DOCSLIB.ORG

!}')CKET FILE Copy ORIGINAL

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
!}')CKET FILE Copy ORIGINAL !}')CKET FILE COpy ORIGINAL '~ William F. Crowell R April 27, 2010 Marlene H. Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 445 - 12th Street S.W. Washington, D.C. 20554 Re: Application of William F. Crowell to renew Amateur Service license W6WBJ WT Docket No. 08-20; FCC file no. 0002928684 Dear Secretary Dortch: I am the applicant-licensee in the above-entitled case. Enclosed you will please find the original and three (3) copies ofmy Supplemental Answers and Objections to the First Set oflnterrogatories Propounded to me by the En­ forcement Bureau herein, which are being flled pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, Subpart B, §1.323(a) . Please file and docket this document. Thank you for your cooperation. Yours very truly, ~~ WILLIAM F. CROWELL via USPS Overnight Mail, Delivery Guaranteed WFC:wfc enc!. cc: P. Michele Ellison, Chief, Enforcement Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20554 Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations and Hearings Division, ATTN: Judy Lancaster, 445 12th Street, S.W., Room 4-C330 Washington, D.C. 20554 1110 Pleasant Valley Road, Diamond Springs, California 95619 (530) 295-0350; email: [email protected] No. CII OopiM rao'd 0t J l.i5t ABCOE R Before the Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 In the Matter of ) WT Docket No. 08-20 ) WILLIAM F. CROWELL ) FCC File No. 0002928684 ) Application to Renew License for ) Amateur Service Station W6WBJ ) To: Enforcement Bureau Federal Communications Commission APPLICANT'S SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS AND OBJECTIONS TO ENFORCEMENT BUREAU'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES PROPOUNDED TO HIM [47 C.F.R., Part I, SUbpart B, § 1.323(b)] Pursuant to Title 47 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, Part I, Subpart B, §1.323(b), the December 30, 2008 Memorandum Opinion and Order of former AU Steinberg (FCC 08M-59) and the Order ofAU Sippel herein dated April 8, 2010 (FCC 1OM-O 1). Applicant hereby responds and interposes the following ob­ jections to the Enforcement Bureau's First Set ofInterrogatories propounded to him, dated May 16,2008: -1- 1. Identify all radio licenses you currently hold and the date(s) of issuance. The only radio license that I hold is an Advanced class license, issued by the U.S. Federal Communications Commission for its Amateur Radio Service, which was issued on March 12, 1997. 2. Provide all email addresses you have used and all email accounts in your name and, for each, identify who, ifanyone, other than yourself has or had access to or otherwise has or had the ability to draft and send email correspondence from each and any such accounts. Applicant objects that this interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial and is not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because Applicant has never done anything illegal on the internet. Subject to said objection, Applicant answers as follows: From approximately 2000 through 2008, my primary email address was "[email protected]". From approximately 2008 through the pres­ ent time and continuing, my primary email address has been "retroguybilly­ @gmail.com". I have also had email accounts at yahoo.com, called n6ayj@­ yahoo.com, and at innercite.com, called [email protected], which I seldom used. I no longer have the innercite.com email account. I believe I stopped main­ taining that account in about 2007, but I'm not certain. I still have the yahoo.com email account. For all ofthese email addresses, I was the only person who could use the account, and I never sent any illegal messages from any of said accounts. 3. Provide all nicknames, handles, aliases, or other names you have used in emails, in amateur radio communications, or otherwise (i.e., "Retroguy," "Billy the Bill Collector," etc.). -2- Applicant objects that this interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial and is not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because Applicant has never sent anyone any illegal emails or other communications, and Applicant has the right under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to call himselfany­ thing he wants to on the ham radio. Subject to said objection, Applicant answers as follows: I have been known on the air as "Billy", "Billy the Bill Collector", "'AYJ" and "'WBJ". "Retroguybilly" is just part ofmy present email address, and "bcrow­ ell" was just part ofmy former email address, but I never used those names on the aIr. Some ofthe amateurs who tried to run me offfrom the roundtable QSO on 3830 kc. (which dispute largely gave rise to the within case, I believe) often called me "Billy bumblank" in order to make me go away. It was understood that this was an accusation that I was homosexual or was engaging in anal sex. The word "blank" was supposed to represent the word "fuck", but they were afraid to say that on the air, so they made a big joke out ofhow "blank" stood for "fuck", and every­ body was supposed to know that they really meant "Billy bumfuck". That is the kind ofperson who filed your worthless complaints. This kind ofthing started happening after Riley Hollingsworth caused and encouraged it by issuing his self-serving press releases (warning notices) falsely calling me a jammer, and emailing hams from his home email account (so his su­ periors at the Bureau wouldn't know what he was doing, and because he wanted to hide what he was doing because he knew it was wrong), telling them how to fraud­ ulently set me up for a jamming violation: that they should all refuse to talk to me so they could claim that any transmissions I might make were one-way transmis­ sions in violation ofPart 97, §97.113(b). But when I failed to do that, he then sug­ gested that they should talk at the same time I gave my callsign so they could claim I was jamming by identifying my station, even though such station identification is -3- required by Part 97, §97.119(a)! Also, on the chatboard on the radiowingnuts.com website, I have always called myself "All A-I OperaTiON", but someone else copied that name and post­ ed a lot ofmaterial on that chatboard under said copied name, some ofwhich I dis­ agree with or do not approve of, so I can't necessarily take responsibility for all such posts under that name on said chatboard. 