A brief chronological Compendium of a Few Banned or Challenged Works, and Censorship and Anti-Censorship Efforts 01 Jan - 30 Jun 2004

For all the thousands of visitors looking just for this:
You can scope the image of the top-free Halle Berry with this special link.

Freedom is about noise - irreverent and raucous debate. Silence is the trademark of other forms of government, those that work in darkness and struggle to keep the will of the people hidden. --Steven Day, online commentator, 2002

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

02 November; the day Americans can vote out the neo-fascist Bush administration

And here's why I wouldn't vote for him --MN

2004, January 02: Access to information lawsuit

By Canadian Broadcasting Corporation et al. Several media outlets were to be in a Vancouver courtroom on this day to ask a judge to let them see the search warrants authorizing raids on B.C. legislature offices on 30 Dec 2003. The opposing viewpoints central to the case are:

• CBC lawyer Dan Henry: "It's not every day that offices in the legislature of any province in Canada are the subject of a search warrant or the subject of a search. This is a very significant event and one that the public deserves answers to."
• RCMP spokesman John Ward: "Sometimes it might involve source information that if it were out in the public it would tend to divulge the identity of that source or it may involve people that are not criminal suspects but may have in their possession things that may be of interest to the police."

The police have yet to say what they were looking for when they raided the legislature offices of David Basi, ministerial assistant to Finance Minister Gary Collins, and Bob Virk, ministerial assistant to Transportation Minister Judith Reid. They also searched the homes of several high-ranking officials in the execution of nine warrants. The raids stem from a long-term drug and organized crime investigation, although the police insist that no elected officials are suspected of any crime.

[Addendum (05 Jan 2004): The judge ordered the case held over until 14 Jan, but didn't say if it would be heard. --MN]

Raoul Wallenberg was the Swedish diplomat to Hungary during World War II. He put his career and life on the line by issuing Swedish visas to any Jews who asked for one; quite against the orders of his government, apparently. He is credited with saving as many as 20,000 innocents from the concentration and death camps. When Budapest fell to advancing communist forces in 1945, he was disappeared. After his arrest, ostentibly for espionage, he was never heard from again, although in Jan 2001 Russia admitted that he had died in a Soviet prison cell. Now, human rights lawyer David Matas wants the government of Canada to pressure Russia to grant access to an investigative team of Canadians who are researching Russian archives looking for evidence of crimes against humanity. Mr. Matas's position is that the researchers already have the appropriate intelligence clearances, and the material he wants researched is in archives they've already had access to. However, there are political issues to take into consideration.

By Israeli soldiers. Three Palestinian protesters in the West Bank city of Nablus were shot and killed, reportedly while protesting the occupation of the city. There is information about only one of the killings, however. Palestinian witnesses said Amjed El-Masri, age 15, was shot in the chest by a sniper while he was throwing stones at an Israeli armored vehicle from a rooftop. The source for this entry is an article at ArabNews.com. The article reported that one of the three fatalities had been shot in the back, and that during the funeral for Amjed, one of his cousins, age 19, who was a pallbearer, was also shot dead by Israeli forces. A military source said that soldiers had opened fire at a Palestinian armed with a gun and another with a petrol bomb [molotov cocktail], and hit both of them. Witnesses said the soldiers apparently shot without provocation.

By Charles Risenburg. Mr. Risenburg is an inmate in Bedford County, Pennsylvania, and alleges that officials are denying him his right to practice his religion. He filed a federal civil rights suit, although he is not seeking any monetary damages, only to be able to practice his religion and to receive vegetarian meals. Mr. Risenburg is quoted, "If it has spells in it, I'm not allowed to have it." Sheriff Gordon Diehl reportedly said that he won't let anyone practice something that, in his mind, could be akin to intimidation, and is quoted as saying, "His tarot cards, oils, pentagrams and books all have spells in them. He was trying to cast spells with his pentagrams, and he even made his own magic wand." The executive director of the ACLU in Pennsylvania, Larry Frankel, said the jail might be overreacting. He commented, "It's hard for me to understand why they would really care."

[I chalk this one up to knee-jerk reactionary ignorance. --MN]

By a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A 1994 California regulation forbids medical practioners from automatically advertising that they are "board certified" from medical institutions. The state rule being challenged only allows "board certified" advertisements if the medical institution that deems them "board certified" meets requirements imposed by the Medical Board of California, which is the licensing agency for doctors for the state. The court said California has a public interest in determining whether doctors can tout themselves as being "board certified." Under the medical board's definition, certain standards of education and testing must be met. Judge Procter Hug Jr. wrote in American Academy of Pain Management v. Joseph, "Such consistent usage informs the medical community and the general public that the physicians and surgeons advertising that they are 'board certified' have met a certain standard of postgraduate education and experience." The rule also survived First Amendment challenges in that physicians, "are not precluded from advertising that they limit their practice to certain fields or that they are members of, or have had special education from, non-qualified boards or associations." The lawsuit was brought by the American Academy of Pain, a group of 6,000 medical professional members. Its purpose it to teach pain-management techniques and issue credentials to its members. The academy and some of its members challenged the advertising rule after the Medical Board of California declined to allow academy members to advertise that they were "board certified" with the academy. The medical board said the academy did not demand that its members have any formal "postgraduate training", and that its qualifying examinations consist of 100 multiple-choice questions and take two hours to complete, while the board demands a minimum 16-hour exam.

[This lawsuit is a case of petulant whining. --MN]

By Paul Wright, founder and editor of Prison Legal News. This murderer turned muckraker/journalist, started what was supposed to be a Marxist rag, but evolved into a civil liberties advocacy newspaper with a circulation of some 3,500; many of whom are lawyers and prison advocates. Aided by a team of First Amendment lawyers, Wright has battled for the magazine to be distributed in prisons across the country. It was briefly banned by the corrections department after Mr. Wright published a story about racist corrections officers and they had to devote much of one secretary's time to answering his frequent records requests. Now Mr. Wright is taking on the Corrections Department's medical care system. Wright said he has the case of the prison nurse who sutured a cut with Krazy Glue, the pharmacist's assistant who forged prescriptions for his Demerol habit, and the inmate with Hepatitis C who died from being denied medicine. In 2000 he requested medical-misconduct records and prison officials released a 6-inch stack of documents, but the records were so heavily censored that much of the information was incomprehensible. Blacked out were:

• the names of disciplined medical staff,
• prisoners' ailments,
• dates,
• even the members of the Personnel Appeals board.

Prison Legal News appealed the redaction, first to Thurston County Superior Court and then to the Court of Appeals, but lost both times. Records of state-employee misconduct are routinely released by state agencies. Eldon Vail, the department's deputy secretary, reportedly said however, that the department's task should give the agency a break from disclosure because prisoners armed with misconduct reports can attack or blackmail medical providers, or avoid the disciplined providers, which would put a burden on other medical staff.

[The thing with the Krazy Glue actually makes sense, believe it or not. As a former army medic I know that it would take a doctor's order before the nurse could stitch somebody up, but if he uses Krazy Glue then it is First Aid and he can do that on his own initiative. Plus, Krazy Glue bonds skin instantly. Just hold the cut closed, apply glue, bleeding stops, go on your merry way. In some conditions it is a superiour treatment to suturing. The pharmacist's assistant is guilty for his actions, but the death of the inmate from Hep C is very definite grounds for putting the system's feet to the fire. --MN]

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

By Brett Bursey. 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; 23 Sep 2003)

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

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

[See my commentary on this issue --MN]

By Richard D. Peterson. Mr. Peterson was fired by Hewlett-Packard after twenty-one years of service for posting his religious based viewpoints on homosexuality. This was in response to a diversity program by HP which was implemented for the purpose of promoting tolerance. Mr. Peterson was fired after a lengthy attempt to work out his difference of opinion with the diversity program. He subsequently sued, alleging religious discrimination, but the court threw out his lawsuit. On this day the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision. Judge Stephen Reinhardt writing for the unanimous three-judge panel, said in part, "Peterson may be correct that the (diversity) campaign devoted special attention to combating prejudice against homosexuality, but such an emphasis is in no manner unlawful. To the contrary, Hewlett-Packard's efforts to eradicate discrimination against homosexuals in its workplace were entirely consistent with the goals and objectives of our civil rights statutes generally."

Mr. Peterson's attorney, Christ Troupis, claimed the appeals court unfairly portrayed Peterson as a religious extremist and warned that the ruling could silence freedom of religious expression in the workplace. He also promised to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. He is quoted as commenting after reviewing the ruling, "While the words used in the scriptures he quoted might be strong, the method he chose to express his beliefs was the least intrusive possible. He didn't talk to anybody, he didn't corner anyone, and nobody complained." The decision by the 9th Circuit Court hinges on a distinction between employee speech in public and private workplaces, ruling that Mr. Peterson had no right to post biblical verses condemning homosexuality with the stated purpose of emotionally hurting gay employees so they would change their lifestyle.

[Interesting can of worms. I'd say that this one ranks up there with the Virginia Cross Burning Law. In this case, where does my opposition to homosexuality cross the line? I can certainly say that I oppose homosexuality because it is sinful, but can I engage in ad hominem attacks against homosexuals for the express purpose of evoking an emotional response? In effect: to intimidate them? --MN]

By minority Muslims. The Ahmadiyya movement claims 200 million members worldwide, of which there are some 100,000 in Bangladesh. It was founded in the 19th century in what is now Pakistan. The movement vows to revive Islam by stressing non-violence and tolerance, but it also believes there can be prophets after Mohammed, which mainstream Islam regards as blasphemous. In repsonse to demands by extremist Islamists, the government of Bangladesh decided on this day to ban all publications by this sect. The ban took effect on 09 Jan. The extremists, apparently spearheaded by Hifazate Khatme Nabuwat Andolon, are demanding that the sect be declared "non-Muslim". A ministry statement said the ban "was imposed in view of objectionable materials in such publications that hurt or might hurt the sentiments of the majority Muslim population of Bangladesh". Ahmadiyya Muslim Jamaat Bangladesh spokesman Abul Awal commented on the decision, "The government has bowed to religious terrorists. The people's right to freedom of expression as enshrined in the constitution has been violated by taking such a decision." A mob of some 5,000 marched on an Ahmadiyya mosque in the Bangladesh capital city of Dhaka on Friday to denounce the movement. This rally passed peacefully, but there was a promise of more protests if the group was not declared to be non-Muslim.

By Governors State University student newspaper The Innovator. A full panel of federal appellate court judges heard oral arguments on this day. Illinois Assistant Attorney General Mary E. Welsh once again argued that the law was unsettled, but it was clear that at least some of the judges didn't buy her case. Judge Diane P. Wood challenged Ms Welsh less than 10 seconds into her opening statement: "In my research I couldn't find a single case where censorship of a college student publication has been upheld. Can you cite a single case where that has occurred?" Ms Welsh was forced to reply, "No." She then argued that this was not a case of content-based censorship because all that Carter wanted to do was review the paper for grammar and punctuation mistakes. Judge Wood cut her off again, saying, "No -- what it presents is absolute censorship. Printers don't print for free. "

Judge Richard A. Posner, however, took exception to claims of censorship. In questioning Dick Goehler, the attorney representing the Student Press Law Center and 24 other groups who had filed a friend-of-the-court briefs, Judge Posner asked whether there was anything wrong with such a practice of prior review. He asked, "[Carter] didn't actually censor anything did she? She just wanted to see the paper." Mr. Goehler replied, "Advisers provide advice. They do not engage in censorship." Judge Posner seemed to be unconvinced.

A decision on this appeal is expected within six months. The Innovator was still not being published as of the date for this entry.

[According to the source article, "Welsh continued to insist that in addition to reviewing for grammar and punctuation mistakes, colleges should have the right to screen college publications for "pornography and obscenity" and other forms of unlawful content to protect the school's reputation and shield it from legal liability." This is a bullshit argument. There is already a process for checking grammar and punctutation, as well for clarity and accuracy. It is called editing. And it is done by editors; and it is done for quality control, not content control. --MN]
(see 13 Jun 2002; 07 Jan 2003; 11 Apr 2003; 25 Jun 2003)

By Thomas Mink. Created in the fall of 2003, this online, satirical newsletter draws attention to community issues related to the University of Northern Colorado at Greeley. The site is reportedly satirical and contains a photograph of UNC finance professor Junius Peake altered to look like KISS guitarist Gene Simmons, and identifying "Mr. Junius Puke". There was also a couple of uncomplimentary comments along with a disclaimer warning readers not to confuse Junius Puke with Junius Peake. Professor Peake filed a complaint with the Greeley police, and a search warrant was executed on Mr. Mink's home on 12 Dec 2003; the police took his computer. According to the lawsuit, Detective Ken Warren allegedly told Mr. Mink to stop publishing the online newsletter and later said Mink could face charges under a state criminal libel law. Mr. Mink's suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Denver, says police violated his rights to privacy and free speech, and the Fourth Amendment, which protects citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures. The suit:

• asks the court to force police to return Mink's computer;
• asks for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction, which would block the city attorney's office from filing criminal charges against Mink;
• asks that the Colorado Criminal Libel Statute be deemed unconstitutional.

Attorney Marcy Glenn, who is working with the American Civil Liberties Union on the case, is quoted, "It's a clear case of a government entity blocking First Amendment rights. There just isn't much room for debate on this one." Mr. Mink is quoted, "I was thinking holy crap, what in the world. It's just a cheesy little newsletter, a freebie Web site that nobody takes seriously." Professor Peake apparently made no attempt whatever to seek redress through Mr. Mink.

[Addendum (12 Jan 2004): On 09 Jan Chief U.S. District Judge Lewis Babcock effectively gave Mink's editing a D for vulgarity and crassness, but allowed that his literary shots at a finance professor still passed muster. The police were ordered to return the confiscated computer to Mink and were barred from prosecuting Mink for criminal libel. He did not immediately rule on the ACLU request to strike down Colorado's criminal libel law, however. The judge based his decision on a comparison of the site with the satire used by Dutch humanist Erasmus in his 16th-century pamphlet "Praise of Folly", which was critical of church dignitaries. --MN]

[Addendum (18 Jan 2004): The First Amendment Center published an analysis of criminal libel laws by Ken Paulson, and how those laws are invalidated by civil libel suits and free speech. --MN]
(see 04 Apr 2994; 14 Jan 2006)

by Scott Peck and Ernest Gaines, respectively. The books were approved for use in classroom instruction. The Louisiana College Board of Trustees enacted a new academic-screening policy in early December that required instructors to submit a list of teaching materials to the dean of academic affairs for approval. Students and teachers at the Baptist school complained that the new policy violates academic free speech. Ben Hawkins, the dean of academic affairs, said, "The policy now requires the faculty to be a little more accountable in reviewing the texts before they are used. More accountability, that's what the board's intent was. Not to stop what the faculty was ordering, but to make them more accountable for what they were ordering." But history department chairman Thomas Howell disagreed, reportedly saying that just because all of the materials were approved didn't mean the problem had been solved. He is quoted, "Under the current dean, it's fine, but this policy is a Trojan horse. There is enormous potential for abuse."

Against Erica Meredith. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

[See my commentary on this issue --MN]

By Judy Blume. It was reported on this day that a review committee had finally been scheduled to convene in Hernando County, Florida, on 29 Jan, to consider a complaint against Deenie. The complaint was filed by the mother of an elementary school student because of references to masturbation.

The committee meeting comes some four months after the complaint was filed due to a number of legal challenges to the school district review process. District administrators had intended to have the committee meet privately, but lawyers for the St. Petersburg Times contended that the panel, as described in district policy, was subject to Florida's open meeting laws. Judge Jack Springstead issued a temporary injunction against the committee meeting in October, and the two sides reached a deal after weeks of negotiations. At this point, however, some of the originally selected members of the review committee dropped out to avoid the glare of media scrutiny. Replacements, except for a representative from the teachers union, had been chosen by this date. The committee's task is to read the novel and consider whether its content is acceptable for elementary school students in Hernando County. The novel is currently listed as available in four elementary schools, and is also listed as part of the library collections at one middle and one high school.

[Of course it's subject to open meeting laws you morons! Why in the name of Hell is somebody trying to coverup a review process? Because they are acting in bad faith or because they are afraid to take a free speech stance in public? --MN]

By McFarlane v. Twist, 03-615, Hoffmann-Pugh v. Keenan, 03-661, Fax.com v. Missouri, 03-507, and the Fremont Street Experience case.

• Tony Twist claims that a violent Mafia character named after him hurt his image and cost him endorsements. He won his suit against "Spawn" creator Todd McFarlane, who appealed. The decision was upheld and McFarlane appealed to the Supreme Court.

• Linda Hoffmann-Pugh's free-speech case is a challenge to Colorado grand jury secrecy rules. Ms. Hoffmann-Pugh worked for John and Patsy Ramsey when their 6-year-old daughter was found murdered. She testified before a grand jury that ended its term in 1999 without issuing an indictment, but is prohibited from disclosing details of the testimony. Ms. Hoffman-Pugh wrote The Death of an Innocent, about her experience, but is prohibited from publishing it. Her lawyers wrote in a filing that she could still publish a book about her experiences, just that she couldn't reveal what she told the grand jury.

• An appeals court had ruled that the government has a substantial interest in protecting the public from unwanted fax advertisements. That decision upheld the federal Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991, which regulates telemarketing calls and also contains prohibitions against junk faxes. The case was prompted by a lawsuit filed by Missouri Attorney General Jay Nixon against California-based Fax.com Inc. Lawyers for Fax.com told the justices that the law is being used to drive companies out of business.

• By not hearing this case, the high court preserved a 02 Jul 2003 decision by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, that the $70 million remodeling of Fremont Street -- with a giant canopy, a high-tech laser-light show, and spruced-up sidewalks -- didn't alter the area's status as a public forum. The appeals court said that because of the public forum status people couldn't be banned from distributing leaflets, collecting signatures and circulating petitions; overturning a lower court ruling in doing so.

[In an editorial note to an earlier entry I incorrectly wrote that a case was a loss because the court rejected it. That is not necessarily so.

Nobody has lost yet. Important piece of law. Just because the Supreme Court refuses to hear a case it does not mean they agree with the lower court. The Supreme Court is often looking for a case that has the fact pattern they want if they want to change the case law. The Supreme Court could hear a case similar to all of the ones listed in the future and agree with them all.
--LISNews Message Board comment

Chalk up this obscure point of law as one of those little foibles that makes it so difficult for even critical thinkers to navigate the minefield of Life. --MN]

By various authors and shelved at the Marple Public Library, Pennsylvania. The books, new purchases, were discovered by John Whoriskey of Glen Mills, who signed out seven of them and then complained about them to the Marple board of commissioners, local clergy and legislators as an example of poor judgment by the librarians and a waste of taxpayer money. He has since gained the support of Pro-Life Coalition, headquartered in Havertown, which scheduled a meeting for this day to mount a censorship challenge against the library. The seven titles under attack are:

• Great Sex Tips: Anne Hooper;
• Ecstatic Sex: A Guide to the Pleasures of the Tantra: Ma Ananda Sarita;
• Sex Toys 101: A Playfully Uninhibited Guide: Rachel Venning;
• Sexopedia: Anne Hooper;
• The Illustrated Guide to Extended Massive Orgasm: Steve Bodansky;
• The Joy of Gay Sex (3rd edition): Dr. Charles Silverstein and Felice Picano;
• The Ultimate Guide to Fellatio: Violet Blue.

The library's collection development policy, which was revised in 1999, states that materials are selected by various criteria such as purpose, subject matter, audience, timeliness and credibility of the author and/or publisher, and that works are not excluded due to "frankness of expression, race, nationality, political, sexual orientation or religious views of the author." The books bought by the library over the last 18 months specifically target the sections on sexual instruction, computers, and critical analysis of literature.

Marple Public Library's review process includes a "Citizen's Request Form for Re-Evaluation of Library Materials." This form asks several questions, such as whether the material had been read in its entirety, what are the objections, and what action is recommended. The form is then reviewed by the library board, which is composed of seven township residents, and the library director must respond to the complain within 30 days. Mr. Whoriskey is aware of the procedure, but reportedly has chosen not to complete the form. He is quoted, "I'm not about to read the books. I hope to get them taken out of the library but what I didn't want to do was go through them."

The principle objection to the books is that children have access to the library, but this objection ignores the fact that the books target the adult audience and are shelved accordingly (200 (religion) and 300 (social sciences)). In an interview published 09 Jan, Marple Library Director Deborah Parsons defended the purchases, saying, "I have professional librarians who purchase fiction, non-fiction, children's books and more and they follow a certain budget. We have a $108,000 book budget. These titles only add up to $138 so they are only a mere part of our collection. I have a 9-year-old and a 5-year-old and I know what it's like to raise them in the world today. I wouldn't want my children looking at them either. But they are not books intended for children. That's why they are in the adult section. We have the highest circulation in the county, so when we purchase books we cover the entire community. There is an interest for these kinds of books just as there is an interest books on chastity, virginity and the religious implications for sex."

[The reader will kindly take note that Whoriskey refuses to participate in the review process, bypassing the library entirely and even though the review process does not require that he read the books. Whoriskey is also quoted as saying, "They are all pornographic and there is no way they should be in a public library with my tax dollars. I am a father and a grandfather and thanks be to God they weren't there when my children were young." Yeah, gohd forbid anybody should ever learn to like sex, but I'll bet those books are not at all pornographic. And Whoriskey and the other knee-jerk reactionary slobbering idiots are not the only ones who pay taxes. --MN]
(see 03 Feb 2004)

By Douglas Lee. The First Amendment Center published an opinion/editorial about the Bush administration secret trials, and how the trend for trials-in-secret has been developing over the years.

By We the People. See the entry on the Church/State Entanglement page.

By director Pierre Houle and Cité Amérique. In the 1960s, Monica Proietti committed a series of violent crimes including more than twenty bank robberies. Her spree was brought to an end with the clichéd "hail of bullets". In Nov 2003 her surviving sisters, Ida and Lisa Proietti, went to court to demand all scenes be suppressed that infringe on their right to privacy and reputation, in a film that was being produced about Monica's life and death. They say parts of Monica la mitraille (to give the film its French title), could be too close to the truth. In Dec, Quebec Superior Court Justice Daniel Tingley rejected their request for an injunction on the grounds that:

• the request was premature because the film hadn't been finished,
• the producers, Cité Amérique, had assured the sisters they weren't even portrayed in the movie, and
• their last name has been changed in the film to protect their identity.

The sisters determined to press their suit, however, and a date for a new hearing was to be set on this day.

Daniel Payette, the Proiettis' lawyer, is quoted as saying, "For now our intention is to get a copy of the screenplay to see what it really is about. My clients are truly concerned about the film and they don't understand why they can't have a copy of the screenplay if the filmmakers have nothing to hide." Lawyer Pierre Fournier, representing Cité Amérique, replied that it's a matter of principle, and is quoted, "If creators have to submit their work to someone before it's published - whether to a public or a private censor, as in this case - you can kiss freedom of expression goodbye. Once the film comes out they can say they don't like the third scene or whatever other scene. But right now they don't know what's in the film, so they don't know what to object to." He is reported to have said that if the lawsuit does go ahead and manages to censor the film, the biggest loser would be the Quebec public, and is further quoted: "If we don't allow contemporaries to write contemporary history, what will we leave to future generations?" Mr. Fournier also said that the sisters have read the book Souvenirs de Monica by Georges-Hébert Germain and upon which the screenplay is based, and have never complained about that. The film is scheduled to hit the cinemas in May 2004.

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

By the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Adopted by the Virginia Assembly on 16 Jan 1786, this statute is almost unknown to American citizens. Even though Religious Freedom Day is proclaimed each year by the president of the United States.

[Rather amusing in a bitterly ironic sort of way that a day dedicated to religious freedom will be proclaimed by an ideologue who is pitylessly consigning millions to a slow and tragic death for not worshipping according to the dictates of his conscience. --MN]
(see 1777)

By Arthur Dorros. The inclusion of this work on a list of school books labeled as suitable school textbooks is being challenged by Republican senator Martin Golden of Brooklyn, New York. The book apparently shows how people live in different countries. The book might be a work of propaganda, however, with an anti-U.S. slant. It reportedly shows Bolivians, where 70% of the population lives below the poverty line, living in stone cottages, and the mud-brick homes in Mali are also presented as a much-better alternative to living in the United States. The page dedicated to the U.S. shows a city with graffiti-covered and burned-out buildings and a family living in a car and the accompanying text: This is my hows.

[While the senator probably has a point to his complaints that: "Young children should not be led to believe that this [living in a car] is the norm," he failed to stop there. He is also quoted as commenting, "Urban stereotypes and illiteracy should not be tolerated in our schools." These are specious arguments and smack too much of the censormoron. The misspelling is almost certainly an appeal to the target audience; which itself is probably the preliterate child. I will allow that such deliberate misspellings don't belong in instructional texts, but seizing upon the same in an effort to keep a book out schools is misguided at best. Challenge the book for being inappropriate to the milieu because it is propaganda by all means, but do not do so as a knee jerk reaction. --MN]

By FAIR. This media accuracy advocacy group published an e-mail about another Republican double standard morality. This one about the RNP forbidding comparisons of George Bush with Adolf Hitler.

[See my first commentary about this kind of double standard morality, and my commentary on Bush/Hitler comparisons. --MN]

By Representative Wally Straughn, D-Phoenix, (Arizona), through bill HB2177. There are lawmakers who have been trying for three years to curtail the power of associations to foreclose on homes or to control the way residents decorate their houses, but association advocates have defeated those measures as unreasonable attacks on their ability to protect the property values and quality of life of their members. Reform advocates, learning from past legislative failures, now say their first aim is to open the records and meetings of homeowners associations to its own members. Bill (HB2177) that would require association boards to further open their meetings and financial records, such as budgets, to any association member, although the bill also allows association boards to maintain the privacy of some records if they follow certain guidelines. The boards would also be able to place "reasonable time restrictions" on people who want to speak at meetings under the proposal. Representative Straughn was reported as saying that he had been denied opportunities to speak at meetings of his association board. For more about some of the issues involved, see the source article at First Amendment Center.
(see 14 Jul 2003; 27 Nov 2003; 07 Feb 2006)

By Christine Curran. Ms. Curran, who is 15 years old as of this entry, is suing Broward County School Board in federal court. In 2003, she was stopped from handing out fliers at Driftwood Middle School in Hollywood, Florida. The fliers promoted a church youth group. School board policy states that a student must get permission from a school administrator to passing out materials, including petitions or surveys, as well as distributing religious, political or commercial material on school grounds. Her suit alleges the school board's policy is "hostile toward religion." Board member Darla Carter reportedly defended the policy, saying that a lack of restrictions could open the door to the distribution of pornography or other objectionable materials.

