We won’t have nice things in a theocracy. Even one that claims to be “secular.”

Lady Gaga has canceled her June 3 concert in Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim-majority nation, which calls itself secular, after the hardline fundamentalists  Islamic Defenders Front (FPI) threatened violence and

chaos

if she entered the country, calling Gaga a

devil’s messenger.

The FPI stated they would try to prevent the performer from exiting her plane when it landed, complaining that Gaga performed in

a bra and panties.

Minola Sebayang, lawyer for promoters Big Daddy, told reporters:

This is not only about Lady Gaga’s security, but extends to those who will be watching her.

While the police in Jakarta refused to issue a permit for the concert, Big Daddy president Michael Rusli said:

For the past few days we have communicated with the government and Lady Gaga’s side. The government has given support, but this is not about the permit. The cancellation is really due to concerns over security.

It’s been reported that promoters were trying to work within government guidelines for decency–Beyonce and the Pussycat Dolls were allowed to perform their Indonesian shows in modest stage costumes. But while Rusili said that Gaga was

prepared to adapt to Asian culture,

her manager Troy Carter said the star

would not tone down any of her concerts.

In the past months, Lady Gaga has faced protests from Christian groups at her shows in the Philippines and South Korea, and in the latter country made her shows 18 and over, but refused to compromise her concerts’ content or the integrity of her vision.

Promoters are offering refunds for the 50,000 tickets sold for the concert.

Again, this is why we won’t have nice things in a theocracy. Like Pride tee-shirts. Or certain books. Or more importantly, the freedom to worship, love or do as we please. Because, even though Indonesia is a technically a secular country, 90% of population identifies as Muslim, and some of that 90% is so empowered by being in the majority that they’ve become threatening bullies. Kinda like some Christians here in the US, where 78% of the population identifies as Christian some of whom murder in the name of their faith, which is why it is important that all of us continue to support and maintain the separation of church and state, and refute the establishment of any theocracy, and work to insure that any government favoritism of any faith, by any government arm, even the IRS, is stopped.

Everyone knows the Internet was created for two reasons: Lolcats and to allow free expression of everything else. Yet if elected, Rick Santorum promises something very un-American: To ban pornography on the Internet. That sequel to Fifty Shades of Grey–forget about it. (And teh kittehs may be next).

In a statement on his website, Santorum, whose name has become synonymous with a specific neologism meaning a frothy mix of certain fluids, spews forth:

Current federal “obscenity” laws prohibit distribution of hardcore (obscene) pornography on the Internet, on cable/satellite TV, on hotel/motel TV, in retail shops and through the mail or by common carrier. Rick Santorum believes that federal obscenity laws should be vigorously enforced. “If elected President, I will appoint an Attorney General who will do so.”

The Obama Administration has turned a blind eye to those who wish to preserve our culture from the scourge of pornography and has refused to enforce obscenity laws. While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration.

But what is obscene? That depends on prevailing community standards, which can translate to six squeaky wheels protesting in front of the Hustler store, while a lot of people stay home watching streaming triple-X raunchfests or reading Anaïs Nin. Or Aleister Crowley. Rick Santorum’s concept of obscene probably varies widely from mine. Or yours. Or the guy next door’s.

Dr. Omar Minwalla Clinical Director of The Institute for Sexual Health, based in Beverly Hills, CA pointed out in an interview with me that there is a large uptick in straight-identified men (admitting to) watching pornography featuring transgender people. Many couples, married or not, watch pornography together. Fifty Shades of Grey, a “romance” novel featuring heavy BDMS (bondage/dominance/sado-masochism) is best seller among women, especially it seems, married moms; the highly sexed novel is credited as putting the spice back into relationships. And this graph shows that traditionally Republican, conservative states have the highest Google searches for both “God” and “free gay porn.”

Filtering the Internet for obscenity is a slippery slope, and an election strategy that could backfire. Such a plan would cost taxpayers money and cause more government interference in our lives, while doing nothing to lower taxes, create jobs, strengthen the border, or end our dependency on foreign oil – all of which are huge Republican issues. While some people may outwardly support Santorum, when it comes to what they do at home and in the voting booth, both equally very private matters, personal issues could translate to a loss for the sexual-censorship-obsessed Santorum.

