CBS appeals FCC indecency rules — I thought they just ignored them

CBS appeals FCC indecency rules

By Brooks Boliek

WASHINGTON — CBS told a federal court Monday that the government’s new “zero tolerance” policy for indecent broadcasts is threatening to choke off free speech.

In its opening brief with the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia, CBS contends that the commission’s policy “is flatly inconsistent with the bedrock principle that First Amendment freedoms require breathing space to survive.”

The case is one of two legal battles this month that will go a long way to deciding whether the government can slap broadcasters with a big fine and threaten their licenses to operate because of a slip of the tongue. The other case is in the New York circuit and involves Nicole Richie’s use of the word “shit” during the 2003 Billboard Music Awards, which aired on Fox.

On Sept. 22, 2004, the FCC said that CBS and Viacom, its parent company at the time, knew or should have known that Janet Jackson’s breast would be exposed during a halftime show at the 2004 Super Bowl. CBS, MTV — which produced the show — Jackson and fellow performer Justin Timberlake have all said that the moment was unplanned, though Jackson and her choreographer added a “wardrobe reveal” just before the show aired, according to commission and court documents. The FCC proposed fining all 20 of CBS’ owned-and-operated stations the maximum $27,500 for the indecent broadcasts.

“The orders at issue in this case cannot be reconciled with either the prior three decades of FCC precedent or, more importantly, the decisions of federal courts articulating the First Amendment limitations” of the FCC’s power over indecent speech, CBS said.

At issue is the FCC policy adopted in response to U2 frontman Bono’s utterance of a version of the word “fuck” during the 2003 Golden Globes broadcast.

In the Bono decision, the commission changed its definition of “fleeting” use, deciding that a certain word can be so vile that it runs afoul of the nation’s indecency laws.

“All we’re asking the court to do is to reinstate the old enforcement regime,” one CBS executive said.

The commission contends that the fines, which totaled $550,000, were necessary because of the attention the show generated and the threat that an unrestrained Hollywood poses to American sensibilities.

“CBS continues to ignore the voices of millions of Americans, Congress and the commission by arguing that Janet Jackson’s halftime performance was not indecent,” FCC spokesman Clyde Ensslin said. “CBS believes there should be no limits on what can be shown on television even during family viewing events like the Super Bowl; we continue to believe they are wrong.”

CBS executives bristle at comments like Ensslin’s. FCC chairman Kevin Martin has made similar comments.

Executives at the network accused the commission of speaking out of both sides of its mouth. Broadcasters say that’s not true.

“If we’re out to do what they say, then why do they use our own practices as an example?” one network lawyer asked.

They argue that the commission has commended broadcasters for their actions to voluntarily curb indecent speech.

“Our assessment of contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium is strongly bolstered by broadcasters’ own practices,” the FCC wrote in its 2003 order in the Billboard Awards case.

As defined by the FCC, material is indecent if it “in context, depicts or describes sexual or excretory activities or organs in a patently offensive manner as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium.” While obscene speech is not protected by the First Amendment, indecent speech is as the federal courts and the FCC have ruled that such speech can be aired from 10 p.m.-6 a.m.

Walking-Around Money?

Walking-Around Money?

The State Compensation Fund of Arizona is taking money that would otherwise be returned to Arizona Businesses and handing it out to various interest groups that support the Governor.  Here’s a list of tables purchased at various events.  Check out this incredibly candid spreadsheet. 

Download 2006_community_outreach_events.xls

The first category is the “date of the event”.  So far, so good.  The second category is “Issue &/Or Ethnicity.”  Ethnicity?  March 3rd is a good example.  The event is classified as “Hispanic/Business” and shows a $5,000 contribution to buy a table at a Hispanic Chamber of Commerce event.

Why are they classifying events by ethnicity?  For example, a meeting of the Arizona Black Chamber of Commerce is categorized as “African American.” 

The spreadsheet contains 84 events for 2006 alone and totals $187,364.  Why is the State Comp. Fund spending this much money to buy tables at these events?  To be sure, they all seem like worthy causes.  But that doesn’t mean that insurance premiums from the Worker’s Comp. fund should be used to fund them.  Golf and Casino night at Ventana Canyon on behalf of the University Medical Center Foundation for $10,000? 

The State Comp. Fund was created by the legislature to be the provider of last resort for worker’s compensation insurance.  It has a Board of Directors appointed by the Governor to five-year staggered terms.  The Governor also appoints the Chairman.

