect to some of that material. 929 F. Supp., at
853. She concluded, nonetheless, that the statute "sweeps more broadly
than necessary and thereby chills the expression of adults" and that
the terms "patently offensive" and "indecent" were "inherently vague."
Id., at 854. She also determined that the affirmative defenses were not
"technologically or economically feasible for most providers,"
specifically considering and rejecting an argument that providers could
avoid liability by "tagging" their material in a manner that would
allow potential readers to screen out unwanted transmissions. Id., at
856. Chief Judge Sloviter also rejected the Government's suggestion
that the scope of the statute could be narrowed by construing it to
apply only to commercial pornographers. Id., at 854-855.
Judge Buckwalter concluded that the word "indecent" in §223(a)(1)(B)
and the terms "patently offensive" and "in context" in §223(d)(1) were
so vague that criminal enforcement of either section would violate the
"fundamental constitutional principle" of "simple fairness," id., at
861, and the specific protections of the First and Fifth Amendments,
id., at 858. He found no statutory basis for the Government's argument
that the challenged provisions would be applied only to "pornographic"
materials, noting that, unlike obscenity, "indecency has not been
defined to exclude works of serious literary, artistic, political or
scientific value." Id., at 863. Moreover, the Government's claim that
the work must be considered patently offensive "in context" was itself
vague because the relevant context might "refer to, among other things,
the nature of the communication as a whole, the time of day it was
conveyed, the medium used, the identity of the speaker, or whether or
not it is accompanied by appropriate warnings." Id., at 864. He
believed that the unique nature of the Internet aggravated the
vagueness of the statute. Id., at 865, n. 9.
Judge Dalzell's review of "the special attributes of Internet
communication" disclosed by the evidence convinced him that the First
Amendment denies Congress the power to regulate the content of
protected speech on the Internet. Id., at 867. His opinion explained at
length why he believed the Act would abridge significant protected
speech, particularly by noncommercial speakers, while "[p]erversely,
commercial pornographers would remain relatively unaffected." Id., at
879. He construed our cases as requiring a "medium specific" approach
to the analysis of the regulation of mass communication, id., at 873,
and concluded that the Internet--as "the most participatory form of
mass speech yet developed," id., at 883--is entitled to "the highest
protection from governmental intrusion," ibid. [n.30]
The judgment of the District Court enjoins the Government from
enforcing the prohibitions in §223(a)(1)(B) insofar as they relate to
"indecent" communications, but expressly preserves the Government's
right to investigate and prosecute the obscenity or child pornography
activities prohibited therein. The injunction against enforcement of
§§223(d)(1) and (2) is unqualified because those provisions contain
no separate reference to obscenity or child pornography.
The Government appealed under the Act's special review provisions,
§561, 110 Stat. 142-143, and we noted probable jurisdiction, see 519
U. S. ___ (1996). In its appeal, the Government argues that the
District Court erred in holding that the CDA violated both the First
Amendment because it is overbroad and the Fifth Amendment because it is
vague. While we discuss the vagueness of the CDA because of its
relevance to the First Amendment overbreadth inquiry, we conclude that
the judgment should be affirmed without reaching the Fifth Amendment
issue. We begin our analysis by reviewing the principal authorities on
which the Government relies. Then, after describing the overbreadth of
the CDA, we consider the Government's specific contentions, including
its submission that we save portions of the statute either by severance
or by fashioning judicial limitations on the scope of its coverage.
In arguing for reversal, the Government contends that the CDA is
plainly constitutional under three ofour prior decisions: (1) Ginsberg
v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968); (2) FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438
U.S. 726 (1978); and (3) Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41
(1986). A close look at these cases, however, raises--rather than
relieves--doubts concerning the constitutionality of the CDA.
In Ginsberg, we upheld the constitutionality of a New York statute that
prohibited selling to minors under 17 years of age material that was
considered obscene as to them even if not obscene as to adults. We
rejected the defendant's broad submission that "the scope of the
constitutional freedom of expression secured to a citizen to read or
see material concerned with sex cannot be made to depend on whether the
citizen is an adult or a minor." 390 U. S., at 636. In rejecting that
contention, we relied not only on the State's independent interest in
the well being of its youth, but also on our consistent recognition of
the principle that "the parents' claim to authority in their own
household to direct the rearing of their children is basic in the
structure of our society." [n.31] In four important respects, the
statute upheld in Ginsberg was narrower than the CDA. First, we noted
in Ginsberg that "the prohibition against sales to minors does not bar
parents who so desire from purchasing the magazines for their
children." Id., at 639. Under the CDA, by contrast, neither the
parents' consent--nor even their participation--in the communication
would avoid the application of the statute. [n.32] Second, the NewYork
statute applied only to commercial transactions, id., at 647, whereas
the CDA contains no such limitation. Third, the New York statute
cabined its definition of material that is harmful to minors with the
requirement that it be "utterly without redeeming social importance for
minors." Id., at 646. The CDA fails to provide us with any definition
of the term "indecent" as used in§223(a)(1) and, importantly, omits
any requirement that the "patently offensive" material covered by
§223(d) lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific
value. Fourth, the New York statute defined a minor as a person under
the age of 17, whereas the CDA, in applying to all those under 18
years, includes an additional year of those nearest majority.
In Pacifica, we upheld a declaratory order of the Federal
Communications Commission, holding that the broadcast of a recording of
a 12-minute monologue entitled "Filthy Words" that had previously been
delivered to a live audience "could have been the subject of
administrative sanctions." 438 U. S., at 730 (internal quotations
omitted). The Commission had found that the repetitive use of certain
words referring to excretory or sexual activities or organs "in an
afternoon broadcast when children are in the audience was patently
offensive" and concluded that the monologue was indecent "as
broadcast." Id., at 735. The respondent did not quarrel with the
finding that the afternoon broadcast was patently offensive, but
contended that it was not "indecent" within the meaning of the relevant
statutes because it contained no prurient appeal. After rejecting
respondent's statutory arguments, we confronted its two constitutional
arguments: (1) that the Commission's construction of its authority to
ban indecent speech was so broad that its order had to be set aside
even if thebroadcast at issue was unprotected; and (2) that since the
recording was not obscene, the First Amendment forbade any abridgement
of the right to broadcast it on the radio.
In the portion of the lead opinion not joined by Justices Powell and
Blackmun, the plurality stated that the First Amendment does not
prohibit all governmental regulation that depends on the content of
speech. Id., at 742-743. Accordingly, the availability of
constitutional protection for a vulgar and offensive monologue that was
not obscene depended on the context of the broadcast. Id., at 744-748.
Relying on the premise that "of all forms of communication"
broadcasting had received the most limited First Amendment protection,
id., at 748-749, the Court concluded that the ease with which children
may obtain access to broadcasts, "coupled with the concerns recognized
in Ginsberg," justified special treatment of indecent broadcasting.
Id., at 749-750.
As with the New York statute at issue in Ginsberg, there are
significant differences between the order upheld in Pacifica and the
CDA. First, the order in Pacifica, issued by an agency that had been
regulating radio stations for decades, targeted a specific broadcast
that represented a rather dramatic departure from traditional program
content in order to designate when--rather than whether--it would be
permissible to air such a program in that particular medium. The CDA's
broad categorical prohibitions are not limited to particular times and
are not dependent on any evaluation by an agency familiar with the
unique characteristics of the Internet. Second, unlike the CDA, the
Commission's declaratory order was not punitive; we expressly refused
to decide whether the indecent broadcast "would justify a criminal
prosecution." Id., at 750. Finally, the Commission's order applied to a
medium which as a matter of history had "received the most limited
First Amendment protection," id., at 748, in large part because
warnings could not adequately protect the listener from unexpected
program content. The Internet, however, has no comparable history.
Moreover, the District Court found that the risk of encountering
indecent material by accident is remote because a series of affirmative
steps is required to access specific material.
In Renton, we upheld a zoning ordinance that kept adult movie theatres
out of residential neighborhoods. The ordinance was aimed, not at the
content of the films shown in the theaters, but rather at the
"secondary effects"--such as crime and deteriorating property
values--that these theaters fostered: " `It is th[e] secondary effect
which these zoning ordinances attempt to avoid, not the dissemination
of "offensive" speech.' " 475 U. S., at 49 (quoting Young v. American
Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 71, n. 34 (1976)). According to the
Government, the CDA is constitutional because it constitutes a sort of
"cyberzoning" on the Internet. But the CDA applies broadly to the
entire universe of cyberspace. And the purpose of the CDA is to protect
children from the primary effects of "indecent" and "patently
offensive" speech, rather than any "secondary" effect of such speech.
Thus, the CDA is a content based blanket restriction on speech, and, as
such, cannot be "properly analyzed as a form of time, place, and manner
regulation." 475 U. S., at 46. See also Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312,
321 (1988) ("Regulations that focus on the direct impact of speech on
its audience" are not properly analyzed under Renton); Forsyth County
v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 134 (1992) ("Listeners' reaction
to speech is not a content neutral basis for regulation").
These precedents, then, surely do not require us to uphold the CDA and
are fully consistent with the application of the moststringent review
of its provisions.
In Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U.S. 546, 557 (1975),
we observed that "[e]ach medium of expression . . . may present its own
problems." Thus, some of our cases have recognized special
justifications for regulation of the broadcast media that are not
applicable to other speakers, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395
U.S. 367 (1969); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978). In
these cases, the Court relied on the history of extensive government
regulation of the broadcast medium, see, e.g., Red Lion, 395 U. S., at
399-400; the scarcity of available frequencies at its inception, see,
e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622, 637-638
(1994); and its "invasive" nature, see Sable Communications of Cal.,
Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128 (1989).
Those factors are not present in cyberspace. Neither before nor after
the enactment of the CDA have the vast democratic fora of the Internet
been subject to the type of government supervision and regulation that
has attended the broadcast industry. [n.33] Moreover, the Internet is
not as "invasive" as radio or television. The District Court
specifically found that "[c]ommunications over the Internet do not
`invade' an individual's home or appear on one's computer screen
unbidden. Users seldom encounter content `by accident.' " 929 F. Supp.,
at844 (finding 88). It also found that "[a]lmost all sexually explicit
images are preceded by warnings as to the content," and cited testimony
that " `odds are slim' that a user would come across a sexually
explicit sight by accident." Ibid.
We distinguished Pacifica in Sable, 492 U. S., at 128, on just this
basis. In Sable, a company engaged in the business of offering sexually
oriented prerecorded telephone messages (popularly known as "dial a
porn") challenged the constitutionality of an amendment to the
Communications Act that imposed a blanket prohibition on indecent as
well as obscene interstate commercial telephone messages. We held that
the statute was constitutional insofar as it applied to obscene
messages but invalid as applied to indecent messages. In attempting to
justify the complete ban and criminalization of indecent commercial
telephone messages, the Government relied on Pacifica, arguing that the
ban was necessary to prevent children from gaining access to such
messages. We agreed that "there is a compelling interest in protecting
the physical and psychological well being of minors" which extended to
shielding them from indecent messages that are not obscene by adult
standards, 492 U. S., at 126, but distinguished our "emphatically
narrow holding" in Pacifica because it did not involve a complete ban
and because it involved a different medium of communication, id., at
127. We explained that "the dial it medium requires the listener to
take affirmative steps to receive the communication." Id., at 127-128.
