Sasha Lilley warns KPFA Staff

>However appears that liability is NOT an issue, so what is this all about?

How is liablity not an issue? Please be more specific.

KPFA could be held liable for actively urging participation

forget Sasha Lilley, what a wimp
we all know that the best part of these protests is
going wild on the streets Sasha her self has even said so.
"there can be no change with out significant damage to the current way of life for the main stream" this is what she said on the air at the start of the war on terror (as it is known)

I am surprised to hear that KPFA has a program director because what we hear on KPFA's news and the Morning Show is not programming. On the 6 p.m. news on 3/20/07, we heard a good 15 minutes of the latest Hitler in the White House telling us his in his 8-year-old child babble his view of the firing of US attorneys. We NEVER need to hear the voice of this American Hitler in order for the news to be conveyed to the listeners. We also do not need to hear the endless promotionals and interviews of Democrats, equally despicable as the Republicans. The latest round has been with the utterly reactionary senator from Illinois, Barack Obama, a proud supporter of bombing Iran, of torture at Guantanamo, of the death penalty and of Israel. He is another Elmer Gantry and KPFA should teach its audience who the character of Sinclair Lewis' novel, Elmer Gantry, is. Since every single Democratic official and every single Republican official by definition supports Israel, the US military base that exists to protect US oil profits in the Middle East, there is no reason to hear their garbage or promote their million dollar fundraisers for their worthless money machines. The Democrats simply exist to keep the Reds and Greens out of office. Both the Democratic and Republican campaigns are nothing but money machines. We do want to hear from the 2 peace parties on the California ballot, the Peace & Freedom Party and the Green Party. Considering KPFA's news and Morning Show is filled with the Democrat-Republicans, there is not much to listen to on either program. We also need to have Guns & Butter, now heard on Wednesdays at 1 p.m., moved to prime time, namely 7 p.m. to 10 p.m. during the week or 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on weekends. This excellent muckraking program covers everything from the 9/11 Inside Job to the economic crises. Since Larry Bensky is finally leaving KPFA at the end of April, we need to have Labor Workweek replace his Democratic Party promotional program on Sunday morning. Flashpoints, heard 5-6 p.m. on weekdays, should be the benchmark program of the kind of news that should be covered on KPFA. Another benchmark that should be included in the evening news is Workers' Struggles Around the World on the World Socialist Website at: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/mar2007/wkrs-m20.shtml

I thin it could be possible to have a nightly news that gets audiece and at the same time rarely air's Bush's voice, but pushing in that direction is risky. If people turn into KPFA only for activist news then maybe that leaves 10% of the total audience listening and the rest maybe end up listening to KALW or KQED and getting now radical content. There needs to be some sort of ballance between having on the news people expect to hear (major Presidential speeches, major events that have little political content etc,,,), news that the reporters and editors feel is meaningful and news that individual subgroups of listeners find meaningful but are of less interest to others (editors or listeners may or may not find an Obama rally meaningful, others may or may not find an update on a local small union struggle meaningful, others may or may not find an update on organic farming meaningful etc....

Audience matters from a political standpoint. An ultra radical news station you personally always agree with that gets few listeners is in a way a lot less likely top sprak change or effect how people think than getting radical messages into something that is listened to by millions. You cant cater just to the public taste or you end up with cute pet videos and porn as one sees on the internet and more and more on the tabloidized MSM news shows, but at the same time you cant ignore the public and serve them what you think they need in a way that results in nobody listening because you didnt take the listeners desires into account.

Why did Sasha Lilley issue that advisory?