[That is a vague and ill-defined apprehension and a specious argument. Besides, I can object to having religious claptrap thrust upon me if I so choose. --MN]

My Mike Rowe. Seventeen years old, a high school senior, and a web designer. He lives in Victoria, British Columbia, Canada, and is under threat of a lawsuit by Microsoft Canada because he registered his internet domain as: www.MikeRoweSoft.com. MS Canada sent him a cease and desist order in Nov 2003, informing him he was committing copyright infringement, and he wrote back asking for compensation. This umpty-umph billion dollar juggernaut offered him ten (10) dollars for the domain name. He sent back a counter-proposal asking for 10,000 dollars. On 16 Jan 2004 Mike Rowe received a 25-page letter accusing him of trying to force Microsoft into giving him a large settlement.

Mr. Rowe is quoted, "I never even thought of getting anything out of them," and, added that he had only asked for the 10,000 dollars because he was, "sort of mad at them for only offering 10 bucks." Jim Desler, Microsoft company spokesman, commented on 18 Jan, "Microsoft has been in communication with Mr. Rowe in a good faith effort to reach a mutually agreeable resolution."

[Good faith?! You fucking sluts! How much would you ask to give up the rights to your very name, pal?! I hope Rowe forces the bastards into court and they lose big time. This is absolute bullshit. There is no way in Hell anyone can possible confuse MikeRoweSoft.com. with Microsoft.com unless they aren't paying attention at the moment. And it shouldn't take them long to notice the difference. --MN]

[Addendum (26 Jan 2004:) Crap. Rowe sold the domain name. He does seem to have driven a hard bargain, however. The settlement includes: Microsoft paying for a new site, expenses and a subscription to its developer forum, and an X-box console. Jim Desler, Microsoft spokesman, commented, "We believe he's a bright young man with great potential. Mike will soon decide on his new name and website and we have agreed to help redirect any traffic to his new website to ensure he does not lose any business." As a gesture of goodwill, Microsoft said it would also give the teenager training for certification on its products, and he and his parents were invited to the Microsoft's headquarters in Redmond, Washington. Rowe commented about on his web site about this incident, "All along I just wanted to prove a point that the small guy can win against the giant corporations." He was also busy with exams. Oh, well; just remember what I wrote on a previous page about picking your battles. --MN]

[Addendum (30 Jan 2004:) Damn, that boy is smarter than Microsoft and I gave him credit for. According to a report at CBC News Online he put the legal correspondence up for sale on eBay. As of 1300 hours, Friday, 30 Jan, the bidding was up to 33,000 dollars with six weeks to go in the bidding. The package consists of a twenty-five page letter and a copy of the one inch thick document to the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva in which Microsoft outlined its case. I wonder if MS will be bidding to get the package back so as to avoid embarrasment; although that's not likely to do any good. This package is one of two copies Rowe has. --MN]

[Addendum (14 Feb 2004:) Oops. I should have updated this some time ago. It apparently was not six weeks to go in the bidding; I guess it was more like six days. At any rate, Rowe only netted some seventeen to eighteen hundred dollars. It seems some of those bids, which went up to some 40,000, were bogus and disqualified by eBay. --MN]

By Kari Lydersen. In a column at AlterNet.org, Ms. Lydersen paints a gloomy forecast for the civil liberties movement for 2004. Her projection is based on events during the first two weeks of the year and covers eight areas.

By students in the Milwaukee, New Berlin school district. The ACLU of Wisconsin and eleven residents filed a lawsuit on this day in federal court challenging the districts policy barring candidate forums, speeches, and other political activities from the schools. This policy was put in place in Jun 2003. Board members who support the policy have said it was drawn up to prevent extremist groups from using school facilities and to prevent the schools from becoming entangled in what has called "nasty" local politics. The lawsuit alleges that the policy violates free-speech and equal-protection rights. School Board President Jennifer Eitel reportedly said on 20 Jan that she was not aware of the lawsuit. She also said that the board was scheduled to meet on 26 Jan to reconsider the policy in response to a citizen's complaint.

[Banning all political activity because there are some political viewpoints the simple-minded fools find objectionable. Oh, yeah, I can see this one going over big in court. And just what attitude is illustrated by this policy? "Don't you children worry your empty little heads over all this politics stuff. Us adult will take care of everything for you and you'll never need to think at all. --MN]

By Juliet O'Neill. This reporter with the daily newspaper Ottawa Citizen wrote an article about the Maher Arar case which was published on 08 Nov 2003. She had investigated the implication that both the RCMP and Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) were involved in his expulsion to Syria from the United States, despite the fact that he is a Canadian citizen. On this day, she was subjected to a drug raid style search and seizure at her home by a squad of ten RCMP officers, and her office was hit as well. Free press proponents were quick to shower dung and derision in all directions; the following being from reports on the incident datelined 22 Jan:

• The Writers' Union of Canada; Penney Kome, Chairperson: "This heavy-handed invasion of Ms. O'Neill's home and office not only affects this fine reporter, but also sends a chilling message to writers across Canada that criticizing Canada's anti-terror laws, or trying to dig out the truth about the Maher Arar case might invite an official visit.

  "It's all too reminiscent of the recent raid by the Ontario Provincial Police on the home of crime writer Stephen Williams and novelist Marsha Boulton. The message seems to be that anyone who criticizes authority, can expect to have their home raided by armed officers."

• Canadian Journalists for Free Expression:
  • Bob Carty, Board Member: "This extremely invasive action is an affront to every journa list's right to practice his or her profession. CJFE believes that journalists should not be faced with criminal prosecution for doing their jobs."
  • Frank Addario, Board Member and lawyer: "in recent decisions Canada's courts have indicated that the police should seek every reasonable alternative before invading a journalist's office or home and that search warrants against the media should be minimally invasive."
  • Paul Knox, Board Member: reportedly said that this is exactly what CJFE predicted in 2001 when it opposed the government's new Anti-Terrorism legislation, including the new Official Secrets/Security of Information Act, and a detailed analysis of the Act by CJFE is quoted: "that it could lead to the prosecution of a journalist or indeed any Canadian who receives and disseminates information whose publication is clearly in the public interest."

• Reporters Without Borders; secretary general Robert Ménard:
  • In a letter to police commissioner Juliano Zacardelli: "If Juliet O'Neill received leaks from members of the security services, it is they who should be the subject of investigation not her."
  • In an interview or statement: "This puts heavy pressure on journalists investigating the workings of national institutions, by which they are safeguarding democracy."
  • Quoting Article 8 of the declaration of principles of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights: "Every social communicator has the right to keep his/her source of information, notes, personal and professional archives confidential".

• Ottawa Citizen; Editor Scott Anderson:
  • [an] "outrageous violation of press freedom"
  • [the raids] "are a black, black day for freedom in this country. And I am absolutely outraged that we seem to be living in such a police state that journalists are targeted."
  • "And we are seeking answers and they are using intimidation techniques to try to keep a free press from answering questions."
  • "handcuffing a free press . . . This is a Star Chamber mentality that is creeping into our justice system."

• Carleton University; journalism school head Chris Dornan: "the implication of this would be an attempt to intimidate any journalist who might receive information from a government source. That would put an enormous chill on the ability of journalists to hold government accountable for their actions."

[And I'll add my own dung and derision. Whatever stupid pus-head came up with this plan of action should be fired on the spot and every officer who went along with it should be reprimanded in writing. O'Neill is facing a fourteen year prison sentence for daring to do what every citizen not only has the right and freedom to do, but the very duty to do as well: hold the government accountable. --MN]

By Nat Hentoff. Originally published in the Village Voice, 15 Jan 2004, it was reprinted at First Amendment Center.

[How this one passed constitutional muster before the Supreme Court of the U.S. I'll never know. Most Asinine Comment award on this one goes to: Seth Waxman; a former solicitor general who said during an interview on NPR, "What the Supreme Court said today resoundingly is Congress is not handcuffed by the First Amendment from doing what it takes to restore the confidence of citizens in the operation of the republic." People like myself have no faith in big government because we see it as being under the thumb of the big-money interests, which interests now have uncontested access to the U.S. airwaves while the dirt-grubbing poor and middle class are completely shut out of those airwaves, during that period when it counts the most. I'm willing to bet that this law will increase disaffection and lack of confidence among 95 percent of the U.S. citizenry. The 95 percent who can't afford to pay for their own advertisements. --MN]

[Addendum (28 Jan 2004:) On 28 Jan Mr. Hentoff had a second opinion/editorial published on this same subject. It deals with some of the profound questions raised and there are profound analyses of those questions. Not for the faint of brain. --MN]

By CBS. Timothy Karr, of MediaChannel.org, reported how CBS rejected a request from MoveOn.org to air a 30-second spot, citing its policy against accepting advocacy advertising. Yet, CBS has sold two spots to the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy. The ad submitted by MoveOn.org is called "Child's Pay", and was selected by popular vote in an online contest. A number of amateur produced spots were submit ted to the contest; all were critical of the Bush adminstration, in keeping with MoveOn.org's guidelines. The group is acting in opposition to a Bush reelection. CBS is not commenting on the content of the White House ads, but previous White House Super Bowl spots drew a controversial link between casual drug use and the financing of global terrorists. Writing about the previous ads, LA Weekly media critic Judith Miller reported that their message plays well into Bush's anti-terror campaign because it keeps ordinary citizens under siege and the war on terror central in their minds -- an objective which in 2004 serves the president's re-election strategy well. CBS, however, does not consider the White House ads to cross the line of advocacy. Martin Franks, executive vice president of CBS, commented to MediaChannel, "We are fallible human beings who do not have Solomon-like wisdom but try to make rational decisions based on the ads we receive. Taking into account the deep pockets in play in this election we don't want to appear to favor one side over the other."

[I'm not sure what to make of this one. It might be an honest call in as much there is a clear and present anti-Bush message in the MoveOn.org advertisements and they are meant to be political advocacy. Although I would certainly say that any advertisement by any government must, of necessity, be some kind of advocacy. In this case, anti-substance abuse advocacy, but advocacy nonetheless. There is also the question, perforce, of whether this is part of the fallout from the Republican National Guard's censorship against MoveOn.org. That party blasted MoveOn.org because of comparisons of Bush with Hitler in two of the 1,500 contest entries. Those submissions failed to make the cut, but MoveOn.org capitulated in the face of the Republican censorship and apologized for putting them online. The most significant note in Franks's comment is that CBS doesn't want to offend anyone with deep pockets. From this, one can conclude that advertizing spots are sold on the basis of content discrimination in that messages must not offend the rich who might want to buy advertizing of their own. The reprinted article at AlterNet.org has more about the various issues in this case. --MN]
(see 06 Mar 2004)

By Presidential candidates. Three times a week the Associated Press selects an issue and asks the presidential candidates a question about it. On this date AP asked about the anti-flag desecration constitutional amendment. The responses are as follows:

• Wesley Clark: "I support measures to protect the American flag. The flag is deeply personal to me. I have led men into battle and combat under that flag. I believe that a very narrow protection for the flag will not undermine anyone's ability to express the full range of their views about America."

• Howard Dean: "I oppose the proposal to amend the Constitution. In the 214-year history of the Bill of Rights we have never amended the First Amendment and we should not start now. I condemn flag-burning and any other displays of disrespect to our national symbols. But I stand with Colin Powell, John Glenn and other patriotic Americans who have said the way to pay tribute to the flag is to defend the freedoms for which it stands."

• Sen. John Edwards: "No. I believe flag-burning is a despicable act, but I do not support a constitutional amendment to prohibit flag-burning."

• Sen. John Kerry: "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. I would not be pleased to see someone burning the flag because I love the flag, but the Constitution that I fought for preserves the right of free expression."

• Rep. Dennis Kucinich: No response.

• Sen. Joe Lieberman: "I have consistently opposed a flag-burning amendment, and voted against its passage. Flag desecration is hateful and worthy of condemnation, and I would support any statutory means possible to curtail desecration of the flag. But I believe that the importance of the Bill of Rights -- our nation's founding document -- requires us to establish a very high threshold for agreeing to change it. Does the amendment address some extreme threat to our country, or redress some outrageous wrong? In this case, abhorrent though flag desecration may be, it simply does not meet that test."

• Al Sharpton: "No, I don't think so. I think it is wrong and distasteful, but I think people have a right to express themselves."

• The Bush-Cheney campaign says President Bush will begin participating in the weekly issues survey in February.

Be it noted, however, that in Jun 2003, after the House voted for the proposed flag amendment, the Bush administration did express support for the legislation. The Senate did not consider the measure.

[What is Bush trying to hide by not participating in the surveys right now?

Nothing, really, alas. It is just that as the incumbent, it is to his political advantage to avoid situations wherein he might embarrass himself. --MN]

By Indiana state. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago ruled against the law saying it interfered both with minors' First Amendments rights and with parents' rights to raise their children as they see fit. The ruling was made on 22 Jan, and is the second such ruling against Indiana curfew laws. The law remains unconstitutional even though legislators rewrote it to make it less restrictive after it was struck down by U.S. District Judge John Tinder in Jul 2000. The state had accorded to itself the parental perogative of establishing time limits for minors, legislating that they had to be off the streets by 11 P.M. on weekdays, and by 1 A.M. on weekends. The General Assembly then passed this new law in which minors could get out of a curfew violation if they were engaged in religious or free-speech or assembly activities with the permission of their parents. However, the Indiana Civil Liberties Union argued the revision was still too restrictive because it held protected activities to be a defense in court rather than a reason to prevent an arrest. Indianapolis police said they would immediately stop enforcing the law. The case is to be returned to the federal court in Indanapolis.

By Zvi Mazel, Israeli ambassador to Sweden, and the State of Israel. The ambassador took it upon himself to destroy an exposition entitled Snow White and the Madness of Truth at Stockholm's Museum of National Antiquities. This exhibit depicts a small boat carrying the picture of Palestinian female suicide bomber Hanadi Jaradat floating in a pool of red water representing blood. It was created by Israeli-born expatriate Dror Feiler. Mr. Mazel was videotaped tearing down a spotlight and throwing it at the display; which he claimed was "anti-Semitic". Even though created to call attention to how "weak, lonely people can be capable of horrible things." Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon gave Mr. Mazel full support and praise for his actions, from which a minor diplomatic rift developed. Israel threatened to boycott the upcoming Stockholm International Forum Preventing Genocide conference if the exhibit was not completely removed.

[What a pair of snivelling, politically correct twits. To find the absolute bitter irony in this case, read the source article at YellowTimes.org. Yitzhak Shamir, a former Israeli Prime Minister reportedly had a direct hand in the assassination of Swedish diplomat Count Folke Bernadotte, nephew of King Gustavus V of Sweden. Anyway, given the reported facts and the consistent pattern of behaviour being exhibited by Jewish institutions in general (too many of which are forbidding any criticisms of Israel), the claim of anti-Semitism is utter crap. --MN]

By state District Court Judge Stephen Pfeffer. Judge Pfeffer dismissed a suit against against the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and the Rev. Scott Mansfield. Ben Martinez's family took the priest to court for allegedly condemning Martinez to hell at his own funeral in Jun 2002. Martinez had not been to church in the last year of his life because he had been too ill from cancer to attend Mass. Mansfield acknowledged only that he used scriptural passages, including some from the Book of Revelation. The lawsuit alleged he had said God vomited people like Martinez into hell and that Martinez had been a Catholic in name only.

Ruth Pregenzer, Mansfield's attorney, said the First Amendment prevented the court from analyzing whether Mansfield's statements were secular or religiously based, and also kept it from delving into matters of religious doctrine and faith. She is quoted, "The court would have had to determine whether Ben Martinez was a sinner in order to decide the case." Judge Pfeffer said the case was a "classic example of the constitutional privilege of separation of church and state."

By Cuba. On 10 Jan a new law came into effect on limiting internet access to those with special telephone accounts payable in US dollars; typically, officially recognised businesses and government offices. This prevents ordinary Cuban people from accessing the Internet. Amnesty International commented on that day, "The new measures, which limit and impede unofficial internet use, constitute yet another attempt to cut off Cubans' access to alternative views and a space for discussing them. This step, coming on top of last year's prosecution of 75 activists for peacefully expressing their views, gives the authorities another mechanism for repressing dissent and punishing critics." The organization further said, "Amnesty International fears that the new measures are intended to prevent human rights monitoring by restricting the flow of information out of Cuba. The Cuban authorities must do away with illegitimate curbs on freedom of expression and information, and must bring their legislation into line with international human rights standards once and for all."

On this day the Cuban government responded angrily to worldwide protests of its tightened control. You can read more about Cuba's reaction in the article reprinted at Friends of Cuban Libraries. This new crackdown, which supplements a ban on the sale of high tech equipment from Jan 2002, is an effort to circumvent the sale of passwords on the black market.

[And, today's Most Asinine Comment award goes to! -- Ignacio Gonzalez Planas, who asserted in an 18 Jan Juventud Rebelde press interview that, "everywhere, every day, measures are taken [in other countries] to prevent disorder, which is essential if the Web is to function well. When we ourselves take certain basic measures to control illegality, criticism immediately flares up from people claiming to be worried about the 'freedom' of the Cubans, even though [the critics] could confirm for themselves, although it pains them to do so, that the Cuban people are the freest people on Earth." A very clear and present case of double think. --MN]

By Mary Kate Gach. Her daughter was raped and murdered by Jack Trawick in 1992 and he was subsequently sentenced to death. Now, the details about how he beat, strangled, and stabbed Stephanie Gach, and how he killed other women, are available online. They were posted by a former pen pal and admirer. It was reported that in the writings, Mr. Trawick even taunts Mary Kate Gach by name. Ms. Gach filed a $40 million lawsuit on 14 Jan, in Montgomery, Alabama, in which she alleges that from his death row cell, Trawick published on the Internet "graphic descriptions" of his crimes and gave advice on ways to commit rape and murder. She names as defendants:

• Jack Trawick,
• the Alabama Department of Corrections,
• Prison Commissioner Donal Campbell and
• New Jersey Web site designer Neil Arthur O'Connor.

George Jones III of Selma, Ms. Gach's attorney, claims that the speech is not protected because it teaches viewers how to commit such crimes. Commissioner Campbell attended a press conference by Ms. Gach and apparently told her afterwards that Trawick's incoming and outgoing mail was being screened, his phone calls were monitored, and Trawick had no access to a computer. "If I knew right now how that material is being sent out, it would not be sent out," Campbell said. Public information officer Brian Corbett said prison officials believe the material that was recently published might be old material that was sent out some time ago.

[Lots of issues involved in this one. See the source article at First Amendment Center for more background. Free speech advocates are saying that the material is protected speech. The questions, as I see them, are: 1) Can such material be deemed unprotected speech if it is posted by a third party and the criminal makes no profit from it? 2) Can such writings be forbidden as a violation of the victim's right to privacy? This second one is the kicker in this case, I think, because I believe that your victimhood does not automatically make you a newsworthy person. --MN]

By Ken Paulson. The First Amendment Center published a look at the FCC rationales for ruling in Bono's favour, in an incident where he used rude terminology during an awards show. Since then, FCC Chairman Michael Powell has been doing everything he can to exploit this scandal to promote censorship. His most recent effort was to suggest that indecency fines be increased ten fold. Mr. Paulson's op/ed looks at why rude language cannot be banned outright, including a nod to the effort of Representative Ose, as well as the reasonable time, place, or manner restrictions currently in place.
(see 16 Dec 2003; 28 Jan 2004)

The DVD Copy Control Association filed to drop its suit against Andrew Bunner. This move was not an admission of defeat, however, merely a falling back and regrouping. On 23 Jan, Robert Sugarman, an attorney for the Association, commented, "We are not backing off. We are exploring different routes." The association requested dismissal of the case before Santa Clara County Superior Court and the 6th District Court of Appeal one month after an appellate court in Norway upheld the acquittal on trade secret theft charges against Jon Johansen, the Norwegian teen who actually cracked the DVD encryption code. Mr. Sugarman said the Norwegian acquittal was not a factor in the decision, however.
(see 29 May 2003; 02 Mar 2004)

By students at the College of William & Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia. As a method of protest against affirmative action, white students held a bake sale in Nov 2003 where goods were priced according to race. Blacks payed the lowest prices, then Jews, with Whites paying high prices for the baked goods. The sale at the College of William & Mary was one of many nationwide protests that were ordered shut down during the Autumn. On this day, the student group the Sons of Liberty held another such protest without interference from Almight Authority, thanks to the intervention of Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.

[Greg Lukianoff, FIRE's director of legal and public advocacy, commented, "We are pleased that W&M has realized that under the First Amendment free speech belongs to all students on its campus. We are appalled, however, by W&M's continuing efforts to distort the truth about its actions and to evade responsibility for what it has done." For more on that score, read the source article linked to above. W&M President Timothy J. Sullivan seems to be living in a state of deep denial. --MN]

By Clear Channel. Federal regulators have proposed a record 755,000 dollar (US) fine against Clear Channel, the nation's largest radio chain, for airing a sexually explicit radio show. Various episodes of Bubba the Love Sponge were aired by four Florida stations on twenty-six separate occasions. The First Amendment Center published a report about this case along with a number of other indecency incidents, and looks at the censorship trend by the FCC and U.S. legislators.

[Amusing, n'est ce pas? That a butt-kissing, censorial appeaser should find its hand being bitten by the crocodile it earlier tried to feed? --MN]
(see 16 Dec 2003; 25 Jan 2004)

By Big Brother government. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

By Natalie Babbitt and Thomas Schouweiler, repspectively. The Devil's Storybook, was first published in 1974 and is a collection of humorous tales about the devil. The second book was published in 1992 and is part of the Opposing Viewpoints series. This series examines the arguments, both pro and con, being used in various societal issues. Their presence in the Chestnut Ridge Middle School library (Washington Township, New Jersey), is being blamed for a small group of adolescent children expressing their acculturation and adaptation to adulthood through self-mutilation and tattooing. In response to this, a group of twenty parents has formed National Concerned Citizens for Youth. The group intends to campaign nationwide to restrict the access of minors to "satanic" material in elementary and middle school libraries, and bookstores. This censorship movement stems from a very real fear that Tahir and Wanda Mella have for the welfare and well being of their 14 year old son. As usual, however, they are operating largely out of ignorance of the sociological forces involved and the group is going too far. The Courier-Post has an excellent article covering numerous aspects of this case.

[The article in the Courier-Post is the very highest quality journalism. For comparison, look at the more common reporting on this incident at NBC10.com. Comparing the two shows how much information and context is lost when editors cut down news reports for space and length. Problem is, the insipid reporting at NBC10 is the norm. For an indepth look at the sociological factors involved, check out:

Satanic Panic: The Creation of a Contemporary Legend
Jeffrey S. Victor
ISBN 0-8126-9191-1 (cloth)
Dewey #364.1 V643       --MN]
(see 17 Feb 2004)

By Science. Georgia Governor Sonny Perdue spoke out against biblical literalist obscurantism. State Superintendent of Schools Kathy Cox had submitted a proposal, in Jan 2004, to replace the word "evolution" with "biological changes over time." A phrase scientists say is meaningless. The proposal is for new middle and high school science standards. Governor Purdue commented, "If you're going to teach evolution, you ought to call it evolution. By that I mean, there ought to be a balance. Evolution, as I understand it, is an academic theory. I think it should be taught as academic theory"

[Which is a tad strange given that Purdue is one of those who misinterpret the word theory and thinks religion and science should have equal time in Biology class. Given that he is not an obscurantist, I guess I can write of his misunderstanding of the word theory as honest (as opposed to invincible) ignorance. --MN]

[Addendum (10 Feb 2004:) On 05 Feb Ms. Cox dropped her plans to invoke obscurantism. Ms. Cox said she originally wanted to replace "evolution" with the phrase "biological changes over time" to avoid controversy, but had to admit in a statement that, "Instead, a greater controversy ensued." Former President Carter was among those who had criticized her idea were, besides the Governor. President Carter is a former Georgia governor as well and now teaches Sunday school at a Baptist church He called Cox's proposal an embarrassment and said that teaching evolution does not conflict with religious faith. --MN]

By Judith Krug. See the Cuban Independent Librarians Affair.

By Justin Timberlake and Janet Jackson. Mr. Timberlake exposed one of Ms. Jackson's breasts during the SuperBowl XXXVIII half time show and every knee-jerk reactionary, pompous ass twit showered dung and derision quite disproportionately. See my commentary on this issue along with photographs of the offending mammary. This is one gohd-awful sorry mess of spinelessness and PC sniveling on the part of all parties concerned.
(see 21 May 2004; 26 May 2004; 22 Sep 2004)

By a drama troupe from Archbishop McCarthy High, Florida. In James Clavell 1963 play, a third-grade class cuts up the flag after the United States is defeated by a powerful enemy and the students' new teacher tells them that if the flag is so good, everyone should get a piece. Students performing the play -- which is about the dangers of mindless political indoctrination -- were disqualified after cutting up a U.S. flag at the Florida State Thespians District 13 one-act play competition. Bruce Rogow, a Nova Southeastern University law professor specializing in constitutional law and First Amendment rights, is quoted, "What's especially ironic is that this is a pro-democracy, anti-totalitarianism play, and yet they're punished for using the flag as an example of what shouldn't be done in a totalitarian society." Professor Rogow also said Florida's statute is invalidated by the 1989 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Texas v. Johnson. Erin Fragetta, 15, who worked on the production and who collects the scraps of flag for later ceremonial destruction, is likewise quoted, "The play is actually pro-American. It was intended to be an anti-communist message, and the judges just turned it around on us." And Ameli Fragetta, Erin's mother, commented, "These kids had absolutely no intention of desecrating the flag. They're just performing a very serious play where the flag is destroyed. This is ridiculous."

Melody Wicht, who teaches drama at Pembroke Pines Charter High, said many people complained about the action, though she based her decision on a Florida's flag desecration statute. She commented, "I tried to stay as objective as possible as they performed. My problem was that they took an American flag off the flagpole and cut it into pieces. They were disqualified based on Florida law." Another of the three judges at the Jan. 26-27 competition, Jim Usher, from American Heritage School in Plantation, gave the play the lowest rating possible. He said he was "grossly offended" by the flag cutting, but didn't base his assessment on that.

