Given the circumstances in Minnesota - with Al Franken's writings back in the day - I have thought a lot lately about the classic Supreme Court First Amendment cases. The rules here are unique, and these days many spots in the world are moving closer towards regulating political speech.

In 1972 George Carlin got arrested for some quality words:

Pacifica Radio put on the routine from the Occupation: Foole album...

Occupation: Foole - Wikipedia

Wikipedia adds: Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the FCC action in 1978, by a vote of 5 to 4, ruling that the routine was "indecent but not obscene". The Court accepted as compelling the government's interests in 1) shielding children from patently offensive material, and 2) ensuring that unwanted speech does not enter one's home. The Court stated that the FCC had the authority to prohibit such broadcasts during hours when children were likely to be among the audience, and gave the FCC broad leeway to determine what constituted indecency in different contexts.

Here we go: the full text from of course, the Electronic Frontier Foundation: (thanks for all the nice work, EFF)

http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/FCC_v_Pacifica/fcc_v_pacifica.decision

FCC V. PACIFICA FOUNDATION

FCC v. PACIFICA FOUNDATION

438 U.S. 726 (1978)

Decided July 3, 1978

1. Syllabus

2. Majority opinion

3. Concurring opinion

4. Dissenting opinion

5. Dissenting opinion

A radio station of respondent Pacifica Foundation (hereinafter

respondent) made an afternoon broadcast of a satiric monologue,

entitled "Filthy Words," which listed and repeated a variety of

colloquial uses of "words you couldn't say on the public airwaves." A

father who heard the broadcast while driving with his young son

complained to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which,

after forwarding the complaint for comment to and receiving a response

from respondent, issued a declaratory order granting the complaint.

While not imposing formal sanctions, the FCC stated that the order

would be "associated with the station's license file, and in the event

subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will then decide

whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions it has been

granted by Congress." In its memorandum opinion, the FCC stated that

it intended to "clarify the standards which will be utilized in

considering" the growing number of complaints about indecent radio

broadcasts, and it advanced several reasons for treating that type of

speech differently from other forms of expression. The FCC found a

power to regulate indecent broadcasting, inter alia, in 18 U.S.C. 1464

(1976 ed.), which forbids the use of "any obscene, indecent, or

profane language by means of radio communications." The FCC

characterized the language of the monologue as "patently offensive,"

though not necessarily obscene, and expressed the opinion that it

should be regulated by principles analogous to the law of nuisance

where the "law generally speaks to channeling behavior rather than

actually prohibiting it." The FCC found that certain words in the

monologue depicted sexual and excretory activities in a particularly

offensive manner, noted that they were broadcast in the early

afternoon "when children are undoubtedly in the audience," and

concluded that the language as broadcast was indecent and prohibited

by 1464. A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals reversed, one

judge concluding that the FCC's action was invalid either on the

ground that the order constituted censorship, which was expressly

forbidden by 326 of the Communications Act of 1934, or on the ground

that the FCC's opinion was the functional equivalent of a rule, and as

such was "overbroad." Another judge, who felt that 326's censorship

provision did not apply to broadcasts forbidden by 1464, concluded

that 1464, construed narrowly as it has to be, covers only language

that is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment. The

third judge, dissenting, concluded that the FCC had correctly

condemned the daytime broadcast as indecent. Respondent contends that

the broadcast was not indecent within the meaning of the statute

because of the absence of prurient appeal. Held: The judgment is

reversed. Pp. 734-741; 748-750; 761-762.

181 U.S. App. D.C. 132, 556 F.2d 9, reversed.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to

Parts I-III and IV-C, finding:

1. The FCC's order was an adjudication under 5 U.S.C. 554 (e) (1976

ed.), the character of which was not changed by the general statements

in the memorandum opinion; nor did the FCC's action constitute

rulemaking or the promulgation of regulations. Hence, the Court's

review must focus on the FCC's determination that the monologue was

indecent as broadcast. Pp. 734-735.

2. Section 326 does not limit the FCC's authority to sanction

licensees who engage in obscene, indecent, or profane broadcasting.

Though the censorship ban precludes editing proposed broadcasts in

advance, the ban does not deny the FCC the power to review the content

of completed broadcasts. Pp. 735-738.

3. The FCC was warranted in concluding that indecent language within

the meaning of 1464 was used in the challenged broadcast. The words

"obscene, indecent, or profane" are in the disjunctive, implying that

each has a separate meaning. Though prurient appeal is an element of

"obscene," it is not an element of "indecent," which merely refers to

noncomformance with accepted standards of morality. Contrary to

respondent's argument, this Court in Hamling v. United States, 418

U.S. 87, has not foreclosed a reading of 1464 that authorizes a

proscription of "indecent" language that is not obscene, for the

statute involved in that case, unlike 1464, focused upon the prurient,

and dealt primarily with printed matter in sealed envelopes mailed

from one individual to another, whereas 1464 deals with the content of

public broadcasts. Pp. 738-741.

4. Of all forms of communication, broadcasting has the most limited

First Amendment protection. Among the reasons for specially treating

indecent broadcasting is the uniquely pervasive presence that medium

of expression occupies in the lives of our people. Broadcasts extend

into the privacy of the home and it is impossible completely to avoid

those that are patently offensive. Broadcasting, moreover, is uniquely

accessible to children. Pp. 748-750.

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS, joined by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, and MR. JUSTICE

REHNQUIST, concluded in Parts IV-A and IV-B:

1. The FCC's authority to proscribe this particular broadcast is not

invalidated by the possibility that its construction of the statute

may deter certain hypothetically protected broadcasts containing

patently offensive references to sexual and excretory activities. Cf.

Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367. Pp. 742-743.

