--- Support our Sponsor ------------------------------------ DEEP DISCOUNTS & EXCLUSIVE SAVINGS! Travel, maids, new cars, insurance, mortgages, movers, hundreds more. Connect to our thousands of merchants who bid their best price. It's FREE! http://click.topica.com/aaaaLrbz8SnrbAjwjxa/Imandi ------------------------------------------------------------ SPECIAL ISSUE ON ACTION ALERTS __________________________________________________________________________ The Internet Anti-Fascist: Monday, 23 October 2000 Special (#479) __________________________________________________________________________ Protest Special Religious Privledges In Educational Broadcasting Americans' United For Separation of Church and State, "The 'Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act,' H.R. 4201," 13 Oct 00 AA News, "Bill Encourages Religious Ownership of PBS Stations, Carves Out Content Exemptions For Proselytizing," 14 Oct 00 Individual Defense Campaigns AA News, "Dr. Fred Whitehead Needs Your Support -- Again!," 3 Oct 00 Revolutionary Worker, "C. Clark Kissinger Threatened with Jail for Giving Speech in Support of Mumia," 1 Oct 00 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- PROTEST SPECIAL RELIGIOUS PRIVLEDGES IN EDUCATIONAL BROADCASTING The "Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act", H.R. 4201 Americans' United For Separation of Church and State 13 Oct 00 Action to Take: Time is of the essence, as the U.S. Senate is about to consider a bill that would allow religious broadcasters to take over public television stations! The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is under fire once again by right-wing extremists seeking to promote all religious broadcasting to an "educational" level. It is imperative that you call, write or e-mail your Senators TODAY, urging them to OPPOSE the "Noncommerical Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act," H.R. 4201. U.S. Capital Switchboard: 202-224-3121 U.S. House Internet Home Page: http://www.house.gov U.S. Senate Internet Home Page: http://www.senate.gov Legislative Information (LEGIS) for Bills: 202-225-1772 Why You Should Be Concerned About This Bill: * H.R. 4201 will exempt religious organizations from reasonable, neutral requirements. The FCC currently allows religious organizations to own and operate public television stations, but only if they meet the same criteria as other operators that their programming serves an "educational, instructional, or cultural purpose" and serves "community needs." * H.R. 4201 grants special preferences to religious programming. Under Section 309(m)(1) of this bill, a nonprofit group can operate a public television station if its programming serves an educational, instructional, or cultural purpose, and the FCC cannot object to the group's "educational" status unless it is found to be "arbitrary or unreasonable." However, religious programming is exempt from that requirement. In short, if a broadcaster claims its programming to be religious, the FCC would be required to automatically grant the programming "educational" status. - - - - - Bill Encourages Religious Ownership of PBS Stations, Carves Out Content Exemptions For Proselytizing AA News 14 Oct 00 Legislation now moving in the U.S. Senate would amend the 1934 Communications Act by weakening content regulations on religious groups owning "educational" broadcasting outlets, and effectively encourage churches and sectarian organizations to acquire key media properties H.R. 4201, dubbed the "Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom of Expression Act of 2000" passed the House on June 20 by a 264-159 vote margin. It is now on the Senate Legislative Calendar; action on the measure could come by the middle of this week. Introduced by Rep. Charles Pickering (R-MS), the act has 33 cosponsors. The legislation was crafted following a dispute over new rules handed down by the Federal Communications Commission in a little-noticed December 30, 1999 ruling. The FCC voted 3-2 to require religious groups operating under a nonprofit, educational TV license to use half of their broadcasting time on programs which had content reflecting the "educational, instructional or cultural needs of the community." The FCC stipulated that to qualify for this category, any programming could not be "primarily devoted to religious exhortation, proselytizing, or statements of personally held religious views and beliefs." Broadcasts of religious services and sermons would also be excluded from that category. American Atheists had opposed the FCC rules, pointing out that they placed government in the dangerous and constitutionally suspect role of determining what was authentic religious speech. The new legislation, though, rather than prohibit religious groups from using the public broadcast spectrum instead invites sectarian organizations to apply for PBS station ownership, and insulates them from the reasonable guidelines which other comparable outlets must obey. Originally, the government reserved a portion of the broadcast band for nonprofit, instructional television. This gave rise to "educational" or "public" outlets, including those affiliated with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, PBS. Noncommercial educational broadcasting on radio was established in 1945 when the federal government reserved twenty percent of the FM band for such stations. According to the FCC guidelines, all of these reserved channels were set aside exclusively for nonprofit, educational groups and were "to serve the educational and cultural broadcast needs of the entire community to which they are assigned." The problem began in 1977 when the FCC permitted the Moody Bible Institute, a Christian evangelical school, to become a television licensee under the mantle of "educational" content. Religious institutions were still bound by the FCC guidelines, though, and as a result, only about 20 of the 373 television stations now operating under nonprofit, education charters are affiliated with sectarian groups. Passage of H.R. 4201 is likely to change that, however. The bill moves religious content into the category of "Service Conditions" which any noncommercial, public station operates under, and states: "A nonprofit organization shall be eligible to hold a noncommercial educational radio or television license if the station is used primarily to broadcast material that the organization determines serves an educational, instructional, cultural, or religious purpose (or any combination of such purposes) in the station's community of license, unless that determination is arbitrary or unreasonable." Incredibly, the Act would allow a religious group owning a public broadcasting station to exclusively determine its content, even if it consisted mostly or entirely of proselytizing. Under Section 3 (2)(A), the measure prohibits the FCC to "impose or enforce any quantitative requirement on noncommercial educational radio or television licenses based on the number of hours of programming that serve educational, instructional, cultural, or religious purposes..." RFRA Cited H.R. 4201 relies for its legal rationale on a measure which though passed by Congress in 1993 was later declared unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court -- the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That measure required government to employ a "compelling interest/least restrictive means" test when dealing with faith-based groups and practices. The high court struck down RFRA in the BOERNE v. FLORES case, and Justice John Paul Stevens declared that the measure gave religious groups a legal instrument which "no atheist" could ever obtain. Since then, versions of the RFRA have been unsuccessfully introduced on capitol hill (including the Religious Liberty Protection Act), although a scaled down version was passed recently as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized persons Act of 2000. More "Special Rights," Religious Stations Thriving In effect, H.R. 4201 confers upon religious groups the same status as universities, educational and instructional nonprofits, and other entities which have traditionally operated PBS outlets. As these educational nonprofits struggle to survive in the competative media marketplace, the legislation would thus permit those broadcasting slots to be acquired by religious groups, and used for religious proselytizing. Religious institutions could purchase such broadcasting spectrum frequencies -- long reserved for authentic educational content -- outright, or "partner" with financially strapped nonprofits, and inject religious programming. While the FCC should not be in the business of determining what is and is not religious content on an hour-by-basis during the broadcast day, H.R. 4201 effectively surrenders the educational broadcasting standards and frequency allotments to religious groups. How necessary is H.R. 4201? Backers of the measure complained that religious groups are being discriminated against in seeking access to broadcasting resources. There are over 1700 religious broadcasting outlets in the United States, though, most of them affiliated with the Christian National Religious Broadcasters Association. There are also some three dozen religious networks operating on the AM and FM bands, including the Eternal Word - Global Catholic Network, Praise Broadcasting, American Family Radio and Trinity Broadcasting. In addition, religious media outlets such as Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network stream content to commercial distributors. Religious stations also operate widely on the short-wave band, and like many radio-television outlets, distribute their content on the internet. Bottom line: there is no lack of religious programming or availability for religious groups seeking to distribute their message. H.R. 4201 has little to do with protecting the integrity of legitimate religious expression. Instead, it appropriates the public broadcasting spectrum, and invites sectarian groups into an area traditionally reserved for educational content. There would be little recourse for individual or communities objecting to programming which replace PBS or other comparable fare with