44 Comments »

1. why is it bad to publish a cartoon of Mohammed?

   As for Lordi, Finland owns him a lot, he had made only one wish and the editors choose to disagree on that particular respect. The public, or some of us, choose to not be amused and to complain.
   Things free people do.

   Comment by aNtonio — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 10:47 am

2. In this blog, I’ve repeatedly cursed the Finnish media which didn’t dare to publish the Muhammad cartoons, especially Hesari which kind of promised to publish them, yet finally never did so. Anyone can read my arguments for the publishing in my earlier entries - defending the freedom of speech, measure against self-censorship in writing about Islam, imposing the (not even undisputed) standards of a different religion and culture on ours demanded by people who are not willing to grant any significant rights to minorities in their countries/culture. Summa summarum, it was ugly that people in countries such as Saudi Arabia threaten a small Danish paper and their government which has nothing to do with the cartoons with violence, trying to force them to follow Saudi standards while Saudi Arabia is perhaps the least tolerant country in the world together with North Korea. My arguments then were for press freedom and against double standards.

   Publishing Lordi unmasked is surely part of the freedom of speech as well and not illegal. That’s why I never signed under the address to boycott Seiska - well, I don’t buy Seiska anyway.

   However, I didn’t like that they published the pictures. Lordi’s case differs from that of Muhammad in many aspects:

   1. The right to criticize any religion or political system is one of the core aspects of the freedom of speech. Revealing how Lordi looks like or what is for example behind a magician’s trick or what are the surnames of TikTak girls etc. is marginal and serves people’s curiosity, nothing more. Like what do we really do with the fact that we know Phil’s full name? Nothing.

   2. In the Muhammad case, the vocal Muslims tried to impose their standrads on others by threats and violence, in Lordi’s case Lordi’s fans are not violent except for a couple of not serious threats.

   3. No Lordi fans have tried to mingle the Danish government (Seiska is Danish-owned) in the issue, neither should they.

   4. Lordi is not imposing double standards here: they just asked not not be shown without their masks, they’re not revealing anybody else’s masks - in the Muhammad case, the vocal minority of Muslims demanded of others what they were not ready to let the others demand of themselves.

   5. In the Lordi case it’s a magazine unable to criticize itself and unwilling to let its journalists be scrutinized, criticized and revealed doing that on others (why is there no gossip on Seiska journalists anywhere - see due to the protests the magazine withdrew the faces and contact details of its staff from their website, truly double standards by a paparazzi magazine!), in the Muhammad case it was a newspaper criticizing self-censorship against self-censorship.

   6. In the Muhammad case, the boycott was against outsiders (Danish government, all Danish products which have nothing to do with Jyllands-Posten), in the Lordi case the boycott was against the magazine and companies advertizing in it (in the Muhammad case it was perfectly acceptable to boycott Jyllands-Posten and its advertizers). This is similar to the Kaltio self-censorship case: it was perfectly right to boycott the magazine and the companies that withdrew their advertizements from there. That’s consumer activism while boycotting all companies from Oulu would have been idiotism as boycotting all products from all countries where Lordi has been unmasked would be as well.

   7. In the Muhammad case, the cartoons were the news. It’s like writing about Abu Ghraib without showing the pictures that angered millions. How can you write about what is probably the most important news for months without showing what the news is? In Lordi’s case it’s their appearance that is the news, not what is behind it.

   It’s very encouraging and enjoyable that finally somebody shows Seiska and other crap papers what they think of them. I hope (but the cynic I am, don’t quite believe) this will lead to better standards of journalism here, which is revealing real problems and scandals. Like, it was disgusting that our media was quiet on Kekkonen’s health problems when they should have questioned his ability to stay in his high office. That’s self-censorship on a far more serious level that not showing Lordi’s face.

