Way, way too much attention is being paid to Janet Jackson's tit. The new campaign for "decency" could be a subterfuge for quieting dissent. Which tends to be loud and raucous.

Undoubtedly. It's not a coincidence that in the 50s campaigns for "decency" coincided with witch hunts looking for commies under the bed.

Coupled with the Bush Administrations attempt to get the control of more radio and TV stations into the hands of fewer and fewer conservative hands, could lead to some pretty heavy pressure on public opinion and dissenters.

Tom has made a pretty good case that, despite centralization of news media in the hands of a few rightwing corporations, the Internet provides an antidote for alternative sources of news. This viewpoint is based on the famous observation of John Gilmore that "The Net treats censorship as damage and routes around it." (John Gilmore's home page)

This being GeekSpeak, however, I'm sorely tempted to launch into one of my mind-numbing essays on how, while it may be expensive, it's not impossible to 1) censor the Internet within our borders; and 2) subvert the Net by substituting false information. (And remember too that government still has the power to censor news at the source, particularly in war zones like Iraq.) Remember how during the Iraq War it was reported that we were able to take over Iraq's command and control networks? Well, all modern networks, especially military networks, are based on Internet technology, which is based on DARPA's design for a network capable of surviving a nuclear attack. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

I'll spare you the GeekSpeak, if you'll just take my word for it that given sufficient resources, i.e., those of our government, even the Internet isn't entirely safe.