"Placing a telephone call," we continued, "is not the same as turning
on a radio and being taken by surprise by an indecent message." Id., at
128.
Finally, unlike the conditions that prevailed when Congress first
authorized regulation of the broadcast spectrum, the Internet can
hardly be considered a "scarce" expressive commodity. It provides
relatively unlimited, low cost capacity for communication of allkinds.
The Government estimates that "[a]s many as 40 million people use the
Internet today, and that figure is expected to grow to 200 million by
1999." [n.34] This dynamic, multifaceted category of communication
includes not only traditional print and news services, but also audio,
video, and still images, as well as interactive, real time dialogue.
Through the use of chat rooms, any person with a phone line can become
a town crier with a voice that resonates farther than it could from any
soapbox. Through the use of Web pages, mail exploders, and newsgroups,
the same individual can become a pamphleteer. As the District Court
found, "the content on the Internet is as diverse as human thought."
929 F. Supp., at 842 (finding 74). We agree with its conclusion that
our cases provide no basis for qualifying the level of First Amendment
scrutiny that should be applied to this medium.
Regardless of whether the CDA is so vague that it violates the Fifth
Amendment, the many ambiguities concerning the scope of its coverage
render it problematic for purposes of the First Amendment. For
instance, each of the two parts of the CDA uses a different linguistic
form. The first uses the word "indecent," 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a)
(Supp. 1997), while the second speaks of material that "in context,
depicts or describes, in terms patently offensive as measured by
contemporary community standards, sexual or excretory activities or
organs," §223(d). Given the absence of a definition of either term,
[n.35] this difference in language will provokeuncertainty among
speakers about how the two standards relate to each other [n.36] and
just what they mean. [n.37] Could a spe aker confidently assume that a
serious discussion about birth control practices, homosexuality, the
First Amendment issues raised by the Appendix to our Pacifica opinion,
or the consequences of prison rape would not violate the CDA? This
uncertainty undermines the likelihood that the CDA has been carefully
tailored to the congressional goal of protecting minors from
potentially harmful materials.
The vagueness of the CDA is a matter of special concern for two
reasons. First, the CDA is a content based regulation of speech. The
vagueness of such a regulation raises special First Amendment concerns
because of its obvious chilling effect on free speech. See, e.g.,
Gentile v. State Bar of Nev., 501 U.S. 1030, 1048-1051 (1991). Second,
the CDA is a criminal statute. In addition to the opprobrium and stigma
of a criminal conviction, the CDA threatens violators with penalties
including up to two years in prison for each act of violation. The
severity of criminal sanctions may well cause speakers to remain silent
rather than communicate even arguably unlawful words, ideas, and
images. See, e.g., Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U.S. 479, 494 (1965). As
a practical matter, this increased deterrent effect, coupled with the
"risk of discriminatory enforcement" of vague regulations, poses
greater First Amendment concerns than those implicated by the civil
regulation reviewed in Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium,
Inc. v. FCC, 518 U. S. ___ (1996).
The Government argues that the statute is no more vague than the
obscenity standard this Court established in Millerv. California, 413
U.S. 15 (1973). But that is not so. In Miller, this Court reviewed a
criminal conviction against a commercial vendor who mailed brochures
containing pictures of sexually explicit activities to individuals who
had not requested such materials. Id., at 18. Having struggled for some
time to establish a definition of obscenity, we set forth in Miller the
test for obscenity that controls to this day:
"(a) whether the average person, applying contemporary community
standards would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the
prurient interest; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a
patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the
applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." Id., at 24
(internal quotation marks and citations omitted).
Because the CDA's "patently offensive" standard (and, we assume
arguendo, its synonymous "indecent" standard) is one part of the three
prong Miller test, the Government reasons, it cannot be
unconstitutionally vague.
The Government's assertion is incorrect as a matter of fact. The second
prong of the Miller test--the purportedly analogous standard--contains
a critical requirement that is omitted from the CDA: that the
proscribed material be "specifically defined by the applicable state
law." This requirement reduces the vagueness inherent in the open ended
term "patently offensive" as used in the CDA. Moreover, the Miller
definition is limited to "sexual conduct," whereas the CDA extends also
to include (1) "excretory activities" as well as (2) "organs" of both a
sexual and excretory nature.
The Government's reasoning is also flawed. Just because a definition
including three limitations is not vague, it does not follow that one
of those limitations, standing by itself, is not vague. [n.38] Each of
Miller's additional two prongs--(1) that, taken as a whole, the
material appeal to the "prurient" interest, and (2) that it "lac[k]
serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value"--critically
limits the uncertain sweep of the obscenity definition. The second
requirement is particularly important because, unlike the "patently
offensive" and "prurient interest" criteria, it is not judged by
contemporary community standards. See Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497,
500 (1987). This "societal value" requirement, absent in the CDA,
allows appellate courts to impose some limitations and regularity on
the definition by setting, as a matter of law, a national floor for
socially redeeming value. The Government's contention that courts will
be able to give such legal limitations to the CDA's standards is belied
by Miller's own rationale for having juries determine whether material
is "patently offensive" according to community standards: that such
questions are essentially ones of fact. [n.39]
In contrast to Miller and our other previous cases, the CDA thus
presents a greater threat of censoring speech that, in fact, falls
outside the statute's scope. Given the vague contours of the coverage
of the statute, it unquestionably silences some speakers whose messages
would be entitled to constitutional protection. That danger provides
further reason for insisting that the statute not be overly broad. The
CDA's burden on protected speech cannot be justified if it could be
avoided by a more carefully drafted statute.
We are persuaded that the CDA lacks the precision that the First
Amendment requires when a statute regulates the content of speech. In
order to deny minors access to potentially harmful speech, the CDA
effectively suppresses a large amount of speech that adults have a
constitutional right to receive and to address to one another. That
burden on adult speech is unacceptable if less restrictive alternatives
would be at least as effective in achieving the legitimate purpose that
the statute was enacted to serve.
In evaluating the free speech rights of adults, we have made it
perfectly clear that "[s]exual expression which is indecent but not
obscene is protected by the First Amendment." Sable, 492 U. S., at 126.
See also Carey v. Population Services Int'l, 431 U.S. 678, 701 (1977)
("[W]here obscenity is not involved, we have consistentlyheld that the
fact that protected speech may be offensive to some does not justify
its suppression"). Indeed, Pacifica itself
admonished that "the fact that society may find speech offensive is not
a sufficient reason for suppressing it." 438 U. S., at 745.
It is true that we have repeatedly recognized the governmental interest
in protecting children from harmful materials. See Ginsberg, 390 U. S.,
at 639; Pacifica, 438 U. S., at 749. But that interest does not justify
an unnecessarily broad suppression of speech addressed to adults. As we
have explained, the Government may not "reduc[e] the adult population .
. . to . . . only what is fit for children." Denver, 518 U. S., at ___
(slip op., at 29) (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Sable,
492 U. S., at 128). [n.40] "[R]egardless of the strength of the
government's interest" in protecting children, "[t]he level of
discourse reaching a mailbox simply cannot be limited to that which
would be suitable for a sandbox." Bolger v. Youngs Drug Products Corp.,
463 U.S. 60, 74-75 (1983).
The District Court was correct to conclude that the CDA effectively
resembles the ban on "dial a porn" invalidated in Sable. 929 F. Supp.,
at 854. In Sable, 492 U. S., at 129, this Court rejected the argument
that we should defer to the congressional judgment that nothing less
than a total ban would be effective in preventing enterprising
youngsters from gaining access to indecent communications. Sable thus
made clear that the mere fact that a statutory regulation of speech was
enactedfor the important purpose of protecting children from exposure
to sexually explicit material does not foreclose inquiry into its
validity. [n.41] As we pointed out last Term, that inquiry embodies an
"over arching commitment" to make sure that Congress has designed its
statute to accomplish its purpose "without imposing an unnecessarily
great restriction on speech." Denver, 518 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at
11).
In arguing that the CDA does not so diminish adult communication, the
Government relies on the incorrect factual premise that prohibiting a
transmission whenever it is known that one of its recipients is a minor
would not interfere with adult to adult communication. The findings of
the District Court make clear that this premise is untenable.
Given the size of the potential audience for most messages, in the
absence of a viable age verification process, the sender must be
charged with knowing that one or more minors will likely view it.
Knowledge that, for instance, one or more members of a 100 person chat
group will be minor--and therefore that it would be a crime to send the
group an indecent message--would surely burden communication among
adults. [n.42]
The District Court found that at the time of trial existing technology
did not include any effective method for a sender to prevent minors
from obtaining access to its communications on the Internet without
also denying access to adults. The Court found no effective way to
determine the age of a user who is accessing material through e mail,
mail exploders, newsgroups, or chat rooms. 929 F. Supp., at 845
(findings 90-94). As a practical matter, the Court also found that it
would be prohibitively expensive for noncommercial--as well as some
commercial--speakers who have Web sites to verify that their users are
adults. Id., at 845-848 (findings 95-116). [n.43] These limitations
must inevitably curtail a significant amount of adult communication on
the Internet. By contrast, the District Court found that "[d]espite its
limitations, currently available user based software suggests that a
reasonably effective method by which parents can prevent their children
from accessing sexually explicit and other material which parents may
believe is inappropriate for their children will soon be widely
available." Id., at 842 (finding 73) (emphases added).
The breadth of the CDA's coverage is wholly unprecedented. Unlike the
regulations upheld in Ginsberg and Pacifica, the scope of the CDA is
not limited to commercial speech or commercial entities. Its open ended
prohibitions embrace all nonprofit entities and individuals posting
indecent messages or displaying them on their own computers in the
presence of minors. The general,undefined terms "indecent" and
"patently offensive" cover large amounts of nonpornographic material
with serious educational or other value. [n.44] Moreover, the
"community standards" criterion as applied to the Internet means that
any communication available to a nation wide audience will be judged by
the standards of the community most likely to be offended by the
message. [n.45] The regulated subject matter includes any of the seven
"dirty words" used in the Pacifica monologue, the use of which the
Government's expert acknowledged could constitute a felony. See Olsen
Test., Tr. Vol. V, 53:16-54:10. It may also extend to discussions about
prison rape or safe sexual practices, artistic images that include nude
subjects, and arguably the card catalogue of the Carnegie Library.
For the purposes of our decision, we need neither accept nor reject the
Government's submission that the First Amendment does not forbid a
blanket prohibition on all "indecent" and "patently offensive" messages
communicated to a 17 year old--no matter how much valuethe message may
contain and regardless of parental approval. It is at least clear that
the strength of the Government's interest in protecting minors is not
equally strong throughout the coverage of this broad statute. Under the
CDA, a parent allowing her 17 year old to use the family computer to
obtain information on the Internet that she, in her parental judgment,
deems appropriate could face a lengthy prison term. See 47 U. S. C. A.
§223(a)(2) (Supp. 1997). Similarly, a parent who sent his 17 year old
college freshman information on birth control via e mail could be
incarcerated even though neither he, his child, nor anyone in their
home community, found the material "indecent" or "patently offensive,"
if the college town's community thought otherwise.
