A brief chronological Compendium of a Few Banned or Challenged Works, and Censorship and Anti-Censorship Efforts 01 Jul - 31 Dec 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, July 01: Report that artistic expression is ruled child pornography

By Benito Tovar. This thirty-three year old photographer was convicted on 26 Jun on two counts of sex-related felonies. The charges stem from an incident in 2001 where he took photographs of a nude 15-year-old boy on the downtown River Walk in San Antonio, Texas. Mr. Tovar, was convicted in state court on charges of inducing a minor to participate in a sexual performance and possession of child pornography. The jury returned the verdict after deliberating approximately two hours. He is scheduled to be sentenced by District Judge Juanita Vasquez-Gardner on 04 Aug. Mr. Tovar's defense was based on his being an artist, and that the photographs were art.

[See my commentary on this issue --MN]

By Hong Kongese. Some 350,000 to 500,000 citizens took to the streets in a massive, anger driven, but peaceful protest against an anti-subversion law proposed by the repressive government of China. This protest was held on the sixth anniversary of the hand-over of Hong Kong from British control to Chinese control. The government of China had guaranteed the territory could maintain its liberties under a program of "one country, two systems". Hong Kong has its own constitution to that effect. However, that constitution also has a provision requiring an anti-subversion law. Critics of the proposed law are accusing officials of going too far. Hong Kong's national security law will purportedly ban subversion, treason, sedition, and other crimes against the state, give the police more powers, and permit life sentences in prison for some crimes. Many critics believe the government of Hong Kong will use the law to ban the meditation group Falun Gong, which has been outlawed in mainland China as an "evil cult." Beijing has been trying to eradicate the group on the mainland, but it remains legal in Hong Kong and demonstrates there frequently. Hong Kong Chief Executive Tung Chee-hwa issued a statement in which he reiterated assurances that his government will, "continue to take active steps to maintain and safeguard rights and freedoms." Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao was asked about the bill and said that it, "absolutely will not affect the different rights and freedoms Hong Kong people -- including reporters -- enjoy under the law."

[Yeah, right. I'll believe that when I see it.

Judging from that quote above, Wen seems to have thought that the reporters were more concerned about their own perogatives and his statement was meant to reassure them so they'd put a good face on the bill. But, then, I might be reading too much into it. --MN]
(See 05 Jul 2003)

By Amiri Baraka. Gov. James E. McGreevey signed a bill abolishing the position of Poet Laureate. The bill was the only way to remove Mr. Baraka because the governor and Legislature cannot fire the poet laureate. Mr. Baraka has announced that he plans to sue for slander and for free speech violations. Democratic Assemblyman William Payne disagreed with the move, arguing that while Baraka's views should be condemned, the position should not be abolished. He is quoted as saying, "This legislation flies in the face of New Jersey being an enlightened state. This is a position that is very, very valuable."
(See 29 Jan 2003)

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

By site purveyors. A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended First Amendment protections to do-it-yourself online publishers. The decision allows loggers to post material generated by others without liability for the content; unlike traditional news media which are held responsible for such information. said Eric Brown, representing the defendant in the suit, "It clarifies the existing law. It expands it in the sense that no court had really addressed bloggers, list serve operators and those people yet, certainly not on the level of the 9th Circuit Court." Jeralyn Merritt, a lawyer and web logger who manages a site about crime-related news and politics, is quoted as saying, "The decision is a real victory for free speech. Now we can publish information we receive from someone else without fear of getting sued."

The decision, made on 24 Jun, was based on the 1996 Communications Decency Act.

[In what way, I'd like to know. The CDA is supposed to be a censorial law. Which provisions of it support free speech? Time to do more research. --MN]

[Addendum (13 Jul 2003): Got it. From a commentary at First Amendment Center, by Douglas Lee:

"Section 230(c)" might not sound as impressive as "the First Amendment," but its significance for free speech - at least in cyberspace - is beginning to transcend the sacred constitutional guarantee.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is the most recent federal court to hold that the protections afforded Internet speech by Section 230(c) of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 exceed those offered by the First Amendment. As interpreted by the court in Batzel v. Smith, Section 230(c) immunizes from liability Web-site operators who post defamatory e-mails authored by third parties. [...] With this statutory protection in place, Internet access providers and Web-site operators can host bulletin boards and post other information without assuming responsibility for the accuracy of the material provided.

Lee points out that this accords a much higher degree of protection to private citizens publishing on the internet than is provided to traditional media by the First Amendment. --MN]
(See 07 Aug 2001; 02 Jan 2002; 01 Feb 2005)

The Oregon Supreme court ruled against Michael Higgins. See the appendix on vanity plates.

By Pat Barber. A lawyer, he had erected an 8 X 16 foot billboard on his property next to Interstate 20 in Mitchell County, Texas, in opposition to the practice by the local police of asking to search the motor vehicles of drivers who had been stopped for traffic violations. The billboard read "Just Say NO to Searches!" and had a phone number for a recorded message advising callers to refuse permission. Local law enforcement were apparently displeased with the sign, and he was threatened with fines by Texas Department of Transportation under the Texas Highway Beautification Act. In 1999, the state won a trial court order requiring its removal and Barber was ordered to pay $1,200 in fines and attorney fees. Barber burned the sign down, but vowed to appeal, alleging suppression of his political speech. An appeals court ruled the law was an unconstitutional free speech violation and state officials took the case to the Texas Supreme Court. On this day, the court ruled against Barber 6 - 3.

Justice Priscilla Owen, in the dissenting opinion, wrote, "Placing a sign on one's own property is a common means of speaking. I think owners of rural property, even if they do not live on the property, would be dismayed to learn that they cannot place even a single sign on that property expressing their political views, although they would be permitted to display a sign that said, 'Watermelons for sale,' if they erected a fruit stand."

[There is no doubt in my mind that this constitutes censorship of political speech in as much as the action was initiated by law enforcement agencies against private citizens being advised of their rights. Just say NO to Texas. --MN]

By librarians. An article at the First Amendment Center details some of the reactions to the ruling. These reactions range from a demand that vendors of the censorware open the blacklists to public scrutiny to how the ruling is likely to widen the digital divide.

By private citizens. This controversial film deals with teenage sex, incest, and scenes of auto-erotic asphyxiation, and a result it was recently banned in Australia by the Office of Film and Literature Board. In defiance of the ban, some 500 people gathered in a town hall in southern Sydney to watch the film, and the police raided the viewing, confiscated the DVD, and took down the details of the four organisers of the screening. There were no other arrests, but further action is being considered. Although the film has been shown worldwide it was dropped from the Sydney Film Festival; the first film in 30 years to be so treated. Australian censors had refused last May to classify the film due to the under-age sex theme.

[In the minds of the intellectually naive, of course, the depiction of actors as being under-age, assuming the actors were all legal adults, still makes the film child pornography. --MN]

By Arkansas. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Hong Kongese. The government of Hong Kong backed down on the three most controversial and suppressive measures of this law in light of the protest on 01 Jul. The provisions to be removed would have allowed:

• the banning of groups outlawed by Beijing;
• the police the power to conduct raids without a warrant;
• prosecution of the press for leaking "state secrets" in the public interest.

These revisions might not be enough for opponents to the bill, however, as protesters are planning another demonstration this week when the legislation is discussed and voted on. Even opposition parties, Hong Kong lawyers, and religious groups are calling for the legislation to be delayed or scrapped altogether, and some of Tung's traditional political allies have been swayed by the public outcry and have joined the calls for a postponement.

[Gee, my previous cynicism seems to have been well borne out. --MN]
(See 01 Jul 2003)

In Saudi Arabia. On this date, ArabNews.com reported that the country's security bodies were told by the government to remind internet café owners about the strict laws to monitor those who access the Internet. A new regulation comes into effect requiring:

• Internet café customers to surrender their ID cards so that their names and ID numbers can be written down;
• the time at which the user logged onto the Net and the logoff time are to be recorded and filed by the café for six months;
• and released to the authorities if requested.

The regulations distributed to Internet caf‚ owners are as follows:

• Users must be informed of fines and possible imprisonment for those who violate these regulations;
• users under 18 are not allowed to access the Internet; although exceptions are permitted for those accompanied by a guardian, and for trainees and students in computer science, and those in charge of trainees and computer centers will be held fully responsible for any misuse of computers by those under 18;
• public places will be held fully responsible for any failure to identify a person who has violated these conditions or for any misuse of their equipment;
• users must be guided to use the Internet in a positive manner that is consistent with Islamic teachings and government laws;
• and they should avoid anything that infringes on the regulations for public Internet use which include:
  • Material that violates Islamic Shariah in principle or in fact;
  • as well as anything that abuses the sacredness of Islam and its teachings;
  • material used to exchange information, either sending or receiving, that contradicts Islam or Saudi government laws;
  • material that runs counter to public security;
  • material that propagates destructive ideas or the spread of anything that might be a danger to public order or that might lead to disunity among citizens;
  • material that advocates crime, calls for it, or stimulates it in any way as well as anything that advocates an assault or attack on others in any form
  • and material that involves the exploitation of individuals.

The article also contains some information about the progress of censorship in Saudi Arabia. The sweeping scope of the repression is quite depressing, but I recommended reading the article to get an idea of how sweeping censorship can be.

[Addendum (07 Jul 2003): It seems most internet café owners had no idea what was going on at all. In an article at ArabNews.com covering reaction to the announcement of the crackdown, the newspaper reported that none of the owners they talked to had been informed about the new guidelines. Some didn't even believe it when told about the new guidelines, one owner didn't see any point to the crackdown in light of the fact that the government controlled all access through the servers anyway, and a couple lightly touched upon the economic issues involved. --MN]

In Gary, Indiana. In 2001, Gary city officials passed an ordinance requiring a 45-day waiting period for parade permits, and which authorized the city to charge applicants if the group had a history of violence. The city then granted a permit for the Church of the American Knights of the KKK, based in Butler, to rally at Gary City Hall, but charged the group $4,395 up front. This was the estimated cost for overtime for law enforcement.The rally was cancelled, but a lawsuit was filed in federal court on free speech grounds. That lawsuit was dismissed, but on 02 Jul 2003 the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago reversed that dismissal. Judge Richard Posner wrote in the ruling, "It is obvious that the actual purpose of the fee requirement is to prevent Klan rallies in Gary, a purpose that is understandable but also unconstitutional."

[The source article for this said:

The Klan's last rally in Gary, held in March 2001 at an abandoned football stadium, drew 27 Klansmen and 150 to 200 anti-Klan protesters.

Split the difference to crunch the numbers and it works to 6.48 to 1 in favour of the anti-Klan protesters; or 13 - 2. With the Klan outnumbered at that rate, it is obvious that their message of hatred and intolerance is not affecting the greater mass of the public the way ultra-left wing nuts are worried it might. So what are we so afraid of? Let the Klan march, and while they are doing so offer some critical reviews of their views and positions. Remember: the answer to free speech is more free speech. Not less. --MN]
(see 20 Jan 2003)

By Telenor Avidi and UPC of Norway. When ordered to block customers from receiving uncensored pornographic films on digital televisions Canal+ and TV1000, they filed a complaint instead with Norwegian Minister of Culture, Valgerd Svarstad Haugland. Øyvind Husby, UPC department head of strategy and community relations, reportedly said in a news interview that the decision treats suppliers of cable and parabolic television services differently because the agency has not demanded that competitors Canal Digital and Viasat stop their uncensored pornography being sent satellite dish. The cable supplier UPC wrote in its letter of complaint that the requirement to stop sending porn should be directed at the different channels and not the cable suppliers. UPC claimed the company does not have the ability to act unilaterally to stop the Canal+ and TV1000 broadcasts.

See the entry in the Appendix G

By Lewis Dickey. The Chief Executive Officer for Cumulus Media, a consortium of 306 radio stations, was forced to admit there was a blacklist against the Dixie Chicks despite previous assertions to the contrary; This happened during a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on this day. This hearing did not have anything to do with this unprincipled and unethical activity, however, it was about media consolidation and the detrimental affects therefrom; of which the Dixie Chicks Affair is a fine case in point.

By Frank Davies. According to Mr. Davies, in an article published in the Miami Herald and reprinted at Alternet.org, the report was completed in Dec 2002, but Bush administration intelligence officials "scrubbed" the report, objecting to additional public disclosures. Senator Bob Graham and Representative Porter Goss of Sanibel, had been pushing for more disclosure for months. Sen. Graham, a Democrat running for president as of this date, has said the administration was using national security as an excuse to cover up "embarrassments" by the government. Rep. Goss blamed the battle for declassification on traditional resistance from intelligence officials.

[I tend to go with Goss on this one at first glance. However, there is a lot to be said in support of both arguments. The reality is probably a mixture of both. Still, there was nothing in the article to suggest that there was any kind of overt cover up. --MN]
(see 29 Jul 2003)

By Barbara Ehrenreich. The choice of this book for the incoming freshmen reading program generated another censorship attack against University of North Caroline-Chapel Hill for the second year in a row. The school came under attach in 2002 for assigning a comparitive religion text about the Qu'ran. This year's selection is about the economic reality of trying to make a living on minimum wage or less. The work chronicles the hardships of the author when she worked as a waitress, a cleaning woman, and a Wal-Mart employee in three U.S. cities. Sen. Hugh Webster, a republican, said of it, "This book, 'Nickel and Dimed,' could probably be described as intellectual pornography with no redeeming characteristics." Some fellow republicans and conservative students from an activist group, complained that the book had a "liberal bias". They wrote a letter to the school asking that the be allowed to meet book selection committee, "so that we might understand from them just what motivated the choice." However, Chapel Hill Democratic Rep. Joe Hackney answered that question in an interview. He is quoted as commenting, "It looks to me the university succeeded in what it was trying to do, which is to make students think."

[Dear, Senator.

This book, 'Nickel and Dimed,' could probably be described as intellectual pornography with no redeeming characteristics.
--Sen. Hugh Webster, a Republican from Burlington and a UNC-CH alumnus

You could probably be described as a political whore without any redeeming social or moral values. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I could say out loud that you are a Port Said pimp who sells his underage children in the market place. I could probably say a lot of things about you, and I could even get around to saying some that will not be any less invective but a great deal more accurate. In fact, I think I'd be pretty close on the money if I was to say that you are an anti-intellectual slut. Not to mention a hypocrite who wouldn't have said anything at all if those students were being force-fed the bible instead of material suitable for a free thinker.

Do the human race a favour: crawl back under your rock and stay there until you evolve into a higher life form. --MN]
(see 30 Oct 2003)

On 08 Jul, U.S. District Judge Stanwood Duval ruled that Louisiana's system for specialty plates violates the First Amendment because it allows the anti-abortion "Choose Life" plates but does not offer one for the opposing view. The state had argued that the law for issuing specialty plates was a protected state right not covered by the First Amendment. Louisiana has almost one hundred fifty varieties of specialty plates; they cost an additional $25 and are sold as a fund raising effort for groups and causes including universities, wildlife conservation, and the Girl Scouts. Judge Duval had blocked the sale of "Choose Life" plates in 2000, saying the law was "very likely an unconstitutional restraint of free speech," but the tags, which show a cartoon of a pelican carrying a baby, went on sale in the autumn of 2002 after the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned that decision. The case was sent back to Duval, with the proviso that the suit, brought by abortion-rights advocates, including Planned Parenthood, would be dismissed unless it was turned into a challenge of the entire system by which specialty tags are handed out. The plaintiffs did challenge the system, and that lead to this latest ruling.

However, William Rittenberg, an attorney for the plaintiffs, which includes Planned Parenthood, noted that the ruling does not ban specialty plates, only how the state currently authorizes such plates. He said the state could pass a law similar to others which allow specialty plates to be issued if a enough people ask for them.

[Ah! So this wasn't about Louisiana producing plates solely for the benefit of the anti-rights groups, and those groups would not have had a say in how government funds generated would have been spent, because the extra funds would have gone to the groups. Somebody, somewhere, failed to include all of the relevant information necessary for us to make up our own minds. I suggest that you read the full article at First Amendment Center. --MN]
(See 12 Apr 2002; 26 Apr 2002)

By Alexander Pope, Ernest Hemingway, and Jonathan Swift, respectively. These books, and some others, came under attack at Punjab University in Lahore, Pakistan. The great works of English literature could be dropped from the syllabus because of what professors fear is a rising tide of Muslim fundamentalism. A review of books studied in the English courses at the university singled out several texts as containing offensive sexual connotations which were deemed "vulgar". This challenge seems to have been triggered by complaints about the syllabus by the wife of a retired army general. She criticised the inclusion of two poems -- one by WH Auden, which she said promoted Jews, and a poem by Vikram Seth, who she said was too pro-Indian. She also opposed using the poems of Adrienne Rich because she is a lnsbian. The woman is reported to have said during a meeting with academics, "We have been tolerant for too long."

The matter was then turned over to the retired army officers who run the university, and review was conducted by Shahbaz Arif, a lecturer in English, who staunchly defended his proposal to rule out dozens of texts studied around the world in an interview. Dr. Arif described himself as westernised, citing his PhD in linguistics from Essex University. His rationale for his actions is quoted as being, "Limitations should be there, it is required. The majority of students come from a background where literature is not available. Sex is a taboo. It is very difficult to teach these things in the classroom. We have to be very careful in the selection of texts."

Some of his findings, in general and specifically, and some extracts of the material he founds offensive are as follows:

• The masters syllabus: Almost every second text in the syllabus contains direct/indirect references of vulgarity and sexuality;

• The Jewel in the Crown, by Paul Scott: "He tore at my underclothes and pressed down on me with all his strength. But this was not me and Hari. Entering me he made me cry out. And then it was us.";

• The Sun Also Rises, By Ernest Hemingway: All characters sexually astray: men homosexuals; females lnsbians/promiscuous; Brett Ashley nymphomaniac and so on; "What if Brett did sleep with you? She's slept with lots of better people than you.";

• The Rape of the Lock, by Alexander Pope: The title of the book itself shows vulgarity;

• John Donne's poetry: Almost every poem has the connotation of sex where the poet wants to take every lady to bed for sexual pleasure; "Enter these armes, for since thou thoughtst it best, Not to dreame all my dreame, let's act the rest." ;

• The End of the Beginning, a play by Sean O'Casey: Dr. Arif makes no specific comment on the text but quotes several passages in which the apparently objectionable phrases are underlined. They include the phrase: "When the song ended, Darry cocks his ear and listens." Dr. Arif has underlined the word "cocks"

• Tess of the D'Ubervilles, by Thomas Hardy: (identified as: Tomas (sic) Hardy, Tess of the D'Urber Villes (sic)) "To Tess's horror the dark queen began stripping off the bodice of her gown - which for the added reason of its ridiculed condition she was only too glad to be free of - till she had bared her plump neck, shoulders, and arms to the moonshine, under which they looked as luminous and beautiful as some Praxitelean creation, in their possession of the faultless rotundities of a lusty country girl."

• Gulliver's Travels, by Jonathan Swift: "I must confess no Object ever disgusted me so much as the sight of her monstrous Breast, which I cannot tell what to compare with, so as to give the curious Reader an idea of its Bulk, Shape and Colour. It stood prominent six Foot, and could not be less than sixteen in Circumference. The Nipple was about half the Bigness of my Head, and the Hew both of that and the Dug so varified with Spots, Pimples and Freckles, that nothing could appear more nauseous."

• An Old Friend, by Edmond See: "They gave me five or six cherry brandies during each performance. It took the place of a meal because alcohol is nourishing and it warms you.".

[I'm surprised he didn't also cite the scene in Lilliput where Gulliver urinates on the burning palace to quench the fire and the Lilliputian queen ogles his manhood in embarrassment. I always thought Gulliver's Travels would be challenged for that. The line from An Old Friend is objectional because it is a reference to alcohol. I believe that Islam does not forbid alcohol or speaking about it; only its consumption is forbidden to the devout; as with pork. The source for the information in this entry is reportedly an internal memo drawn up by Dr. Arif and seen by the Guardian, and subsequently posted in an article on the internet . --MN]

[Addendum (29 Jul 2003): Ah-ha! Just realized why the hypersensitivity of Shahbaz Arif failed to react at the mention of Gulliver's manhood. It's because the expression in that case is of male sexuality and a patriarchic religion actively suppresses only expressions of female sexuality. Hence: mention of the penis was safe, and mention of the breast was offensive. Remember: It's not just what they say, but how they say it; and what they don't say. If you don't believe that conclusion about Arif, then consider that islamist countries only punish women for being sexual creatures. It is men who look upon the faces of women with lust, but women who must cover their faces and avert their eyes from men. --MN]

An Iranian born Canadian photojournalist (with dual citizenship), Ms. Kazemi was severly injured during a beating administered after she was arrested for photographing a student demonstration outside a prison in the city of Tehran. The government of Iran tried desperately to cover it up, but the truth finally did out. (see the Zahra Kasemi Murder Case Timeline)

By William Rivers Pitt. See the entry in Appendix G.

By Washington State. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

In an article at the First Amendment Center. The article details a number of ways in which home owner associations are engaged in wholesale free speech, free expression, and open government violations.

• Emergency room doctor and Vietnam veteran Bill Durston protested the invasion of Iraq by lowering his American flag and raising the flag of the United Nations instead. His neighborhood homeowners association told him to take it down, citing its rules. Durston refused, citing the constitution.
• Privatopia (1994), a study on the rise of homeowners associations by University of Illinois political science professor Evan McKenzie, cites:
  • a resident forced to leave when he married a woman three years younger than the neighborhood's minimum age;
  • an association banning an Army veteran from flying a U.S. flag on Flag Day;
  • an association having taken a woman to court because her dog weighed more than 30 pounds.

Robert Browning, a national board member of the Community Associations Institute, which helps associations observe professional standards, says that these are extreme cases. However, the number of associations is growing by approximately eight thousand a year. As of publication of the article, the number of homeowners associations nation-wide in the U.S. was reported at 249,000. They are described as having, "corporate-style rules that limit traditional town hall democracy and keep closed financial records".
(see 27 Nov 2003; 17 Jan 2004; 07 Feb 2006)

By Truthout.org. On this day, Truthout e-mailed to its subscribers a copy of a letter by its counsel, William M. Simpich. The letter is an advisory about a cease and desist order to SpamCop and Yahoo!. Mr. Simpich had sent the letter because some subscribers to Truthout.org had not been receiving their e-mailed newsletters. Mr. Simpich attributes the blacklisting to an abuse of a Reader-based SPAM rating systems.

[In which an individual whose political prejudices do not agree with those of Truthout sought to invoke censorship. A further demonstration of the problems with filtering software. --MN]

[Addendum (18 Jul 2003): On 14 Jul TruthOut mailed a brief follow up. See the entry on the TruthOut cesnorship page. --MN]

By Bonnie Cuevas. Ms. Cuevas was reprimanded for discussing the U.S. Supreme Court ruling against a misohomonist law in the state of Texas. A board member of the Kansas Unity and Pride Alliance, an events coordinator for the library, and the mother of a gay man who had been almost beaten to death, she was reportedly reprimanded by two administrators at the Topeka-Shawnee County Library and prohibited from from discussing gay rights in the workplace. The reprimand followed a complaint by a co-worker that Ms. Cuevas had poisoned the workplace, creating a hostile environment. Ms. Cuevas's side of the story is that she had spoken by telephone to friends and reporters about the decision and how it affects her family and that she had talked about the decision to a co-worker who approached her for information about the decision. On this day the ACLU sent a letter to the library asking them to reconsider their prohibition.

[And another knee-jerk reactionary, fag-baiting, poisonous little creep crawls out of the woodwork to abuse harassment policies; and the woefully ignorant and small-minded Big Brother droogs fall for the PC party line. Wot a bunch o' utter gimboids.

The director of the library, David Leamon, had just gotten back from vacation when he was contacted and was not then aware of the situation. He was reported to have said that the staff complained that Cuevas was being disruptive because of the frequent, impassioned telephone calls, and that, at best, she should have been reminded that the library's phones are for business. He commented, "We never issue gag orders. The library is on neutral ground and we don't take positions on issues." Ms. Cuevas had probably simply waxed too enthusiastic while on the phone. --MN]
(see 05 Aug 2003)

By Marc Schultz. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Thomas McLaughlin. On this day the Pulaski County School District settled this case out of court. The terms of the settlement are:

• the district will pay McLaughlin and his parents $25,000 in damages and attorney fees;
• write McLaughlin a letter of apology;
• clear his disciplinary record;
• to refrain in the future from disclosing any student's sexual orientation;
• to refrain from punishing or disciplining students for talking about sexual orientation when they're not in class.

(see 08 Apr 2003)

By the U.S. White House. See the entry in Appendix G.

By Katy Johnson. On this day Ms. Johnson dropped her lawsuit against Tucker Max. On 21 Jul, the material which had been removed from Max's web site due to court order was reposted. Both sides are claiming a victory. Michael Santucci, Ms. Johnson's attorney, was reported to have commented via e-mail, "She has exposed a Web site which clearly degrades women, and contains false statements about her." Mr. Max apparently wrote at his site, "Even though I did not like getting sued, I am proud that I was able, in a small way, to serve my country by defending, and ultimately defeating, an egregious attack on the 1st Amendment."

[This is a very clear victory for free speech rights, in my not humble opinion. If all Johnson had wanted to do was to expose Max's web site as fraudulent, she certainly should not have filed a frivolous lawsuit and demanded censorial measures from the bench to do so. This is like using a sledgehammer to kill mosquitos and is a serious erosion of the principles the First Amendment codifies. I wonder if it was her idea or her lawyers'. --MN]
(see 02 Jun 2003)

By the town of Osceola, Indiana. On 17 Jul, town Attorney Stephen Eslinger filed paperwork in Superior Court asking a judge to block a rally planned by the Ku Klux Klan. He is quoted as telling the South Bend Tribune, "We want the judge to issue an injunction prohibiting Richard Loy, Railton Loy and this organization from conducting a rally on town property August 2 as they've threatened. We want to prohibit them from burning a cross on town property, ever." Railton Loy is the international imperial wizard of the Church of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan and Richard Loy is the grand dragon. The plans for the rally comprise a march from Richard Loy's farm to the town hall property and a cross-burning at the hall. The event is planned as part of the White Pride Fest, 01-03 Aug.The filing says another group had already reserved the Town Hall and grounds for 02-03 Aug, and that the town's practice was to grant the first such request, and that the Loys have not submitted a written application for use of the property, provided proof of insurance coverage for the event, or paid an application fee. Richard Loy said the Klan had asked for use of the Town Hall property before anyone else and alleges that the apparent reservation by another group is an effort to circumvent his free speech rights. According to the lawsuit, town officials are worried that if the Klan group holds the rally when another group is occupying the grounds there could be injuries or damages for which the town would be liable.

[A specious argument, but any excuse will do for a tyrant. --MN]
(see 30 Jul 2003)

By both Democrats and Republicans.

[See my commentary on this issue --MN]

By Beth Daly. On this day the ACLU filed a suit on her behalf against the city of Dickson, Tennessee. Ms. Daly had been selling Tarot readings for twenty-five dollars apiece when she was informed that it was illegal to do so. When the ACLU was unable to get a response from the city, they filed the suit alleging a free speech violation. The suit asks that the ordinance be declared unconstitutional and the city to be enjoined from enforcing it. Dickson Councilwoman Linda Chambers says she believes the intent of the law is to protect people from fraud, adding that Daly is can continue her readings as long as she doesn't charge for them. "We do not prohibit them from doing it. If they want to do it for free, that's fine."

[I believe that Councilwoman Chambers is an abject idiot. On the face of it, this ordinance certainly violates the principle of free enterprise. A deeper issue, however, is that this ordinance almost certainly violates the church/state separation. Tennessee is in the Bible Belt, and strongly ultra-conservative. Ultra-religionists are opposed to any occultic expression at all that is not in keeping with the occult of their sect, and I expect that a look into the motives behind this law will find a biblical basis, not one founded in secular law enforcement. Chambers might want to look into that. --MN]

By the Connecticut Supreme Court. On this day that court ruled that although the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a person's right to hurl insults at police, that right does not extend to threats, even though the threat might not be imminent. The court ruled 4-1 in Connecticut v. DeLoreto to uphold the breach-of-peace conviction of Dante DeLoreto, who was arrested in 2000 after two heated confrontations with town police; one of which at least he apparently initiated, and in both of which he threatened to, "kick your ass." William Westcott, DeLoreto's attorney, called the actions "chicken-hearted braggadocio" and said police knew the threats were not real. He also contended that threats against police officers must meet a higher standard than those against average citizens. The court disagreed, ruling that though citizens have a right to say things to a police officer that would be considered out of line if said to another citizen, threats are different. Some viewpoints expressed by those involved in the case:

• Chief Justice William Sullivan wrote, "The First Amendment does not demand that we narrow the class of statements that constitute true threats when spoken to a police officer."

• William Westcott: "How is it not relevant what you do for living, when you assess these things day in and day out?"

• Jon Schoenhorn, the attorney in the original case: "Statements made to police have to be given higher scrutiny than if made to an ordinary citizen."

• Wethersfield Police Chief James L. Cetran: "I think it's a reasonable realization by the Supreme Court that everyone is put in the same position by threats. No one really gets hurt by name calling, but a lot of people do follow through with threats."

• Philip D. Tegeler, attorney for the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union: "We were concerned this case might undermine First Amendment protections for people who criticize police officers, or who say insulting things to police officers."

Justice Joette Katz wrote a dissenting opinion in which she said a lower court should have investigated the facts surrounding DeLoreto's convenience-store confrontation. She did however agree with many of the points in the majority decision.

[A threat is not a criticism. It's one thing if I call you a shithead and quite another if I say that I'm going to beat the hell out of you. In the second instance, if nothing else, I have clearly stated an intent to commit a crime. For that reason, I believe Chief Cetran's viewpoint is a valid one, though his rationale is specious. There are many more people who do not follow through on threats, and his concern is a vague and undefined fear. Furthermore, I was a security agent for nine years. We were trained to take threats seriously. All law enforcement agents are, I believe.

This case seems to touch on whether or not a threat can be considered to be a criticism, and does a double standard apply where it is less of a threat to utter such words to a cop because he is trained to exercise a higher standard of judgement in violent confrontations? In my not so humble opinion the answer to that question is: No.

