TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- US president orders military to begin jailing all civilian protestors to war
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Does the US still maintain some sort of 'Well regulated militia' independantly organised defence forces in a sense or has that been more or less rolled in with the local reservist type forces? (National Guard I think theyre called) It's been quite awhile since I spoke to any of the US gun-nuts. On principle of personal security I've owned firearms all my life except when I lived in England for awhile and was little, even then there where shotguns and stuff about the farm. Still do own a couple, if I was in the US I'd probably be consider being self-armed a practical part of life.

The only "militias" are small bands of possibly a few hundred people who like to get together and wear camoflage and shoot guns. They are rarely (if ever) organized in such a way as to have any real command or tactical unit structure.

In fact, most of the ones that are well known have a deep white-supremacist undertone and are more concerned with protecting the 'purity' of a small subset of society.

Timothy McVeigh was associated with one known as "the Michigan Militia".


As far as what the National Guard does, they are run by and funded primarily by the individual states though they can (and increasingly of late are) called up to serve as active duty 'regular' military forces overseas by the pentagon. Their chartered goal is to provide civil defense and disaster assistance in each state. Oddly enough (and one of the reason why a large amount of guard troops are in Iraq) due to the privitization of large parts of what used to be jobs handled by uniformed military personnel put into high gear by the Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz/Pearle leadership, the national guard is the only place where large numbers of personnel have training in policing. There are just a handful of MP units left in the 4 branches.


MrS

quote:

Originally posted by MrSquirrel star-traveller apparently follows the word of the almighty Putin above all else, where Democracy is a loosely defined concept (at best).

loosely defined concept? well at least it's better defined than in the US.

Putin is a very democratic leader, I agree. His problem is that he is a pussy when it comes to rooting out corruption, mafia, crime and illegal immigration. But when he tries to crack down on criminal elements, the western media portrays it as clampdown on democracy, as in Berezovskiy case. Russia has produced strong enough against Berezovskiy that even Interpol has issued a warrant for his arrest now.

It's probably because no one trusts a former spook.
A lot of the ex-KGB people went on to fund highly successful business's on both sides of the law so it has painted the entire structure with a bit of a black mark. After all, they where (probably still are) the worlds most efficient and highly successful intelligence services around with long reaching and murky contacts most everywhere.
Very clever
Trustworthy, never.

As for how 'democratic' he is, there tends to be a bit of messing with that process as well, like how he replaced the direct federal election of regional presidents and governers by being popular nominee's. To having them either approved or disapproved by presidential decree, after that was done he can more or less push through anything he wants when it comes to the governer's proposals, they arent disapproved.
That to me at least seems to encourage neopotism at the highest levels.
Sure, it might get things done very efficiently but I would worry, what is being done exactly to moderate things going through with no opposition at all.

We're also very leery of what is happening to Russian reporters and journalists over there, quite a lot of them get murdered, and by quite a lot, I mean a lot get killed when they go nosing around anything contraversial or corrupt.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith It's probably because no one trusts a former spook. A lot of the ex-KGB people went on to fund highly successful business's on both sides of the law so it has painted the entire structure with a bit of a black mark. After all, they where (probably still are) the worlds most efficient and highly successful intelligence services around with long reaching and murky contacts most everywhere. Very clever Trustworthy, never. As for how 'democratic' he is, there tends to be a bit of messing with that process as well, like how he replaced the direct federal election of regional presidents and governers by being popular nominee's. To having them either approved or disapproved by presidential decree, after that was done he can more or less push through anything he wants when it comes to the governer's proposals, they arent disapproved. That to me at least seems to encourage neopotism at the highest levels. Sure, it might get things done very efficiently but I would worry, what is being done exactly to moderate things going through with no opposition at all. We're also very leery of what is happening to Russian reporters and journalists over there, quite a lot of them get murdered, and by quite a lot, I mean a lot get killed when they go nosing around anything contraversial or corrupt.

I agree with you on the governor appointing system, I was never a fan of it, though I suspect it has its good things and bad things. I like the positive aspects of it, but these give the government more power, and I am for government control of essential sectors like health care, petroleum/hydrocarbons industries, education - I want these to be governnment controlled and not in provate hands where oligarchs make all the money (at least the state can use some of the money to put back into the country).

