skip to main |
skip to sidebar
I'm a liberal, sex-positive 54-year-old bisexual woman, but I have a fairly conservative core belief: That there should be some baseline standards that TV broadcasters must adhere to during hours that young children may be watching.
It is my belief that when young children are exposed to strong language, violence and gratuitous nudity, they begin to believe that these behaviors are acceptable behavior in the "real" world.
I also believe that when anything goes without restraint or societal reflection it not only cheapens the entire landscape of our culture, but that the underlying message is that each person is undeserving of basic human respect.
I know that many people argue that it is up to parents to censor these images/messages for their children, but it is clear that more and more children are raised without this monitoring. As a result, since broadcasters have continued to push the envelop further and further, it is the responsibility of the federal government to once again regulate them.
Paradoxically, I am also a strong supporter of free speech, but believe that there should be some limits placed during what used to be called the "family hours" of TV entertainment.
As a result, I was heartened this week when the Obama administration asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a policy that allows federal regulators to fine broadcasters for showing nudity and airing curse words during those hours.
The issue has been in relative legal limbo after conflicting court rulings, all stemming from hefty fines leveled against a TV network — way back in 2003!
Now, the administration is seeking the high court's review of appeals court rulings that threw out the Federal Communications Commission's rules against the isolated use of expletives, as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on an episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue" that aired in 2003.
Last year, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York threw out the FCC policy, saying it was unconstitutionally vague and left broadcasters uncertain of what programming the agency will find offensive. The challenge to the FCC rules arose over celebrities' use of the F-word and S-word on live awards show programs.
In January, the same court said its ruling on the FCC policy compelled it to nullify a penalty of more than $1.2 million against ABC and 45 affiliates over less than seven seconds of airtime from "NYPD Blue" episode.
Acting Solicitor General Neal Katyal, the administration's top Supreme Court lawyer, said the justices should hear the case because the appeals court has stripped the FCC of its ability to adequately police the airwaves.
"The court of appeals' decisions preclude the commission from effectively implementing statutory restrictions on broadcast indecency that the agency has enforced since its creation in 1934," Katyal wrote. Katyal included a DVD of the "NYPD Blue" episode with the filing for the court's convenience.
The "NYPD Blue" episode led to fines only for stations in the Central and Mountain time zones, where the show aired at 9 p.m., a more child-friendly hour than the show's 10 p.m. time slot in the East.
In the "NYPD Blue" episode, actress Charlotte Ross played a police detective who had recently moved in with another detective. In the scene at issue, Ross disrobes as she prepares to shower. After her buttocks and the side of one of her breasts are briefly shown, the camera pans down and reveals her nude buttocks while she faces the shower.
Then the other detective's young son enters the bathroom and sees the naked woman. Embarrassment ensues as the child retreats from the room.
The appeals court said ABC said the scene was intended to portray the awkwardness between a child and his parent's new romantic partner, and the difficulty of adjusting to the situation.
The part of the case involving the awards shows has been to the high court before.
Three years ago, the justices narrowly upheld the policy, but in a ruling that pointedly avoided dealing with First Amendment issues. Instead, the court directed the appeals court to undertake a constitutional review.
For many years, the FCC did not take action against broadcasters for one-time uses of curse words. The policy flowed from a 1978 Supreme Court decision that upheld the FCC's reprimand of a New York radio station for airing a George Carlin monologue containing a 12-minute string of expletives in the middle of the afternoon.
But, following several awards shows with cursing celebrities in 2002 and 2003, the FCC toughened its long-standing policy after it concluded that a one-free-expletive rule did not make sense in the context of keeping the air waves free of indecency when children are likely to be watching television.
The FCC said that some words are deemed to be so offensive that they always evoke sexual or excretory images. The policy essentially excluded news programming and some other broadcasts, including ABC's airing of "Saving Private Ryan" in 2004.
— The Curator
Embattled online classified service Craigslist apparently made a change to its U.S. website early yesterday, self-censoring its adult services section.
The section that usually reads "adult services" was replaced by the single word "censored."
It was not immediately clear whether Craigslist.com removed the adult services and replaced them with a "censored" section that still had a link, but was inactive.
For users who accessed the account outside the U.S., the erotic services link remained active and the content appeared unchanged.
