FREE SPEECH WATCH

BOYCOTT STARBUCKS

2005-05-07T19:02:00.000-07:00

Starbucks has pulled Bruce Springsteen's CD from its stores because it has lyrics suggesting having a tryst with a hooker. This is another example of a corporation cowtowing to the radical extremists, the Religious Right. To show how irresponsible Starbucks is, stop buying coffee from them and get your cafeine fix elsewhere!

Dear Starbucks Representative:

I find it appalling that Starbucks has removed Bruce Springsteen's most recent CD due to concern about some lyrics. Such reasoning is the ultimate in hypocricy; this action is further evidence of companies wilting to the extreme Radical Religious Right. Your action smacks of censorship. Fortunately, there are far better places in my area to get coffee than Starbucks, and I will boycott your stores and urge familiy and friends to do the same(and will post this on my blog). The big issue here is freedom of speech, and Starbucks shows its contempt for it by cowtowing and removing Springsteen's CD. Until you reverse this decision, I will not patronize your stores, no matter how many are on the block.

Vote For "Media Hall of Shame"

2005-04-27T14:59:00.000-07:00

go to: Free Press to cast your vote for one of these losers. www.freepress.net

On April 18, Lowry Mays, chairman of radio giant Clear Channel, received the broadcast industry's "Distinguished Service Award." Distinguished service to whom? Not to you and other Americans. But Lowry isn't alone. He's one among many media kingpins who put their own political and business interests ahead of the public.
NEW: Watch a 5-minute video showcasing the nomineesRealPlayer Quicktime Windows Media PlayerPlease be patient while the video takes time to load.
(Thanks to SeattleWireless, FreeNetworks, Blue Fox and others for mirroring)
Now it's time for you to help free American media from the grip of these shameful men. You decide: who among them has done his utmost to make the media the abomination it is today? Vote for your worst below and on May 14 we will induct the "winner" into the Big Media Hall of Shame.

Michael Powell
Former Chairman, FCC
Corporate favors are not foreign to this former “public servant.” Michael turned his back on millions of Americans to ram through a ruling that would have placed more local media in the hands of the few. His tenure as chairman is marked by his brazen disregard of the Supreme Court’s view that it is the “right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.”

Lowry Mays
Chairman, Clear Channel Communications
This recipient of the broadcast industry’s “Distinguished Service Award” has sent a chill wind through America’s creative community. With Lowry at the helm, and some 1,220 stations already under its belt, Clear Channel Communications continues to steamroll local radio, buying up independents and scrubbing homegrown artists from their playlists. For this, Big Media shower praise on Mays, their man of the year.

Rupert Murdoch
Chairman and CEO, News Corporation
Rupert has transformed his global media empire into a cultural megaphone of know-nothing pundits and extremist bloviators. His Fox News Channel turned the journalistic standard of “fairness and balance” on its head, while News Corp’s influence spreads over all things media, drawing competing publishers and broadcasters into a full-tilt race to the bottom.

Ed Rendell
Governor, Pennsylvania
Governor Ed opened his mansion to cable and telecom lobbyists and stomped out local efforts to provide broadband access at a price more Pennsylvanians could afford. Don’t try to undercut Verizon’s bottom line, Ed said. And with the stroke of his pen, the governor served his true master, signing a bill that stripped citizens of the right to choose their own Internet future.

David Smith
Chairman and CEO, Sinclair Broadcast Group
David treats our public airwaves as his private fiefdom, strong-arming local newscasters to pledge loyalty to President Bush while forcing Sinclair’s 62 stations to air blatantly partisan programs that suit his narrow political agenda. With the help of on-air hatchet men Mark Hyman and Don Hammond, David beams Sinclair’s extreme bias into more than 20 million American homes.

Your Nominee
Who's the sixth candidate for most shameful?
Now it's your turn to nominate your choice of the most shameful. Is someone missing from this rogue's gallery? Vote for any of the five above or write in your own candidate. The write-in candidate with the most nominations will fill this final mystery frame in the Big Media Hall of Shame.

