SOU suspends the RVTV show “Wilde Life” as Scott Clay and Dennis Vickoren, producers, are indicted
on charges relating to child pornography ADT 10/30/09
suzia aufderheide response

All of my life i have been deeply offended by pornography with its implications of disrespect and disregard
for human life - the preciousness and fragile nature of being. In particular, when lost innocence is at stake.
Distinguishing poor taste from first amendment rights is a whole other consideration. It is my right to speak, it is not my job to censor.
There are millions of websites with billions of pages, less than 1% of these pages are pornography. Approximately, two thirds of all
internet traffic is porn related. We are not a healthy group by these standards.
The first amendment is health promotion at the most foundational
level - the founding fathers were hip to this - we must be able to speak that which ails us. however darkly sometimes.
RVTV, a p.e.g. (public, education and government) access television channel owned by the City of Ashland (paid for with
franchise fees - that are mandated by law - and paid by Charter/Ashland television to the city of Ashland.
These monies are passed thru to RVTV for the public, the government and the educational facilities to make television in partnership.
Frankly, SOU is the operator of RVTV, NOT its owner!
(fyi grants pass, jackson and josephine counties, medford and rvtd contribute funds to SOU for RVTV)
Southern Oregon University is a public institution - supported by tax dollars, your money.
Through these two revenue streams, franchise fees and tax dollars, you, the community pay for and support RVTV p.e.g. access television.
I called a friend of mine, who is a young felon, to make sure that he
still had access to libraries, loans and the ballot box. And, felons do. As well they should, emotional healing needs access
to tools of society particulary those that educate and promote democracy.
By the way, whatever happened to that old tenant of democracy that
went something like "innocent until proven guilty" or not “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."
It seems as if SOU believes that two wrongs might make a right
RVTV belongs to the community plain and simple. I hope that the community has enough starch to tell SOU that it is way out of line.

thank you
suzia aufderheide
541 482-0102

p.s. Finally, according to the agreement between SOU and Ashland “SOU shall immediately report to the City upon becoming aware of any unexpected development or problems regarding programming....which may jeopardize the provisions of service under this agreement” Did SOU honor their covenant with the City in this case?

 

SOU suspends gay men's show after indictments
Provost office pulls plug on RVTV's 'Wilde Life"

By John Darling

Ashland Daily Tidings
October 30, 2009
Because of the indictment of its producer and host, the Rogue Valley Television show "Wilde Life" — about "issues facing gay men" — has been suspended by Southern Oregon University.
The half-hour show was hosted by Scott Clay, 55, who was fired in August from his job as chief planner for the city of Jacksonville when child pornography was found in his workplace computer. He was indicted Aug. 25 on a first-degree count of encouraging child sexual abuse and a second-degree count of the same charge. Both are felonies.
The show was produced by Dennis Vickoren, 62, of Eagle Point, who was indicted Aug. 26 on 30 felony counts of encouraging child sexual abuse for allegedly disseminating, duplicating and possessing child pornography.
The show was suspended by SOU Associate Provost Paul Steinle because of the indictments and will stay off the air "until it's resolved in court," Steinle said.
RVTV is a public access station and allows anyone in Jackson and Josephine counties to produce shows after taking training sessions, said Nena Heitz, RVTV director and administrative manager. It operates under the auspices of the university, and its office and studio are on the university campus.
Although there are no set rules on barring indicted persons from RVTV's airwaves, Steinle said "it's good sense." Neither Clay nor Vickoren could be reached for comment.
Sylvia McDaniel, executive director of Portland Community Media, which operates under the state government, said she cannot suspend a show unless lawbreaking occurs in the studio or within the context of the show.
"We manage the programs, not people's personal lives," McDaniel said, in a phone interview.
"We also go by their behavior in our facility," she added. "Producing the show 'Cannabis Common Sense' doesn't give them the right to stand in my parking lot and smoke dope."
"My jurisdiction is what goes on my channels, not what someone does outside my jurisdiction," McDaniel added. "Their personal lives are none of my business. I don't pull a show if it has nothing to do with the show."
The SOU Provost's office gave instructions, Heitz said, that the show needed to be suspended "until the situation is resolved." RVTV contacted the Provost's office when the arrests were made, she said, adding that the show has continued to air since the indictments — and the station has received many calls on the issue, with "a tremendous amount of support for Dennis and Scott and for what they're doing."
"They (the callers) think they're doing a great job and they ask if it (the charges) is true and we say we don't know," Heitz said.
RVTV in general "allows free speech," but, she said, it's run by a public university in a small town and is "a lot more conservative in approach." By contrast, some public access TV is much more liberal, including a "Nude News" show in New Jersey.
"We allow free speech here," she said, with usual FCC prohibitions on hate speech, obscenity and incitement to riot. Producers also may not try to sell goods or services.
Heitz said the show by Clay and Vickoren violated none of these standards, adding, "I'm remaining neutral. I always considered Dennis and Scott to be friends. When you work with people here, you become friends. I won't judge them unless they're found guilty."
Heitz said a similar situation arose about five years ago, when a producer of a show on rock bands had to be taken off the air because he had child pornography in his computer.