Is this an issue of free speech protected under the First Amendment as the company argues, or is it instead a thinly veiled attempt by the site to illegally promote prostitution, and the overt exploitation of children and women, as a group of U.S. Attorneys General and others maintain?
I say the First Amendment stops where crimes begin. Shame on Craigslist for barring only U.S. “customers,” while letting the rest of the world prey on the most vulnerable. But then again, the site owners may have been seduced by the proverbial 30 pieces of silver, since the profits from these illicit ads are staggering.
According to web advertising monitors AIM group, Craigslist made $45 MILLION from its sex ads last year, about one-third of its total profits. The website insists it has responded to concerns by introducing in the past year a system of weeding out the most egregious advertisements, claiming to have rejected 700,000 items since May 2009.
A news media investigation of Craigslist's adult services section, which replaced "erotic services ads" two years ago, counted more than 7,000 ads in a single day. Many offered thinly veiled "services" for anything from $50 for a half-hour to $400 an hour.
Thus, the sex services portion of the website was criticized as a clearing house for prostitution. It exposed Craigslist to several damaging scandals, the most serious of which was the killing in April last year of Julissa Brisman, a 25-year-old masseuse from New York, in a Boston hotel. Philip Markoff, her alleged murderer, was dubbed the Craigslist killer because he had arranged to meet her through the site. He killed himself in jail last month.
Brandon Petty pleaded guilty last month to sexually attacking with a knife four women who had advertised for sex through Craigslist. He faces up to 45 years in prison.
Also last month, an advertizement was placed in the Washington Post and another newspaper under the headline "Dear Craig," in which two women said they had been forced into prostitution with johns/punters attracted through the website. One of the women said she had been sold by the hour at rest stops while the other said she had been a victim of sex trafficking from the age of 11.
Though Craigslist has faced an intensifying public relations crisis, it is shielded from prosecution by a U.S. federal law that protects Internet providers from the actions of their users.
"This step is very much in the right direction," said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal today when he heard the news. Blumenthal spearheaded the letter from 17 Attorneys General who had banded together to urge Craigslist to completely discontinue its adult services section.
"These prostitution ads enable human trafficking and assaults on women," said Blumenthal. "They are flagrant and rampant. Craigslist has lacked the wherewithal or will to effectively screen them out."
Craigslist representatives have said that they will release a statement at a later time.
"The message here is put people over profits," said Blumenthal, who is running for the U.S. Senate from Connecticut as a Democrat. He said officials will continue monitoring Craigslist and other websites for such content.
"The increasingly sharp public criticism of Craigslist's Adult Services section reflects a growing recognition that ads for prostitution – including ads trafficking children – are rampant on it," the Attorneys General had said in an Aug. 24 open letter to Craigslist CEO Jim Buckmaster [Depicted in photograph at top] and Founder Craig Newmark.
A Craigslist spokeswoman said at the time that the site agreed with at least some of the letter.
"We strongly support the attorneys general desire to end trafficking in children and women, through the Internet or by any other means," said Susan MacTavish Best, who handles press inquiries for Craigslist.
"We hope to work closely with them, as we are with experts at nonprofits and in law enforcement, to prevent misuse of our site in facilitation of trafficking, and to combat such crimes wherever they appear, online or offline," she said.
In their letter, the attorneys general highlighted an open letter, which appeared as a Washington Post ad, in which two girls said they were sold for sex on Craigslist.
When the ad came out, Buckmaster wrote a blog post in response that said, "Craigslist is anxious to know that the perpetrators in these girls' cases are behind bars."
"Craigslist is committed to being socially responsible, and when it comes to adult services ads, that includes aggressively combating violent crime and human rights violations," Buckmaster recently blogged.
The Attorneys General letter also highlighted a report in May by CNN's Amber Lyon, who posted a fake ad for a girl's services in the adult section. She received 15 calls soliciting sex in three hours.
Earlier this month, Lyon interviewed a woman named "Jessica" who sells sex on Craigslist. The woman said a Craigslist ad was "the fastest, quickest way you're for sure going to see somebody that day."
In a later blog post, Buckmaster said Craigslist implemented manual screening of adult services ads in May 2009. "Since that time, before being posted each individual ad is reviewed by an attorney," the post said.
