A brief chronological Compendium of a Few Banned or Challenged Works, and Censorship and Anti-Censorship Efforts 01 Jan - 30 Jun 2006

Whenever we seek to avoid the responsibility for our own behavior, we do so by attempting to give that responsibility to some other individual or organization or entity. But this means we then give away our power to that entity, be it "fate" or "society" or the government or the corporation or our boss. It is for this reason that Erich Fromm so aptly titled his study of Nazism and authoritarianism Escape From Freedom. In attempting to avoid the pain of responsibility, millions and even billions daily attempt to escape from freedom. --M. Scott Peck, The Road Less Travelled, pg 42

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

2006, January 01: Report of a new movement in the ongoing assault against the free press

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

By State of California. A new law went into effect on this day that increases penalties against overly aggressive photographers, of the type dubbed "stalkerazzi". A papparazzo (singular) is a photojournalist who focuses on celebrities and has an in-your-face approach to getting photographs. Stalkerazzi are papparazzi who go well beyond any ethical bounds. Some have been known to intentionally crash their vehicles into those of celebrities; in 2005, in:

• May: a photographer following Lindsay Lohan crashed into the actress' car in West Los Angeles;

• April: actress Reese Witherspoon said photographers had tried to run her car off the road;

• August: actress Scarlett Johansson was involved in a minor car crash in a Disneyland parking lot after being followed by paparazzi.

Stalkerazzi will now be liable for three times the damages they inflict in such incidents, plus lose any payments their published photos might earn, and publishers can also be held liable. While some celebrity shooters think this new law is needed, others call it unfair and unnecessary, and critics say it could even be unconstitutional through creating a chilling effect on newspapers and other media. See the source article for more background.

By the U.S. Occupational Forces Commands. An article by Joseph Mallia of Newsday, and reposted to TruthOut.org, reported that more and more, U.S. military commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan are clamping down on military web journals, commonly called milblogs. The command structure says that troops who post online journals are revealing too much information about operations and procedures. Throughout last year, the Army, Marines, Air Force and Navy tightened control on bloggers by requiring them to register through the chain of command and by creating special security squads to monitor milblogs.While there is a valid concern from an intelligence point of view, the milblogs are necessarily subjected to heavy bias. New York Army National Guard Spc. Jason Christopher Hartley, among the first active-duty combat troops demoted and fined for security violations, commented: "The ones that stay up are completely patriotic and innocuous, and they're fine if you want to read the flag-waving and how everything's peachy keen in Iraq." In short, the only milblogs allowed are those that do not contain any factual information about life in the occupational forces of Iraq. Some critics of this movement say it could make it harder for U.S. troops to publicly raise questions about the invasion of Iraq, the success or failure of the war effort, and the "stop-loss" policy that forces soldiers to remain after enlistment contracts expire.

By National Security Whistleblowers Coalition. A notice of political activism from Institute for Public Accuracy was released on this day. The notice announced the following membership of the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition:

• Sibel Edmonds; director: worked as a language specialist for the FBI's Washington Field Office; while there, reported serious acts of breaches of security, cover-ups, and intentional blocking of intelligence; was fired in Mar 2002 after reporting these acts to FBI management.

• William Weaver, senior adviser: also associate director of faculty for the Institute for Policy and Economic Development in the Center for Law and Border Studies at the University of Texas at El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; worked in U.S. Army signals intelligence for eight years.

• Russ Tice: former National Security Agency intelligence analyst and action officer; is working with the National Security Whistleblowers Coalition because he: "intends to report to Congress probable unlawful and unconstitutional acts conducted while he was an intelligence officer with the National Security Agency and with the Defense Intelligence Agency."

• Jonathan Turley: professor of Constitutional law at George Washington University; has handled various high-profile national security cases; served as an intern at the NSA and was sent to the FISA secret court in that capacity; he commented in part: "Any pursuit of the leaker in this case would be shooting the messenger. Federal officials are prohibited from engaging in crimes and federal employees with knowledge of such crimes have an obligation to disclose them; one can argue whether the New York Times was the best venue for this disclosure, but historically, some of the most important disclosures of federal misconduct have been made through the media."

[Addendum (17 Jan 2005:) On 15 Jan a commentary by Paul K. McMasters, First Amendment Center ombudsman, was posted to their web site. In it, Mr. McMasters outlines a bit of the history of whistleblowing protective actions in the U.S. and how they have rebounded, and how current whistleblowers against the Bush regime are faring in the climate of vehement spite engendered by the regime. --MN]

By the Simon Wiesenthal Center, Los Angeles. On this day the center released a bulletin accusing Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez of invoking an old anti-Semitic slur. The Center said that in a Christmas Eve speech, Chavez declared: "the world has wealth for all, but some minorities, the descendants of the same people that crucified Christ, have taken over all the wealth of the world." This is an allusion to the white supremacist contention that all Jews are responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus Christ due to a proclamation by Ciaphis, the High Priest, to Roman governor Ponctius Pilate, as outlined in the Easter Story. Elements of the American corporate press immediately latched onto the claim and promulgated a smear campaign against President Chavez. The smear campaign, however, is based on a deliberate misquoting that amounts to a fabrication. The Simon Wiesenthal Center had edited what President Chavez actually said, and failed to indicate that the material was extracted. According to a FAIR media advisory, the full and correct quotation is as follows:

The world has an offer for everybody but it turned out that a few minorities--the descendants of those who crucified Christ, the descendants of those who expelled Bolivar from here and also those who in a certain way crucified him in Santa Marta, there in Colombia--they took possession of the riches of the world, a minority took possession of the planet’s gold, the silver, the minerals, the water, the good lands, the oil, and they have concentrated all the riches in the hands of a few; less than 10 percent of the world population owns more than half of the riches of the world.

A critical analysis of the utterance indicates that President Chavez was making an attempt to link the attacks on his populist government to the attacks on his two oft-cited heroes, Jesus and Bolivar; the "minority" that would link the two would be the rich and powerful minority of society. Venezuelan and American Jewish groups were quick to take exception to the claim and to protest to the Center.

[Addendum (19 Mar 2006:) On 15 Mar 2006, Evan Derkacz, of AlterNet.org, had posted an analysis of this incident that is one part media criticism. Titled Chavez's Alleged Anti-Semitism, it is a frank appraisal of the socio-political context, including the part the corporate press played in the evolution of this incident. Quite frankly, the whole thing smacks of left-wing extremism, and tends to support my contention that Jewish human rights organizations such as B'Nai B'Rith and the Anti-Defamation League have become hypersensitive and reactionary. In the meantime, all indications are that Mr. Chavez continues to be pro-humanist; and such a person can not also be anti-Jewish. --MN]

By the courts. On this day the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that while courts can overturn state laws they deem unconstitutional only legislatures can repeal them. The ruling was handed down on this day in the case of a Salt Lake County resident Winsness, who had been cited under Utah's flag-desecration law, but the charge had been dropped by the county's district attorney. The 10th U.S. Circuit Court ruled that he did not have standing to pursue the case because the charge had been dismissed. Mr. Winsness wanted the state law declared unconstitutional, and removed from the books. The court unanimously ruled that declaring Utah's statute unconstitutional would be redundant in light of Texas v. Johnson. The ruling also said: "There is no procedure in American law for courts or other agencies of government -- other than the legislature itself -- to purge from the statute books laws that conflict with the Constitution as interpreted by the courts."

[I include this note here because while it doesn't have anything to do prima facie with free speech issues, it is a strong counter-arguement to the snivelling by right-wing whiners about "activist judges" who are "writing laws". This ruling is an explicit statement that the courts do not involve themselves in the legislative process, and is a resounding endorsement of the separation of powers in the U.S. system. --MN]

By Aiden Quinn, et al. This prime-time soap opera centering around a the family of an Episcopalian priest was pulled in two markets before debuting, and subsequently cancelled in others due to the outcry against it. See my commentary on this issue.

By Reporters Sans Frontieres. On this day the media watchdog group posted a proposal to its web site. The proposal calls for lobbying the U.S. government to implement regulations against U.S. based transnational corporations enacting censorship to protect their profit margin at the expense of Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This proposal comes in light of refusal by the companies involved, such as Yahoo!, Microsoft, Secure Computing, Fortinet, Cisco Systems, and Google, to even engage in dialogue with RSF concerning the issue of their support of censorial regimes. The proposal calls for the industry to draft its own code of conduct, and, should it fail to do so, for congress to then enact legislation of such a code.

[Personally, I look on this kind of thing as bullying, whether it's the government doing it, a special interest group, or private citizens. Furthermore, I am beginning to think of this tendency to elicit cooperation by blackmail as a serious indicator of erosion of the democratic process. If your position is reasonable, you should be able to elicit cooperation through negotiation rather than by threat of force. Mind you, that means little if your opponent is not reasonable. --MN]
(see 25 Jan 2006)

By Rupert Murdoch. Angry members of MySpace are accusing Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation of censoring their postings and blocking their access to rival sites. MySpace is a personal file-sharing website for young adults which Mr. Murdoch's News Corp bought for $629m in Jul 2005. The 38 million subscribers discovered shortly afterwards that when they wrote to each other about rival video-swapping site YouTube, the words were automatically deleted, and attempts to download video images from YouTube led to blank screens. The intervention provoked a storm of angry posts. The protests gathered momentum, and when 600 MySpace customers complained and a campaign began to boycott the site and relocate to rival sites, News Corp relented and restored the links. And then MySpace managers promptly shut down the blog forum on which members had complained about the interference. An online notice said the problem was the result of "a simple misunderstanding".

By Montana law students. In an effort to correct egregious abuses of power promulgated under Montana's Sedition Act of 1918, students at the University of Montana are combing old court records and archive collections across the state to clear 74 Montanans convicted of sedition in 1918 and 1919. Of particular note is the case of Ben Kahn. He was a Polish immigrant working as a traveling liquor salesman; while talking with the owner of a southern Montana hotel while waiting for his breakfast in Mar 1918, he referred to wartime food regulations as a "big joke". By lunchtime, he had been arrested for violating Montana's Sedition Act and, less than a month later, was in prison in Deer Lodge, serving a sentence of 7-1/2 to 20 years. An armistice ended the war later that year, but Kahn continued to sit in prison for almost three more years.

[Three and a half years or so in prison for making a flip comment about a government policy. And my right-wing detractors think I'm some kind of hysteric. --MN]
(see 03 May 2006)

By the ultra self-righteous. A news article on this day reported that Fort Vancouver Regional Library Board is being required to address the question of implementing more stringent filtering regulations due to critics who equate allowing unfiltered access with handing out pornography. Dan Duringer, who is one of those critics is highly offended that the screens, which are already recessed for privacy, can still be seen by someone who is deliberately snooping. The library district also allows users who are 17 and older to turn off a filter that blocks sexually explicit Web sites. Mr. Duringer is a board member of LifePac, or Life Issues Family Ethics Political Action Committee, which also opposes the county dispensing birth control pills for "teens", and sex education. Mr. Duringer is a student at WSU Vancouver, where screening what students are looking at is much easier, but prefers to use the porn friendly public library.

[Shitheads like this should have their eyes put out with a burning brand. He deliberately and willfully goes to where pornographic material can be freely perused, but cannot be seen by anyone unless they deliberately position themselves to do so, and then he cries piteously about it. Dreck! --MN]

By Syracuse University Professor Susan B. Long. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By the City of New York. The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a suit against the city to challenge restrictions on people's right to photograph public places. In its lawsuit, the group highlighted the plight of Rakesh Sharma, an award-winning filmmaker from India, who said he was left feeling ashamed and humiliated when he was detained in May 2005 after police saw him use a hand-held video camera on a public street in midtown Manhattan. He was taping background footage for a documentary examining changes in the lives of ordinary people such as taxi drivers after the WTC attack, and had spent a half an hour or so videotaping near the MetLife building.

The law suit says that Mr. Sharma was approached by police after he shot footage of traffic emerging from an underpass near Grand Central Terminal; an officer asked him why he was filming the MetLife building, which sits atop the underpass, and he explained he was filming traffic and had only tilted his camera up to capture sunlight hitting buildings. The officer then said it was suspicious that Mr. Sharma was filming a "sensitive building"; Mr. Sharma turned the camera on to show officers what his filming looked like, only to have one of them charge at him, shove him in the chest and grab the camera. He was then kept on the street for about two hours as hundreds of people passed by or gathered to stare. Detectives later apologized after taking him to a police precinct, searching his camera and then returning it scratched and cracked.

The law suit also says that Mr. Sharma was told he needed a permit to film on city streets, then was denied one without explanation when he applied to the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting. The NYCLU has also received other complaints about people being harassed for taking pictures in public places.

By Tony Blair's government. A British court ordered two men to face trial on charges of leaking a memo that described a thorougly illegal plan by President George W. Bush to bomb the al Jazeera television station in Qatar. David Keogh, civil servant, and Leo O'Connor, a researcher who worked for a former British lawmaker, face a preliminary hearing on 24 Jan on charges of breaking the Official Secrets Act. Their lawyers are pushing for the secret document, the second of the Downing Street Memos, to be disclosed. The story, when it broke, was dismissed as "outlandish" by the White House, and Tony Blair denied having received details about any such proposal. In a move that will only further the coverup, Britain's attorney general has warned media they will be breaking the law if they publish details of the still classified document.

[I do not know if not-so-Great Britain has whistleblower protections, but this will create a strong incentive for future prospective whistleblowers to remain quiet and let the bastards get away with any kind of perfidy they can. --MN]

By the State of Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, and Wisconsin. As a result of misohomist hatred, a number of states, at least one of them in the heart of the Bible Belt, proposed laws, over a two week period, to restrict demonstrations at or near funerals. The proposals all stem from demonstrations by the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., Fred Phelps presiding. He and some of his followers have been demonstrating at the funerals of servicemen fallen in Iraq on the rationale that God is angry with America for allowing homosexuality, and is allowing American soldiers to be killed for that reason. These four are merely the latest states to join a movement that began in Oct 2005. See my commentary on this issue.

By Catherine Atkins. Eight Irving school librarians dropped their challenge to a policy requiring middle school students to get written permission from their parents to check out a book at a school board meeting on 09 Jan. Dana Foster filed a complaint about this book in Sep 2005 after her 11-year-old daughter checked it out from the Travis Middle School library. Ms. Foster said she was disturbed by the cover and took it from her daughter before the girl could read it. After the district received her complaint, a committee of school administrators and librarians met and decided in Oct to keep the book in middle schools. Ms. Foster appealed that decision and the superintendent created the parental consent policy, which was implemented in Dec. The case was to be considered on 23 Jan. Commenting on the decision to withdraw the challenge, Heather Lamb, de Zavala Middle School library media specialist, said, "After we did all of our research, we just decided it was better for right now to withdraw the appeal. We're still going to fight for First Amendment rights, just not this battle."

[Rabbi Hillel said: If I am not for myself, who is for me? And when I am for myself, what am I? And if not now, when? Unfortunately you've also got to be careful which fights you pick. This, however, is a fight the school could win. The superintendent's action was unilateral and this incident mirrors many others that have been overturned. --MN]
(see 21 Dec 2005)

By several Houston television stations. Television broadcasters withheld a political ad on this day. The ad accuses U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay of corruption, but Donald McGahn, a lawyer for Mr. Delay, said the ad was false and could lead to legal action. The ad, sponsored by public interest groups Campaign for America's Future and Public Campaign Action Fund, calls for DeLay to resign because of his indictment in Texas on campaign finance charges and his links to disgraced Washington lobbyist Jack Abramoff. Some of the stations said during their newscasts they were looking at the ad to determine its credibility or that they had found some of the allegations to be questionable. The ad was supposed to run for a week starting on this day. McGahn wrote in a letter to the stations that the ad was: "reckless, malicious and false, casting Mr. DeLay in a false light by accusing him of unsubstantiated criminal conduct. Such accusations are actionable. We demand that you refuse or otherwise cease airing the advertisement, so as to avoid any liability." David Donnelly, Public Campaign Action Fund national campaigns director, replied in a statement: "When powerful lawmakers corrupt the political process and get caught, they often try to bully the media to try to prevent them from doing their job."

[A valid concern or an attempt to intimidate? That remains to be seen at this juncture. --MN]

By New York State. A New York appeals court yesterday rejected a constitutional challenge to this law by Roman Catholic groups. The groups challenging the law lost their suit before a trial court in December 2003. A 3-2 ruling by a panel of the Appellate Division of state Supreme Court rejected claims that the law violates the plaintiffs' rights under either the state or federal constitution. The law, challenged on 01 Jan 2001, requires employers offering prescription-drug plans, including religion-owned businesses, to provide coverage for contraceptives, although it does exempt churches, seminaries, and other institutions with a mainly religious mission themselves. Plaintiff intends to appeal to the state court of appeals, and thence to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary.
(see 01 Jan 2003; 02 Dec 2003)

By the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Yahoo had asked the court to rule that the fine for running an auction site material banned in France could not be collected in the United States because it violated free-speech rights. In a 99-page decision, the court skirted the central question of whether U.S.-based service providers are liable for damages in foreign courts. The court, in the 6-5 ruling in Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme Et L'Antisemitisme, doubted Yahoo's free-speech rights under U.S. law were violated and said it was unlikely the French would enforce the judgment. Yahoo had removed Nazi memorabilia from its French subsidiary, yahoo.fr, but it angered French Jews and Holocaust survivors by making those items available from anywhere on yahoo.com. When a French judge ordered the company to strip the paraphernalia from its main site, Yahoo launched a First Amendment suit in U.S. District Court. Yahoo eventually banned Nazi material from its site as it began charging users to make auction listings, ostentibly because it did not want to profit from such material. It later said in court that its decision to limit its Nazi auction site was out of financial considerations rather than from court orders.
(see 11 Feb 2003)

By the People's Republic of China and North Korea. North Korean dictator Kim Jong-il was in China on a state visit starting on 10 Jan, but not only was the visit not reported by the Chinese press, it was officially denied by officials of both governments, and all levels. On this day a Japanese commercial TV station broadcast clandestinely shot footage that showed Kim outside a luxury hotel in Guangzhou. Probably the White Swan Hotel which all other visitors were asked to leave; because, according to the receptionists, it was full. Also on this day, Reporters Without Borders released a statement decrying this blatant censorship, saying: "This is not so much a lack of transparency as an orchestrated state lie to protect the planet’s worst dictator. Are the Chinese authorities ashamed of their troublesome ally?"

The Chinese government, for reasons of "security", usually does not announce a visit by Kim until he has already returned home, and the North Korean media never mention visits by the "Dear Leader" until the day afterwards.

By Thomas Mink. His attorney argued in favour of throwing out the law before the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on 09 Jan. Plaintiff's position is that the law unconstitutional. Will Allen, an assistant attorney general, told the three-judge that several court cases over the years have limited how the law can be used; he said Mink was never really in danger of prosecution. Colorado state law makes criminal libel a felony carrying a penalty of up to 18 months in prison and a fine of up to $100,000, although it cannot be used to punish speech about public officials or about public affairs.

[This particular law allows criminal prosecution for speech "tending to blacken the memory of one who is dead" or to "expose the natural defects of one who is alive, and thereby to expose him to public hatred, contempt or ridicule." So if I say you are engaged in corruption, in Colorado, you could try to get me jailed for it, even though it is true. --MN]
(see 08 Jan 2005; 04 Apr 2004)

By the web journalers of Iran. An article by Alex Alper and Laura Barcella, titled Iran, Blogging Against the Regime was posted to AlterNet.org on this day. In it, they illustrate how the heavy hand of oppression is counterproductive. They wrote in part:

In April 2003, Iran became the first government to imprison a blogger: Sina Motallebi of the popular weblog RoozNegar.com. (Despite anti-censorship public outcry, the Iranian government still uses extensive filtering to block out Internet content deemed inappropriate.) It seems that as the regime has tried to crack down on "immorality," dissent and secularity, Iranians have become more polarized against the government, creating a fast-growing community of political and personal bloggers.

Nasrin Alavi, an Iranian NGO worker who lives in London, commented on the situation: "These blogs offer a unique glimpse of the changing consciousness of Iran's younger generation. [They] see themselves as citizens with rights, struggling for a civil society. They greatly outnumber the soldiers of the ideological state." Launched in Sep 2001 when a young Iranian journalist, Hossein Derachshan, posted how-to instructions on his website, Iran's weblog community is now a 75,000-member network.

[The more you tighten your grasp the more systems will slip through your fingers.
--Princess Leia to Admiral Tuck, Star Wars: A New Hope]

By CNN. On this day the media watchdog group Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting issued an Action Alert about CNN's recent hiring of Glenn Beck. The alert reports that Variety quoted CNN Headline News president Ken Jautz's description of Beck: "Glenn's style is self-deprecating, cordial; he says he'd like to be able to disagree with guests and part as friends. It's conversational, not confrontational." FAIR, however, illustrates how Mr. Beck is more like unto an ultra-right wing hatemonger:

Beck, best known for setting up Clear Channel's pro-war Rallies for America shortly before the Iraq War, once described how much he loathed anti-war presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich (WABC-AM, 3/16/03): "Every night I get down on my knees and pray that Dennis Kucinich will burst into flames."

In 2004, Beck called Michael Berg, whose son had been beheaded in Iraq, "despicable" and a "scumbag" because the elder Berg criticized George W. Bush in the wake of his son's death. (Mediamatters.org, 5/17/04)

On May 17, 2005, Beck fantasized about murdering anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore (Mediamatters.org, 5/18/05):

"I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out--is this wrong?"

Beck also accused Moore of "taking help and money from Hezbollah."

The group also cautions CNN to learn the lessons of history and look at the Michael Savage Affair.

[Given the disparity between what CNN says and what can be seen, any claims of balance and fairness by the network should be considered suspect. --MN]

By Google. An Associated Press article posted to First Amendment Center on 20 Jan reported that Google was refusing to turn over information on search terms by its users. Google refused to comply with a White House subpoena first issued during the summer of 2005, so Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, on or about this day, petitioned a federal judge in San Jose for an order to Google to hand over the requested records. The Bush adminstration wants a list of all requests entered into Google's search engine during an unspecified single week and in addition, is seeking 1 million randomly selected Web addresses from various Google databases. The administration depicts the information as vital in its effort to restore the Child Online Protection Act, which the U.S. Supreme Court has already examined twice, and which is so badly rendered that the government is enjoined from enforcing it. Every other search engine served similar subpoenas by the Bush administration has complied, including Yahoo!, Microsoft, and AOL. The government and above corporations insist that no privacy issues are at stake, but the terms of search requests sometimes contain information about the person making the query: names, medical profiles, or Social Security information, for instance.

[At first glance this smells a whole like a fishing expedition, but I would say that the Bush regime, having a badly flawed law ruled against twice, is now looking for a way to circumvent the fact that pornography is protected speech. Given the totally faithless nature of the Bush regime, however, and its consistent abuse of executive privilege, and law enforcement and intelligence apparati, I simply cannot believe that the information will not be similarly abused once it is in their grubby little paws. I've concluded -- without any evidence or even indications to support the conclusion -- that the regime has some data mining software it wants to test, and for purposes that have nothing to do with moralistic thought crimes laws. Regime officials are piously claiming the demand is founded on the "Harmful To Minors" misconception. --MN]

[Addendum (31 Jan 2006:) The hearing was set for 27 Feb in U.S. District Court. --MN]

[Addendum (19 Mar 2006:) On 17 Mar, U.S. District Judge James Ware refused to order Google to give the U.S. government the five thousand search queries that had been demanded, but did order it to turn over 50,000 site addresses from its index. He ordered the search engine company and the Justice Department to come up with a method to randomly select the 50,000 Web addresses in a way that would not force Google to disclose any confidential information. Andrew Serwin, a lawyer in the San Diego office of Foley & Lardner, who has followed the case, commented, "This is a victory for Google. [Google] didn't want to give up search terms or anonymous customer data, and they didn't have to." I do not see this as a victory, myself, because noone but Bush officials know to what purpose the data will be put. I still suspect it will be to test data mining functions that can be used against all web surfers. --MN]

By State of Alabama. Members of the Alabama Criminal Justice Information Center Commission approved a move to conceal the identity of crime victims from the public; a major change that an open-government advocate has called a "huge step" backward, but which supporters say was needed to help protect the innocent. The commission voted to move most information that could identify a crime victim from the front page of police report forms -- routinely available to the public -- to the confidential back page.

Invalid criticisms of the move are:

• Felicia Mason, Executive director of The Alabama Press Association, said the move would make it more difficult for papers to report on crime in their communities.

• Dale Harrison, chairman of the Alabama Center for Open Government commented: "It's just a huge step backward in terms of government openness."

