| 4th September |
Fair's Fair... |
|
| |
Ohio law proposes criminalising webmasters so that ex-criminals can have their convictions hidden
Permalink |
Based on
article
from indexoncensorship.org
|
Six
Ohio state senators have introduced a bill that would compel individuals media
organizations to erase stories from the Internet about former convicts whose
case records are sealed by the courts.
The bill in question, Senate Bill 291, would also penalize
organizations to the tune of $250,000 - with a maximum fine of up to $1
million - for failing to delete the information and then knowingly
publishing it on their websites.
Under current Ohio law, first-time non-violent offenders are able to
get the courts to expunge their records. The bill being pushed by the
senators would also extend that privilege to people convicted of
multiple offenses. In order to be eligible to seek court approval, a
convict would need to maintain a clean record and the crime in question
would need to be more than five years old.
According to the Columbus Dispatch, the bill would require
individuals and private businesses to erase the historical record by
destroying records they hold about the convictions of those whose
cases are sealed. The relevant provision in the proposal reads:
Whoever violates division (C)(2) of this section by knowingly releasing
or otherwise disseminating or making available information over the
internet is guilty of releasing sealed records and shall be fined one
million dollars.
But critics have attacked the bill as posing a threat to freedom of
speech. The Wheeling News-Register, wrote in an editorial that the bill
simply was unworkable. Here at the newspaper, for example, we have
computerized records of criminal reports dating back more than five
years. It would be very difficult to find and erase them all. Smith's
bill clearly is unconstitutional. The First Amendment guarantees freedom
of speech, even when those guilty of old crimes would prefer their
offenses be forgotten.
|
| 3rd September |
F**K You, Forget You... |
|
| |
Creating a buzz in the music world
Permalink |
Based on
article
from montrealgazette.com
|
Cee
Lo's profanity-laced single, with a catchy Motown backing track and the blunt
title F**k You, has become a phenomenon since its online release,
driven in large part by YouTube views of the song's inventive video.
Zano Ludgood, a record shop manager at Criminal Records in Atlanta,
Cee Lo's hometown, says viral videos act as advertisements for when the
actual product goes on sale.
People are excited now about Cee Lo, and if they like a song, even
if they download it, they'll still come out and buy the complete album,
Ludgood says. People talk about record stores dying, but social media
works with us, it's a great way to build buzz.
The buzz on Cee Lo has been deafening, even if his new song has a
title unfit for a family newspaper. Soon after a celebrity release on
MySpace, it had become a smash in the clubs.
When the DJ dropped it, I was like, 'Cee Lo's got another one!'
says Mizz Shyneka, an on-air personality at Atlanta's HOT 107.9FM.
Everybody was dancing, and the people that hadn't heard the record were
all trying to listen. I wish they could hear it on the radio, but given
the title, I don't think there's any way around that.
MTV has reported the track will be re-released as Forget You,
The idea of leaking an explicit track and then re-releasing it for
the radio isn't new. In 2006 Snoop Dogg made a song called I Wanna
Love You that originally had a different chorus, with the word
love dropped in favour of a more explicit verb. The song went No. 1
on Billboard's singles chart.
|
| 2nd September |
Harmful to Alaskans... |
|
| |
Lawsuit challenges Alaskan law that will ban adult material from the internet
Permalink full story: Internet Minors...Criminalising internet comms harmful to minors |
Based on
article
from gamepolitics.com
|
An
Alaskan law that goes into effect on July 1, and deals with the electronic
distribution of indecent material to minors, has come under fire by free speech
advocates.
Section 11.61.128 of the Alaska Statutes, signed into law by Governor
Sean Parnell in May, calls for parties to be criminally liable for media
transmissions (or hosting) of material that is considered harmful to
minors. Additionally, violators can face up to two years in prison,
could be forced to forfeit their business and would have to register as
sex offenders.
Those in opposition label the law as broad censorship, and
claim that it bans from the Internet anything that may be 'harmful to
minors,' including material adults have a First Amendment right to view.
Hostility to the law has resulted in a lawsuit attempting to block
it, brought forth by groups like the Entertainment Merchants Association
(EMA), the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, American
Civil Liberties Union of Alaska, the Freedom To Read Foundation and the
Association of American Publishers.
Citing the First and Fourteenth Amendments, in addition to the
Constitution's Commerce Clause, the lawsuit seeks to have the law
declared unconstitutional.
|
| 1st September |
Dirt Doesn't Stick... |
|
| |
US based TechDirt feel protected from British libel claim by newly enacted SPEECH act
Permalink full story: Libel Tourism...Monitoring the UK prosecution of books published abroad |
See article
from techdirt.com
|
We
have recently received a legal threat that we feel deserves attention and airing
for a variety of reasons.
...2. The threats are quite incredible,
demanding that we shut down the entire site of Techdirt, due to a
comment (or, potentially, comments) that the client did not like.
...5. Most importantly, this threat is coming
from the UK, and the lawyers insist that they will take it to court in
the UK. This makes it rather timely and newsworthy for an entirely
different reason. Just a few weeks ago we wrote about the new SPEECH Act
that was passed into law to protect against libel tourism. As the
Congressional record shows, the law was specifically designed to protect
US businesses from libel judgments that violate Section 230 -- and the
bill's backers explicitly call out libel judgments made in the UK. In
other words, the SPEECH Act explicitly protects us from exactly the sort
of threat that these lawyers and their client are making against us:
...
Given the newsworthy nature of an example of where the
brand new law (thankfully) protects us, as well as the fact that we do not feel
it is decent or right for anyone to demand we shut down our entire site or be
sued halfway around the world, because he does not appreciate a comment someone
made about him, we are publishing the letter that was sent to us.
Thanks in part to the new law, we have no obligation to
respond to Mr. Morris, his friend or the lawyers at Addlestone Keane, who (one
would hope) will better advise their clients not to pursue such fruitless legal
threats in the future.
...Read the full article
|
| 31st August |
America Gets Sexualised... |
|
| |
American Academy of Pediatrics have a whinge at TV
Permalink |
Based on
article
from articles.latimes.com
|
An American Academy of Pediatrics' policy statement has claimed that
kids are 'bombarded' with 'inappropriate' sexual messages and images.
The AAP committee said: everything from graphic sexual lyrics in songs
to ubiquitous erectile dysfunction drug advertisements air all hours of
the day and night.
Television, film, music, and the Internet are all becoming
increasingly sexually explicit, yet information on abstinence, sexual
responsibility, and birth control remains rare, they write.
Among the points the panel makes:
- Only three reality dating shows were on the air in 1997 compared
with more than 30 today, including Temptation Island, which
bring participants together for the sole purpose of seeing who
'hooks up,' the authors said.
- In a national survey of 1,500 10- to 17-year-olds, nearly half
of the Internet users had been exposed to online pornography in the
previous year.
- A national survey of 1,300 teenagers and young adults found
nearly 20% had sent or posted nude pictures of videos of themselves.
- Advertisements featuring women are as likely to show them in
suggestive or revealing clothing or nude as fully clothed.
Kids get a lot of their knowledge about sex through the media, the
authors write. Perhaps we should take a good look at what we're telling
them.
|
| 27th August |
God Damn Censors... |
|
| |
FCC appeals court decision to prevent them censoring fleeting expletives
Permalink full story: FCC TV Censors...FCC wound up by nudity and fleeting expletives |
Based on
article
from thehill.com
|
The
Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is appealing a federal court
ruling that its indecency policy is unconstitutional, arguing the
decision makes it all but impossible for the agency to enforce
restrictions on broadcasting nudity or profanity.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York struck down the FCC's
indecency policy last month, calling it a violation of the First
Amendment. The court said the rule forces broadcasters to self-censor in
order to avoid fines for accidentally broadcasting nudity or profanity.
The FCC filed a petition asking the court to reconsider the decision.
The three-judge panel's decision in July raised serious concerns
about the Commission's ability to protect children and families from
indecent broadcast programming, FCC general counsel Austin Schlick
said. The Commission remains committed to empowering parents and
protecting children, and looks forward to the court of appeals' further
consideration of our arguments.
The matter is expected to eventually reach the Supreme Court, which
upheld the FCC's policy last year on procedural grounds but did not
address the constitutional arguments.
The case stems from live broadcasts of the Billboard Music Awards in
2002 and 2003, during which musician Cher and reality television
performer Nicole Ritchie used unscripted expletives.
The FCC changed its indecency policy in 2004 following a similar
incident at the Golden Globes involving U2 lead singer Bono. The agency
began to levy record fines against broadcasters for fleeting expletives
uttered on live television.
The Commission ruled in 2006 that, under its new policy, both
Billboard broadcasts were indecent. Fox, which broadcast the awards
shows, responded by appealing that decision. In its appeal Fox was
joined by other broadcasters who opposed the FCC's stricter enforcement
policies.
The court of appeals initially ruled in favor of the broadcasters,
claiming the FCC had failed to properly articulate a reason for the rule
changes, but their decision was reversed by the Supreme Court. The court
of appeals then ruled in favor of Fox on constitutional grounds, setting
the stage for the FCC's latest appeal.
|
| 27th August |
Constitutional Challenge... |
|
| |
Wikileaks may cause US to reassess balance between free speech and security
Permalink full story: Wikileaks Censorship...Wikileaks domain challenged by lawyers |
Based on
article
from guardian.co.uk
See also Julian
Assange Gets The Bog Standard Smear Technique
from craigmurray.org.uk
|
US
supreme court justice Sonia Sotomayor has said the court is likely to have to
rule on the issue of balancing national security and freedom of speech due to
WikiLeaks posting a cache of US military records about the Afghan war.
Sotomayor said the incident, which has been condemned by the
Pentagon, was likely to provoke legislation in Congress that would
require judicial scrutiny.
Her comments came in response to a question about security and free
speech by a student at Denver university. The judge said she could not
answer because that question is very likely to come before me.
She said the incident, and others, are going to provoke legislation
that's already being discussed in Congress, and so some of it is going
to come up before [the supreme court].
Sotomayor said the balance between national security and free speech
is a constant struggle in this society, between our security needs
and our first amendment rights, and one that has existed throughout our
history.
|
| 27th August |
Just Say Now... |
|
| |
Face book bans marijuana leaf from political campaign advert
Permalink |
Based on
article
from thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com
See also
Facebook Should Stop Censoring Marijuana Legalization Campaign Ads
from eff.org
See also
Censorship of Pro-Pot Group Campaign Leads to Free Ads
from clickz.com
|
An
ad, which depicted a marijuana leaf, began running on Aug. 7. Just over
a week later, Facebook pulled it, saying the image violated its policy
against promoting smoking.
Organizers at Just Say Now, a bipartisan coalition fighting to
legalize and regulate marijuana just like alcohol, said they spent
roughly $5,000 on the ads, which received about 38 million views in the
week they ran.
Michael Whitney, the group's online campaign director, said
Facebook's move is akin to striking a candidate's face from his posters
while he's running for office. Marijuana legalization is on the ballot
this November in Arizona, California, Colorado, Oregon and South Dakota.
We are talking about free political speech, Whitney said.
We aren't encouraging people to do anything illegal.
Facebook said they have no problem with Just Say Now advertising on
its pages as long as it uses a different image, Andrew Noyes, the
manager of Facebook's public policy communications, said in an e-mail to
The New York Times.
The image of a marijuana leaf is classified with all smoking
products and therefore is not acceptable under our policies, he
said, adding that Facebook does not permit images of drugs, drug
paraphernalia or tobacco in any advertisements.
Just Say Now began its campaign earlier this month, arguing that
legalizing marijuana would reduce crime at the border and could yield an
additional $40 billion in revenue annually.
|
| 25th August |
Smoked Out... |
|
| |
Campaigners herald smoking contribution to MPAA ratings for drop in movie smoking
Permalink full story: Adult Rating for Smoking...Anti-smoking lobby for 18 for smoking in films |
Based on
article
from blog.beliefnet.com
|
The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) has announced
that scenes of smoking in high-grossing films fell to 1,935 incidents
last year, down 49% from the recent peak of 3,967 in 2005.
This may in part be the result of a change in 2007 that includes
smoking incidence in MPAA ratings, following four years of requests from
state attorneys general and other groups. The MPAA has refused, however,
to make smoking an automatic R-rating, even with an exclusion for
historical accuracy in films like Good Night and Good Luck.
A significant factor in reduced smoking onscreen may also be pressure
from websites that specifically review smoking in movies. Smoke Free
Movies, a project of Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, professor of medicine at
the University of California, San Francisco, has a directory of actors
with more than three smoking roles. Scene Smoking from Breathe
California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails, shows how smoking is shown in
films, classifying it by whether it is the lead actor, a credited
non-star, or an extra, whether the brand is shown, and whether the
smoker is a good guy or a bad guy.
|
| 24th August |
R Words... |
|
| |
Jennifer Anniston movie bombs over R word gaff or was it the Rubbish Reviews?
Permalink full story: The R Word...Campaign against the word 'retard' |
Based on
article from
entertainment.gather.com
Based on
article
from helium.com
|
Earlier
this week Jennifer Aniston came under fire for comments during an appearance on
Regis and Kelly. While a guest on the morning show, Aniston made the
comment comparing herself to a retard, saying, Yeah, I got to play
dress up. I do it for a living, like a retard.
The fallout from the incident was immediate with disability groups
calling her choice of words inappropriate and offensive.
In a statement released to TV Guide, a representative for the Special
Olympics commented, The Special Olympics is always disappointed when
the R-word is used, especially by someone who is influential to society.
The pervasive use of the R-word, even in an off the cuff
self-deprecating manner, dehumanizes people with intellectual
disabilities and perpetuates painful stereotypes that are a great source
of suffering and negative stigma.
The bad press did nothing to help Aniston's new film, The Switch
which she was on the show to promote in the first place.
The Switch a romantic comedy starting Aniston and Jason
Bateman bombed at the box office this weekend, grossing just $8.1
million. So did Aniston's talk show gaffe tank the film? The low box
office is definitely due in part to some tepid reviews and stiff weekend
competition. However, one can't help but question whether her comment
had an effect as well.
|
| 13th August |
The Conspiracy Continues... |
|
| |
Acclaimed documentary given restrictive MPAA rating for strong language
Permalink |
Based on
article
from popwatch.ew.com
|
After
the MPAA handed an R rating for language to an acclaimed documentary
about NFL-player-turned-Army-Ranger Pat Tillman, the makers of the movie have
lost an appeal to have the rating changed to PG-13.
The filmmakers tried to argue that The Tillman Story – which delves into
the official military cover-up of Tillman's death in Afghanistan by friendly
fire and the way in which he was exploited as a potent patriotic symbol — is
exactly the kind of historically significant film that should be exposed to as
many young people as possible, not hidden from them due to squeamishness over
some bad words.
Offsite:
I'm Pat Fucking Tillman
5th September 2010. See article
from chicagotribune.com
According to the MPPA's ratings and classification board. Habitually
easy on violence but far more nervous regarding language and skin, the
MPAA ratings board issued director Amir Bar-Lev's film an R rating for
its 16 instances of the f-word.
Bar-Lev said in a separate conversation Wednesday: If we had sat
down and written the film, which of course we didn't since it's a
documentary, and used that language to titillate or amuse people —
that'd be one context. But we're talking about real-life situations when
people are being shot at, or consumed with grief, or a couple of key
moments where we show you how Pat Tillman's family sometimes talks.
The veracity of the language is pertinent, Bar-Lev said, given
Tillman's likely last words, as he was being fired on, mistakenly, by
three of his fellow American soldiers: I'm Pat f---ing Tillman!
...Read the full article
|
| 12th August |
Special Relationship... |
|
| |
Barack Obama signs law snubbing UK libel judgments
Permalink full story: Libel Tourism...Monitoring the UK prosecution of books published abroad |
Based on
article
from indexoncensorship.org
|
President
Barack Obama has signed the SPEECH Act into US law, a move designed to protect
US writers and reporters from England's controversial defamation laws.
The Act, tabled by Tennessee Congressman Steve Cohen, makes libel
judgments against American writers in foreign territories unenforceable
if they are perceived to counter the First Amendment right to free
speech.
The Libel Reform Campaign has expressed concern that our reputation
is being damaged internationally due to our restrictive, archaic and
costly libel laws which cost 140 times the European equivalent.
The coalition government has said it will table a draft Bill to
reform our libel laws in January 2011 after the campaign led by English
PEN, Index on Censorship and Sense About Science. The campaign has
52,000 signatories to its petition and all three main political parties
committed in their general election manifestos to libel reform.
Jo Glanville, Editor of Index on Censorship said:
The US's response to our libel laws has already played a key role
in advancing the campaign for reform in the UK. I'm hopeful that the
government's draft bill will address the issue of libel tourism, which
has a clear chilling effect on freedom of speech, and make it harder for
claimants from outside the EU to bully publishers, NGOs, bloggers and
investigative journalists into silence.
Síle Lane, Public Liaison of Sense About Science said:
As other countries move to protect their citizens from the
chilling effect of our libel laws we urge bloggers, science writers,
NGOs and small publications facing threats and bankruptcy to keep up the
pressure on the Government to ensure that the proposed draft libel bill
brings the meaningful change that is so urgently needed.
|
| 8th August |
Plugging Leaks... |
|
| |
US press secretary asks Wikileaks to return the disclosed Afghanistan war reports
Permalink full story: Wikileaks Censorship...Wikileaks domain challenged by lawyers |
Based on
article from
irishtimes.com
|
The
website WikiLeaks recently publicly disclosed more than 70,000
classified US field reports from the war in Afghanistan. The Pentagon
says it wants them back.
Press secretary Geoff Morrell told reporters the Pentagon was
formally demanding – through the news media – that WikiLeaks return the
reports, as well as 15,000 additional records the website says it might
release soon: We are asking them to do the right thing and not
further exacerbate the damage done to date. If doing the right
thing is not good enough for them, we'll figure out what other
alternatives we have.
He declined to elaborate on whether the defence department was
contemplating legal action but said the FBI and the justice department
were investigating how the documents were leaked.
Morrell acknowledged that the genie is out of the bottle in
regard to the more than 70,000 reports that are not only posted on the
WikiLeaks site, but have since been copied and downloaded by people all
over the world. He said the Pentagon was primarily interested in
blocking the release of the 15,000 other documents.
|
| 7th August |
Fairly Free... |
|
| |
California considers political censorship of the internet at election times
Permalink |
Based on
article
from gamepolitics.com
|
Political
tweets and Facebook status updates should be held to the same standards as paid
advertising that voters see on television, radio or in Californian's mailboxes,
says California's campaign watchdog agency, The Fair Political Practices
Commission, in a report. The Fair Political Practices Commission is considering
how to regulate new forms of political activity on Facebook or in a text
message.
It's become necessary as politicians in California and elsewhere
announce their candidacies and major campaign policies through Twitter,
YouTube and a host of social networking sites, said FPPC Chairman
Dan Schnur. He also added that California's 36-year-old Political Reform
Act needs a modern-day re-write to keep up with the times.
The report reportedly outlines possible hurdles to regulating such
online content, like how one would include full disclosure of what group
or individual is behind a political message. The changes the commission
makes to state law would have to give regulators the flexibility to
respond to swiftly evolving technologies, the report says.
The report does draw the line when it comes to the right of regular
citizens to tweet or use Facebook to talk about politics or politicians:
People tweeting about someone is typically not something you would
regulate, said Barbara O'Connor, professor emeritus of
communications and the former director of the Institute for the Study of
Politics and Media at California State University, Sacramento. When
it becomes an ad, it's a different story. When it becomes an ad it
really is a replacement for a 30-second spot for a new generation.
|
| 6th August |
A Debate Unfinished... |
|
| |
MPAA impose restrictive R rating on holocaust documentary
Permalink |
Thanks to Nick
3rd August 2010.
Based on
article from
cinematical.com
|
A
new documentary from Yael Hersonski called A Film Unfinished takes
propaganda footage from the Warsaw Ghetto during WWII and reveals the
cinematic deception of the frames.
Hersonski outlines how many of the scenes of real life were crafted by
the filmmakers to try and show a hideous disconnect between the Ghetto's rich
Jews and poor Jews -- scenes of passerby walking over corpses are juxtaposed
with lavish dinners (entirely crafted by the Nazis) and entertainment (where
people were beaten if they didn't look like they were having enough fun).
It is a harrowing account, for sure, but also a worthy one. However,
the documentary has now hit a snag, getting an R rating from the MPAA,
which has inspired the Beastie Boys' (and Oscilloscope founder) Adam
Yauch to speak out.
In a press release, Oscilloscope Laboratories has announced that they
will appeal the R rating, given to the film for disturbing images of
holocaust atrocities including graphic nudity. By banning people
under the age of 17 from viewing the film without their parent/guardian,
the rating will keep the documentary out of classrooms and educational
venues.
Adam Yauch says: This is too important of a historical document to
ban from classrooms. While there's no doubt that Holocaust atrocities
are displayed, if teachers feel their students are ready to understand
what happened, it's essential that young people are given the
opportunity to see this film. Why deny them the chance to learn about
this critical part of our human history? I understand that the MPAA
wants to protect children's eyes from things that are too overwhelming,
but they've really gone too far this time. It's bullshit.
The graphic nudity consists of shots of the piles of dead, naked
Jewish residents waiting for mass burial. There is another scene where
Jewish men and women were forced (at gun point) to strip and bathe
together.
It's incredibly hard to watch. But it's also incredibly important to
watch. Though, as A Film Unfinished points out, it can dangerous,
film and photographs are essential to understanding and comprehending
the atrocities and impact of tragedies like the Holocaust, the Rape of
Nanking, and every other bit of violence that has, does, and will happen
in the world. Words, in this case, simply aren't enough.
Update:
R rating stands after appeal
6th August 2010. Based on
article
from nymag.com
Beastie Boy Adam Yauch's appeal of the MPAA's decision to give an R
rating to the Holocaust documentary A Film Unfinished has failed.
The rating was upheld by the ratings board by a 12-3 vote.
Yauch expressed his frustration with the decision earlier in the
week, arguing the nudity in the film - which compiles footage of the
Warsaw Ghetto in 1942 shot for a German propaganda movie - should have
been viewed through a historical and educational lens.:
In a world where young people are bombarded with
meaningless entertainment, it's unfortunate that a film with real
educational and historic value would be denied to them by an
organization that is supposed to be working to help them. I still have
hope that the MPAA will reconsider at some point in the future, so young
people will be able to learn from this film.
|
| 6th August |
Police Bullies... |
|
| |
FBI demands that Wikipedia takes down an image of the FBI seal
Permalink |
Based on
article from
edition.cnn.com
|
The
US Federal Bureau of Investigation has threatened Wikipedia with legal
action if the online encyclopedia doesn't remove the FBI's seal from its
site. The seal is featured in an encyclopedia entry about the FBI.
Wikipedia isn't backing down, however. The online encyclopedia sent a
chiding letter to the FBI, explaining why, in its view, the FBI is off its
legal rocker.
In short, then, we are compelled as a matter of law and principle to
deny your demand for removal of the FBI Seal from Wikipedia and Wikimedia
Commons, the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel, Mike Godwin, wrote
in a letter to the FBI, which was posted online by the New York Times: We
are in contact with outside counsel in this matter, and we are prepared to
argue our view in court.
In a letter dated July 22, and also posted online by the Times, the FBI
told Wikipedia it must remove the bureau's seal because the FBI had not
approved use of the image: The FBI has not authorized use of the FBI seal
on Wikipedia. The inclusion of a high quality graphic of the FBI seal
on Wikipedia is particularly problematic, because it facilitates both
deliberate and unwitting copying and reprinting of the seal's image.
The FBI's deputy general counsel, David Larson, cities a particular law
that says duplicating an official insignia is illegal without
permission.
But Wikipedia strikes back on that point, saying the FBI redacted the
most important part of that U.S. code, which defines an insignia as any
badge, identification card, or other insignia. Badges and identification
cards are physical manifestations that may be used by a possessor to invoke
the authority of the federal government. An encyclopedia article is not.
The use of the image on Wikipedia is not for the purpose of deception or
falsely to represent anyone as an agent of the federal government.
The magazine Vanity Fair posted the FBI's seal on its website in a symbol
of jest. And, as the blog Geekosystem says, an editor on the site aggregator
Reddit jokes that maybe the FBI got Wikipedia confused with WikiLeaks — the
site that's been causing a stir lately over leaked war documents.
|
| 5th August |
Prude Attack... |
|
| |
Gaea the beaver daubed in black paint
Permalink full story: Beaver Art...Fun with public art conflating beaver with vagina |
Based on
article
from blogs.citypages.com
|
Gaea,
the controversial beaver sculpture, has been vandalized, but quickly cleaned
up and returned to normal.
The Bemidji Police Department received an anonymous phone call saying
that the sculpture had been defaced with black spray paint.
The spray paint covered what artist Deborah A. Davis has said are the
hands of a praying woman.
While Davis has said the front of the sculpture shows Mother Earth
praying and the circles are roses coming forth from her hands, others have
viewed the sculpture differently, seeing, instead, a portion of the female
anatomy.
Police arrived on the site after 11 p.m. Tuesday and found the paint to
be tacky the touch, according to a police report.
Davis, in an e-mail sent at 12:35 a.m., said she and Jeremy Anway, a
Bemidji artist, repaired the sculpture.
|
| 3rd August |
Prurient Interest... |
|
| |
America Wins As Government Loses Obscenity Trial
Permalink full story: Buttman John Stagliano...John Stagliano prosecuted for obscenity |
Based on
article
from psychologytoday.com
by Marty Klein PhD
|
John
Stagliano was set free last week when a federal judge ended his obscenity
trial on procedural grounds. If convicted, John would have been jailed for
32 years and had his home and business confiscated.
Instead, a few million dollars of your tax money was wasted by a
Department of Justice investigation, purchase, viewing, and indictment of
Milk Nymphos, Storm Squirters, and Fetish Fanatic.
The charge was simply that the DVDs appealed to the average person's
prurient interest, were patently offensive, and lack serious
literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. These are the actual
words of the Miller Test that guide the law. If you can get a jury to agree
that a given recording, painting, book, DVD, or stage show meets these three
tests, the government can declare the thing obscene. It then loses
its First Amendment protection, and it creator and distributor can be sent
to jail.
...Read the full
article
|
| 31st July |
Searching for a Censor... |
|
| |
MPAA break off talks with Bob Kerrey
Permalink full story: Dangerous Anime in the US...Japanese anime open to prosecution |
Based on
article
from latimesblogs.latimes.com
|
It's
back to square one for the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA).
After months of negotiations with former Nebraska Democratic Sen. Bob
Kerrey to become head of the movie industry's chief lobbying arm in
Washington, talks broke down between the two.
The MPAA declined to elaborate on why negotiations had ended.
|
| 31st July |
Fantasy of US Freedom... |
|
| |
Even grotesque fantasies should not be criminalised
Permalink full story: Dangerous Anime in the US...Japanese anime open to prosecution |
See article
from spiked-online.com
by Wendy Kaminer
|
In
May 2009, Iowa resident Christopher Handley, a collector of comic books,
pled guilty to federal charges of importing and possessing obscene
cartoon drawings of children; he faced a maximum prison sentence of 15
years, for a crime involving neither actual children nor actual child
porn.
A few weeks later, a Tennessee prosecutor charged Michael Wayne
Campbell with aggravated sexual exploitation of a minor, for
photo-shopping the faces of three girls on to the nude bodies of three
adult women. How might this constitute a crime (outside of Iran)?
It is also a crime – a federal crime – to share your sexual fantasies
about children in private communications with other adults. The US
Fourth Circuit court of appeals declined to review the conviction of
Dwight Whorley for sharing fantasies about sexually abusing children in
purely textual email exchanges between consenting adults. Like
Christopher Handley, Whorley was also convicted of receiving obscene
Japanese cartoon drawings of children. Be careful what you imagine.
...Read the full article
|
| 29th July |
Special Relationship... |
|
| |
US legislation to snub UK libel judgments passed by Senate
Permalink full story: Libel Tourism...Monitoring the UK prosecution of books published abroad |
21st July 2010. Based on
article
from indexoncensorship.org
|
The
US senate has passed legislation to protect US journalists, writers and
publishers from libel tourists — litigants who sue Americans in
foreign jurisdictions which place a lower emphasis on free speech
The legislation was specifically designed to negate the threat of
English laws, amid claims that the UK has became an international libel
tribunal. One case in particular incensed US politicians, that of New
York based academic Rachel Ehrenfeld who was sued in London despite only
23 copies of her book, on the financing of terrorism, being sold in the
UK.
The bill, co-sponsored by Democrat Patrick Leahy and Republican Jeff
Sessions has broad cross-party support. If passed, the proposal will
prevent US courts from recognising foreign libel rulings that are
inconsistent with the First Amendment.
The Securing the Protection of our Enduring and Established
Constitutional Heritage Bill will now go before the House of
Representatives.
Update:
Passed by the House of Representatives
29th July 2010. Based on
article from
todayonline.com
The United States House of Representatives passed a Bill aimed at
shielding US journalists, authors and publishers from libel tourists
who file suit in countries where they expect to get the most favourable
ruling.
Lawmakers approved the measure, which now goes to President Barack
Obama to sign into law.
The bill had such widespread support from Democrats and Republicans
that it was passed on a voice vote in Congress.
Based on
article
from telegraph.co.uk
The legislation will prevent US federal courts from recognising or
enforcing a foreign judgment for defamation that is inconsistent with
the first amendment and will bar foreign parties from targeting the
American assets of an American author, journalist, or publisher as part
of any damages.
Campaigners for more liberal libel law in Britain said they hoped the
new law would influence the Government as it prepares a draft reform
bill for publication in January.
Padraig Reidy, a spokesman for the Index on Censorship, said: It's a
vindication of our argument that English libel laws in their current
state do not encourage or protect free expression. The fact that
Britain's best ally feels the need to protect itself from the English
libel courts demonstrates the need for reform.
Steve Cohen, a Tennessee Congressman who drafted the bill, said it was
vital that Americans' rights are never undermined by foreign
judgments.
|
| 25th July |
Hatchet Job... |
|
| |
Supporting the hype for an uncut unrated cinema release for Hatchet II
Permalink |
Based on
article
from morehorror.com
|
MoreHorror.com
sources attending the San Diego Comic-Con have a report about the upcoming Adam
Green release of Hatchet II.
Dark Sky Films are stating that they plan to have the film released
in theaters entirely in its UNRATED format. Green told the audience at
the convention that the MPAA has (yet again) asked that entire scenes be
removed from the movie because they are too violent!
It seems however that won't be a factor anymore since an unnamed
theater chain has been confirmed to allow the entire version to run in
theaters this coming October.
Update:
AMC
27th August 2010. Based on
article
from cinematical.com
AMC Theaters will be showing the unrated cut of the film as part of
its AMC Independent program. This means the uncut version of Hatchet II
will be shown theatrically in the top 20 markets in the United States.
|
| 25th July |
Empire of the Censors... |
|
| |
Adult DVD Empire on obscenity charges
Permalink |
Based on
article
from xbiz.com
|
Adult
DVD Empire will plead guilty to an obscenity charge filed against the
company by federal prosecutors.
Attorney Lawrence Walters told XBIZ that this appears to be a
pre-arranged, pre-packaged deal where all the parties involved came to an
agreement in advance.
Walters says the deal was structured in a way where the corporation was
charged, not an individual, so no one will be doing time in jail.
As part of the deal, Adult DVD Empire will be on a three-year probation
and pay a $75,000 fine.
Federal prosecutors filed the charges July 22 charging that the company,
which operates AdultDVDEmpire.com, mailed four DVDs containing obscene
material to an Erie post office box in May 2007.
Walters says the charges seems to have been initiated by Mary Beth
Buchanan, the former U.S. District Attorney for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, who was active in obscenity prosecutions
The four DVDs are identified as A Bounty of Pain, Shattering Krystal
both from Dan Hawke Productions, Extreme Tit Torture 18 from
Galaxy Productions and Pussy Torture 8 also from Galaxy and directed
by Rick Savage.
|
| 24th July |
Publicity Trap... |
|
| |
Starting the hype for Saw 3D
Permalink |
Based on
article
from horror-movies.ca
|
Saw
3D, the upcoming 7th movie in the Saw franchise, will be the last one
according to producers who say, It's time to stop. We have told the story we
wanted to tell, and this is going to be a great farewell.
The 3D movie will have 11 booby traps, almost double compared to the
previous films, and it was submitted 6 times to the MPAA before bringing
it down from an NC-17 to an R rating!
Producer Mark Burg reveals: I'm surprised we got it. It's more
violent than any of them. But it's in 3-D, it answers all the questions,
it comes full circle. We have the good on this one.
As for critics of the franchise, star Tobin Bell says: It's a free
country. If people don't want to look at certain things, they shouldn't
go. The people who don't go to films were more upset than the horror
fans. You can say what you want about it, but Saw fans have loved and
supported it every year. We must have been doing something right.
|
| 24th July |
Animal Cruelty Law Slimmed Down... |
|
| |
Crushing victory in House of Representatives vote
Permalink |
Based on
article from
latimesblogs.latimes.com
|
The
House of Representatives has passed a bill that, if enacted, will
prohibit the sale of crush videos and other filmed acts of animal
cruelty including burning, suffocating, drowning and impaling live
animals. The bill, sponsored by Representative Elton Gallegly, passed by
a margin of 416 to 3. It now goes to the Senate, which is expected to
pass it.
In April, the Supreme Court overturned a Virginia man's conviction
for selling videos that depicted dogfighting on free-speech grounds.
Chief Justice John Roberts said the existing law that criminalized the
sale of such videos was too broad and could be used to prosecute sellers
of hunting videos.
Gallegly responded by crafting a narrowly written law designed
specifically to prohibit the sale or distribution of obscene visual
depictions of animal cruelty. He became involved in the issue in 1999,
when a local district attorney had difficulty prosecuting a Thousand
Oaks man for selling a video depicting animal cruelty over the Internet.
|
| 20th July |
Obligatory Blogetery Block... |
|
| |
73,000 blogs taken down by US authorities
Permalink |
19th July 2010. Based on
article
from news.cnet.com
|
Blogetery.com,
a little-known WordPress platform used by more than 70,000 blogs, was
shut down by its Web hosting company more than a week ago and nobody
seems willing to say why or who is responsible.
BurstNet, the Web-hosting company, informed Blogetery's operator that
service was terminated at the request of some law enforcement agency but
wouldn't say which one. As for the reason, BurstNet hasn't made that
clear either. In an e-mail to Blogetery's operator, BurstNet managers
did say that they had little choice but to terminate service.
Please note that this was not a typical case in which suspension
and notification would be the norm, BurstNet wrote to Blogetery's
operator. This was a critical matter brought to our attention by law
enforcement officials. We had to immediately remove the server.
Initially commentators suspected that perhaps file sharing issues
were behind the take down but this was denied. In an interview, a
BurstNet spokesman declined to identify the law enforcement agency that
ordered Blogetery shut down or provide the reason but did say that it
had nothing to do with copyright violations.
BurstNet hinted at something more serious in a forum
article from
webhostingtalk.com.
In repose to a refund request and a dump of Blogetery data, BurstNet
wrote: [This] should be the least of his concerns. Simply put: We
cannot give him his data nor can we provide any other details. By
stating this, most would recognize that something serious is afoot.
Update:
Inspire
20th July 2010. Based on
article
from news.cnet.com
More
details are surfacing about why Blogetery.com, a blogging platform that
claimed to service more than 70,000 blogs, was mysteriously booted from
the Internet by its Web-hosting company.
The site was shut down after FBI agents informed executives of
Burst.net, Blogetery's Web host, late on July 9 that links to al-Qaeda
materials were found on Blogetery's servers, Joe Marr, chief technology
officer for Burst.net, told CNET. Sources close to the investigation say
that included in those materials were the names of American citizens
targeted for assassination by al-Qaeda. Messages from Osama bin Laden
and other leaders of the terrorist organization, as well as bomb-making
tips, were also allegedly found on the server.
A source with knowledge of the investigation said that the material
allegedly found on Blogetery's server is connected to an online magazine
called Inspire, which debuted recently. Numerous news
outlets reported over the past weekend that Inspire is designed
to help recruit new members to al-Qaeda. According to Fox News, the
title of one article was Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom.
Citing intelligence sources, Fox reported that Khan is Web savvy and
his magazine represents al-Qaeda's most ambitious terrorist
recruitment tool to date.
|
| 18th July |
Dangerous Communication... |
|
| |
All Massachusetts electronic communication must be suitable for young children
Permalink full story: Internet Minors...Criminalising internet comms harmful to minors |
15th July 2010. Based on
article
from business.avn.com
|
A
seemingly small but very significant adjustment to Massachusetts' longstanding
law against providing matter harmful to minors to anyone under the age of
18 has been challenged in federal court by a group of plaintiffs that includes
the state chapter of the ACLU, the Association of American Booksellers, the
Comic Book Legal Defense Fund, sex therapist Marty Klein and others.
The law, which went into effect Monday, changes the definition of
matter, which used to include only handwritten or printed material,
visual representation, live performance or sound recording including but not
limited to, books, magazines, motion picture films, pamphlets, phonographic
records, pictures, photographs, figures, statues, plays, dances.
The definition now includes any electronic communication including,
but not limited to, electronic mail, instant messages, text messages, and
any other communication created by means of use of the Internet or wireless
network, whether by computer, telephone, or any other device or by any
transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence
of any nature transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio,
electromagnetic, photo-electronic or photo-optical system.
In other words, a law that once targeted the physical dissemination of
harmful matter to minors has been extended to include virtually all of
cyberspace, including communication done using email or instant messaging
programs. According to the complaint, its breadth is nothing less than
staggering.