 

WHAT THE FCC VOTE MIGHT MEAN
10/31/07

This ruling is one more attempt to destroy even the most humble aspects of community control, self-determination or diversity in media. Note that media concentration, localism, net neutrality, and broadcast ownership by women and minorities are all on the verge of negative rulings by a three member majority of the FCC. It is an unacceptably greedy and small-minded view of our future as a nation.

In a 3-2 vote, the FCC decided to extend the video franchising rules that it issued in December to incumbent franchises.
It is somewhat difficult to know exactly what this means since the do not issue the rules to the public when they vote on them. However, our conversations have suggested the following may be true:
1) The franchise fee and PEG funding components of the original order will likely apply to incumbent franchises—they may not have to wait until the franchises expire before adopting these rules.
2) On the other hand, the FCC seems to be saying that the franchises are not automatically rescinded by the order. They are punting, it appears, to other authorities such as, perhaps, the courts or regulatory bodies for how the order affects the language of specific franchise agreements. It would depend on state law, the franchise in question and specific wording.
3) It is not clear how this order is affected by state laws. One might assume that those areas of state law not preempted by the original order would like-wise not be affected by this second order. We don’t know.
4) The order seems to not preempt “most-favored nation” clauses of franchises. This would mean that an LFA would have to offer an incumbent a deal substantively no worse than that offered a new provider.
It is expected that the rule would go into effect in two to three weeks, when the FCC finally issues it in writing. There are likely some legal procedures following that and before implementation could take place.
This is our first take from second-hand information. Please return here in the next few days for additions, corrections and deletions.

 

###
“I never wonder to see men wicked, but I often wonder to see them not ashamed.” ___Jonathan Swift

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

ADDITION

 

