From the category archives:

Free Speech

Via Wired:

Access to YouTube.com, usually readily available in China, was blocked after videos appeared on the site Saturday showing foreign news reports about the Lhasa demonstrations, montages of photos and scenes from Tibet-related protests abroad.

The internet is a tremendous tool for democratization. While access, even in the US, is not yet universal, if some poor person without a personal computer and internet access can get online at the local library, a tremendous amount of user-generated content is readily available.

For now.

The problem is, a very similar problem is rearing it’s head here in the West; the idea of tiered access. Providers want to be able to limit your ability to access some content – at their discretion – unless you have the means to pay them for a higher level of access. The converse of this – the concept that all network traffic should be treated equally, regardless of content or your bandwidth – is called “network neutrality“.

This is a vitally important issue, and I hope to be able to provide some examples in future posts about how the corporate media has already successfully subjugated itself to the kleptocracy. Allowing network providers, many owned by media conglomerates, to regulate what is allowed to pass over their network is inherently undemocratic, and it is a very real threat.

Obama recognizes the importance of the issue. Senator Clinton? I’m not so sure. (In fact, I was unable to find a specific mention of “network neutrality” on Senator Clinton’s website.)

{ 0 comments }

The other day I pointed out the Catholic League’s overreaction to a poster for a gay pride festival that took it’s inspiration from da Vinci’s “Last Supper”. Lisa Renee mentioned in the comments that she found it insulting (perfectly valid for her to feel that way) and that it ‘mocked’ Christianity.

I wanted to point out that the ‘Last Supper’ is nearly iconic, and is often used as a source of inspiration for more ‘base’ sentiments. Dan Savage has an extensive collection of ‘Last Supper’ themed images, most or all with nary a peep from the Catholic League. I don’t mean to come across like I’m picking on Lisa Renee (I’m not!); she just brought up an important topic to discuss.

(The Sopranos has often used classic pieces of art as inspiration, not just for promotional materials, but in the iconic final episode, “Made in America”.)

Made In America

{ 9 comments }

While not “Net Neutrality” related, this underscores the potential power and abuse allowing common carriers to regulate the content transmitted on their networks would permit.

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless has rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

The other leading wireless carriers have accepted the program, which allows people to sign up for text messages from Naral by sending a message to a five-digit number known as a short code.

Verizon has essentially said that Party A and Party B are prohibited from discussing abortion, despite the fact that both parties are voluntarily participating in the (private!) discussion. The kind of (again, solicited) text message that Verizon is blocking? “End Bush’s global gag rule against birth control for world’s poorest women! Call Congress. (202) 224-3121. Thnx! Naral Text4Choice.”

I know wingnuts will say “the market will sort itself out”, and I certainly hope it does (if you use Verizon, you should cancel your business with them if at all possible, and let them know in no uncertain terms that censoring private communications in unacceptable), but this act should be illegal. In fact, it is illegal to do the exact same thing to voice communications, and text messages should be protected as well.

And don’t forget, cell phones operate over a portion of the publicly owned airwaves. Their right to control the frequencies they broadcast cell signals over is granted by the public. So telling them they can’t censor traffic by content is entirely legitimate.

UPDATE: Verizon has reversed their earlier position, and will now allow Naral to use the network.

Saying it had the right to block “controversial or unsavory” text messages, Verizon Wireless rejected a request from Naral Pro-Choice America, the abortion rights group, to make Verizon’s mobile network available for a text-message program.

But the company reversed course this morning, saying it had made a mistake.

“The decision to not allow text messaging on an important, though sensitive, public policy issue was incorrect, and we have fixed the process that led to this isolated incident,” Jeffrey Nelson, a company spokesman, said in a statement.

“It was an incorrect interpretation of a dusty internal policy,” Mr. Nelson said. “That policy, developed before text messaging protections such as spam filters adequately protected customers from unwanted messages, was designed to ward against communications such as anonymous hate messaging and adult materials sent to children.”

Yeah, I’m not buying that explanation.

