Censorship

The FCC rule on “fleeting expletives,” permitting massive fines even for individual occurrences of the “seven words you can’t say on television,” arguing that they always have sexual connotations even when used as an intensifier, was upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision. The decision is noteworthy for using the terms “F-word” and “S-word” and “fing” and “s*” in its text, rather than spelling them out. Clarence Thomas’ concurrence in the majority, however, questioned the constitutional basis of the FCC’s ability to regulate content. It should be just a matter of time before the FCC’s ability to regulate indecency is curtailed, but the Supreme Court did not rule on that issue in this case. Adam Thierer at the Technology Liberation Front has a thorough commentary: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4 Thierer points out that Scalia, purportedly a strict constitutionalist, in his decision has endorsed a brand-new justification for the FCC’s power to regulate broadcast content. The original justification was that the airwaves were a scarce resource that needed to be protected for productive uses; the new argument is that because there are so many unregulated alternatives like cable, satellite, and the Internet, that the government needs to protect one last refuge from offensive content. (Previously, previously.)

Commenter Tim H pointed me to a post at Tim Martin’s Beyond Creation Science blog about another Answers in Genesis controversy. Old-earth creationist Charles Spurgeon delivered a June 17, 1855 sermon (four years before Darwin published Origin of Species) in which he stated that the earth had to be “many millions of years” old. When Answers in Genesis published that sermon on their website, they omitted that sentence, “We know not how remote the period of the creation of this globe may be-certainly many millions of years before the time of Adam." After Martin pointed out the omission, Answers in Genesis inserted a footnote containing the omitted sentence, stating that this footnote was inadvertently omitted from their publication of the sermon. But they made no apologies for removing the sentence in question from its proper context and relegating it to a footnote. UPDATE: AiG did more than just remove that sentence–they revised language throughout the sermon, which in some other areas also changed the intended meaning to bring it in line with young-earth creationist dogma. ...

Science writer Simon Singh (author of The Code Book on yesterday’s list of science books) is a columnist for The Guardian, for which he wrote a column critical of chiropractic titled “Beware the spinal trap.” The British Chiropractic Association sued him for the column, and it was withdrawn from the Guardian’s website. Svetlana Pertsovich has posted the offending column from Internet cache on her website in Russia, James Steinberg has posted it at his blog, and I’ve included it below. UK libel law is still in need of reform. Beware the spinal trap Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all but research suggests chiropractic therapy can be lethal Simon Singh The Guardian, Saturday April 19 2008 This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So let’s be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that, “99% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae”. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body. In fact, Palmer’s first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra. You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments. I can confidently label these treatments as bogus because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world’s first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions. But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic. In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors. More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures. Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection. Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: “Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck.” This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Professor Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher. Bearing all of this in mind, I will leave you with one message for Chiropractic Awareness Week - if spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market. · Simon Singh is the co-author of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial www.simonsingh.net UPDATE: The part about chiropractic-induced stroke is of interest to me, as I had once heard of a case of chiropractic manipulation leading to blindness. When I mentioned it at a dinner of skeptics in Tempe, Arizona in 1987 that included James Randi and Jim Lowell of the National Council Against Health Fraud, both of them suggested that this was impossible because the optic nerves don’t come anywhere near the spine. But nobody at the table (including me) thought about the possibility of spinal manipulation inducing a stroke causing damage to the visual system. This article from a chiropractic journal discusses cases of visual loss as a result of spinal surgery as a sort of tu quoque defense of chiropractic for similar problems, citing this article: Myers M, Hamilton S, Bogosian A, Smith C, Wagner T Visual loss as a complication of spine surgery. Spine June 15, 1997;22(12). So perhaps my remark from 21 years ago is vindicated? UPDATE (November 4, 2009): Simon Singh gave an overview and update on his case on June 3. Simon Singh fought against the libel claim despite the state of UK law, and has successfully won the right to appeal in October. UPDATE (April 16, 2010): Simon Singh won his appeal, and the BCA dropped their suit.

The FFRF billboards planned for Phoenix that were supposed to be launched on August 18 have been postponed after CBS Outdoor became uncomfortable with the “Imagine No Religion” slogan. They have decided to apply an analogue of their policy requiring that billboards advertising alcohol and tobacco, which must be at least 1000 feet from any school or church. Apparently CBS Outdoor considers atheism to be equivalent to alcohol or tobacco, unfit to be advertised near sensitive churchgoers or students. They are probably within their rights to do this–they own the billboards–but their belief that this is a sound business decision is pretty absurd and cowardly. (I haven’t actually seen the contracts, but I suspect they are crafted in such a way to leave themselves the option to move locations or even cancel the contract if there’s a whiff of controversy that they’d prefer to avoid.) I suspect the locations of the billboards are unlikely to make much difference about whether controversy is generated, but this change gives CBS Outdoor something they can appeal to in response to criticism–see, we tried to be sensitive to religious concerns about the expression of disagreement. The new locations are likely to be approved on Monday, and I’ll report here what they are. I’m actually surprised that there are any billboard locations in Phoenix that aren’t within 1000 feet of a church or a school. (Previously, previously, subsequently.)

A parent complained about Sarah Brannen’s book, Uncle Bobby’s Wedding, about same-sex marriage, that was in the children’s book section in the Douglas County Library system in Colorado. Librarian Jamie Larue wrote an excellent, kind, and thoughtful response to the library patron about why the library is not going to move or remove the book.