Summary and Commentary on the FCC’s 2nd Report & Order
To: Members, Alliance for Community Media
Fr: Anthony Riddle, Executive Director
Re: FCC 2nd Report and Order
Da: November 9, 2007
The 2nd Report and Order was issued this week. According to counsel, it is close to what was expected. The Order underscores the potential damage to local franchising authorities (LFAs) in the areas of franchise fee & PEG support. Any real damages will be decided by the outcome of our pending 6th Circuit appeal of the 1st R&O.
Summary and commentary on the 2d R&O
Please keep in mind that this is a summary and does not include all matters contained in the Order. It also relays the arguments made by the FCC in support of their Order, even if we disagree that they are correct or relevant. It is a good idea to read the Order itself (30 pages Word ; PDF) and especially the dissents by Commissioners Copps (Word; PDF) and Adelstein (Word; PDF). These and related documents are at FCC.gov.
I. Applicability of 1st R&O Rulings to Incumbents (¶7-25).
Overall, the FCC concludes that the shot clock and the build-out rulings in the 1st R&O do not apply to incumbents.
The FCC concludes that the 1st R&O’s rulings on franchise fees and most, but not all, of its rulings on PEG and I-Nets, do apply to incumbents.
On the critical issue of when or how these rulings will be applied to incumbents, the 2d R&O seems to abandon the FNPRM’s proposal to apply those rulings to incumbents at the end of their current franchises. Apparently, the incumbent must have franchises changed in other venues such as courts or utilities commissions—though the FCC does not offer a definitive answer on venue.
A. Shot Clock (¶ 8).
The shot clock rule will not apply to incumbents because it was based on Sec. 621(a)(1), which does not apply to incumbents. The franchise renewal provisions of Sec. 626 are inconsistent with the shot clock. It would, if applied to incumbents at renewal, place the Order in conflict with the Cable Act.
B. Buildout Requirements (¶ 9).
The FCC ruled that incumbents will have to keep existing build-out requirements despite disallowing build-out requirements for new entrants.
C. Franchise Fees (¶ 10-11).
The FCC ruled that the Franchise Fees section of the 1st R&O (¶ 94-109) “applies equally to incumbents and new entrants.” They are ruling that the FCC correctly interprets the cable act definition of franchise fees and that the Act makes no distinction between incumbents and new entrants. They say that payments “made to support the operation of PEG access facilities are considered franchise fees…, unless they are capital costs, which are excluded from franchise fees under Section 622(g)(2)(C).”
These are 1st R&O rulings which will rise or fall on the outcome of our pending 6th Circuit appeal. The new rulings rest on the previous ruling. We will file in one of several ways to make sure these 2nd R&O rulings are overturned if the court overturns the 1st R&O.
D. PEG/I-Nets (¶ 12-15).
The 2d R&O extends some of the PEG and I-Net rulings of the 1st R&O to incumbents.
It extends the PEG non-capital costs/franchise fee aspects of the 1st R&O to incumbents.
It does not adopt standard terms for PEG channels.
It allows that requirement for PEG support is reasonable as long as such support is subject to the franchise fee cap.
In other areas, the 2d R&O declined to extend aspects of the 1st R&O to incumbents. Of particular note, the FCC held that, while the 1st R&O ruled that it would be unreasonable to impose greater PEG carriage or support obligations on new entrants than incumbents, the reverse is not true: The 2d R&O states that it “may very well be reasonable” for an LFA to impose more burdensome PEG carriage or support obligations on an incumbent than on a new entrant. The FCC added that it “see[s] no statutory provision that categorically precludes such an approach.”
This claims that in those cases where an LFA grants a new entrant a franchise with lesser PEG obligations than the incumbent, the incumbent operator cannot rely on this Order or the Cable Act to support any claim that it is entitled to the same lesser PEG obligations as the new entrant. The cable industry is likely that the cable to appeal this part of the 2d R&O.
The FCC attempts to fix problems in the 1st R&O regarding the meaning of “pro rata” and “matching” support of PEG by new entrants. We will forward clarification on this as we work through the difficult and somewhat confusing passage.
The 2d R&O rules that most of the I-Net determinations in the 1st R&O do not apply to incumbents. The FCC added, however, that incumbent operators are free in the future to present the FCC with evidence that the I-Net rulings in the 1st R&O should apply to them, but that providers will have to identify the particular problem that application.
E. Renewal
The FCC said that it disagrees with suggestions that its rulings will mean that PEG support would be frozen at current contribution levels without the possibility for future modification. They seem to be saying that new entrants eventually face the renewal process with its mechanisms for adjusting PEG requirements to changed community needs.
This means that when new entrants like Verizon come up for renewal, they will be subject to the same Sec. 626 PEG need and interest reassessment as, in fact, Verizon will be an “incumbent” when its renewal rolls around. There do not seem to be minimum lengths to franchises anywhere in the law or in the rulings.
F. Timing of Applicability to Incumbents (¶ 19).
This is perhaps the key issue in the 2d R&O. The 2d R&O concludes that the 1st R&O’s rulings are applicable to incumbents 30 days after Federal Registry publication. The 2d R&O, however, places several potentially helpful qualifications on this conclusion.
G. MFN Clauses (¶ 20).
The FCC notes that some franchises may contain most favored nations (MFN) clauses that would allow the incumbent, consistent with its existing franchise, to take immediate advantage of the FCC’s rulings.
The FCC rules that MFN clauses are NOT preempted. The MFN ruling will be particularly problematic for LFAs whose incumbent franchises have both an MFN and a substantial I-Net obligation. We know that Verizon and AT&T do not build I-Nets.
The 2d R&O recognizes that “franchise agreements involve contractual obligations and also note[s] that some terms may have been implemented as part of a settlement agreement regarding rate disputes or past performance by the franchisee. As a result, we believe that the facts and circumstances of each situation must be assessed on a case-by-case basis under applicable law to determine whether our statutory interpretation should alter the incumbent’s franchise agreement.” The FCC goes on to say the 2d R&O “should in no way be interpreted as giving incumbents a unilateral right to breach their existing contractual obligations,” nor can the 2d R&O “be used [by an incumbent] as an independent basis for obtaining retrospective relief.”
Conflicts
The Order addresses some of the ways the FCC perceives that conflicts between LFAs and incumbents concerning the applicability of the FCC’s rulings to existing franchises might be resolved. First, the FCC “urges LFAs and incumbents to work cooperatively to address those issues.” If that fails, the FCC recognizes that some disputes “may make their way to courts.” This strongly suggests that the FCC expects disputes between individual LFAs and incumbents over individual franchise agreements to go to the courts, not the FCC.
There are strong arguments that the FCC’s decision not to preempt MFNs is arbitrary, capricious and inexplicably inconsistent with its 1st R&O ruling preempting franchise “level playing field” provisions. Like all level playing field provisions, an MFN is designed to deter an LFA from granting more favorable terms to a new entrant than the incumbent’s franchise terms — precisely the supposed evil that the 1st R&O relied on to justify preempting franchise level playing field provisions.
II. Sec. 632 Customer Service Standard Issues (¶ 26-33).
As LFAs urged, the FCC adopted its tentative conclusion that Sec. 632 prohibits the FCC from preempting state or local customer service laws that exceed the FCC’s cable customer service standards. It recognized that, under Sec. 632, the FCC’s standards “are a floor …, rather than a ceiling, and thus do not preclude LFAs from adopting stricter customer service requirements.”
The FCC also rejected “AT&T’s request for uniform local customer service standards or data collection requirements.”
III. Applicability to Statewide Franchising Laws.
The 2d R&O never mentions or addresses the question of whether the “state law exemption” that the FCC fashioned in the 1st R&O extends to the 2d R&O’s application of 1st R&O’s rulings to incumbents. Leaving this question unanswered in the 2d R&O will be a source of considerable uncertainty & confusion for LFAs in states falling within the 1st R&O’s state law exemption.
Again, please keep in mind that this is a quick summary and does not include all matters contained in the Order. It also relays the arguments made by the FCC in support of their Order, even if we disagree that they are correct or relevant. It is a good idea to read the Order itself—especially the dissents by Commissioners Copps and Adelstein.