Censorship: The LaHood Family Business
Bernard Schoenburg's column in the State Journal Register includes an interview with U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood (R.-18th, Peoria). He predicts a primary victory for Judy Baar Topinka and Joe Birkett (another GOPer with little regard for civil rights), despite what looks to be a massive smear and hate campaign by conservatives. But it's this passage about LaHood's son that I found most interesting:
SAM LaHOOD, who turns 31 on Wednesday, has a master's degree in Middle East studies from American University in Beirut, Lebanon. As part of his work for the State Department, the younger LaHood accepted an assignment in Baghdad that began Sept. 1.
"He says it's the most interesting job that he's ever had," the congressman told me. His son lives in the Green Zone, a protected area in the city, and his job is help escort members of the press covering the SADDAM HUSSEIN trial.
"He's been in the courtroom with Saddam every time Saddam has made an appearance," LaHood said.
Sam LaHood also has the job of approving pictures of Saddam to be used in newspapers.
In other words: Sam LaHood is a government censor.
It's all so clear now. That's why the senior LaHood refused to vote for the bill that would protect bloggers from having to prove they aren't getting money from political campaigns. The whole family suffers from a genetic dispostion toward telling people what they do and do not have a right to say and print.
All the family needs now is for LaHood's other son, Darin, to get the job of U.S. Attorney for central Illinois. That way, it will be a member of the LaHood family who tosses my ass in federal prison for not filing disclosure statements, which new Federal Election Commission rules could require me to do if I have the audacity to link to a candidate's Website.
Hat tip to Jeff Trigg.
Technorati Tags: LaHood, censorship, campaign finance reform
Cross posted at Peoria Pundit.
6 comments:
You need to spend time in a prison. Every prisoner has a right to have his privacy protected including having his/her picture taken.
LaHood's son is protecting Saddam's dignity as a prisoner, as he should, by controling what kind of picture can be shown of him.
Remember the stink about the picture of Saddam getting a dental exam? That's exactly why a censor is needed.
Fine. Send me your Blogger screen name and password. I now appoint myself the offocial censor of your blog.
If I go to prison I sure want someone censoring any pictures distributed of me! You're first in line for that job should the need arise.
By your logic, Bill Baar, shouldn't Saddam himself, or his lawyers, be given the power to censor what pictures of him are released? If you were in prison, what's to say that your "censor" wouldn't release photos of you on the toilet?
I guarantee you that the pictures of Saddam allowed to be released are filtered by LaHood's son as to what is in Bush's best interest, not Saddam's. The pictures in discussion have to be from the trial and court proceedings, NOT from the prison cell I would assume.
Thanks Bill Dennis.
We give Saddam hair dye to color his hair and look good. I'm sure that's to Saddam's benifit and not ours.
As a POW Saddam was covered by the Geneva convention and I think expressley forbids pictures of POWs. As a criminal under trial for crimes against humanity, I believe the same standard exist.
LaHood and Illinois should be proud of his son's service.
I am a photographer who has covered the Saddam trial, and my interest is obviously against any censorship that would adversely affect how the media can cover the trial.
The setup of how the media can cover the trial is not in any way ideal, but there are a number of inaccuracies in the article and comments above.
People like Sam Lahood (and there are others performing a similar function, including Iraqi staff from the court sometimes) have the job of ensuring that certain rules laid down by the judges are enforced with regards to photographs that can used.
In the Saddam trial, there are only two criteria that can be applied to prevent a photograph from being used:
1. That it contains the faces of certain people who the judges themselves have ruled cannot be shown at all in photographs or on television - this includes certain witnesses, lawyers, some judges, and security staff of the court. This is designed to prevent retribution against them - as already two members of the court have been assassinated.
2. Secondly, the Chief Judge himself can choose to cut television and photo coverage for certain parts of a session if he sees fit.
These are the only two criteria the media have accepted - because in any court where TV or photo coverage is allowed, the bottom line is you have to follow the orders of the judge. These restrictions are accepted only because they come directly from the court itself. We would not accept restrictions imposed by any third party.
Sometimes it can be frustrating to have coverage cut when things finally get interesting, but the fact is that this is the decision of the Chief Judge, and people like Sam LaHood and others who do a similar task, have no discretion in the matter.
I can assure you that if they ever did try to go beyond those two rules e.g. to say "don't use that picture it makes this person look bad" or "we want you to send this picture", the media would simply not accept it - it's just not in the media's interest to allow itself to get restricted like that.
Post a Comment