Thursday, January 29, 2004
CBS' EYE JUST GOT BLACKER
This Sunday, the more than 100 million Americans watching the Super Bowl will see advertisements encouraging them to buy no less than three different drugs designed to combat erectile dysfunction. They will see ads paid for by tobacco litigation money - which is to say by smokers - and brought to us by the officious busybodies at the American Legacy Foundation. ( The ALF is responsible for those obnoxious ads that assume Americans are such idiots that we need to be bombarded with reminders that cigarette smoking is bad for our health ). The Super Bowl audience will be implored to buy gas-guzzling cars and brain-numbing beer, and more generally to consume mass quantities of stuff. What they will not see is an award-winning ad that criticizes the Bush administration. The advertisement, created by Charlie Fisher of Denver, is, as political ads go, exceptionally understated.
The 30-second spot features a montage of several small children, shown working at the sorts of jobs they are likely to be doing decades from now, while guitar music strums peacefully in the background. The screen is then filled with this message: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" This ad was rejected by CBS, which is broadcasting the Super Bowl, as "too controversial." ( My brother, who let me know about this controversy, speculates that the decision is based on the Roman law doctrine that "there is to be no criticism of the Emperor during the Circus." )
This egregious bit of censorship is made all the more obnoxious by the fact that CBS will air an advertisement during the game from the White House's own Office of National Drug Control Policy, which, in appropriately Orwellian fashion, will encourage teenagers to rat out their pot-smoking friends to Big Brother.
The White House's ad follows on the heels of its memorable 2002 Super Bowl advertisement, which claimed that people who use drugs ( not, apparently, including erectile dysfunction drugs ) are supporting terrorism. That particularly idiotic moment in the war on drugs wasn't too "controversial" to be unleashed on the public during America's annual pigskin pageant.
Some readers might remember that, in the wake of the 2002 ad, a group led by Arianna Huffington sponsored advertisements suggesting that people who drive SUVs are supporting terrorism: a claim that actually isn't quite as absurd as the claim made in the earlier White House ad. Several television stations declined to run these ads, on the grounds that they were - you guessed it - "too controversial."
Decisions of this sort are more than monuments to hypocrisy and double standards. Because those who have the right to broadcast have, in effect, a monopoly on the television airwaves, the television networks are regulated closely by the federal government. By law, the networks hold their broadcast rights in trust, and are thus obligated to do business in a way that is mindful of the public interest.
CBS doesn't serve the public interest when it rejects an otherwise appropriate advertisement because, in the opinion of the network's managers, the ad's message is too controversial. This is especially the case when the network broadcasts equally controversial advertisements, during the same program for which the rejected ad was intended.
Given that CBS is regulated so heavily, and that major legislation has just been enacted that critics argue will unduly enhance the network's market share, is it possible that "too controversial" really means "harmful to CBS' corporate interests?" One need not be a cynic to suspect that, as a great American journalist used to put it, "that's the way it is."
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado.
_________________________________________________________
This Sunday, the more than 100 million Americans watching the Super Bowl will see advertisements encouraging them to buy no less than three different drugs designed to combat erectile dysfunction. They will see ads paid for by tobacco litigation money - which is to say by smokers - and brought to us by the officious busybodies at the American Legacy Foundation. ( The ALF is responsible for those obnoxious ads that assume Americans are such idiots that we need to be bombarded with reminders that cigarette smoking is bad for our health ). The Super Bowl audience will be implored to buy gas-guzzling cars and brain-numbing beer, and more generally to consume mass quantities of stuff. What they will not see is an award-winning ad that criticizes the Bush administration. The advertisement, created by Charlie Fisher of Denver, is, as political ads go, exceptionally understated.
