A brief chronological Compendium of a Few Banned or Challenged Works, and Censorship and Anti-Censorship Efforts 01 Jul - 31 Dec 2006

The high minded man must care more for the truth than for what people think. --Aristotle

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

2006, July 01: Report of a law suit against what might be peacable assembly unfriendly ordinances

By Cindy Sheehan, former U.S. diplomat Ann Wright, Daniel Ellsberg, Tammara Rosenleaf, and Charlie Anderson. These five anti-war protesters and activists filed a suit against McLennan County on 30 Jun, over bans against roadside camping and parking near George Bush's ranch at Crawford, Texas. Filed in state district court, the suit asks that the ordinances not be enforced during protests in August, and ultimately that it be declared void. Though Ms. Sheehan has not been arrested during protests at the ranch, the four other plaintiffs were among a group of twelve who were arrested in Nov 2005 after setting up camp at Ms. Sheehan's original site. They were charged with two misdemeanors, but only two of the cases have been filed by prosecutors, and that wasn't until May 2006. The group decided to sue because they wanted to challenge the ordinances on constitutional grounds, instead of continuing to wait for the prosecutors to file charges. War protests were held on the larger, private lot during the week of Thanksgiving and Easter, where the protesters plan to return for a few weeks in August. But they want to camp at the original site - the ditches and a triangle section of land where three roads intersect. The ordinances were enacted after complaints by local citizens about the traffic congestion caused by the protest at that location.

[Hmmmm. I wonder why they didn't insist on their right to a speedy trial. --MN]

By The Friends of Cuban Libraries. See the entry on the Cuban Independent Librarians page.

By U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf. It was reported on this day that Judge Kopf had ruled on 29 Jun, that the cities of Omaha, Lincoln, and Grand Island, all of Nebraska, had unfair policies prohibiting the gathering of signatures in public parks, on some sidewalks, some streets, and outside some public buildings and facilities. The Stop OverSpending Nebraska campaign had sued the cities, alleging they had obstructed a petition drive aimed at capping state spending, and interfered with free speech. The group seeks a constitutional amendment to tie state spending to cost of living and population changes. In order to get its measure on the mid-term ballot, it must collect some 115,000 signatures by 07 Jul. Ms. Amie Spradley was stopped by the police on 11 Jun when she tried to enter the Celebrate Lincoln festival. According to the lawsuit, Festival rules prohibit: "campaign materials, petitions, religious materials, brochures and/or solicitations." It further stated: "[Ms.] Spradley reasonably feared that she would be arrested and prosecuted if she attempted to enter the Celebrate Lincoln festival in violation of the instruction that she was not allowed to enter, so she left the area and was not able to circulate the ... petition."

By Reporters Without Borders. An article posted to the watchdog's web site on this day reported that the Burmese Internet (called locally Myanmar Republic), increasingly resembles an Intranet as greater numbers of foreign electronic services are being cut. Email providers Gmail, as well as VoIP services Gtalk and Skype, have been blocked in the dicatatorship since the end of June, although the blocking is not consistent. The group said in a statement:

"The decision to ban Gtalk and Skype were taken partly for financial reasons. Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) services were breaking into the profitable long-distance telephone call market, in which the state has a monopoly.

"But it is also since, like webmails, this type of communication is very difficult to monitor. The Burmese Internet is more controlled than the Net in China."

The authorities already block access to the Yahoo! and Hotmail e-mail services, as part of an attempt to force Burmese Internet-users to use Mail4U from Myanmar Teleport (formerly Bagan Cybertech), a state enterprise which filters and controls email content. Officially, the government says it wants to modernize and prioritize new technology, but it attempts in reality to control the flow of information:

• every computer in the country has to be registered with the Myanmar Posts and Telecom, one of the departments of the Ministry of Communications;

• those who fail to do so could be sentenced to up to 15 years imprisonment;

• the state licences Internet cafes;

• which are forced to:
  • ask clients for proof of identity,
  • install software which takes screen captures every five minutes,
  • record the data on CDs,
  • and regularly send the records to the authorities;

• the authorities have ordered filtering of:
  • independent online newspapers,
  • websites defending human rights or promoting democracy, and
  • publications supporting the claims of the Karen people (an anti-government, Burmese, ethnic group).

• the creation of a website requires government approval; and

• under a 2000 law, any online discussion of political issues, or the posting of articles "likely to damage the interests of the Myanmar Union" or "directly or indirectly harmful to state security policy", leaves the posters liable to a prison sentence of six-months.

The article further reported that at the end of May, Burma was compeletely cut off from the World Wide Web. All that was accessible were local sites of a national Intranet made up of sites approved by the government called Myanmar Wide Web. The Ministry of Communications, Post and Telegraphs said the cut was due to technical problems linked to under-sea optical cables, but according to a journalist on the Democratic Voice of Burma, the cut was "a ruse" that permitted the dictatorship to upgrade its Internet-filtering software.

By Scott Roe. On 03 Jul, Mr. Roe, a resident of Ottumwa, Iowa, was practicising with his band, Corruption of Blood at his home. The police came and said he was violating a new city noise ordinance. Mr. Roe wasn't happy about the interruption, so on Indepdence Day he staged a protest by planting an upside down flag in his front yard with a cutout of a police officer standing in front of it. The band's name was written in block letters across the flag. In short order Officer Mark Milligan and Sergeant Chris Logan of the Ottumwa Police Department showed up; apparently a neighbor had complained about the position of the flag. The officers warned Mr. Roe that if he didn't take the flag down he'd be arrested. He stood on his First Amendment rights and was arrested and charged with violating Iowa's flag desecration statute, Chapter 718A. He is now facing thirty days in jail and a five hundred dollar fine, but is being represented by Randall Wilson of the ACLU of Iowa, who commented:

[the 1900 statute that is an] "overly broad restriction of speech that is protected under the First Amendment."

[...]

"The statute under which Mr. Roe is being prosecuted bans just about everything we do with flags these days: flag patches on clothing, bumper stickers, use in advertisements, and so forth. Amid all of this 'flag speech,' Mr. Roe's display was singled out for prosecution simply because he chose to criticize the police and how laws are enforced in his community. That's how it always goes: Flag desecration prosecutions are only used for political persecution.

Either this statute goes or the right to free speech goes. The two cannot peacefully coexist."

[Not to mention that this action almost certainly violates the spirit of Texas v. Johnson; if you can burn a flag as core political speech, you can certainly mount one upside down. See the source article for the text of Chapter 718A. It is, I will admit, comprehensively written, but as to whether it is narrow and specific enough is another matter. --MN]

By Wilsona School District board. Following the spontaneous and unilateral removal of twenty-three titles from a list of new titles submitted for inclusion in the library, a committee drafted book-selection guidelines. In doing so they proved out Mark Twain's axiom on school boards. From what is written in the source article, the draft clearly demonstrates that the committee not only has no concept of the First Amendment and free speech rights, but that the draft is specifically designed to engage in viewpoint discrimination; Superintendent Ned McNabb is quoted: "We realize there might be a story about police, but that's not violent crime, that's police doing good. There's no way you can take the judgment out of it. You frame it better so it's easier to know what the guidelines are."

Under the proposed guidelines, books under consideration cannot depict:

• drinking alcohol,
• smoking,
• drugs,
• sex, including "negative sexuality,"
• implied or explicit nudity,
• cursing,
• violent crime or weapons,
• gambling,
• foul humor,
• or "dark content".

This editor's call on the point of "negative sexuality" is that it refers to homosexuality and anything other than heterosexual intercourse. If so, then the guidelines are also self-contradictory:

"Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the minds of the pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, patriotism, and a true comprehension of the rights, duties, and dignity of American citizenship, and the meaning of equality and human dignity, including the promotion of harmonious relations, kindness toward domestic pets and the humane treatment of living creatures, to teach them to avoid idleness, profanity, and falsehood, and to instruct them in manners and morals and the principles of a free government."

In short, the selection process is being subverted to the ultra-conservative christian viewpoint, even while the policy states: "materials must not promote nor discourage any particular religious doctrine." Morals is a religious concept; ethics is the secular analog which should be taught in place of "morality". The policy also specifically allows for expurgation in violation of U.S. Copyright Law as well as the First Amendment: "In selected instances, an occasional inappropriate word may be deleted with white-out rather than rejecting the entire book."

[In the first place God made idiots; this was for practice; then he made school boards. --Mark Twain (1835-1910)

I'm also betting that none of the concepts in the list are specifically defined, thereby leaving absolutely everything open to challenge. Every point in that list has been used at one time or another to effect challenges. The source article, from LA Daily News, also contained other samples of ineffable stupidity, but I couldn't include all of them. --MN]
(see 16 Feb 2006)

By Governor Mitt Romney, Massachussetts. H.B. 126 was to repeal a portion of state law that bans the printing, posting or distribution of any political poster -- either supporting a candidate or ballot question -- that is not signed either by the candidate, another adult, or the organization responsible for the poster. A measure that would absolutely fly in the face of the right to speak anonymously. Moreover, violators could have been imprisoned for up to six months. Governor Romney vetoed the bill, saying in his veto message that the law protected the integrity of the electoral process. He sent the bill back to the lawmakers, who now have to decide whether to try to override the veto or accept it. Courts have ruled that similar laws in other states were constitutionally infirm.

By MSNBC Hardball host Norah O'Donnell. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By George Ancona. This photo-journal was to be challenged in Miami-Dade County schools on this day. The book, which is available in six Dade elementary school libraries and twenty-two schools libraries in Broward, paints a largely flattering portrait of life in Castro's Cuba. Some of the photogrphs and text hint at the deep poverty, but focuses primarily on socialized healthcare, housing, and education. The target audience for the 40-page book is the third- to fifth-grades. Dade School Board's rules about library books allow any "citizen", as opposed to a parent with a child in the school system, to file a complaint.

David Rosenthal is a Broward County resident and was described as a political activist who is not Cuban but who supports the causes of the exile community. He was also reported to have been an outspoken advocate in the challenge to Vamos a Cuba. He described this book as: " . . . nothing more than a series of falsehoods and distorted information, published with the intention of misleading children, and their parents, relatives and friends, about the reality of the totalitarian Castro regime of Cuba." As per usual for censorship advocates, he denied, albeit obliquely, that this is a censorial action; he said in a complaint he sent to The Miami Herald: "To exclude a book that contains blatant lies from collections of educational materials is in no way censure." In point of fact, censure is exactly what his complaint is; aside from an effort to censor. Mr. Rosenthal said he would file the complaint at Henry Mack/West Little River Elementary School because it is the closest school to his home.

New York publisher Marshall Cavendish which released the book in 2000, and vice president Richard Farley commented about this action: "No reviewer ever commented on that it was biased toward Castro. They're alert for that kind of thing."

Mr. Ancona, a photojournalist, first visited Cuba in 1955; he returned for a three week visit in 1999. He commented of this visit and the resulting work: "Certain things impressed me and certain things offended me, but I wanted to accentuate the positive." Mr. Acona was pleasantly surprised to hear of this action, and is quoted: "I've never been so flattered. This is going to boost sales."
(see 18 Apr 2006; 14 Jun 2006; 27 Jun 2006; 22 Aug 2006)

By Heimat Bund Ostelbien. This neo-nazi group held a ceremonial burning of the diary of Holocaust victim Anne Frank in June. Three men in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt had used a copy of the book to re-enact the Berlinplatz book-burning of un-German literature in 1933. One of the men cast the diary into the flames saying, "I commit Anne Frank to the fire," borrowing on the fascist ritual. They also burnt an American flag in front of a crowd estimated to have numbered more than a hundred. These actions resulted in a burst of government reactionism. State prosecutors began an investigating on suspicion of the men having incited racial hatred, and the German Interior Ministry said in a statement to Reuters: "This act was beneath contempt and could scarcely have been more primitive." Wolfgang Boehmer, premier of Saxony-Anhalt, told the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung on this day, "All of us in Saxony-Anhalt are put to shame by this," and said the state would act decisively to prevent a repeat of this incident.

[I wrote in a comment at the LISNews web site:

This was a vile, despicable, contemptible, and cowardly act of core political speech.

If this sort thing hasn't already, this action will probably raise legal questions equal to the judicial debate in the U.S. over cross burning: When is it a hate crime and when is it a political protest?

Unfortunately, given the censorial atmosphere against fascist political systems, the only thing this incident is likely to generate is more censorship. Aside from which, I still see no reason why "hate" should be a separate category of crime. If I punch somebody's lights out because of their ethnicity, that the assault was motivated by bigotry should not make the crime worse as a matter of degree. --MN]

By CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video, and CleanFilms, et al. Several companies that edit movies to delete objectionable language, sex, and violence, have been ordered to cease and desist and to turn over their inventory to Hollywood studios by 11 Jul. U.S. District Judge Richard P. Matsch ruled on 06 Jul that the practice is an "illegitimate business" that hurts the intellectual property rights holders. The defendants have been ordered to stop "producing, manufacturing, creating" and renting edited movies. Michael Apted, president of the Director's Guild of America commented: "Audiences can now be assured that the films they buy or rent are the vision of the filmmakers who made them and not the arbitrary choices of a third-party editor."

[Whoa. I never saw that one coming. As near as I can tell this ruling means those companies must cease to exist. The source article also reported that as many as ninety video outlets nationwide -- some half of them in Utah alone -- purchase movies from CleanFlicks, and that it was unclear how the ruling would affect them. They're likely to take a big hit in the wallet over the short-term; until people go back to renting uncut versions. CleanFlicks chief executive Ray Lines spat some sour grapes and vowed to appeal. Can't say as I blame him in this case, though; a man works hard to build his own business and gets it wiped out like this? Sheesh! --MN]

By a whorish press outlet. Kevin Barrett is a some-time instructor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and what I would describe as a WTC Attack conspiracy theorist. He has been a lecturer in Arabic language, in folklore, and is scheduled to lecture in Islamic studies this fall, during which he was planning on discussing differing views of what happened at the WTC Attack from the point of view that it was fomented by the U.S. government. He is the coordinator of a group called Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth and a member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. He is now threatened with dismissal from the university due to a witchhunt manufactured against him by a press outlet that blatantly misrepresented his views and position.

On 28 Jun, Mr. Barrett went to an interview at WTMJ, a talk radio station in Milwaukee, with host Jessica McBride. He said of the interview:

"When I got on her show, I was kind of surprised to hear her introduction. She introduced me as 'Wisconsin's Ward Churchill,' with ideas even worse than Ward Churchill."

Ward Churchill is an academic who generated his own witchhunt in 2005, at University of Colorado, with an essay comparing some WTC Attack victims with the Nazi German bureaucrat Adolf Eichmann. During McBride's show, Barrett defended many of the claims of the WTC conspiracy theorists and made the following statements:

• "9/11 is an inside job";
• "Vice President Cheney is my prime suspect";
• "very little evidence that foreign terrorists flew planes into buildings";
• "11 of the 19" [hijackers are] "still alive";
• "9/11 coup d’etat".

He also talked about what the apparently suspicious collapse of the twin towers and that of World Trade Center building Number Seven. He also said in repsonse to a question about his upcoming classes: "I don’t try to inflict my own ideas on the students."

The witchhunt began the next day.

• Republican State Representative Steve Nass called for Barrett to be summarily fired; he is quoted: "The fact that Mr. Barrett uses his position at UW-Madison to add credibility to his outlandish claims is an unacceptable embarrassment to the people of Wisconsin and the UW System."

