Twisted Miss
Safe & discreet adult shopping
www.twisted-miss.co.uk

 World News...
 
2005 Jan-March

 Hardcore DVD
 Online Sex Shops
 Magazines
Sex Shops List
Satellite X Channels
Internet Video
 
 

Melon Farmers Icon

 Home BBFC
Nutters  Sex & Shopping
 Index TV Liberty  Sex Sells News
 Links UK Criminalising Extreme Porn  Sex Sells Reviews
 Forum World Criminalising P4P  Sex Shops List  

world map

World Censorship World News US News UK News
  World Censors Australia News Press Freedom
  World Campaigns European News Internet Blocking & Circumvention

Å

Æ Æ  2005 Jan-March
World News  2000 2001    2002  2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008  Latest
     4 pages   4 pages   4 pages   4 pages   4 pages   4 pages   4 pages   
Previous Next Latest  1 of 4

31st March   Shrinking CineWorld

From DCE Cinemas

Government revokes Cineworld’s license for airing porn movies. The Indian Information and Broadcasting Ministry has suspended the broadcasting rights of a Mumbai based private television movie channel for airing porn movies.

A government spokesperson also warned others to fall in line or face similar punishment handed down to Cine World network, which has been ordered to switch off for a month for broadcasting movies perceived as obscene.

The issue of content on channels came up during the meeting between the Government and various stakeholders, including cable operators; broadcasters; women and other concerned groups, last month.

CMS, an agency to monitor the activities of the channels, records the tapes, which can be used as evidence against those who violate the provisions of the Cable TV Network Regulation Act. We have tapes to show that the channel had violated the provisions of the Cable TV Network Regulation Act by showing illegal scenes, Information and Broadcasting Secretary Navin Chawla told PTI in New Delhi. The government is serious on this issue and will keep a close watch on channels engaging in such activities.

He said I&B ministry had received many representations from women’s groups, consumer organizations and educationists concerning material being shown on channels.

The government, which is in the process of setting up a separate regulatory body for monitoring content on various TV channels, has warned ‘CineWorld’ that if it engaged in similar activities again its license would be terminated

 

30th March   Freedoms Fit for a King

From The New Zealand Herald

About 200 Nepali journalists defied a ban on protests to march through the Himalayan kingdom's capital demanding restoration of press freedoms curbed since King Gyanendra seized power last month.

In Kathmandu, riot police stood guard as reporters, editors and photographers waved banners seeking the release of 13 journalists held after Gyanendra imposed emergency and suspended civil liberties. We have resolved to continue the struggle until there is complete press freedom in the country, Tara Nath Dahal, head of the Federation of Nepalese Journalists, said in a statement. Nepali journalists have to fight for full democracy, press freedom and human rights, the statement said.

Authorities have crushed small protests, and big anti-king rallies have not been possible because of heavy security across the Himalayan nation.  Political parties and human rights groups say hundreds of politicians, journalists and human rights activists remain under detention since Gyanendra assumed power on Feb. 1. He also banned media criticism of his move, saying it was necessary to crush an increasingly bloody Maoist revolt in which more than 11,000 people have died in nine years.

Dozens of independent radio stations have been barred from broadcasting news and hundreds of journalists have lost jobs, media groups say. Some journalists in Nepal are using the internet to sidestep the tight censorship and many outspoken Web logs, or blogs, have sprung up.

 

30th March   Hilary's Failing Moral Health

From Spong

Violent video games have been condemned by Hillary Clinton as a “major threat” to moral health. She singled out Rockstar’s Grand Theft Auto series, calling for a study in how violent videogames affect children, and joining Republican voices that are demanding a $90 million survey into these game's effects.

Children are playing a game that encourages them to have sex with prostitutes and then murder them, she said in a statement released from her office in New York. This is a silent epidemic of media desensitisation that teaches kids it's OK to diss people because they are a woman, they're a different colour or they're from a different place, according to the Sunday Times.

The requested report will demand a complete investigation into the …cognitive, social, emotional and physical development… impact of digital entertainment as seen by pundits, and further evidence of Clinton’s rightward swing as she prepares for a nomination from the badly scarred Democrat party in mid-2007.

 

29th March   Rubbish Monitoring

From The Age

The Spanish Government has launched a campaign to limit what is widely known in Spain as telebasura (telerubbish) - the dominance of gossip programs on television.

Spain's three main broadcasters screen an average of 14 hours a day of "programs of the heart" in which panels of self-appointed experts discuss in intimate detail the private lives of celebrities. Footballers and bullfighters are particular targets.

The broadcasters have said that Government plans to step in would be like a return to the days of censorship under the dictator Francisco Franco. The matter came to a head last week when David Beckham, who plays football with Real Madrid, hinted that he may be forced to leave Spain because of paparazzi following his children to school.

One bullfighter, Francisco Rivera, made a tearful appearance on national television complaining: I can't stand any more of it. Too much rubbish has been said about me, my family and my friends. In a country in which privacy laws are non-existent and where the Hello! magazine phenomenon was born, matadors have called for the kiss-and-tell stories and "persecution" to stop.

They also demanded that politicians change the laws to accept privacy rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights. Many Spaniards, it would seem, agree. A recent poll found that despite the programs in question enjoying high ratings, television is the institution least trusted by Spaniards, ranking behind the church, unions and politicians.

In response, the Government of Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero met recently the main broadcasters to discuss a code of conduct on what can be shown on television during children's hours, 6am to 10pm.

The Government has also promised to set up an official television monitoring body - Spain is the only major European country without one.

 

29th March   Electing to Blog On

From CNET News

Political bloggers and other online commentators narrowly avoided being slammed with a sweeping set of Internet regulations this week.

When the Federal Election Commission kicked off the process of extending campaign finance rules to the Internet on Thursday, the public document was substantially altered from one prepared just two weeks earlier and reviewed by CNET News.com.

The 44-page document, prepared by the FEC general counsel's office and dated March 10, took a radically different approach and would have imposed decades-old rules designed for federal campaigns on many political Web sites and bloggers.

According to the March 10 document, political Web sites would be regulated by default unless they were password-protected and read by fewer than 500 people in a 30-day period. Many of those Web sites would have been required to post government-mandated notices or risk violating campaign finance laws.

The explanation for the dramatic changes during the last two weeks, according to one FEC official familiar with the events, is the unusual public outcry that followed a public alarm that Commissioner Bradley Smith sounded about a pending government crackdown on bloggers. After Smith's warning, an army of bloggers mobilized to oppose intrusive regulations and prominent members of Congress warned the commission not to be overly aggressive.

Brad Deutsch, the FEC's assistant general counsel, declined to discuss the differences between the two documents in a brief conversation Wednesday.

 

27th March   Bhutan Culturally Degraded

From Kuensel Online

The decision to slash about a dozen TV channels such as Fashion TV was based on general public concerns, reports from a media impact study, and in preparation for the Media Act which would specify putting limits to channels, according to regulating authorities.

The rationale, according to the Bhutan Communication Authority (BCA), was that many foreign channels were a bad influence on the Bhutanese social and cultural values. The 2003-2004 media impact study showed that there were a lot of bad effects on our social and culture standards from the many foreign channels, BCA’s officiating director, Phub Tshering, said. The report also pointed out that we lack our own production, which means that we were not trying to develop our own local programmes.

There was no study or research done on what basis the channels were selected, but the Association of Private cable Operators, BCA, and the media department decided to do away with channels that are not necessarily desirable to be viewed in general public. We heard a lot of public concerns of children not performing well in studies because of TV, concerns of cultural degradation, and other problems TV brought along, Phub Tshering said. We decided to reduce the channels.

The fashion TV channel is not available in many countries as an open channel, Phub Tshering said. Bhutan is one country with many foreign programmes coming through open channels. This is why we are initiating a process to regulate the channels. In future, we will phase out the soaps, but we also need to develop our own production. If need be, we have to replace them by Bhutanese soaps and serials.

According to the director of department information and media, Tshering Yonten, the influence of cable TV was devastating: especially when TV bombarded us on daily basis. We cannot out-right condemn TV, but what our society is absorbing from TV is a big concern to the society.