Valid criticisms are:

• Carol Gundlach, head of the Alabama Coalition Against Domestic Violence, said she supported protecting the identities of crime victims but worried that groups which help victims might not be able to contact the people they serve once the change occurs.

• Mike Coppage, director of the Alabama Department of Public Safety and sole dissenting vote on the commission, said he feared that hiding the names of crime victims would depersonalize crime by making its victims anonymous.

Rationales offered to implement the move are:

• Tommy Boswell, Russell County Sheriff and commission chairman said the change is necessary because almost anyone with a computer could find a crime victim using the information currently available to the public.

• Chris McCool, Fayette County District Attorney and speaking behalf of the Alabama District Attorneys Association said no one chooses to be a crime victim and many people don't want their identities made public when they are victimized.

[See my commentary on this issue. As far as I can see this move will not make it more difficult for newspapers to report on crime nor will it obscure scrutiny on how law enforcement agencies in Alabama handle or process suspects, investigations, or evidence. I, of course, have used McCool's argument myself in the commentary linked to above, but in retrospect, I now have to admit that it is an assumption. --MN]

By Doctors Without Borders. This international medical humanitarian organization Doctors Without Borders called on all armed groups in the city on this day to respect the safety of civilians and allow those wounded during clashes to have immediate access to emergency medical care. MSF reported that nearly 50 percent of all patients treated for violence-related injuries are women, children, or elderly. Ali Besnaci, the head of mission for the MSF trauma center at St. Joseph's Hospital in Port-au-Prince commented, "It is unacceptable that so many civilians are victims of this latest wave of violence. We are receiving patients from St. Martin, Centre Ville, Martissant, Carrefour and other areas of Port-au-Prince. Recently, we treated a 15-month old infant and a 77-year old man for gunshot wounds." The illegal overthrow of the democratically elected government of Haiti and its occupation by supposed peacekeeping forces continues to be an unreported story by the media in both the United States and Canada.

By Sony Corporation. The company's marketing department had come up with what is characterized as a stealth marketing campaign: a series of black-on-white graffiti showing wide-eyed cartoon characters riding the PlayStation like a skateboard, licking it like a lollipop, or cranking it like a Jack-in-the-Box; but there's no mention of the Sony or PlayStation brands -- nor is there any hint that the wordless display is advertising. The graffiti ads appeared in several large cities, such as San Francisco, New York, and Philadelphia -- and city governments and anti-blight advocates are not amused. Mary Tracy, who runs the Society Created to Reduce Urban Blight, a Philadelphia watchdog group fighting illegal or ill-received billboards, said Sony ignored the zoning process that regulates outdoor commercial advertising in the city, Philadelphia Managing Director Pedro Ramos faxed a cease-and-desist letter to Sony Computer Entertainment's U.S. division on 28 Dec 2005. Sony spokeswoman Molly Smith told an Internet news site this month that Sony was hiring artists in seven cities all told -- Atlanta, Los Angeles, Miami and Chicago being the others -- to spray-paint the pre-drawn designs. Critics and supporters agree the campaign is designed to crack through the clutter of marketing that pervades daily life, although others have criticized its visual appeal, arguing that the ads are not artistic because they are simply reproductions rather than original works. The San Fransisco ads were defaced soon after it was revealed they were advertising by Sony, but that seems to have been the work of private individuals.

[I have no doubt that if it comes down to a fight over the issue the ads will be found to be protected, commercial speech. Plus, the ads are not any the less art for being reproductions. To the discerning critic, each artist who reproduces one of the ads will leave his personal stylistic signature. Moreover, there is a difference between murals and graffiti that derives from "tagging". --MN]

By Uzbekistan. An Arctic air mass from Siberia sent temperatures across much of northern and eastern Europe plunging down to -27 to -33 celsius on 20 Jan, and the death toll from the cold rose to more than 70 in Russia, the hardest hit in the region. Despite the clear and present threat to human life in ordering an immediate halt to the sales of men's and women's underwear lined on the inside with animal fur, reactionary Uzbekistani authorities banned fur-lined underwear. Officials cited "unbridled fantasy" that the newfangled thermal undergarments could arouse.

[A clear indication that those who are concerned with "morality" really don't give a good goddamn about life or physical wellbeing. --MN]

By censorship advocates. Members of a Senate Commerce Committee hearing on TV indecency complained about how they were going to be inconvenienced by the re-organization of programming packages. The complaints were not couched as such, however, but were phrased as accusations that cable and satellite companies were offering packages in such a way as to guarantee the re-organization would fail. This re-organization was basically driven by government threats that if these industries did not police themselves the government would do it for them. There is probably something to their plaint. The "family-friendly packages" of channels being crafted in response to concerns about "indecent" and "racy" shows don't include popular sports channels such as ESPN. David Cohen, executive vice president of Comcast Corp., said it decided not to include ESPN because of what he termed "some really disturbing non-family-appropriate programming", "Playmakers" and "Tilt." Neither show currently runs on the sports network, but, of course, that could change at any time in the future.

[This could create an amusingly compromising situation: would subscribers be required to drop the package, or would the companies be forced to remove such fare by fiat? --MN]

By the Bruin Alumni Association. An article in the Los Angeles Times which was reprinted at CommonDreams.org, reports that this group, founded in 2003 by UCLA graduate Andrew Jones, is offering rewards for class notes, handouts, or illicit recordings of lectures, or $100 for all three. The group's notice reads:

UCLA STUDENTS: Do you have a professor who just can't stop talking about President Bush, about the war in Iraq, about the Republican Party, or any other ideological issue that has nothing to do with the class subject matter? It doesn't matter whether this is a past class, or your class from this coming winter quarter. If you help expose the professor, we'll pay you for your work.

Saree Makdisi, a professor of English and comparative literature at UCLA, wrote of the situation in the article:

A glance at the profiles of the "targeted professors," however, reveals that they have been singled out, in most cases, not for what goes on in their courses, but for the positions they have taken outside the classroom - and outside the university.

I earned my own inaccurate and defamatory "profile," for example, not for what I have said in my classes on English poets such as Wordsworth and Blake - my academic specialty, which the website pointedly avoids mentioning - but rather for what I have written in newspapers about Middle Eastern politics.

[...]

The website assumes that any professor who speaks out in a public forum must at the same time be indulging in ideological abuse of his or her students - proselytizing them, indoctrinating them. And it's actually not just any professor; it's only the supposedly "liberal" ones, since "conservative" faculty are not targeted on the website.

[Addendum (07 Feb 2006:) On 30 Jan an analysis of this movement titled A Snapshot of the Right Wing Tactics, written by M. Junaid Alam, of WireTap, was posted to AlterNet.org. The piece opens with a satirical jab at this anti-intellecualism, but then moves on to a serious examination of the situation. He concludes his piece with these words:

With his too-clever-by-half idea of bribing students to report their own teachers and his openly professed irrational hatreds, the UCLA graduate ended up crippling his own little crusade and earning the disapproval of other right-wingers who are trying to purge America of critical thinking in tactically sounder ways. Thus, Jones' methods have backfired for the moment. But his effort is a stern reminder that the line between American conservatism today and Germany's fascist anti-intellectual movement of the 1930s is thinner than a hair on a bald man's head.

Alam wrote that this movement is being seen as so extreme by right-wing censormorons that even David Horowitz is distancing himself from his former pupil. Also, on 07 Feb, Robert Jensen, a journalism professor at the University of Texas at Austin, wrote a commentary about anti-intellecualist attacks on academic freedom in reply to this affair. --MN]

[Addendum (01 Apr 2006:) On 29 Mar, a piece titled Kristallnacht Again? The Dark Night of the Mind, by Rosa Maria Pegueros, was posted to CommonDreams.org. It is a beautifully rendered repudiation of the anti-intellectualism movement and puts paid to the Bruin Alumni Association. --MN]
(see 16 Mar 2006; 17 Jul 2006; 20 Nov 2006)

By Columbus School Board, Indiana. The board voted 5-2 against a plan that would have seen all student publications being reviewed before being printed, by the district superintendent. The proposal to tighten the review of student publications was suggested after Triangle newspaper at Columbus North High School printed a four-page report on the medical and psychological risks of oral sex. Board member Jay Howard said he thought the students handled the issue responsibly and is quoted, "I think student journalists were attempting to do something to help their classmates and their friends to recognize that this is a real issue of importance and they can be doing harm to themselves without really being aware of the consequences of their behavior."

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

By Mildred D. Taylor and American Blacks, respectively. Because the book is a story featuring a black family in early 20th-century Mississippi, it contains the word nigger. The Well had been included on a list for students at the H. Ashton Marsh School, in Absecon, New Jersey, but parent Lisa Rex objected to the use of the word nigger and complained about the book. On this day The Board of Education -- in a total repudiation of Black history in North America -- voted to remove it pending a review by a committee of faculty members and citizens about whether it is appropriate for use at all. Fourth-grade teacher Terry Maher said the students who were to read it had already been taught about the mistreatment of certain groups of people, and commented, "The word is not taught in the book, the word is hated in the book. The book has gotten rave reviews. We would be sorry to lose it."

[Ms. Rex illustrated her utter contempt for the human intelligence of schoolchildren in proclaiming, "The teachers may see this as an example of something they can help fix, but we believe at fourth grade the children do not have the maturity to truly understand it." Naturally, now that this opportunity to learn about how the term nigger constitutes hate speech, those children will likely grow up to be adults who are ignorant of the unsavory aspect of Black history from the 17th through mid-19th century United States. Why do I insist on thinking that the education system is anything about educating people? --MN]

By the government of China. The search engine company acknowledged that Google.cn, its new site for China that debuted on this day, would adhere to Beijing's strict limits on web access; in doing so it joined other major U.S. Internet companies (MicroSoft, Yahoo!, et al) already doing business under censorship rules set out by the Chinese government. Google also said the site would not host web journals or e-mail to avoid legal problems with the censorship. Andrew McLaughlin, Google's senior policy counsel, explained Google's rationales in a statement: "In order to operate from China, we have removed some content from the search results available on Google.cn, in response to local law, regulation or policy. While removing search results is inconsistent with Google's mission, providing no information (or a heavily degraded user experience that amounts to no information) is more inconsistent with our mission."

[Addendum (31 Jan 2006:) In a blazing example of mixed signals, U.S. Congress called Cisco, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! to a Congressional Human Rights Caucus hearing for 01 Feb, and to the House of Representatives subcommittee on Global Human Rights for 16 Feb. I tend to ascribe this to the standard condition of a government wherein the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing. But it's a mind-boggling irony nonetheless. --MN]
(see 06 Jan 2006)

By Tariq Ramadan. This Muslim scholar filed a law suit against the U.S. government on this day, accusing it of having manipulated the Patriot Act to muzzle him. Mr. Ramadan was prohibited from accepting a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame in Aug 2004 when his visa was revoked under a provision of the Patriot Act which denies entry into the U.S. by any prominent foreigner who has used his status to endorse or espouse terrorism or to persuade others to do so. Mr. Ramadan said he opposed the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and sympathized with the resistance there and in Palestine, but that he also opposes Islamic extremism, and promotes peaceful solutions. The suit seeks a declaration that the USAPA provision at issue is unconstitutional, and it seeks a court order preventing the government from relying on the provision to exclude any foreign national.
(see 01 Sep 2004)

By Deborah Ellis. This book focuses on the testimony of Israeli and Palestinian children, and includes their views on everyday life and the Mideast conflict. The Ontario Library Association (Canada) vetted the book and included it as a nominee for its Silver Birch reading program, which is designed to encourage children in grades 4, 5, and 6 to read recreationally. School libraries stock the Silver Birch books and students can check them out, but they are not used as part of the curriculum. Critics of the book argue that it presents a uniformly negative image of Israel, provides little context for young readers about a conflict whose details are beyond their understanding, and introduces students to Palestinian youths who aspire to be suicide bombers and kill Israelis. The York Region District School Board pulled it from the reading program, but the Toronto District School Board will continue to make the book available to its students.

[Did you notice the second rationale for pulling the book? In effect: Children are too stupid to get this because they don't yet have the background to understand it. The problem with this rationale is: they are now denied access to the very material that will promote such understanding. --MN]

By Project Censored. Project Censored specializes in covering the top news stories which were either ignored or downplayed each year, and is composed of nearly 200 university faculty, students, and community experts. These people review about 1,000 news story submissions for coverage, content, reliability of sources, and national significance. The top 25 stories selected are submitted to a panel of judges who then rank them in order of importance.

By James E. Hansen. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Saudi Arabian Interior Minister Prince Naif. In Sep 2005 the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten published twelve cartoons about the Prophet Mohammed. These were later reprinted in a Norwegian magazine in Jan 2006. The Saudi Cabinet denounced the cartoons as sacrilegious, which is a pretty standard response to any depiction of the Prophet. On this day, Prince Naif called on Arab and Islamic countries to take a decisive stand on the issue of cartoons denigrating the Prophet Mohammed. On 31 Jan, an article about the action at ArabNews.com also reported on efforts to boycott Danish products in an effort to get that government to apologize, and how that movement was going astray. The article also explored some of the ramifications of the international politics involved.

[Addendum (11 May 2006:) On 19 Apr Nat Hentoff had a column printed in USA Today. It was about a censorship incident against the cartoons which was perpetrated by academics. I wrote a commentary about people's reactions to the cartoons as a result. --MN]

By Deborah Howell and the Washington Post. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By Mayor Kim Brizendine, Friendswood, Texas. Although this is not yet a clear and present case of censorship, this incident certainly contains elements usual to such cases. On 24 Jan, Mayor Brizendine declared that Tuesday, 31 Jan, would be Galveston County Reads Day, with the choice of book being The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time, by Mark Haddon. On 27 Jan, she was singing a different tune about how regrettable a choice that book was. She also said the Friendswood library board would be reviewing the placement of the book in the library. This movement was an effort to join a national project promoting "one city, one book", except this was to be countywide. Friendswood council member John LeCour objected to the selection, saying the book could "pollute" young minds. At issue was the inclusion of profanity.

Councilman Chris Peden, who had not read the book, also objected to the profanity but clearly and presently entangled Church and State in commenting, "Later in the book, the kid says there is no God and there is no life after death. Clearly, these are not ideas we should promote to kids." Councilman Peden also brought up the issue of using tax money to violate unilaterally assumed community standards, while asserting at the same time that he did not support censorship: "I am not saying the book should be pulled off the shelves. We just shouldn't be using taxpayers' dollars promoting and purchasing a book the community wouldn't approve of." This despite the fact that no taxpayer money was used for the books the committee donated to the council and area libraries. The organization is funded by private donations, according to Karen Stanley, chairman of the Galveston County Reads committee. Councilman Peden also displayed the classic contempt for the intelligence of young adults in commenting, "We should give them wings, but they should be smaller when they are young. This is too much, too soon. We’re talking about young children who are not mature enough to make proper decisions." In point of fact, the demographic was not young children, it was young adults; Mayor Brizendine's proclamation declared Galveston County Reads Day for "all citizens, teens to seniors."

By Cindy Sheehan. Ms. Sheehan was subjected to an arbitrary arrest at the 2006 State of the Union speech. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By University of California at San Diego. In Nov 2005, the student government shut down the Student-Run Television (SRTV), because of nudity and graphic sex on one television show; which material was common to the show, Koala TV. A few days later, when the student government attempted to reactivate the station, university officials refused to allow SRTV back on the air. On 27 Jan, the student body voted on whether or not the station should be reactivated, and under what conditions. For the special election to be held it was necessary to gather 2,000 signatures by petition, which was done in only five days, and for the results to be valid, it was necessary for there to be a 15% turnout of voters; participation ran 16%. The issues on the ballot and the results were:

Issue:	To overturn	To maintain
The ban on nudity and sex which was put in place by the student government, referred to as the Associated Students.	53%	45%
The barring of Stephen York from entering SRTV studios and "Koala TV" from airing on the station, by the university.	50%	47%

In a display of utter contempt for due process and the principle of majority rules, as well as for the intelligence of the students, the university administration disregarded this democratic process. In a further display of Orwellianism, university officials commented in an e-mailed statement to the Student Press Law Center, "We are disappointed that the students who participated in the election voted - albeit by a very slim margin - to repeal the AS legislation prohibiting indecent, sexually explicit programming. We remain confident that the vast majority of UCSD students support the values that uphold the integrity of the university." Whereas this was a referendum, not a survey, while the three percent margin in the issue of Koala TV does constitute a tied vote by the principles of statistical analysis, the raw numbers still constitute a clear and present majority. And the eight percent margin concerning the "AS legislation" issue constitutes a clear and present mandate under statistical analysis. It is not a slim margin by any stretch of the imagination. See the source article for more background.

By the New York City police. An article in The New York Times on this day reported that police union members who protested at an event organized by the Patrolmen's Benevolent Association, to protest the pace of contract talks with the city, were suing the city after being treated like any other protesters. The on-duty officers had herded their colleagues into pens, stopped them from handing out fliers, threatened them with arrest for standing on public sidewalks, and made notes on which politicians they cheered and who they razzed, while officers from a special unit videotaped their faces. The protesting officers are suing the city on the grounds that the procedures at their demonstrations -- many of which are routinely used at war protests, antipoverty marches, and mass bike rides -- were so heavy-handed and intimidating that their First Amendment rights were violated. See the source article, reprinted at TruthOut.org, for more background.

By the National Football League. NFL officials were quick to mute Mick Jagger's microphone when he sang offending lyrics. Seen as continued fall out from Janet Jackson Tit Affair, the league bleeped two "offensive" words; one from Start Me Up and the other from Rough Justice. Rolling Stones knew about the planned censorship up front and had agreed to it. (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction, a song about sexual frustration, passed unbleeped. ABC technicians had also been standing by on their five-second delay circuit throughout the game, but found no occasion to use it.

[I will presume the Stones agreed to the bleeping principally because they had not been asked to censor themselves. I'd like to think that if they had been asked to reword the lyrics Jagger would have showered shit and derision in all directions. --MN]

By Bill Dunphy of the Hamilton Spectator, Ontario. On 27 Jan Reporters Without Borders voiced deep concern over Mr. Dunphy's facing incarceration due to his refusal to comply with a court order to hand over to the police his notes of interviews with a convicted drug dealer. Hamilton Spectator editor Roger Gillespie told RSF, "The police investigating Lynn Gilbank’s murder are convinced that Bill Dunphy’s interviews could provide them with new leads. We have no reason to think that his interviews with Paul Gravelle will provide them with evidence of the brother’s involvement in the lawyer’s murder. The police came to us in the spring of 2005 with the aim of getting Bill’s notes. When we refused, criminal proceedings were initiated against him." Mr. Dunphy could go to prison under a provision introduced into the Canadian criminal code in Sep 2004, which provision ensures that there is no confidentiality for sources; it allows for a journalist to be forced to hand over notes, documents, or audio or video recordings that could be useful to a police investigation. Refusing to be a police informant is punishable by a fine of up to 250,000 dollars or imprisonment for up to six months, or both. Sentencing was scheduled for this day.

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

By Senator Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By a state appeals court. A three judge panel of this court ruled unanimously that homeowners associations must recognize the rights of residents to freedom of speech under the New Jersey Constitution. The ruling is from Committee for a Better Twin Rivers v. Twin Rivers Homeowners' Association. Frank Askin, a Rutgers Law School professor and lead counsel for the Committee, commented, "For the first time anywhere in the United States, an appellate court has ruled that such private communities are "constitutional actors" and must therefore respect their members' freedom of speech. The Court recognized that just like shopping malls are the new public square, these associations have become and act, for all practical purposes, like municipal entities unto themselves." The case had initially been dismissed by a state Superior Court; this ruling overturns most of that decision. The Committee members had sued their homeowners association to be able to put political signs on their front lawns, among other things.
(see 14 Jul 2003; 27 Nov 2003; 17 Jan 2004)

By the Bush administration. See the entry on the Bush censorship page. See my commentary on this issue.

By Jose Bove. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Reporters Without Borders. On 08 Jan, the Zurich-based weekly SonntagsBlick reproduced a fax from the Egyptian foreign minister to his embassy in London, referring to the existence of secret CIA detention centres in Kosovo, Macedonia, Ukraine, Rumania, and Bulgaria. Swiss authorities, fearing a deterioration in their diplomatic relations with the US, with whom they are in the process of negotiating a free-exchange agreement, have opened two investigations, one criminal, one military, to determine who was behind the leak. The journalists face prison sentences under the terms of both investigations. On this day Reporters Without Borders published an open letter in which it called into question the act of holding the journalists responsible for the leak, rather than for merely reporting what was leaked.

[And yet the Bush regime will not turn over the traitor who blew the cover of a CIA covert operative. Ironic, isn't it? The key issue in this case for RSF is that the accused are not authorities of the state and are not subject to the laws being invoked thereby. To my mind, the key issue, aside from not allowing a government to get away with illegal activity, is whether or not someone can be tried for revealing "military" (read: state) secrets to which their country of origin is not privy. These were Swiss journalists reporting on American doings, not Swiss doings. And I certainly condemn the government of Switzerland for pandering to the American government assault on whistleblowers who divulge the illegal activities of the Bush regime. And once again the Bush regime is pointing the finger of blame outwards instead of launching an investigation into an internal security breach. --MN]

By Susanna Kaysen. This autobiographical work about Ms. Kaysen's sojourn in a psychiatric hospital Susanna Kaysen's drew a parent complaint at Orono High School, Orono, Maine. She was hopitalized at age 18 and diagnosed with borderline personality disorder. The book contains graphic descriptions of sexual acts, incest and suicide. On 26 Jan, parent David Quimby of Brewer, complained after reading several excerpts from the book; his plaint was that the book contained vulgar language. This complaint was actually triggered by his son showing him the book because the young man felt uncomfortable with it. Superintendent Kelly Clenchy examined the excerpts Mr. Quimby provided and decided the issue required further consideration in accordance with the school's review process policy, and pulled the book from the curriculum on 27 Jan. The book was re-entered into the curriculum on the recommendation of the appointed review committee. Mr. Quimby was dissatisfied with that decision, and intends to pursue the issue. There was no report on whether or not the curriculum allowed for altenate titles, or whether such an avenue was sought. The teacher whose class was using the book decided to hold off going back to it until the school committee meeting scheduled for 13 Feb, at which the issue was to be addressed further.

[In short, this book is probably an accurate depiction of the sort of things that actually take place in mental institutions, and the book reportedly includes descriptions and speech written in Anglo-Saxon Basic; said Quimby:

"There are other books that have won awards that don't use the 'F' word throughout, and don't use incest, and don't use the 'C' word, that I believe can better suit and serve the purpose than this vulgarness."

Quimby denies that this has anything to do with censorship, of course, but, of course, his quoted comments and reports of his dissatifaction with the decision indicate that he has taken it upon himself to decide what is appropriate for other people's children. (And the correct word would be "vulgarity".) Moreover, his objection is not only to the language used, but the issues addressed: suicide, incest, and sexual activity. In the meantime, due process is being respected. Would the book be better for avoiding the use of Anglo-Saxon Basic? It would not necessarily be any less factual, but it depends on what impact the author wants to have on the reader. In this case, without having read the book, I'd say Kaysen wanted to go for the strongest possible impact, so used the strongest, most graphic language. Does that make it unsuitable for a high school? Probably. But I can't make a proper determination without reading the book. --MN]

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

By the U.S. State Department. Josette Shiner, a top State Department trade expert, announced plans on this day to step up a campaign to combat efforts by foreign governments to restrict use of the Internet. Ms. Shiner called the Internet "the greatest purveyor of news and information in history" but said too often the flow is blocked by government censors. Ms. Shiner announced the formation of a task force that will consider several issues, including the foreign policy aspects of Internet freedom, including the use of technology to restrict access to political content. She said it is a top U.S. government priority "to do all we can to ensure maximum access to information over the Internet." This campaign stems, in part, from the recent case of the four top search engine companies assisting with Chinese government censorship. All of which are American based.

[I wonder how the State Department will factor in the use of internet filters by the American federal government and states and communities. Or the Bush regime policy of only allowing government approved disinformation on the internet, which still allows for censoring content and viewpoints while granting full access to the medium. --MN]

By the U.S. State Department. Anwar Kadhim Jawad and Vivian Salim Mati had to make a dangerous journey from Iraq to Amman, Jordan just to apply for the visas to enter the U.S. They had been invited to speak the human rights group Global Exchange and the women’s peace group CODEPINK. Their visas were refused on 04 Feb because the women don’t have enough family in Iraq to prove that they’ll return to the country. The kicker is: their families were killed in U.S. military actions. Of which tragedies they had been invited to the U.S. to speak about. The two women did not really want to come to the U.S., however, and had to be persuaded to do so, leading members of the activist groups to conclude that there is more to the refusal than lack of family. Jodie Evans of CODEPINK, commented: "I remember how we all cried when we heard Anwar tell her story about losing her husband and three of her children. If the American people heard these stories, their image of the Iraq war would be completely different. I suppose that’s why the state department does not want her to come here."