2. The First Amendment does not prohibit all governmental regulation

that depends on the content of speech. Schenck v. United States, 249

U.S. 47, 52. The content of respondent's broadcast, which was

"vulgar," "offensive," and "shocking," is not entitled to absolute

constitutional protection in all contexts; it is therefore necessary

to evaluate the FCC's action in light of the context of that

broadcast. Pp. 744-748.

MR. JUSTICE POWELL, joined by MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concluded that the

FCC's holding does not violate the First Amendment, though, being of

the view that Members of this Court are not free generally to decide

on the basis of its content which speech protected by the First

Amendment is most valuable and therefore deserving of First Amendment

protection, and which is less "valuable" and hence less deserving of

protection, he is unable to join Part IV-B (or IV-A) of the opinion.

Pp. 761-762.

STEVENS, J., announced the Court's judgment and delivered an opinion

of the Court with respect to Parts I-III and IV-C, in which BURGER, C.

J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined, and in all but Parts IV-A and IV-B of

which BLACKMUN and POWELL, JJ., joined, and an opinion as to Parts

IV-A and IV-B, in which BURGER, C. J., and REHNQUIST, J., joined.

POWELL, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the

judgment, in which BLACKMUN, J., joined, post, p. 755. BRENNAN, J.,

filed a dissenting opinion, in which MARSHALL, J., joined, post, p.

762. STEWART, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which BRENNAN, WHITE,

and MARSHALL, JJ., joined, post, p. 777.

Joseph A. Marino argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the

briefs were Robert R. Bruce and Daniel M. Armstrong.

Harry M. Plotkin argued the cause for respondent Pacifica Foundation.

With him on the brief were David Tillotson and Harry F. Cole. Louis F.

Claiborne argued the cause for the United States, a respondent under

this Court's Rule 21 (4). With him on the brief were Solicitor General

McCree, Assistant Attorney General Civiletti, and Jerome M. Feit.[*]

*Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed by Anthony H. Atlas

for Morality in Media, Inc.; and by George E. Reed and Patrick F.

Geary for the United States Catholic Conference.

Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed by J. Roger

Wollenberg, Timothy B. Dyk, James A. McKenna, Jr., Carl R. Ramey,

Erwin G. Krasnow, Floyd Abrams, J. Laurent Scharff, Corydon B. Dunham,

and Howard Monderer for the American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., et

al.; by Henry R. Kaufman, Joel M. Gora, Charles Sims, and Bruce J.

Ennis for the American Civil Liberties Union et al.; by Irwin Karp for

the Authors League of America, Inc.; by James Bouras, Barbara Scott,

and Fritz E. Attaway for the Motion Picture Association of America,

Inc.; and by Paul P. Selvin for the Writers Guild of America, West

Inc.

Charles M. Firestone filed a brief for the Committee for Open Media as

amicus curiae.

FCC V. PACIFICA FOUNDATION - MAJORITY OPINION

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS delivered the opinion of the Court (Parts I, II,

III, and IV-C) and an opinion in which THE CHIEF JUSTICE and MR.

JUSTICE REHNQUIST joined (Parts IV-A and IV-B).

This case requires that we decide whether the Federal Communications

Commission has any power to regulate a radio broadcast that is

indecent but not obscene.

A satiric humorist named George Carlin recorded a 12-minute monologue

entitled "Filthy Words" before a live audience in a California

theater. He began by referring to his thoughts about "the words you

couldn't say on the public, ah, airwaves, um, the ones you definitely

wouldn't say, ever." He proceeded to list those words and repeat them

over and over again in a variety of colloquialisms. The transcript of

the recording, which is appended to this opinion, indicates frequent

laughter from the audience.

At about 2 o'clock in the afternoon on Tuesday, October 30, 1973, a

New York radio station, owned by respondent Pacifica Foundation,

broadcast the "Filthy Words" monologue. A few weeks later a man, who

stated that he had heard the broadcast while driving with his young

son, wrote a letter complaining to the Commission. He stated that,

although he could perhaps understand the "record's being sold for

private use, I certainly cannot understand the broadcast of same over

the air that, supposedly, you control."

The complaint was forwarded to the station for comment. In its

response, Pacifica explained that the monologue had been played during

a program about contemporary society's attitude toward la0nguage and

that, immediately before its broadcast, listeners had been advised

that it included ++"sensitive language which might be regarded as

offensive to some." Pacifica characterized George Carlin as "a

significant social satirist" who "like Twain and Sahl before him,

examines the language of ordinary people. . . . Carlin is not mouthing

obscenities, he is merely using words to satirize as harmless and

essentially silly our attitudes towards those words." Pacifica stated

that it was not aware of any other complaints about the broadcast.

On February 21, 1975, the Commission issued a declaratory order

granting the complaint and holding that Pacifica "could have been the

subject of administrative sanctions." 56 F. C. C. 2d 94, 99. The

Commission did not impose formal sanctions, but it did state that the

order would be "associated with the station's license file, and in the

event that subsequent complaints are received, the Commission will

then decide whether it should utilize any of the available sanctions

it has been granted by Congress."[fn1]

In its memorandum opinion the Commission stated that it intended to

"clarify the standards which will be utilized in considering" the

growing number of complaints about indecent speech on the airwaves.

Id., at 94. Advancing several reasons for treating broadcast speech

differently from other forms of expression,[fn2] the Commission found

a power to regulate indecent broadcasting in two statutes: 18 U.S.C.

1464 (1976 ed.), which forbids the use of "any obscene, indecent, or

profane language by means of radio communications,"[fn3] and 47 U.S.C.

