The folks at Free Press recount (11/25/08) how, "when St. Paul police launched a violent crackdown on journalists covering the Republican National Convention," the media reform group "needed an on-the-ground organizer to pressure city officials to drop the charges against the journalists"--luckily they "knew just the person to call: Nancy Doyle Brown of the Twin Cities Media Alliance":

With only two days to organize, Doyle Brown called media reform advocates throughout the city, rallying support for the petition delivery and the press conference. Free Press coordinated with its local members to prepare for the event and ensure a strong media turnout....

Not long after the petition delivery, the county announced it would not pursue any felony charges against journalists. Then, on September 19, authorities in St. Paul announced that they would not prosecute journalists arrested during the RNC.

Brown professes to have been "shocked and outraged" when she "saw the progressive city of St. Paul become a police state overnight. The RNC was a grave reminder that maintaining our freedoms requires constant vigilance." Indeed, she reminds us that "there are a hundred more subtle ways that press freedom is compromised every day in this country, from allegiance to corporate advertisers to newsroom staff cuts and overreliance on official sources."

Listen to the FAIR radio show CounterSpin: "Heidi Boghosian on Convention Protests" (9/5/08)

The ever-vigilant Electronic Frontier Foundation announces (11/18/08) its representation of "a New York City community organizer [who] is fighting back in court after her parody website challenging redevelopment efforts in New York City's historic Union Square was shut down with bogus claims of copyright infringement and cybersquatting":

As one part of her education campaign, [Savitri] Durkee created a website parodying the official website of Union Square Partnership.... In response, USP sent Durkee's Internet service provider a notice pursuant to the Digital Millennium Copyright Act improperly asserting that her parody site infringed USP's copyright, leading to the shutdown of the site. USP then filed a copyright lawsuit against Durkee and later filed a claim with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) seeking to take control of the parody site's domain name.

EFF today filed a response to USP's complaint on Durkee's behalf, pointing out that Durkee's parody is protected under the First Amendment and fair use doctrine. The response includes counterclaims asking the court... to find that USP's complaint was intended to stifle legitimate political speech. Durkee is also seeking compensation for the abridgement of her speech.

EFF attorney Corynne McSherry points explains the basics: "Ms. Durkee's site is a parody, so of course it mimicked USP's site to some extent. That's how parodies work"--and puts it plainly: "The parody site is plainly a fair use and protected by the First Amendment. This is a case about censoring speech, not about infringement."

Read FAIR's magazine Extra!: "Fair Use It or Lose It: Copyright Owners' Threats Erode Free Expression" (5-6/06) by Marjorie Heins

Fair Use infringement and talk-radio vitriol meet in a report (Bay City News, 11/13/08) on hate-jock Michael Savage's latest charming escapades:

Conservative radio talkshow host Michael Savage has been sued in federal court in San Francisco by a liberal film group for making an allegedly baseless demand that YouTube Inc. take down one of its videos.

The video by Brave New Films was entitled Savage Hates Muslims and criticized an October 29, 2007, broadcast in which Savage...comments that Muslims should "take [their] religion and shove it up [their] behind" and should be deported....

YouTube did take down the video and temporarily disabled the entire YouTube channel of Brave New Films, according to the group. Brave New Films claims in the lawsuit that the take-down notice for the Savage Hates Muslims video was baseless because the excerpts were used for political commentary and thus protected by the legal doctrine of fair use.

Indeed, Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films also "claims the radio network and Savage engaged in 'knowing misrepresentation' because" just this July, one judge "dismissed a copyright infringement claim Savage filed against the Washington, D.C., based Council on American-Islamic Relations for using four minutes of excerpts from Savage's broadcast."

See the FAIR magazine Extra!: "Fair Use It or Lose It: Copyright Owners' Threats Erode Free Expression" (5-6/06) by Marjorie Heins

After giving a dubious account of the causes of the Democrats' 1994 electoral disaster, Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson (11/14/08) provides an inaccurate description of the Fairness Doctrine, which he calls

a federal regulation (overturned by the Reagan administration in 1987) requiring broadcast outlets to give equal time to opposing political viewpoints. Under this doctrine, three hours of Rush Limbaugh on a radio station would have to be balanced by three hours of his liberal equivalent. This may sound fair and balanced. But it is a classic case where the "unintended consequences" are so obvious that those consequences must be intended. It would destroy the profitability of conservative talk radio and lead other outlets to avoid political issues entirely--actually reducing the public discussion of controversial issues.