• Republican Mark Green, a member of the Wisconsin delegation to the House of Representatives, and who is running for governor against Democrat Jim Doyle, jumped on the bandwagon; he is quoted: "Not a dime of either taxpayer or tuition dollars should be going to Kevin Barrett so he can tell students that September 11 was a creation of the government, and that the most murdering terrorist organization in the world is a myth created by the CIA."

• Governor Doyle, perhaps to rob Green of his political advantage, said the university should take a "hard look" at "whether he has the capacity to teach students."

Unfortunately, the university does not seem to be cooperating with the manufactured controversy; Mr. Barrett met with University of Wisconsin Provost Pat Farrell on 07 Jul, for the second time concerning this issue, probably as part of a ten-day review process, and Mr. Barrett spoke favourably of the administration's comportment to Matthew Rotschild of The Progressive (author of the source article for this entry).

[If I were a conspiracy theorist, I'd accuse the Wisconsin right wing-nuts of manufacturing this witchhunt to whip up a fear-frenzy for that upcoming gubernatorial election. Mr. Rothschild described WTMJ specifically as: a popular rightwing talk radio station. Not being a conspiracy theorist -- and being so cynical that I don't credit right-wingers with the intelligence to do this sort of thing from deliberate planning -- I tend to ascribe actions such as this more to a matter of habit than anything. Such pre-election smear campaigns seem to happen so frequently as to be pro-forma. For more information about WTC Attack conspiracy theory, see:

• When 9/11 Conspiracy Theories Go Bad , by David Corn,
• 9/11: Wild Conspiracies and Rational Concerns , by Joshua Holland,
• The 9/11 Story That Got Away , by Rory O'Connor,

. . . all of them at AlterNet.org. --MN]
(see 06 Sep 2006)

By Mark Cuban. An article by Katrina vanden Heuvel, titled A Maverick Media Mogul Takes on Mainstream Spinelessness , published at CommonDreams.org, reports on a move by Mr. Cuban to launch a rejuvenation movement in journalism; one quite apart from the corporate press: "I will tell you that there won't be any corporate considerations. No earnings per share issues, No worries about advertisers and what they might think." He also speaks of wanting to respect the dignity and basic humanity of the nation's youth:

"Young people aren't turning away from mainstream media because they don't care about current events, but because the media don't know how to connect with them."

[...]

"Even for a 21-year old, it's not just about Paris Hilton, Bradgelina and the latest rap feud. Kids want to learn. They want to know. Journalism matters....We will produce news reports that matter to people of all ages."

There is much more information in the source article, which this editor recommends simply for the jolt of optimism it engenders.

By Reporters Without Borders. The organization condemned recent allegations by Gholam Hossein Mohseni Ejeie, intelligence minister in Iran, against imprisoned journalist and intellectual Ramin Jahanbegloo. It also voiced concern over a new crackdown on the press. On 03 Jul the intelligence minister accused Jahanbegloo of "taking part in a US attempt to carry out a velvet revolution in Iran." Hassan Hadad, a judge who has had many journalists arrested and who, according to some sources, was a torturer in Evin prison in the 1980s, was named by Tehran chief prosecutor Said Mortazavi, as deputy prosecutor in charge of security issues. This is the same Said Mortazavi implicated in the murder of Zahra Kazemi. This appointment subsequently prompted concern about a possible new wave of arresting dissidents. Judge Hadad’s job is described as: to crack down "with force on security problems, espionage, attempts to overthrow the regime and threats to public order." The watchdog group states that since Apr 2000, he has had the task of oppressing the "enemy" press. Iran is currently detaining twelve journalists and web journalers for daring to exercise free press rights, some of whom have been held for months without their lawyers being allowed to visit them in prison or to even see their case files.

By Brittany McComb. Ms. McComb was the valeditorian for the Class of 2006 at Foothill High School in Henderson, Nevada. During her valedictory speech before the four hundred graduates and family members, her microphone was cut off when she began making statements that were interpreted to be impermissible proselytizing. She had said, "God's love is so great that he gave his only son up," when the microphone was cut off. She continued without amplification: " . . . to an excruciating death on a cross so his blood would cover all our shortcomings and provide for us a way to heaven in accepting this grace." On this day Ms. McComb filed a suit in the U.S. District Court of Nevada, names the principal, assistant principal and the employee who pulled the plug. Ms. McComb said she had been warned that her speech would be cut off if she did not follow the approved version from which references to Christ and invitations to join her faith had been deleted.

An American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada lawyer, Allen Lichtenstein, said the school appropriately followed rulings by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; which rulings obligate school districts to censor students who proselytize. John Whitehead, president of the Rutherford Institute, which supports ultra-conservativism and antidisestablishmentarianism, is quoted as saying: "If you know history, go back and look at some of the regimes that pull plugs, it starts with Nazi Germany all the way up through." And also as saying: "What makes a great constitutional case? Great facts. Just what happened here is going to drive this case forward."

[How typical of ultra-conservatives that they scream how unfairly they are likened to Nazis when they are doing the censoring, but are quick paint others in that light when playing the victim. Ms. McComb's actions appear to have crossed the line from student prayer to trampling the rights of those not of her faith, to not have her shove her religiosity down their throats. If that is the fact of this case, then Whitehead is full of self-righteous crap and it will drive this case right out of court. Abusing your right to religious freedom to violate mine? Are you sure I'm the one who's the Nazi in that equation? --MN]

By Reporters Without Borders. The group reported on six separate threats to or attacks on the press in six separate countries at their web site.

By Alejandro Cabrera Cruz, et al. See the entry on the Cuban Independent Librarians page.

By Governor Jeb Bush and the State of Florida. On this day, a piece titled Florida's Fear of History: New Law Undermines Critical Thinking, written by Robert Jensen, was published at CommonDreams.org. Mr. Jensen wrote in part:

One way to measure the fears of people in power is by the intensity of their quest for certainty and control over knowledge.

By that standard, the members of the Florida Legislature marked themselves as the folks most terrified of history in the United States when last month they took bold action to become the first state to outlaw historical interpretation in public schools. In other words, Florida has officially replaced the study of history with the imposition of dogma and effectively outlawed critical thinking.

[...]

Florida's lawmakers are not only prescribing a specific view of US history that must be taught (my favorite among the specific commands in the law is the one about instructing students on "the nature and importance of free enterprise to the United States economy"), but are trying to legislate out of existence any ideas to the contrary. They are not just saying that their history is the best history, but that it is beyond interpretation. In fact, the law attempts to suppress discussion of the very idea that history is interpretation. The fundamental fallacy of the law is in the underlying assumption that "factual" and "constructed" are mutually exclusive in the study of history. There certainly are many facts about history that are widely, and sometimes even unanimously, agreed upon. But how we arrange those facts into a narrative to describe and explain history is clearly a construction, an interpretation. That's the task of historians -- to assess factual assertions about the past, weave them together in a coherent narrative, and construct an explanation of how and why things happened.

[I recommend that the reader see the source article for some excellent background on how history, including the historicity that is the current events happening today, needs to be assessed more than superficially. --MN]
(see 22 Jan 2006; 16 Mar 2006; 20 Nov 2006)

By Will Bunch. Mr. Bunch had a piece titled The Media Is Helping Bush Scare the Populace reprinted at Alternet.org. In it, he examines in part how the press heterodynes the climate of fear, and how the press continues to pander to it because it is profitable to do so. He also suggests some actions for the press to take to correct the situation. It is well worth the read.

By New York City Police Department. On 17 Jul a proposal by the police department was made public, which asked for a requirement for a permit for any march on a sidewalk by 35 or more people, or for street demonstrations involving 20 or more bicycles or other vehicles. The proposal says the new rules are needed to better police "assemblies that obstruct the free passage of public streets and sidewalks." On this day civil rights advocates said they would fight the new rules, calling them a retaliatory response by the New York Police Department to clashes with protesters at the 2004 Republican National Convention and with cyclists who participate in the monthly Critical Mass bike rides. Norman Siegel, a lawyer for the Critical Mass cyclists, commented that the proposal, "radically changes the rules of protest in New York. If the rules were adopted, New Yorkers will need the government's permission to exercise their First Amendment rights, and that's absolutely unacceptable." Police spokesman Paul Browne downplayed the proposal, saying it was prompted after court rulings found that "the parade regulations were too vague, the department moved to clarify them with these amendments."

Critical Mass rides take place around the world on the last Friday of every month, with the aim of asserting the rights of cyclists and to protest reliance on motor vehicles. They became large enough in New York City that police decided to crack down, leading to the arrest of more than 260 cyclists during a ride days before the GOP convention; dozens more cyclists have been arrested at subsequent rallies.

[Addendum (26 Aug 2006:) On 18 Aug NYC abandoned this action. Police Department spokesman Paul Browne said that although the department didn't agree with many of the complaints, it had decided to make changes. Christopher Dunn, an attorney for the New York Civil Liberties Union commented, "Common sense has prevailed. From the outset, everyone recognized that the proposed rules swept far too broadly, and we're pleased the police department has now realized that. There is simply no reason for requiring field trips, sidewalk marches and lawful bike rides to have police permits." --MN]

By New Jersey state Division of Alcohol Beverage Control. In 2003 State troopers went undercover Moulin Rouge, an Atlantic City bar. They observed dancers engaged in what was described as lewd or immoral behavior; specifically: rubbing themselves and patrons in sexually explicit ways. The Division of Alcohol Beverage Control fined the bar $10,000 for having violated a regulation against "lewdness or immoral activity" in places with licensed to sell alcohol. The bar paid the fine, but challenged the regulation.

On this day, the ruling was released from a three-judge panel hearing by the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. One judge died before the opinion was written, but the remaining two agreed that New Jersey had the right to regulate the go-go dancers. The ruling notes that the regulation doesn't prevent lewdness or immoral activity everywhere, "Rather, it only prohibits such activity from taking place on the premises of liquor-licensed establishments."

First Amendment lawyer Daniel A. Silver, who argued the case for Moulin Rouge, said the ruling was wrong: "If a dancer in a bikini touches her breast and that's considered lewd, then she can't dance. She has to just stand there."

[I concur on that point. The regulation should say that dancers can't have contact with clients, but to not touch yourself? --MN]

By fourteen human rights organisations. The following organizations signed a statement on this day in support of H.R. 4780, the Global Online Freedom Act of 2006, which was under debate in the US House of Representatives:

• Amnesty International
• China Information Center
• CPJ
• Earth Rights International
• Human Rights Watch
• Laogai Research Foundation
• National Economic and Social Rights Initiative
• PEN USA
• PEN American Center
• Religious Freedom Coalition
• Reporters Without Borders
• Robert F. Kennedy Memorial Center for Human Rights
• Secretariat of the International Network for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ESCR-Net)
• Sisters of St. Francis of Philadelphia

The signatories said this law would prevent Internet sector companies from helping tyrannical governments, China in particular, from eroding freedom of expression. See the source article for the text of the statement.

By the House of Representatives. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By CBS. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By The Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By FEMA. On this day Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting issued an Action Alert detailing incidents in which Katrina refugees were not allowed to speak with the press at three different camps where they are housed by FEMA.

According to a report in the Baton Rouge Advocate from 15 Jul, by reporter Sandy Dennis, two separate attempts to talk to displaced people were stopped by a FEMA security guard; the first incident at Morgan City, Louisiana camp, the second at another FEMA camp in Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana.

The Action Alert also told of an incident involving Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, who was forbidden to interview residents at Renaissance Village camp outside Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in April. In concluding the segment on that visit, Goodman reported, "As we drove off of Renaissance Village, we were chased by the guards in golf carts, who said they would be taking down our license plate and that we couldn't return."

[I am wont to ask whether these people are refugees or prisoners. On second thought, however, I tend to conclude that a government agency doesn't want them talking to the press about conditions that would prove embarrassing to the agency. --MN]
(see 25 Jul 2006)

By Peter Phillips. In a piece titled News Bias in the Associated Press, published by CommonDreams.org, Mr. Phillips reports on a recent study conducted at Sonoma State University, which shows widespread bias favoring US government positions in AP news reports. He cites one example:

On October 25, 2005 the American Civil Liberties (ACLU) posted to their website 44 autopsy reports, acquired from American military sources, covering the deaths of civilians who died while in US military prisons in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2002-2004. The autopsy reports provided proof of widespread torture by US forces. A press release by ACLU announcing the deaths was immediately picked up by AP wire service making the story available to US corporate media nationwide. A thorough check of Nexus-Lexus and Proquest library data bases showed that at least 98 percent of the daily papers in the US did not to [sic] pick up the story, nor did AP ever conduct follow up coverage on the issue.

He then further wrote:

Alison Weir, Joy Ellison, and Peter Weir of the organization If Americans Knew recently conducted research on the AP's reporting of the Israel-Palestine conflict. The study was a statistical analysis of the AP newswire in the year 2004, looking comparatively at the numbers of Israeli and Palestinian deaths reported. In 2004 there were 141 reports of Israeli deaths in AP headlines and lead paragraphs, while in reality there were only 108 Israeli deaths. During this same period, 543 Palestinian deaths were reported by AP, while 821 Palestinians had actually been killed. The ratio of actual number of Israeli conflict deaths to Palestinian deaths in 2004 was 1:7, yet AP reported deaths of Israelis to Palestinians at a 2:1 ratio.

Associated Press feeds the flow of information: " . . . 24 hours a day, 7 days a week to 121 countries in 5 languages including English, German, Dutch, French, and Spanish. In the US alone, AP reaches 1,700 daily, weekly, non-English, college newspapers, and 5,000 radio and television stations. AP reaches over a billion people every day via print, radio, or television."

By the Justice Department. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By members of the U.S. Diplomatic service. Milomir Jeftic, of Belgrade, had named his shop after a local shelter for the homeless; he called it Cafe Osama. "Osama" being a Serbo-Croat word meaning "secluded". His shop is located right across the street from the U.S. embassy, however, and diplomats filed an official complaint about his word choice and Jeftic was told to change the name of his business. Mr. Jeftic commented about the situation: "I had no intention of offending Americans. It is just a word in Serbian. I admit I have heard of Osama Bin Laden, but until now I was not quite sure who he was." The source article for this entry did not make it clear, but another did state that Mr. Jeftic changed the name of his cafe; because he was ordered to by his government at the demand of officials who do not understand the concepts of free speech or foreign languages.

By Reporters Without Borders. The group expressed outrage at the Israeli decision to strike telecommunication installations in Lebanon; the action deprived millions of Lebanese citizens of TV news and information, especially those of the Lebanese Broadcasting Corporation (LBC), a commercial outlet. Their statement read in part:

"We are outraged by the death of an LBC technician in these air strikes, which were carried out without taking account of the need to protect media employees and other civilians. Media installations may under no circumstances be treated as military targets.

"After bombing Hezbollah’s TV station Al-Manar, the Israeli authorities are stepping up the destruction of Lebanese media installations and means of communication, and this is absolutely scandalous."

"We call on the Israeli prime minister to put an immediate end to the air strikes against the media, telecommunication installations and any other targets that could endanger the lives of journalists and media workers,"

An Al-Jazeera TV crew also came under fire from the Israeli airforce while covering the bombardments in southern Lebanon. See the report from Reporters Without Borders from 13 Jul for more background on this incident.

By the Smithsonian Institute. The American Origins display at the Smithsonian pays tribute to influential Americans from 1600 to 1900. Included are Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Brigham Young, the second leader of the faith, who led the emigration that saw the founding of the state of Utah. The text accompanying the portraits of Smith and Young reportedly said Smith was "lynched" and that Young was a "tyrant."