[I detect the ripe stench of hypocrisy. I don't believe for a femtosecond that either of those two were at all objective. --MN]

By Marple Public Library. The library board and the review committee comported themselves to the highest standards. Not because they sent the books back to the shelves, but because from a legalistic viewpoint they did not have to review the books at all. As reported previously, the complainant refused to make a complaint in writing. Despite that, the library treated the case as if he had. Board President Marcy Abrams commented, "We have never received a complaint and were not required to look at the books. We are a community library and want to provide what the community wants and needs." One opponent of the new purchases expected this decision. Kathy Coll had consulted with a representative of the American Family Association, and was advised of how difficul it was to remove books from a collection, once they have been placed on the shelves.

This incident is by no means over, however, as Mr. Whoriskey's complaint has now generated a censorship movement. Kathy Coll, founder and resident of a group called Pro-Life Coalition, seems to have agitated for an ad-hoc group at a meeting of more than 75 people who had gathered at St. Pius X Church to air their concerns regarding the collection. This group is now called Citizens for the Protection of Children at Libraries, and its mission is to:

• make residents aware of the Marple collection,
• insure Internet access on computers in all libraries is correctly filtered, and
• influence future Marple Public Library policies.

Ms. Coll is quoted, "We are not pointing to one book, or a series of books, but the system that let this happen."

[In other words: we want control over what the library buys and what its patrons are allowed to see. People have become aware of the collection in any event. At the time the source article was written one had been signed out and another was on a waiting list.

The American Family Association apparently advised Coll of the difficulty of removing: "even those [books] which the group considers to be anti-American or immoral, once they have been placed on the shelves." This statement, even standing alone, just totally smacks of arrogance. As if those pompous asses have any qualification to decide what is anti-American or immoral when what they really want banned is everything they don't like. --MN]
(see 13 Jan 2004)

By Christina Axson-Flynn. A three-judge panel of the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a federal court's dismissal of her lawsuit against University of Utah. Ms. Flynn may now go ahead with her suit. In the ruling the judges said:

• statements construed by Axson-Flynn as anti-Mormon raised questions about the faculty's motive: Was demanding that she say the lines fulfilling the curriculum or a pretext for religious discrimination;
• that Ms. Axson-Flynn successfully raised questions about whether the faculty had treated everyone equally and with consistent policies;
• the record showed some students were exempted from requirements, as when a Jewish student was allowed to miss class on a holiday;
• that Ms. Axson-Flynn said she sometimes got out of reciting lines she found offensive and other times didn't; and
• the university also failed to establish its right to qualified immunity.

[Addendum (19 Jul 2004:) On 14 Jul 2004, the University of Utah settled with Ms. Axson-Flynn. The settlement came a day before it was to go to trial. A lower court ruling which dismissed the case was reversed by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Feb 2004, and the case was remanded to trial. She will be reimbursed for $3,000 to $4,000 in tuition expenses and allowed to return to the school, although she said she would attend college elsewhere. Ms. Axson-Flynn also said she still wanted to pursue acting, and didn't think she would have trouble in the industry because of her beliefs. She is quoted, "I wouldn't have a hard time at all making a career in acting holding to morals, no matter what those morals were." --MN] (see 01 Mar 2002)

By Linda Jaivin. This book is being subjected to censorship by Library Director Julie Sieg; and a very clear and present case of censorship it is too.

This incident got its start on 05 Jul 2003 when a patron complained about the book. The subsequent review process took six weeks and committee recommended that the book be placed back on the shelves. Ms. Sieg unilaterally rejected the recommendation. On 02 Dec, the library board suggested by a 7-3 vote that Sieg reverse herself, and that kicked the issue back to her for final resolution. Since then, she has kept the book on her desk and securely under her control, and found one excuse or another to do nothing about resolving the incident. It is necessary for her to write a report on whether to retain or remove the book, citing as her excuse for not having already done so, "I'm just looking for a block of time to put fingers to the keyboard." She had reportedly hoped to issue her final ruling by 01 Jan, but now, believes it will be done by the 24 Feb meeting of the library board.

That gives her an additional seven weeks of withholding this piece of public property from the public which owns it. An important point in this case due to the following factors, as reported on the date for this entry in the Ocala Star Banner online:

• Challenged books normally remain available for borrowing during the review process, but that is not an option with Eat Me because the county owns only one copy.
• County records show the library acquired Eat Me in July 1997, and the book was checked out 11 times until mid-October 1997. Then it was borrowed and never returned.
• A second copy was obtained in April 1998, and documents show it was borrowed 24 times.
• On average, someone checked out Eat Me once every nine weeks.
• Since Sieg's decision became public, eight people have put their names on the waiting list for it; the earliest on 28 Aug 2003, the most recent on 24 Jan.
• If she follows the board's recommendation and the book becomes available by the end of the month, almost eight months will have elapsed since the issue first arose and six months since the first patron petitioned to borrow it.

[I'm betting she won't reverse herself; even if she does get around to writing her report at all. --MN]
(see 13 Oct 2003; 26 Feb 2004; 18 May 2004; 05 Jun 2004)

By Ken Paulson. This free speech activist had a column published at First Amendment Center, in which he did an analysis of the free speech vs: defamation issues in the Rosa Parks lawsuit against Outkast. And he hopes that Outkast will not settle in light of the U.S. Supreme Court's refusal to hear an appeal to strike down the suit. Mr. Paulson writes in part, "It's a fascinating case, pitting an icon of one generation against icons of a new generation and raising questions about just how much artistic expression the First Amendment affords."

[Addendum (18 Apr 2005:) On 14 Apr 2005, Rosa Parks and OutKast settled the lawsuit. The point over which Ms. Parks et al, seemed to have a bug in their britches is that the OutKast rap song which used her name and situation focused on the entertainment industry rather than on civil rights. If that is so, then I would certainly say that this is a frivolous and malicious law suit. I have difficulty squaring that with all the noise about how the settlement supports free speech. Aside from this, there is now some question as to whether Ms. Parks is currently mentally competent and even aware of the law suits due to her age. She is ninety-six as of this writing. See the source article for more background. --MN]

By Chris Kempling. A high school teacer in British Columbia, Canada, he is being persecuted for speaking out publicly, in his writings, against homosexuality. The British Columbia College of Teachers began to investigate Mr. Kempling when it received a about a series of letters to he wrote to a local newspaper between 1997 and 2000. In 2002, for one month on the grounds of "professional misconduct or conduct unbecoming a BCCT member."

The college said the letters were discriminatory and derogatory, and contrary to its commitment to provide a supportive learning environment for all students. Mr. Kempling wrote in part, in one letter, "I refuse to be a false teacher saying that promiscuity is acceptable, perversion is normal, and immorality is simply 'cultural diversity' of which we should be proud." Kempling and his supporters sued on the basis that free speech protected his right to express his Christian beliefs outside the classroom.

During this week, Justice Ronald Holmes of the British Columbia Supreme Court rejected that argument, and is quoted, "By publicly linking his private, discriminatory views of homosexuality with his status and professional judgment as a teacher and secondary school counsellor, the appellant called into question his own preparedness to be impartial in the fulfilment of his professional and legal obligations to all students, as well as the impartiality of the school system.

"That in itself is a harmful impact on the school system as a non-discriminatory entity."

[Justice Ronald Holmes is a damned fool and this is an ineffably stupid ruling. By this precedent, any credentialed person in any trade in British Columbia can be forbidden to speak out about any of his prejudicial personal beliefs. It is already a crime for rational, scientifically curious, private citizens to question the Holocaust in this country, and now you're also not allowed to say that you hate fags. Dreck! Talk about a slippery slope in action. And who's going to be next to enjoy discriminatory, politically correct protection, I wonder? --MN]
(see 06 Jan 2004)

By William Kotzwinkle, Glenn Murray, and Audrey Colman (Illustrator). This book is the story of a dog who is rescued from a pound by two children, but whose father almost returns him because of the dog's gastrointestinal problems. Walter is at risk until his flatulence saves the household from two burglars. Publisher Richard Grossinger, of North Atlantic Books/Frog Ltd., characterized the book as a fable that teaches that having an unattractive trait does not mean someone can't be successful or make a contribution to society.

On 13 Jan, Maynard Carlson, a former member of the West Salem School District, Wisconsin, board, complained to the school board that the words "fart" and "farting" occur in the text 24 times altogether. He seems to have gained the sympathy of board President Greg Bergh as that person agreed to schedule a special meeting on whether to circumvent the review process in place and to ban the book unilaterally. Mr. Bergh's rationales are that: Carlson was correct to bypass the district's reconsideration policy since the selection policy "did not work properly when the book was made a part of the elementary library." And that: the school district's mission to "help guide and nurture our youth into adulthood with some semblance of dignity and manners" is not served by "the graphical depiction of flatulence being blown into someone's face." Mr. Carlson's reason for circumventing due process, as reported in the 28 Jan West Salem Coulee News, is: "I'm not totally unfamiliar with their policy on objectionable materials. I just don't want my grandson to graduate from middle school before anything is done on this book."

[I would say that Carlson doesn't have a lot of faith in the review process if he thinks it'll take several years to get the book off the elementary school shelves, but what he really wants is to just have the book banned, and I have no doubt that he knows due process will just get in the way of that and the book will not otherwise be removed at all. --MN]

By Big Brother government. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

By the State of Florida. The Herald-Tribune and 29 other Florida newspapers published a report on this day with the results of their test of Florida's open government laws. They found that forty three percent of the agencies audited made unlawful demands or simply refused to turn over public records. State Attorney General Charlie Crist reportedly allowed that the results were disappointing for a state that prides itself on openness. The office of the governor was the only one of six state agencies that failed during the audit, to comply with the public-records law. The volunteer was told she would have to give her name and address and fill out or sign a written request form. A spokeswoman for Jeb Bush denied that the governor's office had violated the law and said the volunteer might have misunderstood what she was told. Bush said he would study the audit and is quoted, "If there are deficiencies in the system then we will look at it."

By the Bush administration. See this entry.

By National Coalition Against Censorship. Done by 116 Los Angeles-based artists of African, Chicano and Latino descent, and consisting of a series of tapestries, the exhibit was to be removed from the International Terminal at LAX, where it was scheduled to be displayed until 03 May 2004. "Eye-Speak" is part of an Art Exhibits Program administered and curated by the Los Angeles Department of Cultural Affairs (LACAD) and hosted by Los Angeles World Airports (LAWA), but, as with Men In Flight, it drew complaints from a few employees who were offended by some of the works. Los Angeles World Airports officials brought pressure to bear to have the exhibit removed and LACAD caved. On this day, NCAC send a letter protesting the decision. On 10 Feb, the decision to remove the exhibit was reversed and it was to remain in place for its alloted time.

By We the People. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

By Climax-Shelly students. The Town of Climax, Minnesota (pop 270) used this slogan for the town's centennial year in 1996, and it had been printed on tee shirts. School officials had ignored students wearing the shirts until a teacher wore one to school recently and a person complained. Shirley Moberg, superintendent of Climax-Shelly schools, unilaterally banned the tee shirts on the grounds that the slogan's sexual innuendo made it inappropriate for students to wear. About a dozen students wore the Climax tee shirts to school in protest on this day. Those students were told to go to the bathroom and turn their shirts inside out. Bethany Grove, an 18-year-old senior, took a stand and was suspended for the afternoon. Climax-Shelly junior Ali Tweten reportedly said the ban seemed to come out of nowhere, and is quoted, "When I wear my T-shirt, its a sign of pride for my town. I don't really wear it to be meant in that way (as a sexual innuendo)." Ms. Moberg said the school dress code prohibits clothing or jewelry with objectionable signs, words, objects, badges, symbols or pictures communicating a message that is racist or sexist.

By Martin Kilburn. He was an eighth-grader in Seattle, Washington, in 2001 when he jokingly said to a female friend, "I'm going to bring a gun to school tomorrow and shoot everyone and start with you." He then laughed and followed up with, "Maybe not you first." The girl told her mother about it and she called the police. Mr. Kilburn was subsequently convicted of felony harassment. On this day the Washington State Supreme Court struck down that conviction, ruling that it did not consitute a true threat and therefore was protected speech. This ruling hinges on the fact that Mr. Kilburn often engaged in persiflage with his classmates and that the incident constituted "welcome behaviour". King County Superior Court Judge Susan Agrid had rejected Kilburn's argument that the threat was a joke, even though she said in court: "There is no reason to believe that he in fact intended to bring a gun to school and shoot everybody." The only penalty Judge Agrid levied against Kilburn was a one hundred dollar victim assessment that is mandatory minimum for all convictions.

The 5-4 ruling found that there wasn't enough evidence to sustain the conviction, citing other testimony from the classmate identified only as K. J. Justice Barbara Madsen wrote for the majority, "She testified Kilburn always treated her nicely. She testified that Kilburn made jokes on occasion and the other students, including her, laughed at the jokes. These facts all suggest that a reasonable person in Kilborn's (sic) position would foresee that his comments would not be interpreted seriously." The four dissenting justices said the joke did amount to a true threat, with Justice Susan Owens wroting for the dissenters, "There was a school policy prohibiting such statements, which K. J. testified the kids knew about, and in light of the current atmosphere engendering fear around school shootings, a reasonable person in [Kilburn's] position would foresee that the communication would be interpreted by K. J. as a serious threat."

By Nat Hentoff. He had a commentary reprinted at First Amendment Center in which he states: There has been insufficient national media attention to an important bill to revise sections of the Patriot Act . . .

[This commentary is mostly just another look at the grevious flaws in the PATRIOT Act and the movements opposing it. If the corporate media are underreporting the story of the SAFE Act, however, they certainly need to get on the ball. --MN]

[Addendum (21 Feb 2004:) Another of his commentaries about the neccesity of rewriting the USA PATRIOT Act was reprinted on 19 Feb; focusing on Protecting the Rights of Individuals Act by Sen. Lisa Murkowski R-Alaska. --MN]

By Big Brother government. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

The ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom announced it had received a total of 458 challenges in 2003; where a challenge is defined as a formal, written complaint filed with a library or school requesting that materials be removed because of content or appropriateness. The majority of those challenges were reported by public libraries, schools, and school libraries. As usual, Ms. Judith Krug included the caveat that reported incidents are estimated to be only 20 to 25 percent of those that occur.

The books, in order of most frequently challenged are:

1. Alice series, for sexual content, using offensive language, and being unsuited to age group.
2. Harry Potter series, for its focus on wizardry and magic.
3. "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck, for using offensive language.
4. "Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture" by Michael A. Bellesiles, for inaccuracy.
5. "Fallen Angels" by Walter Dean Myers, for racism, sexual content, offensive language, drugs and violence.
6. "Go Ask Alice" by Anonymous, for drugs.
7. "It's Perfectly Normal" by Robie Harris, for homosexuality, nudity, sexual content and sex education.
8. "We All Fall Down" by Robert Cormier, for offensive language and sexual content.
9. "King and King" by Linda de Haan, for homosexuality.
10. "Bridge to Terabithia" by Katherine Paterson, for offensive language and occult/satanism.

Not on the top ten list this year, after a sojourn of several years, are:

• "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings" by Maya Angelou, for sexual content, racism, offensive language, violence and being unsuited to age group;
• "Captain Underpants" by Dav Pilkey, for insensitivity and being unsuited to age group;
• "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain, for racism, insensitivity and offensive language.

[Personally, I take exception to the ALA equating challenges to a series with challenges to a single book. I think it skews the data, but that's because I don't know what criteria they use. Do they count a challenge to a single book, as in HP& The Philosopher's Stone, as a challenge to the entire Harry Potter series as I surmise? Although I will grant that the trend over the last couple of years has been to challenge an entire series since all of the works in a given series will follow a common theme. However, I would say that a challenge to single volume is not the same as a challenge to the whole series. --MN]

By Arabians. Saudi religious authorities have warned the public against celebrating Valentine’s Day or selling gifts related to the feast. An the Fatwa Committee, which is headed by Grand Mufti Sheikh Abdul Aziz Al-Sheikh, issued an edict on 13 Feb that said, "It is a pagan Christian holiday and Muslims who believe in God and Judgment Day should not celebrate or acknowledge it or congratulate people on it. There are only two holidays in Islam - Eid Al-Fitr and Eid Al-Adha - and any other holidays, whether to celebrate an individual, group or event, are inventions which Muslims are banned from. Sheikh Ibrahim Al-Ghaith, president of the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, also issued a warning against celebrating Valentine's Day or the "feast of love", and instructed his officials throughout the Kingdom to keep a watch on shops selling roses and other gift items to celebrate the occasion.
(see 14 Feb 2002; 14 Feb 2003)

By Matt Howes, National Internet Organizer, ACLU. See the entry in Appendix G.

By Natalie Babbitt and Thomas Schouweiler, repspectively. It was reported that on 17 Feb Superintendent Thomas Flemming informed the Mellas in a letter, of the decision by the review committee (principal, librarian, teachers, and community members), to keep the books on the shelves. The Mellas didn't like that decision and vowed to take the case to court if they had to.

[Doing so would very definitely take the affair beyond parents-being-concerned-about-their-children and into the realm of censorship. It would also be a waste of time and resources as far as I'm concerned. I don't know if the Great Mysteries Opposing Viewpoints series is by the same people as the Opposing Viewpoints series with which I am familiar, but it's a safe bet the book is educational. Aside from this movement, the National Concerned Citizens for Youth, founded by the Mellas in January, also wants bookstores to stop selling occult material. The reader is invited to remember that Eve Merriam's Hallowe'en ABC alphabet primer has been challenged on the grounds that it is occult. For an idea of how far reaching such censorship would be, count each title on my list of banned or challenged books that has anything to do with sorcery or witches in any way, shape, or form. --MN]
(see 30 Jan 2004)

By American Civil Liberties Union, Change the Climate, the Drug Policy Alliance, and the Marijuana Policy Project, which three latter groups support the use of marijuana for medical purposes. These four groups had sponsored a series of advertisements critical of anti-marijuana laws, and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority had declined to run the ads at subway and bus stops the previous week. The lawsuit alleges that the Transit Authrority had acted unconstitutionally. Graham Boyd, director of the ACLU Drug Policy Litigation Project, commented, "The government does not want the public to know how badly our drug policy has failed, so it is trying to silence Americans who oppose the war on drugs. Fortunately, the First Amendment clearly prohibits this kind of blatant viewpoint-based censorship."

The suit is a challenge to a new law that cuts off federal funding, up to 3.1 billion dollars nationwide, to local transit authorities if they display ads promoting the legalization or medical use of marijuana or other drugs. Accepting the advertizing would have cost Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 85 million dollars in funding. Spokeswoman Lisa Farbstein is quoted, "Given our critical dependency on continued federal funding, we have no choice but to follow the law that Congress passed. To do otherwise would be a disservice to our customers and the region's taxpayers." San Francisco and New York stand to lose at least $100 million and $75 million respectively should they accept such advertizing.

[Can you say "extortion"? I knew you could. This censorship comes to you courtesy of Reprentative Ernest Istook Jr., R-Okla., in response to ads his staff saw on Metro. He wrote Jim Graham, the Metro Board Chairman at the time, in Nov 2003, expressing displeasure at public service messages urging the legalization of marijuana under the headlines "Enjoy Better Sex!" and "Save our Taxes!" Istook threatened to review Metro's current federal funding and to seek to recover past funding. I wonder if he is showering shit and derision because people might end up having better sex or because legalizing marijuana would erode his power over how public monies are spent. --MN]

By David Corn. See the entry in Appendix G.
(see 22 Jun 2004)

By the Project on Defense Alternatives. See the entry in Appendix G.

By Gerald Henning, age 82 and a cantakerous old goat with a valid beef. He had called the Michigan Department of Agriculture hot line dozens of times since 2001 to complain about a manure stench from a nearby dairy farm in Hudson Township, 25 miles south of Jackson, Michigan. In Jun 2003, he pleaded no contest to breaking a state law that prohibits using "vulgar, indecent, obscene or offensive language," in a charge of making obscene calls. Nolo Contendere (No Contest), is not a guilty plea, but is treated as one for sentencing. Henning was fined $250, and could have received up to 30 days in jail, but as part of his plea agreement with Ingham County he retained the right to fight the charges on the grounds they constitute a free speech violation. Ingham County Circuit Judge Paula Manderfield agreed with Henning's stance on this day and dismissed the charges. Henning commented, "The only reason I ever called there and left those messages is that I wanted some enforcement, and they were doing absolutely nothing. You get angry when you live next to something that smells that bad." State officials eventually visited the farm and eventually placed it under monitoring by the Department of Environmental Quality.

By Falun Gong. Five Falun Gong members appeared before Court No. 1 in western Chongqing to face charges of helping to post news on an web site about the ill-treatment in prison, of a student member of the religious movement. The were subsequently sentenced to terms ranging from five to 13 years (inclusive) in prison. According to Reporters Without Borders, this brings the total number of Falun Gong members imprisoned for posting news to the internet to twenty-two. In its verdict, the court said that the report published online "tarnished the image of the government by broadcasting fabricated stories of persecution suffered by cult members." Reporters Without Borders commented in a statement about the sentencing, "The crackdown on members of this spiritual movement is completely unjustified. The five Internet-users were convicted for posting online what is already very well known to human rights organisations, that members of Falun Gong are systematically tortured in prison."

The organization reports a breakdown of the imprisoned cyberdissidents thusly:

• from this particular case:
  • Lu Zengqi, accused of writing the incriminating document;
  • Yan Qiuyan, who was said to have helped him published the article, were both sentenced to 10 years in jail;
  • Li Jian, who reportedly posted the article on a site run by the movement, was sentenced to 13 years in prison;
  • Chen Shumin, head of the company where Lu Zengqi worked was jailed for 12 years;
  • Yin Yan was sentenced to five years but without any evidence being given of the part he played.
• Seven cyberdissidents were arrested for posting news on the Net;
• Nine Internet-users were simply charged with downloading and spreading news about the movement and repression of its members;
• One cyberdissident is in jail for creating an Internet site about Falun Gong.

Reporters Without Borders has already drawn attention to the repression of the Falun Gong in its report: The Internet under Surveillance. That report also explains that China blocks access to all sites that refer to the movement, and bans discussion of the subject in online forums.

By the Democratic National Convention. Organizers are attempting to restrict protesters to a small plot of land suitable to accomadate some four hundred people. The issues around which this action centers are:

• The area is bounded by North Washington Street, train tracks, and a parking lot, and is too far away and too small. The area can hold about 400 protesters, but thousands are expected for the July convention.

• The triangle-shaped site could be obscured from view by buses and television satellite trucks, making demonstrations useless.

• Urszula Masny-Latos, executive director of the Massachusetts chapter of the National Lawyers Guild, told The Boston Globe, "The area looks a little silly to be honest with you. People will not be able to express their concerns with whatever will be happening, because no one will have access to delegates. No one will be heard, and the area is just too small."

• Mariellen Burns, spokeswoman for Boston police, said because of the urban setting, there are few open areas near the arena suitable for demonstrations, and is quoted, "Our first priority is public safety, but people have a right to come and be heard, and we totally understand that, and we're supportive of that."

• The ACLU joined the National Lawyers Guild in asking the police to change the plan so delegates would have to walk past protesters.

Officials from the National Lawyers Guild and the American Civil Liberties Union are to meet with Boston police in the coming weeks to ask that the preliminary plan proposed by convention organizers be changed. A similar situation arose during the 2000 Democratic National Convention in Los Angeles where protesters were at first limited to an area blocks from the convention site. Protesters went to court and a federal judge ruled that the designated protest area was unconstitutional.

By Gov. Don Carcieri. This bill, under the rubric of anti-terrorism, would have:

• resurrected World War I-era laws that made it illegal to:
  • "speak, utter, or print" statements in support of anarchy;
  • speak in favor of overthrowing the government;
  • to display "any flag or emblem other than the flag of the United States" as symbolic of the U.S. government.
• create new felony charges;
• require annual safety audits of every public school; and
• close some public records, including those that show whether businesses comply with state Fire Safety Code requirements.

The ACLU released a critique of Carcieri's proposal on 17 Feb, and Steven Brown, the director of the Rhode Island chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, called the proposal "extraordinarily dangerous" and "a return to McCarthyism, when people had to be careful what they said or what organization they belonged to." Paul McMasters, a nationally recognized expert at the First Amendment Center in Arlington, Va., was quoted by The Providence Journal as saying, "What Governor Carcieri proposes is to take the state of Rhode Island back 200 years."

Governor Carcieri said the negative reaction was overblown, commenting, "State government has a responsibility to ensure the public' safety by assessing and responding to new and evolving threats," but he withdrew the bill on this day. Governor Carcieri admitted he had not read the entire bill before it was introduced and said that he will seek input from civil liberties groups and others before introducing a new version.

By T. Trent Gegax, Newsweek. In an article that was reprinted at Truthout.org, Mr. Gegax asks some hard questions about the a report produced by the 12-member Mental Health Advisory Team, and which was commissioned by the top generals in charge of the Iraq war as the result of a string of battlefield suicides. The report was initially due out for Thanksgiving, 2003, then it was supposed to be released in early February. Mr Gegax reports that talk now is that the report has been shelved indefinitely.

See this web site about celebrating and promoting the right to read in Canada. This year's celebration, 22 - 28 Feb, marks the twentieth anniversary of this event.

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

On 20 Feb, at Friday prayers, several imams called for a boycott of newspapers. These priests accused the papers of sowing discord (fitna) within the community of believers. Algerian television and radio broadcast the sermons, the theme of which is set by the religious affairs ministry. RSF commented in a statement:

"The extreme virulence of these attacks, made in the mosques and relayed by the public media is unacceptable.

"We strongly condemn this use of places of prayer to launch an attack against the press. This return in force of politics in the mosques and this use of Islam, is a disturbing reminder of the dark and violent period, including for journalists, in the mid-1990s.

"We call on the religious affairs ministry, which decides the line at Friday prayers to explain itself and to ensure that it puts an end to this language of hatred."

Bouabdellah Ghlamallah, the religious affairs minister, confirmed to Reuters news agency that the government had instructed the imams about the content of their sermons, but he said these instructions had only concerned the daily Liberté, which had "insulted Islamic values".

