FPAC First Amendment Run Around Policies

Every tax is a pay cut. Every tax cut is a pay raise.

Just because you're not interested in politics doesn't mean politics isn't interested in you.

The Invisible Complaints

FPAC members are not allowed to see the complaints on any given shows. Complaints are only seen by the person generating the complaint, the person receiving tthe complaint, and the FPAC Board of Directors.
But what happens when the FPAC Board of Directors itself becomes the source of complaints. How's that for dictatorial control. This is a conflict of interest in itself.
FPAC allows viewers to file complaints and such complaints can even be filed anonymously. Such anonymous complaints would appear to be originating from the FPAC Board of Directors. There is no indication that the complaint is anonymous in nature.
The FPAC Board of Directors also does not allow anyone but themselves to view all the complaints filed against all shows. This clearly allows them to generate their own complaints against any show they do not like and there is no peer review other than themselves. It is a dictatorial committee, plain and simple. See this request I made to FPAC and FPAC's response .
It seems that anonymous complaints is merely a trap mechanism. Complaints should never be anonymous. Imagine if you will, extending anonymous complaints at all levels of government. The members of the FPAC Board of Directors should not be able to file complaints. This constitutes a conflict of interest. While they may recluse themselves, on any given complaint, we all know that every board tends to clone its members and tight relationships exist.
A open review of all complaints would allow you to see whether any shows are being targetted by the FPAC Board of Directors.

Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010
Section 1 Member and User Policies
Section 1.4 Facilities Rules
Section 1.4.5
Abuse, threats and disruptive behavior will not be tolerated in the access facility at any time, nor will it be tolerated outside of the facility by anyone using FPAC equipment or attending FPAC events. This shall include, but not be limited to, verbal or non-verbal abuse used to belittle or embarrass another person, abusive shouting, threatening, harassing, swearing, constant teasing or obscene gesturing.
Having written this paragraph in their manual, the FPAC Board of Directors now believes that they are immune from criticism in any cablecast/webcast shows.
Any criticism of the FPAC Board of Directors nows generates a major complaint against it's producer.

Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010
Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling
Section 2.1 Prohibited Content
Section 2.1.3
Any material which is intended to defraud the viewer or is designed to obtain money by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises.
As an atheist, I see religion as nothing but fraud promising you a glorious life in heaven but only after you die. While you live, they continuously ask you for more money. Selling invisible products is a lucrative market and quite a racket. Care to buy indulgences to minimize your stay in purgatory?
Has anyone ever seen God the creator of the Heavens and Earth (even as burning shrubbery) or someone who has transitioned past death into life everlasting in heaven or hell in the past 50,000 years? If so, please contact me.
I had previously written to FPAC and asked simply if religion constituted fraud and received no meaningful response. On June 14, 2010, I attended a meeting and asked them face to face. Nothing but deafening silence.
This reinforced my belief that the stupidity of a committee is inversely proportional to the number of its members. The FPAC Board of Directors has way too many members.
The politics of religion behind FPAC is driven mostly by Gwendolyn Holbrow, Joel Winett and John Kahn. They can no more detect obvious fraud than the SEC can detect large scale Ponzi schemes.

Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010
Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling
Section 2.1 Prohibited Content
Section 2.1.4
Programming that does not have the necessary licenses, consents, releases or other required authorizations for its use as presented to FPAC. The foregoing applies to but is not limited, to programming that, according to a reasonable determination by FPAC, does not have required licenses, consents, releases or authorizations from copyright holders and owners of other intellectual property rights; parents or guardians of children; persons from whom image, performance, location or other consents, releases or authorizations are required; consents as needed to prevent unlawful invasion of the privacy of members and other persons; or consents as needed to otherwise prevent the unlawful or wrongful misappropriation of the image, likeness or other legally protected interest of any person.
A reasonable determination by FPAC is an open-ended, purely subjective judgement call.
Who is FPAC here? The Executive Director or the Board of Directors?
Judgement calls that apply to FPAC members that the FPAC Board of Directors do no like, do not apply to the members of the FPAC Board of Directors. It's a safe bet to say that not a single video shown produced by Norma Shulman has ever had a complaint.
See my request for clarification from FPAC and FPAC's response .

Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010
Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling
Section 2.1 Prohibited Content
Section 2.1.7
Solicitation of funds, with the exception that nonprofit member organizations may produce one fundraising program, approved in advance by the Executive Director, per calendar year.
I wonder if that includes churches soliciting for funds from theit audience in their endless stream of shows on FPAC?

Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010
Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling
Section 2.2 Indecent, Profane or Patently Abusive Content
When content is not prohibited by law, but is found by FPAC to be indecent, profane, or otherwise patently offensive to community standards, and not appropriate for cablecasting during times of day when children are mostly likely to be viewing, FPAC will respond by presenting such programming on an appropriate schedule. FPAC reserves the right to implement lawful access center Safe Harbor scheduling and related practices including, but not limited to, requirements for advisory warning disclosures as set forth in Section 2.7 below, in order to reduce the risk of exposure of children to indecent, profane, or patently offensive and vulgar programming.
.... enumerated examples.....
In addition to the above enumerated examples, the Executive Director may classify program content as indecent, profane, or patently offensive and inappropriate for children using criteria not listed above but which are, reasonably and lawfully within the scope of those examples.
The first sentence states... When content is not prohibited by law, but is found by FPAC... , who is FPAC here?
See my request for clarification from FPAC and FPAC's response .

Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010
Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling
Section 2.3 Safe Harbor Scheduling
Programming that contains, in the reasonable judgment of the FPAC Executive Director, indecent, profane, vulgar, or other Patently Offensive Content is permitted on the public access channel only during Safe Harbor hours, from 11 pm to 5 am, subject to the procedures set forth below.
The reasonable judgement of FPAC Executive Director is an open-ended, purely subjective judgement call.