Given the few facts reported for this case, I also have to question DeLoreto's mental state. Prior to his arrest, DeLoreto had sued several police officers in federal court on civil rights charges; which case is still pending as of this time. It was reported that in the first confrontation, DeLoreto had shouted insults from his car at a police officer who was jogging, and jumped from his car and threw his fists in the air. Whatever issues this man has with the local police, they seem to have seriously tainted his judgement. A factor that also should have been investigated. There was no mention of the state of his mental faculties, however. --MN]

By Judge Adam Sadler, the Republican Leadership Council, and misohomonist intolerance. The most recent fall-out from a censorship movement started on 26 Aug 2002 seems to be a resounding victory for tolerance and freedom of thought. Montgomery County Commissioners Court voted 3 - 2 to maintain library membership in the American Library Association and to keep library book-selection policies unchanged. The religio-political, ultra-conservative Republican Leadership Council condemned the ALA; one opponent, Mark Cadwallader, called the ALA, "an ultra-liberal, atheist-based organization for the advancement of pornography and homosexuality." On 27 Jul, angry parents had picketed the library in opposition to the proposal by Judge Sadler and Commissioner Craig Doyal. The court voted on the measure after hearing from twenty-one citizens over more than two hours.

[Of course, nobody said anything about how the Council is an ultra-conservative, heresy based organization for the advancement of burning people at the stake. --MN]
(see the appendix on Robie Harris; and Transcripts ofthe anticensorship speeches Montgomery County Commissioner's Court 23 Sep and 07 and 21 Oct 2002)

[Addendum (02 Aug 2003): On this day the American Libraries Online web site posted the 04 Aug edition of their newsletter. It contained an article about the Montgomery County Affair vote with some small but critical pieces of information about Sadler's proposals. Their article also had a link to a Montgomery County News piece from 19 Jul which basically alleged that Sadler had violated open government meeting laws by receiving a letter from Mark Cadwaller in secret. See the letter itself with notes by the Montgomery County News editor and my critical review. Also see an article on the meeting in the Montgomery County News, 30 July edition which reports that a councillor stated publicly that he had been secretly lobbied by Judge Sadler. --MN]

By Michelle Beadle. A New Orleans resident who works as a missionary, she was barred from distributing religious tracts by University of New Orleans. On this date a lawsuit was filed on her behalf.

[What is so noteworthy about this fairly standard censorship incident is: 1) Ms. Beadle is a Messianic Jew instead of a christian, and, 2) the suit was filed by the American Center for Law and Justice. The same ACLJ that I have previously denigrated as being the American Center for (Biblical) Law and Justice, and of which I asked if they would take cases by non-christians. Well, it seems they have started to. What's a poor cynic to do, I ask you. Well, good on them. Though I do hope they are doing so out of the spirit of religious liberty and not just because Ms. Beadle promotes Jesus Christ as the messiah. Mainstream Judaism does not, you see. Keep watching the skies; the truth will out. --MN]

[Addendum (19 Aug 2004:) On 16 Aug 2004 this case was settled out of court. University of New Orleans revised its policy regarding free speech on campus and agreed to permit Ms. Beadle to distribute her tracts. At issue in this case was a tract that asserted that: while almost any subject is acceptable for polite conversation, one statement still triggers an angry response from people: "Jews should believe in Jesus." --MN]

By the United States Congress. See the entry in Appendix G.

By U.S. District Judge Patricia Seitz. Judge Seitz ruled on this day that newspapers do not have a First Amendment right to sell newspapers in traffic. Her decision means that the Florida law used by Hollywood police to ticket South Florida Sun-Sentinel and Miami Herald street vendors is content neutral and promotes a significant government interest in public safety. The case stems from newspapers vendors who were cited on 25 Mar. Videotaped evidence shows vendors walking between cars that had stopped at signals. Judge Seitz's ruling has no effect on the sales of newspapers on sidewalks or medians, however. The papers are suing the city and had asked Judge Seitz to block enforcement of the ordinance pending a trial. A Hallandale Beach city commissioner had suggested banning street vendors in March, however, after he said he almost ran into a hawker at an intersection.

[During the hearing, the judge had reportedly been told that three vendors have been killed in recent years. Believe it or not, this is almost certainly not relevant. First, what percentage of the total number of vendors does that constitute, and secondly, how does that compare to the number of vendors who died but were not killed in traffic? I will grant that it is always unwise to play in traffic, however, and the idea that newspaper vendors have a first amendment right to do so tends to stretch credulity. Keep in mind that selling newspapers is not about free speech as much as it is about commerce. --MN]

By the ACLU, on behalf of six organizations. Three of the plaintiffs are:

• Muslim Community Association of Ann Arbor,
• Arab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, and
• the Islamic Center of Portland, Masjed As-Saber.

The document filed on the suit reads in part:

• This lawsuit challenges the constitutionality of Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, which vastly expands the power of the Federal Bureau of Investigation to obtain records and other 'tangible things' of people not suspected of criminal activity.
• To obtain a Section 215 order, the FBI need only assert that the records or personal belongings are 'sought for' an ongoing foreign intelligence, counterintelligence, or international terrorism investigation.
• The FBI is not required to show probable cause -- or any reason -- to believe that the target of the order is a criminal suspect or foreign agent.

Barbara Comstock, the Justice Department spokeswoman, released a written statement defending the act, saying it was, "a long overdue measure to close gaping holes" in anti-terrorism efforts. Section 215 was described as having "a narrow scope that scrupulously respects First Amendment rights, requires a court order to obtain any business records, and is subject to congressional reporting and oversight on a regular basis." Justice Department officials say the section can be used only in a narrow set of circumstances, such as to obtain foreign intelligence about people who are neither American citizens nor lawful permanent residents, and to defend the United States against foreign spies or international terrorists. "Section 215 cannot be used to investigate garden-variety crimes, or even domestic terrorism," Comstock said in her statement.

The suit alleges that section 215, which apparently authorizes warrantless and secret searches of businesses, library, and bookstore records is unconstitutional. The ACLU filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Michigan. The plaintiffs claim section 215 violates the Constitution's First, Fourth, and Fifth amendments.

By San Francisco Public Library. In a special project called Reversing Vandalism, artists will transform hundreds of vandalized library books into art for an anti-misohomonism exhibit planned for Spring 2004. In early 2001, library staff in the main and Chinatown branches of the SF Public Library began to discover books that had been slashed beyond repair. The common thread of the books was that most dealt primarily with homosexuality topics as well as women's health and AIDS, but he also slashed books by author John Gay and a book about the Hiroshima bomber the Enola Gay. The assault on the books left disturbing images: faces with the eyes and mouth cut out in repetitive almond-shaped gaps, and with multiple copies of the same book slashed in almost exactly the same manner. Six hundred seven books had been irreperably damaged By 46-year-old security guard John Perkyns by the time he was stopped. He sentenced to five years probation, mandatory counseling, and had to pay the library $9,600 in damages.

After his conviction, the books, which had been used as evidence, were returned to the library. Jim Van Buskirk, got the idea to use the books for artistic expression to turn the hate crime into something positive while going through the boxes. He commented, "The more I looked at them the creepier it became. I knew I couldn't throw them away, because it would just reinforce the goal of the perpetrator." The library hopes to have all the entries returned by 11 Oct, National Coming Out Day.

Due to procedural error, however, and not due to any First Amendment violation by the city of Osceola, Indiana. Superior Court Judge William Whitman granted an injunction against the Church of the National Knights of the Ku Klux Klan for a cross-burning rally on the grounds that organizers had not followed the procedure the town requires. It seems that Grand Dragon Loy had announced at a Town Council meeting in March his intention to hold the rally, but that he had not filed paperwork or paid the $25 fee required. Loy argued the regulations were a violation of his free-speech rights. Judge Whitman disagreed, writing in his opinion that, "The fact that the Osceola Town Hall is a publicly-owned building does not ergo make it a public forum."

[Oh, I don't agree with that one at all. Of course it's a public forum. It's a government building. Unfortunately, the AP article which is the source for this entry, at the First Amendment Center web site, did not say if Judge Whitman had ruled that the regulations were reasonable measures. And there is much potential for that quotation to have been taken out of context. --MN]
(see 21 Jul 2003)

By the American Civil Liberties Union. On this day the ACLU released a memorandum about several points raised by the Supreme Court ruling on CIPA. On 06 Aug, a pro-filtering group, Focus on the Family, cried foul, basically accusing the ACLU of acting unethically; if not illegally.

[You can see the memorandum at the ACLU site and the objections at the Family News in Focus web site, or my mirrored copies with a quick and dirty analysis of the objections at the Focus On The Family news site. Although publishing the objections to the ACLU memorandum does not constitute a censorship movement or incident in its own light, I do account it as part and parcel of censorship in that it is a pack of lies, misrepresentations, and rhetoric, and because what the self-righteous seem to expect from American society is complete and total compliance and subversion to CIPA without any need or attempt to respect the defined limits of the law. --MN]

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

Another gohd-awful mess of charge and counter-charge. See the details here.

By Bonnie Cuevas. Topeka and Shawnee County Public Library backed down from its action against Ms. Cuevas in which she was unfairly reprimanded for discussing current events in the library and over the library's business phone. The library settled the issue on or about this date under pressure from the ACLU, saying that Ms. Cuevas can discuss the topic of equal rights for homosexuals as long as she is not disruptive. Ms. Cuevas is quoted as commenting on the action against her, "When the Supreme Court struck down sodomy laws, it was an incredibly significant moment for my family. Ordering me not to talk about a social issue like this at such a crucial time in history seems to me to be completely contrary to the ideals and principles that public libraries should exemplify." In the letter settling the case, Charles Engel, the library's attorney, wrote that Ms. Cuevas had drawn the reprimand not because of the subject matter of her conversations, but because of the disruption they caused.
(see 17 Jul 2003)

By the state of Texas and the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2000, an adult walked into a comic book store, into the section in back reserved for adult material, bought two adult comic books, and payed for them in a transaction conducted by employee Jesus [Hay-soos] Castillo. Mr. Castillo was subsequently charged for two counts of obscenity. After securing a conviction on one count, the prosecution dropped the second charge. Mr. Castillo's attorney and the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund [CBDLF] appealed, and the conviction was upheld, and they then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court; which hears only two to five percent of appeals. On this day the Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

Some comments about the decision and the whole case overall from various interested parties:

• When dealing with the denseness of the "Protect the children!" censorship hysteria in Texas, coupled with the unlikelihood that the Supreme Court would hear the case, this was almost a hopeless cause from the get-go. However, oftentimes it's the hopeless causes that are the ones worth fighting. This unfortunate and spectacularly unjust outcome doesn't change that.
  --Peter David, CBDLF board member

• One thing is clear, with every defeat of the First Amendment, the censors gain courage to pursue their unconstitutional ends. The Castillo case is among the most appalling cases of injustice ever to come to the attention of Comic Book Legal Defense. Conservative communities are quick to condemn comic book artists and publishers without an understanding that they enjoy the full panoply of First Amendment rights.
  --Burton Joseph, CBDLF Legal Counsel

• Unfortunately, fighting the right battles is not a guarantee of winning. The Fund put up a strong fight for Castillo against the rising tide of repression. We were successful in knocking out the second charge against Jesus and in getting a sentence where no actual jail time was served, but unfortunately the higher courts would not correct the blinding injustice at the heart of this case.
  --Charles Brownstein, CBDLF Director

• This case bodes badly for the First Amendment. By choosing to deny Jesus' plea for justice, the Supreme Court has allowed a precedent to stand that allows a man to be convicted of obscenity charges without adequate proof being presented that the work he is convicted for selling is constitutionally obscene. All because the medium the alleged obscenity was placed in "is for kids."
  --Charles Brownstein, CBDLF Director

• I think the hardest thing to believe is that Jesus was found guilty of selling an adult comic, from the adult section of the store, to an adult police officer, and convicted because the DA convinced the jury that all comics are really intended for children. I can't imagine a world in which the same argument would have worked for books or for films -- and I'm afraid that highlights why comics retailers (and artists and writers and publishers) still need a Defense Fund, and still need to be defended.
  --Neil Gaiman, CBDLF board member

• Perhaps the worst thing about the decision is the chilling effect it will have on everyone else working with comics and graphic novels. As we approach another election year, we can expect to see an increase in such attacks on free expression. Now, more than ever, we need the Comic Book Legal Defense to both educate the public and defend those working in the industry from further incursion on First Amendment rights. It deserves our whole-hearted support.
  --Louise Nemschoff, attorney and CBDLF board member.

[What makes this case such a travesty is the rationale and procedure upon which the prosecutor secured a conviction. Firstly: the prosecutor said in his closing argument, "I don't care what type of evidence or what type of testimony is out there, use your rationality, use your common sense. Comic books, traditionally what we think of, are for kids. This is in a store directly across from an elementary school and it is put in a medium, in a forum, to directly appeal to kids. That is why we are here, ladies and gentlemen. ... We're here to get this off the shelf." Secondly: the material in question was apparently never examined to see if it would pass or fail the test for proscribable obscenity.

In short, the prosecutor basically told the jury that all of due process is absolutely irrelevant and that it was perfectly within their power to arbitrarily find against Castillo without any evidence to back up their decision, and Jesus Castillo was convicted: 1: on the specious argument that comic books can only be for children because in the popular consensus of reality that is the usual target audience, and no adult can possibly ever be interested in comic books even when those comic books specifically target adults, and, 2: for selling material that it might have been perfectly legal to sell and that was shelved and sold in a perfectly legal manner to a legal adult. I cannot for the life of my understand how the trial judge and the appeals court could possibly let this stand or how the U.S. Supreme Court could refuse to rectify this travesty. --MN]

By Joe Redner, Adam Elend, and Jeff Marks. 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; 28 May 2003; 23 Sep 2003; 06 Jan 2004)

By the United States federal government. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Ronald Marcus. This case was heard before a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals on this day. This lawsuit stems from Mr. Marcus having a petition denied for a court order allowing him to restock the table in the Vidalia Library. That petition was denied in Jul 2002, and the suit was filed by the ACLU in Oct. This suit alleges that Federal District Judge B. Avant Edenfield incorrectly concluded that certain legal protections for freedom of the press do not apply to a library lobby. The court has until the end of 2003 to issue its ruling.

[There's a bit of misreporting in the source article in the Augusta Chronicle for 09 Aug 2003. The article in which I first picked out this incident in 2002 said the Gay Guardian had been removed from the table, and the other materials were removed later so the library could rethink its policy. The article for this day said that all foreign materials were removed, but does not mention the delay, thereby making it seem as if this suit is a case of sour grapes. --MN]
(See 02 Oct 2002)

By Al Franken. Fox network sued to halt distribution of Franken's book satirizing the news network. See this entry for full details.
(see 22 Aug 2003; 25 Aug 2003; 29 Oct 2003)

By Puerto Ricans. This play, which features eight men singing and dancing nude at one point, was cancelled twice at the city-run Tapia Theater in San Juan. On this day, some one hundred actors, producers, and supporters gathered at city hall to protest the censorship. The show was rescheduled to open 15 Aug in the private El Josco theater in the Santurce section of the city. The Tapia Theater Board of Directors had canceled the showings after walking out on a dress rehearsal more than a week before this date. They said the musical was obscene.The producers filed an injunction in Superior Court and won, and the debut was rescheduled for 08 Aug, but an appeals court halted all performances until the hearing scheduled for this day, and police blocked ticket holders from entering the theater on 08 Aug. On 10 Aug, the producers announced they would move the show. They are, however, moving forward with their suit in an effort to make certain such censorship does not happen in the future. This is the first time the play has been banned outright. It has been shown in Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Great Britain, Italy, Mexico, Norway, South Africa, Spain, and the United States.
(See 05 Jul 2001; 01 Aug 2001; 09 Sep 2001)

By the Bush administration. See the entry in Appendix G.

By teachers and students. Except in this case it is being required by fiat. The state of Colorado recently passed a law making recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance mandatory for teachers and students. On this day, the Colorado chapter of the ACLU filed a suit to have the law overturned as a first amendment violation. Nine teachers and students joined the lawsuit as plaintiffs. Defendants named in the lawsuit include:

• Governor Bill Owens,
• Education Commissioner Bill Moloney, and
• four school districts:
  • Jefferson,
  • Denver,
  • Aurora and
  • Cherry Creek.

The ACLU said the law does not allow for objections based on conscience, although it exempts individuals who object to the pledge on religious grounds as well as non-citizens. Students can be exempted if they bring in a written excuse from their parents.

[In the source article, it was reported that Owens said the ACLU was seeking publicity, and he was quoted as having commented, "The Pledge of Allegiance is a treasured and positive civic tradition. This is a frivolous and gratuitous attempt by the ACLU to demean a law that is clearly constitutional." However, in light of this law, reciting the pledge is no longer merely a tradition, and is now legislated dogma; albeit political dogma. Particularly in light of the fact that those with political objections are not to be exempted. The article also reported that State Rep. Bill Crane, R-Arvada, sponsor of the bill, said there is no punishment for people who refuse to say the pledge, and he is quoted, "Why people who live here and have freedom and liberty wouldn't care to do it, I don't know." This is typical of the petty tyrant's thought processes. In a democratic system, this comment should be turned around to be: "Why people who live here and have freedom and liberty should be forced to do it, I don't know." Furthermore, why pass a law making something mandatory but at the same time allow that anyone who fails to follow this law will not be punished? This is a clear case of having rules solely for the sake of having rules. --MN]

By Sonya Sone. It was removed from the library shelves of the Rosedale Union School District in Bakersfield, California, over the summer due to an objection filed by the parents of a Rosedale Middle School student. This work of coming of age poetry includes a work called Ice Capades, which is about a pubescent girl's complaint about how her breasts react to cold. When school officials did not remove the book, the complainants took the issue to the school trustees, who unilaterally ordered its withdrawal; even though current district policy calls for the school librarian to determine what titles are appropriate, with approval from the principal. On this date, the trustees considered assigning to themselves the authority to unilaterally ban books should other reconsideration requests be appealed.

[Classical denial and doublethink was clearly demonstrated by trustee Ken Mettler, who argued, "I don't want to be in the censorship game, but we are an elementary-school district and we want our instructional materials to reflect the community standards of our area." Get with the program, people. As I have written before, anyone who says "I don't believe in censorship, but . . . " does believe in censorship. And this is clearly a case of censorship as it first circumvents due process and established procedure, and then the trustees ask if they should assign to themselves the authority to arbitrarily override due process and established authority whenever they want. Unfortunately, I can't find anything else about this incident other than a very brief note at American Libraries Online, so I don't know how the review committee handled the situation. They might have blown it big time. That, of course, does not excuse the cack-handed way the trustees handled it. --MN]

By State of Colorado. U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock issued a temporary injunction against a law requiring public school students and teachers to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, calling it discriminatory and divisive. He reportedly said the law discriminates against teachers by allowing students to opt out because teachers cannot opt out, and that the law pits students who choose to say the pledge against those who do not, and students against teachers. The law came into effect on 06 Aug and was quickly challenged by the ACLU. State Senate President John Andrews called the ruling "a gross insult to the patriotism of most Coloradans. It's bad jurisprudence. I'm confident it will be overturned on appeal" Gov. Bill Owens criticized the action as "dramatically out of step with the desires and practices of most Coloradans who value and respect the Pledge of Allegiance."

[Oh, su-u-u-u-u-u-ure! Striking down a law mandating personal beliefs is a gross insult, bad jurisprudence, and dramatically out of step with the desires and practices of most Coloradans who value and respect the Pledge of Allegiance, but its perfectly okay to shit all over the Bill of Rights which is also valued and respected by the same people! Double-plus, ungood double-thinking assholes! --MN]
(see 12 Aug 2003)

By Amish-Mennonites. This group of religionists is more relaxed about the use of technology than the straight Amish, and are allowed to use motor vehicles; which means they must have a driver's licence. On this date, the First Amendment Center reported that the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet is now demanding that they violate their religious convictions against graven images by requiring them to have photo ID. Amish-Mennonites believe photographs are a symbol of self-admiration and pride. The law regulating permits with photographs in Kentucky has been in place for years, but is now being more strictly enforced due to concerns of national security. Some circuit court clerks had been quietly and unofficially issuing permits without photographs to members of the church. Some comments about the issue:

• Lester Beachy, bishop in an Amish-Mennonite congregation: "It would open the door to what we consider unscriptural. I can see the state's concern, but I am not convinced that the state granting us an exemption on a religious basis would endanger the situation."

• John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute: "You have to protect these people or they get wiped out. And they shouldn't have to violate their beliefs to get a driver's license."

• Al Keim, director of the Valley Brethren Mennonite Heritage Center: "They take very seriously the biblical injunction that they are not to make any images of themselves."

• Joseph Borntrager, a bishop of Hickory Amish-Mennonite Church in Graves County: "We feel we are obligated to submit to the authority and to the laws of the land, providing it does not overstep biblical principle. But in that event - which we feel this is something that does - then we feel our calling is higher to God."

• State Rep. Fred Nesler: "With that being a strong religious belief they have, we ought to be able to find a way to allow them to get a driver's license without their photo."

• State Rep. Mike Weaver: "If you live in this country, you have an obligation to help in any way you can to secure this country and to help prevent any kind of a terrorist act. A little sacrifice of putting your picture on a driver's license is not too much to ask."

[Yes it is; especially since he is asking others to lay down their liberties and freedoms to ensure his personal, physical security. Weaver's comment is typical of the short-sightedness of the coward. What he is saying is: we are only asking for this little thing, and this little thing could not possibly have any ramifications beyond what we are asking. I must ask, however, how much of his religious freedom he will sacrifice to protect the personal security of the Amish. Will he give up the crucifix as a religious symbol for example, since there are people out there who use burning crosses as a symbol of hatred and as a threat? {insert hollow, mocking laughter here}. --MN]
(see 22 Jan 2003; 30 May 2003; 06 Jun 2003)

By Ken Paulson. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Bosnians. The Director of the International Group for Human Rights, Savima Terzic, was quoted in the Bosnian daily Nezavisne Novine, "The new law on gender equality would enable blonde women to sue anyone who tells jokes that offend them, even if those jokes were just based on the colour of their hair." The law and subsequent ban against Blonde Jokes will go into effect sometime by mid-October.

[I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb and I also know that I'm not blonde. --Dolly Parton]

By Malik Zulu Shabazz et al. Founded by the late Khalid Mohammed in 1998, this annual New York City rally has reportedly faced obstructionist policies while seeking permits every year. This year, the police department had not wanted to grant a permit for 06 Sep, citing staff shortages, and had offered a permit for 13 Sep instead. Rally organizers responded by threatening to go to court to get an injunction, or to block the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges in protest. On this date the city capitulated. City Councilman James Barron joined Mr. Shabazz, the chief organizer, for the announcement on the steps of City Hall. The goal of the rally is to register 10,000 young black voters and to address the issues of police brutality, economic pressures on young black people, and "black on black" violence.

[On the face of it, this strikes me as knee-jerk reactionary snivelling. There was no indication in the source article that the police were in fact being obstructionist, nor were there any examples of how they had been obstructionist on previous occasions. My call on this one is that we are being asked to believe that the Million Youth March is being censored and that blacks are being discriminated against in these cases simply on the say so of the complainants. Nope. Not going to happen. Not me I won't. As far as I'm concerned Shabazz has engaged in an abuse of authority; he has irresponsibly used the first amendment to get his way out of pettiness. Even granting the ongoing discrimination against people because of their ethnicity, that does not excuse weilding Free Speech as a bludgeon in such a ham-handed way. --MN]

By unidentified elements of the U.S. military command in Baghdad. On 14 Aug, a directive was issued granting discretion to all military commanders in Iraq as to whether or not they would permit embedded journalists to accompany military forces on patrol. Given the wording of the source article, "commander" appears to mean any officer in charge of a detail, patrol, platoon, or company. The order would have allowed the barring of journalists from accompanying forces on even a routine mission at the sole discretion of the office in charge, but especially from operations in the hunt for Saddam Hussein, members of his former regime, and resistance fighters. The military rescinded the order on this day after Associated Press reported on the directive. No explanation was given for why the order was issued.

[The source article, also by Associated Press and published at the First Amendment Center web site, makes it appear very much as if this movement was a case of censorship. The story is particularly slanted by these two paragraphs:

News coverage of the frequent U.S. raids has resulted in some unflattering pictures of American troops entering Iraqis' homes and holding families at gunpoint during searches for weapons, Saddam loyalists and anti-American attackers.

The new directive would have clamped down on the free-wheeling access reporters have had to troops. Commanders would have been allowed to bar journalists from accompanying them on hazardous or particularly sensitive patrols, according to U.S. military spokesman Maj. William Thurmond.

I don't trust this report. I'm not sure why I don't, however. There's nothing specific that I can really put my finger on, but I am certain that the information needed to make sense of this incident is in the explanation that was not offered by the military, and that because the explanation was not published, this report is basically a case of misrepresentation. --MN]

By Connecticut state courts. A level 1 court file is one that is not only sealed against public scrutiny, but which is also so secret that court officials are not allowed to admit, officially, whether any specific such case exists. This type of case became an issue after a story by The Connecticut Law Tribune in Dec 2002, and the Hartford Courant reported in Jan 2003 that the secret cases include:

• a paternity suit involving saxophonist Clarence Clemons of Springsteen's E Street Band;
• a family-court case involving Boston Celtics center Vin Baker;
• former Xerox CEO Paul Allaire, and;
• several state judges.

State court officials refuse to confirm or deny whether specific Level 1 cases exist, and the case captions, which usually identify the parties in a lawsuit, such "Jones v. Smith", are replaced by numeric codes. A hearing was planned for this day in U.S. District Court in Waterbury, Connecticut. The state judicial branch, however, is asking a judge to dismiss the case, arguing that the matter belongs in state court, not federal court. Although a quirk in the Connecticut courts legal procedures that allowed "super-sealing" has been eliminated, the elimination was not made retroactive, and two newspapers are suing in federal court to obtain docket information for as many as fifty-four civil cases that remain sealed. Teresa Younger, executive director of the Connecticut Civil Liberties Union, commented on the situation, "We tend to assume that the government is functioning openly, that courts are functioning openly. When this came to light, I think everybody was surprised.", and, "The law does not apply to people who are wealthy differently than it applies to an everyday person."
(see 13 Dec 2001; 01 Aug 2002; 21 Aug 2003)

By Justine Wollaston. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Christopher Peter Geoghegan, Gordon Graham, and Mark David Leigh. On 07 Jul, Aberta Premier Ralf Klein was making a speech at the annual Calgary Stampede breakfast when he was hit in the face with a cream pie. The man who wielded the pie fled the scene but was caught by security. These three men were subsequently charged for the incident.

[Assault is not a valid expression of free speech. Assault is necessarily a crime, and you cannot justify a crime by claiming free speech. As a U.S. Supreme Court justice said, "Your right to swing at me ends where my nose begins." Pie throwers don't pull the punch and thereby violate criminal law. There is no doubt in my mind that outlawing cream pie attacks would constitute a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction. Just as long as they don't try to outlaw pieing an effigy. --MN]

By NBC, CNN, The Denver Post, the Los Angeles Times and the Vail Daily newspaper. There are some allegations that when Kobe Bryant was arrested, the Sherriff's office acted improperly. Recent to this date, the above mentioned media outlets attempted to have the court records unsealed so they could examine them. On this date, Eagle County Judge Frederick Gannett unsealed the arrest warrant, but ruled that the other warrants and materials would remain sealed until the end of the trial. He also put his order on hold and gave the compainants ten days to appeal it. The complainants were not pleased with the ruling. The source article says:

News organizations reacted angrily and said the decision shortchanges the public.

Without the documents, the public has no way of knowing whether the sheriff's office and other agencies acted properly in arresting Bryant, said Chris Beall, an attorney for the media organizations.

"What the judge is saying is that in those documents were statements that have little relevance and are unnecessarily prejudicial and inflammatory," Beall said. "I think the voters in Eagle County would like to know whether Sheriff (Joseph) Hoy's office engaged in improper conduct."

[Whereas this is true as far as it goes, it does not take into account three important factors. 1: We the People do not need to be apprised of misconduct in the Sheriff's office so hurriedly that it might cause a rapist to go free on a technicality or cause an innocent man to be wrongfully convicted. Sealing the documents for the duration of the trial almost certainly constitutes a reasonable time, place, or manner restriction. 2: Bryant's accuser has been subjected to harassment, probably by overcommitted fans, and one such harasser was recently arrested after leaving a profanity laced threatening message on her answering machine. The victim has a right to protection, and Judge Gannett specifically mentioned that point. 3: By not allowing the press access to that material, the judge is circumventing the likelyhood of another media circus a la O.J. Simpson trial. I do not for an instant think that the commercial press wants to be all over this case solely for the purpose of making a buck off of it, but they will exploit the situation for profit given half a chance. Each and every corporate press entity is in competition with each and every other such entity. This is a fact of life. A media circus, at bottom, is simply a more intense than usual competition for survival; sociological Darwinism. Darwinism at its very worst. Cooperation is also a survival trait, however, and cooperation can increase one's chances of survival in a way competition can not. And a media circus also shortchanges the public. In an effort to scoop the competition, a media circus exacerbates standard conditions of media outlets failing to properly assess or present information at even the best of times. For a countervailing viewpoint, see the commentary on this case by Ken Paulson, 27 Jul 2003, at the First Amendment Center web site. --MN]

[Addendum (28 Aug 2003): On this date prosecutors said they would not appeal the judge's decision, but the media representative said his clients would decide by 02 Sep. It was reported that both prosecutors and defence attorneys objected to releasing the material. --MN]
(see 13 Dec 2001; 01 Aug 2002; 20 Aug 2003)

By Al Franken. Fox news lost its suit. See this entry for full details.
(see 11 Aug 2003; 25 Aug 2003; 29 Oct 2003)

By FAIR. On this date the watchdog group released another newsletter about unbalanced reporting on violent interactions between Israeli extremism and Palestinian extremism. The newsletter states that Palestinian suicide bombings invariably shatter periods of calm, but the U.S. press does not report on killings by Israeli forces during these periods of "calm".
(See 05 Feb 2002)

By Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. This entity, which owned the World Trade Center, is withholding materials which are a matter of public record. The material comprises recordings of phone calls to 911 operators during the WTC tragedy by a number of people, including communications by firefighters. The New York Times had reached an agreement with the Port Authority, but the Authority unilaterally rescinded that agreement. The Authority had agreed to release transcripts of the recordings because it believed they would have less emotional impact, but then decided that the transcripts were just as emotion laden. The New York Times asked state Superior Court Judge Sybil R. Moses to enforce an agreement it had reached with the Port Authority last month in exchange for the newspaper dropping its open-records lawsuit. The Port Authority backed out of the agreement on 30 Jul, and the court heard oral arguments asking that the Port Authority be ordered to fulfill their agreement on 21 Aug. Judge Moses did not indicate when she would hand down her ruling.