The previous question is well taken. As to the insulting excuse that it is too radical to promote the 2 peace parties, Green and Peace & Freedom, an opportunist and reactionary argument that no serious peace station has any business making, the votes for Green and P&F statewide, in Sacramento and in the 9 counties of the Bay Area, the most immediate listening audience of KPFA, demonstrate that it is KPFA that is out of touch, accounting for its subscriber list being only some 25,000. This writer turns off or never bothers turning on KPFA most of the time and certainly does not turn to another news radio station. On the weekends, all I can stand is the 6 p.m. news, and when that is obviously filled with tepid trash, it gets turned off. During the week, the Morning Show more often than not is turned off after hearing the list of topics to be covered. When I hear a long line of drivel on the 6 p.m. news, I turn down KPFA until I think KPFA is reporting news instead of drivel. The statistics on the Green and P&F votes are remarkable, considering how little publicity these parties receive. With just some publicity on KPFA and KPFK in Los Angeles, they would improve dramatically, and they should receive this publicity as they are the peace parties. Keep in mind KPFA and KPFK are online as well as on the radio and thus can reach the whole state and beyond. Now, let us look at these basic voting statistics for the November 7, 2006 governor's general election and the Oct 23, 2006 registration by county, all available on the Secretary of State's website (http://www.ss.ca.gov) (following results as of 12/11/06, more than 30 days after the election)
Statewide: Governor: Green (Camejo) 205,291; P&F (Jordan) 69,822; US Senate: Green: 146,682 (Chretien); P&F (Feinland): 117,521; Insurance Commissioner: Green (Cafiero) 269,477; P&F (Condit) 187,184; State Controller: Green (Wells) 258,707; P&F (Barron) 232,779 (almost a combined half million alone for State Controller)

Sacramento County: Registration: Green 5,677; P&F 4,256

San Francisco: Green Party votes: Governor (Camejo) 13,186; US Senate (Chretien) 19,052; Peace & Freedom party votes: Governor (Jordan) 1,911; US Senate (Feinland) 2,842
Registration: Green: 12,276; P&F: 1,592 (the combined totals of SF votes for P&F and Green is more than the number of KPFA subscribers)

Alameda County: Green: Governor 18,236; US Senate 17,606; P&F Governor: 3,569; US Senate 5,757 Registration: Green: 12,773; P&F 2,929

San Mateo County: Registration: Green: 3,669; P&F: 827

Santa Clara County: Registration: Green: 5,949; P&F: 2,016

Contra Costa County: Registration: Green: 4,207; P&F 1,214

Marin County (population about 200,000 including children): Registration: Green: 3,419, P&F: 313

Sonoma County (population about 300,000): Registration: Green 6,265; P&F: 656

Solano County: Registration: Green 888; P&F 327

Napa County: Registration: Green 918; P&F 151

It is long overdue that KPFA and KPFK give full publicity to Peace & Freedom and the Green Party both during an election and the non-election periods, instead of promoting the warmongering, pro-Israel, pro death penalty Democrats.

The FCC prohibits educational broadcasters from including "calls to action" specifically in the context of announcements acknowledging a contributor or underwriter, so as to preserve the noncommercial nature of educational broadcasting (see http://www.fcc.gov/mb/audio/includes/33-nature.htm). A station's liability may increase when it officially co-sponsors an event or rally, irrespective of broadcast announcements.

It is within the authority of a Program Director to prohibit broadcast recommendations to attend events, but the FCC prohibition against calls to action in connection with commercial products and services or for-profit events does not itself justify such a station programming policy.

I went to the above referenced FCC website, and found a rather detailed explanation along with example. It looks to me like the FCC prohibition is only on commercial products and services being broadcast by a non-commercial station. It says nothing about political actions.

Also, in Sasha Lilley's advisory, there's no mention of FCC regulations. So, is there some other reason?

HERE ARE EXAMPLES GIVEN AT THE FCC WEBSITE:
Several examples of announcements that would clearly violate the rule may be helpful:

* A. Announcements containing price information are not permissible. This would include any announcement of interest rate information or other indication of savings or value associated with the product. An example of such an announcement is:
o -- "7.7% interest rate available now."

* B. Announcements containing a call to action are not permissible. Examples of such announcements are:
o -- "Stop by our showroom to see a model";
o -- "Try product X next time you buy oil."

* C. Announcements containing an inducement to buy, sell, rent, or lease are not permissible. Examples of such announcements are:
o -- "Six months' free service";
o -- "A bonus available this week";
o -- "Special gift for the first 50 visitors."

