BuzzMachine

When freedom becomes a unique selling proposition

When freedom becomes a unique selling proposition

: So I was listening to Sirius yesterday and heard one of its (many) promotions for its comedy channels and their pitch was that it's "radio that's cool, without the FCC rules."

Declaration of f'ing independence

Declaration of f'ing independence

: Esquire rips a web-page out of the Parents Television Council's play book with a declaration of independence you can sign and send to the FCC with a click. Howard Stern is our founding father.

The history of the present Federal Communications Commission is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over the airwaves, bringing with it a tyrant's notion of "decency."

To prove this, let the Facts be submitted to a candid world....

The FCC should be reminded that all radios and televisions have a button. This is called an "off" button, and it can be used when citizens find broadcast content to be disagreeable. It strikes us as tiresome to have to repeat this old remonstrance, but whatever. Furthermore, there now exists all manner of filters and blocks that can be used by parents and guardians to protect children from content that is not suitable for them. We, however, are not children, and we will not be treated as such by our government....

...the radio host Howard Stern does not lack for literary merit. Rather, he is part and parcel of a long, ribald tradition of gloriously undignified art that includes Rabelais, Henry Miller, and James Joyce, all of whom discussed "fingerbanging" in one way or another.

The radio host Howard Stern does not lack for educational merit. Rather, he is charting the sexual mores of our great nation, much like noted anthropologist Margaret Mead did....

In every stage of his oppressions, Howard Stern has petitioned for redress. He has railed against the FCC on his radio show, urging the citizenry to vote against one George W. Bush. He engaged in a tense discourse with former FCC chairman Michael Powell on the air, pointing out that television talk-show host Oprah Winfrey also discusses anal and oral sex in detail but is not equally oppressed because she is beloved by the media aristocracy and gives away motorized carriages to her audience....

For when faced with the termination of his astonishingly high-paying job, when faced with censure from his very own employer, Howard Stern refused to do what most of us would do: He refused to make accommodations. Rather, he declared revolution. And this is a great and good thing. This is the very act that defines a hero. This is the very act that defines an American man.

And now as a free and independent radio host, he will be able to discuss masturbating to Aunt Jemima at his discretion. It's possible that he will be discussing masturbating to Aunt Jemima to a total of four listeners. But this makes him no less a patriot. God bless Howard Stern, and God bless America, land of the free, home of lesbian porn stars and angry drunken dwarves.

I signed and clicked. In fact, be like the PTC: sign and click often.

: ALSO: Here's a very nice vlog showing the absurdity of PTC complaints against Arrested Development.

God's work

God's work

: Thanks to Carsonfire in the comments below, we read a most remarkable evangelical Christian editorial opposing attempts to extend FCC censorship to cable and satellite. It's more than just tactical, political advice; it takes the evangelical imperative to say that such intereference is distracting and dangerous. Amen, brother. Jordan J. Ballor writes:

Such an unprecedented move speaks to the growing influence of evangelical Christian political activism. Indeed, some evangelicals have long supported huge increases in FCC fines and expanded powers for the governmental agency....

Christians should certainly be active participants in every facet of society, including politics. But Christian activists need to be wary of falling prey to the temptation to use political power to impose external standards of morality for a number of interconnected reasons.

First, there is a disturbing trend among American evangelicals to stress public exhibitions of virtue, often to the detriment of personal practice. The furor over the public displays of the 10 Commandments is one example, but the fight over broadcast decency has taken on a similar flavor.

For Christians, the significance of the new covenant means that it is more important that the law be written on our hearts than that it be displayed in our courtrooms. For Christian concern to be otherwise brings us under Jesus’ condemnation of Pharisaical hypocrisy.

This truth flows into a second and closely related problem. Overzealous political activism poses a threat to the fundamental task of the church: proclamation of the gospel. Many criticize the relief efforts of nominally Christian groups, such as the National Council of Churches, which divorce evangelism and charitable work. But where Christians rightly decry such inconsistency in other quarters, we should also beware the temptation elsewhere to confuse or obscure the fulfillment of the Great Commission.

The gospel is not reducible to the institution of laws amenable to Christian morality.

Isn't that wonderful? In short: You can't legislate morality. You have to live morally.

And a disproportionate emphasis on such laws tends toward a position that is inimical to Christianity. Yet the perception often remains that the way the church is to “engage culture” is primarily, if not solely, through public policy.

Beyond these theological problems lies a prudential question of the wise use of political power. While Christians maintain the influence to form policy in a certain area, the laws are likely to remain in accord with Christian morality. The danger is that once the power of such regulation of speech and free expression has been ceded to the government, it is nearly impossible to get it back. And it is almost certain that the current season of Christian political influence will eventually wane.

Today perhaps the antics of a Howard Stern will be outlawed by increased governmental regulation. But tomorrow it may be that simply reading from Paul’s letter to the Romans will be prohibited as hate speech, indecent or otherwise intolerant.

Couldn't have preached it better myself.

Offing Tony

Offing Tony

: Rep. Bernie Sanders warns what will happen if Congress passes the numbnutty attempts to extend the FCC's numbnutty censorship to cable and satellite:

And it won't just be the Sopranos getting the boot from primetime. There'll be no more Chris Rock specials. No more Howard Stern on the E Channel. No more R-rated films.

He goes after the White House and the Republicans but the sad truth is that Democrats are in this too. Too many are too afraid to stand up for free speech. How pathetic is that?[via SpeakSpeak]

Where nipples are welcome

Where nipples are welcome

: My rant about female media mutilation got a link from a naturist blog. There's somebody who's not blogging in pajamas.

When indecency is pervasive, is it indecent

When indecency is pervasive, is it indecent

: Adam Thierer writes in today's Washington Post that the spreading ooze of content regulation -- aka censorship -- holds more dangers on the horizon:

Some lawmakers seem to believe that once any media technology becomes popular enough, it becomes "pervasive" and therefore some degree of censorship is justified. But the notion that "popularity equals pervasiveness" is frightening, because it contains no limiting principles. This wasn't the standard we applied to print outlets such as newspapers as they grew in popularity. Nor is it the standard we apply to the Internet. In fact, recent Supreme Court decisions have rejected attempts to apply indecency controls to cyberspace.

Of course, none of this is going to stop pro-censorship policymakers from pushing the envelope to incorporate new media -- at least basic cable and satellite programming -- into the indecency mix. If this "popularity equals pervasiveness" regulatory paradigm becomes law and passes muster in the courts, we will have entered a world in which the public has to pay to escape censorship. Anything Congress or the FCC deemed "indecent" would likely be forced onto a premium or pay-per-view tier, where consumers would spend considerable sums to receive some of their favorite programs. But here's the really interesting question: If large numbers of viewers still flock to premium or pay-per-view services to get their favorite programming -- such as HBO, or Howard Stern's new show on satellite radio -- wouldn't the "popularity equals pervasiveness" calculus apply to those channels as well? If so, we could look forward to still more laws to protect us from ourselves.

[Thanks, Ruth]

The Great Nipple Hunt continues

The Great Nipple Hunt continues

: We've been dutifully reporting attacks of prudes on tipples and now here's another case of national mammarophobia:

Teen actress Lindsay Lohan's breasts have been digitally reduced for forthcoming Disney film Herbie: Fully Loaded, to avoid offending family audiences.

Test screenings for the new movie, the fourth sequel to the 1968 film The Love Bug about a Volkswagen Beetle car with a mind of its own, indicated that some parents felt Lohan's character Maggie Peyton was too raunchy for a children's film.

Disney technicians were forced to plough through numerous scenes - especially those showing the busty actress jumping up and down at a motor racing track, reducing her breasts by two cup sizes and raising revealing necklines on her T-shirts.

The director denies it.

The problem these days -- when grown people make news hunting down nipples -- is that you can't tell the parody from the truth.

And then again, let's not forget the surgical speculation.

All of which leads to just one conclusion: In America, breasts are news.

: SPEAKING OF WHICH....

Scarletlisting

Scarletlisting

: Jon Rintels of CreativesVoices.US emails on the Mötley Crüe suit over being banned by NBC because of the F word and the WCBS reporter who was fired for daring to utter the F word and he says:

I fear these bans and firings are becoming our era’s blacklisting, with the threat to our nation’s children no longer "godless communism" but "godless pop culture."

Well said. Protecting us from F words and nipples -- it's all part of an effort to control through demonization of some enemy within.

: They're banning books, too. This case isn't about F words or nipples, but about the lowly penis. Get the cultural airbrush out.

Media female mutilation

Media female mutilation

: Reporter Misty Harris of CanWest puts together a disturbing trend against the nipple.

First, of course, there was Janet Jackson's armored apex.

Then, I as I recounted, Pam Anderson said producers were taping down her nipples on her show (the first bad use for gaffer's tape).

Now, Harris reports, Desperate Housewives is digitally erasing the nipples of two of its stars (nippleless sex is apparently ok).

And Victoria's Secret introduces a bra to tamp down those pesky, independently minded nipples.