The regulation should have been in place a long time back, says Dawa Penjo, a media relations officer: While social activities are fast changing, there is a dominant influence from Indian and western culture

There is much more violence and vulgarity in Hindi films than on FTV and Tensports, said an observer, John Chiramal. It is a bit ridiculous to do away with these channels. I don’t think watching FTV would corrupt your morals.

 

23rd March   Signed Up for Bad Law

From CNET News

Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines.

The controversial legislation will create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material deemed "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.

Technology companies had urged Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman not to sign the bill saying it was constitutionally suspect and worded so vaguely its full impact is still unclear.

The measure, Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry. A service provider is defined as any person or company who provides an Internet access service to a consumer, which could include everything from cable companies to universities, coffee shops, and homes with open 802.11 wireless connections.

I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause, Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School wrote in a critique of the law.

Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data for profit. Any content provider that the Utah attorney general claims hosts material that's harmful to minors must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.

Lobbying group NetCoalition, whose members include Google, Yahoo and News.com publisher CNET Networks, had written a letter to the Utah Senate saying the legislation could affect search engines, e-mail providers and Web hosting companies. A search engine that links to a Web site in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the Web site, the letter warned.

A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.

 

23rd March   Plotting Obscene Persecution

From AVN

Senator Sam Brownback convened a hearing today before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The hearing was titled “Obscenity Prosecution and the Constitution,”

The witnesses who appeared were professor Robert A. Destro, attorney Patrick A. Trueman, a former Justice Department prosecutor, and Prof. Frederick Schauer, none of whom were particularly friendly to the adult industry.

Destro is a professor of law at the Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law and Schauer is a Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard University. Both have strong conservative credentials, and Destro has ties to right-wing religious groups as well.

Sen. Brownback said in his opening remarks:Government has a compelling and real-life interest in the matter because of porn’s adverse effects on individuals, families and communities in the form of criminality and addiction. The editor and publisher of AVN, a journal of the pornography trade, recently stated that ‘it’s scary’ how much is made on porn, about this there can be little debate. The porn industry has grown rapidly in the last decade. Part of the reason for this growth is that the nature of, and access to, sexually explicit material in the marketplace has been radically transformed and expanded.”

Brownback then launched into an attack on Judge Gary Lancaster’s decision in the case of the United States vs. Extreme Associates, claiming, according to many legal scholars, another reason for the industry’s growth is a legal regime that has undermined the whole notion that illegal obscenity can be prosecuted.

Brownback also claimed that half of all pay-per-view movies in hotels are pornographic and that pornography is now the cause of nearly half the divorces in America. But he added that “porn had an almost non-existent role in divorce just seven or eight years ago.”

The first witness to testify was Prof. Destro, who began by noting the importance of name-calling in Constitutional law. If you call it pornography, it’s not protected,” he said.

Prof. Destro called the U.S. vs. Extreme Associates “an interesting case,” where Judge Lancaster “ignored the Constitution” and “created a right to privacy…that would legalize prostitution.”

Prof. Destro suggested that the best method of regulating sexually explicit material would be to regulate “specific behavior that’s easy to define and is not Constitutionally protected.” He cited the exploitation of women and sexual battery committed during the production of a porn video as examples of conduct that the government could regulate.

The next speaker was Trueman, who trumpeted the fact that while he was a prosecutor the government collected $24 million in fines as a result of prosecuting pornography.

Trueman believes that it should be the juries in various jurisdictions around the country who should decide what is considered obscene in their areas, not the dictates of the Department of Justice. He noted that he was encouraged by the firm stance taken by new Attorney General Alberto Gonzales against pornography and he would encourage increased prosecutions of sexual material.

Prof. Schauer said that, unlike some of his colleagues, he did not believe that obscenity prosecution is unconstitutional. However, he felt that the Justice Department should take several issues into consideration when deciding to mount obscenity prosecutions in the future.

For example, while he said that judges should not ignore the law, he also felt that prosecutors should also adhere as closely to the law as possible. Prof. Schauer testified that he does not believe that America needs any new obscenity laws, and that all material that should be prosecuted, could be prosecuted under the standard enunciated in the seminal case, Miller v. California. He noted that the Miller case divided pornography into three categories: violent pornography, degrading pornography and material which was neither violent nor degrading, and he suggested that the latter category should not be dealt with under the law in the same way as the violent and degrading kinds – a stance that he claimed was supported by the Meese Commission Report.

At one point, Sen. Brownback asked Trueman, if the Extreme decision stands, What will happen to pornography prosecution? Trueman responded, The ruling itself is so extreme, prosecutions will go by the wayside.

Trueman also claimed that if the Justice Department began prosecutions of mainstream companies such as General Motors that are involved in sending adult material to the public via cable and satellite that the companies would stop distributing the material.

In an answer to another of Sen. Brownback’s inquiries, Trueman said that the porn defense bar is rather small, just nine or 10 attorneys in the country, and that the federal government should give aid to local prosecutors when possible to help them fight the defense attorneys’ expertise. However, he said, Prosecutions {of obscene material} should primarily be done by the Department of Justice.

The Free Speech Coalition had already submitted a statement by board members/attorneys Reed Lee and Jeffrey Douglas but that was not mentioned during the hearing.

 

22nd March   Kissing Fair Play Goodbye

From The Jakarta Post

Already the subject of widespread criticism from liberals, the draft revision of the Criminal Code has sparked further protests for being too harsh on crimes committed by citizens but failing to deter the state from practicing violence.

The Institute for Policy Research and Advocacy (ELSAM), a non-governmental organization, said the draft poses the danger of overcriminalization, which could lead to the misuse of criminal sanctions.
The Criminal Code is no longer perceived as an ultimate response to crime but as a repressive instrument at the disposal of the state. Instead of emphasizing the protection of individual rights, it preserves the political interests of the state and certain majority groups, ELSAM director Ifdhal Kasim told a recent media conference.

While being excessively accommodating to the interests of the state, the new draft failed to recognize crimes committed by the state or government. Ifdhal said there should, for instance, be provisions criminalizing state officials who intentionally abused their power or facilities to commit crimes. It also needed to impose penalties for human rights violations committed by the government, he added.

Other articles that have been criticized include those on public morality, especially the proposed sanctions for possessing pornography, kissing in public places, adultery and unmarried couples living together. These articles set up victimless crimes. These things are connected with ethics, manners and norms and should not be categorized as crimes, Ifdhal said.

Examples of overcriminalized articles in the draft revision of the Criminal Code

Article 209: Any person who violates the law by spreading or promoting through the media, verbally or in writing the principles of communism or Marxism-Leninism, with the intention of changing or replacing the state ideology Pancasila, faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in jail.

Article 212: Any person who violates the law by demonstrating the intention verbally, in writing or through the media of abolishing or changing Pancasila in such a way as to create public disorder, loss of life or material losses may be sentenced to up to 15 years in prison.

Article 308: Any person found to have disseminated uncertain, exaggerated or incomplete news that could cause social disorder may be fined up to Rp 30 million (US$3,300) or jailed for up to one year.

Article 400: Anybody who verbally or in writing mocks the state authorities and institutions so as to result in social chaos may be imprisoned for up to two years and fined Rp 30 million.

Article 476: A maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment and a fine up to Rp 300 million may be imposed on any adult who in a public place reveals any private part of the body, goes naked, locks lips, dances erotically, masturbates or simulates masturbation, or has intercourse or simulates acts of sexual intercourse.

 

20th March   Adult Games Not Allowed in Australia

From The Sydney Morning Herald

Video game classifications categories must be updated to prevent games not suitable for children being banned altogether, a civil liberties watchdog has urged. Australia's video game classification laws stop at MA, restricting sales to children above 15 years old. With no adult classification, any games considered unsuitable for 15-year-olds are therefore banned from sale.

The request coincides with the expected release later this year of Narc, a game in which players shoot rivals and take drugs such as crack cocaine and speed.

