A brief chronological Compendium of a Few Banned or Challenged Works, and Censorship and Anti-Censorship Efforts 01 Jan - 30 Jun 2002

It is not their right to act as a moral compass for the entire community. ... What one person finds objectionable another person might find enlightening. --Lisel Ulaszek, commenting on a banning of Forever, 13 Dec 2001

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

2002: Corresponding with Amnesty International

A political dissident in the Maldives was sentenced to prison for 15 years for corresponding by e-mail with Amnesty International.

Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court on the occasion of her 166th day of imprisonment for journalistic integrity. Mike DeGeurin, attorney for Ms. Leggett, filed with the high court, alleging that she is protected under Branzburg v. Hayes and that federal circuit courts have implemented First Amendment protections for newsgathering unequally. A second argument will be based on the fifth amendment right concerning self-incrimination.
(see my opinion on this sorry mess; also see 18 Oct 2001 for a similar case in Missouri, and 20 Jul 2001; 21 Nov 2001; 04 Jan 2002)

For now, anyway. Superiour Court Judge Mark M. Russello dismissed a libel suit against Stephen Moldow for his web site at which local citizens posted uncomplimentary comments about the off-duty comportment of elected officials. The judge ruled that Moldow could not be held liable for other people's speech. This suit is not over, however, as the plaintiffs announced that they will appeal. This case is being closely followed by free speech advocates and web site operators around the U.S.

[Now it's starting to look more like a case of censorship. Whereas the plaintiffs filed their suit on the basis that free speech does not shield slander and libel, Borough Councilwoman Gina Calogero commented, "What Moldow did may be technically legal, but that doesn't make it morally right. The Web site has brought embarrassment to Emerson, and Moldow has the power to clean it up but chooses not to do so." Mind you, this is very probably just an intemperate choice of words derived from frustration. Gee; just like the slanderous comments probably were.

The key issue in this case, however, was the attempt by the plaintiff to uncover the identities of the posters who put up their comments anonymously. Judge Rusello dismissed that action on a technicality. Plaintiff could not show that all the principles had been advised of the action in sufficient time to challenge the warrant. Personally, I do not agree with hiding behind the mask of anonymity. If you're going to say something, then you should at least stand up with the courage of your convictions and say it openly. However, as the counsel for the defense points out in the Freedom Forum Online article, anonymity is very empowering. The problem as I see it is that this empowerment is a false sense of courage that allows every raving fool with an axe to grind to simply spout off mindlessly. Now, if the plaintiffs could figure that out for themselves they'd see that the comments are largely meaningless. --MN]
(See 07 Aug 2001; 03 Jul 2003; 01 Feb 2005)

By the Archdiocese of Washington. Church officials called some condom advertisements "false and misleading" because they contain criticisms of the sex-ed policies of the R.C. Church. Two such statements in the ads are: "Because the bishops ban condoms, innocent people die" and "Catholic people care. Do our bishops?"

The ads have been posted in 50 bus stop shelters and 134 rail cars. A religious advocacy group, Catholics for a Free Choice, is sponsoring an international campaign promoting the use of condoms as a prophylactic measure. The campaign was launched on World AIDS Day, 01 December 2001.

[Believe it or not, this is not a case of censorship. Although I do think it is a case of misinformation. On both sides.

The church officials have not asked that the ads be taken down, they are merely actively engaged in discrediting the criticisms through the use of misinformation. The fact is, the R.C. Church's condemnation of the use of condoms in the unreasonable expectation that people will abstain at their insistence, is entirely irrational.

The church officials do have a point, however. The statement that they ban condoms is erroneous; they just do not permit the use of condoms. However, in as much as they do not permit sex outside of a heterosexual marriage at all, one cannot accuse them of promoting the spread of STD's.

Personally, I think the Bishops are playing word games; that they are arguing from the letter of the law rather than from the spirit of the law, and that -- at the least -- the safe-sex advocates have overstated the case; if they have not engaged in misrepresentation. --MN]

By Audy Morgan and BeProud.com. Billy is a homosexual courier who is reputed to be "grotesquely endowed". Don't go rushing off to click the link, however, as he wears a uniform in the .gif of the figure. This is important, because it's not the over-endowment that's creating a fuss, it's the uniform. United Postal Service says the uniform is a trademark infringement and is suing BeProud.com to stop production and shipping of the figure. Oh, yeah . . . just try to guess which shipping service BeProud.com uses, by the way. That's just frosting on the cake, though. The story is online at RainbowNetwork.com.

For now. Her freedom stems not from a recognition of her journalistic integrity, but rather from a technicality. The Grand Jury investigating the Angelton murder came to the end of its term and could not legally have that term extended a third time. Ms. Leggett now holds the dubious distiction of being the longest jailed journalist who wouldn't let the legal system bully her into violating her principles. Her prison time is 168 days. Compare that to the runner up, William Farr, who was imprisoned for 46 days during the trial of Charles Manson.

Ms. Leggett's lawyer, Mark DeGeurin, will continue to pursue this case to the Supreme Court. Ms. Leggett's [persecutors (sic)] have the option of convening a new Grand Jury and subjecting Ms. Leggett to another subpoena and further imprisonment for contempt. It is hoped that a Supreme Court ruling in this case will stave off such an effort.

[It is my understanding that they could also now bring Ms. Leggett up on charges of criminal obstruction. Technically, either course of action would be perfectly legal. It would stink to high heavens, but still be perfectly legal. Only immoral, unethical, a miscarriage of justice, an abuse of authority, and a violation of the spirit of double jeopardy, but not of the letter of the law. --MN]
(see my opinion on this sorry mess and a comment by R. Clayton McKee; also see 18 Oct 2001 for a similar case in Missouri, and: 20 Jul 2001; 21 Nov 2001; 02 Jan 2002)

A Newark, New Jersey, judge found that the university acted improperly when it threatened to fire empoyees who were seeking to unionize. U.S. District Judge Dickinson R. Debevoise told the school that it must tell the workers they do have such a right. The school denies that it made any such threats. The judge ruled that such threats violate the First Amendment and the National Labor Relations Act.

[I'm not sure what to make of this one. This case appears to stem in part from un-unionized workers having to settle for a lousy contract. The kicker is: the workers are sub-contractors, and they don't get nearly what university-employed cleaning staff make. --MN]

In a USA Today article it was reported by Stephanie Armour that civil libertarians asserted that a number of court rulings in the closing days of 2001 will have a strong negative impact on free speech.

[I do not get a sense of suppression from what was written in the article. Although there is a point or two that might have been better covered. Two ex-employees who posted 14,000 messages to 100 message boards were not described as "disgruntled", for instance, though they might well be; nor was the particular complaint against their former employer mentioned. And I wouldn't hesitate to say that the ex-Intel worker who was posting his grievances to 35,000 employees was engaged in some kind of a smear campaign. Not, at least, without further information. As for the third case mentioned, every PC whining sniveler cries crocodile tears over censorship when they shoot their stupid mouths off and wind up being sued for libel. I wonder about the slant on this one. Read between the lines, not just what is said in the article. --MN]

[Addendum (25 Jul 2003): I finally got some comprehensive information on this affair from a 13 Jul 2003 article at Tuscaloosa News by Jill Andresky Fraser. It's a finely written article and I recommend it highly. Mr. Hamidi certainly was not a disgruntled ex-employee as I intimated above. On the face of it, he was screwed by Intel. Ms Fraser wrote:

But in September 1990, the glorious days ended when the car that he was driving home from a work-related conference was hit from behind. Mr. Hamidi was left in chronic pain with shoulder and neck injuries. Although the injuries resisted treatment, he continued to work for more than a year, often putting in what he said were 16-hour workdays. "I was sleep-deprived because I was working so hard to keep up with my workload and I was in so much pain," he said. "I was fainting at the office. I became clinically depressed." In February 1992, he took a prolonged medical leave.

Mr. Hamidi filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, contending that he had work-related physical and mental injuries. His claim was initially granted, but it was overturned upon appeal from Intel. Mr. Hamidi said he had unsuccessfully tried to return to his job. Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman, would not comment on specifics, noting only that the company dismissed the engineer for cause in 1995.

It must always be considered highly suspect when someone deliberately withholds information, as Intel seems to have done in this case. The only reason for not divulging specifics is to keep them from being scrutinized. Even if Intel had a just cause to fire him, however, that would still not have made Intel's position any more tenable. In my not so humble opinion. As for the original USA Today article, I can now only say that it contained so little information that it was utterly useless and might as well have not been written. --MN]

Bennett Haselton discovered that access to this site was being blocked by the faulty internet filter CyberPatrol due to the inclusion of material about breast cancer. This incident puts paid to the assertion by the producers of CyberPatrol that every site is checked out by a human reviewer and clearly demonstrates why internet filtering is what should be banned.

Read this report by Bennett Haselton of PeaceFire.org.

By Michael Moore. See the entry on the Michael Moore censorship movement page.

President Mugabe's government introduced sweeping programs to silence dissent and honest reporting in anticipation of an upcoming election. This election was originally slated for April, but was moved up about a month.
(see 11 Jan 2002)

The bombing of a village that might have killed as many as one hundred civilians was completely ignored by the U.S. "free" press; despite being covered in some depth by overseas newspapers.
(see 10 Oct 2001; 12 Dec 2001; 16 Jan 2002)

The Federal Communications Commission dropped a 7,000 dollar fine against this radio station that was levied for they're playing an edited version of Eminem's "Slim Shady". The fine was levied based on the complaint of listener Liz Pipes, who said in an interview at KVOR-FM, in Colorado Springs, that she objected to rap songs wherein expletives are muted or masked but the meaning remains clear.

[Ms. Pipes's complaint is a fine example of the slippery slope in action. First, it was the words that are unacceptable, and now it's the context that is being challenged. --MN]

By Karl Marx. Which slogan appears in an artwork at the outside of a public library in Memphis, Tennessee. This particular slogan is "Workers of the world unite". It is part of a collage and etched into the stone walkway right next to a depiction of The Cat in the Hat. The movement to have the slogan removed seems to be lead by City Councilman Brent Taylor and County Commissioner Marilyn Loeffel; some of which detractors are demanding that the slogan be sandblasted clean, while others are demanding the inclusion of New Testament verses and artwork showing the manifold evil of communism. Read more about it in this satiric column by Chris Davis, Memphis Flyer.

By the legislature of Vermont. Ten years of debate ended in Vermont with a vote in favor of resolution making it illegal to burn or descrate the flag of the United States. However, this resolution is rather meaningless, amounting to little more than a notice to the House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate that Vermont is in favour of a law or constitutional amendment outlawing this mode of free speech. This resolution is unlikely to mean anything given that all three members of Vermont's congressional delegation oppose a flag amendment.

For information about the history of the flag       amendment and the veterans who oppose it       see the ACLU site:

At La Mirada High School. After four months and the intercession of the American Civil Liberties Union of Southern California, the American Library Association, National Coalition Against Censorship and a private law firm.

The book had ostenstibly been pulled so it could be reviewed.

[However, there is not, in either of the articles I saw about this case, any mention of what review process had been invoked; only that the book had been pulled so it could be reviewed -- but: by whom? I'm going to chalk this one up to a censorship effort in as much as it took legal intervention to have the book replaced and the fact that it was replaced despite the supposed district policy of removing material which is being reviewed due to parents' objections. If that had been a firm policy as part of a proper review process the school should not have had to replace the book. --MN]
(see Oct 2001 for a comparsion of a review process; and 27 Dec 2001)

Under pressure from the European Economic Union and in face of sanctions, Mugabe agreed to allow international journalists into Zimbabwe for the 09 March election.
(see 09 Jan 2002)

See the entry in the Appendix G

By Harry R. Schlegel, a former council member and now the tax collector for Plum Borough, Pennsylvannia (15 miles from Pittsburgh). These new rules were presented at a reorganization meeting on 07 Jan, but the rules weren't formally approved until 24 Jan. Schlegel contends that he was censored under these new public comment rules; to whit:

• residents of the rural borough must register 30 minutes in advance;
• speakers can address only those items on the public meeting agendas, and
• the new rules grant the borough council president the right to silence speakers who make comments that he believes are "scandalous, impertinent, and redundant."

[Basically, you must seek permission to speak, you cannot cross-reference your remarks with issues not on the agenda, and if you are critical of or irreverent toward the council they toss your butt. --MN]
(see 29 Jan 2002)

The Supreme Court ruled that Chicago's procedures for giving permits to groups for park use enhanced rather than curtailed free speech.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the opinion, in which he stated, "The Park District's ordinance does not authorize a licensor to pass judgment on the content of speech. None of the grounds for denying a permit has anything to do with what a speaker might say."

[And I said in my editorial comment to the 01 Dec 2001 entry that it appeared to be petulant whining, didn't I? Ha! --MN]
(see 01 Dec 2001; 21 Dec 2001 for a similar case)

A lawsuit filed by American Family Association Inc., Kerusso Ministries, and the Family Research Council, was ruled against by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming a district court's dismissal of the lawsuit. This suit was filed in 1998 against the city and county of San Francisco.

The matter alleged to be censored was the nationwide Truth in Love advertising campaign, which stated that, "God abhors any form of sexual sin," including homosexuality, premarital sex and adultery. The City of San Francisco urged local television stations to refrain from airing the ads. The appeals court found, however, that the city did not violate the First Amendment rights of the groups. The SF Board of Supervisors had condemned the ad campaign as "hate rhetoric".

By American Broadcasting Corporation's World News Tonight. In a report that aired about the Human Rights Watch Annual Report, ABC very quietly dropped the name of one country: the United States of America. No doubt because Human Rights Watch criticized the U.S. by describing American anti-terror activity as, "threatening long-held human rights principles."

[Perhaps ABC should, instead, stand for American Broadcorping Castration. --MN]
(see 10 Oct 2001; 12 Dec 2001; 09 Jan 2002)

Utah's "anti-obscenity" laws violate a number of Supreme Court rulings. Their "Porn Czar", Paula Houston, is now in the unenviable position of having to ameliorate Utah's anti-porn laws; in the face of stiff opposition.

The leader of the opposing movement is Gayle Ruzicka, head of the Utah Eagle Forum. She was quoted as saying, "When it comes to something like this, do we care what the Supreme Court [of the United States] has said? Maybe it should be Utah that should go back to the Supreme Court and say, 'I don't think so.'"

The current law in Utah goes so far as to ban even partial nudity, including pictures in which no genitalia, buttocks, or mammaries can be seen.

Both Houston and Rep. Peggy Wallace, R-West Jordan, the sponsor of the bill, have been scrambling to convince Utah lawmakers that they are not out to water-down anti-pornography laws designed to protect children.

[Hmmmm. Paula Houston does not seem to be the prissy, anal-retentive prude I first thought she was. She seems to have profound interest in bringing Utah's anti-obscenity laws into line with Supreme Court rulings without scrapping them altogether, recognizing the supremacy of those rulings and the authority of the Supreme Court. "Porn Czar" is a misnomer, by the way, taken from the Washington D.C. penchant for calling highly placed officials "czars". The actual title is "Obscenity and Pornography Complaints Ombudsman." --MN]
(see 15 Oct 2001; 01 Apr 2003; 02 Mar 2005. Also see:
a profile of the office and duties from 23 Mar 2000 by Ben Fulton;
A further critique of the office of porn czar, 01 Feb 2001 by Ben Fulton;
A profile of Paula Houston and her duties from 12 Mar 2001 by CBS News;
the report about closing the office, in 15 Jan 2003 Salt Lake Tribune)

On whether or not a privately owned shopping mall can deny certain types of behaviour by members of the public who visit such malls. To whit: two college students who were passing out handbills at Valley West Mall in Des Moines, were removed by West Des Moines police. That was in 1998. They were passing out the handbills in front of a store against which they were agitating.

See the appendix on Robie Harris.

By John Robin Sharpe. Found not guilty by the B.C. Supreme Court in Jan 1999, his acquittal was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2001. He had successfully defended himself on the grounds of privacy and freedom of expression. As of today he was back in court being retried because the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the Criminal Code provisions that make possession of child porn an offense despite having carved out two exceptions to the "Kiddie Porn" law. Sharpe is being retried to determine whether or not his works of fiction have artistic merit.

[Under this cack-handed piece of thought-crimes legislation, it is not enough, of course, that they be merely works of fiction. --MN]

By Otis King, law school professor at Texas Southern University. At least Professor King alleges that that is the state of affairs. The school denies it. The situation is complicated by complex economic issues. King maintains that the school eliminated his post after he wrote a story about the state auditor's concerns over TSU's financial aid, accounting, and management practices in the monthly newsletter he publishes on his own time. The school says that it had to cut the pay for still-working retired teachers from one-half to one-eighth. What complicates matters is that these cuts came after King agreed to return at one-half pay, but the school then held off giving him a contract at that rate until it was decided to cut the pay.

[Which situation I chalk up to bad timing based on the information in the article. I shall attempt to track this case, but I don't side with Professor King at the moment. --MN]

By Columbine High School massacre victims' family members. The families of Daniel Rohrbough and Kelly Fleming filed a suit alleging first amendment rights violations when the school refused to allow tiles dedicated to their memory because of religious content. The tiles were two of hundreds that were being installed as part of renovations to the school.

District Court Judge Wiley Daniel had ruled in October 2001 that the tiles must be hung, but the the order was put on hold in November when the 10th U.S. Circuit of Appeals agreed to hear the Jefferson County School District's appeal.

[Contrary to popular belief, religious expression and praying is not outlawed from schools. It is only that teachers may not use their position as a bully pulpit and to hold students as a captive audience while requiring them to worship according to the dictates of the teacher's conscience. Far too many adminstrations, however, absolutely freak-right-out at the least bit of religious expression; most likely out of litigaphobia. At any rate, they overcompensate and engage in knee-jerk reactionary hypersensitivity. This is almost certainly one of those times. --MN]

By Judy Blume. This book finally saw an end to a four year ban in Elgin, Illinois. The Elgin Area School District U-46 voted to return the book to the shelves of the middle school libraries by a vote of 5-2.

Joan Bertin, Executive Director for the National Coalition Against Censorship, commented on the vote, "After nearly 4 years, we are pleased to see that the Elgin Area School District U-46 finally decided against censorship in their school libraries. Many middle school students possess the intellectual capacity and maturity to read and understand books such as 'Forever' and they and their parents have the right to make their own decisions about whether or not this is appropriate reading material for themselves."
(see 12 & 13 Dec 2001)

By Holly McGee, editor. In a case that mirrors a similar occurance in Kentucky; which resulted in the Kincaid v. Gibson ruling by the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in 2001. That ruling marked the end of a seven-year long battle. At FAMU, administrators refused to allow the 2000-2001 Rattler to be distributed on the grounds of several specious arguments. The color scheme of the book's cover is not done in the school colours, there are grammatical errors (15), and there are some photographs that are missing captions.

Key to this case are the financial considerations. The funny thing is, these financial considerations stem from the mysterious loss of $10,000 from the yearbook bank account. Trouble seems to have started when Ms. McGee wrote an editorial questioning the loss of the funds. Secondary to that -- but the issue upon which this censorship revolves -- is that the administrators are requiring that the yearbook pay for the changes without sufficient funding to pay for the changes. The university offered to pay students to paste corrective stickers over the grammatical errors in one thousand volumes, but refused to pay for the stickers themselves, which cost would run to $2,000 alone. Another method by which the administration is enforcing its censorship is by having moved the yearbook department to a new building -- which is now undergoing renovations and which is off limits to the staff due to being a construction zone.
(see 30 Jan 2002)

In an effort to find out who the federal government is holding incommunicado and without filing charges. The ACLU argument in the lawsuits against the Hudson and Passaic counties is that the information on the detainees is a matter of state public records, whereas the state contends that the information is the property of the Immigration and Naturalization Service. The INS maintains that their longstanding policy of withholding such information is to protect the right to privacy of the detainees.

[Something stinks here. Yeah, the detainees have a right to privacy, but given that they are being held without charges and in some cases aren't allowed to see a lawyer, despite the passage of four months since the WTC attack at the time the suits were filed. . . . --MN]
(see 06 Mar 2002; 02 Aug 2002; 08 Aug 2002; 16 Aug 2002)

By drafting a resolution stating so and which was forwarded to the president, the attorney general, and both houses of congress.

By Connie Chipkar of Mississauga, Ontario. She was protesting the government treatment of the Falun Gong; in Tiananmen Square. She was arrested and expelled from China. The Falun Gong has been banned since 1999, under the claim that it is a cult and a threat to communist rule.

The Penryn, Pennsylvannia, volunteer police and fire department, all eight members, have reportedly voted unanimously to boycott a YMCA sponsored triathlon scheduled for 07 September. The reason? The YMCA after-school program has been reading chapters of the Harry Potter books since November 2001. The Penryn Fire Police Captain, Robert Fichthorn, has condemned the books on religious grounds and has challenged the integrity of the Young Man's Christian Association for teaching what he perceives is "witchcraft".

[Must be luxury to be able to vote to provide police services -- even if it is only to direct traffic -- for only those whose religious prejudices parallel your own. --MN]

And for the third straight year Harry Potter topped the list. There were suprises elsewhere in the list, however. The top 10 challenged works for 2001 are:

1. Harry Potter series,
2. Of Mice and Men by John Steinbeck,
3. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier (Most Challenged fiction book 1998),
4. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou,
5. Summer of My German Soldier by Bette Greene,
6. The Catcher in the Rye by J.D. Salinger,
7. Alice series, by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor,
8. Go Ask Alice by Anonymous,
9. Fallen Angels by Walter Dean Myers,
10. Blood and Chocolate by Annette Curtis Klause.