The breadth of this content based restriction of speech imposes an
especially heavy burden on the Government to explain why a less
restrictive provision would not be as effective as the CDA. It has not
done so. The arguments in this Court have referred to possible
alternatives such as requiring that indecent material be "tagged" in a
way that facilitates parental control of material coming into their
homes, making exceptions for messages with artistic or educational
value, providing some tolerance for parental choice, and regulating
some portions of the Internet--such as commercial web
sites--differently than others, such as chat rooms. Particularly in the
light of the absence of any detailed findings by the Congress, or even
hearings addressing the special problems of the CDA, we are persuaded
that the CDA is not narrowly tailored if that requirement has any
meaning at all.
In an attempt to curtail the CDA's facial overbreadth, the Government
advances three additional arguments for sustaining the Act's
affirmative prohibitions: (1) thatthe CDA is constitutional because it
leaves open ample "alternative channels" of communication; (2) that the
plain meaning of the Act's "knowledge" and "specific person"
requirement significantly restricts its permissible applications; and
(3) that the Act's prohibitions are "almost always" limited to material
lacking redeeming social value.
The Government first contends that, even though the CDA effectively
censors discourse on many of the Internet's modalities--such as chat
groups, newsgroups, and mail exploders--it is nonetheless
constitutional because it provides a "reasonable opportunity" for
speakers to engage in the restricted speech on the World Wide Web.
Brief for Appellants 39. This argument is unpersuasive because the CDA
regulates speech on the basis of its content. A "time, place, and
manner" analysis is therefore inapplicable. See Consolidated Edison Co.
of N. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N. Y., 447 U.S. 530, 536 (1980). It
is thus immaterial whether such speech would be feasible on the Web
(which, as the Government's own expert acknowledged, would cost up to
$10,000 if the speaker's interests were not accommodated by an existing
Web site, not including costs for database management and age
verification). The Government's position is equivalent to arguing that
a statute could ban leaflets on certain subjects as long as individuals
are free to publish books. In invalidating a number of laws that banned
leafletting on the streets regardless of their content--we explained
that "one is not to have the exercise of his liberty of expression in
appropriate places abridged on the plea that it may be exercised in
some other place." Schneider v. State (Town of Irvington), 308 U.S.
147, 163 (1939).
The Government also asserts that the "knowledge" requirement of both
§§223(a) and (d), especially when coupled with the "specific child"
element found in §223(d), saves the CDA from overbreadth. Because
bothsections prohibit the dissemination of indecent messages only to
persons known to be under 18, the Government argues, it does not
require transmitters to "refrain from communicating indecent material
to adults; they need only refrain from disseminating such materials to
persons they know to be under 18." Brief for Appellants 24. This
argument ignores the fact that most Internet fora--including chat
rooms, newsgroups, mail exploders, and the Web--are open to all comers.
The Government's assertion that the knowledge requirement somehow
protects the communications of adults is therefore untenable. Even the
strongest reading of the "specific person" requirement of §223(d)
cannot save the statute. It would confer broad powers of censorship, in
the form of a "heckler's veto," upon any opponent of indecent speech
who might simply log on and inform the would be discoursers that his 17
year old child--a "specific person . . . under 18 years of age," 47 U.
S. C. A. §223(d)(1)(A) (Supp. 1997)--would be present.
Finally, we find no textual support for the Government's submission
that material having scientific, educational, or other redeeming social
value will necessarily fall outside the CDA's "patently offensive" and
"indecent" prohibitions. See also n. 37, supra.
The Government's three remaining arguments focus on the defenses
provided in §223(e)(5). [n.46] First, relying on the "good faith,
reasonable, effective, and appropriate actions" provision, the
Government suggests that "tagging" provides a defense that saves the
constitutionality of the Act. The suggestion assumes that transmitters
may encode their indecent communications in a way that would indicate
their contents, thus permitting recipients to block their reception
with appropriatesoftware. It is the requirement that the good faith
action must be "effective" that makes this defense illusory. The
Government recognizes that its proposed screening software does not
currently exist. Even if it did, there is no way to know whether a
potential recipient will actually block the encoded material. Without
the impossible knowledge that every guardian in America is screening
for the "tag," the transmitter could not reasonably rely on its action
to be "effective."
For its second and third arguments concerning defenses--which we can
consider together--the Government relies on the latter half of
§223(e)(5), which applies when the transmitter has restricted access
by requiring use of a verified credit card or adult identification.
Such verification is not only technologically available but actually is
used by commercial providers of sexually explicit material. These
providers, therefore, would be protected by the defense. Under the
findings of the District Court, however, it is not economically
feasible for most noncommercial speakers to employ such verification.
Accordingly, this defense would not significantly narrow the statute's
burden on noncommercial speech. Even with respect to the commercial
pornographers that would be protected by the defense, the Government
failed to adduce any evidence that these verification techniques
actually preclude minors from posing as adults. [n.47] Given that the
risk of criminal sanctions "hovers over each content provider, like the
proverbial sword of Damocles," [n.48] the District Court correctly
refused to rely on unproven future technology to save the statute. The
Government thus failed to prove that theproffered defense would
significantly reduce the heavy burden on adult speech produced by the
prohibition on offensive displays.
We agree with the District Court's conclusion that the CDA places an
unacceptably heavy burden on protected speech, and that the defenses do
not constitute the sort of "narrow tailoring" that will save an
otherwise patently invalid unconstitutional provision. In Sable, 492 U.
S., at 127, we remarked that the speech restriction at issue there
amounted to " `burn[ing] the house to roast the pig.' " The CDA,
casting a far darker shadow over free speech, threatens to torch a
large segment of the Internet community.
At oral argument, the Government relied heavily on its ultimate fall
back position: If this Court should conclude that the CDA is
insufficiently tailored, it urged, we should save the statute's
constitutionality by honoring the severability clause, see 47 U.S.C. §
608 and construing nonseverable terms narrowly. In only one respect is
this argument acceptable.
A severability clause requires textual provisions that can be severed.
We will follow §608's guidance by leaving constitutional textual
elements of the statute intact in the one place where they are, in
fact, severable. The "indecency" provision, 47 U. S. C. A. §223(a)
(Supp. 1997), applies to "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal,
image, or other communication which is obscene or indecent." (Emphasis
added.) Appellees do not challenge the application of the statute to
obscene speech, which, they acknowledge, can be banned totally because
it enjoys no First Amendment protection. See Miller, 413 U. S., at 18.
As set forth by the statute, the restriction of "obscene" material
enjoys a textual manifestation separate from that for "indecent"
material, which we have held unconstitutional. Therefore, we willsever
the term "or indecent" from the statute, leaving the rest of §223(a)
standing. In no other respect, however, can §223(a) or §223(d) be
saved by such a textual surgery.
The Government also draws on an additional, less traditional aspect of
the CDA's severability clause, 47 U. S. C., §608, which asks any
reviewing court that holds the statute facially unconstitutional not to
invalidate the CDA in application to "other persons or circumstances"
that might be constitutionally permissible. It further invokes this
Court's admonition that, absent "countervailing considerations," a
statute should "be declared invalid to the extent it reaches too far,
but otherwise left intact." Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S.
491, 503-504 (1985). There are two flaws in this argument.
First, the statute that grants our jurisdiction for this expedited
review, 47 U. S. C. A. §561 (Supp. 1997), limits that jurisdictional
grant to actions challenging the CDA "on its face." Consistent with
§561, the plaintiffs who brought this suit and the three judge panel
that decided it treated it as a facial challenge. We have no authority,
in this particular posture, to convert this litigation into an "as
applied" challenge. Nor, given the vast array of plaintiffs, the range
of their expressive activities, and the vagueness of the statute, would
it be practicable to limit our holding to a judicially defined set of
specific applications.
Second, one of the "countervailing considerations" mentioned in
Brockett is present here. In considering a facial challenge, this Court
may impose a limiting construction on a statute only if it is "readily
susceptible" to such a construction. Virginia v. American Bookseller's
Assn., Inc., 484 U.S. 383, 397 (1988). See also Erznoznik, v.
Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 216 (1975) ("readily subject" to narrowing
construction). The open ended character of the CDA provides no guidance
whatever for limiting its coverage.
This case is therefore unlike those in which we have construed a
statute narrowly because the text or other source of congressional
intent identified a clear line that this Court could draw. Cf., e.g.,
Brockett, 472 U. S., at 504-505 (invalidating obscenity statute only to
the extent that word "lust" was actually or effectively excised from
statute); United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 180-183 (1983)
(invalidating federal statute banning expressive displays only insofar
as it extended to public sidewalks when clear line could be drawn
between sidewalks and other grounds that comported with congressional
purpose of protecting the building, grounds, and people therein).
Rather, our decision in United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S.
454, 479, n. 26 (1995), is applicable. In that case, we declined to
"dra[w] one or more lines between categories of speech covered by an
overly broad statute, when Congress has sent inconsistent signals as to
where the new line or lines should be drawn" because doing so "involves
a far more serious invasion of the legislative domain." [n.49] This
Court "will not rewrite a . . . law to conform it to constitutional
requirements." American Booksellers, 484 U. S., at 397. [n.50]
In this Court, though not in the District Court, the Government asserts
that--in addition to its interest in protecting children--its
"[e]qually significant" interest in fostering the growth of the
Internet provides an independent basis for upholding the
constitutionality of the CDA. Brief for Appellants 19. The Government
apparently assumes that the unregulated availability of "indecent" and
"patently offensive" material on the Internet is driving countless
citizens away from the medium because of the risk of exposing
themselves or their children to harmful material.
We find this argument singularly unpersuasive. The dramatic expansion
of this new marketplace of ideas contradicts the factual basis of this
contention. The record demonstrates that the growth of the Internet has
been and continues to be phenomenal. As a matter of constitutional
tradition, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, we presume that
governmental regulation of the content of speech is more likely to
interfere with the free exchange of ideas than to encourage it. The
interest in encouraging freedom of expression in a democratic society
outweighs any theoretical but unproven benefit of censorship.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is
affirmed.
It is so ordered.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes
1 "Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech."
U. S. Const., Amdt. 1.
2 The Court made 410 findings, including 356 paragraphs of the parties'
stipulation and 54 findings based on evidence received in open court.
See 929 F. Supp. at 830, n. 9, 842, n. 15.
3 An acronym for the network developed by the Advanced Research Project
Agency.
4 Id., at 844 (finding 81).
5 Id., at 831 (finding 3).
6 Id., at 835 (finding 27).
7 Id., at 842 (finding 74).
8 Id., at 836 (finding 36).
9 "Web publishing is simple enough that thousands of individual users
and small community organizations are using the Web to publish their
own personal `home pages,' the equivalent of individualized newsletters
about the person or organization, which are available to everyone on
the Web." Id., at 837 (finding 42).