Australia executive director Irene Graham said There is a desperate need for an R (restricted) classification for computer games in Australia,
It's obviously a concern if children are getting access to material that's really only suitable for adults, but to us it's the same as the R(-rated) film situation.

Dr Jeffrey Brand, an associate professor of communications and media at Queensland's Bond University, said Australia was the only Western country which did not allow adult classification of video games.

According to the Interactive Entertainment Association of Australia, 70 per cent of video game players in Australia are over 18, challenging a stereotype that most video game players are small children and teenagers.

The Office of Film and Literature Classification, which administers all censorship laws in Australia, commissioned a report into video games in 1999. Among other findings, the report, Computer Games and Australians Today, found that the type of violent or explicit content in some banned games was allowed in films.
It appears anomalous, and without scientific basis, to treat one medium as different from others in this respect.

 

20th March   Fair & Balanced? Its a Fair Cop

I was going to make a quip about being "fair & balanced like the Daily Mail" only that would be horribly unfair to the Daily Mail.

From Twin Cities

A journalism study shows that Murdoch's Fox News is more opinionated and 'more deeply sourced' than rivals.

In covering the Iraq war last year, 73 percent of the stories on Fox News included the opinions of the anchors and journalists reporting them, a new study says. By contrast, 29 percent of the war reports on MSNBC and 2 percent of those on CNN included the journalists' own views.

These findings — the figures were similar for coverage of other stories — "seem to challenge" Fox's slogan of "we report, you decide," says the Project for Excellence in Journalism.

In a 617-page report, the group also found that "Fox is more deeply sourced than its rivals," while CNN is the least transparent about its sources of the three cable channels, but more likely to present multiple points of view.

CNN spokeswoman Christa Robinson says the study "reaffirms what anyone watching CNN already knows. CNN's reporting is driven by news, not opinion."

The Project for Excellence in Journalism, a Washington-based research group, offers a three-part breakdown of cable journalists voicing their opinions. From 11 a.m. to noon, this happened on 52 percent of the stories on Fox, 50 percent on MSNBC and 2.3 percent on CNN. Among news-oriented evening shows, journalist opinions were voiced on 70 percent of the stories on Fox's "Special Report With Brit Hume," due in part to its regular analysts panel at the show's end; 9 percent on MSNBC's "Countdown With Keith Olbermann"; and 9 percent on CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown."

As for the most popular prime-time shows, nearly every story — 97 percent — contained opinion on Fox's "O'Reilly Factor"; 24 percent on MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews"; and 0.9 percent on CNN's "Larry King Live." King devoted nearly half his time to entertainment and lifestyle topics.

The project describes cable news reporting as thin compared with the ABC, NBC and CBS evening newscasts. Only a quarter of the cable stories examined contained two or more identifiable sources, compared with 49 percent of network evening news stories and 81 percent of newspaper front-page stories.

This, says the study, is in part because cable leans heavily on live reports, 60 percent of which are based on only a single identifiable source ("the White House said today," etc.). What's more, cable news is far more one-sided than other media outlets, with only a quarter of the stories involving controversy making more than a passing reference to a second point of view. By contrast, says the report, the network morning shows, PBS and newspaper front pages were more than three times as likely to contain a mix of views.

Cable networks have gravitated, particularly as Fox has surged in the ratings, toward programs and somewhat less toward reporting, says Tom Rosenstiel, the group's director. He says opinion-laden journalism
probably is part of Fox's identity, but it's not true of all the programs.

 

20th March   Unnatural Views of the Publication Appraisal Foundation

From The Taipei Times

A Taipei bookstore specializing in gay and lesbian literature was slapped with indecency charges, sparking a heated debate over the meaning of morality on issues of pornography and homosexuality.

Lai Jeng-jer, proprietor of Gin Gin's, a Taipei store specializing in gay and lesbian literature, was charged in 2003 with violating Article 235 of the Criminal Code, which states: A person who distributes, sells, publicly displays, or by other means shows to another person in an indecent writing, drawing, or other [work] shall be punished.

Customs officers confiscated more than 200 magazines imported by the bookstore in 2003. Later the same year, the Keelung District prosecutors went to the bookstore and took away more than 500 magazines, including some that are legally published in Hong Kong as well as His, a local publication.

The matter proceeded to a second hearing. The judge and Lai, accompanied by his lawyer, had a fierce debate on the issue of indecency over the photos in 101 magazines that contain what the Publication Appraisal Foundation defined as indecent pictures and content.

The judge and the foundation said that the erect penises shown in the magazines are unnatural, and words like sperm are indecent, which I found ridiculous, Lai said. According to health education textbooks, an erect penis is a natural response any normal man has. It is wrong to demonize human body parts with terms such as indecency.

Unable to reach any conclusion, the Keelung District decided to continue the hearing and reach a verdict in April.

Gay-rights advocates and gender issues experts have questioned the judgment of both the Keelung District judge and the Publication Appraisal Foundation for defining the photos as indecent and an offense against morality. They call the case an example of the demonisation and dehumanization of gay and lesbian groups.

Wu Ming-hsuan, spokesperson for the Coalition Against Pseudo-Rating Regulations, said: The need for sexual information will never stop, and the definition of pornography remains a debatable issue. However, the government and conservative groups should stop playing the role of regulator and banning pornography, It is important for a democratic society to respect the freedom to read, and accept the existence of exotic and different voices or ideologies.

Lai said the recent release of the original cut of noted director Tsai Ming-liang's  latest film, The Wayward Cloud, contains explicit nude scenes and "deviant" sexual behaviors, and shows the need for the public to tolerate and also accept the various representation of human bodies and sexual orientations.
If the government and the public recognized the film's artistry, they should be able to accept the photo display or written words of human body parts or sexual behaviors, such as penis, oral sex, or sperm, which are natural and nothing to be ashamed of.

 

18th March   Indecent Cable Censorship

I wonder if removing tits from TV will reduce the US appetite for war-mongering, torture and killing 

From The Hollywood Reporter

The chairman of the powerful Senate Commerce Committee wants to alter the indecency legislation his panel will soon consider so that pay TV and broadcast TV come under a similar legal rules.

Republican Senator Ted Stevens said he intended to have a committee vote soon as possible on the bill: I intend to try and level the playing field. I take the position that at the time the Supreme Court made its decision about cable, cable was just one of the ways for public access to television products. Today 85% of the television that is brought to American homes is brought by cable, and I believe that the playing field should be leveled.

Stevens told a broadcaster conference this month that he intended to bring cable and satellite TV, including such programming as HBO and Showtime, under the same indecency regulations broadcasters face, but this is the first time he's said he wants to include it in the Broadcast Decency Act. In February, the House approved legislation that would boost the maximum fine for indecency from $32,500 to $500,000 for a company and from $11,000 to $500,000 for an individual entertainer. The bill also removes an FCC provision that gave individuals a warning before issuing a fine.

Although Stevens said he wants to harmonize the rules of the road, he also said,
We're not going to censor cable. We ought to find some way to say, here is a block of channels, whether it's delivered by broadband, by VoIP (Voice over Internet Protocol), by whatever it is, to a home, that is clear of the stuff you don't want your children to see. And, were not saying you can't, you know, you can buy anything you want, I don't care how they package it.

 

17th March    Bahrain Incites Hatred Against Itself

Surely the Bahraini regime is also guilty of inciting hatred against itself by its own actions.

From Index on Censorship

The Bahraini moderator of an online discussion forum and two web technicians detained on charges of defaming King Hamad have been freed after two weeks in custody, Middle East Online has reported.

"They released us last night, but the investigation is continuing," Ali Abdel Imam, editor of the Bahrain Online website who had been in detention since February 27, said. The three were detained on charges of "defaming the king, inciting hatred against the regime and spreading rumors and lies that could cause disorder," lawyer Ahmed al-Arayedh said after their arrest. He said the trio were accused of running a website that made it possible to publish such material, not of writing the material themselves. The two web technicians, Hussein Yussef and Mohammad al-Musawi, were arrested on 1 March. The three were released after refusing an earlier offer to pay the equivalent of 2,660 dollars bail.

