Sure they do. Once revoked they can keep broadcasting. They get fined… they take that to court. If the court doesn’t uphold the fine, they don’t have to pay it.
Even when you’re totally innocent it costs money to fight a claim or indictment. I have a strong suspicion there will be a record level of government spending on lawsuits in the next 4 years.
Sure… but what else is a network without a license to broadcast going to do with all it’s money. Though really, all they have to do is keep broadcasting. The feds will probably have to sue them.
Sure they do… The courts can take away their enforcement powers
Say the FCC revokes your license and the courts rule they couldn’t. They can fine you all day, but if they don’t have the right, you can ignore it or get it thrown out in a lower court. If they come in and break your equipment, you can sue them. We have a right to a redress of grievances
Even if the court says they can’t revoke, the court has no power to stop them.
Sure they do. Once revoked they can keep broadcasting. They get fined… they take that to court. If the court doesn’t uphold the fine, they don’t have to pay it.
Even when you’re totally innocent it costs money to fight a claim or indictment. I have a strong suspicion there will be a record level of government spending on lawsuits in the next 4 years.
Sure… but what else is a network without a license to broadcast going to do with all it’s money. Though really, all they have to do is keep broadcasting. The feds will probably have to sue them.
Sure they do… The courts can take away their enforcement powers
Say the FCC revokes your license and the courts rule they couldn’t. They can fine you all day, but if they don’t have the right, you can ignore it or get it thrown out in a lower court. If they come in and break your equipment, you can sue them. We have a right to a redress of grievances
The problem is, the courts are in a bad state