4. Provide all internet website addresses that you have used to post com- ments relating to amateur radio, other amateur radio operators, the Commission, and/or any Commission employee. Applicant objects that this interrogatory is irrelevant, immaterial and is not calculated to lead to the discovery ofadmissible evidence because Applicant has never done anything illegal on the internet and under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution it is none ofthe Commission's business if, in order to improve the administration ofthe Commission and ofthe Bureau, Applicant posts critical comments about them or their employees on the internet. By improperly shielding it from valid criticism, ruling otherwise would encourage even more mediocrity and mendacity at the Commission than already exists. Subject to said objection, I have posted such comments on the following websites, to my recollection: http://www.nbci.com/usersIN6AYJ.com.livehamcams.com; radiowingnuts.com; eham.net; qrz.com; hamcams.com; and http://www.users.innercite.com/bcrowell/hamjamming.com I was also fairly active for awhile on a message board site whose URL is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/radiojammers/, where my ham radio buddies and I used to joke around about the jamming problem on ham radio and make fun of -4- jammers, bootleggers and the Bureau's incompetence in catching them, especially after Riley Hollingsworth became SCARE and the jammers called his bluff be­ cause he made it clear he was too lazy to locate the real jammers, so in order to make himself look good, he victimized good operators who identified with their callsigns by sending them phony, de minimus, imaginary and legally and factually incorrect warning notices. There is nothing illegal about posting to such a message board in reply to such behavior by Hollingsworth, and you have no right to retal­ iate against me just because I joke around about the jamming problem and point out the Bureau's and Hollingsworth's ineptitude and bad-faith, failed enforcement ofthe amateur rules. Indeed, you aren't entitled to second-guess anything I say on the internet unless it was illegal and has already resulted in a criminal conviction. Under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, amateur licensees are entitled to discuss, make jokes about, ridicule, satirize and parody how the Bureau hasn't done anything about the jamming problem because all the Bureau ever does is issue its phony press releases (warning notices), by which they falsely claim to be dealing with the jamming problem, and the jammers have gotten wise to this and now feel they can jam with impunity. I haven't posted anything to said Yahoo.com message board in quite some time. My user name for Yahoo.com accounts is "N6AYJ". Of course you realize that Riley Hollingsworth repeatedly and specifically advised the amateur community to keep any disputatious, argumentative and ques­ tionable materials offthe air and keep them on the internet instead. I tried to coop­ erate with Mr. Hollingsorth by doing so, but he came after me anyway. What an ingrate! I don't think he knows what he wants! He seems very confused to me. When he first took his job as "SCARE" he claimed that he, "SuperRiley", was going to solve the ham radio jamming problem singlehandedly, but just a few years later, in a speech at the Dayton Hamvention in 2008, he said that hams com- -5- plain to the Bureau too much; that the U.S.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The FCO's Human Rights Work in 2012
    House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee The FCO’s human rights work in 2012 Fourth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/facom Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 8 October 2013 HC 267 Published on 17 October 2013 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited £15.50 The Foreign Affairs Committee The Foreign Affairs Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and its associated agencies. Current membership Richard Ottaway (Conservative, Croydon South) (Chair) Mr John Baron (Conservative, Basildon and Billericay) Rt Hon Sir Menzies Campbell (Liberal Democrat, North East Fife) Rt Hon Ann Clwyd (Labour, Cynon Valley) Mike Gapes (Labour/Co-op, Ilford South) Mark Hendrick (Labour/Co-op, Preston) Sandra Osborne (Labour, Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) Andrew Rosindell (Conservative, Romford) Mr Frank Roy (Labour, Motherwell and Wishaw) Rt Hon Sir John Stanley (Conservative, Tonbridge and Malling) Rory Stewart (Conservative, Penrith and The Border) The following Members were also members of the Committee during the parliament: Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth (Labour, Coventry North East) Emma Reynolds (Labour, Wolverhampton North East) Mr Dave Watts (Labour, St Helens North) Powers The Committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.
