New Rochelle’s Talk of the Sound Radio is Moving from WVOX to the Web TONIGHT AT 6 PM

Written By: Robert Cox

TOTS radio bannerTalk of the Sound Radio will air tonight online at 6:00 PM just not on WVOX 1460 AM.

Airtime: Fri, Aug 12, 2011 6:00 PM

CLICK HERE or use the Blog Talk Radio Player (upper right corner of home page)

Call-in Studio Line: (805) 830-8302

As some readers may have noticed, Talk of the Sound did not air this morning on WVOX 1460 AM as scheduled. Shortly before going on the air Matthew Pryce and I were asked to sign an agreement regarding a new station policy. It is a part of the new station policy that no host can go on the air without signing the agreement. Neither of us was willing to sign the agreement and so Talk of the Sound Radio was taken off the air.

Whitney Media has every right to set policy. This is not a First Amendment issue as no one has a right to have a show or be put through as a caller on a privately-owned radio station. We were told that all the other hosts had signed the agreement. Matthew and I recognize all of that but respectfully disagree with the policy.

The topic of this evening’s show will be the agreement proposed by Whitney Media to Robert Cox and Matthew Pryce and why we could not, in good conscience, sign the document.

TalkoftheSoundBlogTalkRadioI have always been grateful to have the opportunity to have a show on WVOX and want to thank Bill O’Shaughnessy, David O’Shaughnessy, Don Stevens and Bob Marrone for their past support of the show. Perhaps at some point the policy will change and we will be welcomed back but until then we will continue to produce Talk of the Sound Radio, providing the same hard-hitting reporting and discussion that listeners have come to appreciate.

37 thoughts on “New Rochelle’s Talk of the Sound Radio is Moving from WVOX to the Web TONIGHT AT 6 PM”

  1. Quite a Humorous Rant
    Inman I truly had a full fledged Belly Laugh.
    Don’t go anywhere I think although we may not agree on much your entitled to be here and certainly with the humor of your last post I look forward to reading your rants.
    Between you and I, maybe Bob’s reasons for being here was rooted in a personal vendetta but just so we don’t throw out the Baby with the bath water I am glad because he exposes valid news that is hidden from the tax payer. Maybe these kind of little corrupt issues go on day to day in every municipal goverment and maybe some of the reporting does not rise to the federal level but there is much more good by having outlets to report these things. Journal News does not step on the Democrats toes and now it looks like VOX prefers a few thousand dollars of political adds vs real listeners. VOX has the listening audience of next to nobody and the few personality’s who got a handfull to tune in now gone will certainly not put their Rating North. Bill O’Shaughnessy is welcome to continue to sink his personal net worth into the Bramson for all campaign but there are enough people looking for someone to hold these good old boys to the light of day. Right now New Rochelle is being run By Boss Tweed Bramson and the stench of Tammany hall smells worse that the Green Pond Scum floating on Beechmont lake down the block from his home. As for you I welcome your point of view your revive us all. Bob bring on the mud lets call it as we see it.

  2. WVOX
    WVOX changed there policy for a few reasons but the one real reason is that Mayor Bramson and his democratic buddies went to Mr.O and said we are not going to advertise on your radio station if we continue to get beat up on your station.With the nov. elections coming up WVOX makes a mint on ads from the dems in this city and throughout the county.
    IT’s ok that Mr. O beats up Currey chevy all day long but GOD forbid they talk about the dems of this city.
    Mr.O you have really disappointed me and many of your listeners you say that your station is the voice heard through out the land where free speech reins well stick by your words do the right thing and cancel that piece of paper tear it up and toss it or many listeners of your station are going to leave you.
    PS-if you don’t change your mind then please take down the picture of HOWARD STREAN in your doorway of the station he also will be very upset of your new policy….

    1. Thank you Eyeon newroc
      Im glad my posts were not in vain, and Im sure Mr. O would like to think that everyone who says good morning to him is his friend and everyone who knows the real reasons behind why Bob got the ax wont talk. But, as it usually does, the truth will come to the surface eventually.Im a firm believer in…if it doesnt make sense, its usually not true.

  3. Adios
    You can write whatever you want about people on your blog site( and clearly you do) and you can also say whatever you want to say about them too, on your very own “blog radio site.”
    But what expectation did you think you had to involve an entity like WVOX and the FCC license they must apply for every year, that they should automatically be a party to your “investigative” reporting, which includes personal invective towards whomever and whatever it is that you deem worthy of uncovering for your vast radio audience?

