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

Re: ***WEVD (was WFAN New York)

I keep thinking how *nice* it is to have a resident lawyer on this list!
While He isn't a broadcast lawyer...it's great having someone give
thoughts from "from a legal standpoint". 

Thanks for your input!  

BTW....Looking at this "Religious Stations" thread from a slightly
*different* angle.

When WCFL went religion in the 80's.....they tried to 'revamp' their
staff/personell/employee roster to *only* include Christians.  Most of
this wasn't a problem...because once they went the religious route...
*most* of the staff left ON THEIR OWN!!!

But the chief engineer stayed...and resisted their efforts to displace
him...and eventually went to court. The court found in FAVOR of the

(Nowadays, 'Christian' groups seem to have a much more , err, "gentler"
way of doing things.....Without being so blatent...)

So...it appears that when it comes down to an individual losing his/her
rights....they come down in *favor* of the individual...  However, when
it seems like the precedent is to protect the *free-speech* rights of


- -------- REPLY, Original message follows --------

> Date: Wednesday, 06-Aug-97 01:11 AM
> From: A. Joseph Ross           \ Internet:    (lawyer@world.std.com)
> To:   TECH-Dan Strassberg      \ Internet:    (dan.strassberg@worldnet
> cc:   boston-radio-interest@khavrinen.lcs.mit.edu \ Internet:   
> (boston-radio-interest@khavrinen.)
> Subject: Re: WEVD (was WFAN New York)
> On Wed, 6 Aug 1997, Dan Strassberg wrote:
> > Joe: You're not stupid, but you seem to be missing the point and I
have to
> > believe that you're missing it on purpose. A radio station is NOT
the Globe.
> > The Globe does not distribute its newspapers via a publicly owned
> > (Well, OK, the delivery trucks run on publicly owned streets.) And a
> > for-profit corporation (religiouly oriented though it may be) is not
> > Jewish community center. The community center is presumably
affiliated with
> > a legitimate religious organization.
> I'm not missing the point on purpose, I simply don't think it would
affect the
> court's decision.
> > I maintain that a private for-profit radio station that is licensed
by the
> > federal government and exists only because the government has
granted it
> > exclusive use of a publicly owned resource, cannot legally
selectively deny
> > the use of its facilities to religious organizations that make good-
> > offers to lease those facilities. All of the qualifications I've
piled into
> > the previous sentence are important. If the station were a non-
> > entity, if it were owned by a legitimate non-profit religious
> > if it transmitted via cable instead of on publicly owned airwaves,
if it
> > refused to lease its facilities to ALL religious organizations, I
> > think anyone would have a right to redress. 
> Well, I've stated my opinion and you've stated yours.  Until the case
comes up
> and the courts rule, we'll never know for sure.  And if such a case
ever does
> get to the U. S. Supreme Court, it wouldn't surprise me at all to see
a 50-4
> decision with extensive dissenting opinions -- whichever way the
majority goes.
> ======================================================================
>   A. Joseph Ross, J.D.                                          617.
>   15 Court Square                                       lawyer@world.
>   Boston, MA 02108-2503                        http://world.std.
> ======================================================================

- -------- REPLY, End of original message --------