    [Show full text]
  • Citizens' Band (CB) Radio
    Citizens’ Band (CB) radio – Authorising Amplitude Modulation (AM) modes of operation Permitting AM double and single side band CB radio in the UK Statement Publication date: 10 December 2013 Contents Section Page 1 Executive Summary 1 2 Introduction and background 2 3 Consultation Responses 5 4 Conclusions and next steps 10 Annex Page 1 List of non-confidential respondents 11 Citizens’ Band (CB) radio – Authorising Amplitude Modulation (AM) modes of operation Section 1 1 Executive Summary 1.1 This Statement sets out Ofcom’s decision to proceed with proposals made in our Consultation “Citizens’ Band (CB) radio – Authorising Amplitude Modulation (AM) modes of operation”1 (the ‘Consultation') which was published on 7 October 2013 and closed on 8 November 2013. 1.2 The Consultation proposed to amend current arrangements for Citizens’ Band (CB) Radio in the UK to allow the use of Amplitude Modulation (AM) Double-sideband (DSB) and Single-sideband (SSB) transmission on CB radio. 1.3 Ofcom specifically proposed to: • Authorise the use of AM emissions on European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (CEPT) harmonised channels in line with European Communication Committee (ECC) Decision (11)032; and • Authorise such use on a licence exempt basis (in line with our authorisation approach for other modes of operation for CB). 1.4 These proposals followed on from work carried out in Europe. In June 2011 the ECC, part of CEPT, published a Decision, ECC/DEC/ (11)03 (the ‘Decision’) on the harmonised use of frequencies for CB radio equipment. The Decision sought to harmonise the technical standards and usage conditions relating to the use of frequencies for CB radio equipment in CEPT administrations.
    [Show full text]
  • Jamming Attacks and Anti-Jamming Strategies in Wireless Networks
    1 Jamming Attacks and Anti-Jamming Strategies in Wireless Networks: A Comprehensive Survey Hossein Pirayesh and Huacheng Zeng Department of Computer Science and Engineering, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI USA Abstract—Wireless networks are a key component of the will become ubiquitously available for massive devices to telecommunications infrastructure in our society, and wireless realize the vision of Internet of Everything (IoE) in the near services become increasingly important as the applications of future [18]. wireless devices have penetrated every aspect of our lives. Although wireless technologies have significantly advanced in As we are increasingly reliant on wireless services, security the past decades, most wireless networks are still vulnerable to threats have become a big concern about the confidentiality, radio jamming attacks due to the openness nature of wireless integrity, and availability of wireless communications. Com- channels, and the progress in the design of jamming-resistant pared to other security threats such as eavesdropping and wireless networking systems remains limited. This stagnation can data fabrication, wireless networks are particularly vulnerable be attributed to the lack of practical physical-layer wireless tech- nologies that can efficiently decode data packets in the presence to radio jamming attacks for the following reasons. First, of jamming attacks. This article surveys existing jamming attacks jamming attacks are easy to launch. With the advances in and anti-jamming strategies in wireless local area networks software-defined radio, one can easily program a small $10 (WLANs), cellular networks, cognitive radio networks (CRNs), USB dongle device to a jammer that covers 20 MHz bandwidth ZigBee networks, Bluetooth networks, vehicular networks, LoRa below 6 GHz and up to 100 mW transmission power [34].