sermons and other religious content. What if private, commercial interests obtained similar legislative largesse, received access to "educational" stations and replaced their content with traditional network programming? Religious groups are benefiting in a comparable fashion. H.R. 4201 permits churches and other sectarian institutions to buy up the public broadcasting band, yet relieves them of any obligation to provide authentic educational programming. For further information: <http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/fcc2.htm> ("Groups protest controversial FCC ruling on religious programming content," 1/13/00) <http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/rlpalob.htm> (Archive on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Religious Liberty Protection Act, and RLUIPA) * Why this is a problem: Religious broadcasters could buy up public television stations and be under no obligation to continue high-quality educational programming that benefits the entire community. In a pluralistic society comprised of many varieties of believers and non-believers, sectarian religious programming is only "educational" to adherents of the particular religion being advanced. The limited amount of educational licenses should be reserved for programming that serves the entire community. * H.R. 4201 restricts the public's right to oppose applicants that would not serve community needs. Since the landmark decision in United Church of Christ v. FCC, the FCC has recognized the right of viewers and listeners to challenge a license application or transfer under the public interest standard. Nevertheless, this bill allows any noncommercial educational licensee or applicant claiming to be religious in nature immune from public or FCC scrutiny, even in cases where the broadcaster's claim is clearly unreasonable. Why this is a problem: Under this bill, an extremist group such as the World Church of the Creator could apply for and obtain a reserved, noncommercial educational license. This non-profit group promotes its religion as "Creativity" and is based on the "survival, expansion and advancement of the white race." The group is clearly anti-Semitic and racist. Yet, if community groups challenged its claim that such programming served the educational needs of the community, H.R. 4201 would bar the FCC from even considering the views of the community. Background The FCC has reserved a small amount of the broadcast spectrum in most communities for noncommercial educational radio and television stations. Stations operating on the "reserved" spectrum are typically licensed to universities, school boards, statewide educational networks, and nonprofit educational organizations. The "Noncommercial Broadcasting Freedom Expression Act of 2000," introduced by Rep. Charles Pickering (R-MS), expands eligibility to hold a reserved license to virtually any nonprofit organization or entity by allowing nonprofits to decide themselves whether their broadcast material serves an educational, instructional or cultural purpose. Thus, the bill would require the FCC to award noncommercial educational licenses to nonprofits without due regard to an organization's purpose. The cumulative effect of the this bill would not only deprive the public of valid educational programming, but elevate religious broadcasting to a level non-compliant with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. For further information, please contact Americans United's Legislative Department: Rachel Joseph, Legislative Associate Americans United for Separation of Church and State 518 C St, NE Washington, DC 20002 202-466-3234 202-466-2587 (fax) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -------------------------------------------------------------------------- INDIVIDUAL DEFENSE CAMPAIGNS Dr. Fred Whitehead Needs Your Support -- Again! AA News 3 Oct 00 Dr. Fred Whitehead, noted freethought historian and author, again needs your support in his battle for fair play and academic freedom. After 21 years of service, he was fired from the University of Kansas Medical Center, and told that his activities no longer fitted the "mission" of that institution. His crime? Speaking out against the pervasive "religion- friendly" agenda which included the Medical Center organizing numerous official conferences claiming to link spirituality and religious faith with physical well being. Now, Dr. Whitehead has the support of the American Association of University Professors which recently excoriated U. of K. for its treatment of academic personnel. A new international campaign is underway, asking the Kansas Board of Regents to again examine his case. You can help. * Send e-mail, letters, faxes or make phone calls to the members of the KBOR asking that the reconsider the Whitehead case. Visit our web site at http://www.atheists.org/action/whitehead2.html for background on this important case. * Urge other groups and individuals to get involve and support Dr. Whitehead! * Circulate this action alert! - - - - - C. Clark Kissinger Threatened with Jail for Giving Speech in Support of