10 Id., at 838 (finding 46).
11 Id., at 844 (finding 82).
12 Ibid. (finding 86).
13 Ibid. (finding 85).
14 Id., at 848 (finding 117).
15 Id., at 844-845 (finding 88).
16 Ibid.
17 Id., at 845 (finding 89).
18 Id., at 842 (finding 72).
19 Ibid. (finding 73).
20 Id., at 845 (finding 90): "An e mail address provides no
authoritative information about the addressee, who may use an e mail
`alias' or an anonymous remailer. There is also no universal or
reliable listing of e mail addresses and corresponding names or
telephone numbers, and any such listing would be or rapidly become
incomplete. For these reasons, there is no reliable way in many
instances for a sender to know if the e mail recipient is an adult or a
minor. The difficulty of e mail age verification is compounded for mail
exploders such as listservs, which automatically send information to
all e mail addresses on a sender's list. Government expert Dr. Olsen
agreed that no current technology could give a speaker assurance that
only adults were listed in a particular mail exploder's mailing list."
21 Ibid. (finding 93).
22 Id., at 846 (finding 102).
23 Id., at 847 (findings 104-106):
"At least some, if not almost all, non commercial organizations, such
as the ACLU, Stop Prisoner Rape or Critical Path AIDS Project, regard
charging listeners to access their speech as contrary to their goals of
making their materials available to a wide audience free of charge.
. . . . .
"There is evidence suggesting that adult users, particularly casual Web
browsers, would be discouraged from retrieving information that
required use of a credit card or password. Andrew Anker testified that
HotWired has received many complaints from its members about HotWired's
registration system, which requires only that a member supply a name, e
mail address and self created password. There is concern by commercial
content providers that age verification requirements would decrease
advertising and revenue because advertisers depend on a demonstration
that the sites arewidely available and frequently visited."
24 See Exon Amendment No. 1268, 141 Cong. Rec. S8120 (June 9, 1995).
See also id., at S8087. This amendment, as revised, became§502 of the
Communications Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 133, 47 U. S. C. A.
§§223(a)%(e) (Supp. 1997). Some Members of the House of
Representatives opposed the Exon Amendment because they thought it
"possible for our parents now to child proof the family computer with
these products available in the private sector." They also thought the
Senate's approach would "involve the Federal Government spending vast
sums of money trying to define elusive terms that are going to lead to
a flood of legal challenges while our kids are unprotected." These
Members offered an amendment intended as a substitute for the Exon
Amendment, but instead enacted as an additional section of the Act
entitled "Online Family Empowerment." See 110 Stat. 137, 47 U. S. C. A.
§230 (Supp. 1997); 141 Cong. Rec. H8468-H8472. No hearings were held
on the provisions that became law. See S. Rep. No. 104-23 (1995), p. 9.
After the Senate adopted the Exon amendment, however, its Judiciary
Committee did conduct a one day hearing on "Cyberporn and Children." In
his opening statement at that hearing, Senator Leahy observed:
"It really struck me in your opening statement when you mentioned, Mr.
Chairman, that it is the first ever hearing, and you are absolutely
right. And yet we had a major debate on the floor, passed legislation
overwhelmingly on a subject involving the Internet, legislation that
could dramatically change--some would say even wreak havoc--on the
Internet. The Senate went in willy nilly, passed legislation, and never
once had a hearing, never once had a discussion other than an hour or
so on the floor." Cyberporn and Children: The Scope of the Problem, The
State of the Technology, and the Need for Congressional Action, Hearing
on S. 892 before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 104th Cong.,
1st Sess., 7-8 (1995).
25 Although the Government and the dissent break §223(d)(1) into two
separate "patently offensive" and "display" provisions, we follow the
convention of both parties below, as well the District Court's order
and opinion, in describing §223(d)(1) as one provision.
26 In full, § 223(e)(5) provides:
"(5) It is a defense to a prosecution under subsection (a)(1)(B) or (d)
of this section, or under subsection (a)(2) of this section with
respect to the use of a facility for an activity under subsection
(a)(1)(B) of this section that a person--
"(A) has taken, in good faith, reasonable, effective, and appropriate
actions under the circumstances to restrict or prevent access by minors
to a communication specified in such subsections, which may involve any
appropriate measures to restrict minors from such communications,
including any method which is feasible under available technology; or
"(B) has restricted access to such communication by requiring use of a
verified credit card, debit account, adult access code, or adult
personal identification number."
27 American Civil Liberties Union; Human Rights Watch; Electronic
Privacy Information Center; Electronic Frontier Foundation; Journalism
Education Association; Computer Professionals for Social
Responsibility; National Writers Union; Clarinet Communications Corp.;
Institute for Global Communications; Stop Prisoner Rape; AIDS Education
Global Information System; Bibliobytes; Queer Resources Directory;
Critical Path AIDS Project, Inc.; Wildcat Press, Inc.; Declan McCullagh
dba Justice on Campus; Brock Meeks dba Cyberwire Dispatch; John Troyer
dba The Safer Sex Page; JonathanWallace dba The Ethical Spectacle; and
Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc.
28 American Library Association; America Online, Inc.; American
Booksellers Association, Inc.; American Booksellers Foundation for Free
Expression; American Society of Newspaper Editors; Apple Computer,
Inc.; Association of American Publishers, Inc.; Association of
Publishers, Editors and Writers; Citizens Internet Empowerment
Coalition; Commercial Internet Exchange Association; CompuServe
Incorporated; Families Against Internet Censorship; Freedom to Read
Foundation, Inc.; Health Sciences Libraries Consortium; Hotwired
Ventures LLC; Interactive Digital Software Association; Interactive
Services Association; Magazine Publishers of America; Microsoft
Corporation; The Microsoft Network, L. L. C.; National Press
Photographers Association; Netcom On Line Communication Services, Inc.;
Newspaper Association of America; Opnet, Inc.; Prodigy Services
Company; Society of Professional Journalists; Wired Ventures, Ltd.
29 110 Stat. 142-143, note following 47 U. S. C. A. §223 (Supp.1997).
30 See also 929 F. Supp., at 877: "Four related characteristics of
Internet communication have a transcendent importance to our shared
holding that the CDA is unconstitutional on its face. We explain these
characteristics in our Findings of fact above, and I only rehearse them
briefly here. First, the Internet presents very low barriers to entry.
Second, these barriers to entry are identical for both speakers and
listeners. Third, as a result of these low barriers, astoundingly
diverse content is available on the Internet. Fourth, the Internet
provides significant access to all who wish to speak in the medium, and
even creates a relative parity among speakers." According to Judge
Dalzell, these characteristics and therest of the District Court's
findings "lead to the conclusion that Congress may not regulate
indecency on the Internet at all." Ibid. Because appellees do not press
this argument before this Court, we do not consider it. Appellees also
do not dispute that the Government generally has a compelling interest
in protecting minors from "indecent" and "patently offensive" speech.
31 390 U. S., at 639. We quoted from Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S.
158, 166 (1944): "It is cardinal with us that the custody, care and
nurture of the child reside first in the parents, whose primary
function and freedom include preparation for obligations the state can
neither supply nor hinder."
32 Given the likelihood that many E mail transmissions from an adult to
a minor are conversations between family members, it is therefore
incorrect for the dissent to suggest that the provisions of the CDA,
even in this narrow area, "are no different from the lawwe sustained in
Ginsberg." Post, at 8.
33 Cf. Pacifica Foundation v. FCC, 556 F. 2d 9, 36 (CADC 1977)
(Levanthal, J., dissenting), rev'd, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438
U.S. 726 (1978). When Pacifica was decided, given that radio stations
were allowed to operate only pursuant to federal license, and that
Congress had enacted legislation prohibiting licensees from
broadcasting indecent speech, there was a risk that members of the
radio audience might infer some sort of official or societal approval
of whatever was heard over the radio, see 556 F. 2d, at 37, n. 18. No
such risk attends messages received through the Internet, which is not
supervised by any federal agency.
34 Juris. Statement 3 (citing 929 F. Supp., at 831 (finding 3)).
35 "Indecent" does not benefit from any textual embellishment at all.
"Patently offensive" is qualified only to the extent that it involves
"sexual or excretory activities or organs" taken "in context" and
"measured by contemporary community standards."
36 See Gozlon Peretz v. United States, 498 U.S. 395, 404 (1991) ("Where
Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but
omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed
that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate
inclusion and exclusion") (internal quotation marks omitted).
37 The statute does not indicate whether the "patently offensive" and
"indecent" determinations should be made with respect to minors or the
population as a whole. The Government asserts that the appropriate
standard is "what is suitable material for minors." Reply Brief for
Appellants 18, n. 13 (citing Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629, 633
(1968)). But the Conferees expressly rejected amendments that would
have imposed such a "harmful to minors" standard. See S. Conf. Rep. No.
104-230, p. 189 (1996) (S. Conf. Rep.), 142 Cong. Rec. H1145,
H1165-1166 (Feb. 1, 1996). The Conferees also rejected amendments that
would have limited the proscribed materials to those lacking redeeming
value. See S. Conf. Rep., at 189, 142 Cong. Rec. H1165-1166 (Feb. 1,
1996).
38 Even though the word "trunk," standing alone, might refer to
luggage, a swimming suit, the base of a tree, or the long nose of an
animal, its meaning is clear when it is one prong of a three part
description of a species of gray animals.
39 413 U. S., at 30 (Determinations of "what appeals to the `prurient
interest' or is `patently offensive'. . . . are essentially questions
of fact, and our Nation is simply too big and too diverse for this
Court to reasonably expect that such standards could be articulated for
all 50 States in a single formulation, even assuming the prerequisite
consensus exists"). The CDA, which implements the "contemporary
community standards" language of Miller, thus conflicts with the
Conferees' own assertion that the CDA was intended "to establish a
uniform national standard of content regulation." S. Conf. Rep., at
191.
40 Accord, Butler v. Michigan, 352 U.S. 380, 383 (1957) (ban on sale to
adults of books deemed harmful to children unconstitutional); Sable
Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC, 492 U.S. 115, 128 (1989) (ban on
"dial a porn" messages unconstitutional); Bolger v. Youngs Drug
Products Corp., 463 U.S. 60, 73 (1983) (ban on mailing of unsolicited
advertisement for contraceptives unconstitutional).
41 The lack of legislative attention to the statute at issue in Sable
suggests another parallel with this case. Compare 492 U. S., at 129-130
("[A]side from conclusory statements during the debates by proponents
of the bill, as well as similar assertions in hearings on a
substantially identical bill the year before, . . . the congressional
record presented to us contains no evidence as to how effective or
ineffective the FCC's most recent regulations were or might prove to
be. . . . No Congressman or Senator purported to present a considered
judgment with respect to how often or to what extent minors could or
would circumvent the rules and have access to dial a porn messages")
with n. 24, supra.
42 The Government agrees that these provisions are applicable whenever
"a sender transmits a message to more than one recipient, knowing that
at least one of the specific persons receiving themessage is a minor."
Opposition to Motion to Affirm and Reply to Juris. Statement 4-5, n. 1.
43 The Government asserts that "[t]here is nothing constitutionally
suspect about requiring commercial Web site operators . . . to shoulder
the modest burdens associated with their use." Brief for Appellants 35.
As a matter of fact, however, there is no evidence that a "modest
burden" would be effective.
44 Transmitting obscenity and child pornography, whether via the
Internet or other means, is already illegal under federal law for both
adults and juveniles. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1464-1465 (criminalizing
obscenity); §2251 (criminalizing child pornography). In fact, when
Congress was considering the CDA, the Government expressed its view
that the law was unnecessary because existing laws already authorized
its ongoing efforts to prosecute obscenity, child pornography, and
child solicitation. See 141 Cong. Rec. S8342 (June 14, 1995) (letter
from Kent Markus, Acting Assistant Attorney General,U. S. Department of
Justice, to Sen. Leahy).