{ 0 comments }

Well, anything that impugns on the separation of church and state infringes on freedom of religion, so it’s not exactly like this is a new thing for these guys. But this is pretty blatant. Prisons Purging Books on Faith From Libraries:

Behind the walls of federal prisons nationwide, chaplains have been quietly carrying out a systematic purge of religious books and materials that were once available to prisoners in chapel libraries.

The chaplains were directed by the Bureau of Prisons to clear the shelves of any books, tapes, CDs and videos that are not on a list of approved resources. In some prisons, the chaplains have recently dismantled libraries that had thousands of texts collected over decades, bought by the prisons, or donated by churches and religious groups.

So why the purge of religious texts? Pearl-clutching about “islamofascists”, of course. Funny, I can’t remember a single one of these guys being cultivated in the American prison system.

Traci Billingsley, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Prisons, said the agency was acting in response to a 2004 report by the Office of the Inspector General in the Justice Department. The report recommended steps that prisons should take, in light of the Sept. 11 attacks, to avoid becoming recruiting grounds for militant Islamic and other religious groups. The bureau, an agency of the Justice Department, defended its effort, which it calls the Standardized Chapel Library Project, as a way of barring access to materials that could, in its words, “discriminate, disparage, advocate violence or radicalize.”

Ms. Billingsley said, “We really wanted consistently available information for all religious groups to assure reliable teachings as determined by reliable subject experts.”

But prison chaplains, and groups that minister to prisoners, say that an administration that put stock in religion-based approaches to social problems has effectively blocked prisoners’ access to religious and spiritual materials — all in the name of preventing terrorism.

“It’s swatting a fly with a sledgehammer,” said Mark Earley, president of Prison Fellowship, a Christian group. “There’s no need to get rid of literally hundreds of thousands of books that are fine simply because you have a problem with an isolated book or piece of literature that presents extremism.”

Unsurprisingly, limiting the list to 150 books for each religion means that even “acceptable” Western Christianity is being restricted.

Timothy Larsen, who holds the Carolyn and Fred McManis Chair of Christian Thought at Wheaton College, an evangelical school, looked over lists for “Other Christian” and “General Spirituality.”

“There are some well-chosen things in here,” Professor Larsen said. “I’m particularly glad that Dietrich Bonhoeffer is there. If I was in prison I would want to read Dietrich Bonhoeffer.” But he continued, “There’s a lot about it that’s weird.” The lists “show a bias toward evangelical popularism and Calvinism,” he said, and lacked materials from early church fathers, liberal theologians and major Protestant denominations.

The Rev. Richard P. McBrien, professor of theology at the University of Notre Dame (who edited “The HarperCollins Encyclopedia of Catholicism,” which did make the list), said the Catholic list had some glaring omissions, few spiritual classics and many authors he had never heard of.

“I would be completely sympathetic with Catholic chaplains in federal prisons if they’re complaining that this list is inhibiting,” he said, “because I know they have useful books that are not on this list.”

Wow. Who ever would have thought that this government would suppress liberal Christianity and attempt to forcibly spread conservative evangelical Christianity. I suspect the Calvinism favored is of the Christian Reconstructionism variety.

Perhaps the best summary comes from a UofM law prof.

“Government does have a legitimate interest to screen out things that tend to incite violence in prisons,” Mr. Laycock said. “But once they say, ‘We’re going to pick 150 good books for your religion, and that’s all you get,’ the criteria has become more than just inciting violence. They’re picking out what is accessible religious teaching for prisoners, and the government can’t do that without a compelling justification.”

{ 0 comments }

The strip-club regulation law will be going to the polls this fall.

In the battle for popular support, strip-club owners and dancers claimed an edge yesterday.

They turned in 120 boxes of petitions — 382,508 signatures total — to Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner’s office. Citizens for Community Values, the Cincinnati-based group behind tougher rules, submitted more than 220,000 signatures to get the legislative ball rolling early this year.

