Posts Tagged ‘electronic’

Fuck the FCC

Thursday, November 6th, 2008

The United States Supreme Court is currently about to uphold an FCC policy that arbitrarily and unconstitutionally fines broadcasters heavily for certain lingual slippage.1

Why?

Because the FCC thinks every time anyone ever says the word “Fuck,” everyone hearing the word will think about sex, and thinking about sex is bad. Also, every time anyone ever says the word “Shit,” everyone hearing the word will think about excrement, and thinking about excrement is bad.

What the FUCK, FCC? Are we in kindergarten? Are we a nation run by puritans? Certain people spend a hell of a lot of time and money to keep proper sex education (that actually informs students about their own God-given bodies) out of public schools because why? Because it’s offensive? Those same people spend a lot of time and money chilling free speech because, as FCC attorney Gregory G. Garre would say, those words are “patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.” The word “Shit” is violative of the policy because it deals with excrement, according to the FCC argument. However, when asked by Justice Stevens whether, then, the word “dung” would also be violative, Garre responded that it wouldn’t… because it wouldn’t be patently offensive under community standards for broadcasting.

So, here we are again, dealing with another confusing and circular argument. Goes like this:

X evokes images of Y.
We don’t like Y.
Therefore, we censor X.
Z also evokes images of Y.
But we don’t censor Z, because, as stated above, we don’t like X.

What? Didn’t get that little bait and switch? Yeah, well, I’m betting that the Supreme Court (most of Bush’s lackeys, anyway) will ignore it. The way it works is that the FCC establishes a set of standards, and then justifies that set of standards in a variety of odd ways, and when any of those justifications are challenged, the FCC comes back with the defense that the standard should stay anyway… because it’s the standard. That’s exactly what Garre was saying in Court, and more than half the Court will just nod and agree. It’s not that they really agree, it’s just that some of them probably honestly believe that children need protecting, and they think that the FCC is doing the right thing to protect those children. That’s a sad state for the Supreme Court because that’s exactly what the right-wing entities that put those conservative members of that Court in place were trying to avoid — judicial activism. In other words, they’re not interpreting law in light of the Constitution, they’re making up law, and that law (or at least fealty to the FCC “law”)2 is unconstitutional, a violation of the First Amendment.

In a feeble, but honorable attempt to protect free speech, the attorney for (surprise) the Fox TV network, Carter G. Phillips, told the Court that ultimately by allowing the FCC to continue the insanely high fines imposed on the utterance of a word, the Court would be allowing the regulation of the content of speech.

Read David Savage’s more detailed account in the LA Times, and protest the fucking FCC. (Even if you have to shit in a bag and leave it on their doorstep).

(Gotta love how this article will probably trigger even more at-work automatic blocking.)

Hey, if you know of any good “Protest the FCC” websites to which I can link, please post them. Thanks! One you should be aware of is the Electronic Frontier Foundation. Go check it out!

-Procrustes (what a shithead!)3

P.S. One of my favorite interviews of all time, Frank Zappa on Crossfire. Enjoy:

And props to Chrysophrase for suggesting “Fuck you Very Much, FCC” by Monty Python:

—

Joe Scarborough says “Fuck” on the air, immediately sets entire nation into state of sinful copulation.

Get the Podcast!

StOP

  1. My readers have liked the fact that I actually do research, and cite stuff. So, for your reading pleasure, here are the oral arguments that took place November 4: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/07-582.pdf. Of course, I say that the Supreme Court will decide to uphold the policy, but I can’t know that for sure. (chuckle). A good resource to get caught up with this case is the Cornel University Law School’s Legal Information Institute bulletin on FCC v. Fox Television Stations. [<]
  2. Obviously the FCC can’t write laws, since it’s an executive agency, and executive agencies are only supposed to be able to enforce law, not make it. Well, unless they’re in the Bush administration, but that’s a longer rant. Anyway, the actual law that gives the FCC the ability to be such a shit is codified as 18 U.S.C. 1464. Broadcasting obscene language, and 47 U.S.C. § 503(b)(1)(D). Refer to Liibulletin in footnote 1 for a good overview of the case. [<]
  3. Does that evoke images of my head being made of poopie? [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Logic, Religion | 5 Comments »