45 Citing Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520
(1993), among other cases, appellees offer an additional reason why, in
their view, the CDA fails strict scrutiny. Because so much sexually
explicit content originates overseas, they argue, the CDA cannot be
"effective." Brief for Appellees American Library Association et al.
33-34. This argument raises difficult issues regarding the intended, as
well as the permissible scope of, extraterritorial application of the
CDA. We find it unnecessary to address those issues to dispose of this
case.
46 For the full text of §223(e)(5), see n. 26, supra.
47 Thus, ironically, this defense may significantly protect commercial
purveyors of obscene postings while providing little (or no) benefit
for transmitters of indecent messages that have significant social or
artistic value.
48 929 F. Supp., at 855-856.
49 As this Court long ago explained, "It would certainly be dangerous
if the Legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible
offenders and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could
be rightfully be detained and who should be set at large. This would,
to some extent, substitute the judicial for the legislative department
of the government." United States v. Reese, 92 U.S. 214, 221 (1876). In
part because of these separation of powers concerns, we have held that
a severability clause is "an aid merely; not an inexorable command."
Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U.S. 286, 290 (1924).
50 See also Osborne v. Ohio, 495 U.S. 103, 121 (1990) (judicial
rewriting of statutes would derogate Congress's "incentive to draft a
narrowly tailored law in the first place").
Mel A. Nomah
news:yoWce.1764$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
:
: Yet we all know yelling "fire" in a theater is illegal and forbidden by
: law...
:
Show us the law.
Freedom of speech gives you the right. That doesn't mean you -do- that, it
means you -have the freedom to do- that, which is an excellent freedom to
have available if you should happen to see a fire in a theater.
Practically, if you hear someone yell "FIRE!" then you have some decisions
to make. Are you going to believe that person or not, especially when you
see nothing? If you do believe this person, are you going to run for the
door like a crazed animal, or quickly make your way to the exit in a
civilized manner?
Whichever you choose, it's -your- choice and -your- responsibility. It
is -not- the responsibility of the person who yelled "FIRE!" that -you-
chose one direction or another.
Thinking that it is the responsibility of the person who yelled "FIRE!"
strips your power away from you and makes you not responsible for your
life. Is that what you want?
73,
M.A.N.
--
"I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: "O Lord,
make my enemies ridiculous." And God granted it."
- Voltaire
K4YZ
Of course you will...You can't answer any of it in any meaningful
way that DOESN'T make you look like a fool...so take the easy way out.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> Steve,
>
> >An "information bulletin" that you refer to as a "show". A "show"
> >that is nothing more than a showcase for your rhetoric..
>
> Despite what you hink steve and information bulletin doesn't have to
be
> a "newscast" it only has to be directed only to amteur radio
operators
> consisting solely of subject matter of direct interest to the amateur
> service.
You'd best read up on what a "bulletin" is, Todd.
You're broadcasting a show.
> >Todd...I gave you a "pass" on this the first time around because I
> >know it was too easy for you to get confused with everything going
> >on...
>
> >You ARE promoting wanton violation of FCC rules and regulations.
> >You have stated, on numerous occassions, that you operated both a
> >"pirate" TV and FM station...You've said you'd do it again.
>
> First off I never ran a Pirate radio station...(SNIP)
Then you're lying to SOMEone, Todd, because there's a ton of
messages with you bragging about your illegal stations. Including a
ton of messages signed off with your "pirate" station ID.
Some of those copied messages are on THEIR way to Washington.
Some are on their way to Springfield.
I wonder how much "support" you're going to get once some office
staffer starts to "research" those links...?!?!
> I applied for a LPFM license...(SNIP)
So you did. And the FCC wisely denied it.
> Secondly that's between me and the FCC...(SNIP)
Wrong.
ANY...repeat ANY application for licensure by the Federal
Communications Commission is a matter of public record. Whether it's
for a broadcast license, an Amateur license, GMRS, etc.
> and as I stated before
> they will NOT doing anything about, and finally You don't know what
the
> HELL was going on so I suggest you shut your ####ing mouth, that does
> concern you.
Well, Todd...You A L M O S T made it 24 hours without resorting
to potty mouth.
A N Y T H I N G Todd Daugherty does with a radio transmitter that
isn't under the control of the NTIA, the Armed Forces, or the
security/intel agencies D O E S concern me.
Ask the FCC.
> >And >>I<< provided links to YOUR assertions of the aforementioned
> >"pirate" operations. Along with your gross profanities, razor blade
> >comments, references to my deceased daughter, etc etc etc.
> > Civil people don't act that way, Todd, and your ISP agreed. You
> >were warned but blew it off.
>
> First off you taking the razor blade too serious....
I tend to take razor blades seriously, Todd.
> I don't you name in
> that post and was not directed towards you directly. The problem with
> service porviders is they only respond to complaints they don't
> investigate the complaint. if my ISP was on here and realize what a
> PRICK you are perhaps they would change their mine.
Perhaps they'd see what kind of language you use and how
absolutely assinine your rants are.
And hey, what happened to the 7th grader that so eloquently
prepared that other post....?!?!
You really had me going for a while there!
> >You SAY it's legal. We have no evidence of it. You randymouthed
> >other correspondents about being "appliance operators", yet when
> tasked
> >to list YOUR station, you balked
>
> Below there is a link to the FCC website where you and others on this
> website can read all about information bulletins
>
> http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/about/communications.html
You know what...It's no wonder you can't keep a civil or organized
thought in your head, Todd.
We were talking about your STATION...Not your shows.
> >The harrassing one already got booted, Todd. At least for a
> >while...The one who signed your name and call yesterday was actually
> >polite and civil. Was that you, or did you give someone your
> >password...?!?!
>
> Well steve on a final note I hope that people on this newsgroup wise
up
> and get sick of your harassment and boot your sorry ### off the
> newsgroup
There's been far worse than me here, Todd. Strangely enough all
the ner-do-well's have originated in Illinois.
Why is that?
Steve, K4YZ
Cmd Buzz Corey
> "Bill Sohl" <bill...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:yoWce.1764$V01...@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
>
> :
> : Yet we all know yelling "fire" in a theater is illegal and forbidden by
> : law...
> :
>
> Show us the law.
>
> Freedom of speech gives you the right. That doesn't mean you -do- that, it
> means you -have the freedom to do- that, which is an excellent freedom to
> have available if you should happen to see a fire in a theater.
>
> Practically, if you hear someone yell "FIRE!" then you have some decisions
> to make. Are you going to believe that person or not, especially when you
> see nothing? If you do believe this person, are you going to run for the
> door like a crazed animal, or quickly make your way to the exit in a
> civilized manner?
>
> Whichever you choose, it's -your- choice and -your- responsibility. It
> is -not- the responsibility of the person who yelled "FIRE!" that -you-
> chose one direction or another.
>
> Thinking that it is the responsibility of the person who yelled "FIRE!"
> strips your power away from you and makes you not responsible for your
> life. Is that what you want?
I suggest the next time you go to the theater, stand up in the middle of
the movie and yell "FIRE!!!!" and see what happens if there is no fire.
See if the people who belive you and exit the theater get arrested or if
you are the one who gets arrested.
You have the freedom to talk about hijacking a plane too, but go to an
airport and tell the security guard you are thinking of hijacking a
plane and see what happens. Freedom of speech does not give anyone the
right to say anything, anywhere, anytime they please without facing
possible consequences.
K4YZ
The "problem", Todd, is that you are part of the problem.
And I wouldn't hold out too much hope for much help from "The
House" any more, Todd...Especially after they get a look at your USENET
track record.
Good luck.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> Steve,
>
> here's some light reading for you!!!
Interesting, Todd.
And within that document are at least four caveats that prevent
the transmission of "sexually oriented" material contrary to the
desires of the incidental receiver.
Find them if you can, Todd...It only took me 5 minutes...
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
I'M SOOOOOOO SCARED!!!!
ASSHOLE
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> Steve,
> I'M SOOOOOOO SCARED!!!!
>
There ya go, Todd. Now you're back in form.
I could care less if you're "scared" or not, Todd. As a matter of
fact, you go right on ahead and continue to act the way you've been
acting...the profanities...admission of lawbreaking...cussing out the
FCC and the government...Hey, you can even take another swipe at my
Daughter if it makes you feel more like a man...It just makes things
that more easy for me.
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
maybe indecent but I don't go around threaten people's lives, or even
pretend to threaten people lives by claiming I sending shit to this
group and sending stuff to that group just to screw someone over.
that's what make me a hell of lot better then you asshole!
N9OGL
down nice try though
Todd N9OGL
N9OGL
>You'd best read up on what a "bulletin" is, Todd.
>You're broadcasting a show.
FROM THE FCC WEBSITE:
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/about/communications.html
Q. What is an "information bulletin"?
A. The term is defined in Section 97.3. It is a message directed only
to amateur operators and consists solely of subject matter of direct
interest to the amateur service. The control operator of the station
transmitting an information bulletin is responsible for determining
that the subject matter is of direct interest to the amateur service.
Q. Does an amateur station transmitting information bulletins have to
share the channel?
A. Yes. Section 97.101 provides that each station licensee and each
control operator must cooperate in selecting transmitting channels and
in making the most effective use of the amateur service frequencies. A
specific transmitting channel is not assigned for the exclusive use of
any amateur station. Section 97.101 also provides that no amateur
operator shall cause interference to any radio communication or signal.
There is no exemption for amateur stations transmitting for information
bulletins.
Q. Is broadcasting prohibited?
A. Yes. Section 97.113 prohibits amateur stations from engaging in any
form of broadcasting or in any activity related to program production
or news gathering for broadcasting purposes.
Q. Is there an exception to this prohibition?
A. Yes, there is one exception: Communications directly related to the
immediate safety of human life or the protection of property may be
provided by amateur stations to broadcasters for dissemination to the
public where no other means of communication is reasonably available
before or at the time of the event.
Q. What is "broadcasting"?
A. Section 97.3 defines the term "broadcasting," in the context of the
amateur service, as a transmission intended for reception by the
general public, either direct or delayed.
Sorry but I think I know what the rules state!
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> See steve that's what makes me better then you...(SNIP)
There's nothing about you that's better than me, Todd.
Not one thing.
I dont say that arrogantly or egotistically...It's just not
possible for you to be better than too many people.
I figure you to be a nicer guy than say....John Wayne Gacy, or Ted
Bundy...But that's about the limit.
I maybe obscene and I
> maybe indecent but I don't go around threaten people's lives, or
even
> pretend to threaten people lives by claiming I sending shit to this
> group and sending stuff to that group just to screw someone over.
I've not threatened anyone's life, Todd. And as for "...sending
#### to this group and sending stuff to taht group just to screw
someone over", just what do you call your letters to Congressman
Shimkus?
What do you call all those threatening and profane slurs you've
thrown at the ARRL when they've not uttered one single iota of comment
on you, your shows or your opinions...?!?!