   Last but not least, the decision of publishing or not should be that of the media alone. If people don’t like the decision, they can take any legal and reasonable measures against it: boycotting the media, boycotting their advertizers and telling their opinion generally. Had this been the case with Muhammad by people willing to tolerate the others in their countries, I would have had little problem with it. However, that was not the case.

   And the decision of publishing in the very end the decision of individuals. Like, Phil published the cartoons (hail to him for that), not Lordi unmasked (hail to him for that as well).

   By the way, check the newest issue of Kaltio: http://www.kaltio.fi/index.php?852. It has now a cartoon by Ville Ranta (behind the Muhammad cartoon censored from Kaltio) on the life of the martyr prophet Jussi Vilkuna (their sacked editor), parodizing an Orthodox saint’s life story. This is as sacrilegious as the Muhammad cartoons, yet I’m happy there have been no protests against it, not even by Father Mitro, Finland’s official anti-Lordi priest.

   MM

   Comment by Moral minority? — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 11:16 am

3. Publishing a picture of Lordi hands down. That was an easy one.

   Next?

   Comment by finnsense — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 11:33 am

4. There’s no significant reason to publish his face. who and what does it serve?

   Comment by p — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 11:35 am

5. “There’s no significant reason to publish his face. who and what does it serve?”

   That implies they need a reason to. It implies they must defend it.

   Here’s what I see the difference between European freedom of speech and the ammendment protected American version is: in Europe, the tendency -in law as well as standard social practice- is that they justify what they say. The question is omnipresent in European discourse: what is your “significant” “reason”? I forget what Romano Prodi said specifically, but he said something along the lines that Europeans didn’t “fetishize” free speech but sought to “balance” it with “other values”. Amazing.

   Comment by James V. — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 12:04 pm

6. James V., Europe consists of close to 50 independent countries, slightly more than half of which are EU members (referring to Prodi’s former job here). There’s no single “European freedom of speech” whatsoever. Think about such cases as Denmark (where the Muhammad cartoons are legal), Austria (where you’re put to jail if you suspect the Holocaust as a historical fact), Belarus (where you disappear if you criticize Lukashenka), Vatican (no opposition media whatsoever), Poland (where condom and underwear ads are banned from tv channels during the Pope’s visit), France (where politicians’ private lives are strictly private) and so on.

   According to Reporters Withour Borders (http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554) Finland is among some others no. 1 in the world in press freedom. The top 11 countries are all from Europe. The US is ranked 44th, between Macedonia and Bolivia.

   MM

   Comment by Moral minority? — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 12:22 pm

7. There’s this big difference between Tomi Putaansuu and Muhammed: T.P. is a living guy who wants to be famous and the other one is a dead guy who we’re not even sure of what he really looked like.

   So Seiska published a picture of this guy that had already been published in HS Nyt-liite seven years ago (T.P. had agreed to pose for them before he came up with this idea that he doesn’t want to show his face in public).

   I think Tomi Putaansuu has to live with his face being recognized. That’s the price of being a rock star, with or without a mask.

   What’s really interesting is that some of the reactions of Lordi fans, the obscenities directed at Seiska (Hämeen Sanomat’s online forum was closed down because Lordi fans started sending too rough messages) are basically a beginning of copycat behavior of Muhammed fans shouting out their anguish at Jyllands-Posten. Yeah, the are no riots and no actions against the Danish government but the sentiment against Seiska proves clearly that the idea that a picture that is published can offend the Western mindset is in no way unthinkable at all.

   I have nothing against publishing either one (Tomi Putaansuu or Muhammed cartoons) but I think Muhammed was worse because there were religious sensibilities involved. There seriously can’t be any such sensibilities (yeah, rock fans can find true religion when talking about their favorite rock star) that could protect T.P. from a picture he himself has allowed to be taken of him years ago. Hufvudstadsbladet published today T.P.’s face and they stated clearly that commercial interests can’t be a legitimate reason for not having your face published. If T.P. would be under criminal prosecution or famous because he’s suffering of an illness, those would be different things.