Oh, come on. Women have nipples. God made nipples. God bless God. What's wrong with nipples? Are we letting fear of prudes turn us into a nation of sniggling 12-year-olds?

I told Harris that I think this is a case for the National Organization for Women, who should take umbrage at the notion that nipples corrupt, that nipples are bad for us.

Free the Anderson Two! Free the nipples!

Save the F man

Save the F man

: I am glad to see a movement swelling to save Arthur Chi'en, the hapless WCBS reporter who, not knowing he was on the air, asked a couple of bozos shilling for the Opie & Anthony show who were trying to mess up his report, "What's your fucking problem, man." Everyone writing about this, including Chi'en himself, first falls down saying that was stupid and regretable and wrong. But was it worth firing the man?

All he did was say fucking.

Have we come to the point in this country when we honestly think that a word that has lost all meaning, just a word, is going to cause the downfall of the nation and is worth a man's career?

Perspective, people!

What's offensive is that we let the offended run the world.

Well, now I'm offended. WCBS should not have buckled under to pressure -- anticipated pressure at that -- just because of one stupid word.

It is time to send a message back to the fringies and tell them that they have their priorities all out of wack.

A blogger named Sergio D. Caplan started a site to Save Arthur Chi'en with instructions for calling WCBS or just using this form; that's what I'm doing (though, amazingly, they don't have a link to send a message to the news department -- the one department that should be listening to the public!).

This week, Clyde Haberman wrote a column in The Times drawing attention to the issue this week and reporting that fellow reporters are dismayed and that the communications director of the transportion authority complained to the station. It's a cause.

So join me in writing to WCBS and defending not just Arthur Chi'en but sanity.

It is insane that you fire Arthur Chi'en for one simple, fucking word. It's just a word, people. You throw out a man's career. You buckle under to the fringe. You embarrass yourself. You insult your audience (what, you think we can't take care of ourselves?). Because of one fucking word. For shame. Bring back Arthur Chi'en!

: I STAND CORRECTED: He actually said, "What the fuck's your problem, man?" The stories about this were so coy, it was impossible to tell and I parsed it wrongly. For grammar, give me an F.

Mötley suit

Mötley suit

: Motley
is suing NBC for banning them after Vince Neal used the F word:

In the latest twist in the broadening battle overdecency standards, the glam-metal band Mötley Crüe filed suit against NBC yesterday. The suit states that the network violated the group's free-speech rights and weakened its sales by banning it after Vince Neil, the lead singer, used an expletive on the air in a Dec. 31 appearance on "The Tonight Show."

The lawsuit, filed in a federal court in Los Angeles, accuses the network of censoring the band to mollify a Federal Communications Commission that has been increasingly quick to levy steep fines for broadcasting indecent material on television and radio.

Well, too bad that the suit's absurd. NBC choses what to put and not put on the air -- it's called editing or producing, not censoring. Now I suppose one could argue that it's not their air, it's our air, so the band could sue to get on -- but, of course, that's ludicrous; that would end in every American getting 15 minutes of fame. Or I suppose the band could sue the FCC for creating this chill -- except the FCC didn't fine FCC and, besides, the F came out in the "safe harbor" for nastiness after 10 p.m. Still, I'm glad to see anybody go tilting against the windmill (read: broadcast tower) that is the FCC.

A nation of sopranos

A nation of sopranos

: Broadcasting & Cable reports that the so-called American Family Association is going after condom ads and "the immorality, violence, vulgarity, profanity, etc., which the media is forcing on our children." They don't want condoms, they don't want erections, they don't want things that cause erections, they don't want gay people, they don't want romance. They want to castrate the nation.

Meeting Chairman Powell

Meeting Chairman Powell

: I just met Michael Powell.

The former chairman of the FCC was at the Aspen Institute forum I've been attending; he's a senior fellow there. So I knew I'd see him.

And I'll confess I was a bit nervous about meeting him. Or perhaps embarrassed.

I've been hard on Powell on this page over his role in the FCC's indecency blitzkrieg. And I certainly stand by that criticism.

But I also agree with him on his other unpopular stance, media consolidation. I respect where he stood on the First Amendment -- before he led the indecency stampede. I think he gets the importance of letting technology grow on its own (he has said that the best thing FCC did for wi-fi was nothing, or words to that effect). I've seen him speak at a conference and knew he was smart and softspoken. So it's not as if I was meeting someone I could ignore. Powell's not someone to be dismissed. I was eager to meet the man and hear from him.

And I didn't flatter myself to think that he'd paid any attention to what some blogger had snarked about him. But Larry Kudlow had told me that he'd brought up my criticism to Powell on the air. So I didn't know: He could have decked me.

I decided to make it clear from the first that I'd blogged about him, from the other side. Twice, I said I was a blogging gnat who'd buzzed about him and he dismissed that, waved the point away like a bug in the air, and said I was just one of many.

The Aspen rules are that you can't quote someone with attribution without permission and I didn't intend to blog conversations with Powell. I will say that when we discussed indecency, I said that the FCC and Congress have no cover to defend the First Amendment; if they do vote for free speech, they can be accused of voting for smut. And he didn't disagree. I will also admit that in a conversation about our favorite gadgets, I told about using my Treo to blog about the FCC's fine against Howard Stern from the choir loft of my church. He noted the irony of that. And otherwise, we talked about technology changing society and how the next generation thinks and about favorite gadgets and about telecom and video games and media consolidation.

I like him. He's smart and easygoing and charming. We disagree about indecency (though I suspect we're not as far apart as it may seem) and agree about other issues. And I'd like to hear more from him.

Is there any news in this post? No. But I figured that given our history, I couldn't meet Michael Powell without telling you.

How advertising really works

How advertising really works

: Howard Stern told great and pathetic stories this morning about trying to get a job when he got out of college: radio guys who listened to his horrible audition tape and told him he was the worst announcer they'd ever heard, a close-miss at becoming a ladies' buyer at Bloomingdales, and stints with advertising:

He got a job as a media planner at Benton & Bowles. Math skills? they ask. Excellent, he says. And then he arrives at work and knows he's in over his head. He's working on Planter's Peanuts. The boss whips out a calculator and sheets of numbers and tells him to find all the Jewish newspapers in the country -- Jews like peanut oil for cooking, he says -- and calculate the CPM and then divide. In Howard's head, he shrieks: "Divide? DIVIDE?!?" He comes in on Saturdays and then Sundays -- "you don't have to wear a tie on Sundays," somebody tells him (which reminds me of the old working-at-Disney joke: "If you don't come in on Saturday, don't bother coming in on Sunday"). He can't do it. He quits with no notice.

Note that this is how money is divvied up to the titans of media: Some kid out of college who, if he's lucky, can divide, plans where to spend an advertiser's bucks.

Howard's father then got him an in a the B&B film department as the AV geek but he got fired before he was hired because he'd quit his last job there without notice.

And then he got a job in sales at a tiny radio station, where the boss, who wasn't wearing a shirt, told him to sell advertising and get in-kind trade: Howard went to a Chinese restaurant and convinced the man he had to advertise on radio and he comes back to the office with hundreds of Chinese dinners at the ready when he finds authorities taking documents. He goes back to the Chinese restaurant and tells him never to advertise on radio.

This is how media works.

Free speech is free speech

Free speech is free speech

: The Center for Creative Voices and I are allies in the fight against censorship and government regulation of speech but we part over government regulation of the business of media. Creative Voices just released its media bill of rights. We agree at the start:

A free and vibrant media, full of diverse and competing voices, is the lifeblood of America’s democracy and culture, as well as an engine of growth for its economy.

They believe that corporate consolidation is ruining that. I believe that the internet is solving that and corporate consolidation is about the dinosaurs huddling together for warmth as their ice age approaches. I believe the market and technology are giving us incredible control and diversity.

At Freedom to Connect, Susan Crawford told us that we should not ask for regulation where we want it or we will get it where we don't want it: Witness the PBS kerfluffle.

Creative Voices wants regulation on ownership of media -- of the press, regulation on diversity of hiring in media; regulation mandating content on the airwaves:

Electoral and civic, children’s, educational, independently produced, local and community programming, as well as programming that serves Americans with disabilities and underserved communities.
Media that reflect the presence and voices of people of color, women, labor, immigrants, Americans with disabilities, and other communities often underrepresented.

But if you ask for that kind of regulation to give you the programming you think the world should have, you open the door to regulation to give the other side the programming they think the world should have. You want shows about people of color and women and immigrants. They want shows with God and no sex.

The only answer is the First Amendment as it applies to speech, content, regulation, and ownership:

Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press...

(And, yes, I now believe this holds for political speech as well.)

: CORRECTION: Jon Rintels, head of Creative Voices, corrects me in the comments: Creative Voices signed the bill of rights with others and did not release it on its own. He urges you to read the bill. So do I. We disagree about some things and agree about others so have at it.

You tell 'em, Bernie

You tell 'em, Bernie

: Bernie Sanders -- the independent congressman who fought the good fight for free speech on Maher's show the other night -- writes more on the cause:

Since his inauguration address, President Bush and his right-wing colleagues in Congress have launched a full-scale effort to limit and control the programming Americans are able to see and hear over the airwaves and the Internet. In short, they’re going after your computer, your radio and your remote control.