303 (g), which requires the Commission to "encourage the larger and

more effective use of radio in the public interest."[fn4]

The Commission characterized the language used in the Carlin monologue

as "patently offensive," though not necessarily obscene, and expressed

the opinion that it should be regulated by principles analogous to

those found in the law of nuisance where the "law generally speaks to

channeling behavior more than actually prohibiting it. . . . [T]he

concept of `indecent' is intimately connected with the exposure of

children to language that describes, in terms patently offensive as

measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium,

sexual or excretory activities and organs, at times of the day when

there is a reasonable risk that children may be in the audience." 56

F. C. C. 2d, at 98.[fn5]

Applying these considerations to the language used in the monologue as

broadcast by respondent, the Commission concluded that certain words

depicted sexual and excretory activities in a patently offensive

manner, noted that they "were broadcast at a time when children were

undoubtedly in the audience (i. e., in the early afternoon)," and that

the prerecorded language, with these offensive words "repeated over

and over," was "deliberately broadcast." Id., at 99. In summary, the

Commission stated: "We therefore hold that the language as broadcast

was indecent and prohibited by 18 U.S.C. [] 1464."[fn6] Ibid.

After the order issued, the Commission was asked to clarify its

opinion by ruling that the broadcast of indecent words as part of a

live newscast would not be prohibited. The Commission issued another

opinion in which it pointed out that it "never intended to place an

absolute prohibition on the broadcast of this type of language, but

rather sought to channel it to times of day when children most likely

would not be exposed to it." 59 F. C. C. 2d 892 (1976). The Commission

noted that its "declaratory order was issued in a specific factual

context," and declined to comment on various hypothetical situations

presented by the petition.[fn7] Id., at 893. It relied on its "long

standing policy of refusing to issue interpretive rulings or advisory

opinions when the critical facts are not explicitly stated or there is

a possibility that subsequent events will alter them." Ibid.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia

Circuit reversed, with each of the three judges on the panel writing

separately. 181 U.S. App. D.C. 132, 556 F.2d 9. Judge Tamm concluded

that the order represented censorship and was expressly prohibited by

326 of the Communications Act.[fn8] Alternatively, Judge Tamm read the

Commission opinion as the functional equivalent of a rule and

concluded that it was "overbroad." 181 U.S. App. D.C., at 141, 556

F.2d, at 18. Chief Judge Bazelon's concurrence rested on the

Constitution. He was persuaded that 326's prohibition against

censorship is inapplicable to broadcasts forbidden by 1464. However,

he concluded that 1464 must be narrowly construed to cover only

language that is obscene or otherwise unprotected by the First

Amendment. 181 U.S. App. D.C., at 140-153, 556 F.2d, at 24-30. Judge

Leventhal, in dissent, stated that the only issue was whether the

Commission could regulate the language "as broadcast." Id., at 154,

556 F.2d, at 31. Emphasizing the interest in protecting children, not

only from exposure to indecent language, but also from exposure to the

idea that such language has official approval, id., at 160, and n. 18,

556 F.2d, at 37, and n. 18, he concluded that the Commission had

correctly condemned the daytime broadcast as indecent.

Having granted the Commission's petition for certiorari, 434 U.S.

1008, we must decide: (1) whether the scope of judicial review

encompasses more than the Commission's determination that the

monologue was indecent "as broadcast"; (2) whether the Commission's

order was a form of censorship forbidden by 326; (3) whether the

broadcast was indecent within the meaning of 1464; and (4) whether the

order violates the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

I

The general statements in the Commission's memorandum opinion do not

change the character of its order. Its action was an adjudication

under 5 U.S.C. 554 (e) (1976 ed.); it did not purport to engage in

formal rulemaking or in the promulgation of any regulations. The order

"was issued in a specific factual context"; questions concerning

possible action in other contexts were expressly reserved for the

future. The specific holding was carefully confined to the monologue

"as broadcast."

"This Court . . . reviews judgments, not statements in opinions."

Black v. Cutter Laboratories, 351 U.S. 292, 297. That admonition has

special force when the statements raise constitutional questions, for

it is our settled practice to avoid the unnecessary decision of such

issues. Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U.S. 549, 568-569. However

appropriate it may be for an administrative agency to write broadly in

an adjudicatory proceeding, federal courts have never been empowered

to issue advisory opinions. See Herb v. Pitcairn, 324 U.S. 117, 126.

Accordingly, the focus of our review must be on the Commission's

determination that the Carlin monologue was indecent as broadcast.

II

The relevant statutory questions are whether the Commission's action

is forbidden "censorship" within the meaning of 47 U.S.C. 326 and

whether speech that concededly is not obscene may be restricted as

"indecent" under the authority of 18 U.S.C. 1464 (1976 ed.). The

questions are not unrelated, for the two statutory provisions have a

common origin. Nevertheless, we analyze them separately.

Section 29 of the Radio Act of 1927 provided:

"Nothing in this Act shall be understood or construedto give the

licensing authority the power of censorshipover the radio

communications or signals transmitted byany radio station, and no

regulation or condition shall bepromulgated or fixed by the licensing

authority whichshall interfere with the right of free speech by means

ofradio communications. No person within the jurisdictionof the United

States shall utter any obscene, indecent,or profane language by means

of radio communication."44 Stat. 1172.

The prohibition against censorship unequivocally denies the Commission

any power to edit proposed broadcasts in advance and to excise

material considered inappropriate for the airwaves. The prohibition,

however, has never been construed to deny the Commission the power to

review the content of completed broadcasts in the performance of its

regulatory duties.[fn9]

During the period between the original enactment of the provision in

1927 and its re-enactment in the Communications Act of 1934, the

courts and the Federal Radio Commission held that the section deprived

the Commission of the power to subject "broadcasting matter to

scrutiny prior to its release," but they concluded that the

Commission's "undoubted right" to take note of past program content

when considering a licensee's renewal application "is not

censorship."[fn10]

Not only did the Federal Radio Commission so construe the statute

prior to 1934; its successor, the Federal Communications Commission,

has consistently interpreted the provision in the same way ever since.