Tom Gilson closed the comments at his Thinking Christian blog post about P.Z. Myers calling in to the presenter line on an “Expelled” event conference bridge, preventing me from posting this comment: The claims of “Expelled” about individuals who have allegedly been persecuted are bogus–Gonzales was denied tenure because he wasn’t publishing research, Sternberg wasn’t persecuted at all, and Crocker simply didn’t have her contract renewed (and deservedly so–she was both a bad teacher and was making horrible creationist arguments, as has been documented with her PowerPoint slides online). On the other hand, Chris Comer really was removed from her position as Director of Science at the Texas Education Agency for simply sending out an email announcing that Barbara Forrest was giving a talk about “Creationism’s Trojan Horse.” The ID advocates have no case of persecution that approaches that in severity.He also deleted a link that Norman Doering included in a comment, and banned Norman from his blog. Norman’s comment was this: ...

As ZDNet reports, yesterday afternoon, in response to a government order to filter YouTube (AS 36561), Pakistan Telecom (AS 17557, pie.net.pk) announced a more-specific route (/24; YouTube announces a /23) for YouTube’s IP space, causing YouTube’s Internet traffic to go to Pakistan Telecom. YouTube then re-announced its own IP space in yet more-specific blocks (/25), which restored service to those willing to accept routing announcements for blocks that small. Then Pakistan Telecom’s upstream provider, PCCW (AS 3491), which had made the mistake of accepting the Pakistan Telecom /24 announcement for YouTube in the first place, shut off Pakistan Telecom completely, restoring YouTube service to the world minus Pakistan Telecom. They got what they wanted, but not quite in the manner they intended. Don’t mess with the Internet. Martin Brown gives more detail at the Renesys Blog, including a comment on how this incident shows that it’s still a bit too easy for a small ISP to disrupt service by hijacking IPs, intentionally or inadvertently. Danny McPherson makes the same point at the Arbor Networks blog, and also gives a good explanation of how the Pakistan Internet provider screwed up what they were trying to do. Somebody still needs to update the Wikipedia page on how Pakistan censors the Internet to cover this incident. UPDATE: BoingBoing reports that the video which prompted this censorship order was an excerpt from Dutch Member of Parliament Geert Wilders’ film “Forbidden” criticizing Islam, which was uploaded to YouTube back on January 28. I’ve added “religion” and “Islam” as labels on this post, accordingly. The two specific videos mentioned by Reporters without Borders as prompting the ban have been removed from YouTube, one due to “terms of use violation” and one “removed by user." The first of these two videos was supposedly the Geert Wilders one; the second was of voters describing election fraud during the February 18 Parliamentary elections in Pakistan. This blog suggests that the latter video was the real source of the attempted censorship gone awry, though the Pakistan media says it was the former. So perhaps the former was the pretext, and the latter was the political motivator. A “trailer” for Wilders’ film is on YouTube here. Wilders speaks about his film on YouTube here and here. Ayaan Hirsi Ali defends Wilders on Laura Ingraham’s show on Fox News here. (Contrary to the blog post I’ve linked to, Hirsi Ali was not in the Theo Van Gogh film “Submission Part One,” which can itself be found here, rather, she wrote it. Van Gogh was murdered as a result of it. The beginning and end is in Arabic with Dutch subtitles, but most of it is in English with Dutch subtitles.) UPDATE (February 26, 2008): This just in, from Reuters–Pakistan “might have been” the cause of the YouTube outage. Way to be on the ball with breaking news, Reuters! The Onion weighs in on the controversy!

As reported in Wired’s blog: Wikileaks, the whistleblower site that recently leaked documents related to prisons in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay, was taken offline last week by its U.S. host after posting documents that implicate a Cayman Islands bank in money laundering and tax evasion activities. In a pretty extraordinary ex-parte move, the Julius Baer Bank and Trust got Dynadot, the U.S. hosting company and domain registrar for Wikileaks, to agree not only to take down the Wikileaks site but also to “lock the wikileaks.org domain name to prevent transfer of the domain name to a different domain registrar.” A judge in the U.S. District Court for Northern California signed off on the stipulation between the two parties last week without giving Wikileaks a chance to address the issue in court. ...

The Parents Television Council, the organization that is responsible for generating over 99.8% of all indecency complaints to the FCC, has further demonstrated its own complete pointlessness by putting out a website that assembles a collection of the most indecent clips from broadcast television, with no parental controls of any kind on the page. Each clip is categorized with labels like “sex,” “violence,” and “foul language." What’s a kid more likely to come across? A five-second bit in one of thousands of television shows, or a huge collection of the worst of the worst all in one place on the Internet? It’s high time for broadcast television indecency rules to be dropped. (Via The Agitator.)

Higley, Arizona School District director of visual and performing arts Tara Kissane stopped a performance of “The Complete Works of William Shakespeare (abridged)” for 6th to 12th graders in mid-performance because she thought the content was “inappropriate and not a kind of performance that we want them to see." The performance, by Windwood Theatricals of New York, was attended by students who chose to pay $5 for a voluntary field trip to see it at the Higley Center for the Performing Arts. Kissane interrupted it 40 minutes in, but declined to identify what specifically she found to be “inappropriate.” She said that “I thought it was great for college-aged students … I just thought it was over some of our kids’ heads and it wasn’t appropriate for our kids. If I’m going to err on the side of anything, I’m erring on the side of caution." Erring on the side of stupidity, she should have said. So what if it was “over some of our kids’ heads”? What about those who were getting something out of it? Why deprive those children on behalf of the lowest common denominator? ...