A brief chronological Compendium of a Few Banned or Challenged Works, and Censorship and Anti-Censorship Efforts 01 Jan - 30 Jun 2003

Without free speech, this country is no different from any dictatorship. Part of our responsibility is to make sure that Howard Stern, as despicable as you may find him, gets the opportunity to talk locker room trash on the air. Or that the Klan gets to march. I don't like it. But I defend it. --Janis Ian

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

2003, January 01: Women's Health Bill

By New York State. This law went into affect on this day but was already being challenged by Roman Catholic bishops and some Protestant churches. The New York State Catholic Conference said of the law that it is, "a governmental assault" that "intrudes on any religion that does not share the goals and ideals of the abortion industry." The law requires employers to offer prescription contraceptives to employees. Including religious agencies. The Catholic Church in New York employs thousands of workers, operating 40 hospitals, 60 nursing homes and hundreds of social service agencies and schools. The suit was filed on 30 Dec 2002. Cardinal Edward Egan, New York's archbishop, and seven other bishops said in statement, "Such an outrageous law ought to alarm anyone who loves America and the freedoms for which it stands."

The law exempts religious institutions, such as churches and seminaries, which have a religious mission that serves followers of that religion. However, the law also requires any employer that chooses to provide prescription drug coverage to employees to also cover women's prescription contraceptives.

[I do not believe that there is any such thing as an "abortion industry".

On the face of it, one could say that this case is a matter of the rights of one against the rights of the other. However, I can't see it that way myself given the constant opposition of religio-political movements to basic health care. The reader must keep in mind that the rubrick "abortion industry", given the context, will certainly include comprehensive sexuality education, as well as education movements about Acquired Immune Deficiencey Syndrome, pelvic inflammatory disease, ectopic pregnancy, and cervical and breast cancer. All of which can be lethal. I would further argue that a hospital, school, or social service agency is not a church, and ownership by a church should not confer exemptions. --MN]
(see 02 Dec 2003; 12 Jan 2006)

By seven Westfield High School students. The students were given in-school suspensions for daring to pass out candy canes with little notes attached. The suspensions, by the school principal, were not for any church/state violation however. Westfield High School policy prohibits distribution of anything unrelated to school activities or curriculum. School Superintendent Thomas McDowell granted a stay to the suspension at the request of the parents while they fight the decision at a school board meeting. The students had been passing out the candy canes just before Christmas, after being told not to.

The article on this incident at Freedom Forum Online quotes from Finding Common Ground, a First Amendment Center document, that students "have a right to distribute religious literature to their schoolmates on the same terms as they are permitted to distribute other literature that is unrelated to school curriculum or activities." Although court rulings allow for some bans on literature, blanket bans of this sort are generally prohibited as unreasonable restrictions of time, place, or manner. The parents and students were said to be considering legal action.

[Addendum (15 Jan 2003): Six of the students filed on 13 Jan in U.S. District Court, citing Tinker v: Des Moines. Their lawyer, Mat Staver, of Liberty Counsel, commented, "This policy chills their speech. It puts them in a position where they have to give up their freedom of speech for fear they might be disciplined." Mike Hiestand, a lawyer with Student Press Law Center, said, "The Constitution does allow for some distribution by students during the school day as long as the material does not interfere with school activities. A blanket ban on all independent distribution would seem to go too far." Stephen Grabowski, a 16-year-old junior, was quoted as saying, "We want to show students in other schools that they have the right to stand up for their faith and speak out for what they believe in. If we were to back down on this, we wouldn't be taking a stand. We don't want to be stepped on." Good on him, I say. Obviously, there are far too many U.S. school officious (sic) who need a part of the First Amendment tattoed on the inside of their brains: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; . . . --MN]
(See 19 Mar 2003.)

In Maine. An article at Freedom Forum Online reported the results of a survey testing Freedom of Information access. Whereas most goverment employees complied with the request properly, law enforcement agencies were frequently obstructionist. In this case, fully a third of the law enforcement agencies refused to comply with requests entirely. This was the first state-wide test of information access in Maine.
(See 06 Jan 2003; 16 May 2003; 09 Jun 2003; 24 Oct 2003)

In Texas. An article at Freedom Forum Online reported the results of a survey testing Freedom of Information access. Whereas most goverment employees complied with the request properly, law enforcement agencies were frequently obstructionist.
(See 05 Jan 2003; 16 May 2003; 09 Jun 2003; 24 Oct 2003)

By John Steinbeck and Walter Myers, respectively. The five-member George County School Board, Lucedale, Mississippi, voted unanimously to ban all three books on the grounds of profanity and violence. Mr. Myers's Fallen Angels, and The Things They Carried are set in Viet Nam during the American war there. The books were being offered to grade 11 students -- most of whom would have been age 15-16 -- and the college preparatory English class at George County High School required the signature of a parent on a consent form to acknowledge the student's selection. The parents were also informed of the content of the books being offered, and the books the teacher wanted to use had to be approved by the principal's office. None of which was good enough for Larry McDonald, a new member on the school board and who had initiated the challenge.

Principal Paul Wallace commented, "The concern of the English department is that as long as we're providing options, as long as the teacher explains to the student things that might be offensive in a particular book, it's up to them and their parents to make a decision as to whether or not that book is appropriate for what we're trying to do."
(see 21 Jan 2003)

By New York State Education Department. Despite the promise of Richard Mills from Jun 2002, for complete pragraphs without deletions, the Aug 2002 Regents exam contained altered material anyway. Although the state education department says the material was not edited on the grounds of sensitivity. However, some of the material that was removed leaves much room for doubt on that score:

• in an excerpt from Kafka the middle of a paragraph was removed without using an ellipsis, thereby changing his words, and reportedly deleting mentions of God and suicide;
• in a passage on people's conception of time from Aldous Huxley the paragraphs about how unpunctual "the Oriental" is was deleted;
• for the excerpt from a PBS documentary on the 1918 influenza epidemic, although the new guidelines require identifying the authors of any excerpts, the state did not identify the author.

On this day, National Coalition Against Censorship and seventeen other activist organizations sent a letter to Education Commissioner Richard Mills to ask for public hearings into the lack of accountability in the stated education department and the impact of this bowlderization on the education of the students. The letter included two pages of altered excerpts.

[A side issue in this particular case is that some questions apparently had multiple correct answers; Only one of which was the acceptable one. This case certainly gives Ms. Heifetz some ammunition for her movement. The Regents Exam controversy is based on the idea that standardized testing actually lowers academic standards. A viewpoint with which I concur, but which has little, if anything, to do with censorship. In the case of the questions with multiple correct answers, however, giving an answer other than the expected one means getting it wrong anyway and could cause a student to flunk the exam. One Massachussetts mathematics exam which was audited because of such a question was subsequently found to have unfairly failed four hundred forty-nine students. As for this incident, given what I read in the New York Times article, I tend to chalk it up to sloppy work. Very sloppy. NCAC has a more comprehensive sampling. --MN]
(see 31 May 2002)

By Hosty v: Carter. Also known as the Governors State case, this affair was initiated in the year 2000 when Patricia Carter, Dean of Student Affairs, ordered Regional Publishing to refrain from printing the paper without a school official's approval of its content. On this day, arguments were heard before a three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which covers the states of Illinois, Indiana and Wisconsin. If the court rules against the college by allowing university adminstrations to operate under Hazelwood v. Kulhmeier, then all colleges in the Seventh Circuit will lose their freedom of the press.
[See my commentary on this issue --MN]
(see 13 Jun 2002; 11 Apr 2003; 25 Jun 2003; 08 Jan 2004)

By two former New York City firemen and one cop. Former because they were fired, by the word of the king it seems. During the 1998 Labour Day parade, these three men, firefighters Jonathan Walters and Robert Steiner and police officer Joseph Locurto, were part of a float in which they wore blackface, threw chunks of watermelon and fried chicken at the crowd, and dragged the body of a black man along behind the float. And this was the summer James Byrd Jr. was dragged to his death behind a pickup truck in Texas. At the time, Giuliani had declared publicly that the men would be fired. They were, and they sued.

On this day, the former mayor testified in court that his declaration, "They will be fired," was merely a prophecy, not a command, and that it could have been ignored by the fire commissioner and the police commissioner. Other testimony belies that statement, however, and indicates that the firing was a politically correct measure, based on the idea that somebody might be offended.

[The float was entitled "Black to the Future: 2098". And Giuliani's idea that his underlings would simply ignore such a statement is disingenious and makes for a facile excuse. The well educated reader is no doubt familiar with the tale of the Bishop of Canterbury who proved a vexation to one of the ancient kings of England. Thoroughly annoyed with the man after one criticism the king said in frustration, "Won't someone rid me of this troublesome priest?!" Two of his guards overheard the remark and took it upon themselves to ride out to Canterbury to murder the bishop. They then rode back and proudly told the king that his command had been carried out. That king was so appalled by what had been done in his name that he abdicated and went into seclusion in a monastery. It is from this incident that we have "the word of the king," and it means an innocent or intemperate comment misinterpreted as a command. Giuliani didn't and won't do anything to correct this particular situation because he has no respect for human and civil rights. Leastways that's my call on it. I'm looking to the courts to make this 24 losses out of 27 games. --MN]
(see 24 Dec 2001; 28 Feb 2002; 05 Oct 2002; 27 Mar 2003; 27 Apr 2006)

By Berkeley University. On this day, Mayor Tom Bates pled guilty to trashing one thousand copies of the paper. He was fined $100.

[I told you he wouldn't resign. --MN]
(See 06 Dec 2002; 09 May 2003)

Student editors filed a First Amendment lawsuit against school district officials, seeking a temporary injunction prohibiting them from stopping distribution. The judge did not grant that injunction, however. You can see more in this comprehensive article about the issues involved at Student Press Law Center.

[The more I see of this case of censorship the more it seems like a case of overreacting. The article about the filing at Freedom Forum Online says:

The school district's policy is for students to make all final decisions on editorial content in the newspaper. The policy says that freedom does not extend to material that is obscene or defamatory or would disrupt school activities. The faculty adviser reviews the newspaper before publication to screen for that type of content.

However, an article from 08 Jan at Student Press Law Center (the one linked above), is much clearer on these guidelines, stating:

According to the bylaws that govern student publications, the school board "recognizes that an unfettered student press is essential" and that "student journalists shall be afforded protection against prior review and/or censorship" unless the material is obscene, defamatory or causes a material disruption.

As I point out in my comment for the first entry on this affair, defamation (in the U.S.), requires a reckless disregard for the truth and malicious intent. There's a very good chance the misattributed quotes are the result of carelessness, and you cannot be guilty of a disregard for the truth if what you publish is true. As for disrupting school activities, . . . any such material would have to be incindiary and openly incite the students to riot. --MN]
(see 19 Dec 200 2; 14 Feb 2003; 19 Nov 2003)

By Anne Hooper et al. The Sarasota-Bradenton chapter of Operation Save America, which was formerly known as Operation Rescue, held a demonstration outside Books-A-Million book store, 4225 14th St. W., Bradenton, Manatee County, Florida. The demonstration was led by Tom McGlade, head of the chapter. Mr. McGlade sent his 13 year old son into the book store to buy a copy of the Kama Sutra and he then phoned the police to make a complaint about the bookstore selling pornographic material to a minor. The police checked to make sure that adult-themed magazines such as Playboy and Penthouse were properly secured, took Mr. McGlade's complaint, taking some twenty complaints from the group, and the copy of the Kama Sutra. The on-duty manager and the clerk who sold the book, could face charges.

Don Hartery, Assistant State Attorney said he wasn't likely to change his mind about prosecuting the bookstore. This group had already filed complaints against the bookstore two years ago. Mr. Hartery doubts that he could find six jurors to rule the materials obscene. He said that the books are billed as guides to having better sex and that they have educational value.

Mr. McGlade claimed that at least eleven of the books contain photographs of nude people having sex -- violating Manatee County ordinances on obscenity and adult book stores, and state statutes governing material "harmful to children" -- and he inists that this section is too close to the shelves for children's books and that it should be moved further away or gotten rid off entirely. A section of religious texts, including bibles, stands between the children's section and the books on sexuality.

[This is supposed to be an antiabortion group, but as I mention in the glossary, under abortion industry, the assault is not on a women's right to choose how to live her own life alone, but against all human sexuality. --MN]

By The Inquirer, U.K. In a piece written by someone identified as Euromole. It examined some of the likely international ramifications but was also critical of the American double standard morality in the face of concerted censorship efforts in the U.S. There appears to be a provision within the bill, however, that renders it entirely useless: Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to authorize any action by the United States to interfere with foreign national censorship for the purpose of protecting minors from harm, preserving public morality, or assisting with legitimate law enforcement aims

For one thing, there is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone and subsequently banned under any of the three restrictions in the provision. Secondly, if the U.S. government sets itself up as the bully in the sandbox the only thing it can do in the face of censorship it does not like is to issue empty threats.

[Unfortunately, the writing was a bit clumsy and betrayed a lack of understanding of some of the issues involved. Most of the points are well made, however, and I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment of the piece.

So, why have a law that is totally impotent? In late 2002, the U.S. government announced a project wherein a group of writers would submit work extolling the virtues of the U.S. The end product was to be sent to foreign countries to re-educate the ignorant masses who believed the worst about the U.S. This book would not be available within the U.S. itself because of laws forbidding the government to propagandize to U.S. citizenry. On the face of it, I tend to regard this act as part of an effort to suppress anti-american viewpoints and dissenting opinions. And, yes, I know this is skirting the edge of conspiracy theory. At best. --MN]

By The Detroit Project. The brainchild of Arianna Huffington, this group developed a series of advertisements that equate SUV ownership with providing material support for terrorism. The ads were being carried by the NBC network, but the other networks refused to carry them.

[No doubt to protect the advertising revenue they get from commercial corporations. I heard the audio track from one of the commercials on CBC Radio. To say it was hyperbolic is putting it mildly. Owning an SUV might be stupid but it is certainly not terrorism. But then, so many dolts in industrialized societies are going out of their way to criminalize outright whatever it is that constitutes their pet peeve. This isn't going quite that far, but it is a logical next step. I wonder how long it'll be until someone tries it. --MN]
(see 1980)

By Randall Kennedy. This work, which is basically a scientific, educational text, came under fire when it was used in a classroom in Jennings School District, St. Louis, Missouri. School officials will not be disciplining Shannon Schumacher, but the book was unilaterally removed from the seventh-grade curriculum. The book, however, is not the only thing being censored. Superintendent Terry Stewart said of Ms. Schumacher that she had good intentions but bad judgment. Which assessment is likely to create a chilling effect by causing Ms. Schumacher to doubt and to censor herself.

[A very clear and present attempt to create a chilling effect as far as I am concerned. It might be inadvertant, I'll allow, if Stewart was trying to deflect criticism of Schumacher. The article on this was a wire story from Associated Press (it was posted at FindLaw.com), and it described Ms. Schumacher as a second-year teacher. It is my not so humble opinion that this was a negative affective connotation by whomever crafted the piece to lead the reader to conclude that Schumacher had indeed exhibited bad judgement due to inexperience and ignorance. Bullshit. She is a teacher and chose what she saw as relevant to her curriculum. All indications are that she did not choose the book to promote a political agenda. And she has now been sent a very strong message that she is forbidden to choose (i.e.: to think), for herself. A message that she has apparently taken very much to heart, because she is quoted as saying, "It wasn't my purpose, all this trouble." Well she didn't cause the trouble. It's the hypersensitive who caused it. But she is being punished for it. --MN ]

By security forces at the Genoa G8 Summit and the American Press. FAIR blew the whistle about the flagrant violations and called to task American news outlets for their resounding silence on the matter.

By P.J. Hufstutter. The cover story of Los Angeles Times Magazine for this date blasted the adult video industry. The story, entitled "See No Evil", was highly criticized in a review of the piece by Mark Kernes at AVN. Mr. Kernes provided the facts which were missing from Ms. Hufstutter's writing.

[Sloppy journalism or deliberate misrepresentation? If it was deliberate, then it constitutes a freedom of information violation. Information, by its very nature, must be real and true, and freedom of information guarantees a right to receive ideas and facts. To satisfy access to information requires that you be given all the facts, or at least enough facts to draw an accurate representation. --MN]

By Emma Goldman Papers Project at University of California-Berkeley. Two of three quotations selected for a letter announcing an annual fund-raiser for the Emma Goldman Papers Project were stricken from the letter as political statements. The first quote (from 1915), is an invitation to those, "not yet overcome by war madness to raise their voice of protest, to call the attention of the people to the crime and outrage which are about to be perpetrated on them." In the second quote (from 1902), Goldman warned that free-speech advocates "shall soon be obliged to meet in cellars, or in darkened rooms with closed doors, and speak in whispers lest our next-door neighbors should hear that free-born citizens dare not speak in the open." The third was considered sufficiently neutral; "the most violent element in society is ignorance". The university administration objected to the use of the two quotations and wouldn't allow them the letter to be mailed on the grounds that they could be interpreted as a political statement on behalf of the university opposing United States policy toward Iraq.

Candace Falk, director of the project, told The New York Times that she did in fact select the quotes because of their relevance to possible military action by the United States.

The associate vice chancellor, Dr. Price, was quoted as saying, "We are not saying these quotes should never appear anywhere in the publications of the Emma Goldman Papers Project, but that they are not appropriate in the context that Candace Falk put them in. She can disagree with us, but it is not a matter of the First Amendment."

[Actually it is. On the face of it, this appears very much as a gray-area case of prior restraint; the kind that incites slippery slope arguments before the bench. For my money, the university administration should have asked for a disclaimer to be appended to the letter. As is so frequently the case, however, they responded with a knee-jerk reaction. --MN]
(see 16 Jan 2003)

By American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom. OIF reported that it received 515 challenges in 2002, up 15% since 2001. The most consistent victims were:

1. Harry Potter series by J.K. Rowling, which continues to concern some parents that children might be enticed to dabble in witchcraft;

2. Alice series by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, for sexually explicit language and age-inappropriateness;

3. The Chocolate War by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and age-inappropriateness;

4. I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou, for sexual content, racism, offensive language, violence, and age-inappropriateness;

5. Taming the Star Runner by S. E. Hinton, for offensive language;

6. Captain Underpants series by Dav Pilkey, for encouraging children to disobey authority, insensitivity, and age-inappropriateness;

7. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, for racism, insensitivity, and offensive language;

8. Bridge to Terabithia by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language, sexual content, and references to the occult and Satanism;

9. Roll of Thunder, Hear My Cry by Mildred D. Taylor, for insensitivity, racism, and offensive language; and

10. Julie of the Wolves by Julie Craighead George, for sexual content, offensive language, violence, and age-inappropriateness.

By the U.S. Supreme Court. On this day seven of the justices ruled that the 1998 Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act is constitutional.

By George T. He cannot be identified because of his status as a young offender. When George was 15 he was expelled from Santa Teresa High School, prosecuted under a criminal threats law, and sentenced to 100 days in juvenile hall. This was in 2001. The crime he had committed was to write a poem detailing how he felt about school and being a bullying victim. He was subsequently subjected to post-Columbine hysteria. On this day, the California Supreme Court announced that it would hear his case, although it did not say when.

George's attorney, Michael Kresser, said that the poem was artistic self-expression and that George was prosecuted for his thoughts, not anything that he'd done. He is quoted as saying, "Freedom of speech and expression to express unpopular or disturbing thoughts is guaranteed by the First Amendment against all state action."
(see Canadian Post-Columbine Hysteria in Appendix E)

By Francesca Lia Block and Jack Gantos, respectively. Both challenged in Montgomery County, Texas, by the same people who challenged the two works of Robie Harris. The reason stated for this challenge is: the two novels promote homosexuality and promiscuity, and denigrate Christianity. Weetzie Bat follows the title character and her friend Dirk, who is gay, as they enjoy life in Los Angeles and find true love. It has been named an American Library Association Best Book for Young Adults. Desire Lines depicts the violent consequences of an insecure high-school student following the advice of an antigay teen preacher to "out" a lesbian couple. Both books are in the young-adult section of the library.

[The real reason for this challenge is the same as for the Harris works: lack of intolerance. --MN]
(see 18 Nov 2002 in the appendix on Robie Harris; Transcripts of the anticensorship speeches Montgomery County Commissioner's Court, 23 Sep and 07 and 21 Oct 2002)

This southern Maryland newspaper was subjected to a more genteel censorship, but a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the decision of a federal judge to dismiss in a lawsuit filed by the owner and sent the case back to U.S. District Court. The incident which triggered the suit happened during the November 1998 election. The paper had reported critically on Sheriff Richard Voorhaar and his deputies previously to election day. The publication was also critical of Richard Fritz, a friend of the Sherriff, and who was a candidate for St. Mary's County state's attorney.

Sherriff's deputies, acting on the correct assumption that the paper would be critical again on election day, undertook an organized effort to buy up as many papers as they could. Court records allege that six off-duty deputies drove around the county, in plain clothes, buying the newspapers from newsboxes and local stores. They got some 1,300 of a 6,500 copy print run. Court records also allege that Voorhaar and Fritz supported and took part in the mass buy-up.

Attorney Lee Levine, who represented the paper, commented, "We are very gratified that the court of appeals saw this for what it plainly was, and that is the most basic violation of First Amendment rights that you can possibly imagine."

[Interesting. On the one hand, there is no law against buying up an entire edition of a newspaper. On the other hand, their motives were constitutionally impermissible and their hearts were not pure. --MN]

[Addendum (09 Feb 2003): Kenneth Paulson had a very nice overview of this issue published at Freedom Forum Online. --MN]

[Addendum (14 Oct 2003): On 08 Oct the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal to have the Appeals Court ruling overturned. This means that the suit goes to trial before U.S. District Judge William Nickerson. He had originally dismissed the case. An article about the Supreme Court decision at First Amendment Center looks at some of the underlying issues involved. Personally, I don't buy that crap about them being off duty. Strictly speaking, the members of certain professions are never off duty because they are required to respond as needed; in emergencies, for instance. Doctors, nurses, military personnel, cops, firefighters. --MN]

[Addendum (12 Apr 2005:) It was reported on 10 Apr that the publisher, Kenneth C. Rossignol, would receive a total of $435,000 to settle the lawsuit. The St. Mary's County insurer was to pay $425,000, whereas Richard D. Fritz, the county state's attorney, had already paid Rossignol $10,000. Fritz said he decided to settle mostly because his legal fees were mounting, but no one admitted wrongdoing in the settlement. In fact Fritz commented: "My attorney said, 'Hey, look, if we keep litigating, it's going to minimally cost you $10,000.' This case did not come down to who's right and who's wrong." This case certainly was about elected officials doing something very much wrong in my not so humble opinion. But, then, this kind of abdication of responsibility is a hallmark among elected parasites in particular and contemporary society in general. --MN]

By Emma Goldman Papers Project at University of California-Berkeley. The university administration backed down from its position and allowed the use of the two quotations.
(see 13 Jan 2003)

Or some gang of raving fools along those lines as the case may be.

[One white supremacist group being pretty much indistinguishable from another to this editor. The whole point of the exercise of course is to be mindlessly inflammatory.

In this exercise of free speech, the Mississippi-based Nationalist Movement will be holding a rally and a protest in York, Pennsylvania. On 10 Jan, U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane gave approval for the rally after lawyers for the city of York and the hatemongering trash came to an agreement on issues including police protection. The city had originally denied a permit to the group because the application had been deemed incomplete, and the supremacists sued. The city waived the necessity, however, because only twelve people are expected to attend the event, and the cutoff point is 25 attendees. Remember folks: we don't have to like these snivelers or their ideas, we only have to tolerate them. So let's behave with a little decorum. --MN]
(see 07 Jul 2003)

By an unidentified high school teacher. A high schooler wrote to Judy Rebick at rabble.ca complaining about the use, by one of his teachers, of the word "negroes". Specifically, that he felt uncomfortable with what he saw as an outdated and offensive term. He asked for advice on how to suppress the use of the word and Ms. Rebick, a social and free speech activist, gave him her support.

[God! -- what a pair of fools! Personally, I have no doubt that this is another case of hypersensitive, PC snivelling and whining. Kindly note that the objection is to the use of the word negro, not nigger. What's got my knickers in a twist is that Rebick has essentially entered into a conspiracy to deny another human being her right to her humanity. I don't know anything about this teacher, but from the way the complaint is written, she does seem to be using the term from the viewpoint of prejudice. Mind you, she might just as easily be a throwback to 1960's liberalism and trying to show how progressive she is by using the scientifically correct term. At any rate, her biases, whatever they are, are part and parcel of who and what she is. To stupidly proclaim that she has no right to those biases because they are in conflict with the biases of another person who obviously does not understand his own psyche strikes me as the epitome of ignorance. --MN]

By John Steinbeck and Walter Myers, respectively. The George County School Board not only refused to reconsider its ban on these three works, but also created a committee for reviewing material that draws complaints. The board described the committee as "made up of a true representation of this county". Tim Welford, president of the school board, described that true representation thusly: "We are a small, Christian-oriented, Bible Belt community with strong religious convictions. We believe that the majority of our community agrees with us."

[Which leads me to believe that the sole purpose of this so-called committee is to invoke whatever censorship is asked of it for the school board to rubber stamp. Well, I could be wrong -- and pigs might fly. --MN]
(see 06 Jan 2003)

By Kelly Bokern. On a few occasions, this DuBose Middle School (Summerville, South Carolina), eighth-grader wore a tee shirt to school with a conferedate flag and South Carolina's palmetto flag; without undue incident. It was the Confederate flag that resulted in her being threatened with a one day suspension if she didn't wear another shirt. The Confederate flag has been banned at that school since Oct 2002 when a student wore a shirt showing blacks picking cotton under the rebel banner. Raymond Burke, the school principal, commented on the ban, "It was not a problem before that. When someone decided to cross that line, we had to take a stand." Although Ms. Bokern had worn her shirt on several occasions since the ban went into affect, this was the first time it generated a complaint. School principals in that district have the authority to ban certain articles of clothing. One local anti-Confederate flag activist says that it is not a free speech issue so much as a public safety is sue.

[Not a chance in Hell, pal. It's a free speech issue pure and simple. If you want the images of the Confederate flag banned for reasons of public safety then you have to prove that the images are inflammatory so you can request the ban; you can't just ban them on your assumption that they are a threat. --MN]

By Utah. Utah State Legislature is considering a bill which would strip libraries of the right to make their own policy decisions by vesting that authority in the county commissioners. On this date, the bill, Senate Bill 87, was sent back for revision because of complaints by librarians that they had not been consulted. An article in the Salt Lake Tribune for 22 Jan, reported that County Library System Director James Cooper said the bill would politicize decisions normally made by trustees, from meeting-room policy to materials challenges and Internet filtering issues. The bill also specifies that the county librarians and library staff will be hired by the county instead of the board, which will have no say beyond an advisory capacity.

[Does that hiring policy stink or what? Yes, yes, it says authority to hire, and "what's wrong with that?" you ask. Along with the authority to hire goes the authority to fire. This bill patently strips all control over the library environment from the library and gives the goons running the show the right to fire anybody who tries to buck them. Which is much more likely to happen in an impersonal bureaucracy that is out of touch with the issues. --MN]

By biology students. On this day, the U.S. Department of Justice sent a letter to Texas Tech University as part of an investigation into allegations of religious discrimination. The investigation is in light of a law suit against the school and a teacher, and professor Michael Dini. The suit was filed by a student and the Liberty Legal Institute, an organization dedicated to religious freedom, and lays the charge because Professor Dini refuses to give letters of recommendation to students who espouse creationism over evolution. The guidelines by which he will write a recommendation are published on a Web page. His requirement for a secular conviction in evolution is guideline number three.

The student is this case is Micah Spradling who has sought a recommendation because he wants to get into the field of medicine. To get a letter of recommendation, he had to enroll in another school. Spokeswoman Cindy Rugeley said the school stands by Professor Dini and that his policies are not in conflict with those of the university.