At the March 24, Kpfa Local Station Board meeting , Dan Siegel, Pacifica's Consul . demolished any legal basis for Sasha Lilly's directive prohibiting progammers from urging attendance at antiwar rallies , Union pickets, Anti-racist mobilzations etc. Under questioning from Board members allied with Peoples Radio, Siegal reaffirmed what board members like Richard Phelps and Joe Wanzala had previously shown, that the FCC regs in no way prohibited programmers from ''urging listeners to attend events like the 3-18 S.F. anti rally '' . He labeled statements that there could be ''issues of liabilty '' as a '' Urban legend '' !
Whether or not Lilly will now rescend the displinary measure she took against a popular KPFA programmer remains to be seen .
Board members who either ran as part of or endorsed the '' Concerned Listener'' slate were unhappy with Siegal's statements since they had either openly backed Lilly's '' Gag Rule '' or were silent .
Siegal went on to say that actions like urging attendance at antiwar marchs was '' What Pacifica is supposed to be all about ''.
More later.

Look, KPFA told people about the marches. It even broadcasted one of them. Why the hell do you need someone on the radio exhorting people to go to events like they're children or something. If people know the particulars of an event, that's enough. They don't need mommy and daddy on the radio telling them what to do. If the PD directive can keep KPFA out of trouble with the FCC, then she's doing her job to remind people not to exhort people to action on the air. You people need to grow up.

'' Fed Up'' apparently has reading difficulty. As was stated several times , there are NO F.C.C. rules prohibting programmers from urging people to attend rallies and demos .
So Ms. Lilly's directive (and action taken against Miguel Molina ) in no way protects KPFA from anything !

Alright, among other things, there's been a lot of talk on this list about what justification there is for this policy (which some have mistakenly called a "gag order").

Yes, there are specific types of calls to action that are forbidden by FCC or IRS policies - particularly as they pertain to commercial interests or candidates for public office. And the currently debated example from KPFA is not regulated by either the FCC or IRS. But there are other bodies of law that broadcast stations need to pay attention to as well - including liability law. Broadcast lawyer John Crigler explains the following:

- - - - - - - -

"Calls to actions are of legal significance in four circumstances I can think of.

1. If anyone has paid or promised something of value to the station or on-air personnel, the call to action may trigger the FCC's underwriting and/or payola rules.

2. If the call to action urges listeners to support or oppose a candidate for political office, it will violate FCC and IRS rules that prohibit noncommercial broadcasters from participating in political campaigns.

3. If the call to action relates to a legislative matter, it may trigger may IRS rules concerning the amount of grass-roots lobbying in which a tax-exempt organization may engage.

4. If the call to action foreseeably will result in personal injury, the call to action may result in tort liability under state law. It's this last form of a call to action that is of concern in the e-mails below."

- - - - - - - -

The last type - the type under question here - is considered a "duty of care" issue. Let's say a station urges people to attend a demonstration - even one planned to be peaceful - that turns violent, even if the violence is initiated by cops. If someone gets hurt or even killed, they (or their estate) could potentially sue the station.

This sort of thing has happened a few times to other stations. A few years back, a morning show DJ on a commercial radio station was doing a scavenger hunt style race, where listeners would rush from Point A to Point B to Point C, looking for the clue to the next location. The DJ was egging the listeners on to drive fast and get to the next clue. One of the racers was speeding badly and hit a pedestrian, killing them. The station was sued by the estate of the deceased, claiming neglect of "duty of care."

Another example - after the Rodney King riots in LA, a Korean station received a call from a Korean-owned shop that it was under attack. The DJ urged people to go defend the shop. When some men showed up to defend it, the owners mistook them for attackers, shot at them, and killed one. Again, the radio station was held liable.

From a liability perspective, it's just generally not a good idea for the STATION ITSELF to urge people to attend this or that demonstration, without management go-ahead. Even the tamest International Answer rally has the potential for someone to get hurt. In fact, KPFA was sued back in the 1970s when they urged listeners to go to a Gay Pride rally. Someone fell backstage and hurt themselves, through no direct fault of KPFA, but the injured person sued the station and actually won a claim out of court.

Since that time, KPFA has had a policy that asks its on-air staff to NOT URGE people to attend demos. It's a very old policy, NOT a new "gag order." Sasha was just reminding station staff of it.