I wish it were only the right-wing. But it's not. [via SpeakSpeak]

: SpeakSpeak also sends us to a CafePress store with clever T-shirts -- "Shut the FCC up!" -- to support Creative Voices.

And the don't even have a First Amendment

And the don't even have a First Amendment

: British TV authorities -- and where there are TV authorities in any country is beyond me -- have decided that the airing of the Jerry Springer opera did not violate their rules ... despite its Deadwoodspeak.

Jerry Springer: the Opera provoked accusations of blasphemy and a firestorm of protest from religious campaigners when it was broadcast earlier this year. But the television watchdog Ofcom has ruled that the programme did not breach broadcasting guidelines.

Ofcom received more than 16,000 complaints - an unprecedented number - but yesterday ruled that although the January showing "clearly had the potential to offend and indeed the intention to shock, it was set in a very clear context as a comment on modern TV"....

Religious groups were particularly offended by the programme's portrayal of Christian figures, which included Jesus wearing a nappy.

Tabloid press reports stoked the controversy, saying that the programme contained 8,000 swear words. According to the BBC, however, it only contained "around 200 f-words" and "nine c-words".

In its ruling, Ofcom said it "appreciated that the representation of religious figures was offensive to some people".

But it said: "The show's effect was to satirise modern fame and the culture of celebrity....."

TV Watch coverage

TV Watch coverage

: On the Media covers the launch of TV Watch. Listen here. (My posts here and here.)

: Here's TV critic Melanie McFarland's column about TV Watch and about the PBS konservative kerfluffle.

: Here's a UPI story in the Washington Times that can't find the heart to go after TV Watch, considering how damned bipartisan it is.

: Here's fellow TV Watch traveler SpeakSpeak on how damned bipartisan it is.

: Frankly, I think the coverage fizzled.

Nannyism gone wild

Nannyism gone wild

: Jay Allen sends news that a middle-school marching band in Benton Harbor, Michigan, was forbidden from playing Louie Louie -- the instrumental version -- because one lone whining parent thinks it's obscene. There was, by the way, an FBI investigation into the song years ago that concluded it is not obscene and, in any case, the lyrics can't be understood. The Smoking Gun has pages from the file and the real lyrics.

Hypocritical Disney

Hypocritical Disney

: ABC refused to take the United Church of Christ's commercial promoting acceptance but did take a commercial from the guy who promotes spanking children, James Dobson and his so-called Focus on Family.

The UCC now sends out ABC's excuse:

"The network doesn't take advertising from religious groups. It's a long-standing policy," said Susan Sewell, an ABC spokeswoman, in a Religion News Service story by Kevin Eckstrom on Wednesday evening.

And they compare that with the Focus on Family mission statement:

To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.

And its "guiding principles":

Since Focus on the Family's primary reason for existence is to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ through a practical outreach to homes, we have firm beliefs about both the Christian faith and the importance of the family. This ministry is therefore based upon five guiding philosophies that are apparent at every level throughout the organization. These "pillars" are drawn from the wisdom of the Bible and the Judeo-Christian ethic, rather than from the humanistic notions of today's theorists. In short, Focus on the Family is a reflection of what we believe to be the recommendations of the Creator Himself, who ordained the family and gave it His blessing.

Smells pretty damned religious to me.

Disney, you are busted.

Takes one to know one

Takes one to know one

: Brent Bozell, self-appointed national censor for the so-called Parents Television Council, reacts to yesterday's announcement of a group to finally oppose him -- TV Watch:

Garin took aim at the conservative Parents Television Council, which regularly peppers the FCC with complaints and has managed to mount a vociferous campaign for government regulation. "The Parents Television Council is trying to invent an alternative reality that really doesn't exist," said Garin.

But the PTC countered by pointing out that TV Watch is funded by the parent companies of three of the four major broadcast networks.

"This supposed 'coalition' needs to be taken - and dismissed - for what it is," said PTC President L. Brent Bozell, "a collection of random citizen and public policy groups that have simply been hired and paid for by the networks to do their dirty work."

Pot, meet Kettle. Bozell's PTC is a "supposed 'coalition'" if I've ever smelled one.

And, no, Brent, I'm not paid to fight you.

Brent, you say TV Watch needs to disclose their funding. They did. So did I. The networks listed -- three of the big for, which is to say everybody but dickless Disney -- paid for the survey and the pretty logo.

But now that you mention it, Brent...

Do you pay the ladies who count up "damns" and "hells" on TV? Don't you pay your staff to do what you do? Do you pay yourself? How much of the $4 million you raise on your fancy letterhead goes into your pocket and pays your expenses (alongside your other supposed coalitions)?

Come on, Brent, why don't we talk about the real issue: The First Amendment. These are good people, good citizens who are speaking out to defend it... against you.

Fighting for the First Amendment

Fighting for the First Amendment

: I signed onto TV Watch, an organization unveiled today that "opposes government control of television programming and promotes the use of parental controls" -- or as I would put it, opposes the FCC/religious-fringe jihad against the First Amendment.

All I'm really doing is lending my name and quote, along with others on a bipartisan list, in the cause of defending free speech. But I am delighted that someone is finally stepping forward to give Congress and the FCC cover to defend the First Amendment against assaults from the so-called Parents Television Council and others who would use government to censor what we can see (and hear and read and click on).

TV Watch released a survey that says Americans prefer to chose their own entertainment and don't want government to do it:

: 86 percent of Americans say more parental involvement is the best way to keep kids from seeing what they shouldn’t see. 11 percent say the government should increase control and enforcement of network television programming.

: By nearly four to one, Americans say more government regulation is not the solution, personal responsibility is.

: 91 percent of Americans – and 80 percent of those who say they “often” see things they feel should not have been aired – say that “some people will always be able to find something on the television or radio that offends them. But the sensitivities of a few should not dictate the choices for everyone else.”

: Even among the most sensitive viewers, those who “often” find television content objectionable, 74 percent of respondents said they prefer “people exercising personal choice over what they watch on television,” and not “government regulation of what is appropriate.”

Here are some quotes from fellow signatories (some of them roped in by me):

: “Freedom of expression is more than the sum of individual free speech rights. It's part of a larger culture – a democratic culture – with a robust public sphere of inquiry, learning, art, and political debate. To protect freedom of expression we must do more than prevent government restraints. We must encourage and support the institutions and practices that make the public sphere healthy and vibrant, and that give everyone, rich and poor alike, a chance to participate.”
-- Jack Balkin, professor, Yale Law School

“The solution to the problem of objectionable content for some is not heavy-handed government regulation that chills free expression for everyone. Rather, parents and consumers need more choices – better choices – and better information about those choices, so they can decide for themselves what to watch and what to avoid. That’s not just better for creative artists – it’s better for all Americans.”
--Jonathan Rintels, executive director, Center for Creative Voices in Media

“Why would we give more control to government when consumers have all the control they need over their individual TV sets? If the FCC has the power to remove or alter programs that you don't like, it also has the ability to kill programs that you love. That’s why it makes no sense to empower Washington bureaucrats when we can use the tools we have to decide for ourselves and our children which programs we watch."
-- Braden Cox, Technology Council, Competitive Enterprise Institute.

"One of the FCC's original missions was to promote cultural diversity. But the indecency warriors threaten that mission. Creativity flourishes in an environment of free speech."
-- Susan Crawford, professor, Cardozo Law School

“Instead of forcing yet more government regulation on the American public, it is time we find a solution that respects the rights of private citizens, the intelligence of the American consumer and the role of a limited government.”
-- Nick Gillespie, editor Reason magazine

"Right now, the FCC only hears from a few well-funded, politically motivated groups. Despite their claims, they don’t speak for the majority of Americans. It’s time for the rest of us to speak up and tell the government that we don’t want them limiting free expression based on one group’s idea of ‘good taste.’"
-- Amanda Toering, director of SpeakSpeak

”I don’t like many things on television, but I also don’t want the government determining what I can watch. A fundamental conservative principle is at stake here – protection against a big government dictating how we should live.”
-- Stacie Rumenap, deputy director, American Conservative Union

”This is about individual rights and responsibilities. If we increase government control over this powerful medium, politically correct enforcement of TV will follow the next liberal into the White House. We don't need the PC police deciding what is appropriate programming.”
-- Grover Norquist, president, Americans for Tax Reform

"We must protect the First Amendment and our right to free speech from efforts to regulate media – television, cable, satellite, or internet – that try to silence anything that could offend anyone. This lowest-common-denominator approach is driving the best creativity off TV, it is putting a chill on public discourse, and most important, it is interfering with parents' rights to set our own standards for or children. The remote control gives us all the power we need. We don't need to give that power to the government."
-- Me

The survey was funded by media companies (members include News Corp. and Viacom -- both of which are fighting FCC fines, at last -- and NBC Universal). No one is paid to be involved.

