newsrackblog.com

Over at “Unqualified Offerings,” Thoreau writes about a Stephen Colbert reference to the popular TV show “24“, notorious for depicting torture as an effective tactic:

Last night I had a good chuckle when Colbert mixed in some Jack Bauer speeches with speeches by media and political figures arguing in favor of torture. I chuckled, because I distinguish between reality and fiction, and I can enjoy watching fictional characters do things that would never be excusable in real life. It’s pathetic that some people can’t.

But then he acknowledges that “24″ may not be as simple as that, and asks:

Are artists responsible for people who feel validated by their works? Are they responsible for people who fail to see the nuances in their works? What if we were talking about gangster rappers instead of Kiefer Sutherland?

Those are excellent questions, I think.  But one of Thoreau’s readers didn’t, simply answering “no” to each question and closing, “Another edition of easy answers.” As it happens, I value that reader’s opinions, which is why I’m taking the time to write out why and how I disagree; I think easy answers aren’t available in this case.

I begin by affirming that everyone has the right to say whatever stupid, vile, pernicious thing they want, because I don’t see how to agree on what does and does not fit that description, and because trying to in a serious, consequential way would chill the free expression of difficult or unpopular ideas.

But I also think everyone should man up and take moral responsibility when they do say stupid, vile, pernicious things.  As Jane Mayer has shown, this TV show clearly has an intentional agenda, and its directors and actors had and have a choice whether or not to participate in that.  If exposure to “24″ has increased the propensity to torture or to approve of torture (as it appears to have done) and if that appears to be part of an intentional agenda, then Kiefer Sutherland and the rest of the “24″ cast and crew should take their fair share of the blame.  Sometimes it’s not just a job.

This art — like much art, maybe all of it in some sense — is meant to challenge.  To criticize its makers and their collaborators for their role in that art is to accept that challenge.  This is not about the purported effects of exposure to video games or gangster rap, or whether “Piss Christ” is art or deserves public funding.  This is about the real, intended, and deeply unfortunate effects of a work of art on the public discourse.  In that world of public discourse, these people deserve censure.  I think they are “responsible” for their work to that extent.

To some very small degree, my disapproval of “24″ incurs the cost of chilling truly nonstupid, nonvile, nonpernicious expression, and that really is regrettable.  So I don’t think my own answers are easy ones either.  Surnow’s creation of and Sutherland et al’s participation in “24″ doesn’t make them permanent pariahs (though in Surnow’s case I’m tempted).  But I do think that in this case they failed as human beings, and that they deserve our temporary contempt and our lasting pity.  They also deserve our serious consideration long enough to answer the questions, “What would I do?”  The answer shouldn’t be “hope that no one gives my choice much thought.”

Max Obuszewski and other activists spied on by
the Maryland State Police. From left to right:
Maria Allwine, (Baltimore Pledge of Resistance
(BPoR), Kit Bonson (Washington Peace Center),
Obuszewski (BPoR), Mike Stark (Campaign to End
the Death Penalty). Allwine and Stark were also
among those surveilled by the MSP.
Originally uploaded by Thomas Nephew.

I’ve written a couple of times now about the Maryland State Police spying scandal (”Sachs Report…”, “Maryland Police Surveillance: Case Explorer and Civil Liberties“).   This Saturday, I attended a forum about it organized by the Washington Peace Center and held at the Presbyterian Church in Takoma Park.

Speakers included four activists surveilled by the state police (Baltimore Pledge of Resistance (BPoR) activists Max Obuszewski and Maria Allwine, and Campaign to End the Death Penalty (CEDP) activists David Zirin and Mike Stark), state senator Jamie Raskin, and David Rocah, the ACLU-Maryland lawyer who obtained the documents breaking the Maryland police spying scandal.  Ann Wilcox of the National Lawyer’s Guild broadened the focus by reporting on infiltration and surveillance connected with the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota in September.

