more on Which is worse---Janet Jackson's breast or eating raw dead rats?

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:12:31 -0500
To: <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] Which is worse---Janet Jackson's breast or eating raw dead
rats?

Dave,

For IP if you like... A few points in response to Robert Lee's complaint:

* I assume Robert is talking about In Demand's decision not to air a
three-hour Michael Moore special before the election that would cost
viewers $10 on pay-per-view. My reading of that, however, makes it sound
like a routine dispute over terms in a contract. Perhaps if Moore
weren't such a money-hungry capitalist and had let In Demand air it for
free, Americans would have the benefit of his trenchant insights:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=170253

* In Demand (not Comcast, which is a joint owner) was exercising its
First Amendment rights not to air Michael Moore's video, just as the New
York Times exercises its First Amendment rights when deciding what
letters to the editor to run, what op-ed columns to print, what stories
to assign, and what ads to accept. And Dave exercises his First
Amendment right when editing IP.

* Even with In Demand's constitutionally-protected refusal, Moore was
hardly muzzled. Fahrenheit 9/11 was the sleeper hit of the summer and
did extraordinarily well at the box office. It's also out on DVD. Anyone
who wishes to be enlighted through the grace of Michael Moore will have
no problem achieving that state.

* I assume Robert is not serious when suggesting that the censorhappy
Republicans (and Democrats, thank you Michael Copps) at the FCC become
*even more censorial* and extend their disapproval of speech to
innovative new categories.

* Even if Robert or anyone is serious about extending censorship of the
airwaves, they'd have to convince Congress to rewrite federal law and
the Constitution as well. 18 USC 1464 gives the FCC the ability to
censor through post-facto fines "any obscene, indecent, or profane
language" that's aired "by means of radio communications." The Supreme
Court upheld that as First Amendment-compliant in Pacifica. But the FCC
does not have authority to punish icky shows. Obscene, indecent, and
profane all have sexual meanings in the law, and for me at least dead
rats are not that titillating.

-Declan


David Farber wrote:
> ------ Forwarded Message
> *From: *Robert Lee <robertslee () verizon net>
> *Reply-To: *<robertslee () verizon net>
> *Date: *Thu, 06 Jan 2005 12:56:19 -0500
> *To: *<dave () farber net>
> *Subject: *Which is worse---Janet Jackson's breast or eating raw dead rats?
>
> I wonder if the FCC will get involved in eating dead rats. I personally,
> would rather have a gander at Janet Jackson¹s breasts.
>  
> On a more serious note, apparently Michael Moore was unable to get some
> cable MSO¹s to accept his money to advertise his recent film, critical
> of the administration.  Comcast was one.  22 million subs or more.  That
> seems to me to be more nauseating and frightening than eating dead rats,
> and would be something the FCC or FTC or SEC or some sort of C or T
> would get involved with.  Here you have intermodal monopolies (Michael
> Powell¹s concept and testimony, not mine) lobbying the government for
> that status, getting it, and then refusing to even advertise a movie
> critical of the administration that takes their money in exchange for
> favorable policy.  Does that sound like the America we teach our kids
> about?  Where is the outcry over that?  Whether or not you are a fan of
> Michael Moore?  Of those 22 million Comcast subscribers how many could
> see that ad on another cable MSO?
>  
> Gandhi said that when you fight the oppressors first they ignore you,
> then they fight you, then you win.  Apparently we are in phase 2.
>  
> http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050105/tv_nm/television_rat_dc
> <http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050105/tv_nm/television_rat_dc>
<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&amp;u=/nm/20050105/tv_nm/television_rat_d
c> 
> <http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050105/tv_nm/television_rat_dc>
>
>  
>  
> LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Watching contestants eat dead rats on NBC's
> gross-out stunt show "Fear Factor" so disgusted a Cleveland man that he
> has sued NBC for $2.5 million, saying he could not stomach what he saw.
>  
>  
>  
> Robert Lee
>
>
>
>
> ------ End of Forwarded Message
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You are subscribed as declan () well com To manage your subscription, go to
> http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
>
> Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/


------ End of Forwarded Message


-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
  http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/