   So: Muhammed is worse but publishing both is perfectly fine with me. I didn’t like the idea of Seiska publishing the Putaansuu picture (that was tasteless but perfectly standard Seiska stuff) but I certainly don’t think he should be protected from that type of publicity. I would never buy Seiska in any case so there would be nothing more idiotic I could do than join a boycott of Seiska because of this one thing. I’ve always been perfectly comfortable with the idea that very many other people prefer to read Seiska above any other news source and why would my indignation of anything that they print have the right to diminish the pleasure of Seiska readers? Jyllands-Posten is a different thing also in this sense because it’s supposed to be a quality newspaper, not a scandal rag. But as far as I know J-P didn’t publish Tomi Putaansuu’s picture.

   Comment by Helsinkian — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 12:45 pm

8. I think the point about Lordi was not that it was morally wrong. No-one would argue that 7 päivä had a moral or legal duty not to prnt his face. The point was that it spoils something people are enjoying and they did it as a cheap way to get readers, when in the long term it could damage the illusion that is Lordi.

   So obviously it was really dumb and it pissed people off and Lordi won. It was a triumph for self-censorship.

   Comment by finnsense — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 1:08 pm

9. What about taking the discussion to the personal level, as this is the level where the decision of publication/no publication is always made and where many journalists really impose double standards (they have the right to write whatever they want about everybody but who ever spies on journalists themselves - they’re anyway very important opinion builders, so what influences there might be behind their articles does count)?

   Case 1: Let’s say I were a rock star, secret agent or anything else yet unmasked to the general public. Would I enjoy seeing my face on the Seiska cover next time I shop at the neighbourhood Alepa? Nope. I’d prefer being able to shop without grandmas in the neighbouring queue congratulating me. Yet, I wouldn’t like to be the exception here, I’d demand similar level of privacy for all similar people.

   Case 2: Let’s say I claimed I received an entire holy book from an archangel which is reason enough to claim I’m the seal of all prophets past and alive and nobody greater than me would ever be seen on Earth. Would I care my face to be shown in a country I’d never heard about in a media which didn’t exist during my lifetime 1300 years after my death? If I would, I think this archangel had conveyed the ban to me in clear times and my God would certainly take revenge. For that, my God of course wouldn’t need rioters, great as He is, He would use other means unknown to us, mere mortals.

   Another distinction is that the fact that Muhammad’s face is shown in a Danish or Finnish newspaper is strictly unoffensive to the vast majority of the potential readers of these papers. Even in Finland, I’m sure most people didn’t know before the conflict that such a presumed ban exists in Islam and those who found the cartoons offensive surely found them offensive because they thought some other people might think they’re that. Huh? In Seiska’s case, the journalists should have known many of their readers would react because it was against the outright kind request by Mr. Lordi (although showing a public figure’s face is not considered offensive here). They took the risk and lost this time.

   It’s not only about Lordi. It’s about nowadays faceless journalists spying on others instead of concentrating on real scandals. In my opinion, Kimi Räikkönen should also be able to have a drink or two with being in the lense and Matti Vanhanen should be able to send a couple of rendezvous requests to women without someone willing to get famous leaking them to a scandal paper. It’s hormones, not politics!

   Of course media, on the other hand, should have the right to spoil things as well. Think about Fortum. Nobody cares how much Finnish taxpayers and ordinary people who invested in the company are earning, everybody now associates them with their over the top packages to their managament. This spoils their party, sure, yet in my opinion it’s an important social and political topic to discuss (and Hesari’s economic and business editors are doing a good job in investigative journalism in such cases).

   MM

   Comment by Moral minority? — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 3:01 pm

10. You dare not to publish Mr Putaansuu´s picture without mask. So it must be worse.

    How about Formula 1 in Monaco?