In an interesting side note, Dr. Minwalla adds that many of the clients he sees for sexuality concerns are often Republican, religious conservatives who are sexually acting out with not only pornography, but multiple affairs, prostitution, strip clubs, massage parlors, and with employees. Says Dr. Minwalla:

Often, in order to compensate for the shame they may feel about their secret and shame-based sexual behaviors, many such men will present as fighters for morality, or join organizations that fight pornography as a way to compensate for their shame and the discomfort about their own sexuality,as a way of soothing it and making themselves feel better.

Now Rick Santorum wants to create an even bigger, illegal shame pool for people to swim in using standards of obscenity based on the views of a group of people who think having Ellen DeGeneres–a talented, successful, married woman who gives to charity and is concerned about social and economic issues–as a spokesperson for a major department store is reprehensible:

I proudly support the efforts of the War on Illegal Pornography Coalition that has tirelessly fought to get federal obscenity laws enforced. That coalition is composed of 120 national, state, and local groups, including Morality in Media, Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, American Family Association, Cornerstone Family Council of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania Family Institute, Concerned Women for America, The Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, and a host of other groups. Together we will prevail.

Can you imagine the meetings these groups must have, huddled around the flickering screens of their computers, sharing files of fap-fodder, groaning in ecstasy disgust at the filthy perversions of their fellow Americans…

Oh and Senator Santorum, Ben Franklin participated in orgies. Plus our Founding Fathers appeared to like porn, the profits of which help found the American Revolution. So fap to that, Frothyman.

(this is not the banned video, though it is indicative of Andrew Christian’s video style)

Andrew Christian’s cheeky videos on YouTube advertise the clothing company’s expressive line of men’s underwear, featuring gorgeous male models flaunting their assets—and front-sets: Andrew Christian’s “Show-it” line promises

maximum frontal enhancement.

The company directs their marketing towards gay men, though seriously straight dudes couldn’t go wrong wearing some of these styles which look far more comfortable and sexy than the standard hide-away tighty-whiteys and boxer briefs. A man, no matter what his sexual orientation, would definitely cut a fine figure in these underpinnings–they are kinda like a super-bra for the meat and potatoes.

The Andrew Christian videos–which are age restricted on YouTube–definitely play up sexuality, as do vast number of YouTube videos aimed towards straights and featuring female models (and amateurs). So why did YouTube yank Andrew Christian’s “Pink Paradise” promo from the company’s YouTube channel? (I haven’t seen it, but if it’s anything like their others, it’s cute, playful, and sexy with hot guys frolicking in skivvies, eye candy for straight women and gay men).

In an open letter to YouTube, Andrew Christian wrote:

Our video was meant to be a fun way to feature our new line of underwear. We’re disappointed and confused about its removal for inappropriate content when there are hundreds of thousands of videos featuring overtly sexual female imagery. We are a company that only produces menswear, and it feels unfair that our ads are held to different standards for featuring the male body.

There is no doubt in our mind that there would be no issue if the exact same video was posted with female models instead of male. Are you being homophobic or is it something else?

All we request is for our account to be unblocked, and the “Pink Paradise” video to be restored with its original view count so we may continue to regard YouTube as a fair and balanced outlet for reaching our audience.

The company’s channel is now unblocked.  Their letter included a short list of videos which feature the same type of content as the Andrew Christian video (and may be NSFW depending on your company standards):

-Fully exposed breasts / butt

-Lingering shots of tight underwear, exposed butts (and over 18 million views)

-Visible nipples and butts

-Fully exposed breasts

-Camel toe video

-Entire video is slow motion close-ups of bouncing breasts

-Girl rubbing her barely covered body, very near nudity

-Female pool party video with just as much exposed butt and small swimsuits

-Exposed butts, near-exposed breasts

Some of these are age restricted, and one that Andrew Christian listed in their letter featuring

Women making out and putting their hands under each others’ underwear

is now removed. I found more raunchy videos of women including this one which far exceeds the amount of ass shown in Andrew Christian videos, and the related videos that are featured on the same page are um, really rather extreme. Based on their titles, I cannot unsee them, so I didn’t click. You may be braver than I.

YouTube’s community guidelines state:

YouTube is not for pornography or sexually explicit content.

While I haven’s seen Andrew Christian’s “Pink Paradise,” based on other videos featured the company’s channel, I can safely say they are sexy but not explicitly sexual. And definitely not porn.