I don’t want to sound overly cynical, but it looks to me like some of the excess money in the State Compensation fund is being spread around to various causes that are naturally sympathetic to a Democratic Administration. 

There is a category titled “Board Approval?” and in almost every case, the answer is “N/A”.  Who is approving these events?

If the Symington administration had spent 200K in excess premiums annually to attend events like the Center for Arizona Policy Dinner, or the Arizonans for Tax Reform lunch, all hell would break lose.  And if the Symington administration had classified those events as by “ethnicity” heads would roll

Bonds. Big Bonds. It’s officially a nonprofit, but the company Governor Napolitano picked to handle millions in student loans is making big bucks for one of its original founders

Governor ‘unaware’ she aided two allies

Citizen Apathy is America’s Greatest Enemy

Citizen Apathy is America’s Greatest Enemy
By Jeffrey Epstein –
Oct. 16, 2006

For those of us engaged in the struggle to inform America about Radical Islam’s menacing threat to our homeland, we’ve encountered numerous obstacles along the way. Most challenging has been the mainstream media’s imposition of virtually impenetrable roadblocks – obstacles implemented to prevent us from reaching out to fellow citizens who share our concerns for national security and the safety of future generations. Fortunately, we’ve discovered alternative means to circumvent those barriers.

In the process, we also learned how to deal effectively with detractors and maneuver in an environment best described as “PC gone wild.”  But bar none, the greatest challenge currently facing us, and placing our nation in harm’s way, is citizens’ apathy.

Sustained periods of uncertainty, especially when a nation is at war, should give rise to greater concern amongst the populace. We are currently engaged in a struggle for our very existence yet, astoundingly, few seem to take note or even care. This is true in nearly every case except, of course, for our Islamist enemies who are poised to benefit from our indifference.

The struggle against Islamofascism is clearly being lost on the home front.

Consider the following:

  • There are over 1.1 billion Muslims worldwide. According to conservative estimates, at least 10% or 110 million are radicalized and sworn to our death and destruction.
  • Islamic religious leaders granted Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda the right to kill up to 10 million Americans. Experts agree that plans are in the works for catastrophic attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. Yet, our ultra politically correct policies prohibit racial profiling and other effective measures that should be employed by law enforcement agencies to protect us.
  • Over 90% of American Mosques are Saudi funded and tainted by Wahabbi doctrine. Hate-inspired anti-American messages and literature are shared with their hungry audiences on our own soil.
  • American institutions of higher learning like Harvard, Georgetown and many others have received multi-million dollar gifts from Saudi Arabians – funds being used to purchase influence and capture the minds of our youth.
  • On an annual basis, tens of thousands of prisoners are being converted to Islam in our penal institutions. Upon release, many of these same felons are recruited into a standing army awaiting marching orders.
  • Terrorist training facilities continue to operate freely within our borders.
  • Muslim Students Associations (MSA’s), Islamic centers and Mosques across America and Canada sponsor paintball outings and promote survival skills. Paintball, in itself, may be a harmless sport but one must consider ulterior motives since the MSA’s also benefit from Saudi funding. The National MSA’s online publication promotes firearms training with the following quote that they attribute to Mohammed, “Power is shooting, power is shooting, power is shooting”. They also recommend to Muslim students that paintball is an excellent way to learn about combat. Why would a college-based, religious organization advocate sharpening combat skills?
  • Despite its dark history and terrorist ties, CAIR (the Council of America-Islamic Relations) continues to exert tremendous influence in Washington. Their propaganda machine is supported by multi-million dollar donations from Saudi Arabia.
  • In the words of CAIR’s Chairman, Omar Ahmad, “Islam isn’t in America to be equal to any other faith, but to be dominant. The Koran should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on earth.”
  • CAIR continues to host regional conferences for thousands of Muslims nationwide. Keynote Speakers include the likes of Siraj Wahhaj. According to the U.S. Attorney’s office, Wahhaj is the un-indicted co-conspirator of the 1993 WorldTradeCenter bombing.
  • Our enemies are forthright when voicing their intentions to establish a caliphate and deliver the entire world to Allah.  We are the ones who refuse to accept the fact that they mean business, so we continue to live in a state of lethal denial.
  • Over 6,300 Muslim-inspired terrorist attacks have taken place worldwide since 9/11, and jihadists have threatened even the Pope’s life. Why do our leaders in Washington continue to refer to Islam as a religion of peace?