Two Washington-area church members who got a preview of the display were offended by the one historical fact, and what was probably an accurate characterization in the case of Young. They contacted Senator Bob Bennett, R-Utah, and Representative Rob Bishop, R-Utah, and both offices contacted the museum. Emily Christensen, a spokeswoman for Bennet, commented publicly: "We passed this concern onto the Smithsonian. It is our understanding that they received other inquiries also concerned with the language and have since made changes to more accurately portray these two individuals."

Bethany Bentley, spokeswoman for the National Portrait Gallery, refused to discuss the text but confirmed that changes were made based on the complaints. She is quoted: "For us, and I think this is true for many museums, until an exhibit is open to the public everything is under review. It's very common (to make changes) and it happens with many of our labels." She reportedly said that the changes had been under way before Bennett's office called, and that all changes were effected before the gallery opened 01 Jul.

[I wonder how many different ways there are to say that a person was lynched without using that particular word. In what way can you say someone was hanged by a mob that does not cast the incident in a bad light? --MN]

By U.S. District Judge Alan Gold. He ordered that all copies of Vamos a Cuba and the twenty-three other books in the series, be returned to Miami-Dade school libraries by Monday, 31 Jul. Judge Gold rendered an eighty-nine page opinion in which he said the School Board had, "abused its discretion in a manner that violated the transcendent imperatives of the First Amendment." This ruling is not final, but the preliminary injunction will apply while the ACLU and Student Government Association continue the lawsuit against the School Board. Depending on that body's response, that could be weeks or years. Frank Bolaños, for whom this censorship drive has become a central issue in his campaign to replace incumbent Alex Villalobos in the state Senate this fall, and who sponsored much of the legislation against the book, said he will urge the board to appeal the injunction and push forward with the trial. He is quoted: "I think the board needs to be very assertive in defending its position, including being assertive in the appeals process."

[I think this pompous-ass blowhard with a bitch but no brains doesn't think at all. Of course, he can afford to piss away 300,000 taxpayer dollars, it's not his money he's wasting. This jackass further said: "The issue that is still before the court is whether a parent has a right to ask that his student be taught the truth about this or any other subject and whether a school board has a right to protect taxpayer dollars and not misuse them on a book that is clear propaganda." You want to get rid of propaganda, shit-for-brains? All of the white, power-elite written history books are lies from start to finish. I dare the reader to peruse any high school history text of American history and compare that with Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee. --MN]

By President George Bush. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By the People's Republic of China. Century China, one of the most influential websites for Chinese intellectuals, stopped posting articles by its contributors on this day at the "behest" of the government. The chat forum of the magazine Life Week, which carried foreign media reports, was also suddenly shut down without explanation.

The order to close Century China was issued by the Beijing Communications Administration on 24 Jul. In the short period before the closure took effect, hundreds of visitors had time to express their anger or sadness on the site’s forum. On this day, visitors to the website could only find a message by the administrators reading: "After receiving a note from the competent authorities, the Century China website (www.cc.cn.org) and its chat forum (www.ccforum.org.cn) will be closed from today."

Life Week is a cultural magazine based in Beijing that broached sensitive issues such as corruption very openly. Visitors to that forum also used to post news reports from foreign news media. It is quite likely its closure was also the result of government orders.

These cases of censorship arrived less than a month after the information office of the Council of States and the ministry of industry and information expressed their intention of exerting greater control over web journals, search engines, and chat forums.

By FEMA. On this day the director of FEMA's Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office, James Stark, told editors and staff of The Advocate newspaper, of Baton Rouge, that FEMA was ending the policy restricting news-media access to its trailer parks. He said the restrictive policy had probably stemmed from an privacy concerns, and is quoted: "As you know, everyone in a FEMA group site was receiving some kind of FEMA assistance. We felt that some families probably did not want that disclosed." He said the policy was changed after undergoing a review by FEMA officials. Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting, however, was not entirely pleased with the turn-around, and scathingly wrote in an Activism Update they issued on this day:

But the letter from James Stark, [...] simply stated that FEMA "policies do not restrict any FEMA group site resident from speaking to members of the media. Likewise, there is no policy that requires a FEMA representative to be present when a resident talks with the media."

It seems difficult to square Stark's claim about FEMA's policy with the statement by FEMA spokesperson Rachel Rodi quoted in the Advocate: "If a resident invites the media to the trailer, they have to be escorted by a FEMA representative who sits in on the interview....That's just a policy." How likely is it that a FEMA spokesperson is misinformed about FEMA's policies on FEMA spokespersons?

But it is almost beside the point whether Katrina victims' access to the press is being restricted by official policy or unofficial practice. The Advocate piece provided two specific examples of residents of FEMA camps being told by FEMA security guards that they were "not allowed" to talk to media. (Another example, recorded on audio tape, was broadcast by Democracy Now!-4/24/06.) Stark’s letter simply ignores those incidents, providing neither an apology nor an explanation for these civil liberties violations. Thus FAIR repeats its call for an investigation by the inspector general of the Department of Homeland Security.

U.S. Representative Charlie Melancon, D-Napoleonville, was also skeptical, commenting: "When political pressure starts building, they immediately say they are going to change things and make them better. I think I'll have to see it first before I believe it."
(see 21 Jul 2006)

By Israel. On this day Ibrahim Atla, a cameraman with the Palestinian public TV broadcaster, was seriously injured by shots fired by a tank in eastern Gaza. A journalist who witnessed the attack told Reporters Without Borders it was deliberate; he said to the organization: We were wearing vests indicating that we were media workers. But an Israeli army tank located 150 metres away began firing towards us. We began to run but the shots continued." Aside from Mr. Atla, his assistant and a Japanese journalist were also wounded, and a Reuters vehicle was damaged.

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

By Medea Benjamin. Ms. Benjamin is a co-founder of CODEPINK: Women for Peace and Global Exchange, and is also currently on her 23rd day of a long-term fast for Troops Home FAST. Women and men fasting for Troops Home FAST had been trying to arrange a meeting with the Iraqi Embassy and Prime Minister al-Maliki; he had gone to the U.S. to ask Congress for reinforcements for the illegal occupation forces already there. The protesters had been waiting over the 24th and 25th Jul for a response to a letter requesting that meeting. Ms. Benjamin had stood outside the Iraqi embassy for those two days. On the evening of the 25th, the police ordered the protesters to clear the sidewalk in front of the embassy preparatory to the prime ministers arrival. Five of them refused to leave -- risking arrest -- and the Iraqi Ambassador spoke with Ms. Benjamin by cell phone, asking that she and her confreres move aside in exchange for the possibility that she and Cindy Sheehan would get a personal audience with Mr. al-Maliki during the evening reception. The two women also agreed to break their fast if granted a meeting with him. The ambassador promised to call should any challenges arise and the meeting not be possible. When it came time for the reception, however, Ms. Benjamin was denied entry to the embassy and she outside waited for an hour where she watched the prime minister arrive and leave without acknowledgement of their agreement.

On this day, Ms. Benjamin went to his speech before congress, and during the segment in which Mr. al-Maliki echoed the outdated propaganda that the ink-stained fingers of Iraqis evidenced their desire for democracy, she stood up from the gallery and shouted, "Iraqis want the troops to leave, bring them home now! Listen to the Iraqis!" She was able to repeat the statement several times before being forcefully lifted from her seat, handcuffed, and escorted out by Capitol police. She was charged with disrupting Congress, but as 29 Jul, it had not been decided whether she would receive a simple citation or be booked for it.

[One simply needs to ask: If Iraqis so want western-style democracy then why is it necessary to continue inflicting the occupation upon them? And why did the Bush regime disembowel a peace plan proposal by what is supposed to be an independent Iraqi government? --MN]

By a congressional study. The Government Accountability Office reported to a House subcommittee that Federal agencies are taking longer to answer requests for records, but that agencies reported providing responsive records in full for eighty-seven percent of the requests that were processed in 2005. The bad news is that the number of carried over from year to year has risen 43% since 2002; from 11% from 2003 to 2004, to 24% for 2004 to 2005. The GAO found the median time for processing varied greatly among agencies: from less than 10 days to more than 100 days. The GAO's director of information-management issues, Linda Koontz, said part of the disparity might be explained by the complexity of the requests.

By Humberto Fontova. In an article that was reprinted at NewsMax.com, he reported on the beating of an American journalist who had the termerity to ask an interview question of Presidente Fidel Castro. The Cuban president reportedly replied, "You're a mercenary paid by the Bush! Who pays you? You'll probably try to assassinate me with a bomb!", after which his bodyguard physically attacked the reporter, apparently putting him in a chokehold and threatening him. Nor did this incident occur during a Banana Republic Fiesta, but during a major international summit for the Common Market of the South: MERCOSUR. Moreover, Castro's visit was reported by:

• AP,
• Reuters,
• the BBC
• the Boston Globe
• the Washington Post, and,
• a Google News search returned 500 hits on stories of the event.

Yet there was no mention of this incident in any of the coverage. The reporter who provoked this attack is Cuban-born Juan Manuel Cao; he works for a Spanish-language TV station in Miami. Apparently he asked why Castro refused to allow Mrs. Helen Molina to leave Cuba so she could visit her son and grandchildren in Argentina. Dr. Molinas is a neurosurgeon and former head of Cuba's International Center for Neurological Restoration.

By U.S. District Judge Gray Miller. Judge Miller upheld the principle of Innocent Until Prove Guilty for questionable materials. The Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission had gotten into the habit of seizing adult materials it unilaterally deemed obscene without getting a determination under the Miller Test. On 24 Jul, Judge Miller ruled that the practice violated the constitutional protection of free speech, and also deemed unconstitutional the law TABC agents were enforcing in seizing the materials. Houston-based Carico Distributing Co., a vendor of adult materials, had sued in 2003 to stop TABC raids on convenience and liquor stores which distribute its adult magazines, videos, and CDs. Judge Miller ordered a permanent injunction to stop the seizures, writing in part: "The TABC may not simply designate materials 'obscene,' and then proceed from that untested premise. The law demands a judicial determination that this designation is accurate." He also said the state law forbidding the possession or display of "immoral, indecent, lewd, or profane" materials by merchants with TABC licenses or permits was unconstitutionally vague, writing: "It cuts a wide and broad swath across territory covered by the First Amendment."

[As I have written in commentaries on these pages: First you prove it's obscene to a jury, then possession or distribution of the material becomes actionable. --MN]

By the Oakland Police Department. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

By Reporters Without Borders. See the entry on the Josh Wolf Affair page.

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

By a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A court usually sympathetic to confidentiality claims reversed a lower court decision and dealt a further setback to news organizations battling encroachment by Bush administration law enforcement offices. This case arose from a Chicago grand jury’s investigation into who told Judith Miller and Philip Shenon, both of the New York Times, about actions the government was planning against two Islamic charities: Holy Land Foundation in Texas and Global Relief Foundation in Illinois. The government contended that the reporters tipped off the charities to impending raids and asset seizures by telepone, but the investigation appears to be focused on identifying their sources, who would have been government employees. The Grand Jury has not sought any testimony from the reporters, and there has been no indication that their actions are a subject of the investigation. Judge Ralph K. Winter Jr., joined by Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse, wrote for majority: "No grand jury can make an informed decision to pursue the investigation further, much less to indict or not indict, without the reporters' evidence. We see no danger to a free press in so holding. Learning of imminent law enforcement asset freezes/searches and informing targets of them is not an activity essential, or even common, to journalism."

Judge Robert D. Sack, in dissent, said the government had not shown that the phone records contained important information that could not be obtained elsewhere, and added a cautionary note: "Reporters might find themselves as a matter of practical necessity, contacting sources the way I understand drug dealers to reach theirs - by use of clandestine cellphones and meeting in darkened doorways. Ordinary use of the telephone could become a threat to journalist and source alike. It is difficult to see in whose best interests such a regime would operate."

The court did render some press freedom friendly rulings in the case; saying that the paper had been entitled to bring a civil suit in New York to challenge a grand jury subpoena in Chicago, and that whatever protections the reporters had against being called to testify about their sources also extended to their phone records.

[Just to clarify, I interpret this to mean that the grand jury cannot make the reporters turn over the records themselves, but can get them from the phone company. Further to this affair, George Freeman, vice president and assistant general counsel of The New York Times Company, commented: "The move against the charities was not a surprise. No one has ever alleged that any federal agent was hindered or hurt or didn’t succeed." Without more information, my tentative conclusion is that someone decided that the investigation into the charities violated their agency's mission of terrorism investigating and blew the whistle. As to whether or not they are indictable for revealing and perhaps jeopardizing an ongoing investigation, remains to be seen. There was no indication of either consequence in the source article for this entry. And, yes, this is the same Judith Miller who spent eighty-five days in jail over the Valerie Plame Affair. --MN]

By the City Council of Los Angeles. In an attempt to rein in rambunctious speakers the City Council passed "rules of decorum" barring people at council meetings from using profanity, from making offensive comments, or from expressing themselves too loudly. Violators are to be warned once, then rejected from hearings if they continue. It also cuts the time allocated to speakers from two minutes to one minute, and requires that comments be directed to the council as a whole rather than any single member. It was enacted after supporters of a community garden that was razed excoriated the city councilwoman whose district includes the property.

Councilman Eric Garcetti commented: "These council chambers are about as open a forum for democracy, outside of perhaps the Speaker's Corner in London, where anybody can say anything." Councilman Bernard Parks said: "Although it doesn't go as far as some of us would like, it goes as far as legally we can move forward. It gives us clear guidance as it relates to the prospects of public comment." And Michael Hunt, who often voices opposition to a "lottery system" to regulate buskers in Venice replied: "We try to work with you guys, but certain words in the dictionary should be used here."

By New York City cable news channel NY1; property of Time Warner. On this day a statement from the channel was published in Village Voice. The channel said it had "established criteria to identify which candidates would be invited to participate" in what are supposed to be debates meant to help voters make an informed choice. The corporatist venture unilaterally took it upon itself to ensure that only the richest candidates would get exposure in its broadcasts; candidates must poll at least 5 percent and have spent and/or raised five hundred thousand dollars.

• In a recent Marist poll Jonathan Tasini stood at 13 percent, but his campaign has only raised only one hundred fifty thousand dollars.

• Tom Suozzi, seeking the Democratic nomination for governor of New York, is less popular with voters, polling only 9 percent in a NY1.com poll on 24 Jul, but he was included in NY1's 25 Jul gubernatorial debate, having spent over $6 million on his campaign.

• The League of Women Voters, which for many years has served as the main sponsor of national and local debates, requires only that a candidate meet the legal standard for getting on the ballot: 15,000 signatures; Candidate Tasini received 40,000.

[NY1 seems to have taken it upon itself to decide that what the people want is not the one that the people support the most, but the one who can spend the most money on television advertizing. --MN]

[Addendum (25 Aug 2006:) Apparently this action is part of a movement to ensure that the voters elect a pre-selected candidate. See the entry on the Hillary Clinton censorship page. --MN]

[Addendum (24 Sep 2006:) On 23 Aug FAIR issued a follow up with NY1's response, in which the station defended its position.

FAIR appreciates Paulus' response--but it fails to challenge the main point FAIR made, that the station's rules for the debate are far too restrictive. Setting any sort of fundraising requirement for participation in a debate is anti-democratic, akin to a poll tax or a property qualification for voting.