Obuszewski, Allwine
Mr. Obuszewski explained that the discovery of police surveillance was connected with protests he was part of at the NSA facility at Fort Meade. Noticing that documents were being provided to the judge in his civil disobedience case, Obuszewski got the help of the ACLU in August of 2006 to obtain whatever he could by federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and Maryland Public Information Act petition. Fellow BPoR activist Allwine said she was certain that surveillance had been going on before the time frame they were able to uncover, and may well go beyond the state police.  Allwine is particularly curious about an intelligence unit of the Baltimore City police.  Referring to a October, 2003 incident, she wants to know whether Martin O’Malley — then mayor of Baltimore — was aware of city police surveillance of groups like hers at that time.

Allwine spoke of the chilling effect this can have on free speech; she’s advised worried people in the past that “you have to assume we’re being spied on,” but added “this is the most un-American thing I can think of — people responsible for public safety turning around and spying on” people exercising their right to free speech.

Below:
Fifty-three peace and death penalty “terrorists” — not four
Dissatisfaction with Sheridan, Sachs
Raskin/Hixson legislative reponse
The real “fringe”

Read the rest of this entry »

Lindsay Beyerstein (a.k.a. “Majikthise”) writes about it at firedoglake (”Police Gas Docile Crowd Outside the RNC“), and has a photo essay up as well.  From the latter:

For reasons that I don’t fully understand, the police suddenly tear gassed a whole block of people who were following their instructions and not acting the least bit threatening or disruptive.

Protesters and journalists weren’t the only people on the street. A lot of bystanders were just trying to get home with all the roads blocked off.

From the firedoglake writeup:

I stress that this wasn’t a loud boisterous march like yesterday’s, it was just a crowd of about 100 people walking calmly down the street. I wasn’t even sure they were demonstrating until I looked at my pictures and saw that some were carrying signs. I remember calling my editor from the scene to tell her that I couldn’t see any protesters. Actually, I was looking at them the whole time, they were just very subdued.

The police gradually locked down the intersections on either side, and a number of neighboring intersections as well. They started to push the protesters back down the block. The group backed up. Suddenly, there were at least two very loud explosions and multiple cannisters of tear gas were deployed. I think the noise might have been concussion grenades.

=====
UPDATE, 9/8: “Uptake” video includes some footage of the events:

On the 2nd day of the RNC, the Poor Person’s March began with arrests, at the Ripple Effect Music Festival in front of the Capital Rage Against the Machine was threatened with arrest if they took the stage, the two events collided, combined, and ended with a peaceful demonstrators delivering a Citizen’s Arrest warrant through the fence of the barricade’s surrounding the RNC, and, after that, tear gas and concussion grenades. Oliver Dykstra and Leif Utne report. Footage from Oliver Dykstra, Leif Utne, and Corrine McDermid. Edited by Corrine McDermid.

Amy Goodman and Two Democracy Now! Producers Unlawfully Arrested at RNC (Democracy Now! press release via Alternet) –

Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and producers Sharif Abdel Kouddous and Nicole Salazar have all been released from police custody in St. Paul following their illegal arrest by Minneapolis Police on Monday afternoon. All three were violently manhandled by law enforcement officers. Abdel Kouddous was slammed against a wall and the ground, leaving his arms scraped and bloodied. He sustained other injuries to his chest and back. Salazar’s violent arrest by baton-wielding officers, during which she was slammed to the ground while yelling, “I’m Press! Press!,” resulted in her nose bleeding, as well as causing facial pain. Goodman’s arm was violently yanked by police as she was arrested.

Massive police raids on suspected protestors in Minneapolis (Greenwald, Salon.com) –

Protesters here in Minneapolis have been targeted by a series of highly intimidating, sweeping police raids across the city, involving teams of 25-30 officers in riot gear, with semi-automatic weapons drawn, entering homes of those suspected of planning protests, handcuffing and forcing them to lay on the floor, while law enforcement officers searched the homes, seizing computers, journals, and political pamphlets. Last night, members of the St. Paul police department and the Ramsey County sheriff’s department handcuffed, photographed and detained dozens of people meeting at a public venue to plan a demonstration, charging them with no crime other than “fire code violations,” and early this morning, the Sheriff’s department sent teams of officers into at least four Minneapolis area homes where suspected protesters were staying.