Mumia Revolutionary Worker 1 Oct 00 September 2000. C. Clark Kissinger, a leading organizer in the fight to stop the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal and an RW correspondent, is now being threatened with jail time for giving a speech during a protest at the Republican National Convention. August 1 was an intense day of protest at the RNC, as thousands of determined demonstrators faced thousands of police in the streets of Philadelphia. Key themes for the day were resistance to the death penalty, the execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal, police brutality, and the injustices of the prison system. More than 350 people were arrested -- many subjected to brutal conditions by their jailers. In violation of a probation order restricting him to the Eastern District of New York, Clark Kissinger spoke at the August 1 rally against the death penalty and in support of Mumia Abu-Jamal in downtown Philadelphia. It was where Clark belonged that day, and he had every right to be there. As protesters swirled from street confrontations in and out of the crowd at the rally, Clark spoke about the stakes for the people in stopping the execution of Mumia: "Why do they have to bring out this intimidation, the mounted police, the helicopters, the clubs? Why do they have to stage boycotts of performers who come out and help Mumia? Why are we constantly subjected to these kinds of threats? Are they afraid that the people will actually learn what happened in Mumia's trial? Are they afraid that people will learn what was said between the judge and the lawyers in the secret meeting in the judge's chambers to which Mumia was not invited? Are they afraid that people will learn how witnesses changed their stories and lies? Are they afraid that people will learn about the phony confession story? Are they afraid that people will learn what Mumia actually stands for? And are they afraid that people will see in Mumia a champion of the oppressed as well as a victim of the system? Do they worry that their whole reactionary agenda may be put at stake? Yes, I think they do worry about that.... "Dare to struggle, dare to win! We have defended Mumia and we have learned from him. We do not intend to let the executioner's hand take him from us. As far as we are concerned, this is one execution that will not happen. We are going to fight this fight to win, and unite with people of all different viewpoints from all different communities, expanding our broadness, our diversity and our determination. We are going to continue to escalate this struggle using whatever means is necessary and needed to do that. And we vow to make every outrage they throw at us yet another nail in the coffin of their vicious system." On August 1, the thousands of police outside the political conventions in Philly and Los Angeles -- intimidating, arresting and brutalizing protesters -- clarified for a new generation just what U.S. democracy is really about. And now Clark Kissinger has been ordered to appear in federal court in Philadelphia to answer charges of probation violation -- charges that could result in jail time -- for the crime of giving a political speech during convention week. * * * * * From the beginning, the sole purpose of the probation restrictions put on Kissinger and six other "Liberty Bell defendants" has been to attempt to silence them and restrict their political activity. In July 1999, 96 protesters were arrested at the Liberty Bell and given summonses by Park Rangers for "failing to obey a lawful order." But when Kissinger and six others, including Mumia's literary agent Fran Goldin, refused to plead guilty and demanded their right to a trial, the presiding magistrate Judge Arnold Rapoport denied them a trial and sentenced them to one year of supervised probation. The outrageous conditions of probation told a story of political persecution: they had to surrender their passports; they were forbidden from associating with felons, which meant that Clark and Fran were not allowed to see Mumia; they were not allowed to travel outside their federal court district without the permission of a probation officer for a full year; they were ordered to list all persons they were in contact with who have been convicted of a crime, to turn in detailed financial records, and to submit to intrusive visits by probation officers. Clark's lawyer, Ron Kuby, pointed out: "The federal magistrate's imposition of highly restrictive conditions of probation, unprecedented in a case of this type, are an attempt to prevent Mr. Kissinger from engaging in lawful, constitutionally protected activity. For years, Mr. Kissinger has traveled the country organizing support for Mumia Abu-Jamal. The Court's restrictions upon Mr. Kissinger's travel and prohibition on association with Mr. Abu-Jamal, if adhered to, would seriously hamper these efforts. In addition, the Court's requirement that Mr. Kissinger disclose the names and details of all organizations to which he belongs is designed to chill his exercise of the First Amendment right to freedom of association." From the beginning