 

16th March   Hardly a Tropical Paradise

From Seven

An Australian man who allegedly had three Playboy magazines in his apartment could spend six months in a Papua New Guinea jail. The 59-year-old, from Melbourne, faced a court in the Papua New Guinea capital Port Moresby this week, charged with possession of pornography.

A Papua New Guinea police spokesman said officers had earlier raided his home in the suburb of Koki, finding the magazines in a box.

The man, who had been working as a workshop manager for a construction company in Port Moresby, denied any knowledge of the magazines and denied the charges, the spokesman said. He said officers had searched the man's apartment, acting on a warrant following complaints he had committed an assault and illegally discharged a pistol. No firearms were found, but the three Playboy magazines were found in a box during the search, he said.

The man was granted bail when he faced Boroko District Court this week. He will reappear in court again on a date to be set, the spokesman said.

The pornography possession charge carries a fine of up to 500 kina ($A203) or six months in jail.

 

16th March   Missourian Repression

From ColumbiaMissourian

With little debate, the Senate gave first-round approval Monday to legislation aiming to make it tough for the adult entertainment industry to operate in Missouri.

The bill, SB 32, would impose a charge of $5 per customer for sexually oriented businesses, from strip clubs to adult bookstores, and a 20 percent tax on their revenues.

Travelers in our state are being sent a signal that Missouri is a porn-friendly state, sponsoring Senator Matt Bartle, said during earlier debate on the bill. Missouri law has fallen sadly behind the laws and ordinances in other jurisdictions. The legislation needs another vote to move to the House.

Bartle said he’s not concerned about the industry’s claims that the legislation violates constitutional rights to free speech and expression. He said it is modeled after what worked and withstood court challenges in other states.

The legislation would restrict such businesses to operating only between 10 a.m. and midnight, and businesses could not be open on Sundays or holidays. Also, customers and strippers could not touch, and customers could not tip strippers. Total nudity would be banned, and no one under 21 could work in such businesses.

 

15th March   Obscenely Biased

Based on an article from AVN

A Senate committee is scheduled for Wednesday under a new title, "Obscenity Prosecution and the Constitution." The original hearing was titled “Obscenity Prosecution of the First Amendment.”

The hearing will be chaired by Sen. Sam Brownback, who, with Sen. Orrin Hatch, wrote in the Washington Times criticizing Judge Gary Lancaster's opinion that dismissed federal indictments against Extreme Associates.

Although the official Judiciary Committee Website no longer discloses the witnesses who have been invited to appear at the hearing, Patrick Trueman, has reportedly been substituted for one previously-announced witness. Trueman is the former head of the Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section of the U.S. Department of Justice under President George W. Bush. Now he is Senior Legal Counsel for the reactionary Family Research Council (FRC). Trueman has also served as Legal Affairs Director for the American Family Association (AFA), another vocal nutter group.

The list of witnesses reportedly still includes Robert A. Destro, professor of law at the Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law; and Frederick Schauer, Frank Stanton Professor of the First Amendment at Harvard University, both of whom have strong conservative credentials, with Destro also having ties to right-wing religious groups as well.

Although both the Adult Freedom Foundation (AFF) and the Free Speech Coalition (FSC) have requested the opportunity to provide additional witnesses who are intimately familiar with both federal and state obscenity prosecutions and with the general workings of the adult entertainment industry, to date all such requests have been rebuffed. We asked if we could supply experts on the issue, Paul Cambria, general counsel for AFF, told AVN.com. We were told we were too late, and they had already selected the experts. Then we were told who they were, and each of them had a history of basically being against adult material. They had a history of having a clear bias against adult entertainment.

Even if adult-friendly witnesses are not permitted to testify live, several attorneys have indicated their intentions to submit written testimony to the subcommittee.

AVN.com has previously written about witnesses Destro and Schauer, noting that Schauer was an advisor to several U.S. senators involved in creating the anti-adult industry portions of the PROTECT Act which was passed by Congress in 2003.

However, Patrick Trueman is clearly the witness with the most anti-sexual-speech experience. Since leaving the Justice Department, Trueman has worked almost exclusively for right-wing religious pro-censorship groups as well as groups intent on erasing the constitutional boundaries between church and state. As to sexual speech, Trueman is staunchly against that freedom. While employed by the AFA, he conducted a long-running campaign against Internet service provider Yahoo! for allowing sexual speech and explicit images to be posted on the service's message boards.

Of Judge Lancaster's decision in the Extreme case, Trueman charged that the jurist
is giving the Supreme Court an opportunity to eliminate anti-pornography laws. If higher courts fail to overturn this decision, it will be yet more proof that the often-mocked 'slippery slope' argument is alive and well.

 

13th March   Little Affection for Chinese Censors

From Indian Television

China repeatedly blocked transmission of BBC World’s week-long series of China-themed programmes to hotels and apartment compounds for foreigners during political and other sensitive reports.

For example, a report on restive Muslim Uighur ethnic group in China's far west was cut off after just seconds of starting to air. According to international media reports, the screen went black after a BBC correspondent said, But the Uighur people have little affection for their Chinese masters.

Other foreign channels and BBC World are not licensed for cable distribution to ordinary Chinese, but millions of households with unlicensed satellite dishes can view them.

The media reports stated that the Uighur issue has been especially a sensitive issue as some members of the minority group are waging a low-intensity struggle against Chinese control.

The BBC’s website describes China Week as
a themed series of news reports and programmes exploring one of the world’s most dynamic countries.

 

12th March   Military Justice...My Arse

From Gay City News

In yet another exception to a 2003 Supreme Court decision legalizing sodomy, a high military court, the U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, has upheld the sodomy conviction of a heterosexual marine in a case arising from events at an American base in Japan.

According to the opinion for the court by Judge David Wagner, Aviation Boatswain’s Mate Jakarri Avery was living on the base during divorce proceedings from his wife, a Japanese citizen. Avery acknowledged to his unit mates that he had both anal and oral sex with two other Japanese civilian women in his barracks room. The prosecution resulted from a confrontation between Avery’s wife and one of the two females at the on-base hotel that had to be resolved by military police.”

Military authorities prosecuted Avery for sodomy, adultery and indecent acts, as well as the possession and use of marijuana and Percocet, a prescription drug. He pleaded guilty and was sentenced to nine months confinement and a bad-conduct discharge that included forfeiture of pay and a reduction in grade.

Shortly after his sentencing, the Supreme Court declared, in a 6-3 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, that that state’s anti-sodomy law was unconstitutional, in effect nullifying nationwide other such statutes. Avery promptly appealed his sodomy conviction, claiming that, based on the language in the Lawrence ruling, his private adult consensual activity was protected by the Constitution.

Last year, in the highest military appellate ruling on the impact of Lawrence on military sodomy prosecutions, United States v. Marcum, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces ruled that Lawrence had not invalidated Article 125 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the military sodomy law, but had merely narrowed the circumstances in which it could be used to prosecute uniformed personnel. Under the Marcum approach, sexual penetration that falls squarely within the parameters of Lawrence—consensual oral or anal sex—could still be prosecuted if there are military factors that affect “the nature and reach of the Lawrence liberty interest.” In the Marcum case, the military high court found that sexual activity between military personnel of different ranks presented issues of military relevance justifying prosecution.

Since the Marcum decision, there have been several military sodomy prosecutions, but in only one case, involving a service member and a civilian, did a military court find Lawrence to be controlling. Undoubtedly, Avery was hopeful that this precedent would be found to control his situation, but the court thought otherwise. His subordinates knew about the extra-marital activities, and local Japanese nationals also knew about the activities. In this case we find direct and obvious impacts on both the command structure and the armed forces reputation in the local foreign community resulting from the acts of sodomy committed by the appellant.

Apparently, Avery’s candor about his extra-marital sexual behavior figured into the court’s decision. Not unlike the secrecy governing the sexual behavior of gay and lesbian service members, perhaps more discretion would have allowed Avery to avoid prosecution.

It is unclear whether or not Avery intends to appeal his decision to the military high court.

 

12th March   Tunisia Dishonours Honour

Sounds like any many other European capitals to me, suffering from nutters and other lowlifes  that like to deprive their fellow man of sexual entertainment.