    Comment by jormanen — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 4:40 pm

11. How about Formula 1 in Monaco?

    I just went to Thursday’s warm-up. But it was amazing, my first F1 experience, the sound of the cars was amazing, it gets you so pumped up inside. We had awesome seats to, right on the water, we saw each car for like 15 seconds each lap.

    Comment by Phil — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 5:40 pm

12. Ok Phil, enjoy Mediterranean lifestyle!

    Comment by jormanen — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 6:06 pm

13. Fascinating! I thought about this when they published the picture of Mr Lordi, and some people got pretty upset, and what this issue had in common with the “Muhammed cartoons”-issue.
    If I had yo choose between these two, the Mohammed cartoons and the picture of Mr Lordi, then I would choose not to publish the picture of Mr Lordi.
    On the other hand I spoke with an American Muslim, during the crisis over the Mohammed cartoons, who wondered if people have ever heard of something called “respect” but for some reason I don’t think the publishing of those cartoons was that bad.

    Comment by Mikael — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 7:26 pm

14. we saw each car for like 15 seconds each lap.

    So what did you do for the rest of the lap?

    Comment by gopha — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 9:23 pm

15. To even compare Lordi to the case of Muhammed is totaly ridiculous. Phil, I’m a little shocked. To compare a religious leader of billions of people to a masked musician that won eurovision (wow) and thinks he deserves privacy and repect? Come on…. As for MM…………. NO, I’ll leave it at that. Totally speechless:(

    Comment by ozy — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 10:28 pm

16. I support their right to publish those photos. But they shouldn’t and they and their ilk in the tabloid press are all a bunch of cunts who deserve everything they have coming. Tricky situation.

    Comment by Captain Haddock — Sat, May 27th, 2006 @ 11:02 pm

17. i think the big difference here is we were asked, not told not to publish pictures, and as one poster already said it is very much like learning how a magic trick is done, it is part of the lordi act not showing faces. Another comparision is all the media printing that santa is not real, they can do it but what purpose does it serve……..even though santa is real!

    Comment by sppuuddy — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 12:45 am

18. Ah, the famous Reporters Without Borders, which is essentially the Laffer Curve of reportorial freedom. I suppose I should be grateful you didn’t quote a FAIR ’study’ instead. Hey, if you want I can make a ’study’ all my own and weight it ideologically as well. I can guarantee the government-controlled and bought France (30) won’t be coming in ahead of actually independent US media (the French media are given subsidized apartments and cash by French politicians and wouldn’t know a free press if it bit them on the ass). I suppose I take your triumphal proof about the “most free” Finlandic press with the same seriousness I do any other pol with an axe to grind. Which is to say, I don’t.

    Comment by James V. — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 6:14 am

19. James V., you’re very free to link here any comparative study on the freedom of press you think is more credible than the one by Reporters Without Borders. I’m not trying to tell the RSF study is completely correct, it’s just a very telling indication. However, it’s a study unlike your claims which are based on theoretical legislation (surely North Korea and Cuba also guarantee press freedom in their legislations, however, the practice is very different) and accusations without reference to where they are drawn from.

    So, you write you can guarantee the French media is less free than US media. Please guarantee it here. Or at least link to a study you think is fair (read: which supports your ideology).

    MM

    Comment by Moral minority? — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 10:26 am

20. That would have been the ultimate catharsis, wouldn’t it. Lordi winning the ESC by record points and the bloody Seiska rag filing for bankruptcy.

    Comment by Antti (the redneck one) — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 12:11 pm

21. …How could we have known Lordi wasn’t Tarja Halonen if those pics weren’t published

    “anteeksi_tarja_halonen.jpg”

    Comment by Anonymous — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 12:56 pm

22. Today i found a picture of Tomi Putaansuu in a Romanian tabloid (taken from the German Bild), the subtitle: ‘Tomi seems to be quite normal and he has even a quite pretty girlfriend’ (+ the picture of the girlfriend too

    So Romanian not-rockers that otherwise wouldn’t give any attention to Lordi may speak 10 more minutes about him. And you can see them ‘real’ in every bus-station from Bucharest.