The organization promotes more information, ratings, and use of the V chip. I've said in the past that I'm not a great fan of the V chip (because it, too, allows the nannies to complain and get content that offends them marked with the scarlet V). But it's what we have and so I certainly agree that information and the chip beats the hell out of government censorship.

And I strongly believe that it is time for Americans to rise up and oppose the fringers and nannies and defend the most precious principle of American democracy: free speech.

: More of my posts and rants on the topic here.

: Reuters story on the launch here. Broadcasting & Cable's here.

>This is the guy who wants to tell us how to parent?

This is the guy who wants to tell us how to parent?

: Max Blumenthal reports that James Dobson -- the scary guy who wants to censor what you watch and tell you how to parent -- ran ads on ABC while a church could not:

During [Sunday's] season finale of ABC's schlocky reality show, "Supernanny," James Dobson's Focus on the Family will be running ads promoting its "Focus on Your Child" program, which advises parents on how to implement the parenting principles outlined in his best-seller, "Dare to Discipline." These include spanking with "sufficient magnitude to cause the child to cry genuinely." Children have to be taught respect for authority at an early age, Dobson preaches, or they'll never develop respect for governmental authority or God.

Dobson's theory on corporal punishment reveals the political underside of his self-help work....

Once parents bite Focus's bait and join up, they may learn some valuable techniques for improving their relationship with their children. At the same time, they will become immersed in the subculture of the Christian right, where they will meet Macho Jesus and the gay/pedophile deviants who are out to destroy the very fabric of their marriage. Family counseling is merely the net Dobson casts to bring folks on board with his political agenda.

Focus's ad buy is its first in prime time TV. It has ostensibly purchased the ads through its 501 c-3, the self-help component of its organization, so it can claim legally that the ads are not political. But they are, and it's absurd to say they're not. On his radio show, Dobson shamelessly begs for money for his 501 c-4, Focus on the Family Action, his organization's political arm. FOF Action is the entity which collaborated with the Family Research Council to bring us the memorable event known as "Justice Sunday," where Dobson blamed the Supreme Court for "the worst Holocaust in human history." Given that the political and family components of Dobson's empire are so indistinguishable, I think it would be appropriate and necessary to file a complaint with the FCC over Focus's insidious ad buy.

Furthermore, ABC's accomodation of Focus smacks of hypocrisy. Last winter, ABC's broadcast network refused to an ad by the United Church of Christ promoting its inclusive policy to gays and other groups explicity forbidden from belonging to churches under the ideological sway of Dobson and his ilk.

Stacking the FCC deck

Stacking the FCC deck

: Last week, I linked to a report that Sen. Ted Stevens, the bozo who's trying to expand FCC censorship to cable and satellite, is trying to install his aide on the FCC.

Now comes word at Broadcasing & Cable that Sen. Sam Brownback, the scary guy who's pushing for censorship harder than anyone in the Senate, is now trying to get a former aide of his on the FCC.

Anybody want to nominate Howard Stern? Opie? Me?

Desperate censors

Desperate censors

: I have to believe that in the Bozell and Dobson households and in the homes of church ladies across the land, an angry and disappointed groan was heard when Laura Bush said she watches Desperate Housewives. In my house, you could hear a gratified cackle.

: LATER: Sure enough, the Washington Times frets.

This is war

This is war

: At long last the ACLU says it may join the fight for the First Amendment and fight the FCC's censorship.

Why don't they just appoint Pat Robertson?

Why don't they just appoint Pat Robertson?

: 1115.org reports that Ted Stevens -- the twit who wants to extend FCC censorship to cable and satellite -- now wants to install one of his aides in one of the empty chairs at the FCC. This is war, people.

It's easy to complain about complaining at the FCC

It's easy to complain about complaining at the FCC

: John Eggerton at Broadcasting & Cable's blog has a nice bit of Catch-22ism from the FCC, which announces that it's now EASY to file complaints with our national nannies -- damn, just what we needed: a way to make it easy for the prudes and prigs to kneecap the First Amendment and waste bureaucrat-lawyers' time and taxpayer money everytime somebody says "damn." What's wonderful about this is that Eggerton goes on a wild-goosed chase trying to get to that EASY form and it's NOT EASY (thank goodness for small favors). Followup here.

Tube boobs

Tube boobs

: This is incredible: The head of the National Association of Broadcasters selfishly argues for extending indecency regulations to cable just because if he has to suffer under unconstitutional FCC censorship of free speech, he wants his competitors to as well. If the man likes censorship so much, he would have done well to have stuck a gag in his own mouth before he delivered that idiotic and dangerous speech.

President and CEO Eddie Fritts, speaking during the opening ceremony of the NAB's convention in Las Vegas, said broadcasters prefer “responsible industry self-regulation” to government regulation. “But I must ask: if Congress decides to regulate broadcasters for indecency, does it make any sense for cable, satellite TV (and) satellite radio to get a free pass?” Fritts said.

But it's not just one fool. This is apparently NAB policy:

"If you are going to regulate broadcasters, the same rules ought to apply," NAB spokesman Dennis Wharton said.

Note that even Bush is not pushing for indecency regulation creeping into satellite and cable.

: The Boi from Troy says it wonderfully:

This issue is not new. In fact, it reinforces my belief in Nineties Nostalgia. Rather than seek to regulate cable and satellite content, Bill Clinton pushed the market to adopt the V Chip and a ratings system. That way, even if a parent were not around, they could choose which programs and stations to which family members had access.

What we've got here is a question of personal responsibility--a theme George Bush highlighted in his 2000 Presidential Campaign. With 200+ stations across the dial--appealing to animal lovers, women, history buffs, motorcyclists, and soon, homosexuals--you pretty much know what to expect whenever you choose to watch a certain station. If seeing kimodo dragons bite off water buffalo testicles is not your kind of thing, don't watch Animal Planet!

By suggesting that the federal government should regulate cable and satellite content, he is saying that the "Responsibility Era" is not about taking personal responsibility...it's about the federal government taking responsibility for the rest of us. And in this case, I have to say I prefer Clinton's approach to Bush's.

: Pieter Dorsman says that the government and the industry are moving past the V-Chip to the N-chip.

: Brendan Loi agrees with Boi from Troy as does Roger L. Simon; ditto Nobody's Business.

: An archive of many of my recent posts on the topic here.

: On the V-chip: I actually opposed the V-chip when it was proposed years ago and, back when I was a TV critic, I got into a loud argument about it with Democratic Rep. Ed Markey on John McLaughlin's old cable show.

My argument was that by enabling this technology and empowering networks to decide what content gets the scarlet V, we also enable government to argue that the ratings aren't right and to decide what content should be tagged with the label.

Note that, of course, the so-called Parents Television Council is arguing that the networks aren't labeling content properly [via TVGeekSpeak]. We can see where this heads. Slippery, that slope.

Then and now I still favor (1) the First Amendment, (2) the marketplace, (3) parents' authority, and (4) the off-button. But the V-chip already exists and so it is being used as an argument against further government regulation.

This blog has the Parents Television Council Seal of Disapproval

This blog has the Parents Television Council Seal of Disapproval

: Steve Rhodes sends me a tip with a link to a survey the so-called Parents Television Council is running that give us an idea what they're all up to.

Let's all go and spam the survey! Really: Link here and give all the wrong answers.

For my three favorite shows, I listed Howard Stern on E!, Desperate Housewives, and Deadwood.

Anyway, it's clear that one thing they want to do is come up with a PTC Seal of Approval. Oh, God, I hope Hollywood had the balls to refuse to put that on any of its art. This is the organization that is causing millions of dollars in fines from the FCC and is plundering the First Amendment and is trying to cut off artistic freedom in this country. If an entertainment company puts that seal on its product, it is only encouraging these religonuts.

I'm betting Disney will be the first in line to do it.

They push their store with the ugliest crap this side of a rummage sale.

And, of course, never satisfied with using government to enforce their views, the PTC asks: "Would you support legislation in your state that would impose a civil or financial penalty on those who sell or rent "M" (mature) or "AO" (adults only) rated video games to children under 18 years of age?" They want to send the kid at the corner video store to jail.

I just sent in my survey. Want to bet it won't be counted?

Bush and the 'off' button

Bush and the 'off' button

: At the American Society of Newspaper Editors, Bush spoke and Scott Anderson of the Chicago Tribune asked him about efforts to extend indecency legislation to cable and satellite. Bush didn't hear the complete question and so it's unclear whether he's talking about regulation or merely personal standards. But he does repeat that the first and best defense against something you don't like is the 'off' button.

Q There are those who would like to place on satellite and cable some
decency standards.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I'm for that. I think there ought to be a standard. On
the other hand, I fully understand that the final edit, or the final
decision is a parent turning off the TV. I mean, the ultimate responsibility
in a consumer-driven economy is for people to say I'm not going to watch it,
and turn the knob off. That's how best to make decisions and how best to
send influences. But I don't mind standards being set out for people to
adjudge the content of a show, to help parents make right decisions.
Government ought to help parents, not hinder parents in sending good
messages to their children.