SUPPORT "STAMPING OUT CENSORSHIP"

2005-04-16T17:30:00.000-07:00

One of the Constitution's great heroes, Rep. Bernard Sanders, is sponsoring a measure in the House to "Stamp Out Censorship." It currently has about 4-5 cosponsors and needs YOUR HELP to stop the tidal wave of anti-freedom measures imposed by this immoral minority, the not-so Religious Right which now has full control of the Republican party. Send them a message you won't tolerate their attacks on our freedoms! Remind your reps this is America!

For more info on this bill and how to contact members of Congress, go to:

http://www.theorator.com/bills109/hr1440.html

Rep Sensenbrenner Calls for Jail Time for "Indecency" Violators; People Call for Congressmen to Be Institutionalized!

2005-04-07T15:44:00.000-07:00

Dear Representative Sensenbrenner:

At a recent cable television gathering, you made an absurd statement that suggested that broadcasters who violate the so-called Indecency Bill should be subject to a prison sentence. That is just absolutely absurd. Have you heard of the Constitution? How about the First Amendment? If this comment were made by a member of the Nazi party or the Politburo, it might make sense, however, let me remind you, Congressman, we live in a DEMOCRACY where life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are guaranteed.You seem to have your priorities askew. Under your proposal, a broadcaster like Howard Stern, who is frank and honest, would serve prison time for uttering words such as "penis" or "vagina." Ludicrous. The real threat to our democracy comes from an Administration bent on destroying our civil liberties, Osama bin laden and his henchmen(why haven't they been caught yet?), and Congressmen such as yourself who want to silence free speech. If you truly believe in this nonsense, you should resign immediately, because you were sworn to uphold the Constitution, not destroy it.

If you believe this is nonsense from an elected official, tell Jim. You can email Jim at:
sensenbrenner@mail.house.gov

Speak Out to the Senate, Courtesy AFTRA

2005-04-05T14:08:00.000-07:00

Speak Out to the Senate on Indecency - No Individual Performer Fines!

TAKE ACTION to encourage the Senate to protect First Amendment free speech rights by carefully considering the ramifications of dramatically increased indecency fines.
The Senate is poised to vote on its own version of legislation purportedly intended to curb indecency on the airwaves. The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (S. 193) currently does not contain fines on individual performers and announcers, nor does a similar bill aimed at broadcast violence sponsored by Senators Rockefeller (D-WV) and Hutchison (R-TX). We must act now to make sure those individual fines don't get added.
The version of the bill passed by the House dramatically increases the fines for "perceived" broadcast indecency on individual citizens nearly fifty-fold (from $11,000 to $500,000 - the same amount as that levied against large multi-million dollar broadcast corporations). The House also added first offense fines, eliminating the existing warning. This dramatic fine increase on individual Americans raises profound and serious First Amendment issues. Due to uncertain, vague, and changing definitions of indecency, this disproportionate fine would have a significant chilling impact on free and creative discourse and programming over the American airwaves.
While we made some headway in mitigating the House bill, AFTRA has always held the core position that performers and announcers who appear on the air or before the microphone are rarely, if ever, responsible for making programming decisions. Although AFTRA does not support the abrogation of personal responsibility, clearly it is the broadcast licensees and networks who not only determine whether and when particular content will be aired, but also reap the financial reward of airing such content. In many instances – because of tape delay or voice tracking – the programming isn’t even aired live.
The public understands that free speech is fundamentally threatened when standards are vague and penalties are both excessive and misdirected. Given the fact that the Federal Communications Commission has never fined an individual performer or announcer, this legislation codifies a striking shift away from the FCC’s long-standing policy that holds the broadcast licensee responsible for programming decisions.
Moreover, with the move away from localism and towards corporate programming created by deregulation, community standards unfortunately no longer enter into the broadcast licensee’s content decisions.
In the interest of fundamental fairness, the full Senate should reject this or any indecency proposal that foists the financial responsibility for programming decisions made by licensees onto individual performers or announcers. The threat to First Amendment freedom of speech posed by half million dollar ($500,000) fines on individual citizens is too great. The increased fines on broadcasters in S. 193 will be sufficient to achieve the Senate's goal of curbing indecency on the airwaves by penalizing the responsible party.
Click on the "Take Action" icon to send a letter to the noted decision makers. Click here for a list of phone and fax numbers of the key Senate members if you wish to call to express your sentiments, or if you wish to fax a letter separately.
Click here to take action

