2004 Jefferson Muzzle Awards

un1xl0ser writes "The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression has released the muzzle awards for people who forgot that "free speech can not be limited without being lost". Check out the 2004 "winners". Famous winners include The U.S. Department of Defense and CBS."

Comments

I would just like to say..

[hplasm]

OW! mmmm! mmmffmm! mmfmfmf! m! m!

Clear Channel

[Jin Wicked]

They're not on the list yet, but after the Janet-boob incident and yanking Howard Stern off their stations, I'm guessing they should be in the running for the 2004s. I half expected them to be there, then remember this was last year.

If he hasn't already, John Ashcroft deserves an honorary trophy all for himself.

Re:Clear Channel

[JargonScott]

But it's Clear Channel's freedom to not play Stern. They haven't done anything to physically stop him from speaking, he just doesn't have the same avenue available.

I wish there was another line for the 1st amendment that stated my freedom to not have to listen. I've never understood why people think "freedom of speech" means "you have to listen me, no matter how silly I am!" My alcoholic neighbor that yell-sings Led Zepplin at 3:00am outside isn't excercising his free speach right, he's just annoying me until the police show up.

Re:Clear Channel

[Dixie_Flatline]

His issue is that he never heard anything about being yanked off the air for indecency until he started criticizing Dubya. Clear Channel is (apparently) the largest broadcasting donator to Dubya's campaign, and he feels that pressure was probably put on them to yank him off the air.

It's all conjecture, I suppose, and I haven't read a whole lot about it other than what's on the news wires, so I'm hardly an expert.

Re:Clear Channel

[medication]

Actually it's not Clear Channel that you should be nominating it's Michael K. Powell (yes as in Colin's son). Michael K. Powell is the chairman of the FCC, and is behind handing out the arbitrary fines to Howard Stern. What I think makes him a shoe-in for next years list is his announcement that he is now looking at handing out similar 'indecency' fines to daytime soap operas.

Re:Clear Channel

[meringuoid]

I must concur here. Freedom of the press does not mean that the owner of the press has to let every loony print on it who wants to. Freedom of speech does not mean that we should issue street preachers with PA systems.

It's a principle I firmly believe in as a follower of the spam wars that the owner of a mail server may choose to deliver, or not deliver an email for any reason whatever - the sender is on a spam blacklist, the sender has a beard, it's a Friday, the stars aren't right, anything - so I fear I must apply the same standards to those who own radio stations also.

Re:Clear Channel

[Cecil]

Ah, but there's a twist in this case: ClearChannel has an exclusive, government-granted monopoly over a large swath of the FM broadcast spectrum through their numerous, sweeping FCC licenses. With increased power, comes increased responsibility. Someone who can't get their work published in the NYT can simply print their own newspaper and distribute it. Not so with radio.

If you have petitioned the government to allow you to be the nearly the only provider of 'x', then you must serve the public interest in a responsible manner. That includes protecting free-speech for someone who is in all other respects a welcome addition to your network. That especially includes not dumping a show because you disagree with something that's been said on it, even more so if you know that many members of the public (who you are expected to be serving) agree with it. If the FCC wasn't so busy being puritanical itself, they should really be enforcing the service of the public interest and free-speech ideals instead.

If ClearChannel is really that unhappy about the arrangement, perhaps they should get out of the completely saturated, FCC-limited market they're in, so they can do something with a little less responsibility required, like satellite radio.

Besides, regardless of whether it's a free-speech issue or not, we're allowed to bash them for it. You know, free-speech and all that. ;)

Re:Clear Channel

[sulli]

And, don't forget, Howard is on Infinity. Clear Channel was happy to have an excuse to drop a program they were paying syndication fees for.

Re:Clear Channel

[schon]

What, exactely, are those boobs saying that is being censored?

Well, if they're being censored (which they are) then (by definition) they're not saying anything, are they?

Is there anything they can communicate in a printed sentence or a speech

Perhaps you need to re-read your constitution. The First Amendment mentions expression, not just speech.

that's of any importance?

Whether something is "of importance" or not is irrelevant. The First Amendment doesn't mention that something must be "of importance" to garner protection. All expression is protected.

Take it to extreams to see how rediculous this crying about 'censorship' is.

It's not 'rediculous' (it's also not ridiculous, either.)

WHAT EXACTLY are they saying that is being 'censored'?

They are saying that the moral tone of the United States is too conservative, and that there's nothing wrong with showing a nipple on television.

They're saying that the US needs to shed it's puritanical views that a 1-inch piece of skin is 'bad'.

Say Janet wants to lay down and rub her labia while Justin masterbates into a paper bag on national prime time Sunday night TV that anybody can tune in - isn't that 'censorship' as well?

If they believe it has artistic merit, and it's banned by the government, then yes - it is indeed censorship (pretty much by definition.)

It's been said that the First Amendment exists not to protect what's popular, but to protect what's unpopular. This is a perfect example.