[Which means the paper had insulted Ghlamallah's hypersensitivities. --MN]

Iranian authorities followed up official harassment of pro-reformist newspapers with an attack against online news publications. Judge Said Mortazavi announced on 23 Feb that he would shortly shut down the pro-reformist web site www.emrooz.ws, on the grounds the site is "damaging to the security" of Iran. Emrooz has been blocked in Iran since the start of the year, but remained accessible from abroad. This decision means a complete shutdown of the news site. RSF commented in its protest, and reported in the article:

"The Internet is now regularly used by Iranians to access independent news, despite controls put in place by the authorities.

"We call on conservative judges to halt their ideological censorship of the net, which has clearly intensified during this electoral period."

[...]

Iran is very repressive towards the Internet and managers of online publications. Censorship, which is officially said to protect people against immoral content, quickly extended to political news. It is moreover now easier to access pornographic sites on the Internet in Iran than those of censored pro-reformist publications.

By the U.S. Supreme Court. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on this day that the states can exclude students who are studying for careers in divinity and theology, from receiving public college tuition scholarships. The firm [and suprising, to this editor] 7-2 decision in the LOCKE v. DAVEY case upheld a Washington State statute forbidding such a use. Informally known as "Blaine Amendments," similar provisions are found in the constitutions of nearly three-dozen states. The court noted that the guarantee of free exercise of religion does not mean taxpayers have to subsidize training for religious professionals, even if money is available for those seeking degrees in other areas.

Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, writing for the majority, wrote in part, "Training someone to lead a congregation is an essentially religious endeavor. That a state would deal differently with religious education for the ministry than with education for other callings" is not evidence of "hostility toward religion." [...] [The program] "imposes neither criminal nor civil sanctions on any type of religious service or rite ... It does not deny to ministers the right to participate in the political affairs of the community. And it does not require students to choose between their religious beliefs and receiving a government benefit." [Rather,] "the state has merely chosen not to fund a distinct category of instruction."

[Well, I don't agree with this one at all. Scholarship applicants have to go through a selection process, and while there is the potential for decisions to be made with a religious bias by some members of a selection committee, that is equally true for every other field of study. There is simply no way ensure that every application will be considered solely on its merits.

However, there is more to this than meets the eye, of course. AMERICAN ATHEISTS AANEWS newsletter for 25 Feb 2004 includes the commentary:

How far the precedent in LOCKE v. DAVEY can be used in stopping the federal faith-based initiative remains to be seen. Federal and even state courts often give wide latitude to programs that might benefit religion (sic) institutions if the money is spent for "secular" activities (such as purchasing non-religious textbooks, equipment and other items) or "laundered" through state and private agencies.

"We think today's ruling draws the line at the most egregious attempts to use public money to benefit religious groups and practices," said Ellen Johnson, president of American Atheists.

"It also provides those of us who support the 'Blaine Amendments' and similar statutes more legal precedents to keep these important restrictions in place, and make sure that Americans are never subject to the imposition of a 'Religion Tax.'"

It'll be interesting to see if this ruling can be used to stem the tide of the Bush administration's religious state movement. --MN]
(see 03 Feb 2003)

By Linda Jaivin. The Marion County censorship issue was resolved on this day when Judith Sieg returned the book to the shelves. Ms. Sieg still finds the book repulsive, but acknowledged in a statement that her original determination was based primarily on her personal loathing of the work. She is quoted, "Unfortunately, at the time, I allowed my personal dislike for Eat Me to overshadow my objectivity and adherence to the [selection] policy." Ms. Sieg also quoted a letter by Ms. Jaivin: "I don't think Eat Me is for everyone -- but what book is?"

[Well! -- I'll be damned! Good on her. --MN]
(see 13 Oct 2003; 03 Feb 2004; 18 May 2004; 05 Jun 2004)

By Law Enforcement, on behalf of the Bush administration. Wearing a political button, one expressing dissent, could be a violation of Crawford County's protest ordinance requiring a $25 permit and prior approval by police. Five peace activists who were stopped at a roadblock en route to protests near the president's ranch in May 2003 were convicted on 16 Feb of violating the city's parade and procession law, by a six-person jury meeting in a rented recreation center room. They were fined $200 to $500. They plan to appeal the conviction.

[See the source article for more background on numerous small violations. --MN]

By Jerry Boyle. This unflattering bust of a Roman Catholic bishop will be on exhibit until July, at least, at Washburn University, Wichita, Kansas. Not only is the bishop presented with an ugly scowl on his face, but his miter, the ceremonial hat, is shaped to resemble a penis, and there is an inscription that reads: "I remember being 7 and going into the dark confessional booth for the first time. I knelt down, and my face was only inches from the thin screen that separated me and the one who had the power to condemn me for my evil ways. I was scared to death, for on the other side of that screen was the persona you see before you."

As a result, various local school officials condemned the work as antiCatholic and banned Washburn University recruiters from their various schools until the statue is removed. The ban against Washburn recruiters was initiated by Catholic schools in several cities, but had spread to public schools as of 25 Feb. The issue was facing a resolution sooner than July, however, as a Catholic professor and student sued Washburn in federal court to have the work removed. On this day, in a 22-page ruling, Senior U .S. District Judge G. Thomas Van Bebber found that the municipal university had not violated the establishment clause. He wrote in part, "In an environment of higher learning on a college campus, the court cannot conclude that a reasonable observer would perceive the university's display of 'Holier Than Thou' as an attack on Catholics. The fact that 'Holier Than Thou' is a work of art, subject to myriad interpretations, further dilutes any religious meaning the sculpture may convey." He further wrote that the plaintiffs had failed, "to demonstrate that defendants' primary purpose in placing 'Holier Than Thou' on Washburn's campus was religious. There is more background information in the source article on the ruling. Thomas O'Connor, one of the plaintiffs, commented. "I disagree with the Washburn administration when it insists that this anti-Catholic statue should remain on campus. It is not over. We lost the first round, but we will appeal this to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver to see if we get a different ruling there than we got in Kansas City."

Boyle, who is Catholic and currently living in Colorado, created the sculpture in 1990, although it didn't draw much controversy until now. He said he's glad people are talking about it, and is quoted, "It was a child's interpretation of what he was feeling when he was in a situation where he wasn't sure what was going on." Lawyers for the Kansas Department of Education said the public school district does has the power to ban Washburn's recruiters so long as it bans recruiters from all universities with offensive statues. Washburn University has a taken a stand on freedom of expression and is refusing to remove it. Archbishop James P. Keleher called the statue "very offensive" and said it made, "a mockery of the teaching of our faith and of the authority of our church." When asked if some Catholics might have a different view of the sculpture, the archbishop responded, "If you are an informed, practicing Catholic, you will be offended by this."

[That statue is neither offensive nor anti-Catholic. It is an accurate representation of what Catholic church officials traditionally look like, albeit perhaps slightly exaggerated, and except for the miter (which is not necessarily sexual; this is imagery, after all). The ugliness of Catholic clergy I know from experience. Here in Québec City there are a number of religious and public institutions founded by clergymen and women from the 17th through 19th centuries. Many of them have portraits of the founders; some of which are life sized or larger. I have yet to see a single such portrait that shows a religionist who is relaxed and smiling, and Keleher seems to be very much that sort of sour religionist. The ugliest face of a clergyman I have ever seen was in the portrait of Monsignor Laval, who founded Laval University in the heart of Québec City. I looked at his portrait one time with an artistic eye and I thought to myself, "Eugh! What an ugly bastard. Boy, I'm glad he's dead." He looks as if he can smell the taint of your sins no matter how holy you are. The photograph of Holier Than Thou I have here is from The Wichita Eagle for 25 Feb 2004, and is mirrored here without permission. --MN]
(see )

By Juliet Clutton-Brock and part of the Eyewitness Books series. It has been challenged by Roxanne Cleasby, parent to an 8-year-old student attending Smith Elementary School, Helena, Montana, because the book speaks of evolution but does not admit of creationism. Ms. Cleasby is calling for the book to be removed from the school's library, or for the removal of the two pages - eight and nine - that describe the evolutionary process. This challenge is being raised under the now usual misapprehension that evolution is only a hypothesis or proposed idea, and Ms. Cleasby has said she wants her daughter exposed to other hypotheses.

On this day, during the evening, there was a public hearing as part of the review process. Ms. Cleasby had one supporter who also called evolution a hypothesis, and after he was heard from the committee turned the floor over to supporters of the book. It was reported that the line up soon stretched to the back of the room. The committee has thirty days to return its recommendation to the superintendent of public schools.

[Why she can't do that at home on her time is beyond me. By attempting to force her religious convictions on the rest of the students at school, she is, of course, usurping the parental perogatives of the other parents to decide what their children will be taught; not to mention violating the separation of church and state. Science is secular, dogma is religious. It's that simple. --MN]

By the United States of America. The U.S. federal government, by way of the Treasury Department, has warned publishers that they can face serious legal consequences for editing manuscripts from Iran and other disfavored nations. The warnings were based on the grounds that such tinkering amounts to trading with the enemy. Advisory letters from the Treasury Department in recent months asserted that it is forbidden for anyone who publishes material from a country under a trade embargo, to reorder paragraphs or sentences, correct syntax or grammar, or replace "inappropriate words". Adding illustrations is also prohibited. Some comments about the situation by various people are:

• Eric A. Swanson, a senior vice president at John Wiley & Sons, which publishes scientific, technical and medical books and journals: "It is against the principles of scholarship and freedom of expression, as well as the interests of science, to require publishers to get U.S. government permission to publish the works of scholars and researchers who happen to live in countries with oppressive regimes."

• Nahid Mozaffari, a scholar and editor specializing in literature from Iran: "A story, a poem, an article on history, archaeology, linguistics, engineering, physics, mathematics, or any other area of knowledge cannot be translated, and even if submitted in English, cannot be edited in the U.S.

  "This means that the publication of the PEN Anthology of Contemporary Persian Literature that I have been editing for the last three years would constitute aiding and abetting the enemy."

• Lee Tien, a lawyer with the Electronic Frontier Foundation: "There is no obvious reason why a license is required to edit where no license is required to publish. They can print anything as is. But they can't correct typos?"

• Representative Howard L. Berman, California Democrat: " ... a very bizarre interpretation."

  "It is directly contrary to the [Berman] amendment and to the intent of the amendment. I also don't understand why it's not in our interest to get information into Iran."

• Kenneth R. Foster, a professor of bioengineering at the University of Pennsylvania: "Since 9/11 and since the Bush administration took office the Treasury Department has been ramping up enforcement."

• Leon Friedman, a Hofstra law professor who sometimes represents PEN, on the idea that publishers may still seek licenses from the government that would allow editing: "That's censorship. That's a prior restraint."

• Esther Allen, chairwoman of the PEN American Center's translation committee (who reportedly commented that rules also seem to ban translations): "During the cold war, the idea was to let voices from behind the Iron Curtain be heard. Now that's called trading with the enemy?"

It was reported that Allan Adler, a lawyer with the Association of American Publishers, had said the trade group was unaware of any prosecutions for criminal editing, but he did said that the mere fact of the rules had scared some publishers into rejecting works from Iran. The publishers' association found In an internal legal analysis in Feb, that the regulations "constitute a serious threat to the U.S. publishing community in general and to scholarly and scientific publishers in particular." The Treasury letters were reported to concern Iran, but legal experts said the logic would seem to extend to Cuba, Libya, North Korea and other nations with which most trade is banned without a government license.

[You do want to get information into Iran, but this is about getting information out of Iran. I chalk Rep. Berman's statement up to a slip of the tongue. I chalk up this censorship by the neo-fascist Bush administration to the same kind of knee-jerk reactionism for which Jesse Helms was famous for in the question of Cuba and of allowing hemp as a cash crop. --MN]
(see 04 Apr 2004)

President Saparmurat Niyazov announced that long hair, beards, and moustaches would no longer be permitted. Apparently a law was recently passed on the grounds that unkempt hair gives outsiders a "wrong impression" of the Turkmenistan and is also "unhygienic". The law also applies to foreigners, and it was reported that barbers are being set up at airports and border crossings. This is the latest in a list of strange regulations passed by the Turkmenistan parliarment under pressure from their president. He has been in power since 1985. Other laws include a ban on ballet and a tax on foreigners wanting to marry women from Turkmenistan -- which also includes a honeymoon bed sheets tax -- and which is an attempt to clamp down on brides using online dating agencies to get out of the country. Prospective overseas suitors have to pony up more than 25,000 Pounds sterling and give ten, solid gold rings to the bride's family before they can marry a Turkmenistan woman.

[You might be laughing, and I wouldn't blame you, but the Taliban regulated hair length as well. This does not bode well for Turkmenistan. And, of course, the arguments used are rather specious. For the "unhygenic" argument to have any force, it would also be necessary to crop women's hair. Turkmenistan is 89% muslim according to the CIA World Factbook, as of 18 Dec 2003 (date of last update to the pertinent page, previous to this entry). The country lies north of Iran and Afghanistan, and east of the Caspian Sea. --MN]
(see 14 Sep 2006)

This day marks the 100th birthday of the man I hail as the greatest literary genius of modern society. What this man did to elevate him to that stature was to make reading a fun-filled and joyous activity. All too frequently, pompous ass "educators" and "social scientists" made reading a dull punishment. Dick and Jane was the most boring shit anyone could ever come across. Dr. Seuss opened up the literary world in a way that encouraged people to read, and to thereby learn for themselves, and to thereby think for themselves.

By San Francisco. Slated for the ballot for this day, this proposition would require that any request for any records under the USA PATRIOT Act would have to be made through the Board of Supervisors, instead of individual city workers, such as librarians. While this editor doubts seriously that such a municipal ordinance would surive a challenge at even the state level, it is a very clear indication with the level of discontent with USAPA. It was reported that as of this day, three states and 256 counties and municipalities (including San Franscisco) had already passed resolutions condemning the Patriot Act. The law is also regarded askance by some Republicans, and is facing at least two bills in Congress which would amendment its language and soften its anti-liberties threat. Supervisor Jake McGoldrick commented about the measure, "This will protect people's privacy in a direct way," said McGoldrick. "If we get orders from the Bush-Cheney-Ashcroft regime we'll be able to see if any kind of profiling or abuse is being committed." Dorothy M. Ehrlich, executive director of the ACLU of Northern California, said, "San Francisco has a long and honorable history of being in the vanguard of efforts to protect civil liberties and I think this is part of that long and honorable history." Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo dismissed San Francisco's Proposition E as political grandstanding, and is quoted, "Federal law trumps local laws when it comes to federal issues. There's nothing in the Patriot Act that allows racial profiling and nothing in federal law that allows racial profiling. But why should the Board let the facts get in the way of a good piece of rhetoric?"

[No, I'm sure there's nothing in the law that allows racial profiling, but I'm equally sure that there are law enforcement agents who will use it as an excuse for racial profiling anyway. --MN]

DeCSS allows users to circumvent CSS encryption technology so they can access movies on DVDs that are otherwised locked up. The code was first published by a Norwegian teenager, Jon Lech Johansen, AKA: DVD Jon. He was acquitted of all charges in a Norwegian court last year and that ruling was then upheld by the Oslo Court of Appeals in December. That court found that Johansen had not used DeCSS to make pirate copies in violation of intellectual property regulations, and that he had no intention of pirating DVDs at all.

The California Supreme Court had originally granted an injunction against publishing DeCSS during the Bunner case, which was based on a decision that the software contains trade secrets found in the CSS technology; which secrets were deemed to be protected by law.

On this day, California's Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the 1999 injunction banning the publication of the computer code on the Internet. The three-judge panel ruled in part that, "the preliminary injunction... burdens more speech than necessary to protect DVD CCA's property interest and was an unlawful prior restraint upon Bunner's right to free speech." On 23 Jan, the DVD CCA, representing motion picture and consumer electronics companies, had asked the California Superior Court to dismiss its lawsuit. Bunner opposed the move, and the court denied the motion for dismissal as it felt that the appeal presented "important issues that could arise again and yet evade review." This ruling does not necessarily mean it will be legal to post DeCSS online in California in the future, though. The judges also wrote that their ruling is, "not a final adjudication on the merits. The ultimate determination of trade secret status and misappropriation would be subject to proof to be presented at trial." The ruling is a victory, however, for free speech advocates groups who have been the opposition in the aggressive campaign by Hollywood studios who use encryption to prevent DVD copying.
(see 29 May 2003; 26 Jan 2004)

By U.S. District Judge Donald L. Graham. On this day Judge Graham ruled that Miami is required to grant permits to any and all applications or justify their refusal to do so in court. Judge Graham had signaled his concern about Miami's protest laws in Feb 2004, when he agreed they seemed to carry "serious constitutional problems." The issue came up in a suit by Miami Activist Defense, the National Lawyers Guild and Southern Legal Counsel. The legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, Randall Marshall, commented, "It"s always a good day when the right of people to express themselves freely is upheld." Assistant City Attorney Warren Bittner disclosed in court papers that the city intends to repeal the "Parade and Assembly Ordinance", which was enacted as the city geared up for protests against the Free Trade Area of the Americas meetings in Nov 2003. The ruling is expected to have an impact on about 75 pending criminal cases resulting from the FTAA protests, defense lawyers to begin filing motions to dismiss the charges over the next 10 days. Robert W. Ross, a lawyer for Lake Worth for Global Justice, is quoted as saying, "It throws into question the factual predicate for every arrest, such as failure to disburse based on unlawful assembly language in the ordinances.
(see 13 Nov 2003)

By U.S. Congress. This law was back under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. When the high court first reviewed COPA last year, it sent the case back to the 3rd Circuit. During this go-around, the justices were much more savvy than they were last. The Philadelphia-based federal appeals court then struck down the law again, this time on much broader grounds. In its court filing, the ACLU argued that the law was unconstitutional censorship when it was passed and is both unconstitutional and unnecessary now, alleging that it ignores other, potentially effective tools to protect children, such as filtering software. ACLU lawyers argued: "COPA was passed in 1998, when the Internet was still relatively new and less understood. COPA's bludgeon suppresses an enormous amount of speech protected for adults and is unnecessary and ill-tailored to address the government's interest in protecting children from sexually explicit content."

[See the article announcing the hearing, an analysis by Tony Mauro, both at First Amendemnt Center, or my commentary on this issue --MN]

By the party faithful. Rebecca Porter had a dream envisioning herself letting Kerry know that she had had an abortion and that she now regretted that decision. She and a friend went to an event the Kerry campaign had scheduled in Tampa, Florida, and brought along a sign that simply read, "My abortion hurt me." She managed to position herself at the event where Kerry would see the sign, and he did. A few moments afterward, a staffer approached her, reportedly grabbed the sign and told her, "You can't have that sign here", and then tore it up, even refusing to let her have the pieces back. LifeNews.com spoke with a Kerry press assistant who declined to comment, and officials with the Florida Kerry campaign did not return a phone call.

By Joseph Truong, of the National Youth and Student Peace Coalition. Organized as a protest against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, demonstrations reportedly went well, and there was even some support from schools. Mr. Truong was reported as having said, however, that at least 300 students were suspended, 151 students arrested, and two schools were locked down. Mr. Truong's group moved forward with its planned protest despite that, and particularly in light of recent a COINTELPRO action against Drake University in Iowa, and a U.S. Army Intelligence Security Command investigation of a conference on women and Islamic law in Texas. Mr. Truong commented about those incidents: "When the government intimidates people expressing their opinions non-violently in Iowa, the civil rights of all Americans are questioned."

By Mayor Jane Campbell, Cleveland, Ohio. Television station WOIO had sued Mayor Campbell, claiming she violated the First Amendment by when she banned city employees from releasing information to the station's reporters. U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver ruled on this day that, "Government officials do have a First Amendment right not to speak with members of the media they deem particularly untrustworthy or irresponsible." He wrote this in his decision to not grant a temporary restraining order against the Mayor's ban. The station will go back to court on the issue and the station's attorney, Eric Hellerman, commented on the decision, "We believe WOIO will prevail in the end."

The banning and subsequent law suit came after the station aired a story about police officers who collected $84,000 in overtime while driving the mayor's children to shopping malls and escorting them on trips. Mayor Campbell stated that police security was needed because her family had received death threats.

Franklin County Common Pleas Judge David Cain dismissed a child pornography charge against Brian Dalton; who is believed to be the first person in the United States to be successfully prosecuted for child pornography that is composed of writings instead of images. The judge ruled that the charge did not meet the standard of the Ohio law that prosecutors used. The timeline of this case is as follows:

• Dalton pleaded guilty in July 2001 to pandering obscenity involving a minor, which falls under Ohio's pornography law.

• Dalton later asked to withdraw the plea so he could fight the constitutionality of the law.

• Franklin County Common Pleas Judge Nodine Miller refused.

• American Civil Liberties Union attorneys then appealed.

• The 10th Ohio District Court of Appeals dismissed Dalton's plea in July 2003, saying he had poor legal assistance initially.

• The Ohio Supreme Court refused to hear the case.

• The case was appealed to the federal court.

• Judge Cain ruled on 04 Mar that the law only covers acts involving actual children. Moreover, the stories were in a journal that was meant to be kept private. The prosecutors themselves said the stories were made-up and had never acted on. Judge Cain wrote in his ruling, "If the journal was ever taken out of the apartment, it was never off the defendant's person. No attempt was ever made to distribute, publish or share the journal with anyone."

Dalton had argued that his former trial lawyer had not inform him of the legal implications of a guilty plea, and that he had not ask for an immediate dismissal on First Amendment grounds either. he has been on house arrest at his parents' home in Lancaster, since September 2003, waiting for a new trial in Franklin County Common Pleas Court.

[See my commentary on this issue --MN]

By MoveOn.org. The United States Republican National Committee continued its censorship drive against this activism group by barefacedly accusing it of being in violation of federal campaign finance laws under "soft money" provisions. See the source article at Truthout.org.

[The factor that makes this a clear and present case of censorship, in this editor's not so humble opinion, is that the Republican National Guard did not contact MoveOn.org with their concerns, the Committee wrote directly to the television stations that were carrying the ads and basically threatened them. Politely and in legalistic terminology, but bullying stinks no matter how much you perfume it. One must ask, however, just how much of the moral high ground the Republican Nation Guard actually holds in light of a report of an investigation into John Ashcroft's campaign finances. --MN]
(see 22 Jan 2004)

By Ken Paulson. In a solid, and surprising, 7-2 majority the U.S. Supreme Court had upheld the constitutionality of Washington State withdrawing scholarship funding from those seeking careers in theology. Mr. Paulson had an interesting commentary on the interplay between the establishment and free exercises clauses of the First Amendment posted at First Amendment Center.

[I concur most heartily with his two closing paragraphs. Even if the anti-theology provision in the Washington constitution is legal, it stinks. Royally. For my money, no pun intended, rulings along these lines must come down in favour of the citizen. I firmly believe that constitutions and bills of rights are enacted to protect the citizenry first and the state second. --MN]

By Virginia state Supreme Court. In April 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of Virginia's 50-year-old cross-burning law. However, it remanded the narrower question on the "prima facie" intimidation provision for state review. on 05 Mar, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down the provision in the cross-burning ban that says the act alone proves an intent to intimidate. The court unanimously ruled that the clause is unconstitutionally overbroad, although the core provisions against cross-burning are unaffected by this ruling (Elliott v. Virginia and O'Mara v. Virginia). Justice Donald W. Lemons wrote in part, "The act of burning a cross may mean that a person is engaging in constitutionally proscribable intimidation. But that same act may mean only that the person is engaged in core political speech." He also wrote that the provision in question, "chills constitutionally protected political speech because of the possibility that a state will prosecute -- and potentially convict -- somebody engaging only in lawful political speech at the core of what the First Amendment is designed to protect." Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU in Virginia, commented on the case, "Our principle motivation in taking the cross-burning case to the Supreme Court was to get removed from the statute the assumption that all cross burning is done with intent to intimidate. This puts the cross-burning law where it should be -- that is, if someone is going to be prosecuted for cross burning there must be evidence there was intent to intimidate someone based on their race or religion."

[Ha! I told you so! --MN]
(see 02 Nov 2001; 28 May 2002; 11 Dec 2002; 08 Apr 2003)

By Indonesia and China respectively. Two brief articles posted to Ananova.com on this day reported the following:

A new anti-pornography bill before the parliament of Indonesia includes a ban of kissing on the mouth in public. Aisyah Hamid Baidlowi, head of a parliamentary committee drafting the bill, said, "I think there must be some restrictions on such acts because it is against our traditions of decency." Couples caught kissing passionately in public could be jailed for up to five years or fined 15,000 pounds sterling. This will be the same penalty for indecent exposure.

A Chinese woman is suing a chewing gum company over a TV ad. Zoe, from Guangzhou, launched the suit after her neighbours complained that her son had been kissing their daughter. Reports say she claims he only wanted to kiss the girl to mimic the plot of the ad. The Guagnzhou Yuexiu District People's Court has agreed to hear the case and will hold a public hearing.

[Of course the kid, not being a dummy, isn't going to say, "Well, geez, Mom! She makes me horny! And besides she's got these nice small breasts that are so soft and nice to fondle . . . " Mind you, the article didn't say how old the boy was. Maybe he was a seven year old acting out. Yep! Gotta watch out for sex among the seven year olds. --MN]

By Elizabeth Book. This forty-two year old, Ormond Beach, Florida, woman was the only one of about 20 people to expose herself at an anti-nudity protest. Ms. Ormond had organized the protest, but when she found out that the police were waiting to make arrests, she told the others to keep themselves covered. She then removed her top and was arrested. She was released after being briefly detained and being required to pay a fine of two hundred fifty-three dollars U.S. or appear in court.

The protest was held on the last day of Bike Week, an annual gathering of motorcycle aficionado, and featured several men who took off their shirts in support of the women. One group of protesters held signs that said, "Stop sexualizing my breasts." The nudity ordinance requires a "full and opaque covering" of the nipple and aureola of a woman's breast, in addition to half of the surface of the breast below the aureola. Ms. Book commented about the raison d'etre for their action: "The most beautiful thing in my life was breastfeeding my children and to filthy that and dirty that by calling it a sexual organ is appalling."