Moreover, this policy COMPLETELY ALLOWS, even encourages staff to ANNOUNCE rallies, demonstrations, etc, etc. And on-air GUESTS can say whatever they want to encourage or urge listeners to come out to a rally. To the average on-air host, the difference is very minor and only semantic, quite frankly - but it's an important one after the fact if the station finds itself on the receiving end of a lawsuit.

Finally, from what I can tell from all this brouhaha, NO ONE at KPFA was actually disciplined. It seems that a couple folks received reminders about this long-standing policy. No one was suspended, no one was kicked off. No one had to sit in time-out.

In all of these rants, tirades, and threatened boycotts, I keep asking myself - and am unable to answer - What's the big deal?

You're the one who can't read observer. The FCC's rules regarding "Enhanced Underwriting and Donor Acknowledgements" makes the issue of on-air promotions clear for non-commercial broadcasters:

B. Announcements containing a call to action are not permissible. Examples of such announcements are:

* -- "Stop by our showroom to see a model";
* -- "Try product X next time you buy oil."

How much more clear does this have to be Observer. You're one of those kind of people who don't give people credit for having a brain and you think people need "enlightened revolutionaries" like you to do their damn thinking for them. So since no such rules apply on the internet, I'll exhort you to "GROW THE HELL UP!"

In a message dated 3/27/2007 5:21:45 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, igm [at] kpfa.org writes:
This is to clarify some misconceptions about KPFA's recent memo to staff
regarding "call to action". The policy is not a new one, but a longstanding
KPFA policy dating back to the 1970s, which as far as we know has never been
controversial.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(RP) I have been around KPFA since 1974. I did some programs with my wife in the 70s and never heard of such a restriction. She doesn't recall it. Was it written and distributed or just another "urban legend". I did programs in 1981 and 1988 and I was never advised of this restriction at either time. Over my 33 years listening to KPFA I have often heard announcers urging people to go to events both political and cultural. I recall in the last few years often hearing music programmers suggesting that people check out this show or that show and often giving away free tickets to events. Giving free tickets to an event has to be the strongest form of encouragement. It is the equivalent of paying a listeners Bart fare to a Peace Rally.

Why has this so called long established policy not been enforced regarding the music promotions regularly done on our air? It only surfaces regarding a Peace Rally? The published policy is upside down! The FCC restrictions on Calls to Action only apply to non-profit stations making calls to action for commercial event$, NOT Peace Marches etc. I previously sent out the FCC language on this and I can do it again if necessary. John Crigler's recent memo to Greg Guma supports my previous analysis repeated above, about Calls to Action. It is crystal clear that there is NO FCC prohibition on Calls to Action for First Amendment events.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(IGM) Moreover, as managers our responsibility is to take the most cautious
position on matters that could result in legal exposure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(RP) I appreciate your concern for our legal safety. I think about it every time I listen to the station, which is daily. However, when it comes to First Amendment rights, the essence of our existence, we MUST NOT EVER CONCEDE these rights unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. And in the case at hand there is no necessity. We have to defend our rights and be responsible in their use and we MUST NEVER CONCEDE THEM! There are too many people out there wanting to take them away.

On Democracy Now! this a.m. Amy interviewed Andre Shiffer, a well know book publisher. One of his comments in looking back was that there was too much cowardice in response to the McCarthy attacks in the 1950s. We need to stand tall and only bend when we must. How many of you 10 years ago would have ever thought that the USA would be holding 400 people in tiny cells for several years without them being allowed to see a lawyer or hear the charges against them?

"First they came for ......and when they came for me there was no one left"

Was it this brand of caution that caused a prior management to fire 100+ part-time unpaid staff people in 1995. Many of these people were people of color, women and politically experienced folks active in their communities and sharing that activity with our audience.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(IGM) The memo
disseminated to staff was reviewed by Pacifica's FCC attorney whose advise
was there could be some risk of liability if the station urges people to
attend an event, and that programmers (hosts, announcers) should not make a
"call to action" without the management authorization.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(RP) When the memo was first sent out I asked both the IPD and the IGM to state the legal basis for this prohibition and who did they consult on this issue. Their response was SILENCE. And now we have a statement for our FCC attorney and it does not support this statement. Neither does the comments from our corporate counsel last Saturday.