According to Port Authority spokesman Greg Trevor the rationale for withholding the materials is: "Although we greatly appreciate the public's right to know, our first responsibility is to the families of the heroes of September 11th. We feel very strongly that it would be very inappropriate, insensitive and inhumane to release this information to the media." The newspaper is interested in the transcripts to explore how emergency services functioned and to tell the stories of heroism, with David McCraw, a lawyer for the New York Times, quoted as saying, "This is not about finding out the dying moments of anyone. This is not about morbid prying." The Port Authority also maintains that as a bistate agency it is not subject to either New Jersey's Open Public Records Act or New York's Freedom of Information Law.

[Which is so much claptrap. As a bistate agency it is subject to both laws, and which law is in effect depends on where the request for information is filed. See the source article for more details. There are a few fairly good points and counterpoints to the case. --MN]

[Addendum (28 Aug 2003): The Port Authority released the transcripts, some four thousand pages worth, on this date. --MN]

[Addendum (01 Apr 2006:) On 31 Mar 2006, nine hours of emergency services tapes were released. The 130 calls had only the voice of dispatchers; city officials had edited out the voices of those seeking help. The tapes reveal confused and sometimes contradictory directions to the callers, showing that the dispatchers were overwhelmed by the scope of the tragedy. The tapes were released as a result of a group of victims' families suing to have them made public; to ensure that governments follow through with improvements to 911 procedures and communication. --MN]

By Al Franken. Fox news announced in the most graceless way it could find that it was dropping its suit instead of appealing. See this entry for more details.
(see 11 Aug 2003; 22 Aug 2003; 29 Oct 2003)

By David L Riegel. A children's protection group called NSPCC has condemned the book as "unacceptable" for claiming paedophiles are not "monsters" but "loving human beings"; in short: for lack of intolerance. SafeHaven Foundation Press states the book's target audience is researchers and educators, but the book has reportedly been reviewed by "child molesters" at Amazon.com, with one person writing, "As a boylover, I found this book extremely helpful. But it is not intended for the boylover community: it is meant for the general public who fear the phenomenon of pedosexuality." The book aims to explore whether a sexual relationship between an adult male and an underage boy can be legitimate or not, and describes molesters as "sincere, concerned, loving human beings".

[In other words, social sciences are not allowed to study -- or at least not allowed to report factually upon -- certain social phenomena. --MN]
(See 08 Oct 2002; 04 Apr 2002; 27 Mar 2003)

By the Bush Administration. This act had its third lawsuit in just over a month filed against it on this day. The suit is being brought by a coalition of legal groups and supporters of Sri Lanka's Tamil community; five organizations, including the Humanitarian Law Project of Los Angeles and the World Tamil Coordinating Committee of New York, and two individuals. They are challenging the provision which makes it a crime to provide "expert advice and assistance" to groups with alleged links to terrorists. They argue the provision violates the first and fifth amendments, and are seeking an injunction against it being enforced. The complainants reportedly want to support the legal humanitarian and political activity of the Kurdistan Workers Party and Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, but both groups are listed by the U.S. State Department as international terrorist organizations.

[What does that mean, I wonder; alleged links to terrorism. Dealing with groups which are suspected of having links with terrorist organizations, or dealing with groups which are themselves suspected of being terrorist groups? That looks to be a bit of slipshod editing, but it's important because it slants the piece. --MN]

By Jehovah's Witnesses. The Quebec Court of Appeal, Canada, has ruled that the town of Blainville cannot use its 1996 canvassing bylaw to regulate door-to-door activities of Jehovah's Witnesses. The bylaw disallowed canvassing after 7:30 p.m. and on weekends, and required a $100 permit to canvass at other times, for no more than two months in a year. It applied to commerces as well as to religionists. Justice Pierre J. Dalphond wrote in his ruling, "In a free and democratic society, a city council should not play Big Brother in trying to decide whom the residents may receive at their homes during the evening or the weekend."

Both plaintiff and defendant, however, are claiming a legal victory. Glen How, a veteran of more than half a century of legal battles for the Witnesses, paraphrased the court's decision in saying, "The municipal council is not in the business of telling people whom they should be talking to." Pierre Paquin, who represented the municipality in the lower Laurentians, said the decision affirms the right of municipalities to regulate canvassing. He is quoted as saying, "We've lost, but it's a victory." He was also reported to have said that the town could make a better drafted bylaw that respects the right of groups such as the Witnesses.

[Was that ever in doubt? I mean, was the municipality being sued over its ability to make any kind of bylaw, or was this case simply a challenge to the constitutionality of the one in place? Sounds to me as if someone is trying to put a false face on a clear loss. --MN]

By the American Civil Liberties Union and the Sexual Health Network. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found a Vermont law to curb Internet crimes against children, which was ratified in 2000 by Gov. Howard Dean, was too broadly applied and threatened constitutionally protected speech. The ruling reads in part, "We think it likely that the Internet will soon be seen as falling within the class of subjects that are protected from state regulation because they imperatively demand a single uniform rule." A federal judge had struck the law down, ruling that it violated the First Amendment because it burdened adult speech, was too broadly applied, and projected itself onto the rest of the nation. The appeals court agreed that the law was unconstitutional when it used against Web sites such as those operated by the ACLU and the Sexual Health Network, although it differed with the lower court in saying that the law could be enforced in other cases.

Lawyers for Vemont had argued that the law was not intended to prosecute groups such as the ACLU and the Sexual Health Network.

[The problem with the law was probably the potential for abuse. Even if it was not intended to be used against mainstream sexuality information, it would almost certainly have been used that way, anyway. As can be seen in the movement responding to the ACLU's reaction to the CIPA ruling, there are religious groups that will not be satisfied with reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions. They want restrictive legislation to be applied blindly without any regard for constitutional limits. --MN]

By Elizabeth Laird, of New Zealand, and Sonia Nimr, of Palestine. It was reported in The Toronto Star that the campaign against this book seems to have have originated with Phyllis Simon, co-owner of Kidsbooks, who asked publisher MacMillan UK to reconsider sending out the "damaging book." The article then said that the British media picked the story up and reported that "a chain of Canadian bookshops" was pushing to have the book pulped. Kidsbooks is a two-outlet chain.

Kate Wilson, editor of MacMillan Children's Books, is quoted as commenting from London in an interview by telephone, "We have made a decision that we will give no information about the complaint. Therefore I'm not able to comment if they came from individuals (or) from organizations. We are handling them internally." Ms. Laird commented in another telephone interview, "People feel very, very passionately about this issue for very, very understandable reasons. And I think that the feeling is that the only Israelis in the book are those seen as occupying forces by the children. There aren't any Israeli children in the book. There aren't any understanding Israeli adults in the book." She is also quoted as saying, "I know that this is a very, very sensitive topic on which people feel very deeply ... Anybody who writes on this subject is not going to please everybody. And I knew that. That was a risk that I took."

A Little Piece Of Ground, which targets the 11-13 age group, tells the story of twelve year old Karim, who wants to be a football [soccer?] star and who also dreams of making an acid to dissolve the steel of Israeli tanks and of liberating Palestine. Early in the story, he watches his father being humiliated at an Israeli checkpoint. That chapter ends:

"Almost naked, stripped of everything, he was trying to stand upright, to hold up his head and show, in his face at least, the dignity which had been taken from him." "I hate them. I hate them. I hate them."

He and his friends find a football pitch, become involved in the Intifadah, and end up making a phony bomb. Ms. Simon's letter, which is reported to be posted on a Web site called Hasafran, a forum of the Association of Jewish Libraries, reads in part:

"I am left with a profound sense of shock and disgust at the irresponsible decision to publish what I feel is a racist, inflammatory and totally one-sided piece of propaganda at a time when efforts are being made to resolve this conflict."

The posting urges people to join Ms. Simon's call to MacMillan to withhold the book.

[Personally, I do not believe that there is any such thing as a damaging book; only information that some people do not want to be transmitted. Ms. Laird, who spent years in Palestine, was also quoted as saying, "If anybody would like to write a book about the effects of suicide bombing on Israeli children, or what it's like for an Israeli child, I would very much welcome that. I think that would be an excellent thing to do. Because I think that all aspects of this truth should be understood." So Ms. Laird, at least, seems to uphold the principle that the answer to free speech is more free speech. --MN]

By the Reagan Administration. On this day George Bush jr expanded the scope of exported American suppression against factual sexual health information. For more about this move, see the entry in Appendix G.
(See 22 Jan 2001)

By the Aspen Times and Post-Independent, 8,000 copies, both of Aspen, Colorado, and The Sidelines of Middle Tennessee State University, 7,500 copies. The various thefts took place on 27 Aug and 28 Aug, respectively. The Aspen Times wrote in a story about the theft in the 28 Aug edition: "Clearly, someone upset with a story took it upon themselves to censor the news by making sure it didn't land in the hands of our readers." Aspen Times and Post-Independent were taken from newspaper boxes and business doorsteps. Officials from both papers called the theft an apparent act of cowardice. Both newspapers received tips that a local man and woman were seen loading stacks of newspapers into their vehicle, and an employee at Aspen Times confirmed that the people who hoarded the papers are believed to have been the subject of a news story on that publication's front page, as well as a story appearing inside the Aspen Daily News. Newspaper boxes owned by the Glenwood Springs Post-Independent were also raided, although there was no indication in the source article for this entry on whether or not that paper carried the story.

The most problematic aspect of this case, however, is that the police will not investigate this incident because the papers are given away free. Basalt Police officer Brooke Fuller is quoted as saying, "Even though the Times and Daily News were taken, it's really not a crime. The papers are free, so technically there is no crime. Unfortunately anybody and everybody has a right to take as many as they want." However, Greg Mebel, Aspen Daily News general manager and publisher, is also quoted: "It is unfortunate when any one individual attempts to keep the news from the public," said Greg Mebel, Aspen Daily News general manager and publisher. "The newspapers share an important role in our valley as the key information providers on the issues and facts affecting our lives today, locally. Additionally, customers paid for their advertising messages to be seen." Both papers, which have a combined circulation of more than 12,000, derive their income almost entirely through advertising.

The lead story in the 28 Aug edition of The Sidelines was about two fraternities, Pi Kappa Alpha and Kappa Sigma, which owe more than 60,000 dollars in back rent each on their respective houses. Other front page stories covered the College of Education, a new observatory, and a new director for a campus organization. Patrick Chinnery, editor-in-chief of Sidelines reportedly said he suspects fraternity members or their friends of taking the papers, but it was also reported that the presidents of the two fraternities denied that their groups had taken the newspapers. financial losses totaled more than $2,700 in advertising revenue and $1,000 for the print run. A police report on the incident was filed and it is being investigated.

By Brenda Nichols. It was reported on this day that Ms. Nichols attorneys had settled her lawsuit with the ARIN Intermediate Unit 28. In June, U.S. District Judge Arthur Schwab issued a preliminary injunction saying Nichol should be reinstated and given back pay because the garb policy was "openly and overtly averse to religion." He approved the settlement on 28 Aug. Settling the case is not necessarily a good thing, however. Avoiding a trial on the merits of the policy and the 1895 Pennsylvania law on which it was based means the constitutionality of that law and subsequent polices will not be tested. Quothe Robert H. Coad Jr., ARIN's executive director, "Our accepting the judge's preliminary injunction as permanent means that his ruling only affects us and our employee handbook. It doesn't affect other school districts and their handbooks -- the state law is left untouched and still stands." However, Vincent McCarthy of the American Center for Law and Justice, said the ruling and settlement make it unlikely that similar policies will be enforced: "It's doubtful that this (issue) is going to arise again because of the result of this case. Everything's going to be there in the public record, including the legal fees. So it would not make much sense for someone to go down this road again."
(see 07 May 2003)

By the Illinois Press Association. In light of waning enthusiasm for personal liberty, the association is promoting an educational program which it hopes to get into every Illinois high school and into schools in other states as well. The program was developed in response to the First Amendment Center's 2002 State of the First Amendment survey. That survey found that forty-nine percent of Americans thought First Amendment protections go too far, but only two percent could identify the five constitutional protections in the first amendment. Randy Swikle, a now retired journalism teacher, developed the curriculum for the press association. He commented about the survey result, "That is a very dangerous indication that the public simply does not understand what the First Amendment is all about." In 2002 he helped to organize a First Amendment week at his school. Kevin Smith, of the Illinois Press Association, reportedly had sent almost three hundred fifty of the free education packets to Illinois newspapers requesting them, and that he expected to accelerate the mailings with the official debut of the program on this day. Mr. Smith said that four teachers in Florida, one in California and several in Minnesota had called to request packets; for which there is a $25 fee for each packet sent outside of Illinois.
(See 01 Mar 2002; 23 Apr 2002)

By U.S. District Judge Ortrie Smith. On 27 Aug Judge Smith ruled against a Missouri state law that would have raised the legal age for nude dancing from eighteen to nineteen. The law would have taken effect on 28 Aug, but Ashlea Nichol Williamson and Christine Dunkin sued on 25 Aug to prevent enforcement, challenging its constitutionality. Judge Smith ruled, "I'm not persuaded that (the law) furthers a substantial government interest, nor am I persuaded that the government interest in this case is unrelated to suppression of free speech," and imposed an injunction against enforcement of the law. Judge Smith said the 18-year-old dancers were likely to suffer irreparable harm if the statute were enforced. Both dancers describing themselves during testimony as "live adult entertainers", and that their work at Bazooka's, a Kansas City cabaret, was the primary means of support for themselves and their 2-year-old children. Bazooka's attorney Richard Bryant argued that the minimum-age law was arbitrary and violated the First Amendment, and while acknowledging that the government could regulate nude dancing, he said the statute impinged too much on the right of free speech.

Passed by the General Assembly in May and ratified by Gov. Bob Holden in Aug, this provision, sponsored by Sen. Sarah Steelman, R-Rolla, was tucked into an otherwise unrelated liquor-control bill. Senator Steelman had previously tried to get the state age of majority raised to twenty-one.

[Which means this was yet another Macadamia Nut Rider. The source article says:

At the time, Steelman was quoted as saying that women could earn hundreds of dollars a day dancing nude but were at risk of being exploited. She also expressed concern that young women who performed in adult clubs might get involved in pornography.

Off the top of my head, I'd say that Steelman is another one of these foaming at the brain idiots who think that maturity and judgement comes at some magic age rather than being something that is inculcated from birth. Also, considering her remarks about "young women" getting involved in pornography, she is obviously the type who thinks legal adults should not be granted more rights than is allowed to a child simply on the basis of the digits in their age. Which is rank ageism if nothing else. A further indication that this incident is outright censorship and an attempt to impose unconstitutional controls on consenting adults is the fact that Bazooka's does not serve alcohol; it is described as a juice bar. Establishments in Missouri which serve alcoholic drinks are already barred from having nude dancers. --MN]

By the U.S. court system. U.S. District Judge Kenneth Hoyt had unilaterally held private pretrial conferences with lawyers for the case of the former finance chief of Enron Corporation, Andrew Fastow. Then he sealed the transcripts of those conferences. The Houston Chronicle filed to have the documents unsealed, arguing that there was no public ruling as to why such privacy was necessary. Hoyt is the only judge trying an Enron case to hold private conferences -- the other judges having held theirs openly -- and none of the lawyers had asked for private conferences. Judge Hoyt ruled that the transcripts would remain sealed and said that he would continue to hold private conferences if he decides that "shop talk" about potential trial preparations and dates are irrelevant to the public. He also said that he would order a trial date for Mr. Fastow in a month, and might unseal the transcripts later.

On this date, the Houston Chronicle filed an appeal before the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals asking that the transcripts be unsealed immediately and that future pretrial hearings regarding Enron be held in public unless there is a constitutional reason to keep them private. Bill Ogden, attorney for the Chronicle, commented, "It's not up to the court to decide what the public can know and when the public can know it."

[My first impression of this is that a judge friendly to the Bush administration is abusing his position to help cover up the Enron Affair. It's a natural conclusion to draw. However! -- it is also a premature conclusion. Even though government by secrecy is a characteristic of the Bush administration, and there is at least a tacit cover up of the Enron scandal (the criminals involved are tring to cover their own asses, of course), to automatically assume that Judge Hoyt is attempting to further that cover up is conspiracy theory. Remember: one datum does not make a statistical universe. What is not reported in the source article is whether or not private pretrial conferences are part of Judge Hoyt's judicial style. This suit could just be petulant whining by a spoiled brat. However, given the penchant for government by secrecy by the Bush administration, this case does bear very close watching. --MN]

By Dan Kelly. This article, an interesting look at contemporary and historical efforts to collect samples of vulgar invective, and the sociological role of the same, was printed in the weekly newspaper Chicago Reader, and subsequently in the Reader's Guide, a digest of the Chicago Reader and which is distributed to libraries. At the Cook Memorial Public Library, Libertyville, Illinois[?], an unidentified patron who saw the article headline, as above, apparently removed a number of copies and threw them in the trash. He then seems to have objected about the headline to trustee Jack L. Martin who removed an additional number of copies in his turn. Between the two, some twenty to thirty copies were thrown out. That was two weeks previous to this date. On this day, the library board had a meeting at which three local citizens spoke angrily about the incident, and one spoke up in favor of Mr. Martin. Nothing was decided, however, as Mr. Martin was absent due to family matters. Another meeting to resolve the issue was scheduled for 16 Sep.

The piece in question can be seen at Mr. Kelly's website. Mr. Kelly appended a disclaimer to the article that reads in part, "No, I didn't title it, but after the minor—extremely minor and extremely silly—furor it caused in a certain Libertyville Library, I feel a certain obligation to retain the title." The incident was reported in the Daily Herald, 03 Sep edition, which you can see for full details.

[It appears that the library made the mistake of putting that edition of the paper out where they usually go, instead of in a back room where children wouldn't see the headline or article. Martin screwed up by unilaterally bypassing the library's review process. Kelly's article is quite informative. Feel free to click on the article link above, but you do so of your own free will and volition and at your own risk. If you are so butt-head stupid that you are going to click on a link to material that you know beforehand is going to be offensive, and you then whine about how offended you are, do as the bible commands and pluck your eyes out. Let me know how it goes. By mail; not in person. --MN]

By the U.S. Federal Communications Commission and FCC Chairman Michael Powell. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency stay which will blocked new federal rules relaxing restrictions on how many TV stations a company can own, which would go from 35% to 45%, and lift a ban against owning both newspaper and broadcast outlets in the same city. Despite the the Bush administration's pressing hard for the overhaul, many influential Republicans are among the most vocal opponents to th e changes, saying the new rules would stifle competition. Small broadcasters and network affiliates are concerned the new rules will allow monopolization which will limit local control of programming, while supporters of the new regulations say the change will help broadcasters grow and compete in a market changed by cable television, satellite broadcasts, and the internet. Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D. has been leading a group of senators trying to undo all the FCC changes, along with Sen. Trent Lott, R-Miss. He commented on the ruling that it, "will give a boost to our efforts. The ruling recognizes what I hope most of the Senate recognizes: These rules are inappropriate." These rules seem to be so inappropriate, that elected officials have invoked a seldom-used maneuver sometimes called a "congressional veto."

[To my way of thinking, media concentration of ownership is all about making money. It has nothing to do with getting information to the mass market anymore than the Mickey Mouse Act does. That the larger companies are suffering because the market is changing is simply a specious argument being used to justify trying to grab every last penny they can. If a company is no longer competitive, then it must change to meet the new conditions. That change must be internal, however. A bigger dinosaur will not have a greater survival index if it is no more adaptable than its smaller cousin. Quite the opposite, in fact. --MN]

By American Atheists. On this date the group published a newsletter in which they detail a number of legislative movements to enact George Bush's faith-based initiatives bit by bit. See the details here.

[See my commentary on the falsehood underlying antidisestablishmentarianism in the U.S. --MN]

By Jason Kitchen, student. Actually, a filmmaker who graduated from Rowan University in Jun 2003, Mr. Kitchen interviewed Robert O. Marshall, New Jersey's longest time death row resident, for a documentary on the death penalty as a class project. This was the first time Mr. Marshall had granted an interviwe. In 1986, Marshall was convicted of arranging for his wife's murder at a highway rest stop in New Jersey. Prosecutors said his motive was to collect 1.5 million dollars from an insurance policy. The case spawned the book and subsequent TV movie Blind Faith. Now, Marshall is trying to have his death sentence overturned on the grounds he didn't receive effective legal representation during the trial and sentencing phase. Hearings on this matter were to begin on 03 Sep, and New Jersey Deputy Attorney General Robert Leaman sought to procure the tapes of Kitchen's intervew to prepare for Marshall's bid to have his sentence overturned. If his claim of ineffective representation is upheld Marshall could get a new trial. Mr. Kitchen refused to hand over the tapes, however, on First Amendment grounds. On this day, U.S. District Judge Joseph Irenas ruled that Kitchen was acting as a journalist and prosecutors had failed to show that information on the tapes could not be obtained elsewhere, or that it was "critical and necessary" to the case. The judge said the First Amendment bars the government from ordering Kitchen to turn over his videotapes, and was reported to have accused state prosecutors of launching "a fishing expedition" without "the foggiest idea" of what Marshall had said in the interview.

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

By Megan Lawson and the Indiana Civil Liberties Union. On 05 Mar 2003, an anti-war rally in Goshen, Indiana, drew students from three high schools. Goshen High School student Megan Lawson carried an American flag with a peace symbol painted on it. Elkhart County Commissioner Phil Stiver said after the rally that he hoped those responsible would be arrested for flag desecration. Ms. Lawson was arrested. However, she was never charged with anything. Because of that, U.S. District Judge Allen Sharp threw her lawsuit challenging the law on free speech grounds out of court. Judge Sharp noted in his ruling, "Because Prosecutor Hill has never threatened, and does not now threaten, to prosecute Ms. Lawson for exercising her right to free speech, there is no immediate threat of injury from him." Ken Falk, legal director for the Indiana Civil Liberties Union commented on the decision, "Basically, the judge has said there has not been a sufficient showing that the statute will be enforced, but the prosecutor never made any such statement in his deposition. As long as the (flag-desecration) law is out there, there is a definite chill on her individual rights." Which means that while Ms. Lawson has not been charged as of this date, there was nothing to stop the prosecutor from charging her, and he hadn't said, up to this date, that she wouldn't be. Indiana's flag-desecration law was passed in 1990, and this was the first substantial challenge to it.

[Elkhart County Commissioner Phil Stiver said after the rally that he hoped those responsible for the flag desecration would be arrested. She was, but hasn't been charged. Due to which I conclude that the arrest was politically motivated. If that is the case, the arresting authority should be thoroughly reprimanded and prohibited from being such charges against Ms. Lawson. Plus, why hasn't Ms. Lawson been charged, and how is it that this is the first substantial challenge to the law in 13 years? Has it never been enforced at all? If not, then this is another case of having a rule solely for the sake of having rules and it should be struck down for that reason alone, never mind that it violates the Supreme Court ruling in Texas v: Johnson. --MN]
(see 15 Apr 2003; 16 Apr 2003)

By Attorney General Mike Fisher, Pennsylvania. The Center for Democracy & Technology in Washington, D.C., the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, and Plantagenet Inc., an Internet service provider in Doylestown, filed a suit against A.G. Fisher in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia. Mr. Fisher's office has been enforcing its censorship with a series of notices requiring blocking of "child pornography", but such blocking must frequently be done on a server-wide basis, thereby blocking access to all of the websites hosted on that server, and such a block can not be enforced selectively, so it affects all of the servers subscribers, not alone those within Pennsylvania.

An ISP that does not comply with the "request" can have charges filed against it for non-compliance, and can be fined 5,000 dollars and ordered to block access. This suit challenges both the notification policy of Fisher's office, and the 2002 state law upon which the policy is based. Sean Connolly, A.G. Fisher's spokesman, reportedly called them "informal" notices, while explaining that they are part of a policy developed in concert with the providers, and it seeks to invalidate the notices that Mr. Connolly said have resulted in the blocking of 725 [apparently pornographic] sites as of this day. The number of non-pornographic sites affected by these notices remains unknown, and Fisher's office has turned down requests for a list of the blocked sites on the grounds that such a disclosure would itself be disseminating child pornography.

Alan Davidson, associate director of the Center for Democracy & Technology, commented, "Child pornography has no place in a civilized society. Unfortunately, Pennsylvania's Web-blocking law does little to stop child pornography but does a great deal to violate the protections of the First Amendment."

[I cannot see how a notice with legal force and 5,000 dollar fines attached for non-compliance can be called "informal". --MN]

[Addendum (10 Sep 2003): On this day, A.G. Fisher's office announced that it would stop using the notices. In the article at New Castle News Online, it was reported that:

The policy of sending the "informal" notices was "developed at the request of the Internet service providers" as an alternative to the court orders required under a unique 2002 state law that authorized the blocks, said state Attorney General Mike Fisher's spokesman, Sean Connolly.

The article also reported that Fisher's office is perfectly willing to go and get the needed court orders. The principle objection by the ACLU and CD&T to the policy of using the notices, is that it constituted a "system of secret censorship". Since the policy bypassed the courts there was no judicial oversight. The decision to stop using the notices is an amicable agreement by the state. This article is better written than the source article for the entry above, providing greater background and context. And the Associated Press article at the First Amendment Center about the decision is obviously slanted in comparison. --MN]
(see 04 Apr 2003)

By Love Won Out convention organizers. A convention focusing primarily on opposition to homosexuality, it was held in St. Petersburg, Florida, in 2000. Organizers had purchased advertising space in bus shelters in Pinellas County, but the Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority wouldn't allow the advertisments. Bus shelter advertising is done under contract by Eller Media, which owns and manages some 500 shelters, but the Authority reserves final approval of all advertising. A month before the seminar, the ultra-conservative Focus on the Family was refunded nearly 5,000 dollars it had paid to have posters installed in the shelters. The group sued, and a federal judge ruled the group did not have a case and dismissed the suit. They appealed that dismissal, and on this day a three judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated the case. One significant issue in this suit is whether a government entity working through a private company, can constitutionally reject advertising the agency believes might offend some people. Private companies themselves can do so.

By Mark G. Weinberg. A lifelong hockey fan, Mr. Weinberg recently won a case in 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upholding his right to sell his bookoutside the team's stadium. The book, Career Misconduct: The Story of Bill Wirtz's Greed, Corruption, and the Betrayal of Blackhawk Fans, is highly critical of the Chicago Blackhawks owner. Now, Major League Baseball, the National Hockey League, the National Basketball Association, and the National Football League, are appealing the ruling on the contention that it could allow terrorists bent on wreaking havoc at a Chicago sports event to disguise themselves as vendors.

In December 2000, Mr. Weinberg had been begun selling his book right outside the United Center, home of the Bulls and Blackhawks. Two months later, under a 1995 ordinance forbidding peddlers within 1,000 feet of the facility, police told him to stop. He did, but sued, and won a temporary restraining order allowing him to again sell his book near the stadium. A federal judge subsequently struck down that order in upholding the ordinance. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court overturned that ruling, calling the ordinance an impermissible prior restraint, writing, in part, "The city has provided no objective evidence that traffic flow on the sidewalk or street is disrupted when Mr. Weinberg sells his book. The city offered no empirical studies, no police records, no reported injuries, nor evidence of any lawsuits filed." Jennifer Hoyle, a spokeswoman for the city, said the city appealed to the Supreme Court out of concern that peddlers will crowd the streets outside sports venues, and that the original action against Mr. Weinberg was based on normal enforcement. In its brief to the Supreme Court, the city argues, "The reason that (Weinberg) created no significant congestion was that everyone else was obeying the no-peddling law. The first illegal peddler will rarely pose significant problems, but that does not mean that he is entitled to any special immunity from regulation." The Supreme Court will decide this fall whether to hear the case or not.

[Be that as it may, to allege that peddling provides material support to terrorists?! The city might be acting lawfully in this affair, although I think its concerns are vague and ill defined, but the sports organizations most certainly are acting unconstitutionally if they have to use that kind of scaremongering. And suppose these mythical terrorsts disguise themselves as sport fans, wearing the jerseys and jackets of the teams that are playing? Who'll protect us from the sporting organizations?

What this boils down to is: a public sidewalk is a public forum, and you can't say the 2,000 feet of sidewalk along the front of a building is exempt from that. The 9th Circuit Court has ruled that even a privately owned sidewalk is still a public forum, although the case along similar lines in Salt Lake City, Utah, is still underway. --MN]

U.S. District Judge Catherine Perry decided that the Klan's program of racial superiourity is not sufficient reason for the state of Missouri to ban the group from participation in the Adopt-A-Highway program. Milton Spaulding, the state's attorney, had argued the rule was based on a concern that the state might face liability for public backlash to the Klan's participation. Judge Perry basically ruled that this was a vague and ill-defined apprehension, writing in part, "While I do not disagree that some users of the state highway system may voice their displeasure with the Klan and its unfortunate views of racial superiority, it is unconstitutional to deny its application based on what hypothetically might occur when the Klan is picking up trash." Moreover, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down similiar rules in 2000, and the Klan has been trying to participate in the program since 1994. That ruling read in part, "requiring the Klan essentially to alter its message of racial superiority and segregation by accepting individuals of other races, religions, colors and national origins in order to adopt a highway would censor its message and inhibit its constitutionally protected conduct." Signs bearing the Klan's name were placed along Interstate 55 in St. Louis at one time, but protesters cut them down twice. That stretch of I-55 was later renamed the Rosa Parks Highway.
(See 20 Jul 2001; 10 Jan 2005)

By City of New York. State Supreme Court Justice Louis B. York ruled on this day that the city's attempt to toughen the 60-40 zoning rule to close sex-oriented bookstores, movie theaters and topless bars is illegal. The 60-40 ordinance was passed in 1995, and required that an adult establishment could use no more than 40% of its space for sex-oriented materials, although establishments in a specially zoned section of the city were exempted. In 2001, the city amended the ordinance and outlawed virtually any adult business in most areas of the city; claiming that such establishments were "in sham compliance" because most of their income derived from their sex-oriented sections. The owners of over one hundred seven adult businesses sued as this change would have closed all but those 35 businesses are already in parts of the city zoned for adult entertainment and which were exempt.

