title: Appropriate ham radio transmissions slug: ham_content date: 2026-06-24 18:35:52 UTC+02:00 modified: 2026-06-25 23:59:01 UTC+02:00 type: text When on the air as ham radio operators, what should we be talking about? ## TL;DR [🔗](#summary){.small} {: #summary} Some code of conduct authors rule that religion or politics are off limits and should not be discussed via our waves. And many hams agree. I challenge this in this following piece. I say that respect is the thing to worry about, not particular topics. ## Good to stay away from [🔗](#donts){.small} {: #donts} In the years of the cold war, we radio amateurs did well to not take part, via our waves, in the ubiquitous propaganda battle of the systems. Today, I would still hesitate to discuss, on the air, for example my view of human rights with people like members of Hamas, Jewish settlers, or Trumpists. These are again *topics* good to stay away from. Am I contradicting myself? Hear me out. ## Background [🔗](#background){.small} {: #background} The [ITU's Radio Regulations](https://www.itu.int/en/publications/ITU-R/pages/publications.aspx?parent=R-REG-RR-2024&media=electronic) are an important international treaty governing many radio topics. In passing: As a multinational treaty organization, ITU generally does not interfere with what concerns *one* country only. So it has rules regarding amateur radio QSOs, but only *international* such QSOs. Those rules restrict QSO content to stuff related to "self-training, intercommunication and technical investigations, and remarks of a personal character" (RR 25-1 1.56 + 25.2). In passing: Whether those rules actually apply to you personally depends on whether your local administration has cast them into local law somehow. ## Is it really the topics? [🔗](#not_the_topics){.small} {: #not_the_topics} That said, I do not think that the issue at hand are really the topics we talk about. Religion is off limits? For an example that's likely to go well: Imagine two fundamental Christians relating to each other how spiritually uplifting Easter celebrations were for each of them. While I'm not a fundamental Christian myself, I see nothing wrong with this. It would even be covered by the ITU rules, as what they exchange are personal remarks. On the other hand, consider a convinced power amplifier user who rants, over the air, that low-power QRP folks like myself are a nuisance and our operation is unethical, as we, so the argument goes, make contacts unnecessarily unpleasant for the high-power folks. Supposedly bad topics can make good conversations. Supposedly good topics can make despicable conversations. ## What matters: friendliness resp. toxicity [🔗](#fts){.small} {: #fts} I say we should not concentrate on the topic of a conversation. What matters is its position on a friendliness -- toxicity scale. An argument is certainly toxic if its structure fits the mold "I am right and you are evil". The example of the QRO ranter fits this rather well. Incidentally, the variant "I am right and you are stupid" is not much better. Why would I hesitate to discuss human rights with a Hamas, Jewish settler, or Trump supporters, and such? I have reason to be afraid my own communication might well deteriorate into this toxic structure, should I take those topics on. Will something good come out of a toxic conversation? I doubt it. It is probably best to not engage in it in the first place. If you find yourself caught in one, you can try to leave the toxicity to the other side and not repay tit for tat. But that's easy to write. It is less easily done when push comes to shove. ## Respect! [🔗](#respect){.small} {: #respect} I suggest: Let us prefer seeking *respectful* conversations over seeking conversations regarding a fixed set of topics. Good human communication is not about rhetorically crushing an opponent. It is about seeking to understand a fellow human being. Incidentally, in my opinion, there is no contradiction with the ITU rules for international QSOs. This can be argued from the "intercommunication" stance or from the "personal remarks" stance. On top of these, I also want to point out: The ITU applauds "self-training" as a worthy goal of any amateur radio endeavor. It says nowhere that this is restricted to science and technology. So if two hams meet on our bands and start a conversation, with a view of self-training their skills regarding respectful, fruitful communication, I hold this is covered as well by what the Radio Regulations have. ## Practice [🔗](#practice){.small} {: #practice} Such self-training is not just theory. Personally, I try to consciously steer my ham radio ragchew conversations (mostly JS8) to be respectful and engaging. Again and again, successfully. These QSOs can easily last an hour or longer. I'm typically coming out of such a friendly chat happy myself, and many QSO partners at the other ends mention such a contact was especially worthwhile. As I continue to self-study, I keep developing a better intuition how to get there. As a side remark: The book by Rosenberg on [Nonviolent Communication](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonviolent_Communication) has been helpful to me and I recommend it to anyone interested in these matters. In a Western society, your library can probably organize it. ## Code of conduct [🔗](#coc){.small} {: #coc} Our ham radio code of conducts should promote and demand respectful communication. This should not be restricted to how we behave on air, but also during our local club meetings or in any other amateur radio contexts. The code of conduct as published by the IARU talks about "brotherhood" (a bit too male-dominated for my taste, but otherwise nice), "tolerance", "politeness", and such. Quote: "Never use abusive terms, stay polite, courteous and gentle, under all circumstances." I rather like all of that. They also try to establish restrictions regarding specific topics people may and may not talk about on the air. Those rules I don't applaud. I think they overregulate. ## Arbiters, moderators, judges [🔗](#mods){.small} {: #mods} I close this with a wish: I wish the amateur radio societies would find a way to select wise, just people to act as accepted arbiters, moderators, and judges. One could turn to those when conflicts arise. ## Discussion opportunity [🔗](#comments){.small} {: #comments} If you want to comment or discuss this piece and have a Fediverse account, feel invited to answer [my pertinent toot](https://mastodon.radio/@dj3ei/116807264802865307).