[This incident is probably a quintessential example of Joseph Heller's Catch 22. See the source article for more background about their situations. Also, see the follow up article Who Will Tell Our Stories?, by Medea Benjamin, published at AlterNet.org. --MN]

By National Security Whistle-Blowers. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Barbara Starr. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By Wilsona School District school board, Palmsdale, California. Twenty-three of sixty-eight books were removed by trustees from a list recommended by a parent-teacher committee for the Vista San Gabriel Elementary School library. The removals were not effected under any pressure by parents or groups, but unilaterally by the trustees who clearly demonstrated a complete ignorance of the purpose of literature thereby. A partial list of the banned books includes:

• The Eye of the Warlock;
• Welcome to the USA: California;
• Disney's Christmas Storybook;
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince;
• Beauty is a Beast;
• the Rapunzel book;
• all the "Princess" books;
• three, unnamed, Spanish translations from Clifford the Big Red Dog series;
• two books from the Artemis Fowl series.

Board President Sharon Toyne wouldn't comment on what was objectionable about the latest of the Harry Potter series. Trustee Marlene Olivarez said that book was rejected because it is fantasy: "We want books to be things that children would be able to relate to in real life." Books for children and young adults are popular only because the readers can relate to them. Ms. Toyne did comment: "There were several of the books on there that board members felt were not appropriate for the children. I think basically because for the last eight or nine years, we've been pushing character education in our school district. There are so many issues changing in the society we are living in. With this ever-changing society, we have to just stick back to the traditional thing of what kids are supposed to be learning." A big part of the problem underlying this incident is the fact that the district does not have a proper library book-selection guidelines in place. It was decided at the meeting to draft and implement such guidelines, but the decision to remove the books should be made under those guidelines once they are established. The books were removed from the list because the board members felt they would not serve to build the "right" character in readers. The Eye of the Warlock, at least, was removed for being occultish, and Artemis Fowl is an evil genius, anti-hero.

[Addendum (26 Aug 2006:) I finally found what appears to be a comprehensive list:

• Artemis Fowl: Eoin Colfer
  • #3 The Eternity Code
  • #4 The Opal Deception
• Becoming Naomi Leon: Pam Munoz Ryan
• Bionicle Adventures: Greg Farshtey
  • #9: Web Of Shadows
• Charlie Bone And The Castle Of Mirrors: Jenny Nimmo
• Clifford's series: Norman Bridwell
  • ~ Bathtime (clifford Y La Hora Del Bano)
  • ~ Opposites (clifford Y Los Opuestos)
  • ~ Animal Sounds (clifford Y Los Sonidos De Los)
• Guardians of Ga'hoole: Kathryn Lasky
  • #6 The Burning
• Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince: J.K. Rowling
• Magic Tree House: Mary Pope Osborne
  • #34 Season of the Sandstorms
• Peter and the Starcatchers: Dave Barry
• Princess School: Jane Mason
  • Beauty Is A Beast
  • #5: Princess Charming
• Tales from the Odyssey: Mary Pope Osborne
  • The One-Eyed Giant
• The Eye of the Warlock: P. W. Catanese
• The Real Lucky Charm: Charisse Richardson
• The Real Slam Dunk: Charisse Richardson
• The Thief and the Beanstalk: P. W. Catanese
• Twice Upon A Time: Wendy Mass
  • Rapunzel, the One With All The Hair
• Disney's Christmas Storybook Collection: Elizabeth Spurr
• Welcome to the U.S.A.: California: Ann Heinrichs
• Zoo Day Disaster (Spo ngeBob SquarePants): David Lewman
  --MN]
  (see 05 Jul 2006)

By Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG). See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By the government of Tony Blair. In an article published by The Toronto Sun, and reprinted at CommonDreams.org, Eric Margolis reported on a new British gag law. He wrote in part:

But a vague law mandating prison for "glorifying terrorism" reeks of totalitarianism and undermines Britain's reputation as a font of democracy and justice.

To preserve the status quo, the Great Powers decided to brand all armed struggles against oppression and injustice as "terrorism": Palestinians resisting Israeli occupation; tiny bands of Chechen mujahidin fighting Russian genocide in the Caucasus; guerillas battling communist regimes in Uzbekistan; Filipino Muslims resisting Christian invaders seizing their farms; Kashmiris fighting for independence from India, and so on. All are now "terrorists."

Now, mounting a Hyde Park soapbox to praise the Chechens' valiant struggle or urging Palestinians or Iraqis or Afghans to keep resisting foreign occupation will be a crime. Terrorism has erased the term "justice" from our minds.

The litmus test of free speech is letting people you detest say what they choose, and defending their right to say things that may be painfully hateful or deeply stupid.

Tony Blair just trampled this basic British right. Britain now joins sleazy, third-world despotisms where The Glorious Leader alone determines what one may and may not say.

By Austria. British historian David Irving was sentenced to three years in prison after pleading guilty to Holocaust denial before an Austrian court. It is a crime in Austria to not acknowledge the reality of Hitler's effort to exterminate the Jewish people and the death of some 5.8 million Jewish civilians in the ensuing pogrom. Mr. Irving is author of the book Hitler's War, which challenges the extent of the Holocaust; he has contended that most of those who died at concentration camps succumbed to diseases such as typhus rather than having been executed. He has been in custody since Nov 2005 after being arrested on a 1989 warrant -- stemming from two speeches he gave in Austria that year -- in which he was accused of denying the Holocaust. He did recant at his trial, but his recantation appears to utterly lack credibility. None the less, he was imprisoned not for any physical action, but for holding convictions counter to the mainstream.

[What is more interesting is that Irving was sentenced under a law passed in 1992. Even in Canada, which has some pretty stupid laws, you cannot be tried for something you did before the action was criminalized. Unless the 1992 measure merely updated a pre-existing law. Aside from that, it might very well be true that the majority of those who died in the concentration camps did so from disease and starvation (compounded by slave labor). Those conditions were brought about by the state, however, and there were other camps -- death camps -- dedicated solely to mass murder and the disposal of remains. --MN]

By the U.S. Supreme Court. Justices declined without comment to review an appeal in this case. That means the case stands as last adjudicated by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; in favour or censorship of franchised adults in journalism schools who might tread on the sensitivities of university officials, and which is applicable in Indiana, Illinois and Wisconsin. This does not necessarily mark the end of this affair, however, as the ruling could be struck down at some future time.

By Littleton High School officials. On 10 Feb, school officials suspended student Bryan Lopez for five days, and subsequently extended the suspension an additional ten days while trying to decide whether or not to expell him. Mr. Lopez had posted comments critical of the school and staff at his web site at MySpace.com. The school officials decided that the posting was disruptive to the educational process despite the facts that:

• Lopez used his home computer to post the message,
• it was not viewable on school computers because of filters,
• it was available only to those with a password given out by Lopez.

On this day Mr. Lopez returned to school under an agreement reached on 20 Feb between those officials and the ACLU. The ACLU said of the posting that it was a satirical comment on the poor physical condition of the school, the behavior and demographics of students and staff, lack of resources, and the perceived racial biases of teachers and administrators.

By homosexuals, probably. A group called Exodus International which is dedicated to recovering homosexuals from homosexuality put up a series of four billboards around St. Louis, Florida, in anticipation of a public seminar that was scheduled for 25 Feb. The one-day conference, titled Love Won Out, was purportedly to focus on the hope and help available for those struggling with "unwanted homosexuality" through the personal testimonies of those who have left homosexuality. It was reported on this day that one of the billboards had been defaced. The image of the vandalism inidicates that "paint bombs", balloons filled with paint which splatter on impact, were thrown against it. The conference, and billboards, generated no small amount of contention from homosexuals; the billboards read: "I Questioned Homosexuality. Change is Possible. Discover How." While this editor saw no overt indication that Exodus International is a mishomonist, ul tra-conservative group, the seminar was organized by Focus on the Family; which is such a group. Odds are that the defacement was in reply to what was seen as a provocation by homosexuals. The conference was also supposed to address the "myths" of homosexuality. There was, however, nothing on the billboards that could be construed as fighting words.

[This conference appears very much to stem from the religio-fanatic creed that homosexuality can be "cured". See my commentary on this and related issues. Pay particular attention to my contention that you cannot cure something unless you know what causes it, and the fact, as reported, that one's orientation can change over the course of one's life. Those who "recovered" through Exodus International were probably undergoing such a swing without being aware of it consciously. --MN]

By Reporters Without Borders. The watchdog group expressed concern that a renewed crackdown has been unleashed against the independent press and that independent journalists are suffering harassment. The article details a few incidents:

• 13 Feb: Independent journalist Roberto Santana Rodríguez was summoned to the police station in Marianao in the capital. After waiting for two hours he was seen by an officer, Moisés, showed Mr. Santana a file containing various articles he had written. This file could be used against him, putting him at risk of imprisonment.

• 17 Feb: Oscar Sanchez Madán was threatened by Armando Rivero, the president of a Committee for the Defence of the Revolution (CDR), for having quoted Rivero's name on his programme on Miami-based Radio Martí. The journalist was previously attacked physically by paramilitaries on 21 and 23 Jan.

• 19 Feb: Gilberto Manuel González Delgado, head of the Notilibre news agency in Havana, had his home searched by a state security officer and two members of the CDR. A type-writer and articles were seized, and he was threatened with being charged under the 88 Law on the "protection of Cuba's independence and economy", if he continued to do his job. He would face a 20-year prison term.

• 20 Feb: Cuban authorities banned the sale of foreign newspapers such as Hola!, Mecánica popular (Popular Mechanics), Muy interesante (Very Interesting), and El País, on the grounds that they are "ideologically dangerous".

• 21 Feb: Jorge Olivera Castillo was summoned to appear before a municipal people's court in Havana where judges informed him that he was banned from leaving the capital. Olivera and his wife and two children have had a legal visa for the United States since October 2002, but the authorities have refused to allow them the right to leave. Moreover, he is now forced to work for a work centre chosen for him by the court, and has to appear before the state organisation which defines the country's ideological line. If he fails to follow these orders he will automatically be returned to prison.

By Donald Rumsfeld and Media reform groups, respectively. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Department of Homeland Security agents. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By the American Civil Liberties Union. The Montana State Library canceled a showing of this film, which is critical of the USA PATRIOT Act, and which was scheduled to be presented on this day. The State Library said it originally thought the film would be a good pick for its monthly seminar series because parts of the Act affects libraries, but cancelled the showing on 21 Feb because of complaints by people about the ACLU being involved. The library decided the presentation might be one-sided, and could not find a supporter of the act on such short notice, a most specious rationale. Scott Crichton, executive director of the ACLU Montana, commented, "I think the government has a bully pulpit day in and day out about why intrusions into our privacy are warranted. All the video does is counter some of the assertions the government continues to make, and helps people to understand why the Patriot Act is a threat to people's privacy." He is further quoted, "As we have made clear, since its passage, any time, any place the government wants to make their case, we are happy to engage in principled debate with them." The showing was not cancelled due to any criticism of the film, but due to criticisms of the ACLU itself.

By Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Contrary to an assurance that there would be no arrests without warrant under a state of emergency declared on 17 Feb, President Arroyo's political opponents were apparently subjected to arbitrary arrest and seizures on this day. Among the repressive actions:

• Congressman Crispin Beltran was the first to be picked up; he was arrested under a warrant pending against him for the last 21 years, but which his lawyer subsequently claimed was dismissed in 1988.

• Two former police generals were taken into custody at a golf course. One had previously urged Arroyo to resign, and the other backed Fernando Poe Jr. in the 2004 election won by Arroyo.

• Police agents barged into the offices of The Daily Tribune and confiscated editorial materials and a bundle of newspapers headlining Arroyo’s declaration. Officers were posted at the door, but it was not clear if they intended to close the newspaper, which has been among the most critical of Arroyo.

• Shortly after Arroyo declared the state of emergency, riot police quickly used force to disperse two protests. They arrested 25 people, including political commentator Randy David, a respected professor who has asked Arroyo to resign.

Arroyo invoked emergency rule citing a "systematic conspiracy" against her by members of the opposition, communists, and "military adventurists." About a dozen army and air force lieutenants who had recruited to take part in the coup, turned themselves in to senior commanders. This was the first apparent admission that there was a plan to destabilize the government. That there might have been a real apprehended insurrection, however, does not mean that honest critics were necessarily a part of it.

Two groups of lawyers and other citizens petitioned the Supreme Court to lift the emergency decree as unconstitutional. The decree bans rallies, permits warrantless arrests, and allows the president to take over facilities -- including media outlets -- that might affect national security. Schools across the Philippine capital were closed in an apparent bid to prevent students from protesting these actions.

By The People's Republic of China. It was reported in an article reposted at CommonDreams.org that at least eight prominent human rights activists have vanished from public view after they joined one of the first overt attempts to coordinate a nationwide protest against Chinese authorities since the 1989 Tiananmen massacre. The protest was organized in the form of a rotating "hunger strike", actually a fast of 24 hours in turn, to protest official violence against dissidents and their relatives, and other activists. The movement has reportedly attracted several dozen participants in 16 provinces. Gao Zhisheng, a Beijing lawyer and organizer, launched the movement on 04 Feb in protest against police brutality. Some of the protesters were detained, but released on condition that they drop their involvement; two that are still missing are:

• Hu Jia: played a leading role in exposing the contaminated blood scandal that infected tens of thousands of people in Henan province with HIV; last seen on 16 Feb by associates who said he was followed by plain-clothes police.

• Qi Zhiyong: pro-democracy activist; his legs were amputated after he was shot during the 1989 protests; disappeared on 15 Feb.

Human rights groups are concerned that those arrested could be subjected to torture and ill-treatment. Yu Dongyue was released after almost 17 years in prison for throwing paint on a vast portrait of Mao Zedong in central Beijing during the 1989 demonstrations; solitary confinement and other forms of psychological torture had taken such a toll that he was unable to recognize his mother. The China-based group Civil Rights Defenders commented: "The irregular nature of their detention makes it even more difficult than normal to monitor their situation, and the authorities take no responsibility for the disappearances. Law enforcement officials and local authorities who violate the law by subjecting these people to arbitrary detention or torture must be investigated and prosecuted."

[Read a first-hand account of the brutality of the Tiananmen massacre here. The term "the Disappeared" supposedly comes from mother-activists during the Pinochet regime in Chile; during which thousands simply vanished, never to be heard from again. However, Joseph Heller also used the term in his book Catch 22. --MN]

By the Periodical Book Council, et al. See the Freedom To Read web site for more information.

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

By the U.S. Supreme Court. A twenty-year long legal battle came to a screeching halt with an 8-0 ruling that the 1970 Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act had been misapplied when anti-abortionists were charged under it. In the ruling, Justice Stephen Breyer said Congress had not intended to create "a freestanding physical violence offense" in the federal extortion law, the Hobbs Act. Congress chose to address violence outside abortion clinics in 1994 by passing the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act; which act set parameters for such protests. A federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against anti-abortion protesters after a Chicago jury found in 1998 that demonstrators had engaged in a pattern of racketeering by interfering with clinic operations; they had threatened doctors, assaulted patients, damaged clinic property, and poured glue into door locks. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals had kept the case alive despite a 2003 ruling by the Supreme Court voiding the injunction because protesters had not illegally "obtained property" from women seeking to enter abortion clinics.
(see 22 Apr 2002; 26 Feb 2003; 08 May 2007)

By Russell High School. A case stemming from an incident on 01 May 2004 was settled recent to this day. Jacqueline Duty was summarily and arbitrarily barred from her prom because her dress was based on the design of the Confederate flag. Ms. Duty subsequently filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Lexington, Kentucky, claiming the district and administrators had violated her First Amendment right to free speech and her right to celebrate her heritage. The settlement had not been presented to the judge as of this date, and is subject to judical approval. The terms of the settlement will not be disclosed.

[Probably so the tax-payers of Kentucky won't have to know how much they got screwed out of by the school's engagement in a piece of rank stupidity. --MN]

By the Royal Court Theatre. The play, co-edited by Katharine Viner and Alan Rickman, was to be transfered later this month to the New York Theatre Workshop, but that organization, during the week previous to this one, announced that it would not produce the play at this time. Ms. Viner wrote of this decision in A Message Crushed Again , a commentary reprinted at CommonDreams.org:

We always felt passionately that it was a piece of work that needed to be seen in the United States. Created from the journals and e-mails of American activist Rachel Corrie, telling of her journey from her adolescence in Olympia, Wash., to her death under an Israeli bulldozer in Gaza at the age of 23, we considered it a unique American story that would have a particular relevance for audiences in Rachel's home country. After all, she had made her journey to the Middle East in order "to meet the people who are on the receiving end of our [American] tax dollars," and she was killed by a U.S.-made bulldozer while protesting the demolition of Palestinian homes.

But last week the New York Theatre Workshop canceled the production - or, in its words, "postponed it indefinitely." The political climate, we were told, had changed dramatically since the play was booked. As James Nicola, the theater's artistic director, said Monday, "Listening in our communities in New York, what we heard was that after Ariel Sharon's illness and the election of Hamas in the recent Palestinian elections, we had a very edgy situation." Three years after being silenced for good, Rachel was to be censored for political reasons.

The New York Theatre Workshop, said in its defense that it had never formally announced it would be staging the play, but it had been considering staging it in March. James Nicola is quoted as commenting: "We found that our plan to present a work of art would be seen as us taking a stand in a political conflict, that we didn't want to take." He said he had suggested a postponement until next year.

Mr. Rickman, who also directed the show in London, said in a statement: "I can only guess at the pressures of funding an independent theatre company in New York, but calling this production 'postponed' does not disguise the fact that it has been cancelled. This is censorship born out of fear, and the New York Theatre Workshop, the Royal Court, New York audiences - all of us are the losers."

[See the linked article above for more background; it also explores some of the socio-cultural context in which this is happening. --MN]
(see 18 Mar 2006)

By the Blount County school system. Three students and their parents filed a lawsuit against the Blount County school system, claiming a ban on the Confederate battle flag at William Blount High School violates their free speech. Kirk Lyons of the Southern Legal Resource Center commented: "They are basically saying students can't express themselves by wearing anything with a Confederate flag on it. Out of all the T-shirts that are worn to school every day, a student cannot express pride in his Southern heritage at William Blount High School."

The SLRC and the Tennessee Division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans are supporting the lawsuit filed in federal court against school Principal Steve Lafon, Schools Director Alvin Hord, and the Blount County School Board. Schools spokeswoman Alisa Teffeteller said: "Our policy is that any type of clothing which has graphics, words or pictures that are distracting to the learning process of the school ... are not supposed to be worn." Be it noted, however, that the policy had not been enforced during the several years it was reportedly in effect until April 2005. At that time the sheriff's office had to lock down the school amid rising tensions and threats to black students. The students bringing the lawsuit, Derek Barr, Chris Nicole White, and Roger Craig White, said they had been threatened with suspension when conftronted about the shirts. Meanwhile, their lawsuit claims other students have worn clothing depicting "foreign national flags, Malcolm X symbols and political slogans" without repercussions. They are seeking a preliminary injunction to lift the ban.

[And here's another one that's going to cost an already underfunded system a greater financial burden. --MN]

By a number of Overland High School students. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By the Pakistan Telecommunications Authority. This government office for an Islamist state ordered Internet Service Providers to block the website blogspot.com (or blogger.com). The domain was host to twelve web logs that had posted the cartoons from the Danish daily Jyllands-Posten. As a result, access to thousands of web logs that had not violated the hypersensitivity of religious fanatics were also censored. Reporters Without Borders commented in an article at their web site: "We believe that the decision to ban a website should only ever be taken by a judge, at the end of a fair trial. It is moreover unacceptable that the order to block a site should go through the PTA, which while apparently aiming at one blog hosted by blogger.com, led to the filtering of all websites sharing the same domain name." Access providers applied the PTA decision by blocking access to all sites whose URL incorporates blogspot.com, which is all sites hosted by this service, even though it is technically possible to ban access to an individual journal.

By Hermitage School District in Hermitage, Pennsylvania. The school district has sought permission to sue the attorneys representing a high school student who sued the district after he was disciplined for posting an online parody profile of his principal on MySpace.com. This shows a complete and utter repudiation for personal responsibility by those school officials. Instead of blaming themselves for their actions in this affair, they are basically blaming the victim and his representatives for the consequences of their actions.

Justin Layshock was disciplined in Dec 2005 by administrators at Hickory High School for creating a MySpace profile of principal Eric Trosch; which was done at home on his grandmother’s computer. Among other comments, under "birthday" the profile said, "too drunk to remember." In response to the question, "in the past month have you smoked?" the profile said, "big blunt." The administrators suspended Layshock for 10 days, placed him in an alternative learning program at school, barred him from participating in school events or activities, and said he could not attend his graduation. The motion, filed by the school district on 23 Feb, against says the ACLU contributed to Layshock’s damaged reputation because of the publicity the lawsuit elicited.

[They unfairly punished a student who was a legal adult and now that it's blown up in their faces, they are sniveling that the bad publicity the victim got was from his effort to redress the injustice and that they are not to blame for it. Yeah. Right. --MN]

By Cindy Sheehan. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By a pre-invasion Iraqi manipulator and darling of the Bush administration. In Nov 2001 Chris Hedges of the New York Times and Christopher Buchanan of Frontline went to a meeting in a Beirut hotel with a man identified as Jamal al-Ghurairy, supposedly an Iraqi lieutenant general who had fled Saddam Hussein. That person claimed that he had witnessed terrorist training camps in Iraq where Islamic militants learned how to hijack airplanes. Now, the investigative magazine Mother Jones has exposed this "general" as a fake. A detailed report in the March-April issue says: "The story of Saddam training foreign fighters to hijack airplanes was instrumental in building the case to invade Iraq," a detailed report in the March-April issue says. "But it turns out that the Iraqi general who told the story to the New York Times and 'Frontline' was a complete fake a low-ranking former soldier whom Ahmed Chalabi's aides had coached to deceive the media." According to the magazine, this propaganda was one of one hundred eight stories the Iraqi National Congress and Mr. Chalabi planted in the American and British media between Oct 2001 and May 2002. Mr. Chalabi is the figure on whom the Bush administration relied for much of the intelligence about WMDs and the supposed Iraq connection with the WTC attack. See Another Iraq Story Gets Debunked, by Dave Zweifel, reprinted at CommonDreams.org, for more background.

By the American Library Association. The ALA's annual list was published at its web site on this day. Robie Harris has the dubious distinction of appearing at both the top and the bottom of the list.

1. It's Perfectly Normal: by Robie H. Harris; homosexuality, nudity, sex education, religious viewpoint, abortion, being unsuited to age group;
2. Forever: by Judy Blume; for sexual content, offensive language;
3. The Catcher in the Rye: by J.D. Salinger; sexual content, offensive language, being unsuited to age group;
4. The Chocolate War: by Robert Cormier; sexual content, offensive language;
5. Whale Talk: by Chris Crutcher; racism, offensive language;
6. Detour for Emmy: by Marilyn Reynolds; sexual content;
7. What My Mother Doesn't Know: by Sonya Sones; sexual content, unsuited to age group;
8. Captain Underpants series: by Dav Pilkey; anti-family content, unsuited to age group, violence;
9. Crazy Lady!: by Jane Leslie Conly; for offensive language;
10. It's So Amazing!: by Robie H. Harris; for sex education, sexual content.

Fallen from the list are the Alice series of books by Phyllis Reynolds Naylor, Of Mice and Men, by John Steinbeck and The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, by Mark Twain.

By We the People. On this day in 1971, a group of anonymous activists, calling themselves The Citizens' Commission to Investigate the FBI, broke into the small, two-man office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation in Media, Pennsylvania. The perpetrators stole more than a thousand FBI documents that revealed years of systematic wiretapping, infiltration, and media manipulation designed to suppress dissent. Within a few weeks the documents started showing up in the newsrooms of major American newspapers, having been mailed anonymously. When the Washington Post received copies, Attorney General John N. Mitchell asked the paper not to publish them. A.G. Mitchell said disclosure could "endanger the lives" of people involved in investigations on behalf of the United States. The Post broke the first story on 24 Mar 1971, after receiving an envelope with fourteen FBI documents detailing how the bureau had enlisted a local police chief, letter carriers, and a switchboard operator at Swarthmore College to spy on campus and black activist groups in the Philadelphia area. As of this anniversary, no individual has claimed responsibility for the break-in, and the FBI, after building up a 33,000-page file on the case over the course of a six-year long investigation, has still not solved the crime.