> that's what make me a hell of lot better then you ###hole!
Keep repeating that to yourslef over and over, Todd. It's not
true today, it wasn't true yesterday, and even if you spent every last
day of your life in a monastery begging forgiveness it wouldn't be true
tomorrow.
You're just not capable of it.
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
>I've not threatened anyone's life, Todd. And as for "...sending
>#### to this group and sending stuff to taht group just to screw
>someone over", just what do you call your letters to Congressman
>Shimkus?
I'm not threating anyone with my letter to Shimkus, I mainly wait him
to have the FCC clairfy the rules pertaining to information bulletins
and resolve some of the problems surrounding information bulletins.
> What do you call all those threatening and profane slurs you've
>thrown at the ARRL when they've not uttered one single iota of comment
>on you, your shows or your opinions...?!?!
Well I'm not the only one that hates the ARRL with a passion. as far as
I see they are the main problem surrounding the problems with
information bulletins. the huge MAJORITY of people complaining about
other Information Bulletins are ARRL members. Secondly when a person
gets on a public fourm and ask why I'm on the FCC amateur Auxiliary
list then It's time to take action. I have the right to my opinion as
do you with yours if you don't want to listen to my comments then don't
read them plain and simple.
>Keep repeating that to yourslef over and over, Todd. It's not
>true today, it wasn't true yesterday, and even if you spent every last
>day of your life in a monastery begging forgiveness it wouldn't be
true
>tomorrow.
I prefere Shintoism over christian religions
Todd N9OGL
N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> >K4YZ says
> >I've not threatened anyone's life, Todd. And as for "...sending
> >#### to this group and sending stuff to taht group just to screw
> >someone over", just what do you call your letters to Congressman
> >Shimkus?
>
> I'm not threating anyone with my letter to Shimkus, I mainly wait him
> to have the FCC clairfy the rules pertaining to information bulletins
> and resolve some of the problems surrounding information bulletins.
You had best be careful, Todd...The result STILL might not be what
you'd like...Especially after they get a load of your true intentions
and ulterior motives, Todd...
> > What do you call all those threatening and profane slurs you've
> >thrown at the ARRL when they've not uttered one single iota of
comment
> >on you, your shows or your opinions...?!?!
>
> Well I'm not the only one that hates the ARRL with a passion.
So what? My question to you was what has the ARRL done to you
that you'd use the language against them that you do?
The ARRL has not uttered ONE word about N9OGL, his shows or his
internet behaviour. Not one. Yet you have attacked them with
unwarranted ferocity and foulness. Why?
> as far as
> I see they are the main problem surrounding the problems with
> information bulletins.
The ARRL is not the problem.
The problem is with people like K1MAN and you who think that 97.3
is a blanket authorization to go into the Junior Broadcasting business.
The ARRL does not make policy on what constitutes an "information
bulletin", Todd.
> the huge MAJORITY of people complaining about other Information
Bulletins are ARRL members.
OK...Show me the numbers...
AND THEN show me where the >>ARRL ITSELF<<, not an Amateur who
HAPPENS to be an ARRL member, has caused you any problems.
> Secondly when a person
> gets on a public fourm and ask why I'm on the FCC amateur Auxiliary
> list then It's time to take action.
The action you need to take is (1) Clean up your mouth, (2)
Follow FCC rules and regulations, and (3) Realize that most Amateurs DO
NOT want another self-stylized broadcaster to plop down another
"information bulletin" station on the most crowded HF Amateur
allocation.
> I have the right to my opinion as
> do you with yours if you don't want to listen to my comments then
don't
> read them plain and simple.
And you have the right to ignore mine...but THIS is a public forum.
So you're stuck. And so far, I don't remember a single person
offering any support or encouragement to you to proceed with your
"information bulletins" on 20 meters.
> >Keep repeating that to yourslef over and over, Todd. It's not
> >true today, it wasn't true yesterday, and even if you spent every
last
>
> >day of your life in a monastery begging forgiveness it wouldn't be
> true
> >tomorrow.
>
> I prefere Shintoism over christian religions
Fine. But so far you've not demonstrated that you have the
clarity of thought or discipline of mind to practice Shintoism.
Here's an honest, forthright suggestion on your "bulletin" ideas,
Todd.
Become an ARRL "Official Bulletin Station". Use YOUR repeater to
rebroadcast ARRL bulletins, the Amateur Radio Newsline program, or
other RESPECTED, professionally produced offerings for the "main
course".
Then, at the end of the transmission, hold a directed net on
frequency to invite other Amateurs to join in for round table
discussions on any of the bulletins subjects, local policy issues, or
technical projects or ideas.
Build up some credibility there, then expand your "services" as
the demand dictates.
Like it or not, Todd, if you start broadasting your shows on 20
meters with any regularity, you will find yourself on the receiving end
of more grief than you ever thought of generating on RRAP.
Steve, K4YZ
KØHB
>
> Here's an honest, forthright suggestion on your "bulletin" ideas,
> Todd.
>
> Become an ARRL "Official Bulletin Station". Use YOUR repeater to
> rebroadcast ARRL bulletins, the Amateur Radio Newsline program, or
> other RESPECTED, professionally produced offerings for the "main
> course".
>
> Then, at the end of the transmission, hold a directed net on
> frequency to invite other Amateurs to join in for round table
> discussions on any of the bulletins subjects, local policy issues, or
> technical projects or ideas.
>
> Build up some credibility there, then expand your "services" as
> the demand dictates.
>
Well crafted advice.
de Hans, K0HB
N9OGL
>you'd like...Especially after they get a load of your true intentions
>and ulterior motives, Todd...
ummmmm just another of your little threats....
> The ARRL is not the problem.
> The problem is with people like K1MAN and you who think that 97.3
>is a blanket authorization to go into the Junior Broadcasting
business.
>The ARRL does not make policy on what constitutes an "information
>bulletin", Todd.
No the problem is dumb amateur's who can't read the rules or the FCC
website. No but the ones who bitch about other information bulletins
are ARRL members
>The action you need to take is (1) Clean up your mouth, (2)
>Follow FCC rules and regulations, and (3) Realize that most Amateurs
DO
>NOT want another self-stylized broadcaster to plop down another
>"information bulletin" station on the most crowded HF Amateur
>allocation.
Answer to 1. NO, 2. I follow the FCC rules 3. Too bad I'm going to
start running 24/7 real soon
> And you have the right to ignore mine...but THIS is a public forum.
> So you're stuck. And so far, I don't remember a single person
>offering any support or encouragement to you to proceed with your
>"information bulletins" on 20 meters.
I could care less....I didn't ask for anyone's permission or
encouragement to run my information bulletin.
> Here's an honest, forthright suggestion on your "bulletin" ideas,
>Todd.
> Become an ARRL "Official Bulletin Station". Use YOUR repeater to
>rebroadcast ARRL bulletins, the Amateur Radio Newsline program, or
>other RESPECTED, professionally produced offerings for the "main
>course".
Naw, I stick with what I'm doing now
> Like it or not, Todd, if you start broadasting your shows on 20
>meters with any regularity, you will find yourself on the receiving
end
>of more grief than you ever thought of generating on RRAP.
Oh well It legal and there's nothing you can do about it
Todd N9OGL
KØHB
>
> I'm going to start running 24/7 real soon
>
> Oh well It legal and there's nothing you can do about it
>
You might want to review §97.7 and §97.109. (Or not.)
Good luck on this one now.
73, de Hans, K0HB
Dee Flint
"KØHB" <grou...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qVbde.3699$GQ5...@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Dee Flint" <deefl...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:5Omdndfq4dr...@comcast.com...
>
>>
>> Hans are you saying that Todd may say whatever he wants
>> whenever where he wants however he wants on the ham
>> bands?
>
> No, Dee, I didn't say that (and of course you know that I didn't). The
> hams bands aren't a right, but a regulated privilege.
>
>>
>> Do you believe then that Part 97 is unconstitutional when
>> it prohibits commericial use and foul language?
>>
>
> No, I don't believe that (and of course you know that I don't). The
> amateur bands aren't a right but a regulated privilege.
>
> I do believe, however, that Todd has protections in the Constitution which
> allow him to raise those issues here on rrap, just as Steve has
> protections for his assertions that parts of the Constitution are not
> appropriate to his political views. While I'm disgusted by Todds trashy
> language here, I am more disgusted by the overt actions to deny him his
> Constitutional protections.
>
> 73, de Hans, K0HB
The ability to express ideas is indeed protected (unless of course one is
advocating the VIOLENT overthrow of the government). However those ideas
can be expressed in trashy language or they can be expressed in non-trashy
language. I see no violation of freedom of speech in requiring the use of
non-trashy language in public forums. Internet news groups, since they are
open to all, would be a public forum.
Dee D. Flint, N8UZE
N9OGL
for k1man
todd n9ogl
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> > You had best be careful, Todd...The result STILL might not be what
> >you'd like...Especially after they get a load of your true
intentions
> >and ulterior motives, Todd...
>
> ummmmm just another of your little threats....
Not a threat, Todd.
It's just that sometimes it's not very wise to wave dirty laundry.
Sometimes the laudry get's cleaned, but then on other times it get's
thrown out.
Wonder what the "Subcommittee on Telecommunications" is going to
say when they get a load of some of your USENET postings...?!?!
> > The ARRL is not the problem.
> > The problem is with people like K1MAN and you who think that 97.3
> >is a blanket authorization to go into the Junior Broadcasting
> business.
>
> >The ARRL does not make policy on what constitutes an "information
> >bulletin", Todd.
>
> No the problem is dumb amateur's who can't read the rules or the FCC
> website. No but the ones who bitch about other information bulletins
> are ARRL members
I asked you before...I ask you again...where are your numbers?
Where are you getting this information from?
And as for "dumb amateurs"...who's the one trying to run a
"bulletin station" in the absence of support for it...?!?!
> >The action you need to take is (1) Clean up your mouth, (2)
> >Follow FCC rules and regulations, and (3) Realize that most Amateurs
> DO
> >NOT want another self-stylized broadcaster to plop down another
> >"information bulletin" station on the most crowded HF Amateur
> >allocation.
>
> Answer to 1. NO, 2. I follow the FCC rules 3. Too bad I'm going to
> start running 24/7 real soon
(1) I figured. It was a long shot.
(2) You better read again.
(3) It's not a "bulletin" if you're running "24/7".
> > And you have the right to ignore mine...but THIS is a public forum.
> > So you're stuck. And so far, I don't remember a single person
> >offering any support or encouragement to you to proceed with your
> >"information bulletins" on 20 meters.
>
> I could care less....I didn't ask for anyone's permission or
> encouragement to run my information bulletin.
Well...There's the very validation of my opinions, Todd...You are
doing this for you...NOT for any betterment of Amateur Radio.
> > Here's an honest, forthright suggestion on your "bulletin" ideas,
> >Todd.
>
> > Become an ARRL "Official Bulletin Station". Use YOUR repeater to
> >rebroadcast ARRL bulletins, the Amateur Radio Newsline program, or
> >other RESPECTED, professionally produced offerings for the "main
> >course".
>
> Naw, I stick with what I'm doing now
Sure. I'd expect nothing less. You're trying to do something you
have no market for with no experience to know the difference.
