damn the muse

Someone told me that events happen in cycles, and the oppression that occurrs now will have its own voice silenced in a few years. So when I read about CBS stations canceling their plans to show a 9/11 documentary because of language, it's rather disheartening to witness, even if ten years from now such a film ends up being completely harmless. It's the now that's being affected.

So far, about a dozen CBS affiliates have indicated they won't show the documentary, another dozen say they will delay it until later at night and two dozen others are considering what to do...

The announcement came as the Tupelo, Miss.-based American Family Association readied its 3 million members to flood the FCC and CBS with complaints after the documentary airs.

"This isn't an issue of censorship. It's an issue of responsibility to the public," said Randy Sharp, director of special projects for the group, which describes itself as a 29-year-old organization that promotes the biblical ethic of decency.

The documentary first aired on the six-month and one-year anniversaries of the Sept. 11 attacks on the trade center and the Pentagon. This latest showing, on the eve of the five-year anniversary, includes new interviews with many of the firefighters featured in the original, describing how their lives have changed.

Franks said it was an easy decision not to edit the language in the documentary, especially since it has won a George Foster Peabody Award, among others. "It was a much more difficult decision five years ago when the emotions were much more raw and fresh," he said.

Franks said it seemed "dishonest somehow" for the network to cover up the real language five years later because of the current regulatory environment.

However, he said he understood the difficulties of small stations that fear the huge FCC fines. "We're not twisting arms," he said.

FCC spokeswoman Tamara Lipper said the commission routinely takes context into account in any decency analysis.

"We don't police the airwaves. We respond to viewer complaints," Lipper said. "We haven't seen the broadcast in question. It's up to individual stations to decide what they should air or not air."

The irony of the situation is out of the 3 million or so members of the AFA, maybe 100 of them will take the time to watch the broadcast to complain, and the rest will send form letters. If something on tv bothers them that much there is that off switch, or did they skip the part in the bible where it discusses free will.

Posted by yasmín at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was ready to declare July 4th as National Flag Burning Day, but I've been foiled. Thank goodness for small miracles.

The Senate failed to receive sufficient votes to pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting the desecration of the American flag. It failed by one vote. I find this both amusing yet terrifying that our Senate came this close to cutting into the First Amendment. See not many people have desecrated the flag, but when they do it's used to make a statement in our country. It's used to voice displeasure. No one has to agree with it. No one has to like the KKK, but thanks to the numero uno, that first amendment our founding fathers gave us because they were tired of the persecution, prohibition, pure protestantism, freedom of speech exists. We may not agree with it, but as long as it does us no physical harm then for the love of freedom itself stop taking our rights away.

"The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States."

For the record this has to be the most overly broad amendment I have ever read. Does this mean that wearing a bikini with the stars and stripes equals a desecration? Think about it.

Posted by yasmín at 8:36 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

The government and some groups think the networks need to be reigned in, and now they've moved a step closer by passing a tougher law that would allow the FCC to impose a higher fine. Ten times higher. There are some who question that the fines may be used as a form of censorship.

"I believe that government has a responsibility to help strengthen families," Bush said in a statement. "This legislation will make television and radio more family friendly by allowing the FCC to impose stiffer fines on broadcasters who air obscene or indecent programming."

...On the other side, radio and television broadcasters, artists and First Amendment specialists have opposed the increase in fines, saying they will exacerbate what they call the "chilling effect" already underway in the creative community, as the government cracks down on content. For instance, the networks have added delays to live broadcasts that allow them to catch offensive material before it airs. A number of broadcasters have instituted zero-tolerance rules for their on-air personalities, meaning objectionable broadcasts can bring immediate firing.

This makes the V-Chip rather obsolete since it was put in place to help parents lock out their children from watching indecent material on tv. Then again with the advent of better programming on cable that isn't under FCC jurisdiction, parents will still have that responsibility. After all parents do have a responsibility to take care of their children, or will the government be Daddy from now on?