[To my way of thinking, this very clearly constitutes discrimination. The case is not anything like cut and dried, however. For one thing, no teacher is required to give a recommendation to any student. Secondly, no student is required to go to any given college and can always switch schools, as Spradling did. Mind you, this is highly inconvenient and disruptive. For my money, at the very least, this constitutes an abuse of authority. Dini demands a secular belief in evolution {and offers a well crafted rationale for doing so}, and the greater proportion of med students in the U.S. is probably christian, but there is no overt indication that he is prejudiced against creationists or biblical literalists in particular. In any event, a religious conviction does not necessarily disqualify a person from any profession. --MN]

By a Philomath High School student. The administration of this high school, in Philomath, Oregon, had received complaints about a bumper sticker with a reference to "female body parts". The student whose car it was had parked it on school grounds, so he was asked to do something about it and refused to remove either the decal or the car. Principal Joane Eby then tried to create new rules on the ground that the definition of what constitutes appropriate language at the high school needed clarification. So she proposed new guidelines on the display of decals or signs that might be racist, sexual, gender-biased, or that promote drinking, drugs, or smoking. The proposal was put on hold, however, when board member Jodi Nelson very wisely wanted to know if censoring stickers would violate freedom of speech and requested a legal opinion.

[This one could shape up into a nice fight between Hazelwood and Tinker. I see the key question in this case as whether or not the school parking lot constitutes a {albeit limited} public forum. --MN]

By Sultaana Freeman. A muslim, Ms. Freeman insists that the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles allow her to be photographed wearing the veil. She first sued in 2001 when her license was revoked because the photo showed her with her face covered. It was revoked because after the WTC tragedy the state cracked down for security reasons and demanded full face photographs. On this day, her attorney, Howard Marks, filed a second suit for this new refusal by the state. His argument is that Florida statutes do not require photo I.D.s and that the government's stand is unconstitutional.

[I assume that he's challenging on a violation of religious freedom. As a muslim, Ms. Freeman has every right to keep her face hidden as a sign of devotion. On the state's side, this does kind of defeat the purpose of a photo-I.D. card. But are such cards really necessary, and is requiring one when it violates religious principals constitutional? --MN]
(see 30 May 2003; 06 Jun 2003; 16 Aug 2003)

This magazine frequently features humour of questionable taste. In a Jan 2003 edition, it featured a piece on working out by beating up people. The victim they chose as punching bag was Mahatma Gandhi; and peace activists who revere Gandhi were not amused. Michelle Naef, administrator of the M.K. Gandhi Institute in Memphis, Tenn, and Orange County Asian Pacific Islander Community Alliance in Garden Grove, California, chairperson Michael Matsuda, are demanding an apology and a contribution from the magazine for tolerance education. Mr. Matsuda is quoted as saying, It's fanning the flames of hatred and bigotry. That should be offensive to everyone."

[Yeah, this "humour" is egregiously sophomoric. So what? It in no way invalidates what Gandhi accomplished, for one thing, and for another, this article might be satirizing current social attitudes that focus on equating and lionizing physical strength as toughness and lack thereof as an equivalent lack of manhood. I can't say for sure as I haven't seen it. The link above is to a very nicely balanced article on this incident. To his very great credit, Brian Willoughby, who apparently writes for Tolerance.org, refrains from any judmentalism in the article. The message being sent by the politically correct snivellers is that some kinds of speech are less free than others. --MN]

Sacred cows make the best hamburger. --Mark Twain

2003, January 24: Loafing and loitering

By Kevin Hicks. He was arrested for trespassing because he was found on a private street within the Richmond housing project. He was convicted, and subsequently appealed on free speech grounds. The Virginia Supreme Court found that because of the importance of First Amendment rights, U.S. Supreme Court precedents allow individuals to challenge convictions on those grounds -- even if they themselves were punished for non-speech reasons, and even if the law was constitutionally applied to them. Commonwealth of Virginia is seeking to revive a policy will allow the state to shut down a "drug market" operating in the project. Under the policy, city housing officials have "unfettered discretion" to decide who may and may not be allowed on the streets and sidewalks within the project. In support of this program, Richmond had turned the public streets that run through the project into private streets, deeding them to the housing authority.

[Yoick! What a can of worms this one appears to be. However, it is very firmly covered by a U.S. Supreme Court ruling that specifically addresses loitering. You can read more about this case at Freedom Forum Online. This brief look at the case is a fine example of the complexity of many rights and freedoms cases. --MN]
(see 13 Jul 2001; 13 Sep 2002; 08 Jun 2003; 16 Jun 2003)

By Carlson Muss. See the entry on the school based censorship page.

By Pablo Picasso. A copy of this painting hangs at the entrance of the U.N. Security Council. On this date it was covered with a curtain. The reason for hiding the painting is that diplomats sometimes make statements to the press while standing before the painting and it was thought that it would be gauche to have a picture showing the horrors of war exposed while American ambassadors stood in front of it advocating an invasion of Iraq.

By Aqua. Along about 1997 this Danish group cut a CD, Aquarium, with a track called Barbie Girl. The song is a social commentary. Mattel sued MCA Records et al alleging copyright infringement and that the song created an impression that it was supported by Mattel. The court found that they did not have sufficient grounds for a suit and threw the case out of court. Mattel appealed and on 24 Jul 2002, a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court ruled that the song was indeed a parody and that Mattel had no case. Mattel appealed that ruling. On this day, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear that appeal.

[Censorship? Oh, yeah! This one has gone way beyond copyright or trademark protection. It more resembles Mattel's lawsuit to ban Anita Roddick's Ruby than anything. If you want a really good laugh over this contretemps check out the article on the 24 Jul 2002 decision at Freedom Forum. At any rate, the Supreme Court no doubt refused to hear the case because there are precedents that protect parody under First Amendment rights. --MN]
(see 1998; 07 Nov 2002; 29 Dec 2003; 29 Jun 2004)

By McKinley High School, Hawaii. The phrase was part of the school's code of honour, which students were apparently led in reciting by school officials. The ACLU sued last year on behalf of James Ornellas, a student at the school, on the grounds the code violates the separation of church and state, and alleging that the reference conveys the message that a student must love God to be "honorable". Which provision excludes students who belong to minority religions or are nonreligious. On this day the school settled with the ACLU. The settlement means the code of honour must be removed from all materials excepting an historic plaque. The school is enjoined, however, from highlighting the plaque. Students are permitted to recite the code on their own; which is quite in keeping with the First Amendment.

Metaphorically speaking. Actually, Ms. Essadiq resigned after being subjected to a campaign of harassing phone calls, a death threat, and the vandalizing of her car. The cause of this movement against her was her desire to see more hard news reporting in The Overview, the Onondaga Community College student newspaper. Ms. Essadiq was Editor in Chief. She especially wished to increase coveage of the Onondaga Student Services Association, the independently incorporated student government at the Syracuse college. Last fall, the paper had published a story about Jennifer Sutliff, the OSSA treasurer, who had been charged with two felonies for stealing five guns and about $700 worth of jewelry from her father's home. It was after that her car was scratched down one side and the windshield was broken. Then, Casey Sutliff, Jennifer's brother and an OSSA parliamentarian, allegedly exposed himself to the sports editor in the Overview office. Ms Essadiq said he had also threatened to bring a gun to school and kill newspapaer staffers. These allegations were confirmed by Kevin Althouse, the OSSA executive director.

Mr. Althouse was quoted as saying, "Rashida's concerns were absolutely legitimate, but I don't think this is systemic. This is one person not OSSA.". However, Ms. Essadiq commented, "It just became absolutely impossible to produce something productive and try maintain a level head. I just felt like we were trying to do the right things and no matter what we were trying to do these people [the student government] were just kicking us." The managing editor and business manager, and adviser Laurel Saiz also had all resigned from the paper citing extremely bad relations between the newspaper and the student government which is responsible for funding; and the resultant lack thereof. It was reported that OSSA had been obstructionist on other issues.

[The problem causing this incident? Most likely the ONE PERCENT turn out at the polls for the student government elections. --MN]

The state senate voted to abolish the position of Poet Laureate because of the controversy stirred up by Amiri Baraka's poem Somebody Blew Up America and his refusal to resign. The vote was 21 in favour, 0 opposed, 19 abstentions.

[Nineteen abstentions, eh? Bunch of fucking sellouts. The article in which this was reported also said: Some defend Baraka's right to artistic freedom. Senator James Thorpe maintains that when selecting Baraka, the state "knew of his controversial roles. [...]" Okay, smart guy, so how come nobody voted against this act of censorship? Nineteen senators out of forty who pay only lip service to free speech and the rest are bare-faced censors?! Pfah! --MN]
(See 02 Jul 200 3)

By students in Johnston County, North Carolina. In particular at Clayton High School. Principal Jerry Smith had banned the Confederate flag on 30 Oct 2002, when a group of students wore the insignia in memory of a friend who died in 2001. Smith told the students they were in violation of the district dress code prohibiting clothes that disrupt the classroom. Some students protested the ban the next day by again wearing the emblem. The school officials explained that it was sometimes an incindiary symbol associated with white supremacism, so the students agreed to change their clothing. But then Terry Shelton, a Civil War re-enactment buff and parent of three Clayton High students, became involved, arguing that the emblem had not created any disturbance, and that banning a symbol simply because of a potential for disruption was a free speech violation. He was quoted as saying, "I do absolutely agree that that flag has been misused by a lot of white supremacist organizations, who I adamantly denounce. My point was, you can't preach tolerance if you pick and choose what you will tolerate." In late Jan 2003, Superintendent James Causby and school board attorney Jimmy Lawrence reviewed the legal precedents and agreed with Mr. Shelton, basing their decision on Tinker v: Des Moines.

By Mark Twain. It was banned from the curriculum of Escambia County, Florida, middle schools. Principal Richard Harper was quoted as saying, "There was one student who felt uncomfortable. Our feeling was, we're not here to make kids feel uncomfortable, and if he felt uncomfortable then it was a problem."

[So now this student won't have to feel uncomfortable even though he will still have a problem with his hypersensitivity, and everybody else will also now have a problem with his hypersensitivity. It is, of course, absolutely irrational to demand of this person that he understand how the use of the word nigger is not a reflection on him so much as it is a reflection on those who use it as a perjorative, as that sort of lesson takes years to learn. Nobel Laureate Toni Morrison once told an anecdote about how she learned to deal with the word which illustrates that. The thing is, Harper has dropped the ball, and instead of capitalizing on an opportunity for learning, he has instead helped to foster an attitude of "society owes me and I'll whine until I get what I want" in this student. --MN]

By lesbians; and for lesbians and about lesbians. This Australian magazine of erotica was subjected to an implicit challenge by the printer. It refused to produce an issue because of perceived pornography. Co-editor Domino was quoted as saying by Sydney Star Observer, "The printers were objecting to the homosexual nature of the content. We were really surprised. The content is erotic but it is not explicit pornography." The refusal:

• meant that parts of the magazine had to be printed in three separate shops;
• created an extra financial burden of $1,000;
• delayed the release of this edition until this day.

The magazine, which is printed three times a year, conforms to guidelines by the Office of Film and Literature Classification.

Not the book, but the person: Armin Lehmann. Mr. Lehmann was the son of an avid Nazi, was a member of the Hitler Youth Group, fought in World War II, and was Hitler's last messenger during the siege of Berlin. He was sixteen at that time. After the war, Mr. Lehmann toured the death camps and became a pacifist. Today, he tours the State of Oregon, lecturing on his book, published in 2000, and has been the focus of a number of documentaries. According to his wife, he has even been invited to speak at Holocaust events.

On this day he was scheduled to speak at Sprague High School, Salem, Oregon. Administrators in the Salem-Keizer School District cancelled the appearance, citing concerns that his presence might spark antisemitism and hatred among the students.

[Once again: MIGHT! Not because Mr. Lehmann himself is an inflammatory antisemite and white supremacist, but because the officious have so little regard and respect for the intelligence of their students that they think that even hearing a peace activist speak about the subject could cause their little darlings to turn into a bunch of blood-lusting, murderous psychopaths. And did these stupid bastards even bother to read his book? HA! Of course not! They read a few reviews of it at Amazon.com, some of which said it was racist, but read the book itself? It is to laugh!

Feh! And double feh! It annoys me all to Hell when raving dolts like that demonstrate how right Mark Twain was. --MN]

An Internet user in Syria was imprisoned for forwarding an e-mail newsletter.

By Paramount studios, and censored by Paramount. This B film had had trailers in the cinemas for months when NASA Shuttle Columbia was lost on re-entry, 01 Feb. In the trailer, there is a scene of a shuttle losing control and crash landing, successfully, during re-entry. In the wake of the loss of Columbia, Paramount pulled the trailer and announced that it would consider whether or not to change the scene in the film. The stated reason was that it might be too sensitive for some people. Paramount is also reviewing advertising for the film. The projected release date for the film remains 28 Mar 2003.

[Nevermind the rest of us; the overwhelming proportion of humanity that can deal with grief and loss and get on with our lives. The tone for this expurgating was obviously set by the World Trade Center tragedy where any scene of the towers were cut from films that hadn't yet been released at the time. And I had so wanted to go see this film. --MN]

By Theresa Becket. Ms. Becket had qualified for a $2,750 Michigan State sponsored scholarship. When she announced that she was going to study Theology at Ave Maria College, it was revoked. Apparently under the state legislated misapprehension that studies in religion, theology, or divinity on a state scholarship violated state/church separation. On this date the Thomas More Law Center filed a suit on her behalf.

[Congress shall make no law [...] prohibiting the free exercise thereof. Bunch of dummies. How much Rocket Science does it take to figure out that a student cannot be punished for declaring a major in religious studies; what a student selects is absolutely not any business of the state in any way, shape, or form. --MN]
(see 25 Feb 2004)

By Doctor Ruth Westheimer. This book was the focus of what looks like an odd sort of challenge. The Hollis/Brookline Cooperative School Board voted to keep it on the shelves of the middle school library when a parent complained in part that it was outdated and inaccurate, and moved that it be replaced by a newer work. However, there is no doubt that this was an attempt to suppress factual information. Peggy Slater, the parent who led the challenge, alleged the book:

• contains outdated in formation about STD's, including AIDS, that could be harmful to children, [misinform children --MN]
• encourages the use of pornography, and
• is sexually explicit, exposing children too early to sexual material.

Ms. Slater offered to donate as a replacement, Sex Q & A: Kids Questions - Parents' Answers, by the National Physicians Center. However, the Library Review Board found Talks About Sex:

• is age-appropriate,
• does not promote pornography,
• does not devalue women or children,
• respects the difference between men and women in their relationships,
• doesn't promote sexual exploration, and
• argues that protecting unfettered access to information is important.

[As for offering to replace Dr. Ruth Talks About Sex with a more current work, that appears to have simply been a trick to promote religious based, abstinence-only sex-ed. I did a bit of research on Sex Q & A: Kids Questions - Parents' Answers, and the so-called National Physicians Center with a keyword search. First, the NPC, as it styles itself, strikes me as blatantly misrepresenting itself. Its full name is National Physicians Center for Family Resources; yet, it accentuates National Physicians Center and de-emphasizes for Family Resources, which creates an impression that it is an organization for all physicians. However, a superficial examination of its web site shows very clearly that it is religious based. The site offers some well crafted science based viewpoints, but to my mind there is a credibility issue involved. The second problem is that this book probably promotes abstinence as the only choice rather than as an alternative. Which would be in keeping with dogma. The site does intimate that choosing abortion is no choice at all.

The real kicker to this whole, oddball challenge, however, is: in the ten years the book had been on the shelves it had never been signed out of the library. The librarian stated that this is because none of the students in the middle school wants to be seen carrying around a book about sex. (There was no mention of how often it was looked at in the library, though; at any rate, the students won't want to be seen with the Sex Q & A book, either.) --MN]

By a three-judge panel of the Massachusetts Appeals Court. Mark A. MacDonald, former selectman for Athol, Massachussetts, had sued a website operator because of uncomplimentary statements posted to the site. Statements calling him a "Gestapo agent" were published in the Athol Daily News, and then a letter to the paper saying he was a nazi. He blamed the bad press for his subsequent loss in an election and sued; for that and for emotional distress. On this day, the Massachusetts Appeals Court ruled that the lawsuit was a SLAPP. This is the first such ruling on a case of online speech.

[MacDonald's comments in the article at Freedom Forum Online suggest that he is much too thin-skinned and hypersensitive to hold public office. Personally, I think someone that sensitive shouldn't be allowed out of the house. . . . --MN]

"He made a noise with his mouth -- a verbal label. If the label does not fit you the noise is meaningless. If the label is true in your case -- if you are the thing that the noise refers to, you are neither more or less that thing by reason of someone uttering the verbal label." --Robert Anson Heinlein, Coventry

2003, February 06: The Tanya's Charms

By the pub formerly known as The Fleece. The pub had changed its name to Tanya's Charms to honour 21 year old Tanya Robinson who had been selected by FHM Magazine as Britain's sexiest girl next door. The pub even went so far as to adopt Tanya's magazine cover nude pose on its sign. Tanya's pose was a take on one by Gail Porter for a cover shoot she did. On 04 Feb, Ananova.com reported on the name change, in which it quoted Tanya saying there had been no complaints. The article did print a dissenting opinion, however, by Dr Mike Nicholls, secretary of the Richmond Business and Tourism Association. Dr. Nicholls's objection was that the change went against the one hundred year long traditional naming of the pub and that it went against efforts to project Richmond as an upscale market.

On 06 Feb, Ananova.com reported that the pub was re-adopting its former name and sign due to complaints, including a number of abusive phone calls to the staff of the pub. What that report does not say is what the basis for the abuse was; whether the objections were to the loss of the tradition or because the sign featured a nude woman:

[You can call up the magazine cover through this link. It shows Tanya in the same pose as above, but is a larger photograph. Keep in mind that this cover features a nude female human. If you object to nudity and you click on that link, then you will only be demonstrating your own hypocrisy, not any perceived perversion you think I have. As for the first name-change, it seems to have been strictly a business decision. Without more to go on I can't say if this is a case of politically correct whining or that people were truly offended by what they saw as a lack of respect for historicity. In either event, the methods used were clearly censorial. --MN]

By Representative Ronald Collins, R-Wells, Maine. Mr. Wells has proposed a state law repealing the sales tax on flags. The bill appears very much to be discriminatory, however, in that flag burners would not only have to refund an amount equal to the sales tax to the state for having burned a flag, but would also have their names published in newspapers.

[The second condition creates a chilling effect on those who might want to exercise free expression by burning a flag, and the first essentially fines those who burn a flag in political protest. Granted, this sales tax isn't going to amount to much of a fine, but it's the principle of the thing. Collins is quoted as saying, "There's been too much American blood spilled for that flag." What he obviously does not understand is: that blood was spilled to defend the right of the people to burn the flag itself as an exercise in free speech. --MN]

By EROS Data Center, Sioux Falls, South Dakota; (apparently a federal facility). A number of artists had been invited to show their art in this pseudo-corporate milieu, and the invitation had not specified any content restrictions. In Jan 2003, Ms. Joy Crane, who had a piece censored previously in another milieu, was invited to show her work, and two pieces in the display were singled out for censoring. The Center's chief, R.J.Thompson asked for the removal of the two beaded works on the grounds they were inappropriate. One shows a tiny pregnant male and the other depicts the emergence of a globe from the birth canal of Mother Earth. According to Ms. Crane they are a strong message about female empowerment.
(see 06 Aug 2001)

By Center for Public Integrity. And why is this such a big deal? CPI commented, "Senior members of the Senate Judiciary Committee minority staff have inquired about Patriot II for months and have been told as recently as this week that there is no such legislation being planned." Yet, the major networks turned a blind eye to the story.

[The so-called free press and protectors of liberties and free speech which increasingly protect only themselves. Such is the way of the commercial press. --MN]

Doctor Lesley McCulloch, a British academic, was set free after spending five months in an Indonesian jail. Dr. McCulloch send her parents a text message saying so just before 0200 Greenwich Mean Time. She and American nurse Joy Sadler had been jailed for visa violations on 30 Dec 2002. They had been arrested on suspicion of spying but had already served more than three months when they were convicted of the lesser charge and remanded to serve out the remainder of their sentences. Dr. McCulloch came to the attention of Indonesian authority when she wrote a series of critical articles about the conflict in Indonesia. She was arrested and accused of attempting to contact the separatist Free Aceh Movement.

[The article I saw on this did not say if she had actually tried to contact these separatists or why she might have tried to do so. Why the difference? It becomes a matter of whether or not her freedom of association was violated or whether her right to be secure in her person and have a fair trial was violated by the laying of trumped up charges. Either case being a moot point in a country that recognizes neither, but be glad you don't live in such a county. If you don't. --MN]

By Robert Cormier. This report was filed in Bridgeton News of New Jersey. The article, by Brenna Egan, focuses primarily on censorship vs: free speech. The sudden spate of interest in these issues in Upper Deerfield Township was generated by a challenge to The Chocolate War by a local parent who wanted it removed from the curriculum. The review committee decided that the book had educational value and recommended that it be retained.

By a greeting card company. A chain of stores owned by Target Corporation, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, removed boxes of Valentine Day cards because a single individual misinterpreted the word jihad as a terrorist threat. The cards were based on a book by Scholastic Incorporated called I Spy School Days, in which one character's name was Jihad. This book was published in 1995; Scholastic bowlderized the book in 2001 by renaming the character Jared. This line of cards, however, featured part of a photograph and a riddle from the original work. The word jihad designates a program of learning and spiritual growth, but has been misused in recent years to mean a crusade or holy war. It was reported that the FBI was investigating the origin of the card.

In a victory for Internet free speech a French criminal court found Timothy Koogle and Yahoo! neither condoned or praised Nazism, nor had it portrayed the policies of Adolf Hitler in a favorable light by selling memoribilia from the Third Reich.

In Nov 2000, Yahoo! was ordered by France to block access by French people to the site, but a year later a U.S. federal judge ruled that the California-based company was not bound to tailor non-French sites to conform to the laws of France.

In Oct 2001 a complaint against the search engine, and Koogle, then president of Yahoo!, had been filed by three French Jewish and anti-Semitism groups. Under French law it is illegal to exhibit or sell objects with racist overtones, and despite Yahoo's French site not offering auctions of Nazi objects, French surfers can still buy from the main, U.S.-based Yahoo.com site.

[And what, I wonder, has France done to stop its citizens who peruse such sites? Are they brought up on hate-crimes charges? Or has France restricted itself to attempts to impose French law on foreign sovereignties? --MN]
(see 12 Jan 2006)

By American poets. And suppressed by First Lady Laura Bush. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

[See my commentary on this issue --MN]

The Secretary General of the United Nations, Kofi Annan, was joined by U.S. Secretary of Education Roderick Paige and U.S. First Lady Laura Bush to announce the launch of Decade of Literacy. This program, to be coordinated by the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, has as its target a 50% increase in global literacy by 2015. It was reported that the United States was dedicating 333 million dollars in funding to foreign schools for the program; almost a third of those countries being in Africa.

[Which strikes me as rank hypocrisy considering that Bush the Bible-thumper cut funding for sexuality education in foreign countries his first day on the job (with African countries having the highest HIV transmission rates in the world), that there is a government movement to remove factual sex-based health information from web sites and educational programs in the U.S., and that in the first half of Feb 2003 there was a spate of news reports about public libraries (albeit state funded), in the U.S. struggling with financial woes from budget cuts -- cuts ranging anywhere from 40% to 74%, inclusive (and to 100% in Florida for an entire collective of libraries and for the Florida State Library as well). I will grant that Bush did announce a bunch of money for public libraries earlier in the year. I wonder how long it will take them to get it. This move is very clearly in diametric opposition to the actions perpetrated by the Bush administration, and yet good little wifey Laura says that a poetry symposium is no place for politics. Oh, sure! . . . --MN]

By Andrew J. O'Conner. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.
(see 18 Feb 2003)

Almost twenty-two years after the original was burned down as a hate-crime. The library lost its entire collection of 97,000 books and about one hundred fifty, centuries-old, Tamil scripts on herbal medicine, some of which were unique. The rebuilding of the library is a move by the Sinhalese dominated government of Sri Lanka to win back the confidence of the Tamil, ethnic-minority population. The burning of the library in 1981 galvanized the Tamil into nineteen years of armed rebellion in which more than 65,000 people were killed and 1.6 million were displaced.

[There is no way in Hell this can possibly make up for the blatant hate-crime against and attempt to destroy the culture of a people. But at least it's a start -- and sometimes that's all you can settle for. --MN]
(see 31 May 1981; 26 Aug 1992; 15 Apr 2005)

By Iranians. In the days leading up this holiday, the police of Tehran were busy attempting to suppress it on the rationale that it promotes "western values". The crack-down was ostentibly because Islam discourages contact between unrelated men and women. A young, unidentified female shopper was quoted as saying, "The police are opposed to love and affection. They don't want us to be happy because Valentine's Day promotes happiness." Hamed Hosseini commented, "There are a lot of good things in the western culture. They can't force people to buy and like what conservatives buy or like. It only creates hatred. It only backfires. Police even objected to a little mice couple in our window because they were embracing each other."
(see 14 Feb 2002; 14 Feb 2004)

By Fred Uranga. In 1995, the Idaho Statesman published a story on what it called one of the "most infamous homosexual witch hunts" in the U.S. The story was published during a statewide debate about a proposed ballot initiative that would have banned state or local laws that protect homosexuals from discrimination, and it was about the 1955 Boys of Boise scandal; the paper called the scandal a cautionary tale. The story was based on court records from the trial of Melvin Dir and included a photograph of a handwritten statement wherein he said he had an affair with his cousin. Fred Uranga was the cousin, but his name never appeared in the story.

Mr. Uranga demanded a correction, claiming the information in the statement was false and had never been introduced as evidence in any proceeding. The Statesman declined but did offer to publish Mr. Uranga's rebuttal or to explain his position along with a statement that the paper had no opinion concerning the truth of the court document. Mr. Uranga turned down both options and sued instead.

On 21 Jun 2002, the Idaho Supreme Court unanimously overturned district and appellate courts rulings citing First Amendment protections, and ordered a hearing on the legitimacy of his claim. On this day the Idaho Supreme Court unanimously reversed itself. This decision means there can be no invasion of privacy in Idaho by publishing information from a court record that is open to the public regardless of how old the record is. A ruling that protects the free speech rights of historians as much as reporters.

[He should simply have never said anything and nobody would have known about his involvement. Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Statesman executive editor Carolyn Washburn is quoted as saying, "It was comforting to know that the media or anyone else in the public who uses public records can have comfort in using what is in the public domain. The media are not the only ones who use public records." --MN]

By Wooster Blade. U.S. District Judge James S. Gwin turned down a request by Wooster High School students for a preliminary injunction seeking to protect the paper from prior review. Judge Gwin said it was an isolated incident and that the students failed to provide evidence the district would confiscate the newspaper any time in the future. An edition of the paper had first been seized by Superintendent David Estrop, and then the offending article was expurgated to allow publication at a later date.

[No evidence they'll do it again, eh? Seems to me the very best evidence is the fact that they did it the first time -- they have established precedent. Still, perhaps they'll live and learn. My call on this one is that the administration should have postponed distribution and told the newspaper staff they would have to sit down with them and the school district lawyers to address the legal issues created by the article. This meeting should have been held the next day with an eye to releasing the paper within 48 hours. --MN]
(see 19 Dec 2002; 09 Jan 2003; 19 Nov 2003)

By protesters. On 07 Feb, U.S. District Judge Barbara S. Jones heard arguments by the NYCLU on behalf of United for Peace and Justice against the City of New York about a permit to hold a rally and march with 100,000 people. The city had issued a permit only for a static demonstration. On 11 Feb she ruled that New York City could constitutionally deny a permit for a protest march in front of the United Nations. Her basis for this decision was concerns about heightened security and that the protesters hadn't given the city enough advance warning. On 12 Feb, a three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said it could find no errors in her ruling. This panel also ruled that the restriction applied only to this rally. So, the restriction to a static demonstration seems to constitute a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction.

However, an article by Daniel Forbes that was published at Alternet.org, is in conflict with the article by Associated Press which is published at Freedom Forum Online. The conflict arises from certain key information that was not reported at Freedom Forum; to whit: protesters are not merely enjoined from marching, but are being restricted to a designated free speech zone; which extends to as far as twenty-five blocks away from the United Nations buildings.