From Index on Censorship

Eight months before the World Summit on the Information Society is held in Tunis, the government has blocked the site set up to monitor the summit. It also has  blocked access to the opposition Progressive Democratic Party (PDP)’s website.

The action is likely to reinforce the view of free expression groups that Tunisia address its censorship of the internet before being granted the 'honour' of hosting the UN sponsored summit on global digital information. A number of websites are already being blocked or filtered, including the site set up by Reporters Sans Frontières (RSF) to monitor the summit.

The ban has been linked to the PDP's criticism of Tunisian president Zine el Abidine Ben Ali's decision to invite Israeli premier Ariel Sharon to the country. According to the Paris based Tunisian Solidarity Movement (TSM), lawyer Muhammad Abu was detained on 2 March after an article criticisng the decision was published on the internet. Abu is a member of the Tunisian Committee of Young lawyers, the International Association of Support for Political Prisoners, and other justice groups.

 

11th March   Russian Nutters See Red

Sounds like any many other European capitals to me, suffering from nutters and other lowlifes  that like to deprive their fellow man of sexual entertainment.

Based on a biased article in The Sunday Herald

A backlash against the ‘sex sells’ culture has seen Russians embrace the old Soviet values. Moscow’s deputies believe they have the remedy: a law that would ban advertisements featuring swear words, genitalia and “filthy gestures and poses”.

And their concerns are far from isolated. Right across Russia the calls for a renaissance of Soviet-style puritanism and a return to moral order are being voiced with increasing frequency.

Once a drab, neon-free and asexual zone, Moscow itself has metamorphosed into a city where anything goes. Billboards feature soft lesbian scenes and underwear adverts for women’s thongs  and sexual double entendres are used to sell anything from cars to phones.

Deprived of commercialism for years, experts say Russia has embraced the old adage that “sex sells” with gusto but with little regulation, a phenomenon that has at turns shocked, offended and titillated.
Strip clubs and brothels line many of the city’s main avenues, hardcore pornography DVDs are on sale at most of the city’s metro stations and sex shops.

Young people who have only vague memories of Soviet-style morality, where sex was rarely referred to in public, do not bat an eyelid at any of this. But middle-aged and older Russians find it distasteful and are beginning to realise that democracy and capitalism do not have to go hand in hand with sex.

After one Muscovite complained that she had caught her five-year-old grandson watching a pornographic video he had bought from a sex shop near his school, lawmakers decided enough was enough. Under a law drafted by Moscow Duma deputy Ludmila Stebenkova, sex shops will soon be prohibited in residential homes, markets, airports, railway stations and from within 500 metres of schools, cemeteries, theatres and hospitals.

The clean-up battle is also being waged on TV. Nationally, lawmakers are trying to ban the broadcast of violent images or images of an extreme sexual nature between 7am and 10pm.

Russia's State Duma has ordered its cultural committee to investigate an opera by the Bolshoi Theater after a deputy described it as pornographic. United Russia Deputy Sergei Neverov complained after seeing a television report on the opera, The Children of Rosenthal: It is not decent for the stage of the Bolshoi Theater. His complaint involves a scene featuring a ranting pimp.

The famously conservative Russian Orthodox Church is also doing its bit. It is in the process of setting up a nationwide channel to promote Christian morality and oppose “the cult of consumption and pleasure”.

Church leaders, who have the Kremlin’s ear, say that television adverts should not promote sex, alcohol or cigarettes, and the government has fallen into line. Beer ads have been banned from radio and TV between 7am and 10pm, the consumption of beer is to be prohibited in many of public places such as hospitals and schools, and children under the age of 18 have finally been banned from buying beer, traditionally considered a soft drink in Russia.

The Church says the media have much to answer for, notably for the fact that some eight out of 10 marriages end in divorce and that an estimated one-third of births take place out of wedlock.

A Kremlin-backed youth group called Walking Together is trying to turn the tide. With a nationwide membership of 100,000, it urges its members to adhere to a strict moral code which urges respect for one’s parents, no drunkenness or drugs and respect for core family values. It has recently been joined by another Kremlin-inspired youth association called Nashi, or “One of Us”.

In the eyes of the authorities, morality is closely linked to national security. The Kremlin is said to be concerned that young people are becoming too fond of the single, promiscuous, commitment-free lifestyle at the expense of Russia’s falling birth rate. The current average birth rate is 1.25 children per woman. A rate of 2.13 needs to be attained if the existing population level is to be maintained, something that is regarded as vital for Russian national security.

 

9th March   Sacked Illegally

From The Nation

The Supreme Court yesterday upheld a ruling that all 21 journalists fired four years ago by television station iTV were illegally dismissed. The court ordered iTV to reinstate the journalists and pay them their salaries dating back to February 2001.

Some of the 17 journalists who turned up at the court embraced each other upon hearing the verdict. Their legal victory has lifted industry spirits at a time of media suppression in Thailand.

iTV is owned by the family of Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who has frequently lashed out at reporters who criticise him or his policies, saying they are unpatriotic.

The court dismissed iTV’s reasons for dismissing the journalists. The station said it terminated the employment of seven of the journalists because they criticised management for interfering in editorial content so that it favoured the ruling Thai Rak Thai party. It also dismissed the television station’s claims that 13 journalists were made redundant.

The court believed that iTV dismissed them because they applied to become members of the station’s labour union. The court also ruled that iTV illegally dismissed one journalist because he refused to cover a news event. It said the journalist had the freedom to choose what news to cover and that the station could not interfere.

Songsak Premsuk, iTV managing director, said the company would welcome all 21 journalists back and would pay them their back salaries in one payment.

Ubonrat Siriyuwasak, a media academic at Chulalongkorn University, hailed the ruling as a day for justice. The verdict shows that if journalists do their job with honesty, they will be protected, Ubonrat said.

iTV was founded in 1992 amid a broad movement to promote democracy in Thailand. Its aim was to provide an independent-television voice, since all TV stations at the time were owned by the military or controlled by the government.

 

9th March   Lost High Ground

It used to be held that detention without trial was a chilling characteristic of repressive regimes. We have now lost this moral high ground and have to include the UK in the list of repressive states.

Based on an article from Index on Censorship

Southeast Asian Press Alliance (SEAPA) has expressed renewed concern over the continuing investigation of Malaysian blogger Jeff Ooi, saying the case has adverse implications for the Internet and free speech in Malaysia.

Ooi was questioned by police for two hours on 28 February in connection with a posting on his Screenshots blog, www.jeffooi.com. Selangor State Criminal Investigation Department's (CID) Chief Senior Assistant Commander II, Hadi Ho had confirmed that Ooi was being investigated under a Section of the Penal Code relating to acts fostering "religious disunity", which carries a penalty of two to five years imprisonment. However the Malaysian Supreme Court had in 1987 declared this section of the Penal Code unconstitutional.

During the two-hour questioning, Ooi was asked when and why he started blogging. He was also asked about a 2 October 2004 front page story in a Malay daily, which accused him of failing to control the [Screenshots] forum by allowing an opinion ridiculing Islam to be published.

That story referred to an anonymous posting on Ooi's weblog that angered readers and officials in Malaysia who saw it as blasphemous. Ooi himself, as owner and administrator of the website, took down the posting and barred the anonymous writer (a user writing under the name of "Anwar") from future discussions.

Nevertheless, in 2004, Ooi was threatened with detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA), which allows for imprisonment without trial for up to two years. He was also threatened with prosecution under the Sedition Act. These investigations are continuing. SEAPA view this case as an attempt to harass Ooi and other website owners and operators in Malaysia, and to curtail freedom of expression on the Internet.

The use of the Sedition Act, the Internal Security Act, and now a dubious, supposedly voided clause of the Penal Code to intimidate Mr. Ooi in fact lays bare Malaysia's intent to run around Kuala Lumpur's own pledge to never censor the Internet, SEAPA executive director Roby Alampay said. SEAPA noted that former prime minister Mahathir Mohammad had vowed to maintain the integrity of cyberspace and to never intervene in the management of its content.