Which shows five new titles, whereas some of the usual inclusions were bumped:

• Goosebumps and Fear Street series, by R. L. Stine,
• It's Perfectly Normal, a sex education book by Robie Harris,
• Blubber, by Judy Blume,
• The Handmaid's Tale, by Margaret Atwood,
• The Color Purple, by Alice Walker, and
• Snow Falling on Cedars, by David Guterson.

The ALA reported 448 formal (i.e.: written) challenges for the year. Judith Krug of the Office for Intellectual Freedom was quoted as saying that she believes reported challenges constitute only 20 to 25 percent of the number of challenges mounted.

[At the entry for Banned Book Week 2001 I compared the number of challenges between 1999, at 472, and 2000, at 646, and mentioned that I thought it was an increase to a new plateau instead of a spike. Sure blew that call, didn't I? Rats. See the Harry Potter censorship timeline.--MN]
(see Jan 2001)

By John C. Bean. As a photography student at Worcester Art Museum in Massachussetts, Bean took some photographs of a 15 year old girl in 1999. The girl's mother filed a complaint with the police and Bean was charged with "posing a child in the nude". He was subsequently sentenced to six months probation by Franklin Superior Court Judge Bertha Josephson. On this day the Supreme Judicial Court overturned the verdict and the sentence on the grounds that Bean had no lacivious intent. The justices of the SJC wrote in their decision, "In examining the four photographs, it is apparent they are neither obscene nor pornographic."

If the original verdict had not been reversed, Bean would have had to register as a sex offender. The particular photographs he had taken of the girl, which resulted in the charges, where of her and her 17 year old boyfriend embracing bare chested, and in one photograph one her breasts was exposed. The girl's mother had consented to allow Bean to photograph the girl.

Benjamin Keehn, of the Committee for Public Counsel Services, who handled the appeal was quoted as saying, "It was a true vindication. John Bean is the furthest thing from a pornographer. He was trying to work in an artistic manner and if his conviction had been upheld it would have been a devastating message to people trying to earn a living creatively."

[What I want to know is: what happened with the boyfriend? Shouldn't he have been charged with child molestation? --MN]

The statue in the Hall of Justice, in the Department of Justice Building, Washinton D.C. John Ashcroft announced that the DOJ had spent eight thousand six hundred fifty dollars for drapes for this statue to cover the exposed breast. The statue is an 5.5 meter aluminum work of a toga clad woman holding up her arms. The toga covers only the left side of her chest. The Attorney General frequently stands in front of it while answering questions at press conferences.

[Obviously, it isn't enough that Justice should be blind, but so should the rest of us. Reportedly, an author, a conservatively dressed woman of 60+ years, taking part in the In Celebration of the Muse, at Cabrillo College, read an open letter to Ashcroft criticizing his censorship as the hypocrisy it is. There is one obfuscating factor in this incident and two mitigating factors. According to Justice Department spokeswoman Barbara Comstock {what delicious irony}, Ashcroft was not at all aware of the decision to hang these drapes permanently. The drapes were occasionally rented during special affairs to create a more esthetic environment at a cost of 2,000 dollars a rental. The two mitigating factors are that the male counterpart, The Majesty of Justice, had been similarly draped, even though there was no exposure of his genitalia, and there was the penchant of the press photographers to shoot pictures from down near the floor so as to get the bare breast of the statue into photographs of the Attorney General. Something that got started when A.G. Edwin Meese announced the release of his report on pornography. This penchant no doubt derives from press photographers subtly twitting Ashcroft for his religious-based opposition to human sexuality. The key issue in this incident, in my never, ever humble opinion, is, "why are those statues being covered at any time for anyone?" --MN]
(see 24 Jun 2005)

In the wake of the WTC attack, "patriotic" sentiments were expressed on a few overpasses of California Highway 17. Along with the attacks on Afghanistan, a dissenting opinion appeared next to the flags. Which opinions were removed by the police. The opinions had been mounted by Amy Courtney and Cassandra Brown of Santa Cruz. Who subsequently sued.

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte decided in their favour and basically told the California Department of Transportation that it had to allow all expression or none. Caltrans opted to allow for no expression of public opinion on its overpasses.

[Thereby cutting of its own nose to spite its face, by supressing even those expressions of opinions that agree with its prejudices to stop the expression of dissenting opinion. Dennis Trujillo, a spokesman for the transportation department said, "We're disappointed. We thought the state statutes allowed for the flag to be displayed, but the judge has ruled otherwise. We will comply." See, this is a nearly perfect mirroring of the falsehood that prayer has been made illegal in school. The state statutes do allow for flags and banners to be hung on the overpasses. What the judge's ruling does not allow is for the mounting of only some opinions and the censoring of others. --MN]
(see 19 Sep 2002)

Alleging that the borough's new public comment rules are too restrictive. This suit arises from the council's refusal to rescind the policy.

Harry R. Schlegel, a former marine and a vietnam veteran, said of the incident in which he was silenced, "Honorable and righteous men do not fear the exercise of liberty. Why, then, do Plum's currently elected officials want to limit and control our liberty to disagree with them if we feel they err on an issue important to us? As a Marine, I swore an oath to protect the Constitution, and that's what I and the other plaintiffs are doing with this lawsuit."
(see 14 Jan 2002)

This New York poet filed a suit against the Federal Communications Commission for its levying of a fine against her rap song, Your Revolution. The song was branded indecent and a radio station was fined $7,000 for airing it during primetime, despite the fact that it contains none of the seven words prohibited by the FCC. What it does contain, however, is vivid sexual imagery. [NB: It's not the words in this case, it's the context. --MN]

The FCC fined KBOO-FM, Portland, Oregon, and the station appealed the fine in July 2001, but there has been no action on the appeal to date. Jones is asking that the indecency ruling be overturned and the fine struck down.

Jones was quoted as saying of this incident, "My name was hanging in the air with 'indecent' attached to it in this really problematic way, especially since my work is concerned with social justice and feminist issues. That it should be associated with sexual indecency and intending to shock is not something that I can just let sit there, partly in light of the fact that other material is played ad infinitum on mainstream radio airwaves that's really problematic. I'm not one for censorship, but let's not use a double standard that victimizes certain voices."

This case is being pursued with the assistance of People For the American Way. It was also reported at The Freedom Forum Online web site which has cross-referencing links to previous incidents in this case.

The FCC has come under scrutiny over the past year for apparent inconsistent enforcement of its policies.
(see 20 Jun 2001; 20 Feb 2003)

See the entry in the Appendix G
(see 06 Feb 2002)

Florida A&M University agreed at a meeting to pay the cost for printing and pasting stickers over the 15 grammatical errors in the 2000-2001 yearbooks. The only issue now unresolved is the lack of office space for the staff to work in. Their office is still in a construction zone.
(see 23 Jan 2002)

By Michael Maietta. Manatee High School Principal Lynda Boyer responded to several complaints about the graphic detail in the first installment which was printed in The Macohi. She herself seems to have had legitimate concerns, but was then told by some school district lawyer that she and the school paper adviser were responsible for the content. She is now faced with being in the position of engaging in prior restraint.

[For my money she should tell the suit to hit the bricks. --MN]

By Jordan Smith, editor, and Ethan Moses and Robbie Petry, writers. Not only did assistant principal John Green confiscate all copies of the satirical paper from students who had received one, he even searched Smith's car. Smith copped a five-day suspension and the writers a three-day suspension each.

[This obviously counter-revolutionary rag can be found online at: www.quadpaper.cjb.net. The right-thinking, thought law-abiding, Big Brother-loving borg clone will, of course, not attempt to click on this link. --MN]

A charge levied by Justin Latimer, a 16-year-old Crosbyton High School student. In the suit Latimer filed against Superintendent Larry Morris, Crosbyton, Texas, the young man alleges that Morris told him he was not allowed to write letters to the editor without the permission of the superintendent or the school band leader. It seems Latimer wrote to the Crosby County News and Chronicle expressing some disappointment that a band recital in which it would play Amazing Grace had been cancelled; shortly after 11 September.

Morris's defence attorney commented, "Having talked to (Morris), I'm confident the district hasn't done anything wrong. School districts don't knowingly violate the Constitution. I'd be surprised if they did in this case."

[Not deliberately, perhaps, but violate the constitution he did nonetheless. Ben Gillespie, former owner and current editor of the News and Chronicle, said of Latimer's letter, "He wasn't being libelous; he didn't call any names." Chalk this one up as another example of post-9-11 anti-dissenting opinion hysteria. --MN]
(see the report at the Student Press Law Center for more on this case.)

But . . . who, exactly? Bill Garret and the Atlanta Humane Society are suing two critics, one of them a former employee, for libel. The defendants, Barbara Harkins and Kathi Mills, both contend that the lawsuit is meant solely to intimidate them into silence. However, Mills might well have gone way overboard with her "criticisms" and exercise of free speech.

[Sure looks that way to me. I chalk this one up to petulant whining by sniveling naifs who don't understand the difference between criticism and wild and baseless accusations of perversion. Harkins certainly seems to have a case, given the information available in the article. Her criticisms of the AHS appear to be valid criticisms within the context of the First Amendment, albeit misinterpretations of the state of affairs. For my money, it's not Garret and the AHS who are trying to do the SLAPPing down. --MN]

[Addendum (14 Nov 2003): On 13 Nov Ms. Kathi Mills left a message in my questbook concerning some of the issues involved in this case. You can see Ms. Mills message and my reply to it. --MN]

Kimberly Draper, former librarian of the Logan County Public Library, was fired in April 2001. She claims that it was because she wore a cross on a necklace. Library Director Linda Kompanik maintains that it was for other reasons, but wouldn't elaborate so as not to violate Draper's right to privacy. The American Center for Law and Justice is assisting Draper in a suit against the library for suppressing her right to express her faith.

[There wasn't enough information in the article for me to get any sense of whether this is a case of suppression or petulant whining. --MN]

At raves. For a number of years people have been trying to have punk, mass-parties outlawed on the grounds that the are actually drug-fests for the use of MDMA; street name: Ecstasy. Most recently in the U.S., the Drug Enforcement Agency forced the owners of a prominent dance venue in New Orleans, Louisiana, to ban face masks, glow sticks and pacifiers. On the excuse that the items constitute drug paraphernalia.

As a result of the ban, rave attendees were forced to throw away personal effects in order to get into the dances given there, or to have them confiscated. In August of 2001 the ACLU sued. In his ruling overturning this case of censorship, U.S. District Judge G. Thomas Porteous said, "the government cannot ban inherently legal objects that are used in expressive communication because a few people use the same legal item to enhance the effects of an illegal substance."

[So much for the ravings of fools with an axe to grind. On the CBC Television show Jonovision, hosted by Jonothan Torres, an anti-rave advocate aired his views one time. His position was that raves must be banned because one person using Ecstasy at one rave died; and, of course, one is one too many. Pfah! --MN]

[Addendum (20 Jun 2003): The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on this day that the agreement worked out between the government and a rave club in New Orleans, can be enforced even though it bans legal objects such as giant pacifiers, glow sticks, and mentholated inhalers. Once again the overwhelming majority of non-drug using partygoers are being punished for the actions of the minority. Pfah! --MN]
(see 12 Sep 2002)

A proposal for mandatory pledges of allegiance in schools in Colorado failed to pass on a party-line vote.

Bill, SB 149, sponsored by Senate Minority Leader John Andrews, would have required the pledge at all public schools. Even though Andrews, R-Centennial, amended the bill to allow an exemption for students who have religious convictions against saying the pledge, democratic senators shot it down in a 4-3 majority on the grounds that it wasn't the senate's place to the pledge mandatory.

[Incipient fascist Andrews vowed to get his bill passed by any unethical means possible; by making it a Macadamia Nut-Rider. He had tried to bypass normal procedure by getting a super-majority to pass his bill directly to the house floor earlier in the day, but that was also shot down. Somehow the dolt just can't seem to understand that: patriotism and love of one's country is not something taught in a classroom, and that: you can't force such things on people, and that: just because someone doesn't express his patriotism and love the same way you do it doesn't mean that they love your shared country any less than you do.

For more about making the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory, see the reports from 20 Feb 2001 at Freedom Forum Online about attempts to legislate posting the National Motto. As far as I am concerned, these mongoloid idiots don't want the motto and the pledge forced on a captive audience out of any feelings of patriotism or americanism, but solely to push on the people their self-righteous notions that America must and will worship God in the manner the legislators intend. They can say it is out of patriotism all they want, but I have no doubt that in their collective heart of hearts their motives are constitutionally impermissible. --MN]
(see 13 Feb 2002)

On 05 Feb., FAIR issued an alert about the ongoing censoring by NPR of news about violence against Palestinians. A problem that continues to be a problem even after NPR acknowledged the misrepresentation and stated that they had acted to correct it. In effect, violence against Palestinians never happens, whereas violence by Palestinians means an end to the periods of relative calm.

U.S. District Judge James H. Michael Jr. ruled that a gag order implemented against a police officer went to far, and even, "could potentially prohibit the plaintiff from telling his spouse about his day," thereby violating the First Amendment.

This gag order was brought against Officer Karl Mansoor by the Albemarle County police for the high crime of daring to speak critically of the county government. He spoke out against a proposed pay plan, and alleges that afterward he was targeted by the police and denied overtime and training.

The principle of withholding information concerning this case was reaffirmed by Geedubya Jr's administration. The white house told a federal court how forcing the white house to disclose the details of meetings about its energy policy would be unconstitutional.

[It would be unconstitutional to advise the people on whose behalf things were done exactly how it was decided to do those things? --MN]
(see 30 Jan 2002)

Teri Bedford and Lois Matthews filed a complaint against a lawyer with the Nevada ethics commission. The first review of the lawyers conduct found his actions warranted discipling, but a second review overturned that finding. Which is irrelevant to the case at hand. What is relevant is Nevada Supreme Court Rule 121. It prohibits people from discussing such complaints with anyone, including their own lawyers, and in perpetuity. Bedford and Matthews contend that this violates their First Amendment rights.

[I tend to concur. Even granting that bruiting about rumours of misconduct can damage a person's professional reputation, telling someone that they are never allowed to speak about their dissatisfaction with someone's conduct seems to go a little overboard. --MN]

By J.K. Rowling. See the Harry Potter censorship timeline.

However, they did do so out of some legitimate concerns. It seems that some kind of pop figure, Ali G, has triggered a revival in fashion; the wearing of shell suits. These are sports wear for the outdoors. The problem with shell suits is that they are more highly combustible than standard clothing and pose a fire hazard. Due to this, students in the Fife school region will not be allowed to participate in class experiments while wearing these outfits.

However, the "county" of Fife isn't stopping there. The 60,000 students in the region will also be discouraged from wearing team colors and political slogans. The council has stated that their aim was to select clothing that is "realistically priced, attractive, practical and durable", but that would also foster "a positive image and improved reputation" within local communities.

A new dress code reads in part, "The general guideline should be that clothing is unacceptable if it could disrupt the normal operation of the school, cause damage or injury. Schools should make a clear statement about the types of clothing which are considered unacceptable. This includes items which are of flammable materials which may be a danger in certain classes, for example, shellsuits."

[Hmmmm. Interesting. Not a ban outright, but some of the reasoning is definitely slanted toward censorship. The idea, for instance, that one is allowed only to project "a positive image and improved reputation" rather than one's true feelings. {Fife stopped being a county in 1975, hence the quotation marks above.} --MN]

By Parham Khoshbakht. This 20-year-old, Fullerton College student appears to support the Taliban regime of Afghanistan. It was reported that he could be seen from time to time, on the campus, playing his guitar and singing loudly in support of those religionists. Although he himself seems to be American born. At approximately 10:15 A.M. on this day, he staged a protest in which he attempted to burn a flag of the U.S. in the campus quad. This act of protest almost sparked a full scale riot as numerous students leapt to the rescue of the flag after getting over their initial shock.

Mr. Khoshbakht had printed on his chest the words, "Liberty or death", and he had a sign that read, "Born in America. Stand up for Freedom." A witness to the incident later stated to a reporter, "He was saying that the government and police are taking our rights away and this is not George Bush's country. Burn the flag for liberty."

Natalie Cunningham, also 20, was reported as saying, "People in the crowd kept saying, 'What does burning the flag have to do with liberty?' It probably made students at Fullerton College feel more strongly about protecting our flag."

Toby Diaz, the first student to attempt to wrest the flag from Khoshbakht, said. "He has no right to do that to our flag, especially at a time like this. There was no way I was going to let him do that."

[How droll. What does burning the flag to protest oppression have to do with liberty? Obviously some people need a serious attitude adjustment toward respecting real liberty and human rights. Never mind the irony of exercising your right to free speech by demonstrating in favour of oppression and slavery by the Taliban by opposing those same conditions as imposed by Geedubya Bush; that is irrelevant to this particular issue. --MN]

So ruled the Nebraska Supreme Court. Kip Hookstra says he was merely exercising his right to free speech and was unlawfully arrested on 20 March 1999. He had interfered with a sobriety test on a drunken-driving suspect, which was being conducted by Officer Mitchell Evans. Evans warned Hookstra to move along several times. Hookstra eventually left the scene, but was arrested several blocks away later by other officers; and subsequently fined $100 for violating a city ordinance that prohibits disobeying police orders. He is appealing on the grounds that the law is overbroad and unconstitutional.

[Hmph. The dumbass should have been locked up in the drunk tank with his new bestest friend. There's a fine line between interfering with a lawful bust and intervening in an unlawful bust, and the article at Freedom Forum Online said nothing about Officer Evans acting unlawfully. Smack the silly-bugger good and proper, I say. --MN]

Some three hundred copies of this work had been donated to Los Angeles, California, schools by the Omar Ibn Khattab Foundation in the wake of the 11 Sep. tragedy. The problem is that the books were accepted without being reviewed, and the copies are from a 1934 printing. The book contains a number of "explanations" which are based on the prejudices of the day and which lend the work an anti-semitic slant. The Los Angeles school district director of information technology, Jim Konantz, told the various school principals involved to secure the books in their offices pending a proper review of the work. A committe formed of history teachers, representatives of the Jewish community, and foundation officials is to be impaneled.

[This incident seems to me to be a mirror of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica case. While that copy of the Encyc. Brit. made a serious attempt to be scientific, it also contained some entries based on the prejudices of the day. In particular, one entry described the "negro race" as being uneducated and oversexed. Of course, instead of using this today as a study in sociology and changing social mores, hypersensitive snivelers would simply demand that such a work be burned at the stake. In this case, one of the footnotes in the book describes Jews as, "Many of them, even if they could read, were no better than illiterates for they knew not their own true scriptures, but read into them what they wanted, or at best their own conjecture." Funny. That's pretty much what I would say about the Taliban and most of the soi-disant christians of today. --MN]

In an incident that I would chalk up as a close call to, but not necessarily as, censorship, officers of the South Bend police force have been signing out all of the civil rights books on display at the St. Joseph County Public Library. The display, advertising the "What to Do When Stopped by Police" event, is at the downtown branch, 304 S. Main St. It is part of an awareness program that will culminate on Thursday, 21 Feb 2002, with a talk about racial profiling. The local police are upset over the awareness program and had been checking out all the books on display on a rotating basis, bringing them back at the end of the day. On Wednesday, 11 Feb, Donald Napoli, director of the public library, had to implement a two book sign out limit, and on 12 Feb. he phoned the police to complain about the practice; which call resulted in the immediate return of a large number of the books.

A few of the titles on display are:

• Beat Your Ticket: Go to Court Now and Win,
• Racial Profiling on Highways, Shopping Malls, Taxicabs and Sidewalks, and
• Driving While Black: What to Do if You're a Victim of Racial Profiling,

This action is almost certainly not censorship as the officers do not seem to be acting in collusion and the incident does not have the backing of officials. It appears to stem from disquietude about public perceptions of the police and from a misunderstanding of the motives behind the presentation; which will be a look at racial profiling. Not in the city of South Bend, but across the U.S. One issue that is driving police dissatisfaction is the fact that no one from the police department was invited to speak at the presentation. However, Mr. Napoli stated that the presentation is not going to be a debate but a presentation, and if the police want a debate they can present a panel after the presentation. A single attorney will lecturing about the issue of racial profiling.

[Chalk this one up to hypersensitivity by the cops. No one on the South Bend force would admit to racial profiling or even that there was any racial profiling perpetrated by any South Bend officers, so, of course, this lecture must be entirely inappropriate for South Bend and we high-minded, incorruptable, and thoroughly moral and professional folks, . . . --MN]
(see 15 Dec 2001)

By Wenatchee High School students of Wenatchee, Washington. Principal Mike Franza stated that he would invoke his School Board granted right to prior restraint of the school newspaper due to articles in the 30 Jan edition about sexuality. These articles contained information not included in the curriculum, such as an illustration of how to apply a condom to a penis. Franza asserted that publishing sexual material not taught in SexEd violated school board policy.

Franza met with the Teacher/Adviser to discuss the issue, but none of the newspaper student staff were at that meeting.

Local parents Welcome and Lisa Sauer complained the articles also violated an educational statute of some sort called The Hatch Agreement. I've never heard of it but I assume that it is a state ordinance. The Hatch Agreement gives parents the right to review all instructional materials. It is their contention that the articles constitute instruction in sexuality and that the publication violated their parental rights of prior review. A local parent, Bev Neher, also spoke out in favour of the articles. She commented, "I have told my kids over and over what you don't know can kill you"

[The report on this incident in the The Wenatchee World said that the Sauers maintain that they want a local resolution but will take the matter to federal court if they must. In my not so humble opinion, if they do they will lose. The Sauers are attempting to spread their net of prior restraint too far and wide. Complicating this incident is a side issue raised by Mr. Franza. At one point he stated that while journalism classes are part of the curriculum, the paper itself is an extra-curricular activity. --MN]

The ACLU, National Right to Life Committee, and the National Rifle Association, banded with together with other political advocacy groups to fight the campaign finance reform bill. This bill is reportedly so flawed that an organization wishing to speak out for or against anyone running for office, would have to form a partisan political advocacy group to do so. Laura W. Murphy, Director of the ACLU Washington National Office, commented, "The diversity of our coalition is testimony to the flaws in the Shays-Meehan concept of campaign finance reform. The bill would, if passed, unconstitutionally muzzle essential political speech."