Re:Clear Channel

[Docrates]

Children are born and spend a a long while sucking on tits, then their parents hide those tits from them for another 15 years, all the while they go from "not know what the big deal is" to being obsessed with them. Once they turn 18 they can now start seeing breasts again.

So, uh, why were they hidden for a few years anyways?

That's it, I'm moving to Brazil.

Here's a Nomination...

[johnthorensen]

The front page says, "If you know of an act of censorship you believe is deserving of a Jefferson Muzzle, the Center encourages and invites your nomination."

To this end, I nominate the Slashdot Editors. Congratulations guys!

(just a joke folks...now watch this thread disappear due to the whims of mgmt)

:P

-JT

google cashe

[PrinceAshitaka]

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:V6FSfxtunyYJ: www.tjcenter.org/muzzles.html+&hl=en&ie=UT F-8

Re:google cashe

[arvindn]

Clickable google cache link

This award is very _______!!

[Rosco P. Coltrane]

I myself live in ________, WA and I'm so glad I live in a free country. I mean, I really feel for those poor people who don't have the __________ amendment to protect their speech in _____land.

However, I'm a bit concerned that our current ad_______ might be going slightly overboard with this Home_____ _______y thing. In particular, John A_____ is really a bit worrying.

But no matter, nothing can take our __ghts away from us, thanks to our Const______ that I'm sure everybody would defend with their lives should it ever be under threat.

Anyway, this is just my __ cents.
Regards, ______ _______

(hold on a sec, someone's at the door, probably to inquire about the 3 black vans parked under my window...)

I'd nominate Justice Scalia

[browse]

This little event probably occured too late to make the nominations. Oh well, there's always next year. Story at CNN opens in a new window.

Re:First Post!!!

[PsiPsiStar]

The tree of liberty must be watered from time to time with the blood of Anonymous Cowards and Cowboy Neil. - Thomas Jefferson

Why are companies on this list?

[ksdd]

"Congress shall make no law..."

The requisite IANAL applies, but doesn't the first amendment only apply to the government? Yes, corporations are filled with greedy scumbags, but can't they technically do all the "muzzling" they want under applicable law? Doesn't mean it's right, but it is what it is.

Please don't flame - I'd like to be corrected if I am mistaken.

School Mascott

[un1xl0ser]

I think that the main reason this was funny is the school board banning the NRA shirt because of the gun silloutes it has... but failing to recognize that this would ban their school mascott... a patriot weilding a musket. I'm just glad that someone pointed it out to them. - un1xl0ser

Re:School Mascott

[SmackCrackandPot]

Reminds me of the time a school board of governors decided to try and ban sandals along with the usual types of clothing (baggy jeans, short T-shirts). As one governor pointed out that only trouble-makers with no respect for authority would want to wear such clothing, another governor nods her head solemnly and comments "Yes, Jesus wore sandals - look at what he managed to do".

CBS did not curtail free speech!!!

[quietlysubversive]

They are a private entity! IT IS THEIR CHOICE TO RUN OR NOT RUN PROGRAMMING/ADVERTISEMENTS.

Free Speech can only be curtailed by the government.

Some people should actually try to READ the constitution before they try to apply it.

Re:CBS did not curtail free speech!!!

[the gnat]

They are a private entity!

. . . which has a monopoly on a portion of the TV spectrum, granted by our government. They should be held to a different standard than a cable channel or newspaper.

"Free Speech" is expensive, but worth it

[Spencerian]

When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.

Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.

Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.

Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power. The very existance of Slashdot, and of the web article that spawned this topic is an example of the balance that true Free Speech maintains.

Re:"Free Speech" is expensive, but worth it

[thatguywhoiam]

When it comes to speaking your mind about almost anything, few countries or people have it as good as the people of the United States, even in this post-September 11 world.

This is an interesting thing to say, I find, especially coming from American citizens. I am of the opinion that there are quite a few places, and people, in the world who can say whatever they damn well please.

ObQuoteSimpsons:
"Where else but in America - or perhaps Canada - could one do such a thing?"

There are certainly a large number of countries that are repressive, and limiting to free speech, but the US is hardly a beacon of shining light in this particular area these days. I can say a lot of things in Canada. Or Britain, or Australia, or Demnark, or Spain, or.. you get the point. In fact one could make the argument that I have more freedom in what I say in Canada, just due to the fact that many of the limitations on free speech are imposed by private citizens who control some form of media or forum, and have an axe to grind. Those Muzzle Awards about the kids who wore the NRA/GWB-terrorist shirts to school for instance.. if a kid wore a shirt calling Paul Martin a terrorist, he would likely get invited to join the debate club, in Ontario.

I get annoyed, however, at people, most notably the cults of personalities we call celebrities, who think that they have a right to make their words and comments louder or have them deemed more important than others. Two words: Barbra Streisand. Another two words: Jane Fonda. Look, I'm glad the two of you have an opinion, but just because you make millions in Hollywood and have played many roles in film doesn't give you any more credibility than the guy who slaves all day for his family.

I completely agree, but why are you annoyed? You don't have to listen to them.

Another problem I have is how some people think that Free Speech is a one-way thing, as if they can say what they want without criticism. The Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines learned this lesson the hard way. True, as an American on our soil you are free to express an opinion. However, the Americans who are listening to you are also free to react to your opinion by counter-comment, or even just to ignore what you said. In the case of Ms. Maines, some folks decided that they would ignore her group's album for a while.

The Dixie Chicks learned the 'hard way' that if they voice an unpopular political opinion, their fans will punish them economically, in the only way they can. That is a limit on free speech, albeit a self-imposed one, like I mentioned above. I think you should buy Dixie Chicks albums if you like the music. If you totally hate the thought of listening to music you like, sung by someone critical of a President you like, you should think about why you cannot separate those two ideas in your head.

Free speech always costs somebody something. My feeling is that the Right of Free Speech wouldn't be worth anything if you didn't lose something as you exercised your right.

What an odd thing to say.. we (collectively, Western Civilization 'we') already lost something... a bunch of people who died during the World Wars. They paid. We shouldn't have to lose anything more to exercise our hard-fought rights.

Free speech is self-correcting as well. That is its true power.

Absolutely - in a Free Society. If you don't get a chance, or worse, if the citizenry just decides that your particular speech is Bad... that's when it starts to crumble.

Ironically...

[jlleblanc]

...the site is blocked by my school's proxy filter!

Re:Certainly not fox - The Sheild gets away with a

[gowen]

US TV censorship amazes me.

I recall watching Godfather on US tv last year. When Michael Corleone's Italian wife takes her top off, revealing her breasts they were all pixelated, to prevent us from becoming disturbed.

About three minutes later, Sonny Corleone gave his brother-in-law Carlo a severe beating with, amongst other things a trashcan.

We got to see that unedited...

Moral : Violence good, boobies bad.

I like America, but is a weird country.

Dixie Chicks

[dman123]

I have to agree about celebs thinking they are more important than others. But I'm sure you aren't criticizing the Dixie Chicks for speaking at all. I'm sure you Read The F***ing ;-) Article about the Dixie Chicks/South Carolina. I'll repost the important part.

Just one week after Maines' statement, South Carolina State Representative Catherine Ceips introduced a House Resolution calling upon the Dixie Chicks to publicly apologize for the statement and perform a free concert for American troops stationed in South Carolina when the group began a tour in Greenville, South Carolina on May 1st. The Resolution called the comments "unpatriotic," "unnecessary," and "anti-American." The measure passed the House on a 50-35 vote.

They deserved all the criticism and praise they got for the speech against Bush. They did not deserve a law enacted to specifically force them to apologize and give a free concert. I'll cut them some slack for feeling persecuted when this type of crap happens.

Sadly there is truth to this

[Sanity]

Since you have raised the issue, and thus few can argue that it is offtopic, perhaps this is a good time to remind people that /. editor Michael Sims has been squatting on censorware.org, a domain previously used by successful anti-censorship group Censorware, who were forced to move to censorware.net. You can find the full story here, but basically he was their webmaster but took the site down after a nasty argument with one of the other participants. Irrespective of the rights and wrongs of that argument, it hardly justifies denying the public such a valuable anti-censorship resource.

Of course, what is particularly interesting is that /. editors (possibly including Sims himself) routinely use their unlimited moderation points to moderate any discussion of this as offtopic.

It will be interesting to see whether they will do this on this thread since it is pretty relevant to its parent which was moderated quite highly. Hell, I am even happy to risk getting bitchslapped to find out.

The right to lie - Fox, Monsanto, Florida

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the right to free speech also protects the right to knowingly tell a lie even where public health is involved.

Some reporters discovered that drugs that Monsanto sold to dairy farmers were getting into milk. There was evidence that this was a public health hazard. Fox killed the story at Monsanto's request (threat actually). A Florida appeals court agreed that telling lies is not illegal and threw out the reporters' case.

"Although the Florida jurors concluded she was pressured by FOX lawyers and managers to broadcast what the jury agreed was "a false, distorted or slanted story" and was fired for threatening to blow the whistle, that decision was reversed on a legal technicality when the higher court agreed with FOX that it is technically not against any law, rule or regulation"

http://www.populist.com/03.09.krebs.html

Agreed! A lot of left/lib censorship not on list

[unassimilatible]

Conspicouously absent are these incidents:

1) Rush Limbaugh, ESPN;
2) Trent Lott, US Senate/US mainstream media;
3) Dr. Laura Schlessinger, gay-right groups;
4) Conservative faulty & speakers, every college campus;
5) Bernard Goldberg, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
6) Ann Coulter, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
7) Sean Hannity, banned from network interviews while promoting NYT bestseller.
8) Al Franken, oh wait, nevermind.

I look forward to seeing how the /. mods view censorhip here.