Because Internet speakers have no means to restrict minors in
Massachusetts from accessing their communications, says the complaint,
the Act effectively requires almost all discourse on the Internet—whether
among citizens of Massachusetts or among users anywhere in the world—to be
at a level suitable for young children. The Act therefore bans an entire
category of constitutionally protected speech between and among adults on
the Internet.
Update:
Challenged
18th July 2010. Based on
article
from firstamendmentcenter.org
A
coalition of booksellers and Internet content providers on July 13 filed a
federal lawsuit challenging an expansion of Massachusetts' obscenity law to
include electronic communications that may be harmful to minors.
The Supreme Judicial Court, ruling in a case in February, found that the
state's obscenity law didn't apply to instant messages. The new law, passed
quickly by the state Legislature after the ruling, added instant messages,
text messages, e-mail and other electronic communications to the old law.
The changes amount to a broad censorship law that imposes severe
content-based restrictions on the dissemination of constitutionally
protected speech, the lawsuit argues. The plaintiffs include the American
Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts, the Association of American
Publishers, the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and other groups. They argue
that the expanded law effectively bans from the Internet anything that may
be considered harmful to minors, including material adults have a
First Amendment right to view, including information about contraception,
pregnancy, sexual health, literature and art.
For most communications over the Internet, it is not possible for a
person sending or posting the communication to ensure that the communication
will not be read or seen by a minor, the lawsuit states.
|
| 17th July |
Prosecution Get their Butt Kicked... |
|
| |
John Stagliano cleared at obscenity trial
Permalink full story: Buttman John Stagliano...John Stagliano prosecuted for obscenity |
Based on
article
from xbiz.com
|
The
judge has ruled the John Stagliano case is over.
US District Judge Richard Leon, ruling that the government didn't meet
the burden of evidence on any of the eight charges, admonished prosecutors
over their efforts.
I trust that the government will learn a lesson when going forward,
Leon said in his ruling. The myriad of novel legal issues that have
bubbled up in this case will continue to pop up around the country.
Leon found that the government had not shown any evidence that either of
the two corporate entities effectively had any direct ties to the charges,
or that the defendant himself had any direct links to the videos he was
charged with.
While there was circumstantial evidence, Leon ruled that it was
insufficient for a jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The courtroom erupted into applause after the judge read his ruling and
dismissed the jury.
Outside the courtroom Stagliano, perhaps joking, said he was
disappointed. [The government] didn't put up much of a fight. They were
sloppy and not passionate and doing the prosecution for the wrong reasons,
Stagliano told XBIZ.
A Stagliano attorney, Louis Sirkin, told XBIZ that it proves if you've
got the guts to fight, wonderful things can happen. He compared
Stagliano to Lenny Bruce and others who protect the 1st Amendment.
|
| 14th July |
TV Censors Damned... |
|
| |
Court finds TV rules banning fleeting expletives to have a chilling effect
Permalink full story: FCC TV Censors...FCC wound up by nudity and fleeting expletives |
Based on
article
from abcactionnews.com
|
A
New York court has struck down the TV censor's rules banning fleeting
expletives on TV.
According to the Associated Press, the court has overturned a Federal
Communications Commission (FCC) policy, saying that the agency's guidelines
for fleeting expletives and other indecencies in broadcast violate the
First Amendment.
The policy went into effect in 2004, at a time when indecency in
broadcast was a hot issue, right after Janet Jackson's notorious wardrobe
malfunction at the Super Bowl.
Now, the three-judge panel in New York has decided to overturn the policy
because they believe the FCC's policy is unconstitutionally vague,
creating a chilling effect that goes far beyond the fleeting expletives at
issue here.
The appeals court added that the chilling effect would lead to
mass censorship of potentially valuable material, because broadcasters
have no way of knowing what the FCC will find offensive.
|
| 10th July |
Charity with Morality Strings Attached... |
|
| |
US government restrict worthy funds to only those recipients with porn filtering in place
Permalink |
Based on
article
from news.avn.com
|
The
US House of Representative passed a supplemental appropriations bill (HR
4899). It contains an easy-to-miss provision that some legislators have been
trying to get passed into law for several months that would prohibit funds
to any recipient that doesn't block porn on its computer network.
According to an OpenCongress summary of the legislation, which passed by
a vote of 239-182, This bill would provide billions to support US troops in
Iraq, help teachers and police get through the recession, help Vietnam war
veterans etc.
But tucked into the second-to-last page of the bill is the short
provision—Sec. 4601(a)—that outlines the pornography restriction, which
reads, None of the funds made available in this Act may be used to
maintain or establish a computer network unless such network blocks the
viewing, downloading, and exchanging of pornography.
Seemingly straightforward, the wording of the anti-porn provision has
some people concerned that its reach may extend far beyond actual
government-owned computer networks to include those belonging to any
contractor or subcontractor who receives even a dollar from the government
for any work required under this bill.
Pat Trueman, a former Justice Department saying he had yet to examine the
exact language, but that if it could be legally problematic if it says that
in order to get a government contract, a business must filter out all
porn for all employees—even those not on a government contract.
|
| 8th July |
Legal Games... |
|
| |
Game producers worry about Supreme Court review of age restrictions for video games
Permalink full story: Violent Games in the US...Attempts to restrict video games from minors |
Based on
article
from computerandvideogames.com
|
A
law that threatens to classify adult video games as X-rated entertainment in
the US has been slammed by bosses of major games publishers.
The US Supreme Court agreed in April to review a motion prohibiting the
sale or rental of violent video games to minors.
The law would allow individual states to impose sales restrictions on
violent games - effectively putting them into the same category as
pornography, and restricting their sale to adult citizens.
The Supreme Court is reviewing a federal court's decision to throw out
California's ban - which was originally signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger.
It's very, very surprising that the Supreme Court is hearing the case,
Strauss Zelnick, CEO of Rockstar parent Take Two told CNBC: I'm worried
about it, and I think everybody in our business should be really worried
about it.
Graham Hopper, EVP and general manager of Disney Interactive added:
It's not about having a dramatic impact on our bottom line. It's going to
make our retailing abilities a nightmare.
Other games industry figures spoke of their fear that other states would
push through their own version of the bill - meaning developers would have
to create multiple version of games to suit each territory's individual
criteria: One of America's great exports is entertainment, commented
John Riccitiello, CEO of EA. The implication of Schwarzenegger v. ESA
(the case before the Court) is we could end up with state level
bureaucracies that define what's marketable in 50 different jurisdictions
across the U.S.