By California. An article at Student Press Law Center reported that two student-press friendly bills are under way through the State Assembly; one will prohibit the theft of free publications and the other effectively repudiates Hosty v. Carter.

Ten days after the decision by the 7th Circuit Court, the general counsel for the California State University system, Christine Helwick, sent a memo to university presidents saying the ruling could have an impact in California: "[The] case appears to signal that CSU campuses may have more latitude than previously believed to censor the content of subsidized student newspapers, provided that there is an established practice of regularized content review and approval for pedagogical purposes." Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association said the memo raised some concerns among student press advocates; he is quoted: "Ordinarily we wouldn't be that concerned about a 7th Circuit decision. [The memo] just sent ripples throughout the student press. We thought it might be a good idea to ask the legislature to extend the speech protection that exists in the law now to student publications." This bill was drafted by Assemblyman Joe Nation, D-San Rafael, and will be added to the Leonard Law, which protects student speech by making it illegal to enforce any rule on California's college campuses that would punish a student for speech that would be protected off school grounds, under either the First Amendment or California's Constitution.

The bill prohibiting the theft of newspapers, drafted by Assemblyman George Plescia, R-San Diego, would make it a misdemeanor to take more than five copies of a free newspaper with the intent to recycle them for money, sell or barter them, deprive others of the ability to read the publication, or harm a business competitor. Commenting on this bill, Mr. Ewert said, "It is not just the newspaper itself that is being taken, it's the advertising that is not being seen by the eyes that are intended to see them. [Publications] are stolen simply based on the content of the story or an editorial piece. The public, as well as the advertisers, are deprived."

By Georgia State University. An art exhibit that opened on 10 Jan, it was scheduled to end on this day. The exhibit was a look at art that draws controversy. Exhibition curator and gallery director Cathy Byrd said of it: "Moving beyond the shock factor of provocative art, we present art and ideas that may be viewed as controversial while encouraging an open dialogue about the vital role of freedom in creative expression." The artists featured were:

David Avalos Lynda Benglis Benita Carr Sue Coe Renee Cox Karen Finley

Eric Fischl Tom Forsythe Louis Hock Scott Kessler Jota Leaos Gayla Lemke

Alma Lopez Robert Mapplethorpe Dread Scott Andres Serrano John Sims Elizabeth Sisco

John Anita Steckel John Trobaugh Nancy Worthington Marilyn Zimmerman The Critical Art Ensemble

By the Wyoming State Senate. On this day, this body voted 29-1 to override Governor Dave Freudenthal's veto of a bill that would establish confidentiality for the communications of legislators' with staff, constituents, and contractors. In short, anything a public official said in the performance of his or her government duties could be kept secret. The legislation appears to be to protect early drafts of legislations and policies from critical review to prevent those offices and officials from working on them being bogged down by public criticisms of those drafts while they are still working out the details. Both bills were introduced on 24 Feb.

By the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. In an odd piece of double-think this body upheld human rights by punishing non-mainstream opinion and speech. In Feb 2002, Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman launched a complaint against Alexan Kulbashian, of Toronto, and James Richardson, of London, Ont., as well as also against the Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team, Kulbashian's web-hosting service Affordable Space.com, and the website www.tri-cityskins.com. The website contained messages that included Holocaust jokes and racist jokes about blacks, Jews, Muslims and other minorities. The Tribunal ordered the two men to stop spreading hate messages and fined them penalties totalling $13,000, with Mr. Warman being awarded $5,000. The tribunal ordered Mr. Kulbashian pay Mr. Warman for identifying him in a hate message; the website contained messages that included Holocaust jokes and racist jokes about blacks, Jews, Muslims and other minorities. The ruling read in part: Tribunal decision-maker Athanasios Hadjis said that according to section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the communication of hate messages must occur "repeatedly" to constitute a discriminatory practice; he commented: "In my view, since the hate messages could be viewed at any time by anyone using the internet, they were indeed being communicated 'repeatedly.'"

[The answer to free speech is more free speech, not creating mainstream-thought by fiat. --MN]

By the Boston Catholic Charities. This group halted its adoption program because of a Massachussetts law allowing children in need of a home to be adopted by homosexual parents. On 10 Mar, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said in a statement: "Denying children a loving and stable home serves absolutely no higher purpose. These bishops are putting an ugly political agenda before the needs of very vulnerable children. Every one of the nation's leading children's welfare groups agrees that a parent's sexual orientation is irrelevant to his or her ability to raise a child. What these bishops are doing is shameful, wrong and has nothing to do whatsoever with faith."

[How can any group call itself charitable when it violates the teachings of Jesus Christ about tolerance and compassion? --MN]

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

By Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

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

By Free Exchange on Campus. On this day this coalition of student, faculty, and civil liberty groups, including the American Federation of Teachers, launched its first campaign for free speech and described its activities at a news conference. This campaign is the direct result of the Academic Bill of Rights being touted by David Horowitz. Megan Fitzgerald, director of the Center for Campus Speech, one of the groups in the coalition, characterized ABOR as "a politically motivated attempt to curb learning on campus by forcing an ideological agenda and curbing the free exchange of ideas." Twenty-five states have introduced ABOR legislation that would limit speech by faculty members on a wide range of topics. In most of these states, the bill has failed. In Feb 2006, Horowitz, had published The Professors: The 101 most dangerous academics in America. Free Exchange has denounced this book as a blacklist. Its profiles are cobbled together with partial quotes, mischaracterizations and ill-formed judgments about professors' free expression outside the classroom. A concensus apparently reached independently by several academics and media critics. Elena Cross, a student at Pennsylvania State University, said that her university had been unable to document a bias problem. At the recent request of a state legislator, Penn State president Graham Spanier turned over five years' worth of records of student complaints of bias. The total came to 13, reported Cross, and all were resolved with investigations that uncovered no improper bias. The study covered 177,457 courses, 8,000 faculty members, and 80,000 students at all of the Penn State campuses. For more information see:

• What's Not To Like About The Academic Bill of Rights, by Dr. Graham Larkin Stanford University, Department of Art & Art History, 22 Sep 2004
• A Dangerous Professor Speaks, By Robert Jensen, (one of the targeted academics), 09 Feb 2006
• Peace Class Lands UW Prof on List of "Most Dangerous", by Nick Perry, 28 Feb 2006
• David Horowitz and the Attack on Independent Thought, by Robert W. McChesney (one of the targeted academics), 28 Feb 2008
• Campus Report: 101 dangerous book ideas , (a book review) by Gabriel Oppenheim, a College freshman from Scarsdale, N.Y, 01 Mar 2006

(see 22 Jan 2006; 17 Jul 2006; 20 Nov 2006)

By the Lukashenko regime of Belarus. The press protection group Reporters Without Borders published an article on this day about the predation by President Alexander Lukashenko’s administration in the face of upcoming elections (19 Mar), as well as part of a long term and ongoing suppression of the free press.

• 02 Mar: at least nine journalists were arrested and beaten by plain-clothes policemen while covering the arrest of opposition candidate Alexander Kazulin;

• 12-15 Mar: at least four Ukrainian and Polish journalists were arrested and given sentences ranging from five to ten days in prison

• 13 Mar:
  • around 57,000 copies of the independent newspaper Narodnaya Volya were confiscated;
  • a week after the banning of a special issue on Kazulin’s candidacy with a print run of 250,000,
  • a Russian printing company meanwhile announced it was terminating its contracts with three independent Belarusian newspapers which had been covering the programmes of the opposition candidates;

• at least four foreign journalists had been expelled from Belarus so far this year.

The report is based on information gathered by an RSF team during a visit to Minsk from 02 to 07 Mar. The team met representatives of independent media, press freedom organisations, and opposition movements.

By State of Tennessee. See the entry on the vanity plates page.

By Philip Weiss of The Nation. In this piece, reprinted at AlterNet.org, Mr. Weiss examines the socio-political context in which the play was withdrawn from public consumption in America. He also examines the convictions and motivations that moved Rachel Corrie to dedicate herself to the fight against injustice and state violence. Mr. Weiss wrote in part:

The slim book that was suddenly the most controversial work in the West in early March was not easy to find in the United States. Amazon said it wasn't available till April. The Strand bookstore didn't have it either. You could order it on Amazon-UK, but it would be a week getting here. I finally found an author in Michigan who kindly photocopied the British book and overnighted it to me; but to be on the safe side, I visited an activist's apartment on Eighth Avenue on the promise that I could take her much-in-demand copy to the lobby for half an hour. In the elevator, I flipped it open to a random passage:

I can't cool boiling waters in Russia. I can't be Picasso. I can't be Jesus. I can't save the planet single-handedly. I can wash dishes.

The book is the play My Name Is Rachel Corrie. Composed from the journal entries and e-mails of the 23-year-old from Washington State who was crushed to death in Gaza three years ago under a bulldozer operated by the Israeli army, the play had two successful runs in London last year and then became a cause celebre after a progressive New York theater company decided to postpone its American premiere indefinitely out of concern for the sensitivities of (unnamed) Jewish groups unsettled by Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections.

When the English producers denounced the decision by the New York Theatre Workshop as "censorship" and withdrew the show, even the mainstream media could not ignore the implications. Why is it that the eloquent words of an American radical could not be heard in this country -- not, that is, without what the Workshop had called "contextualizing," framing the play with political discussions, maybe even mounting a companion piece that would somehow "mollify" the Jewish community?

[Mr. Weiss then goes on to fully explore this incident, including a character witnessing on behalf of Nicola which casts him as pro-activist and illustrates the chilling effect of socio-politics. Mr. Weiss also writes about how Nicola considered efforts to alter the meaning and power of the play by "contextualizing" it after each performance. As I see it, this would have involved "interpreting" the work in an Orwellian fashion; the murderers of Rachel Corrie could very well have come across as the victims as a result of it, although I think on the face of it this contextualizing would simply have so thoroughly obfuscated the issues raised in the play so as to negate the raising of those issues at all. This piece is absolutely a must read for any student of civil liberties. --MN]
(see 02 Mar 2006)

By Associated Press. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By Alegsandr Lukashenko. Belarus government forces began forcefully oppressing peaceful demonstrations that resulted from Mr. Lukashenko's re-election on 19 Mar. Journalists who had been there to cover the election and who then began covering the protests were subject to arbitrary arrest and seizure, police brutality, imprisonment, and intimidation. See the Lukashenko Tyranny Affair page.

By United For Peace and Justice. UFPJ will broaden its anti-war protest to include targeting a US media system that has largely substituted jingoism for journalism and backed the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq; usually in the name of supporting the troops. Coordinator Leslie Cagan announced that the organization will partner with MediaChannel.org and other media groups to organize a Media Day of War Coverage Protest for this day. On or about 24 Feb, MediaChannel Director David DeGraw commented, "We are thrilled that anti-war activists will now be connecting with media reform activists to challenge mainstream media 'coverage' that has underreported civilian casualties and much of the costs of the war. Sadly, the media helped make the war possible, and despite mea culpas about flawed pre-war coverage, the coverage has basically not changed, an approach which treats every Administration claim seriously, while marginalizing the anti-war movement."

By Tyrone Terrill, human rights director for St. Paul, Minnesota. He ordered a small Easter display removed from the City Hall lobby out of concern that it would offend non-Christians. The display was secular in nature according the source article for this entry, consisting of a cloth Easter bunny, pastel-colored eggs, and a sign with the words "Happy Easter". The display had been put up by a City Council secretary, and the items were not purchased with city money. This is the second time a holiday symbol has been removed from St. Paul City Hall: in 2001 red poinsettias were briefly banned because they were associated with Christmas.

[In point of fact, the display should have been offensive to christo-fanatics. Those particular Easter accouterments were co-opted from pagan religions by the Roman Catholic Church, and as such are not christian symbols at all. It doesn't seem to have occurred to the ultra-conservative lunatics yet, but most Easter symbology is as much satanist as Halloween. --MN]

By Jason R. Wiles. In an article originally published in the Reports of the National Center for Science Education, and reprinted in the Arkansas Times, he reported about a father of a friend of his who teaches geology. Wrote Mr. Wiles:

My friend did not know the details of Bob's problem, only that it had to do with geology education. This was enough to arouse my interest, so I invited Bob to tell me about what was going on.

He responded with an e-mail. Teachers at his facility are forbidden to use the "e-word" (evolution) with the kids. They are permitted to use the word "adaptation" but only to refer to a current characteristic of an organism, not as a product of evolutionary change via natural selection. They cannot even use the term "natural selection." Bob feared that not being able to use evolutionary terms and ideas to answer his students' questions would lead to reinforcement of their misconceptions.

But Bob's personal issue was more specific, and the prohibition more insidious. In his words, "I am instructed NOT to use hard numbers when telling kids how old rocks are. I am supposed to say that these rocks are VERY VERY OLD ... but I am NOT to say that these rocks are thought to be about 300 million years old."

As a person with a geology background, Bob found this restriction hard to justify, especially since the new Arkansas educational benchmarks for 5th grade include introduction of the concept of the 4.5-billion-year age of the earth. Bob's facility is supposed to be meeting or exceeding those benchmarks.

The explanation that had been given to Bob by his supervisors was that their science facility is in a delicate position and must avoid irritating some religious fundamentalists who may have their fingers on the purse strings of various school districts.

Mr. Wiles reported that he put Bob in contact with the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), which responded with excellent advice.

[He then went on to illustrate how a large part of the Arkansas education system is rotten with fear from the christo-fanatic influence. Conservative/Republican supporters of my acquaintance have asserted that academe is under the influence of liberalism, and conservatives are subject to chilling from fear of losing their jobs (a la David Horowitz and Bruin Alumni). This article details actual such conditions, except it is progressives who are being suppressed. How bad is it? Not one of the people Wiles spoke to would allow him to identify them. They all only spoke on condition of anonymity, and one person said she got in trouble just for asking teachers how they approached the benchmarks for teaching evolution. --MN]

By private citizens, on their own private property. Chief U.S. District Judge Irene M. Keeley ruled that a Bridgeport, West Virginia, city ordinance covering the posting of temporary political signs is unconstitutional because it places a "burden" on residents' rights to free speech. The ruling stems from a lawsuit filed by Daniel McFadden over two ordinances governing the placement of temporary and political signs within city limits. One ordinance required special permits before signs could be posted. Judge Keeley dismissed that portion of the lawsuit, saying the issue was moot because the city has since modified the law to remove the requirement. The second ordinance says temporary and political signs may only be posted 30 days before an event or election. The signs must be removed within 48 hours after the event or election. Judge Keeley wrote of this ordinance, "That burden is content-based because it applies to those signs based on what they say. Moveover, because Bridgeport's interests in aesthetics and traffic safety are not compelling, and temporal restrictions are not the least restrictive alternatives available to achieve those interests (the ordinance) does not survive strict scrutiny." The city has been ordered not to enforce the ordinance.

[Nice try Bridgeport; that law would have prohibited people from putting up a sign at any time saying: "Bush Sucks". Or even: Bush is the Saviour of Mankind; All Hail Saint George. Although I wonder how assiduously Bridgeport would have policed that type of sign. --MN]

By the Rhode Island Department of Education. See the entry on the Church/State Entanglement page.

By the corporate media. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By a Dekalb County, Georgia, police officer. Denise Grier, a nurse at Emory University hospital in Georgia, she was driving home from dinner on 10 Mar when the officer pulled her over. He accused her of having a lewd decal on her car. Ms. Grier says she told the officer it wasn’t lewd, and that it was clearly a political statement; he insisted it was lewd and she said, "I’m not going to discuss this any further. Just give me the ticket." Which he did. The fine is for one hundred dollars. The problems with this action are two fold. One: the U.S. Supreme Court recognizes the supremacy of core political speech ("If you can't say fuck you can't say fuck the government", and "the First Amendment admits no heckler's veto"); 2: the Georgia Supreme Court struck down the "lewd bumpersticker" statute in 1991. Gerry Weber, the legal director of the ACLU of Georgia and who is representing Ms. Grier, commented: "The indicators are that the officer didn’t like her views of President Bush and that was the motivating factor."

By David L. Hudson Jr. This piece, posted to First Amendment Center, is an articulate, well crafted examination and historography of the anti-evolution movement in the United States. Mr. Hudson looks at the socio-cultural context and shows why the movement continues to this day, and will continue into the future. It is based on the lecture by Edward J. Larson, a University of Georgia law professor, at the 15th annual Windham Lecture in Liberal Arts. This editor considers it to be a "must read".

By the Washington Post. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By Food Not Bombs. The source article for this entry described this action as follows:

Free-speech advocates and war protesters all across the United States will turn themselves in to the FBI this Friday, March 31st Through this action, participants will ease the workload of federal spies, freeing them up to engage in legitimate law-enforcement activities that will keep our country safer. Participants will also save taxpayer money, thereby demonstrating the patriotism of war opponents.

Through satire and humor, Food Not Bombs volunteers are calling attention to the serious issue of domestic spying by the Pentagon, NSA and FBI. In particular, the group is highlighting the recently revealed FBI has included Food Not Bombs on its "Terrorist Watch List". The FBI has been notified of this action and will have a duty agent on hand. The local office of the FBI indicated that Mr. McHenry is in fact under surveillance. Mr. McHenry co-founded Food Not Bombs which is an all-volunteer movement dedicated to non-violence that shares vegetarian meals to the hungry in hundreds of cities all over the world. (www.foodnotbombs.net) As the movements co-founder he felt it was important to turn himself in along with the many other non-violent terrorists under investigation by the U.S. government.

The week of 19-26 Mar, a law student in Austin, Texas reported that the FBI has placed Food Not Bombs on the "Terrorist Watch List." The ACLU discovered a number of FBI memos stating that the organization is under investigation by the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force in California, Colorado, Missouri, and other states. Keith McHenry lives in Tucson, Arizona and recent Pentagon documents state that a protest against torture that he helped plan in Nov 2004 is considered an "ongoing credible terrorist threat." Two Food Not Bombs volunteers in Arizona had been arrested last December on charges of terrorism.

By Canada. In April 2003, Craig Legare, who was 32 at the time, met a 12-year-old in an internet chat room. Mr. Legare supposedly misrepresented himself as a 17-year-old (the girl passed herself off as 13, but that is irrelevant to this case). They reportedly talked about having sex in two explicit text conversations, later traded contact information, and Mr. Legare followed up with a phone call in which he said he wanted to perform a sexual act on her. She hung up and her father phoned police. The suspect was charged with luring a child under 14 and invitation to sexual touching. On this day he was found not guilty after Justice John Agrios ruled that "dirty talk" does not constitute luring. Judge agrios ruled that the online conversations weren't enough to convict, and that although the transcript of the second discussion was almost all sexual, there was insufficient evidence to say he was luring her.

[Crown prosecutor Steve Bilodeau had argued that the accused had wanted to have sex with the girl and that she was harmed by the conversation. He said that when Parliament passed an internet luring law in 2002, it didn't mean for the Crown to prove an accused intended to follow through with a sex act. Randy Wickins, a detective with the Integrated Child Exploitation team in Edmonton, said "dirty talk" is one of the first steps in luring and should be seen that way in law, and he commented: "My fear is that some of them will meet. Doesn't matter whether you are from a poor home or a wealthy home, children can be easily manipulated." I interpret both these positions to mean: it doesn't make any difference what the accused actually intended, it is enough to condemn him because he might have gone on to molest, and there are perverts out there who would and will molest therefore we are justified in punishing him and everybody who talks "dirty" to a pubescent young adult. Bilodeau's talk about the victim being harmed is just specious claptrap based on the "Harmful To Minors" unwarranted assumption, in my books. Let's not waste time, engery, and resources on criminalizing people for the thoughts they think or the things they say. --MN]

By the Washington State Supreme Court. This bench ruled that a trial court overreached its authority when it extended an anti-harassment order to restrict information Paul Trummel had posted to a web site. Mr. Trummel spent one hundred eleven days in jail during 2002 for refusing to edit his site to comply with a judge's order. William John Crittenden, his attorney, called the ruling of 30 Mar, a "strange decision", but an indirect victory for free speech. He commented: "At the end of the day, the determination that Paul was in contempt for putting things on the Internet has been reversed." The justices ruled that the original anti-harassment order was justified, but that the Web site information -- including phone numbers and addresses of residents, staff and directors -- should not have been restricted by the order. See the source article for more background on this ruling and the current state of affairs between Trummel and the nursing home staff.
(see 18 Jun 2002)

By book publishers. An article titled The bottom line in kids' books is udderly unreal, posted at The Age, Australia, shows how completely senseless censorship can be. These cases of expurgation were principly done in an effort to dumb down material.

• When Terry Denton was illustrating an American school reader a few years ago, he was asked by a U.S. publisher to redraw a picture of a multi-race couple; the drawing of a black person married to an Hispanic was deemed inappropriate. He was asked to draw a black couple instead.

• One highly successful book was not accepted in the US because it showed a bare baby's bottom. (Inaccurate; the picture is of a naked infant sleeping on a quarter moon; the infant is shown in profile; one thigh is seen, but not the bum.)

• Craig Smith was asked not to draw any udders in a book about cows. He commented, "(Large) lips on any blacks are completely out, the eyes on any Asian child have to not look Asian at all and the colour for any black child has got to be the softest brown. It's unreal, that's what I think the most despairing thing is. It means a book does not necessarily reflect what kids patently see around them, they see a cleaned-up version."

• Illustrators have been asked to avoid showing uncut loaves of bread and freestanding wardrobes because they might be unfamiliar to American readers.

• Ms. Lee Walker, at Thomson Learning Australia, has overseen the removal of:
  • genitals from a mouse,
  • nail polish from children's hands, and
  • skulls and crossbones from the clothing of pirates.
  • She is quoted, "And we Photoshop out cows' udders all the time."

Dumbing down is done by those who do not understand that children are actually a great deal more intelligent than the Politically Correct movement gives them credit for.

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

By the Broward police union, Florida. The union posted a "be on the lookout" advisory and a picture of WFOR-TV reporter Michael Kirsch on its Web site after a hidden-camera story was aired about how the public can file complaints against police officers. The investigation comprised an investigation into open-government practices and racial profiling. Conducted with assistance from the Police Complaint Center, a watchdog group, the investigation involved visits to thirty-eight law enforcement agencies in Broward and Miami-Dade counties seeking forms to file complaints against officers. Only three departments had such forms. They are not required by law, but are recommended by the International Association of Chiefs of Police. The story also involved use of white and black drivers in the same red Mustang. If the black driver was pulled over by police, he would "become hostile and accuse the officer of profiling" and then try to file a complaint, according to the union web site advisory. Dick Brickman, president of the Broward union, said he posted the advisory to warn officers. There is also information about Gregory Allen Slate of Baltimore, who works for the Police Complaint Center. Mr. Brickman commented: "I put the information out so our members, if they come across any of these people, they should be aware these people they're talking to probably have you on camera. They're trying to set you up to aggravate you so you'll make a mistake." Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Arlington, Virginia based Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, called the BOLO "absolutely an attempt to intimidate. And it's abusive and downright stupid."

[So, a reporter was criminalized for investigating police practices and because the report was aired, and a private citizen was criminalized for associating with the reporter and a group dedicated to monitoring police practices, both summarily and without trial, and private citizens were forbidden to know how to, or to actually, petition their government for a redress of a grievance. So, by my count, that's five (but maybe only four) first and two fourth amendment rights violations. --MN]
(see 19 May 2006)

By State of Michigan. Michigan Senate Bill 156 says that a school official or school board may not review or restrain a student publication prior to its publication unless an article is obscene to minors, defamatory, an invasion of privacy or if it poses a "clear and present danger" of illegal or substantially disruptive activity. And it is likely to die in the state senate.

The bill simply has not picked up the support it needs, and this is due in part to the Michigan Press Association's decision to not support it. That organization represents the interests of 300 Michigan newspapers and has been known to support and lobby for First Amendment-related bills, but executive director Mike MacLaren commented, "We weren’t comfortable supporting it as it was written. When you go to work for a for-profit, publicly-held newspaper, quite often stories are going to get spiked by the editor. Students have to be prepared for those eventualities." He is further quoted: "I’ve had that happen to me. I could argue all I wanted with my editor and publisher, but at the end of the day, they own the paper and I work for them. That’s a critical lesson for student journalists. Perry Parks, a member of the Michigan Collegiate Press Association Board of Directors, which has publicly supported the bill, commented, "If you’re thinking long term and you’re a publisher in Michigan, you want people to come and work for your newspaper who know how to challenge authority, write about sensitive issues and make a difference. [High school newspaper censorship] produces the kind of bland journalism that is turning people away from newspapers to begin with."