Of special import, Judge York ruled that before the city could enact a new law or change an existing one to control "secondary affects", it must first do a study to show such affects actually exist. The secondary affects argument is slippery slope argument commonly used to restrict sex-oriented enterprises. As was the case this time. City lawyers had argued the businesses were attracting crime, lowering property values, and decreasing the quality of life, but they admitted that no study had been done on 60-40 compliant businesses to support the 2001 zoning change.

[In short, the city ruled that an establishment with only forty percent of its floor space dedicated to sex-oriented material, but in which greater than forty percent of its revenue came from the sale of such material, was in violation of the ordinance anyway. Consider this: any retailer in North America will tell you that the greatest number of sales is during the Christmas season. Ergo: New York city was attempting to punish retailers for selling to people what people were buying disproportionately, not because the retailers were in violation of the ordinance. --MN]

By ABC News. Freedom of the press is now under attack from the Homeland Security Department. For the second time in two years, ABC investigated homeland security by smuggling an amount of depleted uranium into the the country through customs. In this case, they smuggled 9.3 kilograms (15 pounds) of the material to Los Angeles from Jakarta, Indonesia. Tom Cochran, a nuclear physicist at the Natural Resources Defense Council, which lent the material for the project, was quoted by ABC as saying, "If they can't detect (the depleted uranium), then they can't detect the real thing." The material was packed into a lead lined, steel pipe and placed within a suitcase.

Jeffrey Schneider, ABC News Vice President, is quoted as saying, "In our view, we do not believe we are in violation of the law because it was not our intent to defraud the U.S. government, to smuggle in contraband or to avoid duties. It was to test the system." Dennis Murphy, spokesman for the Homeland Security Department, commented, "We believe ABC News may have broken the law, and we are pursuing the appropriate course of action. It is a question whether or not journalists should be breaking the law in the pursuit of a news story. It's not right for a reporter to rob a bank to prove the bank has lax security."

[It was reported that agents of the FBI and Immigration and Customs Enforcement were helping the U.S. attorney in Los Angeles draft a possible criminal complaint, and the decision to file would rest with Attorney General John Ashcroft. I've got five bucks that says he'll try to make this a criminal matter. After all, ABC News has embarrassed the government by exposing all its blandisments about how secure the homeland is as a pack of lies. People are not allowed to do that in a petty tyranny. Peons like We the People are expected to simply shut up and die like rats. I reiterate:

I pointed out in the entry for 18 Apr 2002 that the suppression of such information was more likely to pose a greater threat to private citizens, didn't I?

However, Robert Lichter, who is president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, believes the Justice Department will try to make its point without filing criminal charges. He commented, "The department could choose not to prosecute while choosing to condemn this behavior." Meanwhile, in my not so humble opinion, nothing will be done to actually alter the status quo, and next year ABC can do it all over again. The report on this investigation was to have aired on this date, but the source article did not say if it did not air or why it did not if it was pulled. Since the source article is by Associated Press, I consider that point to be suspect. --MN]
(see 18 Apr 2002; 28 Dec 2002; 21 Aug 2004; 19 Mar 2005)

By Mattel. In an opinion/editorial slamming the Bush administration, Maureen Dowd wrote about Saudi Arabia's ban against Barbie:

The Saudi religious police are harassing Barbie.

The Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice is warning that the "Jewish" dolls - banned in Saudi Arabia for a decade - are a threat to Islam.

The A.P. reported that a message posted on the mutawwa's Web site chided: "Jewish Barbie dolls, with their revealing clothes and shameful postures, accessories and tools are a symbol of decadence to the perverted West. Let us beware of her dangers and be careful."

This, from a hypocritical desert kingdom with more lingerie stores in its malls than Victoria has secrets.

It's probably useless to start correcting the inbred Saudis on facts, but just for the record, Barbie was a knockoff of a German floozy doll.

[Irony or what? Given the way Mattel goes overboard to protect its trademark on Barbie, Arabic censorship of the doll to protect Islam would be laughable if censorship were any kind of a joke. --MN]

By the Zimbabwe regime of Robert Mugabe. An article at Women's eNews details how sexual assault is being increasingly used to silence opposition to the despotic regime. The regime, of course, has not given up on the standard methods of oppression; foreign jounralists are still forbidden, and the burning, killing, and torture still go on. The article was filed by Nicole Itano, a free-lance writer based in Johannesburg.

By Montreal Urban Community Police. Some two hundred Haitian and North African families took a complaint of racial harassment to the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal. Residents of the St. Michel North public-housing complex, they are alleging that for the last two years, and particularly during Aug 2003, they were subject to harassment by officers from Station 29 and Station 30. Kimon Kling, an intern with Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations, which is pleading the case, commented, "For those officers, everyone who is young and black is a criminal." The case is not yet heading for the courts, but lawyers for the families are seeking 750,000 dollars in compensation. Adolescents in the area seem to be commonly cited for loitering.

By Bill Nevins and the Rio Rancho High School poetry group. Mr. Nevins filed a free speech law suit in state district court alleging that he was fired because of student poetry challenging the status quo of national priorities putting war ahead of education. Mr. Nevins seeks:

• reinstatement as coach of the school's poetry group,
• to be reinstated as a Rio Rancho teacher, although at a different school,
• and for Rio Rancho Public Schools to establish a policy protecting freedom of speech for teachers and students.

Mr. Nevins says he believes it was the students' exercise of free speech that caused the controversy and that he had heard nothing but praise from students, parents, and school officials up to five days before his suspension and sudden firing. The plaintiffs are the school district; Sue Cleveland, district superintendent; Gary Tripp, school principal; and Sue Passell, assistant principal. For an indepth look into the sequence of events leading up the filing, see the source article.

[Those of you who have read Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix probably see the parallels between Passell and Dolores Umbribge. --MN]

By Jack L. Martin. On this day the Cook Memorial Public Library board met to resolve the issues raised by Mr. Martin's actions. The board verbally and in writing criticized him for:

• censoring the library's holdings without proper authority,
• ignoring a policy that calls for a review of objectionable material,
• talking with two other board members about the newspaper outside of a public meeting and perhaps violating the Illinois Open Meetings Act thereby, and,
• about a dozen other points.

The board also decided to not file complaints with the Libertyville police or the Lake County state's attorney's office. The meeting had approximately one hundred people in attendance, some of whom spoke passionately both pro and con. The resolution of censure passed by a 5-2 vote, with Mr. Martin and Trustee Tom Forester, an ally, opposing it.

[How is it Martin was allowed to vote? If that wasn't a conflict of interest I don't what is. You can see more about the meetings and the interactions between the pro and con speakers in the source article at the Daily Herald. --MN]

By Lynsey Stanfield. A sixteen year-old cheerleader at Norco High School, Ms Stanfield had objected on several occasions about being required to wear her uniform to classes on game days. Two slits in the blue and white skirt expose the thigh up to a brief-like undergarment, and her position was, "It's like sitting in class with your underwear showing." When school officials failed to address her complaint, she attached a copy of the school district dress code to the uniform with tape in protest. The code reads in part, "No undergarments or posteriors shall show." As a result of the protest she was suspended from cheerleading for a 12 Sep game. The school has since spent $500 to order less revealing clothing, but on 16 Sep Ms. Stanfield asked the Corona Norco Unified School District to apologize for her suspension on the grounds, "It violated my right to free speech." District spokesman Bob Brew commented about the request, "It wasn't a free-speech issue for us. It revolved around altering the uniform."

[By scotch-taping a piece of paper to it? Get real, dufus. Furthermore, requiring your cheerleaders to wear clothing to class that directly contravenes your own dress code is obviously a double standard morality. --MN]

By the Middlesex County school district, Sayreville, New Jersey. The Rutherford Institute announced on this day it was appealing this case to the U.S. Supreme Court. According to the Institute, four boys in a kindergarten class at Wilson Elementary School were playing cops and robbers and using their fingers as guns. The boy represented by the institute allegedly said, "I have a bazooka, and I'm going to shoot you", and another student told a teacher. The four boys were each suspended for three days. The Rutherford Institute filed a lawsuit seeking to have the suspension expunged from the record of one of the children. The institute is arguing that the school had violated the boy's constitutional rights to: free speech, procedural due process, and equal protection of law.

[Addendum (29 Jan 2004:) It was reported on 29 Jan 2004 that the U.S. Supreme Court had refused to hear the case on 21 Jan. This leaves the 3rd Circuit ruling standing for now. --MN]
(see 23 Jun 2003)

By Kevin Gambrell. Head of the Farmington, New Mexico, Indian Minerals Office since 1996, he had protested for six years that Navajo landowners were being cheated out their due for use of their land. When he blew the whistle to Alan Balaran, an investigator appointed by a federal judge presiding in a class action against the Interior Department. Mr. Balaran filed a report in Aug 2003 that said private landowners near the Navajo Nation were being paid 20 times what the Indians were being paid in some cases. He said those discrepancies and the destruction of records related to the deals constituted a failure by the Interior Department to meet its legal obligation to American Indian landowners to ensure fair payment for the use of their land. Mr. Gambrell was placed on paid administrative leave, allegedly for destroying documents and for insubordination, and then fired on 15 Sep.

[The Navajo people are getting royally screwed, and this incident is especially troubling in light of their living in Third World conditions. See the source article for more about the human rights abuse being promoted by this incident. Obviously, the spirit of Colonel Covington lives on. --MN]

By the American Library Association, et al. This year's theme is Celebrate Your Freedom to Read.

This offer void where prohibited by El Presidente Castro

For a countervailing viewpoint see the opinion of Banned Book Week written by Steve McKinzie.

By ACLU of Texas. Only the executive summary of the report was released (in .PDF) on this date with the full report being expected to be released in about a week. The most surprising revelations concerned Harry Potter and Stephen King. All told, there were 134 challenges reported in 71 school districts.

Harry Potter books were challenged in only four districts as opposed to twenty-one challenges of the previous school year. Moreover, only two of the challenges were to the whole series; the other two were individual volumes being used in curricula.

All of Stephen King's novels were banned from all schools in the Brookelane Independent School District. The only details in the executive summary, however, are that the challenge was brought by a parent, and then brought to the attention of the Board of Trustees.

The report also stated that Inner City Mother Goose was censored in Bay City ISD when a parent refused to return the book to the school library and the book was not replaced.

By Robert Cormier. A special meeting of the Baldwin school board, Lawrence, Kansas, was scheduled for this date to discuss the summary removal of We All Fall Down by the district superintendent. Jim White pulled the book after complaints by two parents and reportedly reading parts of the book. He apparently said that it was clear to him that We All Fall Down wasn't fit for his own daughter or granddaughter, so he ordered the book pulled from the curriculum, although not from the libraries. Board member Stacy Cohen, who wants the decision reversed, says the superintendent likely overstepped his authority, basing that conclusion on her reading of the district's policy manual. There was no policy allowing people to challenge the district's classroom curriculum.

One complaint was filed by Lori Krysztof, whose daughter is in the ninth grade orientation class, and who teaches kindergarten herself. She commented, "I'm asking that the book be taken out of the curriculum for the class. I have not asked that the book be banned." Ms. Krysztof said she found more than fifty objectionable passages while reading the 208-page work of fiction, and that the profanity and sexual content were most troublesome.

[Sorry, kiddo, but you've overstepped the bounds of your parental authority. If you don't like the book you can only ask that your child not be required to read it. When you tried to stop other parent's children from reading it you did attempt to invoke a ban. And the lesson to teachers and school officials who might read this is: make sure you have a review process in place; if you don't: implement one. --MN]
(see 30 Oct 2003)

By the unfree press of Algeria. On 19 Sep Reporters Without Borders called on Algeria's rulers to immediately stop hounding the country's independent media, while the press was preparing for this one day protest. A dozen of the country's 43 privately-owned newspapers are expected to participate cooperatively despite ideological and commercial rivalries. The aim of the protest is to publicize the situation nationally and internationally and to convince the government to end harassment and attacks against press freedom. Over the past month, the authorities, especially the group of people around President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, have stepped up efforts to silence the independent press which continues to report cases of political and business corruption. Article 144 b of the Algerian criminal code provides for between two months and a year in prison and fines ranging from 50,000 to 250,000 dinars (600 to 3,000 euros) for insulting or defaming the president, parliament, or the army. Reporters Without Borders chronicled the following harassment over one month (and which is mirrored here without permission):

• August
• 14: Le Matin, Le Soir d'Algérie, Liberté, L'Expression, El Khabar and Er-raï ordered to pay their debts to government printers by 17August.
• 18: All six papers fail to appear.
• 21: Liberté et El Khabar pay off debts and reappear.
• 23: Mohamed Benchicou, managing editor of the daily Le Matin, arrested at Algiers airport with large number of cash vouchers on him. The finance ministry files complaint against him for violation of foreign exchange and capital movement regulations.
• 26: Police summon Farid Alilat, managing editor of the daily Liberté, editor Saïd Chekri, coordination chief Ali Ouafek and journalist Rafik Hamou.
• 27: Le Matin reappears after paying off debts. Benchicou put on formal probation.
• 28: Alilat, Chekri, Ouafek and Hamou present themselves to police.

• September
• 01: Seven Liberté journalists summoned - including managing editor Alilat, former managing editor Outoudert Abrous, columnist Mustapha Hammouche, editor Saïd Chekri, cartoonist Ali Dilem and journalists Mourad Belaïdi and Rafik Benkaci. Le Soir d'Algérie reappears after paying off debts.
• 03: Alilat, Chekri, Ouafek and Hamoun ordered to report to public prosecutor and examining magistrate and meanwhile conditionally freed. Hammouche and Belaïdi questioned by detectives after being summoned. Benchicou summoned.
• 06: Benchicou and Dilem decide not to respond to any more police summons and only to appear before a court. Fouad Boughanem, managing editor of Le Soir d'Algérie, gets third summons.
• 08: Formal summonses signed by state prosecutor delivered to Dilem and Benchicou, who are arrested by detectives and taken to Algiers central police station.
• 09: Dilem and Benchicou charged with insulting the head of state and conditionally freed. Their arrest causes crowd to gather in street. Three photographers arrested and taken to police station, then released.
• 11 Ahmed Benaoum arrested on basis of complaint against him for forgery related to two civil matters dating back 20 years.
• 14: Benaoum put on formal probation then freed. A dozen independent papers decide to stage a "No-Press Day" on 22 September.
• 16: Boughanem arrested in front of the Journalists' Centre in Algiers, taken to central police station and released a few hours later. Journalists come to protest at his arrest are briefly arrested, including Le Soir d'Algérie chief editor Badreddine Manâa, the paper's senior editor, Malika Boussouf, and Rabah Abdallah, secretary-general of the Algerian National Union of Journalists (SNJ).
• 17: L'Expression reappears, after paying off its debts.

By citizens of Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. In an effort to beautify the city and to curb illegal advertising, the municipal government has taken the unprecedented step of suspending telephone service to those who post illegal advertisements, stickers, and posters on private and public buildings, wooden and cement bridges and street lamps. The suspensions will be in effect until the transgressor removes all of the illegal stickers and advertising promoting his or her services. One Egyptian teacher whose phone hadn't yet been cut off was quoted in Arab News:

Because of Saudization, the schools are firing foreign teachers. We have to make money somehow. Most of us are making around SR1,500 per month and cannot afford to take out an advertisement in a newspaper. This crackdown is going to affect a lot of people, and the students that need the extra tutoring. This is not the solution. The solution is to provide a designated space for people to post their advertisements.

Arab News reported that there is not yet any plan to target leaflets and pamphlets placed under the windshield wipers of cars.

By Aldous Huxley and Robert A Heinlein, respectively. Four parents had filed complaints and sought to have the books removed from the curriculum of the tenth grade, English Advanced Placement, at Science Academy, South Texas Independent School District. The books were on the summer reading list for the sophomore class, and parent Julie Wilde wrote in her complaint to the district that the books might cause the, "inappropriate sexual arousal of young teens". She also wrote, "We feel this is inappropriate for the ages of the students at (the) Science Academy or at any South Texas ISD High School," and "This is pornographic literature and we do not feel it has a place in any school funded by taxpayer dollars." The complaint triggered a review process, although school district policies state that parents have the right to object to their children's reading materials, and to obtain alternatives to those materials. Those same policies also state: "A parent's ability to exercise control over reading, listening, or viewing matter extends only to his or her own children." The board of directors for the South Texas ISD was scheduled to meet on this day to decide whether to ban the two books. The board is hearing the complaint because the parents were dissatisfied with the decision to retain the books by both the review committee and the Superintendent.

[I will be heartily surprised if the board did toss the books given that they have been in use for a decade and they are touted as being highly educational. The committee wrote about Brave New World in its report, in June, "This book enriches and supports the curriculum and presents various sides of controversial issues so that students have an opportunity to develop, under guidance, skills in critical analysis and in making informed judgments in their daily lives" It wrote about Stranger in a Strange Land, "The references to sexual behavior which the complainants cited as leading to sexual arousal are non-explicit attempts by the author to engage the reader in critical thought about human values and societal codes of conduct. The book addresses sexuality and portrays groups with radically different approaches to sexuality than that generally accepted as our societal norm. The book does not promote these lifestyles as desirable. The book does not give graphic descriptions of sexual acts." --MN]

[Addendum (25 Sep 2003): It was reported that the board of trustees voted unanimously to keep the books. This incident apparently stems from the fact that no alternate titles were offered for those students who might not want to, or be allowed to, read the books. The board also voted to allow alternate titles. This wasn't enough for the challengers, however. They are still dissatisfied with the decision. Should they wish to pursue this course of action, the next step is a civil suit, and I hope it costs them the shirts off their backs. For some very good coverage of the 22 Sep meeting, see the Valley Morning Star article by Jennine Zeleznik. --MN]

By the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of four advocacy organizations. 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; 28 May 2003; 06 Aug 2003; 06 Jan 2004)

By Maggie Fox. She filed a report through Reuters, and which was reprinted at TruthOut.org, about the impact of "compassionate conservatism". See George Bush religious initiatives and cover-ups.

[Synopsis: It's genocide. And this is what the ultra-self-righteous want throughout the world, not just in Africa or North America. --MN]

By Matthew Dixon. A refrigerator mechanic at North Charleston, South Carolina, office of Coburg Dairy, he drives a pick up truck with a tool chest in the bed. On the tool chest are two Confederate flag decals. Mr. Dixon's habit was to drive the truck to work and park it in the company parking lot. When a black co-worker complained about the decals, Mr. Dixon was ordered to remove them. He refused and was fired. The basis of his co-workers complaint was that the display constituted harassment. When Dixon sued, a court agreed that the firing was just, and on 30 May a three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision, finding: "Dixon has a constitutionally protected right to fly the Confederate battle flag from his home, car or truck." But, "in the context of this case, Dixon's First Amendment right does not extend to bringing the Confederate flag inside his employer's privately owned workplace." However, at least one unidentified member of the full court polled the other judges asking them to hear the matter again, which they agreed to do the week before this one. The case will be reheard in December.

[Let's all hear it for Black Pride: "Shit, Judge, you gotta dump all over the white dude on account of I feel harassed." I say fire the black dude. Who wants to work with a hypersensitive, whiny sniveller like that? --MN]
(see 25 May 2004)

By Dallas Observer. The Texas Supreme Court agreed on this day to hear the case. Oral arguments are scheduled for 03 Dec 2003.
(see 21 Nov 2002; 23 Dec 2003; 03 Sep 2004)

By Al-Wehda, an independent weekly. Reporters Without Borders published an article that this newspaper is being subjected to censorship by state security court prosecutor Mahmood Obeidat. Robert Ménard, secretary-general of Reporters Without Borders said in a statement, "This censorship has been imposed despite the recent abolition of article 150 of the criminal code which curbed press freedom. The abolition was a good sign, but the authorities seem to be taking one step forward and three steps back. Prior censorship is theoretically no longer done in Jordan, but the authorities are still using the old methods to continue muzzling the press and forcing journalists to censor themselves. The content of some publications is closely inspected at the printers and officials call editors to ask for stories to be dropped or else simply forbid the printing of an entire issue, as in this case." Non-official sources said the paper's edition for 24 Sep was banned because of an article about torture perpetrated in Jordan in 1993. Other issues had been partly censored, but this time the government decided whole issue was too subversive. Al-Wehda frequently prints the left-wing views of the opposition.

By Reporters Without Borders. It was reported that Rehmat Shah Afridi, who has apparently been under sentence of death since Jun 2001 for reporting about the Pakistani government's illegal activities, is in failing health and that his jailers will not allow him to get medical attention. The source article detailed how Afridi has been treated overall since his arrest:

• After his arrest he was tortured, then sent to death row in Lahore's Kot Lakhpat prison;
• he has back problems, but until recently did not have a mattress, even though:
• he is kept in his cell around the clock;
• he has been deprived of medicine for serious heart trouble and has reportedly lost a great deal of weight;
• his family had to ask the Punjabi home affairs minister to allow Afridi to have medical treatment;
• the minister said Afridi would be sent to a hospital specialising in cardiology, but this had not been done as of this date.

[There was no mention of whether or not he was being seen by a physician at the prison, however, nor was there any mention of what specific tortures had been inflicted on him, nor was it reported when the family made the request to the minister. I'm a little concerned about the reporting at Reporters Without Borders as it is heavily slanted toward the assumption of censorship and oppression, and their articles are very much bare-bones reporting. Of course, there is no possible way the Pakistani government can create a context excusing such shabby treatment of its prisoners, but I still want enough background information to make up my own mind about how much this constitutes oppression. --MN]
(See 02 Apr 1999)

By California Polytechnic State University. In Nov 2002, Steve Hinkle, a white student and an officer of the campus Republican club, attempted to post a flier advertising a speech by Mason Weaver. Weaver is a black conservative who argues that reliance on government aid enslaves blacks. Hinkle was the lounge in the campus multicultural center, and he was confronted by some black students who said they found the flier offensive, and one of them even threatened to call campus police. Hinkle left without posting the flier, but someone called the cops anyway. When the campus police arrived they took a report that stated they had been called there "to investigate a suspicious white male passing out literature of an offensive racial nature." The school's Judicial Affairs Office ruled that Hinkle had violated a state regulation that bars "obstruction or disruption" of campus functions; in this case a Bible study that the students contended they were preparing to hold. NB: "that the students contended they were preparing to hold"; not a meeting that was already under way, nor was it a meeting Hinkle attempted to approach; the students confronted him. Mr. Hinkle was ordered to write letters of apology and warned that he could face stiffer penalties or even potential expulsion if he refused. He did refuse.

On this date the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education and the Center for Individual Rights filed a lawsuit on his behalf in federal court. FIRE also has extensive material detailing the full scope of this civil liberties violation and censorship.

[Look at the copy of the flier through the link above and tell me what you find offensive about it. Explain to me how Hinkle could possibly have caused the disruption of a meeting that had not yet started and in which he was the victim of the confrontation. Even if he had walked into the lounge just as the meeting was being called to order, he could have quietly posted the flier on the bulletin board without being a distraction. Once again: if this the idea some blacks have of Black Pride, you can keep it. --MN]

2003, September 29: Report about an attack on journalism

By Mark Rasch. In an article that basically blows the whistle on Bush administration totalitarianism, Mr. Rasch details how the FBI had invoked the USA PATRIOT Act to competely circumvent the press freedom quaranteed by the First Amendement so it could prosecute a computer hacker. He wrote in part:

The Bureau recently sent letters to a handful of reporters who have written stories about the Lamo case -- whether or not they have actually interviewed Lamo. The letters warn them to expect subpoenas for all documents relating to the hacker, including, apparently, their own notes, e-mails, impressions, interviews with third parties, independent investigations, privileged conversations and communications, off the record statements, and expense and travel reports related to stories about Lamo.

In short, everything.

The notices make no mention of the protections of the First Amendment, Department of Justice regulations that restrict the authority to subpoena information from journalists, or the New York law that creates a "newsman's shield" against disclosure of certain confidential information by reporters.

Instead, the FBI has threatened to put these reporters in jail unless they agree to preserve all of these records while they obtain a subpoena for them under provisions amended by the USA-PATRIOT Act.

Mark D. Rasch, J.D., is a former head of the U.S. Justice Department's computer crime unit, and at the time he wrote this he was serving as Senior Vice President and Chief Security Counsel at Solutionary Inc. The article was printed in The Register, United Kingdom, but Mr. Rasch seemed to be setting himself up as a test case to challenge the use of the antiterrorism law for standard law enforcement. This stems from Attorney General John Ashcroft advising all United States Attorney's Offices to prosecute all criminal offense with the most harsh penalties available instead of with the penalties that most accurately reflect the seriousness of the offense.

[Nor is this an isolated incident, it seems. I read in an article somewhere that some guy who was busted for running a methamphetamine lab was facing charges of producing chemical weapons under the [un]PATRIOT Act. That carries a twelve year sentence instead of the six months under standard law. --MN]

[Addendum (10 Oct 2003): On 09 Oct there was an Associated Press article at First Amendment Center Online which reports that the FBI acknowledges that it screwed up and apologized for the demand, softening it instead to a request that the reporter preserve all research materials. The article reads in part:

The FBI has apologized to an Associated Press reporter for demanding that he preserve records in a criminal case against a computer hacker.

The apology to reporter Ted Bridis says there was no legal mandate that he safeguard records pertaining to Adrian Lamo, a Californian who is accused of hacking into The New York Times computer system. Instead, the letter asks Bridis to voluntarily comply with the request.

In a letter to Bridis last month, the FBI ordered him to preserve any documents relating to Lamo, citing a criminal law that applies to Internet providers. The bureau sent similar letters to reporters at 12 other news organizations.

The letter reportedly states that "we have determined [the cited law] does not apply to you under the circumstances presented in this case." There was no report on whether the same recantation was sent to the other twelve reporters or not. --MN]

By FAIR. On this day FAIR released an Action Alert urging subscribers to contact the American Broadcasting Corporation and ask that an erroneous statement made by Secretary of State Colin Powell be corrected. ABC's This Week (for 27 Sep 2003) interviewers George Stephanopoulos and George Will did not challenge Powell's statement about U.N. weapons inspectors being thrown out of Iraq even though the misinformation had been debunked for some time. The misinformation was then repeated by the New York Times on 29 Sep 2003. The Los Angeles Times also reported Powell's statement, but paraphrased it to make it more factually accurate. However, Powell's statement immediately followed the paraphrase, thereby making it appear that Powell was accurately reflecting the 1998 situation.

[To borrow a quote: Trend journalism attains authority not through actual reporting but through the power of repetition. Said enough times, anything can be made to seem true. A trend declared in one publication sets off a chain reaction, as the rest of the media scramble to get the story, too. The lightning speed at which these messages spread has less to do with the accuracy of the trend than with journalists' propensity to repeat one another. --Susan Faludi, Backlash, pg 79]

By Norway. The Norwegian Board of Film Classification will release all the films that had previously been censored for viewing in Norwegian cinemas. Several hundred banned films can now be shown on the big screen. Since 1955, the Board had considered close to 14,000 films, and almost three hundred were still banned as of Director Tom Løland's reversal of the bannings. Aside from these, there are also numerous archived films which were banned during the period 1913 through 1955. Director Løland's rationale for terminating the prior review is that multiple channel access to films kept out of the theaters by prior review renders the program useless. A film the board might ban could be freely available over the Internet in streaming video, or through television, videotape, or DVD.

By Jamaica. An article in the 09 Jun 2003 Jamaica Oberver (internet edition), reported that Information Minister Burchell Whiteman said the first phase of Jamaica's Access to Information Act is still on target for its 01 Oct deadline. The Act is to be implemented in four stages. Phase one covers operations within:

• the Office of the Prime Minister,
• the Cabinet Office,
• the Ministry of Finance and Planning, and
• the National Works Agency in the Ministry of Transport and Works.

The Act, passed in Jun 2002, seeks to promote accountability and transparency by giving public access to official documents in government bodies, subject to exempt provisions. It was to have been implemented in Aug 2002. The remaining three stages were yet to be finalised as of 09 Jun 2003.

By Reporters Without Borders. This Free Press group called upon the government of Tunisia to end its campaign of harassment against journalist and human rights activist Néziha Rejiba. The source article reported that Ms. Rejiba had angered authorities with remarks she has made on foreign satellite TV stations and material she has posted on the Internet. Ms. Rejiba writes for the foreign-based online magazine Kalima, which has been banned in Tunisia since it started up in October 2000. Because access to the site (www.kalima.com) is blocked, a samizdat version has been secretly distributed in the country. Reporters Without Borders reported about Ms. Rejiba that:

• she has been physically attacked and,
• harassed for three years by police after meetings of the National Freedom Committee;
• her home is constantly watched;
• her phone is either tapped, or, as of the date for this entry, disconnected.

In a bizarre twist of fate, Tunisia is slated to host the 2005 World Summit on the Information Society.

