Variety: House, Bush on Indecency Crusade

House, Bush on indecency crusade

By WILLIAM TRIPLETT


Two major federal actions against naughty content have surprised observers only in the timing, and neither may ultimately prove to be more than appeals to social conservatives. On Wednesday, the full House of Representatives passed, as expected, legislation sharpening penalties for broadcast indecency; the same day, the Bush administration announced plans to appeal a federal judge's dismissal of obscenity charges against a maker and distributor of porn films that include faux-snuff scenes and other acts of violence.

Speaking of the indecency bill, a First Amendment lawyer familiar with the background of both federal actions said, "This is obviously something that will not be resolved by either Congress or the FCC. It'll probably end up in the courts." As for the obscenity case, the lawyer doubted the premise underlying the government's action -- that pornography is harmful to society -- would withstand legal scrutiny.
"The science behind that is the same science behind 'creation science' and recovered memories," the lawyer said.

Other media observers and experts have dismissed attempts to increase penalties for indecency or pornography as political demagoguery, unlikely to withstand court challenges. And some major broadcasters and media companies have vowed to issue those challenges.

<snip>

The Broadcast Indecency Enforcement Act of 2005, introduced by RepRep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.), passed the House by a sweeping vote of 389-38. Bill, which passed out of the House Energy and Commerce Committee last week, raises the maximum fine from $32,500 to $500,000 per incident and makes artists liable for a first offense. Currently, the Federal Communications Commission is limited to issuing only a warning for a first offense. Bill also calls for revoking licenses of repeat offenders.

<snip>

(notice how many House Dems sipped the Kool-Aid and voted for the "indecency" bill. Meanwhile, full article at: www.variety.com -- subscription site

.

nt

Him occupying the Oval office is the most indecent thing I have ever seen in my life!

is a.o.k. It's those female breasts we gotta watch out for!

Isn't he indecent?

Thursday, February 17, 2005
Guckert's a Figurative and Literal Whore
(snip)
But Howard Kurtz, writing for The Washington Post, reported on Tuesday that Paul Leddy, a web designer in California, said "that he had designed a gay escort site for Gannon and had posted naked pictures of Gannon at the client's request." Kurtz writes that Leddy "said Gannon contacted him in an America Online chat room in 1999 and wound up paying him $200, plus $50 in monthly maintenance, into the following year to create a gay escort site." The funds flowed from the Bedrock Corporation, Guckert's employer. Leddy "said he had no doubt, after seeing Gannon in the news recently, that the explicit pictures were of the same man."

But wait, there's more. Not only did Guckert enter the White House while he was commanding $1,200 a weekend as a prostitute -- he was also a tax delinquent. The Wilmington News-Journal reported on February 12 that Guckert "failed to pay Delaware more than $20,700 in personal state income tax from 1991 through 1994, according to documents filed in Superior Court in Wilmington." When the News-Journal called Guckert for a comment, all he would say was "When it rains, it pours." What? What does that mean? When you find out that a White House press correspondent is a fake reporter for a fake news organization, apparently that's a slight drizzle. When you find out that the figurative prostitute is also a literal prostitute, that's rain. And when you find out he's also more than $20,000 behind on his taxes, it's pouring. James Guckert must be in a state of intensive umbrella shopping.

So why did the White House conspire to admit Guckert to the briefing room? Writing for The Guardian, Sidney Blumenthal catalogues the many ways in which Guckert was useful to the Bush Reich; Guckert was "used by the White House press secretary to interrupt questions from the press corps," and he "disseminat smears about critics and opponents, some of them gay-baiting;" thus, he was protected from FBI screening. Is there more? Blumenthal points out that Guckert was "unmasked not only as a hireling and fraud but as a gay prostitute, with enormous potential for blackmail."

This angle has been explored intriguingly by The Nashua Advocate and Raw Story, who remind us that Scott McClellan reportedly visited gay bars in Texas. Raw Story also theorizes that Democrats may be soft-pedaling the sex angle for fear of a McCarthyesque outing campaign against prominent officials who are secretly gay -- a group which may include McClellan and countless others, and about which Guckert might know something.
(snip)
http://nerofiddled.blogspot.com/

Thank you!

Yep, that's it.

which, lately, is all the time.

that's just fucking sick. however, when i really think about it i realize we get faux-snuff porn all the time in mainstream movies. hell, even on TV. the only difference between a "faux snuff" scene in porn film, and the common sex/death scenes your average slasher movies (in your average mainstream action movies too) is whether or not they show penetration. and the only difference between any of these, and your average TV cop show is whether or not they show certain body parts. i suppose there is a difference in quantity, in time spent on graphic sex-and-violence scenes, but is there a significant qualitative difference?

the idea is the same, the execution is not signifantly different. so what's up?

For months and months on end, whenever I tuned in to the daily press briefings, I saw a man in the crowd of reporters who gave me kind of a creepy feeling. He got called on often enough, usually with a question or statement that got your press secretary out of an uncomfortable line of questioning.

And now it turns out that that man was apparently a gay male prostitute. This news has caused me no end of discomfort and unease! I don't recall what the final number was for Janet Jackson's near baring of her breast was in terms of the fine the FCC levied for that broadcast, but I will be content with a payment to me of $250,000 per question this odious man asked for every live press briefing broadcast in which he asked a question. I will accept an additional $100,000 for each broadcast in which he appeared but did not speak, and $10,000 for each repeat broadcast. I'm pretty sure I saw them all.

If you need further information, please let me know. Otherwise, I'll be sitting by my mailbox, waiting for your check.

I've been feeling pretty shitty today....your post made me laugh !

BTW: I guess you're not familiar with the old adage about " your check is in the mail"
:toast:

Think there is a chance that advocacy for GLBT issues will end up being declared "indecent" somewhere?

Think the pope might be catholic?

Lewis Black had a great bit on the the Daily Show last night on how the conservative cable company Adelphia in Los Angeles, which once refused to broadcast even "soft-core" porn, is now going to be the first cable operator in the nation to show full anal penetration and on-screen ejaculation.....

Black's point was that the conservatives seemingly hate indecency, but LOVE free market demand....and the free market LOVES porn!

:spank: :spank: :spank: :spank:

n/t

Great, we have enough evidence, collectively, to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that * is harmful to society.

golden rule..do as i say not as i do!!

a prostitute in the white house..a kink for a pres..and they want to tell us all about indecency..these pigs have no shame or morals..they are the ultimate con artists!

fly

from some group against hollywood video or the company trying to buy hollywood.I guess they put out alot of porn.They wanted people to call the companys and complain.

thing again.

Unfiltered internet over the power lines - which blast out spurious noice to nearby electronics.

A Direct Violation of Part 15 --- except Bush's contributors are pumping it out over the power lines.

Will cost every audiophile and ham radio operator hundreds of dollars to filter out -- and impose an indirect tax on all of us through "filters" for first responders.

But, it's for Bush's contributors.

78 - I am an "Extra" class radio operator,