[I don't agree with McLaren; this law does not appear to be about editorial control, but about state control. The source article might have been deficient in facts, however. What really torques my tweeter is McLaren's attitude. Basically: If such censorship was good enough for me it's good enough for the next generation; screw them. If he doesn't like being censored, then why in the name of Hell is he supporting censorship for others? --MN]

By Singaporese. On this day the minister for Singapore Information, Communications, and Arts, Balaji Sadasivan, repeated the strict rules on Internet use in electoral periods, that have been in force there since 2001. The government had already warned Internet users who are likely to discsuss politics online that they are at risk of legal action. Although no official date has been announced, the elections are due to be held in the next few months. Singaporese web journalers and web site managers do not have the right to support a particular candidate's platform. Outside of elections periods, web loggers have to register with the Media Development Authority (MDA) if they want to openly and regularly defend a political line, but during election periods, registeration does not allow them to express opinons on political issues. The minister specified in parliament that podcasting and videocasting will be banned if they carry political content. the Singapore Democratic Party, the main opposition party, used podcasting during the election campaign, in Nov 2001.

By U.S. District Judge George Steeh. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By U.S. District Judge Nanette Laughrey. Activists Bill Wickersham and Maureen Doyle were escorted off the airport tarmac by city police during the 2004 Memorial Day Weekend Salute to Veterans show, for collecting signatures on a green-energy petition and handing out anti-war leaflets; Mr. Wickersham was led away in handcuffs. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the city and air-show organizers Memorial Day Weekend Salute to Veterans Corp. and the city of Columbia, Missouri. The ACLU argued that political activists have a right to free speech at the event, which is free and open to the public, and the veterans group counter-argued that it, too, had a First Amendment right to hold the air show "without having to turn this traditional family event into a forum for controversy."

On 31 Mar Judge Laughrey ruled that anti-war protesters are allowed to distribute leaflets and carry signs at the air show as well as to wear clothing, hats and buttons expressing viewpoints not shared by the events organizers, but protesters aren't be allowed to collect signatures on petitions because that involves communication between petitioners and the public. The organizers are considering an appeal.

By American occupation forces in Iraq. CBS cameraman Abdul Ameer Younis Hussein was filming a ceremony at Mosul university on 5 Apr 2005 when he was shot in the hip by US troops during a clash with rebels. He was arrested on the spot and accused of recruiting for the rebels. A US army release said he was being held because he could represent "a serious threat to the coalition forces"; according to CBS, the military suspected him of being linked to the insurrection [read: resistance] because of material on the videotape found in his camera. An Iraqi court in Mosul ruled on this day that there was no evidence against him. Instead of being freed on the spot, however, he was returned to Abu Ghraib prison after the hearing. This on top of a year in prison without being charged in direct contravention of the Bill of Rights and American law within American jurisdiction. Other journalists have been held by the coalition forces without justification or charges, including two journalists from Reuters who were freed in January after being held for several months.

By State District Judge William Birdsall. The judge dismissed, with prejudice, a charge of criminal libel against Juan Mata. Mr. Mata was convicted in magistrate court in Aug 2005 of criminal libel, harassment, and stalking in incidents involving his criticism of a police officer. City Attorney Jay Burnham said the city of Farmington was not sure what it would do next; it could ask Judge Birdsall to reconsider, or it could appeal the decision to the state Court of Appeals. That Court of Appeals, however, has already deemed the criminal-libel law unconstitutional. In 1992. Despite having brought a clearly unconstitutional action against Mr. Mata, Mr. Burnham commented, "We still feel strongly that we did the right thing."

The charges centered on whether Mr. Mata had a constitutional right to circulate a petition asking the Farmington Police Department to investigate Officer Mike Briseno, and to picket the department with signs calling that officer a liar. The harassment and stalking charges stem from the petition and picketing, whereas the criminal-libel charge referrs to a letter written by a lawyer for Mr. Mata in which Officer Briseno was accused of felonies; the letter asked the department to investigate actions he was alleged to have committed. The charges were filed two months after Mata and his family filed a civil rights lawsuit against the city in November 2004 alleging police brutality, in which the city settled.

By Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy. In an e-mail issued on this day, Free Press announced a press conference in Washington, at which the two groups planned to: "release a groundbreaking report on the extent to which corporate propaganda has infiltrated local TV newscasts across the country." The e-mail read, in part:

All told, we caught 77 local stations slipping corporate-sponsored "video news releases" - segments promoting commercial brands and products - into their regular news programming. These advertisements, flogging everything from vitamin supplements to porn-free search engines, were passed off to you, their viewers, as legitimate news reports.

This deception is illegal, and it's a serious breach of the trust between stations and their communities.

The e-mail further encouraged members to complain to the FCC about this encroachment by patently fake news.

[Addendum (08 Apr 2006:) On this day, a piece titled News Fakers, was posted at AlterNet.org. It is a transcript of a Democracy Now! interview with the authors of the report, Diane Farsetta and Daniel Price. The opening remarks read, in part:

The [77] stations are scattered throughout 30 states and are affiliated with all of the major networks: ABC, CBS, NBC and Fox. And many of the stations are owned by some of the country's largest media companies, including Clear Channel, News Corp, Viacom, the Tribune Co. and Sinclair Broadcast.

The study by the Center for Media and Democracy is called "Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed" (Read Report). The authors of the report charge that these TV stations actively disguise the corporate-sponsored content to make it appear to be their own reporting.

Until now, television news directors have downplayed how often VNRs have been broadcast. Last year Barbara Cochran, president of the Radio-Television News Directors Association, compared VNRs to the Loch Ness monster. She said "Everyone talks about it, but not many people have actually seen it." Today we are going to spend the hour looking at how fake news is making its way onto the airwaves of local newscasts.

The transcript details how media outlets helped to perpetrate the fraud of public relations people misrepresenting themselves as practicing journalists. --MN]
(see 16 Aug 2006)

By King Gyanendra of Nepal. He had fired the government a year ago and suspended many civil liberties after he accused politicians of failing to stop the violence between the government and Maoist rebels, and had said he would form a new cabinet and restore peace and democracy within three years. In recent months there have been growing calls across the country for the restoration of democracy, and on this day, there was to be a massive rally as part of a four-day nationwide strike that began on 06 Apr. However, the royal government imposed an all-day curfew and threatened to shoot any violators on sight. Opposition parties called off the rally and instead, held an emergency meeting to determine how to counter this latest step to end the protests against the seizure of power.

By King Gyanendra of Nepal. On this day, Reporters Without Borders posted an article at its web site in which it reported that ninety-seven journalists had been arrested and twenty-four injured during nationwide pro-democracy demonstrations since 05 Apr. The organization called upon the government of Nepal to issue permits to journalists to allow freedom of movement during the curfew. The media workers who have been detained were arrested by the police and army without warrants.

By the U.S. Occupation Forces in Iraq. On 28 Aug 2005, U.S. soldiers fired on Waleed Khaled and cameraman Haider Kadhem, who were in their car, as the two Iraqis covered the aftermath of an attack on policemen. Mr. Khaled was killed in the fusillade, and Mr. Kadhem was struck in the hip. He was arrested and held for three days. The videotape in his possession was seized. An investigation by the Army unit involved found that the soldiers had acted within the rules of engagement. Reuters asked The Risk Advisory Group (TRAG), a risk management consultancy, to conduct an independent investigation, and on this day Reuters reported that the TRAG report contained the following points and conclusions:

• "We conclude, based on the independent evidence and the evidence of Haider Kadhem, that no hostile act took place and no act could have been legitimately mistaken as indicating hostile intent.

  The engagement was therefore in breach of U.S. Rules of Engagement and, in our opinion, on the current evidence was prima facie unlawful."

• Soldiers who fired on the car from the roof of a building testified to the military investigator that they saw a passenger hanging out of one of the windows holding what appeared to be a rocket-propelled grenade (RPG) launcher.

  Kadhem said he was filming through the stationary car's windshield with his small, hand-held video camera and at one point turned to lean slightly out of the side window.

  The TRAG report said: Had they not fired, it is unlikely in our view that the car would have moved in the first place.

• The troops said the passenger quickly moved back inside the car before they could confirm with binoculars whether he was holding a weapon. The soldiers said they initially fired warning shots and then fired to disable the vehicle.

  TRAG reconstructed the incident and found it was impossible to distinguish an RPG at the distance from where the soldiers fired.

• The soldiers said they initially fired warning shots and then to disable the vehicle.

  Kadhem said shooting began and Khaled reversed at speed. Seventeen bullets hit the car, which swerved and crashed into a barrier. Kadhem said shooting went on after it came to a stop.

  The report said that ballistic evidence from an examination of the car "supports the contention that shots were fired to kill or injure the occupants" rather than disable the vehicle.

• TRAG found in Khaled's case that the use of force was not proportionate to the perceived threat - as it should be under the rules of engagement - as the car was stationary when firing began and continued after the vehicle had stopped.

• Moreover, The Army initially showed the seized video footage to Reuters staff, but then said it had been separated from the case file and lost.

  TRAG said of this aspect: "The 'lost' video contains the very best evidence of what transpired." [...] "As a matter of good evidential practice, we find it very difficult to understand any circumstances in which it would have been appropriate to separate an original exhibit from the case papers."

  Reuters staff and a security adviser to Reuters who saw the film testified that it supported Kadhem's statements.

• The Risk Advisory Group noted that all Reuters Iraqi staff are made aware of how to behave in hostile environments, with operating procedures being periodically enhanced with verbal training, although but not extensively.

TRAG's investigation was led by a former special investigator with 23 years of service in Britain's Royal Military Police, most recently in Iraq, and the 43-page report, and accompanying annexes, was reviewed by Chief Executive Bill Waite, a barrister and former prosecutor for Britain's Serious Fraud Office.

[I smell a cover up. --MN]

By Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. This years losers are:

1. President George Bush;
2. the U.S. Department of Justice;
3. the Supreme Court of Florida;
4. Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin;
5. New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg;
6. the hecklers in the University of Connecticut audience at the the speech of ultra-conservative Ann Coulter;
7. The Yelm (Washington) City Council;
8. the United States Department of Homeland Security;
9. Command Authority of the U.S. Army Base at Fort Bragg;
10. The School Administrations of Tennessee's Oak Ridge High School, Florida's Wellington High School, and California's Troy High School;
11. William Paterson (New Jersey) University Administration;
12. U.S. Representative Joe Barton.

By John Lott. This former Yale Law School researcher was cited in the book Freakonomics, co-written by Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner, and published by HarperCollins Publishers Inc. The book is an examination of how sociological phenomenon are so easily and wrongly interpreted by simplistic thinkers. Mr. Lott said in a federal lawsuit filed in Chicago on 10 Apr that Levitt, a University of Chicago economist, defamed him when he wrote that other scholars have been unable to replicate Lott's research linking lower crime rates with the right to carry guns. According to the suit, the passage amounts to an allegation that Mr. Lott falsified his data. The suit says: The allegation "damages Lott's reputation in the eyes of the academic community in which he works, and in the minds of the hundreds of thousands of academics, college students, graduate students, and members of the general public who read 'Freakonomics.'" The suit asks for a halt in sales, a retraction in the next printing of the book, and unspecified damages from Mr. Levitt and HarperCollins. Mr. Dubner was not named in the suit.

[I wrote of this case at the LISNews message board:

Looks to me as if Lott is getting all pissy because he got caught out doing sloppy work. I read Freakonomics, and I don't recall the cited portion, but Lott doesn't have to have falsified his data to generate unreproductible (sic) results. More likely he interpreted the data himself, and did so in accordance with his prejudices. And I do seem to recall thinking at some point while reading that book that avoiding this is why ethical researchers send their work out to be analyzed by independent laboratories. At any rate: you cannot libel someone with the truth; the first test is that that slander must have been uttered with a reckless disregard for the truth. If Levitt wrote correctly that the results are nonreproductible (sic), then he could not have libelled Lott. Off hand, I'd say that Lott's interpretation of Levitt's statement as libelous is in keeping with the way he interprets data he collected, to prove something he has already concluded.

A brief examination of some of Lott's writings that are archived online shows numerous citings of statistics, but no citing of sources. A practice that is questionable in the least, and a hallmark of the fraud at worst. --MN]

By Playboy Magazine. A group of Muslims protesting Playboy's launch of an Indonesian edition of the magazine clashed with police and stoned the company's editorial offices. This first local edition in a Muslim country apparently went on sale on 07 Apr. It does not feature any nudity, and its photos of women in undergarments are less risque than in other magazines already for sale there, however many politicians and preachers in the religious state have condemned it; most of them saying that the name of the magazine itself was grounds to ban it. According to vendors, the magazine is selling well, and threatened mass protests against it have failed to materialize.
(see 07 Jun 2006)

By South Park. Comedy Central forbid the shows creators to show an image of the prophet Muhammad due to the rioting by hypersensitive and fanatic elements during Jan this year. The episode was intended to comment on the controversy. Creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker were so POed by the prohibition that they built "an episode around the incident. In the episode for 12 Apr, at the point where Muhammad is to be seen, the screen is filled with the message: "Comedy Central has refused to broadcast an image of Muhammad on their network."

The message is followed shortly by an image of Jesus Christ defecating on President Bush and the American flag.

This, in turn, generated a censorial complaint by South Park critic William Donohue of the Catholic League anti-defamation group, who called on Parker and Stone to resign out of principle for being censored. He is quoted, playing the wounded innocent: "The ultimate hypocrite is not Comedy Central - that's their decision not to show the image of Muhammad or not - it's Parker and Stone. Like little whores, they'll sit there and grab the bucks. They'll sit there and they'll whine and they'll take their shot at Jesus. That's their stock in trade."

This incident happened just after South Park won the prestigious Peabody. Awards director Horace Newcomb said at the time that by its offensiveness, the show "reminds us of the need for being tolerant."

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

By W.H. Auden. Student Jacob Beyhmer-Smith, had wanted to read Auden's The More Loving One at a statewide competition scheduled for 22 Apr, but school administrators said he could not, because the poem contained the words "Hell" and "Damn". The Coral Academy of Science, a charter school of the Washoe County School District, wanted to bar the poem because the school does not allow students to use profanity. The fourteen year old student sought a restraining order against the school and a temporary injunction was granted on this day in federal court. Judge Brian Sandoval wrote in his decision: "Defendants apparently consider the poem inappropriate because it contains language that conflicts with the school's policies against students general use of profanity. However, when spoken in the context of a poem at a school-authorized, off-campus competition and written by a nationally recognized poet, the court finds that the language sought to be censured cannot even remotely cause a disruption of the educational mission." Judge Sandoval also wrote that the action was constitutionally infirm.

By the reactionary ultra-left wing. See my commentary on this issue.

By the Bush administration. The United States blocked a Security Council statement that was critical of Israel and would have urged it to refrain from "excessive use of force" against Palestinians. The text, which was under negotiations for the past three days, came in response to intensive Israeli air and artillery bombardments of the Gaza Strip. Fifteen Palestinians were killed over the weekend in the strikes, which were aimed at putting an end to rocket firing by Palestinian militants. The source article for this entry failed to state, however, if the dead were cilivians.

The draft text of the statement would have called on Israel "to refrain from excessive use of force" and on the Palestinian Authority to "take a clear public stance against violence." Even though it criticizes both co-beligerents, Ambassador John Bolton told reporters: "A lot of changes were made but the balance of the text was still not adequate in our view. We think it was disproportionately critical of Israel and unfairly so and needlessly so." Palestinian representative Ryad Mansour said the council's 14 other members had shown, "a tremendous amount of understanding and flexibility," and further commented, "But unfortunately one member (the United States) is shielding and protecting Israeli aggression against the Palestinian people in Gaza and other parts of the occupied territory."

[Keep in mind that Israel murders Palestinians using American produced weaponry and ammunitions. God forbid anybody should be allowed to criticize a Bush regime cash cow. Personally, I would think snipers are a more appropriate response to rocket-firing foot soldiers in an urban battle zone. Palestinian resisters are frequently reduced to throwing rocks at tanks. I suppose what military munitions they do procure are by way of the black market, and are relatively few and far between. The key to this whole mess, however, is that neither military force really wants to stop the bloodshed; just the civilians who are doing the dieing. --MN]

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

By ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox, their network-affiliate associations, and the Hearst-Argyle Television group of stations. These networks filed notices of appeal in various federal courts over the 13th and 14th of Apr. They are challenging various FCC indecency rulings on the grounds that federal enforcement of indecency rules is vague and inconsistent. The FCC did not issue fines in the cases involved because the incidents occurred before the 2004 ruling that virtually any use of certain expletives would be considered profane and indecent. None of the cases involved NBC, which filed a petition to intervene on behalf of the other networks and stations. CBS asked the FCC separately to reconsider the proposed fine of $3.6 million against dozens of stations and affiliates for a 2004 episode of "Without a Trace", as well as the proposed $550,000 fine for the Janet Jackson "wardrobe malfunction" in 2004.

By Robert Kent. See the entry on the Cuban Independent Librarians page, or my commentary on this issue.

By Marjory Stoneman Douglas Elementary school. This book, by Alta Schreier, contains images of smiling children wearing uniforms of Cuba's communist youth group and a carnival celebrating the 1959 Cuban revolution. This challenge was apparently launched by parent Juan Amador, an immigrant from Cuba, who said that he finds the material to be untruthful and exemplifying a Cuba that is nonexistent.

• Frank Bolanos said the book violated district standards in that: "It is full of biases, prejudices, distortions and stereotypes."

• Marta Perez compared it to "pornography" and "books about devil worship".

• Juan Amador Rodriguez, son of Mr. Amador, spoke through a translator about his experience of growing up in Cuba: "The smile on the faces of those children, I never had."

• The wisest point of view came from board member Evelyn Greer: "I am not willing to spend a quarter of a million dollars on money that should be spent in the classroom to litigate an issue that is well-established in the law of this country."

The Miami-Dade School Board voted 6-3 against removing the book.

[If the young Mr. Rodriquez is in elementary school, I have to wonder how much he was coached to run down his childhood in Cuba. --MN]
(see 14 Jun 2006; 27 Jun 2006; 22 Aug 2006; 19 Feb 2007; 02 Mar 2007)

By the California Supreme Court. The justices ruled 7-0 in agreement with Warner Bros. Television Productions that vulgar talk was part of the creative process; therefore, the studio and its writers can not be sued for such talk during free-wheeling brainstorming sessions. Justice Marvin Baxter wrote in the decision: "The record discloses that most of the sexually coarse and vulgar language at issue did not involve and was not aimed at plaintiff or other women in the workplace. [...] [The mileu] was a creative workplace focused on generating scripts for an adult-oriented comic show featuring sexual themes." Amaani Lyle alleged in 2000 that raw sexual remarks peppering work sessions and conversations added up to harassment against women. Jeffrey Winikow, an attorney for the California Employment Lawyers Association, said the high court should have let a jury decide whether the behavior was harassment. Warner Bros. acknowledged that some of the sexually explicit talk did take place, but that it was vital to the show's chemistry. The justices noted that Ms. Lyle had been warned when she was hired that explicit discussions were part of developing the sexually charged comedy.

Warner Bros. had asked the justices to reverse an appeals court decision, arguing that the speech was protected by the First Amendment. The justices did not address the First Amendment question. Anthony Onicidi, a Los Angeles employment law attorney, speculated that a ruling in favor of the former assistant could have made it virtually impossible to produce TV programs or other creative works. He is quoted, "If your concern is with every statement or gesture, you could be subject to a lawsuit, that is going to inhibit the creative process."

By the Bush administration. See my commentary on this issue.

By Rachel Corrie, et al. An article printed in the Toronto Star, and reprinted at CommonDreams.org, reported that a reading of the play has been shunted underground. The reading is to be done by Paul Leishman, who is directing it, with actress Marya Delver. Mr. Leishman felt it was important to have the play read "in a neutral, classroom situation, because Rachel was a student." He was given just such a space, but then was asked not to publicize the time and place of the reading: "because of the political partisans on both sides it might attract and the unpredictability of their responses."

By the sexually interested. A bill proposed by South Carolina, Republican Representative Ralph Davenport, would make it a felony to sell devices used primarily for sexual stimulation and allow law enforcement to seize sex toys from raided businesses. The bill would not outlaw the private ownership of such objects, mind you, only criminalize the selling of such objects to freely consenting adults who might wish to purchase such objects of their own free will and volition. The measure would add sex toys to the state's extent obscenity laws, which currently prohibit the dissemination and advertisement of obscene materials. People convicted under these laws face up to five years in prison and a $10,000 fine. This bill was introduce in Mar 2006, has not yet gathered any co-sponsors, and is not likely to be passed this year. Some commentary about it includes:

• Pat Irons, manager of Sugar ‘N Spice: "Even pastors shop in here. They send couples in here they counsel for marriage problems. It's probably going to hit people like that harder than people realize."

• John Terezakis, owner of Paradise! in Townville: "I don't think that would be fair. It's depriving people of their freedom of choice. I don't think the customers would appreciate it very much."

• Mark Lopez, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union: "People think it's distasteful. It makes for good campaign fodder and panders to the conservative side of people. That's why we see the laws in the South,"

  [...]

  "People have a fundamental right to engage in lawful sexual practices in the privacy of their home. It's not like this stuff is available in Macy's. Kids aren't allowed in. You or I wouldn't accidentally walk into one."

• Wanda Gillespie, Lucy's Love Shop employee: "That would be the most terrible thing in the world. That is just flabbergasting to me. We are supposed to be in a free country, and we're supposed to be adults who can decide what want to do and don't want to do in the privacy of our own homes."

  [...]

  "I know of multiple marriages that sex toys have sold (sic) because some people need that."

[Whatever this proposal migh be touted as by the reactionary ultra-conservatives, it constitutes a clear and present attack on free enterprise and the right to privacy in this editor's not so humble opinion. --MN]

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

By Prime Minister Stephen Harper. On this day the government of Canada closed Canadian Forces Base Trenton to the press. CFB Trenton is the central hub for military air transport in Canada, and it is to this base that the bodies of fallen soldiers return from overseas. Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor insisted that the decision is not political; he is quoted: "I have made the most appropriate decision during this most emotional time for the families. The repatriation of our fallen soldiers back to Canada is a private and solemn event between the families and the Canadian Forces. There won't be any video shown to Canadians of the bodies being returned or the families." Craig Oliver, CTV's chief political correspondent, said in reply: "(The government) is afraid that Canadians, seeing the bodies, seeing the coffins, that the images are so strong it's turning people off on the mission. This is very much in keeping with the decision by the George Bush White House to do the same thing in Washington, about the bodies of American servicemen coming back from Iraq."

[This editor concurs with Mr. Oliver. I see this move as a blatant and vile repudiation of all that these men served and died for: the protection of our rights and freedoms. Moreover, we, as a country, can mourn our fallen servicemembers without infringing on the right to privacy of their families, but to do that we must be allowed to view the fallen. The only possible reason I can see for this move is the withholding of information for propagandist expoitation. --MN]

[Addendum (27 Apr 2006:) Reporters Without Borders protested this censorship. Two matters of note in the article posted to their site are this excerpt from their complaint:

"The Canadian government is following the bad example set by the U.S. administration if it thinks it can hide the facts from the population. Respect for the grief of the families is of course necessary, but it should not be used as a pretext that is tantamount to censorship."

And this report:

Not all Conservatives are behind government censorship however, and even less so are some of the military families. Although the government has said that it is imposing this measure "out of respect for families’ grief", Defence Minister O’Connor acknowledged that he never consulted the families in question. Some of them did however complain to Stephen Harper. The Prime Minister (sic) Office and the Defence Department have not responded to requests by the Canadian Section of Reporters Without Borders.

"Tantamount"? Hell, there's no doubt in my books, but I suppose they felt a compulsion to be courteous. --MN]

By Cuba. Reporters sans frontiéres reported at its web site, on 27 Apr, that Roberto Santana Rodríguez had received a surprise visit at his home in Santiago de las Vegas (on the outskirts of Havana) on 25 Apr from:

• the local police chief,
• the local secretary of the Communist Party,
• the local coordinator of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution and,
• a member of the Veterans Association.

They told him was banned from leaving home under pain of reprisals. Santana described the visit as an act of intimidation orchestrated by State Security, with the aim of preventing him from taking part in a teleconference later that day at the US Interests Section in Havana (which functions as an embassy).