By Bretton Barber. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.
(see 17 Feb 2003)

See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By University of Alabama students. A report at Foundation for Individual Rights in Education stated that after months of trying different speech restrictions, the university administration tabled "indefinitely" a policy outlawing all displays in the windows of student dormitories. The policy was enacted after one student was cited for displaying a confederate flag from the door of his dorm room and FIRE wrote a letter to the university. Other students then protested the threat to their civil liberties by displaying American flags in their windows; challenging administrators to enforce the ban. On 28 Sep, Thomas S. Strong, Dean of Students, announced that the administration had "indefinitely tabled" the ban and that he personally would work to protect free speech on campus. Some of the comments about the incident from speech advocates are:

• We are relieved that the University of Alabama has decided, at least for now, to honor its constitutional obligations. We find it remarkable that a university was willing to ban an entire category of expression rather than risk any student being offended.
  --Thor L. Halvorssen, CEO, Foundation for Individual Rights in Education

• We wish that administrators understood that there is no need for any codes that ban speech -- even speech that offends -- on public university campuses. The ideal speech code was added to the U.S. Constitution in 1789 in the form of the First Amendment. It is improper to ban only certain points of view, and equally improper to ban all points of view simply to avoid controversy.
  --Thor L. Halvorssen

• This was not about the confederate flag; it was about our rights as free citizens of a free country. The administration recognized its assault on the Bill of Rights for what it was: a public relations disaster.
  --David Beito, Alabama Scholars Association President, UA history professor

By Nigerians. Alternative, Saraounia FM, and Bitinkodji FM, are three of ten radio stations which had their licences cancelled by the state communications council on 25 Sep, but which continued to broadcast in defiance of the government. The council said the licences were revoked because they had been improperly issued. On this date, the above three stations were occupied by the police, journalists were forced to stop working and then to leave, and the police then locked the offices and kept the keys.

By Reporters Without Borders (Reporters sans fronti&eaigu;res). This free press advocacy group called on the information and culture minister of Afghanistan, Sayeed Makhdoom Raheen, to reopen Afghan Cable Centre, a cable TV service based in the city of Jalalabad (Nangahar province). Local authorities banned the content provider on or about the 24th or 25th of Sep despite a national government undertaking to support the development of cable television, and this was the second time. Jalalabad authorities cited complaints about "shocking" programmes as the reason for banning Afghan Cable Centre and charging manager Mohammed Humayun with breaking the law. Those authorities were apparently alluding to programmes of Indian or western origin which showing men and women singing and dancing together. Conservatives often describe such activity as contrary to Islam and Afghan culture.

Afghan Cable Centre is reported to currently (as of the date of this entry) have about 700 subscribers and to carry six news and entertainment channels. It was previously banned by Jalalabad authorities in Dec 2002, and a few weeks after that the supreme court banned cable TV throughout Afghanistan. The government then drew up a broadcasting code. In May 2003, a list of authorized TV stations was issued along with new licences.

[Didn't we bomb the shit out of the Taliban and uncounted civilian casualties to put an end to this sort of thing? --MN]

In Aug, Dena Gudaitis was outside the British Embassy taking notes for a class assignment when a Secret Service officer confiscated her notes. According to Ms. Gudaitis the officer told her that with the "current things going on in the world, it would probably be in [her] best interest not to take notes." A few weeks later, Rick Steele was on assignment for The Eagle, American University's student newspaper. He described it as, "The general assignment was increased security in the White House." He was taking photos near the vice president's residence, when a law enforcement officer forced him to delete the photos from his digital camera. Steele said he did not record the name of the officer and could not remember which agency the officer was from.

Ms. Gudaitis recorded the name of the agent who took her notes, J.E. Collinsworth, so she was able to get an apology from the Secret Service along with her notebook. Mr. Steele, however, had no recourse because he could not identify the perpetrator or even which agency the officer belonged to. He did reportedly say, though, that the incident has renewed his resolve as a journalist, and was quoted, "I would definitely say I've been more assertive since then. You come to realize the rights you have."

By Jerry Rowan. A legendary, Baltimore street performer, Mr. Rowan performed at the Inner Harbor amphitheater for the first time since being banned from that locale in October 2002. Local fans waited for Rowan to hop aboard his 10-foot unicycle and juggle flaming torches while bantering with the crowd, but instead, he stood silently, black duct tape covering his mouth, and around his neck hung a sign reading: Caution: You Are Entering a No-Free Speech Zone. He was banned from the area for making comments that, "contained very insensitive, inappropriate comments", on the 19th and 20th of Oct 2002. He had said, "I heard that they've finally come out with a composite of the sniper. Apparently, he's a white guy that speaks Spanish and looks like he's Arab." Two police officers who were nearby heard the comment and took exception to it. As a result, Harborplace managers at the Rouse Co. banned him from the property. On this day he returned to the site with an ACLU representative accompanying him, after filing a suit in federal court seeking a year's worth of lost wages. Mr. Rowan's sole income from his street performances was tips, however, the exposure also garnered a number of corporate gigs, as well as appearances at the White House and on the Late Show with David Letterman, and in 1989, Baltimore Magazine name him as "probably the most popular performer ever to wow Harborplace crowds." Mr. Rowan was quoted as saying, "Now the phone isn't ringing." He was also quoted, "If I'm inappropriate, then a lot of people have bad taste."

By John Steinbeck, Harper Lee, and Mark Twain, respectively. Of Mice and Men is being challenged at Normal Community High School, and the other complaints were lodged at Normal Community West High School, Illinois. Connie Tripp, a parent, who lodged one of two complaints against Of Mice and Men, said it contains racial slurs, profanity and violence. She contended the book does not represent traditional values, is culturally insensitive, and is in violation of a school board policy regarding educational materials. Kayla Napue, Ms. Tripp's daughter, said she felt degraded by the novel and spent several weeks in the library while it was being studied in class. An alternative book, Steinbeck's "The Pearl," was offered but rejected by the family. Ms. Napue is Black and a sophomore. Three other students who have studied the book said it "offers insight into a difficult period in America's past."

The complaint lodged at Normal Community West High School dealt with similar issues.

[The article also reported:

The local branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said the organization's position is "not to ban or censor selected titles or materials." Education Chairwoman Sue Cain said that the definition of classical literature must be redefined. She said blacks are portrayed as victims either saved or oppressed by whites in books written from the white-male, Western European perspective.

"While these stories may contain a part of the African-American struggle, they by themselves are incomplete and become offensive if the story is not also told by those who have actually experienced this struggle."

First: anyone who says "I don't believe in censorship, but" does believe in censorship, and "redefining" classical literature will only prove to be another word for revisionism. Second: any sophisticated reader should be able to see how Nigger Jim, in Huck Finn, speaks increasingly from a viewpoint of freedom and self-responsibility from his growing awareness that he is free, until he realizes that he has missed the Ohio and is heading further south and into the more oppressive states. Third: Alice Walker, Maya Angelou, James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, and Toni Morrison have had books challenged or banned, and by Blacks in some incidents, and they have all represented blacks as being oppressed (I double-dare you to read Beloved); so Ms. Cain's position about Blacks getting the Black experience from the viewpoint of Black writers is so much naive claptrap. --MN]

By David Chang. The Ghettopoly board game has "playas" which act like pimps, cards reading things like: You got yo whole neighbourhood addicted to crack. Collect $50, and squares labelled Smitty's XXX Peep Show and Tyron's Gun Shop. Local black clergy is calling for the game to be banned and the distributer, Urban Outfitters, to be boycotted if they don't stop selling it. Mr. Chang he says of the game on his web site, "It draws on stereotypes not as a means to degrade, but as a medium to bring together in laughter. If we can't laugh at ourselves we'll continue to live in blame and bitterness." He has also promised a slew of similar, ethnically targeting games such as: Hoodopoly, Hiphopopoly, Thugopoly and Redneckopoly. Another complaint is that Ghettopoly has figures labelled "Malcum X" and "Martin Luthor King Jr." Rev. Glenn Wilson, pastor of Enon Tabernacle Baptist Church, who contends that the misspellings are intentional, is quoted as saying, "This is beyond making fun, to use the caricature of Dr. King in this regard. There's no way that game could be taken in any way other than that this man had racist intent in marketing it."

[So the misspellings are intentional, . . . that's a federal crime now? I don't buy that argument that Chang is the racist. For my money, Wilson, et al, are projecting. At the very least they are certainly hypersensitive. I don't think Chang is a racist if he is going to market a game that mocks the stereotype of white trash the way Ghettopoly seems to mock the stereotype of black trash. Perhaps Chang should also put out a game called Godopoly or maybe Churchopoly. Oligopoly? --MN]

[Nothing to do with censorship, really. I just thought I'd mention it to annoy the ultra-self-righteous. --MN]

By Demerger proponents in Longeuil, Québec, Canada. In 1992 the Parti Québecois pushed through an unpopular measure forcing a large number of municipalities to amalgamate into larger municipalities. During the 1993 campaign, the Liberal Party of Québec ran, in part, on a platform of undoing the mergers and were elected. A number of demerger groups then sprang up or became more active in having the measure repealed and the amalgamations reversed. On this day, the Montreal Gazette reported, after the story broke in La Presse, that demerger activists had been questioned about their activities. The Sûreté du Québec (the provincial police, equal to state troopers in the U.S.), had compiled a list of about 25 Montreal Island demerger and English-rights activists and had questioned a former Dollard des Ormeaux city councillor about whether they are a "threat to society." This line of investigation was immediately ordered to be terminated by the provincial government.

[The concensus among the various ministers and officials involved in the flack is that some idiot simply stepped way over the bounds of his authority, so remember: Always question Authority before it questions you. --MN]

By Linda Jaivin and Cathryn Clinton respectively. Both books are being challenged in Marion County, Florida. Eat Me is about four women's exotic sexual exploits with food and other objects, and makes extensive comparisons between food and body parts. It was challenged on 05 Jul by Loretta Harrison who had borrowed the book along with seven other selections under the misapprehension that it was a comical novel. When Director Julie Sieg reviewed the book, she overruled the recommendation of the three-member review committee. She reported to the library board on 26 August that her decision was because, "we aren't in the habit of providing erotica or pornography." Former board Chair Mary Lutes then challenged that decision.

On 23 Sep Ms. Sieg notified the board of a challenge to A Stone in My Hand by patron Galina Hutcher. The book, reportedly about a Palestinian girl whose father is killed in Israel in a terrorst attack, targets the young adult audience, but was shelved in the children's section. Ms. Hutcher's complaint is that the book is, "written one-sidedly, specifically showing one party to be fully wrong."

[No shit, Sherlock. You think maybe the fact that it is a work of fiction and not a news report might have something to do with that? --MN]

[Addendum (16 Nov 2003): I recently found a follow up article to this story from 29 Oct, in the Ocala Star. The challenge to A Stone In My Hand was refused, but the challenge to Eat Me! got bogged down by an issue of semantics and another issue of vagueness in the policy. You've got to read this to believe it. It would be ludicrous if the issues weren't so important. --MN]
(see 03 Feb 2004; 26 Feb 2004; 05 Jun 2004)

Based on a site by Chris Csikszentmihályi and Ryan McKinley of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Media Laboratory and the defunct Total Information Awareness program, and comprising elements of peer to peer file sharing employed by Napster. This site is designed to collect snippets of information to build a database that can later be searched to reveal patterns of suspicious behaviour, but is dedicated to the monitoring of government activity by private citizens. The original site encouraged members of the public to post information about organisations, officials, and politicians, such as their business links and the source of their campaign donations, but had to be dramatically scaled back after being overwhelmed with traffic and because of legal worries. It was hosted on one of MIT's servers, and the researchers did not edit for content, raising concerns that if any of the postings were slanderous MIT could be held responsible. The new site, instead of storing the data in one place, will distribute it around the internet. The new site is scheduled for launch in late 2003.

By Judy Blume. It's presence in an elementary school library was being challenged by parent Jerri Trammell. Ms. Trammell's daughter is in the Accelerated Reader program at Spring Hill Elementary School, Hernando County, Florida. The book has been removed from access while undergoing the review process. It is, however, undergoing a proper review process; one which was emplaced in 1998 after a challenge to I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings. On her web site, Ms. Blume noted that Deenie has been banned more than any of her other works, and Ms. Blume is one of the two most frequently challenged U.S. authors. Stephen King is the other.

[Trammell, complained to Spring Hill principal John DiRienzo:

What she read isn't bad. I just don't want her to learn about it from Judy Blume.

Okay, then why didn't you teach her about it yourself when you had the chance?

"Look, dear. This is your vagina, and this is your clitoris. And when you rub it, it feels good, which is a nice alternative for when your fath -- uh, your boyfriend is as fast off the mark as an Olympic sprinter. Which will be most nights and especially when he's been drinking."

See? It would have been so easy for your daughter to learn about the facts of life from you instead of on some street corner or from a total stranger. But, of course, God forbid the idea of infantile sexuality should ever rear its perversion.

I think this whole problem stems from a book for seventh graders and up, what the U.S. calls Middle School, being in an elementary school, but the young Ms. Trammel is in an Accelerated Reader program, which means reading books above one's grade level. If she is in grade five or six, that would mean books usually found in Middle Schools. There is no real indication that this case is censorship, and under the assumption of innocence, I chalk it up to an attempt to determine if the work is really appropriate to the milieu. So far. Opinions are subject to revision in light of new evidence, of course. --MN]

By the U.S. Congress. After the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about COPA in 2002, it sent the case back down to the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals which ruled against COPA a second time, writing, in part, "[COPA] is not narrowly tailored to proscribe commercial pornographers and their ilk, as the government contends, but instead prohibits a wide range of protected expression." On this day the Supreme Court announced that it would consider this second ruling.

By Robert Berwick. He was arrested in Oct 2001 in, Bruce Park, Stamford, Connecticut, and charged for videotaping couples having sex. He pleaded not guilty to breach of peace and voyeurism for having secretly taped the couples. A Superior Court ruled in Jul 2003 that both prosecutors and Mr. Bertwick can debate the state law, scheduling the hearing for this day. Mr. Bertwick is basing his defence on the contention that he had the right to film in a public place in that a park is different from a home or a locker room, which are private, and prosecutors have taken the position that visitors to a public park can expect some privacy, if their acts are not in plain view.

By Fred Phelps. This misohomonist Baptist preacher intents to exercise his free speech rights by erecting a monument commemorating and celebrating the murder of a human being. The monument is to read:

Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God's solemn warning: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22.

Phelps also protested against homosexuals at Mr. Shephard's funeral, and in 2002 demonstrated to express his approval of the murder. In this case, Phelps is invoking two rulings from the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals against the state of Utah. The rulings, from 1990 and 2002, are from lawsuits filed by members of the Summum religion who wanted to put up their monuments of their own next toTen Commandments displays on public properties in Ogden and Salt Lake County. Casper officials oppose Phelps's proposal and are considering giving the Ten Commandments monument back to the local Fraternal Order of Eagles. Brian Barnard, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney, said moving the monument to the Fraternal Order's private property would resolve the situation. He is quoted, "If they remove it, and they say, 'Henceforth, no one can put up public monuments,' the city's not obligated to consider the reverend's horrific monument." Phelps replied that removing the monument to private property wouldn't stop him, and that if that happens he and the congregation of his Westboro Baptist Church would file a lawsuit or buy land in Casper to display their monument.

[Casper officials are operating out of impure motives. Yes, this monument is horrific, and Phelps is a foaming at the brain lunatic. No doubt about it in my books. But there is an alternative to suppressing his message. Since he touts himself a stickler for Biblical Law and his message glorifies and promotes the wanton killing of human beings in direct violation of Biblical Law vis a vis the Ten Commandants, why not file a complaint with his superiours on the grounds of blasphemy? Or perhaps sacrilege, since he is using the Holy Bible for unholy purposes. --MN]
(see 23 Sep 2002; 28 Oct 2003)

By Chris Lynch and R.L. Stine, respectively. The presence of the books in the Crawford County Middle School library was challenged in September by parent Katie Jones. Ms. Jones objected to the sex, reckless driving, and murder within the books. The works are described in the source article as, "books that deal with the often complex issues teenagers confront." They have been removed from circulation pending the implementing of a review process policy. Once the policy is adopted, mostly likely by some time in December, the books will undergo the review process to determine if they should be banned permanently or put back on the shelves.

[Chairwoman Patrice Walker is quoted as saying, "We've had to back up and figure out what to do. All we're trying to do is make sure that everything available to our students is appropriate." This demonstrates a very bad attitude towards students, in my not so humble opinion. Students are not less human for lack of age and experience, and there are students for whom the books will be appropriate and others for whom they will not. Which is which will depends entirely on the upbringing each individual has had, but the decision is being based on a One Size Fits All approach. Moreover, it ignores that individuals can decide for themselves what interests them.

Secondly, this incident was subtly misrepresented in the source article by being reported as:

Jones' opposition is the latest chapter on the issue of censorship. In this case, the story involves a parent challenging books she finds inappropriate for her son to read.

This description basically makes it appear that censorship is a widely spread series of isolated incidents rather than a continuous and ongoing social movement, although the article does go on to examine the rate of incidence of challenges in the Georgia school system and throughout the U.S. Then too, the description of the challenge as being based on Jones deciding what is appropriate for her child, ignores the fact of this incident deciding what is inappropriate for other children. I chalk this up to a simple lack of understanding of the issues, however. Over all, the piece is fairly well written. --MN]

By Azar Nasifi. And printed in The Toronto Star. In the article, based on an interview centering primarily around her recently published memoir, Reading Lolita In Tehran, Ms. Nasifi detailed some of the repressive measures impelmented by Khomeini and how she opposed the suppression. For her part, Ms. Nasifi gave up teaching at Allameh Tabatabai University in Tehran after being harassed by ultra-conservatives for teaching "immoral" books such as Fitzgerald's The Great Gatsby. She took to teaching a clandestine class to her seven best students, all female, in her apartment. Reading Lolita In Tehran comprises stories by the girls of life in totalitarian Iran. Under Khomeini:

• the cinemas were closed;
• the age of marriage for girls was lowered from 18 to 9;
• non-Muslims were:
  • expelled from universities,
  • fired from jobs and,
  • prevented from burying their dead according to their faith;
• little girls were forbidden to wear coloured shoelaces;
• women were punished for:
  • wearing lipstick or nail polish,
  • for licking an ice cream cone in public,
  • for letting hair show under their headscarf,
  • for giggling or running in the hall;
  • anything that attracted attention to oneself.

Ms. Nafisi has reportedly written in her book of one woman who had been jailed solely for being startlingly beautiful. As of the date for this entry, she was living in Maryland, U.S.A., to where she had moved with her husband. Her book is being published in 15 languages, in Europe and in many Asian countries, including China and South Korea, and people are downloading it from the Internet in Iran.

By Daniel Lewis. A twenty year old band member in Dysarranged, he was arrested in Jun 2003 at the grand opening of a skate park in Castle Rock, Colorado. The event was attended by families as well as by teens. The incident began when police officers heard some of the band members using obscenities during a break and warned the band members to not use such language. When Lewis took the microphone after the break he dedicated a song to the Castle Rock police by saying, "I hate you all. Fuck the pigs." The police cut the power to the stage, escorted Lewis and several other band members off, and Lewis was subsequently arrested on a count of disturbing the peace, under a Castle Rock statute prohibiting the malicious or willful disturbing of the peace by "loud or unusual noises, or by tumultuous or offensive language", besides other things.

His defense is being based, predictably enough, on free speech grounds. His trial was scheduled for this day, and if convicted he faces a one year imprisonment. Daniel Recht, Lewis' attorney, wrote in his move to dismiss, "The prosecution is attempting to hold Mr. Lewis responsible for the age old tradition of name-calling. Although Mr. Lewis could have selected a more desirable choice in prose such as, 'I don't appreciate the Castle Rock police department's law enforcement tactic,' the words he did use don't amount to criminal conduct." Castle Rock police chief Tony Lane commented, "We're not concentrating so much on the language he used ... as the general disturbance it created."

[I assume he said "fuck". The source article, by Associated Press and published at the First Amendment Center Online, rather coyly had the line written: "I hate you all. [Expletive] the pigs." I've just got to ask myself how a website purportedly dedicated to anti-censorship can quietly go along with censorship by posting expurgated news articles. --MN]
(see 06 Nov 2003)

By Reporters Without Borders. On this date the international free press advocacy group published its second world press freedom ranking. The first was published in 2002. They reported at their site that the most catastrophic situation is to be found in Asia, especially North Korea, Burma and Laos, and that Cuba, touted as the world's biggest prison for journalists, was ranked second last; ahead of North Korea. Both the United States and Israel received two rankings for their support, or lack thereof, in both their home and occupied territories. Only those countries were included for which there were reliable data.

Rank	Country	Rank	Country
1	Finland	84	Malawi
-	Iceland	85	Serbia and Montenegro
-	Netherlands	86	Zambia
-	Norway	87	Sierra Leone
5	Denmark	88	Chad
-	Trinidad and Tobago	89	Sri Lanka
7	Belgium	90	Armenia
8	Germany	91	Uganda
9	Sweden	92	Burundi
10	Canada	93	Seychelles
11	Latvia	94	Moldova
12	Czech Republic	95	Togo
-	Estonia	96	Venezuela
-	Slovakia	97	Angola
-	Switzerland	98	Cameroon
16	Austria	99	Guatemala
17	Ireland	100	Haiti
-	Lithuania	101	Gabon
-	New Zealand	102	Kuwait
20	Slovenia	103	Nigeria
21	Hungary	104	Kyrgyzstan
-	Jamaica	-	Malaysia
-	South Africa	106	Lebanon
24	Costa Rica	107	Central African Republic
25	Uruguay	108	Algeria
26	France	109	Guinea
27	United Kingdom	110	Egypt
28	Portugal	-	Indonesia
29	Benin	-	Rwanda
30	Timor-Leste	113	Azerbaijan
31	Greece	-	Tajikistan
-	United States (American territory)	115	Qatar
33	Poland	-	Turkey
34	Albania	117	Bahrain
-	Bulgaria	118	Guinea-Bissau
-	Nicaragua	-	Philippines
37	Bosnia and Herzegovina	120	Djibouti
-	Chile	121	Mauritania
-	El Salvador	122	United Arab Emirates
40	Paraguay	-	Jordan
41	Mauritius	124	Ethiopia
42	Ecuador	-	Iraq
-	Spain	-	Swaziland
44	Israel (Israeli territory)	127	Democratic Republic of Congo
-	Japan	128	India
46	Madagascar	-	Pakistan
47	Cape Verde	130	Palestinian Authority
48	Ghana	131	Morocco
49	South Korea	132	Liberia
50	Australia	-	Ukraine
51	Bolivia	134	Afghanistan
-	Macedonia	135	United States (in Iraq)
53	Italy	136	Yemen
-	Panama	137	Côte d'Ivoire
55	Peru	138	Kazakhstan
56	Hong-Kong	139	Equatorial Guinea
-	Mali	140	Somalia
-	Namibia	141	Zimbabwe
59	Fiji	142	Sudan
-	Romania	143	Bangladesh
61	Taiwan	144	Singapore
62	Botswana	145	Maldives
63	Congo	146	Israel (Occupied Territories)
-	Mozambique	147	Colombia
65	Honduras	148	Russia
66	Senegal	149	Tunisia
67	Argentina	150	Nepal
68	Niger	151	Belarus
69	Croatia	152	Oman
-	Tanzania	153	Libya
71	Brazil	154	Uzbekistan
72	Dominican Republic	155	Syria
73	Georgia	156	Saudi Arabia
74	Mexico	157	Bhutan
75	Lesotho	158	Turkmenistan
76	Burkina Faso	159	Vietnam
77	Gambia	160	Iran
-	Mongolia	161	China
79	Comoros	162	Eritrea
-	Kenya	163	Laos
81	Cambodia	164	Burma
82	Thailand	165	Cuba
83	Cyprus	166	North Korea

By Robie H. Harris. See the appendix on Robie Harris.

By mainland Chinese. Voice of America web site published an article by its Hong Kong reporter Katherine Maria which reports that an increasing number of mainland tourists are snapping up books that are banned in the rest of China. Although many books available are either banned or heavily censored in China, in Hong Kong freedoms and personal liberties are still protected even though the former British colony reverted to Chinese sovereignty in 1997. The article has opposing viewpoints about the possible ramifications of this movement by two academics at Chinese University of Hong Kong. It also has links to the audio report by Ms. Maria.

See the entry in Appendix G.
(See 1989; 20 Dec 2003)

By Rachel Boim. Ms. Boim, an honours student, was persecuted in what appears to be another fit of post-Columbine hysteria. She had written a piece in her journal about a fictious student having a dream of violence. The journal was confiscated by her teacher when she passed it to another student during class. She was subsequently suspended because of the story, and on this day she underwent a three hour long hearing with Fulton County school system officials. Despite the support of Georgia state Poet Laureate David Bottoms, Ms. Boim was expelled for "inappropriate writings that describe the threat of bodily harm toward a school employee." The Journal-Constitution (Atlanta) reportedly describes the work in question thusly:

the "journal entry describes a student, who is unnamed, having a dream while asleep in class. In the dream, the student shoots a teacher and then runs out of the classroom, only to be killed by a security guard. After that, the school bell rings and the student having the dream wakes up, picks up her books and walks to another classroom."

Not only was the student unnamed, but apparently the teacher who was shot in the dream sequence was not named either.

[Another possible misinterpretation of this story is that Ms. Boim has suicidal tendencies because the student wound up being killed. So, what, exactly, is the threat in this story and to whom? --MN]

[Addendum (27 Oct 2003): After the story broke in the press the Fulton County School Board announced on 24 Oct that it would reconsider this decision at a meeting scheduled for 13 Nov, and that until then Ms. Boim will be allowed to attend classes. --MN]

By Sony Computer Entertainment America. This most recent (as of the date for this entry) game included a segment set in Toronto, Ontario, and in which the player was to engage a Québec separatist group (Quebec Liberation Front, reminiscent of the real life Front de Liberation du Québec; the FLQ) in the subway. Object: kill them all. Bloc Québécois Member of Parliament Christiane Gagnon stood up in the House of Commons and snivelled about how the video game was like hate literature and demanding the segment be removed. Mere hours later Sony grovelled most abjectly and kowtowed to this political correctness. Sony announced:

"In a recent prototype, it has come to our attention t hat one of the game's missions, set in Toronto, includes a fantasy Quebec separatist group that may have caused offence. Recognizing the importance of corporate and social responsibility, Sony Computer Entertainment America has decided to remove any reference to this group in the final version of Syphon Filter: The Omega Strain. We deeply regret any misunderstanding this may have caused."

The game has also caused a stir among Ontario politicians because the premise for the game is that a mysterious terrorist virus is unleashed in a number of major metropolitan centers including Toronto, which is still trying to recover from the battering its reputation took during the SARS crisis earlier this year. Some reactions and comments by various persons are:

• Christiane Gagnon said the game hurts Quebec's international image, portraying Quebec sovereignists as terrorists when in fact the debate over sovereignty has been non-violent and democratic. "How would young Canadians who play that game perceive young Quebecers?"
• Liza Frulla, Liberal MP and a former Quebec cabinet minister for culture and communications, said the game paints a totally unrealistic picture of Quebec. "It's scandalous. ... One thing certain is that we absolutely have to prevent the distribution of that game and we should ask Quebec and Canadian consumers to put pressure on Sony."
• Jack Layton, New Democrat Party leader, said there was "nothing fun" about this particular game. "This is kicking Toronto in the head when it's down, it's whipping up old false stereotypes (of sovereignists). Sony should just take this game off the market, period. Say they're sorry they ever thought of it and go find something else to play with."
• Rahim Jaffer, Canadian Alliance MP, said people shouldn't take the game so seriously. If people are upset, they shouldn't buy it, he said, predicting the controversy will just boost sales.

In Montana. An article at Freedom Forum Online reported the results of a survey testing Freedom of Information access. The most egregious violations of the open access laws the article cited are:

• the Daniels County sheriff said he didn't care what the law said: He wasn't about to let anyone see his list of recent crime calls without a court order.
• the school superintendent in Ennis insisted his salary is information reserved only for his local citizens and not strangers from out of town.
• a District Court clerk in Chinook took it upon herself to censor the roster of court cases by removing ones "the public doesn't need to know about."

The project found that most local government officials followed the law and provided public information, and many did it willingly, politely, and even cheerfully. Sheriffs or their staffs, however, were the most reluctant to share information that the law says is public, committing violations in more than forty percent of cases. Volunteers conducting the survey reported being met in such instances with responses routinely described as rude, hostile, defensive, and antagonistic.

The executive director for the Montana Newspaper Association, Jim Fall, said the statewide survey serves a valuable purpose and is quoted as saying, "I think it was worthwhile because, even though Montana residents have a significant amount of freedom of information guaranteed in the constitution, those rights don't exist in practice. The public needs to be made aware of that."

[Addendum (01 Nov 2003): An article published on 31 Oct by Associated Press reported that Montana counties, a law enforcement organization, and the office of the attorney general have all decided to launch a training program to help sheriffs better understand the laws on public access to information as a direct result of the statewide survey. We the People have gained another victory. The follow up article about agency response to information access in Montana has more background information and creates a proper context for some of the violations. --MN]
(See 05 Jan 2003; 06 Jan 2003; 16 May 2003; 09 Jun 2003)

By The Huntsville, Alabama, school system. In Huntsville, teachers have been appointed to act as Big Brothers's representatives. A 30 Sep order from school officials there requires that teachers mark with an asterisk any item on a reading list that has controversial content. Teachers should add to the bottom of the reading list the following disclaimer: "Parents are advised that this selection contains controversial language, behavior, situations, descriptions or innuendoes." Critics of the move say that it will invite censorship. The administrative order does not require school board approval. It is the result of a parental complaint to the board in which the parent objected to her 12-year-old son reading S.E. Hinton's Tex. The award-winning book about adolescents contains references to sex and alcohol. This particular parent did not want the book banned but did ask that parents be warned about such content before hand. Grissom High School English teacer Pam Smith does not want to mark her students' reading lists with the parental advisory warning. She is quoted, "I am totally against censorship. Saying something is controversial and labeling it just invites censorship. I don't teach anything I believe I shouldn't be teaching." There is already a measure in place to allow alternate titles for assignments.