http://www.aftra.com/aftra/aftra.htm

Send a letter to the following decision maker(s): Senate Co-Sponsors Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation Your Senators
Below is the sample letter:

Subject: Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act
Dear [decision maker name automatically inserted here],
I am writing to request that you carefully consider the implications of passage of the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act (S. 193), or similar legislation, currently before you. This bill, particularly in the form passed by the House (H.R. 310), represents a direct threat to one of America's most basic values - free speech.Although neither the Senate version of the bill nor the Rockefeller-Hutchison bill on media violence currently contains fine increases for individuals, the potential inclusion of dramatic fine increases on individuals raises profound and serious First Amendment issues. Due to uncertain, vague, and changing definitions of indecency, this disproportionate fine would have a significant chilling impact on free and creative discourse and programming over the public airwaves.As you know, the version of the bill passed by the House dramatically increases the fines for "perceived" broadcast indecency on individual citizens nearly fifty-fold (from $11,000 to $500,000 - the same amount as that levied against large multi-million dollar broadcast corporations). The House also added first offense fines, eliminating the existing warning. To the extent you deem an increase in the fines necessary, please continue to support the current version of the Senate bill, which assesses fines for broadcast decency violations against the broadcast licensees rather than against the individual performers and announcers.It is important to keep this issue in perspective. Most Americans agree with President Bush, that parents - not the government - are in the best position to monitor and assess what is appropriate for their children. The "outrage" appears to emanate primarily from a single group - the Parent's Television Council - with a censorship agenda that does not reflect the views of most citizens. Given the fact that the Federal Communications Commission has never fined an individual performer or announcer, this legislation codifies a striking shift away from the FCC's long-standing policy that holds the broadcast licensee is responsible for programming decisions. It has always been a cost of doing business for the broadcast licensee to take on the potential risk of provocative and mature programming in seeking to maximize profits. The licensee assumes the FCC obligations, reaps the benefits, chooses the programming and has the option to eliminate any risk by using a delay. To the extent the profits flow to the licensee, so should the responsibility for fines that are levied. The fine increases on individuals contained in the House version of the bill are the equivalent of the EPA fining individual employees for the lax environmental standards condoned by their employer. Thank you for your consideration and your courage. It is easy to be swept up in the tide of the current outrage and much harder to stand up and question the cost of the solution to our basic American principles. In this case - with free speech at issue - the solution comes at too great a price.
Sincerely,

Call to Stop Fake News- Sign the Petition

2005-03-20T04:46:00.000-08:00

Courtesy of Free Press, Media Channel.org and PR Watch. Let's do what we can to stop Bush from using propaganda to promote his radical agenda that will only harm Americans.