Posted by yasmín at 8:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I happened to catch the second part of South Park's "Cartoon Wars", where one of the boys tries to get Family Guy canceled because he just hates it. The show decides to show the image of Mohammed, and Cartman views this as the perfect oportunity to get rid of FG once and for all.

Both episodes were hysterical, and the first part dealt with FOX censoring the image of M. The whole deal last night was whether Comedy Central was going to censor SP when Mohammed actually came into play. As the episode ran the creators of the show self-censored themselves to make a point because M never showed up. A big black screen appeared instead of Mohammed stating that the network deemed the image of M inappropriate, and as a whole, the scene was hysterical if you consider that Parker and Stone did this on purpose, but apparently Comedy Central did censor South Park.

What makes the situation so hypocritical on the part of Comedy Central is that Mohammed has shown up in a previous episode of SP. Furthermore, the creators of the show have lampooned other religious figures with glee, yet Comedy Central hasn't placed black screens to cover them up. What's different this time? People aren't going to riot in our streets and go nuts because they showed M's image. This is the USA. You came here because our banner said freedom of speech, freedom of expression, and freedom of religion (within certain parameters). If we have to deal with people dissing our religion then vice versa because we love what this country has to offer, which is again, freedom.

Oh wait, I forget, my country is ruled by fear now. Or maybe it's all some elaborate hoax?

Posted by yasmín at 1:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The FCC seeks to fine CBS around $3.6 million for depicting an orgy on television. There was no actual nudity, but since the scene involved teenagers it borders on pornography. In the meantime shows like all the CSI's, which tend to be gratuitous for their violence (and sex cases), don't receive complaints for the gunshots or guttings. One would think that such things would be just as indecent.

Posted by yasmín at 7:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A geography teacher has been suspended after he compared President Bush's current State of the Union to Hitler's speeches. One of his students recorded him as he was pointing out the similarities, and now the school is in uproar because of the administration's actions.

No one wants to be compared to Der Fuhrer, but unless it's against school policy, it seems to me that the administration has no choice but to reinstate the teacher. Unbalanced, yes. He can still say it. He can throw out an idea and make his students think. They're old enough to agree or disagree. To punish a teacher for criticizing the president is censorship and violates free speech.

I do have to wonder though, it's high school geography. Shouldn't he be teaching them about rivers, mountains, tigers, and bears (oh my!)? Bush? There are bigger fish in the sea.

Posted by yasmín at 10:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Please. Don't disrespect the Muslim faith. Anyone can use the lord's name in vain, but use Allah and Yahoo finds the need to add it to a list normally reserved for the most atrocious words imaginable. Of course then comes a man named Callahan and Yahoo finds that it has a dilema. Banning Allah isn't as easy as cunt and dick, though I could probably come up with humorous usernames for the later two that might bump them into the realms of free speech, but the TOS would handle that in three seconds flat. Unless I were God.

But I'm not. Darn.

Posted by yasmín at 9:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Are bloggers journalists? If so, should they be given the same protections? Should their sources remain confidential, and when they refuse to reveal them, should there be any penalties? A case in California involving three blogging sites versus Apple is asking these same questions, and so far Apple is winning.

This isn't good news. Bloggers have something that is more valuable than money, and that's freedom of speech. They have an uncanny way of finding the real news before it's twisted and spun into some melodramtic tale on the 7 o'clock news. In this way they are like journalists because they have their sources, anonymous people who trust these bloggers to publish the dirt, knowing their identies are safe for yet another day. At the same time they aren't journalists because they aren't tied down by rules. Face it. We bloggers can write about anything. It's our own integrity that keeps us from going too far.

Apple's case could stiffle all of this. They're angry some of their secrets were revealed, well go after the people who revealed it to the blogging sites, not the bloggers. If this were a celebrity situation no one would bat an eyelash. If the information had been printed in a print magazine the circumstances would be different. Bloggers stand to lose their ability to publish freely if this isn't stopped.

Apple 1 Bloggers 0

Posted by yasmín at 5:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)