Court hearing, 9:30 AM - Thursday, April 13, 2000
US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, 7th and Mission, San Francisco

On Thursday, April 13 attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley will appear before the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals to argue for the reversal of Federal District Judge Claudia Wilken's ruling granting the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) an injunction against Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley. Granted on June 18, 1998, after a protracted and internationally recognized 4 year court battle over Free Speech and 1st Amendment Issues, this injunction resulted in the silencing of Free Radio Berkeley and the prohibition of Stephen Dunifer from engaging in any unlicensed broadcast activities. International recognition of this case was achieved when Federal Judge Claudia Wilken refused to grant the FCC a preliminary injunction to shut down Free Radio Berkeley on January, 20, 1995. It marked the first time a Federal Court had refused to grant the FCC an injunction to shut down an unlicensed radio station. For the next 3 years a protracted court engagement occurred with a defensive FCC attempting to dodge the bullet of Constitutional scrutiny. Finally, on a very narrow technical ruling, Federal Judge Claudia Wilken did an abrupt about face from her earlier position and granted the FCC the injunction it had sought on the grounds that the defendant, Stephen Dunifer, did not have standing to challenge the Constitutionality of the FCC's regulatory policies. Shortly after filling a motion for altering the ruling and having it denied by Judge Claudia Wilken, attorneys for Stephen Dunifer and Free Radio Berkeley filed an appeal of the injunction ruling with the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Now, after 1 1/2 years from the filing date this case will be heard before a three judge panel of the court of Appeals.

Speaking on this matter, Stephen Dunifer stated: "Our legal defense team has noted the extreme irony in the FCC adopting a new low power FM broadcast service using language directly from our briefs. And, at the same time, taking an opposite position within the legal framework of this case. Going even further, the FCC maintains that I do not have standing to Constitutionally challenge their regulatory and statutory framework. As someone who is recognized as having a primary role in the flourishing of the micropower broadcasting movement, if I do not have standing, then who does? Our appeal process is taking place against a backdrop of raw corporate muscle, money, and political influence being exercised by the National Association of Broadcasters to ensure that only the very rich and powerful mega-media corporations have access to the airwaves, a public resource. If legislation sponsored on behalf of the NAB becomes law then what little crumbs the FCC has given to community broadcasting in the form of the new LPFM service will be swept from the table. Two years ago the National Association of Broadcasters stated that I had grown from a minor annoyance to become an ominous threat. I will continue to do everything possible to live up to that prestigious accolade. To the NAB I say, despite your ability to buy off Congress in order to continue the monopolization of the broadcast spectrum and deny everyone else the right of Free Speech, your days are numbered. Up against the wall, Seattle is coming to the airwaves!"

###