    Hui.

    Comment by Marika — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 3:21 pm

23. I find it interesting if over 200 000 people have signed this petition against Seiska paper, when bad unemploymency, poverty or problems in healthcare, childrens’ daycare and schools, taxes or even sentenced criminals (such as Juhantalo) in our parliament have never caused such a big deal.

    Comment by Tero Lehto — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 10:22 pm

24. Actually I prefer to argue for myself- people who quote studies are putting up the equivalent of internet debate busywork and not actually saying anything. If I were to quote them, I could (yawn) go to AIM (Accuracy In Media), which is a right-wing media organization with bias more to my liking. But I won’t, because it’s a cop out. See how that works?

    “I’m not trying to tell the RSF study is completely correct”

    And I’m trying to tell you it’s not “somewhat wrong”, I’m telling you it’s a “wholesale political fabrication”. No it’s not interesting, wanna know why? Because it’s simply wrong. The only thing it’s “very telling” about is the political outlook of the folks of Reporters Without Borders.

    “So, you write you can guarantee the French media is less free than US media. Please guarantee it here”

    Ok. The US media has competing entities. The French ones are have a reciprocal money/acquiescance loop with the government (for those of you bad with english, “they’re bought whores”). Ta daaa. Easy as pie. The editors of LeFigaro are feted by Chirac cronies and directly given things like living space, cash and access for being able to direct the trajectory and content of stories, and it’s all legal. This is not the case with the US.

    Let me put it this way- whatever country you’re in, you’re paying attention to some media fight in the US and taking sides. What you’re not doing and never will be doing is paying attention to a fight in the Finnish media.

    See how I’m doing that “actually arguing my case” thing?

    Comment by James V. — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 10:36 pm

25. 23# You do not need to get 200 000 votes to be Finnish MP, 5-8000 will do.

    Comment by jormanen — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 10:48 pm

26. Yes, James V., I see, your arguments are still just opinions, with little fact to base them on anything. Weak arguments as yours are of course part of the freedom of speech you are allowed. Also, you have the right to believe the White House has no fave media of its own to which it leaks interesting stories (like Lordi fans have the right to believe he’s really a monster).

    If I understood your last argument correctly you want to say there’s never a fight in the Finnish media abouty anything? Hahaha. This guy (James V.) doesn’t really follow the Finnish media. Just the thread here is about Lordi unmasked and masked which has caused a lot of pro and against arguments in the Finnish media, arguing whether Seiska did right or wrong and whether it makes sense to collect those names or not and what (if any) similarities there are between Lordi and Muhammad unmasked.

    Tero Lehto, I think we can always argue whether it’s exactly Lordi unmasked as the Big Problem worth gathering 200,000 names in a petition ahead of more serious problems. However, I think you’re wrong in claiming the other problems you mentioned didn’t cause a big deal. Sure they did, just by other means. Unemployment has received, for example, a tremendous amount of attention (as it should). When Juhantalo’s case was topical (beginning of the 90s), there was no Internet to talk about where you could have signed a petition. However, he was voted out of the Parliament in his constituency and now back there and whatever he has ever achieved in politics, the man on the street always will associate him with his business dealings. The people in his constituency (and nobody else) have the right to drop him or put him back in. If they want to vote for a convicted criminal, let them do it. There are far more harmful people in our Parliament which have never been convicted of anything and just the fact that one’s been convicted (and served his sentence) shouldn’t lead to inquisition, especially that he’s not the only convicted criminal in the Parliament (heck, we have even Saarela ex-Karpela in the government despite her conviction of drunk driving in the 90s).