YouTube’s Terms of Service explain that by using YouTube:

You further understand and acknowledge that you may be exposed to Content that is inaccurate, offensive, indecent, or objectionable

Undoubtedly there are people who find videos of  anyone frolicking in their underwear offensive, indecent, or objectionable, but seriously, they are adults. In underwear. And just like Victoria’s Secret and that god awful Paris Hilton Carl’s Jr commercial (I do not recommend clicking on the “banned” version which will get you a whole list of related videos which are really skanky and somehow have passed muster with YouTube’s community standards, possibly because they cater to heterosexuals, though feminists might get a bit worked up over a couple of them based on the preview stills).

Seriously, YouTube, did you cave to some homophobic complaints? Please reinstate Andrew Christian’s “Pink Paradise,”  which is simply a sexy underwear ad, the same as this one.

On February 18, the informational website Reddit will blackout to protest the Stop Online Piracy Act.  There are calls for Google and Facebook to do the same.

Here’s what you can do to protest SOPA:

Don’t use the Internet on February 18.

If that proves too painful, use it for email only (and maybe 4Chan) Stay off Facebook. Avoid Google searches, online shopping, porn, etc.

Still too hard? How about posting the image above as both your profile photo on Facebook, and as a photo album, along with other anti censorship jpgs?

The Facebook idea is the brainchild of Peter Tassi, a contributor to Forbes.

As they say on teh internets, I find Tassi’s views intriguing and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

For the Emmy’s opening number, Fox News trimmed a skit featutring Alec Baldwin playing a  television executive because the bit referenced Rupert Murdoch and the NewCorp hacking scandal. The joke was pre-approved by producers. Baldwin then removed himself from the skit itself–Leonard Nimoy replaced him– when the joke was snipped, writing today:

A couple of days later, I was informed that the producers had been told by some Fox entity that the joke had to be cut. I then asked that the entire piece be omitted, as I felt the joke was, perhaps, the funniest thing in it.

Baldwin was not at the awards ceremony; he had commited to hosting  a benefit  in New York to  honor Tony Bennett’s on the singer’s 85th birthday.

Leonard Nimoy replaced Baldwin in the censored piece, which omitted the television executive asking if Rupert Murdoch was listening to the call.  A Fox spokesperson told Deadline.com

they said they made the decision not because the joke involved Murdoch but because they take the phone-hacking allegations very seriously and did not want to be seen as making light of them.

Baldwin tweeted Sunday:

If I were enmeshed in a scandal where I hacked phones of families of innocent crime victims purely 4 profit, I’d want that 2 go away, 2.

In his Huffington Post piece, Baldwin had even stronger words for Fox and its parent News Corp

I suppose I am accustomed to a different experience, having worked on 30 Rock for so long, where we have been given the license to skewer the General Electric corporate culture without interference from GE. GE was nothing but gracious and even appreciative of the jokes.

However, in some sense, I understand News Corps.’ reluctance to include that joke. If I were accused of illegally hacking into the private phone messages of the families of innocent crime victims and doing so purely for profit, I would be eager for that scandal to go away, too.

There have been rumblings of Alec Baldwin running for Mayor of New York City, or possibly  for  Senate seat. Here’s his impression of Congress, based on having testified before both the House and Senate:

In reaction to BART’s shutdown of cell phone service Thursday, Anonymous has taken to the Internet and begun #opBART and #opMuBARTek (a reference to the Egyptian president’s shutting down that country’s Internet service during protests) a  multi-pronged series of actions designed to protest the Bay Area Rapid Transit’s  stifling of  free speech. There will be a peaceful Anon-organized protest Monday at BART Civic Center Station at 5pm. Attendees are requested to wear either a red shirt or clothes with fake blood stains, and to bring video cameras.

BART has issued a statement which said, in part:

Paid areas of BART stations are reserved for ticketed passengers who are boarding, exiting, or waiting for BART cars and trains, or for authorized BART personnel. No person shall conduct or participate in assemblies or demonstrations or engage in other expressive activities in the paid areas of BART stations, including BART cars and trains and BART station platforms.

No telling what BART would do if a carload of passengers suddenly put on Anon masks once riding.

Anonymous does not appear to be involved in the planning of last Thursday’s aborted protest over the Transit Police’s fatal shooting of a man in July of this year, and activated only when the cellphone service was shut off.  BART’s cellphone service shutdown was decried by the ACLU, State Senator Leland Yee and the Electronic Freedom Foundation-Austin, amongst others.

On Sunday, mybart.org was defaced with Anonymous’ iconic Guy Fawks (Epic Fail Guy) mask. BART had issued a press statement on Sunday morning saying that there could be disruptions to their web service.

