Showing posts with label CBS. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CBS. Show all posts

Monday, July 21, 2008

CBS's 2004 obscenity fine for Janet Jackson nipple-shot reversed, and other yucks


Philadelphia, Pennsylvania--In the city that began the persecution of the late Lenny Bruce, we have a victory. Also headquartered in the city is the telecommunications giant Comcast,™ a "teleconglomerate" who's had difficulties with the current FCC chair from the GOP dominion of North Carolina.

The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that the FCC deviated from a longstanding policy of 30+ years regarding obscenity without giving any cause or explanation.

Therefore, the fine is moot:

"Like any agency, the FCC may change its policies without judicial second-guessing," the court said. "But it cannot change a well-established course of action without supplying notice of and a reasoned explanation for its policy departure."

The 3rd Circuit judges - Chief Judge Anthony J. Scirica, Judge Marjorie O. Rendell and Judge Julio M. Fuentes - also ruled that the FCC deviated from its long-held approach of applying identical standards to words and images when reviewing complaints of indecency.("Federal appeals court tosses out fine against CBS for Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction,' " AP, 07.21.2008)

This shores-up the First amendment protections for freedom of expression. In other words, it's possible that the original ruling by the FCC will have inadvertently expanded artistic and expressive freedoms on the airwaves. It probably won't be a lot, but that's not the point.

The point is that those who want to rollback these and other rights aren't getting their way. But the corporations almost always do, ideology-be-damned, and Martin has serviced them well. Servicing concentrated capital and "free markets" is all that matters, not the religious right. They never really did, except when it was convenient in dividing-up the fickle and apathetic electorate.

We know it's not going to end here--it never does--but for those who value one of the most exceptional aspects of American democracy, it's a victory.

Remember back to early-2004: it was a time when the Bush administration and the GOP still retained some reasonably high approval ratings, though they were in-decline thanks to the beginnings of the Plame scandal, the subsequent ongoing investigation (which still is "ongoing"), and troubling signs in Iraq as we all witnessed the rise of the insurgency.

Katrina and the revelations of the existence of numerous other White House scandals hadn't even happened yet.

At that time, the congressional GOP and the White House were still running almost completely amok, and the FCC appointee wasn't going to miss out on all the fun. Orders are orders, but things don't always go according to plans.

A federal appeals court has tossed out the Federal Communications Commission’s $550,000 indecency fine against CBS for the infamous Janet Jackson “wardrobe malfunction” at the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.

The decision - the second recent blow to FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin’s crackdown on broadcast indecency - said the agency acted “arbitrarily and capriciously” in levying the fine. ("Court tosses FCC Super Bowl fine-Says org acted 'arbitrarily and capriciously,' " Variety, 07.21.2008)

No, it didn't work out like they thought it would, even after dragging the process out for an excruciating four years. One has to ponder if CBS will qualify for a reimbursement of court costs from the federal government. Heckuva job, Marty, you clean up those airwaves. Just remember that the public still technically owns them and that we're watching you hand-out all kinds of perks to telecommunications companies and conglomerates.

That's "special interests" in the jargon of the politicians who appoint people like Martin. Yet, he's also been a mixed-bag for his handlers.

Martin has done some interesting things for a partisan hack, and made some attempts at deregulation of the cable industry in some peculiar directions, though namely to curb access to violent and sexual programming. Martin's approach is interesting, and could have some unforeseen consequences:

Martin says the nation's cable problems could be solved by requiring Comcast and other providers to sell cable channels individually, or a la carte. This form of sales could reduce cable bills by allowing customers to buy just the channels they truly like and watch.

Customers who found some cable entertainment distasteful would not have to subsidize the offensive channels that come in 200-channel packages.

Cable companies say the pay-per-channel model actually would cost more and would hurt small entertainment programmers. ("FCC chief Martin: The nation's indecency czar," The Philadelphia Enquirer, 07.03.2008)

But rather than servicing moral and cultural conservatives of the religious right, Martin has obtained a result in the CBS case that goes in another, more liberal direction. What's also strange is that if cable channels were prorated/a la carte for consumers, many of them would opt-out on such right-wing outlets as Fox News, which was actually forced on most cable systems in previous packaging formats.