[For more about the likely impact of this law, see this op/ed piece by Ken Paulson for 21 Apr. --MN]
(see 14 Feb 2002)

Director of the State of New York's Committee on Open Government, Freeman spoke out against Guiliani's handling of the public documents of his mayoralty. Freeman was asked to review this case by Associated Press and to issue an advisory opinion. His opinion? -- The public is entitled to view records from Rudolph Giuliani's administration without the former mayor having a say in the process.
(see 24 Dec 2001; 28 Feb 2002; 05 Oct 2002; 08 Jan 2003; 27 Mar 2003)

The Virginia senate passed a bill requiring all schools to post the national motto: In God We Trust. Thereby joining Mississippi, Florida, and Indiana.
(see 05 Feb 2002; also see Charles Haynes's essay on God in schools)

By the Colorado state legislature. The House Bill 1192 proposal was passed by a 5-4 vote. It will now go to the full house for debate. Opponents to the bill contend that it will make people immune from accountability for the irresponsible exercise of free speech.

[Hmmmm. An interesting counter-point. See an excellent op/ed piece in the Online Journalism Review by Rebecca Raney, and my letter to Ms. Raney and subsequent correspondence with Dick Learned for an indepth exploration of a similar issue dealing with amateur online publications.

In the Colorado anti-SLAPP bill case, one should be mindful of the fact that the critics of the bill are those who will be allowed to pursue SLAPPs if they can get the measure killed. As to whether or not this bill will abrogate or derogate from libel and anti-defamation laws, I can't say. As of 15 Feb. I hadn't seen a copy of it. --MN]

A bill described as so badly flawed that a lawsuit against it is almost certain. The bill is meant to limit the exposure of children to "objectionable" material; which seems to be everything every whining sniveler has been bitching about when demanding the implementation of a federal rating system on movies, television shows, and music CD's. One provision, for instance, outlaws exposing juveniles to death, which would make it illegal for anyone under 18 to watch The Godfather, Schindler's List, and Ken Burns' epic TV series The Civil War in streaming video. Or for an online edition newspaper to publish a photograph of a person falling from a burning World Trade Center tower.

[I wonder . . . you know, this law could give a perfect excuse to those adolescents who don't want to go to some hated aunt's funeral . . . . --MN]
(see 02 Aug 2002)

On 21 Nov. 2001, the Massachussets State Police made a conditional job offer to Eugene O'Neill; 38 years old, former marine. On 24 Jan 2002 they rescinded it after a background check. O'Neill's disqualifying black mark? -- he is part owner of two bookstores dealing with adult material, which the two communities in which they are located have been trying unsuccessfully to shut down since 1996. The State Police say that it is a matter of its officers being exemplary and above reproach; and part of that policy is that any officer wanting to take a second job must get permission. O'Neill says that this policy is unconstitutional in that it violates the First Amendment and is suing. Captain Robert Bird, of the State Police, was reported to have said that in the past officials have denied requests from troopers to work second jobs as a firefighter, an auto auction consultant, and a professional boxer. On 14 February, O'Neill filed a suit.
(see 09 Mar 2001; 19 Feb 2002)

By taking the easy way out instead of doing it right. In the autumn of 2001, the federal government send a letter to 1,300 libraries, repositories of federal documents, ordering them to destroy CD-ROM publications of the document, "Source Area Characteristics of Large Public Surface Water Supplies". This in the name of protecting water supplies from NBCW contamination by terrorists. The government did not explore any methods by which access to the document could be restricted or monitored, they just ordered the CD's destroyed.

[I had seen reports of this issue in late 2001 but had failed to include it in my chronology. This issue resurfaced when a brief article about the matter was included in a recent Castleton College library newsletter, which was posted online at the college's Web site. They had destroyed their copy of the document in January.

Francis J. Buckley Jr., superintendent of documents for the U.S. Government Printing Office, commented on this case, "Hopefully in the future we will be able to reissue the report, or issue a modified version that will still be helpful to those who would like to protect our water resources." What I'd like to know is why didn't they just ask the libraries to send the CD's back to the Printing Office or implement some tight security measures. {Actually, I already know; they did what was cheapest and easiest. Censorship, you see, is also a matter of following the path of least resistance.} --MN]

[Addendum (11 Apr 2002): Some question has arisen as to whether or not this incident could be categorized as censorship. Mr. Buckley later issued a letter clarifying the situation. --MN]
(see 14 Mar 2002)

For a pretty fair summary with cross referencing links, see the critique of this mess at Freedom Forum Online.
(see 13 Feb 2002)

See the entry in the Appendix G

Rick Kiser was very well intentioned when he decided in 1996 to give the residents of Blountsville, Alabama, internet access. Unfortunately, his decision was largely grounded in personal beliefs instead of business considerations and the whole thing blew up in his face. Kiser says of pornography, "I have spiritual and non-sectarian feelings that pornography is not good for people. I feel like it's destructive for families." Mr. Kiser is somewhat ambivalent about the internet, therefore, as it provides access to pornography.

So, what did he do as CEO of Blountsville Telephone Company when he decided to provide local internet access to the town of 1,800? He installed a filter on the server. Now, there's nothing illegal about that, and many providers offer such an option, but things started to go wrong when Mr. Kiser decided that filtering would be a matter of Hobson's choice; it was a take-internet-access-my-way-or-call-long-distance-to-the-next-provider option. Not, however, out of any special self-righteous morality, to give him his due, but because he felt that it would be wrong for him to profit from access to porn. Things went even wronger when it turned out that the filters weren't working all that well.

Mr. Kiser found out how faulty his filters were when a mother complained that her son was visiting hard-core sites. It took him until January 2001 to strengthen the filters up to spec. Which turned out to be almost the final nail in the coffin. When his clients logged on they found out that they could hardly get anywhere; including eBay and other non-porn sites. Computer programmer Chuck Harmon, who spends more than 100 hours a month online, said of the incident, "Fifty-five percent to 65% of the Internet is totally gone. They filter for everything that might be remotely objectionable to a 90-year-old lady. It smacks of censorship."

Many of Kiser's 900 customers went ballistic and flooded Blountsville.net with angry calls, wanting unfiltered access. Which was the last nail in the coffin. Kiser pulled the plug. This decision was based on the belief that if he couldn't provide quality access without access to porn, he wouldn't provide any access at all. BTC will be dropping the service in March. There is now a new provider in Blountsville, Urisp.net, picking up the pieces. This new provider is run by Pete Hays, who says, "I talked to some ministers. One of them told me, 'Pete, God doesn't filter or censor man. You can't do what God doesn't do.'"

Some of Kiser's customers are sorry to see the filters go.

[This story was in USA Today, but I can't do a proper comparison of pro-filter numbers because the article didn't say how many customers were in favor of the filtering. --MN]
(see 20 Feb 2002)

In some 26 different works. Pornographic? Obscene? No, just irreligious. According to the article in The Star Online, of Star Publications (Malaysia), the United Arab Emirate Ministry of Education banned the books from schools on the grounds that they contain "written or illustrated material that contradicts Islamic and Arab values." To whit:

• Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, by J.K. Rowling,
• The Pig Farm, by George Orwell,
• A Town Like Alice, by Nevil Shute,
• Elementary Mathematics, by Isidro D Carino,
• images of alcoholic drinks and pigs,
• other, unspecified "indecent images"
• false records such as using the word Israel instead of Palestine, either in maps or in written texts,
• material insulting to Arabs and Muslims.

The ministry also warned private schools teaching the children of foreign residents, to accept this decision and to submit to the ministry for review a list of the books that will be taught to the students. Despite this ban, there does not seem to be any move to remove the books from bookstores. See the Harry Potter censorship timeline.

By Christianity and The Western World. Celebrations of this holiday were banned in Kuwait by The Higher Committee for Scientific Research and the Issuing of Fatwas and The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Evil .

The Higher Committee has ruled that the Koran permits only two religious feasts - Eid Al-Fitr, marking the end of the fast for the holy month of Ramadan, and Eid Al-Adha, for the culmination of the Haj. [A pilgramage to Mecca, the Islamic holy city.] The Commission has given shops selling Valentine's Day materials three days to clear it all out.

Banned from everywhere in Kuwait are:

• the sale of red roses specifically to celebrate Valentine's,
• teddy bears,
• greeting cards in celebration of Valentine’s Day,
• red-colored gifts normally used to mark the day,
• red clothes or the display of any item related to the occasion among school children or students,
• any special Valentine's Day activities in shops, hotels, restaurants, and public parks, and
• drivers are forbidden to decorate their cars with anything red or any Valentine-associated items.

It was reported, however, that Kuwaitis seem to be undeterred by the ban, as many citizens are flocking to stalls and malls to buy little Valentine Day knickknacks. There is so much competition for Valentine-sales dinars, in fact, that one stall owner complained that sales were only one quarter of what they were last year (down from 2000 dollars US a day to 500).
(see 14 Feb 2003; 14 Feb 2004)

U.S. District Court Judge David W. McKeague granted a permanent injunction against a century old law prohibiting depictions of violence, the representation of murder, or the display of the human form in an indecent way . This law was challenged by an anti-abortion rights group which was subjected to it during a demonstration against a Planned Parenthood office in Kalamazoo, Michigan.

This law was applied against a pair of anti-abortionists who were carrying signs with a photograph of a bloody, aborted fetus. A passerby complained about the objectionable content of the sign and a scuffle broke out when the passerby attempted to remove the images by force. When the police intervened, the demonstrators were told they were violating a law against graphic images on signs.

[Lessee, now. Protestors who would no doubt demand the removal of images of naked live bodies and sexual organs as objectionable turn around and assert that their right to expose members of the public to objectionable images of broken, bloody corpses is absolutely sacrosanct.

Why is it I get the feeling that if a free speech advocacy group were to use such images they would be accused of sado-masochistic pedophilia? And yet, now that this law is struck down, doesn't that mean that people can use images of live, naked bodies? What a conundrum, eh? --MN]
(see 10 Aug 2001; 03 Sep 2001; 09 Nov 2001; 21 Dec 2001; 25 Jun 2002; 30 Jun 2002; 30 Sep 2002; 14 May 2003)

By Kelly Fero. This web site is a parody of the Texas GOP and satirizes several GOP candidates because of the links that party has to Enron, so this political party is suing Mr. Fero. The Republican Party of Texas wrote in a letter to Mr. Fero, "Your Web site is clearly intended to imitate and mimic the RPT trademark symbol and Web site, and to create confusion and mislead the public," and Jonathan Snare, an attorney for the Texas GOP, was quoted as saying, "I'm fully aware of parody exception in trademark law, but we don't think it applies in this case. The position of state party is that we want this site shut down, because we believe it's going to create confusion."

Mike Godwin, a trademark law specialist at the Center for Democracy and Technology in Washington, D.C., commented, "In this case, because the name itself is a parody, it's difficult to imagine any reasonable person thinking that the Web site represents the GOP in any way, shape or form. Everyone understands that the interest you protect with trademark law is primarily a business interest, and you certainly can't use trademark law to suppress criticism."

[Duh! -- see, judge . . . the peepul are too s-s-s-s-stoo-oo-oo-oopid to figure it out or have it explained to them . . . so they shouldn't be allowed to look at it 'cause they might git confused as a Florida ballot counter. . . . --MN]

The High Holy State of Great Britain Thought Police have recently introduced a bill to revise the 1939 Export Control Act. This revision would include measures that could grant the Government these powers:

• to see academic papers before publication and suppress them,
• prevent the use of e-mails between foreign colleagues,
• to require that foreign students working in British laboratories need "licences", and
• that would put software, e-mail, and even speech under official control.

Dr Ross Anderson, of the security research group at Cambridge University, an expert in cryptographic systems, said of this case, "This has serious implications for academic freedom. The DTI [Department of Trade and Industry] is trying to extend the scope of the Export Control Bill to interfere with all the nooks and crannies of science and technology. They like the idea of being able to exercise a pre-publication review -- which they've never been able to do in the past. If you submit a patent, it could be suppressed for defence reasons but scientific papers never had that."

Furthermore, the measure contains provisions that grant a "continuous power" to make fresh orders allowing the addition to or deletion from the type of goods covered by the act. This would allow the pertinent minister to alter the reasons for licencing software or e-mail, and which subjects could be prohibited from communication.

Save British Science director Peter Cotgreave is quoted as saying, "It's all very well saying they won't use these powers themselves but they are creating these powers, and who knows who will be in charge a few years down the line? This is especially ironic, given that this Government claims to be in favour of freedom of information. Anything that stops the publication of any serious peer-reviewed work is bad. We've seen from the examples of BSE and genetically modified organisms that the only way to get people to trust scientists is to be completely open -- not to stop them doing something on the grounds of national security."

[The DTI maintains that the controls would not pertain to basic research, only to applied research. However, who do suppose would get to decide? The researcher or the DTI? And if you don't think this measure would put speech under official control, what do you suppose would happen to a person who openly criticized the government's handling of proscribed research; under the provision, of course, that he violated the proscription against communicating information about such research. --MN]

In Chandler, Arizona, police officer Ron Dible was served with papers. Papers advising him that he was being fire. Seems photos of wife's naked corpus were being posted online in a web site operated and maintained by Mrs. Dible; although Ron had taken some of the photographs. The police force did not give a reason for the dismissal. [Which certainly makes it illegal in my squirrelly little brain. --MN] This case centers around the issue of cops -- and public servants in general -- being allowed to have a life of their own when off duty.

[That web site was recently taken down while the Dible's fight the firing in court.

Another officer, a volunteer reservist, Jeff Smith, was told a month before this case broke that he should not return to work for the force. His wife also appears online. Both sites were opened as commercial ventures. The Dible site netted some $2,000 a month before the fracas. The Chandler Police Department, as many others, requires that its officers get its permission to hold second jobs. But, see, it's Ron's wife that operates the site, and both he and Smith consider their sites to be more of a hobby than a job. --MN]
(see 09 Mar 2001; 14 Feb 2002)

FAIR posted an alert detailing a plan by the Pentagon to engage in full scale manipulation of the world's news media; not alone against the "enemies" of the U.S., but also against its allies. In this alert, FAIR detailed how Pentagon propagandists had been working hand in glove with CNN news services.

[I was later informed by someone whose opinion I respect that this plan was firmly squelched by congress; I also finally saw it reported at CBC Newsonline on 27 Feb. Perhaps the most infamous example of a Department of Propaganda was that operated by Hitler's pet misinformationist, Goebbels; and that is what really pushes my buttons in this issue. I have a very strong tendency to equate Geedubya's attitudes and actions with naziism. No, not neo-fascism, outright naziism. --MN]

On the U.S. Department Of Justice. Mr. Ravnitzky is a researcher for a national news organization, and who works out of Washington, D.C. Through the course of his regular research he found out that the DOJ Office of Legislative Affairs submits weekly reports tracking legislative activity to John Ashcroft, the Attorney General. When he requisitioned a few weeks worth, he immediately saw that these reports are a researcher's treasure trove of material and subesequently requisitioned a number of others. This time, however, he received nothing. In due course he found out that the DOJ would not honour his requests because they unilaterally decided that he wasn't "a real journalist". Despite his credentials. Said he:

I found out soon afterward what had happened. A small office in DOJ called the Office of Information and Privacy runs training seminars for government FOIA managers in a variety of agencies. At one training session in November, 2001, (probably November 27th and 28th) the question came up of how to handle troublesome requests, including my request for legislative weekly reports to the Attorney General. A FOIA Manager told me that my name and my request was mentioned specifically.

This credible source said that DOJ representatives said that they were going to deny my status as a representative of the news media as a way to block my request, despite their knowledge of the fact that I work full-time for a national news organization and actively cover agency matters.

[Okay, so that makes Vanessa Leggett, radio talk show hosts, and now a full time journalism researcher who are not "real journalists". So, who's next? --MN]

Adena Wilson of Westerville, Ohio, found out the hard way that internet filters are not all they are cracked up to be. She discovered that her angel-pure fifteen year old was actually a purveyor of hard core porn; and had been for almost six months.

Naturally, she holds herself totally blameless, saying that she is responsible for her child only when he is at home, but the library is responsible for policing her child when he walks through their doors. This, despite the library serving a reported 70,000 clients.

[Okay, let's see now. . . . Filter advocates say that it is necessary to filter libraries so they can raise their children according to their values (despite that violating our right to raise our children our way), and then when it doesn't work they say that filters aren't good enough, but that someone else has to assume responsibility for supervising their children at all times.

This synopsis is not really fair to Ms. Wilson, of course, but, frankly, I don't give a damn that it's not fair to her. If she doesn't want her child surfing the net unsnoopervised (sic) then it is up to her to get off her lazy ass and watch the brat herself. --MN]
(see 14 Feb 2002)

See the entry in the Appendix G

The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously that this 1983 statute is unconstitutional in that it violates the First Amendment. This particular case derives from Barry Keenan's story about the kidnapping of Frank Sinatra Jr. in 1963.

A Son of Sam law bars criminals from profiting from telling their stories; proceeds are seized for the families of victims or for charity. They are named for the first such law which was triggered by the original Son of Sam, serial killer David Berkowitz, when he was offered a huge amount of money for the rights to his story. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that such laws are unconstitutional in 1991.
(see 16 Aug 2002)

By Univesity of Alaska Anchorage art students. The students had done numerous drawings on the walls of the school, but those depicting nudity had been covered up with paper. When student Brenda Roper found out that no one had apparently authorized the cover up she removed the paper. The paper was rehung over the "offending" images later in the day. Again, no one knew by whom. This time Ms. Roper left up these veils of shame. Sean Licka, head of the UAA art department said that it was his understanding the paper was to protect the art. However, he was out of town during the incident and the artwork in question was not completed pieces, but studies of outlines. Ms. Roper replied to his comment by saying that such an action was, "a considerate thought at best" but a "weak excuse for walking around the issue that is the point, which is censorship. I would much rather have somebody touch something than have it not able to be viewed. You could do more damage by covering it up."

See this web site about celebrating and promoting the right to read in Canada. Including material on what you can do to protect your own intellectual freedom. For a broader, background view, download the Freedom to Read kit in PDF format.

[This site is updated annually, but the basic information remains the same. --MN]

Ken Paulson, of Freedom Forum Online, posted a look at the likely ramifications of software that cuts scenes for more mature audiences from DVD recorded films. Such software basically does what the video vendors of Utah do manually.

[Personally, while this is technically censorship, I wouldn't put it into that category. Considering that this software is being peddled to make a buck, and not out of any "superiour moral attitude" that the developers know better than you how to raise your children, I'd chalk this one up to simple-minded, PC, dumbing down; the sole purpose of which is to make a buck. I will certainly agree, however, that, either way, it violates copyrights. --MN]
(see 20 Sep 2002)

This book, by Russell Banks, was subject to objections by some parents of students at the Canandaigua Academy. What the parents object to is: profanity, drug use, sexual imagery, and references to incest. In a telephone interview, Banks commented, "(It's) in the world, and if I'm writing in the real world, I can't leave that out. It would be a false portrait of the world."

By Adolf Hitler. In the Czech Republic, Michal Zitko faced imprisonment for publishing a Czech translation of Adolf Hitler's Mein Kampf. Mr. Zitko was charged under Article 260 of the Czech Penal Code, after his Otakar II Publishing House released a Czech language edition of the work in Mar 2000. Article 260 prohibits providing support to any movement which promotes national, racial, class, or religious hatred. Mr. Zitko was originally given a three-year suspended prison sentence and fined two million Czech Koruny (US dollars 56,500), with the threat of a one-year prison term for failure to pay. The conviction and sentence were upheld on appeal on this day.
(see 1976; 1999; 01 Dec 2000)

In an op/ed piece posted at Slashdot, Mr. Katz offers a few opinions on the futility and impossibility of censorship in the Information Age.

[I have to admit that he makes an interesting case; and I would even go so far as to say that I agree with certain aspects. The Celebrate Freedom section of this site also "feeds off censorship". Unfortunately, the internet can be censored. The fact of Bernadette Taylor's entire domain being blocked by the government of Australia since Jan 2001, proves that. As Seth Finkelstein said -- in reply to the 'net considering censorship as damage and routing around it -- "But what if the censorship is in the router?"

Also, even if Katz were entirely correct, that does not mean that we should just sit on our asses and allow the censorship advocates to operate unopposed. After all, why make things easy for them? And what about materials that are not available online and that form the mainstay of information for low income families that cannot get wired? --MN]

So says Robert Freedman. The director of the state Committee on Open Government ruled that the new plan is still inconsistent with the law. This revised plan was drafted in light of his decision that Giuliani's deal with the archive center where his mayoralty papers were sent to be archived violated the First Amendment.
(see 24 Dec 2001; 05 Oct 2002; 08 Jan 2003 27 Mar 2003; 27 Apr 2006)

By Shirrish Date and Palm Beach Post, one newspaper. On this day the Post printed an article by Date in which he was critical of Bridgette Gregory, a legislative aide to the Florida House Speaker Tom Feeney. The Speaker reacted to the story by banning Date from the floor of the legislature. In an interview, Feeney alleged that Date had assaulted and verbally abused two of his aides, although those allegations went unsubstantiated. The story Date wrote did warrant a later correction to retract an allegation. Palm Beach Post editor Edward Sears later said of this incident, "The speaker reacted to a really very unflattering story. It's pure retaliation from a guy that has the power to do that. We're dealing with content, not contact here."