Funny that the party of “smaller government, out of your lives” feels the need to micro-regulate this. I don’t think this should be the province of state government, and instead should be a local issue. Unfortunately, I doubt voters will be able to separate their personal feelings about strip clubs from the policy issue of statewide regulation.

A poll commissioned by [Citizens for Community Values] in May showed 60 percent of Ohioans support a law making strip clubs close at midnight. About 68 percent said physical contact should be banned between dancers and patrons.

Acknowledging the typical skepticism based on the poll sponsor, I have little doubt that this law is, in fact, publicly popular. Doesn’t make it good policy.

{ 4 comments }

We’ve all known that Bush’s public appearances have attempted to carefully control access to “lock out” any kind of protesters. However, that just scratches the surface.

To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create “rally squads” of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with “favorable messages.” Squads should be placed in strategic locations and “at least one squad should be ‘roaming’ throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems,” the manual says.

“These squads should be instructed always to look for demonstrators,” it says. “The rally squad’s task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site.”

Advance teams are advised not to worry if protesters are not visible to the president or cameras: “If it is determined that the media will not see or hear them and that they pose no potential disruption to the event, they can be ignored. On the other hand, if the group is carrying signs, trying to shout down the President, or has the potential to cause some greater disruption to the event, action needs to be taken immediately to minimize the demonstrator’s effect.”

I don’t believe any aspect of this is illegal – but it is definitely very antithetical to American values.

{ 1 comment }

This Abukar Arman mess just won’t go away. It seems the Ohio right-wing blogosphere is obsessed with this man, and unwilling to take his writings at face value. Just yesterday, BizzyBlog had this to say:

Abukar Arman has expressed support in his writings for known terrorists, terrorist organizations, and groups that wish to impose Sharia law on their populations.

As I’ve said before, this is a tremendous over-simplification. His characterization of this is “extra-constitutional”. I’m not quite sure what Tom means by this – is it “extra-constitutional” to write that “internally, ICU, with its various shortcomings, is the best thing that happened to Somalia in the past 16 years?” Because it is, and anyone not interested in a witch hunt should be able to see that. She's a witch!  Burn her!

Arman’s “crime”, apparently, is believing that working to de-radicalize radical Islamic groups that are in charge is a good thing. Arman is hardly alone. Former top official in Barak’s Israeli Government Daniel Levy wrote a few days ago

My apparent “crime” is to support engagement with Hamas as part of a strategy for enhancing a ceasefire, security in the region, and ultimately, to advance a peace process that can actually deliver the goods. In being “dangerous” — presumably to Israel and perhaps also Anglo-Jewry — I find myself in not bad company. Former Mossad chief Efraim Halevy, ex-Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami, previous West Bank Divisions Commander and Civil Administration head General Ilan Paz, Gaza Brigades Commander Colonel Shaul Arieli and ex-deputy National Security adviser Yisraela Oron are just a few of the “dangerous” types who support this approach.

In fact, the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs had this to say (emphasis added):

We conclude that the decision not to speak to Hamas in 2007 following the Mecca agreement has been counterproductive…We conclude that the decision to boycott Hamas despite the Mecca agreement and the continued suspension of aid to the national unity Government meant that this Government was highly likely to collapse. We further conclude that whilst the international community was not the root cause of the intra-Palestinian violence, it failed to take the necessary steps to reduce the risk of such violence occurring.

Given the failure of the boycott to deliver results, we recommend that the Government should urgently consider ways of engaging politically with moderate elements within Hamas as a way of encouraging it to meet the three Quartet principles. We conclude that any attempts to pursue a ‘West Bank first’ policy would risk further jeopardising the peace process. We recommend that the Government urge President Abbas to come to a negotiated settlement with Hamas with a view to re-establishing a national unity Government across the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

So there you have it. The UK House of Commons Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has “expressed support in [their] writings for known terrorists, terrorist organizations, and groups that wish to impose Sharia law on their populations.” Presumably “extra-constitutionally”, whatever that means.