If Martin has proven anything, it's that crusading FCC chairs face serious limitations not only from the public, but from the political environment and the telecommunications industry. An evangelical agenda is likely to get lost in the details and rival agendas. Business trumps religion, in other words, and promises for a conservative social agenda aren't likely to materialize.

Or is there a difference between business and religious orthodoxy? Martin has argued for "more competition," but that's not traditionally what regulators do in the reflexively protectionist Washington. Confused? The FCC chairman has felt and acted the same. Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it, and the modern world is a labyrinth.

One thing's certain: Martin's time is running out at the FCC under the essentially lame duck Bush administration--well, "lame duck" if you leave-out funding for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and immunity for the warrantless surveillance program.

"Unbundling" cable channels into an a la carte system isn't likely to happen under his stewardship as the youngest FCC chair with just over five months left to the one of the most unpopular presidencies in American history. The most unpopular Congress has even less time left, and November is coming sooner rather than later.

It should be remembered that Martin was a mere 35-years-old at his swearing as FCC commissioner on July 3, 2001.

He was reappointed in 2006 by the current president, and his term is set to expire in June of 2011, though it's expected that he'll be replaced with a Democratic appointee by Barack Obama if he's victorious in his bid for the White House. It's likely that he would be retained by a McCain administration. GOP candidate John McCain has come out in support of the a la carte/unbundling agenda.

That's not the real issue, however--Martin has been running agendas through the FCC's decision-making process, namely in deregulating ownership of various forms of media by telecommunications corporations, and easing their ability to work with municipal governments.

The investigation comes on the heels of a previous inquiry by the committee regarding what Dingell called "a breakdown of proper procedure at the FCC." The inquiry was sent in regards to the FCC's Dec. 18th vote on relaxing restrictions on media consolidation in individual markets.

Consumer advocates, media watchdogs, and even several of Martin's fellow commissioners criticized him for rushing the vote, limiting public discussion and comment, and scheduling meetings with little notice or warning.

The speed with which Martin pushed to pass the vote led members of the Senate to introduce legislation specifically to block the new rules until more examination of their effects could be made. ("House Committee To Probe FCC," Consumer Affairs, 01.08.2008)

Yes, even the "bought" Senate had misgivings over Martin's bureaucratic behaviors. It should be noted that Martin worked under special partisan prosecutor Kenneth Starr, who investigated allegations into the affair between former President Bill Clinton and White House staffer Monica Lewinsky. This directly benefited the Bush campaign in the 2000 elections.

Chairman Martin was also a former staffer at Wiley, Rein, and Fielding, the law and lobbying firm currently representing Senator David Vitter in his bid to pay for legal costs in the DC Madam scandal from campaign funds. It's good having friends like this considering that Martin is being investigated by the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee on several serious issues. And this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

FCC chairman Kevin J. Martin's loss in court this week is just one-of-many problems he's facing, and his days of agenda-making are coming to an end. Whomever takes the chair, it's all about business and the rights of so-called "corporate citizens." This was never about a woman's nipples. Strange, that.

"Federal appeals court tosses out fine against CBS for Jackson 'wardrobe malfunction,' " AP, 07.21.2008: http://enews.earthlink.net/article/bus?guid=20080721/488409c0_3421_1334520080721-1071313454

"Court tosses FCC Super Bowl fine-Says org acted 'arbitrarily and capriciously,' " Variety, 07.21.2008: http://www.variety.com/article/VR1117989249.html?categoryid=16&cs=1

"FCC chief Martin: The nation's indecency czar," The Philadelphia Enquirer, 07.03.2008: http://www.philly.com/inquirer/front_page/20080703_FCC_chief_Martin__The_nation_s_indecency_czar.html

"House Committee To Probe FCC," Consumer Affairs, 01.08.2008: http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2008/01/fcc_house.html

Thursday, June 21, 2007

ED NORRIS: THE GENESIS OF DEBORAH JEANE PALFREY'S LEGAL PREDICAMENT?



Washington D.C./Baltimore, Maryland--"The criminal charges in this indictment are the result of a joint investigation by the United States Postal Inspection Service, the Internal Revenue Service-Criminal Investigation Division and the United States Attorney's Office.