    MM

    Comment by Moral minority? — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 11:36 pm

27. James V.
    `Let me put it this way- whatever country you’re in, you’re paying attention to some media fight in the US and taking sides. What you’re not doing and never will be doing is paying attention to a fight in the Finnish media.´

    ok let me put it this way, the reason we are paying attention to american media is because america is attacking and bombing the shit out of everything worldwide so we go to the source to try and see what the american public are been spoonfed.
    just before i read your post i checked fox news to see what they said about the Haditha massacre in iraq, could not find in main headlines or smaller headlines, had to do a fox search to find little paragraph about it. this is probably one of the biggest stories for a long time, the way it will further fuel muslim hate of america.
    honestly tell us why u think fox decided `X-Men 3′ Scores Record $107 Million Weekend´ was a more important story…honestly

    Comment by sppuuddy — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 11:44 pm

28. Mostly boring, except for one sentence:

    “If I understood your last argument correctly you want to say there’s never a fight in the Finnish media abouty anything?”

    Not at all! I’m saying NO ONE IS INTERESTED. For instance, there is a fight right now brewing about the lead singer of Lordi being unmasked by a ;ldkv?KJSgbhM

    Comment by James V. — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 11:50 pm

29. Oh, sorry, didn’t see the post below it.

    “ok let me put it this way, the reason we are paying attention to american media is because america is attacking and bombing the shit out of everything worldwide so we go to the source to try and see what the american public are been spoonfed.”

    Perfect point! Except that the Europeans paid attention to the US obsessively even before Bush got into office, so really it’s not a good point at all.

    As for the “Hadith massacre”, I’m quite familiar with the process this story goes through: if you’ll remember the “Benin Massacre” and the “Koran Flushing Story” among a million other “Biggest Stor[ies] In A Long Time”, they get splashed around and then, ooops, you find out on page C37 of the Times four weeks later that, well, no it didn’t really happen.

    Do I know it didn’t happen? No. But once you see ten false starts for every one real one, you tend to notice the pattern. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t jump up and down and demand Bushitler immolate himself at the base of the Peace Tree.

    Christ but I don’t trust you. Mainly because you seem to trust every story and study you see unquestioningly. Regurgitation politics all sounds the same.

    Comment by James V. — Sun, May 28th, 2006 @ 11:58 pm

30. Do I know it didn’t happen? No. But once you see ten false starts for every one real one, you tend to notice the pattern. So you’ll forgive me if I don’t jump up and down and demand Bushitler immolate himself at the base of the Peace Tree.

    so your saying it should not be given main headlines because the soldiers have not been found guilty yet this next passage is from the times today
    One portrays an Iraqi mother and young child, kneeling on the floor, as if in prayer. They have been shot dead at close range. The pictures show other victims, shot execution-style in the head and chest in their homes. An American government official said they revealed that the marines involved had “suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership”.

    so this is what the rest of the world is reading about america and u think it does not deserve a headline……whats the theory ignorance is bliss

    Comment by sppuuddy — Mon, May 29th, 2006 @ 12:28 am

31. “so your saying it should not be given main headlines because the soldiers have not been found guilty yet this next passage is from the times today”

    I think I understand you. I think I understand the english in your post, but I’m not quite sure. I’ll respond as if what I think was said was said (I’m not much of a language Nazi, but I DO draw the line at clarity of thought. It IS reasonable to make fun of people who can’t write clearly). So, to respond:

    I’ve seen a lot of massacres now. Specifically, fake ones. In fact, I’ve seen fake massacres by Americans (Fallujah) and Israelis (Benin)
    get splashed around- how many do I need before I’m cautious and suspicious of the media involved? A half dozen? Two? Nine?

    The odd thing about this is I’ve seen some REAL massacres that weren’t “the most important story of the day”. Remember France’s troops firing into crowds and killing dozens in the Ivory Coast? No, you don’t. They did though, and it was hardly bothered to be denied. THAT massacre happened, and somehow since they didn’t invovle the two magicx words (”America”, “Israel”), no one gave a flying shit.

    Speaking of which, can you name the other massacres that happened this week? I can! It happened in this country: (let’s play hangman)

    _ _ _ go.

