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

[David Green]

Thanks to everyone for trying to explain this, so I don't have to.
   
  DG

Stuart Levy <slevy at ncsa.uiuc.edu> 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.

[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.]

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?

- 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.

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


       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/archive/peace-discuss/attachments/20080429/cdc826b6/attachment.html