This case was prosecuted by Steven H. Levin and Jason M. Weinstein," states the June 21st, 2004 press release from the U.S. Attorney's office for the District of Maryland. This was the summation into the embezzlement from "the Supplemental Account" by former Baltimore police commissioner Edward T. Norris and his former Chief of Staff, John Stendrini. At this same time, the investigation into "DC Madam" Deborah Jeane Palfrey had begun, according to court documents.

The money that Norris and Stendrini embezzled was--ostensibly--used to spend on "girlfriends" (probably prostitutes he was simply ferrying to prominent clients), nights out at fine restaurants, and vacations. The case was brought forward by U.S. Attorney Thomas DiBiagio. What's interesting here is that you have a joint investigation by these three departments of government in a fashion that strongly resembles their (with different players) investigation into Deborah Jeane Palfrey.

Question: does Ms. Palfrey get her own radio show in Vallejo after her trial? Sure, that happens to everyone after serving time in a federal prison. Like Ollie North, Ed Norris has his own talk radio show out of the town he disgraced, through WHFS (owned by the very right-leaning Viacom/CBS). How does this happen? You have to have powerful friends in the right places--like then (2004) Baltimore mayor Martin O'Malley, and even former GOP governor Bob Ehrlichman, Jr. You couldn't have a better friend than one who does this:
For some observers, O'Malley hasn't been quick enough to switch commissioners. The mayor didn't waste any time getting rid of Daniel. But O'Malley stuck by Norris when The Sun first questioned his use of a departmental expense account, calling the commissioner a good cop but a poor accountant. The mayor resisted calls for an independent investigation and narrowly limited the scope of the audit eventually conducted for the city. [my emphasis] O'Malley seemed heartbroken when Norris left the Baltimore job of his own accord to lead the Maryland State Police. Only later, when Norris was indicted on federal corruption charges, did O'Malley say he felt "betrayed" by Norris' behavior. (Baltimore Sun, 11.11.2004)
And O'Malley's poor-judgement would continue, until he was rewarded with the office of Governor on January 17th of 2007. O'Malley's still making poor decisions on who should lead the Maryland Police as superintendent, just as he did in choosing Ed Norris as police commissioner. Running parallel with O'Malley's rise--and former GOP Governor Bob Ehrlich's and Norris's descent--is the case of Ms. Palfrey.

Limiting the scope of any investigation should raise some alarms, and it most certainly has in the state of Maryland with Norris, while somehow O'Malley has survived unscathed. When then mayor Martin O'Malley fired police commissioner Kevin P. Clark in November of 2004 (after Norris's departure as a convict), Baltimore had had four commissioners in five years. Martin O'Malley doesn't have a good record overseeing his responsibilities governing local law enforcement (or the federal ones operating in his state).