Look at Canada. Health is in government control. I love it. So should some others be too, but thats a different topic.

As for jurnalists in Russia getting murdered - yet again shows how biased Western media is. Why? Well, of course journalists are dying in Russia. But what western media doesnt show to you is that many bankers, government officials, even police officers and tax collectors get murdered for christ's sake. But I absolutely love the western media's coverage of Russia, showing front-page all week the murder of a great Russian journalist Politkovskaya, while completely ignoring the big story in Russia at the same time when top Russian government official on charge of making sure there's no banking corruption gets murdered in the hail of bullets along with his driver, read ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Kozlov ). He could not be bribed, so they killed him. So much for the fairest western media coverage in the world. Yay. AND, AS ALWAYS, Putin is blamed. Putin this, Putin that.

Its getting really annoying how EVERYTHING that has to do with Russia always gets blamed on Russia. First, the radioactive poisoning (no proof it was Russia as of yet), gas disputes, journalists murder, etc)

Well I'm not biased or a part of the western media.
Just the simple fact is that when you do a head count, theres a lot being killed and while that in of itself is something of an occupational hazard it seems depending on where you are in the world, it indirectly affects other journalists there who quickly come to the conclusion that there are some things you shouldnt touch. Or you will get killed or otherwise 'evaporate', some things should be covered but the people who are sticking their necks out to do it are getting killed if they do.

Bit more poking in my travels also reveals that of the 3 main television networks in Russia, 3 are owned by people who are directly loyal to Putin which would also make me question the quality of the media services there.
Berezovsky is interesting in this point as well because he once owned one of those TV networks and regardless of what he may or may not have done, its not my place to judge, that same said network ended up in the hands of a Putin loyalist.

Interesting indeed.

It's all very well to mock the US and its Freedom of Information, Press and it's journalistic 'integrity' but all's not well in Russia either.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well I'm not biased or a part of the western media. Just the simple fact is that when you do a head count, theres a lot being killed and while that in of itself is something of an occupational hazard it seems depending on where you are in the world, it indirectly affects other journalists there who quickly come to the conclusion that there are some things you shouldnt touch. Or you will get killed or otherwise 'evaporate', some things should be covered but the people who are sticking their necks out to do it are getting killed if they do. Bit more poking in my travels also reveals that of the 3 main television networks in Russia, 3 are owned by people who are directly loyal to Putin which would also make me question the quality of the media services there. Berezovsky is interesting in this point as well because he once owned one of those TV networks and regardless of what he may or may not have done, its not my place to judge, that same said network ended up in the hands of a Putin loyalist. Interesting indeed. It's all very well to mock the US and its Freedom of Information, Press and it's journalistic 'integrity' but all's not well in Russia either.

Many Russians support Putin, just like I do. I mean I love him and hate him at the same time. He's the moderate. There's no decent replacement for Putin for president right now. He spent 7 years now rebuilding the country and the economy and united the country again, and for th first time in many years Russia is not at war with anybody. There's a sense of relief. When Putin's gone, what many worry about is another turf war like in Yeltsin era, and that everything might slide back.

Yeah you might claim Yeltsin was more democratic. But what good did he achieve? He sold away the whole country. His management of the country resulted in many disasters like the brain-drain of the mid 1990s, the economic crash of 1998, horrible war in Chechnya 1994-1996 that even I CRITICISED.

Putin put some disclipline back into the officials and oligarchs, though I presume he didnt go anywhere as far as many Russians like me hoped. He nationalized the most vital sectors like gas/oil industry and even though he's not pumping all the money back into the country he has establlished a huge money surplus that needs to be used.

He passed many great laws like for example the Mother's Capital (I guess thats the best translation). This law, effective this past January 1, will give mothers 250,000 roubles for the third and 1 million roubles for the 4th and other children because the demographic problem in Russia is huge. The money could be used for child's medicines, buying a house, paying off debt, higher education etc. (its a big chunk of money).
-----
United States, however, is sliding into a different direction, I see a corporate takeover of the country in the future and an attempt to suspend the constitution might be inevitable. Civil war in USA is inevitable. Surely the things arent perfect in Russia, but in my opinion the situation with democracy is far worse in USA than in Russia because the slide is worse.