It certainly seems to have escaped their attention that conforming to some rules of democracy does not obviate or validate the undemocratic actions in which one engages. --MN]

By Time Warner Cable. During the week previous to this one the cable company dropped the NFL Network from its channels; which network it had acquired from Adelphia Communications Inc. The NFL Network complained that Time Warner had violated rules requiring a thirty days notice before taking such an action. on 03 Aug The FCC's media bureau ordered Time Warner to reinstate the channel for thirty days. The company then asked the FCC to reconsider that decision, arguing, in part, that being forced to air programming it wishes to discontinue violates the company's First Amendment rights. FCC spokeswoman Rebecca Fisher said: "The commission's obligation is first and foremost to the consumer -- not to the private interests of Time Warner or NFLN -- and because of this we again find continued carriage to be in the public interest. We believe that on balance the granting of interim relief is warranted." Also, in addressing Time Warner's First Amendment argument, the FCC said the company's concerns did not reflect criticism of the ruling, but of the 30-day notice rule.

"Significantly, Time Warner makes no effort to argue that [the 30-day notice rule] is unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied to Time Warner's discontinuation of the NFL Network. Moreover, Time Warner, when it voluntarily acquired new systems from Adelphia and Comcast with Commission approval, was well aware that it would be expected to comply with the Commission's rules. If Time Warner believed that carrying the NFL Network or any other programming service for 30 days placed too onerous a burden on its First Amendment rights, then it should have sought a waiver of the Commission's rules or provided subscribers with 30-days notice so that it might drop the NFL Network as soon as it acquired the new systems.

[This contention falls flat to this editor given that media companies have traditionally claimed to be blameless for offensive content by way of being signal carriers only, and not being content providers in any way. Aside from which, there is the question of commecial v. political speech, and what contractual obligations Time Warner took upon itself by engaging in what could only have been strictly business. --MN]

Senior U.S. District Judge John P. Fullam. On this day he threw a case out of court on the grounds that it violated the free speech rights of John Kerry and his campaign staff from the 2004 presidential election. Filmmaker Carlton Sherwood had sued Kerry and Tony Podesta, an aide who ran his campaign in Pennsylvania. Sherwood had accused them of blocking the release of his documentary about Kerry's anti-Vietnam War activitism by labeling Sherwood a "disgraced journalist" and a "Bush hack." The Sinclair Broadcast Group had canceled plans to air the film Stolen Honor: Wounds That Never Heal on its stations.

Judge Fullam wrote in his ruling: "I do not believe any of these statements are actionable since they constitute expressions of opinion, and must be viewed in the context of a hard-fought political campaign. More importantly, I am not aware of any basis for holding a political candidate personally responsible for statements made in press releases issued by his party's national committee." Kerry spokesman David Wade said: "The courts will not be hijacked by Mr. Sherwood's personal agenda. John Kerry will continue to speak out about the best direction for our country and the real interests of Americas' men and women in uniform."

[Judge Fullam further said that the suit focused more on Kerry's anti-Viet Nam war activitism than on the alleged defamation, and noted the lawsuit's self-congratulatory tone in referring to Sherwood "at length, as an award-winning journalist of great integrity and renown." I can only surmise that this suit was part and parcel of the Republican smear machine. --MN]

By Jeff Cohen. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC). Attendees at the 2006 annual convention, held this year in San Francisco, passed a resolution condemning "anti-press policies" adopted by the Bush administration over the last few years. David Mindich, author of the resolution and professor of journalism and mass communication at Saint Michael's College, said of it: "This is the first statement against general anti-press policies in an administration in at least 30 years." The resolution reads:

"The relationship between the presidency and press has always been uneasy. This tension is both unavoidable and generally salutary: When each side conducts its duties with honesty and integrity, both hold the power of the other in check. It is difficult to find a period in American history in which this mutual opposition did not exist.

"However, it has come to pass that the current administration has engaged in a number of practices and has enacted a series of severe and extraordinary policies that attack the press specifically and by extension, democracy itself.

"A working democracy requires a free press that is muscular in its reporting. It requires a press that holds leaders accountable for their actions. It requires a press that contrasts leaders' words with their actions. It requires a press that uncovers errors and wrongdoing by employing named and unnamed sources. We believe the actions of the current administration compromise these press functions.

"The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and freedom of the press. However, American press history has been marked by periods in which press freedoms have retreated. The Alien and Sedition Acts of the 1790s represented one such period. Another was during the Civil War, in which journalists were jailed en masse because of dissent. The Espionage Act of 1917 paved the way for encroachments on press freedom (see Schenk v. United States). In each of these periods, politicians, judges, and scholars came to see, at least in hindsight, that anti-press policies in the name of national unity produced real harm to democracy itself. We believe that the Bush administration's anti-press policies and practices represent another major period."

By the government of India. While India is widely referred to as the world's largest democracy, its government succumbed to outside pressure and ordered a nationwide ban of Arab television channels. Shahid Raza Burney, of Arab News, has an excellent analysis of the international relations involved in this piece titled India Bans Arab TV Channels Under Pressure From Israel, datelined for this day from Bombay.

By Charles C. Haynes, First Amendment Center senior scholar. In a piece titled Demonizing Islam threatens religious freedom he looks at a recent spate of book burnings and mutilations which were effected as expressions of hatred. Albeit his analysis focuses primarily on the fraudulent and often nonsensical interplay of religious fanaticisms rather than on any contentions about free speech exercises that might arise.

By Bob Auger. In an article published on this day at AlterNet.org, in a piece titled, Blog Menace, Annalee Newitz reported on a presentation by Robert Auger at the infamous computer security conference Black Hat in Las Vegas. Mr. Auger is a security engineer with SPI Labs, and he revealed that the mere act of checking out an RSS feed could allow someone to steal money from your bank account, post Web spam from your computer, or snoop on everything you've written, even anonymously, in online communities you visit secretly. Ms. Newitz wrote, in part:

Generally, free expression advocates worry about how businesses and governments censor the confessional, unedited style of bloggers. And they're right to be concerned. People posting personal rants have gotten fired for writing mean things about their bosses and been sued for criticizing litigious maniacs. These bloggers are receiving traditional retributions for speaking openly: They say bad things about someone or some corporate entity, and that person or entity smacks them down.

But as Auger and other researchers demonstrated at Black Hat, we're about to see a new threat to free expression. Massive groups of people will be punished not for what they say online but for using particular tools to say it. Auger investigated several popular RSS readers -- programs used to pull blog content onto your computer -- including Bloglines, RSS Reader, Feed Demon, and Sharp Reader, and discovered that many of them could be turned into delivery systems for malicious code designed to force computers to, for example, post spam on other people's blogs.

Known generally as "cross-site scripting" and "cross-site request forgery," these attacks work by covertly moving data from one location to another.

By Governor George Pataki. The Governor in engaged in a two part action to make government more transparent and accessible to We the People. In the week previous to this one, Governor Pataki ratified a new law allowing state citizens to demand the most common government records via e-mail; which promises to make FOIL requests easier and less expensive. The types of records include: minutes of closed-door meetings, correspondence by officials about development projects and competitive bidding, and government use of taxpayers' money. Robert Freeman, executive director of the state Committee on Open Government commented: "Enabling the public to request records by means of e-mail and to require the government to respond by e-mail when they have the ability to do so will simply make the Freedom of Information Law much more usable to so many people."

A second measure was still on Governor Pataki's desk, as of this report. This one would allow courts to force local and state governments and school districts to pay attorney fees to a citizen, a group, a business, or a news organization that was denied access to information even if there isn't a broad public interest in the records. It would also allow a court to force the agencies to pay court costs if officials had no "reasonable basis for denying access" or failed to respond to a request within the time required by law. However, Peter Baynes of the New York Conference of Mayors and Municipal Officials, raised some interesting counterpoints.

"We're also concerned that under the new standards proposed in the bill, the court would be allowed to assess attorneys fees regardless of the merits of the contesting party's claim."

"A good potion of our membership are smaller municipalities where there is a village clerk who has to do all different aspects of government. A FOIL request can be burdensome when it's a voluminous request."

In reply to these concerns, Governor Pataki's spokesman Saleem Cheeks said the governor would try to balance a desire for more accountable and transparent government "without placing undue burden on the agencies."

[The system works! Because people are making an effort make it work instead of being obstructionist. --MN]

[Addendum (24 Aug 2006:) On 16 Aug Governor Pataki did ratify the measure, S7011. Rachel Leon of Common Cause-New York called passage of the bill, "a victory for the public", but local government groups criticized it, saying it didn't take into account the complexity and expense of fulfilling FOIL requests. --MN]

By David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment Center research attorney. In a piece titled Tinkering with Tinker standards?, he looks at Harper v. Poway Unified School District. Tyler Chase Harper wore shirts with dissenting opinions to protest his school's support of a National Day of Silence, which promotes tolerance of homo- and bisexual orientation. His shirts bore messages such as "BE ASHAMED, OUR SCHOOL EMBRACED WHAT GOD HAS CONDEMNED" and "HOMOSEXUALITY IS SHAMEFUL." He was punished for his action, and sued alleging viewpoint discrimination, and a federal district court denied his preliminary injunction, with a divided panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreeing with the lower court under Tinker v. Des Moines. One judge dissented, and to further complicate matters, a majority of the remainder of the bench has voted for the decision to undergo a review by the full court. Tinker v. Des Moines is generally a free speech friendly ruling.

By The New York Civil Liberties Union. The group has now accused the New York City police department of bullying photographers and filmmakers by detaining them and threatening them with arrest unless they destroyed the images they had taken or showed the images to the intervening officers. The claim was made this week in a rewrite of the lawsuit filed in January of this year. It was brought against the city on behalf of award-winning filmmaker Rakesh Sharma, from India, who was interfered with by a police officer while videotaping near a famous midtown Manhattan building. The suit alleges that the city has no policies, no procedures, and no training for investigating complaints about photographers. In court papers responding to the suit, the city has said it is entitled to immunity from liability because its employees acted reasonably and did not violate the Constitution.

Police have told the NYCLU that reports about photographers are the most common complaint called into their terrorism hot line.

[And this, as much as anything, shows why a civil surveillance program would be unworkable from start to finish. Don't like how somebody looks? -- Call the terrorist hotline and turn them in; all because they're ugly and their mother dresses them funny. --MN]

By the state Court of Appeals. Personal e-mails don't have to be disclosed under public-records law of Arizona even if they are kept on a taxpayer-supported computer, on the grounds that e-mails are often the equivalent of telephone calls, not printed paper documents. The three-judge panel said in its unanimous ruling in Griffis vs. Pinal County on 04 Aug:

"Because of their transitory nature, the content of telephone calls generally would not be considered a public record.

"In our view, it defies logic to believe the Legislature intended to require every state officer or employee, for purposes of disclosure on a public records request, to record the content of all of his or her personal telephone calls or to create and maintain documentation of all activities, whether business-related or strictly personal, in which he or she engages on the job.

"It would be just as illogical to infer any such intent with respect to electronic forms of communication that are purely personal in nature, even though e-mails are essentially self-documenting and easily retained.

Previous Arizona court rulings have found that the state public-records law generally requires disclosure of material documenting official activities, allowing exemptions for confidentiality, privacy, and the best interests of the state. This ruling appears to be in diametric opposition to the best interests of the state. Former Pinal County Manager Stan Griffis allegedly spent twenty-one thousand tax-payer dollars for sniper rifles, scopes, ammunition, and equipment that officials say he kept for personal use. This ruling comes in his appeal of a trial court ruling that one hundred twenty e-mails deemed personal should be released to Phoenix Newspapers Inc., which publishes The Arizona Republic. The court did rule, however, that one of those e-mails did contain material related to Griffis's county work and had to be released.

[The difference between an e-mail and phone call is the difference between a phone call that is recorded and one that is not. An e-mail is not transitory when it is archived and kept as a record of a communication. Moreover, they involve a person who seems to have engaged in wholesale misconduct. This ruling is partly based on others by the states of Florida and Colorado and I can easily see this movement going all the way to the U.S Supreme Court. --MN]

By the California State senate. That body sent AB2581 for ratification; if Governor Schwartzenegger does ratify it, it will make California the first state to prohibit college and university administrators from censoring student newspapers. He has not yet taken any position on the bill. Under this bill campus administrators will still be able to discipline students for publishing hate speech, and campus newspapers wil also be subject to libel and slander laws. California had passed a law in 1992 that protects high school students from censorship, except for material that is obscene, libelous or slanderous. This new law is necessary to protect college-student published newspapers from Hosty v. Carter.

By Pennsylvania. The 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals struck down a Pennsylvania law on "lewd" behavior at liquor establishments, agreeing with two exotic dancers that the law is too broad and infringes on free speech. A unanimous three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Pennsylvania Liquor Code statute punishes a wide range of protected speech such as legitimate performances in theaters or comedy clubs that sell liquor.

Matters are complicated by the action of Judge Julio M. Fuentes, who voted to uphold a New Jersey law on lewd behavior at liquor establishments, saying that one was not unconstitutionally vague. In this case, he wrote in the opinion, "As for what expression falls within the prohibition on 'lewd entertainment,' we, like the plaintiffs, find this to be a difficult question to answer." This prompted Daniel A. Silver, First Amendment lawyer Daniel A. Silver, who argued the case for the Atlantic City tavern Moulin Rouge, to comment, "I'm happy for the Pennsylvania decision, but I am a little confused about the distinction between the two cases. And I'm hopeful that the court will grant our motion for a rehearing." See the source article for more background.

By Associated Press. An article posted at First Amendment Center and datelined this day reported that the U.S. Federal Communications Commission had mailed letters to the owners of the seventy-seven television stations implicated in the misrepresentative broadcasting of video news releases. The letters were mailed on 15 Aug. Jonathan Adelstein, FCC Commissioner, said on the 15th that the letters ask station managers for information about agreements between the stations and the creators of the VNRs, and also asked whether there was any "consideration" given to the stations in return for airing the material. The probe was launched in light of a study of newsroom use of such materials entitled Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed.
(see 06 Apr 2006)

By David Corn. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

By the satrap of Iraq. In what can only be regarded as a clear and present violation of free press principles, in a country which is putatively under American guidance toward democracy, two journalists began to be tried under article 226 of the Iraqi criminal code for having published at least two articles critical of government, in early 2005. One of the articles criticised the judicial system and the other was about alleged police corruption. They were arrested in Apr 2005 on the orders of the mayor of Kawit, and have already served six-month prison terms laid down against them by an Al-Kut court. Ayad al-Tamimi editor of Al-Wasit, and reporter Ahmed Mutare Abass, face the possibility of long prison terms on charges of libelling police, judicial, and municipal authorities.

By the library system of San Luis Obispo, California. HopeDance magazine calls itself a progressive or green magazine, has been publishing 10 years, and routinely goes to libraries’ shelves with other free publications. Each edition is dedicated to a theme and features a number of articles and viewpoints pertinent to that theme. The August 2006 edition is dedicated to human sexuality, and on 13 Jul, county library Director Brian Reynolds wrote to the fifteen libraries in his purlieu and asked them to remove it from the shelves and, reportedly, to recycle it. This letter stems from his being "not comfortable having this particular issue" on the free shelves, although Deborah Graf, acting assistant library director, said the issue went against the library’s desire to be family-oriented, and that some parents had complained. She did not know how many libraries simply removed the issue from view and how many destroyed it.

Bob Banner, the publisher, would like to know how many issues were destroyed, because he said he will sue the county for removing the magazine. He said it costs money to print and distribute, and when copies are destroyed not only does he lose money but advertisers suffer as well. Mr. Banner HopeDance’s underlying theme is sustaining the planet, and that its audience might be people who are upset with what is happening in the world, or looking for something other than what is available in the main stream media. He commented about the Aug issue that it is: "packed with articles that are fresh, disturbing, funny, probing at the unusual, and alive with what it means to have a body embedded with desire and spiritual yearning dancing together in its beautiful chorus called humanity."