Rachel Maddow: Long Lines = New Poll Tax

Monday, November 3rd, 2008

Rachel Maddow, host of (surprise) The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC and Air America (the latter of which, inconveniently, my work blocks via Web(non)sense), likened the long lines and long waits associated with early voting with a sort of poll tax, because time, as the vast majority of us know, is money. More accurately, time is paying rent, feeding the kids, and not getting fired from our job because, for some insane reason, we don’t believe in allowing people ample time to vote. I’ve heard horror stories of people who couldn’t vote in the last election because their bosses threatened to fire them if they missed any work during the work hours, which, oddly enough, coincide with polling station hours.

Why can’t we take three days to vote? Why can’t we vote on a weekend? Vote at night? Why can’t we make voting more efficient, more modern, so everyone gets to vote? This village-style voting of everyone trudging up to the local church or school may have worked when there were only a few million of us, but please can we improve our methods and technology to match our ever-increasing population? Honestly, I don’t think we, as a nation, ever modernized voting to a satisfactory extent after women’s suffrage. Or, hell, even when we “allowed” blacks to vote.

(Aren’t we a nation of tolerance? Aren’t we a nation of example? We had to AMEND the Constitution to “give” the right to vote to blacks, and then decades later to women, because not only could we not just imply that the Constitution already allowed for it (and therefore all we would have had to do was just enforce it), but also that the white men of this country were too full of themselves to consider, when writing the Constitution and accepting it, that blacks and women are people, too! /rant ).

Not only that, but a number of states are announcing that they’re getting rid of multi-million-dollar electronic voting machines.1 It’s more reliable, they say, to cast paper ballots. Yeah, just ask Florida.

I got a firm-wide email today: “The firm encourages all of its employees eligible to vote to do so, preferably before or after work, or during your lunch break….” Let’s see, it takes me an hour and a half to get from work to my polling place. What’s my lunch break, again? An hour? Hah! Well, my firm also indicated that I’d be able to use leave time, or time off without pay, if necessary, to vote. And, of course, I have to let them know in advance whether the lines will be so long that it will require me to let them know in advance that the lines are too long. Oy.

And I’m not complaining! I’m one of the lucky few who doesn’t have a bitch of an employer who will fire or threaten to fire (I swear that’s unconstitutional) people for not working. Even if they don’t do that, as indicated on The Rachel Maddow Show, it’s 20% of a week’s pay to wait in a line for eight hours! Hell, I’ve waited in an ER for 9 hours just for them to tell me I wasn’t dying. I’ve waited 6 hours in the DMV, 5 hours at an airport, and many other hours in many other ways. None of that was life-altering like the indirect stripping away of someone’s right to vote. It’s unconscionable to make anyone wait more than an hour to vote.

Go watch Rachel’s rant, and then make sure you’ve got her great show added to your favorites.

Rachel Maddow: Long lines a new poll tax

  1. http://www.wtop.com/?nid=25&sid=1507571 [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Government, Video | 2 Comments »

The Capsule

Friday, October 24th, 2008

Recently, I attended a wake. I expected it to be like every other wake I have ever attended: sign the guest book, console the survivors, look at pictures the family has on display and share a few stories. This wake went much the same way, just as I expected.

However, this wake offered a surprise. The coffin of the recently deceased contained a built-in safe for placing various keepsakes that will be buried with the deceased. A number of questions rolled through my mind. Why would a coffin need a safe? Of course, people do rob graves, but I don’t think grave robbers are that common, and to place keepsakes in the safe and not valuables seems to nullify the reason for a safe. Who holds the key? It would seem illogical for the deceased to hold the key for the deceased could never use it, but also, if the grave was robbed the deceased would offer the key to the robber, again nullifying the use of a safe.