But, look, I mean, we're a free society. The marketplace makes decisions. If
you don't like something, don't watch it. And, presumably, advertising
dollars will wither and the show will go off the air. But I have no problems
with standards being set to help parents make good decisions.

: UPDATE: The White House backpedals on behalf of its man:

A White House spokesman said later Bush was merely expressing support for legislation that passed the House of Representatives last year that called for increasing fines on broadcasters that violated decency limits but did not address cable and satellite television.

American women have no nipples (before 10 p.m.)

American women have no nipples (before 10 p.m.)

: Pamela Anderson, appearing on Howard Stern this morning to plug her new Fox show Stacked, said that the network censors have come on the set and ordered that her nippled be "taped down" because you can't have nipples before 10 p.m.

This shows the absurd lengths to which regulatory puritanism has gone: Now American women can't have nipples, at least not before the "safe harbor," when, apparently, nipples are suddenly, magically allowed to pop out again.

I say that the NOW should be storming the FCC with protest over this: Because of the chill (which, yes, ironically, would have the undesired effect on nipples) they have imposed, we are now at the point where a woman's clothed anatomy is deemed to be injurious to children. That's childish itself; it's absurd; it's sexist; it's more offensive than any nipple, even Janet Jackson's.

Free the nipples!

Transplant successful

Transplant successful

: The other day, the LA Times quoted the head of Comcast saying that he was considering taking Howard Stern's show off E! to suck up to legislators and regulators.

On Stern's show this morning, they said that panicked calls were made from Comcast to E! to Stern Inc. denying this.

Well, good. Comcast officially gets its balls back.

Disney, on the other hand, has no balls. Mickey is a eunuch.

Castrated cable

Castrated cable

: The LA Times reports a frightening bit of gutlessness -- no, balllessness -- from the cable industry:

But in an attempt to avoid anti-indecency backlash, sources say, [Comcast Corp. CEO Brian] Roberts may move to take some of Comcast's raciest programming off the air.

Sources said that Roberts was considering not renewing "The Howard Stern Show" — the videotaped version of the shock jock's rant-filled radio program — when the contract expires this spring. The show, which helped put the E channel on the map, is still a ratings winner. But Roberts is worried that Stern, who has racked up more than $2 million in indecency fines for the nation's radio stations, could provoke unwanted scrutiny from Washington, especially if he gets even raunchier once he moves to satellite radio in January.

This is particularly ballless because what cable is trying to avoid is a push to allow consumers to get a la carte channels, which many consumers say they want and which would solve the problem of getting and paying for channels you don't want in your home (as opposed to blocking them but paying for them anyway). He's willing to throw out the First Amendment -- not to mention customer service -- for that.

What's doubly appalling about this is that it is the result of Congress and the FCC enforcing a law they haven't even enforced yet. They are pressuring cable to get rid of the shows they don't like -- and we do -- with the mere threat of legislation.... legislation that surely will be found to be unconstitutional in any case.

This is an abuse of power. Cable should be standing up to it. It should be squealing like a stuck Ted Stevens pig.

So let's add Roberts to the ballless hall of fame with Disney, which invited censorship of cable to avoid a la carte pricing.

And let's contrast that with Johnathan Rogers, a respected TV exec and a good guy I men when he was at CBS. Rogers has balls:

If a compromise cannot be reached, cable executives here warn, some of America's most-watched shows could become targets, including such "basic" cable offerings as "Nip/Tuck" on News Corp.'s FX and Nickelodeon's "SpongeBob SquarePants," which some critics allege promotes a gay lifestyle. Premium cable channels, such as HBO and Showtime, could also face restrictions.

"Viewers are in jeopardy of losing some of their favorite programming unless they speak up," said Johnathan Rodgers, a longtime television executive who is now chief executive of TV One, a cable channel aimed at African Americans. The 5 million people who watch FX's "The Shield," for example, "should let their congressmen know, because other people are labeling it indecent," he said. "That's a judgment call."

Nucking futs!

Nucking futs!

: Just when you think this indecency fetish in Washington can't get sicker, another legislator with a stick up his ass opens his mouth (and the stick protrudes):

The chairman of one of the entertainment industry's most important congressional committees says he wants to take the enforcement of broadcast decency standards into the realm of criminal prosecution.

Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner III, R-Wis., told cable industry executives attending the National Cable & Telecommunications Assn. conference here on Monday that criminal prosecution would be a more efficient way to enforce the indecency regulations.

"I'd prefer using the criminal process rather than the regulatory process," Sensenbrenner told the executives.

The current system -- in which the FCC fines a licensee for violating the regulations -- casts too wide a net, he said, trapping those who are attempting to reign in smut on TV and those who are not.

"People who are in flagrant disregard should face a criminal process rather than a regulator process," Sensenbrenner said. "That is the way to go. Aim the cannon specifically at the people committing the offenses, rather than the blunderbuss approach that gets the good actors.

"The people who are trying to do the right thing end up being penalized the same way as the people who are doing the wrong thing."

At last week's Freedom to Connect, when I interviewed First Amendment attorney Bob Corn-Revere, he reminded the crowd that indecency is already a criminal matter; it's not enforced that way. Now someone wants to.

Say, if I were on TV -- and soon, if some have their way, on cable or satellite... or the internet -- I could not only be fined up to $3 million a day under new legislation if I said "fuck Sensenbrenner," he would now have me go to jail.

Well, fuck Sensenbrenner.

Freedom to Connect

Freedom to Connect

: I'm at the Freedom to Connect conference in Washington.

: David Isenberg, who put this all together, gave a stirring rap (and I mean rap) saying that our freedom to connect is not political enough. He said that thanks to a six programmers somewhere in Europe (read: Skype) had eliminated the need for phone companies ... and paying them $1 trillion dollars. So what will we do with that trillion, we people? Feed people? Solve the energy problem? What?

Lee Rainie of the Pew Internet project gives stats just in from their latest study (which will be up on their site shortly):
: 136 million American adults use the internet -- 67 percent of adults.
: 87 percent of teenagers use the internet
: 59 million Americans have high-speed at home, just over half of users.
: 40 million Americans used the internet to get news online yesterday -- half the number who got it from TV, two-thirds of the number of who got it from newspapers.
: 4 million Googled someone they were about to meet.
: 1 million googled themselves.
: Lee also told me that they asked about use of Craigs List and online classifieds and found very high usage.
He says "the internet has become the norm in America." They're having trouble asking people when they use the internet because it's so much a part of their lives in so many ways now.

: Susan Crawford is unbloggable. She comes out with ideas that require digestion and by the time you've digested it to blog it she is on to the next idea. So I don't try. One questioner got up and said, "You're even better than your blog." You get the idea.

I finally figured out one of her points: If you want government to help you fix something (e.g., kill spam) you also open the door to government regulation of other things you don't want (e.g., email). So beware governmetn involvement.

When the First Amendment is 'the other side'

When the First Amendment is 'the other side'

: CJR Daily goes after The New York Times, as I did the other day, for writing about new FCC National Nanny Kevin Martin and the so-called Parents Television Council without going to anyone -- anyone -- who defends the First Amdment against them. The Constitution is now the unheard other side.

Relying exclusively on quotes from the PTC's president, L. Brent Bozell, Martin, and a few pro-fine Congressmen, the Times ignores any hint of opposition to the proposed new rules.

There's little question that there is a significant movement afoot to increase indecency fines, but the Times fails to report that an equally passionate movement has arisen to resist the proposed expansion of the FCC's mandate.

[via SpeakSpeak]

Our freedoms

Our freedoms

: Bill Hobbs gives you a quiz: Can you name the five freedoms enshrined in and guaranteed by the First Amendment?

Free speech for free speech, please

Free speech for free speech, please

: The Times today talks about censorship under the reign of Kevin Martin, new chairman of the FCC. They quote Brent Bozell, self-appointed head of the so-called Parents Television Council.

But they don't quote anyone from the other side.

The other side needs another side. We need an Americans Free Speech Council. We need to stand up for the First Amendment. And when reporters write stories such as this, they should see that their stories are incomplete if they don't hear from the other side, the side of free speech and the First Amendment.

The cost of free speech

The cost of free speech

: The Congressional Budget Office estimates the FCC will collect $10 million in fines over the next decade.

Stern's restraint

Stern's restraint

: Howard Stern was remarkably restrained this morning gloating about the Wall Street Journal story that reported on an investigation into the Imus Ranch and the PVS jock not paying the charity that runs the spread for his personal use of it. Howard, who has harped on this for years, played his Imus theme -- "I'm a Fake Cowboy" -- only a couple of times. The Journal story is a great read that also shows restraint: It doesn't accuse Imus of anything but let him paint an amusing self-portrait. But today, the Journal also had to report that the investigation is over. It's not scandal. But it is comedy.

Fighting for the First Amendment

Fighting for the First Amendment

: I'm at an Association of National Advertisers' meeting on TV in New York and Bob Corn-Revere, the leading First Amendment attorney (whom I'll be interviewing at the Freedom to Connect conference) is speaking to the industry:

He is subbing for an FCC speaker and he's doing so because, he reveals, when Kevin Martin got the chairman's job at the FCC, people in the agency were told to cancel all speaking engagements.