I have to say--if that's what the Fairness Doctrine was, then I would be against it. But it was never an equal-time rule; instead, it required broadcasters to provide some coverage of controversial issues and to make some provision for opposing views. In practice, the FCC would accept roughly a 5-to-1 ratio as providing adequate balance. Far from making conservative talk radio impossible, a talkshow format in which the host occasionally takes calls from listeners who disagree was an easy way for stations to fulfill their Fairness Doctrine obligations.

The genius of the Fairness Doctrine was that it balanced the broadcasters' First Amendment right to express their point of view with the reality that the government is granting a monopoly to license-holders to broadcast on a particular frequency--in effect saying that they and no one else has a right to express themselves on that particular street corner. The Fairness Doctrine says that every once in a while, you have to let someone else share the soapbox. I wonder why right-wing pundits find that so threatening?

Hearing Joe Scarborough utter "the phrase 'fuck you' when discussing Obama's appointment of Rahm Emanuel" on MSNBC, Salon's Green Greenwald states (11/10/08, ad-viewing required) that he "couldn't care any less"--except that he just can't stomach the immense hypocrisy of "one of the most zealous crusaders against such awful filth on television":

Scarborough led the lynch mob over the 2004 Janet Jackson halftime show on CBS--demanding that the FCC impose massive fines against CBS and MTV, among others--and has railed against "rock stars" and entertainers who use, as he used to call it (before this morning), "the F word." Indeed, Scarborough even expressed outrage over the fact that the government would even consider refraining from imposing substantial fines on ABC when Bono, on a live awards show, used the "F word."

Greenwald even traces Scarborough's unrelenting "sanctimony" back to claims about his childhood--quoting the pundit having "boasted to his guest that his upbringing was so fine that he was taught not to use such words: 'Robert, I'm glad to hear that you don't use the words and you didn't use them growing up. All I'll say is, my mom put soap in my mouth more than once or twice.'"

Corporate media may have belatedly embraced the historic black power gestures of 1968 Olympic medalists Tommie Smith and John Carlos, but sports media critic Dave Zirin tells (Nation, 11/7/08) of how a modern-day version by one NFL player drew immediate condemnation:

[Denver Broncos receiver Brandon] Marshall's plan was to score a touchdown on Thursday night and then take out a black-and-white glove and hold it up to the sky. "I wanted to create that symbol of unity because Obama inspires me, our multicultured society," he said after the game, choked with tears.... "I wanted to make my own statement and gesture to represent the progress we made."...

But Marshall was blocked from making his statement, mainly by two white teammates, Brandon Stokley and Tony Scheffler, who feared that NFL refs, who typically frown on displays of individuality, might penalize the team and cost them the game. "The image of two white players surrounding a black player to block his political statement is the antithesis of the very ideas Marshall was attempting to communicate, Zirin notes....

Yet the reaction from ESPN was even worse. The first talking head back at the SportsCenter headquarters took a shot at Marshall's emotional press conference saying, "Well, the sentiment is exactly right, even if the speechwriting needs some work." His partner then said of Marshall, "It's not about you or what you think. It's about the team and what they need to do." Ex-player turned broadcaster (and sometime soap opera star) Mark Schlereth called it "the best play of Stokley's career."

... But maybe Marshall thought that the moment was more important than the game.... Instead of derision, Marshall merited our respect--sports fan or not.... The image of a pro football player raising a black-and-white hand to the skies 40 years after Smith and Carlos and two days after the election of a black president in a country built on slavery could have echoed through the ages. Someone should tell the suits and ESPN: Some things are actually more important than sports.

Listen to FAIR's radio program CounterSpin: Dave Zirin on Politics & Sports (10/21/05)

The AP files a chapter (10/11/08) in the long story of government surveillance of critical reporters like muckraking columnist Jack Anderson:

Documents turned over to the Associated Press under the Freedom of Information Act almost three years after Anderson's death include copies of his columns with critical notes in the margins, summaries of his movements while under surveillance, and FBI memos detailing efforts to find his sources who leaked information from deep inside government agencies. (more...)