    [Show full text]
  • Jamming the Stations: Is There an International Free Flow of Info
    Schenone: Jamming The Stations: Is There an International Free Flow of Info JAMMING THE STATIONS: IS THERE AN INTERNATIONAL FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION? In September 1983, Korean Airlines flight 7 was shot down by a Soviet interceptor.' All 269 passengers perished.2 Within an hour, news of the incident was broadcast to citizens of the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union 3 over Radio Free Europe (RFE)4 and Radio Liberty (RL).5 The Soviet news services, how- ever, failed to mention the incident.6 The Soviet government delib- erately attempted to block reception of the RFE and RL broadcast through radio jamming.' Radio jamming is a significant international problem because radio broadcasting is an essential and powerful means of dissemi- nating information among nations.8 Radio jamming is generally defined as "deliberate radio interference to prevent reception of a foreign broadcast."9 A more technical definition is "intentional harmful interference" '0 which results in intentional non-conformity 1. THE BOARD FOR INTERNATIONAL BROADCASTING, TENTH ANNUAL REPORT 11 (1984) [hereinafter cited as TENTH ANNUAL REPORT]. 2. Id. 3. Id. 4.' See infra note 35 and accompanying text. 5. See infra note 36 and accompanying text. 6. TENTH ANNUAL REPORT, supranote I, at 11. The Soviet Union at first denied that the plane was shot down. When the Soviet news services later admitted it had in fact been shot down by one of their pilots, they claimed the Korean plane had no lights identifying it as non-agressive. However, RFE and RL broadcasts of the tapes of the interceptor's pilot revealed that he claimed he could see the Korean jet's strobe lights.
    [Show full text]
  • Journalism Is Not a Crime” Violations of Media Freedom in Ethiopia WATCH
    HUMAN RIGHTS “Journalism Is Not a Crime” Violations of Media Freedom in Ethiopia WATCH “Journalism Is Not a Crime” Violations of Media Freedom in Ethiopia Copyright © 2015 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-32279 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org 2 HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH | JANUARY 2015 JANUARY 2015 978-1-6231-32279 “Journalism Is Not a Crime” Violations of Media Freedoms in Ethiopia Glossary of Abbreviations ................................................................................................... i Map of Ethiopia .................................................................................................................. ii Summary ..........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Threat Modeling and Circumvention of Internet Censorship by David Fifield
    Threat modeling and circumvention of Internet censorship By David Fifield A dissertation submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science in the Graduate Division of the University of California, Berkeley Committee in charge: Professor J.D. Tygar, Chair Professor Deirdre Mulligan Professor Vern Paxson Fall 2017 1 Abstract Threat modeling and circumvention of Internet censorship by David Fifield Doctor of Philosophy in Computer Science University of California, Berkeley Professor J.D. Tygar, Chair Research on Internet censorship is hampered by poor models of censor behavior. Censor models guide the development of circumvention systems, so it is important to get them right. A censor model should be understood not just as a set of capabilities|such as the ability to monitor network traffic—but as a set of priorities constrained by resource limitations. My research addresses the twin themes of modeling and circumvention. With a grounding in empirical research, I build up an abstract model of the circumvention problem and examine how to adapt it to concrete censorship challenges. I describe the results of experiments on censors that probe their strengths and weaknesses; specifically, on the subject of active probing to discover proxy servers, and on delays in their reaction to changes in circumvention. I present two circumvention designs: domain fronting, which derives its resistance to blocking from the censor's reluctance to block other useful services; and Snowflake, based on quickly changing peer-to-peer proxy servers. I hope to change the perception that the circumvention problem is a cat-and-mouse game that affords only incremental and temporary advancements.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cycles of Global Telecommunication Censorship and Surveillance
