Magpie

Saturday, December 13, 2003

Those 'seven dirty words' are scaring the right wing again.

Because the US airwaves belong to the public (in theory, at least), broadcasters have free-speech rights that are somewhat more restricted than those enjoyed by print media or cable and satellite broadcasters. The government's regulatory agency, the FCC, has for decades enforced rules governing the use of 'sensitive' language over the air; that is, language that would be considered indecent or obscene by 'current community standards.' Despite the efforts of some leftist broadcasters to challenge these rules, they have remained in effect to this day, bolstered by an important Supreme Court ruling in 1978. (See the links in the 'Background' section below).

One of the peculiar results of the litigation around the topic of broadcast indecency is that there are only seven words that courts have legally determined to be unsuitable for broadcast. Other indecent and obscene language is governed by FCC rulings, which are often inconsistent. Upset with how these inconsistencies play out when the FCC deals with complaints from viewers or listeners, Doug Ose (a Republican member of Congress from California) has proposed writing the ban on the 'seven dirty words' into federal law.

Two incidents seem to have inspired Ose's proposed legislation: The first was U2 member Bono's use of the expression 'fuckin' brilliant' when he accepted a Golden Globe award on US television back in October. The second incident, and apparently the one that got under Ose's skin the worst, was the FCC's subsequent determination that Bono's language didn't violate existing indecency rules.

From Ose's remarks on the floor of the US House of Representatives on Dec. 8:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce the Clean Airwaves Act, legislation designed to prohibit seven profane words from being broadcast over America's airwaves. Existing guidelines and standards that govern our airwaves and communications mediums allow profane language to infiltrate the hearts and minds of our nation's youth. I rise today to protect our children from existing rules and regulations that leave them vulnerable to obscene, indecent, and profane speech through broadcast communication. [...]

The current FCC guidelines regarding indecency determinations aren't strong enough to stop harmful, indecent, and profane language broadcast over America's airwaves. It is wholly necessary to give the FCC the tools it needs in order to protect our broadcast airwaves. Currently under FCC policy, indecency determinations hinge on two factors. First, material must describe or depict sexual or excretory organs or activities. Second, the material must be patently offensive as measured by contemporary community standards for the broadcast medium. The vagueness of this stipulation creates a loophole that inevitably allows specific profane language to be broadcast.

When the ownership of TV and radio stations is concentrated in the fewest hands at any time in the country's history — and when many broadcasters are shamelessly acting as shills for the government — aren't you glad that Representative Ose is making sure that our children won't suffer irreparable pain and harm as the result of someone saying the word 'fuck' on the air?

Some background: The use of 'indecent' language over the airwaves in the US has been the subject of much lobbying and legal action over the past three decade. Broadcasters have faced the nightmare of having to enforce vague FCC rules with the knowledge that they'll only know if they broke a rule if the FCC hits them with a fine. (As someone who spend 20 years in community radio, Magpie can tell you how difficult it was to keep the content of a station's programs within the FCC rules.)

If you aren't familiar with the history of the 'seven dirty words' and the FCC's rules governing 'indecency,' we can suggest some good places to start:

— The text of comic George Carlin's famous 1970s routine about the 'seven dirty words' that couldn't be broadcast is here.
— The text of the US Supreme Court's ruling in Pacifica v. FCC, which resulted from a broadcast of Carlin's routine by a community radio station, is here.
— The text (in PDF format) of the FCC's 2001 guidelines for broadcasters regarding its regulation of indecent language is here.

| | Posted by Magpie at 8:05 PM | Get permalink

Thursday, December 11, 2003

Out of sight, out of mind.

The Iraqi health ministry has stopped counting civilian casualties from the war, and isn't going to release the figures it already has.

The order was relayed by the ministry's director of planning, Dr. Nazar Shabandar, but the U.S.-led Coalition Provisional Authority, which oversees the ministry, also wanted the counting to stop, said Dr. Nagham Mohsen, the head of the ministry's statistics department.

Via AP.

More: Electrolite points to this interesting LA Times op-ed piece from July, about the likelihood that the US occupation would support Iraqi trade unionism. Very prescient, that writer.

| | Posted by Magpie at 12:12 AM | Get permalink

Wednesday, December 10, 2003

US squelching trade unions in Iraq?

Liberation apparently doesn't mean free trade unions in Iraq. Pacific New Service reports that on Dec. 6, US troops arrested members of the executive board of the Iraqi Workers Federation of Trade Unions (IFTU). The trade unionists were handcuffed and detained until the following day.

"They gave no reason at all, despite being asked over and over," says IFTU spokesperson Abdullah Muhsin. Soldiers painted over the name of the federation on the front of the building with black paint, Muhsin says. The union had few resources, "but we did have a few files, and they took those," Muhsin adds. Ironically, the office had posters on the walls condemning terrorism, which soldiers tore down in the raid.

The US occupation government has not explained the detentions.

The arrests come against a background of massive unemployment in Iraq. The Union of the Unemployed says that up to 70 percent of the workforce is out of work. These workers can't collect unemployment checks because, quite simply, there's not system for unemployment benefits. And, as yet, none of Iraq's international donors have shown any interest in funding such a system.

Iraqi workers fear privatization will bring massive layoffs. "I'll have to fire 1,500 (of the refinery's 3,000) workers," says Dathar Al-Kashab, manager of the Al Daura oil refinery. "In America, when a company lays people off, there's unemployment insurance and they won't die from hunger. If I dismiss employees now, I'm killing them and their families."

At the refinery, as in most factories, those with jobs work 11- and 13-hour shifts. Al Daura workers earn $60 a month. They have no safety shoes, goggles, masks or other protective gear. The IFTU helped the refinery's workers organize a union and elect its leaders. In Basra, workers have formed a central labor council and mounted demonstrations. The Workers Unions and Councils group has helped workers elect committees in the State Leather Industry plant, the largest shoe factory in the Middle East, and the Mamoun Vegetable Oil enterprise, among others.

When these new unions try to talk with the plant managers, however, they're told that a 1987 law forbids workers in state-owned enterprises (where the majority of Iraqis work) from forming unions. The CPA still enforces this Saddam-era law. Another order issued by the CPA on June 6 threatens that anyone who "incites civil disorder" will be detained as a prisoner of war under the Geneva Convention.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:58 PM | Get permalink

Monday, December 8, 2003

Those Canadians are so rude.

They insist on pointing out that they're not part of the US. And, says a report funded by the Canadian government, it pisses Americans off.

The report says even Americans who blame the Bush administration to some extent for the country's poor relations with the world, do not seem to understand why friendly countries and neighbours such as Canada would want to distance themselves from Americans.

For instance, an American from San Diego is quoted saying: "What bugs me about Canadians, if I may, is that they wear that damn patch on their bags, the Canadian flag patch. That way, they differentiate themselves from us."

Can we say 'clueless'?

Via Canada.com.

| | Posted by Magpie at 11:46 PM | Get permalink