In the article, printed in March, Sears was also reported as being concerned about what kind of precedent was being set by the banning; that it would further the trend toward a closed government. "It is a sad day that you go from what used to be an extraordinarily progressive legislature and really one of the most open governments to these shenanigans."

[All hail Jeb Bush! Prince in Waiting; obviously. What's he got to do with it? He's in charge, it's his fault. That is a principle of leadership. It is also a truism that a command tends to take on the character of its commander. Since the Bush family believes in secrecy and censorship and acts accordingly, these attitudes are trickling down through the ranks. Leastways that's my story and I'm sticking to it. --MN]
(see 01 Nov 2001; 28 Nov 2001)

By Patricia Demarest. This public access cable show was censored by the Athol/Orange Community Television cable company. It seems this company's board of directors is formed of political appointees; appointed by the very city officials Ms. Demarest has been scrutinizing. Ms. Demarest, you see, is an old-fashioned gad-fly who does not hesitate to button hole the public officials of Athol on the street and grill them mercilessly. Her broadcasts were suspended and the board changed the cable company policy regarding "controversial programming."

The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Demarest, called the ruling by federal Judge Michael Ponsor, the first to give such citizen news gatherers the same rights as professional journalists.

[Which should be a further nail in the coffin of the philosophy that a person has to be "a real journalist" to be able to function as a journalist. See the material on Vanessa Leggett for more on that issue. --MN]

By students at John Paul II high school in Ontario, Canada. A number of students took to the streets in protest against the principal's meddling with the lyrics. Gary Clarke had directed teacher Pat Spadini to delete references to condoms and teen sex from one song. Megan Morrison, of Grade 9, was quoted as saying, "They are pushing us around. It's not a sexual play at all." Dozens of students marched outside the school with signs during noon hour. Spadini reportedly had refused to produce the play if it was censored. Both allowed as to how they were willing to work out a compromise.

In a report filed at Freedom Forum Online, it turns out that a large percentage of Americans only pay lip service to the ideals of freedom. It seems that most Americans would rather give up a few essential liberties in exchange -- not for security -- for not having their feelings hurt. Ultimately, it seems that only 27% of Americans (+/- 3%), truly favour free speech. Also see the results of a survey by Michigan State University reported 23 Apr 2002.
(See 23 Apr 2002; 09 Sep 2003)

By religionists. The ACLU had treatened to sue the West Greene School Board of Waynesburgh, Pennsylvania, if it allowed a "scientific creationist" to address the student body. Attendance at the address, by evangelist Steve Grohman, was to have been voluntary, but the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that teaching creationism as a science violates the separation of church and state. The school board cancelled the address, but left open the possibility of holding it elsewhere and after school hours at a later date.

[I'm not sure just what is being censored in this case -- evolution or creationism -- but I feel very strongly that in this instance the ACLU has gone overboard. If attendance was to be truly voluntary, then the attendees could hardly have been considered a captive audience. And even if Grohman is a raving fool with an axe to grind that does not abrogate or derogate from his right to be a damned fool or to state his beliefs in public before a willing audience. --MN]

A report at Freedom Forum Online suggests that religious groups are attempting to have the national motto legislated into the schools to degrade the separation of church and state. Whereas the motto has survived at least three challenges to its constitutionality on such grounds, the movement to have it legislated into the schools was started by the ultra-conservative group American Family Association, of Tupelo, Mississippi. This movement was started approximately a year before the 11 September attack on the World Trade Center, but religionists and their elected political allies seem to be now exploiting that event to get such legislation pushed through.

[Their aims are purportedly lofty, but their hearts are not pure. At least not as far as I am concerned. I firmly believe that they are promoting this movement out of constitutionally impermissible motives. --MN]

Both the expression of playwrights and the expression of actors. Or in this case, one actress. Christina Axson-Flynn was a theatre student at the University of Utah. She had discussed her moral attitude toward nudity and swearing with the teacher before starting the program and entered it under the impression that she would not be required to violate her morality. When she asked that obscenities in a class assignment be changed, she ran afoul of the curriculum, and at the end of the semester her teacher reportedly told her that she, "would have to find another place to study acting if she did not modify her stance on the use of such language." She quit the university and sued. That suit was dismissed, and on this day she filed an appeal in Denver with the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

[Whoa, howdy! -- now there's a can of worms upset on the sorting room floor! Let's see, now. On one level we have the issue of copyright and the violation of that which would derive from changing the writing without the author's permission. On a second level there is the question asked so often by censorship advocates about how, "Did you have to use that word?"; the short answer to which is often, "yes". On a third level we have Ms. Axson-Flynn's right to worship according to the dictates of her own conscience, and on a fourth level there is her right to study acting. What degrades any credibility and sympathy I might accord her, however, is how she sued the university because she dropped out of it. That was also her choice.

Seems to me that what is needed is an acting program for religionists who object to "bad" language and "porn". Given the fact that this happened in Utah, it rather surprises me that there isn't such a program. --MN]
(see 03 Feb 2004)

Because Canada Customs continues to attempt the suppression of non-mainstream material. This is due to a flawed Supreme Court ruling that was handed down on 15 Dec 2000.
(see 1956; 26 Feb 1989; Feb 1992; 1993; 1993; 15 Dec 2000; 23 Mar 2004)

U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock dismissed the case again film and computer game makers on free speech grounds in that a decision against the defendants would have a chilling effect. Off the hook are:

• Time Warner Inc.,
• Palm Pictures,
• Sony Computer Entertainment America,
• Activision,
• Id Software,
• Acclaim Entertainment,
• Capcom Entertainment,
• EIDOS Interactive,
• Infogrames,
• Interplay Productions,
• Midway Home Entertainment,
• Nintendo of America, and
• Square Soft.

Not yet off the hook are:

• Apogee Software,
• Atari Corporation,
• Island Pictures,
• New Line Cinema,
• Meow Media,
• Network Authentication Systems,
• Polygram,
• Sega of America, and
• Virgin Entertainment.

[This lawsuit was filed by the family of teacher Dave Sanders. While they have my sympathy, I honestly cannot understand what it is they expect to accomplish by saying that the killers who pulled the triggers were not responsible for their actions; that it was the influence of the social climate created by the film and video game makers that was responsible for the massacre. Columbine students Harris and Klebold pulled those triggers and they and they alone are accountable for what they did as far as I am concerned. --MN]

See the entry in the Appendix G

The ACLU had planned to file another lawsuit on this day to gain access to immigrants being detained unlawfully by the federal government. This one against the federal government on behalf of two newspapers. A previous action was filed against the State of New Jersey.
(see 23 Jan 2002; 02 Aug 2002; 08 Aug 2002; 16 Aug 2002)

By Daria Fand. The Hawaii branch of the ACLU announced that it had reached a settlement with the City of Honolulu, which had refused to show the piece because it was "controversial" and "offensive". The city will now exhibit the piece and has also agreed to revise its application forms while it develops a policy that does not permit arbitrary, content-based discrimination.
(View the piece in question; see 14 Aug 2001)

By the U.S. Energy and Commerce Committee's telecommunications panel. This body okayed legislation to create a web domain slanted toward children graded material. No porn allowed.

[At last! -- somebody in government took their head out of their ass! Representative Anna Eshoo said of this bill, "We may be creating an impossible task," in recognition of the fact that issues to be addressed include how to enforce it and the international implications of regulating certain Internet content. However, this bill does not attempt to regulate speech, it attempts only to create a milieu where some modes of expression will be inapproriate, without infringing on those milieus where such modes of expression are given full sway.

P.S.: The distinction between selection and censorship seems to be a very fine one, indeed. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers certainly doesn't seem to get it. This body governs domain names, and has refused to create a dot-kids suffix because of questions about who would determine what material was appropriate for children. Although, I can sort of see their point in as much as such a domain will have to have some form of review process in place to handle complaints -- say about a site dedicated to Harry Potter being inappropriate -- and a body established to review those complaints. The important thing here, I believe, is that at least somebody is doing something about it. --MN]
(see 13 Nov 2002)

The ACLU filed a First Amendment rights lawsuit on behalf of Denver Justice and Peace Committee. This advocacy group protests against sweat-shop labour in third world countries; it has a policy of non-violence. The lawsuit stems from the allegedly illegal execution of a questionable search warrant for the group's files. They maintain that the warrant was over-broad and that the police who conducted the search took documents not covered by the warrant. The warrant was cut for an investigation into vandalism that took place inside the store the group was demonstrating outside of. The group disavows any connection with the vandals.

Under the state government of Jeb Bush. More than half of Florida's newspapers published editorials calling for a more open government in light of fifteen [15] bills before the legislature that would keep information away from the public. Some examples are bills to:

• block access to crime photos,
• allow doctors and pharmacists to keep reports about adverse incidents secret,
• keep public utility records secret, and,
• allow officials to meet privately to negotiate contracts.

[Why am I not surprised that Jeb Bush would want to negotiate state contracts in secret; especially given Geedubya's dealings with Enron and his wanting to keep those secret. --MN]

By Edward Zwick and Marshall Herskovitz, producers. One episode was censored on two counts. First: an affiliate of ABC Television, WSET-TV 13 of Lynchburg, Virginia, refused to air an episode of this show because of the homosexual theme of the story line. In The Gay/Straight Alliance episode, two 14 year old girls share a kiss. WSET apparently felt that this made the episode unacceptable. WSET also refuses to comment on this censorship despite repeated requests for an explanation. Secondly: ABC itself, although airing the episode, appended a disclaimer reading: Due to Adult Subject Matter, Parental Discretion Is Advised. At their web site, Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation reported that the episode contained no material that could be construed as sexually explicit, and maintains that the warning would not have been attached if the kiss had been shared between a boy and girl; hence, homosexuality was subject to content-based discrimination. GLAAD asks people to contact both WSET and ABC to address both issues separately; as well as to thank the writer of the episode for such a well done piece.

In the United Kingdom. This seems to be a new program to promote literacy. It is described thusly at the web site: Bedtime Reading Week is a national initiative to encourage everyone to enjoy reading together, and to inspire more parents to read with their children.

By Dav Pilkey. This date saw the culmination of censorship effort to have this book removed from the library of the Page Elementary School in Page, North Dakota. The challenge, initiated by former teacher Dawn Ihry, was upheld unilaterally by the Hope-Page Consolidated School District in January, despite a decision by a materials-review committee to reject Ihry's complaint. In an 11 March article in the Fargo Forum, she was quoted as saying, "I didn't care for the language. I didn't care for the innuendos". The removal of the book triggered: a reexamination of the district's selection process; a decision by the school board to approve all library materials; a barring of those materials, "that label or characterize undeserving individuals in a derogatory manner."

Linda Miller, the Page School Librarian, was reported in the 13 March newspaper that the ban could extended to such classics as Uncle Tom's Cabin and Huckleberry Finn.

[Not to mention any other work that uses true to life language. So, let's see. The Hope-Page Consolidated School District board reserves the right to overrule any review committee or selection process to determine what is and is not fit for the minds of children. Funny. Seems to me that this was the whole point behind government control of the press in the old Soviet Union. --MN]
(see 09 Nov 1999; 09 Feb 2000)

By an undisclosed variety of authors of some fifty-plus books. A group of teachers in Russell Springs, Kentucky, had submitted a list of books they want reviewed for possible removal from the Russell County High School library; to whit, those dealing with ghosts, cults, and witchraft. In short: the occult. This was at a meeting in February. The reason stated for this demand in a letter by one person is that God had told the teachers, members of a single prayer group, that he cannot manifest his presence in the school to change the hearts and minds of the students because of the corruption created by these works. The letter is quoted as saying, "He can not come into a place that is corrupted," and, "we must not allow for these books to continue polluting the minds of our teen-agers. ..." Which books? -- both fiction and non-fiction, it seems. Three samples cited are:

• World's Most Famous Ghosts by Daniel Cohen,
• The Witchcraft of Salem Village by Shirley Jackson
• the Harry Potter books [4 as of the date above] by J.K. Rowling.

The site-based council to which the complaint was submitted asked this group to provide more information, particularly about how to form a fair review committee. They had not completed their proposal in time for the meeting scheduled for 12 March, but a dozen people opposed to such a review did show up instead. However, they blew the mission with their attitude that a review process should not be invoked because it might trigger a morass of challenges.

[Bingo! We have a weiner!

Okay, people, let's dismember this in a rational manner, shall we? First off, christian dogma states that God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Stating that God cannot go into a school because state led prayer is illegal or there are certain books on the shelves constitutes an attack on the authority of God -- by definition: blasphemy. Secondly, I think people who proclaim themselves to be messengers of God and that he speaks to them personnally should be required to show admissible evidence in a secular court that this is so, and that, if they cannot, they should then be required to undergo a psychiatric evalution to prove that they are not schizophrenic. Thirdly, if our hearts are pure and our cause is just {and because they really are not because we think they are}, then we do not need to fear any number of censorship challenges. Let them challenge every work in the library and review each one as needed until they get fed up and go away. But certainly do not give in to the same kind of fear that drives a censorship challenge -- for to deny them their right to a due process is itself a form of censorship. Besides, fifty challenges, even if at one go, certainly constitutes a morass of challenges in my books. --MN]

In what was the first publicized round of attacks against vanity plates for 2002. See the appendix on vanity plates.

In a letter issued to libraries participating in the federal depository program. This letter outlines what is proper procedure for removing a document from public access, and what procedure was following in the request for the removal and destruction of the Source Water CD-ROM.
(see 14 Feb 2002)

Banned by Air Canada. No, not his novel Satanic Verses, Rushdie himself. The airline announced he would not be allowed to travel with them because he posed too much of a security risk.

[Simply banning him from using their services is easier and cheaper than protecting his rights and freedoms, of course. --MN]

By Mouvement Action Justice. This advocacy group seeks to have some twenty-five placques mounted around the city of Montreal to commemorate the deaths of people who died during police interventions or in custody. While they were tying to hold a peaceful march to promote their cause, a number of "protesters" rioted. Some 100 persons were arrested in what the Mouvement says was a pre-emptive move by the police. The police said intervention was necessary to maintain public security because of the less than peaceful demonstrators who were breaking windows and throwing billiard balls. A police spokesman said that the detainees were arrested for unlawful assembly.

[They arrested people who weren't doing anything illegal because of those who were, and this was the right thing to do. . . . How's that again? Reporter-activist Jaggi Singh filed a report on the incident. --MN]

By anybody and everybody at West Virginia University, Moragntown, West Virginia. The university created two free speech zones, comprising some one percent of the property, wherein and only wherein students are allowed to speak out. The rest of the campus is likened to a censorship zone in the report on the incident at FIRE, which details a number of such incidents over the last several years.

See the entry in the Appendix G
(see the report at the Freedom Forum web site; 01 Nov 2001; 28 Nov 2001)

See the appendix on vanity plates.)

By United International Pictures. This promotional poster features the pop figure leaning against a naked woman's hip with his arm posed between her legs and his hand in front of the crack between her buttocks. The poster was to announce the film Indahouse, starring Charles Dance, Michael Gambon, and Sacha Baron Cohen. The poster has been withdrawn by both United International Pictures and Advertising Standards Authority after numerous complaints were received. Some posters had also been defaced with whitewash to cover the exposed derriere. UIP said that it was surprised by the reaction. You can see the poster for yourself through this link. It is mirrored here without permission.

By Ernie Sandidge. This Tennessean artist had submitted a proposal to the Tennessee Arts Committee Museum, and TAC had accepted his proposal in a letter on 20 November 2001. The acceptance letter contained no mention of subject restrictions. At a later date, a TAC representative informed Mr. Sandidge by telephone that a "No Nudes" policy was in affect. Mr. Sandidge was somewhat upset to here of this policy. Furthermore, the slides he had submitted with his proposal had contained samples of his nudes. The National Coalition Against Censorship wrote to TAC to condemn the policy and in an effort to find out what this policy is exactly, because TAC had been stonewalling on providing a written copy of that policy to Mr. Sandidge.
(see 1993)

By Daniel R. Williams. A federal judge ruled that this publication did not violate attorney-client privilege and that Mr. Abu-Jamal had failed to demonstrate that his proposed lawsuit would be successful.

In Pam Ashe's Film as Literature class at Federal Way High School, Seattle, Washington. In the face of public pressure from complaints by parents, the school board voted 3-1 to ban films above PG-13, including unrated films that predate the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system in 1968. One of which is West Side Story. This action promises to leave gaping holes in the Film as Literature curriculum. This case stems in large part from a complaint dating back two years. Randy Nicholls had first complained when his son's class was scheduled to see Schindler's List. He recently took advantage of changes on the school board due to an election to try again. He said of showing the films, "My son will be a senior this year, and he still doesn't watch R-rated movies. This is a public school. ... All we're saying is that if one student has made a decision to avoid (R-rated movies), why would you want your teacher to be promoting the other side?"

[Geez, man! . . . give me a break! Your son is too stupid to get up and walk out of class? And who is it, exactly, that decided he doesn't watch R-rated films? Him? Or you? --MN]
(see 28 Mar 2002; 11 May 2004)

By Thomas Hart Benton. He did a series of 26 panels showing scenes from Indiana history for Indiana University. These murals are in three locations throughout the campus, having been up since 1941. One of the 12 X 12 panels has a scene of Ku Klux Klansmen burning a cross. Some black students wanted it removed, but Chancellor Sharon Brehm refused to cover it up or remove it. Instead, she announced that the university would ensure a more multi-cultural environment. Some students are not satisfied with this decision; ignoring the fact that the same panel also depicts a white nurse caring for both a black and a white child.

This law went on trial starting today to determine whether or not it is constitutional. Basically an act of legislated blackmail [in my not so humble opinion], this is the third attempt by the U.S. government to control access to digitized information. Ostentibly targetting pornography, it requires that public libraries install "internet filtering"; software that is so badly flawed that even after several years since being released, some of the applications still have a forty percent failure rate. Not only that, but by many credible accounts the purpose of the applications are often misrepresented and they are used to block access to sites offering opposing opinions to political or religious beliefs of the censorware advocates; including sexuality-based health information.

The hearing is slated to run for nine days and if the challenge is successful the court is expected to grant a permanent injunction against enforcement. In either event, whoever loses will appeal to the Supreme Court.
(see 20 Apr 2000; 01 Oct 2001; 26 Mar 2002; 05 Apr 2002; 20 May 2002; 31 May 2002)

By Geoffrey Nunberg. A Stanford University linguist and computer language expert, he was speaking as an expert witness in automated classification systems such as those used by search engines, at the Children's Internet Protection Act trial. His opinion: that censorware is doomed to fail. It is Professor Nunberg's contention that such software uses mathematical models which are basically crude and no match for human judgement.

CIPA is the third attempt by the U.S. government to control access to online materials. It differs from previous attempts in that it will punish those public institutions that fail to censor by withholding federal funding.
(see 20 Apr 2000; 01 Oct 2001; 25 Mar 2002; 05 Apr 2002; 20 May 2002; 31 May 2002)

By Andrew Preble. He founded this underground paper so St. Tammany Parish students would have a vehicle to express themselves that would be entirely outside the scope of school administrators. The publication was banned from school grounds. Started in December 2001, this paper conforms entirely to the guidelines by which an underground paper can be defined. However, distribution of the paper was banned at both the Mandeville and Fontainebleau high schools in Mandeville, Louisiana. Even though Preble had previously agreed to distribute papers at these schools only before and after school hours. Principal Ronald Styron, however, decided that allowing the paper on campus was not fair to the Mandeville High School newspaper. The premise for his decision seems to boil down to the high school paper not being competitive because it has to work through sponsors and the school administration.

Mark Goodman, of the Student Press Law Center, contends that the law favours the students. He commented, "That isn't to say that the school can't set reasonable limitations as to when and how distribution will take place, but to say there will be no distribution is clearly outside the law."

[Hmmmmm. I wonder -- what exactly did Principal Styron mean when he said the school paper has to work through sponsors and administration? That the advertisers and school officials have the right of prior restraint? If so, then the area students were certainly right to create an underground paper that would be free of school-based censorship. --MN]

[Addendum (11 Apr 2002): It appears that the issue is one of prior restraint. In an analysis published on 05 Apr 2002, the SPLC examines this issue, along with a brief history of censorship in St. Tammany Parish. --MN]

At Federal Way High School, Seattle, Washington, confusion reigns. In light of a decision by the school board to ban certain films from being shown, some officials are now doing an about face. On Tuesday, 25 Mar 2002, a district official allowed that unrated films such as West Side Story, predating the Motion Picture Association rating system, were also banned. However, School Board President Earl VanDorien, says that the policy does not include unrated films specifically, and the school district will have make to determine whether they are or not. Such films will be screened on a case by case basis.
(see 25 Mar 2002; 11 May 2004)

In Michigan. A three-judge panel at the state appeals court ruled that a 105 year old statute was unconstitutional. Passed in 1897 and slightly reworded in 1931, the statute says that a person using "indecent, immoral, obscene, vulgar or insulting language in the presence or hearing of any woman or child shall be guilty of a misdemeanor." In 1999 Timothy Joseph Boomer was convicted under this law after he fell into Rifle River during a canoe trip. Although two local judges upheld the conviction, the appeals court ruled, "Allowing a prosecution where one utters 'insulting' language could possibly subject a vast percentage of the populace to a misdemeanor conviction."