    PENNEY (DO NOT DELETE) 5/14/2015 5:02 PM THE CYCLES OF GLOBAL TELECOMMUNICATION CENSORSHIP AND SURVEILLANCE JONATHON W. PENNEY* ABSTRACT Internet censorship and surveillance is on the rise globally and cyber- warfare increasing in scope and intensity. To help understand these new threats, commentators have grasped at historical analogies often with little regard for historical complexities or international perspective. Unfortunately, helpful new works on telecommunications history have focused primarily on U.S. history with little focus on international developments. There is thus a need for further internationally oriented investigation of telecommunications technologies, and their history. This essay attempts to help fill that void, drawing on case studies wherein global telecommunications technologies have been disrupted or censored – telegram censorship and surveillance, high frequency radio jamming, and direct broadcast satellite blocking. The case studies suggest remarkable regulatory patterns or cycles with insights for current censorship and privacy threats and challenges. * The author would like to thank Joseph Nye, Jonathan Zittrain, Ron Deibert, Masashi Crete-Nishihata, Joss Wright, Harry Lewis, Dorothy Zineberg, Victoria Nash, Ariel Katz, Carys Craig, Jennifer Granick, Fred von Lohmann, Eric Goldman, Dan Hunter, Scott Boone, Kendra Albert, Ryan Budish, Andy Sellars, Molly Sauter, Phillipa Gill, Adam Holland, Amar Ashar, Dan Jones, Enrique Armijo, Lorne Sossin, François Tanguay-Renaud, and Simon Stern, for comments, questions,
    [Show full text]
  • Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Talking Points Documents, 2008-2011
    Description of document: Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Talking Points documents, 2008-2011 Requested date: 26-October-2010 Released date: 29-September-2011 Posted date: 31-October-2011 Date/date range of document: 31-January-2008 – 30-June-2011 Source of document: Broadcasting Board of Governors FOIA/PA Unit Room 3349 330 Independence Ave. SW Washington, D.C. 20237 Fax: (202) 203-4585 The governmentattic.org web site (“the site”) is noncommercial and free to the public. The site and materials made available on the site, such as this file, are for reference only. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals have made every effort to make this information as complete and as accurate as possible, however, there may be mistakes and omissions, both typographical and in content. The governmentattic.org web site and its principals shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to have been caused, directly or indirectly, by the information provided on the governmentattic.org web site or in this file. The public records published on the site were obtained from government agencies using proper legal channels. Each document is identified as to the source. Any concerns about the contents of the site should be directed to the agency originating the document in question. GovernmentAttic.org is not responsible for the contents of documents published on the website. Broadcasting 330 Independence Ave.SW T 202.203.4550 Board of Cohen Building, Room 3349 F 202.203.4585 Governors Washington, DC 20237 Office of the General Counsel Freedom of Information and Privacy Act September 29, 2011 RE: Request Pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act- FOIA #11-014 This letter is in response to your October 26, 2010 request for primarily internal "Talking Points" or "Q&A" documents.
    [Show full text]
  • The Net Delusion : the Dark Side of Internet Freedom / Evgeny Morozov
    2/c pMs (blAcK + 809) soFt-toUcH MAtte lAMinAtion + spot gloss The NeT DelusioN evgeNy Morozov evgeNy The NeT DelusioN PoliTiCs/TeChNology $27.95/$35.50CAN “evgeny Morozov is wonderfully knowledgeable about the internet—he seems “THEREVOLUTIONWILLBETWITTERED!” to have studied every use of it, or every political use, in every country in the declared journalist Andrew sullivan after world (and to have read all the posts). And he is wonderfully sophisticated and protests erupted in iran in June 2009. Yet for tough-minded about politics. this is a rare combination, and it makes for a all the talk about the democratizing power powerful argument against the latest versions of technological romanticism. of the internet, regimes in iran and china His book should be required reading for every political activist who hopes to are as stable and repressive as ever. in fact, AlexAnder KrstevsKi AlexAnder change the world on the internet.” —MiChAel WAlzer, institute for authoritarian governments are effectively Advanced study, Princeton using the internet to suppress free speech, evgeNy Morozov hone their surveillance techniques, dissem- is a contributing editor to Foreign Policy “ evgeny Morozov has produced a rich survey of recent history that reminds us inate cutting-edge propaganda, and pacify and Boston Review and a schwartz Fellow that everybody wants connectivity but also varying degrees of control over their populations with digital entertain- at the new American Foundation. Morozov content, and that connectivity on its own is a very poor predictor of political ment. could the recent Western obsession is currently also a visiting scholar at stan- pluralism.... by doing so, he’s gored any number of sacred cows, but he’s likewise with promoting democracy by digital ford University.