Despite its economic strength, Malaysia remains a politically restrictive society where government maintains a strict hold over the flow of news and information, and over all forms of mass communication. Much of the print and broadcast media is state-owned and media outlets must submit to strict licensing rules and face intolerance for political criticism.

SEAPA noted that, for now, the Internet is the most viable medium for independent news and information in Malaysia. Censorship of the Internet was explicitly rejected in the Communications and Multimedia Act 2001.

Now SEAPA  are concerned that the Malaysian government has found an excuse to influence web content as well. The organisations are concerned that the very suggestion of using the ISA and sedition laws against a webmaster may have a chilling effect on other content providers.

 

7th March   Rating Utah Unconstitutional

From AVN & CNET News

An amended  Internet porn filter bill passed unanimously the Utah House of Representatives with warnings from legislative staff attorneys reduced such that only part of the bill has a high probability of being held unconstitutional.

That part would be the section which requires the state's attorney general to identify and maintain a database of the porn sites, at a projected cost of $70,000 a year. Keepers of the database would have to amend and add to the list as porn sites multiply or change URLs, and another section of the bill requires all content providers either based in Utah or which generate or hosts content that is accessible in Utah to self-rate their sites as to whether material on the site is "harmful to minors" an undefined term. Transgressions may mean a $5,000 fine and up to a year in jail for each offense.

Other changes are to a section which previously required service providers to use filtering technology to prevent the transmission of material harmful to minors to the consumer at no additional cost to the consumer. That section now reads, Upon request by a consumer, a service provider shall filter content to prevent the transmission of material harmful to minors to the consumer at no additional cost to the consumer, except that a service provider may increase the cost to all subscribers to the service provider's services to recover the cost of complying with this section.

Also, where the bill formerly exempted ISPs with less than 5,000 subscribers from the blocking requirements of the bill but required that they provide blocking software at cost to subscribers to use on their home computers, the new version removes that exemption and gives all ISPs three options:

  1. use a generally accepted and commercially reasonable method to prevent a consumer's access
  2. provide easy-to-enable and commercially reasonable blocking software
  3. comply with any federal law in effect that requires the blocking of content from a registry of sites containing material harmful to minors.

Other provisions of the previous version of the bill remain the same, including appropriating $250,000 in taxpayer funds to set up the adult site registry and advertise its existence, oversight and updating of the registry, requirements for self-rating sites, the increased penalties for various violations, and the clearly-unconstitutional sanctioning of First Amendment-protected "pornographic material."

The Utah governor is now deciding whether to sign the bill.

A spokesman for newly elected Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman said his aides would need to review the final version. We have until March 22 to figure out what to do, a spokeswoman  said Thursday.

I'd be shocked if the governor did not sign this bill, said Markham Erickson, director of federal policy for lobbying group NetCoalition. But I'm quite certain there will be a constitutional challenge.

Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that hosts material deemed harmful to minors by the Utah attorney general must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.

A letter that NetCoalition sent to the state Senate earlier this week said the wording is so vague it could affect search engines, e-mail providers and Web hosting companies. A search engine that links to a Web site in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the Web site, the letter said.

A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.

 

6th March   Iranian Channel Banned from France

Based on an article from MEHR News

The French Higher Council for Radio and Television, CSA (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel), have banned the Iranian satellite television network Sahar from broadcasting in France.

The council accused Sahar of anti-Semitism and issued a warrant saying the Iranian network has systematically mocked Israelis and Jews by broadcasting the series “Zahra's Blue Eyes” and the Syrian-produced series “Al-Shatat”, which was originally broadcast by Lebanon’s Al-Manar. Al-Manar, a satellite television network affiliated with Hezbollah, was also accused of airing anti-Semitic programs and banned by the French Higher Council for Radio and Television.

Ahmad Mir-Alawi, the producer of the series, reportedly said that the story is the product of research and is a collection of facts that were turned into a film to make the world aware of what the Zionists are doing to the Palestinians.

In addition, the CSA has protested against one part of the series “Al-Shatat” that has not yet been broadcast by Sahar TV, despite the fact that according to its charter, the council is not authorized to censor programs or put pressure on a TV network before it has aired a program.

In its warrant, the French organization accused Sahar of questioning the veracity of the Holocaust, the genocide of the Jews during World War II, in a program called “World in Question”.

Mohsen Sharifzadeh, the director of the Sahar network, announced that Sahar is trying to deal with the matter through human rights forums.

 

4th March   US Under Threat from Police Zombies

From www.fangoria.com, Thanks to Harvey

Teen horror writer arrested and detained as terrorist

Kentucky’s Lex 18 news site reports that an 18-year-old high-school student is facing terrorist threat charges because of a zombie story he wrote for his English class. William Poole, an 18-year-old student at George Rogers Clark High School, was arrested after his grandparents found the tale, in which the undead attack a high school, in his journal and turned it over to police. I’ve been working on one of my short stories, [and] the short story they found was about zombies, Poole told Lex 18. Yes, it did say a high school. It was about a high school overrun by zombies.

Despite the obviously fantastical nature of his writing, and the fact that neither his own school nor any real people, school officials or police were mentioned in the story, Poole was taken into custody on a second-degree felony terrorist threatening charge. Anytime you make any threat or possess matter involving a school or function, it’s a felony in the state of Kentucky, Winchester Police detective Steven Caudill told Lex 18. A judge even raised Poole’s bond from $1,000 to $5,000 at the prosecutors’ request, due to the "seriousness" of the charges. Poole is currently being held at the Clark County Detention Center.

 

4th March   The Value of Free Speech is Not Free in the US so must be Banned

From CNET News.Com

In just a few months, he warns, bloggers and news organizations could risk the wrath of the US federal government if they improperly link to a campaign's Web site. Even forwarding a political candidate's press release to a mailing list, depending on the details, could be punished by fines.

Bradley Smith should know. He's one of the six commissioners at the Federal Election Commission, which is beginning the perilous process of extending a controversial 2002 campaign finance law to the Internet.

In 2002, the FEC exempted the Internet by a 4-2 vote, but U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly last fall overturned that decision. The commission's exclusion of Internet communications from the coordinated communications regulation severely undermines  the campaign finance law's purposes, Kollar-Kotelly wrote.

Smith and the other two Republican commissioners wanted to appeal the Internet-related sections. But because they couldn't get the three Democrats to go along with them, what Smith describes as a "bizarre" regulatory process now is under way.

CNET News.com spoke with Smith about the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, better known as the McCain-Feingold law, and its forthcoming extrusion onto the Internet.

Q: What rules will apply to the Internet that did not before?
A: The commission has generally been hands-off on the Internet. We've said, If you advertise on the Internet, that's an expenditure of money--much like if you were advertising on television or the newspaper.

Do we give bloggers the press exemption? The real question is: Would a link to a candidate's page be a problem? If someone sets up a home page and links to their favorite politician, is that a contribution? This is a big deal, if someone has already contributed the legal maximum, or if they're at the disclosure threshold and additional expenditures have to be disclosed under federal law.

How can the government place a value on a blog that praises some politician?
How do we measure that? Design fees, that sort of thing? The FEC did an advisory opinion in the late 1990s that I don't think we'd hold to today, saying that if you owned a computer, you'd have to calculate what percentage of the computer cost and electricity went to political advocacy.

It seems absurd, but that's what the commission did. And that's the direction Judge Kollar-Kotelly would have us move in. Line drawing is going to be an inherently very difficult task. And then we'll be pushed to go further. Why can this person do it, but not that person?

How about a hyperlink? Is it worth a penny, or a dollar, to a campaign?
I don't know. But I'll tell you this. One thing the commission has argued over, debated, wrestled with, is how to value assistance to a campaign.

Corporations aren't allowed to donate to campaigns. Suppose a corporation devotes 20 minutes of a secretary's time and $30 in postage to sending out letters for an executive. As a result, the campaign raises $35,000. Do we value the violation on the amount of corporate resources actually spent, maybe $40, or the $35,000 actually raised? The commission has usually taken the view that we value it by the amount raised. It's still going to be difficult to value the link, but the value of the link will go up very quickly.

