3 ms·
The actual FCC document contains the specifics of what he did in the “factual background” section: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt https
by extrapickles 4y ago
The actual FCC document contains the specifics of what he did in the “factual background” section: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/FCC-22-43A1.txt
It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with.
- Dylan16807 4y ago> It looks like the FCC has plenty of hard evidence, and they are not making stuff up to fine him with. Okay but the comment above said "hard evidence of a negative outcome", not "hard evidence [that he transmitted]". If they did have evidence of negative outcomes, I think they'd do more than use the word "potential" when talking about harm to life and property.
- Ensorceled 4y agoYou can get also get large speeding fines or go to jail for DUI without the "potential" for harm to life and property.
- Dylan16807 4y agoI'm not talking about the reasonableness of the fine. Does my post need a disclaimer?
- Ensorceled 4y agoClearly, if you need to be so aggressively defensive about it.
- Dylan16807 4y agoThat's so aggressive? What would the non-aggressive version be that still makes the important point? I was aiming for a basic simple assertive, avoiding being overly passive-aggressive. The question in that post is not rhetorical.