He lists new content-control initiatives: on violence (see the post below), on children's TV and ad limits (including even the inclusion of URLs for network promotions), on advertising of food ("the new tobacco?"), on product placement, and, of course, on indecency and profanity.

Indecent

Indecent

: Lots of news on the indecent indecency front:

: ANOTHER INDECENT BILL... Sens. John D. Rockefeller (a Democrat... for shame) and Kay Bailey Hutchison introduced an indecent indecency bill that is even more constitutionally abhorrent than the House version.

They would extend FCC censorship to violence, not just indecency. How the hell they're going to define violence is beyond me. So Saving Private Ryan can go on the air even with the F word but it has to go off again because it's violent? And let's get rid of the news, of course. Wave as you go down the slippery slope, senators: First, you want to censor indecency. Then profanity. Now violence. Warning: Political speech is not far behind.

And they would extend FCC censorship to cable and satellite. Warning: The internet is not far behind.

They also require full-screen, 30-second warnings every 30 minutes for any "violent and indecent programming... on broadcast, cable, and satellite programming [sic]." Since no one knows what violent and indecent programming is, the warning should just go up on every show.

They require more children's programming. So they want children to watch more TV, eh?

And they raise fines up to $3 million per day with a provision that appears to allow the FCC to double fines if the violation was scripted or if it occurs on a show with a "viewing or listening audience ... substantially larger than usual, such as a national or international championship sporting event or awards program..." Henceforth known as the Jackson Clause.

: IT'S THE CONSTITUTION, DUMMY... Even national nanny and FCC commissioner Jonathan Adelstein knows that this bill is unconstitutional:

"Right now it's not in our rules to go after any material that's broadcast over cable or satellite," Adelstein said. If Congress were to make such a law, "it would likely be held unconstitutional in the courts. The courts have told us to be very careful about what we say is indecent and they recognize that we’re walking a tightrope between the First Amendment and the need to protect children from hearing this kind of thing.

"If it’s a cable system, or a subscription service like satellite or cable, people are paying for it," Adelstein continued. "They’re inviting it into their homes. And the basis for the broadcast restrictions is that it’s pervasive… But taking that into cable or satellite, the courts would probably look askance at."

: CNN NOT FUCKED.... Just yesterday, the FCC turned down a complaint for a dropped F bomb on CNN during convention coverage because... well, duh, the FCC doesn't censor cable... yet.

Here's the Washington Post's take.

: ON TIME... A few notes on Time's cover story (not really online) on the indecency kerfluffle:

: THE SURVEY SAYS... A poll asks, "Should government ban it from TV?" Note that in no case does a majority say yes:
: Violence? 36 percent yes.
: Cursing and sexual language? 41 percent yes.
: Explicit sexual content, such as nudity? 41 percent yes.
: Drug and alcohol abuse? 33 percent yes.
Well bring on the naked, cursing, drunk ninja ladies!

: OK, then, how about that supposed national consensus of outrate over Janet Jackson's breast? Asked whether they were offended by the incident, only 31 percent said yes. Well, then, were they offended by the Desperate Housewives promotion on Monday Night Football? Only 24 percent said yes.

Asked whether any of these things were "never suitable" -- bare breasts; frontal nudity; bare buttocks; implied sex, no nudity; same-sex couple kissing; advertising for sexual potency drugs -- none gained a majority.

: DISNEY IS EVIL... The story drew to my attention the fact that a Disney executive just broke ranks and favored FCC regulation of cable -- because it's preferable (for Disney... to hell with the Constitution and free speech) to the alternative suggestion that cable customers should be able to buy only the channels they want. Says Broacasting & Cable:

Of course, anytime you hear a media company volunteering for tighter government controls, it sets off the old Follow the Money alarm bells. As it happens, some lawmakers are suggesting an alternative to the content restrictions: forcing cable operators to allow “à la carte” channel shopping so that parents can opt not to receive channels they don’t want their kids to see. Mostly wholesome Disney doesn’t have much to fear there. Ah, but à la carte selection would also allow millions of subscribers who don’t like sports but do like cutting expenses to dump ESPN—one of the priciest items on cable’s prix fixe menu.

Disgusting Disney.

: DAMN, DAMN, DAMN... Time follows around an "analyst" from the so-called Parents Television Council, Kristine Looney [note my restraint], as she catalogues even uses of the word "damn" in a data base covering the naughty bits in 100,000 hours of TV. Naughty includes "every incident of sexual content, violence, profanity, disrepect for authority, and other negative content."

Disrespect for authority is now indecent?

: I WISH THEY'D CLEAR OUT OF MY HOUSE... Time says that "almost single-handedly, the PTC has become a national clearinghouse for, an arbiter of, decency."

Whoa! These bozos appoint themselves to that role and Time swallows it. Even to the FCC, the PTC is not the arbiter of decency; even the FCC turns down many of its prudish yelps.

: DAY IN COURT... A court test of indecency law and enforcement is long, long overdue. Time says that "industry sources tell Time" that broadcasters are considering a court test case. I thought that was already underway with Viacom's refusal to pay the Janet Jackson tit tax and Fox's decision to fight the record Married by America fine that led to my FOIA (quoted in Time). Maybe they have another case. Good. More = merrier.

"There are difficulties" that the FCC faces, a broadcast executive tells Time. "One is that extreme [regulatory] positions are going to run into constitutional problems. The second is inconsistent and vague rulings are going to run into contstitutional problems."

The new national nanny: Another FOIA

: I filed a Freedom of Information Act request for correspondence from FCC commissioners to Brent Bozell, head of the so-called Parents Television Council. Here are excerpts from a letter to Bozell from Kevin Martin, the new chairmanof the FCC:

First, I want to thank the Parents Television Council and the many organization with which you are working for alling attention to the issue of indecency on our airwaves. I share your concern about the increasing courseness of the programming on television and radio.

The FCC plays an important role in protecting Americans -- particularly children -- from obscene and indecent material...."

It's his right, but I'm uncomfortable with Martin thanking Bozell; it puts him on Bozells side; it encourages him.

I also have trouble with him saying that he is protecting adults, and not just children, from indecency.

Martin tells Bozell he supported reducing the requirements for filing complaints (no longer requiring tapes or transcripts). And he pushes to count every utterance of an alleged indecency as a violation to pump up the fines: "Classifying each indecent utterance as a separate violation could result in significantly higher fines for many complaints."

Nothing damning there, mostly echoes of Martin's statements (see a complete list of them here).

: Among the other letters, there are a few interesting notes.

Commissioner Kathleen Abernathy sends what appears to be a form letter but then adds in her handwriting: "Happy Holidays. I'll see you in the new year!" Almost sounds as if they socialize.

: LATER: Terry Heaton sends along a link to this good edwardpig analysis of Martin's relationship with Bozell:

Martin worked for Ken Starr during the witch hunt against Clinton, and when the Florida fix was in danger of falling apart in 2000, "Martin left for Miami so quickly he didn't pack a bag. Working round the clock, he could be seen on TV peering over ballot counters."

The possibility of having a Bush rubber stamp in the position of FCC chair is bad enough. What's worse is that Bush's primary motivation for naming Martin is to throw a bone to the cultural conservatives. Specifically, Brent Bozell, the head of both the Media Research Center (MRC) and the Parents Television Council (PTC), strongly endorses Martin for the post....

But the fact is that Bozell, for all of his conflicts and sleaze, is about to wield considerable power at the FCC. Not only do PTC members account for 99.8% of the complaints filed with the FCC in the past year, Martin seems favorably disposed to heed those complaints and act on them in a big way. Furthermore, Martin does not appear to be content with simply regulating broadcast television. He has suggested that he'd like to explore broadening FCC authority to regulate satellite and cable TV as well.

New FCC, same as the old FCC

: Kevin Martin is to be appointed the new chairman of the FCC. It won't improve. It likely will get even worse. More later...

Next, they come after the internet...

: I've warned you that after the national nannies attack broadcast, they'll come after cable ... and then the internet.

Sen. Ted Stevens, the aging fool who vows to censor cable, now hints that he'll go after our medium.

But in all honesty, it's hard to tell whether he's targeting the internet... or whether he's just an ignorant, confused, old fool. He says:

We ought to find some way to say, here is a block of channels, whether it’s delivered by broadband, by VoIP, by whatever it is, to a home, that is clear of the stuff you don’t want your children to see.

Well, of course, VoIP is voice over internet protocol -- that is, it's the next-wave phone -- and unless the addled fool plans to start censoring your phone calls -- who knows? he could get that in his cobwebby head: no more phone sex! -- then it seems to be this dangerous dinosaur is just confused about one technology or another: Broadband. Cable. VoIP. Broadcast....It's all just so much newfangled whippernsapper stuff, you know. Oh, I do certainly believe that Stevens would censor the internet, given half a chance. But I don't know whether that's what he's trying to say here.

