Clear Channel takes a hit

[Irulan]

I got this via email...)
RoadBikeRider.com Newsletter
Issue No. 114 - 10/09/03: Justice Prevailing
ISSN 1536-4143

Published every Thursday by Ed Pavelka and Fred Matheny
of RBR Publishing Company. E-mailed without charge or
obligation to roadies around the world.



1. News from Ed & Fred

The Clear Channel controversy is not clearing up for that
irresponsible company.

Cleveland was bad. Houston was worse. And Raleigh could be
Clear Channel's undoing. Let's hope.

We've told you how Clear Channel radio stations in each city

incited drivers to force cyclists off the road, hit us with open

doors, throw bottles at us or even run us over. The outcry from

the cycling community and other outraged citizens has been
tremendous.

And effective. The Raleigh station lost at least one large
local advertiser, a Ford dealership. The offending shock
jocks were taken off the air. Cyclists picketed, which
focused reporters on the station's transgression.

The LA Times published an article this week, "Mikes vs. Bikes."

It put Clear Channel in the negative light it so richly deserves.

Good Morning America contacted the League of American
Bicyclists, the country's primary cycling advocacy
organization. There's a chance that LAB communications
director Patrick McCormick will appear on the show.

It gets better.



The Federal Communications Commission has announced

a series of public hearings around the country. These sessions

will help determine whether radio stations are serving the public
interest, as required, and therefore deserve to have their
license renewed.

That isn't in response to the current Clear Channel controversy,

but it ensures that complaints about harm-cyclists programming

will be heard by the right people.

The license of the offending station in Raleigh expires on Dec. 1.

Cyclists there have done a great job mobilizing. You can bet

they won't miss the chance to give the FCC a reason why that

station should be off the air.

Here's an article about the FCC hearings:
http://www.newsobserver.com/business...-2683810c.html

Here's a chronology of the episode at Clear Channel station

G105 in Raleigh:
www.trianglemtb.com/pages/projects/g105.html
_________________________________________

Even if you're not in a town that's suffered Clear Channel's
"hate crime" programming, you might want to express your
feelings about that company to the FCC. Here, courtesy of

RBR subscriber Anthony D., are the key e-mail addresses:

Chairman Michael K. Powell: mpowell@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kathleen Q. Abernathy: kabernat@fcc.gov
Commissioner Michael J. Copps: mcopps@fcc.gov
Commissioner Kevin J. Martin: kjmweb@fcc.gov
Commissioner Jonathan S. Adelstein: jadelste@fcc.gov

Anthony cautions: "Letters that contain inappropriate
language or threats will likely backfire, suggesting to the
commissioners that cyclists are just fruitcakes who deserve
no more consideration than the broadcasters who incite
motorists to attack them."

Amen.
_______________________________________

Lots of roadies who've written to RBR have posed this
question:

If a driver injures or kills a cyclist after encouragement
by Clear Channel's shock jocks, is Clear Channel culpable

or protected by freedom of speech?

Attorney Bob Mionske addresses this question in his "Legally
Speaking" column for VeloNews.

Mionske (the fourth-place finisher in the '88 Olympic road race)
discusses a case in which a man shot three people after
learning a technique in certain books. The victims' family sued

the publisher for encouraging and aiding a killer in his crime.

Here's the key: An appeals court determined that freedom

of speech is not an issue in cases where a media outlet

aids or abets in a crime.

Writes Mionske, "I think that a strong argument could be
made that activities of the type carried on at the Raleigh,
Houston and Cleveland radio stations could meet this
[criterion], especially considering that one company owns
the stations in all three markets."

Here's Mionske's full article:
www.velonews.com/news/fea/5058.0.html
_________________________________________

Now, let us say that we realize you haven't subscribed to
this newsletter for advocacy issues. You're here for advice
that'll help you ride better and get more fun and fitness
from road cycling.

That's RBR's mission and we generally stick to it. However,
Clear Channel's evil-doing is so disturbing that we feel you
need to know. The call for violence against cyclists can't
be allowed to spread through the rest of that company's
1,200-plus radio stations. As roadies, our lives are on the
line.

Your responses to RBR are appreciated. Hundreds of e-mails
show how much you care about this issue and your lawful
place on the road.

Please understand that RBR isn't equipped like the League

of American Bicyclists to turn your comments and energy

into action. LAB exists to stop threats to cyclists' rights.

Help LAB fight the good fight at www.bikeleague.org. If you
click http://econstituent.votenet.com/lab, it will take you
to LAB's Advocacy Center. There, you'll find a letter you
can e-mail directly to three execs at Clear Channel.

o^o o^o o^o o^o o^o o^o o^o o^o o^o o^o

[missliz]

Good on you for passing this on, girl.
But what I want to know, why didn't LAB have a restraining order on these people weeks ago? What the guy in the suit said about culpability is a hedge cause he doesn't remember his First Amemdment law. Encouraging felony assault is not protected speech. No Constitutional protection there. And plenty of liability- which segues into the next beef, since this was allowed to run on so long it's put a lot of ideas into the heads of people already. And there are people who'll act on this. Damage has been done. This situation is so incredibly blatant I don't get the comparison with the case he reffers to.
Don't confuse good athletes with good lawyers.
If LAB would come back to the office from lunch and deal, Clear Channel has some very deep pockets to pay for cycling safety campaigns. I want to see them pay for the TV ad that says harrassing cyclists is assault and you'll go to jail for it. This is what punitive damages are for, and I see a scary mess that has to be cleaned up. Clear Channel should pay for that. And decisive action now will have the "chilling effect" on harrassment and assault in the future.
You all might mention this to LAB. They're in Washington DC and apparently can't find a decent torts attorney.

Lizzy

[Dogmama]

We certainly don't need shock-jocks encouraging the already gullible masses to take their frustrations out on us. I am constantly amazed at how seemingly level headed people are offended at our existence on the street. I was driving with a friend on a saturday morning, and everytime we passed/stopped for or otherwise came near a bicyclist, she swore at him! (window closed - the cyclist didn't hear her) She KNOWS I'm an avid cyclist. I asked her what her animosity was all about & she couldn't answer.

I had one guy argue with me that I didn't pay road tax. Ummm, at the time I owned four cars, so yeah, I paid more than my share, seeing as how I couldn't drive all of them at once!

Maybe the couch & pizza crowd are feeling guilty?