The results will be predictable.
> > Like it or not, Todd, if you start broadasting your shows on 20
> >meters with any regularity, you will find yourself on the receiving
> end
> >of more grief than you ever thought of generating on RRAP.
>
> Oh well It legal and there's nothing you can do about it
Yes there is. And it's already in progress.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> There no violation there I be pretty much home 24/7 your mistaking me
> for k1man
Sooner or later you're going to have to leave the house for bread
and toilet paper. The second you walk out of the room, there's no
control operator present.
And what happened to school, Todd?
And when you "graduate", what about a job so you can move out of
mommy and daddy's house...?!?!
Or are mommy and daddy independently wealthy and letting you lay
up in your room 24/7...???
Guess that "Japanese" girlfriend of yours get's no attention, eh?
Or is she gonna lay up in the bedroom with you...???
Yes, Todd, I can see that you have a brilliant future ahead of
you.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
>K4YZ wrote (but Todd didn't attribute)
> > Like it or not, Todd, if you start broadasting your shows on 20
> >meters with any regularity, you will find yourself on the receiving
> end
> >of more grief than you ever thought of generating on RRAP.
>
> Oh well It legal and there's nothing you can do about it
The I suggest you memorize this sentence and be prepared to repeat
it over and over:
"I have no recollection of that, Your Honor..."
Steve, K4YZ
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
>
> I could care less....I didn't ask for anyone's permission or
> encouragement to run my information bulletin.
The proper phrase toddieboy is, "I *couldn't* care less." If you *could*
care less, then that means you do care, at least some.
N9OGL
>Where are you getting this information from?
> And as for "dumb amateurs"...who's the one trying to run a
>"bulletin station" in the absence of support for it...?!?!
Tell you what go around to some of these other amatuer message boards
and see what other amateurs think. I don't have any figures in front of
me right now but, from what I've seen on these other message boards the
majority of the amateurs who complain about OTHER information
bulletins, not W1AW are ARRL members.
>(2) You better read again.
Believe me the amateur rules are a hell of lot easier to read then
broadcast rules.
> (3) It's not a "bulletin" if you're running "24/7".
Not true, there is no time limit on information bulletins
>Yes there is. And it's already in progress.
GO FOR IT!!! your just validation my opinion that 1. I'm better then
you cause I don't go crying to the government to settle a personal
vendetta and get my nuts off doing it. 2. that your ham radio's number
one PRICK! enjoy your poor pathetic ego trip and hey don't shot your
wads too hard
Todd N9OGL
N9OGL
The majority of the classes left that I have to take are on line.
Todd n9ogl
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
>K4YZ wrote (and Todd deleted attributes:)
> > I asked you before...I ask you again...where are your numbers?
> >Where are you getting this information from?
> > And as for "dumb amateurs"...who's the one trying to run a
> >"bulletin station" in the absence of support for it...?!?!
>
> Tell you what go around to some of these other amatuer message boards
> and see what other amateurs think. I don't have any figures in front
of
> me right now but, from what I've seen on these other message boards
the
> majority of the amateurs who complain about OTHER information
> bulletins, not W1AW are ARRL members.
The only "figures" you have, Todd, are the ones you cut out of
porno pictures. Your sloughing.
> >(2) You better read again.
>
> Believe me the amateur rules are a hell of lot easier to read then
> broadcast rules.
Oh? Then why are you broadcasting on 20 meters?
> > (3) It's not a "bulletin" if you're running "24/7".
>
> Not true, there is no time limit on information bulletins
"Bulletins" are time-specific releases of information. Just like
"Headline News", if it's more than an hour old, it's old and no longer
a "bulletin".
> >Yes there is. And it's already in progress.
>
> GO FOR IT!!! your just validation my opinion that 1. I'm better then
> you cause I don't go crying to the government to settle a personal
> vendetta and get my nuts off doing it.
BBBWWWWHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
So...CONGRESSMAN Shimkus and the "House Subcommitte on
Telecommunications" is NOT "the government"...!?!?!?!
Isn't that the same body you've asked to resolve your dilemma for
you...?!?!
BBBWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! !
2. that your ham radio's number
> one #####! enjoy your poor pathetic ego trip and hey don't shot your
> wads too hard
Oh Noooooooooooooooo Todd...I can't be any higher than tenth
place. In no certain order there's you, Brian Burke N0IMD, Lennie
nderson, "Fritz Wuehler", "Mel A. Nomah", Any one of the numerous
manifestation of Lloyd and Roger (one pont each), K1MAN, and the
Drafted Gay Pagan Chemical Corps Officer Formerly Known As Markie.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> >And what happened to school, Todd?
>
> The majority of the classes left that I have to take are on line.
Uh huh...Sure.
Steve, K4YZ
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> Answer to 1. NO, 2. I follow the FCC rules 3. Too bad I'm going to
> start running 24/7 real soon
So are you going to be at your station as the control operator 24/7?
From your very immature blog site:
"No changes to the VHF schedule will be changed."
Care to explain that sentence?
Also from your site:
"N9OGL IS REAMPING HIS WEBSITE AT"
Just how does one go about "reamping" a website?
Making grammatical errors like that, that my first grade granddaughter
would know better, do you really think anyone would be interested in
your "broadcasts"?
N9OGL
K4YZ wrote:
> N9OGL wrote:
> >K4YZ wrote (and Todd deleted attributes:)
> > > I asked you before...I ask you again...where are your numbers?
> > >Where are you getting this information from?
> > > And as for "dumb amateurs"...who's the one trying to run a
> > >"bulletin station" in the absence of support for it...?!?!
> >
> > Tell you what go around to some of these other amatuer message
boards
> > and see what other amateurs think. I don't have any figures in
front
> of
> > me right now but, from what I've seen on these other message boards
> the
> > majority of the amateurs who complain about OTHER information
> > bulletins, not W1AW are ARRL members.
>
> The only "figures" you have, Todd, are the ones you cut out of
> porno pictures. Your sloughing.
>
> > >(2) You better read again.
> >
> > Believe me the amateur rules are a hell of lot easier to read then
> > broadcast rules.
>
> Oh? Then why are you broadcasting on 20 meters?
I'm not, I'm running an Information Bulletin, big difference...a
broadcast is attended for reception of the general public while a
information bulletin is a program directed to amateur radio.
>
> > > (3) It's not a "bulletin" if you're running "24/7".
> >
> > Not true, there is no time limit on information bulletins
>
> "Bulletins" are time-specific releases of information. Just
like
> "Headline News", if it's more than an hour old, it's old and no
longer
> a "bulletin".
>
NOT according to the FCC Steve, don't believe me ask them.
bb
>
> > Society can set it's own standards, however.
>
> I wonder when you changed your mind about "freedom of expression",
Steve. Not
> too far back down the Google trail you were real high on the concept.
>
> Witness the following gem!
>
> >Easy, he just wait's until she crosses back out, then while clearly
on the
> >farmer's property, he exercises HIS second amendment rights and
defends his
> >property by force of arms. Of course, he doesn't need to kill her,
but after
> >he unloads several rounds of "Double Ought" into that Mercedes SUV,
she will
> >think twice about defiling another's property for her own benefit
again.
> >
> >Simple freedom of expression.
>
> Sunuvagun!
>
> And you were giving "Mel" the song and dance about you don't believe
in
> violence!
>
> Sunuvagun!
>
> de Hans, K0HB
Hans, you must be terribly, terribly wrong.
Steven J Robeson/K4YZ/K4CAP doesn't introduce violence into threads.
Hi!
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
> I'm not, I'm running an Information Bulletin, big difference...a
> broadcast is attended for reception of the general public while a
> information bulletin is a program directed to amateur radio.
Directing your opinions to amateur radio does not make it a bulletin.
N9OGL
According to the rules an Information bulletin is "A message directed
only to amateur operators consisting solely of subject matter of direct
interest to the amateur service." and according to the FCC website
http://wireless.fcc.gov/services/amateur/about/communications.html "The
control operator of the station transmitting an information bulletin is
responsible for determining that the subject matter is of direct
interest to the amateur service. " and lastly "There are no specific
time limits placed upon information bulletins by Commission rules."
(letter to K1MAN from the FCC 2004)
Todd N9OGL
Cmd Buzz Corey
That's just it toddieboy, your opinions are of no interest to the
amateur community.
So, are you going to be at your station 24/7 as the control operator as
you broadcast your non-bulletins?
N9OGL
determine if it is of interest to the amateur radio community, not the
morons listening,
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> > Oh? Then why are you broadcasting on 20 meters?
>
> I'm not, I'm running an Information Bulletin, big difference...a
> broadcast is attended for reception of the general public while a
> information bulletin is a program directed to amateur radio.
No you're not. It's a "show". That's how you promote it.
You can TRY and make people believe that it's "just a bulletin",
but your threat to go "24/7" and your "itinerary" that does nothing but
parrot the ARRL website says otherwise.
Nice try, Slick.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> >Directing your opinions to amateur radio does not make it a
bulletin.
>
> According to the rules an Information bulletin is "A message directed
> only to amateur operators consisting solely of subject matter of
direct
"...of direct interest to the amateur service."
You have torqued off everyone on this list except Brian and
Lennie, and their diminished character has been known for years.
And this is just OFF the air...
No one, here or on the air, wants to hear the ranting of a
functionally illiterate loudmouth who doesn't think twice about
violating the law when it suits him.
Just how many "fans" do you think you'll create by mimicking
ARRL's "bulletins" on the most crowded Amateur allocation
worldwide...???
You're the epitome of selfish, Todd.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
BBWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHYAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
"...not the morons listening..."
BBWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
YOU OUT-FREAKIN' DID YOURSELF THIS TIME! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
BWWWWWWWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
! ! ! ! !
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
>amateur community.
>So, are you going to be at your station 24/7 as the control operator
as
>you broadcast your non-bulletins?
Sure am and I have a few other amatuer's who said they want in on it.
Todd N9OGL
Cmd Buzz Corey
Hard to believe you can really be so stupid toddieboy.
Cmd Buzz Corey
But but Steve, toddieboy says it isn't up to you or anyone else to
determine if his trash is worth listening to, he determins that.
N9OGL
>"...of direct interest to the amateur service."
Yes, but is up to the control operator transmitting it, not the people
listening to determine if it is of direct interest to the amateur radio
service.
> No one, here or on the air, wants to hear the ranting of a
>functionally illiterate loudmouth who doesn't think twice about
>violating the law when it suits him.
I can talk a Hell of lot better then I can right you fucking asshole.
> Just how many "fans" do you think you'll create by mimicking
>ARRL's "bulletins" on the most crowded Amateur allocation
>worldwide...???
Who says I mimicking the ARRL??
>You're the epitome of selfish, Todd.
DAM RIGHT! I didn't get in this hobby for you or any other dumb fuck
ham operator, I got into it for my own selfishness.
97.3(a)
(4) Amateur service. "......duly authorized persons interested in radio
technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."
I think the key words to look at steve is "PERSONAL AIM" there is
nothing in the rules stating that I have to listen to what other
amateur say. It dumb ass groups like the ARRL which pushes this
communistic "collectivism" on the amateur radio service. Then there is
dumb asses like yourself who believe it.