The future of America is in grave peril. Silent are the voices of those patriots who stand proud while paying homage to our nation’s fallen servicemen on Memorial Day.

Absent are the statesmen of a by-gone era when men served their nation with dignity and upheld their oaths to preserve the constitution.

We are currently engaged in fighting a war for our very survival against a cunning, ruthless and implacable enemy – an enemy that is skilled in using against us the rights guaranteed by our own Constitution.

What future awaits your children?

Who will be there to protect them from this evil, if we fail to confront it now in earnest?

The time has come for all concerned Americans to either rise up and take a stand or acquiesce and sink further into a state of apathy. A lack of action, at this point, will only seal the fate of our heirs. We owe it to our founding fathers who fought against great dangers themselves to ensure that we could avoid having to make a choice between death, conversion or enslavement from foreign enemies.

The time has come for those of us who value life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness to unite, in a common front, and be heard. To quote Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch: “In this era of violent intimidation, it is crucial for the continued life of our free society that we speak out, and do so fearlessly.” Show your concern for the future of our great nation. Don’t abandon those who are engaged in a daily struggle, both here and abroad, and help us fight to preserve our American way of life.

Jeffrey Epstein is founder and president of America’s Truth Forum. To learn more about how to secure the United States from terrorist attacks, attend the upcoming America’s Truth Forum symposium, ‘Understanding the Threat of Radical Islamist Terrorism,’ taking place in Las Vegas this November 10th and 11th.  Go to for more details.

The Deep, Deep Sleep of England

The Deep, Deep Sleep of England

A quote from Paul Goodman MP in a speech in the House of Commons, 15 November 2006

Islamism divides not on the basis of class or of race, but on the basis of religion. To this politician, it has three significant features. First, it separates the inhabitants of the dar-al-Islam – the house of Islam – and the dar-al-Harb – the house of war – and, according to Islamist ideology, those two houses are necessarily in conflict. Secondly, it proclaims to Muslims that their political loyalty lies not with the country that they live in, but with the umma – that is, the worldwide community of Muslims. Thirdly, it aims to bring the dar-al-Islam under sharia law. […]

Let me give a hard example of what that means […]. The Home Secretary was recently and notoriously heckled at a public meeting in Leyton by Abu Izzadeen, another convert to Islam, who was formerly known as Trevor Brooks. He said to the Home Secretary:

“How dare you come to a Muslim area?”

That was not some random insult or interruption; Mr. Izzadeen knew what he was doing. He was asserting that Muslims are in a majority in the part of Leyton in which the Home Secretary was speaking. He was therefore claiming that part of the country as part of the dar-al-Islam. He was saying, in effect, that sharia law, not British law, should run in Leyton. Mr. Izzadeen’s version of sharia law would be consistent with dispensations for Muslims from some aspects of British law, the application of a sharia criminal code, special taxes for non-Muslims, a public ban on alcohol consumption and the closure of pubs and bars, and a ban on conversions from Islam to other faiths.
We can, of course, choose to dismiss Mr. Izzadeen as an isolated fanatic, but such a view may be unwise. There is polling evidence to suggest that his views tap into a reservoir of sympathy and support. For example, an ICM poll that was commissioned last February found that four out of 10 British Muslims want sharia law introduced to parts of this country. It is important to note that that almost certainly represents a degree of support for what I would call soft sharia – in other words, for the application of some sharia law in relation to family arrangements alone. None the less, even the implementation of soft sharia would mark, I think for the first time, one group of British citizens living under a different set of laws from other British citizens. […]
The leadership of the Muslim community that I know best, in High Wycombe, is moderate and sensible. The community makes a huge contribution to the town. It is well integrated into both the main political parties and it produced the first Conservative Asian mayor in the country – Mohammed Razzaq – in the 1980s. However, it is clear that nationally, and especially among the alienated young, the moderates are not making the running; the Islamists are making the running. […]
George Orwell once wrote of the

“deep, deep sleep of England, from which I sometimes fear that we shall never wake till we are jerked out of it by the roar of bombs.”

On 7/7, we heard the roar of bombs in London. I sometimes worry that the deep, deep sleep that Orwell described in the 1930s is still here in relation to Islamism in sections of the Government, parts of the political and media establishment, the House and the country. This is one of the most urgent problems facing us, and if we are in that deep, deep sleep, it is time for all of us to wake up.

Why is Obama’s evil in Rick Warren’s pulpit?