    [Show full text]
  • Inciting Genocide with Words
    INCITING GENOCIDE WITH WORDS Richard Ashby Wilson* INTRODUCTION ................................................. 278 I. EARLY JURISPRUDENCE: AVOIDING EXPLICIT CAUSATION ............................................ 282 II. DIRECT AND PUBLIC INCITEMENT TO COMMIT GENOCIDE AT THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL TRIBUNAL FOR RWANDA ............................... 287 A. Explicit Causality Analysis in Akayesu . 287 B. The Nahimana Trial Chamber’s Incoherent Jurisprudence ....................................... 289 C. Confusion at the Nahimana Appeals Chamber . 292 D. Causation: Compensating for Absence of Specific Intent? ............................................. 295 E. Consequences of the ICTR’s Causality Jurisprudence . 298 III. THE “GHOST OF CAUSATION” IN INTERNATIONAL SPEECH CRIMES ........................................ 299 A. Benesch’s “Likelihood of Genocide” . 300 B. Revisiting Cause and Effect in Rwanda . 301 C. Application of the Benesch Factors in General . 302 IV. RESOLVING THE CONFUSION: ICG AND AUSTIN’S THEORY OF SPEECH ACTS .............................. 304 A. Austin’s Speech Act Theory and Legal Scholarship . 305 B. Austin’s Speech Act Theory . 306 C. Application to ICG and Other Inchoate Crimes . 308 V. SPEECH AND CAUSATION IN COMPLETED CRIMES . 314 CONCLUSION ................................................... 319 * Gladstein Chair of Human Rights, Professor of Law and Anthropology and Founding Director of the Human Rights Institute at the University of Connecticut. BSc., Ph.D. London School of Economics and Political Science. I am grateful to Kerry Bystrom, Eleni Coundouriotis, Predrag Dojˇcinovi´c, Gregory Gordon, Jordan Kiper, Thomas Morawetz, Suzy Killmister and Nishith Prakash, and to seminar and conference participants at Harvard University School of Law, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, the University of Connecticut Humanitarianism Studies Research Group, the University of Michigan Department of History, the University of Virginia Law School, and the 2012 Law and Society Association Annual Meeting.
    [Show full text]
  • Countering Hate Messages That Lead to Violence: the United Nationsâ•Žs Chapter VII Authority to Use Radio Jamming to Halt In
    DALE.DOC 04/04/01 3:08 PM Notes COUNTERING HATE MESSAGES THAT LEAD TO VIOLENCE: THE UNITED NATIONS’S CHAPTER VII AUTHORITY TO USE RADIO JAMMING TO HALT INCENDIARY BROADCASTS I. INTRODUCTION Fervent, fiery speeches draw an audience and excite a crowd. Speeches given by a skilled orator can ignite passions, and just a few spoken words with the correct pizzazz can incite people to take ac- tion. Actions inspired by motivating speech can be for good or bad purposes, and the greater the audience, the greater the effect the speech has in producing thought or action. As the audience grows, so does the impact on individuals, communities, and society as a whole. Because of its ability to pervasively spread a message and its sus- ceptibility to being manipulated, radio is a powerful tool in the hands of a talented orator, a leader with a passionate plea, or a crafty mes- senger with an inspiring message the people want to hear.1 Radio heightens the impact speech can have on people because it enables people in a number of different locations to hear the same message at the same time. Control of the radio airwaves is a powerful asset, and misuse of that asset can have disastrous results. The survivors of the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, who were en- gulfed by the racist, fervid broadcasts of hate radio, can provide first- hand testimony of these disastrous results.2 The primary source of Copyright © 2001 by Alexander C. Dale. 1. See generally Jaime F. Metzl, Rwandan Genocide and the International Law of Radio Jamming, 91 AM.
    [Show full text]
  • Judging Stories
    LCB_18_1_Art_2_Novogrodsky (Do Not Delete) 4/25/2014 8:00 AM JUDGING STORIES by Noah Benjamin Novogrodsky This Article uses the confluence of incitement to genocide and hate speech in a single case to explore the power of stories in law. That power defines how we see the world, how we form communities of meaning, and how we speak to one another. Previous commentators have recognized that law is infused with stories, from the narratives of litigants, to the rhetoric of lawyers, to the tales that judges interpret and create in the form of written opinions. “Judging Stories” builds on those insights to address the problems posed by transnational speech and the question of which norms apply to inflammatory publications transmitted across borders. This Article introduces the term “master story” to make three related claims. First, states produce and rely upon master stories—constitutive legal narratives—that define political culture and shape the contours of permitted and forbidden speech. Second, judges play a unique role in constructing master stories. Judicial speech is different than other forms of commentary and serves to join law with communal fables in ways that legitimate some stories at the expense of others. Third, courts and tribunals are beginning to use incitement to genocide—but not hate speech—to write a new master story. As geographically and temporally removed tribunals are called upon to adjudicate hateful expression from outside the master story, a global process is unfolding that may serve to reset the balance between unfettered speech and the threat of dignitary harms posed by incendiary language.
    [Show full text]