Dear Media Reformer:
Earlier this week, the New York Times reported that at least 20 federal agencies have made and distributed pre-packaged, ready-to-serve television news segments to promote President Bush's policies and initiatives.
Congress' Government Accountability Office determined that these "video news releases" were illegal "covert propaganda" and told federal agencies to stop. But last Friday, the White House ordered all agencies to disregard Congress' directive.
The administration is using hundreds of millions of your tax dollars to manipulate public opinion. Here's how to stop them:
Sign our petition and help us get 250,000 people to join our call to Congress, the Federal Communications Commission and local television stations. Tell Congress and the FCC to toughen and enforce laws against "covert propaganda" and demand that broadcasters come clean with viewers about using government-produced news.
Join others in your community to create "citizen agreements" with your local TV stations to stop fake news broadcasts. These agreements are documents filed at the FCC that -- if broken -- can be used to help in the process of denying broadcaster license renewals. Our organizations will connect you with others in your area working to ensure local broadcasters identify the sources behind the "news."
Unless we speak out now, the White House will continue to act with impunity -- taking advantage of understaffed and incautious local news operations to manipulate public opinion.
Please take a few moments to sign the petition and forward this message to everyone you know.
Onward,
Timothy KarrFree Press
Doug GeorgeMediaChannel.org
John StauberPR Watch
P.S. To learn more, read our in-depth report on the systematic effort by the Bush administration to manipulate journalists and the American public.

Letter To DeLay

2005-03-19T19:48:00.000-08:00

Dear Representative DeLay:

How dare you get involved with a loving husband's decision to end the suffering of his vegetative, incapacitated, brain-damaged wife? He is her legal guardian, and husband. Don't you value the sanctity of marriage? She is suffering a horrible life filled with no chance of recovery, but you show how crass and insensitive you are by trying to sabotage a decision you just don't agree with. There is no place for a Congressman to get involved with such a matter; you should be spending our time as taxpayers to fix this broken economy, reduce our crippling deficit, and bring our troops home from the Iraqi Quagmire. A state court has ruled on the legalities of the matter, and the Supreme Court has refused three times to not hear the case. Have you no respect for the rights of states and the Court? You, sir, are yourself ethically-challeneged and have no business getting involved in any matters related to moral issues. In fact, if you really practiced what you preached, you'd do this country a great favor and RESIGN!

Schiavo

2005-03-19T19:45:00.000-08:00

I believe that a personal, family matter has been broken into by Gov. Jeb Bush and Republicans in Congress. If they truly believe in small government, they should practice what they preach and stay out of this tragedy. They act as the frauds they are. There are no winners here.

Religious Right vs. Science, Part 2

2005-03-19T09:12:00.000-08:00

Here they go again, have these folks no shame? Guess they want us all to become as ignorant as they are. And shame on some IMAX theaters who are letting a small, but vocal, minority, dicate free speech. Unbelievable!

March 19, 2005
A New Screen Test for Imax: It's the Bible vs. the VolcanoBy CORNELIA DEAN

The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen. Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and its creatures.The number of theaters rejecting such films is small, people in the industry say - perhaps a dozen or fewer, most in the South. But because only a few dozen Imax theaters routinely show science documentaries, the decisions of a few can have a big impact on a film's bottom line - or a producer's decision to make a documentary in the first place.

People who follow trends at commercial and institutional Imax theaters say that in recent years, religious controversy has adversely affected the distribution of a number of films, including "Cosmic Voyage," which depicts the universe in dimensions running from the scale of subatomic particles to clusters of galaxies; "Galápagos," about the islands where Darwin theorized about evolution; and "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," an underwater epic about the bizarre creatures that flourish in the hot, sulfurous emanations from vents in the ocean floor.
"Volcanoes," released in 2003 and sponsored in part by the National Science Foundation and Rutgers University, has been turned down at about a dozen science centers, mostly in the South, said Dr. Richard Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer who was chief scientist for the film. He said theater officials rejected the film because of its brief references to evolution, in particular to the possibility that life on Earth originated at the undersea vents.

Carol Murray, director of marketing for the Fort Worth Museum of Science and History, said the museum decided not to offer the movie after showing it to a sample audience, a practice often followed by managers of Imax theaters. Ms. Murray said 137 people participated in the survey, and while some thought it was well done, "some people said it was blasphemous."
In their written comments, she explained, they made statements like "I really hate it when the theory of evolution is presented as fact," or "I don't agree with their presentation of human existence."