I have specialized in tort law, representing people who have been injured by someone else's negligence, for 25 years. I am confident that I have more experience than Crigler in this area of California law, just as I would defer to him on FCC rules until I did the necessary research. In this case my FCC research agrees with his opinions on "Call to Action" and I agree with his comments on liability.

If a person that was injured at a Peace Rally came to me to sue the radio station that urged them to go to the Rally, my first question would be " How were you hurt?" and when they told me that they fell off a curb while walking, my next question would be "Did the radio station have anything directly to do with causing your fall?" And when the answer was "NO", I would politely tell them that in my opinion they had no case against the station, since they don't. They could sue the person(s) responsible for the fall. The only possible liability for a station for urging attendance at a First Amendment event would be if we knew that something dangerous was planned or likely to happen. In those cases we should NOT advise people to attend.

I believe that it is safer to walk in a normal Peace March than drive on the Bay Area highways. The Jury Instruction on injury cases requires the plaintiff to prove that the conduct of the defendant was a "substantial factor" in causing the injury. Unless the station knew that a group of crazies was going to the March with the stated intention of pushing people off curbs the station could not be held liable for someone falling off or perhaps being pushed off a curb just based on the station suggesting that people attend the Peace March. That is just one example but it illustrates the legal reality. So unless we urge people to go to something that we know to be unusually dangerous we have NO liability. We are not responsible for people getting injured due to normal day to day activities, falling or getting pushed or bumped off a curb, that happen at a legal First Amendment event, just for encouraging people to attend.

Urging people to attend a First Amendment event is Free Speech. Something we exist to allow people to exercise and that includes our announcers.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(IGM) Furthermore, no one at KPFA has been disciplined for violating this policy.
Staff have been sent reminder notifications of the policy, but no one has
been given a disciplinary warning or threatened with removal from the air.
Such claims are patently inaccurate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(RP) The message sent to Miguel Gavalan Molina speaks for itself. I would assume that given your statement above that it will never be used as evidence against him in any future proceedings. I believe your statement above has waived any right of management to do so in the future. Thank you.

In the future if you are just giving advice and not warnings I would suggest that the memo to an individual staff person state on it in bold letters, " THIS IS NOT A DISCIPLINARY WARNING." That will avoid any confusion when the language in the memo looks and sounds just like a disciplinary warning.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

(IGM) What has recently been said about the memo our iPD sent to staff glosses
over the heavy and commendable promotion and coverage KPFA did this past
month for the 4th anniversary of the occupation of Iraq. This coverage, by
the interim management team, far outstripped what was done last year at the
3rd anniversary of the invasion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
(RP) Thank you for doing what should always be done. I hope it continues. However, you should not try to take too much credit for it since you didn't cover the January 25, 2007 important Peace March and Labor Rally. And I believe it was the political heat raised by many of us after that event was ignored that caused the practice to change, IMHO.

Now if we can get the station to properly promote the LSB elections, the LSB meetings and the LSB Radio Show we will be moving in the right direction toward democratic governance. Thank you.


Lemlem Rijio, IGM
Sasha Lilley, IPD
Cc Michael Yoshida, Chief Engineer, Chief Operator
Greg Guma, Pacifica ED

_______________________________________________
KPFA-LSB mailing list
KPFA-LSB [at] mailinglists.kpfa.org
http://two.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/kpfa-lsb


Richard Phelps
Attorney/Mediator
KPFA LSB Listener Representative

There's no first amendment issue here. The FCC rule says non commercial broadcasters can't tell people to attend an event, or prompt them to take any kind of action. What's the 1st amendment issue when any guest on the station, or any promoter of an event can request that people take an action? March organizers and Peace activists did just that? The FCC rule prohibits programmers, or employees of the station from using the airwaves to prompt people to do things. That protects the station from liability should something happen at the event. THe rule is for the station's protection, not for any nefarious attempt to stifle free speech. If station guests can prompt to their hearts content, who needs a station programmer to do the same thing?

People like you Phelps are trying to make political hay out of a non-issue. It's just another lame-ass excuse to attack the very station you're supposed to be supporting as a member of the non-profit board. Here's a thought, how about putting some of that wasted energy into fund-raising, station promotions in the community and general station uplift? Wouldn't that be a better use of your time than meaningless political chest-thumping over nonsense. You should be ashamed.