Furthermore, by passing over that information the Associated Press article misrepresents the position of the New York Civil Liberties Union, creating a negative affective connotation that depicts the NYCLU as a whiner. For instance, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Donna Lieberman, was quoted as saying, "This is a stunning blow to democracy, to the liberties we all thought we could rely on, even in times of hostility," and that the ruling was, "an attack on the very values our country was built on and is supposed to be defending." Without the accompanying information about the full restrictions, these quotations are taken out of context.

[When I first read about this case at Freedom Forum Online I wrote the following comment:

Sour grapes always get everybody else's teeth set on edge too. The thing is, the city does have an unwritten policy in place of not allowing marches in front of the U.N. buildings, and it has been in affect since 11 Sep 2001. The decision by the appeals court still leaves this policy open to challenge by a group that applies for a permit with sufficient lead time.

It appears very much to me, in light of the new information, that this policy must be challenged and struck down as constitutionally impermissble. And the lessons for all of us, Gentle Reader, are: a) check as many independent sources as possible; b) read past the rhetoric and focus on the facts. (Yes, I am quite aware of my own rhetoric thank you very much.) --MN]

By Bretton Barber. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.
(see 01 Oct 2003)

By Jeffrey Klazura. Although he didn't take the photographs, he just downloaded them and kept them on his computer hard drive. Those particular photographs were found by the cops when they busted him in a sting operation and seized the computer. He was charged with obscenity under the community standards provision of the Supreme Court ruling on Title 13, Section 1462 of the U.S. Code: Importation or transportation of obscene matters. The material was never tried because he copped a plea.

[See the article by Ron Sylvester in The Wichita Eagle; see my commentary on this issue. --MN]
(see 25 Jun 2003)

By playwright Glyn O'Malley. This examination of Israeli/Palestinian relations was scheduled to tour high schools near Cincinnati, Ohio, in Mar 2003. The tour was cancelled because of complaints by Muslims in Cincinnati. The play is about Ayat al-Akhras -- the eighteen-year-old female suicide bomber who blew herself up in Jerusalem in Mar 2002, killing three people -- and Rachel Levy, a high school senior and one of the victims. The Cincinnati Playhouse had scheduled a stage reading of the canceled play for 18 Feb for Jewish and Muslim educators and community leaders in Cincinnati.

By Michael Nellis. In response to an article posted at the Library and Information Science News web site about plans to shut down Florida State Library, I wrote an uncomplimentary comment about Jeb Bush. This comment was subsequently removed by the webmaster, Blake Carver. The exchange between us, including the comment I wrote, is as follows:

Hi Michael,

I just deleted that comment. Sorry, but I don't want to worry about anyone over reacting on that one. If you want to post something else on that please leave out the "shot" part. I'm probably over reacting, but in this case I'd rather be safe than sorry, plus I don't want to see you get in any trouble.

-----------------------------
Blake Carver
LISNews.com
Librarian and Information Science News

We don't want this shrubbery by Michael Nellis
(XXXXXXXXXXXXX@XXXXX.XXX)
on Tuesday, February 18 @03:52PM (http://www.advocacyagainstcensorship.com/index.html)

I'd say "impeach Jeb Bush", but I really think he needs to be shot and pissed on. It is absolutely imperative that you people down there keep this person for running for the White House in his turn.

Hi, Blake.

Censorship! Censorship! ;-)

--- Blake Carver wrote:

> I just deleted that comment. Sorry, but I don't want to worry about
> anyone over reacting on that one.

Well, I thought about that choice of words for a couple of seconds, myself, then decided to go ahead with that phrase. There is no doubt that you're opting to remove it is an example of the chilling effect in action, but I'm not going to beat up on for you it.

> I'm probably over reacting, but in this case I'd rather be safe
> than sorry, plus I don't want to see you get in any trouble.

Hmmmm. I appreciate the concern, but one should never do something to save someone else from a trouble they are causing for themselves. Causing trouble might well be the whole point of the exercise. :-)

[See, this is the primary problem with being a gadfly; when you cause trouble for:

The  Almighty  System

you also cause trouble for yourself and people associated with you; even if that association is only by misapprehension. Which is why you have to be careful about what battles you pick to fight -- you've got to pick the right ones, and in this case, Blake and LISNews are not the enemy. Blake, like the rest of us, is simply caught up in events beyond his control. The real targets are the dozy bastards who think they are in control but in reality have no control. --MN]
(see 13 Feb 2003)

By U.S. District Judge William L. Standish and The Pitt News, respectively. The Pitt News and the American Civil Liberties Union had challenged a 1996 Pennsylvania law prohibiting ads for alcoholic beverages in any school newspapers or associated materials. That rationale behind the law was to curb the rate of incidence of underage drinking. The suit alleged the law was a freedom of speech violation. Judge Standish disagreed in his ruling, made the week prior to this date, but did allow that school papers could report on specials being offered by bars -- as long as the bars don't pay for the exposure. So on this day, The Pitt News, the University of Pittsburgh student paper, began to run such a feature. The alcohol advertising ban has financial harmed the The Pitt News by creating a loss in revenue; which in 1999 amounted to almost $17,000. Although the paper apparently remains financially independent of the university. Which is one factor that complicates the prohibition against it, because it is also editorially independent. In short, the school has no say or control over the paper, but because it is a student paper, it is subject to this government interference.

[According to the Liquor Control Board, the legislation was an effort to balance free speech with deterring underage drinking. I have not heard if the state has run any studies to determine how efffective the law might be; on or off campus. Age of Majority in Penn. is twenty-one, and 76% of The Pitt News readers are legal adults; some 66% of students at the university are legal adults, twenty-one or older. Of course, as always: in the mindset of the control freaks, one wayward victim is one too many. I tend to consider this a political correctness action that punishes responsible drinkers for the actions of the irresponsible. --MN]
(see Apr 1999)

By Michael Finkel. A freelance journalist who has had stories published by The New York Times, he has found himself in a situation very much like that of Vanessa Leggett. Mr. Finkel is writing a non-fiction book about murderer Christian Longo and has been subpoenaed to turn over his notes and to testify at Longo's trial. On this day he filed a motion to quash the subpoena arguing that Oregon law protects his correspondence, gathered as research, and that his interviews and letters have not yet been made public.

[I wonder what excuse they'll come up with to prove that Finkel is not "a real journalist". --MN]
(see 20 Jul 2001; 18 Oct 2001; 29 Oct 2001; 18 Jun 2002)

By Sarah Jones. The U.S. Federal Communications Commission reversed its decision that Your Revolution was obscene. It did so under pressure from a lawsuit Ms. Jones had filed. Ms. Jones lost the first round of this battle when a federal district court dismissed the suit on jurisdictional grounds. Ms. Jones appealed that ruling, and the FCC was facing a deadline of 24 Feb to file a brief defending their decision to ban her song.
(see 20 Jun 2001; 29 Jan 2002)

By Reed College students; and attacked by other Reed College students. Student editors Jesse Hoffman and Melelani Sax-Barnett were effectively run out office under threats of recall by the student body. This action started when articles recently printed in the Quest sparked debate about who controls the paper's content. Dan Denvir, student body president, co-opted control of the paper by inciting fury against the paper and by then circulating a petition among the student body to start a move to recall the editors and remove them by fiat.

[Best example of double-think in this incident is by Denvir. He is quoted as saying, "Free speech is extremely important to me, but if I send an article to the New Yorker and they decide not to print it, that's not censorship, it's within their editorial purview. At Reed, the student body is the editors of the papers. What the recall petition said was that they wanted editors [who] followed different editorial guidelines than what Jesse did." Did you catch that? What he basically said was, "free speech is permitted only as long at it follows editorial guidelines I/We feel comfortable with." And that is censorship. --MN]

By Bernadette Devlin McAliskey. This Irish activist and former Member of Parliament was detained by immigration officials at Chicago's O'Hare Airport and denied entry into the United States. INS officials in Chicago alleged she, "poses a serious threat to the security of the United States", and that the order to not allow her into the U.S. had come from the officials in Dublin; from whom Ms. McAliskey had received prior clearance. Even though she had traveled to the U.S. frequently over the last thirty years, this was her first visit in over eighteen months; since before the WTC tragedy. During her detention, she was subjected to threats of imprisonment and of being shot. Her daughter, Deirdre, reported that one officer said, "if you interrupt me one more time I'm going to slam the cuffs on you and haul your ass to jail.", and another "pulled his chair right up to mommy and I heard him say 'Don't make my boss angry. I saw him fire a shot at a guy last week and he has the authority to shoot.'" Ms. Deirdre McAliskey speculated that the detention and deportation stemmed from her mother being such a vocal and articulate civil rights activist.

[The most asinine thing about this whole incident is that Ms. McAliskey was not going to the U.S. for any human rights activism, she was going there to attend a christening. As for the bullying tactics of the INS, those go way beyond any reasonable good cop/bad cop routine. You can get some more background about Ms. McAliskey in the source article at CounterPunch.com. --MN]

See this web site about celebrating and promoting the right to read in Canada.

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

By Aaron Sanders, a student at Miami University of Ohio. A student journalist for Miami Student, he was apparently fired over a column he wrote that was highly critical of some curriculum choices by professors in the school's French department. He, of course, is crying censorship, although indications are that it is not.

[This particular incident is a total mess. Sanders did not review the material -- film or text -- that was chosen, but slammed it as being borderline "pure pornography". The French film Ridicule, for instance, which he said includes sexually explicit content such as full frontal nudity. Male nudity, specifically, though why that makes a difference is beyond me. He went on to accuse Professor Jonathan Strauss of consistently showing inappropriate content. He then ended his column by encouraging students to hold teachers "accountable for their ridiculous actions in the classroom." Which is a good idea anyway. The thing is, this action more closely resembles censorship than his being fired does because he was challenging material he had not seen. After he was dismissed, he expressed sour grapes at being fired for something the editors of the paper had published; totally ignoring the fact that he had written it. He claims that Editor in Chief Jill Inkrott and faculty adviser Cheryl Heckler had fired him because they were unhappy about taking flack from the administration. While Ms. Inkrott did feel pressured by Heckler and the administration, she claims to have made the decision to fire Sanders because he had been irresponsible in his reporting. She is quoted as commenting, "Freedom of speech is wonderful. It's the whole purpose why we're here as newspapers. But you need to have some standards. It doesn't mean just legal or libel standards, but having ethical standards."

Personally, I chalk this one up to sloppiness and clumsiness by a gadfly wannabe. Especially, you can't be a gadfly if you're going to duck responsibility for your actions while making noise about holding others accountable. One of the principles of leadership is: you cannot ask others to do what you yourself will not or cannot do. However, I will stipulate that firing him under these conditions was a poor decision. It would have been better to reassign him and to scrutinize his work closely and to encourage him to develop the ethical standards he so obviously appears to be missing. Then fire him if he refuses to accept this guidance.

Do read the article at Student Press Law Center, available through the link above. It is an excellent look at the interplay of charge and counter-charge so often generated by raving fools with an axe to grind. Personally, I award the win in that squabble to Inkrott on points. The article also contains some fine viewpoints about free speech issues made by the principals involved. --MN]

By Joseph Scheidler, Operation Rescue, and the Pro-Life Action League. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the attempt to hold these groups responsible under racketeering laws was not valid. This lawsuit, under Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act 1970 (RICO), was an effort to stem violent protests, criminal trespass, harassment of clinic clientele, and physical assaults against clinic staff. The justices based their decision on the fact that the Hobbs Act definition of extortion requires "the obtaining of property" belonging to someone else under threat of force.

Although this case did not deal with First Amendment issues, it was followed closely by free speech advocates who were concerned about it creating a chilling affect. Including some abortion-rights groups.

[Pish and tosh. Demonstrating outside an establishment is free speech. Breaking its windows, smashing its furniture, attacking its employees, and harassing those who patronize the establishment is not free speech. As I said in my earlier diatribe. However, there are other laws which can be brought to bear against transgressors who perpetrate such actions. As Justice Rhenquist pointed out.

The Most Hypocritical Response Award to this ruling goes to Family Research Council president Ken Connor who said, "Watch for pro-abortion groups to protest this decision. The irony is that they will be exercising the very rights they seek to deny to others." This from someone representing political organizations whose activism is based on stripping women of their right to choose and that want to burn the U.S. Bill of Rights and impose a religious police state. (Sure, sure -- they'll say, "But that's not what we want!" That's not what the Taliban wanted either, and they ended up banning paper bags as "offensive to Islam".)

See the article on the ruling at Freedom Forum Online, and an analysis of the ruling by Tony Mauro --MN]
(see 22 Apr 2002; 28 Feb 2006 08 May 2007)

By FAIR. On this date FAIR released a media analysis of how the U.S. government misrepresented military intelligence that refuted its most cherished claims about Iraq armaments.

By Gerhard Haderer, an Austrian caricaturist. It was removed from bookstores by the police in Greece. This is the first book to be so treated in 20 years. It is a satirical look at the life of Christ that portrays Jesus as a hippy, who is a friend to Jimi Hendrix, and which presents the Last Supper as a drinking binge. Mr. Haderer has had legal proceedings begun against him on charges of blasphemy. The Life of Jesus has also been published and sold in Austria, South Korea, France, the Czech Republic, and Hungary. Greece, however, has a highly orthodox catholic sect as its largest church.

Mr. Haderer said of the seizure, "Now we have really gone back to the Middle Ages. It didn't even get that far in Catholic Austria." He also commented, "My book is not an attack on religion or on believers. It is meant for believers to take a more light-hearted look at their faith and through humour become closer to God."

[Yeah, but, "Only the insane take themselves quite seriously." That kind has no sense of Ha-Ha. As I said in my comment to the Gandhi affair, this work in no way invalidates the positive aspects of its target; no matter how much it pokes fun at that target or how the target is depicted. --MN]
(see 22 Jan 2005; 13 Apr 2005)

By John Steinbeck, Spencer Johnson, Martin Luther King Jr., et al. See the Cuban Independent Librarians Affair.

An issue of The Dandy, a comic book about a character called Desperate Dan, was banned from airport-shop shelves at Birmingham International Airport because it came with a toy resembling a firearm. The toy actually had a fist that pops out to "punch" a person; like those used by Toons, I imagine. The toy punch-gun is said to be made of bright yellow and blue plastic. Security forces were concerned that the toy could be used to hijack an aircraft.

A spokesman for the publisher commented, "It's obviously a toy and nothing more. It might be mildly irritating if a kid fired it at your head over and over, but it's hardly a weapon of mass destruction. I don't think a terrorist would get very far if he tried to hijack a plane with a free toy from The Dandy. I know they have to be strict about security at airports but this ruling is just ridiculous. It's a hysterical over-reaction." Brian Conway, spokesman for the airport reportedly said the the airport was simply following security guidelines established by the Department of Transport.

[Thank God we've got bureaucrats around to protect us all from ourselves, eh? --MN]

By Barry Harvey at The Ottawa Citizen. See the Harry Potter censorship timeline.

By the National Security Agency. This 31 Jan memo was leaked to and subsequently published on this day by the British paper The Observer. By 05 Mar the American press had not carried the story to any appreciable degree. On 06 Mar, Norman Solomon published an op/ed piece at Alternet.org questioning this silence. In the article, he relates an interchange between himself and deputy foreign editor Alison Smale of The New York Times; which newspaper Solomon described as, "America's supposed paper of record", and quoted another description: "the single most influential media outlet in the United States".

Solomon wrote of Ms. Smale's reply:

"Well, it's not that we haven't been interested," New York Times deputy foreign editor Alison Smale said on the evening of March 5, nearly 96 hours after the Observer broke the story. "We could get no confirmation or comment" on the memo from U.S. officials.

The Times opted not to relay the Observer's account, Smale told me. "We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." She added: "We are still definitely looking into it. It's not that we're not."

[Oh, this is rich. "We would normally expect to do our own intelligence reporting." So under what circumstances would The New York Times bypass its own reporting? The inclusion of the phrase "we would normally expect" certainly creates the impression that there is some leeway in deciding to carry stories broken by other papers. No, it's much easier to bypass embarrassment over a branch of your goverment getting caught with its hand in the cookie jar by pretending it never happened at all. And if you can legitimately hide behind the excuse that none of the officials of that government will comment on this embarrassment, so much the better. Well, that gives The New York Times an excuse, but what about the rest of the American media? I don't for one nanosecond believe that every U.S. news outlet is operating from such hand-handed principles of ethics, given that such high-handedness is hardly the consistent pattern of behaviour. Furthermore, on 04 Mar, The Washington Post ran an article -- a mere 514 words long -- on the story which was buried in the back pages, and the The L.A. Times downplayed the incident by describing it as part of long-standing espionage at the U.N. All told, this incident strikes me very much as a tacit conspiracy of silence. --MN]

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

By Jeff Jones, director of Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (OCBC). Mr. Jones was slated to begin a three month sentence on this day for having passed out pro-Medical Marijuana leaflets in front of a Sacramento federal courthouse, and apparently: specifically to prospective jurors who were gathering for the trial of Brian Epis. He was tried on a misdemeanor charge of influencing a juror with writing. However, the trial has raised certain legal issues concerning its legality. Mr. Jones is saying that he is the victim of selective prosecution. Another factor is that Jones's attorney was not permitted to speak about the issue of medical marijuana nor even to use that specific phrase, which, Jones alleges, kept his attorney from making proper arguments.

[Lots of worms wriggling loose from this one. Check out the article at Alternet.org by Ann Harrison. --MN]

By Stephen and Roger Downs. This father and son pair had bought tee-shirts, one apiece, with both these slogans printed on them, and were wearing them in the shopping mall situated in Albany, New York. Mall security told them to remove the shirts, and when they refused, they were ordered to leave the premises; which premises are private property despite being open to the public. When the Downs refused to leave the mall, security called in the police. The police issued the ultimatum that the Downs must take off the shirts or leave the mall. Roger, age 31, took off his shirt, but Stephen, age 61 and a lawyer with a state commission that looks into the conduct of judges, refused. He was subsequently arrested and charged with trespassing. He has pleaded not guilty and the New York Civil Liberties Union has offered its services in contesting the charges. A report on this incident was filed at Ananova.com on 05 Mar.
(see 05 Mar 2003; 31 May 2004)

By Park Road Junior Infant and Nursery in Batley, West Yorkshire, England. The Three Little Pigs, Babe, and all other tales about pigs have been banned from reading by children under the age of seven. Because the school officials erroneously assumed that Muslim students might be offended. Inayat Bunglawala, of the Muslim Council of Britain, said in an interview, "This is bizarre. There is nothing to stop children reading about pigs. The ban is simply on the consumption of pork and pig products." This incident came to light when a parent noticed that words relating to pigs had been removed from a work sheet. Sixty percent of the students at the nursery are Muslims.

[Sixty percent, and yet the officious dolts still couldn't be bothered to consult with Islamic priests and learn anything about the faith and creeds of their students. I've got sixpence, a jolly jolly sixpence, that says they can't explain how prohibiting the christian students from reading about pigs will respect Islam. --MN]

By students at Toms River High School North, New Jersey. An edition of the paper was seized in mid-February by school officials who deemed the content offensive and false. At fault was an editorial criticizing the school's policy that members of student groups sign a pledge to stay alcohol-free. Editor in chief Jeremy Whiteman wrote that most students who take the pledge ignore it. He is quoted as having said, "I knew the administration wouldn't like [the article], but I didn't think they would stop me from writing it." Strictly speaking, the February/March issue, due to be released on 17 Feb, simply wasn't allowed to be distributed. Principal John Coleman offered the rationale that he was concerned that groups of students might be offended by the information in the piece, and that other comments might have been prejudicial. Whiteman replied his piece was very obviously an editorial.

[There's more to this story about Coleman's policy of prior restraint in the article at Student Press Law Center. --MN]

By Victor and Cathy Moseley. This couple opened a small sex-aid shop in Elizabethtown, Kentucky, in time for Valentine's Day in 1998. The store was first named Victor's Secret. When Victoria's Secret Catalogue Inc. found out about it they sued for trademark infringement, alleging that the similarity in name diluted brand name recognition in the minds of customers. A unanimous Supreme Court ruled otherwise. This case is important because it tested The Federal Trademark Dilution Act. The court decided that just having a sound-alike name was insufficient to bruise the larger store's image and that U.S. federal trademark laws require proof of actual harm; which Victoria's Secret did not provide. Justice John Paul Stevens in writing the opinion said in part that customers thinking of the big company when seeing a similar name is not enough to create a trademark violation. He is quoted as writing, "Such mental association will not necessarily reduce the capacity of the famous mark to identify the goods of its owner."

During the course of the lawsuit the name of the store was changed to Victor's Little Secret. That wasn't good enough for the plaintiff and the name was finally changed to Cathy's Little Secret.

[This law was basically enacted by congress to allow megacorporations to sue anybody who uses anything resembling their trademarks. Essentially, this law legalized SLAPPs. Leastways that's my call on it. If you doubt that call, then consider that Victoria's Secret sold $3.6 billion U.S. dollars worth of goods in 2002, and this suit was supported by Intel, Bacardi, John Deere, Benetton and Sotheby's. At first glance this law seems to go well beyond trademark protection. However, the court did not strike it down in its entirety so suits will still be allowed to proceed under this law. --MN]

By Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court has scheduled for this day a hearing on the appeal to a previous ruling that CIPA is unconstitutional. This full-panel ruling by the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals pertains only to the provisions in CIPA dealing with filtering of computers in public libraries.

A reported one hundred protesters demonstrated at the mall where Stephen Downs was arrested demanding to know what the policy of the mall is and that the charges against him be dropped. CBC News Online web site reported that the managers of the mall could not be reached for comment. The article at CBC also identified the mall as being in Guilderland, near Albany.

[Addendum (10 Mar 2003): It was identified as Crossgate Mall in a U.S. network news report broadcast on this day. --MN]

[Addendum (06 Apr 2003): While surfing for news of censorship incidents I found this follow up:

Mall asks that charges be dropped against man who wore peace T-shirt

Crossgates managers request that trespassing complaint be withdrawn after anti-war demonstrators march through Albany, N.Y., mall to protest arrest.

This was filed on 06 Mar --MN]
(see 03 Mar 2003; 31 May 2004)

By Frank Dorrell. This videotape is a compilation of documentaries and speeches by journalists and peace activists; Bill Moyers and Martin Luther King, Jr. being two samples. Thirty copies were seized by Customs Canada for examination to determine if they contain hate speech based on nationality. The shipment had been ordered by Global Outlook magazine, which had received previous shipments without any trouble. Mr. Dorrell, a peace activist based in California, said that he had shipped 1,500 copies to Canada without any Customs interventions. He was quoted as saying, "I don't know why they're doing it now except that maybe now they're feeling the heat from it. People are watching it and waking up."

[Hmmmmm; too soon to say if that is the case or not. Given previous samples of Canada Customs stupidity in seizing political material this is almost certainly just another case of clumsiness and incompetence. It is a case to watch, however. Besides, this is American material coming into Canada, not foreign material entering the U.S. For Canada Customs to seize the material for being critical of the U.S. government suggests collusion. To my mind, that is a case of reading far too much into the situation. Wish I could come up with the money to buy a copy for myself. --MN]

By U.S. Congress. This filtering mandate law was ruled unconstitutional for the second time by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The first ruling against the law had been determined to have been flawed by the Supreme Court and the case was sent back down for further adjudication by the Appeals Court. In that ruling the court had ruled the law was unconstitutional because it allowed legal internet content to be judged by "contemporary community standards". The Supreme Court decided that this was insufficient grounds to find it constitutionally impermissible. This time the 3rd Circuit Court ruled it was "constitutionally infirm" due to violating the first amendment. The court also said that suggested screening methods, such as requiring Web-page viewers to give a credit card number, would unfairly require adults to identify themselves to access constitutionally protected material.

ACLU Associate Legal Director Ann Beeson was quoted as saying, "It's clear that the law would make it a crime to communicate a whole range of information to adults." Ms. Beeson also noted that the speech at issue included:

• sexual advice columns,
• discussion boards on gynecology,
• websites for
  • a bookstore,
  • an art gallery,
  • the Philadelphia Gay News,
  • and other web sites.

By University of Maryland. The ACLU filed a lawsuit on behalf of students at this school, alleging that university policy places unreasonable restrictions on outdoor public speaking and leafleting.

[This is definitely a case of having a Speech Free Zone. According to the report at the ACLU, the school's policy says in part, "Public speaking is limited to the Nyumburu Amphitheatre stage. Public speaking elsewhere on campus is prohibited." and, "distribution of literature is limited to designated sidewalk space outside the Stamp Student Union building. . . . . Distribution of literature elsewhere on campus is prohibited." --MN]

By John A. Wooden. This parody web site came under fire from Vice President Dick Cheney because of a depiction of his wife. A picture of Lynne V. Cheney -- altered to show her with a red clown's nose and a missing tooth -- triggered a letter from V.P. Cheney's counsel, David S. Addington, to Wooden's Chickenhead Productions Inc, warning that her likeness could not be used to make money without her consent, and warning Mr. Wooden to delete both the photos and a "fictitious biographical statement about her."

Mr Wooden responded by posting a disclaimers that V.P. Cheney: "wishes you to be aware ... that some/all of the biographic information contained on this PARODY page about Mrs. Cheney may not actually be true.", and that the site editors were: "confident that any rumors about Mrs. Cheney formerly being a crystal meth pusher are 100 percent likely to be absolutely untrue. Similarly, any stories about her penchant for licking brandy Alexanders off the hirsute belly of her spouse are all lies, lies, lies!"

NYCLU attorney Chris Dunn responded to the office of the Vice President by replying that the material was fully protected by the First Amendment. Mr. Wooden commented, "With everything happening in the world, you'd think the office of the vice president would have something more important to do than sending letters to political satirists."

[The government web site is www.whitehouse.gov. I checked out the Lynne Cheney page in question and laughed in the first two sentences of the "bio". --MN]

By Abdullah El-Faisal, an Islamist preacher. He was found guilty on 24 Feb on three charges each of having solicited the murder of Americans, Indian Hindus, and Jews (in an Islamist context), and of having stirred up racial hatred. On this day, Judge Peter Beaumont sentenced him to a total of nine years in prison with a recommendation he be deported afterwards. However! -- two years of that sentence were levied on the charge that El-Faisal had used insulting words and had distributed audiotapes with those words on them. El-Faisal was tried under the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act, which has a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

[In the U.S., there is the concept of "fighting words" which are not considered protected speech. I suppose the "insulting words" concept is similar, but I have my doubts in light of English civil code concerning defamation. I'll have to look into this. In the meantime, don't believe everything you read without considering the context of the situation. --MN]

By Alice Walker, Maxine Hong Kingston, and some twenty-three other members of CodePink. They were arrested for demonstrating in a closed area in front of the White House. To enter the area, it was necessary for them to cross police lines. A spokesman for CodePink, Gopal Dayaneni, described the situation thusly: "They were in front of the White House, registering their discontent with the war and the war plans and were arrested by Park Police simply for standing in front of the White House and saying 'no' to war."

A few of the twenty-three protesters arrested were:

• Alice Walker,
• Maxine Hong Kingston,
• Pacifica Radio's Amy Goodman,
• Publisher Nina Utne,
• Author Terry Tempest Williams,
• Author Susan Griffin,
• CodePink Co-founder Medea Benjamin,
• Reverend Patricia Ackerman, and
• Musician Rachel Bagby.

Despite the high profiles of these protesters, the story seems to have been passed over by the overwhelming majority of newspapers or news broadcasters. It was most widely reported by independent media outlets.

[See my commentary on this issue. --MN]

By Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. On this day, FIRE celebrated the formal launch of both a series of liberties guidelines books for college and university students and campuses, and a website where the books can be found in digital format. The article announcing the event at FIRE described the program thusly:

In response to great demand from thousands of victims of abuse of power, FIRE implemented its Know Your Rights program to address the urgent need for students and parents to understand the legal and moral status of student rights on our nation's campuses and to understand the means to defend and assert these rights. The Guides will also educate administrators, trustees, and college and university attorneys about their legal obligations both in the private and public university setting.

