Bill Whatcott may be an asshole, but judges say that he has every right to be an asshole. After distributing various pamphlets in the cities of Saskatoon and Regina with titles like “Sodomites in Our Public Schools,” the Canadian man was saddled with a $17,500 fine for what a lower court deemed “hate speech.” This week the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals overturned the decision on the grounds that Whatcott criticized homosexual behavior, not homosexuals as people.

This isn’t the first time Whatcott has made the news. He previously had his nursing license suspended for engaging in anti-abortion protests outside of work. After an appeal to the Canadian Supreme Court, Whatcott had his license restored.

This dude is quite the character. The only writing of his I could find online, while fervent, is coherent and level-headed. (It’s here, but WARNING – GRAPHIC photo of a beheaded teen girl from Indonesia at the top.) After reading his history on Wikipedia, it’s hard not to sympathize with him. Given that he aims to make homosexuality immoral, my sympathy only extends so far – but it’s limited by knowing that he escaped Canada’s foster system, and turned away from a life of drugs and prostitution. I’m sure Whatcott is convinced that Christianity saved him from a short, brutal life of degradation and drug abuse. He’s probably right. But a quick perusal of his Flickr page – a melange of naked men at gay pride parades, oddly-titled head shots that hint at personal vendettas, and graphic photographs of obliterated soldiers in Iraq – hints that all’s not well in Wonderland. This man’s demons haven’t been exorcised: they’ve merely found a new release valve.

Be that as it may, Whatcott has the basic human right to work out his neurosis in public. As for the law, the Court of Appeals did not strike down the portion of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code under which Whatcott was originally found guilty. In a section entitled “Prohibition against publications,” the Code states:

14(1) No person shall publish or display, or cause or permit to be published or displayed, on any lands or premises or in a newspaper, through a television or radio broadcasting station or any other broadcasting device, or in any printed matter or publication or by means of any other medium that the person owns, controls, distributes or sells, any representation, including any notice, sign, symbol, emblem,
article, statement or other representation:

(a) tending or likely to tend to deprive, abridge or otherwise restrict the enjoyment by any person or class of persons, on the basis of a prohibited ground, of any right to which that person or class of persons is entitled under law; or

(b) that exposes or tends to expose to hatred, ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground.

(2) Nothing in subsection (1) restricts the right to freedom of expression under the
law upon any subject.

The “Prohibited Grounds” encompass religion, creed, marital status, family status, sex, sexual orientation, disability, age, colour, ancestry, nationality, place of origin, race or perceived race, and receipt of public assistance. That’s a broad class of speech, and the vagueness of the law (“tends to expose”?) practically invites abuse.

I can see an argument for banning speech that directly invites harm to a class of people – e.g., “Shoot the homos,” or “Let’s round up and burn the Jews.” That falls under the “inciting to violence” exception to free expression. And I’m down with meting out harsher penalties for hate crimes. But banning speech that merely creates an “atmosphere” of intolerance contradicts the guarantees that the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code makes regarding speech. It’s also counter-productive, in that it allows disturbed men like Whatcott to play the martyr. Better that his half-baked ideas are exposed, ridiculed, and tossed on the trash heap of history, rather than redacted with the censor’s pen.

Uncategorized bill whatcott, censorship, free speech, gay, glbt, saskatchewan

For all the porn that floods its pipes, nudity gets a bad rap on the Internet. Anything that smacks of a bum or a bare breast risks getting smacked down by major content providers and social media sites (cf. Facebook’s breastfeeding brouhaha). Most sites with “ABSOLUTELY NO PORN WHATSOEVER YOU DIRTY PERVERTS!!” policies don’t distinguish between hardcore pornography and simple nudity, which is insane. The nude human figure has been the subject of artistic adoration since before the dawn of Greece. Art students learn the basics of the human figure by drawing nudes until their eyes blur and their hands cramp.

(Not THAT kind of hand-cramping. Seriously, you people…)

That didn’t stop YouTube, a.k.a. Google, from yanking a series of videos by artist Amy Greenfield. The removal revealed a major double standard in Google’s policy, which allowed nudity from major film and television producers, but almost no nudity in “community content.” Translation: there’s one set of rules for people with money, and another for the rest of you pissants.

The good news is that, after the Electronic Frontier Foundation and the National Coalition Against Censorship started dogging them, YouTube relented and restored Amy Greenfield’s work. YouTube hasn’t permanently altered its policy, however, and has no review process in place for artists whose work is removed. So there’s still work to be done.

But that can wait. For now celebrate freedom by watching the video that YouTube feared would melt the Internet’s eyeballs. (NSFW. Duh.)

Uncategorized amy greenfield, art, censorship, nude, nudity, youtube

Janet Jackson’s right breast is endlessly fascinating. Sure, most of us have moved on. It was a half-second of nipple, for crying out loud. But six years and a new President later, the issue is still winding its way through the courts. CBS is appealing the $550,000 fine that the Federal Communications Commission hung around its neck following the infamous “wardrobe malfunction” that left one tit exposed and millions of Americans maimed or injured.

This part of the First Amendment Center’s write-up had me laughing out loud:

During the act, singer Justin Timberlake ripped off Jackson’s bustier, exposing her breast for nine-sixteenths of a second.

Who timed that, for God sakes? Someone at the FCC? Who has THAT job? And how do you roll that up into a weekly Status Report to your manager? (“Completed 02-01-2004 Nipple Exposure Duration Quantification (NEDQ); Coordinating with NIST to perform atomic clock measurement early next week.”)

CBS is arguing that the FCC has ignored fleeting vulgarity in the past, and is demanding that it do the same for fleeting nudity. You’d think that a sub-second nipple flash would qualify as “fleeting.” The issue is with the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously ruled the FCC fine “excessive.” The Court has been ordered to review that decision by a conservative-leaning Supreme Court.

Jesus H. Hubert Humphrey Christ. While our country is facing down serious problems, otherwise rational adults have wasted six years of their lives debating a breast fine. Wouldn’t letting people vote with their off switches be easier? It would sure as hell be less costly.

Uncategorized cbs, censorship, fcc, indecency, janet jackson, nipplegate, super bowl

Hallelujah and pass the freedom! A Wisconsin mom who asked a middle school in the Fond du Lac district to ban seven books has lost her first battle. By unanimous vote, Fond du Lac will keep Sonya Sones’ One of Those Horrible Books Where The Mother dies on its shelf.

The revolt against censorship in Wisconsin appears to be building. The good citizens of Fond du Lac, Wisconsin aren’t down with Wentworth’s attempt to ban seven books from Theisen Middle School. In the grand tradition of disgruntled students and dissatisfied teachers throughout the nation, someone has created a Facebook page entitled We’ll Read What We Want Ann Wentworth. And the case drew the attention of Sones herself, who penned a defense of freedom of expression to the reconsideration committee:

I won’t even bother to refute Ms. Wentworth’s other specific claims regarding my book’s appropriateness for children in middle school because that is not really the point. The point is, as Clare Booth Luce so eloquently put it, “Censorship, like charity, should begin at home; but unlike charity, it should also end there.”

I’m surprised that this case isn’t getting more national attention. Do we only care about book banning when Banned Books Week rolls around? Or when it involves Ann Frank? This saga isn’t over; as I discussed in my last post, Wentworth is pushing for six other books to be banned, which will require six separate hearings. I’m crossing my fingers for six more outbreaks of common sense in Fond du Lac.

Uncategorized ann wentworth, book banning, censorship, facebook, first amendment, fond du lac, sonya sones, wisconsin

How much can you say about the Motion Picture Association of America’s draconion film ratings policies that’s new and vital? As Kirby Dick proves, a hell of a lot. I put off watching This Film Is Not Yet Rated because I thought it’d be duller than watching paint peel. Once I finally tuned in, I was riveted.

The MPAA is a private ratings body composed of anonymous members. It operates in secret, and lacks any legal authority. Yet as far as theater chains are concerned, its decisions are law. No major chain will carry a movie assigned an “NC-17″ rating by the MPAA, leaving filmmakers a choice: edit their vision to fit the MPAA’s dictates, or lose millions. It’s privatized censorship without transparency or accountability.

Dick could have merely reported this. Instead, he hired a private investigator to track down the ratings board’s anonymous members. Are they really all parents under age 17, as the Association claims? Becky Altringer – a.k.a. Hollywood P.I. Becky – keeps track of cars as they leave the MPAA building, sits in restaurants near possible board members to pick up on their conversations, and even sifts through their garbage (legal under California law) to dig out scrap paperwork. Once she has what she suspects is the final list of board members, she calls the MPAA posing as a film studio who’s sending the board members a package. The MPAA receptionist not only confirms her list, but supplies the missing names. Altringer is a ballsy hoot; half the film’s thrill comes from watching her ply her trade.

Dick intersperses footage of Altringer’s detective work with the obligatory discussion of the MPAA’s ratings hypocrisy. Even here, Not Yet Rated is fresh and relevant. We all know that sex is weighted more heavily than violence. But did you know that gay sex earns a film an NC-17 more often than straight sex? Such was the case with Boys Don’t Cry, which was originally flagged for a girl/girl cunnilingus scene that usually draws an R for girl/boy pairings.

The last third of the movie is dedicated to the MPAA’s appeals process. See, Dick’s film isn’t rated for lack of effort on his part. He submitted his documentary to the MPAA. However, since it contained all of the clips that had earned other films an NC-17 rating, it was designated NC-17 as well. Dick appeals, which means he has to plead his case before another, even more secretive board. What follows is a comedy of subterfuge, with Dick and Altringer always managing to stay two steps ahead of their nemesis.

What did Dick and Altringer find about the board’s members? I could share that with you, but it’d ruin the joy of discovery. (Cf. Wikipedia if your curiosity is larger than your wallet.) Trust me when I say that, if you are a fan of film and the First Amendment, this DVD deserves a place on your shelf.

Uncategorized becky altringer, censorship, dvd, kirby dick, motion picture association of america, mpaa, this film is not yet rated

The Internet managed to save Anne Frank’s lesbian vagina. Can it save Sisterhood of The Traveling Pants? A mom in the Fond du Lac School District in Wisconsin has requested that six books be removed from the shelves of the middle school attended by her offspring. This, even though the school system already has a process allowing parents to place check-out restrictions on any book in the system. Not good enough for Ann Wentworth, who finds these seven tomes so offensive that she doesn’t want anyone else’s kids reading them, either.

The proposed blacklist consists of:

One of Those Hideous Books Where the Mother Dies by Sonya Sones
Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants by Ann Brashares
The Second Summer of the Sisterhood by Ann Brashares
Girls in Pants: The Third Summer of the Sisterhood by Ann Brashares
Forever in Blue: The Fourth Summer of the Sisterhood by Ann Brashares (Jesus, lady! Did Brashares back over your firstborn or something?)
Get Well Soon by Julie Halpern
What My Mother Doesn’t Know by Sonya Sones

Lordy. At the rate Wentworth is going, by 2025 the only books in the middle school library will be Fun with Dick and Jane and three copies of Going Rogue.

I guess I ought not to be surprised. While universally acclaimed and targeted specifically for readers from grade 6 on up, What My Mother Doesn’t Know by Sonya Sones was the Most Challenged Book of both 2004 and 2005, according to the American Library Association.

The district is considering each of her requests one by one, via public hearing. I haven’t read any of these books, and don’t know Wentworth’s objections to them. But does it matter? Let parents decide for themselves, and use the system that’s already and place. Who died and made Ann Wentworth the boss of everyone else’s children?

Uncategorized ann brashares, anne frank, books, censorship, free speech, sonya sones, wisconsin

Oh, Australia. Beautiful, backwards Australia. The country that’s currently implementing a giant firewall to screen out the naughtiest bits of the Internet (including small-breasted ladies) also has a restriction on adult-themed video games. The games are denied a rating, which in Australia means they’re banned. The government is considering a proposal to remedy this idiocy, but it’s facing opposition from South Australian Attorney-General Michael Atkinson, who says (get ready) that he fears video gamers more than outlaw motorcycle gangs:

“I feel that my family and I are more at risk from gamers than we are from the outlaw motorcycle gangs who also hate me,” he told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation late Monday.

“The outlaw motorcycle gangs haven’t been hanging around my doorstep at 2:00 am, a gamer has.”

Dude. That’s not a gamer. A true gamer would’ve threatened you via text messaging.

Atkinson has also been cracking down on motorcycle gangs. Honestly, if I were a member of a motorcycle gang, and I heard that the AG was quaking in his boots over a gamer, I’d sleep easier that night.

Uncategorized australia, censorship, free speech, video games

Censorship is the disturbing hot new trend of 2010. I noted a few days ago that the Land Down Under is about to establish the Great Firewall of Australia. Duncan Riley argued that Oz’s example could influence other Western democracies to follow suit. Duncan was unfortunately prescient. Word today is that France may follow suit and create its own national firewall to filter out all “objectionable” content.

In Orwellian fashion, French lawmakers are attempting to attach the censorship provisions to a “domestic security” bill. And, once again, the reason given for this draconion system is the bugaboo of child pornography. As nation after nation have shown, however, these systems are used to censor a wide variety of speech once they become entrenched. French author Fabrice Epelboin, an expert in the underworld of child pornography, argues that its purveyors are using encrypted peer-to-peer networks to disseminate their filth, not ordinary Web traffic. Translation? Censoring casual Net traffic won’t do a damned thing to curtail child porn. The bill is a Trojan wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Opponents have been unsuccessful in attaching common-sense provisions to the firewall that would limit abuses, such as mandating an independent judicial review of the ban list every 30 days. Like the Australian system, the proposed French system would not be subject to any public scrutiny. Even worse? French President/Hounddog-in-Chief Nicolas Sarkozy told French music companies last month that the filtering system could be used to defeat piracy. Want to take bets on how much legitimate content will be banned under that wide net? Say goodbye to YouTube, citizens of France.

Whenever liberals want to argue against an injustice in America – from the death penalty to our lack of universal health care  – we point out that most of the civilized world has already followed suit. If this trend continues, we could be the ones arguing why the US should be the only Western democracy without a Net nanny.

Uncategorized australia, censorship, france, free speech, nicolas sarkozy

My old online acquaintance Duncan Riley has a piece up on The Next Web about Australia’s burgeoning censorship regime. I’ve lighted on this subject before when mocking Oz’s plan to put small breasts on its free speech shitlist. I wasn’t aware, though, of the larger move toward depriving Australians of their basic human right to free speech. As Riley summarizes Australia’s proto-filter:

The Censorship Minister Stephen Conroy has stated that all Refused Classification content will be banned, which in Australia would extend to computer games unsuitable for children (Australia has no adult (R18+) rating for computer games,) small breasts, information about euthanasia, discussion forums on anorexia, as well as the usual nasties of child porn. To complicate matters, a site may be refused classification in Australia if it links to a site that is refused classification, which could literally result in half the internet being blocked.

Well, shit. There go my Australian readers. Both of them.

Australia already has a country-wide classification scheme for content. Films are rated within a multi-level system which not only contains a rating of “X,” but a non-rating called “Refused Classification.” Whereas X-rated material is banned everywhere by the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory, distribution or possession of Refused Classification content is a felony subject to a large fine and/or 10 years in prison. (But, wait – they’re already in Australia…) As for the Internet, Australia already has what Wikipedia describes as “the most restrictive [laws] in the Western world.” The government maintains a blacklist of Web sites, which was leaked last year. It includes gay and straight porn sites, several YouTube videos of questionable morality, and the Web page of a dentist in Queensland. It also contains pages about “questionable” religious groups – from Satanists to Christians – as well as several pages from the site Wikileaks, which fights to drag official secrets into the light of day. Tellingly, one of the Wikileaks page banned by Australia was the Danish Internet blacklist.

This list is expanding. It’s (supposed to be) secret. And the Australian government wants it enforced by a country-wide firewall.

The leaked list confirms what we already know about censorship regimes: they always go beyond their stated intentions. Thailand’s blacklist, which was promoted as a tool in the fight against child porn, now contains sites critical of the Thai royal family. Once a people allow their government to have these tools, the small and petty souls who dwell within the halls of power will use them to further their own prurient interests – which means everything from censoring “immoral” material to crushing dissent.

Duncan says that the world should be worried about Australia’s blacklist, and the effects it could have on speech throughout the Western world – particularly in Britain, but even in the United States. Fortunately, the tradition of free speech is so rabid here that I think it’d take decades of demagoguing to build support for the United Firewall of America. As Thomas Jefferson said, though, “eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.” And Goddess knows my countrymen have not shown themselves immune to the charms of an empty-headed demagogue.

Uncategorized australia, censorship, duncan riley, free speech, great firewall of australia, internet, wikileaks

You cover enough stories about a topic, and you see patterns. Take censorship, where a recurring theme is “The Delayed Freak-Out”: a play or work is used for months or even years without anyone bitching, until – BAM! one or more complaints from a handful of self-appointed moralists send a school district into a lather.

The play “Snow White in The Black Forest” had been performed previously at Robert Frost Elementary in Kirkland, WA before the principal and teachers demanded re-writes. Similarly, no one objected for years when high school students at Fort Madison High School in Fort Madison, Iowa performed Cotton Girls, a play by Scott Tobin in which three 18-year-old girls in 1950s America dish on premarital sex. Two days before a state competition, the school handed the teen actresses a redacted (read: censored) version of the script to perform.

After an outcry, Fort Madison High School relented, and the girls performed the play as written. No victory for free speech here, though. Superintendent Kenneth Marang says that he’d censor all over again, and only reversed course because the girls didn’t have time to memorize the changes. Some legal experts say that the precedent set by Tinker vs. Des Moines could’ve put the school in legal hot water, and that the performance of Cotton Girls outside of the school amounts to an unconstitutional restriction of speech.

Cotton Girls is still under copyright, but Google Books provides the first few pages of the play free of charge. Perhaps it gets racier, but this is the most “offensive” passage to be found:

COLLEEN. Yeah? So, what would you have us doing on graduation night?
BERRY. Things that we should be doing, like normal graduates.
COLLEEN. Like?
BERRY. Like driving around…I don’t know…driving around, drinking, laughing, going all the way with guys.
COLLEEN. Yeah? How’s that idea hit you, Miss? Going all the way with guys? What do you think of that?

MISS. Well, if you want to go driving around, we can go driving around. If you want to mess around with guys, I’ll drop you off.
BERRY. No. Understand that the most important thing is  that the three of us are together.
COLLEEN. That’s right.
MISS. Good then.

If Fort Madison High School officials believe 18-year-olds are talking so euphemistically about sex in the 21st century, perhaps this play isn’t the only thing stuck in the 1950s. Only one of the three girls in the play has “gone all of the way” with a guy. The actresses’ speech coach, Joe Harmon, describes it as a dialogue about sex that doesn’t “romanticize” free conjugation. This play is performed every year by high school girls around the nation; and – shocker! – some have won state competitions with it.

WTF, Iowa? What’s up with you guys and free speech? West Des Moines pulled the same shit several years ago with The Laramie Project. Perhaps the fault lies not in the plays, dear Iowa, but in yourselves, that you are such free speech ninnies.

Uncategorized censorship, education, free speech, iowa, school