In the November 16, 2003, episode of the best sitcom on television, “Arrested Development,” Jason Bateman, playing the protagonist, Michael Bluth, is seen using a defective cooking product manufactured by the family business–and then, as his character is burned by the device, launches into a lengthy tirade of curse-words against the machine, all of which are bleeped. The humor comes from the length of the bleeping (a running gag in the episode) and the reactions of the other characters (as well as the fact that Michael is in the middle of lecturing his son “It’s a poor carpenter that blames his tools for the–” when he burns himself). The Parents Television Council, in an effort to make America safe from humor, decided to guess what that tirade was, produced its own transcript with its imaginary version of the speech, and then promptly complained to the FCC about the “indecent” broadcast. Thankfully, the FCC unanimously denied the complaint, but the government had to pay lawyers to write memos that would help the FCC reach its 20-footnote decision–your tax dollars at work, since there’s no penalty for wasting the government’s time with such complaints. (And a welcome to Defamer and ALOTT5MA readers.)
Posts Tagged ‘free speech’
Georgia: Watch what you say on the phone
A Georgia prosecutor is arguing to the state supreme court that the state has the right to regulate and prosecute “lascivious” talk on the telephone–even between spouses. The justices seem appropriately skeptical. (Jonathan Ringel, “No X-Rated Phone Talk, Justice Told, Not Even on Valentine’s Day”, Fulton County Daily Report, Feb. 16).
Speechcrime in the UK, cont’d
More on a subject we covered on Dec. 13, Sept. 14, and Jul. 16 of last year: in December British authorities rounded up and arrested the head and various officials of the British National Party, charging them with inciting racial hatred in political speeches (“Let the people of England speak”, The Spectator, Jan. 1). Also in December, the quasiofficial Press Complaints Commission announced a crackdown “on the use of the term ‘illegal asylum seeker’ by newspapers after research revealed its continued usage. Sir Christopher Meyer, the press watchdog’s chairman, has commissioned its cuttings agency to scan all British newspapers for use of the term after a study by the Liberal Democrats showed that the press has ignored the PCC’s guidance issued more than a year ago.” The culture spokesman of the bafflingly named LDP has written to Meyer “calling for harsher punishments for defiant newspapers”, and saying there is “a strong case for considering the imposition of fines on erring newspapers.” (Sarah Hall, “Newspapers flout ruling on asylum seekers”, The Guardian, Dec. 31).
Free Speech losing in the UK?
In the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a group of Sikh “protesters” forced the cancellation of a controversial play described as a “black comedy” that centered around rape and murder at a Sikh temple. The details are in this article (registration is gratis) and some outrage is in this short lead editorial.
Here is what is most worrisome — the notion that free speech must give way to the (violent) protests of the community (and the concurrent lack of protection by peace officers). The attitude is nicely encapsulated by these two reactions:
Divined intent?
The Australian state of Victoria, home to its second-largest city Melbourne, has a “religious vilification” law, which has now been tested and resulted in a conviction. The new criminals — pastors from the Catch the Fire Ministries. The crime, derogatory statements about Muslims and Islam (and very much so judging from this story).
Here is an excerpt from the judge’s ruling against pastors Daniel Nalliah and Daniel Scot:
UK religious insult bill
Britain’s Home Secretary defends the proposed incursion on free speech (David Blunkett, “Religious hatred is no laughing matter”, The Observer, Dec. 12) while a Spectator writer questions whether Blunkett has been “behaving in a manner that suggests he is as mad as a box of frogs” (Rod Liddle, “Ha ha! You can’t insult Islam but I can”, The Sunday Times, Dec. 12). See Jul. 16 and (Australia) Dec. 3. Plus: Matthew Parris weighs in (“Mockery, calumny and scorn: these are the weapons to fight zealots”, The Times, Dec. 11) (via Andrew Stuttaford).
PETA wields s. 17200
One of the most justly unpopular of animal-rights groups is hoping to exploit the speech-suppressing potential of the California law invoked in Nike v. Kasky: “People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals Inc. accused the California Milk Advisory Board of violating the state’s unfair competition law by portraying an idyllic lifestyle for California dairy cows while knowing they endure a “harsh, uncomfortable and often painful existence.” The group is appealing a San Francisco judge’s ruling that the law’s false-advertising provisions cannot be invoked against a governmental entity such as the milk board. (Mike McKee, “PETA Cries Over Cow-Filled Milk Board Ads”, The Recorder, Nov. 18). For more on Nike v. Kasky, see Jul. 1, Jul. 9, Sept. 14, 2003. (Update Jan. 16, 2005: appeals court rules against PETA.)
CAIR using litigation to silence critics?
The Council for American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) (Sep. 17) has continued their campaign of suing or threatening to sue for libel in an effort to silence critics who have alleged it to be soft on terrorism because of what Senator Schumer calls the organization’s “intimate links to Hamas.” David Frum comments on the notice he received. (“The Question of CAIR”, National Post, Nov. 23).
California, believe it or not, is in the forefront of tort reform by permitting defendants to recover attorneys’ fees when defamation suits are intended to chill protected free speech. Another twenty-two states have adopted similar laws, with bills pending in eight legislatures. See The California Anti-SLAPP Project, Nov. 11, and Mar. 12.
Theo van Gogh’s “Submission”
The 11-minute film on the subjection of women in fundamentalist Muslim communities, for which the Dutch filmmaker was murdered by an Islamist assassin, may be viewed here (via Andrew Sullivan). Instapundit has a link roundup (Nov. 9).
Latest customer-complaint-website suit
Alan and Linda Townsend of Dallas, Ga. were dissatisfied with a product called Spray On Siding after it was applied to their house and started a website to vent the opinions of other unhappy customers. The company that sold them the siding is now suing them for defamation, trademark infringement and other sins. (“Careful Where You Complain”, AP/Wired News, Nov. 5). For more suits against critics’ websites, see Mar. 31-Apr. 2, 2000 (Terminix case), as well as other cases on our free speech and media page. More: “May It Please the Court” also comments.