Mr Rodriguez is a contributor to the Miami-based website Cubanet, and RSF reported that he has been subject to harrassment and intimidation since Feb 2006:

• 13 Feb: He was summoned and interrogated by two State Security officers, one of whom showed him a bundle of articles he had written as well as recordings of calls he had made to Miami-based Radio Martí; he was threatened him with imprisonment if he did not stop.

• 07 Apr: He was summoned by the local police chief and questioned by two State Security officers, who again told him he should stop working as a journalist or risk being sentenced to 20 years in prison; they also mentioned his mother’s frail health.

• The State Security also tried to discredit him in the eyes of his neighbours and asked them not to greet him any more.

By the free press. In response to a lawsuit filed by the Reno Gazette-Journal, the Nevada Department of Corrections has changed its procedure for the execution of Daryl Mack, scheduled for this day. The department decided to allow authorized witnesses, including the press, to view the entire process. The change was announced on 21 Apr, two days after the lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court in Reno challenging the limited viewing. Ordinarily, witnesses would watch the inmate be led into the execution chamber, but guards would close curtains as intravenous lines were inserted into the inmate's arm and the guards then withdrew. The paper challenged this limited viewing under the first amendment. This ruling come in light of a request for a temporary restraining order, and the paper is also seeking a permanent injunction, based on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision in California First Amendment Coalition v. Woodford. See my commentary on this issue.

By former New York City employees Joseph Locurto, Robert Steiner, and Jonathan Walters. Former police officer Locurto and former firefighters Steiner and Walters were fired by the city after they rode a parade float featuring mocking stereotypes of blacks. The ruling by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's decision that the men were engaging in free speech and should not have been fired. Judge Guido Calabresi wrote in the panel's opinion: "The First Amendment does not require a government employer to sit idly by while its employees insult those they are hired to serve and protect" The case was handled on appeal by city lawyer Elizabeth I. Freedman, who commented in a statement: "The decision properly balances the competing interests of public employees and public employers. In this case, the 2nd Circuit properly balanced those interests, finding that where the employees' conduct threatened 'to bring discredit upon the police and fire departments in the minority community,' it was constitutionally permissible for the city to fire them."

The officer and firefighters later said they had intended the float to mock white views, not blacks, and their lawyers had argued the men were fired because their actions had created political problems for Giuliani, not because they had disrupted their departments. Christopher Dunn, New York Civil Liberties Union Associate Legal Director and who represented Locurto, said he was disappointed in the ruling, which he claimed ignored Giuliani's "long history of hostility to the First Amendment." At last count, the former mayor had a record of 3 wins to 23 losses out of thirty First Amendment lawsuits at the time he left office; this makes 4 wins.
(see 24 Dec 2001; 28 Feb 2002; 05 Oct 2002; 08 Jan 2003; 27 Mar 2003)

By Reporters sans frontiéres. Hussein Abdel Ghani was arrested on this day for broadcasting "false information likely to harm the country’s reputation." Mr. Ghani had reported on Al-Jazeera on this day that there had been an attack against policemen in the town of Al-Sharkiya, east of Cairo, which information was mistaken, and Al-Jazeera issued a formal retraction a few hours later. He was detained in the resort town of Dahab, where he went to cover the Sinai bombings of the past few days; initially taken to the local police station, he was then transferred to the office of the state security prosecutor in Cairo, where he was questioned at length without being allowed to contact his lawyer, his family, or his employers.

RSF said: "We call for the withdrawal of all the charges against Ghani. He made a mistake but he recognised it immediately and it does not justify his arrest. We also question the methods used by the police - denying him access to a lawyer, taking him away by force, and subjecting him to a long interrogation before locking him in a cell." Several other Arab TV stations also issued similar erroneous reports about an attack in Al-Sharkiya, but were not bothered by the security services.

[Addendum (11 May 2006:) A follow up article on 28 Apr reported that Mr. Ghani had been released on a bail of 1,400 Euros (approx. $1,975 CDN). --MN]

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

By the FBI. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

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

By Mount Lebanon, Pennsylvania. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned, on 28 Apr, a city ordinance requiring door-to-door canvassers -- including those working for get-out-the-vote campaigns -- to register with police and carry a permit. The American Civil Liberties Union brought a suit against this measure four days before the 2004 presidential election on behalf of the Service Employees International Union. Witold Walczak, the Pennsylvania Legal Director of the ACLU, commented about the ordinance: "Requiring people to tell the police in advance that they want to discuss political and religious matters with their neighbors is offensive to the very essence of a democracy." The ordinance had been enacted to prevent fraud and crime.

By Richard Dreyfus. An article by Astrid Zweynert, titled Oscar-Winner Dreyfuss Campaigns against "Shaped News", and reprinted at CommonDreams.org, profiles the actor's activism against the effect of the corporate press. Mr. Dreyfus said in a telephone interview, "There is no room to pause, no room to think. We don't build into our system of thoughts the need to explain, the media doesn't build that into its transmission of knowledge and information." That creates what he calls "shaped news"; a version of events according to how the corporate press wants the audience to see what happened, and a violation of journalism's core value of objectivity. He cited the WTC tragedy as an example:

"The falling Twin Towers -- pictures that produced anger, a lot of anger that were sent instantly around the world, they created a need to react.

"People in Kansas could see the Twin Towers fall at exactly the same instant as in Nigeria and Cairo. Such an instantaneous knowledge of a situation leads to an instantaneous reaction which creates demand for an instantaneous, reflexive response.

"The question is how do you get people to find out more, how do you get people to read not just what they are told to read." The power of language is also an important factor in shaping the news.

"The 'war on terror' -- objection to using this term is dead. It's become part of our vocabulary, but what does it really mean? You should know more specifically what you are fighting."

Mr. Dreyfus, who is studying civics and democracy at St Antony's College at the University of Oxford, further commented: "Civics is no longer taught in the U.S, a sign of a neurosis that is inexplicable. Not to teach civics is suicide. Reason, logic, civility, dissent and debate -- five ancient words that should be taught again and better, at elementary level, so that people know the difference between news and shaped news."

By University of Montana law students and Governor Brian Schweitzer. In a ceremony on this day, seventy-eight Montanans convicted of sedition for criticizing the U.S. government or its war effort during World War I, were finally granted official pardons. None of the convicted had survived to this date, but some family members were expected at the ceremony. University of Montana law students spent months combing old court records and archives across the state to clear those convicted, under the inspiration of a book written by Clem Work, a University of Montana journalism professor.
(see 09 Jan 2006)

By the American corporate press. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

In conjunction with this day, the Committee to Protect Journalists released a report on 02 May, detailing the ten most heavily censored societies. The group studied conditions in dozens of countries to assess the access people have to independent information and the methods used to stifle the news. Regional staff used their knowledge of local conditions and applied a rigorous set of criteria to determine rankings. These criteria included state control of all media, the existence of formal censorship regulations, the use by the state of violence, imprisonment and harassment against journalists, jamming of foreign news broadcasts, and restrictions on private Internet access. The worst offenders are:

1. North Korea,
2. Burma,
3. Turkmenistan,
4. Equatorial Guinea,
5. Libya,
6. Eritrea,
7. Cuba,
8. Uzbekistan,
9. Syria, and
10. Belarus.

CPJ staff judged countries according to 17 benchmarks which were established after consultation with experts in the fields of press freedom, human rights, and media law. To make the list, a country had to meet at least nine criteria. The benchmarks included:

• absence of independent media;
• existence of formal censorship regulations;
• state control of all media;
• state-sponsored violence against journalists;
• jamming of foreign news broadcasts;
• restrictions on Internet access;
• limits on journalists' mobility;
• interference in the production and distribution of publications;
• and existence of laws forbidding criticism.

[Addendum (27 Jun 2006:) On 26 Jun, a commentary about CPJ's report by Ru Freeman, titled Censorship - The American Version , was reprinted at Commondreams.org. The piece was published the week after the report was released. It is a somewhat rambling examination of the far-reaching fallout from censorship efforts in the U.S., but well worth the read. --MN]

By the National Press Club of Canada. This award was granted to Dr. John Hoey and Anne Marie Todkill, the former editor-in-chief and senior deputy editor, respectively, of the Canadian Medical Association Journal. They lost their jobs in Feb this year after opposing the publisher's decision to quash part of a journal investigation into whether pharmacists were invading the privacy of women who wanted to buy emergency contraceptives. Some pharmacists were apparently asking women for their names, address, and sexual history before issuing the Plan B contraceptive. The Canadian Pharmacy Association complained to the CMA, and the publisher unilaterally decided this journalistic research should be considered scientific research instead, and constrained by ethical guidelines governing science instead of those governing journalism. See my commentary on this issue.

By the Senate Judiciary subcommittee on the Constitution. This Senate panel advanced a proposed constitutional amendment to ban flag desecration; it reads: "The Congress shall have power to prohibit the physical desecration of the flag of the United States." The House of Representatives has already passed the amendment. The fifty-eight support is nine short of the two-thirds majority required to send constitutional amendments to the states, but additional senators are likely to vote for it, possibly putting it on the verge of passing. Once a constitutional amendment is sent to the states, approval by three-fourths of the state legislatures is needed for ratification. All fifty state legislatures have already signaled they would approve such an amendment. When the Senate last voted on a similar measure in 2000, it was just four votes shy of the two-thirds majority. In 1989 the U.S. Supreme Court issued the first of two 5-4 decisions declaring that flag desecration amounts to free speech protected by the First Amendment. The 1989 decision was Texas v. Johnson; the second ruling was 1990's U.S. v. Eichman. Senator Russ Feingold, ranking Democrat on the panel, commented: "Make no mistake, we are talking here about modifying 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."

By United States Congress. See my commentary on this issue.

By U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Helen John and Sylvia Boyes. These two anti-war activists, currently 68 and 62 years old, respectively, are the first individuals to face charges under a little-noticed clause in the British Serious Organised Crime and Police Act, which came into force in April of this year. They were required to report to Harrogate police station on this day to hear if they would be charged or not. The two were arrested on 02 Apr after setting out to highlight the law, which civil liberties groups believe will criminalise free speech and undermine the right to peaceful demonstration, under the guise of the war on terror.

Mrs. Boyes, a Quaker whose philosophy is more pacifist and less overtly political than her friend's, commented: "This will not stop me, whether they charge me or not. I am still utterly dumbfounded that we were arrested like that, straight away, under legislation designed to counter international organised crime and international terrorism. Terrorists attack buses and the Underground - places where people are - not remote bases. And since when did drug traffickers go to military bases?"

Mrs. Boyes also has a track record for beating prosecutors; she was acquitted after going on trial in 2001 for causing criminal damage to a Trident submarine docked at Barrow-in-Furness, Cumbria. She had argued that her actions were preventing a greater evil. The "terrorist action" she took against the submarine was probably equivalent to that of the nun who was arrested for "pounding" on the multi-ton concrete lid of a missile silo with a ball peen hammer.

By Pink, and as sung by Molly Shoul. Ms. Shoul is a ten-year old student at Park Springs Elementary School. Over the years, she has appeared in several talent shows, and was to participate in the show scheduled for this date. She decided to sing Pink’s new song, Dear Mr. President, which Pink says is one of the most important songs she’s ever written. Ms. Shoul said that she wanted to sing something meaningful at the show, and auditioned using this work. The music teacher told her it was very good, but that he would have to ask the principal, Camille Pontillo, and Ms. Pontillo, wouldn't allow it. Ms. Shoul says Ms. Pontillo said the song was too political and would be inappropriate because it has the words hell, whiskey, cocaine, and gay.

On 02 May, Molly's mother wrote to Ms. Pontillo, "I think we are sending a bad message. Molly has become aware of world events and she was EXTREMELY excited to find this song and want to sing it. She is passionate about it-has been practicing it since the day the Talent Show was announced. With limits, I think our kids should be allowed to express themselves in a respectful, meaningful way. To try to 'shield' them from the real world is, I believe, a real mistake. Could I please get your feedback on this?"

Principal Pontillo responded: "I understand your position, however, the song she chose is a political song and does use the word “hell" in it. I am sure there are other songs that she can choose from that will allow her to express herself. We must remember that there are going to be students from pre-K to 5th-not just an older audience, such as middle school, or just 5th grade. I hope you understand."

While the lyrics do contain the word Hell, it is used as a proper noun, not as a swear word; in fact, there are no vulgarities anywhere in the song. See the source article for the full lyrics. Ms. Shoul preferred to withdraw from the talent show rather than sing a goverment approved work.

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

By Dr. Charles Silverstein, and Alex Comfort, respectively. Several books, including the two above titles, have generated a censorship challenge at the Nampa Public Library in Boise, Idaho. On this day, a group of "concerned" citizens were to complain to the city council about the presence of the books and they're availabilty to the public. Their argument is that each of these books have graphic sexual material, and that The Joy of Gay Sex in particular crosses the line. Bryan Fischer, Executive Director of Idaho Values Alliance, is quoted as commenting: "Not only can anyone with a library card check this book out but where it was found was on the third shelf where any 8-year-old could access it and see it", and "To put literature in the hands of teenagers that encourages them to go online and hookup online for gay sex with strangers is totally inexcusable." The second statement is almost certainly based on the unfounded assumption of "Harmful To Minors", and the first ignores the fact that the books would not be shelved in the children's section, but the adults section.

As usual for such cases, Fischer denied any charges of censorship: "This isn't a matter of censorship, they can go on Amazon.com and you can buy it for a buck 99 online so it is not like it will keep it out of the hands of people who really want to get their hands on it." This statement ignores the fact that people are just as much allowed to put their hands on it in a public library. Library officials declined to go on camera but did release a statement saying: "Not all materials in a public library collection will be suitable for all members of the community. Each person is free to choose (or reject) for themselves and their children the items at the library that meet their needs. When we select materials for the collection, we try to provide a wide range of opinion, ideas and information to meet the diverse needs of our community."

By the U.S. Supreme Court. The court refused to consider reinstating a California law adopted after the Rodney King beating, that made it a crime to knowingly lodge false accusations against police officers. This lets stand a Nov 2005 decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals which said the law was an unconstitutional infringement of speech because false statements in support of officers, or sometimes even by police officers, were not also criminalized. That decision was hailed by civil liberties groups and opposed by the California District Attorneys Association and law enforcement groups. The 9th Circuit ruling also nullified a 2002 decision by the California Supreme Court in a separate case about complaints against the police. That court had ruled in a case from Oxnard that free-speech concerns took a back seat when it came to speech targeting police officers.

The Court also refused to consider a challenge of North Dakota's "Do Not Call" law, which Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem says is a victory for privacy rights. The North Dakota branches of the Fraternal Order of Police and the Veterans of Foreign Wars challenged the law, saying it hampered their fundraising activities, but the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law in Dec 2005, saying it helped safeguard privacy without violating the free speech of charities. Charities are allowed to make fun draising calls to people on the no-call list, but only if they use employees or volunteers -- not professional telemarketers. Grant Benjamin, a Fargo police officer who is president of the North Dakota FOP, said the ruling was expected, and is quoted: "It was a long shot and we knew it. It was not something we were counting on."

By a court of Caracas, Venezuela. The state prosecutor’s office laid a charge of "insult" against Napoleón Bravo [José Ovidio Rodríguez Cuesta] of Venevisión TV on 8 Feb 2006. Mr. Bravo would be the first defendant be tried under a draconian criminal law reform, promulgated on 16 Mar 2005, which stepped up sanctions for press offences, especially for insulting or defaming public figures in connection with their work. As a result, Mr. Bravo faced up to 15 months in prison. At the time, Reporters Sans Frontieres said it feared damage to press freedom, as the law steps up sanctions for press offences. The group said in a statement:

"With the Napoleón Bravo precedent, the application of the criminal code reform will seriously compromise the future of press freedom in Venezuela, since this law is so harsh towards the media.

"Moreover the journalist is likely to be sentenced on matters dating back to before the law came into force, trampling on the fundamental principle of non-retroactivity."

Mr. Bravo was accused of having denigrated the supreme court on 1st Sept 2004, on his programme "24 Horas". Mr. Bravo referred to the court as a whorehouse, and also denounced the entire Venezuelan judicial system, which he alleged was under political control. Luisa Ortega Díaz, the national prosecutor, charged Mr. Bravo with "insult" and sent his case to a judge in the lower court.

On this day the court hearing the case dismissed it. Alberto Arteaga, counsel for the defense, got the court to recognise that Mr. Bravo could not be prosecuted under a law protecting individual public figures because he had criticised the supreme court as a whole, not any of its members, and that if any of its members had felt targeted the complaint should have been brought by that justice instead of the court. The decision could be appealed.

By the governments of Australia and the province of New South Wales. The Australian federal government might consider changing a law so as to ban books which explain how to conduct terror attacks, but have been found not to break Australian sedition laws. This follows a ruling by the Australian Federal Police and the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions that a number of books found late last year in bookstores in the Sydney suburbs of Lakemba and Auburn, did not incite violence. One of the books carried an endorsement by Osama bin Laden. the government accepted the ruling, But The NSW government has asked Canberra to review it. Acting Prime Minister Mark Vaile commented in part to Southern Cross Broadcasting: "We're seeking further advice from our agencies as to whether there is any appropriate additional safeguards which are needed to protect the community from material which incites violence."

[In other words: if the laws we have aren't enough to allow us to prohibit information that we don't want private citizens to have, then we will extend the laws until they are enough. This will be never. Because there is always something else "they" don't want you to know. Those books have already been reviewed and found not to incite violence, but that just wasn't good enough for the censormorons. --MN]

By a suburban municipality in St. Louis, Missouri. Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in a St. Louis suburb because although they have three children, they are not married. The current ordinance prohibits more than three people from living together unless they are related by "blood, marriage or adoption." The defeated measure would have changed the definition of a family to include unmarried couples with two or more children. The town's planning and zoning commission proposed a change in the law, but the measure was rejected by the city council in a 5-3 vote on 16 May. The mayor has said that those who fall into the category of unmarried couples could soon face eviction.

[Which not only constitutes a clear and present violation of the American 14th Amendment right to choose to marry or not, but also a violation of freedom of movement provisions which forbid anybody to arbitrarily tell you where you are not allowed to live. --MN]

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

By Leslie Pinney. A school board member for Northwest Suburban High School District 214, in Illinois, Ms. Pinney is leading a push to get seven books bumped from required reading lists for the 2006-2007 school year. Ms. Pinney had not read any of the books, and is quoted as saying: "I don't know if I would want to." Working off a list of books recommended for purchase in District 214 for next year, she browsed the Internet for details and uncovered a number of explicit excerpts she says make her question the validity of the books as literature and their place in the curriculum. Excerpts she highlighted feature extensive swearing, violence, and references to sexual acts including masturbation, bestiality, and homosexuality. One part of Freakonomics that raised her ire states that legalized abortion lowered the crime rate throughout the U.S.
(see 25 May 2006)

By Peg Kehret. The story line is: Denny Thurman never contacted his son until he needed money to support his compulsive gambling, so Thurman devised a plan to kidnap the kindergarten aged boy for a ransom. Father and son are fictious, but the mystery novel came across as too close to reality for Ms. Shiuvan Harris, in Apple Valley, Minnesota. Ms. Harris did not allow her 10-year-old daughter to finish reading Abduction! after she had checked it out from school library; Ms. Harris said the book was too violent and made her daughter fearful. She subsequently filed papers to have the book pulled from the shelves of two middle- and eight elementary-school libraries. On this day, an eleven member advisory committee of parents, teachers, and librarians voted unanimously to keep the book on the shelves. To give her credit, she did read the book, but against that, she acknowledges that no actual violence takes place in the book, but that the threat of it is still too much for young children. Ms. Harris is quoted as commenting: "This is something you would see on Lifetime TV or a movie rated PG-13. As a parent, I want to be able to control what my children have access to." Unfortunately, she went well beyong the bounds of controlling what her child is allowed to read -- and which perogative she had already exercised fully -- and into the realm of censorship by trying to prevent other parents from allowing their children to read the book from the school libraries.

By Broward County Police Benevolent Association. On this day Reporters Without Borders spoke out against a police suppression of honest reporting, on learning that the details of reporter Mike Kirsch (WFOS TV-CBS 4) had been put back on the "Be On the Look-Out" section of the Police Benevolent Association’s website. Those details had been taken down on 13 Apr, although a "wanted notice" for Mr. Kirsch -- in the form a leaflet -- continued to circulate in the Miami region police stations where he had carried out a hidden camera investigation. Reporters Without Borders once again called for the withdrawal of this wanted notice.
(see 01 Apr 2006)

By the Oklahoma State Legislature. Gay-rights organization Lambda Legal had challenged a 2004 law on behalf of three same-sex couples. This law prohibited the state of Oklahoma from recognizing adoptions by same-sex couples from other states or countries. On this day, U.S. District Judge Robin Cauthron ruled that the measure violated due process rights under the U.S. Constitution (probably the 14th Amendment) because it attempted to break up families without considering the fitness of the parents or the best interests of the children.

[See my commentary on the comment about this ruling by one hate-monger Republican. --MN]

By Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By the People's Republic of China. Reporters Without Borders posted an article on this day about the detention of web journaler and documentary filmmaker Hao Wu. The Public Security Bureau formally refused to allow Mr. Hao access to a lawyer on the grounds of "national security" on 17 May. He has already been held for three months as of this time. Hao is currently under house arrest, is forbidden to receive visits or to telephone his family, and the PSB is still refusing to tell him why he has been arrested. The office has reportedly undertaken to make a statement to the family, supposedly by August, which would be six months after his arrest. RSF said in a statement: "Hao’s case is emblematic of the PSB’s methods. It is farcical to treat this blogger as a threat to national security. Is there any serious possibility that letting a prisoner of conscience have a lawyer might destabilise the Chinese government?"

By Iran. Mojtaba Saminejad was first arrested in early Nov 2004 because of his online criticism of the arrest of three other web journalers. On leaving prison, he resumed his blog using a new address; this led to his being re-arrested. He appeared in court on this day for "insulting the Supreme Guide". His lawyer said that he was unable to speak freely as he was accompanied by the policemen who had interrogated him in prison and that this intimidated him. The source article, at Reporters Without Borders, did not specify what comments led to this particular suppression.

By Honolulu, Hawaii. Hawaii has no billboards or other prominent outdoor advertising, murals of whales and the ocean adorn the sides of buildings, and the city banned aerial advertising in 1978. An anti-abortion rights group called The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, based in Orange County, California, had wanted to fly 30 meter long banners over the beaches in Hawaii to reach an international audience; which it does in other tourist-populated areas such as Florida. They weren't allowed to so they sued.

On this day a unanimous ruling by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban on aerial advertising, rejecting the argument that ban violates free-speech rights. The ban appears constitutional to this editor as it is a blanket ban and makes no distinction between viewpoints or content. The decision affirmed a lower court ruling and could open the way for other cities in prohibiting banners towed by aircraft.

[Gregg Cunningham, director of The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform cried about how the First Amendment had reportedly suffered "a grievous blow", and commented: "If the environmental groups and political leftists who are trying to suppress the truth about abortion think we're going to go away because we lost two cases that we fully expected to lose, they're in for a rude awakening." Again with the bitching and pissing about "liberal" courts and "activist" judges. If these festering hate-mongers are so unhappy with the court system why do they bother with it? Cunningham doesn't have grounds for his sniveling, by the way. The group has trucks which they use as rolling billboards, the same way everybody else is allowed. He just wants special privilege is all. See the source article for more background. --MN]
(see 04 Dec 2006)

By Brian Haw. Mr. Haw has kept an around-the-clock vigil outside Britain's Parliament for five years in protest against the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. On this day, up to 50 police officers effected an early-morning raid in Parliament Square, in which they tusselled with nine protesters while tearing down most of the display. When they were done, 37 meters worth of placards had been dismantled and dumped in a metal container; probably a dumpster. Mr Haw claimed that officers had also seized personal belongings, including bedding, clothes, and a treasured Bible. He commented, "It was shocking. I would not have believed they could stoop so low. I thought they going to do it decently, to do it through the courts, when they came like thugs in the night. They have completely destroyed all the expressions of people who opposed the war in Iraq. It seems I am going to die in this place now because I'm going to be fasting and praying. What else can I do as a Christian? They have taken my means of showing people what is going on."

This contretemps is the latest in a long running battle. Last July, the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act came into force, bringing with it powers to halt demonstrations in Parliament Square and its vicinity; which provision widely seen as having been designed with Mr Haw in mind. Mr Haw, in his turn, has claimed the restrictions do not apply to him because his demonstration began in June 2001, before the Act became law. The British Court of Appeal rejected the "grandfather" argument in a hearing this month, however, and refused leave to appeal to the Lords. The court said he would have to apply to the police for authorisation to continue the protest.