Still fed up
by Fed up
Wednesday Mar 28th, 2007 10:09 PM
There's no first amendment issue here. The FCC rule says non commercial broadcasters can't tell people to attend an event, or prompt them to take any kind of action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Says: That is just NOT true. Please produce the FCC rule you refer to.
Th FCC rule on "calls to action" only prohibit non-profits from pushing comercial events or entities. This analysis has been supported by Pacifica's FCC attorney.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What's the 1st amendment issue when any guest on the station, or any promoter of an event can request that people take an action?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: Prohibiting anyone from saying something that is not illegal is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
March organizers and Peace activists did just that? The FCC rule prohibits programmers, or employees of the station from using the airwaves to prompt people to do things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: Repeating this over and over doesn't make it so. The reason you can't produce the FCC rule you are talking about is that it doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That protects the station from liability should something happen at the event. THe rule is for the station's protection, not for any nefarious attempt to stifle free speech. If station guests can prompt to their hearts content, who needs a station programmer to do the same thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: FCC rules are not designed to protect stations from liability suits. The Pacifica Counsel agrees with me that urging people to attend legal First Amendment events does not pose any liability. He even said that is what we exist to do! The fact that someone else could do something is NO JUSTIFICATION for restricting someone else's free speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People like you Phelps are trying to make political hay out of a non-issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: Not so. Just trying to get people to know the law and develop policies that don't violate our Mission when not necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's just another lame-ass excuse to attack the very station you're supposed to be supporting as a member of the non-profit board.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: My duties are first and foremost to our Mission. Having wrong headed policies is not supporting KPFA/Pacifica. I am not attacking anything or anyone. Just trying to get people to see the facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's a thought, how about putting some of that wasted energy into fund-raising, station promotions in the community and general station uplift?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: If you think standing up for First Amendment rights and proper policy development is a waste of time, what do you value?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wouldn't that be a better use of your time than meaningless political chest-thumping over nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: You sound more like a right wing talk show host than a Free Speech radio person. I spend numerous hours each month doing work to improve KPFA/Pacifica. How much do you do? I have authored motions to improve transparency, the elections process and was one of the small group that finally pushed Pacifica to allow Director's their inspection rights under the law and our bylaws and I brought the LSB Show back to life while others hoped it would quietly die and many more things, too numerous to mention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You should be ashamed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: If I ever stop standing up for the truth and free speech, then I will be ashamed. Don't worry, that won't happen while I am breathing.

Richard Phelps
Attorney/Mediator
KPFA LSB Listener Representative

Still fed up
by Fed up
Wednesday Mar 28th, 2007 10:09 PM
There's no first amendment issue here. The FCC rule says non commercial broadcasters can't tell people to attend an event, or prompt them to take any kind of action.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard Says: That is just NOT true. Please produce the FCC rule you refer to.
The FCC rule on "calls to action" only prohibit non-profits from pushing commercial events or entities. This analysis has been supported by Pacifica's FCC attorney.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
What's the 1st amendment issue when any guest on the station, or any promoter of an event can request that people take an action?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: Prohibiting anyone from saying something that is not illegal is a violation of their First Amendment rights.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
March organizers and Peace activists did just that? The FCC rule prohibits programmers, or employees of the station from using the airwaves to prompt people to do things.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: Repeating this over and over doesn't make it so. The reason you can't produce the FCC rule you are talking about is that it doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That protects the station from liability should something happen at the event. The rule is for the station's protection, not for any nefarious attempt to stifle free speech. If station guests can prompt to their hearts content, who needs a station programmer to do the same thing?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: FCC rules are not designed to protect stations from liability suits. The Pacifica Counsel agrees with me that urging people to attend legal First Amendment events does not pose any liability. He even said that is what we exist to do! The fact that someone else could do something is NO JUSTIFICATION for restricting someone else's free speech.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
People like you Phelps are trying to make political hay out of a non-issue.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: Not so. Just trying to get people to know the law and develop policies that don't violate our Mission when not necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It's just another lame-ass excuse to attack the very station you're supposed to be supporting as a member of the non-profit board.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: My duties are first and foremost to our Mission. Having wrong headed policies is not supporting KPFA/Pacifica. I am not attacking anything or anyone. Just trying to get people to see the facts.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Here's a thought, how about putting some of that wasted energy into fund-raising, station promotions in the community and general station uplift?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: If you think standing up for First Amendment rights and proper policy development is a waste of time, what do you value?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Wouldn't that be a better use of your time than meaningless political chest-thumping over nonsense.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: You sound more like a right wing talk show host than a Free Speech radio person. I spend numerous hours each month doing work to improve KPFA/Pacifica. How much do you do? I have authored motions to improve transparency, the elections process and was one of the small group that finally pushed Pacifica to allow Director's their inspection rights under the law and our bylaws and I brought the LSB Show back to life while others hoped it would quietly die and many more things, too numerous to mention.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You should be ashamed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Richard says: If I ever stop standing up for the truth and free speech, then I will be ashamed. Don't worry, that won't happen while I am breathing.