[Since there is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone somewhere, they might as well mark all titles with an asterisk starting with kindergarten books. --MN]
(see 07 Nov 2003)

The Court rejected a government appeal and thereby left intact federal court decisions giving doctors the right to recommend the use of medical marijuana. Which ruling upholds the free-speech rights of the medical profession. A year long study, which had been commissioned by the White House, found that marijuana can help AIDS patients recover their appetites and ease chemotherapy-related nausea for cancer patients along with other benefits. However, the federal law regulating marijuana as a controlled substance has not changed, and the federal government can and does prosecute people who purchase or distribute marijuana as medicine. Nine states, Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington have legalized the use of marijuana with doctor recommendations or prescriptions, while thirty-five states also have passed laws or resolutions acknowledging that marijuana may have medical value. The Bush administration, however, has ignored all of these considerations and gone after home-based pharmaceutical marijuana producers, and has even threatened the revocation of federal prescription licenses of any doctors who recommend marijuana. Judge Alex Kozinski of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals wrote in his concurring opinion, "By speaking candidly to their patients about the potential benefits of medical marijuana, they risk losing their licenses to write prescriptions, which would prevent them from functioning as doctors. In other words, they may destroy their careers and lose their livelihoods."

By Diemo School Health Club. The Diemo Primary School, in Diemo, a one hour drive west of Kisumu, Kenya, keeps a box hanging from a branch of an apricot tree on the school grounds. Presented as a Suggestions box, it allows the children, the oldest of which are 13 to 14, to place slips of paper with questions in such a way to ensure their anonymity. Twice a week the Health Club meets to open the box and to address the issues raised in the questions. The meetings are moderated by teachers, but the twenty-four students are left to work out the answers for themselves through dialogue and debate. This method is ninety percent effective, and the teachers affirm the answers the students come up with, supply the remaining ten percent of the answers, and do the research for the information they are not up on. The answers then go swirling out through the playground and from there out into the community. Most of questions reportedly deal with sex, and most of those with AIDS and the Human Immunodeficiency Virus. Some of the questions are placed in the box by children for their parents.

This movement is an utter refutation of the ignorance based, abstinence only, "sex education" method. Teachers at the school maintain that:

• The anonymity achieved the paradoxical aims of candour and confidentiality.
• Egalitarian, peer-to-peer exchanges were respectful of the children, strengthened their self-confidence as people who had knowledge worth contributing to the general good -- even though they were "only" children.
• Local people providing answers as well as questions helped create an interdependent, as opposed to a dependent, culture.
• Answers emerging though a collective process helped develop a sense of solidarity, important when there was so much fear of community rejection.
• Advice arising from a locally owned process was more likely to be acted on than advice descending from an outside expert, disconnected from the community, who told them what they "ought" to know and how they "should" behave.

By the Moscow Education Department, Russia. This department caved in to religious pressure from the Russian Orthodox Church and banned all Halloween celebrations -- from carving pumpkin heads to dressing up -- from Moscow schools. The letter to school officials reportedly reads in part, "The very fact that Halloween activities contain elements such as the cult of death, rejecting death, personification of death and evil spirits produces a destructive effect upon the psychological, moral and spiritual health of students."

[I assume that horrifically tortuing people as young as seven and then burning them at the stake will continue to be non-destructive and morally and spiritually healthy, and that witchburners themselves do not form a cult of death. And let's look at that double standard morality about rejecting death, shall we? One of the principle creeds of Judeo-Christianity is that faith in God means that one defeats death and lives forever. And what is Satan himself if not a personification of evil? --MN]

By the National Institutes of Health and Traditional Values Coalition, United States. See the entry in Appendix G.

By FAIR. This free information advocacy group released an advisory in which they examine claims that reports on the situation are one-sided so as to paint the worst picture possible.

By Fox News. An article at Truthout.org reported that Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, had revealed in an interview on National Public Radio how Fox had almost sued itself. Fox News took exception took a Simpsons version of the rolling news ticker. The Simpsons parodied the channel's anti-Democrat stance with headlines such as:

• Do Democrats Cause Cancer?
• Study: 92 per cent of Democrats are gay
• JFK posthumously joins Republican Party
• Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple

Groening said in the interview, "Fox fought against it and said they would sue the show. We called their bluff because we didn't think Rupert Murdoch would pay for Fox to sue itself. So, we got away with it." Although the lawsuit never happened, Groening said some action had been taken. "Now Fox has a new rule that we can't do those little fake news crawls on the bottom of the screen in a cartoon because it might confuse the viewers into thinking it's real news."

[Cheers, people! This is how stupid Murdoch and Fox News thinks you are. --MN]
(see 11 Aug 2003; 22 Aug 2003; 25 Aug 2003)

By unknown assassins and occupation forces, respectively. On this day Reporters Without Borders called on the Iraqi police and the US-British coalition forces to establish a commission to determine the exact circumstances of Ahmed Shawkat's murder. Mr. Shawkat, the editor of the weekly Bilah Ittijah (Without Direction), was shot dead on 28 Oct. His daughter, Roaa Shawkat, described him as a man of integrity, saying, "He used to write against the resistance, against the Americans, against the local government and the former government."

The source article says that journalists have received explicit threats from various political groups accusing them of being either "saddamiye" (sympathetic to Saddam Hussein's return) or "traitors" under the heel of the Americans, which has created considerable self-censorship by the Iraqi press. Moreover, the source article reported that the journalists are being mistreated by the coalition forces as well. Three cases cited are:

• Salah Husein Nussaif, an Al-Jazeera cameraman, was arrested by Iraqi police in Shahraban (about 100 km from Baghdad) on 3 October and spent three days in prison, in the custody of both the US army and Iraqi authorities, before finally being released after an Al-Jazeera lawyer intervened. He was never told why he had been arrested.

• Agence France-Presse photographer Patrick Baz and a Reuters journalist were detained in similar circumstances for several hours on 19 October in a police station in the city of Fallujah. The Iraqi police said they were acting on the orders of the US army, which was looking for someone who had filmed an attack on one of its convoys in Fallujah.

• Samer Hamza, another Al-Jazeera cameraman, was detained by US soldiers near a Baghdad police station that was targeted during a day of intense violence on 27 October. He was released after two days in custody without being given any official explanation for his arrest. The US army reportedly suspected him and his driver of having advanced knowledge of the attack.

Hamza's arrest brought to four the number of known cases of journalists arrested and briefly detained by US forces this month.

[I have some qualms about the reporting by RSF on some of the abuses they detail. Overall, the tone of their reporting is fairly strident and they appear very much to assume censorship where there might not be any. I have no doubt that the due process we pretty much take for granted here in North America is not being respected in the Iraq war zone, but considering that the arresting agents are either trained in warfare rather than law enforcement, or not trained up to NA standards in the case of the local police, that is only to be expected. And of deeper concern to me are the claims made by RSF of "The often aggressive and brutal attitude of US soldiers and frequent arrests of journalists". RSF offered nothing to substantiate the claim; no report of journalists being secured and then beaten with rifle butts or even any word about how they were treated in captivity, and I cannot count four arrests in one month as "frequent". --MN]

By Daniel Chiras. Mr. Chiras, a professor of environmental science at several colleges and universities in Colorado, and two students, Julia McLouth, 17, and Lillian Pollak, 18, seniors at the Talented and Gifted Magnet High School in Dallas, launched a class action suit against the Texas State Board of Education, and also against several former and current members individually. The Board maintains that it rejected the book because of factual errors, but Mr. Chiras basically says that contention is nonsense, and that board members rejected the textbook because they didn't agree with the author's viewpoints and were attempting to suppress them. Mr. Chiras said his book contains no errors, it follows the curriculum, is being used by colleges such as Baylor University, was recommended by the Texas' commissioner of education, and received high marks from the Science Teachers Association of Texas, and contends that that board members rejected the book because of protests by conservative groups that labeled it anti-Christian, anti-free enterprise and anti-American.

Ms. McLouth and Ms. Pollak say they represent thousands of Texas students who are being harmed by the board's censorship of school books. Ms. Pollack is quoted, "Students' views are being compromised by state officials and their biased political, religious and economic viewpoints. Students should be able to make their own choices. The censorship of this book doesn't permit them to do that."
(see 09 Jul 2003)

By Lynne Lanners, Emily Garcia, et al, students at Baldwin High School, Lawrence, Kentucky. In response to the arbitrary removal of We All Fall Down by Robert Cormier, and subsequent confusion over the review committee, four students decided to protest the censorship at a high school football game on this day by passing out twenty-nine copies of the banned work during half-time.

The problems with the review committe stem from these incidents:

• The committee was formed after complaints that Jim White had unilaterally removed the book from the classroom.
• Five days after its creation the committee was disbanded by the school board on the grounds that the district's review policy was not clear enough.
• On 27 Oct, the school board voted to re-establish a committee charged with evaluating the book, and reinstated the review committee. However, they did not allow the book to be reintroduced into the class even though its policy stated that challenged books are to be made available until the review process is complete.

This protest was the first by students although some had attended school board meetings to oppose the banning. The protest also has the support of school board member Stacy Cohen who commented, "I totally believe in freedom of speech. Decisions are getting made about the students without their input." Lanners is quoted, "We support the use of 'We All Fall Down' because it is realistic about the issues students face today. In doing this, we hope to continue to raise awareness of the book."
(see 22 Sep 2003)

By The Campaign to Stop Secret Trials in Canada. On this date a group of thirty costumed protesters, including Sophie Harkat, called on supporters to knock on the door of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service headquarters and ask for information about five Muslim men being held prisoner since Dec 2002 without any charges having been laid. The five men were arrested and are being held under the power of security certificates. The five men, effectively rendered unpersons, are:

• Adil Charkaoui: being held in Montreal
• Mahmoud Jaballah: being held in Toronto
• Mohamed Harkat: being held in Ottawa
• Hassan Almrei: being held in Toronto
• Mohammed Mahjoub: being held in Toronto

Ms. Harkat was costumed as a devil and said the horns on her head and the trident in her hand symbolized the hell she's been in since her husband Mohamed was arrested ten or eleven months before. The evidence used to obtain and defend the security certificates has not been shown to the men or to their lawyers. The protesters say this is not acceptable in Canada and are demanding the information be released.
(see 21 Oct 2007; 23 Feb 2007)

By saddamiye, perhaps. A saddamiye is a person specifically sympathetic to the return of Saddam Hussein to power in Iraq. Unlike the Bush administration and the western press, locals in Baghdad distinguish between those who merely oppose the U.S. occupation of their country and the saddamiye, and particularly suicide bombers, who are believed to be exclusively al-Qaida or Arab Fedayeen agents, possibly allied to former Ba'athists. During the last week of October, suicide bombers were especially active in Baghdad, and on 30 Oct, an explosion in al-Mutanabi Street book market killed a tea-seller and set alight buildings on both sides of the street which burned fiercely for hours. No one is certain, however, if the action was deliberate or an accident. The police believed at first the explosion was from an explosive device on a timer, then that it might have been a gas cylinder. Locals believe firmly that it was a mortar shell, though one resident thinks it was an bomb that accidentally detonated while being built. The article reports:

An explosion had torn apart and set on fire th e tall houses supported by white pillars on either side of al-Mutanabi Street's book market, where Iraqi intellectuals have shopped for decades. "I have lost everything," said Munaf Fatah Mahmoud. "I had two shops with books on Iraqi folklore and they were both burnt. I have sold books here for 20 years and how am I going to feed my children?"

[...]

Dr [Zaki] Ghazi distraught at the sight of the damage, said: "This area is at the heart of Iraqi history and the Iraqi people's struggles. First we lost the museums. Now they are letting Arabs into the country to do things like this."

[...]

Not everybody in al-Mutanabi Street was despairing. Friday is the day that the book-sellers lay out their books on oil cloth on the street itself. Despite the explosion and devastating fire they were still selling books yesterday. Books by Shia clerics in Arabic lay side by side with Shakespeare, Dickens and works on the history of Iraq. Often the books were brought back by Iraqi students studying in Britain in the 1950s and 1960s.

[...]

Selling books in Iraq over the past 30 years was never a business for those easily intimidated. Al-Mutanabi Street was frequently raided under Saddam Hussein's regime in the hunt for banned political and religious books smuggled in from abroad, photocopied and secretly sold. Booksellers caught with a banned book were arrested, jailed and some times executed.

The report was filed by Patrick Cockburn, the lndependent/UK correspondent in Baghdad.

By Luis Rodriguez. An article by Susan Herendeen of The Modesto Bee reported that the week previous to this one had seen the book removed from three Beyer High School classrooms due to a complaint by parent Pamela LaChapell. Ms. LaChapell had objected to the sexuality and violence in it. She is quoted in the article, "This book is way over the top. To me, it's pornographic." She also made the complaint on behalf of three other parents. Earlier this year, Ms. LaChapell had complained about five works, but that effort failed. In this case the district's immediate response pleased Ms. LaChapell, but it outraged Barney Hale who is executive director of the Modesto Teachers Association, representing some 1,800 teachers. Mr. Hale said administrators violated their own policy by pulling the book without taking the matter back to the board that approved it.

Still, the work might not be appropriate to the milieu even though it seems to have been challenged for the wrong reasons and removed inappropriately. Mr. Rodriquez was apparently interviewed for the article and is quoted, "I know it's a hard book. It's very graphic. I'm the first one to admit that it's not a book for everybody." Mr. Rodriguez, himself an ex-gang member, wrote this cautionary tale to steer his son away from the streets. He reportedly said he gave the raw truth to show youngsters that gang lifestyles are not glamorous. The work came too late to save his son, who is in prison, but Rodriguez said he has received hundreds of letters from others who had quit the gangs or refused to join one after reading the story. Mr. Rodriguez said parents should opt their children out of the book, instead of the book being banned. Ms. LaChapell home schools her children. However, home schooled children are required to follow the state or provinicial curriculum.

[Addendum (17 Dec 2003): On 15 Dec the school board elected to keep the book in the curriculum by a vote of 4 - 3. Board members Connie Chin, Nancy Cline, and Cindy Marks voted to remove the book on the grounds that even with a parental notification there are problems because some parents lack the language skills to read the notification, and students who are excused from reading the book could be subjected to ridicule by their teachers and peers. Removing the book on the grounds of such vague and ill defined fears would certainly constitute censorship. And any teacher who ridicules a student should be fired on the spot. IMNSHO. --MN]

By a U.S. Court of Appeals. An appellate panel split 2-1 on 31 Oct in a ruling upholding an attorney general's opinion, and a subsequent ruling from Jefferson County Circuit Court. The case is based on the quetion of whether or not removing the names of crime victims from police documents violates the Kentucky Open Records Act, and which began when The Courier-Journal of Louisville challenged the Louisville Police Department's policy of "blanket redaction" of arrest reports. This policy was enacted under prompting by the nonprofit Center for Women and Children in Louisville, who objected to reporters asking crime victims for interviews. The attorney general's opinion has the force of law, and while it said that police could not automatically censor all arrest reports, it did allow that the police could censor reports in all cases classified in Kentucky law as sex crimes: rape, sodomy, sexual abuse and sexual misconduct. This opinion was based on the rationale that sex crimes are "singularly traumatic" for the victims, and whose right to privacy "outweighs the public interest in monitoring police investigative action." The newspaper did not claim that the names of victims could never be blacked out, but contended that the records law requires the decision to be made case by case, and that a crime is a crime, sexual or otherwise.

Judge David Barber and Judge Julia Tackett disagreed with those contentions, saying in the majority opinion, written by Judge Barber, "We are not persuaded ... that a violent sex crime is no different from any other crime." Judge William McAnulty dissented on the grounds that, while the goal of protecting a crime victim's privacy was laudable, it was outweighed by "the corresponding danger of allowing government to operate secretly." He wrote in his opinion, "The underpinning of the majority's decision appears to be a need to insulate victims from potentially tasteless journalists who would appear at the doorstep of a sexual abuse victim. The same rationale would apply to protect the family of a homicide victim. Unfortunately, the legislature cannot legislate good taste and we cannot insulate the world from all that is harmful and undesirable."

[Actually, I agree with McAnulty in part. I think the names of victims don't have to be published at all and that sex crimes is not a separate category. I certainly need to know if a crime has been committed, and who has committed it, so I can protect my family, but I don't need to know the names of victims. I derive no advantage whatsoever from knowing that Jane Doe was raped or murdered. That information in no wise accords any greater degree of protection to my family. For more along those lines, see John Miller's Brown Arm Ring Rule. --MN]
(see 21 Aug 2002; 27 Aug 2002; 31 Aug 2002; 13 Sep 2004)

By Jamal Dajani, Pacific News Service. And reprinted at Truthout.org. An amusing little examination of the dichotomy between the censorship of Iraq war zone images by a censorial "free" press in a society with a Hollywood splatterfest culture. Well worth the reading.

By Turkish reporters. Reporters Without Borders reported on this day that five journalists are being tried in Cyprus by the government of Turkey for allegedly insulting the army. The supposed insults derive from reports about violence by the police, who are part of the army. The violence was apparently perpetrated at a demonstration in the village of Doganci on 25 Mar in which the demonstrators called for a symbolic referendum. It was organized after the collapse of a UN plan for the island's reunification. Cyprus is divided and controlled by Greece in one part and Turkey in the other. RSF reported about the prosecutions:

• Basharan Duzgun, editor and editorialist with the daily Kibris and a correspondent for Agence France-Presse, is facing a prison sentence of 10 years. In an editorial headlined "Whose guarantors?" on 27 March, Duzgun criticised the methods used by the police and questioned the effectiveness of Greece, Turkey and Britain, which were declared the "guarantors" of Cyprus's independence in 1960.

• Hasan Hasturer, another Kibris editorialist, is being prosecuted in a civil court since 3 November for "inciting hate towards the state with the intention of destroying it and debasing it," and "insulting and inciting hate for Turkey's senior officers" in a 26 March editorial headlined "Democracy with truncheons in Doganci." He faces 11 years in prison.

• Suleyman Erguclu, Kibris editor in chief: Both the military prosecutor's office and a civilian court initiated prosecutions on 4 November for his publishing the above mentioned columns. He faces 21 years in prison.

• Hasan Kahvecioglu, an editorialist with the daily Ortam. A prosecution was also launched against him on on 4 Nov for his allegedly having insulted the army in a column on 26 March headlined "Why do the state, the police and the army act against their own citizens?" The military prosecutor's office has requested an 11-year prison sentence.

• Mehmet Davulcu, Ortam editor in chief, is being prosecuted by the military for publishing this column. He faces a total of 44 years in prison for the four counts on which he has been charged.

By students. This Orange County, Florida, school avoided a lawsuit after officials agreed to allow two contentious parade floats for the homecoming. The first replicates the toppling of the Saddam Hussein statue in Baghdad and the second urges students to "Let Jesus Rock Your Night Away." School officials had reportedly rejected the floats over concerns they might offend some students. The Hussein float was sponsored by the Young Republicans Club and the religious float was sponsored by the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. The students had contacted the Liberty Counsel, a conservative civil liberties legal group, but the school officials reversed their decision before legal intervention became necessary.

By Texas State Board of Education and ultra-conservatives. The state of Texas is the largest purchaser of high school textbooks in the United States, and generally sets the standard by which books are purchased throughout a large proportion the country as a result. Ultra-conservative elements in the state of Texas have been forcing the suppression or expurgation of textbook content for the last three or four decades. The primary focus of the attacks are the sexuality, reproduction, and evolution of humanity in Biology books. The Texas State Board of Education is scheduled to convene on the 6th and 7th Nov to address yet again the presence of evolution as a valid scientific topic in American high school classes. This meeting will bring to an end a review process begun by they're being urged to reject 10th-grade books in which ultra-conservatives claim there are factual errors within the theory of evolution. Holt, Rinehart & Winston in particular, of the eleven publishers under attack, has caved in to censorship and altered their textbook.

Ultra-conservatives commonly use the tactic of discrediting evolution because they cannot refute it, and completely ignore the fact that scientists do not question whether or not evolution occurs -- any more than they question the laws of physics -- they question only by what process it operates. As Eugenie Scott, executive director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, is quoted as saying, "There's a bait and switch going on here because the critics want the textbooks to question whether evolution occurred. And of course they don't because scientists don't question whether evolution occurred." Among those questioning the textbooks are some sixty biologists from around the country who signed a "statement of dissent" about teaching evolution. They say that both sides of the issue should be taught. Several religious leaders also testified against teaching evolution.

[Biblical-literalist-lunatics practically foam at the mouth at the very idea of evolution because it does not conform to the creation myth in the Book of Genesis. These people require everyone (regardless of what religions those others might practice or what scientific beliefs they hold) to believe that creation took seven days of twenty-four hours duration each. This aspect of anti-intellectualism isn't new, either. It's simply a continuation of the Scopes Monkey Trial. It also continues to violate church/state separation. As for the biologists who demand that both sides of an issue should be taught, one cannot teach that the laws of physics are invalid simply because Quantum Physics cannot agree on the underlying structure of the universe, nor is Aristotlean science, debunked by Galileo, taught as an alternative. The universe happened; how? we don't know. Evolution happened; how? We don't know. But in both cases, we are making an e ffort learn. It's that simple. The source article at the First Amendment Center has more information about some of the issues involved. --MN]

By Daniel Lewis. On this day it was reported that Castle Rock spokesman Fritz Sprague said the case was dropped due to lack of evidence. The witnesses who had provided statements to the police had not specifically stated they had been offended, which is required under the law to prove that Lewis disturbed the peace, and Police Chief Tony Lane said that although police officers ahd talked to witnesses who were offended, they hadn't gotten contact information before the witnesses left the event.
(see 20 Oct 2003)

By China. Arrested on 4 Nov 2002, He Depu was tried in a two-hour hearing on 14 Oct 2003 for collaborating with the banned China Democracy Party, of which he is a member, as well as for posting essays on the Internet that "incited subversion." He and fellow activists Jiang Lijun, Zhao Changqing, Ouyang Yi and Dai Xuezhong, signed an open letter in November 2002 calling on the Chinese authorities to introduce political reforms. The four others have also been tried for subversion. On this day He Depu was sentenced to eight years in prison, despite being in ill health, which is due in part to a lack of medical care since his arrest. Robert Ménard, Reporters Without Borders secretary-general, commented on the situation, "He Depu has a serious liver ailment, he has received no treatment since his arrest on 4 November 2002 and he seemed very weak at today's hearing. We fear that he will not survive such a long period in prison." Even his family has been forbidden to t ake him medicine, but that lack of treatment might change with He Depu's transfer to a prison.

He Depu took part in the democracy wall movement in 1979 and founded the magazine Beijing Youth, which was subsequently banned. He helped found the China Democracy Party, which also was outlawed, and was detained several times for his political activities. He was fired from the Social Sciences Academy after standing as a candidate in local elections in 1990. Seven cyber-dissidents have been tried or have had appeals heard during the five days previous to this one. Another Internet activist was arrested on 29 Oct, bringing the total number of people currently in prison in China because of the messages they have posted on the Internet to thirty-nine.

By Huntsville Board of Education. On 06 Nov, at a school board meeting, a several educators spoke out against the policy of rating books. The primary issues covered were:

• Kimberley Jones, librarian at McDonnell Elementary and president of the city schools' librarian association: reportedly said
  • the new practice is not consistent with school policy which already allows parents to challenge a book and provides for a review process by a committee,
  • that it was a teacher's duty to guide children to reading materials, "not put them off with labels."
  • that the American Library Association calls labels a barrier to reading,
  • that librarians recognize some books may be offensive, but it's difficult for teachers to decide which books to flag because someone can take offense with most anything.
• Pam Smith, Grissom High School English teacher, who did not attend this meeting but had complained earlier in the month that:
  • that the labeling isn't needed because teachers would not assign books they didn't approve of anyway
  • if labeling must happen, it should be handled systemwide and not teacher by teacher,
  • she had concerns the policy could kill class-wide lessons on a single novel.
• Sharon Buck, the parent who began this debate in September by protesting S.E. Hinton's Tex: repeated that she didn't want to ban books, "But I have a problem with my child reading books that are full of vulgar stuff and take the Lord's name in vain."
• Judy Rushton, president of the Huntsville Education Association, said: the policy states that a committee of teachers, administrators and parents shall determine what is an appropriate curriculum, and that a committee could settle this issue instead of asking individual teachers to rate books.

[I would not say that this is a case of overt censorship but of covert censorship. The most likely impact of labelling is to create a chilling affect. And as always: if Ms. Buck doesn't want her precious little angel reading books she should read the books first and pick which ones are appropriate for him. And if she doesn't want to invest the resources necessary to raise her child herself she can simply forbid him to read anything. --MN]
(see 25 Oct 2003)

By public hysteria and political correctness. See the full entry on this issue.

By Dana Milbank, The Washington Post. See the entry in Appendix G.

By Ken Paulson. First Amendment Center published an analysis of a law suit against Consumer Reports. It is an excellent examination of the strong chilling effect likely to derive from this case, and the probable ramifications for American consumers. Paulson wrote in part:

Suzuki's pursuit of this case is baffling and disturbing. After all, there isn't much of a market for a 1988 Suzuki these days. This clearly is no longer about the marketing of an automobile, it's about punishing -- and possibly silencing -- a critic. When this case goes to trial, I suspect that Consumer Reports' methodical and professional approach to evaluating products will lead to a decision in the magazine's favor.

But that victory will come with a multimillion-dollar price tag and at a real long-term cost to America's consumers. Vigilance shouldn't be that costly.

By Jessica Lynch. See this entry for further details.

By Scholastic. Parent Jill Leskow was stunned when her eleven year old son brought home a catalog from school with the book title When Dad Killed Mom on its cover. Written by Julius Lester and described in Publishers Weekly as a "taut psychological mystery," it is told in the voices of an eighth-grade daughter and younger brother who have to cope with the murder of their mother and their father's subsequent trial, and it contains a subplot of the daughter's awakening sexuality in the midst of the turmoil caused by the murder. The book is recommended for grades nine and up by the School Library Journal, but Ms. Leskow's son in only in grade six; at Polo Park Middle School, Palm Beach(?), Florida. School system spokesman Nat Harrington is reported to have said the book is not on the district's recommended reading list or in school libraries, and also that administrators don't scrutinize book catalogs distributed to students, the way they do materials in school libraries, because children do not have free access to the books in the catalog.

Ms. Leskow is quoted as saying, "I was totally shocked to discover this on the front. I know some parents just give their children the money to order the books and don't check over the book lists."

[That's none of your business, chickie-pie. You are not responsible for their children, or their parenting or lack thereof; they are.

Off hand I'd say that this incident is a slippery slope issue. Basically, that it is founded on the idea of: it's not enough that children should not be allowed to read these books, but they also should not be allowed to know that such books even exist. Leskow's knee-jerk reaction completely ignores the fact that she does not have to buy it, of course. --MN]
(see 1962)

By Walter Dean Myers. The book was unilaterally removed from the curriculum at Franklin Central High School by Principal Kevin Koers after some students made a verbal complaint about the language. A clear and present circumvention of review principles. Mr. Myers, however, admits the book might not be appropriate to the high school milieu, even while parents and other students are complaining about the move. This case has generated an interesting interplay of manifest and latent functions between censorship and selection. For more about the interwoven issues in this case see the source article at Indystar.com.

By Terry Trueman. This is the story of Shawn McDaniel, a 14-year-old boy with severe cerebral palsy who believes his father wants to kill him. It is told in first person narrative which allows the reader to get inside Shawn's mind to learn what he cannot express. It was required reading in Kim Stieber-White's eighth grade composition/literature class at Evansville Community School District, Wisconsin. On 03 Oct 2003 Christie McKittrick complained about the book, reportedly writing in part that it is rife with profanity, sexual innuendo, degradation of women and violence. For more on that, see the extracts below. In her letter Ms. McKittrick also raised concern over the subject of euthanasia, writing that taxpayer resources shouldn't be used to promote the political and social agenda the book seems to encourage. Kim Stieber-White, who was using the book in her composition/literature class, disagrees that the school was trying to push its own agenda. She is reported to have said that the school's role is to engage students in critical thinking so the can set their own values.Students were asked to write a paper on how they felt about euthanasia, both before and after reading the book as part of the course work. Ms. Stieber-White elected to keep the book on the curriculum, and District Administrator Heidi Carvin supported her, denying Ms. McKittrick's request to remove the book from the curriculum. Ms. Carvin wrote in letter to Ms. McKittrick on 23 Oct, "I believe there is a clear indication that the w ork is not used to endorse the types of language, thought and behavior you object to, but rather to help students engage in serious discussion that serves as a framework for them to use as they analyze other works they encounter throughout the year." On this day, the Board of Education was to hear Ms. McKittrick's appeal at its regularly scheduled meeting.

• "I can't control any of my muscles: not my fingers, my hands, my left foot, my stomach, my tongue, my dick, my throat, my butt, my eyelids, none of them."

• "I wish just once I could say to her, 'Gees, Mom, I'm 14 friggin' years old.' But I can't, that's just how it is."

• "I try not to spend too much time worrying how 'hard' my life is. Of course, it's kind of difficult not to think about it at least part of the time. What else is there for me to do? For the most part, though, I just live and try not to bitch to myself too much about the bad-news stuff of my life. Bitching doesn't change anything."

• "The people who approached me that evening may have meant well, but they were annoying. The only part of it I like was the lady with huge breasts, wearing a low-cut red dress. She leaned over me, her boobs almost falling out, her hands touching my face and her voice cooing. I wanted her to stay right there-my eyes even cooperated for a change-but soon she stood up and went on her way."

• "Becky is great too. She has red hair, long and soft. She's only about 20 years old and her body's gorgeous and she's super nice. I love it when Becky works with me, especially when she wears a low-cut top and has to bend over to load and unload me from this special standing contraption they put me in a couple hours every day. Her breasts are perfect: round and smooth and big. If I could be William, I'd spend every hour of every workday trying to figure how to score with Becky. Hell, I'm me and I do that already, but you have to figure William would at least have a chance. I mean, he speaks the same language as Becky, and can walk around and smile and do all of those necessary prerequisites to scoring."