The Invisible Complaints
FPAC members are not allowed to see the complaints on any given shows. Complaints are only seen by the person generating the complaint, the person receiving tthe complaint, and the FPAC Board of Directors. But what happens when the FPAC Board of Directors itself becomes the source of complaints. How's that for dictatorial control. This is a conflict of interest in itself. FPAC allows viewers to file complaints and such complaints can even be filed anonymously. Such anonymous complaints would appear to be originating from the FPAC Board of Directors. There is no indication that the complaint is anonymous in nature. The FPAC Board of Directors also does not allow anyone but themselves to view all the complaints filed against all shows. This clearly allows them to generate their own complaints against any show they do not like and there is no peer review other than themselves. It is a dictatorial committee, plain and simple. See this request I made to FPAC and FPAC's response . It seems that anonymous complaints is merely a trap mechanism. Complaints should never be anonymous. Imagine if you will, extending anonymous complaints at all levels of government. The members of the FPAC Board of Directors should not be able to file complaints. This constitutes a conflict of interest. While they may recluse themselves, on any given complaint, we all know that every board tends to clone its members and tight relationships exist. A open review of all complaints would allow you to see whether any shows are being targetted by the FPAC Board of Directors.
Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010 Section 1 Member and User Policies Section 1.4 Facilities Rules Section 1.4.5 Abuse, threats and disruptive behavior will not be tolerated in the access facility at any time, nor will it be tolerated outside of the facility by anyone using FPAC equipment or attending FPAC events. This shall include, but not be limited to, verbal or non-verbal abuse used to belittle or embarrass another person, abusive shouting, threatening, harassing, swearing, constant teasing or obscene gesturing. Having written this paragraph in their manual, the FPAC Board of Directors now believes that they are immune from criticism in any cablecast/webcast shows. Any criticism of the FPAC Board of Directors nows generates a major complaint against it's producer.
Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010 Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling Section 2.1 Prohibited Content Section 2.1.3 Any material which is intended to defraud the viewer or is designed to obtain money by false or fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises. As an atheist, I see religion as nothing but fraud promising you a glorious life in heaven but only after you die. While you live, they continuously ask you for more money. Selling invisible products is a lucrative market and quite a racket. Care to buy indulgences to minimize your stay in purgatory? Has anyone ever seen God the creator of the Heavens and Earth (even as burning shrubbery) or someone who has transitioned past death into life everlasting in heaven or hell in the past 50,000 years? If so, please contact me. I had previously written to FPAC and asked simply if religion constituted fraud and received no meaningful response. On June 14, 2010, I attended a meeting and asked them face to face. Nothing but deafening silence. This reinforced my belief that the stupidity of a committee is inversely proportional to the number of its members. The FPAC Board of Directors has way too many members. The politics of religion behind FPAC is driven mostly by Gwendolyn Holbrow, Joel Winett and John Kahn. They can no more detect obvious fraud than the SEC can detect large scale Ponzi schemes.
Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010 Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling Section 2.1 Prohibited Content Section 2.1.4 Programming that does not have the necessary licenses, consents, releases or other required authorizations for its use as presented to FPAC. The foregoing applies to but is not limited, to programming that, according to a reasonable determination by FPAC, does not have required licenses, consents, releases or authorizations from copyright holders and owners of other intellectual property rights; parents or guardians of children; persons from whom image, performance, location or other consents, releases or authorizations are required; consents as needed to prevent unlawful invasion of the privacy of members and other persons; or consents as needed to otherwise prevent the unlawful or wrongful misappropriation of the image, likeness or other legally protected interest of any person. A reasonable determination by FPAC is an open-ended, purely subjective judgement call. Who is FPAC here? The Executive Director or the Board of Directors? Judgement calls that apply to FPAC members that the FPAC Board of Directors do no like, do not apply to the members of the FPAC Board of Directors. It's a safe bet to say that not a single video shown produced by Norma Shulman has ever had a complaint. See my request for clarification from FPAC and FPAC's response .
Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010 Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling Section 2.1 Prohibited Content Section 2.1.7 Solicitation of funds, with the exception that nonprofit member organizations may produce one fundraising program, approved in advance by the Executive Director, per calendar year. I wonder if that includes churches soliciting for funds from theit audience in their endless stream of shows on FPAC?
Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010 Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling Section 2.2 Indecent, Profane or Patently Abusive Content When content is not prohibited by law, but is found by FPAC to be indecent, profane, or otherwise patently offensive to community standards, and not appropriate for cablecasting during times of day when children are mostly likely to be viewing, FPAC will respond by presenting such programming on an appropriate schedule. FPAC reserves the right to implement lawful access center Safe Harbor scheduling and related practices including, but not limited to, requirements for advisory warning disclosures as set forth in Section 2.7 below, in order to reduce the risk of exposure of children to indecent, profane, or patently offensive and vulgar programming. .... enumerated examples..... In addition to the above enumerated examples, the Executive Director may classify program content as indecent, profane, or patently offensive and inappropriate for children using criteria not listed above but which are, reasonably and lawfully within the scope of those examples. The first sentence states... When content is not prohibited by law, but is found by FPAC... , who is FPAC here? See my request for clarification from FPAC and FPAC's response .
Member Policies and Procedures, March 10, 2010 Section 2 Program Content and Scheduling Section 2.3 Safe Harbor Scheduling Programming that contains, in the reasonable judgment of the FPAC Executive Director, indecent, profane, vulgar, or other Patently Offensive Content is permitted on the public access channel only during Safe Harbor hours, from 11 pm to 5 am, subject to the procedures set forth below. The reasonable judgement of FPAC Executive Director is an open-ended, purely subjective judgement call.

Send comments to: hjw2001@gmail.com

	Every tax is a pay cut. Every tax cut is a pay raise.
Just because you're not interested in politics doesn't mean politics isn't interested in you.