Well I guess thats a roundabout way of ignoring facts on media ownership if ever there was.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well I guess thats a roundabout way of ignoring facts on media ownership if ever there was.

Have to love the mental gymnastics performed by people who are enthralled in a burgeoning personality cult, eh?


MrS

I don't understand Lilith, what's a problem with media ownership?

FOX is owned by some corporation and they loyal to the White House, I don't see anybody complaining on that.

I don't see who else want and have enough resources to invest into Russia media now.

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium Putin is a very democratic leader

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium and for th first time in many years Russia is not at war with anybody

Chechnya, supplying arms to Iran

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well I guess thats a roundabout way of ignoring facts on media ownership if ever there was.

There's many media networks in Russia, just like in Canada or USA. And its up to the viewers to decide which ones they want to watch or hear. Couple rich white guys own most of the media in North America, like Murdock, and we all know which direction some of his networks like Fox are going into.

The situation with media in Russia is not much different than in USA, its just what the western media covers of Russian media thats crucial for the western viewer.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey Chechnya, supplying arms to Iran

Here's another poor western media coverage of Chechnya. Russian military has already been withdrawn from Chechnya because the war is over. The only Russian trooops in Chechnya left are border troops and internal security forces (MVD) to find and apprehend any remaining small pockets of rebels. Otherwise, its in Iraq where the situation is escalating, in Chechnya its relatively quiet.

So what that Russia supplies arms to Iran - like dont tell me that United States doesnt supply arms to warring factions around the world - the 1980s Iran-Iraq war is a perfect example. United States is the world's number one weapons exporter.

quote:

Originally posted by Dopey Chechnya, supplying arms to Iran

Wake up dude. War in Chechnya was over in 2001.

Supplying arms to Iran, doesn't make Russia to be at war with anybody.

If you want to start bashing Russia, find some more strong arguments first.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller I don't understand Lilith, what's a problem with media ownership? FOX is owned by some corporation and they loyal to the White House, I don't see anybody complaining on that

Oh, old Rupert is loyal only to old Rupert and whover will let him buy more media, keep his taxes low and and for that he gives the governments money so they can run their election campaigns.
Scream all the outrage you want, its how it works in the US.

What the problem with media ownership is...

quote:

Originally posted by Magnetonium There's many media networks in Russia, just like in Canada or USA. And its up to the viewers to decide which ones they want to watch or hear. Couple rich white guys own most of the media in North America, like Murdock, and we all know which direction some of his networks like Fox are going into. The situation with media in Russia is not much different than in USA, its just what the western media covers of Russian media thats crucial for the western viewer.

There a many TV stations in Russia, who are part of Networks and essentially one and the same, especially when the three largest of those networks are owned by Putin's mates.
See now, they don't even have to give kickbacks during their terms, shoot or expel anyone for re-election advertising, its all there for free.

If western media coverage is so 'poor' as you so often seem to keep making a repetitive complaint about, then perhaps you can tell me where an outside media source gets its information from in Russia?
No, dont bother, during nasty things like the war with Chechnya, certain hostage situations gone to hell and fairly much anything else the western world would be free to take pictures of, it did indeed paint Russia in a poor light.
So, they started an information department.
This department issues all official press releases to foreign journalists working in Russia on fairly much anything important.
So, if the coverage is poor, then perhaps its time to look at the source.

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller I don't see who else want and have enough resources to invest into Russia media now.

Course you don't.
Russia passed/or passing some laws which prohibited more than 25% of foreign nationals from investing in their media industry. There are plenty of people with the money in the world and plenty of investers lined up to buy what they can, but we're not allowed to.
The reason they don't want to is because then they'd be at the mercy of foreign investors for their own personal political campaigns, propoganda and favorable advertising.

So no
Russian media industry is not like the US

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith ... Course you don't. Russia passed/or passing some laws which prohibited more than 25% of foreign nationals from investing in their media industry. There are plenty of people with the money in the world and plenty of investers lined up to buy what they can, but we're not allowed to. ...

Do you have any links on materials on this matter?

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Oh, old Rupert is loyal only to old Rupert and whover will let him buy more media, keep his taxes low and and for that he gives the governments money so they can run their election campaigns. Scream all the outrage you want, its how it works in the US. What the problem with media ownership is... There a many TV stations in Russia, who are part of Networks and essentially one and the same, especially when the three largest of those networks are owned by Putin's mates. See now, they don't even have to give kickbacks during their terms, shoot or expel anyone for re-election advertising, its all there for free. If western media coverage is so 'poor' as you so often seem to keep making a repetitive complaint about, then perhaps you can tell me where an outside media source gets its information from in Russia? No, dont bother, during nasty things like the war with Chechnya, certain hostage situations gone to hell and fairly much anything else the western world would be free to take pictures of, it did indeed paint Russia in a poor light. So, they started an information department. This department issues all official press releases to foreign journalists working in Russia on fairly much anything important. So, if the coverage is poor, then perhaps its time to look at the source. Course you don't. Russia passed/or passing some laws which prohibited more than 25% of foreign nationals from investing in their media industry. There are plenty of people with the money in the world and plenty of investers lined up to buy what they can, but we're not allowed to. The reason they don't want to is because then they'd be at the mercy of foreign investors for their own personal political campaigns, propoganda and favorable advertising. So no Russian media industry is not like the US

Aaaaa. I see. So in United States if a media mogul [Murdoch] owns many TV networks, shows one-party's agenda, gives or receives kickbacks from his party, adores his political party, thats just his views and his agenda. But with Russian media it turns out, Putin's agents bought the media out, and are directly flowing Putin's propaganda to the people. Yeah, great way to show the American people how brutal the media situation in Russia is.

While in reality, as I said before, its just like in the States. Media moguls in Russia adore Putin and often show on mainstream television what they want. In either country, watching television, is biased. But the western viewers have been convinced that PPutin's agents own and run those networks. Thats just plain silly.

I prefer my news and media coverage online from at least 5 sources.

Oh, and yeah, I want to see that article allegedly prohibitng invests in Russian media (what kind of dumb idea is that anyhow to INVEST in Russian media, LOL - Russian media is a God knows how many billions of dollars a year industry - they dont need investments). They're wealthy filthy rich. These media moguls dont need your lousy dollars to invest, they throw money around as it is for lavish parties and own villas in France, for example

quote:

Originally posted by star-traveller Do you have any links on materials on this matter?

Its a state run department set up in 1999 called 'Russian Information Center', its purpose was originally set up by the Ministry of Press and RIA NOVOSTI to disseminate an official view of the Chechnya war.
Course neither of you live there anymore so I don't know if it's still running, that and both of you have the luxury of being able to choose your media sources for much the same reason.

But essentially for 2006, Russia took out the #3 spot in the CPJ's 'most dangerous places to work for journalists' only behind Iraq and parts of North Africa.

Lilith, lets put it straight...Your quote:

quote:

... Russia passed/or passing some laws which prohibited more than 25% of foreign nationals from investing in their media industry. ...

Please give me a link on a website with this news or on a law that PROHIBTS more than 25% of foreign nationals from investing in Russian media industry.

I just want to know is that a real fact, or it's just another lie about Russia.

Well it's not something I can exactly make up off the top of my head and besides, it's your bloody country, you should know better than I do what happens in it. Oh thats right you left.

This was roughly when I heard about it.
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/e...0408_67180.html
When Lilith was entertaining delusions of granduer about owning a TV station somewhere in the world, then I looked into energy corps and it was even worse there...
Bit more digging around to see if it went through.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5237.html
Passed 3 bills to deter foreign investment.

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5291.html
It pissed some people off as it was going to be a 50% stake -1share, instead it got much more restricted.

Course, Lilith still makes this up because she like's looking foolish on the internet and apparently has nothing better to do than make up stories.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well it's not something I can exactly make up off the top of my head and besides, it's your bloody country, you should know better than I do what happens in it. Oh thats right you left. This was roughly when I heard about it. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/e...0408_67180.html When Lilith was entertaining delusions of granduer about owning a TV station somewhere in the world, then I looked into energy corps and it was even worse there... Bit more digging around to see if it went through. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5237.html Passed 3 bills to deter foreign investment. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5291.html It pissed some people off as it was going to be a 50% stake -1share, instead it got much more restricted. Course, Lilith still makes this up because she like's looking foolish on the internet and apparently has nothing better to do than make up stories.

Thats not a very good link, 6 years old actually. In Russia, things change fast in 6 years (that was the first year of Putin's presidency, btw). I dont see no restrictions in foreign investment in Russia - the truth is, many investors are too afraid to invest, especially after the Yukos trials (which did show the Yukos was involved in corruption schemes). And Gazprom is a government owned company that owns many companies. In a way, I am worried about Gazprom. But the matter of a fact is, the Gazprom's profits go into Russia, because its state owned = many billions of dollars. While Exxon Mobil's profits go into their company, and the executives. And they didnt buy out all the media in Russia, just the one TV network (its not like television is not biased in most places around the world). Its between choosing the lesser of the evils. With all the corruption and money mismanagement in Russia, Russian government needed a steady supply of income to fund the reforms, rebuilding of the country, the economy, you know it. And acquisition of Gazprom was a smart idea.

quote:

I dont see no restrictions in foreign investment in Russia

Then you must be somewhat ignorant in the matters of economic investment. We arent scared by investing money in the place, we're restricted.
Suggestion- look harder, be objective rather than defensive.

If theres been no change to the law than it doesnt matter if its 6 years old or a 100. If there has been a change to the law, you go look it up. But essentially I'm done with this as a debate because theres no rebuttal, have a nice day.

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Then you must be somewhat ignorant in the matters of economic investment. We arent scared by investing money in the place, we're restricted. Suggestion- look harder, be objective rather than defensive. If theres been no change to the law than it doesnt matter if its 6 years old or a 100. If there has been a change to the law, you go look it up. But essentially I'm done with this as a debate because theres no rebuttal, have a nice day.

Pretty sad when someone from Austrialia knows more about 2 posters' own Country.

But its all of America's fault anyway, Right Comrads??

quote:

Originally posted by Lilith Well it's not something I can exactly make up off the top of my head and besides, it's your bloody country, you should know better than I do what happens in it. Oh thats right you left. This was roughly when I heard about it. http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/e...0408_67180.html When Lilith was entertaining delusions of granduer about owning a TV station somewhere in the world, then I looked into energy corps and it was even worse there... Bit more digging around to see if it went through. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5237.html Passed 3 bills to deter foreign investment. http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/5291.html It pissed some people off as it was going to be a 50% stake -1share, instead it got much more restricted. Course, Lilith still makes this up because she like's looking foolish on the internet and apparently has nothing better to do than make up stories.

Alright, it took me some time to find the actual law.

Yes, you were right there is a law that restricts investments for foreigners into Russian mass media. It's not limited to 30% of shares, but to 49.9%.

quote:

Russian Duma Adopts Bill to Limit Foreigners' Control of Mass Media The Russian State Duma or lower house of parliament passed Thursday in its first reading a bill of limiting foreign interests in Russian mass media. The bill was adopted by 332 votes for and 22 against with three abstentions. Under the bill, foreigners, people without Russian citizenship, people holding dual citizenship or foreign legal entities can hold no more than 50 percent of the stake in Russian mass media. The bill was drafted by a group of Duma deputies who are members of the Duma committee for information policy. Alexander Chuyev from the Unity party faction, who was one of the drafters, said the bill is aimed to protect the rights of speech freedom of Russian citizens. "We deem it impossible for foreign legal entities to purchase controlling packages of shares," Chuyev said, adding that this is something related to not only the citizens' rights of speech freedom, but also the interests of Russia's security and political stability. "There have been cases where foreign legal entities and Russian legal entities with foreign interests held more than half of the capital in Russian mass media, so we initiated this legislative motion," he said. At the same time, Chuyev stressed that foreign investment is necessary for the technical development of the Russian mass media. When drafting the bill, the drafters said, they took into consideration the experience of other countries in the sphere. "Such restrictions exist in the United States, France, Poland, the Czech Republic and some other European countries," Chuyev said. At the State Duma sessions discussing the bill, left-wing deputies complained that "legalization of foreign interests" in mass media will pave the way for "agents of Western influence" in Russia, while right-wing deputies said the Russian media should be protected not only from foreigners, but also from certain Russian private individuals and legal entities.

Russian Duma Adopts Bill to Limit Foreigners' Control of Mass Media

quote:

... Article 19.1. Limitations Regarding Founding of Television, Video Programs, as well as of Organizations (Legal Entities) that Carry on Television Broadcasting A foreign legal entity, as well as a Russian legal entity with a foreign participation, wherever the share (input) of the foreign participation in the stock (joint) capital equals or exceeds 50 percent, a citizen of the Russian Federation with a dual citizenship, may not act as founders of television, video programs. A citizen of another state, a stateless person and a citizen of the Russian Federation with a dual citizenship, a foreign legal entity, as well as a Russian legal entity with a foreign participation, wherever the share (input) of the foreign participation in the statuary (joint) capital equals or exceeds 50 percent may not act as founders of organizations (legal entities) that carry on television broadcasting of their programs over a half or more of the subjects of the Russian Federation, or the territory where a half or more of the population of the Russian Federation lives. No provision shall be made for giving away of the stock (shares) by the founder of a television, video program, - also if that happens after its registration, - by organization (legal entity) that carries on television broadcasting of its programs over a half or more of the subjects of the Russian Federation, or the territory where a half or more of the population of the Russian Federation lives, that lead to the appearance in its statuary (joint) capital of a share (input) of foreign participation that equals or exceeds 50 percent Article 19.1. was added by Federal Law No.107-FZ of August 4, 2001. ...

Law of the Russian Federation "On Mass Media"

And now, let's take a look on the US communication law.

quote:

... SEC. 310. [47 U.S.C. 310] LIMITATION ON HOLDING AND TRANSFER OF LICENSES. (a) The station license required under this Act shall not be granted to or held by any foreign government or the representative thereof. (b) No broadcast or common carrier or aeronautical en route or aeronautical fixed radio station license shall be granted to or held by-- (1) any alien or the representative of any alien; (2) any corporation organized under the laws of any foreign government; (3) any corporation of which more than one-fifth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens or their representatives or by a foreign government or representative thereof or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country; (4) any corporation directly or indirectly controlled by any other corporation of which more than one-fourth of the capital stock is owned of record or voted by aliens, their representatives, or by a foreign government or representative thereof, or by any corporation organized under the laws of a foreign country, if the Commission finds that the public interest will be served by the refusal or revocation of such license. (c) In addition to amateur station licenses which the Commission may issue to aliens pursuant to this Act, the Commission may issue authorizations, under such conditions and terms as it may prescribe, to permit an alien licensed by his government as an amateur radio operator to operate his amateur radio station licensed by his government in the United States, its possessions, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico provided there is in effect a multilateral or bilateral agreement, to which the United States and the alien's government are parties, for such operation on a reciprocal basis by United States amateur radio operators. Other provisions of this Act and of the Administrative Procedure Act shall not be applicable to any request or application for or modification, suspension, or cancellation of any such authorization. (d) No construction permit or station license, or any rights thereunder, shall be transferred, assigned, or disposed of in any manner, voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, or by transfer of control of any corporation holding such permit or license, to any person except upon application to the Commission and upon finding by the Commission that the public interest, convenience, and necessity will be served thereby. Any such application shall be disposed of as if the proposed transferee or assignee were making application under section 308 for the permit or license in question; but in acting thereon the Commission may not consider whether the public interest, convenience, and necessity might be served by the transfer, assignment, or disposal of the permit or license to a person other than the proposed transferee or assignee. (e)(1) In the case of any broadcast station, and any ownership interest therein, which is excluded from the regional concentration rules by reason of the savings provision for existing facilities provided by the First Report and Order adopted March 9, 1977 (docket No. 20548; 42 Fed. Reg. 16145), the exclusion shall not terminate solely by reason of changes made in the technical facilities of the station to improve its service. (2) For purposes of this subsection, the term ''regional concentration rules'' means the provisions of sections 73.35, 73.240, and 73.636 of title 47, Code of Federal Regulations (as in effect June 1, 1983), which prohibit any party from directly or indirectly owning, operating, or controlling three broadcast stations in one or several services where any two of such stations are within 100 miles of the third (measured city-to-city), and where there is a primary service contour overlap of any of the stations. ...

.

Well in generally it means, that as a foreigner I cannot even get a license to setup a broadcast station in the US. I can get it only if I register my company and it doesn't HOLD MORE THAN 20% of shares.

There are similiar laws in France and other European countries.

So what's a problem with Russian media law than?

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.