Banned in Phoenix

Because it holds a virtual monopoly in Phoenix on "30 sheets," the type of billboard ProjectUSA must use in its Billboard Democracy Campaign, Viacom's decision severely reduces our ability to communicate freely about the actions of a powerful member of the government.

The company justified its decision to refuse our message by citing its right under company guidelines to reject speech that "personally attacks an individual; is obviously false, misleading, or deceptive; relates to an illegal activity; and offends local standards of decency and good taste."

When Arizona Republic reporter Jon Kammen asked Mr. Schwarzkopf which of these four guidelines ProjectUSA had violated, "Schwarzkopf referred questions to an executive in New York (CEO Farid Suleman 212 599 1100) who did not return a phone call." While Schwarzkopf wouldn't say exactly what was wrong with our original message, he did say, however, that Viacom "would be glad to work with the advertiser to find acceptable wording."

What's unacceptable is Viacom using its power to determine what we may not say, and the manner in which we may not say it.

What's unacceptable is the hijacking of our democracy and the corruption of our times by a brazen band of self-interested corporate executives and their mercenary army of paid lobbyists.

What's unacceptable is corporations using their unmatched economic power to buy influence in Washington, passing on the costs to citizens (who end up paying for their own disempowerment), while unilaterally deciding which notes of dissent may be heard.

CANNON Readers will remember that we ran up against the same false denials when we were trying to help Rep. Chris Cannon's constituents in Utah learn of his support for amnesties that we're running into with Senator McCain.

We would argue Chris Cannon supports amnesties for illegal aliens because he introduces legislation in Congress that, like, provides amnesties for illegal aliens, and his staff would respond that that was "just semantics."

We called it just lying, and offered to resolve the matter by submitting the question to independent arbitration. Cannon declined our challenge, dismissing it through a spokesperson as "clever theatrics."

McCAIN (From the Arizona Republic):

Nelsen said his group would pay to submit the definitional question to a certified board of mediators if McCain would agree to abide by the result.

But before the offer was even made, McMenamin said, "We're not going to get into semantics."

AILA: Earned adjustment does not equal “amnesty”: Critics of this legislation have misleadingly dubbed its earned adjustment program an “amnesty program.” This is not the case. Under the bill, workers would not only have to demonstrate past work contributions to the U.S. economy, but also make a substantial future work commitment to earn the right to remain in this country (from the American Immigration Lawyers Association, AGJOBS — WE NEED REFORM TO ACHIEVE A STABLE AND LEGAL AGRICULTURAL WORK FORCE .pdf)

Now that's some fancy-semancy amnesty semantics!

An illegal alien who came illegally to the United States for a chance at higher consumption and better paying job is rewarded with citizenship, but that isn't amnesty, according to this lawyers' group, if he can prove he worked illegally in the United States, and promises to continue to do what he's doing!