In another action, some Anonymous person/s hacked into the BART database and dumped data, including users’ emails and passwords onto the BART website.  Some people have tweeted their objection to that action, one writing:

I dont support the leak. I don’t support “pickles” as a password either.

Good point. No credit card data was involved in the leak; however, it is always a good idea to use a different password for different sites (hence possibly the reason one person’s password was admin123). On their Twitter feed #opBART, Anonymous claims to have

emailed all the people on the BART mailing list (over 120k) on how to join tomorrows protest and why

Because user information was accessed and posted, the FBI has been called in according to the San Francisco Examiner, and there is speculation that cellphone service may be blocked again for the protest. The National Lawyers Guild will have their hotline in place for the protest, and demonstrators are advised to write down the phone number on their arms and/or memorize it in case of arrest or injury.

And while they were at it, Anonymous also defaced the California Avoid website, with messages including

Free Topiary

a reference to the jailing of an alleged Anon in England over various acts of  hacktivism.

With regards to upswings in hacking activities and the UK riots, Anonymous issued this statement:

We found thousands of messages that claim to be Anonymous, attributing responsibility for things we would never do and now it happens with the riots. Be alert to this. Do not allow Internet Censorship! An article in PC magazine shows that the corporate media is starting to ask the same question that the alternative media has been asking. Are the recent string of hacker attacks a false flag operations meant to drum up support to push through Internet censorship laws that the public would otherwise protest? Are the recent riots a false flag operations meant to drum up support to push through Internet censorship laws that the public would otherwise protest?

As BART’s website infrastructure is not at all connected to the computer systems that run the trains themselves, the web attacks did not result in any service delays. Additionally, there was no disruption to BART’s schedule and information site, bart.gov.

No matter gay, straight, or bi,
Lesbian, transgendered life
I’m on the right track baby
I was born to survive

One could argue time restraints on GMA caused the singer to shorten the tune. But Glee? Really?! Mmmm.

Meanwhile, two months ago in Malaysia, Born This Way was edited to remove the same verse for radio airplay. NME reports

Chiefs for Malaysia’s top private radio operator AMP Radio Networks made a statement about their edit. They explained that the edit had been commissioned as there are government restrictions against songs that might violate “good taste or decency or are offensive to public feeling”.

The statement continued: “The particular lyrics in ‘Born This Way’ may be considered as offensive when viewed against Malaysia’s social and religious observances. The issue of being gay, lesbian or bisexual is still considered as a ‘taboo’ by general Malaysians.”

And Wednesday from the Philippines:

Why is Channel V Philippines censoring the lyrics of Lady Gaga’s pro-gay song “Born This Way?”

The music channel removed the controversial line “No matter gay, straight or bi, lesbian, transgendered life, I’m on the right track, baby” from the Lady Gaga music video.

Lady Gaga, in her official Twitter account, said last week that the point with ‘Born This Way ‘is to “fight for something that not everyone believes in. To overcome adversity with a message.”

see more Lolcats and funny pictures

The Internets. Both of them. This meme may become a reality…

We will support a free and open Internet.

That’s what Barack Obama told the United Nations. But then why is there a bill before the Senate Judiciary Committee that would allow the Attorney General to block certain Internet domain names from ISPs?

The bill S. 3804, the Combating Online Infringement and Counterfeits Act (COICA), introduced by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) would create two blacklists of Internet sites “dedicated to infringing activity,” which is defined very broadly as any site where counterfeit goods or copyrighted material are “central to the activity of the Internet site.”

Heck, that could be eBay–I’ve seen some pretty bogus Marc Jacobs Stam bags on there, as well as faux Max Studio, BCBG  and Betsey Johnston dresses. And certainly YouTube could be considered such a site, though they do pull any video  which is flagged with a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) infringement notice. Flickr.com and other photo storage sites allow people to upload their photoshopped images, as of course does the monster shoop site ICanHazcheeseburger.com

Anyway, one of the blacklists can be added to by the courts, the second by the Attorney General.  According to Demand Progress:

Internet service providers (everyone from Comcast to PayPal to Google AdSense) would be required to block any domains on the first list. They would also receive immunity (and presumably the government’s gratitude) for blocking domains on the second list.

Copyright is a tricky thing. The Associated Press says:

Associated Press text material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use.

And that means if a tree falls in the forest and only the AP is there to cover it, does that actually mean you can’t mention the tree hitting the earth without violating the AP’s copyright, even if you blogged under Fair Use that

a mighty big piece of living lumber  was felled by unknown means, according to the AP

rather than

a tree fell in the forest

because that is “rewritten”?