The 30-second spot features a montage of several small children, shown working at the sorts of jobs they are likely to be doing decades from now, while guitar music strums peacefully in the background. The screen is then filled with this message: "Guess who's going to pay off President Bush's $1 trillion deficit?" This ad was rejected by CBS, which is broadcasting the Super Bowl, as "too controversial." ( My brother, who let me know about this controversy, speculates that the decision is based on the Roman law doctrine that "there is to be no criticism of the Emperor during the Circus." )
This egregious bit of censorship is made all the more obnoxious by the fact that CBS will air an advertisement during the game from the White House's own Office of National Drug Control Policy, which, in appropriately Orwellian fashion, will encourage teenagers to rat out their pot-smoking friends to Big Brother.
The White House's ad follows on the heels of its memorable 2002 Super Bowl advertisement, which claimed that people who use drugs ( not, apparently, including erectile dysfunction drugs ) are supporting terrorism. That particularly idiotic moment in the war on drugs wasn't too "controversial" to be unleashed on the public during America's annual pigskin pageant.
Some readers might remember that, in the wake of the 2002 ad, a group led by Arianna Huffington sponsored advertisements suggesting that people who drive SUVs are supporting terrorism: a claim that actually isn't quite as absurd as the claim made in the earlier White House ad. Several television stations declined to run these ads, on the grounds that they were - you guessed it - "too controversial."
Decisions of this sort are more than monuments to hypocrisy and double standards. Because those who have the right to broadcast have, in effect, a monopoly on the television airwaves, the television networks are regulated closely by the federal government. By law, the networks hold their broadcast rights in trust, and are thus obligated to do business in a way that is mindful of the public interest.
CBS doesn't serve the public interest when it rejects an otherwise appropriate advertisement because, in the opinion of the network's managers, the ad's message is too controversial. This is especially the case when the network broadcasts equally controversial advertisements, during the same program for which the rejected ad was intended.
Given that CBS is regulated so heavily, and that major legislation has just been enacted that critics argue will unduly enhance the network's market share, is it possible that "too controversial" really means "harmful to CBS' corporate interests?" One need not be a cynic to suspect that, as a great American journalist used to put it, "that's the way it is."
Paul Campos is a professor of law at the University of Colorado.
_________________________________________________________
Sunday, January 04, 2004
TOP 8 DRUG WAR MOMENTS
1 ) Ashcroft Busts Chong: In February, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft gleefully announced that his drug warriors busted 50 individuals, including pot-comedy icon Tommy Chong, as part of a Justice Department-led undercover drug paraphernalia trafficking operation code-named Operation Pipe Dreams. It seems that although Chong's Internet-based hand-blown-glass bong company had refused several previous attempts by Ashcroft's crusaders to have a bong shipped to paraphernalia-intolerant Pennsylvania, someone at company HQ inadvertently shipped an autographed bong to an assistant U.S. attorney. Chong was sentenced to nine months in federal prison.
2 ) RAVE On: In April, federal lawmakers finally passed the so-called Reducing Americans Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act -- but not until they'd changed its name to the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act and hidden it inside a fuzzy-bunny catchall bill that provided money for things like a national Amber Alert system. The act enhances the so-called "crack house" statutes and makes any venue owner responsible for any drug activity by any person on the property, providing for both civil and criminal penalties.
3 ) Please Eat the Hemp: The Drug Enforcement Administration's attempt to ban all food products containing hemp seed or hemp oil suffered a major setback. The DEA attempted to ban such foods because they contain trace amounts of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and theoretically should be illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. It doesn't appear that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will buy that argument -- especially since the DEA has not sought similar enforcement of items containing poppy seeds, which have a much higher opiate concentration.
4 ) Decriminalization Touchdown: State Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, filed the Lege's one and only drug decriminalization bill this year with HB 715, which would've decriminalized possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana. The bill didn't go anywhere, but Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, did put it up for committee testimony. We'd hate to think that had anything to do with the fact that the head of Texas' chapter of NORML, ex-Dallas Cowboy Mark Stepnoski, was there to testify in favor of the bill.
5 ) Free at Last: After three years in jail -- and at least two years of really bad national press attention -- state officials finally figured out a way to free most of the remaining ( and innocent ) Tulia drug bust defendants.