Sony's Jack Tretton was more positive about the Supreme Court's decision
to hear the case. We believe as an industry that the primary reason the
Supreme Court is hearing it is despite the fact that this law has been
struck down, [the issue] has come up 12 times [previously]. I think
the Supreme Court is looking at it to potentially see if there's something
to it or to put an end to it once and for all.
The court will hear arguments in this case in the autumn.
|
| 7th July |
Dam Funny... |
|
| |
Beaver art whisked off from public display
Permalink full story: Beaver Art...Fun with public art conflating beaver with vagina |
5th July 2010. Based on
article
from startribune.com
See also
Bring back Gaea to the Bemidji Sculpture Walk! from
facebook.com
|
Art
or porn?
That question came up last week for strollers along downtown Bemidji's
Sculpture Walk, which this year features nine painted fiberglass beavers,
including one with -- to some eyes -- a suggestive painting on its belly.
After about 20 callers complained to City Hall that artist Deborah Davis'
painting appeared to be of female genitalia, City Manager John Chattin
ordered Davis' sculpture removed from the Sculpture Walk, officials in the
northern Minnesota city said.
Al Belleveau, president of the Bemidji Sculpture Walk, said that at
Chattin's request, he moved the sculpture to his yard until the City Council
decides what to do with it.
That prompted a protest during Sunday's July 4th parade. A crowd
of people gathered near where Davis' beaver sculpture had stood, some
carrying signs that read Censored, Davis said. In addition, some of
the other beaver artists veiled their own works in solidarity with Davis.
Davis, of Blackduck, Minn., called her work Gaea, which she said
can mean Mother Earth or God is gracious. The beaver has
female figures painted on its sides and a tree on its back. Its belly
features a painting in which some see praying hands and some see woman's
genitalia.
My intent was to paint Mother Nature, Mother Earth, Davis said.
I didn't understand that some people saw genitalia. ... I understand people
see different things in art, and they need to be free to do that. ... My
intent was to paint a praying woman.
Update:
The Beaver's Back
7th July 2010. Based on
article
from blogs.citypages.com
Bemidji City Council just voted unanimously to return a controversial
beaver to its rightful place on the Bemidji Sculpture Walk.
Painted by artist Deborah Davis, Gaea is a celebration of
womanhood and one of nine four-foot-tall ceramic beaver sculptures painted
by local artists.
But when 20 people called to complain about what they viewed as a vagina
on the beaver's belly, City Manager John Chattin took action and censored
her beaver from public view.
Davis wasn't going to take that lying down. She organized a Facebook
campaign that attracted local and national press attention.
As the beaver went viral, City Council was forced to call a special
session to address the controversy.
Gaea supporters came out in droves, speaking eloquently about the
artistic merits of the beaver. And as of tonight, the beaver is heading back
to the streets.
|
| 7th July |
Kicking Butt... |
|
| |
John Stagliano obscenity trial begins
Permalink full story: Buttman John Stagliano...John Stagliano prosecuted for obscenity |
Based on
article
from xbiz.com
|
The
jury selection process has begun in the highly-anticipated John Stagliano
obscenity trial.
Opening statements will more than likely begin at the end of the week.
Stagliano and his companies, Evil Angel Productions Inc. and John
Stagliano Inc, are charged with seven counts for illegal possession,
distribution and sale of two videos sent through the mail, Milk Nymphos
and Storm Squirters 2 'Target Practice'.
Stagliano faces a maximum of 32 years in jail and $7 million in fines if
convicted on all counts. The trial is expected to last two weeks.
|
| 5th July |
Free to Choose Hell... |
|
| |
Pennsylvania law censoring religious words in business names struck down
Permalink |
Based on
article
from freethinker.co.uk
|
A
US federal court has struck down a Pennsylvania statute that forbids
business names containing:
- Words that constitute blasphemy
- profane cursing or swearing
- words that profane the Lord's name.
The case arose after George Kalman was refused permission by state
regulators to register his film company under the name I Choose Hell
Productions LLC.
Kalman says he chose the name because he believes it expresses his
personal philosophy that it is better to struggle through difficult times in
life than to commit suicide, even if life is hell.
The US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania found that
the statute violated the First Amendment prohibition on establishment of
religion, and promoted only Christian religious views. Words used by the
Pennsylvania Corporations Bureau to flag proposed names for closer scrutiny
included terms such as Christ and Jesus but not those related to other
religions, such as Allah or Mohammed.
Additionally the court held that the statute violated Kalman's right to
free speech by treating speech differently on the basis on the viewpoint
expressed, as business names perceived as pro-religion were permitted.
The court also ruled that the statute used to turn down his company's
name violated Kalman's free speech rights by allowing anonymous government
officials to refuse business names that offend them.
The court struck down the statute as unconstitutional.
|
| 2nd July |
Trailer Trash... |
|
| |
Supporting the hype for Paranormal Activity 2
Permalink |
Based on
article
from firstshowing.net
See
trailer from
firstshowing.net
|
This
is either a big surprise or a brilliant marketing tactic. Variety says that
movie theater chain Cinemark has pulled the Paranormal Activity 2
trailer from several theaters in Texas after receiving numerous
complaints from moviegoers that the trailer was too frightening.
Paranormal Activity is obviously marketed entirely on scares and
hearing that a trailer was so frightening that it had to be pulled is a
great accidental way of building some extra word-of-mouth buzz for this
sequel to Oren Peli's low budget horror flick.
Cinemark is already prepared to pull the trailer from more theaters if
they keep receiving more complaints!
|
| 2nd July |
Mind Minds in Massachusetts... |
|
| |
Nutter councilor wants to shame people just for viewing porn
Permalink |
Based on
article
from washingtontimes.com
|
A
Massachusetts city councilor's request to publicize the names of people
caught looking at pornography on library computers has been nixxed by the
city's lawyer.
James Timmins, the lawyer in charge of reviewing the request for the
Quincy City Council, intends to advise Ann McLaughlin, Qunicy's librarian
director, not to release the information. He believes that it would break
privacy laws.
There is not a written advisory on it yet, but I will advise her not
to release the list, he told The Washington Times.
The request was made by Councilor Daniel Raymondi, who wants to get
ahead of the growing problem of people who do not adhere to the
appropriate-use policy established by the city library. The city council
sent a resolution last week to Mayor Thomas Koch, which calls for the mayor
to send the council a list of people who viewed pornography on library
computers in the last year. The resolution was approved by the council June
21.on.
|
|
|