On other criteria, like narration and music, the film did not score as well as other films, Ms. Murray said, and over all, it did not receive high marks, so she recommended that the museum pass. "If it's not going to draw a crowd and it is going to create controversy," she said, "from a marketing standpoint I cannot make a recommendation" to show it. In interviews, officials at other Imax theaters said they had similarly decided against the film for fear of offending some audiences. "We have definitely a lot more creation public than evolution public," said Lisa Buzzelli, who directs the Charleston Imax Theater in South Carolina, a commercial theater next to the Charleston Aquarium. Her theater had not ruled out ever showing "Volcanoes," Ms. Buzzelli said, "but being in the Bible Belt, the movie does have a lot to do with evolution, and we weigh that carefully."

Pietro Serapiglia, who handles distribution for the producer Stephen Low of Montreal, whose company made the film, said officials at other theaters told him they could not book the movie "for religious reasons," because it had "evolutionary overtones" or "would not go well with the Christian community" or because "the evolution stuff is a problem."
Hyman Field, who as a science foundation official had a role in the financing of "Volcanoes," said he understood that theaters must be responsive to their audiences. But Dr. Field he said he was "furious" that a science museum would decide not to show a scientifically accurate documentary like "Volcanoes" because it mentioned evolution.
"It's very alarming," he said, "all of this pressure being put on a lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists."

People who follow the issue say it is more likely to arise at science centers and other public institutions than at commercial theaters. The filmmaker James Cameron, who was a producer on "Volcanoes," said the commercial film he made on the same topic, "Aliens of the Deep," had not encountered opposition, except during post-production, when "it was requested from some theaters that we change a line of dialogue" relating to sun worship by ancient Egyptians. The line remained, he said. Mr. Cameron said he was "surprised and somewhat offended" that people were sensitive to the references to evolution in "Volcanoes." "It seems to be a new phenomenon," he said, "obviously symptomatic of our shift away from empiricism in science to faith-based science." Some in the industry say they fear that documentary filmmakers will steer clear of science topics likely to offend religious fundamentalists. Large-format science documentaries "are generally not big moneymakers," said Joe DeAmicis, vice president for marketing at the California Science Center in Los Angeles and formerly the director of its Imax theater. "It's going to be hard for our filmmakers to continue to make unfettered documentaries when they know going in that 10 percent of the market" will reject them.
Others who follow the issue say many institutions are not able to resist such pressure.
"They have to be extremely careful as to how they present anything relating to evolution," said Bayley Silleck, who wrote and directed "Cosmic Voyage." Mr. Silleck said he confronted religious objections to that film and predicted he would face them again with a project he is working on now, about dinosaurs.

Of course, a number of factors affect a theater manager's decision about a movie. Mr. Silleck said an Imax documentary about oil fires in Kuwait "never reached its distribution potential" because it had shots of the first Persian Gulf war. "The theaters decided their patrons would be upset at seeing the bodies," he said.
"We all have to make films for an audience that is a family audience," he went on, "when you are talking about Imax, because they are in science centers and museums."
He added, however, "there are a number of us who are concerned that there is a kind of tacit overcaution, overprotectedness of the audience on the part of theater operators."
In any event, censoring films like "Volcanoes" is not an option, said Dr. Field, who said Mr. Low, the film's producer, got in touch with him when the evolution issue arose to ask whether the film should be altered.
"I said absolutely not," recalled Dr. Field, who retired from the National Science Foundation last year.
Mr. Low said that arguments over religion and science disturbed him because of his own religious faith. In his view, he said, science is "a celebration of what nature or God has done. So for me, there's no conflict."
Dr. Lutz, the Rutgers oceanographer, recalled a showing of "Volcanoes" he and Mr. Low attended at the New England Aquarium. When the movie ended, a little girl stood in the audience to challenge Mr. Low on the film's suggestion that Earth might have formed billions of years ago in the explosion of a star. "I thought God created the Earth," she said.
He replied, "Maybe that's how God did it."