Federal government involved in raids on protesters (Greenwald) –

…the raids were specifically “aided by informants planted in protest groups.” Back in May, Marcy Wheeler presciently noted that the Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force — an inter-agency group of federal, state and local law enforcement led by the FBI — was actively recruiting Minneapolis residents to serve as plants, to infiltrate “vegan groups” and other left-wing activist groups and report back to the Task Force about what they were doing. There seems to be little doubt that it was this domestic spying by the Federal Government that led to the excessive and truly despicable home assaults by the police yesterday.

Some piece of paper –

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. [...]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Gustav is not the story, Palin’s teenage daughter’s baby is not the story. Even Palin is not the story compared to this: jackbooted thugs are roughing up protesters and journalists at the GOP convention in St. Paul, and searching and arresting them without reasonable cause.

And this is part of a pattern — and not some dated one from the bad old days immediately after 9/11, but an ongoing one no longer excusable (if it ever was) by the fears of those days. In Maryland, in 2005-2006, the Maryland State Police infiltrated and surveilled anti-death penalty and anti-Iraq war groups with no reasonable basis for doing so. Note not just the risible “Terrorist” part of the “Minneapolis Joint Terrorist Task Force” name, but also the “inter-agency” description; recall the potential data sharing aspect of the Maryland story — “Case Explorer” — and wonder if records of the people unjustly surveilled will ever be deleted from federal, state, and local law enforcement databases.

We just got through weeks of tut-tutting about China doing this to its dissidents and journalists.  Either we’re a nation of hypocrites, a nation of sheep, or a nation of citizens with inalienable rights. Time to choose.

=====
UPDATE, 9/2: Ongoing RNC coverage at the Uptake.org, which has distributed video cameras to people who are recording and uploading reports to the site; reports locations are visible on a Google map of the city. (Via Jane Hamsher at “firedoglake,” whose post “The Revolution will be Twittered” lists other groups doing innovative coverage and monitoring of the RNC and local police actions.) See also Matt Stoller’s coverage at OpenLeft: “Gotham City is Safe From the Protesters.” Orin Kerr (”Volokh Conspiracy”), on the other hand, argues the police raids this weekend weren’t out of line because of the stated intentions of the “RNC Welcoming Committee.”  But National Lawyer’s Guild lawyer Bruce Nestor sees it differently:

…according to the Hennepin County Jail records they’re being held on probable cause. Which means no formal charges have been issued. No complaint has been reviewed or signed by a prosecutor or a judge. But the police have detained these people. They can be held on probable cause until Wednesday at 12 noon. In my view this is a preventive detention action by the Ramsey County Sheriff’s department. It’s designed to keep people off the streets. It’s designed to scare people from participating in protest activity . [...] Look if this raid was warranted people would be arrested on criminal complaints.

UPDATE, 9/3: See Nell Lancaster’s post “Conventional crackdown” for more. Nell:

The counter-terror targets: us. We commit conspiracy to riot by planning to assemble. Sure, you might insist it will be peaceable, but the security forces’ infiltrators have a different story to tell. And look: guys in masks smashing stuff, proving it’s just like they say.

UPDATE, 9/4: See also a guest post at “Making Light” by Elise Matthesen: “Who are these people?”

Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area
(WB HIDTA) “Case Explorer” listing for Max Obuszewski, June 2005.
Via ACLU-MD “MSP Documents” dump, 7/17/08.

On July 17th, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Maryland released documents “…revealing that the Maryland State Police (MSP) engaged in covert surveillance of local peace and anti-death penalty groups for over a year from 2005-2006.”

As the Washington Post reported the next day,

A well-known antiwar activist from Baltimore, Max Obuszewski, 63, was singled out by the undercover agents and entered into a “Washington-Baltimore High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area” database. His entry indicates a “Primary Crime” of “Terrorism-anti-government” and a “Secondary Crime” of “Terrorism-Anti-War Protesters,” according to the documents.

In the following, I summarize the story so far, and then pursue one aspect that may not yet have received sufficient attention: the “Case Explorer” database and its implications.