You can access the web site here:

By Larry A. Carpenter. On this day Mr. Carpenter filed a suit against the City of Tampa, Florida; alleging that he was cited for insubordination, fired, and refused unemployment benefits for refusing to remove the licence plate from his truck which he parked on city property while at work. His superiours had ordered him to remove the plates from the truck, or the truck from city property, in Jan 2002, with his firing happening in Sep 2002. He won his benefits. He is now seeking to have the city develop, implement, and fairly pursue, a written policy concerning confederate flags. Apparently other city workers whose vehicles have political bumper stickers and some with offensive statements are allowed to park on city property. Including one employee who has a large Confederate flag attached to his truck. Mr. Carpenter is a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans and his use of the symbol apparently stems from pride in his familial heritage, not from white supremacism.

By Martha Burk. Ms. Burk had applied for a permit from the city of Augusta, Georgia, to hold a one-day demonstration at the front gate of the Augusta National Golf Club to protest the club's male-only membership policy. Sheriff Ronald Strength had wanted the demonstraters elsewhere, however, citing physical safety concerns. It seems there are a number of motor vehicle accidents each year, some of them involving pedestrians, due to the great number of people who gather for the Master's Tournament.

However, the ACLU, which filed on Ms. Burk's behalf in a federal court, has serious concerns that local ordinance amendments passed in February constitute free speech violations. Not only must protesters apply for a permit to use city property -- i.e.: public property -- twenty days in advance, but under these amendments the Sheriff also has the authority to approve, deny or alter any protest application.

[You've got to understand that Ms. Burk opted to not compromise, choosing instead to sue. Apparently because the safer locale the Sheriff had chosen was away from the gate, although the article I saw did not specify what the distance was. Ms. Burk had planned for 24 protesters to be at the gate, with an additional 200 across the street. As she pointed out in a quoted comment, "The men of Augusta National Golf Club come through the front gate. To influence those folks, that's where we need to be." I would say that this case would hinge on how real those safety concerns are if it weren't for those amendments giving the Sheriff a carte blanche to dictate conditions under which people might legitimately protest. --MN]

[Addendum (12 Apr 2003): On 07 Apr U.S. District Judge Dudley H. Bowen Jr. ruled that the demonstration could reasonably be restricted to a five acre plot approximately a half a mile (800 meters), from the club gate. The two decisions stemming from the case are that the ordinance was constitutional and that the Sheriff had not overstepped his bounds in relegating the demonstrators to that area. On 09 Apr, a three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied an emergency request to allow protesters outside the front gate. --MN]
(see 16 Apr 2004)

By Allison Moore, student. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Jim Gomez in Manila to John Solomon in Washington. Both Associated Press reporters, they were working together on stories about investigating terrorism. The seized package contained an unclassified FBI report from 1995 that had been discussed in open court in two legal cases.

[There is some question in my mind as to whether or not this constitutes censorship -- I don't believe that it does -- but it makes for an excellent opportunity in critical thinking due to the complexity of the situation. A mere glance at the facts is too likely to generate a conspiracy theory. See my commentary on this issue. --MN]

[Addendum (28 Apr 2003): On 26 Apr there was a brief report at the First Amendment Center that the FBI was conducting an internal disciplinary inquiry into this incident. --MN]

[Addendum (10 May 2003): On this day the FBI returned the package to Associated Press. It said that it would develop guidelines to address issues concerning news material, and that an internal inquiry was in progress but it had not yet arrived at any conclusions. --MN]
(see 05 Jun 2003)

By Big Brother. On 27 Mar, Amy Goodman interviewed hip hop artist Michael Franti on Democracy Now! A rush transcript of that interview was posted to Alternet.org. In the transcript, Franti states that the mother of a member of his band, Spearhead, received a visit from two plainclothes, military investigators who questioned her about her son's involvement in the band, and her other child who is serving in the Persian Gulf at the time of this writing. From Mr. Franti's account, the interview exactly matched a Stalinist purge. The investigators wanted to know about the member being a part of the "resistance", and not only had the band member's travel records, but copies of his banking records as well, and they confiscated the service member's music collection.

A judge ruled that a Weston High School may not suspend the seven students who passed out candy canes with bible text attached. The ruling is that First Amendment rights were violated through a requirement they ask permission to distribute printed material on school grounds.

By Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. And censored by Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Judge Scalia had banned broadcast media from The City Club which is awarding him a Citadel of Free Speech Award. The Club usually tapes speakers for later broadcast, but a media blackout was one condition for acceptance of the award imposed by the judge. In the article I read, James Foster, the club's executive director, was quoted as saying that Scalia had been selected because he, "consistently, across the board, had opinions or led the charge in support of free speech." Judge Scalia himself was quoted from a speech (subject to the same restrictions) he gave at John Carrol University on 17 Mar 2003, "The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires." Terry Murphy, vice president and executive producer at C-SPAN, was quoted from a letter he had written to the Club the week before, [The ban] "begs disbelief and seems to be in conflict with the award itself. How free is speech if there are limits to its distribution?"

[Yeah, that's what I'd like to know. Wish I could sit down with Scalia for a while and discuss his rationales. Should make for an interesting discussion. For my money, when people start talking about censorship in war time what they really mean is selection of sensitive material, the release of which would be inappropriate to the milieu. Information about troop movements being the most commonly mentioned bug-bear. I hear a number of people talking about censoring what their children can read and I just want to yell, "It's selection, you moron!" --MN]
(see 16 Sep 2004)

By students at Beaufort High School and Battery Creek High School. A recent controversy was sparked when a number of Beaufort students copped suspensions for wearing the shirts, so Battery Creek students wore tee shirts with the emblem on them in sympathy -- and that reportedly resulted in dozens of suspensions. On this day students held a Confederate Flag tee shirt rally at Beaufort High School to exercise their First Amendment rights.

School officials say the shirts are inappropriate and offensive and violate handbook rules. The students say they have been wearing the shirts for some time and don't know why it is they have become an issue.
(See 02 Jan 2003.)

By Dixie Chick Natalie Maines See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By misohomonists. The 10th Ohio District Court of Appeals overturned a lower court ruling that a flag-burning was protected from fire safety codes by the Constitution. In 2001, Charles Spingola, 47, and Thomas Meyer, 49, had been charged with open burning for having torched a gay-pride flag during a parade. The non-permit burning allegedly constitutes a first-degree misdemeanor punishable by up to six months in jail. Franklin County Environmental Judge Richard Pfeiffer had ruled that the flag-burning was protected speech. Appeals court Judge William Harsha wrote in the unanimous decision, open burning "is unquestionably within the city's constitutional power." [...] "Requiring that one obtain a permit before engaging in such conduct places only a minor restriction on free expression." Legal counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio Ray Vasvari reportedly said that as long as the fire code takes no position on the message being conveyed and spells out the reasons a permit can be approved or denied, then it is constitutional. Attorney for the defense Tom Condit said he is certain to appeal to the Ohio Supreme Court.

By Daniel J. Friedman. The Diamondback at the University of Maryland printed a cartoon showed a woman in front of a bulldozer. It was based on the killing of Rachel Corrie, 23, a student at Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, who was killed on March 16 while trying to stop an Israeli army unit from razing a private dwelling. In the cartoon, Mr. Friedman included a pseudo-dictionary definition: Stupidity: Sitting in front of a bulldozer to protect a gang of terrorists.

The cartoon brought howls of outrage from students with more than sixty of them protesting; some of whom picketed the newspaper. They also demanded an apology. The paper has also apparently received hundreds of angry phone calls and e-mails. As of this date, the editors of the paper were standing fast and refusing to apologise. In an editorial, editor-in-chief Jay Parsons wrote, "Though the cartoon represents a radical view, The Diamondback's editorial board believes wholeheartedly in freedom of speech. We would be hypocritical to revoke any speech on the grounds of radicalism." The journalism school's dean, Thomas Kunkel, in commenting on whether or not the decision to run the cartoon was a good one said, "I think everyone needs to understand, it doesn't mean that an organization has an obligation to publish anything." Chris Callahan, the journalism school's associate dean, was quoted as saying, "It was cruel, hurtful, racist and not something I would want in my publication. But does The Diamondback have the right? Yes. One hundred percent, yes."

[I agree wholeheartedly. Big surprise, wot? To my mind, the question that arises is not: why should we print this cartoon, but: why shouldn't we print it? If the paper runs Friedman's cartoons as a regular feature then there is no good editorial reason to reject the cartoon. If it was submitted over the transom as we say in the writing biz, then it could have been rejected for editorial considerations; lack of space, say. I think the key point in this incident, however, and which point has escaped everyone's attention, is that political cartoons reflect only the opinions of the cartoonist; not necessarily that of the newspaper. At any rate, they derive from the prejudices and beliefs of the cartoonist. And, no, a newspaper does not have to print anything, and can establish an editorial direction for the paper to take, such as pro-war or anti-war, but it also can't just reject a message because the content is not in keeping with that editorial direction. --MN]

By Donal Brown. His article at WireTap Magazine exams a series of bannings of anti- and pro-war tee-shirts in high schools and elsewhere, and the ramifications of the movement.

[A very fine piece of work in my not so humble opinion. --MN]

By Boulder Valley School District. It settled out of court in the face of a lawsuit in federal court against a decision to disallow a bible club at Monarch High School. The district settled for 12,000 U.S. dollars for attorney fees and changed its policy to allow students to form religious groups. The American Center for Law and Justice had alleged the district was violating the students' rights to free speech with a district policy that limited school clubs to those related directly to the curriculum, such as the French or science club. The lawsuit argued that Boulder Valley schools had allowed other clubs with only oblique links to the curriculum, such as a gay/straight alliance and Amnesty International. The suit was brought on behalf of Monarch senior Ashley Thiele and freshman Amy Duvall. The district's new policy allows any clubs so long as they are not considered illegal or disruptive.

By independent media. In a classic example of hypocrisy, this independent media web site was shut down for violating Geneva Convention provisions against parading or exhibiting prisoners of war, even though the corporate media got away clean with perptrating the same offense. The difference, of course, is that the corporate press violations featured prisoners being held by American forces, while the Yellowtimes.Org infraction featured Americans in the hands of Iraqi captors. Firas Al-Atraqchi wrote in part:

Today, Iraqi TV and Al-Jazeera, followed by Spanish National TV, Portugal's networks, and most European TV stations, aired footage of U.S. Marine fatalities in the southern town of Nasiriyah. A handful of terrified U.S. POWs were also shown. [...]

There was public outrage in the U.S., citing the Geneva Convention on treatment of Prisoners of War, which forbids the broadcast of any footage or graphic depiction of POWs. True, the Geneva Convention does indeed include that provision.

However, the outrage follows on the heels of extensive, and I repeat, extensive footage of Iraqi POWs, sometimes with cameras panning in for extreme close-ups of blank-staring Iraqi soldiers, dishevelled and fatigued as they were.

By the U.S. government. And suppressed by the U.S. government. See the entry in Appendix G.

By FAIR. They released a media analysis of some very bad journalistic practices by reporters covering the invasion of Iraq and the news outlets disseminating those reports.

[If you don't like FAIR because you find that it is too wrong-wing, try this hard copy book instead:

The Press Effect: Politicians, Journalists, and
the Stories That Shape the Political World
Kathleen Hall Jamieson & Paul Waldman -2003
ISBN 0-19-515277-8
Dewey # 071.3 J323P --MN]

By Student Press Law Center and the ACLU, respectively. The SPLC published an article about actions by the San Franscisco police on 20 Mar while dealing with an anti-war protest. Specifically focusing on the refusal of the police to respect press credentials because the reporter was only a journalism student rather than a member of the mainstream press. Meanwhile, the ACLU of Northern California sent a letter to the City of San Francisco acting chief of police; and a copy was posted to the ACLU web site. The ACLU complaint focuses on careless police work and their overbroad sweeps in which many bystanders and professional observers are taken up in mass arrests of protesters.

[The student was arrested because, of course, he was not a "real" journalist. --MN]

By Professor Dennis Dailey. This multiple award-winning teacher at University of Kansas has piqued the ire of the Kansas State Senate; which body voted 24-13 on this day to cut school funding by three million dollars to any institution that does not ban "obscene" material. This amendment to the state budget proposal specifically targets Professor Dailey's class; a popular class which he has been teaching for twenty years. He declined to comment on the measure, but did say of the material, "These are educational films. They are made by educational organizations and used as part of the educational process." University spokesman Todd Cohen said the university agrees with that assessment. Professor Dailey's class has been consistently enjoying the maximum enrollment of 500 students. Peg McFadden, age 45, a social work major and student in the class, said she had initially been concerned. "I was fearful and didn't want to view pornography. But because he prepares you with a fine lecture before you view it, you're really prepared." Aside from teaching this class, Professor Dailey is also leading a weekly seminar for the semester, for the Ecumenical Christian Ministries and other campus religious groups.

Republican state Senator Susan Wagle offered this amendment after she learned about the class from a student. She told colleagues that during the class Dailey showed pictures of female genitalia at age 5 and 10, gave a homework assignment to female students to explore their own genitals, and implied that a woman going to the restroom during class was going so she could masturbate. Ms. Wagle is quoted as having said, "I think what is going on in this undergraduate class is obscene, and I want to make this type of activity not funded by the taxpayer."

[I've got five bucks that says she couldn't find her own clitoris with both hands and a map.

The article I saw does not say whether the student had lodged a complaint or not, and it intimates that the pictures were shown in an educational context. In the portion of the article describing the material and the Professor's comportment, there is the prhase, "She told colleagues that during the class", which gives me the impression that she sat in on one lecture and saw this stuff for herself. However, she might only have been repeating what she heard from the student. In either event, for this measure to be in anywise legal, she would have to prove before a court of law that any material in question was obscene beforehand, and it could apply only to that material. To simply ban sexuality material from schools under the rubrick "obscene" would necessarily cast a too-wide a net. --MN]
(see 21 Apr 2003; 26 Dec 2003)

By United States Congress. An amendment to the Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2003 (H.R. 1104) passed by a 406-15 vote. Sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith (R.-Tex.), it appears to be an effort to circumvent the Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. the Free Speech Coalition striking down CPPA. In this case, the amendment would criminalize any digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that depicts child pornography, even though such images might have been created from scratch using software and did not involve a child at all.

[Incipient fascist Lamar Smith is quoted as having commented, "The Internet has proved a useful tool for pedophiles as they distribute child pornography, engage in sexually explicit conversations with children, and hunt for victims in chat rooms. These predators will be a mere click away from a lengthy prison sentence if my amendment becomes law." The U.S. Post office and playgrounds have also proven to be useful tools to child molesters in the dissemination of kiddie porn and the hunt for victims respectively, but nobody is doing anything about those. Smith also misused the term pedophile, misrepresenting the condition by casting it in the Politically Correct light. See my commentary for more on that particular issue and an examination of an associated action in the U.S. Senate from February. --MN]
(See 08 Oct 2002; 04 Apr 2002; 26 Aug 2003)

By former firefighters Jonathan Walters and Robert Steiner, and former police officer Joseph Locurto. U.S. District Judge John E. Sprizzo advised a city lawyer that then-Mayor Giuliani's belief that the float would cause racial unrest was insufficient cause to proclaim the men would be fired. What was necessary was actual evidence that unrest was developing as a result of the float. Judge Sprizzo did not immediately render his decision, however. He announced that he would release his opinion in sixty to ninety days. He did comment from the bench, "You've got to be very careful in First Amendment cases to maintain the barriers, because it's so easy to slip into a kind of political correctness that sooner or later will be the end of the First Amendment."
(see 24 Dec 2001; 28 Feb 2002; 05 Oct 2002; 08 Jan 2003; 27 Apr 2006)

By Tim Pawlenty. This Minnesota State governor had previously distinguished himself as a censorship advocate by blindly attacking Judith Levine's Harmful To Minors. Now he wants to make protesters pay for their own processing when arrested during free speech exercises. Because of the contentiousness of the invasion of Iraq, protesters have been becoming increasingly confrontational and engaging in more acts of civil disobedience. Most cases are dismissed without any charges being laid at all. Governor Pawlenty believes that the release of protesters and dismissal of charges should be contingent on the protesters making restitution to law enforcement for the cost of the arrest, processing, and the hearing. This fee would be "nominal"; perhaps 200 dollars.

Gubernatorial spokeswoman Leslie Kupchella said, "He thinks that is perfectly reasonable. The governor recognizes the rights of people to protest lawfully and have their own opinions. But when they go beyond that and break the law, they should pay the cost."

[Yeah, except there is already a method by which such costs can recouped. You lay charges against the protesters and fine them. My call on this one is that protesters would essentially be allowed to plead not guilty and have to pay a fine anyway. Karen Redleaf, 39, a former stock analyst, and a St. Paul war protester who was arrested twice this week said the proposal is, "really shocking and distressing." [...] "We do this to get news coverage for our views. They're not charging rapists for the costs of arresting and prosecuting them. We're not hurting anyone. We're just trying to make statements that need to be made." Retired Hennepin County District Judge J. Bruce Hartigan said of the plan, "Lots of luck. It's never going to stand the test of appeal. ... You're talking about the delicate balance between the First Amendment and governmental power. Chances are (such a fine) would be looked at as an improper infringement on the right to free speech and the right to assemble." He also said the plan could backfire. "Let's say I'm a protester. I get together with a bunch of protesters and we go out and get arrested. We get in front of a judge. The judge orders restitution. We say no. We don't pay it. We'll all just go to jail and spend more of the governor's money."

Civil disobedience is not, strictly speaking, free speech, by the way. Civil disobedience hinges on violating some aspect of the law; by perpetrating a misdemeanor in the U.S. or by violating the civil code in Canada. Most commonly by trespassing or blocking access to public buildings: March 24, twenty-eight protesters arrested for refusing to leave U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman's St. Paul office; March 25, at least sixty-seven were arrested for blocking entrances to the federal courthouse in downtown Minneapolis. At any rate, it seems to me that pleading civil disobedience is in effect pleading guilty. At least it does so far today. --MN]
(see 04 Apr 2002; 18 Apr 2002)

On 22 Mar, Ms. Charmaine Bee was marching in an anti-war protest. Along the route she witnessed a group of police officers dealing with a protester. Ms. Bee wrote up this aspect of the incident with a heavy negative affective connotation but few facts. However, Ms. Bee then goes on to detail how she was struck twice without provocation by a baton-wielding police officer, and the first time while she was turned away from the officer in question so that she was hit without warning on the back of the head.

By Asheville, North Carolina. Both pro- and anti-Iraq War demonstrators had been gathering at Vance Monument, and usually at the same time. As a public security measure, Police Chief Will Annarino cordonned off the park and asked the groups to meet at different locations separated from each other by four blocks. Some peace activists are calling the move suppression, but other activists and lawyers say the move appears very much to be constitutional. The facts of the case are as follows:

• Both groups are shut out of the park,
• extant permits for gatherings at the park will be honored,
• alternative locations were suggested to each group,
• neither group is being restricted to any particular location,
• Chief Annarino was concerned for the safety of drivers and people crossing the street between the two mutually antagonistic groups,
• officials were worried about the possibility of violent confrontations between the two groups.

[Off hand I'd say Chief Annarino's concerns are fairly low-key, although the likelyhood of confrontation is almost certainly a real threat. People aren't stupid and if they see a riot shaping up around them they can pretty much be trusted to duck and cover. Of course there is a good chance of a bystander being hit by a rock or bottle thrown in a moment of anger. I tend to take his side in this incident because the measures were applied even-handedly and alternative sites were offered. --MN]

By The Rolling Stones. Brown Sugar, Honky Tonk Woman, Beast of Burden, and Let's Spend the Night Together were disallowed from the 01 Apr and 04 Apr gigs in Shanghai and Beijing, respectively. This is the Stones's first ever tour in China. Wang Long, from Time New Century Entertainment offered the explanation, "These songs do not form part of the list which was submitted for authorization to the authorities. The government has its reasons to prohibit these songs, and Rolling Stones have more than 130 titles which are very good and very well known. It was thus not necessary to put them on the list." No specific reason was given the cuts, however. The same four titles were cut from the Forty Licks compilation album which is available in Chinese shops. Pirate versions of that CD have the tracks still on them.

By Peter Arnett. Mr. Arnett has once again been targetted for reporting honestly on war conditions in Bahgdad. Mr. Arnett has won a Pulitzer Prize for his reporting on The Viet Nam War, and in 1991, the adminstration of Bush Pere suggested that he had become a purveyor of propaganda because of his reporting about the living conditions in Bahgdad (reportedly having been called a traitor on the floor of congress). More specifically, he was denounced for reporting about the bombing of a baby milk factory that U.S. intelligence had said was a biological weapons plant. Arnett stood by his report that the only purpose of the factory was to produce baby formula. In 1998, while working for CNN, he was the on-air reporter during a story alleging that the U.S. had used Sarin gas on a village in Laos in 1970 because it harbored American defectors. Two other employees were fired outright and the network retracted the story. Arnett finally left CNN. Recently, Mr. Arnett has been working for MSNBC's National Geographic Explorer, and he was in Bahgdad when most other journalists were leaving the city in anticipation of the bombing. As a result, NBC began broadcasting his reports.

On this day, the Washington Post reported that Arnett had answered a question by an Iraqi interviewer about what immediate direction the war was likely to take. He replied that the U.S. was reappraising the battlefield and would have to delay the war, possibly for as long as a week, "and rewriting the war plan. The first war plan has failed because of Iraqi resistance. Now they are trying to write another war plan." That there is a good deal of Iraqi resistance (as of this writing), is common knowledge, and that the U.S. would have to rewrite their war plan had already been stated in the international media. Neither of these of these facts seemed to be of any import, however. What might have really torgued peoples' tweeters is that Arnett also said things like, "Our reports about civilian casualties here, about the resistance of the Iraqi forces, are going back to the United States. It helps those who oppose the war when you challenge the policy to develop their arguments."

NBC News spokeswoman Allison Gollust described the interview this way: "His impromptu interview with Iraqi TV was done as a professional courtesy and was similar to other interviews he has done with media outlets from around the world. His remarks were analytical in nature and were not intended to be anything more. His outstanding reporting on the war speaks for itself." So NBC was standing behind Mr. Arnett as it should have.

But only for overnight and then the shit hit the fan. In an article printed at Alternet.org, Nina Burleigh detailed the chain of events that led up to an attack of hysterical censorship against Arnett, and how NBC and National Geographic Explorer caved in to political pressure and dropped Arnett in something like twenty-four hours.

2003, March 31: Harry Potter

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

By Kari Lydersen. In her article she explains the beginnings of modern war-time propaganda and shows how it ties in to the current atmosphere of repression and misinformation. Including how the U.S. government is attempting to contol Al Jazeera.

By Utah. Established in 2000, this office is now being abolished, effective this day, due to budget cuts. The announcement was made on 13 Jan 2003. Paula Houston, who took the job, was treated to scorn and derision by those who feared she would lower the standard for prosecuting pornography. [Yes, me too. --MN] Ms. Houston is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and this group asks members to not watch R-rated movies. Others criticized the Republican-dominated Legislature for wasting money. At the time, the American Civil Liberties Union expressed concerns, but now admits that Ms. Houston helped to clarify laws regarding indecency. Commented Dani Eyer, the executive director of the ACLU's Utah affiliate, "One of the things she accomplished was getting a better definition of what lewdness is. She made an exemption for public displays of nudity that had serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for those under 18."

[Damn! She did it right. What's a poor cynic to do in these circumtances?

You know, in light of Ms. Houston's actions, the abolishment of her position is likely to prove to be a blow against free speech and freedom of information in Utah. I have no doubt that prissy, anal-retentive prudes are already doing everything they can to tear down her protections. On the other hand, there are fifteen pornography prosecutions making their way through the legal system due to her office. I don't know anything about those, however, so I can't weigh any potential benefits against any potential harms. --MN]
(see 15 Oct 2001; 18 Jan 2002; Also see:
a profile of the office and duties, 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, 12 Mar 2001 by CBS News;
the report about closing the office, 15 Jan 2003 Salt Lake Tribune)

By R.J. Reynolds and Lorillard. These tobacco giants filed a suit in federal court on this day alleging that anti-smoking advertising is highly prejudicial and ensures they wouldn't get an unbiased jury in lawsuits against them. They also contend that the ads violate the First Amendment rights of the companies by making them fund speech with which they do not agree. The ads are funded by an excise tax of twenty-five cents on each pack of cigarettes. This tax was levied on the companies through Proposition 99. That was approved by voters in 1988.

[California Governor Gray Davis commented on 03 Apr that the state will not cut back its aggressive media campaign. He is quoted as saying, "If big tobacco wants to fight, I say bring it on. They spend infinitely more than we do to get their message out. I don't think anyone should feel too sorry for them." Yes, well, it's not about bullying them because they can spend so much more to get out their message. It's about doing what is right even if you don't like their product or comportment.

This case is very similar to the lawsuit by pig farmers who must fund government programs which they do not support, and which funding measure a court recently ruled did violate the free speech rights of the farmers. My guess is that this one stems directly from that ruling. --MN]

By Republican Senator John Minnis, Chairman, state senate judiciary committee. Ostentibly an anti-terrorism bill it would actually allow for the jailing of street-blocking protesters for 25 years to life. The bill identifies as a terrorist any person who, "plans or participates in an act that is intended, by at least one of its participants, to disrupt" business, transportation, schools, government, or free assembly.

[Now, isn't that the most twisted of ironies. A law that will itself violate the right to free assembly under the concept of protecting free assembly. I've seen this kind of doublethink elsewhere in reality and it never fails to amuse me. Although intellectually I know one should never laugh at the mentally ill or hold them up to ridicule.

In way of comment on this bloody-handed conspiracy to impose totalitarianism I'm going to quote the keypal who alerted me to this neo-fascism.

I'm going to rant here... and I don't care [if] I'm foaming at the mouth

Ok, the thing will never get passed -- I believe that. If it did the Supreme Court would quickly thrust a stake in its heart -- even given the current court's ideology. AND I firmly agree protestors who violate public safety/access/health laws (or even common sense) should be given a swift kick to the rear. (for hurting the cause if nothing else) BUT... *this* is filth! It's crass, gross attempts to further restrict the right to free-speech which has come under such attack over the whole terrorism/Iraq question. *Terrorism* charges for blocking a street or a business!? Is EVERYONE in this damned country losing their capacity for rational thought!?!?!?!

The ppl who put this thing forward should be lined up and beaten with baseball bats. Bastards. They can make all the damned laws they want to keep businesses and streets etc clear and I'll support that, but to call those who do it terrorists is flat out bullshit, and designed to do nothing but prohibit the right to protest. But completely aside from Oregon laws -- FEDERAL law has clearly stated what form of protest is allowed, and where -- and blocking streets, businesses, emergency services etc isn't allowed! >insert extreme invective here< (*and* it's punished! Why else are they arrested!? EVEN IN OREGON!)

How ironic is it that the land of freedom of thought and speech (and so much else) is actively discouraging such while the rest of the world (which we have long looked down upon for not being as "enlightened" as we are) is acting out the very freedoms increasingly under fire here? Bastards... bastards!
--Kestrel T'Rael, 04 Apr 2003

Hot, damn! -- I do so enjoy a good rant. --MN]

Mr. Hughes was fired from his twenty-year position as disc jockey at Eastern Michigan University's public radio station; apparently because of an anti-controversial opinion policy at the station. Mr. Hughes supports the invasion of Iraq and said so over the air, but he seems to have stepped well beyond the bounds of reason when he refused to air four consecutive broadcasts of National Public Radio news segments. He was subsequently fired from WEMU-FM station by manager Art Timko, who commented on 03 Apr, "We have a policy that our announcers don't express opinions on matters of a controversial nature." Mr. Hughes's rationale for not broadcasting the news was that NPR has an anti-war bias.

[Personally, I don't think Hughes has any kick coming. If you want to enact a system of censorship then you can't whine about it when you get crushed under the juggernaut. Timko certainly did blow the mission, however, and the firing on the grounds stated does very clearly constitute censorship. Now, if Timko had fired Hughes because Hughes had violated the rights of the listeners to receive information -- that I could live with. --MN]

By Blake Carver. Webmaster of the LISNews web site, Blake posted an e-mail that had been forwarded to him by an anonymous donor about how FBI agents had simply strolled into a public library to "update" a document and removed all the material in the document; leaving behind a single page within an otherwise empty cover. What is most telling is that the e-mail documents the arrogance of the official in charge of the Homeland Security office responsible for the action. You can see my mirror copy of the story, or see the original at LISNews.com.