[Part of McKittrick's complaint, as it has evolved, is that school officials have double standards in that they allow literature that contains topics and language that would never be allowed from the students reading it. This is a valid point, but I'm not sure how much weight it has. A proportion of the students in middle schools are physically developed enough to think about sex along the lines that Shawn does in the book. Books, after all, being reflections of the world; not the other way around. I would say, off hand, that those students who learn vulgar terminology usually learn it from older siblings or students. However, most books on the curriculum weren't that true to life when I was in high school back before the extinction of the wooly mammoth. The thing is, banning books which explore sexual development or the use of vulgar language is not going remove that material from society at large. --MN]

By Presidential candidate General (ret) John Wesley Clark. Breaking with most of his Democratic rivals he announced on this day that he favors amending the Constitution to criminalize flag-burning. There is insufficient data at this juncture to determine whether or not it was merely campaign rhetoric. Gen. Clark is quoted as saying, "I'm in favor of the American flag amendment, but as I travel around the country what I see is a new spirit of patriotism, and it goes a long way beyond the American flag. It's not just the American flag, it's the idea that even in a time of war, the right thing to do is bring your ideas in, and no administration can ever say if you disagree with it that you're not being patriotic."

A flag amendment is opposed by the other Democratic presidential hopefuls in Congress; Sens. John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John Edwards have opposed the amendment. Representatives Dennis Kucinich and Dick Gephardt both support it. Senator John Kerry commented on the issue, "Our country is defined by the rights we protect and those of us who fought for freedom and put our lives on the line defended the right of people to do things that we disagree with. As I've said before, if I saw someone burning the flag, I'd punch them in the mouth because I love the flag, but the Constitution that I fought for preserves the right of free expression."

[The Associated Press article commented, "Supporters argue that burning Old Glory shows disrespect for America, and that a majority of Americans approve of legal protection for the flag." How much respect does it show for the United States of America, and for the freedoms and liberties it represents, to repudiate those freedoms and liberties through censorship and totalitarianism? --MN]

By Captain Darrell G. Ober, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, police. A three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that he did not have a constitutionally protected right to withhold information about an FBI investigation into alleged corruption from his supervisors. Captain Ober had told a deputy commissioner outside his chain of command about the FBI probe, but had not alerted those officials directly above him in his chain of command. Ober was the internal affairs director for the state police when he was contacted by the FBI in Sep 1998 and asked him to be the contact in the investigation. The focus was into allegations that officials, possibly including some at the top of the police department, were taking bribes to arrange special consideration for admission to the Pennsylvania State Police Academy. Captain Ober agreed to participate, but did not share the information with superiors who he thought might be targets of the investigation, including Commissioner Paul Evanko. However, Captain Ober did confide in another deputy commissioner who he was confident could not be involved. when Ober told Commissioner Evanko about the investigation in May 1999, Evanko reacted angrily. This was after the FBI concluded that only one trooper was involved. He is alleged to have punished Captain Ober, and Ober then sued on free speech grounds, claiming Evanko's deputies had blocked him from promotions.

The panel wrote in its Oct. 21 ruling, in which the case was returned to district court, "Ober was required by regulation to report his conversation to his supervisor. His decision to go outside of the appropriate hierarchy is not a constitutionally protected free-speech right given the strong governmental interest in having that regulation followed." Ober's lawyer, Don Bailey, charged that the panel's decision is factually flawed and that it would give police chiefs the right to punish subordinates for failing to tell them about criminal investigations that could implicate the chiefs. Bailey has petitioned the full 3rd Circuit to consider the appeal. There is more about some of the other issues involved in the source article.

By a British Parliamentarian. The British Red Cross has been criticised for banning Christian symbols from its shops. The charity has told volunteers they may not create Nativity scenes or put up advent calendars with pictures of Mary, Joseph or the three wise men. Also, Christmas cards sold by the charity are not to have a religious message, but must read: Season's Greetings. The British Red Cross 392 shops which earn about ś30 million a year. It says the policy is designed to underline its reputation for impartiality which allows it to work in some of the world's most dangerous places.Tory backbencher Nigel Evans said the policy is political correctness run amok. He is quoted as saying:

"This is simply beyond the pale. How can the Red Cross, sporting a Christian symbol as both its name and logo, possibly exclude Jesus, or other religious symbols, from the holiday celebrating his birth?

"This move has been condemned as absurd political correctness by representatives of the Jewish, Muslim and Christian faiths, and this dreadful trend needs to stop here, and now.

"Unless he reverses his decision, instead of banning the three wise men, I would suggest that the Red Cross employs one new one, at the top, to stop this trend of incredulous behaviour."

A Red Cross spokesman made the reply: "We don't want any overt religious symbols as we have to be seen as neutral if we are to work effectively. We can't be seen to be affiliated with any religion as we want to be open to anyone of any religion or no religion. We are not a Christian organisation, we are a neutral organisation."

[The source article for this entry, at Ananova.com, reported: The British Red Cross has been criticised for banning Christian symbols from its shops for fear of offending minority faiths. I see no indication whatsoever in the bit of information that was reported to support that conjecture. Rather, I tend to say that Evans is an ideologue who expects others to respect his religious prejudices. Screw him. Mind you, the Red Cross was established as a religious institution.Even so, it has clearly grown beyond that role to become something without boundaries. Good on them, I say. Although I will allow that there is an alternative to banning religious symbology. Allow all of it. --MN]

By Miami City Commission. The City Commission adopted an ordinance on this day that is designed to keep certain weapons, real or potential, from the hands of people who may take to the streets next week to protest or disrupt talks for the Free Trade Area of the Americas meetings; 16 - 21 Nov. The ordinance bans people from carrying rifles, guns and "any length of metal, plastic or other similar hard or stiff material." among other things it also prohibits glass bottles, water guns and lumber more than a quarter-inch (6 millimeters) thick. Protesters could effectively be enjoined from carrying picket signs because the supports for the signs will be too light and break under handling. Critics contend that last point violates their First Amendment rights to free speech.

The ban applies to groups of more than six people whose intent is to attract attention to interfere with the normal normal traffic flow in the streets, and gatherings of more than eight people, in outdoor, public places, that last longer than 30 minutes.

[Just as there is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere, there is nothing that cannot be used as weapon. Even allowing for some materials being unsuitable to inflict injury, it is not necessary to inflict injury to commit an assault. Randall Marshall, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, commented, "This ordinance is so broad that any protester who shows up with a key could be arrested." --MN]
(see 03 Mar 2004)

By Dr. Cheryl Clark. Denver District Judge John Coughlin gave the Dr. Clark and her former partner, Elsey McLeod, shared custody of Dr. Clark's adopted daughter, and equal parenting time, but gave Clark sole responsibility for the child's religious upbringing. He also ruled, however, for Dr. Clark to "make sure that there is nothing in the religious upbringing or teaching that the minor child is exposed to that can be considered homophobic." Dr. Clark has appealed both decisions to the Colorado Court of Appeals. Her lawyer, James Rouse, wrote in a brief, "Religious conservatives are not typically homophobic in their behavior, even if they view homosexual activity as morally wrong." He is also quoted, "While Clark has no intentions of exposing her child to anything inappropriate, the order itself is a breathtakingly broad restriction on the fundamental rights of Clark and her daughter." Julie Tolleson, a Denver attorney and spokeswoman for Equal Rights Colorado, a gay advocacy group, commented, "It's really stock family-law stuff that one parent doesn't get to disparage or interfere in a child's relationship with another parent. Prohibitions on bad-mouthing, prohibitions on encouraging a child to judge or avoid the other parent are extremely common, and a parent's right to gay bash isn't entitled to immunity from that kind of doctrine."

[Doctor Clark is reported to be a former lnsbian. I don't know just what that means. I don't think she is a former lnsbian any more than a recovering alcoholic is a former drunk. An addict does not stop being addicted just because he stops being a user. Dr. Clark has most likely become a celibate lnsbian due to her conversion. For her to be a former lnsbian it would necessitate an orientation swing. Quite possible, as orientation is apparently not fixed, according to research by the Kinsey Institute. There was no indication in the article, however, that Dr. Clark had undergone such a swing, and I doubt if any of the principles involved have even heard of the Kinsey Institute.

For my money, this ruling is not constitutional. It's a very fine line to walk in teaching respect for human dignity while teaching fundamentalist religion to one's child, but either Clark is responsible for that teaching or she isn't; and in this case she isn't. Apropos: Rouse is full of crap. "Religious conservatives are not typically homophobic in their behavior," my ass. That statement flies in the face of a creed that says homosexuals are morally disordered and intrinsically evil. Covert hatemongering is not less wrong for being low key behaviour. --MN]

By the Gay and lnsbian Services Organization and a regional gay-issues newspaper based in Louisville, Kentucky, respectively. These two publications were removed from the free distributions table at Lexington's central library. The intent had been to remove solely The Letter under a nine year old policy forbidding the distribution of free political materials "written from one point of view only." The GLSO News was removed erroneously, when copies of The Letter were picked up on two separate occasions. Administrators have been revisiting library policies since executive director Kathleen Imhoff took over the Lexington Public Library system in Jul 2002. The rules allow libraries to post announcements for educational organizations, general community interest, and cultural activities, including art, music and drama, but draw the line at religious or political posters or free materials that advocate a single perspective. The GLSO News does not fall into that last category, and on this day Ms. Imhoff announced that it would be allowed on the table, but that The Letter didn't belong on the table because it isn't a local publication. Instead, it will be placed in the reference room in the future. Karen Allen, a library manager had said earlier during this week that she had removed The Letter because it contained ads depicting sexually suggestive images of "semi-dressed" people. Ms. Imhoff refused to engage in laying blame, however, saying, "I don't think we need to point fingers at any particular person. A mistake was made, and we corrected it."

[Good on her. Not often you find someone with that much sense. --MN]

By the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The force was criticized in a report for using "excessive and unjustified" force to disperse protesters at the Summit of the Americas in Quebec City, in Nov 2001. New Democratic Party Member of Parliament Svend Robinson (Burnaby, B.C.) called the scathing report, done by the RCMP Public Complaints Commission, a "shocking document" and a vindication of those who said the force had abused its power at the event, and called for the firing of those who perpetrated the abuse. Mr. Robinson, who was tear-gassed and shot with a plastic bullet while at the protest, is currently suing the force for assault and demanding compensation for those who were gassed. The report is likely to have a strong impact in his suit.
(See 17 Nov 2001)

By Stan Goff. On this day Mr. Goff's open letter to American G.I.s in Iraq was published at Truthout.org. See the full text of his letter and the real truth about military adventurism.

By the Weld Library District. Greeley, Colorado, resident Nancy Derby had challenged The Cat Who Killed Lilian Jackson Braun: A Parody. Her granchildren enjoy the Lilian Braun books, but this work is not at all what they expected. Instead of a book of cat jokes about their favorite author, the parody starts rather viciously. The opening line describes Braun's heading floating in a toilet in a gay bar. Ms. Derby challenged to work on the basis of violence, but the library board decided to leave it on the shelves in keeping with the American Library Associat ion policy of neutrality in granting acc ess to materials. It was reported that Ms. Derby respects that decision and will not take the challenge any further.

Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture, had been challenged by Jerry Hendrickson. His compliant against this book was based on the contention that it is revisionist history, as the book reportedly centers on the idea that few Americans kept or condoned guns before the Civil War. Other issues at stake with the work are that the author, Michael A. Bellesiles, resigned from his job as a university professor when it came out that sources for and information in the book might have been fabricated. Rosalie Martinez, a library board member, was reported to have said the book should stay in the library collection because despite the dubious nature of some of its contents, it represents a particular point of view on guns. The library district also agreed to add a book that provides a pro-gun counter-point to "Arming America." as a result of the charges against it, however. The district is adding "Guns in American Society: An Encyclopedia of History, Politics, Culture and the Law" to its collection. Thereby invoking the principle that the answer to free speech is more free speech.
(see 18 Nov 2003)

By Children's Book Council. This observance marks the 84th annual celebration. The theme for this year is Free To Read. The event is scheduled for the week before the American Thanksgiving holiday.

By Robie Harris. It was challenged at the Weld Library District. See the entry for 18 Nov 2003 in the appendix on Robie Harris.
(see 16 Nov 2003)

By the Ukraine parliament. The Ukraine government passed the first reading of a bill that would ban publication on the internet of a wide range of materials. Among other things this law will make it illegal to publish in any media:

• calls to overthrow the state or forcibly change the country's constitution,
• material that is pornographic
• promotes terrorism,
• violence
• discrimination in all its forms, and,
• the dissemination of information that "could harm the honour or business reputation of individuals."

The online opposition daily Ukrainskaya Pravda said the move was part of a government plan to control information in the face of presidential elections; due in Oct 2004. Experts have said it would be "technically impossible" to exercise such control, noting that similar attempts in the former Soviet republic, Belarus, and in Colombia, had failed. As of the date for this entry, control of the internet in this former Soviet republic lies in the hands of the Ukrainian Centre for Information Technology. This is a body recently formed jointly by the state communications committee and the SBU (ex-KGB) security agency. In the meantime, the Hostmaster company, which was stripped of its role overseeing Ukraine's country domain name (.ua) on 22 Jul 2003, plans to appeal the ruling by Kiev's arbitration court that greenlighted the government decision. Hostmaster said that the decision violates commercial laws, notably on the non-interference of the state in the affairs of a private company. In August, an SBU-sponsored bill was presented to parliament which would create a wide-ranging telecommunications interception system. This system would affect both telephone and internet communications, and is designed officially to fight crime.

[One must ask: if slander is already restricted speech then why does slanderous speech on the internet have to be singled out, and if it is not already restricted, then why is it being restricted only on the internet? A related issue is: what, exactly, constitutes harmful material? Is reporting on allegations of wrongdoing enough, or must there be a reckless disregard for the truth and malicious intent? And how exactly does the Ukraine government define pornography? "Pornography" is too subjective a concept to be able to put parameters around it. Methinks Big Brother Communism is making a come back. --MN]

The students' lawyer, Ken Myers of Cleveland, will get $30,000. The students and the district agreed to donate $2,500 apiece to the Student Press Law Center and the Cleveland chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists. The settlement was reached on 12 Nov, the day before the case was to go to court, and is to be covered by the district's insurance company. According to the settlement:

• Superintendent Estrop, not the board, prohibited the distribution of the Wooster Blade;
• Estrop and the board agreed that prior restraint should only be used as a last resort;
• the editors of the Wooster Blade acknowledged that the girl in the article was not convicted or punished by the district for drinking;
• both parities agreed that the superintendent would attempt to meet with the editor and adviser before deciding not to distribute the Wooster Blade in the future;
• the students, Myers, and school officials are all forbidden to discuss it; and,
• both sides apologized to each other in a statement.

The settlement did not state, however, whether the Wooster Board of Education would revise its student publications policies. Mark Goodman, head of the Student Press Law Center, is quoted, "This case reaffirms the conclusion that if a school allows a student newspaper to operate freely, that school will not be able to censor it, except in the most exceptional circumstances." There is a transcript of the proceeding available: Draudt v. Wooster City School Board District Board of Education.

[Personally, I think this settlement sucks. Those reporters (albeit students) should not have been required to apologize if they were acting in good faith and there are no indications at all that they weren't, and it certainly does not answer the question of treating university students and legal adults as if they were high schoolers. And prior restraint is never an option in my not so humble opinion. --MN]
(see 19 Dec 2002; 09 Jan 2003; 14 Feb 2003)

By heterosexuals. In September 2002, sheriff's deputies met Amanda Blair, a hetero, and her date, another young woman, at the doors of Big Piney High School to block them from attending the the school's homecoming dance dance together. This was in response to a request by the school district under a discriminatory, misohomonist policy barring lnsbian and gay students from bringing same-sex dates to school dances. Ms. Blair, now a senior, enlisted help from the Wyoming chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU's lnsbian and Gay Rights Project to overturn the policy. On this day, the ACLU sent a letter to Sublette County School District No. 9 Superintendent B. Weldon Shelley demanding the policy be revoked under the 1980 federal court ruling of Frick v. Lynch. The judge in that case ruled that students who want to bring same-sex dates to school dances are not only protected under the First Amendment, but that schools are required to take steps to ensure their safety when they do. Ms. Blair commented about the policy, "We've had people in our school that have been gay and lnsbian. I think it would be a lot harder if I were a lnsbian to do this for myself. I'm helping those who are." She commented about the homecoming incident, "I couldn't believe that our school was so threatened by the idea of two girls going to homecoming together that they had police officers waiting for us. It's really sad that this is the kind of attitude that lnsbian and gay students at my school will face when they want to bring a date to a school dance."

It was reported that plans for a second school dance this year, a Sadie Hawkins event the Student Council had planned to hold on Friday, 21 Nov, were set aside after school officials said there could be no dances in the district.

[Cops to keep the wrong kind of students out of school? Didn't we already do this in Montgomery, Alabama, a couple of lifetimes ago? Rosa Parks. Martin Luther King Jr. Ring any bells? Learn the lessons of history, you anal retentive gits. --MN]

By spammers. The United States congress passed its anti-spam bill by a vote of 392-5. This bill mirrors a similar measure that was passed by the U.S. Senate by 97-0 in Oct 2003. Supporters of the two bills hope that the slight differences between them can be resolved before Congress adjourns for the year. Both bills will:

• prohibit senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail from disguising their identity by using a false return address or misleading subject line,
• prohibit spammers from harvesting addresses off Web sites,
• require unsolicited bulk e-mails to include a mechanism so recipients can indicate they do not want future mass mailings,
• authorize the Federal Trade Commission to establish a do-not-spam list similar to the agency's popular do-not-call list for telemarketers,
• supplant even tougher anti-spam laws that have already been passed in some states, including a California law scheduled to take effect 01 Jan 2004.

In a statement issued jointly by the departments of Justice and Commerce, the Bush administration said the bill "will help address some of the problems associated with the rapid growth and abuse of spam by establishing a framework of technological, administrative, civil, and criminal tools, and by providing consumers with options to reduce the volume of unwanted e-mail."

[I have my doubts about the source article for this entry. All quotes in the article were from supporters of spam control measures, but free speech advocates have traditionally had concerns about free speech erosion by such measures and got only a mention in passing. Keep in mind that Congress botched the passing of the Do Not Call List bill and had to scramble to correct their mistake when a judge overturned that screw up. --MN]

By U.S. District Judge Shira A. Scheindlin. She struck down a New York State law in ruling that while some or all of the approximately 27,000 recipients of Vives's mailings since 1982 were probably annoyed or alarmed by them, that cannot be a basis for arrest. To break the law, he would have had to send material that represented a true threat such as violence or that fell into a defined category of unprotected speech such as defamation, incitement, obscenity or child pornography. The trial is not over yet, however. There is still the entitlement of damages to resolve due to the city's use of a law with a dubious history, and which has garnered numerous criticisms by judges since 1985. Also to be addressed in determining damages is the behaviour of the arresting officer.
(See 21 Aug 2002)

By The Advocate. A national gay and lnsbian magazine, the November(?) issue cover picture showed two bare-chested men, one black and one caucasian, leaning in to kiss each other; apparently a scene from the famed Cirque du Soleil. Outraged that the library was using taxpayers' money to carry such a periodical, John Callaghan, aged 77 and a resident of Ford's Colony, tore the cover off and took it home, and then called the Virginia Gazette. Destruction of library property is classified as a Class 1 misdemeanor, in Virginia, and is punishable by a $2,500 fine, twelve months in jail, or both. However, Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Dan Quarles was reported to have said that a prosecutor would find it hard to find a judge willing to convict someone for ripping a cover off a magazine. On this day the library sent Callaghan a letter Friday informing of the its decision to suspend his privileges from 24 Nov to 24 Dec.

[Outraged by his knee-jerk reactionary bigotry is more like it. There was no indication of whether his hissy fit was due to racism or misohomonism, although it was likely both together. The article reporting on the disposition of this case, by Daphne Sashin of the Daily Press, made it seem that Callahan was taking a stand on moral principles: "If that's what they wish to do, that's their business. It's their library. I've made a point and I'm not a rabble-rouser. I'm not trying to cause trouble. I did what I thought was right." However, my call is that's only because he got away with his vandalism. In the first article reporting this incident, also by Ms. Sashin and from 20 Nov, it was reported:

When informed of the possible punish ment, he said he'd "have to think about going to jail."

"It would depend where they would send me and if they had TV with football on it - that would be important," he said. He said he didn't have $2,500 and still had the magazine cover.

"They don't have witnesses that I did this," he said, "and I'm not sure I did it."

The guy sounds more confused than righteous and I would certainly say that he was being disingenious. I will, however, just barely, allow that he might been joking, although there was no indication he was. --MN]

By Billy Bragg, Lester Chambers, Steve Earle, et al. Launched on 07 Nov, this tour is scheduled to end on this day in Washington D.C. Basically a protest action against the deregulation of media ownership, musicians of several genres toured Madison, the starting point, Chicago, Indianapolis, New York, Boston, Atlanta, Nashville, Miami, and other cities. On 11 Nov, the source article reported, Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, said lawmakers would probably ignore a White House veto threat and vote to block companies from owning more television stations. If this prediction comes true, President Bush will have to decide whether to veto a massive spending bill over the issue. Mr. Stevens is quoted as saying, "If it's in an omnibus bill, that's not a vetoable item. He wouldn't veto the whole blasted thing because of that."

By Al-Arabiya. Iraq's interim Governing Council's Chairman Jalal Talabani announced on this day, "We have decided to ban Al-Arabiya in Iraq for a certain period of time because it broadcast an invitation to murder, an incitement to murder by the voice of Saddam Hussein." He also said that council members would also pursue a separate suit against the Dubai-based, Arabic-language station through the Iraqi courts; the first lawsuit here against a news organization since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in April. Al-Arabiya announced shortly afterward that its Baghdad bureau had been forcibly shut and its office contents seized. The network rejected charges that it had broadcast a tape of Saddam Hussein which had incited murder. The offending broadcast was on 16 Nov and included a voice purported to be Hussein's calling to fight "those who are installed by foreign armies," and describing such resistance as a "legitimate duty, patriotic and humanitarian." Al-Arabiya had earlier announced that it will continue to broadcast material on Iraq but it will not do so out of the Baghdad bureau, but it was shut down forcibly, albeit politely, when the police showed up and confiscated the satellite link.

A 2,000-plus page textbook anthology, it contains a handful of selections some parents and students at Fort Cherry School Board, Washington state, consider inappropriate. The passages in question are sexual in nature. On this day the review committee was to meet to discuss the book among themselves. The week before, some one hundred people attended a school board meeting to voice their opinions as part of this review process. Some viewpoints expressed were:

• Jan Bellhy of McDonald: [this action is] "a legitimate exercise of a school board's discretion."

• Andrea Geary of Mt. Pleasant Township: "Some parents do not want their children to be reading this material."

• Student council President Beth Watson:
  • "Our entire class can vote in the next election. Some will serve in the military to protect our freedoms. Instead of trying to protect us from (the real world), you should be preparing us for it."
  • [the class] "never focused on the sexual parts of these stories."

• Kathy Colussy of Hickory: "These students chose these classes knowing they would have to work harder than ever before. It is certain members of the board who have referred to it as pornography and passed it around to friends."

• Senior Scott Conklin, enrolled in an Advanced English course: "At least in the classroom, we can openly discuss our personal interpretations of what each story means, allowing us to know how everyone else feels about it."

By the Bush administration. See the entry in Appendix G.

By Marlo and Eileen Hein. This Oakland County, Michigan, couple were in the process of building their home in 2001, in an exclusive neighborhood on the border of Independence and Orion townships (Heather Lake Estates). The plans they submitted to the homeowners association included a three story tower on one side of the home. What the plans did not show was the words Jesus is King that Mr. Hein seems to have spontaneously decided to add with stones of a different color than those used in the wall. The association sued the couple to halt construction, claiming they had withheld the message from the design. The Oakland County Circuit Court had sided with the association, but the Court of Appeals overturned the lower court on 19 Nov. Judges Bill Schuette, Mark J. Cavanagh, and Helene N. White ruled that the deed restriction only required that construction plans show the "nature, kind, shape, height and materials of the structure," but that "There is no requirement that the plans show the exact arrangement of the building materials for the structure." Judge Cumbey said the Heins's message should not be treated differently than those of other residents who have adorned their homes with flags in support of the University of Michigan football team. Jeffrey A. Heldt, who represents the homeowners association, has announced that will it not accept this ruling, "Never in a million years. It's not appropriate in this kind of subdivision of upscale, high-priced homes."
(see 14 Jul 2003; 17 Jan 2004; 07 Feb 2006)

Within the rank and file. In an editorial reprinted at Truthout.org, Robert Fisk blows the whistle on how the troops are punished for speaking honestly, and how the American corporate press turns a blind eye. He writes in part:

But free speech has a price for the military in the United States these days. The U.S. Navy charged Drew Plummer with violating Article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice: disloyal statements. At his official hearing, he was asked if he "sympathizes" with the enemy or was considering "acts of sabotage." He was convicted and demoted.

Yet still the U.S. media turn their backs on this.

He is also critical of the continued silence over the casualties.

By Saudi Arabia. New cell phone models by Sony Ericsson and Nokia are selling like hot cakes in a healthy black market this Eid season despite a Kingdomwide ban and a significant increase in retail price. The phones were banned in Sep 2002 at the request of the chief of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice because of the photography function; which men were reportedly using in secret to take snapshots of women. The phones are being bought from neighboring countries and going for as much as double their original price. Abdul Rahman Al-Rashid, editor in chief of Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper is quoted: "preventing abuse of technology must be done through education, not through prohibition. Most people use the camera attachments on their phones for good purposes, some are useful to engineers and doctors and homebuyers, others use them for innocent communication. Only very few people misuse them."
(See 03 Sep 2002)

By Boston College students. Student Press Law Center reported on an effort by Boston College officials to implement a program of prior restraint on the student newspaper. The school is asking the newspaper to sign a lease for office space that would require the paper to:

• "[A]dopt and comply" with written advertising and editorial policies, including a code of ethics and a grievance procedure;
• Establish a board of directors made up of Boston College undergraduate students, alumni and faculty members;
• Establish an "active advisory board" made up of Boston College faculty and staff, including at least one administrator;
• Appoint an ombudsman;
• Reject all ads for "family planning and abortion clinics and similar agencies" and ads for cigarettes and alcoholic beverages;
• Charge the university, its departments and student groups no more than 50 percent of the regular rates charged to "third party advertisers."

Boston College is private Jesuit university. Nancy Reardon, editor in chief of The Heights, commented on the situation, "The Heights has been independent since 1971. We cherish our position as a free press above all else, and we are unwilling to sign a lease that would compromise that cherished value." Jack Dunn, director of public affairs, criticized Reardon for speaking to the media about the lease negotiations and said her assertion that the college was attempting to limit the newspaper's freedom is "a fictitious account of self-victimization that has no basis in truth." Mr. Dunn reportedly told the Boston Globe that the college added the stipulations because "there have been a lot of complaints [from students and faculty] this year that didn't exist in previous years"; complaints concerning the newspaper's fairness and accuracy and about sexually explicit alcohol advertising.

[Appoint an ombusdman? Yes; good plan. The only good point in the entire list. Everything else sucks. I can just see this board of directors dictating to the paper what it's policies and ethics are going to be. And why, I just have to ask myself, should the paper have to adopt a payment schedule for advertising that so obviously discriminates. Complaints about a piece being unfair and unbalanced are being made increasingly by hypersensitive snivellers who simply do not want to allow the airing of viewpoints that offend their petty little prejudices. Sexual explicitness in the advertising? There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere. Although I will propose that anyone who thinks critically gets almighty tired of advertising marketroids using sex to promote everything. We aren't offended by it, however, just fed up. --MN]

By the Independent Florida Alligator. This decision will likely end the almost three-year long battle between the student newspaper and the Earnhardt family and state Legislature of Florida.

By Roman Catholics. When California's law was enacted in 2000, Catholic Charities of Sacramento unsuccessfully sought a court ruling to bar the law from being enforced on the church's charity outreach programs. A state appeals court upheld that decision. On this day, the California Supreme Court was to hear the case. In a decision that was released on this day, but made the week previous to this one, a court in Albany rejected a challenge by Catholic groups to a New York state law requiring such coverage. State Justice Dan Lamont rejected claims that the law violates the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. Versions of these laws have been adopted in some 20 states after lawmakers concluded that private employee prescription plans without contraceptive benefits discriminated against women.
(see 01 Jan 2003; 12 Jan 2006)

By North Dakota. Craig Backlund, who was arrested in Mar 2002 during his search for a 14-year-old girl he had encouraged to meet him through an Internet chat room. He had arranged a rendezvous at a West Fargo convenience store, and West Fargo police officer Al Schmidt, who had posed as a minor in search of sex, arrested him shortly afterward at a nearby supermarket. Backlund made a conditional guilty plea to a felony charge of Internet luring in Dec 2002, but kept his right to appeal to the state Supreme Court. On this day, the North Dakota Supreme Court rejected arguments that the law violates federal constitutional rights to free speech and interstate commerce (because his communications crossed jurisdictional boundaries), and upheld the conviction. The decision, said the law is intended to prohibit certain sexual conduct, rather than suppress speech. Written by Justice Carol Ronning Kapsner, the ruling says in part, "The common thread in the cases involving First Amendment challenges to luring statutes is that freedom of speech does not extend to speech used as an integral part of conduct in violation of a valid criminal statute," and, "It is difficult to ascertain any legitimate commerce that is derived from the willful transmission of explicit or implicit sexual communications to a person believed to be a minor in order to willfully lure that person into sexual activity."

By psychiatrist Scott Peck and novelist Ernest Gaines, respectively. Both books were removed from the shelves of the college bookstore earlier this semester and subsequently banned from Louisiana College by the trustees. A policy of prior restraint was also instituted and all instructors were ordered to submit proposed learning materials for review to the Baptist school's Vice President of Academic Affairs.

The two books had been used for years in philosophy classes and this is apparently the first time anyone has spoken out against them in this particular milieu. This movement is in response to a complaint by a student and a board member that the books are inappropriate due to the use of profane language in Peck's book and the description of a love scene in Gaines' novel. The two books were used in a junior-level philosophy course called "Introduction to Value Study." Comments about the censorship that were reported are:

• Dale de Perrodil, 23, a senior media-communications major:
  • It's a violation of us to ban books that are meant for education. Only one student had a problem with the book out of all the years they've used it. 'The Road Less Traveled' is an excellent text.
  • We come to college to grow up. We don't come to college to be sheltered more. 'The Road Less Traveled' is a 'classic book.'
• Karla Traylor, 21, a senior communications major:
  • They should have enough faith in our teachers. It just shows they care more about saving face with the (Louisiana) Baptist Convention than our education.
  • My dad owns that book [The Road Less Traveled], and he's a Baptist preacher.

