Pirate radio lives - online
Last month (OK, I'm a little late getting to this), the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a San Francisco pirate radio station in a case that's probably most notable for how quaint it seems. In supporting the federal government's seizure of San Francisco Liberation Radio's broadcast equipment, the three-judge panel said, "Neither broadcasters nor listeners have a First Amendment right to engage in or listen to unlicensed broadcasts."
It was an unfortunate decision, but one which had less meaning for free speech than it would have just a few years ago. Indeed, pirate radio stations, despite their chaotic and sometimes heroic history, have less meaning for free speech than they did just a few years ago.
That's because technology marches on. In fact, San Francisco Liberation Radio had the ability to cover and broadcast the news of its own case, beyond the reach of the law. In addition to its traditional radio transmitters, the station maintains a Website and streams its shows across the Internet -- a medium much more free-wheeling and open to DIY entrepreneurs than the old-fashioned radio waves.
Which is not to minimize the loss suffered by the station through the seizure of its equipment, or the loss suffered by Americans in the court's legal nod to decades of government dominance and allocation of the broadcast spectrum.
But more people now than ever before have the ability to launch media operations and reach an audience beyond the stifling confines of government regulation. And the courts, as demonstrated by the just-decided case of American Civil Liberties Union v. Gonzales, seem inclined to keep regulators' mitts off the new medium, in stark contrast to the treatment of radio and television.
It would be best if radio were as free and unregulated as the Internet, but it's increasingly irrelevant that it's not. Someday, the broadcast media's near-exemption from First Amendment protections may well be seen as an odd blip between the dominance of comparatively freewheeling print operations and their online successors.
It was an unfortunate decision, but one which had less meaning for free speech than it would have just a few years ago. Indeed, pirate radio stations, despite their chaotic and sometimes heroic history, have less meaning for free speech than they did just a few years ago.
That's because technology marches on. In fact, San Francisco Liberation Radio had the ability to cover and broadcast the news of its own case, beyond the reach of the law. In addition to its traditional radio transmitters, the station maintains a Website and streams its shows across the Internet -- a medium much more free-wheeling and open to DIY entrepreneurs than the old-fashioned radio waves.
Which is not to minimize the loss suffered by the station through the seizure of its equipment, or the loss suffered by Americans in the court's legal nod to decades of government dominance and allocation of the broadcast spectrum.
But more people now than ever before have the ability to launch media operations and reach an audience beyond the stifling confines of government regulation. And the courts, as demonstrated by the just-decided case of American Civil Liberties Union v. Gonzales, seem inclined to keep regulators' mitts off the new medium, in stark contrast to the treatment of radio and television.
It would be best if radio were as free and unregulated as the Internet, but it's increasingly irrelevant that it's not. Someday, the broadcast media's near-exemption from First Amendment protections may well be seen as an odd blip between the dominance of comparatively freewheeling print operations and their online successors.
Labels: free speech
posted by J.D. Tuccille at
2:47 PM
1 Comments:
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home