Clark has resisted these extreme and unjust conditions of probation, refusing to turn over lists of his financial transactions and political contacts -- and refusing to stop corresponding with Mumia or to stop building the movement to save his life. An appeal has been filed in federal court. And hundreds have signed a statement protesting this outrageous political persecution. "What they're doing to us is what they did in South Africa during the apartheid regime, where they 'banned' people to stay in their village, not allowed to travel anywhere to have connections with the political movement. They're trying to create banned people here, and we're refusing to be banned," Kissinger told supporters who joined him at the probation office when he refused to turn over financial records in July of this year. * * * * * For all those who know the history of Mumia's case, the actions of the federal magistrate in this case are part of a whole pattern of political persecution in Philadelphia against Black revolutionaries -- from the police attacks on the Black Panthers to the murderous assaults on the MOVE organization to the railroad of Mumia. And on every level city officials, prosecutors and judges have turned out to be up to their ears in the persecution and railroad of Mumia and the blood of MOVE members. Even the judge who is scheduled to hear Kissinger's appeal turns out to be the only member of a city commission that reviewed the 1985 bombing of the MOVE house who found no fault with the murderous actions of the police that day. The issue of the rights of revolutionaries to speak their views has been at the heart of Mumia's case in many ways -- from the attempts to silence Mumia's revolutionary journalism to the imposition of the death penalty based on a statement made by Mumia when he was a member of the Black Panther Party that "political power grows out of the barrel of gun." The police-state atmosphere at the conventions and the political persecution of activists for Mumia have only underlined that reality. Now, for speaking out on Mumia's behalf, Kissinger has been ordered to appear in federal court in Philadelphia to answer charges of probation violation "which may warrant revocation of your probation." The legal Catch-22's in this situation are mind-boggling. First the judge denied Clark a jury trial -- on the grounds that the prosecutor said that he would not ask for jail time. And now the judge can revoke probation and sentence Clark to jail time for the crime of giving a political speech! Furthermore, the document sent to Clark clearly indicates that the political nature of his request to travel was an issue and that the judge himself denied Clark's right to speak and report. The document says: "On July 25, 2000, the defendant formally requested permission to travel to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, from July 31, 2000, through August 1, 2000. The purpose of the trip was to speak at a rally opposing the death penalty, the pending execution of Mumia Abu-Jamal, and to work as a journalist reporting events at the Republican National Convention. USPO Eric Macolino forwarded a copy of the defendant's request to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. The defendant was told that his request for travel was pending judicial approval and he was not to travel until permission was granted." What the document fails to disclose is that every time Clark has asked for permission to travel for family reasons, permission has been granted. But every time Clark has asked to travel to attend a meeting for Mumia or to speak on Mumia's behalf, permission has been denied. So it is clear that the judge's denial of permission to travel to speak at the RNC protests was politically motivated -- and in clear violation of Clark's political rights. Clark's hearing will be held on December 6 -- before Judge Arnold C. Rapoport of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania -- in the same federal court building where Mumia's crucial habeas corpus appeal will be held. As the statement of support for Clark pointed out: "The progressive forces in this country cannot surrender the right to a trial, nor can we tolerate the attempt of the government to 'ground' those working for Mumia." Nor can we tolerate the jailing of revolutionaries for political speech. * * * * * In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. __________________________________________________________________________ FASCISM: We have no ethical right to forgive, no historical right to forget. (No permission required for noncommercial reproduction) - - - - - back issues archived via: <ftp://ftp.nyct.net/pub/users/tallpaul/publish/tinaf/> --- Sponsor's Message -------------------------------------- Get email and like it! Upgrade your brain with informative newsletters from IDG. From hot products to high-speed LANs, Linux to Novell, we’ve got the email you want--FREE at Topica! http://click.topica.com/aaaaKkbz8SnrbAjwjxc/PCWorld ------------------------------------------------------------ ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
