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

[LJNF40D@prodigy.com (BUMP MARTIN)]

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
*engineer*!!!

(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
the BROADCASTER.  

BM



 
- -------- 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
.att.net)
> 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
resource.
> > (Well, OK, the delivery trucks run on publicly owned streets.) And a
private
> > for-profit corporation (religiouly oriented though it may be) is not
a
> > 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-
faith
> > offers to lease those facilities. All of the qualifications I've
piled into
> > the previous sentence are important. If the station were a non-
profit
> > entity, if it were owned by a legitimate non-profit religious
organization,
> > if it transmitted via cable instead of on publicly owned airwaves,
if it
> > refused to lease its facilities to ALL religious organizations, I
don't
> > 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.
367.0468
>   15 Court Square                                       lawyer@world.
std.com
>   Boston, MA 02108-2503                        http://world.std.
com/~lawyer/
> ======================================================================
========
> 
> 
> 

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

------------------------------