See Note, Regulation of Program Content by the FCC, 77 Harv. L. Rev.

701 (1964). And, until this case, the Court of Appeals for the

District of Columbia Circuit has consistently agreed with this

construction.[fn11] Thus, for example, in his opinion in

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v. FCC, 131 U.S. App. D.C. 146,

403 F.2d 169 (1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 930, Judge Wright

forcefully pointed out that the Commission is not prevented from

canceling the license of a broadcaster who persists in a course of

improper programming. He explained:

"This would not be prohibited `censorship,' . . . any more than would

the Commission's considering on a license renewal application whether

a broadcaster allowed `coarse, vulgar, suggestive, double-meaning'

programming; programs containing such material are grounds for denial

of a license renewal." 131 U.S. App. D.C., at 150-151, n. 3. 403 F.2d,

at 173-174, n. 3.See also Office of Communication of United Church of

Christ v. FCC, 123 U.S. App. D.C. 328, 359 F.2d 994 (1966).

Entirely apart from the fact that the subsequent review of program

content is not the sort of censorship at which the statute was

directed, its history makes it perfectly clear that it was not

intended to limit the Commission's power to regulate the broadcast of

obscene, indecent, or profane language. A single section of the 1927

Act is the source of both the anticensorship provision and the

Commission's authority to impose sanctions for the broadcast of

indecent or obscene language. Quite plainly, Congress intended to give

meaning to both provisions. Respect for that intent requires that the

censorship language be read as inapplicable to the prohibition on

broadcasting obscene, indecent, or profane language.

There is nothing in the legislative history to contradict this

conclusion. The provision was discussed only in generalities when it

was first enacted.[fn12] In 1934, the anticensorship provision and the

prohibition against indecent broadcasts were re-enacted in the same

section, just as in the 1927 Act. In 1948, when the Criminal Code was

revised to include provisions that had previously been located in

other Titles of the United States Code, the prohibition against

obscene, indecent, and profane broadcasts was removed from the

Communications Act and re-enacted as 1464 of Title 18. 62 Stat. 769

and 866. That rearrangement of the Code cannot reasonably be

interpreted as having been intended to change the meaning of the

anticensorship provision. H. R. Rep. No. 304, 80th Cong., 1st Sess.,

A106 (1947). Cf. Tidewater Oil Co. v. United States, 409 U.S. 151,

162.

We conclude, therefore, that 326 does not limit the Commission's

authority to impose sanctions on licensees who engage in obscene,

indecent, or profane broadcasting.

III

The only other statutory question presented by this case is whether

the afternoon broadcast of the "Filthy Words" monologue was indecent

within the meaning of 1464.[fn13] Even that question is narrowly

confined by the arguments of the parties.

The Commission identified several words that referred to excretory or

sexual activities or organs, stated that the repetitive, deliberate

use of those words in an afternoon broadcast when children are in the

audience was patently offensive, and held that the broadcast was

indecent. Pacifica takes issue with the Commission's definition of

indecency, but does not dispute the Commission's preliminary

determination that each of the components of its definition was

present. Specifically, Pacifica does not quarrel with the conclusion

that this afternoon broadcast was patently offensive. Pacifica's claim

that the broadcast was not indecent within the meaning of the statute

rests entirely on the absence of prurient appeal.

The plain language of the statute does not support Pacifica's

argument. The words "obscene, indecent, or profane" are written in the

disjunctive, implying that each has a separate meaning. Prurient

appeal is an element of the obscene, but the normal definition of

"indecent" merely refers to nonconformance with accepted standards of

morality.[fn14]

Pacifica argues, however, that this Court has construed the term

"indecent" in related statutes to mean "obscene," as that term was

defined in Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15. Pacifica relies most

heavily on the construction this Court gave to 18 U.S.C. 1461 in

Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87. See also United States v. 12

200-ft. Reels of Film, 413 U.S. 123, 130 n. 7 (18 U.S.C. 1462)

(dicta). Hamling rejected a vagueness attack on 1461, which forbids

the mailing of "obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile"

material. In holding that the statute's coverage is limited to

obscenity, the Court followed the lead of Mr. Justice Harlan in Manual

Enterprises, Inc. v. Day, 370 U.S. 478. In that case, Mr. Justice

Harlan recognized that 1461 contained a variety of words with many

shades of meaning.[fn15] Nonetheless, he thought that the phrase

"obscene, lewd, lascivious, indecent, filthy or vile," taken as a

whole, was clearly limited to the obscene, a reading well grounded in

prior judicial constructions: "[T]he statute since its inception has

always been taken as aimed at obnoxiously debasing portrayals of sex."

370 U.S., at 483. In Hamling the Court agreed with Mr. Justice Harlan

that 1461 was meant only to regulate obscenity in the mails; by

reading into it the limits set by Miller v. California, supra, the

Court adopted a construction which assured the statute's

constitutionality.

The reasons supporting Hamling's construction of 1461 do not apply to

1464. Although the history of the former revealed a primary concern

with the prurient, the Commission has long interpreted 1464 as

encompassing more than the obscene.[fn16] The former statute deals

primarily with printed matter enclosed in sealed envelopes mailed from

one individual to another; the latter deals with the content of public

broadcasts. It is unrealistic to assume that Congress intended to

impose precisely the same limitations on the dissemination of patently

offensive matter by such different means.[fn17]

Because neither our prior decisions nor the language or history of

1464 supports the conclusion that prurient appeal is an essential

component of indecent language, we reject Pacifica's construction of

the statute. When that construction is put to one side, there is no

basis for disagreeing with the Commission's conclusion that indecent

language was used in this broadcast.

 read more »

The latest news from Israel: the Shas party is bargaining with rightwinger-but-currently-centrist Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz to stave off new elections - if the new prime minister can't form a government.....

