[Alexandria Radio Club Reflector] Offensive material - WTF?

[IT3 Stuart Blake Tener, USN]

ARC Members, and interested parties:

    I have read some of the barrage of commentary regarding the "Zip Your
Pants" comments, and would like to proffer the following thoughts:

    (1) Despite the fact that Hams might find it fine to use any phonetics
they so chose, it would seem declaratively apparent the FCC has rules
otherwise (at leas by my review) predicated hereupon:

      §97.119(b)(2) By a phone emission in the English language. Use of a
standard phonetic alphabet as an aid for correct station identification is
encouraged;

    Thus one could assert that it is not required, but appreciated by the
FCC to use some set of standard phonetics (there are indeed several standard
sets outside of the ITU approved set, in use by US Governmental entities
too). So, I would say it is likely a fair minded the idea to "force" the use
of standard phonetics even though we are not compelled to do so, just as we
"force" band plans despite their having no standing via regulatory issuances
from the FCC via Part 97 in totality.

    It is also of interest that the FCC rules state in its rules concerning
Prohibited transmissions that:


    §97.113(a)(4) Music using a phone emission except as specifically
provided elsewhere in this section; communications intended to facilitate a
criminal act; messages encoded for the purpose of obscuring their meaning,
except as otherwise provided herein; obscene or indecent words or language;
or false or deceptive messages, signals or identification;

    Of course for those somewhat familiar with the legalistic circumstance
of government regulated speech, there must be a compelling government
interest in order to restrict the otherwise presumed Free Speech Rights as
indicative by the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution.

    Further investigation would indicate that the protection of minor's
rights, in as much as they are completely able to get an Amateur Station
License, and as such by proxy able to listen (legally) to Amateur
transmissions is certainly a compelling government interest.

    While any amateur radio operator will tell you "we don't broadcast", I
believe that it would be completely reasonable to presume that those
definitions as articulate by the instantiate URL given below, could by far
seem completely reasonable in the face of application of their definitions
relative to §97.113(a)(4).

    http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/obscene.html
    http://www.fcc.gov/eb/oip/FAQ.html
    http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

    Just my 2 cents worth (okay, could it be worth more than 2 cents...sure
I think so)!

    Respectfully submitted in pro per <smirk>


-- 

Very Respectfully,

IT3 Stuart Blake Tener, USN
Beverly Hills, California
Amateur Radio Call Sign: N3GWG (Extra)
email: teners at bh90210.net
phone: +(1) 310.358.0202 (Beverly Hills, CA)
phone: +(1) 215.338.6005 (Philadelphia, PA)
E-Fax: +(1) 915.773.0935 (Telecopier)

Military emails (checked monthly until remote NMCI access is secured)
NIPRNET: stuart.tener at navy.mil / tenerstu at nro.mil
SIPRNET: NONE
TS/SCI:  tenerstu at nro.ic.gov (GWAN)

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including any attachments, is
for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential
and/or privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or
distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please
contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original
message.