    Know how many people died? Let’s play hangman again and see if you can guess:

    _ _ 00.

    Now, about your theory that “ignorance is bliss”.

    But back to the marines- having known this structure my whole life, why would I believe they would just start excecuting people? All my experience tells me this isn’t true: going back to Mai-Lai massacre, I had an excellent explanation for the incident (exhausted and barely trained conscrip soldiers having taken nearly 20% casualties under incredible strain taking fire from a universally hostile civilian population). I have NO explanation for why this massacre happened: a completely professional army with high morale in a portion of the country with a steadily improving security situation. Combine this with the long record of false accusations against that same organization by an ideologically hostile media, and suddenly I think “Hmm”.

    Hell, I’m not even saying they didn’t do it. I’m saying I’m waiting a few weeks. Why is that so hard to understand?

    Comment by James V. — Mon, May 29th, 2006 @ 3:42 am

32. ‘Regurgitation politics all sounds the same.’ James V.
    And they say Americans have no sense of irony.

    Comment by prince of dorkness — Mon, May 29th, 2006 @ 9:56 am

33. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ8uVAIOTFw&search=Eugene%20Siler%20

    Here’s some more wrong doings by american officials

    Comment by p — Mon, May 29th, 2006 @ 11:49 am

34. From the agitator

    In February of last year, I told you about Lester Eugene Siler, a Tennessee man who was literally tortured by five sheriff’s deputies in Campbell County, Tennessee who suspected him of selling drugs. The only reason we know Siler was tortured is because his wife had the good sense to start a recording device about halfway through the ordeal.

    The audio is now available online. Drug war outrages lend themselves to overuse of superlatives. But I gotta say, this may be the most horrifying 40 minutes of audio I’ve ever heard.

    The police are attempting to get the illiterate man to sign an admission of guilt consent form to search his house without telling him what it says. They beat him, over and over, hook electrodes up to testicles and shock him, threaten to kill him, and threaten to go after his family. Early news accounts reported that the torture continued well beyond the end of the recording. After the tape ran out, the same deputies apparently repeatedly submerged the guy’s head in a fish tank and a bath tub, threatening to drown him unless he confessed.

    This guy at worst was a small-time drug dealer. He had no history of violence. Right now, we’re having a national debate about torturing terror suspects with designs on killing everyone in this country (longtime readers might remember I’m a bit conflicted on this issue). But an incident like this (and you’re delusional if you think it was isolated), in which a U.S. citizen who had inflicted no direct harm on anyone was nearly beaten to death, has been barely mentioned outside of Tennessee.

    We’ve inculcated in cops the idea that the government preventing people from putting items from a banned list of substances into their bodies is so necessary and urgent, enforcing those laws with tactics like these is in many cases viewed as entirely appropriate.

    This was the rare incident where someone in the home was able to record and save evidence of the abuse on the sly. Think there aren’t hundres more cases where circumstances didn’t pan out so neatly?

    It’s worth keeping in mind when you read about a case in which a suspect claims his confession was beaten out of him, and police, to a man, keep to a remarkably tight story stating otherwise (as they did in Siler’s case, before the audio came out).

    Comment by p — Mon, May 29th, 2006 @ 11:52 am

35. http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/excuses_eurovisions/

    Apparantely the french have their own petition for lordi

    Comment by Blah — Mon, May 29th, 2006 @ 12:38 pm

36. Someone want to translate that for the French impaired?

    Comment by gopha — Mon, May 29th, 2006 @ 2:38 pm

37. gopha: I think the French petition says Claudi Siar and Michel Drucker (French tv commentators) insulted Lordi. The people who signed the petition don’t apparently like that. Some of the signatories of the petition have simply signed “Anonymous”, which is pretty comical to me.