By The Libertarian Party of Kansas. This group filed a suit on this day against Shawnee County, Kansas, over the use of sheriff's deputies to shut down a political fundraiser; one being held at a nudist camp. The suit alleges that the county violated the group's free-speech rights, including the right to support the much put-upon owners of the Lake Edun camp. The documents read in part: "The LPKS selected the specific site in question in order to make a political statement regarding the free use of property. The purpose of the gathering was to engage in political speech regarding the free use of property and the ideals of the LPKS. A secondary purpose of the gathering was to raise funds for the LPKS' political activities." The county contended that the fundraiser was prohibited under a district court decision from 2005 that bars recreational and commercial activities at Lake Edun without permission from the county. That ruling stemmed from a lawsuit in which the county successfully argued that Lake Edun's owners were conducting commercial activity on land zoned for agricultural use. Rich Eckert, Shawnee County counselor, said the Libertarians had planned to rent the facility and knew days before the fundraiser that District Judge Terry Bullock would not ease his restrictions on use of the site.

The fundraiser was moved to another site after deputies in patrol cars blocked access to the camp, and attendance reportedly suffered as a result. Rob Hodgkinson, the state party chairman and a candidate for secretary of state, said of the tactic: "It killed us. When 13 deputies are there with guns on, people are intimidated. They accomplished what they intended to do. They kept us from making money." Mr. Hodgkinson also pointed out that the party was neither recreational nor commercial.

By Barren County Circuit Judge Phil Patton. Judge Patton struck down an attempt to obtain a reporter's notes about a theft investigation. He ruled that the subpoena for the notes and interview tapes violated both the First Amendment and a Kentucky shield law regarding reporters' privilege. Commonwealth's Attorney Karen Davis had subpoenaed Daily Times editor Todd Garvin and Tara Hettinger, for the materials gathered during an interview Ms. Hettinger conducted with David Bell; who is charged with 30 counts of theft.

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

By Alta Schreier. On this day the Miami-Dade School Board voted five to two to appeal the ruling that requires it to keep Vamos a Cuba and the other titles in its series in school libraries. The appeal will likely be heard late this fall. Voting in favour of this action was Frank Bolaños, who joined Agustín Barrera, Perla Tabares Hantman, Ana Rivas Logan and Marta Pérez. Arguments pro and con were:

• Mr. Bolaños framed the appeal in terms typical of right-wing fear-mongering: "Do we have a right to protect our children? I think we have the right and responsibility to do that."

• Juan Amador Rodriguez, the former Cuban political prisoner who filed the original complaint: "We cannot allow a judge to decide what our children are going to read."

• Richard Ovelmen, the district's outside attorney: "at least a 50-50 chance on appeal."

• Virginia Rosen, president of the Greater Miami ACLU: "They over and over stated that the reason they were doing it is because of a particular political ideology. That political ideology reflects only some of their constituents."

• JulieAnn Rico, board attorney: "What we are trying to do would be to change the theory of the law that's going to be applied in this case. This is not going to be an easy case to win and it's not going to be an inexpensive case, win or lose."

[Ms. Rico certainly need not worry about the expense, however, even though the case has already cost more than $123,000 (U.S., of course) on outside attorneys, Ms. Rico has already budgeted another $127,000 for the appeal. After all, it's not her money; it belongs to the tax-payers, and to the right-wing the tax-payers are a bottomless well of funding. As long as the funds are not being disbursed for art works they find offensive. --MN]
(see 18 Apr 2006; 14 Jun 2006; 27 Jun 2006; 19 Feb 2007; 02 Mar 2007)

By the People's Republic of China. Zhuang Daohe has received no pay for seven months and has been suspended from his editorial job at the Zhejiang University publishing house for writing a book about the way the Communist Party of China disciplines its members. An article posted on this day at the Boxun website said his employers had told him on 19 Jun, in a letter, that he was being suspended for serious misconduct because he did not respect publication procedures; reached by Radio Free Asia, the University said the suspension would last at least a year. Officially, he was censored for:

• failing to heed directives from his superiors (who found the content of his book to be inappropriate);
• allegedly imitating his superior’s signature in order to get the book approved;
• violating the "Regulations on the Protection of Secrets in the Publication of Information"; a State Secrecy Bureau law controlling publications that tackle politically sensitive subjects.

Mr. Zhuang insists that all the requirements as regarding correction, editing, and approval were adhered to before his book was published.

[Hold on a nano-jiffy there. They approved publication of his book and then punished him for violating secrets in the book and not following proper publication procedures? How's that again? --MN]

By the United States. Al Manar, launched in 1991, features news programming that promotes Hezbollah's positions and shows statements from the terror group and speeches from its leader. Javed Iqbal, a Staten Island businessman, origianlly of Pakistan but a permanent resident in the U.S., was charged under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, ostentibly for having provided customers in the New York area with satellite broadcasts of a television station operated by the terrorist group Hezbollah. He could also be further charged with providing material support for terrorism. This further charge, however, appears to be contingent on his having sold access to the broadcasts and then having passed on the money to Hezbollah. There was no indication in the source article, that he did either.

On 24 Aug, New York Civil Liberties Union executive director Donna Lieberman issued a statement saying:

"It appears that the statute under which Mr. Iqbal is being prosecuted includes a first amendment exemption that prevents the government from punishing people for importing news communications."

"Such an exemption is constitutionally necessary, and the fact that the government is proceeding with the prosecution in spite of it raises serious questions about how free our marketplace of ideas is."

Against the government claims and the terrorist nature of the newcast owners are balanced Freedom of Information and the right of people to access a news outlet without government interference. See the source article for more background; also see a further, although superficial, examination of this affair also at First Amendment Center.

By Alex Sanchez. This book was summarily removed from the Webster Central School District Summer Reading List for high school students due to the homosexual theme of the work. Webster's assistant superintendent for curriculum and instruction, Ellen Agostinelli, said she got phone calls complaining about the book, though she would not say how many. The gay theme is not one of Ms. Agostinelli concerns apparently, but she declined to say what is, replying when asked: "I'm not going to get into this."

The entire list of two hundred titles will now be reviewed, and the timeframe and criteria for that review had not been determined as of this date. While Rainbow Boys was not removed from the district's libraries. Ove Overmyer, a library assistant at the Rochester Public Library, is concerned that purging it from the list is a precursor to having it taken from the shelves; she commented: "It starts with book challenges and then they'll ask to have the book removed. We've seen this process before all over the country, especially when it deals with gay-oriented literature. It's censorship plain and simple, and there's no place for it in the school district or in the public library system."

[I cannot concur; while a successful challenge emboldens the challenger, the assumption that allowing the purge will be followed up by a demand for a banning is a slippery slope argument. Do keep in mind, however, that the slippery slope is a very real force in the physical world; just witness the Vamos A Cuba fiasco. Her contention "We've seen this process before all over the country", I tend to chalk up to hyperbole. I haven't seen that many slippery slope movements myself. --MN]

By the Diocese of Duluth. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Jeff Cohen. See the entry on the Hillary Clinton censorship page.

By Garrison Keillor. In a piece titled Hear the Voices of 9/11, and reprinted at CommonDreams.org, Mr. Keillor called to task, for the silencing of the voices of the dead victims of the WTC attacks, the New York City 9-1-1 emergency services, the corporate press, and Do-Nothing elected officials. He wrote in part:

They were people like us; we might have sat near them in a theater or restaurant, asked them for directions on the street. They went to work that fine Tuesday morning and suddenly found themselves facing the abyss, and the first thing we thought, seeing the burning buildings on TV, was, "What is it like for the people in there?" We wanted to know.

Then, inevitably, politicians began to seize the day and turn it into a patriotic tableau starring Themselves. Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, who does not appear in a leadership capacity in the reliable accounts of that morning - who was captured on videotape fleeing uptown - soon stepped into the TV lights and put on his public face, and a few days later the Current Occupant mounted the wreckage with bullhorn in hand and vowed vengeance. The media were glad to focus on the martial moment, the flag waving over the wreckage, the theme of America United, and the anguished voices from the towers were unheard; the people who fell from high floors and smashed into the pavement were not seen on American TV. The media averted their eyes from the reality of Sept. 11 and started looking for the Message.

By Katha Pollitt. In a piece titled The Trouble with Bush's 'Islamofascism', reprinted at Alternet.org, Ms. Pollit illustrates the imprecision of this standard phrase used by President Bush in describing the "enemy of the state" du jour. Ms. Pollitt wrote in part:

The term has been around for a while -- Nexis takes it back to 1990, when the writer and historian Malise Ruthven used "Islamo-fascism" in the London Independent to describe the authoritarian governments of the Muslim world; after 9/11 it was picked up by neocons and prowar pundits, including Stephen Schwartz in the Spectator and Christopher Hitchens in this magazine, to describe a broad swath of Muslim bad guys from Osama to the mullahs of Iran.

But the term moved into the mainstream this August when Bush referred to the recently thwarted Britain-based suicide attack plot on airplanes as "a stark reminder that this nation is at war with Islamic fascists." [...]

What's wrong with "Islamo-fascism"? For starters, it's a terrible historical analogy. Italian Fascism, German Nazism and other European fascist movements of the 1920s and '30s were nationalist and secular, closely allied with international capital and aimed at creating powerful, up-to-date, all-encompassing states.

[I had noticed some weeks ago that I was using that phrase even though I was refering to christian ultra-conservativism as "christo-fanaticism" instead of "christo-fascism"; and it's been bothering me. So, from this point on I will use the term Islamo-fanaticism to differentiate between the two when it is necessary to do so. --MN]

[Addendum (10 Oct 2006:) Over the weeks since the above criticism was published, a few others have been published as well:

• Reclaiming The Issues: Islamic Or Republican Fascism?, by Thom Hartmann;

• Bush Wheels Out Lenin and Hitler , by Matthew Rothschild;

• Liberals Use 'Nazi' and 'Munich' Analogies, Too, by Ira Chernus;

• "Fascism" Frame Set Up by Right-Wing Press, by Jim Lobe;

• Bush Uses the Word Fascism to Mislead , by John Cox.

One of those is a media criticism of how the corporate press is uncritically following suit, and another is a look at how Liberal criticisms of the frame constitutes a double-standard morality. --MN]

By Israel. Israeli aircraft fired two missiles at an armored car belonging to the Reuters news agency; the attack wounded five people: two cameramen and three bystanders; all civilians. The airstrike came as Israeli soldiers backed by two dozen tanks, two bulldozers, helicopters and drone planes moved into an area just inside the Gaza Strip near the Karni crossing. According to Shamas Odeh, chief of Reuters TV in Gaza, Reuters cameraman Fadel Shama'a and Sabah Hamida, who worked for a local television company, had the doors open and were about to get out of the vehicle in a nearby neighborhood to film the raid when it was struck by the missiles. The white sport utility vehicle was emblazoned with the Reuters logo and had "TV" and "Press" written on it in English, Arabic and Hebrew.

By Victoria State Supreme Court justice Elizabeth Hollingworth. Judge Hollingworth rejected the appeal by Michael Harvey and Gerard McManus of the Melbourne-based Herald Sun. A lower court had ordered them to name their source for a story about a federal government plan to cut benefits to war veterans. The sole reason for the demand was that that it is necessary to ensure the confidentiality of government discussions. In democratic countries, this would ordinarily be known as Secret Government.

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

By the U.S. Federal Communications Commission. FCC lawyer lawyer Eric D. Miller filed papers allowing as to how the FCC had rushed to judgment in concluding that "NYPD Blue" and three other programs had violated indecency broadcast regulations. He asked an appeals court to delay hearing a challenge to those findings for two months so the FCC board could hear the opinions of the owners of the programs and reconsider its rulings. The Commission said in the court papers that it had skipped its usual process of soliciting responses from the broadcasters because it believed the orders responded to requests for guidance on what violated new indecency and profanity rules. The FCC said it acted faster than usual and did not propose fines for any of the programs, concluding only that the programs "apparently" violated the prohibitions on indecency and profanity. Lawyers for several broadcasters told the 2nd Court of Appeals that they will want to challenge the rules on the grounds they infringe upon the First Amendment and leaves them exposed to hefty fines for accidentally broadcasting isolated and fleeting vulgarities.

By Jeff Cohen. In a piece titled Media Beast vs. Public Interest, Mr. Cohen examines the stark dicotomy between the indepth analysis accorded to the John Karr case, and how it compares to the lack of analysis in the pre-Iraq invasion phase of homeland security hysteria. It is not a pretty picture. Mr. Cohen wrote in part:

To extend Karr's allotted 15 minutes of fame into a 10-day ordeal, TV news ignored important stories of war, environmental degradation, corruption, citizen activism. Instead, TV viewers were offered hundreds of hours of single-minded examination and debate on one burning question: Did Karr do it? The inquiry was relentless and aired all sides.

If only we'd had such in-depth, full-spectrum debate when the Bush team was dragging our country into war based on pretense.

I worked in cable news just prior to the Iraq war. As I describe in my book Cable News Confidential: My Misadventures in Corporate Media, journalists at MSNBC got into trouble with management for questioning Team Bush too strongly, for insisting on genuine debate.

He sums up his view of the situation thusly: "TV news is trying desperately to hold on to its audience of passive consumers, those who know everything about John Mark Karr's dinner of pate and chardonnay, and next to nothing about the court ruling that Bush's warrantless wiretapping is unconstitutional."

By the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In May 2004, Zachary Guiles, then a 13-year-old seventh-grader at Williamstown Middle High School in Williamstown, Vt., wore a shirt depicting George W. Bush as a chicken and accusing him of being a former alcohol and cocaine abuser. he had bought the shirt at an anti-war rally and had worn it to classes once a week for two months. When a fellow student complained about it, he was told the shirt was political speech and protected under the First Amendement. That student's mother then complained to a student support specialist, who decided the images of drugs and alcohol violated the school's dress code. That official ordered Guiles to turn the shirt inside out, tape over the shirt's images of drugs and alcohol or change into another shirt, he returned to school another day with duct tape covering the offending images and "Censored" scrawled on the tape, and was given a one day suspension even though he had complied with the dictates of the censor. According to the source article for this entry:

The front of the shirt had Bush's name and the words "Chicken-Hawk-In-Chief" beneath it. Below the words was a large picture of the president's head, wearing a helmet, superimposed on the body of a chicken.

To one side of the president on the T-shirt, three lines of cocaine, a razor blade and a straw appear. Elsewhere on the shirt, the president is shown holding a martini glass with an olive in it.

Guiles, sued the school officials in U.S. District Court, and a judge found that his First Amendment rights were violated but that the school could censor some of the images. On 30 Aug, a unanimous three-judge panel ruled that the school had no right to censor any part of the shirt, saying in their opinion: "The pictures are an important part of the political message Guiles wished to convey, accentuating the anti-drug (and anti-Bush) message. By covering them defendants diluted Guiles's message, blunting its force and impact."

By Josh Wolf. See the entry on the Josh Wolf Affair page.

By Matthew Perrone. On this day he reported that U.S. command in Baghdad was seeking bidders for a twenty million dollar, two-year long, public relations contract to monitoring the tone of news stories about Iraq that will be filed by U.S. and international media. The propoasls, which are due on 06 Sep, ask contenders to show how they will: "provide continuous monitoring and near-real time reporting of Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international, and U.S. media". Contractors will also be evaluated as to how they will provide analytical reports and customized briefings to the command, "including, but not limited to tone (positive, neutral, negative) and scope of media coverage."

