Media

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.

Link Barrage!

HongPong — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:58:09 -0600

A Carlin routine pilfered from the excellent JuanCole.com

' I don't like words that hide the truth. I don't like words that conceal reality. I don't like euphemisms, or euphemistic language. And American English is loaded with euphemisms. Cause Americans have a lot of trouble dealing with reality. Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent the kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it, and it gets worse with every generation. For some reason, it just keeps getting worse. I'll give you an example of that.

There's a condition in combat. Most people know about it. It's when a fighting person's nervous system has been stressed to it's absolute peak and maximum. Can't take anymore input. The nervous system has either (click) snapped or is about to snap.

In the first world war, that condition was called shell shock. Simple, honest, direct language. Two syllables, shell shock. Almost sounds like the guns themselves.

That was seventy years ago. Then a whole generation went by and the second world war came along and very same combat condition was called battle fatigue. Four syllables now. Takes a little longer to say. Doesn't seem to hurt as much. Fatigue is a nicer word than shock. Shell shock! Battle fatigue.

Then we had the war in Korea, 1950. Madison avenue was riding high by that time, and the very same combat condition was called operational exhaustion. Hey, we're up to eight syllables now! And the humanity has been squeezed completely out of the phrase. It's totally sterile now. Operational exhaustion. Sounds like something that might happen to your car.

Then of course, came the war in Viet Nam, which has only been over for about sixteen or seventeen years, and thanks to the lies and deceits surrounding that war, I guess it's no surprise that the very same condition was called post-traumatic stress disorder. Still eight syllables, but we've added a hyphen! And the pain is completely buried under jargon. Post-traumatic stress disorder.

I'll bet you if we'd of still been calling it shell shock, some of those Viet Nam veterans might have gotten the attention they needed at the time. I'll betcha. I'll betcha.'

*******

A whole barrage of things to click around on. I am not sure whether there is any order to this chaos, but it should lead you to some interesting areas.

Antiwar.com and its many commentators:

Don't Wait for World War III- by Justin Raimondo

Truthdig - Reports - The Nuclear Expert Who Never Was

Zionism's Dead End - by Jonathan Cook

Antiwar.com Blog · GOP Rep. Gilchrest on Iran Sanctions Bill

Antiwar.com Blog · Greenwald Challenges Obama and Olbermann

Remaking the Middle East - by Philip Giraldi

Change We Can Believe In? - by Charles Peña

Can the Air Force Be Reformed? - by Ivan Eland

Turning the Recurring Joke of a New European Defense Policy into Reality - by Doug Bandow

Return of the Reds - by Nebojsa Malic

The Media Did Fail Us - by Alan Bock

The Supreme Court Gets One Right - by David R. Henderson

The US and China:<br /> Unsettling Similarities - by Sascha Matuszak

Meanwhile, Keith Olbermann pivots on a dime to support the Telecom Orwellian Bailout, which I think technically makes it a DoubleThink Double Bank shot:

Keith Olbermann's reply and Obama's secret plan to protect the rule of law - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Keith Olbermann: Then and now - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

Some new tasty docs on WTC7 came out. However I will warn you that one of the docs has a Word Macro in it, which might be a virus or something: If you dare: Index of /WTC7Report

Leaked NIST Docs: "Unusual" Event Before Collapse Of WTC 7

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown

YouTube - The Third Tower 1/2

YouTube - World Exclusive: WTC7 Survivor Barry Jennings Account

Ray McGovern on the Alex Jones show warns of "false flag attack" and possible nuclear strikes on Iran | 911blogger.com

shocked! Shocked at all this heroin, i tell you!