By Deminski & Doyle and WKRK-FM, Detroit. The Federal Communications Commission decided on a 4 - 1 vote to fine the station $27,500 for a show where nine listeners called in and described sexual positions in explicit detail. Some of the callers (described as several in the source article), also made jokes about violence against women. The show aired during the afternoon of 09 Jan 2002. One of the hosts apparently commented at the start of the segment, "I was saying no children are to be listening to this next segment or so and ladies you probably don't wanna hear this ... either 'cause this is really foul." However, the show was outside the 2200 to 0600 safe harbor for such material.

The telling point about this case, however, is the dissenting vote. It was cast by Commissioner Michael Copps, a Democrat, Bush-appointee to the FCC since 2001. In the style of an inquisitor, he voted against the fine because he believed that it wasn't punishment enough. He wanted the station's broadcast license revoked. The Commission said it could revoke the licenses for Infinity Network or WKRK-FM in particular if there are further violations. Infinity, which owns 185 stations, six of which are in Detroit, has been a frequent target of the FCC.

[I have to say that I have my doubts about using that phrase, "In the style of an inquisitor", in the article. It creates a negative affective connotation. However, by reading this book:

Highroad to the Stake: A Tale of Witchcraft
Michael Kunze -1982
trans: William E Yuill -1987
ISBN 0-226-46211-0
Dewey # 133.4 K96Y

. . . you can check for yourself whether or not Copps conforms to the type. --MN]

By FAIR. This group posted an e-mail to subscribers about six diverse acts or movements of censorship. Most of them by the Corporate Media.

[A commercial press is not a free press. It's a business, and its first purpose is to protect its profit margin. I'm going to have to write up an essay on the topic some time. --MN]

By unmarried couples. The state senate of North Dakota voted 26 - 21 to keep a 113 year old law on the books that has rarely been enforced. This anti-cohabitation law says a man and woman are forbidden to live together "openly and notoriously" as though they were married. The offense is listed as a sex crime along with rape and incest and carries a maximum penalty of thirty days in jail or a hefty fine (600 pounds sterling at the exchange rate for this day, but that was a small fortune back in 1890). Republican Senator John Andrist was quoted as saying, "It stands as a reminder that there is right and there is wrong. Just because something can't be enforced, I don't think it necessarily means that we should feel compelled to take a position to take it off the books." Democrat Senator Linda Christenson commented on the law, "This is such an intrusion into the privacy of people's relationships and living agreements, that the only way to (prove a crime) is to grossly cross over the boundaries of privacy."

North Dakota census data indicates 11,000 heterosexual couples are in violation of this law, but homosexual couples are perfectly within the pale as the law does not mention homosexuality at all.

[Sic transit gloria dogmatism. It's a bad law that is unenforceable under civil rights laws but we have to keep it on the books anyway because I think badly of unmarried people living in sin. Uh-huh. Right.

I'm not sure of the date on that, by the way. The story was marked as filed at 0728 04 Apr, but I believe that was GMT as it was posted to a British news site. Allowing for time zones AP probably filed it around midnight, which means the vote was on 03 Apr. --MN]

By Pennsylvania attorney general Mike Fisher. The Center for Democracy and Technology is challenging a Pennsylvania law forcing the filtering of pornographic web sites, under which it says hundreds of legitmate sites are being blocked. The Center asked for a comprehensive list of the sites being blocked so it could prove its point, but AG Fisher has refused to provide such a list on the grounds that disseminating the list would itself be an act of distributing pornograp hy. The blocking of the mainstream sites derives from they're sharing the same electronic address as the porn sites.

[Picture your computer. Picture a block of computer (virtual or RAM) memory as a purple cube within that. Picture a green cube off to one side. The green cube is the data storage device or hard drive. Your computer reads information off the hard drive and copies it into memory. On a server, vast amounts of information can be stored within certain blocks of the Random Access Memory. Expand the picture of the purple cube into a high-rise condominium. The building is given a single street address just as internet domain is given a single address, but the high-rise is further broken down into family-sized, individual units. Think of each unit in the condo as being a separate web site in that domain. Now imagine that because one of the units contains a homosexual couple (just as a for instance), the entire building is considered to be contaminated and the whole thing is quarantined. That's what's happening with this law. Furthermore, it is Fisher's contention that because of the contamination by that one unit, it is forbidden to speak about all the other units which are not contaminated except by misapprehension of association.

Of especial note is the intellectually naive mindset that the name of a web site which carries pornography itself constitutes pornography. As Fisher put it, "We will not aid and abet child pornographers by publicizing their illegal Web sites. This is not a First Amendment issue. This is child pornography, a heinous and destructive crime." The kicker is that the case is not about the porn sites so much as it is about the non-porn sites. To get a better picture of this situation, imagine a list of magazine titles: Time, Mad, The New England Journal of Medicine, Playboy, and Penthouse. Because of the inclusion of Playboy and Penthouse, not only is the list pornography, but so are the mainstream titles because they are on the list. --MN]
(see 13 July 2004)

Julio Antonio Valdés was one of at least fourteen volunteer librarians who have been sentenced to long prison terms for taking part in Cuba's innovative free library movement. See the Cuban Independent Librarians Affair.

By superpatriots. The problem is that these soi disant patriots have taken it upon themselves to determine what is "un-American" and what is acceptable. Their targets are Hollywood celebrities who do not toe the party line to blindly support the invasion of Iraq. Ken Paulson published a fine analysis of the situation at the First Amendment Center site.

To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. --Theodore Roosevelt, 26th US President (1858-1919)

2003, April 07: Whistleblowing about wholesale propaganda

By Robert Fisk and John Pilger, respectively. The commentary by Mr. Fisk is an excellent analysis of the intertwining of media reporting and government propaganda. The commentary by Mr. Pilger is more of an examination of how this current fog of war derives largely from the zeitgeist of the times.

COINTELPRO refers to a series of patently illegal infiltrations, surveillances, and wiretappings against groups and leaders of the civil rights movement in the 1960's. It finally resulted in a crack down on law enforcement agencies and the implementation of oversight programs. The story on this recrudescence can be found at the First Amendment Center.

[Once again "well intentioned" but clumsy and only semi-competent law enforcement agencies that operate out of fear instead of confidence are "protecting" liberties by stripping them from We The People. --MN]

By Tony Mauro. Mr. Mauro wrote a fine examination of the interplay of issues particular to this case. The Supreme Court ruled on 07 Apr that the Virginia law restricting cross-burning as speech was constitutional.
(see 02 Nov 2001; 28 May 2002; 11 Dec 2002; 08 Mar 2004)

By Thomas McLaughlin. This ninth grade student in the Pulaski County School District, Little Rock, Arkansas, filed a suit alleging that he was the victim of harassment by school officials. The harassment reportedly derives from his openly declaring himself to be a homosexual. As a punishment for this admission and for talking about his orientation, even though he apparently did that only out of class,

• "(A teacher) told me that I had better keep my mouth shut about my sexual orientation or I will end up getting beaten up.";
• "On at least one occasion, she warned that I could end up like Matthew Shepard." (Beaten to death in Wyoming in 1998 in an anti-gay hate crime.);
• he said the same teacher called him "abnormal" and "unnatural.";
• he was forced to read Bible verses and prayers out loud in the assistant principal's office after he was asked if he was "saved" and was preached to about homosexuality;
• he was suspended by the school for two days in February after he told classmates that he was upset when he was forced to read the Bible;
• "(They) told me that if I told any of my friends why I was suspended, I would automatically be recommended for expulsion."

Delia McLaughlin filed the suit on behalf of her son, herself, and her husband, against the district superintendent, the junior high principal, and two assistant principals and four teachers. The case is being handled by the ACLU.

[At first glance one might assume that the teacher was trying to warn Mr. McLaughlin about some of the likely consequences of his speech. Given the tenor of the other actions in this affair, however, and the comments about his being abnormal and unnatural, I tend to conclude that the statements were meant to intimidate him; not out of concern for his welfare. --MN]
(see 17 Jul 2003)

By the U.S. Post Office. Jack Moody was mailing a parcel with a Christian comic book and a book of Bible verses in it to his son who is with the invading forces in Iraq, and it was intercepted and turned back by post office officials because of a poorly written Customs policy. The policy against allowing religious materials is not meant to apply to inividuals but to keep religious groups from flooding other countries with missionary zeal. It was adopted around the time of the 1991 Persian Gulf War and originated with Customs regulations in many Middle Eastern countries. Moody called a few congressmen to sound off about it and the situation drew the attention of the Rutherford Institute. On this day Nisha Mohammed, a spokeswoman for the institute, announced that a lawsuit would be filed as early as the morning of 10 Apr in a Washington, D.C. federal court. This lawsuit, however, appears to stem from such a regulation existing at all. The institute says that it is a very clear First Amendment violation. A Post Office spokesman said the regulation will be clarified.

[Bureaucrat <looking up>: "I'm sorry, sir, but I can't take your complaint about our lack of service. According to our database you're dead." --MN]

By the U.S. Senate. See the entry on the Church/State Entanglement page

By Greg Schirf. The Associated Press article on this affair started off: Call it the Great Salt Lake Beer Party. It reported that on this day, Mr. Schirf would dress up as Ben Franklin, and would protest taxation without representation by pouring the first kegs of his new 1st Amendment Lager into Great Salt Lake in a re-enactment of the Boston Tea Party.

It seems that Mr. Schirf was discriminately singled out by the Utah legislature in its enactment of a beer tax bill that was passed in March. The reason? Sen. Mike Waddoups was offended by a Wasatch Brewery billboard showing the iconic St. Provo Girl with a caption reading, "Nice Cans".

[You can see the delectable but properly dressed young woman by clicking on the link above. Waddoups had snivelled that the billboard was in "bad taste" and had promised to cite it during debate on the bill, which he reportedly did. I like it. Nice curves - cute navel - the cans are too big, though. Waddoups was reported as having said on 04 Apr, that the tax was to continue funding anti-drunk-driving programs. However, he is also quoted as saying, "I personally was more offended by that particular company than the whole industry." --MN]

By New York City Police Department. Recently, NYPD officers had begun using "debriefing" forms while questioning arrested protesters. The information collected, information of a personal and political nature, was placed in a database; this despite a recent striking down of the practice by the Denver, Colorado, police department. The debriefing forms recorded where the detainees attended school, what membership they had in any organization, and involvement in previous protests. Commissioner Raymond Kelly had not been aware the debriefing forms were being used and ordered a halt to the practice once he found out about it.

[Someone inadvertently overstepped the bounds of his authority. One of the many small incursions of civil liberties against which we must be on guard. --MN]
(See 22 Jul 2002; 17 Jun 2004; 14 Jun 2005)

By FAIR. They e-mailed a report on this day about how invading U.S. forces had deliberately targetted the press in Baghdad; not only bombing an Al Jazeera station, but also deliberately firing on independent journalists without any plausible excuse of provocation. The report also shows how this latest attack on the free press with lethal force is part of a consistent pattern of behaviour in which civilians are deliberately targetted.

[There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that the two separate incidents constitute a clear and present violation of Bush's policy statements that, "We do not deliberately target civilians." Not to mention that it was a clear and present attempt to suppress free speech and freedom of information thereby. I mean, come on! -- firing a shell packed with high explosives into a hotel you know is full of civilians because the tank is taking sniper fire?! And what kind of an asshole sniper wastes bullets shooting at a fucking tank anyway?! --MN]
(See 10 Jun 2003)

Carter lost. On 10 Apr the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, "treating these students like 15-year-old high-school students and restricting their First Amendment rights by an unwise extension of Hazelwood would be an extreme step for us to take absent more direction from the Supreme Court." The ruling means that the dean of Governors State University can be sued for her policy of prior restraint and forbiddning The Innovator to be published. This ruling also protects all college and university newspapers in the 7th district from harassment by school officials who would treat them as if they were as immature and unlettered as high school students.
(see 13 Jun 2002; 07 Jan 2003; 25 Jun 2003; 08 Jan 2004)

By citizens of the Thai city of Chiang Mai. Both are banned from Songkran, Thai New Year festivities, from the 12th to the 15th of April. For the clothing ban, the police have been instructed to lecture women who wear spaghetti-strap tops and hot pants about the impropriety of such clothing and to order them to go home and change. The ban on sound systems is an attempt to keep scantily-clad teens from dancing in public. Violators of this ban could be fined thirty British pounds.

By The Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Speech. Since 1992 this U.S. free speech advocacy group has been awarding Muzzle Awards to those persons, groups, or institutions which distinguish themselves by failing to respect, or by deliberately abrograting or derogating from, the First Amendment. The awards are announced on or around the 13th of April because this is Jefferson's birthday.

By Tim Robbins. On this day's broadcast of Monday Morning Today Show, at 0815, host Mat Lauer introduced the controversy that has been kicked up by the cancellation of the 15th anniversary of Bull Durham at the Baseball Hall of Fame. The screening of this film had been arbitarily cancelled due to anti-war speech by people involved with the film. Mr. Lauer then introduced Tim Robbins, who along with his wife Susan Sarandon, had had their initiations revoked. Mr. Lauer interviewed Mr. Robbins about free speech issues, in a manner that was neither accomodating nor confrontational. Mr. Robbins replied in the same fashion, but did say things that have been censored since at least the start of the invasion of Iraq. Things such as, "The message is if you speak out against this administration you can and will be punished", and, "We're sending out messages on an almost daily basis that they have no right to protest against this President" From there, Mr. Lauer then went on to specific incidents of censorship such as the movement against the Dixie Chicks.

At 0824, Mr. Robbins was explaining, "We're fighting for freedom for the Iraqi people right now so that they can have freedom of speech, yet we're telling our own citizens they have to be quiet" Mr. Lauer could have terminated the line of questioning there but went on to ask, "When you see pictures of Iraqi's dancing and celebrating -does it change your mind?", to which Robbins replied "No. I'm ecstatic that they feel this freedom, I hope we have the resolve to get in there and make it work."

It was then that what might have been the first case of censorship on a morning program was perpetrated. NYC television producer Steve Rosenbaum described the incident thusly:

It was at this point that something happened that has perhaps never happened before in the history of morning television.

The music swelled under Robbins... Mid-sentence answering a question that had been asked just 10 seconds earlier... "We have a terrible track record" said Robbins, clearly not able to hear that music was coming up to literally 'play him off the stage'.

The camera cut to a wide shot. Lauer was leaning in and very much in conversation. Either Lauer was ignoring what must have been the deluge of invectives in his earpiece, or he just determined that he wasn't finished with this line of questioning.

But the music ended. The bumper music ended and the studio was in the two shot as Robbins said..."It's for some reason not in our best interest to keep it going and pursue it to the next level." Lauer nodded, and the camera faded to black as Robbins - mid sentence - had his microphone turned down.

A conversation about free speech. An anchor asking reasonable questions. A guest responding in equally reasonable tones. No attempt to close out the discussion - to say "Well thank you Tim". This was not a filibuster. Robbins was not hogging the spotlight. Someone in the control room simply decided that it was time to pull the plug. And without grace or ceremony, or even the face saving of letting Lauer say "We're out of time" as morning shows do on so many occasions.

A conversation about free speech and free expression was cut off mid sentence as the network went to black.

Television history was made, as million of Americans got to watch in real time just how powerful and inescapable censorship can be. Robbins wasn't revealing troop locations, or giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Remember the war has been won - by all accounts. He was discussing freedom, free speech, and why his appearance has been canceled at the Baseball Hall of Fame. NBC should invite him back and let him finish his thought - or admit at least who was on the phone to master control demanding that they pull the plug.

By widely separated protesters. The First Amendment Center published an article on this day concerning three separate cases in which free speech was attacked because the method of expression involved the U.S. flag.

• Oregon: two men who burned an American flag at a weekend peace rally were arrested by Ashland police who said the fire posed a danger to other protesters and people nearby;
• Park City, Utah: police called on a woman who had a U.S. flag with a peace symbol printed on it hanging on her front door;
• Indiana: a 17-year-old girl who displayed a U.S. flag with a peace symbol painted on it is challenging the the state's flag-desecration law.

In the Oregon case, from the 12th of April, police said it was an issue of public safety. Ashland police Sgt. Kirk Cromwell is quoted as saying, "In the crowd and with the wind, there was potential for people to get burned." Other protesters say that public safety was really not that much of an issue.

In the Park City, Utah, case, the police very clearly had picked the wrong victim. Beth Fratkin, a doctoral student at the University of Utah, also teaches a class in free expression. She described the encounter as, "Anytime two men in uniforms, armed with guns and nightsticks, tell you to do something, some people might be intimidated by their mere presence," but, "I teach a class in free expression. I have a responsibility to my students to put my money where my mouth is, wouldn't you say? People should not be afraid to speak out. Our democracy depends on citizen participation." Ms. Fratkin pointed out in her interview that Utah flag-desecration laws are unconstitutional under the 1989 ruling of Texas v: Jackson. Prosecutors were forced to agree.

Seventeen year old Megan Lawson's American flag with a peace symbol painted on it was displayed in March at an an anti-war rally at the Elkhart County Courthouse in Goshen, Indiana. Phil Stiver, a County Commissioner, said later that he wanted police to investigate to find out who had painted the symbol on the flag and that he hoped the responsible persons would be arrested. In Indiana it is a misdemeanor to deface a flag, and intentionally defacing or burning a U.S. flag could be punished with a $5,000 fine and a sentence of as much as a year in prison. Ms. Lawson is not sitting still for that.

[Rock on, dudes! Kick ass! --MN]
(see 16 Apr 2003; 06 Sep 2003)

By Edward Limonov. This Russian writer and ultra-nationalist radical who is generally considered to be Russia's greatest contemporary writer, is scheduled for sentencing to prison on this day. Limonov has made scathing attacks against the government since he returned in the mid-1990s from twenty years in exile. As of this time, he has already spent twenty-two months in prison, during which he wrote seven books, four of which had been published as of this day, and is now facing a sentence of up to fourteen years. The charges brought against him were for terrorism, illegal arms possession and calling for the violent overthrow of the government. The Federal Security Service (FSB), formerly the KGB, say their case is based on an article published in the National Bolshevik Party (an extremist party which Limonov founded) newspaper called Limonka (this is a pun on Limonov's name; it's slang for a hand grenade), which is a blueprint for plans to lead armed groups into Kazakhstan to incite an uprising, and to establish a "Second Russia", and then to wage a partisan war against Russia.

Limonov denies writing the article and any involvement in purchasing arms. He says the charges against him have been fabricated in an effort to silence dissident voices in Russia. The FSB says that it had previously arrested four of the party's members near the Kazakhstan border while they were carrying,

• six automatic weapons,
• eighty-three rounds of ammunition,
• two detonators, and
• nearly a kilogram of powerful explosives.

PEN International is the only international organizations to have interceded on Limonov's behalf. It had asked that he be released while awaiting trial, but bail was denied. A number of prominent Russian and French intellectuals have supported Limonov during the course of the trial, but they were also careful not to espouse his radical politics.

By John Fleming; a book and music store owner. Alamosa, Colorado, police had threatened him with arrest in March for displaying the flag upside down. They had cited a Colorado state law prohibits publicly burning, defacing, tearing or trampling on a U.S. flag. A law which is unconstitutional in light of the U.S. Supreme Court ruling Texas v: Jackson in which that court determined that flag-burning is protected speech. Fleming took the flag down at the time to avoid arrest, but his rationale for flying it upside in the first place was that the Boy Scout manual shows that an upside-down flag signals distress, and he believed the invasion of Iraq was a sign the country was in distress.

On this day city officials resolved the dispute after discussing the case with Mark Silverstein, legal director of the ACLU's Colorado chapter. It was decided that the police would be reminded that Mr. Fleming's speech was constitutionally protected. Thereby avoiding a lawsuit from the ACLU.
(see 15 Apr 2003; 06 Sep 2003)

The Cedar Falls' cable commission had received complaints from viewers about the graphic content of some of the Iraq invasion news casts. The live news casts were retransmitted by the nonprofit educational group Scola, via satellite on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 5:30 P.M. The commission secretary, Judith Harrington, commented, "We were not sure that those who were objecting had actually seen this program." The show had been removed for one broadcast while the complaint was being considered, but this was a standard provision in the review process.

[Censorship has a strong cultural flavour. My Postcards from Iraq page was created because North American corporate media wouldn't show those kinds of images so as not to alienate the cash paying customers; whereas in the Middle-east, the focus was not on the prosecution of the invasion so much as the misery it generated; which necessitated showing those very images. Because Al Jazeera shows those images and is critical of the invasion, they are generally seen as "unAmerican"; and their station in Iraq was bombed by the U.S. Air Force on two separate occasions. --MN]

By Ikea. The name of a tiny town in Sweden, this word has an analog in Germany; where it means "good fuck". Ikea had to hastily remove advertisements for this model of bed from windows and newspapers. The company also apologized. Sabine Nold, a spokesman for the company, explained that the Ikea catalogue contains some 10,000 items; of which each is listed in all language editions under the same name; which, as in this case, can cause complications when the word also means something else in a foreign tongue.

[Mercedes Benz once had to rename a model which had been called the Silver Mist. In German, mist means a dung heap. Sales of the Chevy Nova flagged in Spain until someone pointed out that in Spanish, no va means no go. What makes this case truly amusing, however, is that there is a town in Germany named "Fucking". --MN]

By Pennsylvania State Education Association. See the entry on the school based censorship page.

By teachers Carmelita Roybal, Francesca Tuoni, and Allen Cooper, and counselor Ken Tabish. They had been suspended from their jobs for having expressed anti-war sentiments in class and for allowing students to do the same. On this day the ACLU filed a suit on their behalf against Albuquerque Public Schools alleging that the district and several of its officials had violated the equal-protection provisions of the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution as well as similar provisions of the New Mexico state constitution.

Jane Gagne, ACLU attorney, commented that the district, "has clamped down on anti-war expression that did not in the least interfere with the educational process, and where nothing indicates that the teachers and the counselor forced their views on anyone. In fact, they encouraged open and free discussion among pro-war and anti-war students." She also added: "Yet APS promotes pro-war expressions." The local schools apparently have many recruitment posters and photographs of service personnel in the war zone.

By Gay/Straight Alliance. U.S. District Judge David Bunning ruled that the Boyd County, Kentucky, school district must treat a newly formed Gay-Straight Alliance no differently than he treats the Bible club. Whether the treatment is announcements over the public address system or meeting times printed in the school newspaper. The ruling stems from a suit seeking for equal access to the Gay-Straight Alliance. The ACLU had argued that a ban on all school club meetings was a constitutionally infirm attempt to shut out students who sought to form the gay-straight group. The ACLU alleged that the school board had violated:

• the rights of the students under the federal Equal Access Act,
• the First Amendment, and,
• the Kentucky Education Reform Act

That last by usurping the authority of the school council which had voted to allow the group to meet on campus. The ban against all student groups had been initiated by the school board in Dec 2002 in an effort to suppress the Alliance, but some of the other groups had continued to meet in violation of this ban. Seven of the twenty-five members of the Alliance responded to the ban by suing.

David Friedman, an ACLU of Kentucky lawyer, commented, "As the judge noted, anti-gay sentiment is rampant at this school. He rightfully recognized that the GSA serves the public interest by working to foster tolerance in a community that clearly needs it." Tamara Lange, a staff attorney for the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, is quoted as saying, "The judge here recognized that schools can't silence students who hold unpopular views, even if those views cause others to react disruptively. Instead, the school must punish students who are disruptive."

[Damn straight! --MN]

By the city of San Diego. Vietnam veteran and atheist Philip Paulson had sued the city because of the presence of a large cross on a city-owned war memorial at Mount Soledad. Mr. Paulson had wanted the cross removed, but the city sold the cross and a parcel of land to Mount Soledad Memorial Association; a non-profit organization. In the suit, Mr. Pauson's attorneys argued that the city had not given groups wanting to dismantle the cross a fair chance to bid on the parcel. That was in 1998. Last year the 9th Circruit Court of Appeals ruled that the city had violated the California constitution. On this day, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear San Diego's appeal of that decision and a separate appeal filed by the memorial association. Which means San Diego lost its case.

By Lubbock, Texas, District Attorneys. The Lubbock Avalanche-Journal newspaper apparently reported in its April 20 editions that open-government advocates are shocked and appalled that the police had been instructed to withhold information about murders and traffic fatalities from reporters. The regulations being misinterpreted and misapplied apply to health plans, health care clearinghouses and health-care providers who conduct certain transactions through electronic means, such as billing. These regulations prohibit the disclosure of information for reasons unrelated to health care without the patient's permission, and attach new civil and criminal penalties for violators.

Anita Burgess, attorney for the City of Lubbock, reportedly said she believed the new law required city officials, including police officers, to protect medical information obtained from health-care workers; that by releasing information about an assault victim's injuries or a driver's death in a traffic accident, the city and its employees could be subject to fines and imprisonment. When Assistant City Attorney John Knight was reportedly asked if that meant police could not publicize a murder, even if a killer was on the loose, he said yes. Ms. Burgess did not contest that interpretation.

This near fascistic interpretation of the the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services rule seems to go well beyond any goal of the rules.

• Donnis Baggett, vice president of the Texas Daily Newspaper Association, is quoted as having said, "It seems to be an absolute abomination of the intent of the legislation. It stretches the imagination."

• Don Richards, an attorney in Lubbock and a specialist in open government and media law, is quoted as having called this interpretation "an overreaction and overreaching."

  "Law enforcement officers who release this type of information are not going to be subject to penalties; the act does not cover them. Law enforcement has a duty to report and disclose this type of information. To contend that they fall under these federal regulations is mixing apples and oranges."

• First Amendment ombudsman Paul McMasters, at the Freedom Forum's First Amendment Center, had reportedly told the Avalanche-Journal that press advocates had predicted and feared such a misinterpretation of the regulation. He is quoted as having commented, "It shows just how short-sighted the implementation of these regulations can be. Critical information is going to be withheld from the public."

Since officials had begun drafting the above regulation in 1996, police departments have been held up as a standard example of a department not subject to those regulations.

By Cleveland, Ohio. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a Cleveland ordinance banning most billboard advertisements for alcoholic drinks was unconstitutional on the grounds it infringed on Eller Media Co.'s free-speech rights. The ruling upholds U.S. District Judge Donald Nugent's decision from Aug 2001 that said the ban conflicts with state law. That law allows alcohol advertisements on billboards not located close to churches, schools or playgrounds. The ordinance was enacted in an effort to slow the incidence of underage drinking. Backers of the ordinance had alleged that advertisers targeted city neighborhoods where alcohol and drug abuse was prevalent. The City was considering whether or not to appeal this ruling.

By Professor Dennis Dailey. Governor Kathleen Sebelius (Dem), upheld free speech and academic freedom by using her power of veto to strike down the censorship movement against the University of Kansas. Generated by Republican state Sen. Susan Wagle, this movement would have cut the entire budget for Professor Dailey's department. In her veto message striking the provision from the budget, Governor Sebelius wrote in part, "In a democracy, academic freedom in higher education is essential."

[Hoo-rah! You go, girl! Free speech rocks!

In the entry for 26 Mar I wrote that I did not know whether Wagle was operating on something she'd heard about the class or if she had attended one or more lectures. It seems she had attended one of the lectures at least. The source article for this entry said that Wagle filed a complaint in which she objected to the use of "street language" and gestures by the professor. --MN]
(see 26 Mar 2003; 26 Dec 2003)

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

By Amy Gunderson. Ms. Gunderson, a legal adult at the time -- at age 31 -- had portrayed a mermaid while riding on a float in the Coney Island 2001 Mermaid Parade by wearing only a thong and body paint. On 29 Jun 2001 she was arrested, but the charges were eventually dropped. She filed a suit in 2002 alleging she had been wrongfully detained and on or about this day the city settled out of court for the sum of ten thousand dollars. Deborah Meyer, a lawyer for the city, said that the city did not admit any liability or wrongdoing in the settlement. "The city evaluates cases and makes business decisions every day. We felt it was in our best interest to settle the case."