Todd N9OGL
Cmd Buzz Corey
Yea right. Get back to us sometime when you grow up and can tell the truth.
lardass...@yahoo.com
Oh, the irony.
Gopher Face "Buzz Corey" proves he is a "loser" when he can't even
spell "loser"in
<IvCdncnQKNr...@gbronline.com>:
"Again you loose two-test"
lardass...@yahoo.com
Pot kettle Back, obsolete license boy.
Cmd Buzz Corey
What were you saying *two-test*?
lardass...@yahoo.com
Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
> lardass...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Pot kettle Back, obsolete license boy.
>
> What were you
What were you saying obsolete license BOY?
lardass...@yahoo.com
Cmd Butt Cornholed wrote:
> lardass...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> >
> > Pot kettle Back, obsolete license boy.
>
> What
Gopher Face "Buzz Corey" proves he is a "loser" when he can't even
Cmd Buzz Corey
> Gopher Face "Buzz Corey" proves he is a "loser" when he can't even
> spell "loser"in
> <IvCdncnQKNr...@gbronline.com>:
> "Again you loose two-test"
>
Proof is in the pudding, like when you spell 'correctly' as 'coreectly'.
Should we post the list of all the words you have mispelled again
*two-test*. It is rather long.
So where is it again on the FCC website we can see proof of this 2nd
Class Radiotelephone ticket you claim to hold? Care to provide the URL
*two-test* curtains boy?
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> >Stebie said
> > No one, here or on the air, wants to hear the ranting of a
> >functionally illiterate loudmouth who doesn't think twice about
> >violating the law when it suits him.
>
> I can talk a Hell of lot better then I can right you ####ing
###hole.
I doubt it. I bet it takes you less than 60 seconds in any
conversation wherein you think you're not getting your way to resort to
the kind of language you let fly in here.
Which is probably why you're finishing up your "college" on-line
over this summer rather than by the deadline that's already passed.
> > Just how many "fans" do you think you'll create by mimicking
> >ARRL's "bulletins" on the most crowded Amateur allocation
> >worldwide...???
>
> Who says I mimicking the ARRL??
You do. Your post on your blog gave topics that were alomost
word-for-word from the ARRL website.
> >You're the epitome of selfish, Todd.
>
> DAM RIGHT! I didn't get in this hobby for you or any other dumb ####
> ham operator, I got into it for my own selfishness.
And when your selfishness degrades my ability to enjoy Amateur
Radio (ie: N9OGL one-way broadcasts on 20 meters), it's no longer a
matter of your OWN "enjoyment.
> 97.3(a)
> (4) Amateur service. "......duly authorized persons interested in
radio
> technique solely with a personal aim and without pecuniary interest."
>
> I think the key words to look at steve is "PERSONAL AIM" there is
> nothing in the rules stating that I have to listen to what other
> amateur say. It dumb ### groups like the ARRL which pushes this
> communistic "collectivism" on the amateur radio service. Then there
is
> dumb ###es like yourself who believe it.
There you go dissing the ARRL for a running race that they don't
have a horse in...
Steve, K4YZ
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
>
> I can talk a Hell of lot better then I can right you fucking asshole.
Do you mean "write" toddieboy as I can "write"? I certainly hope you can
talk better than you can "write", because you can't "write" worth a crap.
I see, like wogie, you still use that jr. highschool vulguarity. Are you
two brothers by chance?
Cmd Buzz Corey
> Cmd Buzz Corey wrote:
>
>>lardass...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Pot kettle Back, obsolete license boy.
GLENDALE, WV: The FCC requested July 11, 2000, that Roger L. Wiseman,
KC8JBO, retake the General examination elements under the supervision of
an ARRL-VEC volunteer examiner team. Wiseman must appear for retesting
by September 11, 2000, or his license will be canceled. Applicants
appearing for re-examination are granted an Amateur Radio license
consistent with the elements passed. The FCC had written Wiseman on
March 29, 2000, advising that it had been made aware of "an ongoing
personal dispute" between Wiseman and another licensee that included
allegations of interference or jamming on 20 meters. FCC Special Counsel
for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley Hollingsworth invited the two
licensees to contact him to discuss the matter. Additionally, the FCC
had sent Wiseman a Warning Notice last November in response to
allegations of deliberate and malicious interference on 20 meters.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!
Cmd Buzz Corey
>
>>lardass...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Pot kettle Back, obsolete license boy.
>>
>>What
GLENDALE, WV: The FCC sent a Warning Notice November 9, 1999, to General
licensee Roger L. Wiseman, KC8JBO, citing evidence that the licensee had
been "deliberately and maliciously interfering with the radio operations
of other licensed amateurs" on 20 meters. "This interference has
occurred at various times in the last several months and includes
broadcasting music and other unidentified transmissions," said a letter
from FCC Special Counsel for Amateur Radio Enforcement Riley
Hollingsworth. Hollingsworth warned that continued operation of the type
described could result in a fine or license revocation proceeding, and
he requested that the licensee contact him to discuss the allegations.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
N9OGL
> Which is probably why you're finishing up your "college" on-line
>over this summer rather than by the deadline that's already passed.
What deadline???
>You do. Your post on your blog gave topics that were alomost
>word-for-word from the ARRL website
No,I post in the title the subject of what is a concern to the
amateur's and voice my opinion about it.
>And when your selfishness degrades my ability to enjoy Amateur
>Radio (ie: N9OGL one-way broadcasts on 20 meters), it's no longer a
>matter of your OWN "enjoyment.
BOOOOOO HOOOO go cry to someone who cares.
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> >stebie said
> > Which is probably why you're finishing up your "college" on-line
> >over this summer rather than by the deadline that's already passed.
>
> What deadline???
Six weeks ago you said you were "graduating" in 30 days.
You do the math, Todd.
> >You do. Your post on your blog gave topics that were alomost
> >word-for-word from the ARRL website
>
> No,I post in the title the subject of what is a concern to the
> amateur's and voice my opinion about it.
Uh huh.
Thief.
> >And when your selfishness degrades my ability to enjoy Amateur
> >Radio (ie: N9OGL one-way broadcasts on 20 meters), it's no longer a
> >matter of your OWN "enjoyment.
>
> BOOOOOO HOOOO go cry to someone who cares.
I'm not crying. I'm laughing...
...at you.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> I can talk a Hell of lot better then I can right you ####ing
###hole.
What a gem! Typical Todd!
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
>Six weeks ago you said you were "graduating" in 30 days.
no, six months ago I would be done with school for this semester, I
have about two to three more years of school left.
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
Sorry, Todd..you said "graduating"...The end of the semester is not
"graduating".
Talk to Lennie about school...He managed to turn a 3 year diploma
program into a 14 year project. I am sure he can offer you some
pointers on how to be a career undergraduate student.
Steve, K4YZ
N9OGL
>You had best be careful, Todd...The result STILL might not be what
>you'd like...Especially after they get a load of your true intentions
>and ulterior motives, Todd...
What "TRUE INTENTIONS" and "ULTERIOR MOTIVES"?? to be able to voice my
opinion about things in amateur radio....oh I forgot your communist who
bleieves we must me a collective.
> Here's an honest, forthright suggestion on your "bulletin" ideas,
>Todd.
>Become an ARRL "Official Bulletin Station". Use YOUR repeater to
>rebroadcast ARRL bulletins, the Amateur Radio Newsline program, or
>other RESPECTED, professionally produced offerings for the "main
>course".
Why would I do that?? I mean who the hell said that these people were
the only ones allowed to run information bulletins and be a monopoly??
so your communist who believes only ONE truth be allowed out
there....just like a typical ARRL SUPPORTER!
Todd N9OGL
N9OGL
> >You do. Your post on your blog gave topics that were alomost
> >word-for-word from the ARRL website
> No,I post in the title the subject of what is a concern to the
> amateur's and voice my opinion about it.
>PANSY-ASS STEBIE SAID
> Uh huh.
> Thief.
Look's who talking you and your little butt buddies on here were
posting not only my pass messages but posting stuff from my website
without my permission in clear violation of copyright law.
Todd N9OGL
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> >STEBIE SAID:
>
> >You had best be careful, Todd...The result STILL might not be what
> >you'd like...Especially after they get a load of your true
intentions
> >and ulterior motives, Todd...
>
> What "TRUE INTENTIONS" and "ULTERIOR MOTIVES"?? to be able to voice
my
> opinion about things in amateur radio....oh I forgot your communist
who
> bleieves we must me a collective.
Your "those morons who are listening" comment illuminated your
true intentions, Todd...You have no interest in Amateur Radio other
than as a forum to artificially bolster your deficient testosterone
levels.
And Todd...Your grammar, spelling and construction really need some
work.
Allow me: "Oh...I forgot that you're a Communist who believes that
we must be a collective."
No, I am an American Armed Forces Veteran who knows what's at
stake. You, on the other hand, are a stay-at-home spoiled brat
parasite sponging off of your aging parents.
And that's my liberal opinion.
> > Here's an honest, forthright suggestion on your "bulletin" ideas,
> >Todd.
>
> >Become an ARRL "Official Bulletin Station". Use YOUR repeater to
> >rebroadcast ARRL bulletins, the Amateur Radio Newsline program, or
> >other RESPECTED, professionally produced offerings for the "main
> >course".
>
> Why would I do that?? I mean who the hell said that these people were
> the only ones allowed to run information bulletins and be a
monopoly??
> so your communist who believes only ONE truth be allowed out
> there....just like a typical ARRL SUPPORTER!
There you go...blaming the ARRL for something that they've not
chimed one word in on, Todd....You've still not explained to me why you
are blaming the ARRL for anything.
My O N L Y comment of "support" has been that the ARRL bulletin
station is recognized by the FCC as the defacto representitive of the
Amateur Radio Service membership...I make this statement since W1AW is
the ONLY "bulletin station" that the FCC makes direct liasion with when
it needs to pass messages to the Amateur Service, ie: communications
emergencies, etc.
Steve, K4YZ
K4YZ
N9OGL wrote:
> >K4YZ wrote:
> > >You do. Your post on your blog gave topics that were alomost
> > >word-for-word from the ARRL website
>
> > No,I post in the title the subject of what is a concern to the
> > amateur's and voice my opinion about it.
>
>
> > Uh huh.
> > Thief.
>
> Look's who talking you and your little butt buddies on here were
> posting not only my pass messages but posting stuff from my website
> without my permission in clear violation of copyright law.
Your "pass messeages" (PAST messages, Todd) were made in open
public forum.
And I don't need your permission to address comments aimed at me.
Sorry. Nice try.
Steve, K4YZ
Cmd Buzz Corey
So file a law suit and get laughed out of court.
N9OGL
I don't think so, copyright law states that you have to have the
persons permission before republishing it. Fair-Use according to the
court says you can use a small portion of the work but not the whole
work. I suggest cornwhore to read up on copyright law. I've been doing
to copyright thing for a VERY LONG time.
Cmd Buzz Corey
>>So file a law suit and get laughed out of court.
>
>
> I don't think so, copyright law states that you have to have the
> persons permission before republishing it.
Well toddieboy, you claim 'stuff' from your website was used 'without
your permission in clear violatioin of copyright law'. So either sue or
shut up.