[An interesting situation. In 1956 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a free press has a First Amendment right to lie like dogs. How much would a government program operated by a branch of the federal government be covered under that ruling so that it would be allowed to counter objective reporting that allows the consumer to make up his own mind. Especially in light of the fact that the U.S. government is forbidden by American law to propagandize to Americans. And keep in mind that the U.S. Supreme Court interprets "Congress shall make no law" to mean any person, whether elected, appointed, or employed, at any level of government. Saying that the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights does not apply because the branch and its operations are outside the boundaries of the U.S. should not be valid argument. --MN]

By the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Reporters Without Borders. The organization spoke out against the increasing judicial harassment of Iranian journalists over the past few weeks. This harrassment consists of prison sentences and summonses for interrogation.

• 19 Aug: Saghi Baghernia, the editor of the business daily Asia, was sentenced to six months in prison by the Tehran supreme court for "propaganda against the regime" This charge stems from having published a photograph of Maryam Rajavi, leader of the opposition People's Mujahideen, in the 05 Jul 2003 issue. Ms. Baghernia is liable to be imprisoned at any moment. In Jul 2003, her husband, the editor of the daily Iraj Jamshidi, was arrested and sentenced to a year in prison on the same charge.

• 28 Aug: Issa Sahakhiz, the editor of the newspapers Aftab and Akhbar Egtesadi, was sentenced to four years in prison and further banned from working as a journalist for five years.

• 28 Aug: Emadoldin Baghi, editor of the banned daily Jumhuriyat, was summoned by the Tehran revolutionary prosecutor's office and questioned without his lawyer being present.

By the Supreme Court of Australia. Michael McKinnon, the freedom of information editor with The Australian daily newspaper, requested information about tax policies some time ago, under the 2002 Freedom of Information Act. On this day, the Australian Supreme Court ruled that the treasury department was right to not provide the information about income taxes that the citizens of the land are required to obey when paying their taxes. On 08 Sep, Reporters Without Borders called on the Australian government and parliament to amend the laws on access to information in order to better protect press freedom. The Australian Press Council said the decision would create a "fresh impetus to suppress information that is embarrassing or politically inconvenient." The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance said the current law "provided several barriers for journalists seeking access to non-personal information."

[I can only assume that the paying of taxes must be done in total ignorance of the policies governing those payments; the better to entrap you with or to rip you off, my dear. --MN]

By University of New Hampshire. The trustees at this school concluded that Professor William Woodward presents his conspiracy theorist views on the WTC attack responsibly, and they are not grounds for any action. Andy Lietz, chairman of the university system trustees, sent a letter dated this day to the the American Council of Trustees and Alumni; this organization, which criticizise colleges and universities it believes abuse the responsibility that it says goes along with academic freedom, had called for an investigation.
(see 10 Jul 2006)

By the government of Iraq. The satrapi ordered the Dubai-based satellite TV news station Al-Arabiya to close down its operations in Baghdad for one month. Police were sent to enforce the closure without any clear explanation being given at first. The government finally issued a statement accusing Al-Arabiya of inciting "sectarianism" and "violence", and added that the station had been warned in July to rectify its coverage but had continued on the same course. The Baghdad bureau of the Qatar-based TV station Al-Jazeera has already been closed -- on orders from the Iraqi government -- since August 2005.

[Read: The news outlet had not bowed to the supressive demands of the nascent regime. I'd comment, again, about how this flies in the face of the idea that Iraq is supposed to be undergoing a process of democratization, but cynic that I am, I'm more inclined to comment about how this is perfectly in keeping with the democratic ideals of the neo-fascist Bush regime. Also, it appears very much given the report, as if someone decided arbitrarily to shut down the station and then had to come up with an excuse post facto. --MN]

By the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On 17 Sep this court issued a temporary injunction against enforcement of FCC indeceny guidelines issued in 2004 as a result of the Golden Globes broadcast in which profanity was uttered by Bono of U2. The court also granted a request by the FCC for an additional two months to review the its determination that NYPD Blue and the three other programs violated rules governing the broadcast of indecent and profane material. Broadcasters see the action as a positive step toward reducing threats to free speech that are posed by an FCC crackdown that began in earnest after the Janet Jackson Tit Affair

By FAIR. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By the government of Iran. On this day the Commission for Authorising and Monitoring the Press, an offshoot of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, ordered the closings of the reformist daily Shargh and the monthlies Nameh and Hafez. According to the source article at Reporters Without Borders:

• The commission claimed it had sent seventy warnings to Sharg calling for the replacement of Mehdi Rahmanian, its managing editor. In an interview for the German public radio station Deutsche Welle, Mr. Rahmanian denied ever receiving the warnings.

  The closure was also reportedly prompted by a cartoon of horse and a donkey on a chessboard. The donkey was outlined in white, so was interpreted as being an allusion to a comment by President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in which he said he had felt himself surrounded by light while addressing the UN general assembly in 2005. The authorities saw the cartoon as an unacceptable comment about Iran's debate about its nuclear programme with the western countries.

  Shargh has been harassed ever since it was launched in 2002, has been under threat from the courts twice, and was temporarily closed down in 2003.

• Nameh, a monthly magazine sympathetic to the liberal opposition, was one of the few remaining publications to maintain its independence. It had an open, critical style and ran articles by journalists and intellectuals who were banned elsewhere, which has always disturbed the government. Managing editor Kivan Samimi Behbani was interrogated in Sep 2004 and Mar 2005.

• The commission gave no reason for closing Hafez, which takes its name from a leading Iranian poet.

By the government of Iraq. Khalchan Al Bayati, a contributor to the Arabic-language daily Al Hayat and critic of the US occupation, was arrested at her home in Tikrit by Iraqi security forces and was taken to an unknown location. On 12 Sep, Reporters Without Borders commented: "We are very worried by Bayati's arrest, especially as we have no information about the reason or where she is being held. Iraqi journalists have to work in extremely difficult conditions. More than 100 have been killed in the past three years. It is shocking to see them also being targeted by the security forces, who are supposed to protect them. We call on interior minister Jawad Al Bolany to intervene and get her released immediately."

An Iraqi official who asked not to identified confirmed to Reporters Without Borders that she had been detained, but he did not know where she had been taken to and did not specify the reason for the arrest. A number of journalists in Iraq have reported that the security forces have recently become much more aggressive towards the media.

By Governor Arnold Schwartzenegger. He ratified legislation, by Assembly Minority Leader George Plescia, (R-La Jolla), during this week that makes it an infraction punishable by a fine of up to $250 to take more than twenty-fve copies of a free newspaper to sell or barter the papers, recycle them for cash or another type of compensation, hurt a competitor, or to prevent others from reading the issue. A subsequent offense could be prosecuted as a misdemeanor, with fines of up to $500, sentencing of up to 10 days in the county jail, or both. The measure stems from incidents such as:

• entire press run of the Chula Vista Star was taken from news racks on three different occasions and sold to recyclers in Mexico.

• thousands of copies of the Epoch Times began disappearing in the San Gabriel Valley after the Chinese language paper began publishing articles on human rights violations and other issues in China.

• Berkeley Mayor Tom Bates was fined $100 for trashing hundreds of copies of the Daily Californian after the University of California at Berkeley student newspaper endorsed his opponent.

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

By prison officials for the State of Turmenistan. On 16 Jun, Ogulsapar Muradova, a journalist, was arrested. The source article for this entry did not specify what charges brought againt her, but did say that she and two co-defendants were tried in secret in just two hours, on 25 Aug. Those co-defendants, Annakurban Amanklychev, a fixer for the French television production company Galaxie-Presse, and Sapardurdy Khajiyev, a human rights activist, were sentened to six and seven years respectively. Sources had reported to Reporters Without Borders, previous to this, that Ms. Muradova was mistreated following her arrest and while she was awaiting trial. The watchdog group reported that on this day Ms. Murdova's adult children were brought to the morgue by the police, where they were informed of her death and shown the body. The watchdog group reported that there was a head wound and many marks on the rest of the body. RSF commented: "It is essential that the international community, especially the European countries, the United States and Russia, should demand to know what happened. Impunity and indifference are the worst form to treatment for journalists who fall victim to the enemies of press freedom and for their relatives."
(See 01 Mar 2004; the Zhara Kazemi Murder Timeline; and Buried Alive: Women Under The Taliban, by Jan Goodwin.)

By Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Kings Mall, Ulster, New York State. Jay Wenk and Joan Keefe, members of Veterans For Peace, had taken to porotesting the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq in front of the military recruitment center at this mall, on U.S. Route 9W. Both were arrested on 04 Feb, and Wenk was arrested a second time on 11 Feb, on charges of harassment. In late May, trespassing charges against them and other defendants were dismissed. Kings Mall has subsequently filed a civil suit against the Veterans For Peace protesters,who read the names of dead soldiers and distributed anti-war literature in the mall. They also had signs and photographs, which caused mall tenants to complain that the display was driving away customers. The two were served papers on this day. The suit also was addressed to "John and Jane Doe", unnamed defendants who the plaintiff hopes to assign to other protesters. Commmets about the actions from both sides of the fence are:

• Tracy Naud; mall property manager: "We're doing this on behalf of the tenants because they're the ones complaining. It's hurting their business by putting pictures of dead people in the hallway."

• Jon A. Simonson; attorney for the plaintiff: "We understand people may have a political point of view, but at the same time, these businesses have the right to engage in their business and attract customers."

• Stephen Bergstein; attorney assigned to unnamed defendants: "I don't know how serious the mall is about collecting money; I think they want to get these people out of there. We believe the First Amendment has to factor into the way this case is resolved."

• Jay Wenk; World War II veteran: "The D.A. refused to prosecute us on criminal charges, and so the mall filed a suit using big business."

The case is to be negotiated at a conference scheduled for 26 Sep; it will also be assigned a judge. Mr. Simonson commented on this aspect: "My feeling is let the conference take place and hopefully resolve this amicably. It'll be discussed and we'll see if a resolution can be had right from the beginning."

By the U.S. military. The occupation forces in Iraq have been holding photojournalist Bilal Hussein for five months without proferring charges against him. Mr. Hussein is an Iraqi civilian who began doing photojournalist work for Associated Press in 2004. He photographed events in Fallujah and Ramadi until he was detained on 12 Apr 2006. Officials said he was being held for "imperative reasons of security" under United Nations resolutions. AP said that a review of Hussein's work did not find anything to indicate inappropriate contact with insurgents, and that any evidence against him should be brought before the Iraqi courts. Tom Curley, AP's president and chief executive officer, commented about this state of affairs: "We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable. We've come to the conclusion that this is unacceptable under Iraqi law, or Geneva Conventions, or any military procedure." Mr. Hussein is one of an estimated 14,000 detainees held by the U.S. military worldwide; 13,000 of which are in Iraq. They are held in limbo: few are ever charged with a specific crime, nor are they given a chance to argue their case before any court or tribunal.

[See:

• the source article for more background;
• this history of Habeas Corpus in international law and American jurisprudence;
• this analysis of the Bush administration violations of the principle.

This action, in my not so humble opinion, constitutes a violation of the provisions guaranteeing free press rights, the right to not be subject to arbitrary arrest and seizure, and the right to a speedy trial, which are enshrined in the U.S. Bill of Rights. And all American servicemen and federal officials swear an oath to defend and uphold the constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Which raises the question: Who will defend it from them? --MN]

By Cuba. Ahmed Rodriguez Albacia is a member of the independent news agency Jóvenes sin Censura. He was arrested in Havana on 15 Sept by state security agents; reportedly there were no grounds whatever for the arrest. Mr. Rodriguez was arrested when he went to a police station located in central Havana, where he lives, of his own volition. The arrest was made by two officials from the Directorate for State Security (the political police) who had followed him. His mother said the head of the police refused to give her any explanation or let her see him, saying only that he was being questioned and would be home in a few days. Mr. Rodriques was released on this day.

This arbitrary detention without cause seems to be the latest action against Jóvenes sin Censura, founded in Sep 2005, as part of a program of constant harrassment. On the morning of 14 Sep, Rodriguez had reported to the Cuban Human Rights Federation (FCDH) that members of the Committees for the Defence of the Revolution and the state security’s Rapid Response Brigades had surrounded his house and had threatened to "smash the heads" of him and his mother. He also said that he and his family were the target of a similar operation organised by state security, the CDR, the Federation of Cuban Women and the Communist Party of Cuba on 04 Aug, when a crowd of about sixty blocked the entrance to their home and threatened that "counter-revolutionary" meetings would no longer be tolerated there.

Rodriguez reportedly enraged that crowd by shouting to them: "Long live human rights!"

By the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. See the entry on the Josh Wolf Affair page.

By Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By the People's Republic of China. On this day Reporters Without Borders called for the release of three cyber-dissidents who have been arrested over the past two weeks. The source article for this entry reports the following actions:

• Zhang Jianhong: a writer and poet under the pseudonym Li Hong, he was arrested on 06 Sept and charged with "incitement to subvert the state's authority." A member of the Chinese branch of the independent writers association PEN, he previously spent eighteen months in a reeducation-through-work camp for "counter-revolutionary propaganda", due to involvement in the 1989 pro-democracy movement. He is the founder of the literary website Aiqinhai.org, established in Aug 2005, and was its editor until the government shut it down in March 2006. He also regularly wrote for sites such as Boxun and The Epoch Times.

• Yang Maodong: a writer and civil rights activist, he is better known by the name Guo Feixiong; he was arrested at his home on 14 Sep, and has been charged with "illegal business" for allegedly publishing and selling 20,000 books in an improper manner by setting up an fake publishing house and using an ISBN without permission.

• Chen Shuqing: a charter member of the banned China Democracy Party (CDP), he was arrested on 14 Sep. and subsequently charged with "incitement to subvert the state's authority." He was detained for four months in 1999 for helping to create the CDP, and after his release he studied for a law degree, and successfully passed the examination to become a lawyer in 2005, but the Zhejiang Bureau of Justice refused him a lawyer's licence on the grounds that he had posted articles on the Internet that violated the constitution.

• The website of the magazine Baixing (The People) was shut down on 06 Sep after posting reports and comments by readers about a resident of Jiangyi village who, on 13 Aug, was beaten to death by thugs hired by local officials. He had objected to his home being demolished for urban planning. Huang Liantian, The website's editor, told Reuters that the provincial authorities: "demanded we remove anything about the demolition, otherwise the website would be closed." They refused to so, and following the closure, the magazine's online edition was relaunched on 12 Sep, without any changes to its content, at a new address in another province.

• Tang Yan and Liu Xianghui, two editors on the Netease site, were demoted after posting a poll on 4 Sep; it asked readers: "If you were reincarnated, would you like to be Chinese?" The action was likely taken because:
  • 64 per cent said they would not
  • 37.5 per cent said "the dignity of Chinese people is not sufficiently respected";
  • 17.6 per cent said "it is impossible for a Chinese citizen to own his home."

• The website of Zou Tao, a 32-year-old web journaler, was closed on 11 Sept as a result of the popularity of his Internet campaign to convince people not to buy apartments for three years in order to cool down an overheated real estate market. His campaign, which was launched in Apr, had won the support of tens of thousands of Internet users and was being felt throughout China, and closure of his site was probably precipitated by his announcement in Aug that he was going to run as a candidate for Luoho district representative in the People's Congress of Shenzen. Candidates are normally nominated by Communist Party local committees, so his candidature would have been seen as a threat by the authorities.