AmericanDrugWar's blog | 911blogger.com

Shocked! Shocked, I tell you! Afghanistan drug trade hits $4 billion a year | theage.com.au

YouTube - The Post-9/11 Afghan Heroin Explosion

The military-industrial-congressional-complex: Report Shows Lawmakers Heavily Invested in War

More miscellany:

Daily Kos: The neuroscience of false beliefs

Firedoglake » Fed’s Credibility “Below Zero”

MI5 spy quits over scandal | Herald Sun

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan - Military operation launched in Khyber Agency

Talking Points Memo | Pentagon: Taliban a resilient force in Afghanistan

Further evidence that Capitol Hill Democrats are dragging their feet: TPM | Conyers Finally Subpoenas DOJ For Documents

Bloggingheads.tv - diavlogs featuring Firedoglake lady Hamsher and Libertarian prez. candidate Bob Barr!

Ruthless Reviews.Com: Where Pornographers Debate Nihilists About Pop Culture

TPMMuckraker | Talking Points Memo | Sen. Norm Coleman Rents Cheap Crash Pad From Political Pal

Le Téléprésident: Sarkozy tightens his grip over French state TV | World news | The Guardian

American Buddha Online Library and Western Cultural Bazaar (American Buddhism)

YouTube - DoZo

Some notes on the doomed media industry:Source is Romanesko, who knows what's up! Poynter Online - Romenesko

Firedoglake » Max Frankel’s Ghost

reduction in force - a set on Flickr <- MUST SEE!

Is Lara Logan being smeared for her criticism of Iraq war coverage | Philly | 06/26/2008

Alhurra Paid Former White House Aides, Washington Journalists - ProPublica

Alhurra, ProPublica, Media Ethics and Me - David Corn

globeandmail.com: I killed Tim Russert (on Wikipedia)

Poynter Online - Forums Sam Zell's comments on CNBC

Recovering Journalist: Death of Almost 1,000 Cuts

Etaoin Shrdlu: Time is the fire in which we burn

Ed Asner Reintroduces "Lou Grant" and Talks Mary Richards, The Media & More (Fancast: Inside TV)

New AP Stylebook Cuts the 'Malarkey,' Brings in the 'WMD'

The Courant To Make Deep Cuts, 'Reinvent' Paper -- Courant.com
New-Media Focus Splits Associated Press Members - WSJ.com

They're brill on Fleet St. - The Boston Globe
Poynter Online - Forums Hartford Courant details staff, content cuts

Bloggers: Big Media Is Watching

Non-profit Groups Financing Independent Journalism | Online NewsHour | June 24, 2008 | PBS
Intern or Die

Meet the make-believe strategists of TV - Politico.com
To Our Readers - washingtonpost.com
techPresident – Open Systems, Closed Systems and Trauma in the Press
The Beachwood Reporter The [Tuesday] Papers
Awkward Questions for...Arianna Huffington - Media Blog - Jeff Bercovici - Mixed Media - Portfolio.com
At Google, Slow Growth in News Site - NYTimes.comNieman Watchdog > Commentary > I.F. Stone's lessons for Internet journalism
The Official Website of I.F. Stone
I. Lewis Libby Trial - The Washington Back Channel - Max Frankel - New York Times

Firedoglake » FDL Book Salon Welcomes Myra MacPherson: All Governments Lie: The Life and Times of Rebel Journalist I. F. Stone
Dan Froomkin - Washington Journalism on Trial - washingtonpost.com
Firedoglake » Access Journalism read more »

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.

Some Sunday links for everyone

HongPong — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 14:45:08 -0600

Many of our choice links this afternoon come from Cryptome.org, Antiwar.com, Cryptogon.com and PrisonPlanet.com. All of these websites are only for the bad kids! They will soon be censored in the upcoming plan to kill the Internet!!

******

A lot of people are saying angry things about Tim Russert now that he's no longer with us. I thought that was not appropriate on the day he expired, but as we look back it seems pretty clear that Russert was a committed defender of the establishment status quo, generally an uncritical promoter of the war, and never really accounted for the huge and systemic distortions within his own media purview that led to the deaths of thousands upon thousands. Perhaps he would have recanted some of the stuff later, but now he'll never have the chance.

I have to steal this one paragraph from Electric Politics, which is a fine site:

Electric Politics | An Irish Flack:

For in reality, Russert practiced evasion and obfuscation, replacing real news with pap. He was no teller of great truths, no champion of the powerless, no voice of conscience. To the contrary, he diligently enforced the status quo. Sure, he was a nice guy. And he had a gift for handicapping political races. But the agitation surrounding his passing marks less his admirable qualities than his failings: without his happy face the establishment media may now more easily be seen for the toxic parasites that they are. Their exaggerated grieving serves the grievers, not the man. It would be better to remember Tim Russert without memorializing the system.

******Another subject Russert would never dream of touching: Fun video of Ben Bernanke @ Bilderberg!

Bilderbergers Leave Confab To Initiate Fresh Ordersand Castrated U.S. Media Remains Obediently Silent On Bilderberg. Ouch - gendered language! Suspicion Surrounds Governor's Mansion Fire, why not! Secret Bilderberg Agenda To Microchip Americans Leaked and Iran Threatened After Gates Bilderberg Visit

******
Good times...******Some spy stuff: Spy Legal Reference Book from the government.
******Gore Vidal doubts McCain's story, and talks some smack! Questions For Gore Vidal - Literary Lion - Questions For Gore Vidal - Deborah Solomon - Interview - NYTimes.com

And what about Mr. McCain? Disaster. Who started this rumor that he was a war hero? Where does that come from, aside from himself? About his suffering in the prison war camp?

Everyone knows he was a prisoner of war in North Vietnam. That’s what he tells us.

Why would you doubt him? He’s a graduate of Annapolis. I know a lot of the Annapolis breed. Remember, I’m West Point, where I was born. My father went there.

So what does that have to do with the U.S. Naval Academy down in Annapolis? The service universities keep track of each other, that’s all. They have views about each other. And they are very aware of social class and eventually money, since they usually marry it.

.....What do you think is your own best novel? I don’t answer questions like that. Ever. And you ought not to ask them.

Well, it was a great pleasure talking to you. I doubt that.

*******

French Government decides to censor the Internet - The INQUIRER

Feds, Denver attempt to keep DNC security info secret - Colorado Independent - News you can't find anywhere else

MadCowMorningNews: CIA "Ghost" Planes Hidden in Cayman Isles Trusts? Hell yeah!

Cool t-shirt? be+cause clothing :: SHOOTING WAR T-SHIRT

******

I have been looking a bit @ The Memory Hole, although it seems like the site is not getting any fresh content lately. Consider: Justice Dept: 2006 Forfeiture and Money-Laundering Manuals, List of CIA Inspector General Investigations, FBI File: Edward Said, "Drugs, Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy," aka The Kerry Report Transcripts, Pfizer's Chemical/Biological Weapons Report and a compendium of some well-cited 9/11 stuff, if that's your thing.

******

Some type of coverup here: Smugglers Had Design For Advanced Warhead. This seems to involve the other nuclear smuggling network - i.e. the guys that Valerie Plame's team was after. Scooter Libby's secret friends, the people Sibel Edmonds was tracing, Turkish spies, Marc Grossman, and so forth...

******

Mainstream politics: Mr NeoCon End of History Fukuyama backs Obama for US presidency

Ron Paul's own convention coming to Minneapolis!

Op-Ed Columnist - Frank Rich - Do Angry Clinton Women Love McCain? - Op-Ed - NYTimes.com

Satire: Ex-Nickelodeon Stars Relate Horrors Of Green Slime Syndrome | The Onion

YouTube - You Can't Do That On Television - Marketing 1 (of 3)

******

Good news from Supreme Court, which said that all these Guantanamo show trials are garbage! Emptywheel » Revenge of Article III

War Powers - Why This Court Keeps Rebuking This President - NYTimes.com

******

Cryptome duly notes: Very naughty judge! Unfortunately, 9th Circuit Federal Judge Alex Kozinski (a Reagan appointee) put a bunch of hilarious files onto alex.kozinski.com and never bothered to lock the front door. (Muckrakers on it.) Unfortunately, he is indeed the cool kind of judge who has gone to bat blocking dumb Internet filters, and stuff like that. Here's the directory listing: Judge Alex Kozinski Stuff Directory

Cryptome also has the latest suspicious bureaucracies emitted from Homeland Security: National Infrastructure Protection Plan Review

and the equally dubious Interactive Data To Improve Financial Reporting... items like this tend to come from the Federal Register, which is where the Executive Branch declares what random things its doing without any control from the Legislative Branch.

Cryptome even has an interesting thing about the Secret Service and how they keep their hands in a kind of upper position, which could come from the Crav Maga or Aikido martial arts schools.

******

Antiwar.com notes! Iran Accusations Merit Skepticism - by Philip Giraldi. There's good stuff in here from the Intel side - how the news manipulations are sallying forth, etc.

The Cult of the Presidency - by Doug Bandow

Iraqis don't feel like getting colonized under a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA): The Revolt of the Liberated- by Justin Raimondo

Daily Times - Leading News Resource of Pakistan - US missile strike kills one in S Waziristan

The blueprint for Forward Base America

******

News from Cryptogon.com. Also i strongly recommend Kevin's other site, Farmlet.co.nz, which is all about life on the farm in New Zealand!

Bank in crisis as shares collapse | theage.com.au - Aussie investment bank about to shatter

The computer is acting a little wonky so I'll leave it at that. Have a good Father's Day, everyone!

Tim Russert expires

HongPong — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:04:04 -0600

Nothing too complicated to say. I have the day off right now, sleeping in. Turn on the TV and it turns out that NBC's Washington bureau chief Tim Russert died of a heart attack, right at the editing board they say.

A grim ending - he'd been on vacation in Italy. Stressful industry, and I'm surprised it doesn't happen more often, actually. Russert wasn't my favorite guy but he was a professional to the end.

Not much else to say about it -- but it's troubling. Ideally he will grill St. Peter over some random twist or other weird tidbit of Catholic esoterica.

Bill O'Reilly Flips Out — DANCE REMIX

HongPong — Fri, 16 May 2008 00:30:01 -0600

YouTube - Bill O'Reilly Flips Out — DANCE REMIX

Sublime! FCC Warning: contains expletives used as a beat and/or rhythm

What can I say?!

Obama will change Democrats; Updates on Pentagon anti-Internet plans; military analyst PSYOPS campaign media coverup in progress!

HongPong — Sun, 11 May 2008 02:49:00 -0600

How will Obama change the structure of the Democratic Party: is it progressive or autocratic? Etc??! Matt Stoller: Obama's Consolidation of the Party - Politics on The Huffington Post and The Obama Squeeze | The Agonist.

Meanwhile over @ No Quarter they are pretty grumpy b/c they've been in the Hillary camp for a dang long time: I Call a Spade a Spade : NO QUARTER

PSYOPS update: here's your raw data: John Stauber: Pentagon Propaganda Documents Go Online: But Will the Media Ever Report on Them?

Eight thousand pages of documents related to the Pentagon's illegal propaganda campaign, known as the Pentagon military analyst program, are now online for the world to see, although in a format that makes it impossible to easily search them and therefore difficult to read and dissect. This trove includes the documents pried out of the Pentagon by David Barstow and used as the basis for his stunning investigation that appeared in the New York Times on April 20, 2008.

The Pentagon program, which clearly violated US law against covert government propaganda, embedded more than 75 retired military officers -- most of them with financial ties to war contractors -- into the TV networks as "message surrogates" for the Bush Administration. To date, every major commercial TV network has failed to report this story, covering up their complicity and keeping the existence of this scandal from their audiences.

News of the Pentagon's online posting of the documents came from Joe Trento of the National Security News Service, who notes that NSNS provided the New York Times "limited information about a military office early in the reporting process."

Here is the official Pentagon website with the 8,000 pages of documents, the most interesting and revealing of them previously secret and only available to the Pentagon and the New York Times:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/milanalysts/

More than two weeks after the New York Times reported on the Penatgon's military analyst program to sell controversial policies such as the invasion of Iraq, the broadcast television news outlets implicated in the program are hoping to tough out the scandal by refusing to report it. Recently Media Matters of America (MMA) reported that, according to a search of the Nexis database, "the three major broadcast networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- have still not mentioned the report at all."

Keep running the airtight ship, guys!

Meanwhile, General Electric didn't have a dog in that media game, did they? Hmmm.... The Raw Story | Chris Matthews: MSNBC bosses were 'basically pro-war'

As previously noted on this website, the Pentagon has had an extensive agenda to manipulate mainstream media in order to promote the war, via PSYOPS strategies that make the American population a "strategic" target for brain spoofing. Controlling elite opinion and mass ideas has been the big picture, which is prety obvious. But actually reading all those strategic emails about how to spoof the news via 'military analysts' is another matter altogether.

This was reported in the New York Times and then obviously deleted from the A-story media agenda because it raises too many questions about news oversight and industry-wide management practices.

Meanwhile the paranoid thread digs parallel concerns: Pentagon Secretly Goes To War With The Internet with exciting new systems designed to help the powers that be do... something.

It is not a surprise: the Pentagon's ever-expanding system of total rationality would see the off-message resistance to the war agenda as a kind of distributed evil/terrorist network. Ensuring the primacy of war and top-down information control as the organizing principles of our 21st century society would be a primary goal. True? Probably, even if the various individual humans in the system can't actually see or understand this.

WIRED adds: What's Up with the Secret Cybersecurity Plans, Senators Ask DHS | Threat Level from Wired.com

Why might citizens be worried about privacy and civil liberties? Consider that the whole initiative appears to have been launched after the Director of National Intelligence told the President Bush that a cyber attack might wreak as much economic havoc as 9/11 did.

Consider that the NSA, which currently protects classified networks, wants to expand into protecting all non-classified federal government networks. Consider that Congress is set to legalize the NSA's monitoring rooms in the nation's phone and internet infrastructure.

For its part, the FBI says it also needs access to the internet's backbone, while the Air Force is hyping its own efforts at cyber defense and offense. Meanwhile, THREAT LEVEL's sister blog Danger Room reports that DARPA is getting in on the hot cyber-action, with a project to make a fake internet to develop new cyber attacks and defenses.

It's been said many times that if the government knew what the internet was going to become when it grew up, they would had never let it out of the lab.

Now it seems the only question is whether the government will be able to turn the net into a controllable, monitorable and trackable pre-internet AOL-type service or whether the chaotic net will live on as just another frontier for the military-industrial complex to start an arm's race and rake in billions of government dollars.

Meanwhile the paranoia side also blames the schemes of the Bilberberg Group for the gas pump disaster. I'd say, well, this kind of thing wouldn't surprise me anymore. Goldman Sachs: Bilderberg Target Of $200 Dollar Oil Nears.

And why not some more stuff: Military and Homeland Security Dictate Who Lives And Who Dies In A Pandemic

Rational Annihilation. Of ideas, sick old people, whatever. The ominous specters continue, and blog posts go up apace....

THE WIRE ENDS THIS WEEK - WOE IS ME! Clay Davis: SHeeeeiiiitt!!

HongPong — Mon, 03 Mar 2008 03:32:05 -0700

I will really miss The Wire. We are gonna watch the last episode the second it comes on OnDemand, whenever that is (not Sunday @ midnight this week, argh!!). Damn.

At the end of the second-to-last episode, Clay Davis tells Detective Freamon that Levy, the gangsters' lawyer has been buying secret documents from someone at the Courthouse. My guess is that the Judge was selling the documents -- that would bring the plot full circle, since the Judge and Detective McNulty set the whole plot in motion at the very beginning of the series' first episode. The Judge has been signing the wiretaps all along, hence The Wire merely working out to supply info to the highest bidder, would be a pretty good final joke.

Let's have one final moment with Clay Davis, the time he talks about not collecting money from some damn Korean Grocers....

And this one just got put up a couple days ago, it'll probably get pulled, but it's his fifth season panache at its best!

I will have to write something about the show later... but I have to put in my prediction now!