[These are full fledged adults beyond any stretch of the imagination and yet: it is imperative that they be treated as naive and stupid middle schoolers because they are still only "students" and therefore must necessarily be too soft in the head to deal with descriptions of sex or vulgar language despite their adulthood. The utter contempt in which I hold those puking-trash trustees knows no bounds. See my commentary on this general issue. --MN]

By non-Christians. Gary Cole of Washburn, Maine, a teacher at Skyway Middle School, is suing School Administrative District 1 in Presque Isle, alleging that complaints by "a small group of fundamentalist Christian individuals" have led to a curriculum "which never mentions religions other than Christianity and never teaches the history of civilizations other than Christian civilizations." He also alleges that the curriculum infringes on the First Amendment rights of his students to the free flow of information, and also that it, "constitutes an illegal establishment of religion in violation of the First Amendment." The suit is being brought in U.S. District Court in Bangor. A.J. Greif of Bangor, representing Mr. Cole, is quoted as saying, "He can't even teach the history of anti-Semitism (or the) history of ancient Greece. How can you explain the evolution of democracy in the Western world without talking about ancient Greece? He can't talk about all the influences of the Indian, Japanese or Chinese cultures." Superintendent Gehrig Johnson, who had not yet seen the lawsuit, commented that the curriculum was "developed by teachers across the district and adopted by the SAD 1 School Committee. Teachers are expected to follow the curriculum." Mr. Greif reportedly said that when Cole went outside the prescribed curriculum he was reprimanded and given warnings that he could lose his job. He also said the district was imposing curricular choices that were framed by one particular religion in the community.

By an unnamed British woman with a porn site. There was an image of the Thai flag on her web site so the government of Thailand announced plans to bring charges against the unidentified woman. Yongyuth Sarasombat, the Thai Prime Minister's secretary, said the use of the flag was an insult and tarnished the image of Thailand. The Bangkok Post reported that no further details were released about the web site except it described Bangkok as a "city of sex". Kaewsan Atipho, Thai legal expert and senator, said the web site owner would probably evade prosecution if she didn't enter Thailand, as Britain was unlikely to extradite her on such a minor charge.

[And goddamned fools in the U.S. don't understand all the opposition to the flag desecration amendment. Kindly note that this case is over a digitized photograph of a flag, not a real, actual, physical, hard copy flag. I can't say in what context the image of the flag was used as I haven't seen the site, but I tend to think that it was used as a separate image to identify the nationality of the city of Bangkok. If it was being used as a bedsheet for a clusterfuck then I might understand the pique of the Thai government, although I still wouldn't countenance this piece of cackhanded stupidity. --MN]

By Bernard Manning. This British comic is suing People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals for using his image in an antidairy advertising campaign. The campaign includes posters put up around Manchester, England, and which are mirrored on the PETA web site. You can call up the image through this link. It is mirrored here without permission.

The problem is that they didn't get his permission to use his image. Mr. Manning is quoted: "I'm diabetic. I don't drink milk. I don't know what they're talking about." His manager, Chris Graham, added: "He's a bit cheesed off. They're using his image without permission, for a cause he doesn't in any way endorse. They're taking liberties." PETA spokesman Sean Gifford said: "We have had warnings from his management about continuing to associate him with our campaign, but we don't think we're doing anything wrong. Our answer is 'see you in court'." This ad campaign is a spoof on the British dairy industry's long running ad slogan: "The White Stuff - Are You Made of It?" Peta maintains that dairy products are a health hazard and have been linked to heart disease, strokes, diabetes, obesity, cancer, osteoporosis.

[At the very least PETA's use of Manning's image constitutes misrepresentation. At the worst, since an artist can reasonably expect compensation for his work, this constitutes larceny in that PETA is probably not paying Manning for the use of his image, and Manning can hardly have volunteered to act as a PETA spokesman in this case, after all. Obviously, the ethics of PETA do not extend to one particular kind of animal: Homo sapiens sapiens. That's specieist discrimination if you ask me. Which kind of defeats the entire purpose of their lunacy, doesn't it? --MN]

By the secret police of Czar Nicolas II. Once again the Library of Alexandria was subject to an attack by the forces of ignorance and censorship. From the left wing, this time, however. Political pressure was brought to bear against the recently re-opened library by the United Nations after complaints in the Middle East press about the display of a volume of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The book was removed from the display; thereby proving that future burnings of the library's collection can be done by the staff members themselves.

[See my commentary on a side issue as well. --MN]

By Nat Hentoff. The First Amendment Center printed a commentary in which Mr. Hentoff contrasts two challenges to Footloose, presented as a high school play. One was censored and the other was not, although a policy of using warning "stickers" was implemented.

By Margaret Peterson Haddix. This novel, which chronicles the problems of a troubled teenager, was challenged at the Galt Joint Union Elementary School District, California. The book had been assigned in a seventh-grade English class. This book is about Tish Bonner, a fictional character whose English teacher gives the students the assignment of keeping a journal. She promises to not read those entries labeled confidential, and Tish uses her journal to chronicle a life rife with parental neglect, sexual harassment at an after-school job, and other stresses she must deal with. Eventually she opens up to her teacher and gets help for herself and her younger brother. The novel is a supplemental book middle school teachers have assigned off and on over the past seven years. This year, however, parent Mark Madison objected to the language and content, including some sexual language. On this date, the trustees voted voted 3-2 to reject the recommendations of the district committee that found the book appropriate for middle school students, and by four to one to remove the novel from the curriculum, but to allow it to remain in the libraries subject to parental permission.

Margaret Peterson Haddix is a former reporter for Indianapolis News. She wrote a series of articles on abused and neglected children while in Indianapolis. As an English teacher at an Illinois community college she requires her students to keep journals as well. Many of the passages she reads from those journals are personal, and the basis for her book is reportedly what the abused and neglected children from her Indianapolis interviews might have written.

[Which is what makes this a case of censorship. They could have removed it from the curriculum and I could say: Fine; that's a matter of selection in as much as there was a proper review process. Requiring parental permission to sign the book out of the library, however, is going too far. --MN]

By U.S. District Judge Lynwood Smith. Judge Smith ruled that Sports Illustrated and one of its writers are required to reveal the confidential source for an article that led to Alabama's Mike Price being fired. The ruling is part of a 20 million dollar libel suit against Time Inc., which publishes Sports Illustrated, and writer Don Yaeger. Alabama fired Price after he admitted drinking heavily and visiting a strip club the night before a golf outing, but he denied the magazine's report that he had sex with two women at a hotel after leaving the bar. Judge Smith ruled on the state law protecting journalistic privilege, "If the Legislature had intended for the scope of the statutory privilege to include magazines or other media, it could have done so clearly and unequivocally." The ruling stems from the former coach needing to know the identity of the sources to prove whether the allegations are true. Sports Illustrated is to decide how to respond.

[Sounds as if somebody didn't cover all his bases. --MN]

By Ann Papagiotas, principal at Salem High School, Massachussetts. The Witches Brew had planned to run three articles on its front page criticizing Ms. Papgiotas's policies on three issues:

• a ban on wearing hats
• eating in class, and,
• the lowered morale of the students.

Ms. Papagiotas forbade the school paper to run the articles they way they were written, and demanded changes. The changes were reluctantly made and Ms. Papagiotas refused to allow the articles anyway. The changes were insertions of explanations for the two policies [there was nothing in the source article about her addressing the issue of morale], in one of which Ms. Papagiotas wrote that food was banned from classrooms because of a problem with vermin; mice. In a The Salem News article, Superintendent Herb Levine defended the principal's decision, saying, "The school newspaper is strictly and only in the authority of the school principal. I believe that she's not only doing the right thing, but she's doing it the right way."

However, this move appears to violate Massachussetts state law. The three primary legal issues in this case are:

• Tinker v. Des Moines: In 1969, the Supreme Court ruled that public school authorities are only allowed to regulate student expression that materially disrupts the school environment. School authorities could not base a regulation on the fear of disturbance.
• Hazelwood School District v. Kulhmeier: In 1988 the Supreme Court ruled that a school is permitted editorial control over the content of a school-sponsored newspaper if school officials can show that it is "reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns."
• Massachusetts Student Free Expression Law: In 1988 the Massachusetts Legislature enacted this law to provide the state's public high schools protection from censorship at school; thereby reversing the threat of Hazelwood.

[While the principal certainly should ask to have her own views aired, I hardly think she should do so so ham-handedly. Even the principal has a right to write a letter to the editor with the expectation that it will be printed without let or hindrance. To threaten to disallow the articles as a means to force changes, however, is prior restraint, even if the articles are badly written, and to then prohibit the articles anyway is simply arbitrary and very obviously censorship. --MN]

By Go Ask Alice!. The site itself did not come under atttack, however, but rather it was the Houston public library system.Go Ask Alice! is operated by Columbia University's Health Education Program and is dedicated to answering questions about sex and sexuality posed primarily by adolescents. Questions posed are not about sex alone, but about what to do about certain things or how some body parts act during sex (His balls beat to the rhythm; What do I do with her breasts?). The Houston library system had a link to the site for two years without any complaints until the only medical doctor on Houston City Council found out about it. This council member was horrified that the site was given to teenagers as the top source for health information. Some of the reactions to the library having a link to the site are:

• Shelley Sekula-Gibbs, Houston city council member: "This is not something that the city is proud of. I am not proud to say that this is our city's Web site, and (the director) said it's been up for two years and no one has complained."
• Michael Berry, council member: "This showed an extreme lack of judgment and frankly, I'd like to see some new leadership at the library." He was first to demand the link's removal from the city's Web site, and then wanted the library's director fired.
• Mayor Lee P. Brown: "This afternoon, they'll be off our Web site."

The mayor also intends to have a task force investigate all of the links on the library's web site.

[Texans. Can't live with them, can't shoot them down in the streets like dogs the way you want to. Obviously the Houston city council thinks it's much better to squander any amount of money to ensure kids should live and die in ignorance. --MN]

By seven year old Marcus Huff. Marcus's mom is a lnsbian and Marcus was explaining to a classmate, in the classroom, that his mother was gay. That was on 11 Nov. Second-grade teacher Terry L. Bethea wrote in the incident report that was sent home with the boy that, "Marcus decided to explain to another child in his group that his mom is gay. He told the other child that gay is when a girl likes a girl. This kind of discussion is not acceptable in my room. I feel that parents should explain thing s of this nature to their own children in their own way." Ms. Huff demanded an apology, the ACLU got involved and demanded an apology along with the standard threat of a lawsuit, and then issued a press release on 03 Dec, after which various school officials defended the action, and the school board scheduled a special closed door meeting (to protect student privacy as required by law), for this day to discuss the matter.

[The rest of this story is so implausibly asinine that you've got to read it for yourself. There is just no way I can do this kind of stupidity justice without simply reproducing the entire article. --MN]

At RateMyTeachers.com (U.S.) and RateMyTeachers.ca (Can). An Associated Press article, centering around the filter-blocking of access to the RateMyTeachers.com, reported that more than five hundred schools and districts throughout North America have blocked access to the sites. Some of the issues reported in the article are:

• Tian "Max" Xia, a 16-year-old administrator, one of some 1,800 who moderate comments, said the majority of reviews he receives are positive. He deletes about 3 percent of the hundreds of postings each month by Guilderland High School students.
• Michael Williams, in the 11th grade at Guilderland High School and who has rated more than a dozen teachers, believes it may not be in the best interest for schools to block the teacher-rating site since educators can use the marks to refine their teaching methods. He commented," The site allows teachers, students and school administrators to understand the way teachers work, the way they tick."
• Michael Hussey, who co-founded the site with two teachers in 2001, is quoted, "They're putting us in some pretty interesting company, saying we're quite a danger to education when I don't think that's clearly the case." (The sites are apparently blocked under the categories of pornography, racism, and other objectionable content.)
• Superintendent Gregory Aidala, of the Guilderland Central School District, is quoted, "If a student wants to visit that Web site, they have to do it on their own time outside of school and that's their right to do so. We're not infringing on their right."
• Matthew Green, technology education teacher at Upper Darby High School in Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania, seeks feedback from his students. Before online rating, he asked his students to anonymously fill out a survey about his class at the end of the year. He now encourages them to post ratings on the site from home, as the school has a software filter that automatically blocks the site. He commented, "It helps everybody. You take everything with a grain of salt."

The Canadian site includes a page for a Wall Of Shame, which lists schools (575 as of 08 Dec 2003) where access to the site is known to be prohibited.

[My tendency on this one is to call it censorship. The sites are not pornographic, have a system of checks to prevent slanderous comments (which itself is censorial, which I believe I can attest from experience), and the only objectionable thing about the sites is that they allow the downtrodden to criticize Almighty Authority. Pompous asses never like that however it is done. --MN]

By Nat Hentoff. In an interesting twist of fate, Mr. Hentoff announced he is voting for Attorney General John Ascroft for the 2004 Hugh Hefner First Amendment Awards. He explains the whys and wherefores in this analysis at the First Amendment Center. It's an interesting look at the development of the latent functions deriving from the wholesale attacks on civil liberties.

By George Carlin, mostly. Representative Doug Ose, R-Sacramento, has introduced legislation to ban eight words usually considered vulgar. Six are included in George Carlin's Dirty Words schtick; which is also known as Seven Words You Cannot Say On Television. He introduced the bill, entitled Clean Airwaves Act, when the FCC refused to sanction television stations that had shown U2 frontman Bono using an expletive at the Golden Globe Awards in Jan 2003. Representative Ose has substituted asshole and ass hole in place of Carlin's tits. The bill will forbid using the words as normally written, hypenated, or disjointed, as in the sample here. Robert Corn-Revere, a First Amendment lawyer who represents radio stations, is quoted, "There's no conceivable way that an approach like that could survive constitutional review. This is one of the reasons why radios and televisions have on-off switches." Bono's comment during the Golden Globes was, "This is really, really fucking brilliant."

[The language of the bill, no pun intended, can be seen through this link. It's full of bad words, of course, because it has to use the specific words to be banned. Ironic, isn't it? --MN]
(see 25 Jan 2004; 28 Jan 2004)

By antidisestablishmentarianists. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (Kentucky, Tennessee, Ohio, and Michigan) upheld 2-1 a preliminary order to remove Ten Commandments displays until the conclusion of a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of such displays. The order affects only the three Kentucky counties being sued for a violation of the First Amendment church/state clause, but the ACLU of Tennessee intends to contact the more than thirty counties out of the ninety-five in that state to demand the removal of similar displays.

The salient feature of this appeal is U.S. District Judge Jennifer Coffman's 2001 preliminary order requiring the removal of the displays in the three counties pending final disposition of the lawsuit itself. Judge Coffamn wrote in her decision that posting just the Ten Commandments and only adding other documents later, "bolstered the reasonable observer's perception of the state endorsement of religion." Some of the comments stemming from is decision are:

• David Friedman, general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union of Kentucky, which filed suit to have the displays taken down: "The court has rousingly endorsed the principles of religious freedom and rousingly endorsed the requirement that government remain neutral toward religion. We are delighted with the opinion."
• Judge Eric Clay wrote in the majority opinion (ACLU of Kentucky v. McCreary County) that both the schoolhouse and courthouse displays showed a religious purpose, conveying a "bald assertion" that the Ten Commandments formed the foundation of American legal tradition. Judge Clay also said attorneys for the counties had not cited a single historical source to support the proposition that the Ten Commandments had inspired, for example, the Declaration of Independence.
• Judge James Ryan, dissenting: "The influence of religion upon American law and government is a fact of American history and politics that has been widely recognized by scholars, jurists, legislators, presidents, and, not least, the founders themselves. In his Farewell Address to the nation, George Washington stated that religion was not only a part of the foundation of our law and government, it was a necessity."
• Mathew Staver, (president of the Liberty Counsel in Orlando, Fla.), who had appealed Coffman's ruling on behalf of the Kentucky counties: "It doesn't make sense that you can't modify your display to make it constitutional."
• Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the ACLU in Tennessee: "This was a very im portant decision and affirms the separatio n of the church and state doctrine. Our case will proceed. We are going to ask Judge Echols to decide on the Rutherford County case." (A similar case in Tennessee that was on hold pending this ruling.)

[For my money the big problem is the first three commandments; throw them out and the septalogue left should be perfectly compatible. But to pretend that there is no religious import to: I am the Lord, thy God, thou shalt have no other gods before me? Get real. --MN]

By John Hughes; although this is a stage adaptation. The story is about high school students, and the play was by and for high schools students, but was forbidden to high school students; by Kennewick High School Principal Jack Anderson (Washington State). On 21 Nov he pulled the plug on the show after its second performance on the rationale that the "explicit language and sexual innuendoes violated school district policies." The students, who had put in two hours of rehearsal a day after school for approximately three months, were heartbroken. When Matthew Richter, who is executive director of Consolidated Works, heard about it, he offered the center to the students so the show could go on. Showings were scheduled over the weekend, from 19 Dec to Sunday night, 21 Dec. Mr. Richter is quoted as having said, "To me, this is very much about dealing directly with the students and enforcing this idea that you can get around censorship. Censorship is not the death of discourse."

By Ryan Dwyer. See the entry on the school based censorship page.

By Betsy Hansen. Ms. Hansen was a student at Pioneer High School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, in 2002. The school had held a panel, organized by the Gay/Straight Alliance, in March, in conjunction with Diversity Week; a series of events and talks on race, religion and sexual orientation. The panel was composed solely of religionists supportive of homosexuality. Ms. Hansen wanted equal time to air her viewpoints in opposition to homosexuality, but was denied. Instead, she was given two minutes in which to air her viewpoint at a separate assembly. Ms. Hansen subsequently sued, claiming in her suit that school officials had censored her speech after reading it before holding the panel, because it argued that homosexuality is wrong. On 05 Dec, U.S. District Judge Gerald Rosen ruled that school officials had failed to remain "viewpoint neutral" in making their decision. Judge Rosen:

• rejected the defense by Ann Arbor Public Schools that its exclusion of Ms. Hansen and its censorship of her speech was an attempt to "promote tolerance and acceptance of minority points of view";
• ruled that school officials violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment because they chose the religious leaders, provided the facility, and the audience for the religious discussion, and censored Hansen's speech based on its religious viewpoint;
• ruled that the school abridged Hansen's constitutional right to equal protection by allowing one group to deliver its message while denying her the opportunity to deliver an opposing message;
• ordered the school district to pay damages, attorneys' fees, and costs to the Thomas More Law Center

He wrote in his opinion, "That the defendants can say with apparent sincerity that they were advancing the goal of promoting 'acceptance and tolerance ...' by their demonstrated intolerance for a viewpoint that was not consistent with their own is hardly worthy of serious comment." Richard Thompson, president of the Thomas More Law Center, commented, "This is a tremendous victory for the First Amendment rights of Christian students and a tremendous defeat for those who consider public schools as their private platform to advance the homosexual agenda."

[Yeah. God forbid those fags and intrinsically evil and morally disordered perverts should be allowed their First Amendment rights, after all. Thompson has at least one screw loose and probably several. From what he said he appears to be your standard, self-righteous misohomonist. The suit is supposed to be about permitting speech with which you do not agree, not about any gay agenda conspiracy theory. Moreover, I have no doubt that he'd be quick to jump all over public schools as a private platform to advance his compassionless, unchristian agenda of intolerance, brutality, and totalitarianism.

The school district actually came across with some grace in this one. A statement released by the district reads in part: "While the court concluded that school staff erred in their handling of this controversial manner, the district applauds their continuing efforts to provide answers to difficult but important questions with which courts have struggled. The district will grow and learn from this situation." So somebody there has his or her head on right. --MN]

By the Montana Supreme Court. In Oct 2000, Malachi Robinson apparently yelled at Missoula County Deputy David McGinnis that he was a fucking pig. Deputy McGinnis, who was in his squad car at the time, got out and confronted Mr. Robinson, who then answered with more vulgarities. Deputy McGinnis subsequently arrested Mr. Robinson on a charge of disorderly conduct, and Mr. Robinson was convicted. On 18 Dec the Montana Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Robinson's language constituted fighting words and his utterances where not, therefore, protected speech. Justice Bill Leaphart wrote for the majority, "It is one thing to expect peace officers to exercise more restraint than the average citizen. However, it is quite another to allow the likes of Malachi Robinson to gratuitously test that restraint without fear of being charged with disorderly conduct." Justice Patricia Cotter wrote in the dissenting opinion that McGinnis had escalated the incident by challenging Robinson to further conversation: "Had McGinnis let it go and driven on once the light turned green, the two men would never have faced off on the street."

[Hell, even I don't buy that one. McGinnis was sitting there minding his own business when Robinson initiated hostilities. What Cotter is basically saying is that a cop isn't allowed to defend himself from verbal abuse. --MN]

By Governor George Pataki. The first posthumous pardon in the history of New York state. Governor Pataki described it as "a declaration of New York's commitment to upholding the First Amendment." Other principals in the movement commented:

• Ron Collins, a First Amendment Center scholar and co-author (with David Skover) of The Trials of Lenny Bruce (2002): "I think when you have all of these battles going on these days over what is and is not acceptable in art ... this shows that First Amendment freedoms are as important today as they were in 1964. [...] There are still many venues where his comedy could not be safely presented if it weren't for the First Amendment. It's a good omen for artists."

• Robert Corn-Revere, the lead attorney for the Bruce forces: "I think in the same way that jazz is a purely American art form, so is standup comedy," said Robert Corn-Revere, the lead attorney for the Bruce forces. "One of the things Lenny did was transform standup comedy from being abo ut mothers-in-law and gag jokes and impressions and he made it topical, he made it relevant. And even though he did so in words that sometimes were impolite to some and offensive to others, he really was something of a phenomenon that transformed that art form." And: "This is the kind of decision that is made for one reason only: the principle," said Corn-Revere. "The principle is that people can't be turned into criminals for speaking words."

• Floyd Abrams, First Amendment expert and member of the ca mpaign to pardon Bruce: "Obviously, a pardon after a person's death is necessarily symbolic in nature. But the symbolism of Gov. Pataki's action is forward-looking, speech-protective and humanity-advancing. I think the decision today is really a major step forward in recognizing the mistreatment of Lenny Bruce personally and of the First Amendment that Bruce defended. It's a New Year's gift."

Steve Allen, who put Bruce on his show when Bruce was shunned by others, had commented in 1999, "Lenny was a social philosopher; he was always making points. A lot of today's comics just use four-letter words or talk about ladies' underwear or whatever, for shock or ... sleaze value, mainly that's because that's all they have to offer."
(see 21 May 2003)

By Dallas Observer. On this day there was a report about the Texas Supreme Court hearing arguments in New Times Inc. v. Isaacks; a case that imperils all satire everywhere. The arguments were heard on 03 Dec. According to lawyers for the newspaper, the "Stop the Madness" article was so outrageous that the average reader could not have taken it seriously. Mike Whitten, lawyer for the plaintiff, alleges that some readers did believe the article was true, making it libelous.

[Another Lowest Common Denominator argument: Because some people are too stupid to understand what satire is and how to identify it, intelligent people should not allowed to have access to such humour and it must all be forbidden. Sounds like hyperbole, but take Whitten's argument to its illogical extreme: "I think if you publish a false statement of fact about someone and it's believed by a reader, then that's libelous whether you label it satire or it's in the driest journal." --MN]
(see 21 Nov 2002; 25 Sep 2003; 03 Sep 2004)

On 18 Dec two New York Times reporters, Jeff Gerth and James Risen, refused to reveal their sources to a federal judge. Wen Ho Lee is suing the departments of Energy and of Justice. He is alleging that the departments provided private information about him to reporters, and that they suggested he was a suspect in an investigation into the possible theft of nuclear secrets from Los Alamos National Laboratory. Toby Ulsik, a spokesman for The New York Times, commented, "At risk is the fundamental element of the journalistic process, which is the protection of people who supply information to reporters on the condition of anonymity." Three other reporters, Robert Drogin of the Los Angeles Times, H. Josef Hebert of the Associated Press, and Pierre Thomas, formerly of CNN, also have been ordered to give depositions in the coming months. Dr. Lee was indicted on 59 felony counts of mishandling nuclear weapons information in Dec 1999. He was illegally held in solitary confinement for nine months, and was finally released in September 2000 after pleading guilty to a single felony count.

[At risk is somebody getting away with blatant racial profiling and for targetting Dr. Lee for not being a WASP. Not to mention that somebody violated his confidentiality. This was very obviously not a situation calling for a whistleblower since Lee was already under investigation. For my money those self-righteous prigs ought to cough up those names. --MN]
(see 04 Jun 2003)

By Sue Wangle; Kansas State Senator. Having been frustrated at imposing prior restraint on universities through budgetary blackmail, she has succeeded in getting the state Board of Regents to approve a policy regarding the use of sexually explicit material in college classrooms. The policy was approved on 18 Dec by unanimous voice vote. It declares that students are entitled to "an atmosphere conducive to learning" and that no student should be forced to make "particular personal choices" by instructors. It also calls it improper for instructors to repeatedly use materials that have no relationship to the subject of a course. Sen. Wagle is quoted, "I think the Legislature would prefer not to micromanage human sexuality classes, but on the other side, we do recognize that these are tax-funded institutions, and there needs to be some sort of respect within these institutions for the taxpayers."

[Which is utter bullshit from start to finish. If the legislature didn't want to micromanage classes they would not have voted to do so. And, of course, students of any stripe, not currently being productive and taxpaying citizens, do not have any civil liberties or human rights worth protecting. Plus, the idea that this policy does not force "particular personal choices" is a clear and present case of double think. There is no way you can avoid forcing "particular personal choices" in a case where someone is offended by something. In this case, the majority of students, those who are intelligent enough to walk out of a classroom if they don't like the material, are being forced to accept the personal choice of a hypersensitive sniveller. Obviously, the U.S. is one democracy where the ruling majority is based upon whichever individual has the majority of hypersensitivity. And, yet again: knee-jerk reactionary, ultra-religionist, lunatic book burners are not the only ones who pay taxes. --MN]
(see 26 Mar 2003; 21 Apr 2003)

By Ted Bridis, Associated Press. The FBI sent out a bulletin, on 24 Dec, to some 18,000 police agencies throughout the U.S. advising officers to be on the look out for almanacs. The bulletin urged officers to watch for anyone carrying almanacs during searches, traffic stops, or other investigations, especially if the books are annotated in suspicious ways. The Burea said that information usually found in almanacs that could be useful to terrorists included profiles of cities and states, and information about waterways, bridges, dams, reservoirs, tunnels, buildings and landmarks, and this information is often accompanied by photographs and maps. John Pierce, the publisher for The Old Farmers Almanac, was quoted as saying, "While we doubt that our editorial content would be of particular interest to people who would wish to do us harm, we will certainly cooperate to the fullest with national authorities at any level they deem appropriate."

[Always nice when someone identifies himself as a Big Brother drone, isn't it? "Yes, sir, Mr. Poleece Man, just come right in and tell me what I'm not allowed to publish." That's not really the big issue in this case, however. Suppose you get stopped for burning a red light. You have your high school child's almanac in the back seat. Legally, the cops are required to ask you if they can look at the book. You have every right to tell them to get a warrant, but how many citizens are cognizant of that fact. Plus, what, exactly, constitutes "suspicious annotations". Such a thing is a judgment call. So, if your high school child is doing a class project on the Hoover Dam, and has marked that page and circled notes about population centers downstream and made notes about hydro-electricity transmission, you're going to Camp X-Ray at Guantanamao as an enemy combatant. Because you can just bet the cops aren't getting any extra training in identifying terrorism suspects. So how many innocent citizens are going to be the victims of antibibliophilia profiling? --MN]

By "artsurdist" Tom Forsythe. A photographer from Kanab, Utah, Mr. Forsythe's medium is Barbie Doll in food and kitchen implements. Barbie Enchiladas, for instance, shows four Barbie dolls inside a lit oven, wrapped in tortillas and covered with salsa, in a casserole dish. Another features a nude Barbie inside a blender and Malted Barbie features a nude Barbie on a vintage Hamilton Beach malt machine. Forsythe sells copies of his work as postcards. He does the work to criticize "the materialistic and gender-oppressive values" he believes the dolls embody. Mattel said the pictures could confuse consumers into believing the corporation endorsed the works, but a federal judge in Los Angeles dismissed Mattel v. Walking Mountain Productions; which had been filed in 1999. On this day, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals also disagreed with Mattel by a 2 - 1 vote. The court said the lawsuit "may have been groundless and unreasonable", and that, in addition, Forsythe had a First Amendment right to lampoon Barbie. Judge Harry Pregerson wrote in the opinion, "Mattel cannot use trademark laws to censor all parodies or satires which use its name." This same court had also dismissed an appeal by Mattel in a lawsuit against the pop group Aqua in Jul 2002.
(see 1998; 07 Nov 2002; 27 Jan 2003; 29 Jun 2004)

By the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council. This group, which hosts the annual Saint Patrick's Day parade in Boston, sued the city and its police department in U.S. District Court after police allowed an anti-war group to march at the end of the 2003 parade. On this day Judge Robert B. Collings ruled that allowing unauthorized groups to march so close to the actual parade was a violation of the organizers' free-speech rights. The anti-war group Veterans For Peace, which was not named as a defendant in the suit, was initially supposed to walk behind police cars and street sweepers following the March 16 parade, but was given permission by police to walk in front of them because the vehicles were generating so much dust. As a result, spectators and members of the press were unable to distinguish between paraders and protesters; which point Judge Collins covered in his ruling. Chester Darling, attorney for the parade organizers, commented, "This decision says the city can't compel us to say some thing we don't want to say." Henceforth, protesters will be required to follow the parade with a one mile (three kilometer) separation zone between them.

By Jimmy Breslin. See the entry in Appendix G.
(See 1989; 22 Oct 2003)

By Medea Benjamin. This opinion/editorial was apparently published at Alternet.org and reprinted at Truthout.org. In it, Ms. Benjamin details ten major accomplishments throughout 2003 by forces working around the world to protect civil liberties and human rights.

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: