Dear witlesscompanion, The famous George Carlin/Pacifica-WBAI case of the seventies was an example of "challenging the seven objectionable words" (the case went to the Supreme Court; Pacifica lost, and the 7 objectionable words remain.) This case is not, in fact, a challenge to the seven objectionable words. They are not at issue in the case, because the song involves none of them. At issue are the sexual references in the song. FYI: Neither this case nor this article have anything to do with Pacifica, and therefore discussion about them should be preceded by "[offtopic]" in the subject heading (note my heading). Thanks, Bryan Williams wbai listener --- In NewPacifica@y..., "witlesscompanion" <witlesscompanion@y...> wrote: > NYTimes.com Article > Wed, 30 Jan 2002 > > Songwriter Sues F.C.C. Over Radio Sanctions > By NEIL STRAUSS > > In an unusual counteroffensive, a New York poet and performance artist > filed suit yesterday against the Federal Communications Commission, > charging that it violated her First Amendment rights when it fined a > radio station for playing a spoken-word song by her with vivid sexual > imagery. > > The artist, Sarah Jones, asked for a judgment in federal district > court in Manhattan that the 1999 song, "Your Revolution," is not > indecent as the agency found; for an injunction preventing the > commission from enforcing the $7,000 fine against KBOO-FM, a > listener-supported station in Portland, Ore.; and for a finding that > the commission's ruling violated her free-speech rights. > > Lawyers who specialize in First Amendment cases said it was extremely > rare for an artist to intervene legally in a case of this sort, which > usually pits the F.C.C. against the station it has sanctioned. The > suit also represents a further development in a debate about whether > the commission is too strict or too lax in policing the airwaves. > > John Winston, the assistant bureau chief for enforcement at the > F.C.C., declined to comment on the Jones case. > > The dispute began in October 1999 when a listener was offended by the > song during a music show called "Soundbox" and complained to the > commission. In May, the F.C.C. fined the station for broadcasting > "unmistakable patently offensive sexual references" that "appear > designed to pander and shock." > > The commission prohibits certain things from being broadcast when > children might be listening: any of seven objectionable words or > material that it deems patently offensive as measured by contemporary > community standards, especially references to "sexual or excretory > activities and organs." > > Ms. Jones said she was surprised that her song was declared offensive > because she wrote it as an attack on the degradation of women in > mainstream hip-hop. "My name was hanging in the air with `indecent' > attached to it in this really problematic way, especially since my > work is concerned with social justice and feminist issues," she said > yesterday. "That it should be associated with sexual indecency and > intending to shock is not something that I can just let sit there, > partly in light of the fact that other material is played ad infinitum > on mainstream radio airwaves that's really problematic. I'm not one > for censorship, but let's not use a double standard that victimizes > certain voices." > > While the song does not contain any of the seven objectionable words > flagged by the F.C.C., it does make explicit sexual references, which > paraphrase lyrics from rap songs to denounce them as misogynist and > shallow. > > In July KBOO contested the fine, but no action has been taken, said > Lisa E. Davis, a partner at Frankfurt Garbus Kurnit Klein & Selz, the > law firm representing Ms. Jones. > > The People for the American Way Foundation, a liberal organization, is > working on Ms. Jones's case. "I think it's very clear that the song is > not indecent, even under the F.C.C. criteria," said Elliot Mincberg, a > vice president and legal director at the foundation. > > In recent years the F.C.C. has been buffeted by criticism from within > and without, from the left and the right. Some critics charge that it > is cracking down too hard on radio, others that it is too lenient. > Some say the commission's rules on documenting violations are too > strict; others say that its enforcement rules are inconsistent. And > still others say its decision- making process on complaints and > appeals is too slow. > > During the last year, in particular, the commission has been in the > spotlight. Complaints against two morning show hosts for sexually > explicit banter - one on WKQX-FM in Chicago, the other on WDGC-FM in > Durham, N.C. - were dismissed last year because of a lack of > documentation. Earlier this month the commission reversed its decision > to fine KKMG-FM in Colorado Springs, for playing the Eminem single > "The Real Slim Shady" in a version that already had words edited out > for radio broadcast. > > > http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/30/arts/30STAT.html? ex=1013418920&ei=1& > en=3a9e2e9499e11a46 > > Copyright 2001 The New York Times Company ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get your FREE credit report with a FREE CreditCheck Monitoring Service trial http://us.click.yahoo.com/ACHqaB/bQ8CAA/ySSFAA/xYTolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> New Pacifica Working Group http://www.egroups.com/group/NewPacifica 'Save Our Stations!' To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: NewPacifica-unsubscribe@egroups.com Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/