Comments from One of The Brave 38

2005-03-11T17:45:00.000-08:00

IN THESE TIMES
Please consider subscribing to the print edition and supporting independent media: http://www.inthesetimes.com/subscribe/This article is permanently archived at: http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2003/

An Indecent Act
By Bernie Sanders
March 8, 2005
On February 16, the House passed the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (H.R. 310) by a vote of 389 to 38. This legislation would impose vastly higher fines—up to $500,000—on broadcasters who air so-called indecent material.
What it doesn’t do is provide any relief from the vague standard of indecency that the Federal Communications Commission can arbitrarily apply. That means broadcasters, particularly small broadcasters, will have no choice but to engage in a very dangerous cycle of self-censorship to avoid the threat of a fine that could drive some of them into bankruptcy.
If this legislation is enacted, the real victim will be free expression and Americans’ First Amendment rights. In a statement I entered into the Congressional Record, John King, president of Vermont Public Television, said, in part:
While many people assume the new sanctions [of H.R. 310] are aimed at commercial broadcasters, public broadcasters are feeling the effects every day. Public television’s educational programming for children has always provided a safe haven. The same public television stations that take such care of their young viewers also respect the intelligence and discretion of their adult viewers to make the best viewing choices themselves. … While there have always been prohibitions against gratuitous indecency, the FCC always took context into account. Now, it seems that context is no longer considered. Much as we might like to invoke our First Amendment rights, we dare not risk the large fine that could come with a single violation.
I am increasingly alarmed by the culture of censorship that is developing in this country. This censorship is being conducted by the corporations that own our increasingly consolidated, less diverse media. And it is being done by the government. The result is an insidious chill on free expression on our airwaves.
I am not a conservative. But on this issue I find myself in strong agreement with Adam Thierer, the director of telecommunications studies at the Cato Institute—a very conservative think tank. He puts forth a commonsense, pro-freedom position:
Censorship on an individual/parental level is a fundamental part of being a good parent. But censorship at a government level is an entirely different matter because it means a small handful of individuals get to decide what the whole nation is permitted to see, hear or think. I’ve always been particularly troubled by the fact that so many conservatives, who rightly preach the gospel of personal and parental responsibility about most economic issues, seemingly give up on this notion when it comes to cultural issues.
We have got to stand firmly in opposition to the specter of censorship growing in America. Here are some examples of increased censorship on the airwaves:
In January 2004, CBS refused to air a political advertisement during the Super Bowl by MoveOn.org that was critical of President Bush’s role in creating the federal deficit.
In November 2004, 66 ABC affiliates refused to air the World War II movie Saving Private Ryan for fear that they would be fined for airing programming containing profanity and graphic violence, even though ABC had aired the uncut movie in previous years. This, ironically, was a movie that showed the unbelievable sacrifices that American soldiers made on D-Day fighting for freedom against Hitler, but ABC affiliates around the country didn’t feel free to show it.
In November 2004, CBS and NBC refused to run a 30-second ad from the United Church of Christ because it suggested that gay couples were welcome to their church. The networks felt that it was “too controversial” to air.
In January, many PBS stations refused to air an episode of the children’s show “Postcards with Buster” after Education Secretary Margaret Spellings objected to the show’s content, which included Buster, an 8-year-old bunny rabbit, learning how to make maple syrup from a family with two mothers in Vermont.
An episode of PBS’ “Antiques Roadshow” that included appraisal of an antique nude lithograph was edited so as not to offend.
A lot of people in Congress talk about freedom, but apparently they do not believe that Americans should have the “freedom” to make the choice about what they listen to on radio or watch on TV. There are a lot of people in Congress who talk about the intrusive role of “government regulators,” but today they want government regulators to tell radio and TV stations what they can air. That is wrong. Enacting the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 will make America a less free society.
What America is about is not necessarily liking what someone has to say, but defending their right to say it. Today, it is Janet Jackson’s wardrobe malfunction or Howard Stern’s vulgarity. What will it be tomorrow?
Bernie Sanders represents Vermont as an at-large member of the House of Representatives, where he has served since 1991. Read more at his Web site.

STOP THE INDECENCY BILL

2005-03-04T18:48:00.000-08:00

Update: Broadcast Indecency Legislation On February 17, H.R. 310, "The Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005," passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 389-38. The House version of the bill eliminates existing warnings and allows the FCC to assess half million dollar ($500,000) fines against both licensees and individual performers for each and every utterance deemed "indecent." The FCC’s standard for indecency remains unclear and subject to change. While AFTRA is disappointed by the outcome, we are not surprised, and are preparing to take our case to the U.S. Senate. We will continue to argue that fining individual performers at the same rate as monolithic corporations is inherently unfair and that the chilling impact such huge fines will have on free speech and artistic _expression is inevitable. We will encourage our elected leaders in the Senate to take a more reasoned, fair-minded and post-election approach to this issue which simply does not cry out for immediate action – unlike other areas such as health care reform, media consolidation, the budget deficit and international relations. While we knew that we would not prevail in the U.S. House, AFTRA did not simply fold, but rather continued to work towards mitigating the most egregious elements of this legislation. Because of AFTRA’s efforts, the following modifications were made to H.R. 310 prior to its passage: In the Bill itself: Higher standard of willful and intentional for indecency violations. Individual’s ability to pay considered when assessing fines.From the Committee Report: $500,000 is ceiling on individual fines, not floor. Generally, companies will be subject to higher penalties than individuals. Consideration given to "pass-through" or indemnification clauses in individual contracts. Performer fines not applicable to songs recorded "in studio." Inadvertent utterances (such as sports figures during games) are exempt.These changes, while they may appear modest, provide a much more favorable framework for this discussion in the Senate. This fight is far from over. We will be asking you to contact Senators in the near future as the Senate bill moves forward and the two bills are hashed out in Conference Committee. We will keep you posted. Thank you for your continued interest in this important matter.to contact your Senators:http://www.congress.org/ORhttp://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfmRemember to let them know that you are a constituent and that they were elcted and sworn in to UPHOLD the Constitution, not DESTROY it!!!