The rest of the transcript is sadly inarticulate. A few other goodies: On cable:

I intend to try and level the playing field. I take the position that at the time the Supreme Court made its decision about cable, cable was just one of the ways for public access to television products. Today 85 percent of the television that is brought to American homes is brought by cable and I believe that the playing field should be leveled. We have imposed this as a standard on local broadcasters. Under the law, we compel cable to carry those local broadcasters.

First, the right way to level the playing field is to acknowledge that broadcast is no longer ubiquitous and special and that the exception to the Constitution carved out for broadcast censorship is no longer valid and all media should have First Amendment protection. The level playing field should be a field of free speech and control by the marketplace, not government censors. Second, must-carry regulations, love them or leave them, have nothing to do with the FCC's indecency authority or the Supreme Court rulings in this arena. You're mixing apples and kumquats, Senator.

He says he wants a rating system for cable as the movies have. He says that without that rating system, they would have censored movies. Try that these days, bud!

He says he delayed markup of the bill because he's going on his honeymoon 25 years after getting married. Leave the Viagra at home, fella: If we can't have fun, niether can you. And...

As I said to that group downtown a couple of weeks ago, I’m not a prude, I like to watch the Sopranos once in a while. I turn them off once in a while, too, but I was sitting there the other night signing my mail and I had on this one program and all I heard was four letter words and participles. Now, when I served in World War II most of us didn’t have very good vocabulary, so that’s why we used those things, those four letter words, but they’ve got better writers than that. They can say the same thing without doing that.

Those nasty participles!

Senator, I want to introduce you to a fancy newfangled device: It's called a remote control. It has an off button and a channel button and you can hit either of them whenever you want. You don't want to hear them danged particples, fine, change the channel. Maybe I do want to hear those participles and the people who say them want to say them. So who the fuck are you to say what I shouldn't hear? And who the fuck are you, Senator, to judge how writers write and what they write? Our founding fathers did not envision that you should become the national nanny, the national editor, the national censor, the national critic, or the national grammarian. Run the damned government, man, and leave the culture to the culture. That is not, never has been, and never should be your job. Yet more:

I think that standard ought to come back in our life – no just to protect children, but let’s get off of this stuff of using, we see it everywhere now. As a matter of fact, many people that I know use four letter words and participles more than we did in the Army. I just don’t understand why we can’t be more of a civil nation. Ok? And, I’m getting old, so I can say those things. All right?

And if I want to say fuck I will say fuck.

He'd be sad and funny if he weren't so dangerous.

Your government censors at work

: The FCC rules that the Desperate Housewives promo was not indecent and illegal.

Well, duh.

But it took all kinds of lawyers and tax dollars to conclude:

We conclude that the material in question is not patently offensive, and thus, not indecent. In particular, the “Monday Night Football” segment, although sexually suggestive, is not graphic or explicit. wens is fully dressed throughout the segment, and, with the exception of a moment when her bare back is exposed to the audience, Sheridan is at all times fully covered with a towel. No sexual or excretory organs are shown or described, and no sexual activities are explicitly depicted or described. Furthermore, the scene where Sheridan drops her towel and jumps into Owens’s arms is brief. Although the scene apparently is intended to be titillating, it simply is not graphic or explicit enough to be indecent under our standard.

And what damned business is it of the goverment's if something is sexually suggestive or intended to be titillating? They seem disappointed it was not explicit enough to get a slap. How much is enough? Only your FCC knows for sure.

More podcast play

: I've played with another podcast response: This brief (five-minute) 'cast takes quotes from Democratic FCC Commissioner Jonathan Adelstein's interview with Brooke Gladstone on On the Media . It was a good interview but I couldn't resist adding my own answers to Adelstein's answers. I'm not so sure this one works; hear what you think.

: I wish this is what the opposition party would do to, say, the State of the Union speech. Rather than that cardboard response the Democrats gave to the last SOTU, how much better it would be if they gave Bush an audio fisking: Respond to his stands, point-by-point, back-and-forth in a podfisk!

Ted Stevens, our senator from Iran

: The Reuters report on Sen. Ted Stevens abhorrently unconstitutional attempt to extend government censorship to cable contains some mind-boggling quotes from him and his House cohort (my emphases):

Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens said he would push legislation this year to accomplish that goal and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Joe Barton said he would back it if it does not violate free speech rights.

"Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area," Stevens, from Alaska, told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents hundreds of local television and radio affiliates. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air" broadcasters.

"There has to be some standard of decency," he said, but noted that "no one wants censorship."

Stevens cited the discussion of masturbation and sex toys during prime time television as one example of content that bothered him. He told reporters he would extend the restrictions to premium channels like HBO as well.

"If we can work out the constitutional questions, I'd be supportive of that," Barton of Texas told reporters later at the conference. "I think they ought to play, to the extent possible, by the same rules." ...

Getaloada these loads: They know this is unconstitutional. But they propose it anyway to get publicity and votes.

They're gaming the Constitution.

: I love this: 3Martini says we need a new bumpersticker:

I'm an adult. I watch cable. And I vote.

: Davenetics issues the same warning I always warn when these people want to expand censorship:

Let's see, if they have the power to "deal with" cable and satellite, I wonder which medium might be dealt with next?

: John Thorpe adds:

I will put it as clearly as I can -- in case the old dingbat Senator cannot understand it. This is not why we elected you. We elected you to cut taxes, fix the entitlements, and kill terrorists -- and not in that order. That's it. No one elected you to make sure that some busybody housewife in Ames, Iowa isn't offended because Bart Simpson said "shit" or whatever the outrage du jour is this week.

: Note that one of Barton's top contributors is Clear Channel.

: LATER: See Dan Gillmor, who also sees unfortunate similaries between Stevens' reign and that in Maylasia.

Indecency makes strange bedfellows

: There's an odd consensus of sorts forming around the notion that thereal solution to is to kill broadcast and increase choice.

Jonathan Rintels at CreativeVoices. just sent me this email:

We debated the Parents TV Council on CNBC last night. Rather than endorse Sen. Ted Stevens's call today to extend FCC broadcast indecency regs to cable and satellite, we were pleasantly surprised (shocked?!) that PTC agreed that our solution was far preferable: give consumers the right to pick and choose what cable channels they want, rather than eat the broadcasters' and cable companies' "packages," larded with channels that offend them. PTC went on to say that technology would soon solve the problem of objectionable content on cable, via VOD and digital cable boxes.

In many ways, I think the debate may be between Old School/Old Media vs. Technologically Savvy New School/New Media – that Sen. Stevens, as well as some of his Hill colleagues, push the old Central Command and Control censoring solution for cable because they don’t know/understand the pro-consumer, pro-personal choice/individual freedom technology that’s out there now with more about to come down the pike.

The video of our CNBC appearance is here.

Now see Ernie Miller's comment in the very good discussion going on in the comments below, in response to another commenter:

Why not disable broadcast entirely and rely exclusively on content which you choose explicitly to bring into your home through the DVD player? Or, don't teach your children to change the channel, teach them only how to operate the DVD player.

Of course, we could always eliminate broadcast television all together, which, honestly, wouldn't be a bad solution in my book.

I wouldn't get ready to pull the plug quite yet, of course. But technology brings many solutions -- the remote control, the V-chip, channel-blocking, broadband allowing on-demand programming, and so on -- putting control where it belongs: in the hands of the consumer, not government.

: Howard Stern made a point this morning about Steven's constitutionally abhorrent effort to extend government censorship to cable (which even Michael Powell knows would be illegal): If you try to censor cable, it's no longer about protecting children, the justification the censors use on broadcast. Now it's about government trying to "protect" adults: you and me.

: Go tell Ted Stevens to:
1. Mind his own damned business.
2. Read the First Amendment.
3. Worry about the deficit and health care and homeland security and Social Security and...
4. Retire.

: I'll say it again: The internet is next. They will try to go after what you and I say here. Welcome to Maylasia.

Handy-dandy indecency smasher

: Pete Blackwell gives us instructions for the only device you'll ever need to get things you don't like off your TV.

: Howard Stern this morning ran a commercial for another amazing technological innovcation that cures this indecency thing: The Knob.

: And Ernie Miller gives us one of his magnificent analyses of the FCC ruling on Private Ryan. He shows, for example, how silly it is that the FCC has to decree that the F-word is always sexual -- even when uttered in he mud of a foxhole, making it curiously homoerotic in the case of Ryan. He concludes:

By all means, let's honor veterans (I'm one), but maybe we could also honor the liberties those veterans fought and died for. The FCC understands that we should honor veterans, but they apparently do not understand why they deserve to be honored.

Senator greases slope with KY

: Sen. Ted Stevens wants to control speech on cable, too.

The Alaska Republican told reporters at the National Association of Broadcasters' annual state leadership convention that the regulations should also apply to premium services such as HBO.

"The problem is most viewers don't differentiate between over-the-air and cable," he said. "Cable is a greater violator in the indecency arena."

Stevens brushed aside constitutional questions about whether the government has the right to regulate indecent speech on pay TV services.

