Re: Local Political Coverage

["Dan Billings" <dib9@gwi.net>]

Forcing someone to speak when they don't want to is an infringement on free
speech.  That is what is happening when a station is forced to run political
ads.  A few years back, there was a fringe ant-abortion candidate for
Congress in Ohio that wanted to run ads with graphic pictures of aborted
fetuses.  The station was compelled to run the ads.  Sure the station was
free to criticize the candidate and his ads, but they were also forced to
run his ads and subject their viewers to the objectionable content.

The courts have traditionally given broadcasters less free speech protection
due to the use of the public airways and the invasive nature of the medium
so the political ad regulations would likely be upheld, if they haven't
already been unsuccessfully challenged.

-- Dan Billings, Bowdoinham, Maine


----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill O'Neill" <billo@shoreham.net>
To: "Dan Billings" <dib9@gwi.net>; <umar@nerodia.wcrb.com>
Cc: <boston-radio-interest@bostonradio.org>
Sent: Sunday, September 02, 2001 2:31 PM
Subject: Re: Local Political Coverage


> Dan writes:
> > I'm with Rob on this one.  I also think that there could be a good
> First
> > Amendment case made that requiring a station to carry a candidates
> ads
> > infringes on the station's free speech rights.
>
> I'm not sure where free speech of the station is inhibited.  There's
> nothing stopping the station from editorially endorsing a particular
> candidate, embracing a side of an issue or loading up the caller lines
> in such a way that supports that lean.  Just because a station must
> carry a spot, it doesn't necessarily need to be a good sport about it.
>
> Bill O'Neill
>
>
>
>