Ms. Book and Shirley Mason, her co-organizer, had launched a pre-emptive suit against the city of Daytona Beach on 05 Mar, alleging that the anti-nudity law is unfair in that only men are allowed to go topless in public places. Their lawsuit claims women should be allowed to protest topless under the free-speech, freedom-of-assembly, and equal-protection clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Ms. Book is also considering notifying the federal court in Orlando that police violated her First Amendment rights by preventing her from carrying out a "political demonstration"; which the nudity ordinance does not cover.

[See 22 Apr 2003, and my commentary on the Jackson/Timberlake Wardrobe Malfunction for more background on sexualizing breasts. --MN]

By The People's Republic of China. On this day, Reporters Without Borders published a report that China had blocked access to the The Wall Street Journal and Deutsche Welle web sites since 05 Mar, in conjunction with the opening of the annual People's National Congress. The same article also mentioned that a discussion forum on Inner Mongolia was arbitrarily closed down on 27 Feb. This forum, set up in 2002, mainly posted information about Mongolian culture and history. It did not deal with "sensitive" political and religious matters. It was shut down by the host on the demand of the public security ministry, which judged a message to have been "illegal". The site had become the most popular site about Inner Mongolia, which is in the same political situation as Tibet.

Reporters Without Borders commented about the blocking of the sites: "The Beijing authorities have reaffirmed a desire for liberalisation during the People's National Congress. Unfortunately this openness is confined to the economic field, because as far as free expression is concerned the government seems to be getting even tougher. We note that the Chinese leadership is tightening the screw on the Internet even further by attacking the major Western media." Access to those online publications has been blocked in the past, although only temporarily.

By Kansas state legislature. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Associated Press. There was an interesting and cogent analysis of the various stances by the major players in the Newdow Pledge Case posted at First Amendment Center. It is well worth the read and finely demonstrates the complexities deriving from the interplay of rights and freedoms between groups with varying viewpoints.

[For myself, I believe, at the moment, that acknowledgements to God are too firmly entrenched in U.S. federal and state metalaws and principles to order them removed. To alter the Pledge of Allegiance again would require another act of congress in any event, and I have no doubt that those elected parasites who have no understanding of personal liberty would only try to replace the current legislation with something convoluted, ponderous, ungainly, and tautological that they will pretend can survive a constitutional challenge. --MN]
(See 27 Jun 2002; 24 Mar 2004; 14 Jun 2004)

By Tariq A. Al-Maeena. Mr. Al-Maeena had a commentary posted at ArabNews.com in which he rails against the free press in general and MSNBC in particular for a headline misrepresenting followers of Islam. MSNBC apparently reported that the coordinated series of ten bombings in Madrid, Spain, during this week, was linked to muslims rather than to Al Qaeda terrorism. The primary thrust of his commentary was that this kind of reporting is essentially racist and that the Western media do not hesitate to present Islam and Muslims in a light they would never dare with Jews or blacks.

[While I do not agree with his calls for the Western press to be censored I certainly share his indignation. This is the kind of journalism every free thinker should be able to immediately identify as intrinsically fraudulent. (Whether it was fraudulent by design or accident is another issue entirely.) --MN]

By Robert Fisk. This journalist with the U.K. paper The Independent has consistently reported bluntly about the consequences of the American invasion of Iraq from inside the country, and has as equally been excoriated for doing so. On this day, another commentary of his was published, this one about living and dieing conditions during the invasion and aftermath, and the various ways the U.S. military has massaged the truth to cover up the deadly nature of service in Iraq.

[Not for the faint of stomach; some of it is pretty gruesome. --MN]

By human rights violators. Almost a full half (25 of 53 members) of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights have not even ratified all the conventions and agreements it is called on to enforce. The list of hold outs is: Bahrain, Bhutan, China, Congo, Cuba, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Guatemala, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sierra Leone, South Korea, Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, United States, Zimbabwe.

Reporters Without Borders has launched a media campaign to expose this situation, which it describes as a farce. The watchdog organization wrote in part:

Cuba and China are two biggest prisons in the world for journalists, Saudi Arabia is under severe censorship and the Zimbabwean government is doing all it can to stamp out the independent press. Yet all of them are members of the UN Human Rights Commission. They are the most striking examples of the absurd system where countries are both accusers and accused.

[Yeah, I tend to agree with that assessment. --MN]

By First Amendment Center. The Center held a conference on this day which pitted freedom of access proponents against government representatives. Taylor Holliday wrote an interesting analysis of the secrecy in government movement. Including looking at how the Critical Infrastructure Information Act of 2002, allows industries to withhold information, in the name of anti-terrorism, that could be used to sue it, as well as the creation of a whole new category of information called "sensitive but unclassified".

By the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. On this day the FCC overruled a decision by its staff and declared that an expletive uttered by U2 star Bono at the 2003 Golden Globe awards was both indecent and profane. The agency declared emphatically that virtually any use of fornicative descriptors [AKA "fornicgraphy"] was inappropriate for over-the-air radio and television. The agency said, "The "F-word" is one of the most vulgar, graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual activity in the English language. The fact that the use of this word may have been unintentional is irrelevant; it still has the same effect of exposing children to indecent language." By unilaterally expanding its powers to include language that is "profane", the FCC might be attempting to circumvent free speech protections by redefining language it cannot forbid under current First Amendment rulings such as the Safe Harbour provision.

[Indecent, yes; profane? -- not in the way the word is defined in my dictionary. Moreover, ruling this word is profane introduces the element of religion into the governance of the air waves, and the commission must be aware of that given that it had previously equated profanity with language challenging the divinity of God. See my commentary on this issue. --MN]

By the free marketplace of Mississippi. The state Supreme Court upheld a state law banning the sale of sex toys, and it also said the advertising of the sexual devices is not protected speech in that the advertisements promote an illegal transaction. Adam and Eve and ZJ Gifts LLC, the Memphis-based owner of Christal's chain of adult stores, sued the state of Mississippi in 2000. The company claimed the law barring the sale of certain adult devices was unconstitutional.

Hinds County Chancellor Bill Singletary ruled in 2003 that state law does not extend the right to privacy to the commercial sale of sexual devices on the grounds that the state government had an interest in "protecting public physical and mental health and supporting public morality." Justice Bill Waller Jr., writing for the court, apparently said that state law allows physicians and psychologists to prescribe sexual devices for their patients, and that the patients may buy them from the doctors, but that, "The novelty and gag gifts which the vendor plaintiffs sell have no medical purpose."

Justice Waller reportedly said that while a federal court had found a similar Alabama law was unconstitutional, other courts -- including courts in Georgia, Louisiana, and Texas -- had rejected expansion of the right to privacy to include the commercial sale of sex toys.

Justice Waller also said there is no fundamental right of access to buy sexual devices.

[Freedom of choice. And my morality is nobody's business but mine. As for Singeltary's position, I wonder if that is not rank hypocrisy. The stance of someone who advocates for state control of morality is almost certain to include the idea that condoms are sinful because they are used for birth control. Condoms are also used to control the spread of sexually transmitted diseases, however, and Singletary's contention that the state has a compelling interest in controlling your sexual life for your physical health strikes me as self-righteous posturing in that light. --MN]

By people on every continent. Voices which have gone unheeded since before the invasion of Iraq will once again be raised in protest, and once again on a global scale. A worldwide anti-war movement has been taking shape over the last thirteen months; since 15 Feb 2003, when an estimated 15 million protesters voiced opposition to the then looming invasion. The Global Day of Action has been endorsed by the Global Assembly of the Anti-War Movement, the World Social Forum, and the 3rd Hemispheric Forum Against the FTAA, and a vast and diverse array of organizations worldwide are working hard at mobilizing for it. A massive protest is expected in New York City, along with dozens of local and regional demonstrations across the country, including major protests in Fayetteville, NC, the home of Fort Bragg.

By Missouri. An Associated Press article was printed at First Amendment Center about the problem of pornographic advertising and how a few state governments are reacting to it.

[Badly, as usual. Billboard adverising is pretty much the physical world equivalent of e-mail spam for porn sites. Just not as explicit. The problem, of course, is to determine how it can be made appropriate to the milieu without crossing the line into censorship. An end which almost all legislators are distinctly unqualified to attain or unwilling to permit. --MN]

By Linda De Haan and Stern Nijland. published in March 2002 by Tricycle Press, the children's division of Ten Speed Press, this book is for six year olds and older. The problem is that it is the story of a young prince who spurns his princess suitors to select another prince as his partner, and whom he marries. Michael Hartsell and his wife Tonya, are holding the book hostage as part of their movement to have it removed from their child's elementary school. Barbara Hawley, librarian and media coordinator at Freeman Elementary School, has invited the Hartsells to file a request for a review committee, and while the Hartsells are planning to do so, they might also transfer their child to another school. Mr. Hartsell is quoted, "I was flabbergasted. My child is not old enough to understand something like that, especially when it is not in our beliefs."

Publisher Nicole Geiger commented on the book: "This book was reviewed by the most reputable children's book reviewers in the country. Not one of them said it was inappropriate for children or should not have been published. There are many kinds of families in this country, and the children in these families and their friends deserve to see their situations in a positive light." Elizabeth Miars, Freeman's principal, is quoted, "What might be inappropriate for one family, in another family is a totally acceptable thing."

Based on the Broadway musical about the writing of the Declaration of Independence, it has been banned from Fairfax County middle schools. The rationale for the banning is that the story contains a sexual innuendo in a conversation between John Adams and Thomas Jefferson. In the scene, Jefferson does not wish to stay in Philadelphia to write the declaration and protests to Adams: "I've not seen my wife in six months." Adams replies, "You write 10 times better than any man in Congress, including me. For a man of only 33 years, you possess a happy talent for composition and a remarkable felicity of expression. Now, will you be a patriot . . . or a lover?" Jefferson, answers back that he "burns" for his wife in Virginia. Apparently this was enough for the county's social studies coordinator, Sara Shoob, to ban the film. She is quoted, "I watched the video. There's some sexual innuendo and language, and when you're talking about the Declaration of Independence, that does not have to be part of your discussion."

Superintendent Daniel A. Domenech wrote a memo about the film just weeks before his departure which reads in part, "There are other sources that could be used much more effectively to help students understand the political and social issues facing the founding fathers."

one teacher protested the decision in an anonymous e-mail to the School Board and community members. The e-mail read in part: "Teachers are far better able to determine what material is suitable for teenagers than administrators who have not been in the classroom for years or attorneys whose job it is to protect the school system from the complaints and concerns of a few parents who have a political axe to grind. In the last 10 years, [the school system] has increasingly based educational decisions on fear instead of strength."

[Most Asinine Comment Award goes to! -- Sara Shoob: "There are other vehicles that are shorter and more appropriate. This is an issue that should not be blown out of proportion." Isn't the blind ignorance of censors amusing? She has banned a film based on blowing some dialogue out of proportion -- and then says people must refrain from doing that sort of thing. It is to laugh. --MN]

By the ACLU et al. On this day, Matt Howes, ACLU National Internet Organizer, released an e-mail alert about a movement to counter the Bush adminsistration's erosion of a woman's right to choose. See the entry in Appendix G.

By South Carolina. See the appendix on vanity plates.

By Abercrombie & Fitch. West Virginia governor Bob Wise sent a letter to Abercrombie & Fitch on this day demanding that the clothing retailer pull and destroy a line of tee-shirts that spoof the state with the above slogan. He wrote in part, "I write to you today to demand that you immediately remove this item from your stores and your print and online catalogues. In addition, these shirts must be destroyed at once to avoid any possibility of resale and proof be given thereof." He also wrote, [the slogan] "subjects our youth to unsubstantiated and false impressions of West Virginia. Indeed, such a depiction of West Virginians undermines our collective efforts to communicate a positive representation of the spirit and values of our citizens."

Tom Lennox, director of investor relations and corporation communications, commented, "We love West Virginia. We love California, Florida, Connecticut, Hawaii and Nebraska too. Abercrombie and Fitch was born and raised in the USA, and we honor all 50 states in the union." The retailer spoofs other states; another tee-shirt slogan reads: "New Hampshire. 40 million squirrels can't be wrong."

By Little Sister's Book and Art Emporium. After 20 years of fighting Canada Customs' seizures of book shipments, this Vancouver, homosexuality-themed book store is asking the court to fund its next case. Lawyer Joe Arvay, who is once again fighting for the store said that to get advanced costs (some court cases in Canada can be subsidized by the government), it must show that:

• it cannot afford the case,
• that the case is worthy of pursuing, and
• that the case deals with an issue of public importance.

Mark Macdonald, spokesman for Little Sister's Book and Art Emporium, said the store has spent more than $500,000CDN fighting against seizures by Customs Canada, and he estimates this new case will cost about $1 million.

In this go around, the Emporium is fighting seizures of a series of adult comics entitled The Meatmen, in a case that is due in court in the fall. Mr. Macdonald commented, "The Meatmen comics are not obscene. They are gay male erotica and it has to do with (sadomasochistic) practices. They're certainly not for everybody's tastes and we've never insinuated that they are." When Canada Customs began seizing shipments bound for Little Sister's in 1985, the store challenged its perogative in a case that went to the Supreme Court of Canada. While the high court did not accept the store's argument that Customs' right to seize books should be struck down entirely, it did say the importers being accused should no longer bear the burden of proving materials are not obscene. The court ruled that it was up to the government to prove obscenity. Macdonald said that while methods and protocols might have changed as a result of that decision the outcome remains the same, and is quoted, "The regime remains homophobic and fearful of sexual expression of all kinds. It's not contempt of court but they're ignoring the spirit of the Supreme Court decision."
(see 1956; 26 Feb 1989; Feb 1992; 1993; 1993; 15 Dec 2000; 04 Mar 2002)

By Congress. On 12 Jan the Supreme Court scheduled one hour for arguments for this case and also agreed to accept written arguments from other people and groups; including Sandra Banning, the mother of Michael Newdow's daughter. Ms. Banning is opposed to Mr. Newdow's action. Mr. Newdow, who is a doctor and lawyer, will argue the case himself, facing off against attorneys from a California school and perhaps representatives of the Bush administration as well.

[You can get more background from this article at First Amendment Center. There are some custody issues bound up in the lawsuit. --MN]

[Addendum (26 Mar 2004:) The court did hear the arguments as scheduled. You can read these commentaries of the case: Atheist's stellar performance may not translate into win, By Tony Mauro, Supreme Court takes up Pledge case, by Associated Press, or, The Pledge at the Court: Is 'under God' religious?, by Charles Haynes. --MN]
(See 27 Jun 2002; 12 Mar 2004; 14 Jun 2004)

By the Ramirez family of Connecticut. Bishop Jay Ramirez of Kingdom Life Christian Church had asked for an audit of every library book in local schools for sexual and occult content. He was quoted as saying, "I definitely think the books need to be reviewed by people at the school. Audit is a better term." The request was based on previous and recent incidents in which reading material described as questionable had turned up in middle schools. To whit: about three years ago his wife was doing volunteer work at West Shore Middle School's library and came across several books the couple believe had graphically sexual themes. Those books, the names of which Ramirez was not able to recall, were removed by administrators.

More recently, Dr. Randy Ramirez, a Stratford physician and the Bishop's brother, found books with questionable themes at Milford's John F. Kennedy School. Dr. Ramirez said his wife, Colleen, had attended a one-day book swap recently at Kennedy School and raised concerns about six or seven books she believed contained references to violence and the occult. Four of the books questioned were:

• The Empty Grave: Ida Chittum
• The Berenstain Bears and the Ghost of the Forest: Stan and Jan Berenstain
• The Witch Master's Key: Hardy Boys Series
• Beware this House is Haunted: Henry Dreher

In the summer of 2003, Ramirez and his congregation of almost 2,000 purchased an adults-only video/book store for $250,000 in an attempt, as yet unsuccessful, to drive it out of the city.

Superintendent of Schools Gregory Firn, however, said that while he understands Ramirez's concerns, the school system will not perform an audit. He said if anyone has an objection to a particular library book or textbook they can inform the school principal and the matter will be reviewed. On 08 Mar, School board members in Fairfax County decided by a vote of 7-1 that Francesca Lia Block's 1991 book Witch Baby, which has a homosexuality themed subplot, can remain in elementary and middle school libraries. The board argued that banning the book because of its gay theme wasn't justified. This decision upholds a recommendation by superintendent Daniel Domenech that the book be labeled with a "Young Adult" sticker.

[Challenging a Berenstain Bears book is like challenging Dr. Seuss or an alphabet primer. Totally asinine. The Hardy Boys books are almost in the same class. I count this as yet another indication of how censorship advocates are freaking lunatics and must not be humoured. The Ramirez family seems to have appointed itself as a replacement for the Bowdler family. It is, of course, very handy that Ramirez can't name any other books he wants banned, because people can't determine how valid the request is and are more likely to simply believe this is about sex and satanism.

And what in the name of Ghod is a church doing buying a pornography business for any reason?! Talk about hyposcrisy! --MN]

By male high school students. Some of the students at Ensign Middle School in Newport Beach, California wore pink accouterments for their class photo on 18 Mar. Principal Edward Wong pulled the boys from the class portrait because he feared the color was associated with "dance crews". These are groups which hold all-night dance contests and raves and can develop into gangs. Jane Garland, spokeswoman for the Newport-Mesa Unified School District, said the six students were also wearing black shoes, pink-and-black armbands and pink socks. She commented, "The color pink itself is not a problem with us. We like the color pink. But pink and black together ... are known to be party crew colors. It's how they are worn." The boys denied being crew members and said they wore the shirts, which students described as "Easter pink," so they would stand out in the photo. On 19 Mar, more than 400 of the 1,000 seventh- and eighth-graders at the school wore pink to class in support of the teens, and many said they would wear pink again the next day.

Enter Ryan Seacrest, who hosts a TV show and a radio broadcast, both called "On-Air with Ryan Seacrest", and the radio countdown "American Top 40." On 23 Mar he got involved because a student was quoted in a local newspaper as saying that pink was popular among teens because Seacrest often wore it. He fielded calls on the pink ban on his KIIS-FM morning radio show and declared the week of 21-27 Mar to be "Think Pink Week" and asked listeners to wear pink on 24 Mar.

[I haven't seen any reports on how that went. As for gangs, people just naturally form themselves into groups, and particularly in adolescence. I count it as a defense mechanism against acculturation and anomie. --MN]

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

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

By Canadian Parliament. An act to amend the Radiocommunications Act, Bill C-2 is being touted as making it illegal for anyone to watch Al Jazeera, ART Global, ART movies, Dubai Satellite Channel, ESC-1, Future TV, LBC, MBC, and Nile Drama, even when the consumer pays for a subscription, if the signal is from a non-Canadian provider. Members of Parliament Carolyn Parrish and Alexa McDonough have been active and vocal about this problematic bill, the most contentious part of which is clause 5. The questionable points raised by Bill C-2, as recognized by Ms. Parrish, are as follows:

• This bill criminalizes those who enjoy cultural programming that is not made available by Canadian providers;

• The bill fails to distinguish between those who steal satellite signals and those who pay for it legitimately;

• There are over 500,000 Arabs in Canada who are being deprived of their right to programming that maintains their links to language, culture and religion;

• This is a violation of freedom of expression and the targetting of specific communities and their civil liberties;

• Clause 5 allows extraordinary powers to inspectors who can enter any place where these channels are being recieved and to remove or copy any item or document.

An alert from the Canadian Arab Federation from 18 Mar reads in part:

If passed, Bill C-2 will not only affect the Arabic-speaking community. Bill C-2 will also make it illegal for Canadians to watch Spanish, Polish, Russian, Portuguese, Iranian and Vietnamese satellite stations. In some cases these channels are being received illegally and in other cases, people are paying a monthly subscription to Dish Network. Bill C-2 will not distinguish between those stealing the signal and those that are paying for it. The fines for individuals receiving any of the channels will be one year in jail or $25,000. Satellite dealers will be fined $200,000. The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has already given licenses for at least one Arabic, Spanish, Polish and Russian channel to be carried by Bell Express View. However, Bell has indicated that it is not interested in carrying minority ethnic channels. If this bill passes, all viewers of foreign satellite stations will be treated as criminals, regardless of whether or not they are paying for the service. Because Canadian carriers such as Bell refuse to carry ethnic channels, the consequence is that ethnic programming will no longer be available for Canadians to view as a means of maintaining links to their language and culture.

In an article in Ottawa Xpress, James Sinclair, on 26 Feb, offered several salient facts in a well balanced article. He reported:

The Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission is pondering whether to grant Quebec's Vidéotron cable company distribution rights for Al-Jazeera, and whether Rogers Cable can broadcast the 24-hour Italian service RAI International. Decisions on both are not expected before spring, but speculation is that Al-Jazeera will soon be legal in Canada, much to the disappointment of the Canadian Jewish Congress.

Mr. Sinclair also reported that Canadian Islamic Congress expressed disopprobium to Bill C-2, while Canadian Jewish Congress expressed discontent with permitting Al Jazeera into a supposedly free society. Dr. Mohamed Elmasry, national president of the Canadian Islamic Congress, was quoted as saying, "If Canadians can subscribe to foreign magazines and newspapers, why does the Martin government want to punish them for subscribing to foreign TV channels through an American distributor when these are not available here? Bill C-2 clearly goes against Canadian values of freedom of religion and freedom of expression. It is an insidious form of censorship." Ron Singer, Canadian Jewish Congress director of communications, is quoted, "We are very, very concerned. We have cited many, many instances of terrible anti-semitism, Holocaust denial, incitement to violence [in Al-Jazeera programming] - things that would not be acceptable for any Canadian broadcaster."

The CIC estimates that one million families living in Canada rely on ethnic programming to keep in touch with their cultures; Canadian-Hindi, Italians, Iranians, Japanese, Muslims, Poles, Spaniards, Russians, and Vietnamese.

In February, between the first and second readings of the bill, Ms. Parrish sent a letter to four government officials, including Prime Minister Paul Martin, in which she wrote in part,

The fundamental problem, as I see it, is that Canadian Broadcasters are failing to recognize the changing face and needs of the Canadian consumer. This "new Canadian market" is one that is wonderfully diverse and multi-lingual. These consumers have found a way of filling the void left by an unresponsive industry, through the legitimate purchase of specialty and international channels offered by American providers.

Canada promotes and remains proud of a diverse population. However, the preservation of culture is paramount in maintaining the diversity enjoyed in this country. Ethnic programming is essential in maintaining links to language, culture and religion. Bill C-2 will effectively cleanse cultural programming from the available consumer choices simply because the host company is not Canadian.

The estimated losses to Canadian broadcasters should not result in legislation that circumvents consumer choice and freedoms when, similar, culturally specific programming is not being offered by Canadian companies.

[If nothing else, this strikes me as a damned odd way to go about promoting multiculturalism. I can't tell yet if this case constitutes censorship, but I can't see that it is anything more than the usual butthead, stupid legislation. What really concerns me is that Clause 5 appears to grant far too much latitude to any officious oaf with an axe to grind. We've got quite enough of that sort throwing their weight around in Canada Customs, already.

In reply to Mr. Singer's comment I will say this: You keep your grubby paws off my mind you ultra-left wing, knee jerk reactionary bastard. I'll decide for myself whether anything I see on Al Jazeera -- or anywhere -- constitutes anti-semitism or not. I don't need sniveling, politically correct, little shits making up my mind for me. And I find the wholesale murder of Palestinian innocents by the bloodlusting, neo-fascist State of Israel to be a damned sight more offensive than some news service reporting on said wholesale murder. --MN]

By TéléQuébec. During the autumn of 2003 an ad-hoc Coalition Destituons Patapouf was formed by a student and some groups opposed to intended but then unspecified spending cuts by the Provincial government of Québec. This group started a California style recall petition in protest. The recall movement cannot have an impact as Québec has no recall process. What is germane to this case is that the Coalition had the petition up on a web site (www.destituonspatapouf.com), and Premiere Charest was shown wearing clown's makeup and a king's crown and robe; a clown king. On the site, Premiere Charest was named Patapouf, a child's nickname loosely translated as Pudge or Tubby. The Coalition created an urban legend by claiming Patapouf is a pet name given to Charest by his wife, a story some media have repeated, but that the premier's office formally denies.

Enter TéléQuébec; a government-owned television service with a primarily educational and cultural programming mission. A report on the "recall" was to have been broadcast on Monday evening, 22 Mar, on the service's weekly program 1045, rue des Parlementaires; which is named for the address of the National Assembly building in Québec City. The show is a human-interest, magazine-style program about life around the Assembly and features a weekly profile of an elected official. The kind of program that shouldn't upset the people who vote on TéléQuébec's annual budget. Monday afternoon the program was screened by TéléQuébec administrators, including president Paule Beaugrand-Champagne (a Parti Québécois appointee, not Liberal), and the show was replaced with a rerun. On Tuesday, TéléQuébec issued a statement saying the program had been pulled for content reasons, saying the program did not satisfy management's "requirements for this type of magazine concerning the treatment of information," and that there wasn't enough time to make "corrections". However, it failed to say how the program did not meet the "requirements."

Somebody on the program's staff leaked word that the program had been censored because of the Patapouf segment, either by management acting alone, or under pressure from the government. Both the government and its broadcaster denied the charge, but the TéléQuébec producers' association screened the show in question and said it met the broadcaster's standards. With expectations of more budget cuts in the air, TéléQuébec, which will spend 62.5 million dollars this year to reach an average of about three per cent of the viewing audience, could be feeling vulnerable. Par for the course, however, this censorship has backfired. The program's regular audience averages only 90,000 viewers, but because of the furor over the censorship allegations, the report, the Destituons Patapouf Web site, the recall petition, not to mention the legend of Michou Dionne's pet name for her chubby hubby, have all drawn the attention of many people who had been unaware of the program. Which has been rescheduled for Monday, 29 Mar 2004.

There was some hope that the audience would even make it into the six figure range.

By Stephen Pizzo. See the entry on the Church/State Entanglement page.

By Mel Gibson. Vilified and attacked as anti-semitic even before its release in North America, this film has generated confusion in Kuwait. Majority Sunni Muslims oppose the movie, the emirate's Shiite Muslims call for showing it, the authorities have not decided either way. At issue: whether the film should be banned as an offense to Islam or exploited as an anti-Zionist tool.

Mohammad al-Tabtabai, dean of the local Islamic college, issued a fatwa, or religious edict, on this day, decreeing that parts of the film contradict the Muslim faith, in addition to its depiction of Jesus, and went so far as to outlaw the film's screening by any Muslim country and prohibited Muslims from watching it, and said that anyone who has seen the movie must "repent".