For its part, Scotland Yard called the raid a partial clearance in response to continual breaches of requirements imposed on the demonstration. A Scotland Yard spokeswoman said: "This action follows a number of requests to the applicant to adhere to the conditions."

By We the People. More than five hundred residents turned out and over three hundred fifty of them signed up to speak, at a meeting of Arlington Heights-based Township High School District 214. The meeting room at district headquarters was filled to capacity, and an audio feed of the meeting was piped into an overflow room. The meeting was to address concerns over the inclusion of nine specific books (first reported as seven) on the curriculum for the 2006-2007 schoool year. The books are:

• Beloved: Toni Morrison,
• Slaughterhouse-Five: Kurt Vonnegut,
• The Things They Carried: Tim O'Brien,
• The Awakening: Kate Chopin,
• Freakonomics: Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner,
• The Botany of Desire: A Plant's-Eye View of the World: Michael Pollan,
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower: Stephen Chbosky,
• Fallen Angels: Walter Dean Myers and
• How the Garcia Girls Lost Their Accents: Julia Alvarez.

This action could be seen as a review process, except that the books are being challenged for all the wrong reasons; hence, it is being seen by some of the affected students as a censorial action. Rolling Meadows High School sophomore John Bark condemned the move soundly, commenting: "We deserve the chance to read these books if it pleases us. We think for ourselves, regardless of your attempts at censorship. Someone with as much influence as you shouldn't worry about literature. You should be focusing on the drug problems and violence. I respect your standpoint on this issue, but you have to understand that we, the students of District 214, will not stand for it."

The high turnout was probably due in part to a few conservative groups who rallied to Pinney's cause and referred to the books as pornography on their Web sites while urging supporters to attend the board meeting. The books are to be required reading for some honors or Advanced Placement classes, and the board votes annually to sign off on book purchases for the coming school year.

Further fall out from this action includes:

• Some 100 students at Prospect High School protested the action on 22 May by covering logos and slogans on their T-shirts with duct tape and writing "Censored" on the tape.

• Sophomore Scott Leipprandt started an online petition against the proposal; debate over the issue dominated the Prospect High web page on MySpace.com, and

• . . . nearly 500 students and alumni from the district's six high schools had signed the petition by the afternoon of 24 May (five hundred minus out of 13,000 students).

Mr. Leipprandt is quoted: "It's important because it shows us things. All these things happen in real life. By banning it, it doesn't give us the opportunity to talk about it before we encounter it in real life."
(see 18 May 2006)

By Rory O'Connor and Heidi Schnakenberg, respectively.

The Burial of the 9/11 Story that Got Away was published at Alternet.org. In it, O'Connor details how Judith Miller had received a tip about Al Qaida plans to launch a terrorist attack on American soil, and how the story was never printed. In this case, out of what appears to be a right decision to not engage in speculative journalism. Mr. O'Connor then goes on, however, to ask some pointed questions about journalistic practices that appear to degrade the quality of journalism in the corporate environment. He also ends his piece by pointing out that the New York Times still did not print the material they did have even after the WTC attack.

Hating the Hate Mail was originally published at Women's eNews and reprinted at Alternet.org. In it, Ms. Schnakenberg explores some of the interactions between "opinion journalists" and hate-filled left- and right-wing reactionaries. She illustrates how the hysterical invective and actions by those members of both groups, who cannot tolerate opinions that are not in line with their prejudices, have a strong chilling effect through simple intimidation, and how the sex of the writer is often a factor. The media criticism stems from her examination of how female columnists (at least), are left to fend for themselves.

By the ruling junta. It is unclear whether Ms. Suu Kyi (pronounced Ohn Sahn Soo Chee) will remain under house arrest for another six months, or a year, but it seems apparent that the military made its move in defiance of a plea for her release by U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan. In his plea, Mr. Annan said,

"Aung San Suu Kyi has spent 10 of the past 16 years in detention or under house arrest. The government will be reviewing her status within 24 hours. I take this opportunity to appeal to Gen. Than Shwe and the government to release her.

"I believe her release will facilitate national dialogue and allow the National League for Democracy to participate in that dialogue. I think it would be in the interests of Myanmar, the region and the world at large.

"It would also allow the government and the people, not only to build the nation together, but to focus on the essential issue of economic and social development. For the democratic process and the reconciliation process to be truly successful, it has to be inclusive, and she has a role to play. And I'm relying on you, Gen. Than Shwe, to do the right thing."

The term of her house-arrest was to expire on this day. Ms. Suu Kyi has been subject to arbitrary arrest and detention for having the termerity to win an election against the power elite.

[Addendum (10 Jun 2006:) A report posted at CBC News on 09 Jun said that Ms. Suu Kyi had had her house arrest extended for one year. A government minister (for "Information") said a military official had met with her before 27 May to discuss conditions of her release, but that negotiations had failed. Which I take to mean that decided to keep her locked up because she wouldn't kiss their ass. It also reported that she had been hospitalized with severe diarrhea and weakness. Ms. Suu Kyi is currently sixty years old. --MN]
(see 18 Sep 1988; 1990; 27 Mar 1999; 05 Jun 2003; 14 Apr 2004)

By Russian police, nationalist protesters and Orthodox Christians. Homosexual rights activists had planned to lay flowers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, a symbol of the Second World War struggle against fascism and one of Russia's most revered places, but as the marchers arrived at the park near Red Square, some 1,000 riot police moved in to close the park gates. The event had been planned as a symbolic protest to equate the struggle for gay rights with the struggle against fascism in the Second World War. City officials had refused to grant permission for the rally, and on 26 May a Moscow court upheld a ban imposed by the mayor. The crowd opposed to gay rights and the rally included women who held up religious icons, and who were joined by men in white sheepskin hats and black-and-red tunics - Cossack traditional dress. Police moved in quickly as the first half-dozen rally participants arrived carrying flowers, and were joined by about one hundred people from the crowd, some of whom kicked and punched some of the activists.

By Heather Reisman. It was reported on this day that Indigo Books and Music had pulled all copies of the June edition of Harper's Magazine from the shelves of two hundred sixty outlets. The issue contained reprints of the twelve cartoons that sparked wide spread Islamist hysteria and also contained five cartoons that were inspired by an Iranian newspaper that called for an international Holocaust cartoon contest. Reportedly, an internal memo advised staff to tell people: "the decision was made based on the fact that the content about to be published has been known to ignite demonstrations around the world." Making this a very clear and present demonstration of the chilling effect.

[It was also reported that the Indigo franchise, which includes Chapters and Coles, will resume sales of the magazine after the June issue; once the company is finished quaking in fear at the possibility of censure, I suppose. For my money, Harper's Magazine should tell Reisman and Indigo that they are forbidden to sell the magazine. See my commentary on this issue. --MN]

By Monsieur R (AKA Richard Makela). This French rapper recorded a piece that has French parliamientarians trying to imprison him. On the album Politikment Incorrekt, the song FranSSe contains the lyrics, "France is a bitch, don't forget to fuck her till she's exhausted/You have to treat her like a slut, man", and, "I piss on Napoleon and on General de Gaulle." Also, in the video for the song he appeared dressed as a gendarme with two naked women rubbing against the French flag while he raps those lyrics. Monsieur R was to appear in court on this day, charged with offending public decency after an MP from the ruling party launched legal action against him. Monsieur R could be sentenced to three years in prison or a fine of 75,000 Euros.

When Daniel Mach, MP for Pyrénées-Orientales, heard the album in 2005, he proposed a law making it a criminal offence to insult the dignity of France and the French state. In November, when riots broke out in the run-down suburbs of Paris, François Grosdidier, another UMP deputy, won the support of 152 MPs and 49 senators who demanded that parliament act against Mr. Makela's lyrics. Mr. Mach had already taken a personal action against Mr. Makela for making and disseminating "violent and pornographic messages" to which minors could get access. Mr. Makela, who was born in Belgium but has been living in France for the past sixteen years, told Le Parisien he had not targetted any particular group, but had rapped against "the system". He is quoted: "You can have a critical view of the French state without being anti-French or racist."

[Pity hysterical, shit-head, reactionary assholes can't understand that. And the riots were not the result of any song lyrics, rap or otherwise. They were the result of the oppressive, dehumanizing, and humiliating policies of the power elite who are so spineless they cry like babies over the least little thing. --MN]
(see 26 Jun 2006)

By the 6th District Court of Appeals. On 26 May this court rejected Apple Computer Inc.'s bid to identify the sources of leaked product information that was posted to web sites, ruling instead that online reporters and web journalers are entitled to the same protections as traditional journalists. Justice Conrad Rushing of the 6th District Court of Appeal wrote in a unanimous 69-page ruling: "We decline the implicit invitation to embroil ourselves in questions of what constitutes 'legitimate journalism'. The shield law is intended to protect the gathering and dissemination of news, and that is what petitioners did here." The court ruled that online journalists are thus entitled to the protections provided under California's shield law as well as the privacy protections for e-mails allowed under federal law.

[See the source article for more background; see also a commentary on the ruling at Reporters Without Borders, and my commentary on this issue; although I suppose it's too much to hope that the court might have considered my argument. --MN]

By Nat Hentoff. In this piece, published at First Amendment Center, Mr. Hentoff examines where the anti-free speech flag amendment movement stands, while offering some commentary on why it is ill conceived and counter-productive. The title of the piece stems from a commentary for U.S. Flag Day 2005 (14 Jun, but published on the 13th), in the Houston Chronicle.

It makes no sense to set fire to the Bill of Rights to prevent a few people from protesting in a way that many find offensive. The right to speak our minds in public and engage in protest is at the core of our system of government. The only way to effectively desecrate the American flag would be to undercut the freedom for which it stands.

[Addendum (07 Jun 2006:) On 06 Jun, First Amendment Center intern Eric Nelson had a piece titled Panel spotlights uncertainties over flag amendment posted at the web site. In it, he examines some of the ramifications and questions likely to be raised. One such question raised by a panelist was: Why are we protecting the flag more than we are protecting the constitution? --MN]

By Stephen Pizzo. His media criticism titled The Clownification of America was reprinted at Alternet.org on this day. In it, Mr. Pizzo writes rather disgustedly of the media penchant for reporting entertainment and sports as news; or at least for treating them as if they were the same as news. His commentary was inspired by the corporate press having given front page space to pander to the 15 minute celebrity-hood of American Idol. He wrote in part:

. . . unless the losing singer on "American Idol" pulls a gun and opens fire after hearing the verdict, everything else about that show belongs in the entertainment section and NOT on my front page. The same rules apply to everyone and anyone whose only claim to fame is that they sing, dance, submerge themselves in a Plexiglas globe, eat the most hot dogs in the shortest time or own a cute dog that fetches beer on command.

None of that is news. Not one word, factoid or photo-op of it is news.

[There are other, much more insightful portions in his piece, but I thought that section pretty well summed up the utter banality of "news reporting" in North America today. --MN]

By Reporters Without Borders. On this day the watchdog group protested the two-month jail sentences imposed by a Jordanian court on both Jihad Momani and Hisham Al-Khalidi for having reprinted the cartoons of the prophet Mohammed which had been published in a Danish paper. Sentence was passed on 30 May. The organization commented in a statement:

This is the first time journalists have been given prison sentences for reproducing the cartoons. The sentences are totally out of proportion. We hope they will be reduced on appeal. We urge other Muslim countries where journalists are being prosecuted for this not to follow Jordan’s example. Journalists must not be punished for their editorial decisions. The two journalists in this case were simply doing their job by choosing to reproduce the cartoons, like dozens of other media outlets around the world.

The two reporters, who were arrested in February, were convicted for offending religious feelings, and have been freed pending their appeal. If the appeal fails, they will spend only 32 days in jail, as they have already spent a month imprisoned.

By Danny Schechter. In a piece titled Media Crimes Lead To War Crimes and posted at AlterNet.org on this day, Mr. Schecter reported on how journalists in Iraq, and their news outlets, were both passively and actively keeping the American public misinformed about actions perpetrated by the occupation forces. The failures of the reporters on the ground appear to stem from a type of Stockholm Syndrome, wherein the reporters have come to identify so much with the subjects they are covering that they can not have even a pretense of objectivity. The news outlets appeared to have actively tried to cover up the story of the Haditha massacre.

Early Thursday morning, the CNN website carried a story by one of its Iraq reporters who realized after the fact that she knew about the marines at Haditha but did not report on them at the time:

"It actually took me a while to put all the pieces together -- that I know these guys, the U.S. Marines at the heart of the alleged massacre of Iraqi civilians in Haditha," admits reporter Arwa Damon.

When I went back to quote her more extensively a half-hour later, the story was off the website and its URL did not work, though I was able to find it through CNN's website archive.

By the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Christopher J. Farrell is a convicted sex offender who was re-imprisoned on 17 Oct 1996 after being found with pornographic material in his possession, in violation of his parole. Mr. Farrell sued, asking a Manhattan judge to find his constitutional rights were violated when he was banned from possessing such material; he argued that the ban was unconstitutionally vague in its description and created a danger of arbitrary enforcement. On 31 May a three judge panel ruled unanimously against him, noting that it had found in previous cases that the term "pornography" was inherently vague, but the said book found in Farrell's possession, Scum: True Homosexual Experiences, fell within any reasonable understanding of the meaning of pornography. The ruling says in part: "pornographic materials -- at least those that are not obscene -- receive full First Amendment protection when in the possession of ordinary adults but may be regulated in the hands of parolees to a much greater extent." The decision means that court can ban a paroled sex offender from possessing pornography without violating the Constitution.

By Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. On this day, Scott Piatkowski had published a piece at rabble.ca (a Canadian indy media site), that was highly critical of Mr. Harper's rather jaundiced view of the press in Canada. It was reported that Mr. Harper had announced that he'd no longer talk to the national reporters; that he would be seeing other reporters; specifically those who he felt could be trusted to deliver his message without any unpleasant analysis. He is quoted from an interview in London (Ontario):

"Unfortunately, the press gallery has taken the view they are going to be the opposition to the government. They don't ask questions at my press conferences now. We'll just get the message out on the road. There's lots of media in the country who do want to ask me questions and hear what the government is doing." [...] "I have trouble believing that a Liberal prime minister would have this problem, but the press gallery at the leadership level has taken an anti-Conservative view."

Some of the points Mr. Piatkowski makes about the Prime Minister are:

• You should care about a Prime Minister who holds Cabinet meetings and doesn't inform the media. His claim that the Constitution actually requires them to keep such meetings a secret is nonsense (only Cabinet discussions are confidential; not the fact they are holding meetings);

• You should care that his office has restricted access to key corridors in Centre Block in order to allow Ministers and caucus members to sneak out of meetings without having to walk by reporters;

• You should care that he prohibits his MPs and even his Cabinet Ministers from talking to the media unless the timing and content of their message has first been approved by the control freaks in his office;

• You should care about a Prime Minister, who having cancelled a scrum with reporters, then has Conservative-friendly lobbyists phone reporters with the good news announcement that he had wanted to get out (without any of those nasty off topic questions that come with media availability); and

• You should care that the Prime Minister refuses to take questions unless his office is allowed to decide which reporters it wants him to hear from.

Chris Dornan, of the Carleton University journalism school, replied to this statement: "Basically, what he's saying is the regional media can be trusted to be compliant. They will find that insulting. Just as the national press corps will find insulting the suggestion that they're all paid-up Liberal hacks. He's going out of his way to make enemies - and that's not a good sign."

[It's an even worse sign that we now have all of North America under the sway or control of foaming at the brain lunatics with delusions of godhood. Harper is just a Bush-lite, but one of that ilk is quite enough. I wonder if I could get Harper indicted for hate speech crimes. It'd serve him right to have reactionary, censorial laws turned against him. --MN]

By the American right-wing. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Eric Alterman. In a piece titled Time Magazine: Unfair and Unbalanced, which was reprinted at AlterNet.org, Mr. Alterman wrote a scathing denunciation of the magazine.

In recent years, Time, America's largest-circulation newsweekly, winner of the 2006 National Magazine Award for General Excellence, and undoubtedly the nation's most influential magazine, has morphed into a kind of glossy sibling to the Wall Street Journal. Like the Journal, its hard news pages remain home to generally reliable, often excellent (though sometimes frivolous) political reporting. But its opinion pages are filled with vitriol, anger and abuse, almost always directed at liberals.

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

By Paul K. McMasters. In a piece titled The flag amendment: Reverence confronts reason, Mr. McMasters details how close this movement is to being passed and sent to the states for ratification. He also examines the fundamental weakness and insecurity underlying the movement:

Changing the First Amendment to protect the flag confesses a needless uncertainty about the power and permanence of both. To raise a symbol above the reality it stands for would be unwise, unnecessary and ultimately un-American.

By the U.S. government and corporate media, and the Supreme Court, respectively. On 03 May, the government and five news outlets settled out of court just to get rid of Mr. Lee's law suit. The United States is supposed to pay Lee $895,000, and the news organizations agreed to pay $750,000. Mr. Lee will not see one thin dime of the government's bribe, however, as it is all slated to go to lawyer's fees and taxes on his settlement from the press.

None of the outlets had been sued in this case, and none of their reporting was directly challenged, but all five agreed to the payment out of concern that their reporters -- Walter Pincus of The Post, James Risen of the New York Times, Bob Drogin of the Los Angeles Times, H. Josef Hebert of the Associated Press and Pierre Thomas of ABC -- would have to give up the names of their confidential sources as they had been ordered to do by the courts.

Henry Hoberman, senior vice president of ABC, commented: "Unfortunately, the journalists in this case . . . reluctantly concluded that the only way they could continue to protect the bond with their sources and sidestep increasing punishment, including possible jail time, was to contribute to the settlement with the government and Wen Ho Lee. It was not a decision that any of the journalists came to easily or happily." Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, voiced concerns about the possible ramifications. The settlement could expose the news media in other Privacy Act lawsuits.

On 05 May, the Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal from news organizations fighting to protect confidential sources. Justices could have dismissed the appeals on the basis of the out-of-court settlement, instead, they denied a review of the appeals.

[Thereby leaving journalists open to further subpoenas for the names of sources. Which would not necessarily be a bad thing; under very strict standards; which no prosecutor of any stripe has the wit to attain. See my commentary on this issue. And while this is a putative end to the debacle, there is still the matter of his putting his life back together. --MN]

[Addendum (10 Jun 2006:) On 06 Jun, Reporters Without Borders condemned the US supreme court’s refusal to rule on the cases. The group's statement read in part:

Amid increasing attacks on the confidentiality of sources, the supreme court has let slip an opportunity to provide a guarantee at the federal level for one of the very principles of investigative journalism, the right of reporters to protect their sources.

A recently-concluded financial settlement between Wen, the government and the news media involved has determined the fate of James Risen, Robert Drogin, H. Josef Hebert, Pierre Thomas and Walter Pincus. While we welcome the fact that these journalists have avoided potential prison terms and have been able to protect their sources, it is regrettable that this is not as a result of a judicial decision. Courts are already ordering or will order other journalists to reveal their sources.

[...]

The supreme court’s decision is in this case all the more regrettable as it cannot claim to be based on the supposed requirements of national security. It is very dangerous for press freedom as it makes the media pay for government leaks.

The article posted to the group's web site cited the case of Judith Miller and Matthew Cooper; choices which I consider unfortunate as I see those two as having made accomplices of themselves in a criminal act. --MN]

By Bill O'Reilly and Fox News. In an article at AlterNet.org, David DeGraw reported that web journaller Keith Olbermann had caught out Bill O'Reilly making a major mistake, and caught Fox News attempting to cover it up. Mr. O'Reilly had apparently compared the alleged Haditha massacre in Iraq to the WWII massacre in Malmédy, Belgium, saying that U.S. forces had killed unarmed SS troops who'd had their hands in the air. In fact it was the SS forces who killed unarmed U.S. soldiers. Fox reportedly tried to cover-up the mistake by changing the transcript to say "Normandy" instead of Malmédy."

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

By the Senate Judiciary Committee. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Playboy Magazine. The second local issue of Playboy Indonesia hit the newsstands two months after protesters attacked its Jakarta offices at its debut. The magazine had relocated its offices to the resort island of Bali, a less hostile milieu, and magazine sellers were more discreet about displaying the new issue. The new 160-page edition:

• offered no nude photos,
• did include articles "quite heavily about social, political and cultural issues", and
• featured several blank pages with the message "We dedicate this empty page to our loyal clients who were threatened for putting their ad in this magazine."

The April attack was led by an ultra-conservative group called the Islamic Defenders' Front. This group has previously attacked local bars and nightclubs licensed to sell alcohol.
(see 12 Apr 2006)

By American Library Association members. See the entry on the Cuban Independent Librarians page.

By David Ahenakew. Court of Queen's Bench Justice Robert Laing ruled Judge Marty Irwin erred in his decision when he failed to take into account evidence suggesting Mr. Ahenakew did not intend to promote hatred. in December 2002, Mr. Ahenakew had made comments to reporter James Parker, saying that the Holocaust was a good thing, praising Adolf Hitler for having "fried" six million Jews, and that Jews were a disease. However, Justice Laing said the trial judge did not properly take into consideration testimony that Mr. Ahenakew was in a "confrontation" with the reporter and made his comments while he was angry. Based on that and other evidence, Justice Laing ruled, the comments did not constitute the "wilful" promotion of hatred. David Katzman, president of the Congregation Agudas Israel in Saskatoon, said he was disappointed with the ruling, and commented: "I thought that the evidence was clear. Freedom of speech has its natural limits. People can't stand up in a theatre and shout 'fire.' And I don't think any one person can label another group as a disease."

[Ah, but you don't want freedom of speech for those that dare say anything critical about Jewry in any way, shape, or form, do you Mr. Katzman? Even when it is the honest truth? And how about a person's right to a fair trial? Do you believe in that? The principle that you cannot shout "fire" in a crowded theater unless there really is one is a demonstration of the principle that restraints on freedoms must be reasonable as to time, place, or manner; hate speech laws are not reasonable, and you are not throwing up that example in an effort to effect a reasonable restraint. --MN]
(see 08 Jul 2005)

By a House Appropriations subcommittee. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Take-Two Interactive Software and Minnesota video-game makers and merchants, respectively. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Earl Ofari Hutchinson. This piece, reprinted at AlterNet.org, is an examination of a social movement to have the word nigger banned. This resurgence in the movement is the result of an apparent hate crime wherein Nicholas "Fat Nick" Minucci is charged with assault and robbery in the Jun 2005 baseball bat attack on Glenn Moore in Queens, New York City. Mr. Minucci allegedly reviled his victim with the racist epithet nigger, as well pummeling him with the bat before the assault. Mr. Hutchinson, however, does not look at the censorial elements of this movement alone; he also examines the role of socio-economic and cultural factors involved with the word, and the living conditions of the majority of blacks today.

[It is an excellent piece of work and I reccommend it highly. Also, see my commentary on the issue of banning the word nigger. To put the crime into context, Moore was in that neighbourhood with two friends to boost a car, but hadn't yet stolen anything before crossing paths with Minucci and his companions. Minucci alledgedly initiated the attack while hurling the epithet nigger at the group. He was convicted of second-degree assault as a hate crime because of that. --MN]

Against the Dixie Chicks. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

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

By Annette Nelson-Wright. See the entry on the vanity plates page.

By Reporters Without Borders. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Reporters Without Borders.

Mohessen Dorstkary and Elham Afrotan, the editor and a journalist of the weekly Tamadone Hormozgan, respectively. On 29 Jan this year, Elham Afrotan and six other journalists employed by the provincial weekly were arrested for "insulting Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic Republic", and faced heavy prison sentences if not the death penalty. Misled by the headline of an article on a website dedicated to combatting AIDS, the staff reproduced the article in the health section of the paper; it turned out to be a satirical piece comparing the advent of Ayatollah Khomeini to AIDS. The journalists were arrested as soon as the issue appeared on the streets. Pro-government media, governmental organisations, and Koranic schools reacted by staging demonstrations that ended with the paper's offices being ransacked and torched. On this day, Reporters Without Borders reported that Mr. Dorstkary was released on 07 Jun, and Mr. Afrotan was released on 12 Jun, both after paying bail of 30 million toman (30,000 euros).