New Prime Minister?! Oy vey...

Mofaz parlays with Shas to avoid early elections - Haaretz - Israel News

By Mazal Mualem

Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz has been forging closer links with Shas to head off early elections and lay the groundwork for an alternative government headed by him in the current Knesset.

Mofaz has held several discussions with the Shas chairman - Industry Trade and Labor Minister Eli Yishai - and Communications Minister Ariel Atias. The two reportedly told him that they would support him if he promised to increase child allowances. Shas sources said party leaders have already reached agreements with Mofaz on this issue.

Mofaz believes he can prevent early elections and is acting to secure Shas' support before the Kadima leadership primary. This would give him a huge advantage over his main rival, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is leading in the public opinion polls.

Mofaz believes that Kadima's Knesset faction and the party's central activists and mayors, who fear falling from power if new elections are held, would support him.

Mofaz sees himself as "naturally connected" to Shas due to his religious and right-wing background. In private conversations he has said he can also bring Avigdor Lieberman's Yisrael Beiteinu back into the coalition.

He has said the last thing Labor chairman and Defense Minister Ehud Barak wants is early elections.

Mofaz will launch a campaign against a pullout from the Golan Heights today, to strengthen his support among right-wing voters in general. He intends to tour the Golan and meet residents there.

Yep, this pretty much sucks.

It turns out that Ehud Olmert, the prime minister of Israel took big ol' envelopes of cash from some skeezy American guy back in his headier days. Not a big surprise, but the problem is that the wobbly Israeli government is apparently about to crumble.

The choice thing about Israel's annoying government system is that the cabinet ministers are all from different parties, so you have a cross-partisan seige mentality at every cabinet meeting. In theory this could stabilize a diverse country, but in reality it has perpetually gridlocked every political development in Israel.

Every span of time required to actually execute a tough political maneuver and achieve better peace with the Arabs gets interrupted by some stupid, destabilizing party squabble, which amplifies and multiplies, ricocheting across the region. Plus, the parties (especially Shas) are notorious for treating "their" ministries as absurd, corrupt rackets.

Every time something is actually going in the right direction for Israel (the calmer periods such as the 1990s and after the peace treaty with Egypt), the internal tensions among Israeli political parties flare up. Generally this causes the Israeli government to back away from the Arabs generally, and swat around more, all in a futile effort to keep all the party hacks at the Israeli cabinet table happy.

Meanwhile, the Bush Administration policy has simply let all these fault lines fester out of control.

Perhaps Olmert will be able to stick it out, but unfortunately kind of crisis is all too easily expected -- Olmert never had a sterling reputation in terms of corruption.

A few days ago from good ol' Haaretz:

Barak, too, comes in for harsh criticism - Haaretz - Israel News

By Shahar Ilan

Politicians from across the spectrum were quick to criticize Defense Minister Ehud Barak's speech yesterday, in which he called on Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to leave his post.

Deputy Prime Minister Eli Yishai (Shas) said an "elections dynamic" is starting to develop in the Knesset, and "I do not see a chance to establish a new government from within the Knesset." According to Yishai, Shas is the only party which does not need to fear elections.

The head of the Likud faction, MK Gideon Saar, said "Barak's news conference was a copy of [Foreign Minister Tzipi] Livni's unimpressive news conference after the Winograd [Committee report]. It is impossible to reconcile the understanding that Olmert is not fit to be prime minister, and between [Barak's] remaining in the cabinet," said Saar.

The Meretz faction called Barka's words "lip service written on ice without any schedule or ultimatum with them."

MK Avshalom Vilan (Meretz) disputed that view, saying "Barak has moved in the right direction, but too little and too slowly, and without a schedule."

On the other side, MK Effie Eitam (National Union-National Religious Party) said that he very much hopes "that Barak understands that the public will not put up with another round of zigzags and doublespeak from him."

Likud filed a no-confidence motion yesterday, saying it is clear the government has reached its end, and called on the coalition partners to stop with political maneuvering and agree to a date for early elections.

The National Union-National Religious Party filed its own no-confidence motion based on Tuesday's testimony by Morris Talansky.

The head of the National Religious Party, Zevulun Orlev, accused Barak of making empty promises. "Instead of making a decisive political act that would bring about the end of Olmert's tenure and move up the elections, Barak has chosen to make an amorphous statement without any schedule."

Barak did have some support from within his own party, as MK Collette Avital (Labor) described his words as "sharp and clear." Avital said it was up to Kadima to choose its path as soon as possible.

Two Kadima MKs, Amira Dotan and Zeev Elkin, joined the calls for Olmert's resignation. Dotan wrote Olmert a letter saying there is crisis of faith in him, and he should find a way to allow Kadima to choose new leadership.

Pigs!

God Damn... pigs!

Potbelly... pigs!

Punch-drunk... pigs!

Take money, money... pigs!

Loudmouth... pigs!

Wide load... pigs!

Let's make a deal...

--Aesop Rock , "Coffee" from the excellent new album "None Shall Pass"

A delicious press release arrives:

STATEMENT

For Immediate Release

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Contact:

Matt Burns - 651-925-7208

mburns@gopconvention2008.com

GOP CONVENTION COORDINATOR RESIGNS

SAINT PAUL, Minn. -- The 2008 Republican National Convention today accepted the resignation of convention coordinator Doug Goodyear. Mr. Goodyear issued the following statement on his resignation:

“Today I offered the convention my resignation so as not to become a distraction in this campaign. I continue to strongly support John McCain for president, and wish him the best of luck in this campaign.”

###

What ever could be the matter? Oh damn, their chief Convention Flack took a ton of cash to work promoting the Burmese junta in Washington.

Exactly like Duke's excellent work for Berzerkistan on Doonesbury:

I mean, exactly like Duke. $348,000 buys a lot of sleep, I bet.

Yeah, the chief RNC St. Paul organizer guy worked for that torture-insanity-what-the-hell Burmese military Dictatorship. Newsweek shook it loose!

McCain's Convention Chair Worked for Burma's Military Junta | Newsweek Periscope | Newsweek.com:

After John McCain nailed down the Republican nomination in March, his campaign began wrestling with a sensitive personnel issue: who would manage this summer's GOP convention in St. Paul, Minn.? The campaign recently tapped Doug Goodyear for the job, a veteran operative and Arizonan who was chosen for his "management experience and expertise," according to McCain press secretary Jill Hazelbaker. But some allies worry that Goodyear's selection could fuel perceptions that McCain—who has portrayed himself as a crusader against special interests—is surrounded by lobbyists. Goodyear is CEO of DCI Group, a consulting firm that earned $3 million last year lobbying for ExxonMobil, General Motors and other clients.

Potentially more problematic: the firm was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Burma's military junta, which had been strongly condemned by the State Department for its human-rights record and remains in power today. Justice Department lobbying records show DCI pushed to "begin a dialogue of political reconciliation" with the regime. It also led a PR campaign to burnish the junta's image, drafting releases praising Burma's efforts to curb the drug trade and denouncing "falsehoods" by the Bush administration that the regime engaged in rape and other abuses. "It was our only foreign representation, it was for a short tenure, and it was six years ago," Goodyear told NEWSWEEK, adding the junta's record in the current cyclone crisis is "reprehensible."

Another issue: DCI has been a pioneer in running "independent" expenditure campaigns by so–called 527 groups, precisely the kind of operations that McCain, in his battle for campaign-finance reform, has denounced. In 2004, the DCI Group led a pro-Bush 527 called Progress for America, which was later fined (along with several other 527s on both sides of the political divide) for violating federal election laws. Goodyear, however, says that DCI is "not in the 527 business anymore."

Ironically, Goodyear was chosen for the post after the McCain campaign nixed another candidate, Paul Manafort, who runs a lobbying firm with McCain's campaign manager, Rick Davis. The prospect of choosing Manafort created anxiety in the campaign because of his long history of representing controversial foreign clients, including Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos. More recently, he served as chief political consultant to Viktor Yanukovich, the former Ukrainian prime minister who has been widely criticized for alleged corruption and for his close ties to Russia's Vladimir Putin—a potential embarrassment for McCain, who in 2007 called Putin a "totalitarian dictator." "The Ukrainian stuff was viewed as too much," says one McCain strategist, who asked not to be identified discussing the matter. Manafort did not return calls for comment.

Then: Stumper : McCain Convention Manager Resigns After NEWSWEEK Reveals Burma Ties

Andrew Romano

Around noon today, the powers-that-be at NEWSWEEK posted "A Convention Quandary" on our website. In the story, investigative ace Michael Isikoff reported that the man chosen by John McCain's presidential campaign to run this summer's GOP convention--Arizonan Doug Goodyear--was causing some headaches within the ranks. The problem? Goodyear is CEO ofDCI Group, a consulting firm that earned $3 million last year lobbying for ExxonMobil, General Motors and other clients--not the most convenient association for a candidate who's already struggling to reconcile his reputation as an anti-special interests crusader with the sizable number of lobbyists on his senior staff. Further complicating matters: Isikoff's revelation that DCI was paid $348,000 in 2002 to represent Burma's military junta, leading "a PR campaign to burnish the junta's image, drafting releases praising Burma's efforts to curb the drug trade and denouncing 'falsehoods' by the Bush administration that the regime engaged in rape and other abuses." Ouch.

Apparently, Goodyear agreed.

Shortly after 5:00 p.m. this afternoon, the Republican National Convention announced that it had accepted Goodyear's resignation, setting a new land speed record for shortest time lapsed between the "story breaks" and "ax falls" phases of a political scandal. "Today I offered the convention my resignation so as not to become a distraction in this campaign," said Goodyear in written statement. "I continue to strongly support John McCain for president, and wish him the best of luck in this campaign." Asked later by the Politico whether Team McCain had given him the boot, Goodyear said no. "My decision," he added. "[It was] unambiguously the right thing to do."

Nice.... Say what you will, who could possibly be more evil than a public relations strategist for an evil, corrupt Asian dictatorship?!

Hey everyone, I caught some important news late Friday afternoon (And I've got a cold right now and nothin' better to do!).

The big news is that the City of St. Paul would take all applications for demonstrations and space in parks on March 3rd. Naturally the City put out the news very late on Friday to keep it off the news radar. There are only a few days to offer some kinds of finalized plans for the permitted use of public space during the Republican National Convention. http://www.stpaul.gov/convention/rncpermits.html
Since the process apparently involves a drawing/lottery, it may be a good idea for many groups of people (bands?) to enter into the lottery system and win space/time in a park.
There was a brief story about it in the Star Tribune: http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul/15883057.html

Protesting at the RNC? Forms due March 3

St. Paul outlines its process for getting permits for demonstrations or large-group park space during the Republican National Convention.

By CHRIS HAVENS, Star Tribune

Last update: February 22, 2008 - 11:06 PM

Protesters, parkgoers and parade organizers, put March 3 on your calendar.

That's the day permit applications will be accepted for demonstrating or getting park space for groups of 25 or more during the Republican National Convention in St. Paul. Applications are available now.

The permits would cover the time between Aug. 30 and Sept. 4. The convention will be held Sept. 1-4 at the Xcel Energy Center. More than 45,000 delegates, members of the news media and protesters are expected.

"We hope to accommodate as many people as logistically possible," said Erin Dady, the city's marketing director and convention planner.

Demonstration applications are available at the city website or at the Police Community Services Office, 1169 Rice St. The office is open from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.

Some people want a protest area within sight and sound of the Xcel, and that space hasn't been determined yet, Dady said. "By no means will free speech be limited to one area," she said.

Applications will be reviewed by police and decisions made in a timely manner. More specific guidelines might be forthcoming, Dady said. Approvals could be delayed if more clarification or information is needed.

For more information on the city's rules regarding demonstration permits, go to www.ci.stpaul.mn.us/code/lc366a.html.

Applications to use space, pavilions and boat slips in the city's parks system for parties of 25 or more people are available at the city website and at the Parks and Recreation Permit Office, 1100 Hamline Av.

Parks permit applications will be accepted until 2 p.m. March 3, and a public lottery drawing will happen at 3 p.m. Applications received later will be handled on a first-come, first-serve basis.

A limited number of parks have been held for security reasons or convention activities.

Applications are online at www.stpaul.gov.

********

This was posted on the City of St. Paul website and I think matched the initial press release:

http://www.stpaul.gov/convention/rncpermits.html

Permit applications to use space, pavilions, and boat slips in Saint Paul 's parks system for parties and gatherings of 25 or more people during the Republican National Convention Aug. 30 to Sept. 4 are now available online and from the Saint Paul Parks & Recreation Permit Office, 1100 Hamline Ave. North.

In addition, permit applications for demonstrations during the same period are also available online and through the Saint Paul Police Community Services Office, 1169 Rice Street .

A limited number of Parks have been held for security purposes and convention activities, but the vast majority of Saint Paul Parks are available for permits. The City of Saint Paul Division of Parks and Recreation manages over 160 parks and open spaces, the Como Park Zoo and Marjorie McNeely Conservatory, 41 recreation centers, a 9 hole and three 18 hole golf courses, over 100 miles of trails, indoor and outdoor pools, a public beach, sports and aquatics facilities, and wonderful rental facilities for public and private gatherings.

“Hosting the Republican National Convention gives us an incredible opportunity to showcase the city's world-class parks system to visitors from around the globe,” said Bob Bierscheid, director of Saint Paul Parks & Recreation. “Park space will be in high demand, and we want to make sure that everyone has equal opportunity to access our parks and enjoy themselves during this exciting event.”

Similar to the process in which the city awards permits for park use through a lottery at the beginning of the year, permits during the RNC convention period will be accepted up to 2 p.m. March 3 at the permit office.

A lottery drawing from permit applications will then follow at 3 p.m. The drawing is open to the public and will be broadcast through the city's cable channel soon after the drawing. The permit office will notify people of the status of their application by mail.

Based on park availability, permit applications received after March 3 will be considered on a first-come, first-served basis.

Demonstration permit applications will be accepted starting March 3, at which time applications received through the mail also will be opened. Community Services Office hours are 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. Applications will be reviewed and decisions made in a timely manner. However, if there are more questions or clarification is needed, the application approval can be delayed until the information is gathered.

More information on the city's rules regarding demonstration permits can be found in the City Charter and Codes section on the city's Web site at www.stpaul.gov/code . Reference Chapter 366A, which describes the procedures for applications as well as the rules, regulations, and fees.

“The City of Saint Paul is committed to accommodating as many people as logistically possible while ensuring a safe and enjoyable convention for residents and visitors,” said Erin Dady, Saint Paul marketing director. “Hosting a national event of this magnitude takes a lot of coordination from many city departments and outside groups. This permitting process facilitates the necessary planning for a successful event.”

**********

That's all. Thanks for reading through! (hopefully not spam to ya!)

--Dan Feidt - dan.feidt@gmail.com

All right here is a new one. WikiLeaks.org got set up a while ago to offer a WikiPedia-style spot for edgy secret documents to get dumped. And they are getting some press. Now, a Situation has arisen, knocking the main server offline as their CA-based domain registrar folds under legal pressure. Because WikiLeaks was leaking.... suspicious bits about the Cayman Islands fronts of some bank or something. Apparently the UK server, among others, are still fine. Here is the list of mirrors.

Here is a list of Wikileaks Cover Name URL links which worked ok for us in the last few hours:

http://wikileaks.la/
https://secure.wikileaks.la/

http://home.e.co.za/
https://secure.home.e.co.za/

http://joburg.e.co.za/
https://secure.joburg.e.co.za/

http://new.alain.co.za/
https://secure.new.alain.co.za/

http://wikileaks.be/
https://secure.wikileaks.be/

http://stockholm.divx.se/
https://secure.stockholm.divx.se/

http://jwdc.org/
https://secure.jwdc.org/

http://ljsf.org/
https://secure.ljsf.org/

http://freedomsbell.org/
https://secure.freedomsbell.org/

http://freedomspen.org/
https://secure.freedomspen.org/

http://libertypen.org/
https://secure.libertypen.org/

http://sunshinepress.org/
https://secure.sunshinepress.org/

http://new.1.vg/
https://secure.new.1.vg/

http://zurich.base-v.ch/
https://secure.zurich.base-v.ch/

http://bratislava.iypt.sk/
https://secure.bratislava.iypt.sk/

http://new.iypt.sk/
https://secure.new.iypt.sk/

http://wikileaks.org.uk/
https://secure.wikileaks.org.uk/

http://new.ilex.cl/
https://secure.new.ilex.cl/

http://wikileaks.tl/
https://secure.wikileaks.tl/

http://freedomsbell.com/
https://secure.freedomsbell.com/

http://wikileaks.in/
https://secure.wikileaks.in/

http://bucharest.roxi.ro/
https://secure.bucharest.roxi.ro/

http://wikileaks.es/
https://secure.wikileaks.es/

http://wikileaks.ws/
https://secure.wikileaks.ws/

http://riga.ax.lt/
https://secure.riga.ax.lt/

http://special.k.vu/
https://secure.special.k.vu/

http://wikileaks.cx/
https://secure.wikileaks.cx/

http://new.it.cx/
https://secure.new.it.cx/

Some of the Cover Names presumably just re-direct traffic to the now missing www.wikileaks.org and so are effectively not working either i.e.

http://wikileaks.org.au/
https://secure.wikileaks.org.au/

http://wikileaks.de/
https://secure.wikileaks.de/

http://wikileaks.org.nz/
https://secure.wikileaks.org.nz/

Some are more peculiar in that unencrypted URLs either time out or are not working,

However, the corresponding SSL URLs work ok e.g.:

https://secure.smoke.ganja.nl/
https://secure.moskva.orts.ru/

There are some caveats about the secure proxy certificates and whatnot - I.E. what are these 'moskva orts' Russians really up to? [Something quite cool i would bet, anyway]

There is a blog here: WikiLeak.org with more news on that.

http://wikileaks.org.uk/wiki/Wikileaks_survives_censorship%2C_ddos%2C_fire :

Spy Blog: Wikileaks survives a fire, but is under Temporary Restraining Order partial censorship

Link

http://spyblog.org.uk

Country

United Kingdom

Date

2008-02-17

It looks as if the interesting and controversial, Wikileaks website, which promises "anonymous, untraceable, uncensorable" publication of leaked documents from whistleblowers, and which recently published the devastating No2ID Campaign annotated leaked UK National Identity Scheme document , is weathering some technical hitches and legal litigation attacks.

It seems that there has been a fire in an Uninterruptible Power Supply, which took the WikiLeaks web servers offline for much of Saturday, at their Swedish co-location hosting company, PRQ Inet, which has experience of attempts at censorship, through their former hosting of the peer to peer filesharing and political phenomenon, The Pirate Bay.

[editor: shortly before the fire unknown persons launched a 500Mbps distributed denial of service attack. It is not known if or how the attack is related to the other events described in this article].

More seriously and for the longer term, the brand name of WikiLeaks.org is no longer online, due to a Temporary Restraining Order issued by the California Northern District Court in San Francisco, aimed at a Domain Name Registrar, rather than just the actual publishers of controversial material, who happen to be outside of US legal jurisdiction..

See this partial public list of Wikileaks Cover Names for alternative URLs which have not yet been censored.

The plaintiffs in the California case are a Swiss Bank bank - Bank Julius Baer and its associated Cayman Islands tax avoidance subsidiaries, egged on by their expensive Hollywood media celebrity shyster lawyers Lavely & Singer. Julius Baer have been pursuing a Swiss whistleblower, some of whose leaked documents have been allegedly published on WikiLeaks.org. Why this is a problem when the world's financial monitoring and tax authorities appear to have already had access to them, is a mystery.

See Bank Julius Baer vs. Wikileaks

WikiLeakS.org have also had legal threats from ineptitude lawyers Schillings -- who in tried to censor blogs critical of the dubious Russian / Uzbek billionaire Alisher Usmanov] which caused much of the UK political and Arsenal football club fan blogosphere, to rally together in condemnation of the "collateral damage" which was to caused to innocent political bloggers, across the political spectrum.

Schillings are acting against WikiLeaks.org because of their publication of a prospectus to potential rescue investors of the Northern Rock plc bank scandal, something which is now obsolete, but was of massive public interest to all UK taxpayers and investors, and which the mainstream media caved in to after Schillings shyster threats, and an expensive (effectively taxpayer funded) High Court Injunction.

See Northern Rock vs. Wikileaks.

It is interesting that the first threats to this supposedly "uncensorable, anonymous, mass whistleblowing" project, do not come from Government Big Brother authorities, but from the private sector, and from equipment failures at a Single Point of Failure.

As with the Alisher Usmanov affair, the tactics of the media celibrity shysters in the Bank Julius Baer case is to threaten parts of what should be neutral, exempt internet infrastructure companies, with potentially expensive litigation in court rather than just the actaul publishers of the allegedly defamatory or confidential or copyright material.

Even if such companies win in court, the expense of kegal advice is such that it could cost them far more money in legal fees, than they are getting from a cheap domain name registration or webhosting package, so they are tempted to cave in to such shyster demands for censorship.

Only by pointing out the damage to their own brand names and potential profits, as a result of the disgust that most active internet customers feel, when the rich and powerful and their shysters, try to bully individuals or small groups of activists, can this economic threat be counterbalanced.

See the Censorship Threats from Lawyers category archive of blog postings on the WikiLeak.org blog, which comments on the technical, legal and ethical aspects of the WikiLeakS.org project.

See, you not only have to be a good coder to create a system like Linux, you have to be a sneaky bastard too.
--Linus Torvalds- via Detroit Wireless Project

Ok I just saw the first few minutes of this one, but clearly it looks pretty damn cool. Steal This Film: hosted on GoogleVideo:

Steal This Film - Part 1 and the official website: Steal This Film II.

The background seems to change upon reload, conveying "JAWS" and "The Godfather" ... intellectual properties - or disk images. downloadables: Steal This Film II available in many languages!

Documenting the steadfast movement against intellectual property, Part 1 of Steal This Film takes account of the prominent players in the Swedish piracy (copyright infringement) cult