How do you see this playing out?
There's sensitivity in the commission on this. But remember the commission's decision to exempt the Internet only passed by a 4-2 vote. This time, we couldn't muster enough votes to appeal the judge's decision. We appealed parts of her decision, but there were only three votes to appeal the Internet part (and we needed four). There seem to be at least three commissioners who like this.

What would you like to see happen?
I'd like someone to say that unpaid activity over the Internet is not an expenditure or contribution, or at least activity done by regular Internet journals, to cover sites like CNET, Slate and Salon. Otherwise, it's very likely that the Internet is going to be regulated, and the FEC and Congress will be inundated with e-mails saying, "How dare you do this!"

What happens next?
It's going to be a battle, and if nobody in Congress is willing to stand up and say, "Keep your hands off of this, and we'll change the statute to make it clear," then I think grassroots Internet activity is in danger. The impact would affect e-mail lists, especially if there's any sense that they're done in coordination with the campaign. If I forward something from the campaign to my personal list of several hundred people, which is a great grassroots activity, that's what we're talking about having to look at.

If Congress doesn't change the law, what kind of activities will the FEC have to target?
We're talking about any decision by an individual to put a link (to a political candidate) on their home page, set up a blog, send out mass e-mails, any kind of activity that can be done on the Internet. Again, blogging could also get us into issues about online journals and non-online journals. Why should CNET get an exemption but not an informal blog? Why should Salon or Slate get an exemption? Should Nytimes.com and Opinionjournal.com get an exemption but not online sites, just because the newspapers have a print edition as well?

Why wouldn't the news exemption cover bloggers and online media?
Because the statute refers to periodicals or broadcast, and it's not clear the Internet is either of those. Second, because there's no standard for being a blogger, anyone can claim to be one, and we're back to the deregulated Internet that the judge objected to. Also I think some of my colleagues on the commission would be uncomfortable with that kind of blanket exemption.

This is an incredible thicket. If someone else doesn't take action, for instance in Congress, we're running a real possibility of serious Internet regulation. It's going to be bizarre.

 

4th March   Customs are Thieves the World Over

From Index on Censorship

Vancouver gay bookstore Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium, currently attempting to challenge the censorship powers of Canada's Customs department, has abruptly had its legal funds denied.

An appeal court removed the bookshop's right to claim nearly a million Canadian dollars' worth of legal funds to finance its defence against the Customs on the grounds that it was a matter of public interest that the case be resolved fully and fairly. Canadian customs had impounded pornographic books ordered abroad by the Little Sisters store; the store's owners argued that the Customs' de facto power of censorship should be challenged in court. But appeals court judge Mr Justice Allan Thackray ruled that the fact is that the public has not appointed Little Sisters to this role (of watchdog over the Customs department.

The ruling is a serious blow to those unable to shoulder the massive costs of constitutional litigation, Little Sisters lawyer Joseph Arvay told the Toronto Globe & Mail. I don't have the proper term for it, but some linguist might aptly coin the phrase " bibliocide" to describe what is happening at Canada Customs - given their propensity to ban and destroy literally thousands of titles of expressive material each year.

 

3rd March   Turkish PM will have to Wait 9 Lifetimes to Join EU

From Kurdish Media

Journalists and caricaturists continue to criticize the Prime Minister Erdogan who sued caricaturist Kart of Cumhuriyet daily for drawing him as a cat. Caricaturist Kart and editor-in-chief Sucu were fined a total of 3,800 dollars for the caricature.

Caricaturist Behic Ak said caricaturists, as well as journalists, constantly live through the problem of lack of freedom of expression in Turkey. He said there is a double censorship in Turkey.

Caricaturist Musa Kart and editor-in-chief Mehmet Sucu were fined a total of 5 billion Turkish lira ($3,800) for a caricature showing Prime Minister Erdogan as a cat entangled in headscarf threads. The caricature was published in the Cumhuriyet newspaper in May, 2005. The caricature represented the much-debated Islamic high schools, or Imam Hatip. The caricature was taken as an insult and Erdogan sued

This shows, people are afraid of the smallest expression of thought, or joke, said Ak. He added that people in Turkey like caricature a lot, and said caricaturists can stand up to difficulties because they get their power from the people.

Journalist Turker Alkan called on Erdogan to be more tolerable toward journalists in his column called in Radikal newspaper. In democratic countries, worse things are drawn.

Another commentator noted I thought there was democracy, freedom of thought. I thought we were going to share European values.
(Maybe...but surely not until Turkish leaders have learnt to take a bit of satire)

 

3rd March   Who Rules the Cyber World?

From the Financial Times

Four years ago global business rose up in protest when a French court ruled that French law could be used to protect French citizens living in France, in the famous Yahoo ruling.

Yahoo was told it must block French users from accessing Nazi memorabilia on its US website. Now that case is being revived in California, where a federal appeals court is due to rehear the first big test case for global business regulation in the internet age.

The world has moved on, and e-commerce has matured since the French court made its ruling in 2000. But for companies, politicians and internet users, the issue remains: when can one country impose its values on another via cyberspace? When can courts in one country regulate the business activities of companies that have a worldwide presence on the internet?

That question was almost entirely new when, in the early days of e-commerce, two French human rights groups sued Yahoo in France to remove Nazi material from its US website. The sale or display of objects associated with Nazism is illegal in France. Yahoo removed such material from its France-based website but refused to do so for its US- based site, arguing that the American site cannot be regulated by French law even though it can be accessed by users in France.

The French court rejected that argument and imposed a $13,000-a-day fine on Yahoo. The company challenged the ruling in a US court, which ruled that the first amendment to the American constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech, means the French ruling cannot be enforced in the US. But a three-judge panel of the ninth circuit federal appeals court subsequently overturned that ruling on procedural grounds, so the French court ruling remains in limbo.

About a month from now Yahoo will be back in court, this time arguing before the full ninth circuit appeals court. The US Chamber of Commerce, the biggest US business group, has filed a friend of the court brief that argues that the case could have a "devastating impact" on the internet.

If the French court's decision is recognised in this country, every piece of information posted on the internet will have to conform to the laws of every country in which material might be accessed, even where (as is the case here) the American company posting that information was targeting US citizens, and operating in a manner fully consistent with US law, the chamber argues in its brief. Plainly put, such a result would cripple the internet.

The appeals court is not expected to answer the biggest question in the case: whether a court abroad should be allowed to censor the operations of a US company protected by the first amendment. The court will only decide whether the lower court had jurisdiction to consider that issue in the first place. But Yahoo says the uncertainty alone has a big impact on internet companies and on free speech. For every day that Yahoo remains unsure whether the French ruling will be enforced by the US courts, the fines mount, and the chilling effect grows greater, says Mary Catherine Wirth, Yahoo's attorney.

But Michael Geist, an expert on internet law and jurisdiction at the University of Ottawa, says "the world has moved on" since the case was brought, and most big companies now understand that they risk foreign judgments based on their web presence.

He and other experts point out that the US does not hesitate to exert its jurisdiction over websites based overseas when enforcing US intellectual property or gambling laws. Other countries, too, have become more aggressive in asserting jurisdiction. The more sophisticated e-commerce businesses are able to address the risk in a manner that leaves them comfortable with operating online, says Prof Geist.

But Wirth says it would be impossible to review every posting by every Yahoo user every day for compliance with the laws of every country around the world and it would also be bad for free speech. She asks:
Shouldn't US people have a forum where they can go to talk with one another where the first amendment applies?

 

2nd March   Nipple Brained Senate

Based on an article from ZD Net

Ted Stevens, chairman of the US. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation, said on Tuesday that he would push for applying broadcast decency standards to cable television, as well as subscription satellite TV and radio.

Cable is a much greater violator in the indecency area, the Alaska Republican told the National Association of Broadcasters, which represents most local-television and radio affiliates. I think we have the same power to deal with cable as over-the-air broadcasters. There has to be some standard of decency, he said.
But he also cautioned that no one wants censorship. Shame!

