Vol. VI, No. 12, February 6, 2004 -- A Member Service of
the Free Speech Coalition
__________________________________________________________
Free Speech X-press is researched and edited by Kat Sunlove
and Layne Winklebleck.
Copyright 2004 Free Speech Coalition. Permission to reprint
granted to FSC members; pleasegive credit.
__________________________________________________________
VISIT OUR WEBSITE FOR FSC MEMBERSHIP INFORMATION
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com
__________________________________________________________
FSC WEIGHS IN ON SUPER BOWL CONTROVERSY
HOUSTON, TX -- The Federal Communications Commission has
launched an investigation into the controversial Super Bowl
halftime show, in which Justin Timberlak tore loose the clothing
over Janet Jackson's right breast during the closing seconds
of the show. The halftime event, produced by MTV, was edgy
for a G audience even without the breast exposure incident,
featuring crotch grabbing and suggestive dance moves.
"The whole performance was onstage copulation," said FCC
Chairman Michael Powell, who is investigating the entire
halftime show, not just the boob flashing.
If indecency violations are found, each of CBS parent corporation
Viacom's 200 owned and affiliate stations could face
a penalty of up to $27,500. FCC
officials said the agency might also pursue penalties against the individual
performers.
In the meantime, a chilling effect has been felt in parts
of the broadcast industry. The NFL yanked a halftime
performance at this weekend's Pro Bowl
by JC Chasez, one of Justin Timberlake's fellow 'N Sync group members.
And NBC has ordered the removal of a breast shot (featuring an 80-year-old
patient)
from a new episode of ER.
Free Speech Coalition Executive Director Kat Sunlove has
been contacted since the Super Bowl by numerous media
representatives who seemed to
be expecting
that the adult entertainment trade association would be supportive
of Jackson's stunt.
However, in a press release Sunlove said the entire half-time
performance had distinctly sexual overtones and was therefore
inappropriate for
a family show
such as the Super Bowl.
"We see it as a matter of giving parents adequate and timely
warning that such adult-oriented material is coming up,"
said Sunlove. "For
example, people and
parents know what children will see if they let them watch "Sex
in the City", or programs labeled as having adult themes.
That is obviously
not
the case
with the Super Bowl, which is expected to be family fare, a G rating,
not PG-13."
"It is significant that this show was produced by MTV,
not by any adult entertainment group," Sunlove said.
"The adult entertainment
industry
promotes the production
of consensual sexual material performed by adults and presented
only to adults. The industry would never have offered such titillating
fare for
a family
show. There is a time and a place for adult entertainment and
the Super Bowl is not
it."
From Manuel Mendoza, The Dallas Morning News, 2/5/04
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/
latestnews/stories/020504dnovejanet.
And from Michael C. Dorf, FindLaw, 2/4/04
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/02/04/findlaw.analysis.
dorf.jackson.indecency/index.html
And from Frank Ahrens and Lisa de Moraes, Washington Post,
2/3/04
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A5746-2004Feb2.html
And from an FSC press release.
__________________________________________________________
STATE BILL WOULD RAISE AGE LIMIT IN JUICE BARS
JUNEAU, AK -- A bill (HB 367) to change the minimum age of
dancers and patrons of non-alcohol exotic dance clubs from
18 to 21 has been introduced here by Representative Tom Anderson
(R-Anchorage). The proposal has passed the House Labor and
Commerce Committee and now moves to the Judiciary Committee,
which is chaired by Representative Lesil McGuire, (R-Anchorage).
McGuire earlier had introduced a bill to tighten regulation
of the under-21 clubs and now favors the outright ban.
Owners of non-alcoholic clubs in Anchorage are furious.
They promise a court challenge if the bill passes.
"It eliminates the opportunity for 18-, 19-, 20-year-old people to have
a job, which should be their right under the Constitution," said Kathy Hartman,
the
co-owner of Fantasies, one of at least three non-alcoholic dance clubs in
Anchorage.
"At 18 youre old enough to fight for your country, and
old enough to go across the sea and die for your country,"
said Doug Hartmann, who argues
that the
adult entertainment business should be open to 18-year-olds. Hartmann is
a veteran and a disc jockey at the Showboat in Anchorage.
Anderson is not known in the Legislature as a moral crusader.
He has been one of the Legislature's advocates for legalizing
video gambling machines
in bars
to raise state revenues.
But under-21 stripping is much different, said Anderson.
High school kids shouldn't be watching strippers or
be paid to take their clothes
off. The
clubs should
be restricted to 21 like gambling and alcohol, he said.
From Sean Cockerhan, The Anchorage Daily News, 2/4/04
http://www.adn.com/alaska/story/4704211p-4655091c.html
__________________________________________________________
OLD HOME WEEK AT THE DOJ
WASHINGTON, DC -- The Justice Department has fired another
shot across the bow of the adult entertainment industry by
putting Bruce A. Taylor back on the payroll as a senior counsel
to the Assistant Attorney General. Taylor was previously
a trial attorney with the notorious Child Exploitation and
Obscenity Section of the department in the eighties.
Since
then he has been president and chief counsel of the National
Law Center for Children and Families (NLC), a Virginia-based
legal advocacy organization that has worked with cities
and municipalities around the country developing anti-porn
strategies.
"Bruce is one of the two top obscenity prosecutors in the
country," said ex-FBI investigator William P. Kelly,
who provided key testimony in the 1986 Commission on
Pornography.