The Federal Communications Commission e-mailed twenty complaintants advising them that the show, which aired on ABC during the Nov 2001 sweeps week, did not violate its indecency standards. The show reportedly drew more than 12 million viewers. There were some 700 complaints, but only 20 of those were considered formal challenges. ABC said that its standards division had gone over the show carefully, that camera shots showing more skin had been edited, and that the broadcast was clearly identifi ed as being for mature viewers.

[That makes 0.000058 percent of the viewing audience that made their objections to the show known. With 0.0000016 percent of the audience making formal complaints. Which begs the question: why were they watching in the first place? The answer of course is: being warned not to watch isn't enough, the show should not have aired in the first place. Somebody clue me in here -- are there T.V. remotes that do not have a button marked Off or other buttons to select other channels? --MN]
(see 22 Nov 2002)

By Nancy Murray, director of the Bill of Rights Education Project at the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts. Ms. Murray was invited to speak about the Middle East by Kate Crockford, a senior and president of the Holliston High School Gay Straight Alliance, to top off a week dedicated to awareness of racism and related prejudices. Murray was to speak before two assemblies, however, during the first assembly it became apparent that she did not share the mainstream views of the Islamist/Judaist conflict. Murray depicted the conflict as an issue of land control rather than one of nationalism or religion. The school officials cancelled the second assembly and asked her to leave. It is important to note that despite Ms. Murray's position with the ACLU she was not there in any capacity as an officer of the institution, she was there to speak as an independent lecturer.

[Oddly enough, these same censorial officious apparently then opted to exercise the First Amendment with more free speech. According to Ms. Crockford, Darren Bradshaw, the social studies coordinator, announced that the school would invite a speaker to counter the view Ms. Murray had expressed. Regrettably, this episode seems to derive from a previous incident that was allowed to go to their heads. --MN]
(see 09 Apr 2002 for another issue involving Holliston High School)

By Judith Levine. An examination of infantile and juvenile sexuality, this book has come under heated attacked more than a month before it is due to be released. Published by the University of Minnesota Press, it is being excoriated by the forces of anti-pedophilia as promoting intergenerational sex. Particularly by Tim Pawlenty, state representative, majority leader of the House, and candidate for Governor, who has not read the book -- he has only seen a few articles about it.

Ms. Levine said of the controversy, "My book is not about intergenerational sex. I am not endorsing sex abuse of children. Quite the contrary. It was my hope that the book would allow parents and other adults to talk realistically about issues of kids and sexuality. Instead, there is an effort to suppress the book and stop that conversation."

[If you would like some other factual information on infantile sexuality with which to compare Ms. Levine's work, read the following:

The History of Sexuality: Vol 1
Michel Foucault, 1990
ISBN 0-679-72469-9
Dewey # 306.7 F762H

In it, Foucault details how children engage in sexual exploration, including how boys as young as seven can have erections, and girls that young can experience vaginal lubrication. He also explores how, in western society, we attempt to suppress any kind of sexual expression in the young. From which attitude the anti-pedophile hysteria against Levine's book derives; in my not so humble opinion. Key to the furor is that Levine asserts in her book that not every instance of adult/child sex is criminal and abusive; some episodes can be positive. While I can and do concur with such a viewpoint, one must also keep in mind that such cases could prove to be few and far between. However, that does not justify the suppresive atmosphere surrounding the issue.

Oh, . . . and another couple of things the witch-hunters haven't taken into consideration: not all pedophiles are child-molesters, and not all child-molesters are pedophiles. At least I am certain of that. Note, however, that in the mind of the hysteric, pedophile and child molester are synomous. --MN]
(See 08 Oct 2002; 27 Mar 2003; 26 Aug 2003)

This library system opted to reject federal funding in favour of maintaining control over their community and parental perogatives. The library board decided that social pressure and proper supervision of minors would be a more effective means of preventing inappropriate use of the library terminals. The amount of funding the Park County stands to lose amounts to approximately three thousand dollars. They join the San Fransisco Library System in refusing to filter.
(see 20 Apr 2000; 01 Oct 2001; 25 Mar 2002; 26 Mar 2002; 20 May 2002; 31 May 2002)

In a 6-0 ruling the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that a warrant permitting police investigators to rummage freely through the sales records of this book store chain was an unconstitutional invasion of privacy. The six justices agreed unanimously that, "The 1st Amendment embraces the individual's right to purchase and read whatever books she wishes to, without fear the government will take steps to discover which books she buys, reads and intends to read."

[It is a resounding blow against pervasive Big Brotherism. This trend was started by Kenneth Starr during his investigation in the Clinton/Lewinsky sex incident in the oval office, when he subpoenaed book store records from her purchases. That was in 1998 or there about. Since then there had been what Chris Finian described as, "an alarming increase in the number of bookstore subpoenas and search warrants." In the case of the Tattered Covers warrant, it was clearly a "fishing expedition", and not at all necessary to make the case. Secondly, the records might not have provided any evidence. The two books that were found in the bust of the meth lab that generated the warrant had no fingerprints on them, and the books could have been ordered by a third party who is suspected, but might not have been involved with the lab. The court ruling requires that the police show the information they need is absolutely essential and that there is no other way to get it. However! -- this ruling is dependent on the constitution of the State of Colorado, and is not binding in other states; although Mr. Finian, president of the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, allowed as to how it could be a strong influence on future cases. --MN]

[Addendum (18 Apr 2003): On 17 Apr the American Booksellers Association published an article saying that the title of the book had been released by the customer around whom the case had centered; by way of that person's lawyer. The book which had been sent to the customer in the torn wrapping the Denver North Metro Drug Task Force had found outside a methamphetamine lab was Guide to Remembering Japanese Characters by Kenneth G. Henshall.

"Well!" says you to yourself, "Why not just have said so in the first place since the book obviously had nothing to do with methamphetamine?" I reiterate: it's the principle of the thing. --MN]

By four members of Minnesota Daily; the student newspaper at University of Minnesota. Three photographers and a reporter were allegedly subject to police brutality while covering an incident involving unruly hockey fans. The paper filed a complaint on 24 Apr detailing the actions taken against the staffers. Mike Wereschagin, editor in chief, contended that the police used unreasonable force and infringed on the First Amendment rights of the journalists.

Along with an other unidentified book on serial killers. The two works were removed from the Durant, King, East Bay, and Gaither high schools in Tampa, Florida. This challenge was initiated by Tony Pawlisz when his son brought home The A to Z Encyclopedia and was intrigued by it. Pawlisz was apparently put off by the graphic descriptions, the profanity, the lists of fan clubs, and the list of where to order Serial Killer trading cards. So how did something like this end up in a high school library? The two books were purchased, after being properly reviewed, as resource material for students studying psychology or criminal justice.

Mark Hart, spokesman for the Hillsborough school district, said that each school would review the works to decide whether to keep them or ban them permanently. Also, if parents did not agree with those decisions, they would be able to appeal those decisions to a districtwide review board. The first level review is expected to take ten days.

[Boy, howdy! -- what a kettle of fish this one is. First off, Mr. Pawlisz is running for a seat on the Hillsborough County Commission, for District 4. One of his opponents, Rebecca Storm, recently got a burst of "free publicity" when she launched a challenge against public access television because one program featured nudity. Although Mr. Pawlisz says, "This has nothing to do with politics or the First Amendment. It's about what's right for the kids." I will refrain from engaging in pseudo- psychoanalys is and the workings of his subconscious, but I will state unequivocally that I think it has everything to do with politics, the First Amendment, and what is right for kids, because the First Amendment is what is right for kids; to a much greater degree than mind-control. Secondly, he is ignoring the fact that young people might be fascinated by such material because they do not have the fully developed frame of reference that would cause them to be appalled by it in their later years, and they only way they can develop that frame of reference is through exposure. Thirdly, he is quoted as saying, "I'm not saying this shouldn't be in the library or at Barnes and Noble. They're giving out all the information you need to be a serial killer. There's no educational merit in this whatsoever." This is obviously wrong on two counts. If there is no educational merit in such material, it is certainly not up to a layman to make that determination, the material would have to be reviewed by a board of psychologists or criminal law professionals. And lastly, serial murder does not hinge on education or peer pressure or socialization, it hinges on Antisocial Personality Disorder or sociopathy, a very specific psychological condition in which the perpetrator acts the way he does because he has no conscience. For factual information on ADP, I refer the surfer to The Encyclopedia of Serial Killers itself, subheading: CHILDHOOD Trauma as Pre-cursor of Serial Murder, page 34. --MN]
(see 19 Apr 2002)

By Amanda Melanson, Melinda Bottesini, and Elizabeth Cooper, all seniors at Holliston High School, in Massachussetts. After the last act of a senior-class talent show, says one of the victims, the three went on stage -- joining the rush of other students -- with signs to protest the suspension of two students who are facing criminal charges for a fight in which they were involved with another school's athletics director during a basketball game. The school officials suspended the three girls for the protest on the grounds that they had disrupted the talent show and brought "dishonor" to the school. Not only were they suspended, however, but they were also stripped of their prom and graduation privileges.

Ms. Melanson was quoted as saying, "It's so hypocritical. Do you think I'd be in this situation if I held up sign saying, 'I love you mom,' or 'Holliston is the best high school'? I don't think so."
(see 01 Apr 2002 for another issue involving Holliston High School; 15 May 2002 for the disposition of this case)

The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's dismissal of a case and reversed its own decision as well, in the matter of Marian Ward's suit against the Santa Fe Independent School District. The school district had prevented Ward from leading a prayer before high scool football games. Ward alleges that the district had no right to prevent her from doing so when students were permitted to express secular views. The decision was reversed because the Circuit Court ruled that such suits shouldn't be entirely dismissed if a person is making a claim for "nominal damages" for the constitutional violation allegedly suffered.

[Repeat after me, kiddies: Prayer in school is not illegal, prayer in school is not illegal, prayer in school is not illegal. It is only illegal for officials to lead such prayers and require that the students participate. Ms. Ward commented on the ruling, "I'm glad that I will finally be able to get a decision on the merits of my case which will hopefully help schools understand that it is just as unconstitutional to prohibit student faith-based speech as to require it." U.S. District Judge Sim Lake had dismissed the case in part because Ward had already graduated by the time it came to trial and because the school district had dropped its prayer policy by then as well. --MN]

For attempting to make a legislation respecting the establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and for violating free speech provision as well. It seems that the State of Louisiana has legislation pending that would alter their licence plates. The new state-sponsored message the plates will carry is: Choose Life. A three judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans ruled that opponents to the plates didn't have a case and ordered the suit dismissed. So the groups filed an appeal in the 5th Circuit Court asking for a full, 15 member review.

[It appears very much that this legislation violates both provisions in that the message proposed is not content neutral, promoting one view over another, and because anti-abortion Christian groups will be allowed a say in how revenue generated from those sales will be disbursed. In his petition for an appeal, attorney Bill Rittenberg said that the three judge panel had misunderstood the case. --MN]
(See 26 Apr 2002; 10 Jul 2003)

By Rev. Larry Trotter of Sweet Holy Spirit Church, Rev. James Meeks of Salem Baptist Church, et al. Rev. Meeks is apparently spokesman for the group organized by Rev. Trotter. This group has asked Mayor Daley and the Chicago City Council to install censorware on the Chicago Library computers. Trotter was quoted as saying that he organized the effort after talking to a parishioner, of whom he said, "He was in tears because he saw a boy, who couldn't have been more than 8 years old, at the library looking at one of these sites, and the librarian said, 'I can't stop it.' "

[What the frimpin' hell did the librarian mean, "I can't stop it"? Of course he or she could have! Idiot! All it would have taken is a tap on the shoulder and a gentle admonition to the boy that he shouldn't be surfing that site. For that matter, why didn't the guy who was in tears does something about it? Eight years old? What do you want to bet the boy stumbled onto the site by accident and was looking at it out of simple curiousity and not out of any prurient interest?

Aside from that, Meeks is using the old, familiar whine, "If people want to view pornography, they shouldn't be able to do it at taxpayers' expense." Again: the easily offended are not the only ones who pay taxes.

One of the librarians made a good point. Laura Morgan, at Chicago's central library, said, "If sites are misblocked, they can be unblocked." However, she then went overboard and stated about anti-filter advocates who complain about censorware, "what they are really saying is they want people to have access to pornography." An argument that is downright simplistic. It's a case of having access to porn if I want that access without having to ask anyone's permission to view it. --MN]

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a federal court ruling that Ms. Leggett had no right to protect the confidentiality of her sources. This leaves Ms. Leggett wide open for further persecution [sic] by the U.S. Department of Justice, as well as degrading the freedom of the press.

See the appendix on vanity plates.)

In a 6-3 decision the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a congressional ban against virtual child pornograpy. This genre of pornography is that in which consenting adults are depicted as being underage or in which underage characters appear to be having sex. The ruling in Aschroft v. Free Speech Coalition stated that the 1996 law was vague and overbroad. While this is a victory for pornographers, it is also a victory for mainstream moviemakers, as the law would have banned all simulated child sex, outlawing such recent films as Traffic, American Beauty, and Adrian Lyne's Lolita; as well as potentially criminalizing some psychology manual photographs and films depicting the horror of sexual abuse -- scientific information, in other words.

Ann Beeson, a staff attorney with the ACLU who filed an amicus curirae brief, said of the ruling that it, "sends a message that Congress may not overstep the boundaries the Court laid out in distinguishing constitutionally protected speech from obscenity and child pornography that harms actual children." Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, was criticial of the government attempt to act as "thought police", writing, "The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech [is] the beginning of thought." He also wrote that the law, "prohibits speech that records no crime and creates no victims by its production." and that it banned "the visual depiction of an idea [...] -- that of teenagers engaging in sexual activity -- that is a fact of modern society and has been a theme in art and literature throughout the ages."

Ann Brick, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California, commented, "The Court said that instead of punishing the abuse of children -- which no one objects to -- this law impermissibly punishes the expression of ideas."

[Which was the point of Canada's kiddie porn law. Thank God those provisions have been struck down. You can read the court's opinion in PDF format. What is probably most important is that this ruling very firmly strikes down the unsubstantiable claims of anti-pedophile and anti-porn hysterics that perusing porn leads one on to greater degrees of perversion. --MN]
(see Lolita censorship challenges from 1998)

Amie Rose, a reporter with The Spectrum was subpoenaed to testify against the defendant in a murder case who she had interviewed. Washington County Deputy Attorney Paul Dame would not comment about the subpoena. Her attorney, Tim Anderson, said of it, "We presume the reporter is being subpoenaed because of a statement that he (Martinez) made to her. However, in this case it is reasonable to assume that the state can get the same information from some other source." Free speech specialist Jeff Hunt of Salt Lake City said the state must fullfil three provisions to require a reporter's testimony. "The information sought must go to the heart of the case, it must be relevant and material, and the testimony must not be available from any other source. If they can make that showing, then a journalist could be made to testify." He is also quoted as saying, "It does a lot of damage to the credibility of a news organization if reporters are perceived to be used as a tool for law enforcement."

By James Alexander Thom. This work of historical-fiction was removed from the sophomore required-reading curriculum at Noblesville High School, [Indiana?], in January by the school board. On this day at a school board meeting, residents spoke out about the book and the decision. While the book has been removed from the curriculum -- for graphic and violent content -- it remains on the library shelves for elective reading.

[Probably not a case of censorship outright, although the book does not seem to have been subjected to a review process. Unfortunately, there wasn't a great deal of information in the article I read. --MN]

In Louisiana. Legislators passed a bill described by its opponents as being a threat to government openness and constitutional rights. While they admit that it is a good idea, they maintain that it is too broad and vague. Rep. Tony Perkins, R-Baker, said the bill would make it easier for law enforcement officials to collect files of information on citizens for reasons unrelated to terrorism. Rep. Eric LaFleur, D-Ville Platte, contends that the bill could be misused the same way laws were used to target communism during the McCarthy era.

This measure would exempt information about vulnerability assessments and terrorism investigations from open records laws.

[Which could backfire by allowing those vulnerabilities to go uncorrected, and which vulnerabilities could jeopardize people living in the area in the case of a critical failure. A long shot, to be sure, but people have a right to know what hazards they are putting up with. What you do not know not only can hurt you, it can kill you outright. --MN]
(see 28 Dec 2002; 11 Sep 2003; 21 Aug 2004; 19 Mar 2005)

By Tennessee. Although the law allows for students to opt out there is still some question as to whether or not it will stifle dissenting opinion by having dissenters singled out. There is also some question as to why the law is necessary as voluntary pledging is already a matter of public policy.

[I have to question the constitutional permissibility of this law in light of state representative Tim Burchett's statement, "It should be tough in Tennessee to be unpatriotic." Seems to me that that's what McCarthy thought about patriotism throughout the country. --MN]

Vanessa Curry had her contract terminated, apparently without just cause or due process, because she had encouraged the student newspaper staff to practive aggressive journalism; including investigating the faculty.

Ms. Curry had advised The Patriot for three years, and under her tutelage the paper drew the disapproval of university officials for filing open-records requests for everything from the salaries of administrators to campus crime reports, and even the pet projects of donors. Provost David O'Keeffe, vice president for academic affairs, reportedly said that administrators were not required to explain their decision to not renew her contract. He was quoted as saying about the open record requests that they, "raised some concern at the level of the administration. You should bear in mind, I don't believe the students should be getting into that. They aren't prepared to do that. They can do a lot of harm."

[And, of course, instead of encouraging the students to learn how to do it properly, the university must suppress any attempt at their questioning authority. Uh-huhn. Right. --MN]

By Dr. Ghazi Algosaibi. The Saudi Arabian ambassador to England for ten years as of 2002, he is apparently a poet of some renown in the Arabic world. His poem, glorifying the acts of suicide bombers, focuses specifically on the action of Ayat Akhras. She was an 18-year-old Palestinian who blew herself up 29 Mar 2002. The explosion killed two Israelis and wounded 25 others. The poem was printed in London in the al-Hayat. Although a Foreign Office spokesman allowed that the ambassador would be spoken to about it, he would not be rebuked or reprimanded. Local Jewish groups, however, criticized it strongly. Fiona Macaulay, spokeswoman for The Board of Deputies of British Jews, commented, "It is deeply disturbing that a senior Saudi diplomat publicly supports the continued terrorist bombing campaign. This is clearly condoning violence against Jewish people, and is a completely unacceptable position for the ambassador to take."

[Censorship? Nope. Not at all. Everybody seems to be exercising their respective right to speak freely. The poem is, however, propaganda and misinformation. A martyr is a person tortured to death for his religious convictions. Suicide bombers are suicides; not homicides. If anyone is a martyr in a suicide bombing, it is the Jewish victims who are being horrificly murdered for their Jewishness. --MN]

In an excellent review of censorship efforts by private individuals, extremist religious groups, and Big Brother government attempting to suppress knowledge and studies about infantile and juvenile sexuality. This op/ed piece centers around the current flap over Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors, but explores similar cases in the past and shows how they relate. Ms. Nathan was on the review board formed at University of Minnesota Press to determine the suitability of Levine's mansuscript for publication.

[It is also, obliquely, an excellent examination of censorship mentality. Note, for instance, where Ms. Nathan states that Judith Reisman compared Harmful to Minors to Mein Kampf even though Reisman admitted that she hadn't read either one of them. --MN]
(see 04 Apr 2002; 27 Mar 2003)

In Cincinnati. The city council voted unanimously to adopt a policy of not allowing any kind of displays in the downtown square over the Christmas holiday period. The policy is touted as being for strictly commercial reasons -- to keep the square uncluttered during the Christmas shopping period -- but the City of Cincinnati has been embroiled with First Amendment disputes with the Ku Klux Klan since 1992. The Klan erects or would erect a cross in the square at Christmas time, depending on whether or not they can get permission to do so; which depends on whatever ordinance is in affect or if they can get a court order. According to the report at Freedom Forum Online, when the Klan erected their ten foot high cross in 1998, most people simply didn't pay any attention to it.

By J.K. Rowling. See the Harry Potter censorship timeline.

These books were returned to the shelves at the King and Durant high schools in Hillborough County, Florida. They had been reviewed by a committee composed of parents, students, and teachers; who determined that the books did have academic merit, over and above the objections of Tony Pawlisz, who has said he intends to appeal the decision.

In their decision, the King review committee wrote, "[the Encyclopedia of Serial Killers] would be a good resource book for sociology, criminology, or psychology to study human behavior and deviation from the accepted norms."

Carol Schaefer, media specialist at Durant, wrote "The A to Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers ... while reviewed as a 'sensationalist' format and not high in quality, was considered to be one of the few books that dealt with serial killers and the 'pop culture' that exists around them in our society." The vote at Durant to keep the books was unanimous.

[Mr. Pawlisz strikes me as a perfect example of a censor with a bug in his britches. After the decisions were announced he contended that the schools would now be responsible for any murders committed by any teen who read the books. He is quoted as saying, "I feel I've done as much as I could. If anything happens from this point on, the blood is on their hands." Why, oh, why?! -- this perverted insistance by censorship advocates to assume guilt before any crime has even been committed? Why this assumption that exposure to the fact of crime will turn people to criminality? This type of attitude is highly anti-humanist. It presupposes that all people are double plus ungood crime thinkers or want to be and entirely ignores all the equal potential people have to do good; including those whose political or religious prejudices don't parallel those of the censors.

In a later article examining censorship issues in Florida schools, Pawlisz was also quoted as saying, "Doesn't it raise a red flag when kids are checking books like these out? Are we promoting serial killers?" Again: the answer is no.