But, there was yet another surprise lurking within this vessle of eternity. A time capsule. This was not the keepsake safe, nor was it another place to store items that could be examined by a future archaeologist or anthropologist (who could, ironically, be classified as grave robbers but just ones who are well-educated). No, this was a tiny little pill-sized electronic time capsule, a computer chip, containing identifying information about the deceased including the obituary, photos, documents, and more. At the time, one explanation offered for this time capsule was that if the coffin were ever disturbed and displaced (grave robber? earthquake?) the coffin and its occupant could easily be identified for proper return to the gravesite. However, all of that other information certainly wouldn’t be needed to return property to its former address.

So, for what purpose do the safe and electronic time capsule exist? The deceased have often been buried with objects either important to them or what the survivors think will be needed by the deceased in the next realm. The only thing accomplished by placing objects in the coffin is that they will be buried and forever gone just like the deceased themselves. The electronic time capsule is a bit different. It is going on a journey with no destination. Dare I say a road to nowhere? Is it important to know exactly who is buried in the coffin 100 or 500 years from now? The only reason I can think of is idolatry. The process and ceremony of a funeral and burial have been, for centuries, an exercise in personal idolatry. Now it is being taken to a whole new level. Instead of just being a form of worship of the recently deceased, coffins with electronic time capsules serve to tell the future grave diggers or catastrophe workers exactly who you are — as if it really mattered.

This was a Christian funeral. Isn’t the first commandment that you shall not have/woship any other gods? Aren’t you supposed to avoid graven images? The words spoken by the pastor contained the ever constant words at every Christian funeral, “ashes to ashes, dust to dust”, but from whence came nothing certainly returned with something more. Who says you can’t take it with you?

Jim Croce may have wanted to save time in a bottle, but he was simply behind the times. We now save time in a small capsule and allow our successors to swallow it at will. Personal idolatry for Christians is not just a good idea — it’s a requirement.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Religion | 5 Comments »

Who is Cory Doctorow?

Friday, August 22nd, 2008

Besides having a unique, but cool name, Cory Doctorow is an icon of mixing rational activism, technophilia, and fun. What more could you ask?

I was first “introduced” to Cory (no, he and I are not acquaintances, but calling him Mr. Doctorow would seem odd, considering we’re the same age) through Boing Boing. If you’re reading this, and you haven’t ever visited Boing Boing, it should be your very next stop on the Internet train, and it should also supplement your daily reading routine. Cory is a 30-something native Canadian technology advocate and author who blogs for Boing Boing, often discussing copyright, technology, and privacy issues. Criticizing government overreaching with regard to copyright and other law, and working with digital rights activist organizations such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation,1 Cory has consistently advocated for “a balanced approach to copyright that [doesn't] trammel the public’s fundamental rights to privacy, free speech, and due process.” 2

Cory is also a published author, having written a handful of excellent reads, among them:

Little Brother
Overclocked
Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom
Eastern Standard Tribe
The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Publishing Science Fiction

One set of contributions to Boing Boing that I particularly like is Cory’s criticism of the apparent war on photography taking place primarily in the U.S. and the U.K. Cory has brought to attention a number of instances of governmental and private attacks on photography in various public and private (but “common”) places. Being a photographer, I find such paranoia against photography to be insulting and a breach of responsibility on the part of the oppressors, especially considering that in most cases, the oppressors have an array of surveillance equipment constantly monitoring everyone in the area. I can’t even take a step outside my office on the street without being seen by multiple cameras, civilian and government.

Have a look at the CivLib tag on Boing Boing to see a lot of good (and scary) posts from Cory (and others) about the oft-irrational world in which we live.

Cory Doctorow certainly fits the mold of the active rationalist. Learn more about him!

Cory’s Website
Cory’s Wikipedia Entry
Books on Amazon by Cory
Cory Doctorow’s Boing Boing posts (via an awful Google search that I made)
Cory’s Profile on Boing Boing

[Cory Doctorow doesn't in any way endorse State of Protest, as far as I know, and all statements and opinions regarding Cory Doctorow represented on this website are from State of Protest's point of view.]

  1. http://www.eff.org/ [<]
  2. About Cory Doctorow. http://craphound.com/bio.php [<]

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Science | 2 Comments »