Ayatollah Mohammad Baqer al-Muhri, the emirate's leading Shiite cleric, called on the authorities to approve it, and is quoted, "It's a good opportunity to reveal the crimes committed by Jews against the Christ and many other (religious) prophets. We sincerely respect the Jewish religion and Jews, but not the Jewish Zionists, and we believe in Jesus and Moses like we believe in our own prophet."

Muslims believe that Christ was a prophet, like Mohammad; contrary to Christians, however, they also believe God saved Christ from crucifixion. In Kuwait, all forms of art production must be censored by the information ministry, which has not yet decided whether or not to publicly screen the film. Kuwaiti law bars scenes or images depicting prophets, Muslim caliphs, and revered figures. Several Arab countries, including the Gulf Arab states of Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar, have already approved the film. The state national cinema company, which has a monopoly over all cinemas in Kuwait, has not yet purchased the film, apparently waiting for a decision from the information ministry. The film, however, is already being sold on the black market.

By Reporters San Frontières. To mark the Internet Festival by Francophonie (French speaking nations; France, Belgium, Burkina Faso, Senegal, Madagascar, and Canada-Quebec, et al), being held from 29 Mar to 04 Apr, Reporters Without Borders announced its awards for online repression on 26 Mar.

• Golden Palm: China. An easy choice this year for its 60 cyber-dissidents in prison, hundreds of thousands of websites censored and strict censorship of e-mail. The Best Actor award was won by Chinese President Hu Jintao for his regular statements about the country's progress in human rights.

• First Prize for Censorship: Saudi Arabia. Well deserved for its more than 400,000 online items censored, ranging from political websites to unauthorised Islamist organisations and of course anything remotely concerning sex.

• Chief Jailer Award: Vietnam. With seven cyber-dissidents in jail, Vietnam is the world's second biggest prison (after its neighbour China) for those who want to surf the Internet in freedom.

• Public (sector) Prize: Cuba. This goes to the Cuban government for using the state telecommunications body, ETEC SA, to restrict access to the Internet and for its complete control of all information.

• Best Scenery Award: the Maldives. Three cyber-dissidents are in prison in this country, better known for its stunning beaches. Two of them have been sentenced to life imprisonment.

• Critics' Prize: Syria. The government is holding two Internet users in secret for posting criticism of the regime online.

• Special Media Prize: Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe. This honours the winner's career as a predator of press freedom and recognises his growing determination to stifle use of the Internet.

• Grand Prize for Hypocrisy: The United Nations and its World Summit on the Information Society. Won for the special place reserved at this major Internet summit for countries that have most harshly repressed the Internet, such as China and Cuba.

• Special Jury Prize: French industry minister Nicole Fontaine. For her proposed law on the digital economy which threatens freedom of expression online.

The organization also announced that it welcomes this Festival and noted that as of opening day, 29 Mar, 72 cyber-dissidents around the world would spend the day in prison cells for posting online criticisms of their governments.

By Middle East homosexuals. Except on this day the government of Saudi Arabia announced it would stop blocking the homosexuality themed sites Gaymiddleeast.com and 365gay.com. Reversal of the ban comes after Reporters Without Borders sent a letter to Eyas Al-Hajery, who is Head of the Internet Services Unit (ISU), which is responsible for the Internet within the kingdom. RSF wrote in part, "Officially filtering is only supposed to be applied to pornographic publications or those directly harming Islam. In fact, the Saudi Internet blacklist extends to other areas, from political sites to non-recognised Islamist sites via, of course, any publication relating in any way to sexuality. We condemn this extension of censorship, which is in the process of reducing the country's network to an Intranet, as in Burma or Cuba." Mr. Al-Hajery replied, "After receiving your letter, we carried out a new examination of these sites. Since no pornographic content was found, the ban has been lifted".

Gaymiddleeast.com posts news intended for homosexuals in fifteen middle eastern countries (Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Palestine, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, United Arab Emirates and Yemen) and is devoted primarily to the subject misohomonist persecution. It does not contain anything of a pornographic nature. 365gay.com, to which Gaymiddleeast.com is affiliated, also deals with homosexual rights.

Homosexuality is forbidden in Saudi Arabia and is punishable by imprisonment or flogging. Saudi authorities say they block access to nearly 400,000 web pages -- under the rationale that the censorship aims to "protect citizens from content that is offensive or violates the principles of the Islamic religion and social norms." The ISU is responsible for maintaining this system and controls the gateway used by all Saudi Internet access providers. This allows the agency to control the entirety of information exchanged on the Net.

By Michael Powell. Under a threat from the FCC that broadcasters chill their own speech or Big Brother would do it for them, television broadcasters considered placing themselves under a "voluntary" code of conduct. Powell is quoted as threatening the broadcasters with: "You do not want to ask the government to write a "Red Book" of dos and don'ts. I understand the complaint about knowing where the line is, but heavier government entanglement through a "dirty conduct code" will not only chill speech, it may deep-freeze it. It might be an ice age that would last a very long time."

[Boy howdy! Does that one stink of double-think or what? I interpret this one to read: You don't want censorship but we will censor you anyway if you don't do it yourself and we'll do it a lot more than you would so you better freely write up a code of conduct. This is why I tend to think that censormorons are all schizophrenic. --MN]

By Daylle Deanna Schwartz. Translated into nine languages and distributed in dozens of countries including Russia, Egypt, and Israel, the Farsi language edition won't be appearing in Iran anytime soon. The Iranian Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance delayed publication until it could be examined by three Iranian psychologists, and the Ministry concluded the book is based on western Culture. It has announced that the book is being rejected for publication because of its unsuitability for an Iranian audience without any further information. The Ministry is responsible for overseeing all publishing in the Iran, whether of domestic or foreign origin.

Tehran translator Nasrin Sahihi suggested that the timing might be wrong and that the publisher might wait five or six months before trying again, and is quoted, "But first they'd have to rewrite some of the contents and re-title the book. There are big cultural differences between the U.S. and Iran-for example, in Iran it is unacceptable to live with a boyfriend-but I hope we're able to do this book, because it's very needed in Iran." Schwartz, who had cancelled a trip to Iran, commented, "My book being rejected definitely illustrates the need for the book. I'm devastated that the women of Iran may be deprived of a book that's helped so many women around the world. Being happy shouldn't be just a Western philosophy."

By Natalie Young. On this day Ms. Young's attorney announced a settlement between her and Middle School 210. Ms Young, who has been openly homosexual since she was 13 at least, is to get $30,000 for pain and suffering and legal fees, and the New York city Department of Education agreed to establish a policy on student dress. Ms. Young was suspended for wearing "inappropriate attire". Which was simply a specious excuse used by the misohomonists to persecute her given that the school had no dress code at the time.

[That's $30,000 the school is out of pocket for enforcing a dress code that did not exist. How many resources and programs will have to be cut to make up for it? --MN]
(see 19 Jun 2003)

By the Coalition Provisional Authority under the authority of the United States of America. The Committee to Protect Journalists released a report on this day that on 28 Mar dozens of U.S. troops sealed the offices of the Baghdad weekly Al-Hawza and ordered the paper closed for 60 days. The paper is affiliated with radical Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, and has reportedly printed copious mininformation. A CPA spokesman hand-delivered a letter to the paper's staff that was reported to have been signed by CPA administrator L. Paul Bremer. This letter alleged that the publication had violated a CPA decree promulgated in Jun 2003 that prohibits "incitement" in the media.

Specifically:

• an article on 26 Feb 2004 about a deadly car bomb in a Shiite city south of Baghdad said the explosion was from a rocket fired by a U.S. Apache helicopter;
• an article in the same edition, was entitled "Bremer Follows the Steps of Saddam," and it alleged that the CPA was "implementing a policy of starving the Iraqi public";
• the letter also cited two articles from August 2003 as past examples of what the CPA says was the paper's false reporting:
  • One article accused the United States of waging a war on Islam, and
  • the other said the United States wanted to steal Iraqi oil rather than depose Saddam Hussein.

Previous samples of media control in Iraq include (but are surely not limited to):

• Jul 2003: the CPA closed the publication Al-Mustaqaillah, which had cited the calls of Islamic clerics for the death of "spies" who cooperate with U.S. troops. The clerics said killing spies was a religious duty.

• Nov 2003: the IGC banned United Arab Emirates-based satellite channel Al-Arabiyya from broadcasting in Iraq, accusing the station of incitement after it aired an audiotape purportedly of Saddam Hussein urging Iraqis to resist the U.S.-led occupation of Iraq. The station was allowed to resume broadcasting in late January.

• Sep 2003: the IGC barred reporters from both Al-Arabiyya and Al-Jazeera from covering official press conferences and from entering official buildings for two weeks because the IGC said that the channels incite "sectarian differences in Iraq," "political violence," and the murders of council and U.S. coalition members.

• Jan 2004: the U.S.-appointed Iraqi Governing Council (IGC) barred the Qatar-based satellite broadcaster Al-Jazeera from covering official IGC activities. The action was in response to an Al-Jazeera talk show in which a guest leveled allegations that some IGC members have had relations with Israel or visited the country.

[Okay. The first thing that twigged my mental alarms in the report was this: " . . . Al-Mustaqaillah, which had cited the calls of Islamic clerics for the death of "spies" . . . " Pay close attention to the word "cited" because that is the keyword in that sentence. And what makes so crucial is that it has three meanings, of which two are of import to this analysis. Used in one sense, it means the newspaper had quoted some clerics as calling for the death of spies. Used in another sense, the papers used the calling of the clerics for the death of spies as an argument to support its own insurgency leanings.

I tend to interpret that paragraph to mean that the IGC had misinterpreted Al Jazeera's reporting on sectarian differences, the efforts of the resistance, and the killings of American troops and civilians who are trying to rebuild the country, as incitement. There's a lot of that going around. Criticizing Israel for using military explosives as a weapon of political assassination will get you called an anti-semite in some circles. Then too, there is no denying the stress of living under day to day warfare. Unfortunately, there isn't enough information to say one way or the other. Take the above report under advisement. --MN]

See the entry in Appendix G.

By the U.S. Treasury Department. On this day the U.S. federal government sent a letter to the Institute of Electronic and Electrical Engineers, an international group which represents over 360,000 engineers and scientists. The letter said that the organization's peer review, editing, and publishing was "not constrained" by regulations from the Treasure Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control. Arthur Winston, the group's president, said he believed the ruling would be "a relief for nearly everyone" in the scholarly publishing community, is quoted, "The ruling eliminates potentially disturbing U.S. government intrusions on our scholarly publishing process." The letter reportedly refers specifically to the insitute, which probably grants it sole relief, but members of group produce 30 percent of the world's literature in electrical and electronics engineering and computer science.
(see 28 Feb 2004)

By Lynn M. Paltrow. See the entry in Appendix G.

By James Lincoln Collier and Christopher Collier. Rev. Joseph Rogers, pastor of Destin Assembly of God, challenged this book after his eighth-grade son read it at Destin Middle School in a class assignment. He had called on the Okaloosa County School Board to ban it because of obscene language and what he said was a negative approach to God. On this day the school board rejected his request. In a typical demonstration of one of the hallmarks of censorship advocacy, Reverend Rogers argued during the school board meeting, "This is not about censorship and it's not about First Amendment rights." Teachers, school administrators, and a high school student disagreed, and cited intellectual freedom in speaking against removal of the book. Howard Hill, a board member and an Air Force veteran who was shot down in Vietnam, defended the language, saying a realistic portrayal of war includes profanity. He is quoted, "Combat can reduce men to their baser levels."

[One of the functions of censorship is that it usually opposes accurate portrayals of life. Almost every work of fiction that I have reported as challenged has drawn flak because the characters have been true to life. The exceptions are those challenges opposing spirituality, such as opposition to Madeleine L'Engle's Wind In The Door series as too "New Age", and opposition to the "occult", such as Hallowe'en and Harry Potter. --MN]

By Judge Joan Orie Melvin. It was reported on this day that Judge Melvin had filed documents to drop her lawsuit; characterized as a SLAPP. Jack Orie, her attorney, said he believes she gave it up because it would have taken years to resolve.
(see 15 Nov 2000; 14 Dec 2000; 26 Feb 2001; 07 Apr 2004)

By a "pop culture" class at the Academy of Art University in San Francisco. Just under a hundred students were joined on a downtown sidewalk by a group of nationally known authors who gathered to support freedom of expression and to protest the expulsion of a student and the dismissal of a teacher. This affair got its start when the student submitted a gore-fest short story to fulfill a creative writing class assignment. Vice President Sue Rowley was concerned about the story and took it to the police to have it assessed by behaviourists. The student was subsequently expelled, and later moved back to Seattle. Shortly afterward, teacher Jan Richman's contract was not renewed. Ms. Richman believes it is because the administration objected to some of the material she used in her classes.

After a story about these incidents ran in The SF Chronicle in late Mar 2004, the affair took on a life of its own. Enter Daniel Handler, AKA Lemony Snicket, author of the A Series of Unfortunate Events series. He helped to organize a "forum on free expression" that was to be held in teacher Alan Kaufman class the week of Mar 28 to Apr 03, but when Mr. Handler showed up at the academy, he was denied entrance. When he showed up again on this day, he was again denied access to the building, which led Kaufman to bring his class out to the street. Ms. Rowley maintained that Mr. Handler hadn't been allowed into the building because the administration had not been informed of his planned attendance on the class sylabus. Which seems to have been something of a sticky issue.

During the rally, Mr. Kaufman asserted that students had been phoned that morning by the administration and offered a refund if they were to drop his class, and then asked the crowd how many had received such calls; a majority raised their hands. Vice President Rowley addressed this issue in a phone interview after the event. She is quoted, "I don't feel comfortable taking students' money for a class where we have not gotten a syllabus. We asked repeatedly for a syllabus -- a week-by-week breakdown of what he intends to do in class." Kaufman said at the rally that he had filed a syllabus, but that it had not gotten to certain officials. The article on this affair reported:

"If it was late, it was because the copy machine upstairs was broken, which it often is." He turned to the crowd and yelled, "Am I right?" The crowd erupted in laughter.

Vice Presidents Sue Rowley and Sallie Huntting attempted to defend the school's decisions, with Rowley answering some questions during the rally, but her remarks were largely lost in the din. She is quoted from a later telephone interview as commenting, "We feel comfortable with the decisions that we made. I don't think there's a parent of any student out there who would want to send their child to our school if we were negligent about their safety and security."

[I tend to chalk this one up to post-Columbine hysteria compounded by butt-head obstreperousness. Rowley certainly screwed up by going to the police for a psych assessment even though the police decided there was nothing actionable; she should have gone to the school psychologist. --MN]

By Tomeboy. A pro-conservatism librarian, Tomeboy posted a commentary to his web site comparing filtering to a collection development policy. On this day, the Library and Information Sciences News web site posted an article linking to that commentary. See my reply to that commentary on why I think it is erroneous. --MN]

By Michael D. Osborne. State and federal authorities arrested four Johnson County high school students on 07 Apr and charged them with arson in the burning of three churches in Feb and Mar. Mr Osborne, who represents one of the young offenders, is basing his defense on the following philosophy:

"They're not devil worshipers or bad kids. None of these children had been in any trouble."

[...] "There was no reason for this. One or both parents of each child is a Christian. The only common threat between them is that they spent lots of time on the Internet and had computer linkups between their computers."

[... What happened is that] "these juveniles will get on the Internet and it's almost like brainwashing them."

[...] "They have to do something with the Internet. I mean, how can you take a kid and give him access to every evil in the world without any regulation. It's where they can go to learn how to make crystal meth, make pipe bombs -- they get into these chat rooms with God knows who ... and when you spend most of your free time exploring the taboo, things don't seem as bad."

[In short: It's not my client's fault, Your Honour, his mommy didn't love him. What this slobbering idiot complelety failed to consider in his overzealous attempt to defend his client is that there is also a lot of religious material on the internet preaching compassion and offering guidance on how to live a good and productive life. And some of that stuff even deals with Christian precepts. Aside from which, he cannot say that his client's mother and father are good, Christian parents if they let their child have unfettered and unsupervised access to All The Evil In The World; they must, of necessity, be unfit parents.

If you want to learn more about totally bogus defense arguments try this:

The Abuse Excuse: And Other Cop-Outs, Sob Stories, and Evasions of Responsibility
Alan M. Dershowitz
ISBN 0-316-18135-8
Dewey # 346.7303 D438 --MN]

By Jo Wilding. A British activist, Ms. Wilding sent out a report on the horror of being on the ground in Fallujah during the Easter 2004 weekend. It contains a great deal of information that the western media cannot or will not report and which Al Jazeera has been condemned for reporting. A copy of this report is filed on the Postcards From Iraq page. It is copied from the posting to Anita Roddick's web site and is mirrored here without permission.

[I've posted the material to that page because all North Americans are supposed to benefit from these atrocities whether we like it or not. --MN]

The Tibetan spriritual leader has been under constant attack by Chinese governments since China invaded Tibet in 1951 and particularly since a failed uprising in 1959 and the institution of a cultural pogrom with the intent of extinguishing Tibetan culture. Even today His Holiness is vilified as a separatist -- a "splittist" -- by a political system that "re" annexed Tibet the same way Saddam Hussein "re" annexed Kuwait in 1991, and with the same specious rationale. The Dalai Lama is scheduled to visit Canada from 18 (or 19) Apr, to 05 May. The government of China is opposed to any Canadian political figure meeting with His Holiness, and on 10 Apr, it was reported that China was bringing a great deal of diplomatic pressure to bear against Prime Minister Paul Martin. Pressure is being brought to bear by way of economic threats; Canada does trade to the tune of twenty billion dollars CDN per annum.

It wasn't until 12 Apr that the Prime Minister announced that he would meet with the Dalai Lama. Canadian supporters had collected signatures from 161 members of Parliament, including Justice Minister Irwin Cotler. This action calls upon the prime minister to play an active role in getting China and the Dalai Lama to negotiate the future of Tibet. For Tibetans, the Dalai Lama represents hope for the restoration of a nationhood crushed by Chinese troops who invaded and annexed Tibet, and which saw China outlaw Buddhism and imprison hundreds of monks.

[The question should never have been in doubt, damn it. --MN]

By The Thomas Jefferson Center. This "prize" is awarded annually on or about Thomas Jefferson's birthday. This year's fourteen losers (one prize is shared) in the Free Speech Rights department are:

• Judge Miriam Goldman Cedarbaum
• The U.S. Department of Defense
• The United States Secret Service
• The Albemarle County (VA) School Board
• Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey
• CBS Television
• The University of New Orleans Administration
• The Administration of Dearborn High School (Michigan)
• The South Carolina House of Representatives
• The Parks and Recreation Division of Broward County (Florida)
• Jeff Webster of Soldotna, Alaska, and the Unnamed Arsonist of Harrisonburg, Virginia
• The Arizona State License Commission
• The Pilot Point (Texas) Police Department

See the source article for more background.

A Burmese (Myanmar Republic) citizen, Khin Maung Win was released from prison after seven years. A photographer and cameraman, he was imprisoned for filming an interview with Aung San Suu Kyi; which videotape was shown at a press conference during a summit of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN). He was arrested on 13 Jun 1997 along with four other National League for Democracy members. Two weeks later, the head of the Military Intelligence Services, Lt. Gen. Khin Nyunt, accused him of belonging to a group that was collaborating with anti-government activists abroad and with militants at home who were bent on destroying the country. He was given a summary trial and had no chance to defend himself. Eleven other journalists remain imprisoned.
(see 18 Sep 1988; 1990; 27 Mar 1999; 05 Jun 2003; 27 May 2006)

By seven Tunisian students and one professor. On this day, Reporters Without Borders posted an article to their website saying that eight young Internet surfers were convicted of terrorism without any evidence. A Tunis court, on 6 Apr, imposed sentences of up to twenty-six years on eight web surfers who had been accused of promoting terrorist attacks on no other evidence than some files downloaded from the Internet. The convictions were of: "forming a band to terrorize people... aggression against individuals with the intent to terrorize... holding unauthorized meetings... theft and attempted theft... preparing explosive material [and] unauthorized possession of substances intended for making explosive devices."

Reporters Without Borders had been told that the prosecution produced no serious evidence against the defendants; that the case file contained only a few files with information about the Kalashnikov rifle and documents explaining how to make a bomb. RSF said in a statement, "The trial of these young people shows the Tunisian judicial system's outrageous contempt for the right of defence. Just looking at Internet sites cannot be considered evidence of a terrorist plot - the Tunisian regime is trying to terrorize Internet users and silence dissent." When the arrests were make, the only evidence the police confiscated to support the allegation of making explosives was a tube of a glue and a few CD-ROMs. According to several different sources, the students had just used the Internet to download files about the situation in the Middle East, and also reportedly talked with Ridha Hadj Brahim, a teacher and one of those convicted, about the best way to support the Palestinian cause.

[Even MacGyver would have a hard time producing appreciable explosive material from a single tube of glue. --MN

by CNN. A FAIR Action Alert e-mailed on this day detailed how CNN anchor Daryn Kagan castigated Al Jazeera editor-in-chief Ahmed Al-Sheik for reporting on the war zone conditions inside Iraq. It appears from the Action Alert that Al Jazeera is expected by CNN to report only government approved news. Mr. Kagan insisted that Al Jazeera should engage in obscurantism by attempting to delineate what the news out of Iraq was supposed to be, and covering the carnage and bloodshed of civilians certainly wasn't supposed to be it.

By The Nation. See the entry in Appendix G.

U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan refused to throw out federal charges of sailor-mongering against Greenpeace stemming from activists illegally boarding a ship to effect a protest. See the entry in Appendix G.

By the city of Augusta, Georgia. A three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in Burk v. Augusta-Richmond County that a protest-restrictive ordinance was an unconstitutional prior restraint. Augusta Mayor Bob Young said he was disappointed. The golf club was not named in this suit.
(see 12 Mar 2003)

By appeasers. Viacom Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group Inc. filed a joint petition, with National Broadcasting Co. Inc. filing a separate petition, in a challenge to the FCC crackdown on broadcasting indecent material. Robert C. Wright, NBC's chairman and chief executive, had an opinion published by The Wall Street Journal that read in part: "Ultimately, we have much less to fear from obscene, indecent or profane content than we do from an overzealous government willing to limit First Amendment protections and censor creative free expression. That would be indecent." This challenge signals a strategic shift to a movement they had not hitherto opposed; making it appear that they had been humbled by the government action. The former lack of response was attributed to reading the crackdown as a campaign re-election ploy, and this opposition to concerns over the erosion of free speech rights.

It was reported that ABC has not yet joined opposition to the FCC; apparently because it has not yet been cited for indecent programming.

For photographing coffins. Ms. Silicio was fired by Maytag Aircraft Corporation after military officials complained about a photograph she had taken at Kuwait International Airport, of rows of flag draped coffins which had been loaded for transport to Dover Air Force Base, U.S.A. The photograph was published on the front page of Sunday edition of The Seattle Times.

Some of the pros and cons over the issue of war dead coverage are:

• Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt (deputy chief of military operations in Iraq), told ABC's Good Morning America, in explaining the military policy of "families first": "I certainly know for myself that I would not want one of my loved ones to be a public spectacle before I'd had that first opportunity to grieve in person."

• Tami Silicio in a telephone interview on ABC's Good Morning America, 23 Apr: "I think if the administration were more sympathetic, they would see that this is a positive thing. [Family members] "want to see how our loved ones, how our heroes are being taking care of and how they get home."

• Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, on NBC's Today, 23 Apr, agreeing with the ban of coverage: "there's no ceremony held; it's a caretaking event."

• Democratic Rep. Jim McDermott of Washington; Viet Nam naval veteran, and speaking about the impact of coverage during that war: "As people began to see the reality of it and see the 55,000 people who were killed coming back in body bags, they became more and more upset by the war. This is not about privacy. This is about trying to keep the country from facing the reality of war."

[If you'd rather not view all the photos of the carnage from the Iraq Invasion, and then read descriptions of the horrific war zone conditions from the occupation and resistance, you can call up an isolated image of the Silicio photograph. If you haven't seen those photographs and texts and would like to see what the Bush administration and the lackey American corporate press forbids you to look at check out the Postcards From Iraq page. I do recommend you check out that page, because Ms. Silicio's photograph is accompanied by something she wrote that puts the lie to Senator Graham's already specious rationale. Whichever way you look at it, the photograph is copyrighted Tami Silicio 2004 and is mirrored here without permission. General Kimmit's rationale strikes me as being rather shaky because there was nothing in the photograph that could be used to identify the dead being transported. You can also see 361 forbidden photographs at The Memory Hole web site. --MN]
(see 21 Jun 2004; 04 Oct 2004; 28 Apr 2004)

By Lynn M. Paltrow; and Susan J. Douglas, respectively.

Lynn M. Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women, had a commentary entitled Do Pregnant Women Have Rights? published at Alternet.org. It is an eye opening exposé on how legislatures are stripping women of their reproductive rights and, frequently, their personal liberties.

Susan J. Douglas, who writes for In These Times, had a commentary entitled Confronting the Mommy Myth reprinted at Alternet.org as well. She compares maternity leave for and attitudes toward new mothers in the U.S.A. against a couple of other countries. The U.S. does not come out ahead. She wrote in part, "For the theocrats, "family values" is shorthand for the forced, governmentally sanctioned reassertion of patriarchy. How about the new family values that actually focus on the needs of, er, the family, and of mothers in particular? And not just the Republican's fantasy of the über-mother, the "soccer mom," who can afford a minivan, a laptop, braces for her kids and trips to Disney World."

[Again: Love 'em or hate 'em, the reproductive rights issue boils down to personal choice, and if the choice is not yours it's none of your business. --MN]

By State Representative Derrick Shepherd. He filed a bill that would punish anyone caught wearing low-riding pants with their underwear exposed, with fines up to $500, six months in jail, or both. This bill would be tacked onto the state's obscenity law; which law restricts having sex in public places along with the sale of sexually explicit items. Quothe Shepherd: "I'm sick of seeing it. The community's outraged. And if parents can't do their job, if parents can't regulate what their children wear, then there should be a law." Joe Cook, head of the Louisiana chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said in reply that the bill probably does not meet the U.S. Supreme Court's standard for the prohibition of obscene behavior under the First Amendment (the Miller Test), and is quoted, "What about a woman who is wearing a bathing suit under her garment or she has something like a sarong wrapped around her and it's below her waist. I can think of a lot of workers, plumbers, who are working and expose their buttocks ..."

