Information operations

Smut, censorship & conspiracy! "The Bank Job" is a pretty good action movie

HongPong — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 17:41:05 -0600

Yeah it kind of surprised me, but "The Bank Job" (IMDB) is worth seeing if you want a reasonably good action movie: it seems more interested in establishment British deviant behavior, blackmail, censorship and MI-5 covert political management than the heist itself.

Well that's not quite true - the heist takes its fair share of time, but the characters' motivations revolve around the notion that the array of Lloyd's safe-deposit boxes contain tons of destabilizing dirty secrets: Mainly dirty photos of Labor politicians in S&M clubs, a randy royal princess, etc. The heavies in MI-5 want to bring down Michael X, a black radical thug/revolutionary who is holding blackmail photos of said bad princess, and they get a foxy babe to trick Jason Statham's character into robbing the safe deposit vault where the photo resides.

A corrupt angle unravels... and it's funny that both this movie and 2007's "Cleaner" with Samuel L. Jackson (IMDB) revolve a bit around ledgers of corrupt police payoffs. (I also caught that one recently. Jackson was good, it was also a corruption/cleanup thriller, and worked well intermittently, though the ending seemed pretty pat.)

The true story of the real bank job certainly involved the classic British government news suppression order known as a "D Notice," which killed all news coverage within three days. The robbers themselves are a bit crestfallen, then frightened, when their story abruptly gets dropped from the British tabloids.... The UK Telegraph adds some background: Revisiting the riddle of Baker Street - Telegraph Revisiting the riddle of Baker Street:

"Obviously, we've changed the names," says Clement, "and large parts of our story are invented - they have to be, because no one knows the exact details. All we could rely on what was George McIndoe told us." And what George McIndoe told them - whether truth or fiction - is quite remarkable. He claimed that "Terry" and his walkie-talkie gang, as they became known, had found sexually compromising photographs of Princess Margaret inside one of the deposit boxes.

'The idea of the photographs was based on a direct conversation I had with George," explains Clement. "He told me the story, but obviously I can't prove that it's true." Indeed, the real ham radio operator, Robert Rowlands, has spoken out against the film's insinuation. "The film is an amusing series of misconceptions, dragging in royalty," he says. "I am in touch with the princess's solicitors."

In the film, these photographs are placed in the possession of a shady, real-life character called Michael X, a slum landlord and pimp who tried to present himself as a British version of the activist Malcolm X. His ownership of the pictures bestowed upon him a "get out of jail free card", whereby the courts overlooked his criminal activity.

After in-depth discussions with McIndoe, Clement and Le Frenais suggested in their story that the robbery was masterminded by MI5, which was eager to get its hands on the photos and thereby neutralise Michael X's threat.

"That is all conjecture," continues Clement, "but certainly the Caribbean connection [to Princess Margaret] is a fairly obvious one. And while we've become so used to royal scandals since then, in 1971 it would have been a much bigger deal. There was a lot of sensitivity because of the Christine Keeler affair and they didn't want another scandal dancing around like that.

"That's the theory, anyway. But what is curious is that I have seen something that says that Michael X's file is buried until 2054, which is extraordinary. I mean, what the hell he had that was keeping him out of jail, and which was so important that they don't want it known about for another 50 years - well, it boggles the mind. Even if it was photographs of the Royal Family, you'd have thought that that wouldn't have had such a long after-life."

True to smutty tab form, the Daily Mail has the actual HAM radio recordings of the bank robbers - it's kind of fun to hear the actual audio, though much of it is quite fuzzy. FOUND: Radio Ham's sensational tape of the bank heist 'that rescued compromising pictures of Princess Margaret' | Mail Online

Here's the HAM radio clip.

My favorite characters were the totally amoral kinky British establishment bastards, who would stop at nothing to recover their photos, stage crimes, and put themselves into highly blackmailable situations. SPOILER: The whole media gets suppressed, Statham's character cleverly slips the establishment setup-patsy noose, and ends up rich and happy. Lulz.

FCC v. Pacifica Foundation: George Carlin's subtle taunting gets to the Supremes & we learn the meaning of Community Standards

HongPong — Tue, 24 Jun 2008 22:10:05 -0600

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.

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.

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.

Bilderberg announces 2008 conference! Charlie Rose!? Obama? Sebelius? Bernanke, Perle, Wolfowitz, Kissinger = PARTY TIME, EXCELLENT

HongPong — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 00:17:03 -0600

Ben Bernanke: I want COFFEE and FRESHLY MINTED $20s. NOW dammit.....

What's New at Bilderberg 2008?

Obama, Clinton staying mum on Bilderberg globalist confab

Turkish paper Today's Zaman: Rice hopes Turkey will solve issues through democracy

Off to Bilderberg conference

Responding to a question regarding his weekend schedule in the US later in the day, [Turkish Foreign Minister] Babacan revealed that he would be attending an international conference of people of influence in the fields of business, media and politics, known as the Bilderberg conference.

The unofficial invitation-only conference will take place from June 5 to June 8 at the Westfields Marriott Hotel in Chantilly, Virginia, this year. Last year, it was hosted at the Ritz Carlton Hotel in İstanbul. "We hosted this conference in İstanbul last year," Babacan said, without mentioning its name. He also said this is the fifth time he has been invited to the elite gathering.

The bad kids have shown up and made a mess of things! Dirty Tricks Campaign Against Alex Jones

Bilderberg 2008 - Day 3 Footage , U.S. Corporate Media Blackout On Bilderberg Meeting

Due to unexpected publicity from the usual New World Order protester types, everyone's favorite secret annual conference (which can never be reported upon inside the United States) was forced to spell out the nature of their gig. Lulz...

Unexpected press release!! And now according to the Internets, Charlie Rose is in on it! Democratic governors Mark Sanford and Kathleen Sebelius (Tom Daschle too) - which means that you can bet your hat Sanford or Sebelius will be Obama's vice presidential choice.

Bilderberg Announces 2008 Conference: Financial News - Yahoo! Finance

Press Release

Source: American Friends of Bilderberg

Bilderberg Announces 2008 Conference
Thursday June 5, 8:10 pm ET

CHANTILLY, Va.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The 56th Bilderberg Meeting will be held in Chantilly, Virginia, USA 5 – 8 June 2008. The Conference will deal mainly with a nuclear free world, cyber terrorism, Africa, Russia, finance, protectionism, US-EU relations, Afghanistan and Pakistan, Islam and Iran. Approximately 140 participants will attend, of whom about two-thirds come from Europe and the balance from North America. About one-third is from government and politics, and two-thirds are from finance, industry, labor, education and communications. The meeting is private in order to encourage frank and open discussion.

Bilderberg takes its name from the hotel in Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on common problems of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period. The Cold War has now ended. But in practically all respects, there are more, not fewer, common problems - from trade to jobs, from monetary policy to investment, from ecological challenges to the task of promoting international security. It is hard to think of any major issue in either Europe or North America whose unilateral solution would not have repercussions for the other. Thus the concept of a European-American forum has not been overtaken by time. The dialogue between these two regions is still - even increasingly - critical.

What is unique about Bilderberg as a forum, is the broad cross-section of leading citizens that are assembled for nearly three days of informal and off-the-record discussion about topics of current concern especially in the fields of foreign affairs and the international economy; the strong feeling among participants that in view of the differing attitudes and experiences of the Western nations, there remains a clear need to further develop an understanding in which these concerns can be accommodated; the privacy of the meetings, which has no purpose other than to allow participants to speak their minds openly and freely. In short, Bilderberg is a small, flexible, informal and off-the-record international forum in which different viewpoints can be expressed and mutual understanding enhanced.

Bilderberg's only activity is its annual Conference. At the meetings, no resolutions are proposed, no votes taken, and no policy statements issued. Since 1954, fifty-five conferences have been held. The names of the participants are made available to the press. Participants are chosen for their experience, their knowledge, and their standing; all participants attend Bilderberg in a private and not an official capacity.

There will be no press conference. A list of participants is available by phone request at 703-818-3647 between 9am-5pm EDT June 6-7, 2008.

Contact:

American Friends of Bilderberg
Steven Lee, 703-818-3647

Source: American Friends of Bilderberg

******

PRESENTING THE ESTABLISHMENT (in alphabetical order!)

LiveLeak.com - Bilderberg Attendee List 2008

Bilderberg Attendee List 2008
Bilderberg Attendee List 2008
Chantilly, Virginia, USA
5-8 June 2008

CURRENT LIST OF PARTICIPANTS

Honorary Chairman
BEL Davignon, Etienne Vice Chairman, Suez-Tractebel

DEU Ackermann, Josef Chairman of the Management Board and the Group Executive Committee, Deutsche Bank AG
CAN Adams, John Associate Deputy Minister of National Defence and Chief of the Communications Security Establishment Canada
USA Ajami, Fouad Director, Middle East Studies Program, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, The Johns Hopkins University
USA Alexander, Keith B. Director, National Security Agency
INT Almunia, Joaquín Commissioner, European Commission
GRC Alogoskoufis, George Minister of Economy and Finance
USA Altman, Roger C. Chairman, Evercore Partners Inc.
TUR Babacan, Ali Minister of Foreign Affairs
NLD Balkenende, Jan Peter Prime Minister
PRT Balsemão, Francisco Pinto Chairman and CEO, IMPRESA, S.G.P.S.; Former Prime Minister
FRA Baverez, Nicolas Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
ITA Bernabè, Franco CEO, Telecom Italia Spa
USA Bernanke, Ben S. Chairman, Board of Governors, Federal Reserve System
SWE Bildt, Carl Minister of Foreign Affairs
FIN Blåfield, Antti Senior Editorial Writer, Helsingin Sanomat
DNK Bosse, Stine CEO, TrygVesta
CAN Brodie, Ian Chief of Staff, Prime Minister's Office
AUT Bronner, Oscar Publisher and Editor, Der Standard
FRA Castries, Henri de Chairman of the Management Board and CEO, AXA
ESP Cebrián, Juan Luis CEO, PRISA
CAN Clark, Edmund President and CEO, TD Bank Financial Group
GBR Clarke, Kenneth Member of Parliament
NOR Clemet, Kristin Managing Director, Civita
USA Collins, Timothy C. Senior Managing Director and CEO, Ripplewood Holdings, LLC
FRA Collomb, Bertrand Honorary Chairman, Lafarge
PRT Costa, António Mayor of Lisbon
USA Crocker, Chester A. James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies
USA Daschle, Thomas A. Former US Senator and Senate Majority Leader
CAN Desmarais, Jr., Paul Chairman and co-CEO, Power Corporation of Canada
GRC Diamantopoulou, Anna Member of Parliament
USA Donilon, Thomas E. Partner, O'Melveny & Myers
ITA Draghi, Mario Governor, Banca d'Italia
AUT Ederer, Brigitte CEO, Siemens AG Österreich
CAN Edwards, N. Murray Vice Chairman, Candian Natural Resources Limited

DNK Eldrup, Anders President, DONG A/S
ITA Elkann, John Vice Chairman, Fiat S.p.A.
USA Farah, Martha J. Director, Center for Cognitive Neuroscience;
Walter H. Annenberg Professor in the Natural Sciences, University of Pennsylvania
USA Feldstein, Martin S. President and CEO, National Bureau of Economic Research
DEU Fischer, Joschka Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
USA Ford, Jr., Harold E. Vice Chairman, Merill Lynch & Co., Inc.
CHE Forstmoser, Peter Professor for Civil, Corporation and Capital Markets Law, University of Zürich
IRL Gallagher, Paul Attorney General
USA Geithner, Timothy F. President and CEO, Federal Reserve Bank of New York
USA Gigot, Paul Editorial Page Editor, The Wall Street Journal
IRL Gleeson, Dermot Chairman, AIB Group
NLD Goddijn, Harold CEO, TomTom
TUR Gö?ü?, Zeynep Journalist; Founder, EurActiv.com.tr
USA Graham, Donald E. Chairman and CEO, The Washington Post Company
NLD Halberstadt, Victor Professor of Economics, Leiden University; Former Honorary Secretary General of Bilderberg Meetings
USA Holbrooke, Richard C. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
FIN Honkapohja, Seppo Member of the Board, Bank of Finland
INT Hoop Scheffer, Jaap G. de Secretary General, NATO
USA Hubbard, Allan B. Chairman, E & A Industries, Inc.
BEL Huyghebaert, Jan Chairman of the Board of Directors, KBC Group
DEU Ischinger, Wolfgang Former Ambassador to the UK and US
USA Jacobs, Kenneth Deputy Chairman, Head of Lazard U.S., Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
USA Johnson, James A. Vice Chairman, Perseus, LLC
SWE Johnstone, Tom President and CEO, AB SKF
USA Jordan, Jr., Vernon E. Senior Managing Director, Lazard Frères & Co. LLC
FRA Jouyet, Jean-Pierre Minister of European Affairs
GBR Kerr, John Member, House of Lords; Deputy Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc.
USA Kissinger, Henry A. Chairman, Kissinger Associates, Inc.
DEU Klaeden, Eckart von Foreign Policy Spokesman, CDU/CSU
USA Kleinfeld, Klaus President and COO, Alcoa
TUR Koç, Mustafa Chairman, Koç Holding A.S.
FRA Kodmani, Bassma Director, Arab Reform Initiative
USA Kravis, Henry R. Founding Partner, Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co.
USA Kravis, Marie-Josée Senior Fellow, Hudson Institute, Inc.
INT Kroes, Neelie Commissioner, European Commission
POL Kwasniewski, Aleksander Former President
AUT Leitner, Wolfgang CEO, Andritz AG
ESP León Gross, Bernardino Secretary General, Office of the Prime Minister
INT Mandelson, Peter Commissioner, European Commission
FRA Margerie, Christophe de CEO, Total
CAN Martin, Roger Dean, Joseph L. Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto
HUN Martonyi, János Professor of International Trade Law; Partner, Baker & McKenzie; Former Minister of Foreign Affairs
USA Mathews, Jessica T. President, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

INT McCreevy, Charlie Commissioner, European Commission
USA McDonough, William J. Vice Chairman and Special Advisor to the Chairman, Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc.
CAN McKenna, Frank Deputy Chair, TD Bank Financial Group
GBR McKillop, Tom Chairman, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group
FRA Montbrial, Thierry de President, French Institute for International Relations
ITA Monti, Mario President, Universita Commerciale Luigi Bocconi
USA Mundie, Craig J. Chief Research and Strategy Officer, Microsoft Corporation
NOR Myklebust, Egil Former Chairman of the Board of Directors SAS, Norsk Hydro ASA
DEU Nass, Matthias Deputy Editor, Die Zeit
NLD Netherlands, H.M. the Queen of the
FRA Ockrent, Christine CEO, French television and radio world service
FIN Ollila, Jorma Chairman, Royal Dutch Shell plc
SWE Olofsson, Maud Minister of Enterprise and Energy; Deputy Prime Minister
NLD Orange, H.R.H. the Prince of
GBR Osborne, George Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer
TUR Öztrak, Faik Member of Parliament
ITA Padoa-Schioppa, Tommaso Former Minister of Finance; President of Notre Europe
GRC Papahelas, Alexis Journalist, Kathimerini
GRC Papalexopoulos, Dimitris CEO, Titan Cement Co. S.A.
USA Paulson, Jr., Henry M. Secretary of the Treasury
USA Pearl, Frank H. Chairman and CEO, Perseus, LLC
USA Perle, Richard N. Resident Fellow, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
FRA Pérol, François Deputy General Secretary in charge of Economic Affairs
DEU Perthes, Volker Director, Stiftung Wissenschaft und Politik
BEL Philippe, H.R.H. Prince
CAN Prichard, J. Robert S. President and CEO, Torstar Corporation
CAN Reisman, Heather M. Chair and CEO, Indigo Books & Music Inc.
USA Rice, Condoleezza Secretary of State
PRT Rio, Rui Mayor of Porto
USA Rockefeller, David Former Chairman, Chase Manhattan Bank
ESP Rodriguez Inciarte, Matias Executive Vice Chairman, Grupo Santander
USA Rose, Charlie Producer, Rose Communications
DNK Rose, Flemming Editor, Jyllands Posten
USA Ross, Dennis B. Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow, The Washington Institute for Near East Policy
USA Rubin, Barnett R. Director of Studies and Senior Fellow, Center for International Cooperation, New York University
TUR ?ahenk, Ferit Chairman, Do?u? Holding A.?.
USA Sanford, Mark Governor of South Carolina
USA Schmidt, Eric Chairman of the Executive Committee and CEO, Google
AUT Scholten, Rudolf Member of the Board of Executive Directors, Oesterreichische Kontrollbank AG
DNK Schur, Fritz H. Fritz Schur Gruppen
CZE Schwarzenberg, Karel Minister of Foreign Affairs
USA Sebelius, Kathleen Governor of Kansas
USA Shultz, George P. Thomas W. and Susan B. Ford Distinguished Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University

ESP Spain, H.M. the Queen of
CHE Spillmann, Markus Editor-in-Chief and Head Managing Board, Neue Zürcher Zeitung AG
USA Summers, Lawrence H. Charles W. Eliot Professor, Harvard University
GBR Taylor, J. Martin Chairman, Syngenta International AG
USA Thiel, Peter A. President, Clarium Capital Management, LLC
NLD Timmermans, Frans Minister of European Affairs
RUS Trenin, Dmitri V. Deputy Director and Senior Associate, Carnegie Moscow Center
INT Trichet, Jean-Claude President, European Central Bank
USA Vakil, Sanam Assistant Professor of Middle East Studies, The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies, Johns Hopkins University
FRA Valls, Manuel Member of Parliament
GRC Varvitsiotis, Thomas Co-Founder and President, V + O Communication
CHE Vasella, Daniel L. Chairman and CEO, Novartis AG
FIN Väyrynen, Raimo Director, The Finnish Institute of International Affairs
FRA Védrine, Hubert Hubert Védrine Conseil
NOR Vollebaek, Knut High Commissioner on National Minorities, OSCE
SWE Wallenberg, Jacob Chairman, Investor AB
USA Weber, J. Vin CEO, Clark & Weinstock
USA Wolfensohn, James D. Chairman, Wolfensohn & Company, LLC
USA Wolfowitz, Paul Visiting Scholar, American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research
INT Zoellick, Robert B. President, The World Bank Group

Rapporteurs
GBR Bredow, Vendeline von Business Correspondent, The Economist
GBR Wooldridge, Adrian D. Foreign Correspondent, The Economist

AUT Austria HUN Hungary
BEL Belgium INT International
CHE Switzerland IRL Ireland
CAN Canada ITA Italy
CZE Czech Republic NOR Norway
DEU Germany NLD Netherlands
DNK Denmark PRT Portugal
ESP Spain POL Poland
FRA France RUS Russia
FIN Finland SWE Sweden
GBR Great Britain TUR Turkey
GRC Greece
USA United States of America

Meanwhile here is the list of attendees going around the Internets!

Barack Obama ditches his press corps to go hang out!! Behind the Scenes: Obama press 'hijacked' during Clinton meeting - CNN.com

The press soon noticed there were far too few people aboard for a standard campaign flight. Something was different. It's fair to say that the term "everyone" was used a bit loosely -- especially when the presumptive nominee appeared to be missing.

As the plane taxied, communications director Robert Gibbs admitted that Obama was remaining behind because he "wasn't going to be back in D.C. for a while" and had "scheduled some meetings" before he left.

Obama staffers, including Gibbs and Linda Douglass, a newly appointed senior adviser and campaign spokeswoman, didn't ask the reporters on board if they'd prefer to wait on the runway in Washington until the meetings concluded. They were going to Chicago. Without Barack Obama.....

Once airborne, a timid and slightly giggly Gibbs granted the confused and agitated press corps a meeting, one that any eyewitness would have easily labeled contentious and heated. Watch the riled press corps grill Gibbs »

Gibbs took on a barrage of questions, and, to his credit, listened to what he called the "anticipated grievances" from the press for almost 20 minutes.

"He's having a secret meeting tonight, and we're not going to see him until Monday" because of three scheduled "down days," one reporter began. "I'd like to say that's unacceptable. He's the -- "

"Presumptive Democratic nominee?" Gibbs finished, adding a giggle. "Yeah."

Questions centered largely on why the press was essentially held hostage with no candidate and no choice but to fly to Chicago on a chartered plane -- a flight many news organizations pay thousands of dollars to keep their journalists stationed on, ideally with the candidate.

"We're not paying however much this plane is to be here -- no offense -- with you," one reporter said to Gibbs as the largely newsless news conference wrapped up.

When pressed, Gibbs admitted he was responsible for how the situation was handled.

"It wasn't an attempt to deceive in any way," he said. "It was just private meetings."