I recommend that article, by the way. It is an excellent and well balanced look at several issues involved in challenges and what motivates some parents to advocate censorship. --MN]
(see 09 Apr 2002)

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the use of the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act and the Hobbs Act, the federal anti-extortion law, as they are applied against abortion protest groups. During a fifteen year long campaign, Operation Rescue leader Joseph Scheidler and others blocked entrances to abortion clinics, threatened doctors, staff members, and patients, and destroyed equipment. Federal courts found against them under RICO, and ruled that they must pay damages and barred them from interfering with the business of abortion clinics for ten years. Scheidler et al have been appealing those decisions, despite the Supreme Court ruling that allowed such suits. It is the contention of Operation Rescue lawyers that the law was used incorrectly, in that: "Social protest has a long and revered history in this nation. From the burning or hanging of effigies in colonial times, to the temperance activists' disruption of taverns, to the civil rights and anti-war sit-ins of the 1960s and 1970s, demonstrations, even illegal ones, have been both an outlet for dissent and an instrument for social and legal change." The court will examine two questions about the application of the law in this case, and will not examine the legality or constitutionality of abortion or of the religious convictions of the protesters.

[I don't buy that line of crap for a nanosecond. "Your right to swing at me ends where my nose begins," and even civil disobedience does not allow for vandalism, criminal assault, and death threats. Last year, in the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, a three judge panel said unanimously that, "Protesters trespassed on clinic property and blocked access to clinics with their bodies, including at times chaining themselves in the doorways of clinics or to operating tables. At other times, protesters destroyed clinic property, including putting glue in clinic door locks and destroying medical equipment used to perform abortions. On still other occasions, protesters physically assaulted clinic staff and patients." Yeah, this is legitimate protest. I wonder how loud Scheidler et al would scream like stuck pigs if someone defiled a few churches in protest against religious extremism. Check out the column at Freedom Forum Online for 24 Apr 2002. --MN]
(see 26 Feb 2003; 28 Feb 2006 08 May 2007)

By Steven Pressfield. The school board of Fairfax County, Virginia, voted to retain this historical novel over the objection of a local group called Parents Against Bad Books In Schools. complainant Stan Barton, a member of PABBIS, had protested the "profanity, violence, and lurid depictions of sadistic behavior." The historical setting of the book is ancient Greece, and the violence occurs during the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 BC. The Right to Read Coalition persuaded the board to retain the book. Local free-speech advocates formed this group after PABBIS was founded by Kathy Storh in 2001.

Right to Read Coalition has a chronicle of Fairfax County censorship at their web site, starting from 1983.
(see 11 Nov 2002 )

By Michigan State University. From 14 Nov 2001 to 15 Jan 2002, the university conducted a telephone survey sponsored by the National Science Foundation. The findings, released in a report co-authored by political science professor Brian Silver, show that fifty-five percent of Americans would rather not exchange their liberties for temporary security. However, as Professor Silver commented, "We have to understand that 45 percent is still a substantial number of people who are willing to give up some of their current civil liberties."

For a brief analysis of the report, see the article at Freedom Forum Online, or see the report itself.
(See 01 Mar 2002; 09 Sep 2003)

By Ohio. The House passed the final version of a bill that would constitutionally permit schools to set aside a minute of silence for individual prayer or meditation. The original version mandated such a period, but this version makes it voluntary for schools to participate. It also had the word prayer excised by the Senate, and then later re-inserted, and a mandatory pledge of allegiance provision was removed. Rep. Rex Damschroder, who sponsored the bill, said of it, "It gives those students who want to pray, an opportunity to pray."

Detractors of the bill, however, are not happy about it. Raymond Vasvari, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union in Ohio says of it, "The state is setting up a structure where people are expected to pray. The problem is that the voluntary aspect isn't really voluntary. Setting aside the time with a wink and a nudge is just another way to get prayer into the schools." The ACLU might challenge the law which Taft is expected to sign, although he has said that his legal team must review it first.

[Tsk. Shit or get off the pot, guys. This strikes me as a serious effort to avoid prohibiting the free expression of religious beliefs while not respecting the establishment of a religion. --MN]

By Jesse Doyle and his mother. This twelve year old honor roll student at Norview Middle School, Norfolk, Virginia, got some good grades and true to her promise, his mother rewarded him. She herself dyed deep purple-ish-blue streaks into his blond hair. Not for any special reason; it was just something Jesse wanted to do. The next day when Jesse went to school he was sent directly to the principal's office for detention. And everyday after for that week. This was because dyeing you hair is somehow "disruptive of education."

When the ACLU was apprised of the incident they objected on the grounds that this summary detention for a basically vague and overbroad reason was unconstitutional and Jesse was allowed to return to class.

[Six will get you one that nobody anywhere in the U.S. education system will ever be able to explain exactly what it is about dyeing your hair that will disrupt your education as much or more than not being allowed in class by almighty, jack-booted authority. Do these petty tyrants and dictators assume, perhaps, that the students in their charge are so stupid they won't be able to learn anything from being distracted by garish colours? Yet, this specious argument and vague and overbroad rule continues to be a mainstay in bogus "dress codes". --MN]

By Roby Brock. Scheduled to air on 26 April, this show was allegedly cancelled due to remarks Brock made that were critical of Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Those remarks were made at a Young Democrats rally. U.S. District Judge Bill Wilson was Brock's request for an expedited ruling to have the show restored to its time slot.

There is apparently no dispute that the Arkansas Educational Television Network cancelled the show because of Brock's remarks. The core of the argument is whether AETN's contract and free speech rights supercede those of Brock.

In Kansas, however, not Louisiana. Gov. Bill Graves vetoed a bill that would have increased the cost of license plates by $40.00, with extra fees of $25.00 to $100.00 as mandatory donations to a trust fund established by the anti-abortion rights group, Kansans for Life. The bill will reportedly be brought up again in a year. A similar bill is still before the legislature in the state of Oklahoma.

[Acting director of Kansans for Life Mary Kay Culp commented on the veto, "It's a shame the governor bought into the abortion industry's paranoia ... and vetoed this." Yeah, Graves, of course, should have brought into the anti-abortion rights paranoia and line of misinformation and propaganda instead. Which part of "not respecting the establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is so impossibly hard to understand, anyway? --MN]
(See 12 Apr 2002; 10 Jul 2003)

By a number of prominent Canadians. It was seized at the Chopaka border crossing, to the west of Osoyoos, B.C. [And it turned out to be a really stupid thing to do. --MN] An Inspector Rece of Customs Canada held up some 98 works with an approximate value of $1,450 retail as potential "hate propaganda."

Some of the works that were briefly detained are:

• Myth and Romance from the Old World, the Irish Fairy Tale book;
• The Breakdown of the Criminal Justice System in Canada, by former B.C. Judge Les Bewley;
• The Evil Empire: Globalization's Darker Side, by former Liberal cabinet minister Paul Hellyer;
• Our Home or Native Land: What Government's Aboriginal Policy is Doing in Canada, by Melvin Smith, Q.C., a constitutional adviser to four successive B.C. governments;
• Stalking the Wild Taboo, by Prof. Garrett Hardin, an ecologist from the University of California at Santa Barbara;
• The Hate Crimes Law in Canada, 1970-1994: Effects and Operation, by Barabara Kulaszka, LL.B., M.L.S.;
• Lebensraum, by Dr. Ingrid Rimland, a trilogy telling in novel form of the odyssey of German Mennonites from Germany to Russia and then to the New World over a 200 year period.

[This incident seems to have been a caper right out of the Keystone Kops. First, the material was private property being brought back across the border after a shopping trip. Second, some of the works were about Canadian law and politics and written by various specialists in these fields. Third, one work was a historical look at Irish Mythology, and another was an examination of a Mennonite mass migration covering 200 years. Fourth, the private citizen whose property it all was is Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

When asked about the incident, Inspector Rece reportedly said that he had sought authorization from a superiour, Stu Piggot. I wonder of what this consultation consisted and how it is that a person totally out of touch with the situation can authorize such an action. It does not speak badly of Inspector Rece that he consulted with a superiour, but it does speak badly of him that he thought such material had to be seized in the first place. It also speaks very badly of Stu Piggot, in my not so humble opinion. On the surface, it makes it appear very much that Mr. Piggot is in the habit of ordering the detention of material that he has not seen and knows nothing about. Personally, I would expect just such activity in light of the neo-fascist, ilLiberal government we have. --MN]

By the National Research Council, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, Committee to Study Tools and Strategies for Protecting Kids from Pornography and Their Applicability to Other Inappropriate Internet Content. This is a prelimary report on the affect of attempts to legislate cyberspace pornography.
(see my quick and dirty opinion on their assessemnt of the porno cottage industry as regards commercialism.)

By Karim Ali Howard. Except in this case the lyrics are not being suppressed, they are being used as evidence that the rapper is a criminal. Mr. Howard was arrested in a drug raid on his home in which police seized cocaine, drug packing materials, drug records and $94,000. Not satisfied that this made their case against Mr. Howard, the prosecutors in Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, are also going to use some of Mr. Howard's rap lyrics against him as evidence that Mr. Howard really is, in fact, a drug dealer. Kevin Steele, deputy district attorney, alleges that on one track on one CD, Howard says, "I'm going to sell coke until you call me pope, do dirt until the lord tries to stop me. It's gonna take hundreds of bullets just to drop me." Steele reportedly commented, "When he's writing such lyrics, it would indicate to me that he's a drug dealer."

[Whoa, shit! Don't nobody say nuffin! You'll cop ten to twenty in a federal pen iffen you do! --MN]

It was sent back down to a lower court for more deliberation. The U.S. Supreme Court kept the injunction against COPA in place, but did ask the Third Circuit Court of Appeals to consider the case on a wider range of first amendment issues. Ann Beeson, Litigation Director of the ACLU's Technology and Liberty Program, and who argued the case before the justices in November 2001, commented on the move, "The Court clearly had enough doubts about this broad censorship law to leave in place the ban, which is an enormous relief to our clients."

Ms. Beeson was also quoted as saying, "Just as the Court has struck down other laws that attempt to reduce the adult population to reading only what is fit for children, we are confident that the Court will ultimately strike down this law." Under COPA, it will be a federal offense to transmit via the internet, any material considered to be harmful to minors.

[N.B.: not any material that actually is harmful to minors, but material that is considered, in the opinion of some pompous ass, to be harmful to minors. Which, ultimately, is everything. --MN]

By Amanda Melanson. The Holliston High School settled, agreeing to end Ms. Melanson's punishment for protesting the expulsion of two other students. Ms. Melanson and a classmate had been singled out for their speech at an event in which numerous students were waving flags and tee shirts with printed messages.
(see 01 Apr 2002 for another issue involving Holliston High School; 09 Apr 2002)

By Anita Roddick. Ms. Roddick reported in her weekly column that her web site was censored by Google when it suspended the ad campaign she had running at their site. The reason for the suppression? -- on Monday, 20 May 2002, Ms. Roddick responded to a comment by actor John Malkovich in which he allegedly threatened to shoot journalist Robert Fisk because of his honest reporting on Israel. She called Malkovitch a "vomitous worm" in the advertisement. Ms. Roddick and Google had since reached an uneasy peace.

Google apparently has an advertising policy against "sites that advocate against groups or individuals." In the course of her investigation of this incident, Google admitted to Ms. Roddick that the policy is not applied consistently. Ms. Roddick states in her column, that to apply such policy in a constitutionally permissible fashion would result in banning everything. Google reportedly defended its policy to the AnitaRoddick.com web site editor by saying, "We are sorry we have to pull ads for sites like Anita's, but the alternative is really bad; you wouldn't want us running KKK ads."

For more about suppressive movements against The Body Shop advertising campaigns, see Ms. Roddick's column for 23 May 2002.

[Sorry, fool, but yes I do want and require that you run ads for groups whose political opinions I find repugnant and offensive. You see, they find my political opinions equally repugnant and offensive, even though I might not express an anti-whatever sentiment. --MN]
(see 03 Nov 2002)

By Bear Facts newspaper staff. This student newspaper at Hastings High School, Houston, Texas, was to have carried a centerspread piece about the stereotypes and abuse that homosexual teens face on a daily basis. This article was slated for the April edition, but publication of that edition was held up so long it finally had to be amalgamated with the May edition. The delay was the result of censorship by principal David Holmquist. He had originally wanted the names of students cited in the article changed, but after those changes were made he decided, unilaterally, to kill the piece entirely on the grounds that it was too controversial. Instead of the article, Bear Facts ran an editorial criticizing the adminstration. Editor Askari Mohammad commented on the incident, "They're giving us vague reasons as to why the story cannot run, but they aren't giving any possible solutions or what we can do. They aren't specifying what's wrong with the story -- if any thing at all -- from their point of view."

[And in the meantime, the endemic, religion-inspired, nearly state-wide misohomonism goes on. Along with the usual bullying standard to high schools. --MN]

Colorado's largest grocery stores chains refused to carry this edition because of the inclusion of the autopsy photographs for the pair of boys styled the Columbine killers. Safeway, 7-Eleven, King Soopers and City Market chains all decided to pull the paper from the racks because of graphic photographs of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold lieing dead on the floor in the library.

[Phew! Where to start? Jeff Stroh, public affairs director of the Safeway Denver division, is reported as saying, "We made the decision out of respect for the victims and family members that were impacted by the Columbine tragedy. Given the nature and subject of the photos, we felt this particular issue of the Enquirer was not one we wanted to carry." Now to my way of thinking, you don't have a lot of choice in the matter. If you decide to carry a paper then you are constitutionally bound to carry even those editions you don't like. The matter of publish-over-privacy was not his call to make; it was the editor's call.

Editor David Perel of the Enquirer defended that call, saying, "We don't believe in censorship and we believe this is a very important story." My first reaction to this was, "Horse's ass! You wouldn't know censorship if it bit you on your flatulent backside!" When I got off my high horse enough to consider his sentitious crap in a semi-rational fashion I figured that, as with most people, he didn't have clue one as to the difference between selection and censorship. Essentially, the implication of his statement is that they must, perforce, publish everything they get that has to do with "a very important story." Which, of course, is an egregious piece of bovine scatology. There's all kinds of notes and material, I'm sure, in the file of any given story that does not see print. The Rocky Mountain News, my source for the story of this incident, reported in the article that they had also received copies of the photographs but had not printed them. Shall we, then, pillory the editor for censorship for having exercised his discretion and determining that the photographs were not appropriate to the milieu? The Enquirer and other tabloids which pander to the prurient and perverse are the milieu for such photographs -- editorial decisions for those papers being based largely on sensationalism and whatever will shamelessly boost sales -- but to blame the publication of that material on an opposition to censorship? PUH-LEEEZE! I'd as lief vote for the Tooth Fairy as believe that line of crap. --MN]

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it would examine State laws that ban cross burning. Generally, burning a cross is considered to be protected as hate speech. The court's ruling, which is expected for 2003, will clarify how far the states can go in banning the practice.

[Which, in my not so humble opinion, is unnecessary. There are already laws against trespass and arson, and other municipal or park bylaws requiring a permit to burn materials; such as for public bonfires. Someone who wants to burn a cross on his own or on public property should be allowed to do so, so long as he conforms to local fire safety codes. Going onto private property and setting fire to a cross without the owner's permission or a permit to light the fire, however, is not free speech. In the words of one Supreme Court Justice, "your right to swing at me ends where my nose begins." My private property is just as much mine as my personal space. --MN]
(see 02 Nov 2001; 11 Dec 2002; 08 Apr 2003; 08 Mar 2004)

By the University of Illinois. The move to require "pre-clearance" for commentary on the controversy of the use by the university of an Amerindian figure for mascot was overturned by a federal court as a First Amendment violation.

[I had been aware of this issue previously but I hadn't reported on it, it seems. The University of Illinois was embroiled in a heated debate over their use of Native American Chief Illiniwek for mascot. This issue has become something of a fad throughout the spectrum of professional and amateur sports in recent years. Another political correctness movement in my books, since the reasons offered for banning such mascots is often rather specious; being based on the notion that we dasn't do anything in any way, shape, or form, that might possibly be offensive to anybody. In 2001, UI enacted a ban against commentary on the issue by students during the University's recruitment week. Thereby blowing everything out of proportion, predictably enough. The ACLU has more information on this particular case at their web site. --MN]

Rejected: by the Chapel Hill Public Library, Orange County, California [?]. Rather than wait for a federal court to rule on CIPA, the library board of trustees elected to drop a few thousand dollars in federal subsidies. The grounds upon which this decision rest are that it would be less expensive to refuse to install internet filtering, and their determination that such filters do not function in a satisfactory manner. The federal subsidies amount to a minuscule fraction of the library's 1.8 million per year operating budget.

[This makes the third library to reject the George Bush Jr. Blackmail attempt of CIPA that I have seen in the news. --MN]
(see 20 Apr 2000; 01 Oct 2001; 25 Mar 2002; 26 Mar 2002; 05 Apr 2002; 31 May 2002)

By Joy Behar. The View airs live in the U.S. but was rebroadcast from tape on the West Coast. During the show, Meredith Vieira noted that Joy Behar's diet had come to the end of daily weigh-ins, to which Ms. Behar replied, "Yes, and thank you, thank you, Jesus, is all I have to say."

Julie Hoover, ABC network spokesman, said that Ms. Behar's use of the word clearly violated network guidelines requiring that the name of Jesus Christ be used only in a prayerful manner. What has really stirred up the hornet's nest however is Jerry Falwell. Predicably enough, he freaked.

In fact, within five days the show had gotten some one hundred letters of complaint from viewers about the word being censored. In a newspaper column, Mr. Falwell reportedly complained that the action was wrong, and that the situation was made worse because network shows are habitually blasphemous.

["About" one hundred, which could have been anything from one to ninety-nine. And the count is absolutely irrelevant without knowing how many watched the taped airing. Falwell is quoted as having written, "Conservative Catholics and evangelical Christians are expected to accept this double standard and keep our mouths shut." Yeah. Let's take a look at that double-standard morality that would allow his brand of words but not those he doesn't like, while he's whining about the censoring of his brand of words.

The bottom line on this one is that ABC should take its head out of the plumbing and come up for air. Anybody with half a brain would interpret Behar's exclamation as a prayer of thanks. Network flacks obviously don't have that much. Bah! --MN]

By all private citizens. Constraints against "fishing expeditions" were eased in a move that would allow the FBI to monitor public activities and locales without any oversight of jurisprudence. Internet chat rooms and message boards, libraries, mosques, synagogues, and chapels. All -- and more -- will now be subject to surreptitious monitoring by FBI agents who will not have to prove reasonable cause to do so.

[N.B.: Monitor. Not just patronize or attend. At the very least, this violates the recent Colorado Supreme Court ruling in favour of The Tattered Cover bookstore. It also degrades the protections of civil liberties that were emplaced in light of FBI undue use of authority in creating "poison fruits" files on Martin Luther King Jr. and other rights activists during the civil rights movement. Some people are excusing and accepting this degradation under the old excuse that, "If you haven't done anything wrong you have nothing to worry about." Uh-huh. Yeah, right. So tell me. If I haven't done anything wrong why am I being spied on in the first place? --MN]

Shot down in flames. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court ruled that CIPA is constitutionally impermissible. The panel referred to CIPA as a, "blunt instrument." Ann Beeson, litigation director of the ACLU’s Technology and Liberty Program, reportedly said of the ruling, "The court today barred the government from turning librarians into thought police armed with clumsy blocking programs. The court found that these programs are inherently flawed and will inevitably prevent library patrons all over the country from accessing valuable speech online." Sponsoring legislators were full of praise for CIPA when it was passed in the House, saying that it did not violate the First Amendment at all because it was not aimed at circumventing speech, only at constraining library funding.

[SSSTEEEEEE-RIKE THRRREEEE! Is it out? Not by a long shot. If those dozy bastards in Congress had any brains to begin with they would have learned their lesson with strike one. Strike two, the Child Online Protection Act, is still in legalistic limbo under a temporary injunction against enforcement until it can be ruled on by the U.S. Supreme Court. I have no doubt that despite the "decisive ruling" against CIPA, it too, will now wend its arduous way through the appeals process. And while it does, some wrong and dishonourable dumbass will probably try to enact yet another censorship bill; just the way they brought in CIPA while COPA was being impaled through the heart. Moreover, only the provision of CIPA dealing with public libraries was ruled impermissible. The provisions covering schools and school libraries was not challenged because of the greater leeway schools have in controlling students.

See the following sites for numerous links to news reports and op/ed columns on CIPA and the ruling against it. --MN]

American Civil Liberties Union

American Library Association

Electronic Privacy Information Center

Freedom Forum Online

(see 20 Apr 2000; 01 Oct 2001; 25 Mar 2002; 26 Mar 2002; 05 Apr 2002; 20 May 2002)

In State of New York Regents English exams. Gone from extracts from the works of Anne Dillard and Frank Conroy were racial epithets and "obscene" language such as the word "hell". Also deleted from a speech by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan was any reference to the United States's debt to the U.N. and references to wine. State Education Commissioner Richard Mills was sent a letter on this day decrying the situation. The letter, calling for an end to the practice, was signed by New York Civil Liberties Union and the National Association Against Censorship among others.

The agency's assistant commissioner for curriculum, instruction and assessment, Roseanne DeFabio, seems to have given a rather confused rationale for the censorship. She is reported as having said in an interview by the The New York Times, "We do shorten passages and alter the passages to make them suitable for testing situations." [The guidelines were designed to ensure that no student feels] "uncomfortable in a testing situation. Even the most wonderful writers don't write literature for children to take on a test."

[Then why the fuck is this material being included in a test that children have to take? Gee-zuss! They teach the things in the classroom but the students -- being only in their mid-teens or so -- are too weak-minded to be able to deal with it in an exam? Hello?!

I'm not going to examine this one in any depth because it is just so mind-bogglingly stupid and my mind's boggle threshold is set too low right now. The biggest point, to me, that clearly proves the material was censored by a bunch of ignorant, knee-jerk reactionary pompous asses and bombastic dolts was the deletion of any references to wine by Kofi Annan. I would link this particular incident to the calls to censor Little Red Riding Hood because she carried a bottle of wine in her basket. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I would probably also link the deletion of the remarks critical of the U.S. government to other deletions of critical remarks in the post-WTC tragedy period.

This censorship was brought to the attention of the literary world by Jeanne Heifetz, a Brooklynite activist opposed to high stakes testing and whose child is a high school senior. She noticed that the text of a work with which she was familiar had been altered in the exam. When she checked ten tests from the last three years, she found that many of the thirty selections had been altered to delete references to race, religion, ethnicity, sex, nudity, and profanity. Ms Heifetz contacted the authors or publishers of the edited works; many of whom were outraged that their passages had been altered without consent. Aside from censorship, this also constitutes copyright violations.

Thank you, Ms. Heifetz, for standing up for freedom to read. Keep on rockin'! There is also an analysis of this incident at the ACLU site, and a copy of the letter sent to New York State Education Commissioner Richard Mills by Cathy Popkin decrying the incident. --MN]

[Addendum (30 Jul 2002): I was surfing the NCAC web site and found an article in their Summer 2002 newsletter reporting that the censored stories were replaced with other censored stories; despite a promise of immediate reform by Richard Mills. --MN]

[Addendum (18 Nov 2003): Works which were significantly altered by the New York State Education Department:

• Desert Solitude: Edward Abbey
• How to Mark A Book: Mortimer J. Adler (from How To Read A Book)
• Speech to the Commonwealth Club of California, 20 Apr 1998: Kofi Annan
• Toxophilus: Roger Ascham
• An Upheaval: Anton Checkov
• Stop-Time: Frank Conroy
• An American Childhood: Annie Dillard
• Barrio Boy: Ernesto Galarza
• Strike Down the Band: Samuel Hazo
• Learning All the Time: John Holt
• Ah, Momma: June Jordan
• Blues All Around Me: B.B. King
• Dialogue (from Bird by Bird)
• So Long, See You Tomorrow: William Maxwell
• Staying the Best: Chuck Noll
• Life As It Is In Pinegrove Correctional Center on a Monday Morning: Lise Pelletier
• Mothers and Daughters: Carol Saline
• In My Father's Court: Isaac Bashevis Singer
• Playing to Win: Margaret A. Whitney
• What Really Makes U.S. Free: Elie Wiesel

Works used with only minor alterations, but without indication of the changes made:

• The Writing Life: Annie Dillard
• The Sounds of Silence: Dale Fetherling
• The Story of an Eyewitness: Jack London
• Failure is Impossible: Lynn Sherr

Works used without any alterations:

• The Pebble People: Roger Jack

The above lists were copied from an appendix to the essay Leave No Child Untested by Jeanne Heifetz, which was printed in Censored 2003. --MN]
(see 06 Jan 2003)

By Mark "Chopper" Read: murderer, arsonist, torturer. It is for his criminal convictions -- not because of the content of his book -- that Dr. Brendan Nelson, Queensland Education Minister, says the book should be banned. Dr. Nelson apparently contended that "Chopper" Read should not be permitted to become a role model for Australian youth no matter what he had written. This book is purportedly a children's book about a hunchback who is being bullied. The Hunchback eventually cracks under the strain and attacks his tormentor; stabbing him in the head twenty-one times.

[No, I do not condemn the work; because I haven't read it. And if I were to condemn it, seeing as to how I am a writer of creative fiction, it would be for the artistic quality of the work; or the lack thereof. Just keep in mind that by condemning this book blindly because it is about a bullying victim who cracks under the strain, then you supposedly support and maintain the status quo that allows bullies to drive their victims over the edge. --MN]

By Playboy, Penthouse, or anybody. Tennessee death-row inmate Gary Bradford Cone filed a lawsuit against the Riverbend Maximum Security Institution. Correction Commissioner Donal Campbell had implemented a policy banning pornographic materials in the name of increased security, which went into affect on this day. Inmate Cone filed his suit the day before on 31 May 2002. Mr. Campbell instituted this policy in light of the U.S. Supreme Court electing not to hear an appeal about a similar case in Arizona. Confiscation of such material had actually started in March.

[Well, I don't know diddly-squat about how possessing one kind of magazine instead of another -- or how possessing any reading material at all -- constitutes a threat to other inmates or prison guards. Perhaps someone out there could drop me a line and explain the rationale. The best that I can come up with is that officials hope to lessen overall tension by attempting to lessen sexual tension. The problem is that this is as likely to work as prohibition did during the Roaring 20's or the War on Drugs has since then: not at all. --MN]

A federal appeals court heard arguments as to whether or not a local newspaper that publishes on the internet can be sued FROM other venues. The Hartford Courant and the New Haven Advocate wrote articles examining the State of Connecticut program of easing overcrowding by exporting prisoners to other states with lower prison populations. They were subsequently sued by a Virginia prison warden who alleged that they had portrayed him as a racist when examing allegations of mistreatment of the exported prisoners in those local prisons. The key issue in the defense of the papers is that allowing a local newspaper to be sued from jurisdictions in which they do not otherwise have a significant presence will create a chilling effect on online publications. The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is being asked to overturn a lower court ruling allowing the lawsuit to go ahead. The Courant has eight paid subscribers, the Advocate has none. However, there is no indication of what the number of online readers might be.
(see 12 Dec 2002)

By the students of Southern High School, Maryland, and their adviser Tara N. Williams. Ms. Williams's contract was summarily terminated. School officials insist that her firing has nothing to do with the temporary closure of the school paper this spring because of a dispute with the principal over content, but refused to answer Ms. William's inquiry as to cause. They don't have to because Ms. Williams was serving in a provisional capacity. Teachers serving in a provisional capacity have no teaching credentials. The school district apparently terminates the contracts of some 200 such teachers every year.

Ms. Williams served as journalism teacher at Southern for two years. Trouble reportedly began with the February 2002 issue which printed material critical of the school system's plan to turn Southern into a technology magnet school for the 2002 - '03 school year. When the issue came out, Principal Thomas Stephens called Ms. Williams to his office and created a policy of prior restraint. The March issue of The Bulldog featured a photograph of a student holding sign that read, "I've Been Censored", and which contained articles critical of some unhygenic conditions in areas of the school. Washrooms, for instance. Williams also posted a copy of that issue on her classroom door, refusing to remove it when asked to do so. Publication of The Bulldog was suspended for April and May.

The school district's head of high schools, Anne Carusi, was reported as saying in a recent interview that Stephens never shut down the paper. She also defended his policy of prior restraint with the explanation: he had done nothing wrong in asking for modifications to its content. He objected not because the school was negatively portrayed, she said, but because the content "wasn't balanced" and because it contained inaccuracies. "There was some indication that he thought there were some things that were not correctly reported," she is quoted as saying. The article in which this incident was reported, however, allowed that Ms. Carusi did not indentify what those inaccuracies were.

Ms. Williams biggest supporter in this case is State Sen. George W. Della, a Baltimore Democrat. He is quoted as saying, "I'm not aware of anything else that would have caused this dismissal. As far as I know, her performance has been stellar." As well as saying, "It burns the living daylights out of me. I felt that she was doing good for these kids." Mr. Della even offered to help out with the publication of an undergroung paper by letting the students publish out of his office. One last issue of the The Bulldog for this year was authorized by school officials after Ms. Williams met with them. It is due to be printed the week of 04 - 06 June.

[The newspaper contained "inaccuracies", but instead of asking for a correction or submitting a letter to the editor, Stephens jumped all over the paper and the Bill of Rights. This, however, did not constitute censorship. Yeah, right. --MN]

By Superior Court Judge Cynthia J. Becker; in the interest of protecting the right of the accused to a fair trial. Judge Becker met with some 20 reporters and photographers and literally laid down the law concerning comportment in her courtroom and as regards the trial of Sidney Dorset, the Dekalb County, New York, Sheriff charged with 16 counts of racketeering and of having ordered the murder of his political opponent for the office of sheriff. Sheriff-elect Derwin Brown was shot down in his driveway three days before taking office. He had run on a platform of cleaning up corruption within the sheriff's office. Judge Becker also ruled a previous gag order enjoining Dorsey, defense attorneys, prosecutors, family members, investigators and others, from comments on the case outside of the court would also remain in affect.

[Censorship? Nope; not hardly. As I have commented previously in articles otherwhen, it is only censorship if the court keeps such orders in place after the last gavel has banged. Mind you, a court might find just cause to seal court documents in the interest of protecting the rights of a defendant or third party. Sticky wicket, wot? Only way to find out the difference for sure is to invoke judicial oversight and appeal such a ruling. --MN]

By Caitlin Mills-Groninger; salutatorian at Whiting High School. Officials at the school withheld her diploma after she departed from the school-approved salutory address. Ms. Mills-Groniger had given the address, but then went on to pass out a series of satirical awards to her now former teachers: Trapped in the '80s," "Sesame Street Critic," "Shakespearian Occultist of the Year" and "Pain in the Asymtote."

Ms. Mills-Groniger said of these awards, "Teachers have always been giving us awards, and I say that turnabout is fair play. I will now present, with much gratitude and affection, awards to the teachers, to whom we owe so much." School officials were stunned, however, and they quietly replaced her diploma with a letter to her parents asking them to meet with the officials. This letter was given to the honors student in lieu of her diploma.

Her father commented on the incident, "As far as I can tell this was an illegal action on the part of Whiting High School. This was prior restraint of free speech. Clearly, she can't yell fire in a crowded auditorium, but she can express an opinion." He said his daughter had designed the awards to be playful and that several had thanked her afterward.

[Is there some requirement I am not aware of that bureaucrats have to have their sense of humour surgically removed before working in any government capacity? Or is lack of a sense of humour some kind of job prerequisite? --MN]

By Danny Stillman. A former scientist, Dr. Stillman worked at Los Alamos National Laboratory for 28 years, 14 of them as head of the intelligence division. Between 1990 and 1999 he made nine trips to China -- none of them in an official capacity -- and agreed to be debriefed by security officials after each trip. As a result of those trips, he wrote a 500 page manuscript; over which the U.S. government wants to exercise editorial control in an effort to excise twenty percent of the material. It was reported a year ago that a group of intelligence institutions had already held up publication for 18 months. Dr. Stillman sued on First Amendment grounds. Now, a federal judge has ruled that the court does have a right to review their decision. U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan rejected government claims that the court cannot review executive branch decisions to classify information.

[The article on this at Freedom Forum Online stated specifically that this was a blow against the Bush administration. However, this issue predates the Bush administration. I will allow, however, that it is a blow against government, knee-jerk, reactionary paranoia and abuses of executive privilege. Consider the case of The Puzzle Palace from 1982 for a good example of that.

Part of the difficulty in dealing with classified materials is: if I have a secret, you are in no wise able to determine whether or not I should share it with you. Plus, the ingrained attitude in military intelligence circles is that access to classified material hinges on two factors: need to know and cleared to the proper level. Need to know being paramount. Even if you have a Top Secret clearance that does not give you automatic access to Confidential material. Another part of the difficulty is that a certain amount of paranoia is necessary when dealing with military intelligence. One must, of necessity, have a "they really are out to get us" attitude. Because the enemy is out there and he is out to get you. A topic which I explore in a couple of my SF novels featuring Evielynn O'Tara is how, in the world of espionage, the gathering and assessment of military intelligence is akin to putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Broaching a military secret requires the slow and patient accumulation of small parts of the overall secret and seeing how they fit together, and how an intelligence officer cannot know which small part of the secret will complete the picture enough to compromise the secret entirely. --MN]
(see 1982; 19 Jun 2001)

By Jonathan C. Randal. This conundrum does not stem from Mr. Randal being subpoenaed by a U.S. criminal court, however. He was subpoenaed by the United Nations War Crimes Tribunal at the Hague, in Belgium. The Washington Post had argued on Mr. Randals behalf using the same arguments against making reporters testify in the U.S.: that compelling journalists to testify could endanger their lives and the lives of sources. A three judge panel of U.N. dismissed that argument as "utterly unfounded". This is the first time a journalist has objected to testifying before the Yugoslav tribunal, which was established in 1993 to try Balkan war-crime suspects. Mr. Randal had interviewed one such suspect for an article that was pubished in the Post. The three judge panel ruled, "There is absolutely no indication at all that if forced to testify in this case, Randal could possibly be exposed to physical harm or any other kind of harm or risk. What is worse is that he expects this trial chamber to assert the journalistic qualified privilege" [based on American samples] "which almost in their entirety dealt with cases and situations completely different to his."

The judges agreed with Mr. Randal and the Post that reporters should have the right to invoke privilege, but that this privilege did not pertain because he had already published the name of his source, and because they were not seeking any new and confidential information.

[Now there's an interesting kettle of fish to chew down on. Hmmmm. . . . --MN]

By Kenny Volk. A senior at Great Falls High School, he had put up photographs of ten girls at the school on his personal web site as the hottest female freshmen. The school board expelled him. He sued. Due to an error in the injunction against the school board, it ran out at the end of the meeting where the board voted to expel him. As a result, Mr. Volk was required to transfer to another school to finish his senior year. The original suspension dates to 20 Feb 2002.

[There isn't enough information in the above link to the article at the Student Press Law Center to figure out what's what for sure. A keyword search turned up a few articles and op/ed pieces, however. Volk was expelled ostentibly because none of the girls featured was of legal age, despite all of them knowing what the photographs were for up front, and because the school principal, Gary Davis, didn't like the way Volk went back on a prior agreement to not post the pictures and cited "insubordination" as his cause for taking action against Volk.

Now, pertinent fact number one is that this was Volk's personal site. Pertinent fact number two is that he did not use any school equipment for this project. Pertinent fact number three is that the photographs were taken inside the school, which, in this day and age of litigation at the drop of a hint, could conceivably have left the school open to a lawsuit from an irate parent.

Whereas I will grant that Davis had the right to forbid Volk from taking photographs indoors under "time, place, and manner" restrictions, he sure as hell had no place whatsoever in telling Volk that he could not put up such material on his site at all. Nor did Davis have any right whatsoever to attempt to confiscate the camera which was Volk's private property. Nor was it, in my not so humble opinion, "insubordination" for Volk to renege on his agreement. Not gentlemanly, but not insubordination. If Davis wants to learn what the term really means, then I suggest a twenty year hitch in the U.S. Marine Corps might be to his benefit.

Last but not least, we come to the factor of the models being underage. That is not in Davis's province either. It is a matter for the parents of the girls to deal with. --MN]

In British Columbia, Canada. James Chamberlain asked the school board in Surrey, B.C., in 1997 if it would be okay to use three books about same-sex couple families in his classroom; specifically, Asha's Mums, Belinda's Bouquet, and One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dads, Blue Dads. That was in 1997. The school board told him that he couldn't and he challenged that decision. On this day, the B.C. Supreme Court reserved judgement on whether or not Mr. Chamberlain can use those books in his kindergarten and grade one classes. Mr. Chamberlain's challenge generated split decisions in two lower courts. The arguments the school board offered were that the children were too young to deal with such issues, and that some of the parent's viewed homosexuality as a sin.

[Yes, they do have the right to teach their children their own moral code, but not at the expense of the moral codes of other parents. However, the idea that children cannot deal with those issues is outright hogtwaddle. Many can -- and do -- deal with issues a great deal bigger on a daily basis. Divorce, death in the family, poverty, homelessness. These too are part of the reality of children, as much as homosexuality and probably a great deal moreso. To say that children cannot deal with these issues simply because they never had before is to shortchange them, insult their intelligence, and dehumanize them in bargain. --MN]
(See 12 Jun 2003)

On 30 Oct 2001, Oleg S. Asserin burned an American flag. He seems to have done it in isolation, as it started a fire that burned two acres before it was brought under control. He was only arrested two days later when he sought treatment at a hospital for burns to his arms and face. Apparently no one saw him burn this flag, but the police found its remains among the debris of the fire. Mr. Asserin was subsequently charged in Great Falls, Virginia, on the misdeamenor of starting a fire that could spread, and the felony violation of burning a flag. He agreed to plead guilty to the lesser charge in exchange for the D.A. dropping the felony charge.

[Lessee, . . . act in criminal negligence and start a fire that burned a mere two acres only by the grace of God and get a slap on the wrist, but burn a flag as an expression of political protest and get thrown in the slammer with rapists and murders. . . .

Stay out of Virginia State. --MN]

By Bette Greene. The Horry County Board of Education banned this book on 7-3 vote; on the grounds that it is "educationally unsuitable and contains unacceptable language." A review panel of teachers had earlier decided that the book was suitable for high schools, but not middle schools. With this decision it is not in any of six high and two middle schools.

The Drowning of Stephan Jones is a novel about misohomonist intolerance in a small town. Bette Greene, who had been contacted at her home, was quoted as saying, "I'm obviously very disappointed. This is a highly moral book. It's against murder for any reason."

By Mountain Citizen newspaper. The newspaper has been critical of a local politician on a number of occasions. Recently, due to a confluence of events, its corporate status lapsed. John Triplett, former Martin County, Kentucky, Water Board Chairman and the subject of those critical stories, acquired that corporate identity and ordered Mountain Citizen to stop using that name; getting an injunction from Martin Circuit Judge Daniel Sparks. The newspaper staff refused to comply and continued to publish under that banner. Judge Sparks subsequently required them to show cause why they should not be jailed for contempt of court. The hearing for that is scheduled for 19 Jun 2002.

[A creative attempt to engage in censorship for petty revenge, isn't it? One doomed to failure, really, since all the paper had to do was change the banner minutely; say to read Mountain Citizen News, and then continue to blow the whistle about the lousy water quality in Martin County. Mr. Triplett apparently denies that this is any kind of an attempt at censorship, but if it's not, then I'd really like to know just why he is doing this. A subject upon which he reportedly has been reticent to discourse. --MN]
(see 19 Jun 2002; 01 Jul 2002)

In Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin. Revisiting the question, once again, of what makes a journalist a "real" journalist. Governors State University is attempting to implement a policy of prior restraint, and Illinois Attorney General Jim Ryan had filed a brief in May alleging that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Hazelwood vs: Kulmeiher should be applied; which would severly restrict the journalistic rights of all students, not alone journalism departments.

[Just what the U.S. needs. Another incipient fascist as governor. I wonder if there is any relationship between this incident and the fact that Ryan has announced that he will be running for governor in Illinois this fall. This wouldn't be the first time some damned fool has based his campaign platform on an effort to scrap the Bill of Rights. And my friends wonder why I'm so cynical. --MN]
(see 07 Jan 2003; 11 Apr 2003; 25 Jun 2003; 08 Jan 2004)

A federal judge struck down Louisville, Kentucky, bylaws on nude dancing as unconstitutional. The law required a three feet wide buffer between a dancer and customers or other dancers. The main flaw in the law was that it did not give applicants sufficient options in the even a permit application was rejected. Although the law did allow that a business could appeal such a rejection, it did not allow that the business continue to operate during the appeal process. U.S. District Judge John Heyburn II ruled that this amounted to prior restraint on freedom of expression and issued an injunction against the law.

In China. It is necessary, in this police state, to take extra precautions against repression when surfing the internet. As a result, internet cafes are semi-fortified against police raids. Windows have heavy bars on them, only a single door is kept clear and all others are locked or barred. Under such conditions, an internet cafe in China is a death-trap waiting for a disaster to strike. On Sunday, 16 Jun 2002, such a disaster struck. A fire broke out on the second floor of a two story building housing such a cafe and twenty-four people died as a result. It was the worst fire in Beijing in fifty years. On this day, using that fire as an excuse, the government of China ordered all unlicensed internet cafes to be shut down.
(see two articles from CBC News Online about this incident)

By Jehovah's Witnesses. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a local ordinance in Stratton, Ohio, that required anyone soliciting door to door for any reason, to first seek permission from the municipal government. Even girl guides would have had to get a permit before selling cookies. The court ruled eight to one that the bylaw was unconstitutional. Justice Rhenquist dissented. Even the two most conservative members of the high court agreed with the decision, although they did not add their signatures to the written opinion. This suit was filed by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Supporting them was some dozen organizations, including Independent Baptist Churches of America, Gun Owners of America, and the American Civil Liberties Union.

What is especially important is that this ruling wracks up an impressive 40 wins before the U.S. Supreme Court in favour of the JW first amendment rights.

By Starbucks. It's summer ad campaign for 2002 struck a nerve with New Yorker Gregory Moore. He complained to the New York Post that Starbucks was being insensitive to the September 11th 2001 tragedy. The promotional poster that had been mounted in Starbucks' windows featured two tall tumblers of cold drinks surrounded by what looks like grass. The grass is formed by the signature, green drinking straws Starbucks uses. At first glance, the "grass blades" have a squarish appearance. Around the tumblers are frolicing butterflies and a single dragonfly hovering over one of the drinks. To Mr. Moore, the whole thing was suggestive of the way the WTC stood out around the surrounding skyscrapers, and the attack against the towers, the dragonfly supposedly "dive bombing" into one of the drinks. The caption header reads: Collapse into cool. Starbucks pulled the ad campaign.