    Comment by Helsinkian — Mon, May 29th, 2006 @ 4:12 pm

38. “I find it interesting if over 200 000 people have signed this petition against Seiska paper, when bad unemploymency, poverty or problems in healthcare, childrens’ daycare and schools, taxes or even sentenced criminals (such as Juhantalo) in our parliament have never caused such a big deal.”

    Remember that many Finns will grumble to their neighbours and say Something Must Be Done and now they can do anonymous net polls, but they will still buy their yellow press scandal sheets to fuel their envy and jealously with someone doing better, just in case they can tip off the tax office or be red envious

    Seiska will not see a significant reduction in readers over the short or long term time.

    Comment by Hugh Janus — Tue, May 30th, 2006 @ 10:51 am

39. Dear James V.

    When I read your revealing fact that the French media is the paid whore of the establishment, it suddenly dawned on me how right you are. No wonder there has not been a single word written about Sarkozy scandal in the French press. They are all in the pockets of the prime minister and the president! Mystery solved.

    Thank you James V. for opening my eyes.

    Best Regards,

    Fat Bastard

    Comment by Fat Bastard — Tue, May 30th, 2006 @ 12:48 pm

40. “When I read your revealing fact that the French media is the paid whore of the establishment, it suddenly dawned on me how right you are. No wonder there has not been a single word written about Sarkozy scandal in the French press.”

    That one’s real simple- you’re interpreting the word “establishment” to mean “prime minister and the president” and not the orthodox party machinations. Sarkozy affair is one portion of the establishent fighting another, which is why it gets play.

    To get the whore aspect of French media, you have to go to a topic the reigning group doesn’t want reported or has agreement on, not one it’s ambiguous about or a fight between portions of the established powers: for instance, the Ivory Coast massacre, which was swept under the rug (because policies on Cote’ d Ivore have been multi-party since Mitterand).

    Or Hell, the sinking of Greenpeace, which was given play for a couple days and then quietly dropped from headlines to the liner notes- when the real information was finally coming out about a week after the sinking, the papers were relagating it to page C37 and dropping it from the newsreels altogether.

    Or the French army’s routine use of torture in Algeria, which was general knowledge since the late 1960’s but only came to media attention when a general blabbed about it on live television where CNN and Al Jezeera could report it (and video footage of the torture, available for over 40 years). Say what you want about US media (and I’m no fan myself), but they splash torture and massacre up on the screens before they even know if it’s true. In other words, we’re not learning about Abu Ghraib in 2045.

    I think you just don’t understand anything about international media or the games played.

    Comment by James V. — Wed, May 31st, 2006 @ 1:58 am

41. Dear James V.

    Apparently you are informed enough to make sweeping generalizations about my knowledge (or a lack thereof) from a single comment in this thread? That seems mightily arrogant and you can almost taste the irony in the context of your previous messages.

    Especially as it now seems that some US marines may be facing murder charges from the nonexistent massacre in Iraq, according to the uninformed and whoring European press.

    With love and affection,

    Fat Bastard

    Comment by Fat Bastard — Wed, May 31st, 2006 @ 10:11 am

42. “Apparently you are informed enough to make sweeping generalizations about my knowledge (or a lack thereof) from a single comment in this thread?”

    Yeah, pretty much. Inductive logic is like that- you’re specifically ignorant of the French media and claimed to know otherwise based on a laughable and easily disposed premise, and what’s more you’re glib about it. Combine that with offering no specifics or counterarguments, and your number is pretty easy to guess. I don’t know if you’re actually fat, but I do know you’re a lightweight.

    Comment by James V. — Thu, Jun 1st, 2006 @ 10:25 am

43. oh,Lordi is great!!!

    Comment by rock — Sat, Jul 1st, 2006 @ 6:12 pm

44. Mr Lordi is the the coolest. Kill every 1 that puts pictures of him with him mask of! MWUHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! >:)

    Comment by me — Thu, Apr 19th, 2007 @ 8:24 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

Mini Phillip

Get your own WidSets Pet