Re: WAAF Jocks In Trouble

["R.L. Caron" <k4gp@peganet.com>]

<< Enforcing *what*, though?  Which FCC regulation, present OR past, did
this stunt break?  There's a marked difference between a stunt that breaks
the rules (or would've broken the rules as they used to exist) and a stunt
that's just plain dumb. >>

The closest regulation they came to breaking is probably 73.1217, dealing
with Broadcast Hoaxes. However, in order to run afoul of this regulation,
the offense must cause substantial public harm. That's defined as some event
that immediately causes damage to property and/or the health or safety of
the general public, or causes diversion of public safety authorities from
their duties. Additionally, the licensee must know the information is false,
or it is foreseeable that the broadcast of the information will cause
substantial public harm. Any programming accompanied by a dislaimer will
usually be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm.

The only catch-all is the FCC requirement that licensees 'operate in the
public interest.' One could suppose that if a station engaged in an unbroken
stream of such stunts that a challenge could be made that the station is not
operating in the public interest. But winning that one would be
precedent-setting.

Tastelessness is not otherwise dealt with in the FCC rulebook.