Read the rest of this entry »

The term SLAPP (”Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation”) is used to describe a lawsuit “involving communications made to influence a governmental action or outcome, which resulted in a civil complaint or counterclaim filed against nongovernment individuals or organizations on a substantive issue of some public interest or social significance,” and more generally suits arising from speech in connection with a public issue.

Though it hasn’t reached actual litigation yet — and perhaps never will — something very much like that has happened to Garrett Park, Maryland impeachment advocates and their city government.

The story begins on September 10th, when the Garrett Park city council first considered passing a resolution supporting impeachment. Nine citizens of the small (pop. 917 in 2000) town testified for it, one suggested a referendum. For whatever reason, the latter suggestion prevailed in a 3-2 vote.

Or so it seemed. A legal firm representing two Garrett Park residents unhappy with the vote claimed in a September 27 letter that the Garrett Park council could not call for such a referendum, under state law and the town charter, since there was no ordinance for the referendum to refer to:

Pursuant to the Annotated Code of Maryland, Art. 23A, the powers of a municipal corporation such as Garrett Park are limited to those powers specifically enumerated in Section 2 of Article 23A. The power to vote a referendum is not among those powers, because, among other reasons, under the Constitution of Maryland, Art XVI, the referendum is reserved solely to the people. In order to exercise the power of referendum, either for the purpose of amending the municipal charter (Ann Code of Maryland, Art. 23A, Section 13) or for submitting an ordinance of the Town Council for the approval or disapproval of the qualified voters of the town (Garrett Park Charter, Section 78-15), a petition of not less than twenty percent of the qualified voters of the town is required. It is our understanding that you do not have before you a petition of at least 20% of the qualified voters on this matter, and even if you did, the question of impeaching President Bush and Vice President Chaney (sic) is neither an ordinance of the Town Council nor a proposed charter amendment, so submitting the matter to referendum is improper. Lastly, because the Town Council, as a legislative body, lacks the power of referendum, the vote on September 10, 2007 to refer the matter to referendum was also improper.

(Links added.) The mayor and town council hastily agreed — having established meanwhile that the proper sequence of votes on the various motions of the evening had not occurred, so that the referendum vote itself was procedurally out of order. (Parliamentarians can peruse the mayor and town council’s explanatory letter of October 2, and a local “e-Bugle” newsletter covering the meeting, to check whether I — and the elected leaders of Garrett Park — have this part of the story right.) From the council’s letter:

Further research after the September meeting has led the Council to understand that it does not have the authority to call for a referendum on the issue of impeachment of the President and Vice President. Under state law and the Town Charter, referendums may only be held for Charter amendments or approval or disapproval of ordinances of the Town based on petitions with the signature of 20% of the registered voters of the town.

Notice so far that even if both the legal firm and the town fathers are absolutely right about all of the above, they are saying a very limited thing at this point: for lack of (1) a relevant ordinance or Charter amendment and (2) signatures from 20% of Garrett Park, a referendum can not be called by the Garrett Park town council. As will be seen below, it is not clear that everyone is absolutely right even about that — but the story takes a far more disturbing turn at this point.

Read the rest of this entry »

Human Rights First:

Alaa Ahmed Seif al-Islam, a twenty-four-year old Egyptian blogger [Manal and Alaa's Bit Bucket -- ed.], was detained in central Cairo on May 7, 2006 while taking part in a peaceful protest in support of two judges threatened with removal from the bench for exposing electoral fraud and also to call for the release of protesters detained in earlier demonstrations.

The case of the judges became a focus for public protests during April and May. The authorities confronted peaceful protesters with a massive, intimidating deployment of thousands of riot police.

Hundreds of protesters were taken into detention, many were beaten by police and plain clothes security officers on the street and some suffered torture and ill-treatment while in detention. More than 300 protesters are believed to remain in detention.

On June 4, Alaa’s detention was extended for a further 15 days using the powers of administrative detention available under Egypt’s emergency law. He faces a variety of charges and accusations, including “insulting the President,” but no date has been set for his trial.

Please call for Alaa’s immediate release from detention and for the release of all those held in detention for exercising their right to freedom of assembly and expression.