I have to agree with Jerid – there seems to be little explanation for this right-wing hysteria other than racism and anti-Muslim fervor. Just as the majority of devout Christians are not Christofascists, the majority of devout Muslims are not Islamofascists. Just because a devout Muslim has opinions different than yours, that doesn’t put him the the “fascist” camp. Just because someone is willing to admit that a flawed group like the ICU is better than the alternatives that doesn’t mean they think the ICU is the end-all-be-all.

You guys need to let it go. You sound like the crowd in the Monty Python “She’s a witch” skit. It’d be funny, if it didn’t involve real people.

{ 0 comments }

Net Neutrality

by Brian on August 10, 2007 · Comments

When corporations talk about opposing “Net Neutrality”, what they want to protect is their ability to censor. For example, AT&T webcast Lollapalooza, and decided to censor Pearl Jam for some rather innocuous political speech. Here is the web cast:

And here is what it looked like from the crowd.

Media corporations shape how we view the world. They don’t act in our best interests; they act in the best interests of the money of the people that own and control them. AT&T got caught this time for being sloppy. From Pearl Jam’s statement:

This, of course, troubles us as artists but also as citizens concerned with the issue of censorship and the increasingly consolidated control of the media.

AT&T’s actions strike at the heart of the public’s concerns over the power that corporations have when it comes to determining what the public sees and hears through communications media.

Most telecommunications companies oppose “net neutrality” and argue that the public can trust them not to censor..

Even the ex-head of AT&T, CEO Edward Whitacre, whose company sponsored our troubled webcast, stated just last March that fears his company and other big network providers would block traffic on their networks are overblown..

“Any provider that blocks access to content is inviting customers to find another provider.” (Marguerite Reardon, Staff Writer, CNET News.com Published: March 21, 2006, 2:23 PM PST).

But what if there is only one provider from which to choose?

If a company that is controlling a webcast is cutting out bits of our performance -not based on laws, but on their own preferences and interpretations – fans have little choice but to watch the censored version.

What happened to us this weekend was a wake up call, and it’s about something much bigger than the censorship of a rock band.

Just more “liberal bias” in the media, I suppose. You can read more at Save The Internet.

{ 4 comments }

You know, it’s natural to get frustrated when stuff like the “Protect America Act” manage to get passed in a Democratic Congress. But before you get too worked up, check this out.

Still think there’s no difference between the GOP and Democrats? CorrenteWire generated the chart, and has some analysis as to what’s going on.

{ 0 comments }

New law that modifies FISA was passed this weekend.

The administration said the measure is needed to speed the National Security Agency’s ability to intercept phone calls, e-mails and other communications involving foreign nationals “reasonably believed to be outside the United States.” Civil liberties groups and many Democrats said it goes too far, possibly enabling the government to wiretap U.S. residents communicating with overseas parties without adequate oversight from courts or Congress.

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that “foreign intelligence information” is at stake. Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

The government long has had substantial powers to intercept purely foreign communications that don’t touch U.S. soil.

If a U.S. resident becomes the chief target of surveillance, the government would have to obtain a warrant from the special FISA court.

I especially “liked” this:

“It does nothing to tear up the Constitution,” said Rep. Dan Lungren, R-Calif.

If an American’s communications are swept up in surveillance of a foreigner, he said, “we go through a process called minimization” and get rid of the records unless there is reason to suspect the American is a threat.

So we’ll listen – without a warrant – but we’ll throw the records away if we don’t find anything. Gee, that’s swell. OhDave has a suggestion on how to help convince our Congressional delegation to not fold in the face of a threatened veto. Make your voices heard.

The Senate roll call is unavailable officially, but we know Brown voted against this bill, and Voinovich for it. Here are the members of Ohio’s House delegation to vote for the bill (roll call 836): Chabot, Schmidt, Turner, Jordan, Gillmor, Wilson, Hobson, Boehner, Tiberi, LaTourette, Pryce, Regula, Space.

Kaptur, Kucinich, Jones, Sutton, and Ryan were the only Ohioans willing to stare down Bush.

{ 6 comments }

When I finally got close to the front of the line at my polling place in 2004, a pollworker told me to cover my T-shirt. It had the words “Vote Explosion” on it.

Seeing as I had nothing to cover it with and had just spent 3 hours in line, I politely pointed out that there was no partisanship expressed by the shirt. Vote Explosion was just a loose group of friends registering folks to vote at rock shows. She replied that they were trying to avoid even the slightest possible implication of impropriety.

OK, fair enough. Polling places are supposed to be inner sanctums of nonpartisanhip. Neither voters nor pollworkers may wear political shirts, stickers, or buttons within a 100 foot radius. Although the words “Vote Explosion” aren’t explicitly partisan, neither are the words “Eagle Forum” or “MoveOn.” I think it was a wise move to err on the side of overzealousness, and simply prohibit T-shirts bearing all of the above.

The guy behind me in line loaned me his sweatshirt, and I was able to step forth to express my partisanship in the privacy of the voting booth. As an ongoing tribute of thanks to sweatshirt guy, ever since that day I’ve stowed an extra large, plain T-shirt in my purse whenever I go to vote – just in case a fellow voter is asked to cover up.

Until I read Monday’s Columbus Dispatch, it had never occurred to me that I might someday want to offer my spare shirt to a pollworker.

As part of its “Day of Democracy” effort to fill 2,200 pollworker spots in 548 precincts, Montgomery County Board of Elections deputy director Betty Smith told Dayton Right to Life executive director Christi Dodson that the organization’s logo would be permitted to be emblazoned on the chests of pollworkers.

A shortage of poll workers prompted the Montgomery County Board of Elections’ “Day of Democracy” program, which allowed companies and organizations to put forth their logo-wearing employees as elections workers.

The idea was that companies and organizations would be more willing to recruit employees or members to work the polls if they could get a little free advertising in return. Union members, for example, wore shirts bearing their union’s logo while working the May 8 primary.

According to the Dayton Daily News, “although Right to Life sent people to work at the polls in May, none wore the group’s shirts because they were not ready, said Christi Dodson, executive director.”

“This was strictly a marketing tool,” said Betty Smith, a Republican who is the board’s deputy director. “It was not put together to have any political agenda.”

Did Smith think that as long as all the organizations that produced pollworkers were allowed to wear their t-shirts, it would be o.k.? Equal opportunity and such?

Betty Smith obviously showed unacceptable ignorance and lack of good judgment, but equally culpable are organizations that took her up on the offer. Leaders of any politically-oriented organization should know better than to participate in this “marketing” plan. But Dodson, executive director of Dayton Right To Life, was prepared to take the opportunity a step further. In reference to her organization’s members who would be acting as pollworkers on election day (italics mine):

Obviously we will be there to answer questions about life issues, but I think we have to be very careful that we are helping at the polls that day,” Dodson said. “We are not there to convert somebody.”

Well, that got the attention of the good folks of the Montgomery County BOE. I’m not sure where they all were back when the “Day of Democracy” program was approved, but anyway:

[Dodson's] remark was greeted with shock by county board officials, who said poll workers are never to discuss any political issue, even if no voters are in the room.

“If anybody said we’re putting ‘right to life’ on shirts at the polls I’d have said ‘hold it,’ ” said Sue Finley, a Republican member of the board.

Finley, fellow Republican Jim Nathanson, and Democrats Tom Ritchie and Dennis Lieberman, said the only fair solution might be to ban all names and logos on elections workers’ clothing.

I can think of one cause that is appropriate for pollworkers to champion on election day: upholding the letter and spirit of election laws. That includes maintaining an atmosphere of impartiality. Anyone who is incapable of that has no business being a pollworker.

Which brings us back to the chronic pollworker shortage, which unfortunately is not limited to Montgomery County. Here in Franklin the BOE has over 5,000 spots to fill. Cuyahoga County needs 3,000 poll workers.

So I’m going to be a pollworker November 6 and I assure you I won’t be wearing my Vote Explosion shirt. Or my Planned Parenthood pin. Heck, just for kicks I might even make sure I’m not wearing pink, orange, or black.

It will be tough to keep my opinionated nature under wraps for a full day, but I’m up to the challenge. If you’re up for it too, please join me – sign up to be a pollworker. Click here for a full list of county Boards of Elections.

{ 5 comments }

Former Surgeon General Richard Carmona appeared Tuesday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, charging that top Bush administration officials silenced him in his public health reports. According to Carmona, during his four-year term (2002-2006) he was not allowed to speak or issue reports regarding stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, or prison, mental, and global health issues.

Regarding the politicization of his office, Carmona added that some other former Surgeon Generals told him, “We have never seen it as partisan, as malicious, as vindictive, as mean-spirited as it is today, and you clearly have worse than anyone’s had.”

The official response is as follows: “It has always been this administration’s position that public health policy should be rooted in sound science,” said Bill Hall, spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services.

No administration response yet on Dr. Carmona’s additional charge that he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches.

Some bloggers have questioned why Carmona stuck it out for four years and pretty much did as he was told. An “oath to the president” perhaps? OK, I confess… I just wanted an excuse to post the Leahy v. Taylor clip one more time:

{ 0 comments }

This morning, RABid is pimping Ken Blackwell’s latest column on TownHall. The entire column is a fabrication – a lie – and plainly claims a bill does something it explicitly does not. Let’s take a closer look, shall we?

Blackwell says:

A bill making it illegal for people of various faiths to freely hold and profess their respective religion’s teaching on sexual morality is working its way through Congress.

The bill says:

Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Krazy Kenny says: [click to continue…]

{ 11 comments }

This post is a Matty Special, just for our friends at RABid.

It turns out that Dr. Laura’s son, who is currently deployed in Afghanistan, had a MySpace page. And what a page it was.

The soldier son of talk radio relationship counselor Laura Schlessinger is under investigation for a graphic personal Web page that one Army official has called “repulsive.”

The MySpace page, publicly available until Friday when it disappeared from the Internet, included cartoon depictions of rape, murder, torture and child molestation; photographs of soldiers with guns in their mouths; a photograph of a bound and blindfolded detainee captioned “My Sweet Little Habib”; accounts of illicit drug use; and a blog entry headlined by a series of obscenities and racial epithets.

More:

“Yes . . . F—ING Yes!!!” said one blog entry on the Schlessinger site. “I LOVE MY JOB, it takes everything reckless and deviant and heathenistic and just overall bad about me and hyper focuses these traits into my job of running around this horrid place doing nasty things to people that deserve it . . . and some that don’t.”

Nice. I’ll leave it to our readers to draw their own conclusions about Mr. Schlessinger, or his mother, and what – if anything – this news means.

{ 2 comments }

Retired General John Batiste had his consulting arrangement with CBS terminated due to his participation in a recent VoteVets ad. Think Progress notes the numerous excuses and backtracking that followed the announcement. They either can’t get their story straight or they never had one.

Keith Olbermann discussed this recently with the general and it seems clear that the Republicans are out to eat their own in their orgy of a power scramble. Not only can you not be anti-war. You can’t even be pro-war to a different tune than the administration. It’s laughable and an indication that some of us on the lefty side of the blogosphere might be right: these guys are going to sink further and further into their self dug graves of neocon fantasyland. It’d be funny if it hadn’t already damaged our country and threaten to damage it even more. I wish there were more principled Republicans who would stand up and tell it like it is and accept the fact that the neocons and christofascists have taken their party hostage and vow to take it back.

But then again part of me hopes that will never happen and that they only keep cycling downward in a voracious race to the bottom. They are good at it as evidenced by this last primary debate – and they’ve got enough fans to stay at it given the applause (in S. Carolina anyways).

Tell CBS to cut the shit and renew their consulting arrangement with the good general by joining me in adding your name to the list! Thanks to MoveOn.org for the petition and to ProgressOhio.org for the heads up!

Sign the petition and demand that CBS re-hire General Batiste
!

{ 0 comments }