[Yes, it was a very wise decision from a business viewpoint because it certainly covers the city's ass for future similar incidents. In this case, they got away with paying a mere $10,000 for an obvious free speech violation for which they would have been slapped down hard if it had gone to court. Plus, by not admitting liability they leave themselves room to make similar settlememts every next-time they cross the line. Well, I'll grant that this was almost certainly a case of somebody getting on his high horse over nothing. Especially in light of the fact that there had been floats on previous occasions with women going top free and it seems that no one had hassled them. Probably because the New York Supreme Court ruled some time ago that you can't criminalize women being top free without criminalizing men being top free. Chalk it up to an isolated incident and a stupid mistake on somebody's part. --MN]
(see 09 Mar 2004)

By India Tracy. Ms. Tracy's parents, Greg and Sarajane Tracy, are suing Union County, Tennesee, because of a pattern of consistent violations of church/state separation and religious intolerance in which their daughter, fourteen years old and now being home schooled as of this writing, was singled out for religious persecution because she is not a christian. The Tracys claim that,

• India was expected to join religious activities but denied the right to exercise her own faith;
• was sent to the principal's office after she declined to portray the Virgin Mary in a Christmas play;
• was harassed after she didn't join other students being bused to an after-school evangelistic rally;
• was required to attend Bible classes during the school day;
• was urged to lead her class in prayer;
• was told by a teacher to "keep quiet because you'll get in trouble" after she wrote a paper about religious freedom; and,
• the school district failed to protect her from physical and verbal abuse.

Charles C. Haynes, senior scholar at the First Amendment Center,wrote an analysis of the situation with more details about the abuse.

[A very disturbing anaylsis that very clearly portrays the ultra-right wing-nut mindset of freedom for me but not for thee. Not to mention the most vile of hypocrisies where Columbine type bullying is allowed in a zero tolerance atmosphere that punishes bullying victims for speaking out against bullying. And my friends wonder why I'm so cynical. --MN]

[Addendum (13 May 2003): An article about this situation in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer for 12 May included the information that India is a straight-A student, belongs to the Beta Club, a leadership-service organization, the chess club, and the band, and that she was the only girl on the middle school football team. In short, she is a model student, and yet the school allowed and participated in her persecution anyway. The article also stated that India was accused of eating babies. This by people who obviously would not hesitate to pile the faggots of wood high and bind her to the stake the way their ancestors did to seven year olds from the late fifteenth through early eighteenth centuries. --MN]
(see 08 Nov 2004)

By Jaggi Singh, Christina Xydous and Jonathan Aspireault-Massé. The three were arrested after a demonstration turned violent on Oct. 23, 2000. The protest was against a meeting of finance ministers for G20 that was held at the Sheraton hotel in downtown Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

• Jaggi Singh, a prominent activist whose mug shot was among a packet of photos circulated among police before the demonstration, spoke to the crowd and mingled;

• Christina Xydous drove a rented pickup truck fitted with loudspeakers to broadcast music and speeches;

• Johnathan Aspireault-Massé was alleged to have spray-painted a car.

A silent police video of a handful of protesters clad mostly in black and throwing rocks, paint, other projectiles and setting fires in garbage bins was shown, but there was no direct evidence presented during the trial that any of the three defendants had done anything illegal themselves.

On this day all three were acquitted and the courtroom erupted with cheering and tears of joy. Prosecutor Kathleen Caron was reported to have said that she would consider appealing the verdict.

[Better drop it, chicky-pie. Any half-wise intelligent lawyer should have known better than to bring a case like that to court. No evidence they did anything illegal and you tried 'em anyway? This was a clear and present violation of freedom of association. --MN]

By Henry Norr. The now former technology reporter for the San Francisco Chronicle, he was fired for participating in a protest on the day the U.S. began its invasion of Iraq. He had been arrested on that day with some 1,300 other protesters. SF Chronicle spokesman Joe Brown, who announced the firing, refused to give any reason for it. Mr. Norr had originally been suspended for taking a day off sick to attend the protest. Mr. Norr has been fired in spite of a Chronicle policy that did not bar its journalists from participating in political events, although in the aftermath of Mr. Norr's arrest and suspension, a new policy was enacted wherein personnel apparently must get permission from their superiours first.

By the City of New York. On June 29, 2001, Amy Gunderson, a model, was arrested for exposing her bare breasts. Ms. Gunderson was depicting a top-free mermaid in an annual, Coney Island, mermaid parade. The parade, a fixture for some twenty years, has traditionally featured floats with top-free women. For 2001, however, someone apparently mounted a morality campaign, and as a result, Ms. Gunderson was issued a criminal summons for exposure. The action proved to be an intimidation and it had a strong chilling effect; other top-free women in the parade quickly covered up with seashells, beads, and Band-Aids.

The charges were eventually dismissed, but Ms. Gunderson was less intimidated than the morality-police might have wanted. She sued the city for violating her first amendment rights. On this day, Ms. Gunderson's lawyer, Ronald L. Kuby, announced that the city had agree to settle for $10,000. Mr. Kuby, who is a longtime judge at the parade, said Ms. Gunderson was within her rights to be top-free because the float and costume fell within the definition of entertainment. Unfortunately, as is usual in such cases, the city admitted no wrongdoing in reaching the settlement, the capitulation being solely a business decision. This leaves the city at liberty to continue discriminating against and violating the rights of women who go top-free the same way men do, as there is no court ruling forbidding this discrimination.

By Saddam Hussein. After prosecuting an illegal war of agression against Iraq on the grounds that country was threat to the U.S. because there were biological and chemical weapons within that country, President George Bush Jr. set a new slant to his misinformation campaign by hinting that the weapons might not be in Iraq or might no longer exist. He is quoted from a speech in Ohio as having said, "It's going to take time to find them, but we know he had them. And whether he destroyed them, moved them or hid them, we're going to find out the truth. One thing is for certain: Saddam Hussein no longer threatens America with weapons of mass destruction."

[What does this have to do with censorship? Well, it's certainly propaganda, and propaganda can be true and still be a bare-faced lie. It all depends on how you present it. In any event, propaganda violates your freedom of information. In order to make an informed choice you require information, and information by its very nature must be real and true. Propaganda that is made up of true statements in such a way as to misrepresent reality is misinformation disinformation. Such "information" is necessarily false. In some cases propaganda can be made false by witholding certain key facts while still presenting other facts. And if you are missing information you cannot, by default, make an informed choice. The better to manipulate you, my dear. Through fear and ignorance, which go hand in hand. --MN]

[Edited 09 Nov 2004; also, see my commentary on the issue of what constitutes information. --MN]

By Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. This organization began an concerted attack on the suppressive measures by institutes of higher education to squelch free speech. They filed a lawsuit on 22 Apr 2003 against Shippensburg University, in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg. Thor Halvorssen, the chief executive officer of FIRE, is quoted as saying, "Too many colleges and universities attempt to outlaw free speech and expression that does not conform to a specific orthodoxy, and we are challenging that. We've done research at hundreds of universities and we're starting with Shippensburg because their speech codes are the worst." The suit contends this schools speech code is vague and overbroad. Mr. Halvorsen announced that We plan to file lawsuits in every (federal) circuit court and every district court in the country over the next 12 months," although he declined when asked to name specific schools.

[Shippensburg's position was explained in a letter as, "As an institution of higher education we encourage and promote free speech among and between individuals and organizations." Problem is, that policy is followed with a "BUT! -- ", and the university letter went on to say, "The university is also committed to the principle that this discussion be conducted appropriately. We do have expectations that our students will conduct themselves in a civil manner that allows them to express their opinions without interfering with the rights of others." Which basically means: you can speak freely only so long as you do so in the approved fashion. The suit also alleges that the code establishes "free speech zones" on campus. --MN]

By The Washington Post staff members. Prince William County Circuit Judge LeRoy F. Millette Jr. quashed subpoenaes issued against the police and four reporters who had broken stories for the Post. The subpoena against the police had been sought by lawyers for sniper suspect John Allen Muhammad. They had wanted an investigation into the role of law enforcement officers in the leaked stories. Prosecutors argued against that subpoena. Post lawyers had argued against the subpoenaes against Tom Jackman, Josh White, Maria Glod, and Sari Horwitz; the four reporters who used the material in their stories. The Post recently printed an article citing anonymous sources who had provided details about Lee Boyd Malvo's gloating demeanor during his confessing to some of the shootings. Defense lawyers alleged the leaks are an attempt to taint the jury pool and that the confession should be inadmissible.

[Now that's a little far-fetched, don'chya think, boys? Trying to get a mistrial declared because of conspiracy theory? --MN]

By strippers. A three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down Union Township's 1999 ordinance to regulate and license cabaret-style nightclubs featuring nude dancing. The court ruled that the ordinance is an unconstitutional exercise of prior restraint. The court decision upholds a previous decision by U.S. District Judge Sandra Beckwith, who handled Deja Vu of Cincinnati LLC's original challenge of the ordinance. Beckwith had granted an order forbidding warrant-less health and safety inspections of the nightclub which this law would have allowed. Deja Vu appealed her decision because it felt the order did not go far enough. Circuit Judges Eric Clay and William Haynes Jr. agreed with that and went beyond Beckwith's conclusion, saying the ordinance did have another unconstitutional portion which limited adult cabarets without liquor licenses to fewer operating hours than those with liquor licenses. Judge Ronald Gilman dissented, saying he disagreed that the ordinance was an unconstitutional prior restraint. The case now goes back to Judge Beckwith.

By Texas schools. On this day the First Amendment Center published an article about a movement by the Texas legislature that stems from a lawsuit by University of Texas at El Paso student Ruben Reyes. Reyes is suing the school because it would not permit him to speak in the student union on multiple occasions due to its being outside the two "free speech zones" established by the school. Rep. Norma Chavez, D-El Paso, who wrote the bill, said of it, "This bill ensures that universities provide students with a chance to express their ideas without fear of being arrested or disciplined unfairly." Universities commonly adopt the stance that the zone are to ensure the orderly exercise of free speech. This bill, HB 2447, is designed to give free speech advocates equitable ammunition against all school speech zones throughout the state by stating simply that speech limits cannot be more restrictive than what is necessary to protect normal school activities.

[In short, school administrators who do not understand the requirement for reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions, are going to find themselves being bludgeoned with a state law backing up the Bill of Rights. Why are people who are so block-headed that such a measure is needed, in charge of other people's educations? --MN]

By Lebanon, Indiana. On 16 Apr 2003 a new Park Board policy came into effect requiring anyone wanting to pamphleteer in any of the city's six parks to first apply for a permit, and then to show the parks director the material to be distributed. Once the permit is issued the permit-holder will have one day to use it and will still be restricted to "free speech zones" that exclude athletic fields, tennis courts, the swimming pool and other areas not identified in the article I saw.

As of 28 Apr, no one had applied for such a permit, but Grace Baptist Church minister Grant Hodges is suing over the new policy. Reverend Hodges had been passing out pamplets for some 19 years when he was ordered to cease and desist in Jul 2002 by Director Roger Neal. Mr. Neal reportedly told the church that park policy prohibited solicitation, which included distributing any literature. His board later came up with the new policy. Reverend Hodges absolutely refuse to apply for such a permit. He is suing the city with the help of Rutherford Institute which is based in Virginia.

[Sue 'em good and proper, I say. There is no doubt in my mind that this measure does not constitute a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction, and especially: what the hell is up with reviewing the material to be distributed? Legally, no city body can possible tell anybody they aren't allowed to distribute any subject of speech, so reviewing such speech before issuing a permit to distribute it is a waste of time and energy, anyway. --MN]

By Peterson Elementary School children. A sixth grade teacher at this Klamath Falls elementary school, Mary Bond, seems to have unilaterally put in a place a rule that all sixth-grade boys and girls were forbidden to speak to each other in the school and schoolyard. It was reported that no clear reason for the rule was given, but it seems to have derived from public displays of affection such as hand-holding or perhaps stolen kisses by a small number of sixth-grade students. The rule was apparently upheld by the principal because efforts to have him repeal the rule proved fruitless. So on this day the sixth grade girls, held a silent protest outside the school that had been organized 12-year-old Sarah Manes. The students carried pickets with slogans decrying the situation. School officials were not happy about this action because they had not been apprised of it before hand, but the speech ban was lifted. Principal Jim Smith commented on the protest, "None of the parents came to me, or gave me an opportunity to follow up on it. Obviously, if you have a concern, we should see if we can correct the situation, not call the paper and have a protest."

[This statement does not jibe with the report that the students had tried a petition and to talk to the principal. You'll note, by the way, how this person fails to properly respect the human dignity and the rights of his students by requiring that they have their parents represent them as if the students are too stupid to represent themselves or know what they really want simply because they are minors. Aside from which, I have no doubt that the students would have been forbidden to protest the ban by this incipient fascist if the school officious (sic) had been told about it beforehand. In my not so humble opinion, calling the newspaper and holding the protest was exactly the right thing for the students to do. Good on them. --MN]

By Ashleigh Banfield. On 24 Apr Ms. Banfield gave a speech at Kansas State University in which she was reportedly critical of news coverage of the invasion of Iraq. She was apparently reprimanded for her criticisms even though she had criticized all the networks, not NBC and MSNBC alone. Insiders within the news industry attacked her by calling her credibility into question.

[See my commentary on this issue. --MN]

By BBC News UK edition online. This news web site carried an article incorrectly reporting that the clear and present plagiarizations of Rowling's books were banned in Calcutta. Ms. Rowling had demanded the removal of the books and an apology from the publisher and the two books were removed from the shelves for violating international intellectual property conventions. The first of the books was an unauthorized Bengali translation of The Philosopher's Stone and the second was a new work in which Harry flies to Calcutta at the invitation of a bengalese boy and the two have a series of adventures.

The article also incorrectly reported on the recent Tanya Grotter case, intimating that these were also Harry Potter books in which the author had simply changed Harry to a girl. In fact, the Tanya Grotter books were almost certainly original works -- in literary parlance -- in which there was a too high a degree of similarity with the works upon which they are based. Those similarities were not so readily apparent, however, and that determination had to be made by a Dutch court. The article was correct in reporting on the popularity of illegal Harry Potter books in China.
(see 29 Nov 2001)

On this day the Holocaust Museum marked the 70th anniversary of the Berlinplatz book burning by opening an exhibit on book burning that includes photographs of the Alamagordo, New Mexico, event by Pastor Brock and his congregation. The exhibit also includes a copy of Harry Potter and The Philosopher's Stone. The exhibit, called Fighting the Fires of Hate: America and the Nazi Book Burning, maintains that the phrase book burning has become the American byword for censorship.

[See my commentary on the issue of contemporary book burning. --MN]

On 30 Apr 2003 President Bush signed into law the Amber Alert Bill. Buried within this supposed child protection package is an anti-self expression measure targetting business owners who hold events at which black market drugs might be consumed by attendees. This is a clear and present move to circumvent the previous refutation of such a measure. A bill holding business owners responsible for the presence of drugs on their premises, RAVE, had been rejected by Congress as too vague and overbroad. This new measure is even more overbroad than that previous one. As well, both that previous effort and this one probably fly in the face of court rulings that self-expression by non-drug using attendees at raves cannot be suppressed because of the presence of those who use drugs. The Amber Alert Law was also reported to contain a provision that attempts to circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court decision Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition.
(see 18 Jun 2003)

By religionists other than christian. An annual interfaith service in Muncie, Indiana, was co-opted by ultra-conservative christians. While non-christians were to be allowed to attend the event, the leaders of those other faiths would not be allowed to lead any prayers. This event was part of the National Day of Prayer, held on the first Thursday in May, which was established by President Ronald Reagan in 1988. Most such events are organized locally by volunteers affiliated with the National Day of Prayer Task Force, an evangelical group whose mission it is to encourage explicitly Christian observances. Mark Fried, a spokesman for the Task Force is quoted as having said, "We ask that those who plan an event as an extension of our ministry do so in ways that are reflective of who we are."

[Whatever the rationale or motives behind establishing this Prayer Day, it now very clearly constitutes a violation of church/state separation. --MN]

By Gordon Parks. It was banned from the curriculum at Alexandria Senior High School, Louisiana, at the request of parent William Liberto. All censors in this affair are denying any form of censorship, of course, but the facts belie their assertions.

The Learning Tree, written in 1965, contains vulgar terminology and a scene where a 19-year-old girl has sex with a 12-year-old boy. Sean Bonnette, Mr. Liberto's 14-year-old son, objected to the contents of the book and was offered an alternative. That wasn't good enough for Mr. Liberto, however, and he complained to Principal Joe Moreau who unilaterally ordered it removed from the curriculum. Mr. Moreau reportedly said that, "as many as six parents" had complained about the book. Which could be anywhwere from one to six, but which would require the book to be put through a review process. In this case, it was decided that no student would be allowed to study the book because of the reaction of one parent; thereby violating the right of the students to freedom of information, and the right of the other parents to be responsible for their own children. Principal Moreau had not read the book himself, but had simply leafed through it quickly when apprised of its content.

English teaches at Alexandria Senior High chose the equally controversial Animal Farm as an alternate to The Learning Tree.

[Liberto was quoted as saying, "I think this was handled in a very professional and quick manner. I don't believe in censorship, and I never thought that I'd ask for a book to be taken out of my son's hands, but when you read things that are bad and shouldn't be in a class, you just have to stand up and say, 'No.'" Another obvious case of double-think. Repeat after me, kiddies: if you say "I don't believe in censorship, but . . . ", then you do believe in censorship. --MN]

By Law Enforcement Officers. It was reported on this day that the Montana Supreme Court ruled in favour of Chief Mitch Walters. Chief Walters had been sued by William A. Anderson whom the chief had repeatedly called a "gang-banger". Mr. Anderson alleged that he had been slandered and sued for $20,000 on the grounds that the term gang-banger referred to someone who is a gang-member, commits crimes, and is worthless. Chief Walters based his defense on the grounds that his opinion was protected speech. This decision upholds the decision by District Judge Michael Prezeau. The court ruled unanimously and Justice Jim Rice wrote in the opinion, "Today, the term gang-banger appears to denote either a bona fide member of a street gang or a wannabe, which adds up to nothing more than innuendo. Therefore, we conclude the idiom has taken on a modern signification that fails to qualify as slander."

[Poor, big, bad tough guy had his wittle feewings hurt. Goddamned sniveller. For the life of me I don't think this was any kind of serious free speech/libel case; merely an attempt to exploit the system to grab a few bucks. Of course, I could be wrong. And maybe Anderson will go straight. --MN]

By the U.S. Supreme Court. On this day the U.S. high court reopened the nearly ten year old dispute over photographs of the Vincent Foster suicide. The court agreed to decide when the government must release law enforcement records that are gruesome or sensitive. The court will have to balance the privacy interest of Foster's family against the rights of others who want the photos under public records laws. According to Solicitor General Theodore Olson, in his filing, at risk in this case is "the privacy interest of millions of individuals, about whom personal and sensitive information is stored in government files." The justices will decide in Office of Independent Counsel v. Favish if a California attorney, Allan Favish, who has already been given more than 100 pictures, has a right to pictures of Foster's body. Lower courts have been split about access to the explicit photographs.

By the Pentagon. Captured by Iraqi forces on 24 Mar 2003, she was ostentibly "rescued" in a raid on 01 Apr. The Pentagon and the American corporate media made a great deal of political hay out of the situation by shamelessly exploiting it for propaganda value. Which propaganda slowly unravelled to reveal the facts of the case during an investigation by the Toronto Star. And on this day the full scope of this propaganda incident was reported, including that the press was not allowed access to Private Lynch because she was recovering at Walter Reed Hospital.
(see 27 May 2003; 30 May 2003; my commentary on this issue)

By Western Illinois University. In 1995 the university established a speech code in which protesters were required to register their intent to hold public speeches or gatherings forty-eight hours in advance, and restricting them to one small area outside the student union. On 29 Apr this year, some 30 students and teachers marched through the campus for two hours wearing gags done in the school colors of purple and gold in their mouths.

The silent protest went unchallenged despite violating the speech code because it was peaceful. On this day, the Journal Star newspaper, Peoria, Illinois, reported University President Al Goldfarb had rescinded the restrictions.

[A good thing too. School spokesman John Maguire had defended this indefensible garbage by saying that the limits were rational limits to ensure gatherings remained non-disruptive, and with the common misapprehension, "They are free to express themselves, but you don't run into a crowded theater and, for example, yell, 'Fire,'" Secondly: what the Supreme Court Justice, said, children, is that "you don't yell fire in a crowded theater unless such a fire actually exists." And he wasn't citing that as an excuse for muzzling people who are trying to tell you that there actually is such fire. And firstly: the assumption that a student gathering is necessarily going to be disruptive violates their right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. --MN]

[Addendum (20 May 2003): On 18 May the First Amendment Center published an analysis of the affair by Kenneth Paulsen. There are a number of significant details that were not included in the source article for the above entry. I hate it when that happens. You cannot formulate an informed opinion when your so-called information is a load of phetted dingoes' kidneys. Remember: check other sources! --MN]

By George Bush Jr. See the entry on the Church/State Entanglement page.

By Brenda Nichol. This teacher's aide from Glen Campbell, Pennsylvania, was suspended for a year without pay for having worn a religious symbol to work on repeated occasions. It was reported on this day that the American Center for Law and Justice is suing ARIN on her behalf on the grounds that the policy is unconstitutional. ARIN provides teachers aides and other services to eleven public school districts in Arm strong and Indiana counties, including Penns Manor School District where Ms. Nichol worked. The agency has had a policy in place since 1997 at least that bans all accouterments of a religious nature including clothing.The policy is supposedly based on an 1895 law. Robert H. Coad Jr., the agency's executive director, was reported to have said that the measure is so employees won't wear any item that could be objectionable to others, including symbols or emblems of occult religions.

[Bingo! There we go! Of course this policy is unconstitutional! It was enacted for all the wrong reasons! 1: Political Correctness; you can't use that mode of expression because someone might be offended by it, and, 2: Religious Suppression; in that if allowing expressions of mainstream religiosity means I also have to allow those I find personally offensive then it's better to cut off my own nose to spite my face. --MN]
(see 31 Aug 2003)

By Gerald Rudolph. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.
(See 04 Nov 2001; 28 Sep 2002; 31 Oct 2002; 01 Nov 2002; 05 Dec 2002; 08 May 2003; 28 May 2003; 06 Aug 2003; 23 Sep 2003; 06 Jan 2004)

In which the Chicks Strike Back and DJ's are punished for playing their songs. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Gerald Rudolph. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.
(See 04 Nov 2001; 28 Sep 2002; 31 Oct 2002; 01 Nov 2002; 05 Dec 2002; 07 May 2003; 28 May 2003; 06 Aug 2003; 23 Sep 2003; 06 Jan 2004)

By Amanda Walker-Serrano. In light of a circus coming to town and a planned field trip to it, she circulated a petition to ask that the field trip be cancelled to agitate against cruelty to animals. She solicited signatures during a silent reading period in class and on the playground. School officials ordered her to stop, but later allowed her to distribute colouring books about the issue of cruelty to animals. On 15 Apr, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals became the first federal court of appeals to address whether elementary school students are provided the same free-speech rights as high school students under Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District.

[And blew it big time in my not so humble opinion. Given the information in the article it appears that the court properly addressed the question of Tinker v: Des Moines. The problem is, the court pretty much ruled that there is no reasonable time, place, or manner in which a third-grader might agitate on political issues. There's a big difference between saying, "something should be done" and getting off your ass and doing it yourself. Had the court ruled that Ms. Walker-Serrano was within her rights to circulate the petition between classes, and during recess and lunch hour, I'd have no problem with the ruling. (Oh, yeah; big surprise there.) However, given Judge Scirica's comments in his written opinion, this decision stems (in part, anyway), from the pervasive misapprehension that: because children are unsophisticated and inexperienced, they necessarily have no capacity for dealing with complex issues. Well, if we do not take the time and energy to guide them through these issues when they can best be socialized to deal with them along constructive lines, when ever are they going to learn how to deal with them in a socially acceptable manner? --MN]

By University of California at Berkeley. Again.

This time the consistently censored paper was attacked for "racist content". This was the latest in a long running effort to force the paper to conform to politically correct notions of how people are allowed to be depicted. This series of incidents began when, on 25 Apr, the paper ran an editorial cartoon of Kim Jong-Il, the head of state in North Korea. It was reported that some people found this cartoon offensive. The paper received 100 e-mails decrying the publication of the cartoon. On 06 May the paper ran a story about a black football player who had been charged with assault. A photograph was run along with the story. On 06 and 07 May, groups of student attempted to storm the newspaper office alleging that the story and photo perpetuated racist stereotypes. Both groups were turned away by campus police. The editors decided they would not apologize for either event. On 07 and 08 May, a number of students trashed some several thousand copies of the independent daily. On 07 May, newspaper staff members found one thousand copies of the paper (10% of the press run), in trash cans near the Sproul Plaza distribution racks. On 08 May some 2,400 copies were stolen, but this time two arrests were made.

Wale Sean Forrester was arrested for stealing one thousand copies, which theft was witnessed by a Daily Cal editor at 0745 that morning. Seven hundred of those copies were recovered from a dumpster close to Cesar Chavez Student Center. Aluma Raymond Nikele was arrested for taking some 300 papers from near the Valley Life Sciences Building. Both were cited for criminal theft.

In California, stealing even free distribution papers is a crime. Commented Captain Cooper of the campus police, "Even if they are distributed for free out there, they are intended to be distributed one at a time to individuals. So by taking them out of circulation, it does represent a financial loss for the paper in terms of loss advertising revenues ... as well as the actual production costs there might be."

Jail time is unlikely, however, as the suspects are likely to get the same treatment given to the mayor of Berkeley. A fine.

[Make the bastards make up for the full losses incurred by the thefts, I say. The thing is, you can only make them pay for the losses incurred from their thefts, not for the losses incurred by unsolved thefts in which the papers were not recovered. Plus, such losses could not be calculated for those copies that were recovered and distributed late. There would be no way of knowing how many copies were not taken that would have been. Maybe a better punishment would be to say, "you stole them, you bought them, you will pay for the cost of producing them" and keep those copies out of circulation. --MN]
(See 06 Dec 2002; 08 Jan 2003)

By U.S. Congress. This upsurge is more of the post-WTC tragedy fallout. Supporters of the move hope to get it passed by riding on the fervour of patiotism. It is expected to pass in the House, but to face a more difficult time in the Senate.

[The amendment is still being touted as not being a First Amendment violation by those who do not understand that a flag amendment and the First Amendment must necessarily be mutually exclusive. You cannot criminalize free speech and still respect the principle that "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech". How much simpler than that can it possibly get, and yet the dozy bastards still don't understand it. Knee-jerk reactionary super-patriot Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham, R-Calif., the chief sponsor of the amendment (and decorated pilot from the Viet Nam war), is quoted as having said, "There are 10,000 ways you can express yourself. You don't need to desecrate the flag." I would think that there are protesters who would burn the flag because they do feel that they need to, pal. Because they feel there is no other way to express their contempt for arrogant slobbering idiots and their anger with blood-soaked foreign policy. Aside from which, the First Amendment specifically says that congress is absolutely forbidden to curtail or restrict the numbers of ways of expressing yourself. If there are 10,000 ways of expressing myself, that number may not be cut back to 9,999, and that is that. What makes flag burning free expression and the flag amendment illegal is that the option is there for me to choose of my own free will and volition to burn or not to burn, and if the amendment is passed into law, the option to not burn is in someone else's control.

Cunningham was also quoted as having said of Memorial Day, "It tends to make people want to rally around the church and the flag. These symbols are very important. Why let people desecrate them?" So, is this guy another holy roller trying to drive in the thin edge of the wedge? I certainly don't think he supports the separation of church and state any better than he supports free speech. --MN]
(see the Seattle Post-Intelligencer article)

By State of Israel; and supported by Western corporate media censorship. In an article published on this date, Justin Podur detailed a movement against this human rights organization by the Israeli military, and how the story was not being honestly represented by the American press.