A second Human Rights First web page adds:

…[detained bloggers'] supporters allege that they have been particularly targeted by the police because of their activities as “citizen journalists,” reporting news that is ignored by the state dominated media in Egypt. One of them, Muhammad al-Sharqawi has posted his testimony describing torture he suffered while in detention:

Take a minute and contact the Egyptian Interior Minister and the Egyptian ambassador to the United States.

=====
UPDATE, 6/8: See also a 5/31 Washington Post article by Daniel Williams, “New Vehicle for Dissent is a Fast Track to Prison,” or parts Gary Farber has excerpted at his blog.

Jeff Jarvis is defending bullshit– and what’s more, he’s right:

In its latest batch of nannyisms, the FCC declared shit and all its variants, including bullshit, not merely indecent — which is where the case law stood after the Supreme Court washed the seven dirty words out of George Carlin’s mouth in 1978 — but also now profane. Since outmoded broadcast censorship legislation was passed in 1927 — giving the government this constitutionally dubious authority — the FCC had not once found any word to be profane until 2004, when it ruled against Bono’s joyful utterance of “fucking” at the Golden Globes. Now “shit” et al join this devil’s dictionary. And the FCC warns that they are not merely profane but “presumptively profane,” which means that except in “rare” and “unusual circumstances,” to speak these words on the air will guarantee you a penalty.

By declaring them profane, the FCC rules these words are “certain of those personally reviling epithets naturally tending to provoke violent resentment or denoting language so grossly offensive to members of the public who actually hear it as to amount to a nuisance.” Nuisance, in this case, does not mean a dog barking; it means that the community finds this utterance universally disturbing, utterly unacceptable, and even intolerable. The FCC commissioners say that they “reserve that distinction for the most offensive words in the English language.” As I pointed out in an earlier post, even the FCC recognizes the uncomfortable and quite politically incorrect irony that they will not similarly ban racial and religious epithets because they may constitute political speech. Thus, in the offensive view of the FCC, the S-word and F-word are now worse than the N-word and K-word.

(”…nannyisms” link added.) Skimming the March 15 rulings, one thing that’s funny to me is that the FCC uses the euphemisms “F-word” and “S-word” itself throughout the document, although the document does provide verbatim citations of the uses of the words it finds to be worth fining. This way the sacred FCC pronouncements can themselves be broadcast, of course, but there’s a ludicrous “church lady” feeling to it all the same.

Lest anyone think FCC’s “presumptive” objections to “fuck” and “shit” are somehow limited to casually obscene or prurient use of those words, Jarvis cites an exchange between FCC commissioner James Adelstein and NPR’s Bob Garfield:

Garfield: Now, I want to talk to you about the word bullshit. Now this is commonly used to convey skepticism, but the commission found it to be explicitly excretory and therefore indecent, whereas dickhead as an insult is ok. But where I come from, bullshit is pretty much kidstuff and dickhead is pretty darned insulting. All of which is to finally ask how you go about finding standards on this stuff. It seems to be so arbitrary.
Adelstein: Well, are you going to edit that out?
Garfield: It depends. Are you on duty?

– and Jarvis reports the words were bleeped out from the broadcast. Jarvis also notes that “bullshit” survives FCC’s “presumptive profanity” muster for fictional heroic white guys (Spielberg’s “Saving Private Ryan”), but not for actual black musicians (Scorsese’s “The Blues: Godfathers and Sons”).

Another interesting point, I think, is that the rule applies to broadcasts, but not to podcasts, illustrating another consequence of the personal gadget “revolution”: really free speech is fine — as long as you can afford the equipment to hear it. Maybe that wasn’t an intended consequence, but maybe it’s not an unwelcome one, either.

This looks minor compared to Iraq or the NSA scandal or the Katrina aftermath or any of a number of other news items. But freedom of speech is basic, and not letting the government restrict it is basic. While I don’t enjoy shows that use offensive words excessively or pointlessly, I also don’t want to make that decision for others, and I certainly don’t want the government deciding what can and can not be heard on the air. Depending on the community, “personally reviling epithets” like “That lying bastard Bush lied, people died” will “provoke violent resentment” and be “universally disturbing” too. Depending on how fast minds continue to deteriorate at the FCC, such speech could presumably be banned next.