    Do the words “law suit” ring a bell with you? I’m quite sure it’s crossed the mind of the owner of WVOX, and alas, it appears he’s willing to let you go and discover your inner Mike Wallace somewhere else. Pity you couldn’t muster the creativity to work around the agreement and still make your savy points about the decline of all things New Rochelle.

    But that would entail broadcasting, not sniping.

    And now all twelve of your listeners will have to learn how to operate a computer?

    1. This might make sense..
      This might make sense except for a few things:

      1) The station came to me last year and asked me to do a show based on Talk of the Sound. In fact, they asked me more than once before I accepted their offer. They were perfectly aware of the site and my reporting and therefore obviously wanted that on their air. They wrote the intro script for the show including the line “for the inside story on New Rochelle”.

      2) No one at the station ever raised any concerns about any of my reporting either on Talk of the Sound or WVOX and no one has ever filed any complaint with the FCC of filed a lawsuit. Were someone to file a lawsuit they would certainly not win in any case.

      3) When I asked to sign the document on Friday I was told it was not specifically directed at me and I take them at their word on that.

      4) My primary objection to the document, although not my only one, was that it was overly broad and vague, specifically on the phrase “verbal attack”. When I asked what “verbal attack” meant the person asking me to sign the document said “I don’t know”. The document requires that the signer agree that they understand the directive. If the person asking me to sign the directive cannot define a key term in the directive then how can I be expected to sign it in good faith. Further, to require that an unpaid host to take on the responsibility that if they, their guest or a caller is deemed to have engaged in some sort of undefined “verbal attack” against some corner of the known universe (“person, organization or entity”) that the show’s engineer will be fired is not the sort of responsibility I am prepared to take especially given the nature of Talk of the Sound.

      5) I do not agree that the directive allows robust debate. In fact, it is so draconian and absolutist that it will, in my view, deter any sort of debate because the host, the guest, the caller and the engineer are required to be constantly vigilant that no one say anything on air that MIGHT BE CONSTRUED as a “verbal attack” and must instantly cut off anyone who says anything that might cross some undefined line. The nature of the directive is to make every participant in a show extremely nervous that something they are thinking about saying might be considered to be a “verbal attack” and so they will not say it. That sort of self-censorship is more pernicious than actual censorship because it is hidden. It is anti-thetical to robust debate.

      6) The issue is not whether I could be “creative” enough to get around the terms of the agreement. I do not sign agreements with the intention of circumventing them. I sign agreements that I am willing to uphold.

      7) As a host on WVOX, I was always an “at will” participant in the radio show programming. I am not paid so I do not believe I could be considered an employee but it is the equivalent of being an “at will” employee. The station does not need to have me sign a contract to create the basis on which to take me off the air. They can do that simply because they do not like my show or have some better show to replace it. They do not have to give me a reason. Requiring me to sign an agreement that I have “read and understood” a policy is redundant. If they create a policy they can take me off the air whether I follow the policy or not.

      8) Off the top of my head, I can think of two examples where I was doing what I would consider “investigative” reporting on the show (as opposed to discussing reporting on my web site). One is the Jose Martinez case where the news of his arrest was broken live on Talk of the Sound Radio. The other is the two-part interview with the DPW whistleblower. In the first case, I worked directly with the news director, Bob Marrone, who called in a live report from the NRPD headquarters. In the second, I asked Don Stevens, the Station Manager, for studio time to conduct the interview with the whistleblower. There may be other examples folks can cite but those are the two biggest ones I can recall. In each case, I worked directly with the two people whose signature was on the agreement I was asked to sign who were obviously supportive of my work because they were participants in it. I do not have any problem with the idea that the station would want to pre-approve any investigative reporting done on WVOX and I did not object to that. It is actually quite standard for a news outlet to be involved in reviewing the produce of an investigative report done over its airwaves, on its web site or in print. That is, in my view, not the same as discussing the RESULTS of an investigative report done elsewhere. If I do a story about Jose Martinez based on investigative reporting for my web site, I see no reason not to have an on-air discussion about an already published, public report, or report development such as his subsequent arrest or plea deal. This then strays into the no verbal attack area of the agreement in which it would be prohibited for callers to criticize the District Attorney for making the plea deal or for anyone to criticize the school district for allowing a principal to rape and/or sodomize a child in a school office. If I cannot discuss my own reporting on my show or make comments critical of the perpetrator or the various responsible parties in the Jose Martinez case — or allow any caller to do so and maybe even get my show engineer fired — that does not leave me with much of a show and certainly not the show the station asked me to do.