Stevens told reporters afterward that he would push legislation to apply the standards to cable TV and satellite radio and television. It could become part of a pending bill to boost fines on broadcasters who violate indecency restrictions or of an effort to overhaul U.S. communications laws.

If Stevens is successful, it could pose new problems for raunchy radio host Howard Stern, who has said he was forced to leave broadcast radio for satellite radio to avoid decency limits.

So far, the restrictions have not applied to subscription services offered by companies like cable TV operators Comcast and Time Warner, or to services such as XM Satellite Radio and Stern signer Sirius Satellite Radio.

Last year, the Senate Commerce Committee narrowly defeated an amendment to a bill boosting fines for indecency that would have extended such limits to cable and satellite services. Virginia Republican Sen. George Allen, a Commerce Committee member, told reporters that he would be hesitant to expand it to those services.

While lawmakers and some nutter groups are anxious to wipe the airwaves clean of indecency after singer Janet Jackson bared her breast last year during the Super Bowl halftime show, President Bush has said parents are the first line of defense and can just "turn it off."

Federal regulations bar broadcast television and radio stations from airing obscene material, and they restrict indecent material such as sexually explicit discussions or profanity to late-night hours when children are less likely to be watching or listening.

Stevens said he disagreed "violently" with assertions by the cable industry that Congress does not have the authority to impose limits on its content. If that's the issue they want to take on, we'll take it on and let the Supreme Court decide.

The House of Representatives has approved legislation to raise fines to $500,000 from $32,500 on television and radio broadcasters that violate indecency limits. The Senate has legislation pending to increase fines as well. But neither bill has provisions that would extend indecency restrictions to cable and satellite services. So far, the White House has expressed support for the House bill and has made no public pronouncement about the Senate measure.

 

2nd March   Land of the Free Persecution

From AVN

The Utah House of Representatives on Tuesday heard a revised version of a bill titled "Amendments Related To Pornographic And Harmful Materials" introduced on the House floor.

The bill appropriates $250,000 of taxpayer funds and requires almost as much in private matching funds to create an official database. The database will be organized by URL of Websites containing "material harmful to minors," and which sites are "not properly rated" by the site's "content provider," who is defined as "a person that creates, collects, acquires, or organizes electronic data for electronic delivery to a consumer."

The provider is required to do the rating itself – but woe to the provider who rates improperly (under rules to be devised and published by the Utah Division of Consumer Protection): That's a third degree felony. The bill also funds public service announcements to advertise the existence of the registry and to inform consumers how to use it.

Under the bill, ISPs are apparently required to block material deemed harmful to minors at the server level for any consumer who requests it, at no cost to the consumer.

However, if the consumer wishes to block the sites on his/her own computer, ISPs are required to provide blocking technology to the consumer, again at no cost to the consumer, although if the ISP has less than 5,000 subscribers, it can charge consumers for blocking software – but can't make a profit in doing so. Any ISP that fails to abide by the law is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor and subject to a civil fine of up to $10,000 per day for each offense – and the Division of Consumer Protection is required to check annually to make sure each ISP's blocking technology is effective.

As to material "harmful to minors," this bill also switches the entire onus onto the content provider to determine if a person wishing to view its material is a minor. Whereas the law used to say, A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing that a person is a minor, or having failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertaining the proper age of a minor, it now reads, A person is guilty of dealing in material harmful to minors when, knowing that a person is a minor, or having negligently or recklessly failed to determine the proper age of a minor, he distributes to a minor material harmful to the minor, or performs for or with a minor, any material harmful to the minor. Such distribution or performance used to have to be intentional; now, just doing it "negligently or recklessly" is enough to garner at least a $300 fine and two weeks in jail for the first offense. After that, each offense is a second degree felony, with a fine of at least $5000 and at least a year in prison "without suspension of sentence."

All this is in addition to language which is unchanged from current law, that makes it a crime to send, distribute, publish, exhibit, advertise or perform pornographic (not "obscene") material to anyone within the state, although this bill raises each offense from a Class A misdemeanor to a third degree felony with a mandatory jail term of not less than 30 days, and a fine of not less than $1,000.

By the way, it's also a third degree felony, with the same punishments, to require a bookstore or newsstand, for instance, to accept pornographic (not "obscene") material as a condition for supplying that store with non-pornographic books, magazines, newspapers, etc., or to deny or revoke a franchise (or threaten to do so) if the franchisee refuses to carry porn "or material reasonably believed by the purchaser or consignee to be pornographic" as part of its stock.

 

27th February   Inviting Regime Change

From Silicon & Index On Censorship

As Iranian blogger has been sentenced to 14 years in jail for complaining about fellow bloggers being arrested

Arash Sigarchi was convicted this week for charges against the state, including espionage and insulting Iran's leaders, after the 28-year-old criticised the Iranian government and its treatment of web log writers on his own blog.

Sigarchi worked as a newspaper editor before his arrest and had also been arrested last year after he posted a pictures of demonstration by Iranians whose family members had been executed in 1989, according to Reporters Without Borders. The government had also blocked Iranian citizens from accessing the blog, the organisation said.

The sentence passed on Sigarchi is thought to be a harsh warning to other would-be bloggers and is intended to restrict the freedom of the media, human rights groups believe.

News of the arrest follows a day of action by the blogging community to draw attention to Saminejad and Sigarchi's treatment.  Bloggers across the web were asked to add a Free Mojtaba and Arash banner to their blogs and contact Iranian government representatives.

The original Iranian bloggers being talked about recently have had their sentences confirmed in a crackdown described in a report by Reporters sans Frontières. Cyber-dissident Mojtaba Lotfi was imprisoned on 5 February 2005 after an appeal court upheld a sentence of three years and 10 months in prison for posting "lies" on the Internet.

Blogger Motjaba Saminejad, who was freed on bail of 500 million rials (approx. €43,000) at the end of January, returned to prison on 12 February 2005 when a judge doubled the bail, making it impossible for him to raise the money.

Iran is participating in a preparatory meeting for this year’s World Summit on the Information Society.  How can Iranian officials parade at a UN summit on the Internet at the same time as they are jailing bloggers?

 

24th February   Grand Blame Auto

It is interesting to note that no-one ever seems to be sued for making guns available.

From The Register

Take Two, the publisher of the Grand Theft Auto game series, is once again facing a lawsuit that alleges its software was complicit in murder. The legal action was filed on behalf of the families of police force staff shot dead in Fayette, Alabama in 2003, allegedly by one Devin Thompson.

Thompson was apprehended on suspicion of driving a stolen car. He is claimed by state prosecutors to have snatched a policeman's gun and two shot officers and a dispatcher. The lawsuit maintains that Thompson's actions that day were inspired by the GTA series, games he is claimed to have played obsessively. The games amount to "training" for the alleged killings, the families' lawyer said.

Thompson is now 18 years old, but at the time of the shootings he was 16. As such, the lawsuit claims, he should not have been sold GTA III and GTA: Vice City, which carry an M rating - for 'mature audience only', ie. anyone 17 years old or more. On that basis, the plaintiffs requested that the book also be thrown at retailers Wal-Mart and Gamestop for allegedly allowing Thompson to buy the games. It also names Sony, as manufacturer of the PlayStation 2 console on which Thompson is said to have played the games. At least two lawsuits relating to the game are currently pending against Take Two and, separately, BestBuy.

The lawsuit was announced in the same week that the US Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA) publicly criticised the California legislature's attempt to ban the sale of violent games to children.

The proposed bill, dubbed "redundant... frivolous... irresponsible [and] unconstitutional" by the IEMA, seeks to amend existing state law concerning content harmful to children to include games which "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel". If the bill becomes law, retailers caught selling such material to children could faces fines of up to $1,000.

The bill was proposed by California Assembly member Leland Yee who last year suggested a similar bill only to have it voted down.

 

23rd February   Extreme Attourney on Extreme Persecution

From AVN See Extreme Persecution for previous post

Louis Sirkin, attorney for Extreme Associates has been responding to the Department of Justice's press release announcing that the government had decided to appeal Judge Gary Lancas