[And grovelled most abjectly and disgustingly before this gaggle of hypersensitive snivelers and loud-mouths with a bitch and no brains. Obviously that nerve Starbucks struck was an especially raw one. I'd like to know just what the Hell Starbucks thought it was doing by apologizing to this trash. Is Starbucks going to poll people for approval of its ad posters in the future or just not put up anything at all? You can see more about this fiasco, including a full shot of the poster, at The Urban Legends Reference Page. If you want, you can also check out the sloppy reporting of this incident at the New York Post. I for one would like to know just where Jared Paul Stern and Kate Sheehy got the idea that the dragonfly was dive-bombing into one of those drinks instead of simply hovering over it. Not to mention they're presenting the pulling of the ad and the kowtowing to censorship as a good thing. Feh! --MN]

By Paul Trummel. This curmudgeon and old fart created a web site in which he accused his neighbors in and the staff of his retirement home, Council House, of Seattle's Capitol Hill neighborhood, of being out to get him after he was thrown out of the home. He accused them of being thieves, rude and obnoxious, bigots, and of making noise at night just to keep him awake. The trouble arises from his having also posted contact information for them such as their addresses and phone numbers. [It was later reported that he had also posted their Social Security Numbers. --MN] They sued, a judge ordered Trummel to take down the web site, he didn't, and was jailed for it. For 110 days. On 18 Jun 2002, the judge presiding over the case, Judge James A. Doerty, released Mr. Trummel to give him one last chance to delete the web site. Mr. Trummel has until 21 Jun 2002. Stay tuned, ladies and gentlemen, because there will be more on this issue. Mr. Trummel is reportedly supported by free speech groups around the world. Including the Libel Defense Resource Center, New York, and Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, Washington D.C.

[Phew, boy! What a mess. There is absolutely no doubt that Mr. Trummel is a cantankerous old crank. One web site dedicated to this incident even says so right up front. Also, he appears to be delusional -- if not outright paranoid -- and in the habit of misrepresenting himself. As can be seen in this article at Freedom Forum Online. The primary issues of this case, as I see them, are whether or not Trummel did or did not harass the other residents of Council House. This would be perfectly clear if he had published any threatening notes against them, but he didn't. So the question arises: does his exercise of obnoxious speech constitute harassment or protected speech? Secondly, in publishing their addresses and phone numbers, did he in fact do something illegal? If you want to know somebody's phone number and address you can look it up on the web. I have. So what's the big deal? Well, in this case it's a matter of context. By putting up that information as part of a diatribe against someone, Trummel could conceivably be considered to have tacitly invited others to make crank calls to these people. Thirdly, Trummel seems to have published his material, his accusations, with a reckless disregard for the truth. Something no responsible -- or even a litigation sensitive -- journalist would do. Fourthly, there is the degree to which Trummel covers "the news". If all he does is report on the perceived goings on within Council House, and only so far as to besmirch the characters of the people who live and work there, even I would hesitate to accept a defense of journalistic rights. Fifthly, the U.S. court system has once again butted up against the idea that a person does not need credentials or to seek permission from the state to call himself a journalist.

It seems to me that the key to resolving this case stems from either the paranoia or the reckless disregard for the truth. If Trummel is paranoid to the degree that he believes the other residents of Council House conspired to make noises in their sleep to keep him awake at night, then he might not be sufficiently competent to practice journalism. If he is mentally competent and has engaged in a reckless disregard for the truth with malicious intent, he can be sued for defamation under libel laws and lawfully silenced with an injunction.

HOWEVER: as things currently stand it would be unconstitutional for Judge Doerty to have that web site deleted for the reasons he has stated. In my not so humble opinion, of course. --MN]
(see 20 Jul 2001; 18 Oct 2001; 29 Oct 2001; 20 Feb 2003; my opinion on the Vanessa Leggett imprisonment for more related material)

The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that hundreds of immigrants being held incommunicado by the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service as suspected terrorists are to allowed their day in open court. Michael Creppy, chief immigration judge for the United States, issued a memo on 21 Sep 2001 ordering that all immigration hearings, even those unrelated to terrorism, be conducted behind closed doors. A number of news and civil rights organizations sued. On 29 May 2002, U.S. District Judge John W. Bissell of Newark, N.J., ruled that such hearings could be closed only if there was just cause to believe that an investigation into terrorism would be compromised.
(see 23 Jan 2002; 06 Mar 2002)

By Nickelodeon. This show is a half-hour long report on same-sex families. Nickelodeon announced that the show would air despite opposition by christian groups. It was reported that the producers had received 100,000 e-mails protesting the show. Traditional Values Coalition executive director Andrea Lafferty complained of the show that, "It is a cover for promoting homosexuality for kids." This group headed up the campaign to have the show banned. Jerry Falwell had made some comments for the show, but later joined groups in condemning it.

The show is being hosted by Linda Ellerbee, who received a Peabody award for the delicate presentation of the Monica Lewinsky affair she did for children. Ms. Ellerbee apparently got the idea for this show when she learned that "fag" had become the most common schoolyard epithet.

[Shoot, nothing new there. It was the most common epithet used against me by high school bullies back in the mid 1970's. Now, as then, high school bullies will select someone to make a target for the whole time of their high school years.

This whole episode is just another incident created by pseudo-religious misohomonists who expect everyone in the world to base their hatred for anyone different on subjective biblical "law". Same way the Taliban did. As Ms. Ellerbee commented in an interview, "It is never a wrong time to talk about hate. It's just not. That's all our show is about. It is not in any way about the homosexual lifestyle. It's not even introducing the subject to most kids. They know. But quite frankly, many of them know it from a hate standpoint without even knowing what they're talking about." Of course, what probably concerns the pseudo-religionists, is that by being given real and true information, the people they seek to indoctrinate and recruit into their intolerant lifestyle will reject that lifestyle for the bankrupt concept it is, and they will lose political power and control over the masses.

Falwell commented on the show, "Nickelodeon should stay away from endorsing lifestyles that are generally not accepted by the American public. It turns a children's network into something parents feel a responsibility to edit and carefully filter." Which is a load of hogwash on two counts. First, it is the pseudo-religionist lifestyle of intolerance which is not accepted by the major portion of the American public, not misohomony, and secondly, parents who promotes the misohomonist lifestyle can ensure their children simply don't watch the show. No censorship is needed. --MN

{P.S. misohomonist derives from the same roots for misogynist and misandronist; it refers to gay bashers. Homophobia is an inaccurate term. Language purists might take exception to misohomonist as it mixes Latin and Greek terminology. Yes, I know; I just don't care. The mix is deliberate and does not violate any rules of English. --MN}]

By Kathryn Lesoine. This Waverly, Pennsylvania, amateur photographer took some photographs of her stepdaughter and three of that minor's equally minor friends. This was in 1995 and '96. Some of the photographs were of the nude girls showering off sand from a day at the beach. Others were of the girls while partially clad and taken at Ms. Lesoine's studio. The models had given their permission for Ms. Lesoine to take the pictures. The parents of the children were incensed and sued because they had not given their consent for their children to pose for the photographs. They had originally attempted to levy a charge of pornography against Ms. Lesoine, but the Lackawanna County D.A. declined to lay charges in the matter. So they had to settle on a civil suit. On this day, in a unanimous ruling, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court threw out the lawsuit. Judge John T. Noonan Jr. cited the censorship against Lady Chatterly's Lover. He wrote, "As an author who was himself once the victim of overzealous censorship has written, genuine pornography 'is almost always under-world; it doesn't come into the open ... (y)ou can recognize it by the insult it offers, invariably, to sex, and to the human spirit."' Judge Noonan wrote that no reasonable juror could find the photographs "lascivious".

[An interesting case of the rights of a minor against the rights of the parent to exercise parental control over that minor. Unfortunately, the parents in this incident seem to have taken the wrong tack. Instead of claiming a violation of right to privacy or exploitation, they claimed kiddie porn instead. Even so, if they had claimed exploitation the case still might have not gone their way. One parent joined the lawsuit after it was filed, but the judge threw out her complaint when her now 18-year old daughter wrote to the judge saying that her mother had filed that suit without her consent, and that she had consented to pose for Ms. Lesoine's photographs knowing full well what posing entailed even though she had been a minor at the time. --MN]

Cleared of contempt charges for now. Martin Circuit Judge Daniel Sparks ruled that the newspaper may continue to publish under its banner due to Mr. John Triplett having withdrawn the charges against the paper. However, this incident seems to be far from over because the charges were withdrawn while Mr. Triplett does more fact-finding.
(see 13 Jun 2002; 01 Jul 2002)

By citizens of Alaska. Governor Tony Knowles vetoed Senate Bill 363; a bill that would have restricted issues-based advertising. The bill would have required that advertising targetting political issues rather than political candidates, would have been subject to the same restrictions as candidature campaigns, and would have created a loophole that it would permit groups to influence candidature campaigns without following campaign-finance laws. Governor Knowles said of the bill that it was worse than no bill at all. Campaign spending on behalf of candidates is regulated in Alaska, but groups of all stripes are permitted to spend freely to promote or oppose an issue. Bill sponsor Senator Gene Therriault, R-North Pole, replied that Governor Knowles didn't know what he was talking about; that the bill would enhance, not weaken, current campaign regulations.

[Uh-huh! . . . oh, yeah! . . . sure! I wonder whose pocket he's in and how much those corporations stand to gain on their profit margins by being allowed to unaccountably spend millions in support of the other elected parasites they have in their pockets.

Still, that argument seems to be a specious one at best. According to the article I saw, the vote results in the Alaskan legislature were: House: 27-9; Senate: 20-0. Even I have to admit the unlikelyhood that all twenty senators are bought and paid for. --MN]

By Nicole "Nikki" Youngblood. This 17 year old senior at Robinson High School, Hillsborough County, Florida, filed a lawsuit in federal court against school and school board officials. Ms. Youngblood wanted to pose for her yearbook picture wearing a male-dress-code tuxedo rather than the female-dress-code gown mandated by the school, but was willing to compromise with a unisex outfit. School administrators required her to wear the "scoop neck drape" they had dictated all girls wear. Ms. Youngblood alleges that various officials had engaged in discrimination, violation of her rights to free expression, and violated her right to equal protection under the law.

Re-envervated by Bush Jr. The federal government of the U.S. appealed to the Supreme Court to have overturned the lower court ruling that CIPA is unconstitutional.

[The three judge panel wrote of CIPA in their opinion, "Given the crudeness of filtering technology, any technology protection measure mandated by CIPA will necessarily block access to a substantial amount of speech whose suppression serves no legitimate government interest." I wonder which part of, "this is a bad and stupid law" the U.S. gubmint cannot understand. --MN]

By Kathleen Sullivan. This Whitesboro High School senior was the art director for the yearbook. The art for the cover featured an outer-space theme, but included subtle references to alcohol and drugs. A sketch on an inside page include the hidden words a fag, apparently in reference to Principal Curt Woodcock. He handed her a five day suspension after Ms. Sullivan refused to apologize for these expressions; apparently, the apology was required to be made on Principal Woodcock's terms. Ms. Sullivan had reportedly made a verbal apology to Mr. Woodcock, and had offered three drafts of a written apology. Mr. Woodcock rejected those because they were too vague. On 19 June, he gave his own version of an apology to John Sullivan for his daughter to sign. Mr. Sullivan was quoted as saying, "We had a talk and I said 'Honey, it's time for you to make a decision. Do you want to walk or do you want to sell your integrity?' And she said, 'I don't want to walk bad enough to admit to something that he thinks that I meant through this and I didn't mean. I mean something entirely different, and I can't apologize for that.' "

As a result, Ms. Sullivan would not be allowed to get her diploma with her classmates or to even attend the ceremony.

[Hoorah! You go, girl! Fall out from this controversy is that students at the school had mounted protests since Monday, 18 June. Unfortunately, some of them have gotten too much into the spirit and have vandalized the school and grounds with spray painted graffiti that attack school officials with similar misohomonist epithets. These are probably bullies who have spent most of the last few years sneering at other students and making their life a hell. I just hope that Ms. Sullivan's expression was not itself a misohomonist attack and that it was just a stupid and cheap parting shot against the school.

Mr. Sullivan commented on the whole incident, "I'm fiercely proud of this kid. She knew when she did something inappropriate and in bad taste and she apologized for it, more than anybody in the world would have, and then she stood up for her principles. Either you stand for something or you stand for nothing. Admit when you're wrong, and when you think you're right, stand up for it."

Now that's parenting! --MN]

George Radwanski, Canada's Privacy Commissioner, filed a suit in the Superiour Court of British Columbia in an effort to have surveillance cameras removed from the streets. Mr Radwanski's contention is that the surveillance is unnecessary and unconstitutional. He was quoted in a CBC News Online article as saying, "Video surveillance by the police in cities and towns is becoming something of a fad. It is a profound violation of our right to privacy, of our right to go about the streets and public places of our cities and towns without being under the systematic observation of the police."

By U.S. Department of Justice officials who refused to comment on FBI practices of searching library records under the USA Patriot Act. This act makes it illegal to even say that the FBI have sought or gained access to a library or book store's records, never mind to refuse them access.

By anti-Abortion Rights protesters. Freedom Forum Online filed a report that the ACLU had filed an amicus curiae brief with the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. The cause celèbre? Operation Rescue's Mark Tatton of Cuyahoga Falls. The preacher was censored by a law enforcement officer while carrying an anti-abortion placard in a parade; Cuyahoga Falls Memorial Day parade 1999. The placard featured an enlarged photograph, in full colour, of an aborted fetus. Things went well enough until a few spectators complained that the sign was offensive. Instead of keeping the spectators under control, Officer Gregory Kenepp confiscated the sign and then cited Mr. Tatton for disorderly conduct; even though Tatton had not created the disturbance. Officer Kenepp said that his rationale that he was worried Tatton would be beaten up. The charges were dropped and the sign was returned after the parade. Mr. Tatton very rightly sued, and the ACLU decided to get involved under Voltaire's principle, "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Or, as Raymond Vasvari, legal director of the Cleveland office of the ACLU put it, "But when it comes to free speech, we take all comers."

[Damn straight! Still, this incident once again raises the question, if the system is at work in the supression of offensive materials, why are the censorship advocates complaining? Officer Kenepp has filed a written statement with the appeals courts which is quoted in part as describing the photograph as, "very graphic, offensive, disturbing and disgusting."

On the one hand, you'd think that the pseudo-religious groups would coordinate their various efforts so that those who want to use offensive material don't violate the censorship dictates of those who want to ban it. As long as some groups insist on using offensive material against those principles, the whole thing will continue to stink of hypocrisy.

On the other hand, I have to ask by what objective criteria Officer Kenepp judged the sign. Reverend Tatton was reported to have been astounded by the support; given that the overwhelming majority of cases involving the ACLU with pseudo-religionists is to protect the First Amendment rights of those the pseudo-religionists are attacking. --MN]
(see 10 Aug 2001; 03 Sep 2001; 09 Nov 2001; 21 Dec 2001; 15 Feb 2002; 30 Jun 2002; 30 Sep 2002; 14 May 2003)

By The University of California, San Diego. The university is dropping a disciplinary action against the students who publish the underground, satirical publication, but the newspaper is continuing its lawsuit against the university, alleging that the university's censorship program against it is still active.

[What a mess. There is one factor in particular that prejudices the university's case; that of secret meetings. The university holds closed meetings in disciplinary actions to protect the rights of the student. All very well and good, but what provision is there for students who want open meetings? It appears that there is none. My suggestion is to allow the student to opt for open or closed meetings at his or her sole discretion. That the attempts to squelch The Koala is censorship is beyond question. Distribution of an independent publication can be subjected only to time, place, and manner restrictions. As for an administration having complete control over everything that takes place on a campus, I would submit that a campus constitutes a limited public forum. --MN]

By the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. This court agreed with a ruling made last year by U.S. District Court Judge Alan Nevas against Granite State Outdoor Advertising. GSOA had sought to erect two 28 meter tall towers upon which to hang billboards 15 X 4.3 meters.
(see 31 May 2001; see my commentary on this issue)

By Congress. Written in 1892 by clergyman Francis Bellamy and published in The Youth's Companion, the Pledge of Allegiance was codified by Congress in 1942, and then modified with the words, "under God" in 1954. At the time, the U.S. was in the throes of anti-communist sentiment; which was often expressed by referring to them as "Godless communists".

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, ruling on a complaint by atheist parent Michael Newdow of Sacramento, decided that the words constituted a violation of church and state and that students could not be made to recite the pledge. Reciting the pledge is voluntary, but the court opinion read in part, "as currently codified, [it] is an impermissible government endorsement of religion because it sends a message to unbelievers 'that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favoured members of the political community.'" Pundits are pretty much in agreement that this ruling is going to the Supreme Court unless it is reversed by a full panel hearing of the Court of Appeals.

The overriding factor in this decision appears to be President Dwight D. Eisenhowser's rationale for supporting Congress's adoption. He wrote that, "millions of our schoolchildren will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural schoolhouse, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty." However, Charles Haynes, of the First Amemdment Center, commented that the decision, "will very likely be overturned because it is inconsistent with prior lower court rulings - and the views of Supreme Court justices found in the majority opinions of various church-state cases."

[I'm just going to kick back and watch the feathers fly, although, I do recommend this commentary by Ken Paulson of Freedom Forum; also see a commentary by FAIR posted on 28 Jun 2000. --MN]
(See 12 Mar 2004; 24 Mar 2004; 14 Jun 2004)

By Shadeep Rao. This medical student and opinions editor for the Texas Tech University Daily was taken to task for writing an article about an autopsy in which he had assisted in Jan 2002. It appears that he wrote the article as a method of dealing with the emotional impact. Students, it seems, are in the habit of talking out their emotional issues after assisting in curricular autopsies. The problem is that medical students at Texas Tech must sign confidentiality agreements to participate in the autopsies. Mr. Rao invited repercussions in a way that verbal violations apparently do not, and was expelled for it. He filed a First Amendment rights suit in May, and the judge issued a temporary restraining order, ruling that the school must allow him to make up missed courses and exams.

[Andrew Golub, Rao's attorney, is quoted as saying, "In this country, in this state, even students have a right to free speech. The university and school officials ... are constitutionally prohibited from using their state power to retaliate against and intimidate people like Mr. Rao." Except that Mr. Rao had violated confidentiality. Both doctor/patient confidentiality and journalistic confidentiality. In my not so humble opinion. On the face of it, I don't want this guy either as physician or reporter. He violated the rights of someone else and is now ducking responsibility for it by crying free speech. Frankly, I don't think this should be a free speech issue. Lubbock County's medical examiner Dr. Jerry D. Spencer, who is also director of the Division of Forensic Pathology for the healt science center at the university, is quoted as saying, "exercised extremely poor judgment in ignoring the admonition for confidentiality and publishing this article. ... His behavior is more than reprehensible. It raises serious ethical concerns about his suitability as a physician." Okay, so some hotshot medical student screwed up. Royally screwed up. What measures are in place to stop students from transmitting confidential information verbally? If a student can get away with talking about an autopsy, why is it a greater sin to write about it in the paper? Either way, I see this as a matter of ethics, both journalistic and medical, not free speech. --MN]

By J.K. Rowling. See the Harry Potter censorship timeline.

The Mitchell County Public Library, Texas. It has a room that is loans out for public functions, as long as they are not religious functions. Apparently, the library has a policy of not letting the room for "religious purposes". Mr. Seneca Lee is suing them.

[This policy seems to be in place due to the standard misunderstanding about the First Amendment and prayer. Silly, but, obviously, even library committees are no smarter than any other. What's really pertinent is that this suit was filed by another faith-based group. Liberty Counsel, a nonprofit legal defense organization. There was a recent article, as well, exploring the increase in the number of suits by faith-based law groups on First Amendment principles. Must see if I can find that again. --MN]

See the appendix on vanity plates.

By . . . nobody knows, for sure. Or, at least, nobody will admit it. The Minneapolis Public Schools district was notified that an anti-abortion rights group had set up a web site with the domain name MinneapolisPublicSchools.com. Whomever did so, however, has no relation to the school district. The chief operating officer for the district, David Jennings, was quoted as commenting, "While this may seem to be a clever way to get more people to inadvertently read their material, we are disturbed that families who are looking for information on our school district may somehow associate Minneapolis Public Schools with the material and opinions presented on this site."

The anti-abortion rights site contains graphic pictures of bloody and broken fetuses. Thomas Fitch, of Abortion is Murder, denied knowing who operates the site, but reportedly stated that he supports it because it has links to his site, abortionismurder.org.

[This is a case of what is called cybersquatting. Buy a domain name describing someone else's organization, and use if for your own purposes. Cybersquatting has been most frequently practiced by pornography sites. In fact that is one bone pseudo-religionists have to pick with pornographers; that many of them misrepresent their sites. So it doesn't surprise me that the pseudo-religionists are now adopting the practice. Personally, I don't think this practice is covered by the First Amendment as much as it is covered by truth in advertising laws.

The photographs on that anti-abortion site are truly horrific, by the way. Exactly the sort of obscene and offensive material that the pseudo-religionists are attempting to suppress to protect us all for our own good. That they would defend their right to air such material while denying us our right to view it is typical of the hypocrisy of censorship. --MN]

[Addendum (24 Jul 2002): William S. Purdy Sr. apparently. See 23 Jul 2002 --MN]
(see 10 Aug 2001; 03 Sep 2001; 09 Nov 2001; 21 Dec 2001; 15 Feb 2002; 25 Jun 2002; 30 Sep 2002; 14 May 2003)

Appendix A: The Salman Rushdie Death Threat timeline

Appendix B1: Harry Potter censorship issues

Appendix B2: Harry Potter censorship timeline

Appendix D: ACLU cases

Appendix E: Canadian Post-Columbine Hysteria

Appendix F: Taliban's knee-jerk reactionary act of monumental insecurity timeline

Appendix G1: Censorship by President GeeDubya and company

Appendix G2:George Bush religious initiatives and cover-ups

Appendix G3:Actions to shield George Bush from free speech

Appendix H: Robie Harris Censored timeline