      At the end of the day, no one at the station ever said a single word to me about making “verbal attacks” on anyone or anything, no one said anything about any of the callers to the show or anyone on the show discussing the results of any investigative reporting on Talk of the Sound. The station came to me about putting together a show based on my web site and they clearly knew what they were getting. Given this, I remain mystified by the whole thing and yet hopeful that perhaps someday things will change.

      As for those like the particular commenter here, I’ll say what always say. If no one listens to my show and nobody reads my website then why are you so concerned about what have to say. Of course, the facts would suggest otherwise. People do read what I write, they listen to what I say and they will continue to listen wherever I broadcast from; and the people of New Rochelle will continue to learn how badly served they’ve been by their twin governments.

      1. Meat packing anyone?
        It appears Bob, that you’ve missed the main element in the WVOX missive, to all who would use their FCC licensed airways. Probably one doesn’t need to stretch it too far to understand that you see yourself as the resurrection of Upton Sinclair and H.L.Mencken, tasked with revealing the hidden puss welling under the foundations of the BOE and the New Rochelle City government. It seems however, that “Our mission is to build up the community…and not tear it down” as stated by WVOX, might be counter to your long suit, no?

      2. inman, you have the right to keep your head in the sand
        “Our mission is to build up the community…and not tear it down” is a wonderful statement and a positive goal. Sometimes, however, that may mean cleaning house and starting with a new foundation.
        Inman, I would like you to point out ONE, JUST one story that has been reported on here by Bob that was meritless. YOU CANT!

      3. Come out of the parking garage, Deep!
        It’s not about the “merit” of what’s written here by Mr. Cox, on this blogsite. This is his site, he pays for it, and he can write whatever he wants to, about whomever he wants, and in any form or style that he cares to write in. Not so on the Federally licensed airwaves at WVOX.

        It seems that after a half century of broadcasting community programming, they’re well within their rights to have some assurances of intention and decorum in front of their microphones.

        “Any “investigative” reporting will be done by our own award-winning News Department and fully vetted by our legal counsel.”

        Hmm…. Wonder why the reference to “legal counsel.”


      4. Please answer the quest Inman
        It most definitely has to do with merit. If there is merit, there is no basis for lawsuit.
        I would like it though if you would answer the question I asked in my earlier post. Has Cox ever reported on a story that was not true?

      5. what is the truth , something
        what is the truth , something someone tells you and sounds juicy and may hurt some people, or an employee who believes he or she didnt get theres. The truth is relative, most stories may have merit but get lost in opinions and
        agenda. what keeps this site from being legit is all the personal issues from the editor on!

      6. think- you have a distorted def of truth!
        You are another person that dances around the question.List ONE article on this site that was deemed to be found untrue.YOU CANT. And its funny that the same people that call this site trash are THE SAME people that come here day after day. You and Inman being some of those people. And dont tell me for one minute that you are NOT guilty of having read something on this site and not repeated or talked about it with another person.
        I am sorry that your definition of truth is “something someone tells you and it sounds juicy”. Im glad you dont have a site to write about your “truths”.
        It may not be Bobs opinion of why what happened at WVOX happened, but it IS of my opinion that he was definitely singled out and there definitely was a hidden agenda. It may be true, or perhaps not that every host was asked to sign that agreement. I dont know, I was not there. However, to me, that was to cover their asses. WVOX was taking too much heat from too many people for providing yet another venue for Bob to be heard. furthermore, it is of MY OPINION that the straw that broke the camels back was the back and forth with Caldararo.
        Part of me wishes that Bob would have signed that agreement just to see where they were going with this. TO TRULY see if their other hosts were going to be held to the same kinds of restraints. I would have made it my business to put their agreement to the test.
        It is true that Bob should consider toning down his style of writing when reporting a story. Personal feelings should not come into play. Maybe after reading some of his readers posts he may feel differently, or perhaps agree.
        The point still remains. We never have been as informed as we are now. People just dont like when you turn over their rock, and they have to climb out from under it, or possibly have to find another one to crawl under.

      7. Well Said Deep-Think Marrone Will be Held Accountable
        Think does have a rather strange view of what the truth is. Someone else said in one of these posts that “you get your news from Lohud and do your research”. So, we have one guy thinking gossip is truth, and another one getting his news from Lohud, and they criticize this site for it’s reporting? Now that’s funny. How about when Bob Marrone goes on his rant about the bumbling incompetence of the Mamaroneck Police Department regarding the murder case, or when he decides to lambaste Harrison politics, police as he hurls insult after insult, or how about the debasing of organized religion, Catholics and according to his patch editorial, heaven forbid your kid goes to an Islamic School, never mind Sarah Palin, republicans in general or any host of people who tick him off during the day. Bob Marrone was once blamned and censured by Marianne Sussman for having the audacity to allow people to call in and dare to disagree and express their anger with the mayors position, as if it was a bad thing, and he defended the right of people to do just that citing the WVOX mantra of “Vox Populi” (voice of the people). Now, suddenly, you can’t make any criticism. To Mssrs. Think and Inman, that’s pure B.S.if you think it has to do with the FCC. There’s plenty of worse stuff out there both conservative and liberal driven. Time will tell which Bob this action is targeted at (Marrone, Cox or both), but until then, if you want news from and about New Rochelle you would have to be an imbecile to ignore this site. Certainly you could have multiple souces (for research of course) however you will be hard pressed to find the true kind of news, whether you like it or not, anywhere else. The very purpose of a news service it to ask questions, go beyond the face value of a statement to find out if it’s the truth or not. For a myriad of reasons, the bigger news outlets just cannot pay that close attention to the hyperlocal issues. That sir IS the truth, sounds pretty juicy, don’t it?
        Remember, truth isn’t found in the answers, it’s found in the questions. We look forward to you folks following Talk of the Sound in the future, thanks for your support!

      8. Touchy Group of Defense Lawyers for TOTS!!
        Can’t any of you see the difference here? Mr. Cox pays for this website, no one can tell him who to write about, how, or what terms he may use in his pursuit of a story. He’s payed for the hall, and can make any assertions about anything he wants while he’s here. No one is challenging that.

        WVOX also has it’s own advertisers, and relationships in this community, along with an owner known throughout the broadcast industry who’s managed to keep a local radio station on the air 47 years longer than Mr. Cox has kept this blog afloat.

        He has a right to set any tone he wants for his product and employ whomever he cares to sit in front of his microphone.

        Don’t like it? Get your own radio station.

      9. Inman-You’re right again
        The point is NOT about this site.
        You are right, and hit the nail on the head, when you say WVOX has its own relationships in the community, along with an owner who is “known”. That is and should be respected, and that is the EXACT POINT. How dare Mr O. be part of this? How dare this radio station allow any upset to those who have been so neatly secured and tucked in to their jobs for decades? How can he explain this to those who have supported him? it seems the more you talk, the less you say and the more ground you lose.
        It is STILL my opinion that Bob was singled out and the situation was made to look like this is a new policy being put in place for the good of the station and community. BULLCRAP. It was censorship at its best! Someone got to Mr.O to ask that bob be shutdown.
        I wish, I mean I REALLY wish, bob would have signed that agreement and continued on with business as usual. Would have been very interesting to see how it would have played out.
        And Im still waiting to hear your answer on the question i asked you in my last post. Can you point to ANY story on this site that was incorrect? Ill take that one step further and ask what is it about the radio segment that was so bad, or was putting the stations licence on the line. Of course you know my opinion is nothing at all. Just a way to shut down a venue that was turning into Bobs (and the New Ro community) favor.
        Ive listened to some pretty hefty commentators and callins over the years on wvox. This was definitely an “on purpose’

      10. It’s not personal-

        Really. C’mon. Are you just feigning ignorance, or are you really this thick?

        I could care less if this web site won the Alfred I. du Pont award for journalism. It’s not about what is offered here. It’s about what a completely different media venue does or doesn’t want presented in IT’S name, over IT’S airwaves. Get it?

        It’s not what’s truthful here. Or what has merit here, on TOTS. When Mr. Cox buys WVOX, and solicits advertising dollars to pay for the operation of his new radio station, it will then be up to him to decide what kind of programming will best suit the advertisers, their products, and the public at large.

        Obviously they’ve decided they’d rather do their own investigative reporting.

        -It’s just business.

      11. ignorance Inman?
        Please dont take offense to me correcting you on the opening sentence of your first paragraph which reads “I could care less if this web site won the Alfred I. du Pont award for journalism.” I think you meant to say I COULDN”T CARE LESS.

        Now please go back and reread my last post to you.

        I completely agreed with you that VOX had every right to do what they did.ITS THE MANNER OF WHICH THEY DID IT IN.You say “It’s not what’s truthful here. Or what has merit here, on TOTS. When Mr. Cox buys WVOX, and solicits advertising dollars to pay for the operation of his new radio station, it will then be up to him to decide what kind of programming will best suit the advertisers, their products, and the public at large.” Again, the more you write, the more you prove that it was exactly the intentions of VOX to not allow Bob to broadcast any longer.Enough with the smokescreen. PERIOD.

        I’ve really spent too much of my time going back and forth with you on this.

      12. Keep it straight
        We agree that WVOX can set whatever policy they like and I have to accept it or leave. I left.

        You continue to assert that the directive was aimed specifically at me and my show without any basis. The station says the directive had nothing to do with me and I take them at their aware so unless you have some information that I do not have you are still talking out of your rear end.

      13. I can quote Shakespeare too!
        “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon ’em”

      14. Paperback dictionaries are just a few bucks
        Since we both live in the U.S., I believe it’s spelled, “license” not licence.

      15. I agree with Inman
        “[Mr. O] has a right to set any tone he wants for his product and employ whomever he cares to sit in front of his microphone.”

        I agree with that 100%, as I have made clear over and over again. I have no right to have a radio show on WVOX and the station can set whatever policy they want and they have no obligation to explain it to me or justify it to me. Likewise, I have no obligation to sign any agreement or accept any policy that I do not understand or with which I do not agree.

        It’s a free country. If you own a radio station like WVOX you get to set the policy. If you host a radio show on WVOX you get to decide whether to accept a station policy. You don’t get to do both — not follow the policy and get the privilege of having a radio show on WVOX.

      16. The FCC has nothing to do with it.
        As mentioned previously, I was told that the station directive was not targeted at me and I have no reason to believe otherwise. All of the other show hosts were required to sign it. If it was not directed at me and there was never any concern raised about the FCC or legal issues related to my show there is no basis for you to repeatedly assert that the reason the directive was created had anything to do with me or my show. The limits of your understanding are clear. The reason for a lawyer to get involved with an investigative report would have to do with defamation and violation of privacy. That would have nothing at all to do with the FCC.

        The reason I am not on the air is that I would not sign the agreement on Friday — not because of the FCC or because of anyone’s desire to “build up” the community or any threat of a lawsuit or anything specifically that occurred on my show. I am not willing to sign a document I do not understand. When I asked for clarification I got none. As to the idea that I should sign the agreement and then ignore the terms, that is not something I would do and strikes me as disrespectful to the station, the other hosts, guests, engineers, callers and listeners.

        I am not going to prevent you here from fantasizing about all sorts of theories and ascribing all sorts of caused to Talk of the Sound not airing on WVOX no matter how outlandish and unsupported your comments might be. I am just going to point out that you are talking out of your rear end.

      17. why is every story that you
        why is every story that you write about start with First to report or the story was first aired here. You seem to want the big pat on the back always. You get great info but you wander so far with personal agenda.

      18. routine
        It is hardly the case that “every story” I write about starts with “First to report”.

        It is routine for a media outlet that broke a story to point that out in subsequent stories so that folks hearing about it for the first time know the original source. It is not a matter of “personal agenda” to make readers aware when Talk of the Sound breaks news just like every other media outlet that breaks news.

    2. Happy to be one of Bobs 12 Listeners
      As a tax payer in New Rochelle to the tune of 18k I believe I have a bit of Skin in the Game.. A Stake Holder as the City Likes to refer.
      I like to know where my money is going. I prefer to hear about impropper use of dollars. I like to learn about no show employee’s, employee’s who steal for decades, appointee’s who fill out Star Documents claiming Veteran Status or primary residency. I would like to know about the Character of the Police and public servants. Maybe Bob only has it 99 and 44/100th correct but thats good enough for me. In the end New Rochelle is a good old boys network and there are many cronies getting a pass. If that means that a few guys get called out for their shortcoming to take down some dreggs well thats the cost of being a Public Servant.
      Strome wants to hide it all and pretend. Fertel wants to hide it all and pretend all is well. Bramsons record speaks for it self. Bob Cox your welcome to speak about any waste of governmental funds as far as I am concered because we have no other place to have it all brought to light. The Journal News is a Softball for New Rochelle they report fluff. I say Bob drag them all through the mud and if a few get dirty who aren’t they can cleanse themselves by doing the right thing. The City of New Rochelle needs a major clean up Strome’s rug is very lumpy.

    3. Inman, are you a new comer….
      Inman, are you a new comer to New Rochelle or WVOX? Mr. O had many talk show hosts who make Bob Cox look like Mother Theresa. Some have been suspended but never asked to sign a policy pledge. There was a time when Mr. O sent a directive banning seven words which bothered him and he couldn’t enforce that policy. The real story here is Mr. O’s complete about-face when it comes to free speech. After suspending a talk show host for comments Mr. O stated that the comments were inappropriate while defending the talk show host’s right to say it. It’s the old I may not agree with what you say but I will defend your right to say it BS. Mr. O stated that he would “NEVER PUT A CONDOM ON THE MIKE” in my opinion there is no need to worry about a condom because the new policy pledge castrates everyone!

      1. Castration?
        How is “not tolerating any verbal attacks” putting a condom on the mic?

        If Mr. Cox was really all that courageous he would’ve signed it, said whatever the hell he wanted to say on the air, and made the Station manager toss him out the door. Then you guys would’ve really had yourselves a crusader and an actual First Amendment issue.

        Now, all you’ve got is a loud banner carrier complaining about what he wouldn’t NOT be told what he couldn’t talk about, had anyone given him more of a chance to say what he might have said.

        How bold.

        P.S. I stood in front of Jacob and watched NRHS burn the first time, know all about Mr. Kam, Frank, Woody,and have listened to your ax-grinding more than once.

      2. Inman-Castration would be a nice solution
        No verbal attacks? Define that.You mean no verbal attacks will be tolerated on anyone that backs Mr. O, his affliates or the democratic party. Anyone outside of that is fair game.
        Its funny how you take the lacking of balls that VOX has shown by hiding behind this “agreement” instead of just asking cox to leave and you try to turn it around on cox. Nice try though.
        You want to talk about the First Amendment???

        The First Amendment reads:

        Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

        The first thing to notice here is that, contrary to popular opinion, this amendment does not give people rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, or freedom of assembly, or the right to petition the government for redress of grievances. In fact, the Constitution does not give people any rights whatsoever.

        Instead, it operates as a restriction on the interference with rights — rights that preexist both the government and the Constitution. In other words, the reason that the Constitution called the federal government into existence was to protect the exercise of pre-existing, fundamental rights. The purpose of the Bill of Rights was to ensure that the government didn’t use such power (the power to protect rights) to infringe or even destroy such rights.

        Thus, the First Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) operates on the implicit acknowledgment that democracy is no guarantee of freedom and, in fact, is a tremendous threat to freedom. That’s why our ancestors, unlike so many Americans today, talked in terms of establishing a republic in America rather than a democracy.

        Let’s examine the freedom-of-speech clause of the First Amendment. Contrary to what many people think, the free-speech guarantee operates only as a barrier to censorship by government officials, not on the right of private entities to refrain from publishing material they don’t like.

        Thus, freedom of speech is ultimately grounded in private-property rights. The owner of a newspaper has the right to publish or not publish materials because the newspaper belongs to him. As the owner of the newspaper, he has the right to refuse anyone’s request to communicate through his newspaper. No one has a duty to furnish someone else the means by which he is able to communicate his views. If one person can’t persuade another to publish his views, he is free to open his own newspaper.

        What about radio and television stations? Doesn’t the government regulate their speech? Doesn’t it impose hefty fines, for example, on radio stations that permit radio host Howard Stern to say vile and despicable things? Isn’t that censorship?
        Absolutely, and the reason that the government has been able to get away with it is that broadcasting by radio and television stations, by virtue of government licensing, has long been considered a privilege rather than a right. The real value of ownership that radio and television stations enjoy is not in their stations but rather in their government-granted license to broadcast, a license that can be revoked or not renewed by the authorities. It is that license — and the government’s power to determine whether it should be revoked or renewed — that has long been used as the basis for the government’s regulation of the content that is broadcast over the airways.

        Compare, for instance, a private newspaper and a private radio station. Under principles of private ownership (and free speech), a newspaper has the right to publish the vilest and most despicable thoughts of Howard Stern. It also has the right to refuse to publish them. Consumers, on the other hand, have the right to buy the newspaper or refuse to buy the newspaper for whatever reason they want — either because the newspaper is publishing Stern’s thoughts or because it is refusing to do so. Government plays no role in the process.

        A radio station, on the other hand, while having to deal with the same market forces in terms of private consumers, must also deal with the heavy hand of government — the heavy hand that can put the station out of business through punitive fines or revocation or a nonrenewal of its broadcasting license.

        Unlike the case with newspapers, the issue of what is broadcast and not broadcast becomes politicized. The matter becomes a free-speech battleground in which one side attempts to impose its views on the other side by government force. Moreover, given the life-or-death power that the government has over its licensee, there is an inevitable tendency among radio and television owners to kowtow to and please government regulators.

        Therefore, the ultimate solution to censorship of radio and television stations is not to prohibit government from censoring their conduct through fines and revocations or nonrenewals of broadcast licenses. The solution is to vest a full, irrevocable, and transferable property right in their broadcast frequencies, removing the power of government to regulate radio and television stations entirely, enabling radio and television stations to treat their ownership rights in the same way that newspaper owners treat their ownership rights. In that way, radio and television stations would be free to conduct their business in the same way that newspapers do — and consumers would be free to decide what to listen to or watch, just as they are free to decide which newspapers to read.

        The most important principle involved in free speech is this: The true test of a free society in terms of freedom of speech is not whether popular and “responsible” speech is protected from government assault but instead whether the most vile and despicable speech receives such protection. After all, even in North Korea people are free to publish popular and “responsible” materials. People have freedom of speech only when government is prohibited from suppressing the most unpopular and irresponsible forms of speech.

      3. Ax-Grinder…. LMAO
        Come on Inman, ax-grinder… LMAO you may be original but I expected more from you. The same sad old tactic of attacking the author as opposed to dealing with the issue. Rather than exchange here I will submit an blog post for you to continue your attack soon so make sure you’re ready. Get plenty of sleep, eat right and exercise, I want your best.

      4. Familiar Screenplay
        Not an attack at all, Tony.

        You guys (odd, there’s no female voice anywhere in the Bob Cox Defense League Office?) act like you’re the cast from “All the President’s Men”.

        Bob leaves a red flag on his balcony about another evil deed discovered in the paper trail to the Mayors office, and the rest of your team assembles in the digital parking garage here, trying to puzzle a way to link it all together and bring the City of New Rochelle to a sweaty mornings flight off the helicopter pad on the South Lawn.

        “Careful Noam, don’t bump your head waving goodbye”

        I find it kind of amazing that this entire production has it’s roots in the same old, same old.

        Were back again to that ol’ predictable human condition.

        Bob’s kid got a rough shake from somebody in the High School. Something about a test, or a grade, or unsharpened pencils, gum under the seat, or something like that, and Holy Mother of The Blackboards, were off to the races.

        A mission is sketched, a vendetta launched.

        Someone will pay.

        “Launch The Blog.”

      5. Maybe you should start posting on Patch?
        Still you refut nothing and babble the same lines over & over. How about some substance?

        Maybe you should start posting on Patch, they may be a little more suited to your views that corruption, mismanagement of taxpayer money and high property taxes are OK in New Rochelle. You know the “just deal with it” crowd.

      6. Inman-screenplay
        Im normally not at a loss for words and hardly ever lose my ability to debate ANYTHING..the only reply I keep coming up with for this post is IDIOT!!! So, im just going to leave it at that.

      7. Predictable baseless response
        Once again you trivialize and show your ignorance. It was much more than bubble gum under the seat and that’s what you Bramson lackeys do. God forbid any of you stooges admits to making a mistake. But please continue as the entertainment value is great we all need a daily laugh.

  4. Good thing you didn’t sign it
    That steps on your first amendment rights. Good thing you didn’t sign it.

    What’s next WVOX a talk show where you cant talk?

Comments are closed.