[Remember Designing Women, the sitcom? One of their running jokes was about butt cracks, with the occasional exposure. Would reruns of Designing Women be prohibited under this law? More to the point, why is it that raving fools like Shepherd always, always, always prefer to punish others for seeing something that offends only themselves? If the dipstick doesn't like the cut of today's fashions, then why doesn't he blinker himself? And what about those parents who make the conscious choice to allow their adolescent daughters to dress that way? Me, for instance.

Oh, yeah; and why Louisianastan? Taliban thugs were known for beating women in the streets for accidentally exposing their ankles while riding bicycles. --MN]
(see 09 Feb 2005; 10 Feb 2005)

By FAIR. On Apr 25th, Washington D.C. saw one of the most massive protests in the history of the capital, with estimates running from 500,000 to 1.15 million participants. Coverage by the news media was in inverse proportion to the event. FAIR compared coverage of the smaller rally by the Promise Keepers in 1997, which drew much more coverage. See the FAIR Alert for more about the under-reporting of the movement to protect women's rights.

Reporters Without Borders printed a commentary on the sad state of press freedom in what it call "paradise dictatorships". The group reported that since 1 January 2004:

• 13 journalists have been killed [In the line of duty, I assume. --MN]
• 6 media assistants have been killed
• 431 journalists have been arrested
• 366 journalists have been physically attacked or threatened
• 178 media have been censored

RSF also reported that 133 journalists were in prison in 22 countries as of this day.

By Michael Moore. See my commentary on the Michael Moore/Miramax Affair page.

By an Iranian regional court. Hashem Aghajari, a history professor at a teachers' college in Tehran and a war veteran who lost a leg in the 1980-88 war with Iraq, was arrested after a speech to students in Hamedan. In Nov 2002 he was basically sentenced to death for "apostasy". During the speech he had called for a "religious renewal," saying that Muslims were not "monkeys" and "should not blindly follow" the clerics, which was seen as an attack on the religious establishment. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei took the rare step of ordering the judiciary to reconsider the verdict, and Iran's Supreme Court overturned the death sentence, and an appeals court later struck down other parts of the sentence. The case was sent back to the original judge for reconsideration, but he decided there was nothing new in the case and reaffirmed the sentence of death. The case will now go back to the Iranian Supreme Court.

By Reporters Sans Frontieres. This alleged attack on press freedoms happened in the Third World country of Los Angeles International Airport on 03 May. On this day, the watchdog group protested the treatment of foreign journalists by the U.S. immigration service, as a branch of the Homeland Security Department. Associated Press finally got around to posting an article on the incident on 13 May, at First Amdmendment Center. RSF reported that in 2003, thirteen foreign journalists had been detained and then summarily deported from the U.S.; twelve of the incidents taking place at LAX. The detainees also seem to be selected at random. According to the RSF article, some journalists witnessed other journalists entering the U.S. without and difficulties.
(see 25 May 2004)

By Frank Van den Bosch. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By -- nobody's really sure, since the principals involved are ducking responsibility. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Dai Sijie. Author and filmmaker Dai Sijie wrote this story about two youths who find a suitcase filled with banned books during the Cultural Revolution in China. It is a novel about censorship, and is described on the back cover as a tale about "the magic of reading and the wonder of romantic awakening." The problem is that the girl who has the romantic awakening was a virgin until she hopped into bed with her lover. Aside from that account of sex, the book also includes references to "copulating" and "firm, rosy-tipped breasts." Fifteen year old Brandon Jerome, a student at Todd Beamer High School, was rather put out by the references, and showed the book to his mother. He also told her that a student had drawn an explicit picture of a boy and girl having sex as part of a class drawing exercise on the book, and that the drawing was displayed with others in the classroom. This was back in March. His mother, Lori Bridges, then started a petition along with five other parents, and they gathered thirty-two signatures. They presented their complaint to Superintendent Tom Murphy, of Federal Way School Board, Washington State. On 23 Apr, Murphy unilaterally put the minds of the students throughout the district on lock down. Murphy:

• pulled the book from the ninth-grade reading list;
• ordered next year's reading lists for all grades to be presented to the school board for advance approval;
• ordered all secondary schools to mail required reading lists to parents in the summer for them to sign before school resumes.

Mr. Murphy seems to have stopped short of removing the book from the school libraries, but he did display his woeful ignorance of and disrespect for the intelligence of the students and the whole purpose of the educations system in the letter. He wrote in part, "However, I have reservations that many students at the ninth-grade level possess the maturity and life experiences to correctly interpret the few sensitive scenes depicted in the novel without resorting to behaviors that demean the intent of the novel." What is the purpose of studying a novel if not to learn how to correctly interpret such sensitive scenes under the tutelage of someone who has learned how to make such determinations?

English teacher Vince Halloran said the book was an approved work and none of the students' drawings was explicit. The book had been used in the 2002-2003 school year without any complaints. School Board President Ed Barney was reportedly drafting a policy formally prohibiting sexually explicit material from the classroom. It also says school personnel "may not be vulgar, lewd, obscene, plainly offensive or sexually explicit." When he was asked how the board was going to determine what is sexually explicit, he replied, "We haven't quite gotten to all of that." Barney also was on the school board in 2002 when it banned the showing of R-rated movies in classes.

[I hope I see some follow ups on this; it should prove amusing to see how, or rather if, Barney defines the term "sexually explicit". I'm betting he won't, which will leave the ban vague and overbroad, and that will allow for the banning of Judy Blume's works; long a perennial favorite of the anti-"sexually explicit" crowds. Even if he does draft a definition, it is almost certain that he will attempt to make is so inclusive that it will be vague and overbroad anyway. At any rate, this is certainly a censorship movement. True to form, Barney denied that it is censorship, and is quoted, "It's not putting us in a role of censor as much as monitoring what's going on in the classroom. I don't have time to read all the books, so I will rely on many parents' input." The problem with this is: you can't ban a book without having read it. Doing so is another one of the hallmarks of censorship. --MN]
(see 25 Mar 2002; 28 Mar 2002)

By the U.S. Senate Commerce Committee. On this day, a group from this department grilled Jack Valenti, head of the Motion Picture Association of America, about the consumption of tobacco in films. A study last year reported that teens who watch films with smoking in them are much more likely to start smoking themselves. The meeting was standard goverment bullying by doublethinking Big Brother drones. Most of the senators said they were reluctant to pass a law forcing Hollywood to take such steps, but Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., said that would happen if the movie industry didn't act. He is quoted, "I think the ball is in your court, Mr. Valenti. I guarantee you if something isn't done by the industry, there's certainly going to be efforts" [by lawmakers]. Anti-smoking activists who testified said they wanted films with smoking in them to be given an 'R' rating. The lawmakers said they'd be satisfied with a measure short of that. The slippery slope came into play when Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., asked Valenti why movie ratings include advisory information about foul language, sexual content and violence, but can't be expanded to offer parents information about smoking in films.

[The issue of smoking in films has heated up in the wake of that study and senators from both parties are saying Hollywood must take more responsibility. Hollywood is not responsible for your failure to raise your child to not engage in self-destructive behaviour. You are. This strikes me pretty much as just another political correctness attempt to abdicate responsibility for personal failure. --MN]

By school officials in the Bethlehem Area School District, Pennsylvania. The complaints about the filters fell into three categories; 1: failure to block; 2: overblocking by keyword features; 3: willful circumventing of the safeguards by students.

One story about circumvention concerned an eleven year old who accessed a teen chat room by the simple dint of borrowing an older girl's account. She was suspended from school for five days. A punishment which appalled her mother as much as what the child had done. She said the suspension was entirely disproportionate to the offence. Monty Perfetti, the district's director of operations, planning, and special programs, allowed that the district has a code of conduct for students that addresses appropriate disciplinary actions for various offenses, but that there is no category for internet-related offenses. He is quoted, "We may have to start keeping a separate log of incidents that happen through technology. We talk about the code of conduct every summer, and this is going on our agenda this year." Children and parents are already required to sign an a computer network and Internet use policy at the beginning of the year. Scott Garrigan, the Bethlehem Area School District's technology director, is quoted as saying, "It's just not possible to guard kids against every unsavory element on the Internet. New Web sites crop up every day. Children have to be held responsible. We have kids that are regularly disciplined for accessing material they have no business looking at."

In the second category, Mr. Garrigan was reported to have said that the school district does not have enough technology staff to issue passwords and must remove keywords from the content filter that are inappropriate in certain contexts but appropriate in others. Three cited samples are: a "teen" counseling site; the Supreme Court's "oral" arguments page; "breast" cancer research. It was reported that removing certain keywords is what allowed inappropriate material to get through.

It was also reported that the district, which is experimenting with a personal laptop program, is soon to begin allowing sixth- and seventh-graders to take their laptops home, perhaps within the next year. So too are other school districts in the area. school officials say that unlimited home access to school-provided computers - and in some cases, school-sponsored Internet access - could make the above mentioned problems worse.

[How shocking! Adolescents are exercising their right to think for themselves and bypassing Big Brother's controls? Who would have thought of it?! Of course, these people don't have clue one that those "children" are looking at that material because they are old enough to have an interest in it. Perhaps instead of trying to force the world to conform to people's ideas of what it should be, we should teach people how to adapt to the world instead. --MN]

By the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). See the entry in Appendix G.

By The New York Times. In an article printed on this day and headlined "Harsh CIA Methods Cited in Top Qaeda Interrogation," the newspaper described "coercive interrogation methods" endorsed by the CIA and the Justice Department, which including hooding, food and light deprivation, withholding medications, and "a technique known as 'water boarding,' in which a prisoner is strapped down, forcibly pushed under water and made to believe he might drown." The article quoted U.S. officials in defending such practices as, not torture: "Defenders of the operation said the methods stopped short of torture, did not violate American anti-torture statutes, and were necessary to fight a war against a nebulous enemy whose strength and intentions could only be gleaned by extracting information from often uncooperative detainees." The article seemed to carry an affective connotation that the techniques described are something other than torture: "The tactics simulate torture, but officials say they are supposed to stop short of serious injury." The implication is that only interrogation methods that cause serious physical harm would be real and not simulated torture. For more about this case of the corporate media violating We The People's right to know, see the Fair Alert from 14 May.

[Of particular note are the words "Justice Department". Bush went on record as denouncing the similiar actions of the American troops in the Abu Ghraib Abuse Scandal, as well as elsewhere. Remember this: a command takes on the character of its commander. For more on that score, see this entry in Appendix G. --MN]

By Dominic Sena, and starring John Travolta and Halle Berry. The television broadcast of the film was expurgated by painting a bikini top on Halle Berry in the scene where she is top free in the film.

[I wonder how much that bowdlerization was in response to the Super Bowl halftime wardrobe malfunction. If you're interested in seeing what Big Brother was trying to protect you from, you can call up an image of the top-free Ms. Berry from that scene. If you fear the sight of naked nipples, don't click on that link. --MN]

By Bill Nevins. In Mar 2003, Mr. Nevins was fired from his job teaching poetry, writing, and literacy at Rio Rancho High School, Albuqurque, New Mexico, for not censoring his students' work. One of his students, a girl named Courtney, presented one of her poems before an audience at a Barnes & Noble bookstore, then read the poem live on the school's closed-circuit television channel. What happened then was:

• A school military liaison and the principal both accused her of being "un-American" because she criticized the war in Iraq and the Bush administration's failure to give substance to its "No child left behind" education policy.

• The principal ordered the girl's mother, also a teacher, to destroy the child's poetry. She refused and is also in danger of losing her job.

• Bill Nevins was suspended for not censoring the poetry of his students, which did not contain any obscenities. He was later fired by the principal.

• After Nevins was fired, both classes in poetry and the poetry club were permanently terminated.

• The principal and the military liaison read a poem of their own as they raised the flag outside the school. When the principal had the flag at full staff, he applauded the action he'd taken in concert with the military liaison.

• Then, to all students and faculty who did not share his political opinions, the principal shouted: "Shut your faces."

• Posters done by art students were ordered torn down, even though none was termed obscene. Some were satirical, implicating a national policy that had led us into war.

• Art teachers who refused to rip down the posters on display in their classrooms were not given contracts to return to the school for the 2003-04 school year.

• Meanwhile, Mr. Nevins applied for a teaching post at another school and was offered a job there, but he can't go to work until Rio Rancho's principal sends the new school Mr. Nevins's credentials, which he has refused to do.

The American Civil Liberties Union has become the legal arm of the lawsuit pending in federal court, and the teachers union has been joined by the National Writers Union in a legal action against the school.

[Someone should bring an action against the officer for going forsworn on his oath to uphold and defend the constitution. He's probably earned himself a bad conduct discharge. As for the principal and the school, there is no way in hell they can possibly justify this under Hazelwood. --MN]
(see 03 Aug 2004)

The Monroe school was one of four in Topeka that were set aside to be used for black children. Oliver Brown filed a suit after his request that his daughter be allowed to attend an all-white school that was closer to their home was denied. That lawsuit, along with three similar suits from Delaware, South Carolina and Virginia, resulted in the decision overturning the Supreme Court's earlier "separate but equal" doctrine. The old school property now belongs to the federal government and is part of the National Park System. On this day the site will be dedicated as the Brown vs. Board of Education National Historic Site. It was reported on 15 Apr, that at least three white supremacist groups would be protesting the dedication, although they would not be allowed on the site during the dedication. The protesters were to be relegated to the public property across the street.

Marion County commissioners were originally split 2-2 on the idea of retooling the Library Advisory Board after that body kept Eat Me on the shelves. Commissioners Steve Henning and Randy Harris called for the change after library board members kept the Australian sex novel 'Eat Me' on the shelves two months ago. Harris worries about kids checking out the book and acting out what they read. Harris cited concerns about kids checking out the book and acting out what they read, and is quoted, "And while we would say 'my gosh, that's a horrible thing!! And everyone should do their part to try and halt that activity!!' How do you do that when you're providing them a road map in our public library?" This rationale completely ignores the fact that Eat Me is shelved in the adult section.

[I'm guessing that by "child", these two idiots mean "young adults under the age of majority". I chalk this one up to just another censorship play for power and control. Harris's motion to strip the advisory board of policy-making authority could fail through being illegal. --MN]
(see 13 Oct 2003; 03 Feb 2004; 26 Feb 2004; 05 Jun 2004)

By Greenpeace. U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan threw out the charges against Greenpeace In the nation's first federal indictment targeting an advocacy group for its protest tactics. Judge Jordan ruled that there was not enough evidence for the case to go to the jury, having concluded, "Because of fortuity," the boarding about six miles from Port of Miami docks did not meet the law's requirement of a ship "about to arrive." He also advised Greenpeace that it is now on notice that the old law exists and warned the activists in the case of future boardings, "Caveat emptor."

Greenpeace was claiming that the charges were payback for its criticism of alleged lax Bush administration enforcement of international restrictions on mahogany trade. The 70 tons of perhaps illegally harvested Brazilian wood was later unloaded in Charleston, S.C. Greenpeace general counsel Tom Wetterer commented on the ruling, "It's a message that the government can't just throw any charge at an organization to silence them."

By Christian Defense Coalition, Operation Rescue Boston and Operation Rescue West. These anti-abortion groups are suing the city of Boston, Massachussetts, because of it's process for obtaining permits for demonstrations. Applications must submitted fourteen days in advance, which the groups say is not enough lead time. The groups are some times not made aware of events at which they might want to protest that far in advance. In this case, the groups want to demonstrate at the Democratic National Convention, which is scheduled for 26-29 July, but related events might be scheduled at other locations. Of greater import to this editor, is the claim, mentioned only in passing in the source article, that demonstraters will be relegated to free speech zones somewhat removed from the convention center. The case is being heard by U.S. District Judge William Young.

[Addendum (01 Jun 2004:) The coalition agreed to drop the lawsuit when the city agreed to simplify the process and add guidelines for spontaneous demonstrations. The new provisions allow for "spontaneous demonstrations" for events the groups learn about after July 10, and which will take place during the week of the convention. Under the settlement, the city has agreed -- for the period between July 10 and August 1 -- to allow groups of more than 20 but fewer than 50 to apply for a permit with shorter notice time, and has agreed to respond to those permit requests -- approving or rejecting them -- within two business days. For groups of more than 50, the city agreed to make its "best effort" to approve applications within two business days. --MN]

By State Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.). See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Eric Stephenson. This Farmington, Utah, lawyer is suing Viacom over the Janet Jackson wardrobe malfunction. This law suit does not stem from a knee jerk reaction, however, and seems on the face of it to have some merit. Mr. Stephenson is suing Viacom in small claims court for false advertising. He is asking $5,000 in compensation. He says that he was led to believe this 2004 Super Bowl halftime show would be a family-oriented patriotic celebration, but instead, he was exposed to explicit song lyrics, Janet Jackson's bare breast, and what he calls Kid Rock's desecration of the American flag by wearing it as a poncho. He is quoted as having told Judge Jerald Jensen in court on this day, "This is a simple case of bait and switch.They had total control ... to tell me what was going to happen, and they had total control to hide it from me." Viacom is being represented by Jeff Hunt, Salt Lake City attorney, who says Stephenson is complaining in the wrong venue; that he should voice his concerns to the Federal Communications Commission instead.

[Smart move! Interesting and creative use of one's right to petition the government for a redress of a grievance, too. I almost hope he wins his case for that alone. The decision is expected no later than 27 May. --MN]
(see 02 Feb 2004; 26 May 2004; 22 Sep 2004)

By University of Louisville professor Ede Warner. Professor Warner wants the school to ban the group, and then to argue in court that it is a terrorist organization. Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center in Montgomery, Ala., reportedly allowed that having the Klan banned as a terrorist organization based on its past would be legally difficult, especially in light of the Klan's inaction in recent years, and it would probably be unnecessary. The University had banned two members of the KKK from the campus earlier this May, for posting fliers on campus in protest of diversity programs sponsored by the school. That stirred debate among faculty and administrators about how far the university can go to keep some groups off campus and how best to deal with unpopular ideas in the academic setting.

By lay Baptist leaders T.C. Pinckney and Bruce Shortt. It was reported in a commentary by Charles Haynes, at First Amendment Center, that these two would submit to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in Indianapolis in June, a resolution urging 16 million Southern Baptists, "to remove their children from the government schools and see to it that they receive a thoroughly Christian education." Mr. Haynes commented that this is part of a growing movement among evangelicals calling for Christians to abandon "Godless schools"; which places the evengelicals perceive as hostile to religious faith.

[Personally, I see this movement as blasphemy -- an attack on the authority of God -- at the very least, in that it assumes man made laws are more powerful than God. For more, see my commentary on this issue. And if you want your child to have a religious education, then shouldn't you be teaching him his religious morals yourself whatever else he is learning in other places? --MN]

By the U.S. Department of Justice. The federal government refused a request American Civil Liberties Union to tell a federal judge whether it has used in the past eight months certain investigative powers granted under a section 215. As part of the suit, which was filed in U.S. District Court in Detroit, the ACLU has asked the government for information on when Section 215 was used between enactment of the Patriot Act on 26 Oct 2001, and 18 Sep 2003. The agency argued in Dec 2003 that the lawsuit should be dismissed because Section 215 had not been used during the time in question, but in a letter dated 19 May, Joseph W. LoBue, a Justice Department lawyer, told U.S. District Judge Denise Hood that the agency did not plan to reveal whether any requests for information obtainable under the act had been filed. According to the letter, the Department plans to submit a classified report by 30 Jun, to the U.S. House and Senate judiciary committees detailing the applications for information, if there were any, made under the act between July 31, 2003, and the end of 2003

[The ACLU of Michigan released a statement calling the refusal "alarming," and added: "This isn't the first time that the government has tried to overstep its bounds ... . They should know by now that it is the court's right to call the shots about when information needs to be withheld from the public." I consider this move highly suspicous myself. I'm willing to bet that the DOJ is willing to release a report covering a period of only five months because there were no invocations of S.215 during that period, but won't release any information about use of the section prior to 31 Jul because that section was used. --MN]

By Customs and Border Protection Commissioner Robert Bonner. On 21 May, Mr. Bonner announced that foreign journalists will be given a one-time break and be allowed to enter the United States even if they have the wrong visa. foreign journalists are required to have an "I" visa that applies to working journalists. But some arrive with "B-1" business visas, officials said. This situation was described as a common mistake. There was no word on the incidents at Los Angeles International Airport where journalists who had apparently been stopped with wrong visas were treated as violent criminals, or why, if this mistake is so common, only twelve journalists out of those who entered there, were singled out.
(see 05 May 2004)

By Matthew Dixon. The full 13-member bench of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the case never should have been removed from state court. Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, hinges on a state law that makes it illegal to fire a person based on political opinions or the exercise of political rights guaranteed by the state or U.S. constitutions. U.S. District Judge C. Weston Houck had agreed with Coburg Dairy that the case centered on whether the company had violated Dixon's First Amendment rights, and he dismissed the lawsuit, A three-judge panel of the 4th Circuit upheld that ruling in a 2-1 decision in May 2003. This ruling reversed that decision and returned the case to Judge Houck with instructions to send it to the South Carolina Court of Common Pleas, where it originated. The ruling is absolutely irrelevant to the merits of the case, deciding only where the case should be tried.

[See the source article for more background. There are a number of issues it covers including some concerns about the possible backlash of ruling that a public display of something someone finds offensive does not constitute harrassment. I'd be more concerned if the court decided that a public display was ruled harrassment. --MN]
(see 25 Sep 2003)

By People For the American Way. See the entry in Appendix G.

By Eric Stephenson. The judge didn't buy his claim about false advertising. Mr. Stephanson might appeal the ruling to the District court, but hadn't decided as of the report I saw. He is quoted as saying, "The real loser here is the consumer. Without a victory here it gives advertisers a license to lie and get away with it."

[I laughed out loud when I read that quotation, at the preposterous notion that advertisers might actually tell the simple truth. However, that is the result of an equivocation. Stephanson's plaint derives from Truth In Advertising laws, and while advertisers are at liberty, under free speech provisions, to slant their pitch with half-truths, they cannot make patently fraudulent claims. Viacom's lawyer, Jeff Hunt, called Stephenson's claim that the performance was falsely advertised a stretch, and said that the show's content was protected by the First Amendment. But the advertising was not part of the show, and it comes under the heading of commercial speech, whereas the performance was artistic speech. For more on that, see my commentary about the JJT Affair (along with photographs; caveat lector). --MN]
(see 02 Feb 2004; 21 May 2004; 22 Sep 2004)

LL Media in Nordjylland introduced the idea to stop staff from accessing adult material at work. Levi Nielsen, The company's director, believes access to porn is a natural fringe benefit, and hopes the move will make his staff more relaxed and more efficient on the job. He is quoted, "We know that 80% of all hits on the Internet are on porn sites. And we can see that people also surf porn pages during work."

[Smart move. With free access at home, there'll be no need to surf the sites at work, so productivity should go up, and accessing a site or not remains a personal choice. This move isn't likely to stop all the time wasting, of course, but should make a big dent in it. Of course, against that, you have to balance the question of how much porn surfing is done at work by people who feel guilty about doing at home and fear getting caught by their significant other. --MN]

By Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. This secular group asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Roman Catholic diocese in Colorado Springs on this day, claiming Bishop Michael Sheridan violated federal tax law by threatening to withhold Communion from those who disagree with the church. Several U.S. Catholic bishops had already instructed Catholic politicians and voters to perform political duties in accordance with church teachings, Earlier this month, and this month, Bishop Sheridan wrote in a Catholic newspaper that Catholic politicians may not take Communion if they break with church teachings against abortion rights, euthanasia, gay marriage, and stem-cell research. He also wrote that the same standard applies to ordinary Catholics who vote for such candidates. [A flagrant violation of church/state separation in this editor's opinion. --MN]

In a letter to the IRS, Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United, said the church should lose its tax-exempt status because it is using church resources for political purposes, writing in part, "I believe that Bishop Sheridan, by issuing this document in a church publication in his official capacity as head of a religious organization, may have violated federal tax law and jeopardized the tax-exempt status of the Diocese of Colorado Springs." IRS spokesman Don Roberts said the agency cannot comment on specific cases, but has guidelines to evaluate third-party complaints.

[For on the Church/State entanglement movement by the Bush administration and re-election campaign, see this article at First Amendment Center about the threat such entanglement poses to the tax exempt status of churches. --MN]

By John Sharp, Texas comptroller's office, and his successor, Carole Keeton Strayhorn. In Sep 2003, the office of Comptroller denied tax-exemption to the Unitarian Universalist Church in Denison, Texas. When the story of this denial broke in the press, it took about a week for Ms. Strayhorn to reverse herself. It then came out that the Comptroller's office had been engaged in religious discrimination for years. The discrimination in which Ms. Strayhorn had engaged was begun by her predecessor, who instituted a Supreme Being Test to determine tax status; to qualify, groups had to have a belief in a "God, Gods, or a higher power." Ms. Strayhorn denied the tax-exemption to the U-U church under the rationale that the church had no single system of beliefs. Totally ignoring the fact that this openness to people of many beliefs is what defines Unitarian Universalist churches, and that Unitarians and Universalists have been in the United States since the late 18th century (the two groups merged in 1961).

This week, the 3rd District court struck down the Supreme Being Test in a case dating back to 1997, when John Sharp denied tax exemption to the Ethical Culture Fellowship of Austin. Ms. Strayhorn had since carried the case forward, and in light of the ruling that the test is unconstitutional, has pledged to take it to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[See the commentary by Charles Haynes for more background. --MN]

By Stephen Downs. This free speech suppression incident is back in the news due to the NYCLU having filed a law suit on 27 May, against Crossgates Mall, its owner the Pyramid Cos., the town of Guilderland and the town police department. The suit argues that since Crossgates Mall receives tax incentives from the town, it is a public area in which citizens' free-speech rights are guaranteed. The security guard who first accosted Mr. Downs and ordered him to leave the mall was fired four days after the incident. He claimed that he was just obeying the orders of his superiours. In a statement, Melanie Trimble, executive director of the Albany-area chapter of the NYCLU, said, "As matter of public policy and common sense, individuals should be allowed to wear clothing that expresses their personal opinions, even their own ideological views. The mall has no right to pick and choose which messages they find offensive."