There's always something missing in the picture: "Thomas DiBiagio, who was the U.S. Attorney back in 2004, up in Baltimore, was trying to bring down [Robert] Ehrlich who was the Republican governor of Maryland, and tie him in with all of Jack Abramoff's shenanigans, the mob, and the whole push for [legal] gambling," states Jeane Palfrey. She tells me it has taken "many months" for her to come upon these tendrils. "Is this partisan?" I ask her.
The story that unfolds isn't unfamiliar, and she continues in more detail: "Now, I think what happened here is that Thomas DiBagio--who I have been told is no angel--was out to get Bob Ehrlich[, Jr.], Ed Norris, Jack Abramoff--[to stop] all these corrupt players out to push gambling in Maryland. We all know what Jack Abramoff was about. ...He was playing with the mob, he was playing with the governor [Ehrlich], and I think Thomas DiBiagio was out to get him. ...It's well-documented." Indeed, it is, and DiBiagio has been very vocal about his firing in recent months, tying his "departure" directly to the current U.S. Attorney scandal.
As in those cases, there are conflicting accounts of the circumstances that led to Mr. DiBiagio’s ouster. The Justice Department disputes his version. His office had been looking into whether associates of Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. had improperly funneled money from gambling interests to promote legalized slot machines in Maryland. Mr. DiBiagio said that several prominent Maryland Republicans had pressed him to back away from the inquiries and that one conversation had so troubled him that he reported it to an F.B.I. official as a threat. But he said that the Justice Department had offered little support and that that made it “impossible for me to stay.” (New York Times, 03.06.2007)
Palfrey continues onto Edward T. Norris, the aforementioned former police commissioner of Baltimore, citing some important similarities in investigatory procedure between their cases--it seems federal investigators were paying visits to Norris's father (he signed a mortgage on Norris's home, making him technically culpable), and hanging a 30 year sentence over his head. IRS investigator Troy Burrus and Postal Inspector Maria Cuvillon (phonetic) visited Ms. Palfrey's mother at her Florida home, perhaps wanting to entrap her into making similar admissions that Jeane had bought her...anything.
The New York Times makes an interesting assertion in the DiBiagio article, that "[the] investigation appears to have ended after Mr. DiBiagio left office in January 2005." (ibid) Has it? How would anyone in the public know this without an FOIA request?
"In May of 2004, Ed Norris pleas out to six months. That's a mighty big drop from 30 years to six months.This is what I think happened: I think that Thomas DiBiagio took Ed Norris's plea deal..., and part of the plea agreement was to offer up people on the platter. I believe I was one of those people, and possibly Brandy Britton was one of those people." Palfrey contends that she could be "queen for the day" in a case where DiBiagio was attempting all these things, as well as catching "bad actor" agents within Baltimore's U.S. Attorney's office, specifically FBI agents gone criminal.
This might be where the Jonathan Luna connection comes in. She believes she could be the "lead witness" in what's a submerged conflict between political elements, the mob, the FBI (both "good" and "bad" actors), and sundry other elements that could be on her remaining phone records (like the other nine years). [Ed.-'AS WELL AS 2002 TO 2006 – THE YEARS ABC INVESTIGATED, BUT CHOSE NOT TO REPORT,' states Palfrey in a June 21st e-mail to myself].
Did DiBiagio tip off IRS agent Troy Burrus about Palfrey via Norris? Mr. Burrus should answer this question in a court room, and soon. www.crippledchimp.com has some interesting observations dating-back to May 12th:
The murder of [assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan] Luna and the firing of DiBiagio eliminated the threat that the well-heeled customers of the DC/Baltimore prostitution ring, many of them GOP stalwarts, would be exposed prior to the December 2004 presidential election [Ed.-'AND THE 2006 ELECTION – HENCE THE RATIONALE FOR THE VISIT TO CALIFORNIA, LAST OCTOBER,' writes Ms. Palfrey in the same e-mail]. The attempt by Justice prosecutors and Judge Kessler to limit the criminal case to Palfrey continues the effort to punish the DC Madam and her employees and divert attention away from the customers. In May 2004, at the same time Norris and his chief of staff agreed to a plea deal in the prostitution case and received light semtences, Palfrey came under intense federal investigation.
Throwing in Jack Abramoff to this mix broadens its scope, with potential leads to the Justice Department under one Alberto Gonzales, a man appointed by one George W. Bush. But then, the very investigators into the case provide a route to the embattled Gonzales and Bush administration anyway. Their backgrounds seem to portend an outing as "Bushies," totally obedient to the GOP and the Bush administration's agendas.
Without any doubt, this case is patently political--it's not about prostitution, a tangential-link in an almost overwhelming web of corruption, deceit, bribery/graft, and even the murder of an assistant U.S. Attorney. Another feature of the Ehrlich investigation that resembles the so-called investigation into Ms. Palfrey: the use of grand jury subpoenas. Regardless of the killing of ABC's 20/20 segment, Deborah Jeane Palfrey is caught in the middle of a political war. More later.

The US DOJ's June 21st, 2004 press release on their plea deal with the convicted ex-Baltimore City police commissioner, Edward T. Norris: http://www.usdoj.gov/tax/usaopress/2004/txdv04Norris-StendriniSentencePR.pdf
The Baltimore Sun on Ed Norris & Martin O'Malley, 11.11.2004: http://www.kellogg.northwestern.edu/news/hits/041111bs.htm

An article on the love between former Gov. Bob Ehrlich and current Gov. Martin O'Malley (Washington Post, 10.25.2006): http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/24/AR2006102401699.html



Ed.--Revised on Ed. notes June 25th, 2007.