The Liberty Papers

According to L. Brent Bozell III, long time advocate of government censorship of television, the so-called problem of television violence is worse than ever and the person at fault is Tony Soprano:

The latest landmark (or landfill) in the TV world is the arrival of HBO’s pay-cable mob drama “The Sopranos” on the basic-cable channel A&E, where now virtually anyone with cable can watch. How carefully is this show with mature-themed sex, violence and profanity vetted for general audiences? TV critics wailed that any snip is messing with the “artistic integrity,” but the Hollywood Reporter reassured fans that “a few judicious snips to a series can be made without snuffing its profane soul.”

The early word is that the makers of “The Sopranos” prepared their Mafia-milking cash cow for general audiences by double-shooting scenes with clothed strippers and lots of uses of the word “freaking.” Still, the eye-opening violence is pretty much left untouched. “Have no fear, mayhem fans,” cooed the TV critic of the San Diego Union-Tribune, since A&E is “letting them act like gangsters and talk like dorks.”

The “quality” controllers at A&E have told critics that extraordinarily grisly sequences, such as someone’s brains being splattered all over a wall, have been shortened by a second or two. Who says these networks don’t have standards?

The arrival of “The Sopranos” marks the ongoing trend, wherein ultra-violent, ultra-sexual programming made for pay-cable channels oozes into basic-cable syndication. It began with “Sex and the City” reruns on TBS and now includes “Six Feet Under” on Bravo. And with basic cable now sliding into the muck, it is dragging over-the-air broadcast TV with it. Reruns of the vile bad-cop drama “The Shield” have gravitated to the new CW network. All of television is sliding into the violence swamp.

Brent, there are those of us who watch shows like The Sopranos because it happens to be good drama. There are others of us who don’t watch it all. We call ourselves adults, and we’re generally capable of making informed decisions for ourselves. You obviously don’t care for Tony and the boys, so don’t watch them, but don’t deprive me, or anyone else, of the opportunity to watch something other than Mother Angelica on our basic cable channels.
» Read more

Via SCOTUSblog comes word that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear appeals in two cases dealing with challenges to the McCain-Feingold law’s restriction on advertising by third-parties within 60 days of an election:

Returning to the much-litigated controversy over political campaign ads broadcast during election season, the Supreme Court on Friday agreed to rule on two cases that newly test the constitutionality of congressional curbs on such ads. In a brief order, the Court granted review of Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life (05-969) and McCain, et al., v. Wisconsin Right to Life (06-970). The cases were consolidated and expedited so that the cases can be heard and decided during the current Term — well in advance of the opening of the presidential campaign in 2008. Because there is a potential issue of mootness in the case, the Court postponed a decision until the hearing on whether it does, indeed, have jurisdiction to rule.

(…)

The campaign ad cases are sequels to the Court’s 2003 decision upholding the ban on so-called “electioneering communications.” However, it made clear in a summary ruling a year ago that that decision involved only a facial challenge and “did not purport to resolve future as-applied challenges.” The new appeals involved just such as-applied challenges, to the threat of FEC prosecution of Wisconsin Right to Life over three ads that group prepared to air during the 2004 senatorial campaign. A three-judge U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., in a decision Dec. 21, ruled that the “electioneering communications” ban was invalid as applied to those specific ads.

The ban forbids corporations and labor unions from using their own in-house funds to pay for broadcast ads that mention in any way a federal candidate, if the ad runs 30 days before a primary election or 60 days before a general election. Wisconsin Right to Life’s planned ads would have mentioned Wisconsin Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold, who was running for reelection in 2004, in ads that discussed Senate filibusters of judicial nominees.

How this could not be a violation of the First Amendment escapes me completely.

Democratic Presidential Candidate Dennis Kucinich, who is admittedly a gadfly with no chance of getting the nomination in 2008, has reignited the debate over the so-called “Fairness Doctrine”:

Over the weekend, the National Conference for Media Reform was held in Memphis, TN, with a number of notable speakers on hand for the event. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) made an surprise appearance at the convention to announce that he would be heading up a new House subcommittee which will focus on issues surrounding the Federal Communications Commission.

The Presidential candidate said that the committee would be holding “hearings to push media reform right at the center of Washington.” The Domestic Policy Subcommittee of the House Government Reform Committee was to be officially announced this week in Washington, D.C., but Kucinich opted to make the news public early.

In addition to media ownership, the committee is expected to focus its attention on issues such as net neutrality and major telecommunications mergers. Also in consideration is the “Fairness Doctrine,” which required broadcasters to present controversial topics in a fair and honest manner. It was enforced until it was eliminated in 1987.

Kucinich said in his speech that “We know the media has become the servant of a very narrow corporate agenda” and added “we are now in a position to move a progressive agenda to where it is visible.”

In other words, if our point of view can’t compete in the commercial marketplace, we’ll force it down America’s throat.

Germany is proposing that the EUmake it a
crime to deny the Holocaust as historical truth:

Germany hopes to make Holocaust denial a crime across the EU as part of a package of laws it wants to introduce during its presidency of the bloc.

Berlin is also set to outline plans to ban Nazi symbols like the swastika, which, like denying the massacre of the Jews, is already outlawed in Germany.

Such moves may be seen as curtailing freedom of speech and could prove controversial in several member states.

But the German justice minister says she is confident of winning support.

If it goes ahead, it will be the second time in two years that an attempt has been made to ban the display of Nazi symbols within the EU.

Of course, this could pose a problem as the swastika has many, non-Nazi, meanings:

The swastika, while used by the Nazis as an insignia, was not created by them, and a number of groups still use it.

It has featured in traditional Latvian knitwear for centuries, variously known as the Thunder Cross or Fire Cross, and remains a time-honoured good luck symbol for Hindus.

But the more important point is this: Freedom of speech includes the right to say incredibly stupid, even offensive things. You and I may not agree with someone who wants to write a book contending that the Holocaust is a myth, but the way to deal with them isn’t to turn them into criminals — it is to let them air their ideas and show themselves for the idiots and bigots that they are.

McQ at QandO puts it best:

Letting fools act as fools is the price of freedom. Restricting their ability to say or publish their foolishness only helps them gain a measure of sympathy and credibility. One only has to review how those at the recent Holocaust denial conference in Iran turned the discussion from the subject of denial to that of freedom of speech, and effectively so, to understand how such a law would actually aid their cause.

Previous Post:

Freedom Of Speech Means The Freedom To Offend