eHam.net - Amateur Radio (Ham Radio) Community

Call Search
     

New to Ham Radio?
My Profile

Community
Articles
Forums
News
Reviews
Friends Remembered
Strays
Survey Question

Operating
Contesting
DX Cluster Spots
Propagation

Resources
Calendar
Classifieds
Ham Exams
Ham Links
List Archives
News Articles
Product Reviews
QSL Managers

Site Info
eHam Help (FAQ)
Support the site
The eHam Team
Advertising Info
Vision Statement
About eHam.net


eHam.net Speak Out


Speak Out: Appropriate SSTV Use:

A contributor states, "14230 kHz is not a personal blue humor cartoon and salacious bimbo image email distribution list. It's really difficult to demonstrate SSTV to a budding ham or a relative wondering what it is you do with all those wires and equipment, when the minute you turn up the screen, a topless spread-eagled woman or some racially charged image slowly unfolds. Then try to convince them it's not just like "internet porn". What might have been perceived as a fascinating or at least admirably brainy hobby is reduced to an expensive and complicated "Nasty Chatroom" in the mind of the casual non-ham observer. I'm not a prude, but there is a proper place and time for everything. The Amateur SSTV call frequency is not the place for this." What can be done to clean this up?

53 opinions on this subject. Enter your opinion at the bottom of this page.
[Speak Out Home Page]


Opinions...

Page 1 -->

K1LEM on 2010-02-07
The problem here is there are so many wonderful pix you could transmit on SSTV, why would you choose one that could be seen as sexist, obscene or vulgar?

KU5Q on 2010-01-24
"AI2IA on 2010-01-21
I am happy to see how many contributors to this topic clearly understand how smut on amatuer SSBTV discourages participation by youth and school groups in this part of our endeavor and how it cheapens the reputation of amateur radio which has made great, even life saving contributions, to the world in general.

All modes of amateur operation ought to relect the technical objectivity and high standards encouraged by the issuance of licenses to operate on the air.

Most of those who studied and took the time to pass amateur exams understand and appreciate the privilege that they possess in holding an amateur radio license. Surely amateur radio has a reputation of long standing that deserves respect on SSBTV and all operating modes. It is heartening to see such good responses."

=============================================

Good points Ray. I may not agree with all your views, but I respect you and your right express what you believe.

Tolerance is a good thing too. One of the last true freedoms a person may have is free thought.

N6CAV on 2010-01-23
I don't think there are any further arguments
to be made here. Amateur Radio frequencies
are not intended as a "free speech" medium.
Rules and regulations are in place regarding
content. KC8VWM summed this up nicely.

My son got his call at age 10, my daughter
plans to get her license this year (age 12).
If I were working with them, and received a
pornographic image from a domestic license
holder...I would pursue legal action against
them. Simple as that.

XW1B on 2010-01-21
Very valid points made by all contributors! I encountered the same issue years ago while giving a ham radio demo to a class of 10-12 year old gifted students at their school in Florida. SSTV was the centerpiece and everyone was very impressed ( this was 1974 ). As soon as I turned my back to the screen for Q&A time a "centerfold" photo appeared from a country to my South and it pretty much destroyed my entire presentation, as well as any good feelings about ham radio.
Such activity is not new, as brought up by many, and will not go away until hams, on a world-wide basis, step up and take responsibility for their actions on the air. Best 73
Bruce XW1B

AI2IA on 2010-01-21
I am happy to see how many contributors to this topic clearly understand how smut on amatuer SSBTV discourages participation by youth and school groups in this part of our endeavor and how it cheapens the reputation of amateur radio which has made great, even life saving contributions, to the world in general.

All modes of amateur operation ought to relect the technical objectivity and high standards encouraged by the issuance of licenses to operate on the air.

Most of those who studied and took the time to pass amateur exams understand and appreciate the privilege that they possess in holding an amateur radio license. Surely amateur radio has a reputation of long standing that deserves respect on SSBTV and all operating modes. It is heartening to see such good responses.

NE3R on 2010-01-21
This isn't something new. I really don't see that much of it on the air. If I'm just milling about the house, I'll often leave my rig on 14.230 with the SSTV program up.

Call CQ, try 14.233 MHz, 7171 kHz, 21.340 MHz, 3845 kHz, 3730 kHz, 1890 kHz, or 28.680 MHz. When I made my first 10 meter SSTV QSO I danced around the room I was so excited.

73 de Joseph M. Durnal NE3R

KE0VH on 2010-01-21
The bottom line here as far as I am concerned is that it is just simply "not appropriate" or "in good taste" on the hambands. It is not a matter of "free speech", which as designed to make it to where the government couldn't get back at you for critisizing them. I haven't seen any plain out and out nudity yet, but some of the pics are definitely not children suitable, or prospective ham suitable. Come on folks, what about plain decency and common sense? If those who are so inclined want to transmit pictures that are blatantly offensive, send them over email. I am embarrassed to monitor SSTV for any length of time because I have family I respect come into my shack frequently. This indeed is a public hobby, have all the other stuff wanted, but keep it off the hambands.

KT9B on 2010-01-21
If anyone really wants to transmit an image with their callsign attached that may be interpreted as obscene in a court of law and which could be seen by a minor, then Mrs. Gump had it right.

Regarding the bogus free speech argument, see FCC 97.113.a.4. Just ask Howard Stern how far the free speech approach got him and all his lawyers?

KE7FD on 2010-01-20
Every society has the obligation to protect the innocent and by that I mean minors who may very well come in contact with the smut the writer spoke of. What is the difference between broadcasting porn on TV during the day when children can view it or if a minor-ham fires up his SSTV station and sees porn? Forget the perverts precious (or should that be pernicious) catch-all war cry of "freedom of speech" and put the protection of the innocent ahead of their own sordid interests for once. What kind of a person thinks he's a real man by exposing others to the filth he enjoys? There is little difference in the heart and mind of such a person and those who mindlessly, and selfishly strike at others who are powerless to protect themselves. Those who quote Constitutional Amendments as their justification for such sordid actions only insult and debase those who gave their lives to write and defend it. It was never the intent of the founding fathers of this country that perverts run amuck unchecked hiding behind their noble words and sacrifices. They are liars, hypocrites and cowards. The FCC should come down on any such U.S. ham with the fullest extend of the law.

KC8VWM on 2010-01-20
The problem here with the "try to legislate" the problem via FCC route argument is that transmitting "pornographic" or "indecent and/or obscene" material via "electronic means" to a minor and the idea of the "sender" not taking specific measures to prevent minors from viewing said material is already considered a criminal offense.

This means prosecution wouldn't necessarily require any FCC action or involvement because it's a criminal matter for local law enforcement agencies.

The US Telecommunications Act of 1996 was signed on 8 February 1996 by President Clinton and it included various provisions intended to combat obscene and indecent communications. Part of the Act, the Communications Decency Act (the "CDA") provided that, among other things, any person who "by means of a

*** "telecommunications device" ***

"knowingly ... makes, creates or solicits"
and "initiates the transmission"

of "any comment, request, suggestion, proposal, image or other communication which is obscene or indecent, knowing that the recipient of the communication is under 18 years of age" "shall be criminally fined or imprisoned".

Page 1 -->


Enter your opinion about Appropriate SSTV Use::

To post an opinion to this topic, you must log in or if you are not a member of eHam.net, you can sign up now.


The opinions expressed within eHam.net Speak Out are those of the contributor, and not necessarily that of eHam.net. eHam.net simply provides a forum for people to express their opinions on various amateur radio subjects of interest.

Do you have an idea for a Speak Out topic? Email our Speak Out Manager with your ideas.