By the Fair Taxes for All Coalition, Nebraska chapter. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Ron Brock. An anti-abortionist, he takes his Recreational Vehicle to the Woodward Dream Cruise classic car show where he covers it with large graphic photographs of aborted fetuses and other pictures from the Holocaust. In 2001, Royal Oak police seized the vehicle as evidence on a charge of obscene literature. The RV was returned two days later. The Thomas More Law Center filed a lawsuit on behalf of Mr. Brock. On 30 Apr the city settled, agreeing to pay 44,700 dollars on the advice of their insurance carrier. Mr. Brock's free speech rights were violated because city officials were trying to guard against violence at the show. Said Chuck Semchena, the city manager, "The photos of aborted baby fetuses were shocking, and the reaction from the crowd could have been violent." In fact, two people were charged with assault after an altercation between Brock's supporters and someone trying to rip the photos off the RV during the 2002 cruise.

[However, the answer in such an incident is to charge the people -- one from each side of the issue by the way -- who acted criminally. Not the person over whose speech those people acted criminally. The speaker is not responsible for the actions of those who can't behave. He is responsible only for himself. --MN]
(see 10 Aug 2001; 03 Sep 2001; 09 Nov 2001; 21 Dec 2001; 15 Feb 2002; 25 Jun 2002; 30 Jun 2002; 30 Sep 2002; 14 May 2002)

By City of Los Angeles. In 1999, Pamelyn Vlasak, an animal rights activist, was arrested at a demonstration at Pierce College while carrying a bull hook; a long pole with a curved metal hook used by elephant handlers. She was charged for being in violation of the city's demonstration equipment" ordinance. This ordinance sets a limit on the size and therefore the weight, of materials that can be carried by demonstrators. In this case, the bull hook violated the measure that says wooden placard holders cannot be thicker than one-quarter of an inch and can be no more than 2 inches wide. The law bars larger-sized wood at demonstrations even if that material is not being used to hold protest signs. This ordinance was approved in the 1970s. On this day, A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a First Amendment challenge to the ordinance on the grounds that the ordinance leaves "open ample alternative means of communication"; according to the opinion written by Judge M. Margaret McKeown.

Two years ago, a different three-judge panel from the 9th Circuit court ruled in Edwards v. Coeur d'Alene that, that town's law, which was more expansive than the Los Angeles ordinance, was unconstitutional. The 1999 Idaho ordinance had been implemented in an effort to tighten control of Aryan Nations parades in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. That ordinance specified, "Placards or signs may be worn or carried, but shall not be affixed to any wooden, plastic or other type of support." The appeals court said that attaching a handle to a sign or placard was constitutionally protected speech because it permitted protesters to reach the target audience during the noise and confusion of a demonstration.

[Ms. Vlasak's attorney, Paul Jensen of Virginia, commented on the case, "She was arrested for possessing something that somebody was using 100 yards away. She's the one arrested and the person using it was not. Interesting irony?" No, it is not an interesting irony, because the argument is a non sequitur. Ms. Vlasak was also using a bull hook, just not for the purpose the device was intended, and that intended use had not been criminalized. Her use of the bull hook was, however, intrinsic to her exercise of free speech, as the focus of her protest was the device in question itself. Candice Horikawa, a Los Angeles city attorney, commented, "At the time she was arrested, she wasn't threatening anybody with it. If it can hurt an elephant it has the potential to hurt a human being during a protest." This is another non sequitur. Anything, however light, can harm a human being if handled in the proper fashion, plus the bull hook being used by the elephant handler had the same potential if a protester had attacked the handler. The natural reaction to an attack is to defend yourself with whatever you might be holding at the time. Aside from which, the existence of a simple potential is insufficient cause to limit the exercise of free speech. Still, I'm not sure just what to make of this one. Yet. --MN]

By Hasidic Jews in Outrement, Quebec province, Canada. This suburb of the City of Montreal has a population of 5,000 Hasidic Jews. Many of whom travel frequently to visit family in New York City. Recently, Outrement enacted a bylaw banning commercial bus traffic from the streets of Outrement with the exception of a single main artery. Principally affected is a daily intercity bus service to New York City that picks up passengers at their doorstep and which offers kosher food, separate gender seating, and prayer time. This bus service has been doing business for some thirty years. Alex Werzberger, president of the Coalition of Outremont Hasidic Organizations, commented, "There is a small group of people in Outremont who have made it their raison d'étre to make life difficult for the Hasidic community. They come and bang in at the councillors and sometimes you just cave in to this kind of pressure." Stephane Harbour, chairman of the Outremont borough council, while acknowledging that there was pressure on the council, replied to the charge, "We can't have a bus terminal in our territory, with people getting off the buses with their luggage, with cars waiting and honking, making U-turns, pedestrians who cross the streets as they wish. It's simply not safe. Our main goal is security." However, Jordan Charness, lawyer for the Tov Travel bus company, is quoted as saying, "If you look at all the exclusions, you'll see that it's a bylaw that is directed at one community and one bus company."

By Harvard University. The title of this conference is The Challenge of Collecting in a Complex World and it focused on some of the methods by which local censorship efforts can be circumvented in the context of the difficulty of collecting material from the Middle East, Asia, and from war torn countries.

By the Australia Post. This institution has a rule that personnel are permitted to keep no more than three personal objects on their desks. Cori Girondoudas refused to remove a fourth object, a photograph of herself with friends, and subsequently lost the equivalent of over £1,000 from reduced pay raises. Ms. Girondoudas is the only one of 100 employees who has objected to the rule. She had been previously warned to remove one of the items, but refused. Australia Post spokesman Gary Highland commented on the case, "The management of that [call] centre asked the staff to ensure that they had no more than three items of a personal nature displayed at their work station and that's because a number of those desks are shared by more than one staff member." and, "One hundred staff work at the centre and only one of those staff objected to the request. That staff member was repeatedly asked to honour the directive. She was given four opportunities to comply with the request. When she repeatedly refused, the management were left with no alternative but to issue a discipline reaction." Community and Public Sector Union secretary Stephen Jones is quoted as having called the measure, "absolute madness", and saying, "It would be a joke if it wasn't true." Mr. Jones had stated an intent to pursue the issue all the way to the end.

By State of Maine. After a survey found law enforcement agencies to be lackadaisical about respecting Maine's Freedom of Access law, two laws were drafted to correct the problem. On this day, Governor John Baldacci signed a bill whose purpose is to ensure that each municipal, county, and state law enforcement agency certify that it has a written policy on the subject of Freedom of Access. It further requires an annual certification of written policies be submitted to the Maine Criminal Justice Academy, and that one person be trained specifically to respond to the requests. The second bill seeks to create a sixteen member panel to examine compliance.

[Beauty, eh? --MN]
(See 05 Jan 2003; 06 Jan 2003; 09 Jun 2003; 24 Oct 2003)

By Burbank city council. On this day the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal by the city of Burbank about the practise of saying a non-sectarian prayer at the start of each meeting. Prayers at government meetings are permissible only if the prayer does not invoke any deity associated with an organized religion. This case stems from a complaint in 1999, in which Irv Rubin, late chairman of the Jewish Defense League, and Roberto Alejandro Gandara, a of strict church-state separation supporter, went to council meetings where the name of Jesus Christ was used in opening prayers. The tradition of having religious community leaders say such a prayer apparently dated back to the 1950s. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Alexander H. Williams III ruled in Nov 2000 that the prayer policy was unconstitutional. That ruling was upheld by California's 2nd District Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court declined to consider the case. The U.S. Supreme Court was, of course, the last chance for the city of Burbank.

From 25 Feb to 28 Oct 2001, the Museum of International Folk Art in New Mexico was to hold an exhibit called Cyber Arte: Tradition Meets Technology. The exhibit began as scheduled, but was cancelled halfway through, four months early, under pressure from religionists. A furor arose over an image by Los Angeles artist Alma Lopez. The image features The Lady of Guadaloupe wearing a bikini formed of woven flowers and with a bare midriff. On this day, the First Amendement Center published an analysis of the chilling effect felt to this day.

By California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. He announced on this day that California will not track peaceful protesters or even those who engage in minor acts of civil disobedience as part of anti-terrorism activity. He also invited the ACLU to review the activities of the California Anti-Terrorism Information Center, the Criminal Intelligence Bureau of the California Department of Justice, and the California Bureau of Investigation. This move stems from a report in the 18 May edition of The Oakland Tribune alleging that CATIC had been keeping Stasi files on protest actions and non-violent activists, and from an advisory about potential violence at the Port of Oakland during a demonstration planned for there in March, and which had been sent out under the CATIC letterhead.

A.G. Lockyer defended the bulletin as harmless, but did allow that it should not have contained the extraneous and unsubstantiated information that was in the bulletin which singled out a specific group which advocates non-violent protest only. However, he is investigating as to why CATIC is tracking activities already being monitored by local police; his concern there seems to be the inefficient expenditure of public funds as much as the rights of private citizens.

[Good catch! Rock on, dude! --MN]

By numerous free thinking people. In Nov 1964, after a six-month long trial, Lenny Bruce was convicted on obscenity charges because of the language -- 100 obscenities by count -- in the shtick he performed at the Greenwhich Village Café Au Go Go. Bruce subsequently mishandled his own appeal. He died of a drug overdose in 1966 with the conviction still on the books. Thirty-seven years later an impressive roster of people are seeking a pardon for him; including Robin Williams, the Smothers Brothers, and Penn and Teller, among other artists, and twenty-five First Amendment lawyers. A pardon would be a most resounding victory for free speech rights. A letter to Governor George Pataki of New York, reads in part, "A pardon now is too late to save Lenny Bruce. But a posthumous pardon would set the record straight and thereby demonstrate New York's commitment to freedom -- free speech, free press, free thinking."

The State of New York has not so far granted a posthumous pardon; to this date, only nine states have. Robert Corn-Revere, the lead attorney for the plaintiff, commented, "By posthumously pardoning Lenny Bruce, the state of New York declares to the world that it is a safe harbor for creative minds. It would serve as a public monument to liberty." Comedian Lisa Campennelli is quoted as saying, "Every night when I get onstage, I thank God or whoever's up there for Lenny Bruce." Mr. Bruce is generally regarded now a days as a groundbreaker who dramatically changed stand-up comedy.
(see 23 Dec 2003)

By Naomi Klein. Ms. Klein wrote an analysis of the differences in how the U.S. federal government has treated the cases of these two women, in particular, how the Lynch story was exploited for political points and the Corrie story was simply ignored and covered up in part by the press. This article also reveals some of the Israeli suppression and outright murder of human rights activists in Palestine. It was posted at Alternet.org.
(see 05 May 2003; 30 May 2003; my commentary on this issue)

By New York state legislature. A bill by that body seeks to "bolster" the academic freedom of professors by denying public access to books, films and other resources being used in classrooms. In short: freedom of information is to be ensured by not allowing the tax payers whose property it is to have access to the information the teachers are using. The bill is sponsored by Assembly Higher Education Committee Chairman Ronald Canestrari. The written justification for the bill reads in part, "The college classroom has always been an open forum. The inclusion of college classroom teaching aids and materials under (the state Freedom of Information Law) only creates an unnecessary concern which may limit an instructor's ability to pass on knowledge and ideas to students."

State University of New York Trustee Candace de Russy, who is a former professor who has written and lectured extensively on education and culture, called the bill "ludicrous," and said, "The public clearly has a right to know what their tax dollars are used for in the area of education. Academic freedom is not a license to operate in secret."

The Assembly bill comes after that chamber fought back Gov. George Pataki and the Republican-led Senate in their efforts to limit other government records from public disclosure after the WTC tragedy. This proposal has surfaced in different forms in previous years. Its roots lie in a decision by the state Court of Appeals from 1993 in which it ruled that classroom materials are public records. This decision overruled a lower appeals court that had denied a citizen the right to the film Sexual Intercourse, which was being shown at the time in a Family Life and Human Sexuality course at Nassau County Community College.

By advertisers. This American television show is a sitcom revolving around a funeral home in Los Angeles, and which also airs in Great Britain. On 15 May, Britain's channel 4 launched a risque ad campaign spoofing funeral products such as In Eternum embalming fluid and a product touted as wound filler. The billboards drew nine complaints that were filed with the Advertising Standards Authority; which banned the billboards. You can see a male model and a female model for the parody ads through these links. These two images are mirrored here without permission.

By Graham Norton. Comedian and chat show host Graham Norton was featured naked and holding a picture of Pope John Paul II in front of himself to hide his genitals. The photograph was on a Time Out magazine cover displayed on a poster in London Underground [subway] stations. The Advertising Standards Authority rejected complaints by eleven people and judged that the photograph was not offensive to Roman Catholics as a group, although it had clearly offended some individuals. Time Out magazine claimed that the image does not challenge the question of faith, nor does it suggest that people have no right to their beliefs.

By eleven members of U.S. Congress. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.
(See 04 Nov 2001; 28 Sep 2002; 31 Oct 2002; 01 Nov 2002; 05 Dec 2002; 07 May 2003; 08 May 2003; 06 Aug 2003; 23 Sep 2003; 06 Jan 2004)

By Andrew Bunner. Actually written by then 15-year-old Norwegian techie Jon Johansen, Mr. Bunner posted this code to his website in 1999. Hollywood promptly sued. The purpose of this code is to decrypt trade protection measures on DVDs to allow them to be copied. The California Supreme Court was scheduled to hear arguments in this case on this day. This case is being touted as "a precedent-setting conflict between the First Amendment and California's tough trade-secret protections." In essence, Hollywood is holding Mr. Bunner accountable for what other people do with the code.

[What is really at heart in this case -- in my never, ever humble opinion -- is the knee-jerk attitude by profitmongering transnational parasites that they can hold you responsible for someone else's criminal activity. I have no doubt that Bunner did nothing illegal in simply posting the code. This is part and parcel of the social trend wherein people abdicate responsibility for themselves by suing tobacco companies because they got cancer by smoking, or where survivors of shooting victims sue fireams producers because a mugger used a gun. Of course, when they're on the short end of the stick in such lawsuits the corporations squeal like stuck pigs. --MN]
(see 26 Jan 2004; 02 Mar 2004)

By Clear Channel et al and likely to be endorsed by the FCC. In response to the determination to relax FCC regulations that would allow the further concentration of media ownership, a series of protests was called for throughout the U.S. The movement was sponsored by:

• Citizen Works,
• CodePink,
• Democracy Rising,
• Free Press,
• Global Exchange,
• Media Alliance,
• Prometheus Radio Project,
• United for Peace and Justice NY,
• Youth Media Council, and,
• other groups.

At their web site, United for Peace and Justice wrote of the move to concentrate ownership:

The FCC is poised to approve the most dramatic changes to media ownership regulations in decades. Leading the charge is FCC Chairman Michael Powell, Colin Powell's son, who essentially declared war on diversity in media at the same time that his father was spearheading the war against Iraq.

We have already seen the effects of the 1996 media deregulation: five television companies--General Electric (MSNBC and NBC), News Corp (Fox), Disney (ABC), AOL-Time Warner (CNN), and Viacom (CBS)--have a stranglehold on what information the public gets to know, and corporate radio behemoths like Clear Channel Communications devour local radio stations and replace them with McRadio. If Powell has his way, the situation will get even worse; there will be nothing standing in the way of media companies' drive for profits at the expense of our democracy.

Despite enormous opposition, Powell is pushing for a June 2 vote on his media deregulation proposal. At the same time that we're lobbying the FCC Commissioners and our member of Congress to oppose the new media rules, we need to take our opposition to the streets!

They also condemened Clear Channel, writing:

Clear Channel Communications is the poster child of everything that's wrong with media deregulation. After the media deregulation of 1996, Clear Channel gobbled up hundreds of radio stations throughout the country and now owns more than 1200 stations nationwide, dominating the audience share in 100 of 112 major markets. Not only is the company the world's largest radio broadcaster, it's also the world largest concert promoter and billboard advertising firm.

Clear Channel's monopolistic practices have accelerated the homogenization of our airwaves. The company promotes cookie-cutter style radio that has urban stations throughout the country seemingly playing the same seven songs. It shuts out independent artists who can't afford to go through high-priced middlemen and is responsible for taking the practice of voice tracking to new heights. Voice tracking creates brief, computer-assisted voice segments that attempt to fool the listener into thinking that a program is locally produced, when in fact the same content is being broadcast to upwards of 75 stations nationwide from a central site.

Clear Channel also uses its stations to promote its right-wing political agenda. After September 11, the company came to the public's attention when executives circulated a list of blacklisted songs including John Lennon's Imagine and Cat Stevens' Peace Train. This year Clear Channel became one of the first media companies in recent times to sponsor a political rally--they sponsored pro-war rallies in cities around the country before and during the war on Iraq. Another "Rally for America" is being organized in Huntington, West Virginia for Memorial Day weekend.

If the FCC passes Michael Powell's proposed new media rules, companies like Clear Channel and Fox will be given even more control over the public airwaves than they already have. And we are likely to see in television the same type of feeding frenzy we saw in the radio industry after the 1996 media deregulation.

[Hmph. Gotta watch some of that rhetoric. I don't know why it is that Michael Powell is slammed for being Colin Powell's son, but every group that condemns the concentration of media ownership seems to do it every time they mention his name. Wake up, people. Michael Powell is responsible for what Michael Powell does and Colin Powell is responsible for what Colin Powell does. Do not visit the sins of the father on the son or impute some kind genetic cause for butthead stupidity that is passed on from father to son. Certainly, the child is the son of the father, due to upbringing, but the child is still his own person. --MN]

[Addendum (02 Jun 2003): As expected by just about everyone, on this day the FCC did vote to relax the regulations. --MN]

By Sultaana Freeman. Ms. Freeman is challenging a decision by the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles in which her driving permit was revoked and she was ordered to get a photograph in which her face is shown. She contends that such a requirement violates her religsious convictions. The revoked permit had a photo of her veiled face with only her eyes showing. On this day the court heard closing arguments in the case. Ms. Freeman said of the issue, "I veil to obey my Lord. It's an act of modesty. It reduces issues of vanity." Howard Marks, the ACLU attorney representing Ms. Freeman is quoted as saying, "She wants to drive. She needs to drive to take care of family needs. But she isn't going to violate a fundamental religious belief." Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail is quoted as saying, "This court cannot make this decision in a legal vacuum. The sad fact is our country, our society, is under assault by puritanical religious zealots. If you hold for the plaintiff, someday a man will present himself to a driver's license office and demand a driver's license without a photo based upon his religious conviction. We may have to give it to him but we will not know if his objectives are sincere and peaceful or if they're terrible until it is too late."

[Which gets the Most Asinine Argument Award from me. First off: U.S. society is and has been under attack by Christian ideologues since well before the Bill of Rights, and Al Qaida is an organization of political ideologues. It simply used religious fanatics as its dupes, is all. Secondly: a vague and undefined fear is not sufficient grounds for violating a person's rights. These fears have been the basis for the Bush administration's concerted efforts to impeach the Bill of Rights, however. Obviously the Florida DMV is simply following the example of its rulers. --MN]
(see 22 Jan 2003; 06 Jun 2003; 16 Aug 2003)

By the American corporate press. One of the major networks finally carried a news story about the exaggerations of the Jessica Lynch rescue reports. In this report, the Pentagon blamed the press for erroneous reporting, stating that the Pentagon never made any of the claims reported in the story.

[What the Pentagon very disingeniously did not admit was the part it had to play in this affair. Noone in the military ever did or said anything to correct or even to point out those errors, but did exacerbate the incident by holding Jessica Lynch incommunicado. Plus, I wonder how responsible military officials were for editing the tape of the rescue operation. Did the Pentagon or military officers edit the tape and allow only parts of it to be released? Given the slant of the reporting on the rescue operation, I could not believe for an instant that the press was given copies of the raw footage. The thing is, there were reporters with the infiltrating group, and I'd like to know just how it is they never corrected that erroneous reporting, either. I smell one part journalistic fraud and one part propagandist manipulation of the media circus in this one. --MN]
(see 05 May 2003; 27 May 2003; my commentary on this issue)

By violent offenders. In Jul 2000, The Boscobel Dial, of Boscobel, Wisconsin, implemented a policy of not selling subscriptions to the inmates of Wisconsin Secure Program Facility, an ultra-maximum-security prison created to house inmates who have been disruptive in prisons elsewhere. The weekly paper, serving a city of 3,000, publishes detailed accountings of local news and regularly includes features tracking daily life in the community, including birthday parties for children, hospital visits, and other detailed information. Although prisoners there have been allowed to subscribe to other newspapers, the policy was challenged by inmate Bryce Garrett. In a decision handed down last month, Dane County Circuit Judge Michael Nowakowski ruled that the policy was unconstitutional.

The City Council had schedule a vote for this day on a resolution that would urge the paper to not sell subscriptions to the inmates. Dial publisher John Ingebritsen was reported to have said that the paper had not received subscriptions from inmates, adding that if the paper did get a request it would check with a lawyer to see what could be done. Donald Downs, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor of political science, law, and journalism, commented, "The court doesn't allow censorship based on undifferentiated fear."

[Now there's a tangled can of worms to sort. You certainly can't disallow selling subscriptions just because the inmates are not local people, as has been intimated, but can you impose a reasonable place restriction because they are violent and incorrigible offenders? --MN]

By Circuit Court of West Palm Beach and Miss Vermont 2001. Miss Vermont 1999 and 2001, Ms Katy Johnson, sued a former boyfriend, Tucker Max, because of the material about his relationship with her on his web site. Ms. Johnson's web site is used for morality advocacy for Say Nay Today and the Sobriety Society. She calls her advocacy a, "platform of character education." Mr. Max touts his web site as quite the opposite, promoting debauchery instead. His site includes photographs of the women he has dated and a form by which they can apply for a date with him, and, until Judge Lewis issued her order, a long account of his relationship with Ms. Johnson, whom he allegedly portrayed as vapid, promiscuous, and an unlikely prospect for membership in the Sobriety Society. He also had a link to her web site.

A few of the facts of this case are:

• Judge Lewis ruled before Mr. Max was notified of the suit and,
• without holding a hearing.
• Judge Lewis ruled that Mr. Max could not use
  • "Katy" on his site;
  • Ms. Johnson's last name,
  • full name or,
  • the words "Miss Vermont."
• The ruling prohibits Mr. Max from:
  • "disclosing any stories, facts or information, notwithstanding its truth, about any intimate or sexual acts engaged in by" Ms. Johnson.
  • Keeping a link to her site.

Moreover, the prohibition against "disclosing any stories, facts or information" is not limited to his Web site.

[See my commentary on this issue --MN]
(see 18 Jul 2003)

By Algerian imigrés. Jamal Ouchfoun, Zuheir Belaroui, and Mohamed Cherfi, of Montreal, Quebec, publicly accused the Ottawa Police of using unnecessary force and police brutality to break up a demonstration inside the office of Immigration Minister Denis Coderre. Mr. Ouchfoun was quoted as saying of the incident, "All we wanted was to speak with Coderre or someone who represents him. But we ended up being beaten up severely. The police kicked us and hit us with electric guns although we did not resist." He described what happened as: "After few hours there, someone came but he refused to give us his name or his title. No one came after that. Later, about 10 p.m., a police officer came and she told us we had to leave, but we said we wanted to negotiate. She left. Then lights were turned off and about 30 policemen came into the room and started beating us. We did not resist and all I heard was people screaming in pain."

Ottawa police Staff Sgt. Monique Ackland said of the incident, "We asked them to leave several times and they refused. They got agitated when we said it was late, that no one from the ministry was going to see them and that they had to leave." The occupation of the office was by twelve protesters, while another group was gathered outside the building. The action was to demand that the federal government halt the deportations of twenty non-status Algerian families.

By County of St. Louis, Missouri. An 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals three-judge panel overturned a ruling by a lower court that supported the ordinance. Passed in 2000, the law required children [minors, damn it!] under 17 to get parental consent to buy violent or sexually explicit video games or to play similar arcade games. In Apr 2001 U.S. District Judge Stephen Limbaugh refused a request by a video game industry group to strike down the ordinance. The appeals court, however, ruled there was no justification for disqualifying such games from protected speech rights just because they are considered interactive. Judge Morris S. Arnold wrote in the decision, "Whether we believe the advent of violent video games adds anything to value of society is irrelevant; guided by the First Amendment, we are obliged to recognize that 'they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature.'" He also wrote, "Simply put, depictions of violence cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults." Interactive Digital Software Association president Douglas Lowenstein commented, "The decision sends a powerful signal to government at all levels that efforts to regulate consumers' access to the creative and expressive content found in video games will not be tolerated." This ordinance, which was never implemented, pending the outcome of the lawsuit, was modeled after one in Indianapolis. That one was invalidated by a federal appeals court in Chicago.

By Dav Pilkey, George Beard, and Harold Hutchins. This book is an offshoot of the Captain Underpants series. It is written as a comic book and features a villain which is apparently a piece of excrement. His name: Deputy Doo Doo. Pam Santi, grandmother to a 7-year-old child at John F. Kennedy Elementary School in Riverside, filed a formal complaint because of the evil character. Gayle Cloud, a member of the school board was quoted as saying, "It has poor grammar, poor spelling, poor content, and it's an extremely poor example of what I would want my student to learn." Barbara Genco, who is president of the Association for Library Service to Children, which service awards the Newbery and Caldecott medals, is quoted as having said, "They are yucky and they are dumb, but what they do have is 1,000 percent kid appeal. I view these books as 'book hooks.'" A review committee of seven parents, teachers, and administrators were scheduled to meet on this day to discuss the book.

[Without having seen the book I tend to assume that the poorly written text is probably in the style of baby talk. Aside from complaining about the level of grammar and spelling, Cloud also opined, "I think Dr. Seuss would be rolling over in his grave." Yes, he would be, but not because of the way the book was written or the characters were depicted nearly as much as because of this censorship; his own works having been subjected to challenges. Leastways that's my call. --MN]

[Addendum (26 Jun 2003): On that day the review board had decided to keep the book on the shelves by a 5-2 vote. On this day, the Canton Repository reported that Pam Santi plans to appeal the committee's decision to the Riverside County Office of Education, and beyond that if necessary. --MN]
(see 12 Jun 2003)

By high school students. The dance in question is called Crip Walk, and it has caught among teenagers across the U.S. This new craze has alarmed some school administrators, particularly in Los Angeles, who have banned the dance out of ignorance of social movements. The dance originated as a kind of rite of passage by members of the Crips gang. When an unblooded Crip killed a member of a rival gang he would develop a dance routine. Those who have banned the dance step from their schools say that it is to avoid gang involvement. You can read more about the evolution of this dance step and the moves to ban it at Streetgangs.com and at Wiretap.org

[Don't panic, people. Jazz, rap, and hip-hop all started out as "black" music. As they gained popularity they moved into the wider cultural stream. Just because some anglo-saxon white boys are doing the C-walk it doesn't mean they are going to start shooting each other over it. It's just a dance to them. --MN]

By Federation of American Scientists. The watch-dog group filed in seeking to reverse a decision by the Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility to not release a report about the bungled case against former Los Alamos National Laboratory scientist Wen Ho Lee. Lee, who was released in Sep 2000 when the government's case fell apart, was arrested in Dec 1999 on 59 felony counts and held in solitary confinement for nine months. A rights violation so blatant that U.S. District Judge James Parker apologized to Lee, saying the government handling of the case "embarrassed our entire nation and each of us who is a citizen of it." He made this remark in handing down his sentence on the one count on which Lee agreed to plead guilty in a negotiated settlement. Then President Clinton had made a public comment that the detention "just can't be justified." This in turn resulted in an internal review. On 29 May 2003, Marlene Wahowiak, assistant counsel for the Freedom of Information and Privacy Act at the Office of Professional Responsibility, wrote in a letter to the scientists federation that she had determined the report "should be withheld in its entirety," citing exemptions to the law that allow the withholding of certain information for reasons of security, privacy, and law enforcement. The Federation is willing to accept an edited copy of the review, but does not believe the whole thing can be withheld.

In Dec 2001, the Justice Department had released a massive review of the FBI's bungled investigation. That report:

• criticized the FBI for:
  • never considering the Lee investigation a priority;
  • failing to allot it proper resources or properly supervise agents on the case;
  • failing to consider a CIA report that challenged the underpinnings of the Lee case, and
  • moving too slowly.
• condemned the communication breakdown between the FBI and the Energy Department, and,
• chastised investigators for not immediately searching Lee's computer files when suspicions first arose.

