[Peace-discuss] Re: UPTV's unexpected ally?

[John W.]

At 07:48 PM 4/29/2008, Stuart Levy wrote:

>On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:15:28PM -0700, David Green wrote:
>
> > After watching this, I was left clueless about the implications of what
> > happened. It's really hard to keep focused on what these folks are saying.
>
>The upshot seemed to be:
>
>   - What's being passed along for consideration next week is
>     an updated bundle of UPTV rules and procedures...
>     which wouldn't make any drastic change.  It does sound as though
>     they'd address the mismatch between UPTV application forms and
>     operating requirements which Lee Melhado dramatically called
>     violations of "due process".
>
>   - The city lawyer argued on First Amendment grounds
>     against pretty much all the proposed changes in how
>     UPTV would accept programming.
>
>     Even ones that seem thoroughly innocuous -- like limiting
>     the number of times that any person could submit programs
>     each year, or requiring that (ongoing?) programs need some
>     modest number of signatures in support -- would likely fail
>     if challenged in court.   The court would look at the
>     current controversy and conclude that those limits had been
>     set up to exclude the controversial material.

Only if the rules were formulated so as to exclude only a certain type of 
speech.  The rules you cite above would, in my opinion, likely be upheld as 
reasonable "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech, rather than 
content restrictions which are unconstitutional.


>     [That may well be though I hope that some of the changes
>     might end up being adopted anyway -- not to single out Brumleve's
>     nasty stuff but to provide an equitable way of sharing limited air time
>     on an increasingly successful UPTV channel.]

That's the argument that would be used to justify reasonable (and equitably 
applied) time, place, and manner restrictions.

I especially like the rule about requiring a modest number of signatures in 
support of a program.  I presume that "progressive", "social justice" 
programming would have an easier time getting signatures than would hate 
speech.  On the other hand, the requirement might exclude "loners" who 
aren't members of organizations, and just want to have their say.


>     I think the only proposal for which he saw no legal obstacle
>     was to have the City sandwich counter-programming around
>     controversial programs.
>
>     Though Dennis Roberts was not happy with that idea -- who decides
>     which programs need counter-programs and how, and why is the
>     City getting into this anyway?

Good point.


>   - Lynn Barnes was the only one to clearly call for
>     removing the P(ublic) from PEG channels (to the applause of
>     the "I support free speech except..." crowd in the audience),
>     and the only one to vote against passing along the
>     updated UPTV procedures for consideration next week.
>
>   - It's not clear what Robert Lewis thinks, except that he'd
>     like the controversy to go away.
>
>   - Dennis Roberts, Danielle Chynoweth and Charlie Smyth each spoke
>     eloquently in favor of keeping UPTV open to the public,
>     and to third-party material.
>
>   - Danielle suggested (among many other good ideas) separating the
>     P(ublic) station into its own entity -- with its own channel.
>     This would make it clear that it's its own entity, not
>     a City organ.

What a wonderful illustration of the proper use of "its" and "it's"!!  :-P


>     She also pointed out the Urbana population's overwhelming support
>     for a public-access channel, and even strong support for raising
>     fees to maintain it, from the recent study done in preparation
>     for cable provider re-negotiation.
>
>     (I.e., don't pull the plug on P!)
>
>   - Mayor Prussing said very little.
>
>  Stuart