Richard Phelps
Attorney/Mediator
KPFA LSB Listener Representative

Look I already cited chapter and verse of the FCC rule barring non-commercial broadcasters from calls to action. It’s on this string you can take it and look it up for yourself. There is nothing in the wording of the rule that limits the exhortations to commercial issues. I repeat nothing. Consulting with the counsel you cite, who is not an expert in communications, or FCC law is not very impressive.

On the free speech issue, I’ll remind you free speech has its limits. If I work at a bakery and lie to all the customers and tell them they should shop somewhere else because our cakes are made of sawdust, I can (and should) be fired. Workplace directives against speech that could potentially harm the business trump free speech. My first amendment right is protected in that I won’t go to jail, but the employer’s property rights allow him/her to sack me. Same thing in the KPFA case, the manager said “don’t request that people turn up at an event because it may put the station in danger of liability.” That’s the manager’s right. PERIOD. The programmer can violate the directive and be justly sanctioned. That’s how the real world works. Sorry to burst your bubble. You have no argument.

How about telling us now how much money you've raised for the station? hmmm.

Let me add that your claims to be a free speech champion are demonstrably false. A quick hypothetical if you will. Let's say a programmer requested that listeners attend a Republican Rally, or a pro-Bush Rally and management said "hey wait a minute someone could show up there, things could get out of hand and someone could get hurt, putting the station at risk of legal liability." You would either ignore the whole issue, or you would commend management for its foresight in protecting the station from potential lawsuits.

You're using free speech to mask a hypocritical political agenda and you know it. I would also remind you that management is free to make management decisions without constantly being nitpicked by the likes of you. A non-profit board conducts periodic management reviews. That's it. Day-to-day operations at the organization are between management and employees. They are not in any way your concern. If an employee has a gripe, that's what unions are for, they don't need busy-body board members interfering.

As far as what I do for the station, that's immaterial. I'm a listener, not a board member. You were supposedly elected to the non-profit board to raise money, take part in promotion and marketing campaigns and serve as an ambassador to the community through outreach events and the like. That's what non-profit boards do. Hell, you're on the board. How do you not know that? It's like being a teacher and not knowing you need to produce lesson plans. So how about getting to work on what you're supposed to do? Try it you might even like it.

> The Pacifica Counsel agrees with me that urging people to attend legal First Amendment events does not pose any liability.

that is not true Richard, you did not clarify the question to Dan Siegal - who is not an FCC attorney - and neither did anyone else explain the nuance that what we are talking about is either using call-to-action language when promoting events or not using call-to-action language when promoting events. Dan was arguing against the idea that KPFA would not promote peace events. That is the way you posed the question, and that is not the issue, the issue is what language can be used when promoting these events, and that was not at all explained in your hypothetical question to Dan Siegal and was not addressed by his off-the-cuff answer. He was quite clearly responding to the notion that kpfa would not promote events. He was not giving a legal opinion on the matter at hand.

Pacifica and KPFA are being suffocated by legal action. Kudos should be to the new management team for staving off unnecessary liability. Their reminder of this years-long policy in no way harms the promotion of peace events on KPFA, and alleviates a potential liability.

Let Sasha Lilley know what you think