(see 24 Dec 2003)

The FBI Office of Professional Responsibility found that employees had acted rashly in seizing the package from Jim Gomez to John Solomon, both of Associated Press. A letter to Associated Press, written on 27 May acting FBI General Counsel Patrick Kelley, read in part, that the case, "appears to have been an isolated incident." The letter also criticized several employees for not seeking advice from bureau managers before handling the material. The administrative inquiry found the employees showed "less than prudent judgment," and recommended that conclusion be considered in evaluating their job performances. The letter also says the agency is drafting a communicé to remind bureau employees of the sensitivities involved and the importance of seeking legal advice in operations involving freedom of the press.
(see 13 Mar 2003)

By Mexican farmers. Members of the Movement of 400 Peoples, a group of farmers protested at the Angel of Independence on Paseo de la Reforma in Mexico City. Agustin Morales, a 45-year-old farmer commented, "We are stripping because it is the only way to get attention. We don't have money to buy an ad in the newspapers." The protest was to demand official action against a former governor of Veracruz province, Patricio Chirinos, who the Movement accuses of unjustifiably ordering the seizure of lands and mass arrests.

[Stripping for free speech seems to be a popular move this year. The image l inked to above is copyrighted Associated Press and is mirrored here without permission. --MN]

By Aung San Suu Kyi (pronounced Ohn Sahn Soo Chee), et al. It was reported in an editorial at Arabnews.com on this day that Ms. Kyi and her party were once again being suppressed by the ruling junta of Myanmar. This time the crackdown was sparked by a pro-government mob attacking a meeting of this opposition party. Perhaps most telling is the contradictory reports concerning the incident. NLD party members say there were sixty fatalities at the hands of the mob. The government says only four people were killed. Equally telling is that the government also took Ms. Kyi and all the top NLD party leaders into "protective custody".

[Which means the junta organized a "spontaneous" lynch mob and then used the violence as an excuse to arrest and lock up the victims. You can read more about Ms. Kyi and how the Myanmar regime has oppressed her in this background report at CBC, and in this report about her release from her first house arrest on 06 May 2002.
(see 18 Sep 1988; 1990; 27 Mar 1999; 14 Apr 2004; 27 May 2006)

By Nat Hentoff. See the Cuban Independent Librarians Affair.

By Sultaana Freeman. Circuit court Judge Janet C. Thorpe ruled that Ms. Freeman will be required to bare her face for her driver's license photograph. Judge Thorpe ruled:

• the state has a compelling interest in protecting the public,
• having photo identification is essential to that interest, and that,
• Ms. Freeman's right to free exercise of religion would not be infringed by having to show her face on her license.

The Freeman's intend to appeal the ruling. During the trial, Assistant Attorney General Jason Vail argued that Islamic law has exceptions allowing a women to expose her face if it would serve a public good, and that arrangements could be made to have Ms Freeman photographed with only women present. Ms. Freeman also conceded during the hearing that she had had her face photographed without a veil since she began wearing one in 1997.

[Some goddamned, third-rate-tabloid, hack-scribbler lied to us. In the 30 May entry I quoted an argument by Vail based on anti-terrorism concerns. Nowhere in the source article for that entry did it say that he had also argued in a favorable respect to religious freedoms. Some stupid son-of-a-bitch somewhere has violated our freedom of information and created a condition wherein we could not make an informed choice. That does not invalidate the stupidity of the prospective terrorism argument, but because the information that Vail had made some fairly well considered arguments was removed (probably), or withheld (unlikely), a negative affective connotation was created. The source article for this day's entry, by the way, contained information about Ms. Freeman that might or might not have a bearing on this particular case. The article stated that the earlier photographs taken without the veil were for mug shots resulting from child abuse allegations. In that case, the Freemans apparently refused to allow photographs of the alleged girl-child victim. --MN]
(see 22 Jan 2003; 30 May 2003; 16 Aug 2003; an editorial at Arabnews.com, 11 Jun 2003; an analysis by Charles Haynes, First Amendment Center senior scholar, about balancing religious freedoms against state's rights)

By the ACLU and the Center for Justice. These two bodies were filing a suit in federal court in Spokane, Washington, on behalf of the Peace and Justice Action League and Christian minister Donald Ausderau. The League is a non-profit group dedicated to promoting a just and nonviolent world. To that end, members had been leafletting at the Plaza, the Spokane Transit Authority's downtown bus transfer building. The downtown station teems with people getting on and off buses for most of the day. STA regulations, however, requires that people who wish to engage in free speech exercises:

• obtain a permit in advance,
• restrict themselves to only two locations on the sidewalks surrounding the Plaza, and,
• restrict their presence to no more than five hours a week.

The lawsuit contends:

• the requirement that plaintiffs get a permit is a prior restraint on freedom of speech,
• restricting people from moving freely on the sidewalk prevents them from communicating effectively with the public, and,
• there is no reasonable basis for limiting free-speech rights to only five hours.

Doug Honig, communications director for the ACLU of Washington, is quoted, "The right to speak to people on public sidewalks is a fundamental right of our society. We hope the Transit Authority will change its rules." David Blair-Loy, the CFJ attorney, said, "The Plaza sidewalks are a classic public forum and a central gathering point for the Spokane community."

[I believe that Washington State is in the jurisdiction of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. That court has already ruled that even a privately owned sidewalk still constitutes a public forum. --MN]
(see 13 Jul 2001; 13 Sep 2002; 24 Jan 2003; 16 Jun 2003)

By Michael Savage. Hired by MSNBC to replace the too moderate Phil Donahue in the lead up to the invasion of Iraq, Mr. Savage has launched a lawsuit against four individuals and one company that run three separate web sites. The sites apparently satirize or parody Mr. Savage, and supports boycotts of his sponsors. Mr. Savage's suit alleges that the sites infringe on his right to free speech. The boycotts are organized by Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, which is not named in the suit.

The defendants are:

• Julie Sigwart, co-founder of the Web site TakeBacktheMedia.com (TBTM);
• Thomas and Gunilla Leavitt and Leavitt Enterprises, who produce www.savagestupidity.com; and,
• unknown individual "John Doe," who produces www.michaelsavagesucks.com.

[I've got five bucks says this is a SLAPP. It is certainly hatemonger snivelling under the principle of freedom for me but not for thee. God forbid I should go into full rant mode about the bitter irony of a hate spewing lunatic who got his job through the censoring of someone who did not blindly support the war of aggression against Iraq, about his bitching and pissing about a free speech infringement because someone dared to criticized him publicly. What is it with this asshole, anyway, to assume that he's above reproach? Does he think he's King George the Pathetic? This case is absolutely vile, disgusting, and odious. Which is to say, it's just what one could expect from human trash like Michael Savage. --MN]

In Alabama. An article at First Amendment Center reported the results of a survey testing Freedom of Information access. Specifically, under a 1923 Alabama law established to give every resident the right to inspect and copy public records. Sheriff's offices and police departments were consistently obstructionist, however, with half of Sheriff's offices and thirty-seven percent of police departments refusing to hand over one type of requested document. Forty-four percent of schools also failed to hand over public material.
(See 05 Jan 2003; 06 Jan 2003; 16 May 2003; 24 Oct 2003)

By Spain. Ukraine-born Reuters cameraman, Taras Protsyuk, and Spanish photographer Jose Couso were in their hotel when they were killed on 08 Apr 2003 in Baghdad. The Palestine Hotel, to be exact. A building which had been specifically marked as exempt from hostile fire due to its housing some 100 journalists from major news agencies around the world. The U.S. military command issued a statement that the incident was a regrettable but unavoidable mistake. An investigation report recently released by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists offers new evidence that the incident was in fact entirely avoidable. In light of this report, a Spanish judge was asked to file formal extradition charges against the three US military officers responsible:

• Lieutenant Colonel Philip DeCamp, commander, Fourth Battalion 64th Armored Regiment, Third Infantry Division;
• Captain Philip Wolford, company commander of the tank unit that fired on the hotel; and,
• Sergeant Shawn Gibson, the officer who asked Wolford for permission to fire and received it.

[More about that sniper: it wasn't a sniper. It was a spotter for Iraqi forces who was watching the movement of the advancing troops the tank crew was looking for. A man with binoculars instead of a rifle. Except this man with binoculars happened to be a reporter. The kicker is, in the article at Alternet.org, the Palestine Hotel is alleged to be absolutely unmistakeable. Even if it wasn't I still question the judgement of a tank crew firing a shell packed with high explosives into what must obviously have been a building full of civilians. Even "the fog of war" doesn't excuse this one. Not to mention that using a tank to kill one person is not "a surgical strike"; it's more like using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. Of secondary note is the fact that this action is a clear and present violation of the Geneva Convention, but the United States is outside of any war crimes jurisdiction. --MN]
(See 10 Apr 2003)

By David Ahenakew. In Dec 2002 this Saskatchewan native leader referred to Jews unflatteringly. On this day he was charged under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code; promoting hatred. While speaking with a Saskatoon reporter at a conference, Ahenakew praised Hitler for trying to "clean up the world" when he "fried" six million Jews, and said Hitler's rise to power was a response to the "disease" of Jewish world domination. At the time, he was head of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations senate, a post he later resigned.

["Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty . . . " In other words, "of this thou shalt not speak." An obviously unreasonable time, place, or manner restriction. Yeah, some topics of conversation are particularly odious. So grow up and get a life. You don't have to agree with any ideas or concepts that offend you. --MN]

By Andy and Larry Wachowski. This film was banned in Egypt because of its "violent content", which could "harm social peace", and because it tackles "religious themes". The fifteen member censorship board said the film's storyline, about the search for the creator and control of the human race, could cause "crises". The board is made up of academics, writers, and psychologists. The press launched a campaign to stop the showing of the movie on the grounds that it reflects Zionist ideas.

By Dav Pilkey, George Beard, and Harold Hutchins. The materials review committee voted 5 - 2 against banning the book from the libraries and classrooms of the Riverside (Calif.) Unified School District.
(see 04 Jun 2003)

Banned once again by the intolerant on the Surrey School Board, British Columbia. The books were first banned in 1997 because the books depict families with homosexual parents, and which banning generated a free speech case on which the Supreme Court of Canada finally ruled against the school board. The court ordered the school board to subject the works to a critical review using the same criteria they would for any book. They banned all three works again, but this time for the most specious and asinine of political correctness reasons.

• Belinda's Bouquet: rejected because it raised the subject of dieting. "To discuss the issue of dieting as it relates to body image is risky at this age, and I think clumsily handled in this story." --board chair Mary Polak
• Asha's Mums: "This story has problems with punctuation and grammar throughout. The spelling of 'favourite' is inconsistent, switching from the Canadian to the American." --board chair Mary Polak
• One Dad, Two Dads, Brown Dad, Blue Dads: because it made fun of skin colours and dealt too much with sexual orientation for the target audience.

Ms. Polak was reported to have said that the school board's criteria are very tough. James Chamberlain, the kindergarten teacher who tried to bring Asha's Mums into his class six years ago and who filed the lawsuit said, "The board is grasping at straws, dreaming up criteria six years after the fact."

[Any excuse will do for a tyrant. --Aesop's fables

And why, pray tell did it take these misohomonists a full year, to the day, after that Supreme Court ruling to find new excuses to ban the books? So they wouldn't have to allow the books in the classroom for at least one school year, perhaps? Methinks someone needs to be slapped with contempt of court charges. --MN]
(See 12 Jun 2002)

In 1996 a Montreal, Quebec, strip joint broadcast its show over outdoor loudspeakers, prompting one of its competitors to follow suit. The city fined Château du Sexe for noise violations. The strip joint appealed, and the the Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal found the bylaw violated the strip club's freedom of expression. On this day the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Alan Desousa, Montreal executive committee member responsible for sustainable development, commented, "This is going to be one of those classic cases of freedom of speech versus not only municipal powers but what are appropriate standards within which those municipalities can exercise those powers."Daniel Paquin, lawyer for the former owners of the Château du Sexe, is quoted as saying, "The real question is: 'Can a commercial establishment broadcast a commercial message next to its business via a loudspeaker in an urban environment?'" Mr. Paquin fully expects the high court to rule on whether or how much of the municipal bylaw constitutes a reasonable restriction.

By Ken Paulsen. In a brief but well written op/ed piece at the First Amendment Center web site.

By Ken Hicks. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that crime-ridden public housing neighborhoods can be designates as off-limits to visitors and is allowed to prosecute some trespassers. In Virginia v. Hicks, the justices voted 9-0 to threw out a ruling that Hicks was wrongly prosecuted for trespassing at a housing complex in Richmond, Va. Hick maintained that he had been there to drop off diapers for his children; who were living with his mother. writing for the court, Justice Antonin Scalia said that Kevin Hicks was not engaged in a First Amendment free-speech or assembly activity at the complex. Tony Mauro wrote a brief opinion about the ruling which has been posted at the First Amendment Center web site.
(see 13 Jul 2001; 13 Sep 2002; 24 Jan 2003; 08 Jun 2003)

By the American Library Association. See the Cuban Independent Librarians Affair.

By National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. This group had planned a rock concert for 30 May in Billings, Montana, as a fund raiser. It was cancelled while the bands were setting up after a warning from a federal drug agent that the Eagles Lodge, where the event was to be held, could be fined up to $250,000 if illegal drugs were used at the event. The Lodge board of trustees decided to not hold the event. The Lodge was not threatened overtly; merely advised as to the consequences should even one individual get caught using illicit drugs at the event. Adam Jones, the concert organizer, commented, "The implications of the RAVE Act are scary. Obviously, our First Amendment rights have been thrown out the window." [...] "In no way whatsoever do I hold anything against the Eagles Lodge. $250,000 is a very scary number." The Eagles Lodge manager, who asked to be identified only as Kelly, is quoted as saying, "They do a lot of good things for a lot of people ... but they have to do what's best for their lodge."

[And so it begins. The article at Alternet.org reported that Jones had been arrested for a probation violation the day before the concert was to be held, but it didn't say for what he'd been convicted, nor did it offer anything that might suggest a tie-in between his conviction and the Eagles Lodge being chilled. --MN]
(see 01 May 2003)

By Alexander Gourevitch, of Washington Monthly, and printed at Alternet.org. In his look at creeping Big Brotherism, Mr. Gourevitch detailed a number of ways that antiterrorism hysteria is threatening free and open society through what amounts to abuse of authority.

[The abuse stems primarily from the misrepresentation of crimes unrelated to terrorism in any way, shape, or form, to pad statistics so as to boost funding, but also from some charges being fraudently laid. Gourevitch cites one supposed case where sixty suspects out of sixty-two were charged for terrorism because they had cheated on college exams. I don't know about the veracity of that claim, but the piece is well written and well ordered in a context of logical argument. --MN]

By China. The goverment of China had launched a move to tighten control on newspapers some two weeks previous to this report. Beijing New Times, a small newspaper run by the Worker's Daily Group, one of the country's biggest newspaper publishing companies, sources at the newspaper said. The Beijing New Times was shut two weeks ago after it published a list of the seven "most nauseating things" in China, a cutting parody of the Communist system. The editorial staff of Beijing New Times was fired and other editors and reporters were subject to content restrictions. The Propaganda Ministry banned reporting on:

• stories critical of the handling of the initial outbreak of severe acute respiratory syndrome by the Guangdong provincial government.
• Jiang Yanyong, a physician who accused the government of lying about the SARS outbreak. He has been the subject of profiles and interviews since writing an open letter to the government accusing it of a cover up in the epidemic.
• Sun Zhigang, a graphic designer who died in March 2003 while in police custody. His death was first reported by the Southern Metropolitan News in the city of Guangzhou, and it touched off criticism about police brutality. Sun had been detained for not carrying an identification card as required under a vagrancy law. That law was struck down 18 Jun 2003 by the State Council, China's cabinet, as a result of his death.
• Zhou Zhengyi and Yang Bin. Zhou was detained in May in connection with a loan for $270 million that he had received from the Bank of China in Hong Kong. His case is sensitive because he conducted real estate business in Shanghai and is believed to have maintained close relations with the city's senior politicians. Yang was born in China but holds North Korean and Dutch citizenship. He was arrested earlier this year in a tax investigation. This case has a political dimension because Yang had been chosen by Kim Jong Il of North Korean to run an experimental economic development zone in that country.

President Hu Jintao and Premier Wen Jiabao had been promoting limited political and social changes since March when they too office, while signaling at the same time that they intended to maintain controls on public freedoms and dissent. However, there are doubts among journalists about how successful the crackdown is likely to be. Reporters and editors say they are increasingly eager to challenge or bend government regulations, and that information is also available throughout the country on unofficial Internet sites which are, for the moment, beyond government control.

By Kathleen Hodges. Ms. Hodges filed a free speech suit in Manhattan Federal Court against the city of Queens and officials at Middle School 210 in Ozone Park. The suit alleges that her daughter, Natalie Young, had her right to free speech violated when she wore a tee shirt to school reading: Barbie Is a Lesbian. Ms. Hodges contends that Natalie was was humiliated and harassed. The suit alleges that:

• teacher John Mason called the shirt "inappropriate" and ridiculed Natalie in front of her classmates on 10 Apr 2002;
• Natalie was then escorted out of class and brought to Acting Principal John Callari's office, where she was held for three hours before being sent home for the rest of the day;
• she was warned that she would be suspended if she wore the shirt to school again;
• Natalie was once ordered to remove rainbow-colored beads from her hair;
• and was told by a school counselor that it was not normal for her to ask out girls.

[Oh, yeah; here's another one that stinks of misohomonism. --MN]
(see 01 Apr 2004)

By Iraqis. Almuajaha.com: "a publishing forum for grassroots media activity in Iraq, Baghdad, and other cities for anyone who wants to participate." The site is English and Arabic, and was established by activists and journalists in Iraq with the aid of volunteers in Bristol, England. It was reported that the Al Muajaha newspaper, the Iraqi Witness, is expected to be published from Baghdad with no ties to U.S.-sponsored media.

By FAIR. This watchdog group released a report about the silence in the American press about politically significant remarks by General Wesley Clark.

[Remarks that clearly indicate fraudulent manipulation of the public and reprehensible and criminally irresponsible governance by the Bush administration. These remarks are also another indication that the invasion of Iraq was an illegal war of aggression from the get go. --MN]

By the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to ban objects used at raves as drug paraphernalia. Prosecutors insist that the objects, such as giant pacifiers, glow sticks, and mentholated inhalers, promote illegal drug use. The decision overturns the ruling by U.S. District Judge Thomas Porteous who agreed with the ACLU that the restrictions violate the First Amendment rights of rave participants. Joe Cook, the state director of the ACLU for Alabama, commented, "We still believe that they should not ban inherently legal objects that are used in expressive communication because a few people use the same legal items to enhance the effects of an illegal substance." This case stems from prosecutors having rave organizers and promoters indicted under federal laws aimed at shutting down crack houses.

By a government-backed, financial think tank. The Chinese government banned at least the 20 Jun edition of this influential, bimonthly, business news magazine. This edition of the magazine was barred from newsstands, although the magazine reached subscribers during the weekend; authorities ordered additional copies held at the printers, however. While no official reason was given for the ban, this edition contained articles on several taboo topics including a cover story on a bank loan scandal linked to government officials and an article on the impact of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. The magazine is published by a government sanctioned think tank, and had made waves in May 2003 when it ran an interview with SARS whistleblower Dr. Jiang Yonyang.

By Irwin Schiff. U.S. District Judge Lloyd D. George ruled on 16 Jun 2003 that this book, The Federal Mafia: How It Illegally Imposes and Unlawfully Collects Income Taxes, is not protected speech because it advocates tax evasion; to whit: the commission of a crime. Mr. Schiff said the judge's order was wrong on all counts. He plans to appeal the decision to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. He is quoted as saying, "There's a reason why my book is called The Federal Mafia and this is a perfect example. The government has just thrown the First Amendment out of the window, and if anybody can't see that they should be declared legally blind."

The ACLU of Nevada filed an amicus curiae brief saying Schiff's expression of his opinions should not be outlawed. ACLU lawyer Allen Lichtenstein commented, "It is unfortunate that the judge did not see the First Amendment violation." Mr. Lichtenstein also pointed out that the injunction only limits Mr. Schiff from distributing the book. "There's a bit of irony that the injunction prevents Mr. Schiff from distributing the book but doesn't prevent anybody else. One has to wonder what's the point since the book is clearly available to the public."

[Selection vs: censorship. The book has undergone a review process and has been deemed inappropriate to the milieu of a society based on rule of law. That's it, that's all. Of course that decision could be overturned during the appeal process. I have to wonder, though: does this ruling constitute a free speech violation in as much as the public will still have access to the book. The injunction appears to restrict only Schiff and associates from distributing it; persons who have been previously convicted of tax evasion. Although Shciff has also been enjoined from lecturing on the subject. And, of course, he would say what he said. He lost. --MN]

[Addendum (11 Aug 2004:) On 09 Aug the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the federal district court decision prohibiting sales of the book. The appeals court said portions of the book the government sought to enjoin were "fraudulent commercial speech", hence: not protected by the First Amendment. --MN]

By U.S. Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it was not unconstitutional to require that libraries receiving federal funding install the filters or forgo funding. In the 6 - 3 decision, four justices said the law was constitutional, two said it was permissable so long as patrons were not denied Internet access.

By the Middlesex County school district, Sayreville, New Jersey. Some three years ago a group of kindergartners was suspended for threatening to shoot each other as they played a game of "cops and robbers" during recess. The children were pretending their fingers were guns and saying to one another, "I want to shoot you." Scot and Cassandra Garrick sued the Middlesex County school district after their son and three other students were suspended following the 15 Mar 2000 incident. A federal court judge ruled that they had no case. On 19 Jun 2003, a three court panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.The lawsuit alleged free speech violations, but a side issue is that the Garricks had not been informed about the hearing in which the suspension was decided and could not therefore attend it. John Whitehead, a founder of the Rutherford Institute, the Virginia-based nonprofit group that is representing the Garricks, is quoted as saying, "This was overreaction and over-punishment. It's part of the zero-tolerance mentality of no questions asked and you just throw (students) out.

[Children play games of that sort to explore concepts of good guys vs: bad guys and good vs: evil in a safe, consequence free manner. This is now being denied to them. I'm sure you can extrapolate the long term consequences for yourself. --MN]
(see 18 Sep 2003)

By state Rep. Fred Perry, R-Tulsa. This law was signed into law by Gov. Brad Henry on May 27 and became effective immediately. Mr. Perry says the intent is to target those who distribute obscene material, child pornography in particular. It specifically forbids downloading both child pornography and obscene material. Free-speech advocates are concerned the law could be abused by prosecutors with a narrow view of what constitutes obscenity. Mr. Perry is quoted as saying, "They are not going to prosecute some guy who downloads a file for his own purposes.

[One problem I can see off the top my head is that everything you look at on the internet is downloaded, and almost all of it is saved to the WINDOWS/TEMPORARY INTERNET FILES subdirectory on your hard drive. Basically, just having an obscene image pop up on your monitor will violate this law. The second problem is that Perry is full of shit. Individuals have been prosecuted for receiving images, albeit in Kansas rather than Oklahoma.

You can read the source article at First Amendment Center, read about the case in Kansas in the article by Ron Sylvester in The Wichita Eagle, or see my commentary on that issue. --MN]
(see 17 Feb 2003)

By Hosty vs: Carter, AKA Governors State case. Attorney General Lisa Madigan asked for and will receive a hearing before the full appeals court. No date had been set for the planned hearing as of this day. Madigan argued that the three-judge panel overlooked previous cases demonstrating that the law governing free-speech rights for college students is not "clearly established".

[Which means that she doesn't want to give up any political power she thinks she has over college students because the freedom of the press rights mandated in the First Amendment aren't spelled out in words she can understand. Or maybe she simply thinks that no student at any level of education has the full right accorded to legal adults because that person is still a student and his or her mental faculties are somehow lacking because of it. Madigan had styled herself as a defender of the First Amendment rights for college journalists in a pre-election debate in the fall of 2002. According to the Daily Egyptian at Southern Illinois University, she said she did not support censorship of the college press. So, she strikes me as either another schizophrenic caught up in the throes of doublethink, or just another lieing, petty tyrant, piece of trash elected to public office on the usual campaign rhetoric.

And my friends wonder why I'm so cynical. --MN]
(see 13 Jun 2002; 07 Jan 2003; 11 Apr 2003; 08 Jan 2004)

By Jimmy Breslin. In an editorial printed in the Miami Herald and reprinted at CommonDreams News Center, he details how the U.S. government disappeared an American citizen named Mohammed Rauf and subjected him to a secret trial. And how the press downplayed the story.

By British, anti-genetically modified foods activists. Some thirty people staged a protest au naturel to spell out their opposition to GM foods. The protest was held in a meadow at Forest Row, East Sussex.

Organiser Mike Grenville, a self-employed business consultant from that area, was quoted as saying,

"I think people were very pleased to have the opportunity to express how we feel, how frustrated we are about what seems to be the foregone conclusion, and the question many people are saying is 'What do we do next?'. We hope others will follow our lead and find other ways to express how we feel. We do not want GM crops planted in the country at all."

[The accompanying photograph is copyright Ananova.com and is mirrored here without permission. I wonder if stripping for free speech is becoming a new trend. I also wonder what kind of backlash there is likely to be and how long it will be in coming if protesters take to stripping in urban settings. The few nude protests with which I am familiar all took place in appropriate milieus. An anti-Iraq war protest on a nude beach, the above in a secluded meadow, and a bunch of prostitutes held a top free protest in their local red light district. (I'd include the Mexican farmers from above, but they didn't do the full monty.) --MN]

By Kourosh Kenneth Hamidi. A disgruntled ex-employee of Intel Corp., he had deluged up to 30,000 employees at a time with disparaging e-mails about his former employer. Intel sued, and a Santa Clara, California, court ruled that Mr. Hamidi had trespassed on Intel's servers just as if he been on a piece of physical property. On this day the California Supreme Court overturned that finding and a ruling barring him from e-mailing Intel employees. Justice Kathryn Werdegar wrote in the majority opinion, "He no more invaded Intel's property than does a protester holding a sign or shouting through a bullhorn outside corporate headquarters, posting a letter through the mail, or telephoning to complain of a corporate practice." In addition, the majority on the court ruled that the lower-court injunction barring Mr. Hamidi from e-mailing employees violated his First Amendment rights. Judge Werdegar noted that Intel's servers were not harmed and that the thousands of Hamidi e-mail recipients were able to request that the e-mails stop, and which requests were honored. Had that not been the case, Mr. Hamidi might well have been trespassing. Mr. Hamidi, a engineer who was fired in 1995 after a work-injury dispute, announced that he would continue his e-mailing campaign. Intel spokesman Chuck Mulloy said the company was disappointed and assessing its options in the event Mr. Hamidi does resume his activity.

By John Doe. On 27 Jun a three-judge panel of the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned, 2 - 1, a lower court's ruling that violated John Doe's First Amendment rights. Mr. Doe is a multiply convicted child molester and voyeur. The thing is, the city enacted its ban unilaterally and without allowing John Doe any kind of due process. Mr. Doe's suit alleged that the city violated his first and fourteenth amendment rights. Judge Ann Claire Williams wrote for the majority, "Presumably, untold numbers of Lafayette residents wander the city's parks every day, many of them potentially thinking offensive or objectionable thoughts." [...] [The Plaintiff] "may not be punished for merely thinking perverted thoughts about children." In the dissenting opinion, Judge Kenneth F. Ripple wrote that the ban was reasonable because John Doe had gone to the park to be near children. Doe's psychologist testified that his ability to go there and to manage his impulses was a positive step in his treatment. Lafayette Mayor Dave Heath was quoted as saying, "I think it hurts our ability to protect children. That type of conduct shouldn't be permitted around parks where kids frequent."

[What kind of conduct? Thinking? Seems to me, your disHonour, that you are projecting the impermissibity of thought in city hall into the city at large. See my commentary on this issue. --MN]

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

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