Meanwhile, the organization also protested the arrest and beating, by security forces, of at least four journalists on 12 Jun. Jila Baniyaghoob, Bahaman Ahamadi Amoee, Taraneh Baniyaghoob, and Lila Farahadpour were all picked up at the scene of a demonstration of more than 5,000 women in Teheran. Farahadpour was released a few hours later while the three others were forcibly taken away and imprisoned at an undisclosed location. RSF's statement about this action reads in part: "We condemn the level of repression against journalists. Twelve journalists have been arrested in less than a month and are still being held in custody. The demonstration was organised by a women's movement against "sexual apartheid" and to press for an overhaul of laws on women. Police and security forces had already harassed several women journalists over the week previous to this one; they were accused them of "being the organisers of the demonstration", were sent letters and telephone calls, and were repeatedly summoned by police. Fariba Davoudi Mohajar, journalist and president of the Association of Young Journalists, was questioned throughout the day of 12 Jun.

By Johns Hopkins University. According to a report at Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, the university ended this school year by engaging in inviewpoint discrimination and denying its students freedom of the press; first, by turning a blind eye to the theft of this conservative student newspaper, and then by not permitting it to be distributed in dorms while allowing continued access to other papers. The May issue of the paper contained an article objecting to the appearance on camp us by pornographic film director Chi Chi LaRue. The cover photo pictured LaRue along with members of the school's Diverse Sexuality and Gender Alliance (DSAGA) student group, which hosted the event. Those members were apparently displeased to see their photographs on the paper's front page, and some have filed harassment charges against TCR staffers. On 14 May, some 600 copies of TCR went missing; they had been distributed to the library the previous day. TCR editor Jered Ede attempted to report the theft, but told FIRE that a security officer and the Dean of Student Life both said that the missing papers did not constitute theft. He then learned that the paper would no longer be allowed to distributed in dorms and that administrators had confiscated 300 copies. JHU counsel Frederick Savage defended this action even while acknowledging that the school had no written policy specifically forbidden distribution of the paper: "Although it is not explicitly stated in the policy, by long standing practice the Office of Residential Life has applied the [posting] policy to student publications."

By Alta Schreier. A 09 Jun article in the Miami Herald revealed that even if the move to have Vamos a Cuba removed from Marjory Stoneman Douglas Elementary was succesful, that would have no effect on the thirty-two other schools which also have the book. The district rule for removing objectionable books requires parents to start by complaining to the school principal, and then to appeal to a school-based committee. It was also reported that the debate culminated this week in a district-level review committee voting 15-1 to keep the book, and Superintendent Rudy Crew affirmed that recommendation. But the panel's 17th member, state Representative David Rivera, believes the board is within its legal rights to extend the removal of Vamos a Cuba to the entire district. Representative Rivera said Superintendent Crew undermined the process by seeking compromises and implying he would keep the book regardless of the panel's recommendation -- all while simultaneously acknowledging the book's weaknesses. It was reported that Mr. Amador's final appeal in this process would be heard on this day.

[Addendum (20 Jun 2006:) On 14 Jun a district board did vote by 6-3 to remove all 49 copies of the book from the thirty-three Miami-Dade School libraries that carry it. However, in doing so, they also voted to remove the whole series of twenty-four titles. Not out any effort to effect content based discrimination, however. See my commentary on this issue for further explanation and examination of this movement. --MN]

[Addendum (27 Jun 2006:) On 21 Jun the civil liberties watchdog filed a suit in federal court alleging that removal of the books violates students' rights to a free press and that the volumes were removed without due process, as I so surmised in my commentary. School district spokesman Joseph Garcia said the district will go to court to defend the board's decision. And lose big time in my not so humble opinion, as I see this action as completely indefensible. --MN]
(see 18 Apr 2006; 27 Jun 2006; 22 Aug 2006; 19 Feb 2007; 02 Mar 2007)

By the Take Back America organizers. See the entry on the Hillary Clinton censorship page.

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

By the State of New York. Governor George Pataki ratified a law making cross-burning, or etching, painting, drawing, or placing a swastika on public or private property without permission from the owner, felonies punishable by up to four years in prison. Assemblyman William Colton, a Brooklyn Democrat who sponsored the bill, said that cases of ethnic, racial, or religious intimidation were prosecuted as misdemeanors, and many of those were reduced to violations in plea agreements. While Several other states have laws against cross-burning, NYCLU lawyers said the New York law more closely resembles a St. Paul, Minnesota ordinance struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1992 ruling R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, rather than the 2003 Virginia v. Black case. The executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union, Donna Lieberman, said this law is unconstitutional because the statute penalizes a specific viewpoint, not an overt threat.

By Jerry Lanson. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By Phillipino parties unknown. George Vigo and his wife, Macel Alave-Vigo, were murdered near their home in Kidapawan on the southern island of Mindanao. Reporters Without Borders reported that in four other murders this year in the Philippines, the most probable motive seems to have been the victims’ journalistic work.

In this case, Mr. Vigo worked for an NGO that helped displaced families, wrote frequently for local newspapers and Union of Catholic Asian News. He also presented a programme for young people, Youth Voice, on radio dxND. Ms. Alave-Vigo hosted Congress Affairs, a weekly programme on the same station, and worked for congressional representative Emmylou Taliño-Santos. The couple helped create the Federation of Reporters for Empowerment and Equality (FREE) and were human rights activists. They are survived by four children, aged 20, 13, 9, and 7.

By the United Nations Human Rights Council. This council of newly empanelled members began its first session on this day in Geneva, Switzerland. This session is due to run until 30 Jun. Reporters Without Borders said in a statement to that body:

"The Council has got off to a bad start because its members includes Algeria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, China, Cuba, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Tunisia and we have grave doubts about how effective it will be.

But we do not want to be over-pessimistic, so we urge it to quickly show its good intentions, especially its member-states that most respect human rights, from the day it starts work on 19 June."

The source article for this entry also contains the following break-down showing why RSF should have grave doubts:

• China and Cuba: the world’s two most frequent imprisoners of journalists;

• Saudi Arabia and Tunisia: censorship is the rule; journalists who cross the line face harsh punishment;

• Russia: the government controls the major news organisations, starting with the main TV networks.

• Bangladesh, Nigeria, and Pakistan: violence against journalists and media workers occurs almost daily;

• Algeria: dozens of journalists risk being thrown in prison at any time and the government is stepping up prosecutions of the most critical media;

• Azerbaijan: the killers of two journalists murdered last year are yet to be punished.

By Jeb Bush. The governor for the State of Florida, he vetoed a bill that would have required prompt replies to public-records requests and renew a public-records exemption for autopsy photos, which originally was enacted after the death of race-car driver Dale Earnhardt, because Public-records exemptions expire every five years, and he increased penalties for protests at military funerals in response to demonstrations Westboro Baptist Church.

Governor Bush wrote in his veto message that requiring officials to "promptly" reply to public-records requests could require hiring additional staff, though the Legislature did not provide any money for that and it would be too disruptive, and specifically: "I am not comfortable requiring Florida's state and local agencies to set aside their primary missions to comply with a new, but undefined time standard for responding to public records requests." He also added that officials may have more important things to do. Barbara Petersen, president of Florida's First Amendment Foundation, replied that the measure would have done none of those; the measure would not have required officials to produce records immediately, just that they promptly tell citizens if or when their requests would be honored. She commented: "It happens all the time where they just don't respond." Governor Bush also objected to a provision that would have required agency heads to designate public-records custodians; on the grounds that provision might mislead people into thinking they can seek records only from the designees.

By Reporters Without Borders. On this day the watchdog group removed both King Gyanendra and Maoist rebel leader Prachanda from their list of press freedom predators. This is because the king has ceded power to parliament and government, and Mr. Prachanda signed a political accord with Prime Minister Girija Prasad Koirala, on 16 Jun, undertaking to respect democracy and press freedom. In its follow-up to its participation in the international mission, the group now hails:

• The release of all imprisoned journalists, including those who support the Maoist movement.

• The repeal of the media ordinances issued by King Gyanendra’s government.

• The end of the policy of restricting the allocation of state advertising.

• The suspension of the anti-terrorism law.

• The overturning by the supreme court of article 8 of the Radio and TV Broadcasting Act and article 15(1) of the Publications and Newspapers Act; the first of which gave the government the right to cancel the licences of radio and TV stations that broadcast news, and the second allowed the government to restrict or censor coverage of sensitive issues.

• The formation of a commission that will look at ways to adapt legislation to the emergence of the electronic media. Reporters Without Borders nonetheless regrets that no media experts or online journalists are on the commission.

• The signing of an 8-point accord between the government and the Maoists declaring the protection of press freedom to be a priority.

By the McCarthy movement. An article was published at First Amendment Center that illustrates the utter folly of a Total Information Awareness system in which citizens report on each other. The article profiles the FBI investigation of playwright Arthur Miller and mentions his being targetted under the anti-communism hysteria generated by Senator Joseph McCarthy. Of particular note, however, is the stated fact that the FBI's attention was turned toward Miller by an anonymous tip about his wedding to Marilyn Monroe. The tipster stated that the "religious" wedding was an obvious "cover up" for Miller, who "had been and still was a member of the CP [Communist Party] and was their cultural front man," and that Monroe "had drifted into the Communist Party orbit." The action might have been taken because Miller was Jewish and Monroe had converted to Judaism.

By Rachel Corrie, et al. Producers Pam Pariseau and Dena Hammerstein said that they will present the U.S. premiere of the one-woman show at the Minetta Lane Theatre. Previews are scheduled to start on 05 Oct for a 48-performance run scheduled to end 15 Oct. The source article for this entry further reported about the March postponement:

Rachel Corrie returned for a limited run at London's Playhouse Theatre in the West End this spring after the New York Theatre Workshop, one of the city's leading off-Broadway spaces, indefinitely suspended a production scheduled to open in March.

At the time, [director Alan] Rickman said the Theatre Workshop had cancelled the run, and accused it of "censorship born out of fear." But in a March 14 statement posted on the company's website, Theatre Workshop artistic director James C. Nicola said the company had sought only more time to "find ways to let Rachel's words rise above the polemics."

"We regret that requesting more time to achieve that goal was interpreted as failing to fulfil a commitment and, worse, as censorship," he said.

That suspension was originally described as "indefinite", however, and this production is apparently not being done by Theatre Workshop.

By the Supreme Court of India, and Oman and Qatar, and Tamil Nadu respectively.

The Supreme Court of India had overturned a ban against the film and it was due to begin showing on this day. As a result, dozens of protesters of a group called Christian United Front raided a Hyderabad multiplex and damaged property extensively, forcing the management there to suspend the film's screening. The mob even broke the box office window so the film could not be shown. Also, the state government is appealing the High Court decision. Andhra Pradesh is one of the states where the local government banned the film the day before its release.

The two Mideast countries of Oman and Qatar will now permit the film to be released on DVC. Sony is appealing the ban on the DVC's release in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

By various authors. Wake County, a North Carolina school district, has banned five titles under pressure from an ultra-conservative group called Called2Action. Although a local group, it was described as one of a growing number of conservative Christian groups across the US that are using the internet to encourage school book bans. The titles banned are:

• The Chocolate War: Robert Cormier;
• Junie B Jones and Some Sneaky, Peaky Spying: Barbara Park;
• Reluctantly Alice: Phyllis Reynolds;
• In the Night Kitchen: Maurice Sendak;
• Cassell Dictionary of Slang: Jonathon Green.

Mr. Green commented about the action: "I'm very flattered. It's not exactly book-burning but, in the great tradition of book censorship, there never seems to be the slightest logic to it."

By several states. See the appendix on vanity plates.

By Battlefield Mall, southwest Missouri. On 17 Jun Ms. Lydia Smith, ten years old, was shopping with her mother at Battlefield Mall for new church clothes. At the mall, she was wearing bandanna decorated with peace signs, smiley faces and flowers; it was not clear whether she purchased the article at the time, but at least one of the retail outlets in the mall was selling such apparel, although apparently not in the orange-and-yellow colour scheme Ms. Smith had. Lydia and her mother, Susan Smith, were eating lunch when the girl saw a mall security officer ask a nearby teenager to remove a bandanna. The officer then approached her and asked her to take off the bandanna. The officer handed Lydia's mother a printed copy of the Battlefield Mall Code of Conduct, which prohibits patrons from engaging in certain activities while on mall property. Number ten on the list of seventeen reads: "failing to be fully clothed or wearing apparel which is likely to provide a disturbance or embroil other groups or the general public in open conflict."

It appears to this editor that the dress code is an effort to restrict gang colours and clothing. The paragraph cited, however, is vague enough that it could cover everything. Simon Property Group Inc. owns the mall; its spokesman, Les Morris, defended the action, saying, "The code of conduct is pretty clear and, you know, I think common sense should prevail." Director of mall marketing Christine Moses also defended the code, noting the mall is privately owned and behavior on its premises can be regulated. She is quoted: "The bottom line is we want to have an environment (conducive) to shopping. Offensive apparel does not fit in with that environment"; although she was reportedly unable to say how the bandanna was offensive. Similar policies are in place at 285 Simon properties in 39 states and Puerto Rico.

[If, as that fatuous oaf declaimed, "I think common sense should prevail", then why was no common sense at all applied in this situation? The presumption is of innocence, not of guilt, and ten year olds are not old enough to find street gangs attractive. Furthermore, the clothing to be restricted should be described in detail. I have no doubt that this is a civil liberties violation from start to finish. --MN]
(see 02 Dec 2005)

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

By Monsieur R. The courts threw the case out. In the ruling, the court said that MP Daniel Mach had not himself suffered any harm and that there were no real victims. Mr. Makela says the song is an artistic metaphor and that he meant to denounce what he calls the neo-colonialism of the French government. The rapper's lawyer, Dominique Tricaud, commented about the ruling: "The judges have been courageous in their judgment because there was very strong political pressure. Two hundred deputies from the parliament asked for a special law from the parliament against the rappers. They wanted to kill the rap in France."

This case was the latest in a string of disputes French officials have picked with rappers. In 2003, Interior Ministre Nicolas Sarkozy brought a criminal case against the rap band Sniper, on the grounds their music was anti-Semitic and racist. That case was also thrown out.
(see 29 May 2006)

By Jessica Valenti, executive editor of Feministing. In a piece titled Abstinence Double Standard Threatens Girls' Health, Ms. Valenti writes that this movement effectively places all responsibility for effecting sexual abstinence on women, including in cases of sexual abuse and sexual assault:

SIECUS has been keeping track of abstinence-only education programs and dissecting their curriculum -- their findings are terrifying. The shame- and fear-based teachings are chock-full of sexist stereotypes, outdated notions of gender roles and even dangerous messages about sexual assault.

The sexist theme that seems to come up the most often in these classes is that girls just don't like sex, and therefore their main "job" is to keep boys, who do like sex, from getting any. [...]

Since girls don't like sex, it's their job to keep boys' desire at bay and to be the arbiters of chastity. "Girls need to be aware they may be able to tell when a kiss is leading to something else. The girl may need to put the brakes on first in order to help the boy." (Student Workbook, Reasonable Reasons to Wait) Because, after all, he can't help himself. "A woman is far more attracted by a man's personality while a man is stimulated by sight. A man is usually less discriminating about those to whom he is physically attracted." (WAIT Training manual, Friends First)

The only messages put forward about boys' sexuality is the idea that their urges are uncontrollable, and it's up to young women not to "tease" them. "A guy who wants to respect girls is distracted by sexy clothes and remembers her for one thing. Is it fair that guys are turned on by their senses and women by their hearts?" (Sex Respect)

SIECUS is Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. Martha Kempner, vice president for information and communications there, is quoted as saying of this movement: "This is a social agenda masquerading as teen pregnancy prevention. They're going so far backwards in the messages they're giving women -- that purity is the most important thing and what you should be striving for is a wedding. Saying that the most important thing you can do is get married and have children isn't the most empowering message."

[This kind of thing is typical in religious police states; it is men who lust after women but women who are punished for the lusts of men. How can any rational person doubt that this movement is exactly analogous to the drive by the Taliban to enslave women as cattle? What is less apparent is the sexist stereotype of males as: me strong like ox and smart like dumptruck. Given this effect of Abstinence Only ignorance, it should be clear that this movement is thoroughly dehumanizing. --MN]

By the U.S. Senate. The amendment action to ban flag desecration died one vote short of the support needed to send it to the states for ratification. Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn, said closing two days of debate: "Countless men and women have died defending that flag. It is but a small humble act for us to defend it." The Senator apparently does not understand that the flag is not the geo-political, socio-cultural entity referred to as The United States of America, but is merely a physical represenation of all that which is. Moreover, the flag is not more important than the Constitution and the Bill of Rights thereof:

America is a nation built on four flimsy sheets of parchment. They're not as thrilling to look at as Old Glory, but the brittle pages of the U.S. Constitution have done more to sustain American liberty than any flag ever could. It's too bad, really, that Americans don't pledge allegiance to the Constitution -- and don't revere it as they do the Stars and Stripes. If they did, they'd see the folly in defending a rectangle of cloth at the expense of the parchment's promises. [...]

Not that the flag really needs protection. It waves in the wind every day everywhere and is trampled underfoot rarely anywhere.
--Shielding the Flag, Shattering Liberty, Editorial, Minneapolis Star Tribune, 22 June 2006

Senator Daniel Inouye, D-Hawaii, a World War II veteran and Medal of Honor holder, commented at some point: "While I take offense at disrespect to the flag I nonetheless believe it is my continued duty as a veteran, as an American citizen, and as a United States senator to defend the constitutional right of protesters to use the flag in nonviolent speech."

Further to this movement, the Senate also rejected an alternative put forward by assistant Democratic leader Dick Durbin of Illinois. That measure would have made it against the law to damage the flag on federal land or with the intent of breaching the peace or intimidation, the second provision of which is already covered by "fighting words". This measure also would have prohibited unapproved demonstrations at military funerals. Which demonstrations have nothing to do with flag "desecration" itself, and which form of core political speech certainly should not require permission from the government.

By Alta Schreier. U.S. District Judge Alan Gold told the Miami-Dade district today to keep possession of the entire series, saying he wanted to "hold the status quo" until a hearing on 21 Jul, although he did not specify whether they must remain on the shelves and accessible to students.

[Addendum (19 Jul 2006:) A subsequent article about this movement, by Jim Loney of Reuters, and published 16 July, reported that not only had the school board's own lawyer warned the members that a ban would violate district policies and probably be defeated in court, but that an expert said taxpayers could end up paying a $300,000 legal bill. This article also reported that Leonard Pitts had written of the movement: "Three hundred grand. To fight over a children's book. And, in all probability, lose. Can you spell idiocy, boys and girls? If you were educated in a Miami public school, there's a good chance you can't. Yet, the school board has $300,000 to waste on this foolishness?" --MN]
(see 18 Apr 2006; 14 Jun 2006; 22 Aug 2006; 19 Feb 2007; 02 Mar 2007)

By Pierre Tristam. A News-Journal editorial writer, he wrote this media criticism, which was reprinted at CommonDreams.org. In it, he examined how NBC's Dateline engaged in some serious lapses of journalism ethics:

After the second, maybe the third show, there couldn't possibly be any news value for viewers. There was nothing more to learn, though obviously still plenty to leer and peep at. What slight news values the segments had to start with turned to voyeurism, explicit collaboration with police (not in any news organization's job description) and checkbook journalism: NBC paid Perverted-Justice $100,000 last year to help with the show, an ethical violation of journalistic standards that produced barely a peep. The segments went on.

Mr. Tristam also reports how the series is based on "We Must Protect The Children" hysteria; which, in this case, generated an egregious misinterpretation of a statement made in a study by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice. He further alleges that the airing dates for these segments are meant to draw large crowds by pandering to the most basic fears and prejudices rampant in society today, pointing out that they were all during television "sweeps" months, when ratings are used to set prices for the selling of on air advertising time.

by Ken Mochizuki. The story in this book revolves around a young Japanese/American boy whose family was forced to live in an American internment camp during World War II. At one point, to illustrate the presence of prejudice, the book uses the term "Jap". In May this year, Peter and Wendy O'Brien objected to their second-grad child being read the book aloud in class. On 27 Jun, after about an hour of debate, a school board subcommittee voted 4-2 to recommend that the 12-member Board of Education vote on removing the book from the kindergarten through third-grade reading list. The concern, echoed by several board members, was that agreed an ethnic slur - even in the context of the story or as an example of a word not to repeat - is not appropriate to introduce to this age group.

[In short, it is not appropriate to begin teaching tolerance to children while they are still young enough to learn how to be tolerant. Apparently one must wait until they are too old. --MN]

By Flint, Michigan, Mayor Don Williamson. Newspaper carrier Tom Hansen, for The Flint Journal, was arrested two months after Mayor Williamson issued an executive order prohibiting city employees from reading or having non-work-related reading material on city property during work hours. This order followed an executive order calling for a boycott of the Journal because the paper had criticized his policies. On this day the mayor agreed to settle for $150,000 in his action against Mr. Hansen, which deal requires City Council approval.

[Unfortunately, His Dishonour Duh Mayor has apparently not learned anything from this incident. He commented to the Detroit Free Press that he'd had no intention of violating Hansen's civil rights, and is quoted: "The main problem with our legal system today is that minor matters like enforcing the prohibition against peddling in City Hall can turn into a stickup against the city." Obviously, matters such as making laws abridging the freedom of speech and of the press, and possibly Mr. Hansen's right to peaceably assemble with his customers, are supposed to be so minor as to not warrant the scrutiny of the courts through a person's exercise of his right to petition the government for a redress of a grievance. Also, kindly note the slippery slope advancement of this censorial action. One can reasonably infer from the facts reported that Williamson's directive ordering city employees to boycott the paper -- in effect his forbidding them to read The Flint Journal -- was not effective and he felt he had to ban any and all reading material from the work place that was not work related in an effort to keep the paper out of city hall. One hundred fifty thousand; what is that? The salary for four city employees for a year? --MN]

By Fairness & Accuaracy In Reporting. In an Action Alert issued on this day, the watchdog group pointed out the unfair and unbalanced reporting on CBS Evening News, by anchor Bob Schieffer and reporter Bob Simon. Mr. Simon said in his analysis:

"We can't say how it's going to end, but there is a pattern to these Israeli-Palestinian crises which hardly ever varies. They begin with a Palestinian attack, in this case. The attack is designed to provoke a brutal Israeli response. The Israelis follow suit with that response. The response invariably radicalizes the population, makes them even more anti-Israeli, creates more suicide bombers. And the way it's going now, it looks once more like there is, at least in the Middle East, nothing new under the sun."

There was also nothing new in this one-sided view of the cycle of violence; which cycle involves both parties. As FAIR pointed out, however, it is always only Israel that engages in retaliatory strikes. The actual situation is that both sides retalitate against the other, thereby inviting further reprisals, and it is just as often Isreali action that is the trigger. This particularly appears to be the case in this current rash of violence. Matthew Rothschild reported in Olmert Opts For Collective Punishment, Bush Winks, reprinted at CommonDreams.org:

For sixteen months, Hamas honored its unilateral cease-fire.

And just in the last few weeks, Hamas came around to acknowledging the possibility of a two-state solution.

Then, provoked by Israeli killings of civilians in Gaza and ongoing Israeli assassinations, Hamas and other Palestinian groups responded in kind. They launched rockets into Israel, kidnapped and executed a settler, and burrowed into Israel to kill two Israeli soldiers and hold another one captive, Gilad Shalit.

The taking of captives is an act of barbarism, and the execution of the settler was grotesque.

And these actions played right into Israeli hands, for the Israeli government doesn’t want to negotiate with Hamas. It doesn’t want a decent and just and fair resolution to the conflict. Every time Palestinians move a step closer, Israel slaps them back farther.

And so Israel seized on these latest actions to show the Palestinians who’s boss and to further derail any hopes for a negotiated peace.

CBS has clearly violated to people's right to know about the situation in the middle east by disseminating what amounts to pro-Israeli propaganda.

[The Israeli-Palestinian situation is this: It is a blood feud founded on co-dependence. One side kills one of theirs, that side "retaliates", the first "retaliates" for that retalation, and so on ad nauseum, and neither government really wants to stop the cycle of violence. I believe, however, that most of the people on both sides do not support it. After all, they're the ones who have to pay the price for it. Like that family on the beach that was murdered in an Israeli military strike before Palestinian militants launched their escalatory action. --MN]

Appendix G1: Censorship by President GeeDubya and company
          1st Term:  2001-2004
          2nd Term: 2005-2008

Appendix G2: George Bush religious initiatives and cover-ups
          1st Term:  2001-2004
          2nd Term: 2005-2008

Appendix G3: Actions to shield George Bush from free speech
          1st Term:  2001-2004
          2nd Term: 2005-2008

Appendix G4: 21st Century COINTELPRO operations
          1st Term:  2001-2004
          2nd Term: 2005-2008

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