CALL FOR A FAIR BUDGET

2005-03-04T18:34:00.000-08:00

March 4, 2005
Prepare To Call on March 8 for a Fair Budget!
National Budget Call-In Day Is March 8
NEA is part of a growing grassroots coalition that will participate in a national call-in day to Congress on Tuesday, March 8, to let lawmakers know that President Bush's budget proposal does not protect the vulnerable and, if approved by Congress, would result in higher state and local taxes and fees.
While the long-term consequences of the President's budget proposal are becoming clearer -- for instance, overall funding for the major elementary and secondary education programs would be reduced by $11.5 billion from 2006 to 2010 and by $4.6 billion, or 14 percent, in 2010 alone -- advocates for children, the elderly, veterans and others who don't have a voice in government are making their case to Congress. Also, 48 federal education programs are eliminated, and $500 million is designated for a merit pay scheme for teachers. See how the budget proposal affects education.
As House and Senate Budget committees begin their consideration, we need to tell our Senators and Representatives that we are counting on them to produce a responsible budget resolution that maintains services to children and the elderly, keeps our communities strong and accomplishes deficit reduction in a fair and balanced manner.
Action Needed
Call 1-800-247-2971 on March 8 to urge your Members of Congress to write a fair and responsible budget resolution!
Ask to be connected to your Senators and Representatives or call the U.S. Capitol switchboard directly at 202-224-3121.
Don't be discouraged if the lines are busy; we want calls to pour into the offices! You can also find your Senators' direct line at www.senate.gov or your Representative's direct line at www.house.gov.
Tell your members of Congress:
Don't eliminate programs such as Vocational Education, Safe and Drug Free Schools, education technology grants, community technology centers, Upward Bound, Talent Search and GEAR UP. We are deeply concerned about cuts to programs that protect the vulnerable.
Don't make deep cuts in domestic discretionary programs. These cuts would result in a significant loss of support for public schools, veterans' medical care, health care, law enforcement, environmental protection, and other important services that affect millions of people. We support a budget that is fair and that invests in America's communities to help rebuild them.
The More People Know About Privatization, the Less They Like It
Fresh on the heels of new independent polling information that reveals the more people know about President Bush's proposal to privatize Social Security the more they oppose it, the Administration yesterday announced that it will embark on a 60-day, 60-stop sales blitz to build public support for the proposal to allow Social Security funds to be diverted to private stock market accounts.
The President, Vice President and other Administration officials take the sales show to 29 states beginning today. The Madison Avenue-style road tour will be complemented by an aggressive $20 million marketing campaign led by the financial services industry and by a ramped-up, back-home effort by congressional supporters during Congress' spring recess, March 19-April 3.
NEA supports strengthening Social Security to ensure it remains a long-term lifeline, especially for the most vulnerable: children, the elderly, widowers and disabled recipients of survivor and disability benefits. A 2001 study by the General Accounting Office, Congress' independent research arm, found that any Social Security plan that included private accounts would result in reduced benefits for the disabled. Currently, 20 percent of retirees rely on Social Security for every penny of their income. Another two-thirds receive half or more of their income from Social Security. NEA opposes any effort to privatize Social Security, the nation's most trusted and successful anti-poverty program.
Your voice and that of scores like you from every part of the nation are making the difference. In light of the privatization wall-to-wall sales blitz, it's more critical than ever that you let your Member of Congress know that private stock market accounts would hurt the vulnerable among us and that they reflect the wrong priorities.
Action Needed
Join the more than 30,000 teachers, education support professionals and others who have signed NEA's petition to save Social Security. Urge your Senators and Representative to:
Oppose any effort to privatize Social Security
Ensure that public employees who are enrolled in and have paid into other retirement security plans are not mandated to participate in Social Security, and
Repeal the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), unfair provisions that deny earned Social Security benefits to many public employees.
Find out if your Representative is one of the 203 who has signed on to H.R. 147 -- the GPO/WEP repeal bill. If not, urge him or her to do so.
Bill Targets Tax Credit to Educators in Disadvantaged Schools
Teachers, education support professionals, principals and counselors who work full time in disadvantaged schools would be eligible for a $2,000 tax credit if a bill (H.R. 986) introduced in the House last month becomes law. Congresswoman Heather Wilson (R-NM) introduced the Teacher Tax Credit Act of 2005 to provide an important incentive for good teachers to consider disadvantaged schools. The bill has the backing of Congressman John Boehner (R-OH), chairman of the House Education Committee, and already has 34 cosponsors.
Wilson's bill provides a $2,000 non-refundable tax credit for teachers, instructors, counselors, principals and aides who teach or work full time in a Title I elementary or secondary school, that is, a school with a 40 percent or more student population that is eligible for the federal lunch program.
NEA supports this bipartisan bill because it seeks to help schools in low-income rural and urban areas attract and retain teachers.
Action Needed
Contact your Representative and urge him or her to help America's teachers educate the kids who need them most by becoming a cosponsor of H.R. 986.

WELCOME TO FREE SPEECH WATCH!

2005-02-26T21:41:00.000-08:00

Welcome! Just like the Constitution, this is a work in progress! This is a blog created to keep a watch on free speech and other 1st Amendment issues, which go largely unnoticed until they're gone, as history notes. Feel free to express yourself here. This a source to keep updated on issues that matter to a free democracy, let's keep tabs on the Broadcast Indecency bill now making its rounds in the Senate. In the future, I'll post helpful links. Hope to hear your thoughts soon!