LiveLeak.com - Hillary & Obama In Secret Bilderberg Rendezvous, LiveLeak.com - Bilderberg boys will decide who’s Obama’s “chosen” Veep Sure, why not?!

Photos! Bilderberg Meeting 2008 Photos, Flickr: shepherdjohnson's Photostream

And don't forget, you government schlubs! Meeting with foreign heads of state and other agents of influence without filing your activities with the State Department is illegal under the Logan Act!

Can't wait to cut off their government salaries!

Here's some quality satire: Bilderberg Group orders end to Obama-Clinton contest « Sir Satire’s New World Order News Service

The two presidential hopefuls were summoned to the Bilderberg Group annual meeting, where they were both informed that Obama would play the part of the Democratic candidate this election year. Clinton is reported to have begged Lord Rothschild and David Rockefeller — both senior level Bilderbergers — for forgiveness following her poor campaign performance this past year.

“Mrs. Clinton was very upset,” said a male prostitute who services some of the male Bilderberg members. “She said David Rockefeller was behind the push to oust her from the race. She had apparently been promised a comeback effort by Lord Rothschild like the kind that was granted to her husband Bill Clinton in the early 1990s, when it looked like he was going to be out of the presidential race.”

Mysteries of the great Swedish software pirates: Steal This Film; Second Skin documentary about Virtual Worlds etc.

HongPong — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 03:15:00 -0700

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) culture: The Pirate Bay, Piratbyrån (Piracy Bureau), and The Pirate Party. This includes a critical analysis of the regulatory capture asserted by Hollywood film industry to leverage economic sanctions by the United States government on Sweden through the WTO to pressure Swedish police into conducting an illegal search and seizure for the purpose of disrupting a competitive distribution channel: The Pirate Bay tracker for P2P Internet filesharing with the BitTorrent protocol.

Also i found this very interesting: a blog noted of Second Skin - Feature-length Documentary about Virtual Worlds. Here's the official site: Second Skin - a Pure West Documentary. [And accurately enough, my remark is in the context of someone else noticing it. That's really meta people. And thus, fundamentally boring. {way to go}]

Meanwhile in the Establishment: Google To Be Innovation Provider For GOP Convention. That's here, people.

Nerds will like this: CMS Report's Front Page News | CMS Report
I thought that Mashable.com was exceedingly interesting! Mashable! - The Social Networking Blog:BitTorrent Developers Pledge To Subvert Comcast Filters
Politics Online Conference 2008: Focus on Privacy
Social Networking: Risks vs. Rewards
and naturally this site is run by Drupal and will be on Drupal 6: Drupal Version Six Released
Which in turn led me to some new things: Searchles | Home - search plus circles. some kinds of social integration thingy.
Why teach journalism students Dreamweaver? | Martin Stabe I really recommend checking out how the interface of tools, internets and Journalism with a capital J fit together. It's a big deal.
Samsung's See'N'Search set-top TV / Internet box demo video - Engadget
Are Social Networks Responsible for Teen Suicides? | CenterNetworks
Is MySpace Good for Society? A Freakonomics Quorum - Freakonomics - Opinion - New York Times Blog

check out teh Wired Journalists NING social network thingy!! NING lets you make your own social network sites.
Looking for teh opensource? don't forget good ol freshmeat.net: Welcome to freshmeat.net. I remember checking freshmeat all the damn time in high school senior year. a good 8 years ago and the site still looks EXACTLY the same. That's quality.
Schools going to Linux save tons of money: Techlearning > > Linux Makes the Grade > November 2007. And I'm sure everyone is really sad to be missing the Vista Experience.
Meanwhile is the Associated Press doomed? Down On The Wire - Forbes.comI saw the good old macalester activist wiki is still being used: Main Page - MPKB
When you need a global wireless network syndicate of networks, you need global.freifunk.net | syndicating the free wireless communities and blogs of the world and where is the news of Minnesota, people? (drupal powered, as is their blog: Freifunkblog | Freie Netzwerke, freies WLAN und freie (Funk-)Netze im deutschsprachigen Raum) and here's another German/English site about techs/Drupal/etc: perspektive 89 | Internationale Perspektive aus Berlin
Local lunatic: Slanderous Kook: I'm a Slander Victim - February 14, 2008
....And that's all for this random yet interesting enough post......