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

By the U.S. Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Federal prosecutors. Reporters Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, both of the San Francisco Chronicle, were ordered jailed on 20 Sep, pending an appeal, for refusing to testify about who leaked them secret grand jury testimony from Barry Bonds, Jason Giambi and others. They had published a series of articles, and the book Game of Shadows, based partly on leaked transcripts of testimony before the grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative. Prosecutors asked U.S. District Judge Jeffrey White to imprison them for 18 months, the usual length of a grand jury term, or until they agree to testify before the grand jury investigating the leaks. Both sides agreed to stay the ruling pending an appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. This editor does not hold much hope that that court will rule in favour of these reporters, however, in light of its recent ruling against Mr. Wolf. (Although this case could be heard by different judges who might contradict the Wolf ruling.) See the source article for more background.

By Gannett, the largest newspaper publisher in the United States. An article originally published at CampusProgress.org and reprinted at Alternet.org reported that on 01 Aug, The Tallahassee Democrat, of the Gannett newspaper chain, purchased the FSView & Florida Flambeau, the Florida State University's independently owned (by two alums), for-profit, biweekly. Apprently this is the second time a major publisher has purchased a campus newspaper. Ryan Werder, of Campus Progress, reported:

Though there may be natural concern on the part of students about a corporate incursion into traditionally student-run media, all parties involved in the transaction -- Gannett Corporate, The Tallahassee Democrat (itself acquired by Gannett less than a year ago), and the FSView -- say that there will be no change in editorial content or daily operations. [...]

[...] Though the paper is still "for students," the purse strings are no longer held by hands connected to FSU. Now, like it does for all its other more than 90 dailies and more than 1,000 other publications, Gannett is overseeing the budget from its corporate headquarters in McLean, Va. Asked if the operational budget of the FSView & Florida Flambeau would be changing at all, the spokeswoman for Gannett, Tara Connell, said that it is premature to talk about numbers so soon after the purchase.

But before student newspapers across the country start scrambling to prepare for due diligence, it's important to note that the conditions for this purchase were relatively unique. As a for-profit company, the FSView stood apart from most independent college papers, which tend to be incorporated as non-profits, and thus are not easy candidates for sales. Connell said that purchasing the FSView was simply a good opportunity for Gannett, given that "it was in a town where we already owned a daily.... The purchase was an opportunity. It's not yet a philosophy," she said, but added that acquiring college papers "may one day be a business model."

By Al-Jazeera. A piece tited Watch That Box for Al Jazeera, and More, by Sanjay Suri and reprinted at CommonDreams.org, examines the likely impact the launch of an English language service by that network is likely to have on the Western press. Sanjay Suri quotes Professor Daya Thusu of the University of Westminster, England:

"The forthcoming launch of Al Jazeera International, the English language edition of the pan-Arabic news network, is likely to influence the way television news is received in newsrooms around the world.It is likely to challenge the dominance of the Anglo-American news networks." [...]

"An Arabic perspective on what is happening in a geo-politically and economically important part of the world becomes very important for our understanding of international issues.

The United States has now labelled the 'war on terrorism' as 'a long war', which may also be reflected in the war on the airwaves. This may not be a bad thing after all."

This annual event is scheduled for the week of September 23-30. A couple of politically conservative librarians who frequent the LISNews web site began running down the event as propaganist naiveté in early August. Members of this group staunchly maintain that there are no banned books in America and the ALA event is basically fraudulent. Three counterpoints are generally raised by these contentions:

• There is no wholesale banning of books precisely because of such events;
• these librarians are required to take the title of the week out of context; and,
• they misrepresent the event as being the sole purview of the ALA.

See the ALA web site for replies to these misrepresentations, and my Personal List of Banned or Challenged Books, which supports the first counterpoint raised. Also see this countervailing commentary about Banned Books Week and my reply to it.

By students at the University of Georgia. The Georgia GuardDawg is an avowed conservative-leaning publication that was launched in 2003 to: "provide the conservative viewpoint on issues horribly slanted by the faculty and the media". On 21 Sep, vandals trashed twelve hundred copies of the magazine and wrote derogatory comments -- "communist", "gay", and "too liberal" -- on the publication's racks. Student publisher David Kirby commented about the incident in a prepared statement: "Our principles of free speech and family values are ideals that these perpetrators do not want others to read. They oppose this commonsense philosophy so strongly that they committed a crime." The September cover story examined a lawsuit against Georgia Tech in which a conservative student claimed the school's conduct code was a violation of her First Amendment rights.

[Be it noted that those comments were probably written in the spirit of sarcasm. And whereas the "family values" philosophy of the ultra-right is bankrupt and reactionary, you cannot oppose reactionism with more reactionism. All that does is to perpetrate what you are putatively opposing. --MN]

By Dan Holden. A seventh-grade social studies at Stuart Middle School, Louisville, Kentucky, he burned a pair of American flags during a lesson on freedom of speech. This was in August. He then asked his students to write a paper on how they felt about the exercise. Mr. Holden was temporarily reassigned to a non-teaching role while the school district and police investigated the incident; the commonwealth's attorney and county attorney's offices met with arson investigators to review the case. Bill Patteson, a spokesman for the Jefferson County Attorney's Office, said the evidence did not warrant filing a criminal charge of wanton endangerment; this involves an act that causes significant risk of serious injury or death. He is quoted: "Based on the evidence that we had, we could find neither of those elements present, (and) we could not recommend prosecution." The Commonwealth's Attorney, Dave Stengel, also declined to prosecute, saying, "The issues are with the policies and procedures of the school board, not with the criminal justice system." A spokeswoman for Jefferson County Public Schools, Lauren Roberts, said the district was still reviewing whether he had endangered students or acted inappropriately.

[Give it up, chicky-pie; two prosecutors have said that he did not endanger the students. As for "acted inappropriately", that depends on how you mean it. Do you mean that it was inappropriate to enage in a usually-perceived-as-offensive exercise of protected speech, or that teachers hadn't ought to go around setting things on fire in class? If the latter, do you already have in place a policy forbidding it and outlining disciplinary actions to be taken? If not, you cannot create such a policy for the purpose of punishing Mr. Holden. --MN]

By Norman Solomon. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By former President Bill Clinton. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

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

By Reporters Without Borders. Saeed Sarbazi, a Pakistani journalist was arrested on his way to work on the morning of 20 Sep. His abductors covered his face, bundled him into a car, took him to an unknown location, and then, over the course of three days, kept him blindfolded and prevented from sleeping or sitting while they interrogated him about his work, his family and his friends. His abductors accused him of supporting the so-called Baloch Liberation Army (BLA). A charge to which he replied that he had just made a few phone calls as part of his work as a journalist after Akbar Bugti, the BLA's alleged leader, was killed by Pakistani intelligence agents on 26 Aug. His abductors finally released him on 23 Sep after realising they had the "wrong person.".

RSF condemned this action on this day, saying in a statement: "We join the Karachi Press Club and the Pakistan Federal Union of Journalists (PFUJ) in condemning the use of violence against Sarbazi and the growing impunity with which certain forces are acting in Pakistan."

By Laura Bush. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By the American Library Association. An Associated Press article posted at First Amendment Center reported that the number of challenges reported to the ALA over the last year was down to four hundred five. This is the lowest number of challenges on record since the inception of Banned Book Week in 1981. Although the number of challenges has fluctuated from year to year, the trend has been generally downward. Judith Krug, director of the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom, offered two possible factors for the decline: Libraries are better prepared to organize opposition to censorship, and challengers are directing their energies toward online content. She is quoted: "There's only so much energy to spend on situations or concerns outside the home. A large majority of our challenges deal with what children are reading in schools and many adults are now so concerned about what's on the Internet that they have refocused."

By all parties attempting to control occupied Iraq. An article by Paul von Zielbauer, with contributions by Iraqi employee Sahar Nageeb, published by the New York Times on this day and titled Iraqi Journalists Add Laws to List of Dangers, reveals the state of efforts to control what is printed or broadcast by the press in Iraq. Efforts are promulgated by both the government and occupation resisters. The article says, in part:

The disdain for truly free expression cuts across sectarian lines. The men who killed Mr. Karbouli after warning him to stop his critical reporting on the insurgency were almost certainly Sunni. The former governor of Wasit Province, and the judges and police officials who brought charges against the three journalists for questioning their ethics, were all Shiites.

In April, Mastura Mahmood, a young journalist for the women’s weekly paper Rewan, was charged with defamation for an article that quoted an anti-government demonstrator in Halabja comparing the Iraqi police there with the Baathists who once ran the country. She was arrested and then released on bail.

In May, a court in Sulaimaniya, in Iraq’s autonomous Kurdish region, sentenced two journalists, Twana Osman and Asos Hardi, to six-month suspended jail terms for an article claiming that a Kurdish official had two telephone company employees fired after they cut his phone service for failing to pay his bill.

"These cases show that Iraqi officials are quick to use the same kinds of onerous legal tools as their neighbors to punish outspoken media," said Joel Campagna, the Middle East program director for the Committee to Protect Journalists.

The article also illustrates, however, that some journalists are revelling in what is seen as a new found freedom to print whatever they choose without outside constraints.

By the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On 19 Sep the court ruled in the case of Piggee v. Carl Sandburg College, that Martha Louise Piggee, a part-time instructor in the cosmetology department there, overstepped the bounds of academic freedom and free speech by proselytizing in class. In fall 2002 Ms. Piggee found out that one of her students was a homosexual; a Christian, she gave him two religious tracts that called homosexuality a sin and offered to discuss the issue after he had read them. Jason Ruel, the student in question, filed a formal complaint alleging sexual harassment, and after investigating, two college officials wrote in a memo: "It has been found that because of Mr. Ruel's sexual orientation, Mrs. Louise Piggee has been proselytizing in the hopes of changing Mr. Ruel's sexual orientation and religious beliefs." As a result, she was not rehired, and subsequently sued alleging that the college had violated her rights to due process, free exercise, equal protection, and free speech, and that the sexual-harassment policy at Carl Sandburg was "constitutionally infirm." A district court decision was rendered in favor of the public community college and school officials. In 2001, five of eight student evaluations complained about her "emphasis on religion", and she was warned repeatedly about her conduct by the school administration through a series of letters.

The appeals court opinion, written by Judge Diane Black, says the court had to evaluate four points:

• whether the utterance was a matter of public concern;
• whether the college's interest in upholding sexual-harassment policy or controlling the cosmetology program outweighed free speech;
• whether the college placed prior restraint on speech, and;
• whether that prior restraint was vague or overbroad.

Judge Black emphasized that the decision was not about religion or homosexuality, but that the court had to determine "whether the college had the right to insist that Piggee refrain from engaging in that particular speech while serving as an instructor of cosmetology." See the source article for more background.

By Wilma Fisher Elementary School school and district officials, in Frisco, Texas. In Apr 2006, Sydney McGee, the art teacher at this school, led her fifth grade class through European and contemporary galleries at the Dallas Museum of Art. A parent of one of her students later complained about his or her child being exposed to sculptures of nudes. On 22 Sep, Ms. McGee was suspended. In an emailed newsletter to parents during this week, principal Nancy Lawson and Rick Reedy, superintendent of the Frisco Independent School District, said she had been denied transfer to another school in the district and that her annual contract would not be renewed; in short: she had been fired.

The class trip had been approved by the principal, the eighty-nine students were accompanied by four other teachers, at least twelve parents, and a museum docent, yet Ms. McGee seems to have been singled out and targetted in this censorial harrassment. She is described as being a popular teacher with a twenty-eight year career, and in 2004 she won a monthly teacher award from a local newspaper. Rogge Dunn, her lawyer, with whom she is exploring legal action, said her past job evaluations had been consistently superior until the museum trip; they only turned negative afterward.

[Since this affair began, the school and district officials have been attempting to direct the issue away from this incident to make it appear that Ms. McGee was fired for poor performance and academic judgement. My call on this aspect is that the officials attacked her and then had to scramble to cover their asses when they realized their position was actually rather weak (although I would say myself that it is totally without any merit at all). This conclusion is reinforced by the Lawson's refusal or inability to name a specific piece, and that the piece to which she has alluded is supposedly abstract art. Abstract art generally can be intrepreted to look like anything. See the source article for more background. --MN]

By the U.S. Supreme Court. On this day the court declined to hear five cases dealing with First Amendment issues.

Allred v. Superior Court of the State of California: The case of Gloria Allred, a California lawyer, who claimed a court ipmposed gag order during a murder case violated her free speech rights. An outspoken television personality, she represented a teenage girl who testified at the trial of Scott Dyleski,who was convicted for the murder of Pamela Vitale. Ms. Allred's lawyers for this case say the U.S. Supreme Court has never articulated a legal standard for when gag orders on lawyers, parties, and witnesses are permissible,or if they are at all.

Christian Civic League of Maine v. FEC: The group attempted to run ads about the state's two U.S. senators during the spring of 2005, but a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., stopped the effort; the Supreme Court refused to step in at the time, and on this day it issued a one-line order saying the appeal is dismissed as moot. The two senators apparently hadn't opposed the issue of homosexual marriage rights, but the decision was based on federal-election law barring corporations or labor unions from paying for radio or television broadcasts referring to a candidate for federal office within thirty days of a federal primary election, or within sixty days of a general election.

Hendrix, et al. v. Bennett: This case involves former Forsyth County Sheriff Dennis Lee "Denny" Hendrix and private citizen who supported a referendum to create a new countywide police force supervised by the county commission. Which would strip the sheriff's department of primary law enforcement powers. In a lawsuit, his opponents said he retaliated against them when he ran for re-election by engaging in surveillance, harassment, and by issuing campaign fliers attacking them by name. A decision by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in 2005 was in favor of Hendrix's opponents, saying they were likely deterred from exercising their First Amendment rights. Hendrix, in appealing, said his opponents must demonstrate the sheriff's actions had some actual, non-speculative chilling effect.

Tucker v. Philadelphia Daily News: C. DeLores Tucker, a longtime civil rights activist, had accused The Philadelphia Daily News and The Legal Intelligencer of mischaracterizing her dispute with the estate of rapper Tupac Shakur, and others. Shakur wrote lyrics that rhymed Tucker's name with an obscenity. She had sue, alleging, among other things, that her husband, had suffered loss of "consortium" because of emotional distress. These two papers were among the news organizations that reported on the lawsuit and interpreted loss of consortium to mean harm to the couples' sex life. Tucker said the claim had nothing to do with sex, but with "advice, society, companionship, i.e., defendants' effect upon the 'family union.'" William Tucker had pursued tje suit on his and his wife's behalf, she had passed away, but Pennsylvania state courts dismissed the libel claims.

Acosta v. State of Texas: in El Paso, Texas, an adult-bookstore employee sued the state after being arrested for showing two undercover officers a device shaped like a penis and telling the female officer it would arouse and gratify her. Ignacio Sergio Acosta, says the measure outlawing the manufacture, marketing, or dissemination of an "obscene device", including those shaped like phalluses, is unconstitutional due to violating an individual's right to sexual privacy. [I have to wonder how much the rejection of that last case can be chalked up to the ultra-conservative bent of the Bush regime. Material cannot be considered obscene unless it has been tried and found so in a court of law. To my way of thinking, the U.S. Supreme Court had a vested interest in hearing this case, particlarly in light of the fact that Colorado, Kansas and Louisiana have held such laws unconstitutional, while Georgia, Mississippi and Texas have upheld them. As it stands, there is now the curious case of two-tier-laws regarding sex toys; legal in some jurisdictions, illegal in others. This flatly violates the principle of Rule Of Law as far as I'm concerned. --MN]

By Steve Howards. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By a school official. Ms. Amber Mangum, a student at Dwight D. Eisenhower Middle School, in Prince George's County, was a frequent reader during lunch breaks. The habit was never seen as a problem until, the lawsuit alleges, the book she was reading was the Bible. In Sep, a vice principal ordered Ms. Magnum, then aged twelve, to stop reading the Bible or face punishment. Her mother filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court alleging that the action violates Ms. Amber's civil rights.