So technically if you did blog about it, under COICA your site could be blacklisted by servers and basically disappear because you “violated” copyright by reporting news to which you didn’t have direct access. Unless you paid the AP. So news becomes proprietary information. And that means control of information and possibly no freedom of the press since unlimited access would be truncated.

Nowadays, copyright infringement is handled with lawyer letters, threats of lawsuits and actual court trials, where there is a burden of proof. Should this pass, the lights would go off on sites deemed violators. Demand Progress says:

This bill would bypass that whole system by forcing Internet service providers to block access to sites that are otherwise up. People in other countries could still get to them, but Internet users in the US would be blocked.

Blocked from entire domain names. Sort of like how the governments of Iran, China, Saudi Arabia and elsewhere block undesirable sites. Granted, because of copyright and licensing laws, when I was in Ireland, I couldn’t watch clips from The View on ABC.com; when in Turkey, I was unable to listen to Coast to Coast on KFI640.com, so I wonder how many blocked sites would actually still be visible. And plus there are ways around that. Demand Progress claims that

if this law passes Internet traffic will be reconfigured to route around it. Companies will move their US servers and domain names overseas, Internet users will route their traffic through other countries (just like Chinese citizens have to do now!), and software will have to be reconfigured to no longer trust answers from American servers.

Demand Progress is concerned that this bill is the start of a slippery slope  and that with a little prodding from Teh Gubbermints  all sorts of sites could end up being banned, not only news, blogs, politics, and entertainment, but  porn and gambling, which is really what fueled the series of interconnected tubes.

Amazon has lifted their ban on carrying John Roecker’s documentary “Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Gay Porn Stars” after first declining it for content. Amazon carries a lot of adult material, gay and straight, as well as plenty of indie films and small documentaries.

When the mega-online retailer’s stance was made public, people emailed and called the company, and Amazon now stocks the two disc set.

Let’s see what happens with Target now that it’s come out about their donations to anti-LGBT candidates because the PAC that supports Michele Bachmann and Tom Emmer is “good for business.”

John Roecker set out to explore the world of the sex industry and wound up making frank, bold documentary Everything You Ever Wanted to Know About Gay Porn Stars,*But Were Afraid to Ask! The seven episodes which aired on Here! TV featured some of the hottest names in the male sex industry, talking about the how and why of their careers. The actors discuss their past history as abused children, their drug use, their love lives off screen, their pasts and their futures. It’s gritty and gnarly, moving. Out of 16 of the actors, two are now dead, and one, Harlow Cuadra, is in prison. Roecker told me:

I want these guys to be heard, I want to give them a voice.

But the opportunity to learn about the human side to these men has just gotten smaller, even though the DVD collection of Roecker’s documentary is about to be released.

I went to Amazon to pre-order Everything as a gift for a friend who is a fan of  gay porn and the band Rancid and punk hero Tim Armstrong who donated music for the series.

Everything wasn’t listed as available now or for pre-sale. It wasn’t listed at all. But Salo with fourteen year olds having sex was. So was Behind the Green Door. And Deep Throat. And The Devil in Miss Jones. Jenna Jameson’s autobiography, How to Make Love Like a Porn Star is readily available. Oh heck, Amazon sells Paris Hilton’s sex tape, and have pre-orders available for thousands of books, CDs and DVDs. Why not Roecker’s look at the gay sex business?

Oddly Amazon doesn’t stock another film from the same distributor, Dream Boy, an R-rated feature which was released theatrically with good reviews. The film features the rape of young gay male character by another young man. The rapist claims he is straight. Amazon stocks Hound Dog with Dakota Fanning as the victim of a brutal on-screen rape.

One person who queried Amazon about Everything received this stock reply:

As a retailer, our goal is to provide customers with the broadest selection possible so they can find, discover, and buy any item they might be seeking. That selection includes some items which many people may find objectionable. Therefore, the items offered on our website represent a wide spectrum of opinions on a variety of topics.

Amazon.com believes it is censorship not to sell certain titles because we believe their message is objectionable. Therefore, we’ll continue to make controversial works available in the United States and everywhere else, except where they’re prohibited by law.

The letter goes on to suggest perhaps buying a gay porn DVD and/or a documentary on a straight porn star. Yes, but what about this specific documentary about gay porn stars? It is not listed at all. Why?

Email and a call to Amazon’s PR department were not returned.