From: jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu (Jay Maynard)
Newsgroups: rec.radio.amateur.policy
Subject: Re: Closed repeaters (FCC wants them open)
Keywords: FCC; closed repeaters; rule change
Date: 22 Jan 1993 23:23:31 GMT
Organization: UT Health Science Center Houston

In article <1993Jan22.210202.23769@porthos.cc.bellcore.com> whs70@dancer.cc.bellcore.com (sohl,william h) writes:
>Let's be serious here for a minute, slander (or liabel) is a very
>specific area of law and assigning or not assigning frequency
>coordination to someone is totally unrelated to slander.

That depends on the case...see below.

>Also, others
>have statedsimilar arguments, but as long as the issue or lawsuit involves
>the application of FCC rules, it does not and should not even be heard in
>a state or local court.  The only way I can see a local court being
>the starting point would be if the suit is filed with NO claim of a
>violation of federal laws,

You're assuming that everyone does things by the book; even if the suit is
started in a federal court, there's still the requirement to defend against
it.

>but slander....come on now.  I know there
>are all kinds of jerks out there, but I'd really like to hear a GOOD
>example of how a frequency coordination conflict gets turned into
>a slander case.

Here's how it happened to the Texas VHF-FM Society, immediately before and
during my term as its president (this is long; please bear with me):

An amateur who could not obtain a frequency coordination on his own due to
frequency congestion in the area where he wished to place his repeater made an
arrangement with an individual who had been issued a coordination. The
coordinated trustee agreed to allow the other's radio club to use his pair,
and allowed the club to use his callsign on the repeater. For reasons unknown
and irrelevant, the two had a falling out, and the coordinated trustee placed
his own original repeater back on the air. The club shut their repeater down
for a while and demanded that we recoordinate the pair to the club; we
refused, as our documented procedures did not allow for that, since the
original trustee had not listed the pair as being a club coordination. The
club placed their repeater back on the air, under a callsign different from
the amateur who originally made the arrangement. The coordinated trustee
complained to the FCC about interference. The FCC went to our local
coordinator, who happened to be Jim Reese, WD5IYT (he's the guy you replied
to). Jim told the FCC who was coordinated. The FCC called the involved parties
into their office, and explained the rules to them, instructing the
uncoordinated trustee (from the club) in writing to resolve the interference
or remove his repeater from the air. After a period of time, they did. 

To our knowledge, this was the first time the FCC had used the then-new
coordination rules in a real case. Joe Jarrett, K5FOG, who was the president
of the Society at the time, told the story in his column in the Society
newsletter, saying that the FCC had asked us who was coordinated, we answered,
and the pink slip went to the other party.

The original club member saw that and saw fit to sue the Society for libel
(not slander). After a long, dreary time, during which the plaintiff offered
at least once to drop the suit if we'd coordinate him on that channel, we
reached a settlement whereby the the suit was dropped with prejudice in return
for the Society's printing the letters the FCC issued in the newsletter with
all names except that of the plaintiff blacked out.

You might say that that was unrelated. I don't agree, both because the suit
probably would never have been filed had the Society coordinated the plaintiff
as he demanded, and because of his offer of settlement if we'd coordinate him.

>Again, what seems to be said here is that even if there's a change in
>the FCC regulations, the coordinators had best not implement the new
>rules because of this implied threat of a lawsuit, yet no such great
>case has been brought to the table.  The one example involved the
>holding in reserve of some frequencies and that simply resulted in
>an out of court agreement to assignthem.  Interesting that there
>seems to be no knowledge of massive damage claims, slander charges, etc.

There's nothing stopping a plaintiff from demanding such, and even the expense
of defending such a lawsuit in the proper fashion is enough to bankrupt most
small organizations.

>As to the Texas VHF society, their being tied up for two years in
>litigation seems to have had nothing to do with what they did, but what
>someone wrote in the club newsletter...again, a bit removed from the
>actual issue of frequency assignment/coordination.

Hardly. The issue arose directly out of a coordination decision, and I'm
certain that, had not the article in question been printed, that some other
route would have been found to bring the issue to court.

>If I were the Texas
>VHF, etc., I'd have just folded the tent and started a new club, assuming
>the club was incorporated to at least protect its officers from individual
>suits.

It is, although that would have been somewhat more complicated than it sounds,
as there were assets worth protecting, and the transfer of which to a new
organization would have been nontrivial.
-- 
Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can
jmaynard@oac.hsc.uth.tmc.edu      | adequately be explained by stupidity.
    "I don't want to read poor Microsoft bashing. I want to read good
Microsoft bashing." -- Douglas A. Bell, in comp.os.os2.advocacy (Me too!)