March 02, 2005

Sen. Stevens: Pay TV should comply with indecency regs

By Brooks Boliek
WASHINGTON -- Sen. Ted Stevens, the chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, told broadcasters Tuesday that pay TV services should have to comply with the same indecency regulations as over-the-air TV stations.

The Alaska Republican told reporters at the National Association of Broadcasters' annual state leadership convention that the regulations should also apply to premium services such as HBO.

"The problem is most viewers don't differentiate between over-the-air and cable," he said. "Cable is a greater violator in the indecency arena."

Stevens brushed aside constitutional questions about whether the government has the right to regulate indecent speech on pay TV services.

"I think that's wrong," he said. "I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over the air, because of the combination of the two."

Forget about putting the 10 Commandments in stone in government buildings. Can we just etch the First Amendment over the doors there? Dangerous, this guy.

FCC follies, continued... and continued... and continued...

: As Gomer (or was it Guber?) would say: Surprise! Surprise! Surprise!

The FCC just decided that the F word in Saving Private Ryan is not indecent, obscene, or profane.

In fact, the FCC turned down three complaints -- on Will & Grace and Arrested Development, too. It's as if, once they got rid of Howard Stern, they could let up.

Except I'm still waiting to hear their ruling on Oprah Winfrey.

The latest wisdom from on high....

: In the Private Ryan case, the FCC says that it found Ryan not indecent in 2001 and 2002 but that 66 stations wouldn't air it this time "citing their uncertainty as to whether it contained indecent material, reportedly based, in part, on Commission indecency rulings subsequent to these previous broadcasts of the film."

Well, yeah: In the Bono case, the FCC decrees that the F word is not only indecent but also profane and says:

...we believe that, given the core meaning of the “F-Word,” any use of that word or a variation, in any context, inherently has a sexual connotation, and therefore falls within the first prong of our indecency definition....

We now turn to the second step of the analysis – whether the broadcast of the phrase at issue here is patently offensive under contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium and therefore indecent. We conclude that the answer to this question is yes. The “F-Word” is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language. Its use invariably invokes a coarse sexual image.

Pretty clear to me. That's why the 66 stations refused to air the movie. They felt a chill.

The FCC says that this movie would have no impact on children because children wouldn't watch. Oh, yeah, kids have never been drawn to war movies.

I always enjoy the FCC being forced to say dirty words:

The film... contains numerous expletives and other potentially offensive language generally as part of soldiers’ dialogue, some of which is cited by the Complainants. Such language includes: “f***,” and its variations; “hell”; “ass” and “a**hole”; “crap”; “son of a bitch”; “bastard”; “s***” and its variations, including “bulls***” and “sh***y”; “p***k”; and “pee.” For the purpose of this discussion, we will assume arguendo, that this material meets the first and second components to our analysis of whether it is patently offensive, in that at least some of the language is graphic and explicit, and is repeated throughout the course of the three and a half-hour broadcast of the film.

But here's my favorite part of the ruling, when the FCC argues itself out of this corner. It does so by arguing that Ryan is art.

So that puts the FCC in the position of being the national art critic. The FCC says what is art and what is not. The FCC judges the value of our speech. The FCC is no a censor, it's a f**king critic. Just what we need.

Deleting all of such language or inserting milder language or bleeping sounds into the film would have altered the nature of the artistic work and diminished the power, realism and immediacy of the film experience for viewers. In short, the vulgar language here was not gratuitous and could not have been deleted without materially altering the broadcast. In this context, we must proceed with caution and exercise restraint given “the high value our Constitution places on freedom and choice in what the people say and hear.”

But only what the FCC says it thinks we should say and hear.

That is Constitutionally indecent, obscene, and profane.

(I will confess I added asterisks because this is a segment now on MSNBC.)

Real webcasting history

: Forget about all my MSNBC games. The big wecasting event today is the start of the King of All Blacks show. Howard Stern has been threatening to start a show with him on Sirius. That'll guarantee a million new subs, huh?

Into orbit

: MediaWeek reports on a survey of Stern fans to find out how many are planning to make the switch. 22 percent said they are definitely getting Sirius; 41 percent were still deciding. If those numbers play out, the deal works well for Sirius and Stern. It was reported that Stern had to bring in 1 million subs to make the deal work. He has an audience reported at anywhere from 8 to 18 million; that's 1.7 to 4 million subs just for the 22 percent who are decided; add in some proportion of those who still thinking; add in Nascar fans, now that Sirius got that deal... and I'm glad I bought Sirius stock (with absolutely no insider knowledge!). I'll write a post soon on my reaction to having Sirius and my wish list for it. (Hat tip: Peter Weinberger)

: OOPS: I read an email on this and linked from there. Jimmy Robinson in the comments is my editor and catches me in a bad omission: The story goes further to say that a sizable hunk were not aware of the size of the fee (which is too much, I'd say) and that reduced the number considerably so, given the audience/fan numbers above, the net ends up either below or above 1 million. So they'll still have a lot of selling to do. Thanks, Jimmy. But I'm still not selling the stock.

Stern, Clear Channel settle

: Howard Stern and Clear Channel have settled; no word on details of the deal.

At long effin' last

: The LA Times says broadcasters are, at long last, going to challenge the FCC's indecency cops.

"I think the government is more vulnerable to an indecency challenge than they've ever been before," said Kurt A. Wimmer, a Washington communications lawyer....

Broadcasters haven't brought a major indecency or obscenity case since 1978, when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC's authority to issue indecency fines. That case involved a Pacifica radio station's airing in 1973 of comedian George Carlin's "Seven Words You Can Never Say on Television" routine.

If the broadcasters had fought long ago, we might not be in this unconstitutional mess. CBS, which wimped out with a recent consent decree, is going to fight the Janet Jackson case. And Fox is, as I've reported before, fighting the Married by America fine (the one brought about by only three letter writers).

If the broadcasters had had the balls to fight this before, they might have given constitutional cover to Congress not to vote against the First Amendment. But they were wimpy and late.

Satellite stock

: The NY Post reports that there's an investigation into the rise Sirius stock before Howard Stern announced he was moving there. The SEC even subpoened show regular Chaunce Hayden -- who never gets anything right; he even tried to "report" that the wrong Desperate Housewife was reputed to be gay after he heard part of a TV tease. Stern has said frequently that he could not tell anyone about his plans until the announcement was made precisely because it would have been insider information.

But this was hardly insider speculation. As soon as Janet Jackson bared her inch of flesh, I bought Sirius and announced it here. It was obvious to me: The FCC witchhunt would get worse; Congress would go nuts; Stern would leave terrestrial radio; he'd go to the player ready to pay him more and because Sirius is the underdog, it would be Sirius. It's the only stock pick I've ever done well because it was so damned obvious.

Nannymania

: The atmosphere of nannyism in this country has gotten out of hand. First farts (below), now Eve's breasts.

He painted Eve as God created her: nude.

And when he finished including the bare-bosomed Biblical first woman, he inscribed the word "love" on the mural that covers the outside wall of his Roseville art studio.

In Ed (Gonzo) Stross' eyes, his variation on Michelangelo's "Creation of Man" mural is art.

In 39A District Judge Marco Santia's eyes, it's a crime....

Santia ordered Stross, 43, to serve 30 days in jail, do two years' probation and pay a $500 fine for violating a city sign ordinance. Roseville officials said letters were prohibited on the mural and Eve's exposed chest is indecent.

Besides jail time and the fee, Stross is to tastefully cover Eve's breasts before reporting to the Macomb County Jail on Monday morning, and to paint over "love" by May 1....

ACLU Legal Director Michael J. Steinberg said someone from his office planned to meet with Stross later Thursday to discuss representing him.

"It's a sad day in America when an artist goes to jail for reproducing a Michelangelo painting on the side of his art studio," Steinberg said....

He said he plans to raise money for the fine and probation costs. Stross, who has multiple sclerosis and receives disability payments, said money is tight.

[Thanks, Movieboy]

The unkindest cut of all

: Howard Stern got a new ruling from the lawyers this morning: No long farts. Short farts are OK. Fart sounds made with the mouth (or, I assume, armpit) are apparently OK. But long farts from the fart factory are now feared to be illegal.

Yes, this is why mankind invented the law and broadcast technology: to argue about the the legal length of a fart.

There've been many final straws on Stern's back and he's lobbying to leave now whenever he can. He has also made clear that the minute the indecent indecency bill is signed into law, he'll do nothing but play records, for it's certainly not worth fines that could add into millions -- long after the alleged crimes -- for a medium he's leaving.

But this was the unkindest cut of all. Howard said he found farts funny at 5 and still finds them funny at 51. He makes no pretense of having a sophisticated sense of humor about this. They're just farts. Farts are funny. But now farts are illegal -- or lawyers think they could be, though no one will ever make it clear.

This is beyond silly, it's below stupid. Do we really need legislation about farts?

They're bleeping our soldiers again

: PBS' Frontline spent months filming a report on soldiers in Iraq, A Company of Soldiers, set to air on Feb. 22. Guess what: Soldiers under fire tend to use no-no words. And this caused PBS to wimp out and bleep the words