"It is about time that the government shows concern more
about the massive rape of children vs. the profiteering
of pornographers," said Judith Reisman,
another anti-porn activist who praised the Taylor appointment.
From James Lambert, Agape Press, 2/3/04
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/2/32004b.asp
__________________________________________________________
SUPREMES TO HEAR FIRST AMENDMENT CASE
WASHINGTON, DC -- Attorney Julie Hilden, writing for FindLaw,
has highlighted a significant First Amendment case, Littleton
v. Z-J Gifts, in which the Supreme Court is scheduled soon
for oral arguments. The case pits the town of Littleton,
Colorado against a store called Christal's that wants to
stay open on land that is not zoned for adult businesses.
The dispute arose because the town, claiming that Christal's
is an adult business, refused to grant it the sales tax
license necessary for it to operate. Christal's
owners sued, insisting though their store carries some "sexy" material,
it does not fit the criteria for that kind of business.
Although the Supreme Court will probably not determine
whether Christal's is, or is not, an adult business --
that is an issue for the lower courts
-- it
will address a broader question: Do Littleton's zoning laws relating to
adult businesses satisfy the First Amendment? Christal's
argues that the First
Amendment requires that a city must afford a "prompt" judicial decision
on adult business
licensing applications, and that Littleton does not do so.
To decide that question, the Court will have to define
what a "prompt" judicial decision means. Does it simply
mean that a court challenge can
quickly be
filed? Or does it also mean that a decision resolving that challenge
must quickly
be issued?
Hilden suggests the First Amendment ought to require an
actual decision, not just an open courthouse door. However,
the Littleton case is more
complicated than it may appear, because it involves a long line of
important Supreme
Court
free speech precedents.
For Julie Hildens analysis see:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=/hilden/20040203.html
__________________________________________________________
THIRD PARTY GROUPS SUED OVER PIRATED IMAGES
BEVERLY HILLS, CA -- Perfect 10, a magazine and website whose
slogan is "The World's Most Beautiful Models Expose All,"
has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for Northern California
against Visa International, First Data Corp., Cardservice
International, MasterCard International, Humboldt Bank and
Does 1-100. The lawsuit charges that the credit card and
banking companies are knowingly providing crucial transactional
support services for the sale of millions of stolen photos
and film clips worth billions of dollars that belong to Perfect
10 and others.
The complaint says these firms have made large sums from
the sale of pirated erotica and thus should have a responsibility
for any related copyright violation.
Perfect 10 has concluded that the only way to stop the
proliferation of such websites is to go to the top, namely
the payment card associations and
the
primary third-party processor, each of which is knowingly and effectively
acting as fences for the sale of billions of dollars of stolen content,
the lawsuit
reads.
The publisher of Perfect 10, Norman Zada, said that he
had lost $29 million since setting up his business in
1996, including $8 million on legal fees.
He said the problem was that he was spending thousands of dollars for
nude photography sessions while many Internet sites were
stealing his images.
From Wired.com, 1/29/04
http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,62100,00.html?tw=wn_culthead_6
__________________________________________________________
CAN-SPAM LAW BEING IGNORED OR EXPLOITED
CYBERSPACE, USA -- Researchers for the United Kingdom-based
e-mail filtering company SurfControl report that 19 out of
20 spammers are ignoring the new Can-Spam law completely.
The Can-Spam Act requires commercial e-mail to include the
advertiser's postal address, a "clear and conspicuous" commercial
notice and a way for recipients to opt out of future mailings.
Some who are not simply ignoring the law are adjusting
their tactics to give the impression of compliance. For
example, some spammers are embedding the
required postal address and commercial notices in graphic images invisible
to spam filters.
Spammers long have used HTML e-mail to slip their messages
past content filters. But in this case, the practice
likely violates the law because it makes the
required Can-Spam notices visible only to those using an HTML-capable e-mail
program, said Michael Goodman, a staff lawyer with the Federal Trade Commission.
Other spammers try to get around the new law by asserting
that the primary purpose of their messages is not commercial,
and that their spams are consequently
not governed by the Can-Spam Act.
Can-Spam defines commercial e-mail as "any electronic mail
message the primary purpose of which is the commercial
advertisement or promotion
of a commercial
product or service." But it leaves the key phrase, "primary purpose,"
undefined, directing the FTC to issue clarifying regulations by the
end of the year.
That creates an apparent loophole. One spam collected by
SurfControl claimed that its primary purpose was to deliver
a "Crazy State Law
of the Week"
(in this case, a dubious notice that it is illegal in Massachusetts
to put tomatoes
in clam chowder). Beneath the so-called law came the spam's real
payload: a commercial pitch for bulk e-mailing services.
From Wired.com, 1/29/04
http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,62087,00.html?tw=wn_techhead_11
__________________________________________________________
UpComing Events
MAR 3-7, 2004-- Lifestyles,
Miami Radisson Hotel http://lifestyles.org/
MAR 24-27, 2004 -- Nightclub and Bar Owners' Expo
Las Vegas http://www.nightclub.com
APR 26-27, 2004 Celebrate Free Speech Lobbying Days,
Sacramento, CA, 866-FSC-9373
JUN 18-20 Erotica L.A., Los Angeles, CA
http://www.erotica-la.com/
JUL 24, 2004 Night of the Stars Location to be announced.
866-FSC-9373
__________________________________________________________
Subscriptions to Free Speech X-Press are FREE to FSC members.
Contact us at Sunlove@direcway.com or 800-476-7813
