Do not look for trouble. Quarrels will not solve anything. Seek advice before you get into a difficult situation. Attracted to military, may be hard to choose between home and country. You are sexual, sensual, and very independent. You respond to physical stimulation, enjoy necking and spending hours just touching, feeling and exploring.
However, if you can spend your time making money, you will give up the pleasures of the flesh for the moment. You need to prove to yourself and your partner what a great lover you are. You want feedback on your performance. You are an open, stimulating, romantic bed mate.
Follow artistic ability to brilliant career. Practical ability can bring great financial reward. Attractiveness demands plenty of common sense. Literature, music, and art bring what you most desire. Great future if you concentrate on most obvious talent.
You are very conscious of social proprieties. Appearances count. Therefore, you require a good-looking partner. You also require an intelligent partner. Oddly enough, you may view your partner as your enemy…a good fight stimulates those sex vibes. You are relatively free of sexual hang-ups.
You are willing to experiment and try new ways of doing things. You are very social and sensual; you enjoy flirting and need a good deal of physical gratification. Contact your insurance company to find out what supplies they cover.
Here are some things to think about when choosing a vendor:. Many pharmacies and department stores carry bladder supplies. Other stores sell only medical equipment or bladder supplies. Some specialty stores include:. Manufacturers can be a good resource to get information on the supplies you need. Some even provide free samples. Marlett, Erie, Pa. Country Radio. Michael E. James Brownyard, the owner of W.
We conclude that the complaint fails to state a claim arising under the laws of the United States, and that the judgment must be vacated. In May , James Brownyard, the owner of W. Thereupon Lechtner sued Brownyard for money damages for violation of the FCC's Personal Attack Rule, and asserted a pendent claim for defamation and slander under Pennsylvania law. The district court denied Brownyard's motion for summary judgment and proceeded with the matter through a jury trial.
Defendant then filed a motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial, arguing that a private cause of action could not be implied from the FCC Personal Attack Rule regulations and that the court's exercise of pendent jurisdiction was improper.
FCC, U. See Democratic National Committee v. FCC, F. Before it was codified in a rule the obligation to afford an opportunity for response to a personal attack was developed in case by case adjudication by the FCC. Mapoles, 23 Rad. The personal attack rule is, thus, a special application of "the general fairness requirement that issues be presented, and presented with coverage of competing views The only variation is that the broadcaster is not given the option of presenting the attacked party's side himself or of choosing a third party to represent that side: the person attacked is afforded the opportunity to rebut.
Given the origin of the personal attack rule as an aspect of the fairness doctrine, a review of the historical development of that doctrine would be informative, and we quote from the Court's opinion in Red Lion Broadcasting :.
Before , the allocation of frequencies was left entirely to the private sector, and the result was chaos. It quickly became apparent that broadcast frequencies constituted a scarce resource whose use could be regulated and rationalized only by the Government.
Without government control, the medium would be of little use because of the cacaphony of competing voices, none of which could be clearly and predictably heard. Consequently, the Federal Radio Commission was established to allocate frequencies among competing applicants in a manner responsive to the public "convenience, interest, or necessity.
Very shortly thereafter the Commission expressed its view that the "public interest requires ample play for the free and fair competition of opposing views, and the commission believes that the principle applies This doctrine was applied through denial of license renewals or construction permits, both by the FRC, and its successor FCC After an extended period during which the licensee was obliged not only to cover and to cover fairly the views of others, but also to refrain from expressing his own personal views, The broadcaster must give adequate coverage to public issues, This must be done at the broadcaster's own expense if sponsorship is unavailable Moreover, t he fairness doctrine finds specific recognition in statutory form, is in part modeled on explicit statutory provisions relating to political candidates, and is approvingly reflected in legislative history.
This language makes it very plain that Congress, in , announced that the phrase "public interest," which had been in the Act since , imposed a duty on broadcasters to discuss both sides of controversial public issues.
In other words, the amendment vindicated the FCC's general view that the fairness doctrine inhered in the public interest standard. Footnotes and citations omitted. A licensee is thus required to operate in the public interest and has an obligation to present public questions fairly and without bias.
Code Cong. News , The fairness doctrine is a method for allocating scarce electromagnetic broadcasting resources among various individuals, events and ideas seeking expression. The Personal Attack Rule is one means whereby the FCC safeguards the public's interest in receiving information on all aspects of an issue. Although the Personal Attack Rule is "to foster 'wide open, robust debate on issues of public importance' Rebuttal through broadcasting may be the most efficient, if not the only, means by which a victim of an attack can undo the harm done by an earlier broadcast.
The victim generally will not have the resources to reach as wide an audience as the licensee. Thus if the licensee violates the Personal Attack Rule, the attacked individual is substantially harmed. In this case, plaintiff asserts a private cause of action under the Personal Attack Rule.
He urges that when an individual seeks damages in a federal court for injury from the violation of a federal standard of conduct he should be able to obtain such damages. He argues that since the regulation at issue is federal, was properly promulgated, and has the force of law, a complaint under it ought to satisfy the "arises under" requirement of 28 U. He contends that the federal courts should be able to award damages where a plaintiff has suffered harm caused by the contravention of a federal regulation which sets a standard of behavior.
Moreover, nothing in the Communications Act of , or its legislative history, indicates a congressional intent to preempt the normal functioning of federal courts with respect to complaints of harm caused by violations of federal regulations.
0コメント