So I’m not just for trying to overturn these FCC actions, but also for trying to roll back the stupid 1978 Supreme Court decision Jarvis refers to. Mr. Jarvis’ refrain is quite right: “I … believe it is a violation of our civil rights worthy of court challenge. [...] ” Say it, blog it, podcast it, broadcast it: these rules are fucking bullshit.

=====
UPDATE, 3/30: Georgia police take it to the next level: no “I’m tired of all the BUSHIT” — like I said, Georgia police — or “Bush sucks. Dick Cheney too.” bumperstickers, despite a 1991 Georgia Supreme Court ruling striking down an anti-”lewd bumpersticker” statute. Reported by The Progressive’s Matthew Rothschild, via Michael Silence (KnoxNews, “No Silence Here”).

…but I missed the American Library Association’s official Banned Books Week, which was the last week of September this year, as in every year since 1982.

You can get the official story there, with lots of informative links. In 2004, Robert Cormier’s “The Chocolate War” topped the list of most-frequently challenged books (for sexual content and allegedly offensive language).

In keeping with the times, a number of other books seem to have been challenged for not depicting gay people and couples as monsters. Over the last decade, J.K. Rowling of “Harry Potter” series fame is among the authors most frequently challenged (for treating witchcraft as entertaining fiction), along with … Maurice Sendak! (apparently for admitting that human beings don’t always have their clothes on).

Alternatively, check out “Paperback Girl,” where student librarian Iris is quietly (of course) compiling an excellent blog detailing incident after incident of library censorship around the country.

Most recently, Iris got my attention with a post about the Limestone County, Alabama school board taking it to the next level: not just banning the book “Whale Talk” — but its author as well:

One week before banned author Chris Crutcher was scheduled to speak to students at Limestone County’s Clements Junior & Senior High Schools, board members once again chose to censor his work — this time a G-rated assembly about what it means to be a writer. [...]

Crutcher was not surprised. “When you think you can keep kids safe by keeping them ignorant,” he said, “you’ll go to almost any extremes. This isn’t about Whale Talk; it’s about any book that has the potential to offend someone, which is any book. I wish some of these school board members knew more about child and adolescent development, or had the information most teachers and school librarians are required to have before they are allowed a voice in education. I mean, kids who might die in Iraq in a few short years are being ‘protected’ from the language that has the power only to offend someone’s sensibilities?”

On the bright side, at least I have the beginnings of a Christmas shopping list.

Perhaps based on the premise that he was in the United States, Pakistani-American and former Air Force service member Tariq Khan decided to test the proposition that he could safely protest against Pentagon recruiters at George Mason University. He taped a small sign to his chest with words to the effect “Recruiters Lie,” and stood next to a recruiting table. I hope that even pro-war advocates will agree that what followed was dangerous and shameful:

A JC operations representative arrived on the scene to tell Tariq that as a student, he had no right to voice his opinion without a permit, and that he must leave. Tariq defended his right to stand there, peaceably, and the operations staff-member called campus police. While waiting for their arrival, the ROTC guy returned to rip Tariq’s sign off of his person and throw it in the trash.

Witnesses report that the responding police officer physically assaulted Tariq next to the stage in the JC, putting him in a headlock, choking him, and then proceeding to throw him against the stage. The entire time, Tariq announced, and witnesses concur, that he was being non-violent and not resisting. Eventually he was put in cuffs and taken away by two Mason police officers.

Via Facing South. I have a certain sympathy for Khan’s belief that he shouldn’t require a permit to peaceably speak his mind at the most useful location to do so.

Additional details appear to demonstrate racism and a general lack of clarity by some ROTC and police personnel about what it is that they’re supposed to defend. (Hint: not a recruiting table.) George Mason University’s President Merten’s office can be reached at 703-993-8700, and the university provides a comment form with which visitors can share their thoughts about the contemptible institution it is.