He said the attorneys are trained to enforce Craigslist's posting guidelines, "which are stricter than those typically used by yellow pages, newspapers, or any other company that we are aware of."
Attorneys General from Arkansas, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia made the request a week after accused "Craigslist killer" Philip Markoff committed suicide in jail. The Attorneys General requested Craigslist take immediate action to stop accepting ads since it "cannot, or will not" screen them.
They accused the site of profiting from the "suffering of the women and children who continue to be victimized by Craigslist."
Markoff was charged with the April 2009 killing of Julissa Brisman. Boston Police said that Brisman, a model, advertised as a masseuse on Craigslist, and Markoff might have met her through the website.
In 2008, under pressure from state prosecutors, the website raised the fees for posting adult services ads. In 2009, it started donating portions of the money generated by adult ads to charity.
The Attorneys General letter wasn't Craigslist's first scuffle regarding sex-related ads. The site formerly had an "Erotic Services" section that was shut down in May 2009. It was pulled after a law enforcement filed suit, claiming the classifieds facilitated prostitution, and after Markoff was arrested.
The "Adult Services" section took its place shortly after. Craigslist said the postings would require manual, human approval of all entries and cost $10.
In October 2009, an Illinois judge dismissed the lawsuit saying intermediaries aren't responsible when customers use their services to commit unlawful acts.
Craigslist executives didn't give any reasoning for its policy change as of Saturday. It is unclear if the listings will remain offline permanently, or if the San Francisco-based classifieds service is making a policy statement by its action.
If the "Adult Services" section is gone for good, it's a safe bet those type of listings may soon flood other categories on the site.
The move is an important concession in the fierce debate in America between free speech and First Amendment advocates, and those seeking to clean up the web and protect vulnerable girls and women from exploitation. It follows a sustained campaign by prosecutors across the U.S. to have the sex advertisements removed.
In the absence of comment from Craigslist, it is not clear whether the shift will be permanent. It is also unclear what the concession means for other countries, including the U.K., where "erotic" services remained available today. However, the fact that the site's executives placed a "censored" block over its adult services link in the U.S. suggests that, in using that particularly loaded word at least, they have not given up the fight.
In America, we are not only bound by law but by the very foundation of our democracy to protect free speech. But we also have a sacred duty to protect our citizens from victimization. Technological advancement has exploded beyond anyone’s prediction or expectation, and has obviously out-paced our ability to police so-called computer “progress.”
If Craigslist insists on resuming this section of its site, then real, effective safeguards must be developed to ensure that the most vulnerable in our society do not become prey.
— The Curator
[Above: Carlos Morales, president of the Atheist Agenda, debates religion with fellow students at UTSA's Sombrilla Plaza. The club hosted an event called "Smut for Smut," encouraging students to pick up a pornographic magazine in exchange for a Bible or other religious text, which members say are filled with examples of violence and torture.]
Tired of that old Bible or Quran?
Atheist Agenda – a student organization present on the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA) campus since 2005 – launched its annual 'Smut for Smut' campaign on campus. As outlined by MySA News, club members view religious texts as being on the same level as dirty pornography and thus freely exchange one for the other.
In addition to seeking nationwide media coverage and attention, the group is also hoping for a few faithless to convert to their cause and join the organization. Subsequently, the entire event is a means of opening the door to a dialog.
'Smut for Smut' is a yearly event that is always good for media attention, protesters and First Amendment debates. The UTSA student newspaper The Paisano points out that the porn for Bibles or other religious text exchange will continue until March 3. Atheists equate smutty porn with religious texts – although much of the criticism is aimed at the Christian Bible – because of the dangerous, hateful and misogynistic views the latter holds.
In a 2005 interview following the first 'Smut for Smut' campaign, the then-president of the Atheist Agenda discussed his beliefs with MSNBC. He considered religious texts as "tribal nonsense" that was "written...in tents."
As in the past, this year's campaign drew hundreds to UTSA's Sombrilla Plaza on March 2 to either cheer, protest or inquire about the event and to debate the role of religion in society.
By the Atheist Agenda's own admission, they collected a scant 10 religious texts on the first day of the Bible for porn campaign. Swappers were given print pornography, such as Playboy, Penthouse or Hustler. The group also garnered screaming protesters, Bible thumpers, those who would shake their heads, and most likely also feminist onlookers not too pleased at the porn being handed out.