6 ) Paul Likes States Rights: This spring, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Surfside, signed on to the bipartisan States Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, which would reschedule marijuana to allow for legal use of the drug by seriously ill patients. While the bill has been filed before, and has yet to make it to committee, the measure continues to attract more supporters of both parties.
7 ) Medical Marijuana Wins: In December, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with two seriously ill California medical marijuana patients, agreeing that the federal government likely violated the Constitution in attempting to seize their marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Since the two grow their own pot for personal medical use, they claimed the feds had no right to impose the CSA's provisions.
8 ) Hatch Terrorizes Good Sense: This fall, ABC News snagged a draft bill authored by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, which seeks to define the crime of "narcoterrorism" and offers prosecutors the ability to prosecute any and all drug-related crimes as terrorist acts. We don't know what Hatch has been smoking, but we sure don't want any.
_________________________________________________________
1 ) Ashcroft Busts Chong: In February, U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft gleefully announced that his drug warriors busted 50 individuals, including pot-comedy icon Tommy Chong, as part of a Justice Department-led undercover drug paraphernalia trafficking operation code-named Operation Pipe Dreams. It seems that although Chong's Internet-based hand-blown-glass bong company had refused several previous attempts by Ashcroft's crusaders to have a bong shipped to paraphernalia-intolerant Pennsylvania, someone at company HQ inadvertently shipped an autographed bong to an assistant U.S. attorney. Chong was sentenced to nine months in federal prison.
2 ) RAVE On: In April, federal lawmakers finally passed the so-called Reducing Americans Vulnerability to Ecstasy Act -- but not until they'd changed its name to the Illicit Drug Anti-Proliferation Act and hidden it inside a fuzzy-bunny catchall bill that provided money for things like a national Amber Alert system. The act enhances the so-called "crack house" statutes and makes any venue owner responsible for any drug activity by any person on the property, providing for both civil and criminal penalties.
3 ) Please Eat the Hemp: The Drug Enforcement Administration's attempt to ban all food products containing hemp seed or hemp oil suffered a major setback. The DEA attempted to ban such foods because they contain trace amounts of THC, the active ingredient in marijuana, and theoretically should be illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. It doesn't appear that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco will buy that argument -- especially since the DEA has not sought similar enforcement of items containing poppy seeds, which have a much higher opiate concentration.
4 ) Decriminalization Touchdown: State Rep. Harold Dutton, D-Houston, filed the Lege's one and only drug decriminalization bill this year with HB 715, which would've decriminalized possession of up to 1 ounce of marijuana. The bill didn't go anywhere, but Rep. Terry Keel, R-Austin, did put it up for committee testimony. We'd hate to think that had anything to do with the fact that the head of Texas' chapter of NORML, ex-Dallas Cowboy Mark Stepnoski, was there to testify in favor of the bill.
5 ) Free at Last: After three years in jail -- and at least two years of really bad national press attention -- state officials finally figured out a way to free most of the remaining ( and innocent ) Tulia drug bust defendants.
6 ) Paul Likes States Rights: This spring, U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, R-Surfside, signed on to the bipartisan States Rights to Medical Marijuana Act, which would reschedule marijuana to allow for legal use of the drug by seriously ill patients. While the bill has been filed before, and has yet to make it to committee, the measure continues to attract more supporters of both parties.
7 ) Medical Marijuana Wins: In December, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with two seriously ill California medical marijuana patients, agreeing that the federal government likely violated the Constitution in attempting to seize their marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act. Since the two grow their own pot for personal medical use, they claimed the feds had no right to impose the CSA's provisions.
8 ) Hatch Terrorizes Good Sense: This fall, ABC News snagged a draft bill authored by Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch, which seeks to define the crime of "narcoterrorism" and offers prosecutors the ability to prosecute any and all drug-related crimes as terrorist acts. We don't know what Hatch has been smoking, but we sure don't want any.
_________________________________________________________