As for the shirt, it now resides in the New York State Museum in Albany. Museum Director Clifford Siegfried said he sought the shirt because "our mission is to document New York history, natural and human, and this certainly is a piece of that."
(see 03 Mar 2003; 05 Mar 2003)

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

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

By Reverend Abe Brown. In March, Monsignor Antonio Diez, pastor of Resurrection Catholic Church, became involved in a petition drive to allow voters to prohibit nudity in public places. The grassroots initiative is aimed at the adult entertainment industry, which already has a strong foothold in the county. Diez said he was motivated to join the cause when a group of businessmen sought to open a topless bar on U.S. 301, just blocks from his parish and a neighboring Assembly of God church. A preschool operated at Resurrection prevented the business from opening, Diez said, because of a current county ordinance prohibiting adult entertainment businesses from locating close to schools. The fact of the ordinance doesn't seem to be good enough, and a group called Citizens for Decency that was organized by a number of priests contacted County Commissioner Ronda Storms. She advised the group to initiate a petition drive and to collect 30,000 signatures if they wanted to place a referendum on the November ballot. The deadline to submit the petition seems to have been this day.

Rex Sparklin of Gibbs Law Firm, P.A., in Seminole, the legal firm representing the group, is quoted, "The petition is a request to the board to codify community standards and we believe those standard already exists. No one would argue, especially the Citizens for Decency, that these business don’t have the right to exist, but they do have a responsibility to the community and we believe the values and standards of the community have been violated." The proposed ordinance is entitled "Protect People from Crime Related to Public Nudity" and would prohibit public nudity in businesses throughout Hillsborough County, as well as other forms of dress considered extremely close to nudity. G-strings, t-backs, dental floss (used as clothing) and thongs leaving a nipple or buttocks exposed would be banned. Opaque dyes or tattoos over prohibited body parts also would be considered insufficient coverage.

[This is an egregious piece of bovine scatology from start to finish. If they really were willing to allow adult entertainment businesses to exist, then they would be satisfied with the zoning ordinances. The fact that they are not, casts considerable doubt upon their intent. A second factor that tells me that they are acting in bad faith is that the name of the proposal does not jibe with what they want to accomplish. The title for this new ordinance suggests that it would deal with the secondary effects of adult enterntainment, when in fact it targets the entertainment itself. A third factor is the way the principals identify the nudity as "public" when it is behind the closed doors of an adult oriented business and only legal adults can be allowed into such establishments. --MN]

By Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights. The subcommittee approved a constitutional amendment that would allow Congress to take steps to "protect" the U.S. flag from desecration. The vote of the nine-member committee was 5 - 4, along party lines. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, subcommittee chairman, commented, There are many ways to express one's political views, but there is only one U.S. flag, and it deserves constitutional protection." Sen. Russell Feingold, the subcommittee's ranking Democrat, opposes the proposed amendment, and is quoted, "We are talking here today about amending the Constitution of the United States to permit the government to criminalize conduct that, however misguided and wrong, is clearly expressive, and sometimes undertaken as a form of political protest. I cannot support this course."

[Senator Pompous Ass-Mucky Muck from Texas seems to be operating on a double standard morality. This is the only explanation I have for his completely ignoring the facts that: a) flag burning is already constitutionally protected; b) the principle of not abridging freedom of speech means that you can't set a limit on the number of modes of expression and ban some methods of expression under the excuse that there will still be enough left; and, c) his statement that there is only one flag is an equivocation; there might be only one flag for the country as a whole, but manufacturers can always turn out more copies no matter how many other copies are burned in protest; we are not talking about destroying a unique specimen, here. --MN]

By Tyler Chase Harper. A sixteen year old student at Poway Unified School District, Los Angeles, California, he was suspended for expressing his religious beliefs during the "Day of Silence" on April 21. High school and college students were urged to participate in this national event by remaining silent in a show of support for homosexuals, bisexuals and trans-gender students. Mr. Harper wore a tee shirt to school that read, "Homosexuality is Shameful." The lawsuit says that Harper is a christian and believes, "homosexual behavior is immoral, damaging to the practitioners and to human society in general, and is demonstrably contrary to the teachings of the Bible." Robert Tyler, a lawyer with the Alliance Defense Fund, which is handling the case, commented, "When are public school officials going to learn they are not allowed to silence constitutionally protected student speech just because they disagree with the student?"

["When?" indeed. I get so tired of this crap. Especially as I have a pretty fair inkling of the answer: Never. That's not necesssarily a bad thing, however. What we've got to is to keep the pendulum from swinging back into religious authoritarianism. --MN]

By the Bush re-election campaign. See the entry on the Church/State Entanglement page.

By the "People's" Republic of China. See the entry on the Chinese censorship page.

By Eminem. During the 2004 Movie Awards live show, on this date, he dropped his trews and treated the audience to a view of his derriere. MTV immediately announced that there would be a lunar eclipse by pixelation for the 10 Jun broadcast of the event, but finally decided to edit out the shot entirely.

[Odds are pretty good this is more fall out from Janet Jackson Tit Affair. --MN]

The Marion County Public Library Advisory Board and county staff has addressed part of the problem that caused the protracted controversy over its functions and sexually explicit library books. It remains only for County Administrator Pat Howard to approve it. The big surprise is that the changes appear very much to make the review process both more efficient and constitutionally friendly. The library board struggled with the appeal process before rendering its decision in December, and by February had drafted a revised policy which won unanimous support. The new measure was forwarded to Mr. Howard in March. Much of the initial reconsideration process remains the same.

• One noticeable change is in terminology; the policy will now be called a Statement of Concern.
• Two new steps involve giving the objecting patron reviews of the book in question and,
• charging library staff to offer help in finding other books.
• The proposed policy says that complainants must be Marion County residents with valid library cards.
• The patron "must attest" to having read, listened to, or viewed the material "in its entirety."
• Once an appeal is filed a three-member committee of library staff has four weeks to review the material and make a recommendation.
• The library director gets two weeks instead of one to make a determination of what will happen to the book.
• Any patron has 30 days to appeal the outcome, once the head librarian announces it to the library board.
• The library board will review the material as well, as now, and recommend its position through a roll call vote.
• The proposed method gets more specific on the next steps once the roll call vote is taken. The draft policy says the library director makes the final determination - a guideline which is currently unclear - within 14 days of the vote.
• Another new aspect is a restriction on the number of complaints and appeals: to one per title. In one instance, that means if the director makes a decision and there are n o appeals, other patrons cannot then challenge the same book. If the director decides on an appeal to a previously filed "statement of concern" no other appeals to that book will be considered.

Mr. Howard has said that he doesn't like the idea of the library director handling the appeal and would prefer another person, perhaps the library's supervisor or the county administrator, be written in as the next-level judge.

[I have to wonder why. This seems to be a pretty good piece of work on the face of it; why go and screw around with it by putting the final say in the hands of a politician? I will allow, however, that he might have a legitimate concern over a concentration of power. --MN]
(see 13 Oct 2003; 03 Feb 2004; 26 Feb 2004; 18 May 2004; 05 Jun 2004)

By religious groups. A coalition of Twenty-six Christian, Jewish and Sikh organizations is urging Congress to reject the proposal to amendment the constitution so as to ban same-sex marriage. The coalition sent a letter to U.S. Congress on 02 June that read in part, "We believe the federal marriage amendment reflects a fundamental disregard for individual civil rights and ignores differences among our nation's many religious traditions. It should be rejected." Karen Vagley of the Lutheran Office of Governmental Affairs of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America said her group signed the letter because, "we see this as a civil rights matter. Our social statements are clear: we do not discriminate." Stan Hastey, executive director of the Alliance of Baptists, commented, "We oppose any effort either by the church or state to use the other for its own purposes." Richard Land, head of the Southern Baptist Convention's ethics and religious liberty commission, replied to the letter, "To say that this is an attempt to foist one religious viewpoint on everyone else is just nonsense. This is a moral issue."

[Yeah? Well, I've got my own morals, pal; yours aren't good enough for me. --MN]

By Associated Press. See the entry on the Church/State Entanglement page.

By -- Pukians? -- Pukers? -- Pukettes? Kotzenjammers, probably.

The German town of Kotzen, in which country the word kotzen means puke, was under edict to change its name. According to the Maerkische Oderzeitung (newspaper?), the name has a tradition of putting a smile on the faces of visitors. This town was created when the villages of Kotzen, Kriele, and Landin merged in 2003, and residents were given until the end of June to pick a different name. The residents, however, were apparently unable to come up with an agreeable alternative. It was left to officials to make a final decision, and in the end they voted 5-3 against changing it.

[Probably nothing at all to do with censorship, but funny as hell, and it's been a lousy month so far. --MN]

By the ACLU. See the entry on the Church/State Entanglement page.

By Folger Shakespeare Library, Washington D.C. This exhibit of 16th- and 17th-century books, manuscripts, and works of art, tells the story of the struggle between tolerance and persecution. Sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Europe provides obvious examples of these tendency to refuse to to accept as fully human, individuals or groups on the grounds of their religion, race, or ethnic background. It also offers ample evidence of the opposite impulse, however; that of the struggle for tolerance and for freedom of expression. Though justifiably regarded as an era of crisis, religious warfare and persecution, the period also generated powerful, though often isolated, voices for peace and toleration. Major support for this exhibit, comes from The Winton and Carolyn Blount Exhibition Fund and The Community Foundation for the National Capital Region's Bradley Charitable Fund. The exhibit is scheduled to close on 30 Oct 2004.

By Brigitte Bardot. Now an ardent animal rights campaigner, Ms Bardot, along with her publishing house, Editions du Rocher, were fined $6,050 each. The moneys are to be paid to the two anti-racism groups that had sued them. The book denounced the "infiltration" of France by Islamic extremists, criticized the ritual slaughter of sheep during Muslim religious ceremonies, and Ms. Bardot also described what she called the "Islamization of France." inciting racial hatred This is her second conviction for inciting racial hatred; she could have been sentenced to a year in jail. The court found that she had presented Muslims as, "invaders, barbaric and cruel, responsible for terrorist acts, wishing to subdue the French people to the point of extermination." the court concluded in its ruling that the language could lead the reader to "reject members of the Muslim community through hate and violence." During her hearing, in May, Ms Bardot had said her book was a simple critique of the religious practices of Muslims and a denunciation of those terrorist attacks committed by Islamic extremists, and she is quoted, "Among Muslims, I think there are some who are very good and some hoodlums, like everywhere."

[I don't have enough information to make even a tentative conclusion, but this suit strikes me as sniveling by a pack of hypersensitive PC twits. If that is the case, this establishes a worrisome precedent; you can't say out loud that it is wrong for Israel to kill Palestinian civilians in the streets without being called an anti-Semite, and now you won't be allowed to say there are Muslims who are terrorists, either. --MN]

The jury deliberated for nearly seven days before handing down its verdict, but Saudi graduate student Sami Omar Al-Hussayen was acquitted of charges he used his computer expertise to help Muslim terrorists raise money and recruit followers. This case was seen as an important test of a provision of the Patriot Act that makes it a crime to provide expert advice or assistance to terrorists. The prosecution argued that Al-Hussayen had set up and run Web sites that were used to recruit terrorists, raise money, and disseminate inflammatory rhetoric. They said the sites included religious edicts justifying suicide bombings and an invitation to contribute financially to the militant Palestinian organization Hamas. Defense attorneys argued that he had little to do with the creation of the material posted. And they said the material was protected by the First Amendment right to freedom of expression and was not designed to raise money or recruit extremists. Juror John Steger commented, "There was a lack of hard evidence. There was no clear-cut evidence that said he was a terrorist, so it was all on inference. [...] It [the evidence submitted] showed he was involved in what he was doing, but it seemed it was pretty innocent what he was doing."

The government's case suffered a serious setback on 27 May, when a former CIA anti-terrorism expert testified that his site was not likely to have promoted terrorism. Frank Anderson said of the material, that the postings, particularly four scholarly declarations from Islamic clerics justifying suicide bombings in 2001, could be found on numerous other Web sites and on other information sources, including the Foreign Broadcast Information Service operated by the U.S. government. His testimony was so damaging to the government that the defense rested its case after he testified.

Al-Hussayen was acquitted on all three terrorism charges, as well as one count of making a false statement and two counts of visa fraud. Jurors could not reach verdicts on three more false-statement counts and five additional visa-fraud counts, and a mistrial was declared on those charges. U.S. Attorney Tom Moss said it would be a week before a decision would be made on whether to retry Al-Hussayen on the eight remaining counts.

[Addendum (03 Jul 2004:) On 39 Jun the government agreed to dismiss their remaining immigration charges against Sami Omar Al-Hussayen in exchange for his agreement to drop an appeal over his deportation order. Having failed to make its case that he was terrorist, the remaining charges were rather picayune, after all.--MN]

By the French Constitutional Council. The Council published its decisions on the Law on confidence in the digital economy (LEN), in which it struck out a highly contested point on the legal limitation period on the Internet. The council had rejected an amendment introduced by French industry minister Patrick Devedjian, which would allow legal action against online content three months after the offending file had been removed. A site editor could thus be accused of defamation in connection with articles published years before. The council took the view that this measure ran contrary to the Constitution and created a legal imbalance between the press and electronic publications. It decided that the limitation period should remain the same as for newspapers: three months from the date the content was first posted. On 17 Jun, Reporters Without Borders commented in a statement, "This decision confirms what we have been saying for months, that LEN did not respect free expression. We will nevertheless need to be vigilant on how judges interpret the new law. We will closely watch the first rulings on the subject, because they will allow service providers to know what kind of content can be censored without prior intervention by the courts."

By E.R. Frank. School board members voted 4-1 to follow the recommendation of the review committee that evaluated this book. While the main character used language that some readers might find objectionable, the committee found it was a realistic portrayal of life for an abused child, and is quoted, "Abuse cannot be painted with a pretty picture." The challenge was initiated by teacher Mark Weber, who asked the district to form a committee that would reflect "local values" in selecting books. Weber reportedly said that he objected to the book's inappropriate language and graphic sexual imagery, and that a school library shouldn't be the place for a censorship debate.

[I chalk Weber's thinking up to simple-minded ignorance, but there are interesting undercurrents in what he apparently said. I interpret his asking for a committee that would reflect local values to be a demand for a committee that would rubber stamp his censorship, and that this is further echoed in his apparent sentiment that no one was allowed to oppose his challenge by calling his action a censorship movement. And a school library is as good a place for a censorship debate as any other. I recommend that you see the source article for more background. --MN]

By the U.S. Supreme Court. See the entry on the Pledge of Allegiance page.

By Zaw Thet Htwe. On 14 May, he had his sentence reduced to three years imprisonnment; from the Death Penalty he had received in Nov 2003. The military junta accused Zaw Thet Htwe, editor of a popular Burmese sports magazine First Eleven, of involvement in a "conspiracy" against the government and charged him with "high treason", reportedly for taking the risk of exposing irregularities on the part of Burmese sports officials.

The RSF article also reported that seven law students have been in detention since June 2003. They are believed to have been arrested for setting up a student sports union in their university without official permission. Sentenced to terms of between seven and fifteen years imprisonment are:

• Aung Gyi,
• Aung Ko Lwin,
• Kyaw Maung,
• Myo Myint Tun,
• Myo Than Htut,
• Nang Siang None and
• Win Htut Lwin

They are among the more than 1,350 political prisoners being detained in Myanmar; many of whom were arrested for their peaceful political activities.

By the Bush administration. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

Mayor John Hickenlooper apologized for the thousands of "spy files" which had been collected on members of peaceful protest groups and kept by the Denver police force, over the past half-century, and announced that the records will be archived for historical purposes at the Denver Public Library, albeit in a non-public section. The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado had asked for the files to be preserved after settling its lawsuit against the city in 2003. ACLU-Colorado legal director Mark Silverstein commented, "There's a very legitimate interest for historical purposes for preserving these records, in what we hope is a now closed episode in this city's history. The plan sets up a mechanism that will permit individuals to find out if they're in those files and read what the police department wrote about them."

[See the source article for more background. --MN]
(See 22 Jul 2002; 10 Apr 2003; 14 Jun 2005)

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

[See my commentary on this issue; this one is just such a sample of egregious, republican-conservative, double-think I have to say something about it. --MN]

By Frenchmen. Unveiled by prime minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin on 08 Jun, this proposed anti-misohomism and sexism speech law carries with it the possibility of a one year jail term and a fine of 45,000 Euros. On this day, Reporters Without Borders released a statement that read in part:

"The measure curbs civil liberties in a way that conflicts with its laudable aim of protecting certain sectors of the population. The definition of provocation and discrimination is vague and could lead to unjustified prosecutions. We note that the so-called Guigou law in 2000 abolished prison terms for media offences such as defamation and insults.

"New inequality is being created in the name of equal rights. Enough laws already punish defamation and insults. We are worried about the government's tendency to keep amending the 1881 press law to curb freedom of expression in conflict with rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, which says freedom of expression covers not just news and topics but also opinions that the government or a sector of the population does not like.

"We are also extremely concerned at the extension to one year of the three-month time-limit for prosecuting such offences. Racism and incitement to hatred already carry a one-year limit and we fear that the three-month limit, which is one of the roots of press freedom in France, will gradually disappear. This series of measures is part of an insidious attack on freedom of expression."

Apparently this proposal would amend the 1881 press law to add new offences to the existing ones that relate to ethnic groups, nationality, race, and religion. The cabinet is due to consider the proposal later this month and French parliament at the end of the year.

By South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster. Thousands of free music CDs from a nationwide price-fixing settlement are headed to libraries around the U.S., but A.G. McMasters has taken it upon himself to circumvent library policies and procedures throughout South Carolian by unilaterally forbidding some artists as "offensive". A.G. spokesman Trey Walker said on 15 Jun, "There was not a requirement to vet the titles, but we took it upon ourselves. Other states did that as well." Rapper Eminem and actors Cheech and Chong, known for their dope-smoking comedy bits, are among artists removed from the distribution list. Denyse Williams, executive director of the South Carolina office of the American Civil Liberties Union, thinks McMaster's action violates the law. "When the chief law enforcement officer decides to make a wholesale decision, it's prior restraint." Such an action seems to be permissible under the terms of the settlement, however. Kershaw County Library Director Penny Harvey didn't seem to mind the action, commenting, "We'll go from nothing to something. We're looking forward to making it available to the public and encouraging them to use it, and hopefully it will be like gangbusters."

By Paul K. McMasters. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By anybody; including the "free" press. After a number of photographs were released to the Memory Hole web site and posted there by Russ Kirk, the Pentagon announced that no further photographs would be released, not even in the face of a Freedom Of Information Act request. At the time, a poll found that more than sixty percent of Americans thought the homecomings should be covered. On this day, the Senate refused to change that policy by a vote of 54 - 39; when the number of American war dead was put at 837. This vote defeated an amendment to the authorization bill for the Defense Department that would have given the Pentagon sixty days to produce a protocol to regulate media coverage of the returning dead.
(see 21 Apr 2004; 04 Oct 2004; 28 Apr 2004)

By Fox News Channel anchor Brit Hume. The September 11 Commission's 16 Jun interim report indicated that there did not appear to be a "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and Osama bin Laden. On this day, Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting issued an action alert detailing Brit Hume's blatantly inaccurate and misrepresentative analysis of the report. This analysis seems to perfectly parallel the attitudes and misrepresentative stance of the Bush administration, as detailed by Robert Scheer in a commentary posted to AlterNet.org.

[Kindly take note, gentle reader, that Fox News is not a free press so much as it a government lackey. Rupert Murdoch established Fox News to "balance" the so-called "liberal" press with conservative reporting. Furthermore, a well qualified source:

I Watched A Wild Hog Eat My Baby
Bill Sloan -2001
ISBN 1-57392-902-6
Dewey # 071.3 S634I

. . . has stated that Murdoch, as a tabloid publisher, established Fox News to be another tabloid outlet. According to such criticisms, Fox News is not Fair and Balanced(tm) so much as it is biased and misrepresentative. To my knowledge, it is the only media outlet that self-identifies as partisan. Accusations that the press is "liberal" were started by Rush Limbaugh, and I wouldn't take what he says with a whole salt lick. --MN]

[Addendum (06 Oct 2004:) That statement about Limbaugh is incorrect; he only shamelessly exploited the propaganda about a "liberal" press, but he didn't start these accusations. --MN]

By Associated Press. This news service file a suit against the Pentagon and the Air Force in an effort to gain access to all of President George W. Bush's military service records during the Vietnam War. The White House says that the government has already released all those records. The lawsuit alleges that there are questions as to whether the file provided to the news media earlier this year is complete, adding that these questions could possibly be answered by reviewing a copy of the microfilm of Bush's personnel file in the Texas archives.
(see 18 Feb 2004)

By Reinhard Liebermann. Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder of Germany has succeeded in having this book banned. In the story, drugstore proprietor Hans Hansmann goes bankrupt because of Germany's economic downturn. He blames the chancellor's policies and shoots Chancellor Winzling dead during a speech in Hanover, which happens to be where Chancellor Schroeder has his home. Two months ago, a court ordered the cover picture of a man to be changed so it would not look like the Chancellor. Hamburg's State Superior Court has now ruled that the entire work was a breach of Schroeder's human entitlement to respect as an individual. The chief executive of publisher Betzel, Dietrich Reinhardt, denounced the ruling as "100 per cent censorship by the powerful". Schroeder has already been to court twice in the past two years on similar matters; one was to gag newspapers from reporting that he dyes his hair, and once to gag them from writing about alleged romances with people other than his wife.

[It seems that in Germany a public official is not permitted to be the subject of public scrutiny. --MN]

By Cuba. Manuel Vàzquez Portal was let out of jail without any kind of an explanation. He was also told by two State Security agents that he should leave the country. He replied that he wanted "to see the end of the film". Mr. Portal questioned assumptions that he was released due to failing health, believing that Raùl Rivero and Oscar Espinosa Chepe were in a more fragile states of health than he was. He believes set free for the "Cuban government to send a veiled message to the international community."

[See the source article for more background on Mr. Portal and the continuing state of affairs in Cuba. While the Cuban government has released a few dissidents, it has apparently been locking up even more. --MN]

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

By Michael Moore. The film hit the theaters with a big splash, demonstrating once again the counter-productivity of censorship. See the entry on the Michael Moore censorship movement page.

By First Amendment Center and American Journalism Review magazine. The national survey of 1,002 respondents was conducted by telephone between 06 May and 06 Jun 2004. The sampling error is plus-or-minus 3%. Among key findings in the 2004 survey:

• In response to a general question, 58% say current government regulation on broadcast television with regard to references to sexual activity is about right, with 16% saying there is too much and 21% saying there is too little regulation.

• But when asked more specific questions, 49% would extend that authority beyond the existing 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. time frame to also include late-night and overnight programs. And even though cable programming today is exempt from FCC standards applied to broadcasters, 54%, would support permitting the same 6 a.m. to 10 p.m. regulations to apply to cable television, with 45% in favor of applying such regulation around-the-clock.

• Parents, by wide majority -- from 71% to 87% -- are seen as having the main responsibility to keep children from seeing "inappropriate material" on television, radio, movies or printed material. Survey respondents ranked the content providers -- programmers, movie producers or theater owners and publishers -- as the second-most-responsible group, with government running a distant third or fourth choice.

• Even as 67% of those responding to the survey said that the nation's educational system does a fair-to-poor job of teaching students about the First Amendment, 72% disagreed that a high school student should be allowed to wear a T-shirt with a message or picture that might be offensive to others.

You can see the Foreword to the 2004 report by Gene Policinski; or this analysis of the survey report by Paul K. McMasters; or the Associated Press article, all of which are minor variations on a theme. The report itself, in .PDF can be found here.

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

By the U.S. Supreme Court. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Tom Forsythe. Mattel lost its case against him and must pay more than $1.8 million in legal fees and court costs. The company lost its case, and in December 2003 when a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected its appeal; ruling that Forsythe had a First Amendment right to parody the iconic doll. The panel also said the lawsuit "may have been groundless and unreasonable." The question of legal fees was sent back to U.S. District Court Judge Ronald S.W. Lew in Los Angeles. He echoed the panel's statements, calling Mattel's claims "frivolous," and said it appeared the company had sued Forsythe in "costly litigation to discourage him from using Barbie's image in his artwork." In short: the lawsuit was a SLAPP. His decision contradicts a ruling he made in 2001, wherein he denied Forsythe attorneys fees and court costs. At the time, he said Forsythe had not demonstrated that Mattel's lawsuit had been unreasonable or that imposing such a penalty was necessary to discourage future frivolous lawsuits. In this order, however, he found ample reason to grant Forsythe's motion, and wrote in part, "This is just the sort of situation in which this court should award attorneys fees to deter this type of litigation which contravenes the intent of the Copyright Act."
(see 1998; 07 Nov 2002; 27 Jan 2003; 29 Dec 2003)

By the U.S. government. This piece of legislation from 1998 failed to pass muster before the Supreme Court for the third time running. It has still not been struck down, however, merely sent back down for a new trial to see if it really is the least restrictive method of controlling access to material on the internet. See this analysis by Tony Mauro for more background. If the government cannot prove that it is the least restrictive method of control, it should be struck down by the federal District Court in Philadelphia. That court might still find that it is indeed constitutional, however.

[See this commentary by Marjorie Heins for more analysis. --MN]

By the Bush administration. The U.S. government is offering a novel take on an old excuse* for denying a request seeking the Justice Department's database on foreign lobbyists: Copying the information would crash the computer system.

Thomas J. McIntyre, Justice Department's chief in the office for information requests, said in a written reply, "Implementing such a request risks a crash that cannot be fixed and could result in a major loss of data, which would be devastating." Bob Williams, of the Center for Public Integrity, said to that on 29 Jun, "This was a new one on us. We weren't aware there were databases that could be destroyed just by copying them." The Center for Public Integrity made the request in January. It expects to appeal the Justice Department's decision.

[*The dog ate my homework. How-so-ever, there might actually be something to this excuse. Most Justice Department computer systems are reportedly outdated; and apparently not designed for mass exporting the volume of information asked for in this case. See the source article for more background. I don't entirely believe McIntyre, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. So far. What I'd like to know is: why doesn't the system crash when they do backups? Or . . . don't they do backups? --MN]

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 G4: 21st Century COINTELPRO operations

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: