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

[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

[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.

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

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: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.

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.