The immediate religious counter-response in Texas and around the nation – though self-indicting – is that Atheist Agenda is unfairly cherry-picking from religious texts. According to The Paisano, throngs of religious – mostly Christian – believers showed up to form a counter-protest, shrilly condemning the perceived insult to their holy book, and playing right into Atheist Agenda's hands. Also, interestingly, a faction of professed 'agnostics' arrived to stand as a voice of reason separately between the two groups, both of whom they consider equally guilty of intolerance.
Some of the protesters maintained full respect for Atheist Agenda's right to speak. One student reportedly carried a sign that read, "Jesus loves the Atheist Agenda." Others were less lenient, and deemed Smut for Smut "inappropriate" and "offensive," with one reportedly ripping down a Smut for Smut campaign banner. Another student, Adam Zepada from nearby Saint Mary's University, told The Paisano, "I wanted to call up some homeboys and be like 'hey dawg, I wanna go up there and take care of it real quick.' But, because I'm saved and I gave my life to Christ in 2007, I don't live like that anymore."
"I don't understand how that equals at all..to the word of God..they're definitely opposites..." says Monica Coronado, a University of Texas – San Antonio freshman.
Coronado was one of many students who joined hands, denouncing the group's message. "Honestly God isn't just about killing people...He's about really righteousness...I just wanted to explain."
Others sided with Atheist Agenda. “It's a First Amendment right,” said Bradley Lewis, 18, a freshman from Pear-land who said he plans to join the Atheist Agenda. “If religious groups can put out missionaries and go knock on my door and wake me up at 7 a.m. on a Saturday morning, I can put a table outside of the college.”
Robin Lorkovic, 18, a freshman from Houston, disagreed. Lorkovic stood near the “Smut for Smut” table holding a cardboard sign that said “God Loves You! Keep your Bible and learn from it!”
“I don't really feel like that is appropriate at all,” Lorkovic said. “I am a Christian. I believe in God's love, and I am here to stand my ground and stand up for what I believe in.”
The debate spurred plenty of emotion from both sides, but some students took a different approach, supporting neither side, saying the debate accomplished nothing.
"They're going up against each other and what they stand for...what they believe in, is okay..but what they're doing today is something that fosters hatred," said Natalie Tenorio, who remained neutral.
The Atheist Agenda started at UTSA in 2005, and the group's first “Smut for Smut” campaign blew up into a national media sensation. Past President Thomas Jackson was deluged with interview requests, and he debated Tucker Carlson, the bow-tie-wearing conservative pundit, on MSNBC.
Police kept a watchful gaze over students involved in heated debates and did not report any violence.
“This is ultimately why this is going on,” Lewis said. “It's an icebreaker to get people talking about these things.”
According to a University spokesman, what the atheist groups' believe may not represent the majority of the student body. What they are doing is legal.
"As long as students are not violating laws or violating the Constitution, they have the freedom of speech and assembly." said David Gabler, Vice President of UTSA Communications.
Before I address the religious aspect of this account, a brief comment about pornography. I wish that Atheist Agenda had used a different vehicle to exchange with the religious texts – not for the sake of the faithful, but for the sake of porn. In a repressed society, we should be working toward a sex positive view, which includes acceptance of porn for the use and enjoyment of adults. I strongly support working to improve the image of women depicted throughout most porn magazines and DVDs. I also strongly support the women and men who work in the sex industry.
Now then. As long as the basic divide between adherents to the numerous world faiths, and those who adhere to none, remains irreconcilable, the area where we all can – and must – converge is blocked. There will be no way to actually have that important conversation. Violence or terror, most obviously, are unacceptable. But the milder form so often practiced by believers – a puerile refusal to allow one's ideas to be criticized at all – can be just as prohibitive to the conversation. Equally obstructionist was Atheist Agenda's jab at ancient texts many believe to be sacred. While they did not direct their apparent satire at any person, it was nonetheless hurtful. I respect every person's faith and will do nothing to belittle them, or those who follow their precepts. Ideas and sources must be open for criticism, but it must be constructive and NOT mean spirited.
— The Curator