[No doubt in my books; the First Amendment makes it clear to any reasonable person that no government official can require schoolchildren to pray, or prevent them from doing so on their own. And Ms. Magnum might not even have been doing that, but only reading the Bible to inform herself as to its contents. --MN]

By Ray Bradbury. Considered to be the quintessential modern work about censorship, it is again facing a censorial challenge, this time at Caney Creek High School, Conroe Independent School District, Texas. Parent Alton Verm filed a "Request for Reconsideration of Instructional Materials" against the book after his fifteen year old daughter complained to him about the language in the book. She is quoted as having commented: "The book had a bunch of very bad language in it. It shouldn't be in there because it's offending people. ... If they can't find a book that uses clean words, they shouldn't have a book at all." Her father is quoted: "It's just all kinds of filth. The words don't need to be brought out in class. I want to get the book taken out of the class." True to form, Mr. Verm had not read the book, he simply looked through it; the material by which he is offended was cited as being:

• discussion of being drunk,
• smoking cigarettes,
• violence,
• "dirty talk,"
• references to the Bible, and;
• using God's name in vain.

He said such content goes against the family's religions beliefs.

[Judging from the report, Ms. Verm has no grounds for complaint; she and a classmate were allowed to read an alternative book and to leave the class when the rest of the students discuss Fahrenheit 451. And, of course, neither realizes that their religious beliefs do not constitute a touchstone by which others have to regulate their acceptance or rejection of content. --MN]

By Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. On this day the organization issued an Action Alert saying that a recent study, covering Oct 2005 through Mar 2006, that the NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, PBS's flagship news program, fails to provide either balance, diversity of perspectives, or a true public-minded alternative to its corporate competition. The study found:

• Public interest groups accounted for just 4 percent of total sources. General public--"person in the street," workers, students--accounted for only 14 percent, while current and former government and military officials totaled 50 percent of all sources.

• Male sources outnumbered women by more than 4-to-1 (82 percent to 18 percent). Moreover, 72 percent of U.S. guests were white males, while jU.S.t [sic] 6 percent were women of color.

• People of color made up only 15 percent of U.S. sources. African-Americans made up 9 percent, Latinos 2 percent, and Asian-Americans and people of Mideastern descent made up one percent each. Alberto Gonzales accounted for more than 30 percent of Latino sources, while Condoleeza Rice accounted for nearly 13 percent of African-American sources.

• Among partisan sources, Republicans outnumbered Democrats on the NewsHour by 2-to-1 (66 percent vs. 33 percent). Only one representative of a third party appeared during the study period.

• At a time when a large proportion of the U.S. public already favored withdrawal from Iraq, "stay the course" sources outnumbered pro-withdrawal sources more than 5-to-1. In the entire six months studied, not a single peace activist was heard on the NewsHour on the subject of Iraq.

• Segments on Hurricane Katrina accounted for less than 10 percent of all sources, but provided nearly half (46 percent) of all African-American sources during the study period. Those African-Americans were largely presented as victims rather than leaders or experts: In segments on the human impact of the storm, African-Americans made up 51 percent of sources, but in reconstruction segments, whites dominated with 72 percent of sources; 59 percent of all African-American sources across Katrina segments were general public sources.

The group stated that these findings confirm the results of their 1990 study of NewsHour, which found the news program offered less diversity than ABC's Nightline.

[Addendum (25 Oct 2006:) On 18 Oct FAIR issued a follow up Activism Update. In it, the group states that ombudsman Michael Getler posted a response to FAIR's study, including a statement from NewsHour executive producer Linda Winslow. However, Ms. Winslow's statement merely continued the NewsHour tradition of treating constructive criticism as a public relations problem. Her argument that the show simply covers the people "who make news" pretends that news outlets don't have a role in determining what is or is not newsworthy. In my not so humble opinion, it is solely news outlets that determine what is newsworthy; anything else would violate the principle of a free press. --MN]

By Friends of Cuban Libraries. An e-mail issued on this day by Robert Kent reported that Amir Valle, a Cuban author who had been invited to attend a PEN Club event at the Frankfurt Book Fair, used the speaker's platform to condemn censorship and repression within Cuba, and then went on to say that his comments would make it impossible for him to return to Cuba. The theme of the PEN Club event was Writers in Exile, with a particular emphasis on Zimbabwe and Cuba. In his presentation, Señor Valle warned that the Cuban government is preparing a crackdown against writers on a scale reminiscent of the 1970's, the most repressive decade in the island's recent history. He is quoted: "All of the violations against freedom of expression in Cuba are permitted by the system and the Constitution." He described Cuba as a country which has converted art and culture into a political weapon. His latest book, "Jineteras," has been published abroad but has been banned within Cuba; it had received an award from the Casa de las Americas cultural center in Havana, but that was quickly withdrawn and publication of the book was prohibited there. The banning of some of his works has had the usual rebound; says he: "The repression of my books has caused them to be among the most sought after and read in Cuba."

By the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services. Ohio has almost eleven thousand foster parents. Two of them, Liz and David Carroll Jr., charged with murder in the death of a 3-year-old boy in their care. Pursuant to its coverage of the case, The Cincinnati Enquirer had asked for the names and addresses of every licensed foster parent in the state.

The state denied the request. The records requested by the newspaper contain no information about foster children, the Enquirer reported on 03 Oct. But making the list of foster parents public could allow threatened foster children to be located, said Barbara Riley, the director of the department. The decision was based on a state adoptions law and an Ohio Supreme Court case prohibiting the release of information about children enrolled at a Columbus swimming pool. The newspaper's attorney said those arguments were irrelevant. Comments in favour of releasing the information are:

• John Greiner, the Enquirer's attorney: "The request is not for any information about kids. It's certainly not about adoptive situations. To the extent foster parents ultimately may adopt, you wouldn't know that from the list of foster caregivers."

• Paul K. McMasters, First Amendment Center ombudsman: "There are always arguments to be made for secrecy, for keeping the public out of the public's business.

  "Sometimes, it's not as easy to see the good in making such information available, but the bottom line is this (request) is not so a newspaper can publish a story or so that people can invade other people's privacy. It is at the very bottom for the protection of the most defenseless among us."

[Good for the state. There is no way in Hell and Perdition the paper can possibly make ethical use of the information about the 11,000 or so innocent foster parents, and they cannot possibly have any rational grounds for making such a request. Leastways that's my call on it. See my commentary about overzealous journalism for more on this issue. As far as I'm concerned, this request constitutes an absolutely unconscionable invasion of privacy; a right the First Amendment does not trump in light of the Ninth Amendment. --MN]

By Time-Warner. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By private citizens. In Los Angeles, on 03 Oct, there were hearings held by FCC commissioners on the topic of relaxing ownership rules to allow fewer and fewer of the rich and powerful to own -- and, in the public perception, to control -- more and more individual media outlets. In an e-mail to subscribers, issued on this day, Robert McChesney, of Freepress.net, wrote:

In the midst of Washington's political scandals, you might not have heard about an extraordinary moment in U.S. media history. Here's a quick update:

On Tuesday in Los Angeles, people came out in overwhelming numbers to tell the Federal Communications Commission that Americans want to turn back the tide of media consolidation.

For eight hours, artists, writers, producers, directors, actors, small business owners and local citizens told all five commissioners about the devastating impact of media consolidation.

Nearly 1,000 people packed auditoriums in downtown L.A. and El Segundo; and all but one of the dozens who came forward testified against further media consolidation.

Also see: Hearing attendees tell FCC to tighten media-ownership rules, at First Amendment Center, and Media Biggies Shouldn't be Allowed to Get Bigger, by Ryan Blethen of the Seattle Times, which was reprinted at CommonDreams.org.
(see 11 Oct 2006)

By Taner Akçm. At this time a refugee and a visiting professor of history at the University of Minnesota, he wrote an article in Agos to defend Hrant Dink. Professor Akçm asserted that it was he, rather than Mr. Dink, who consistently used the term "genocide" to describe the Armenian deportations and massacres of 1915-17. He also urged readers, whether they agreed with the use of the word or not, to protect the right of others who do so and to decriminalize the studying and writing of history. In January 2007, Professor Akçam was charged with:

• insulting Turkishness,
• instigation to commit a crime,
• praise of a crime and of a criminal,
• and instigating public animosity and hatred.

In Mar 1976, Professor Akçam was an assistant lecturer in the department of economics at the Middle East Technical University, as well as editor of the magazine Devrimçi Genclik. He was arrested on six charges arising out of articles he had published then, and reportedly sentenced to 750 years imprisonment. He subsequently escaped to Germany and then the United States.

By person or persons unknown acting to the benefit of Chechnyan state torturers. Anna Politkovskay, who won international fame for exposing human-rights abuses by Russian soldiers in Chechnya, was about to publish another article on the subject. Police investigators believe she was killed as she was getting out of an elevator at her apartment building in central Moscow; she had two gunshot wounds, including one to the head. This latest article, with photos of tortured bodies, was to be published on 09 Oct. Novaya Gazeta (New Journal) deputy editor Vitaly Yerushensky said the paper did not received the article, but knew of the photographs. The paper has offered a reward of almost one million dollars [U.S.?] for information about the perpetrator. Ms. Politkovskaya stood out in a country where the Kremlin still exercises strong control over most media outlets, and had received death threats before; even having to go into exile at one point for several months for her safety.

On 09 Oct, Katrina vanden Heuvel had a glowing obituary titled Death of a Courageous Journalist ; also see this analysis of her murder and what she worked to expose: The Murder of Anna P: A Blow to Humanity, by Danny Schechter, and Life Risked to Speak the Truth, by Eric Margolis; all of them reprinted at CommonDreams.org.

By the Salt Lake City Capitol Preservation Board committee. Demonstrations, protests and leafleting would be allowed in most areas of the State Capitol complex under new rules approved by this body. This proposal is a contrast to one voted on in Sep which would have limited where fliers could have been distributed; those rules would have prohibited distribution in hallways outside of legislative meetings, and opponents to them questioned whether it would have given preferential treatment to lobbyists. The Board subcommittee reworked the rules after a public meeting at which advocates for the poor and disabled, civil rights attorneys, journalists, and some public officials called on the board to scrap its first draft. The changed proposal would allow outdoor free-speech activities 24 hours a day, and indoor activities from 08:00 to 20:00, or as long as the building is open, with leafleting allowed in all public areas so long as it does not obstruct the passage of individuals.

By a Rapid Response Brigade. See the entry on the Cuban Independent Librarians page.

By the U.S Department of Justice. On this day this department rubber stamped the $78 billion merger of AT&T and BellSouth. The move was seen as the Justice Department deserting its post as the public's shield against corporate monopolies. Oppoenents said of the deal that it would effectively resurrect the Ma Bell monopoly that ruled the communications industry of the U.S. for nearly a century. That monopoly was broken up by the U.S. federal government. Ben Scott, of Freepress.net, wrote in an e-mail about this action:

The merger of AT&T and BellSouth would create a network behemoth that controls nearly half of all telephone land lines in the United States. But the new AT&T presents a far greater threat.

Under the rule of CEO Ed Whitacre, the company is leading the effort to gut Net Neutrality -- the longstanding principle that prevents phone companies from controlling what you do, where you go and what you see on the Internet.

Soon all digital media -- telephone, TV, radio and the Web -- will enter homes via a single broadband connection. Whitacre is trying to control this "pipe" -- and the billions of dollars at stake -- by erecting new Internet toll booths and discriminating against Web sites that can't afford their new fees.

The merger now goes to the Federal Communications Commission for final approval, but given the business friendly attitude within that body, it is unlikely to reject it; although there is, as of this date, a groundswell of opposition to media consolidation that might sway the FCC's decision.
(see 06 Oct 2006)

By the United Kingdom House of Lords. Under British common law, libel charges place the burden of proof on the accused, and one can be found guilty of libel even if one's statements are factually correct. This situation has persisted since the creation of libel laws by King Henry VII. As a result of the international nature of communications on the internet, "libel tourists" have been filing law suits in the plaintiff friendly environment of Great Britain. This trend had gathered so much momentum that in 2001, the House of Lords entered the fray with the case Reynolds v. Times Newspapers, in which the Lords took the first step toward providing both the domestic and foreign press with meaningful legal protection against libel judgments for reporting on matters of public concern. As a result, it created what has become known as the "Reynolds Privilege". Unfortunately, this had little impact on libel suits against the press. On this day, the House of Lords not only reversed one judgment against the Wall Street Journal, it ordered that judgment be rendered in the newspaper's favor. They did so on the grounds that it was necessary to restate the principle of the "Reynolds Privilege". See the source article for more background.
(see 16 Apr 2008; 01 May 2008)

By the U.S. military. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

By Lexington, Kentucky. A city ordinance prohibits selling anything, including food, tickets or T-shirts, along streets or sidewalks within two blocks of Rupp Arena from two hours before an event to one hour after. Craig A. Wilson of Paris, Kentucky, was among 20 people arrested on 05 Jan 2005, outside Rupp Arena for scalping tickets or selling them within the prohibited area. He sued the city and Fayette County as a result, alleging the ordinance in question was constitutionally infirm under the First and Fourth Amendments. He asked U.S. District Judge Jennifer Coffman to grant class-action status for the lawsuit and for a preliminary injunction stopping enforcement of the ordinance. Coffman has not ruled on the class-action request, but did reject the preliminary injunction. On this day, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 3-0 vote, ruled that the challenge to the ordinance is unlikely to succeed, and that Judge Coffman was right to not issue the preliminary injunction.

By the State of France. On this day the French National Assembly adopted a draft law making it a crime to deny the Armenian genocide. It will now be punishable by five years in jail and a fine of 45,000 euros to fail to believe in the reality of this event. On 13 Oct, Reporters Without Borders commented about this thought crimes legislation:

There is obviously no question of going back on the recognition of the Armenian genocide, but legislating on it will expose anyone denying it to harsh judicial penalties set out by the 18 July 1881 law on press freedom (Article 24a). Memorial laws contribute to the creation of an official historical truth. This practice is incompatible with France’s fundamental values, starting with freedom of expression.

Not only is it absurd that free expression - however contestable and that is not the question - should be submitted to a constraint which is also an additional threat, but it seems to us that this legalistic concept of history will be much more likely to stoke up antagonism rather than promote debate.

It is particularly symbolic that this vote should have been held on the same day of the awarding of the Nobel Prize for literature to Orhan Pamuk, who was himself taken to court by the Turkish authorities for having raised the issue of this genocide.

By American servicemen in the illegal invasion of Iraq. Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker rendered a verdict on this day that television journalist Terry Lloyd was unlawfully killed by US forces. Lloyd was killed along with his Lebanese interpreter, Hussein Osman, and his French cameraman, Fred Nerac, near the Shatt al-Basra Bridge outside Basra, on 22 Mar 2003. He was shot in the back after getting caught up in a U.S. and Iraqi crossfire, then shot in the head as he was taken away in a minibus for medical treatment.

[This verdict backs up contentions by Reporters Without Borders and myself that the U.S. Military Command needs to get a grip on the indiscriminate warfare and institute policies favouring better target discrimination. --MN]

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

By Denise Grier, Athens, Georgia. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By Sacha Baron Cohen, British comedian. The European Center of Antiziganism Research announced on this day it has filed a law suit againt this latest film by Mr. Cohen. Marko Knudsen, head of the center, said: "We are accusing him of defamation and inciting violence against Sinti and Roma [gypsies]." Antiziganism refers to hostility to gypsies. The group filed a complaint over the film on the grounds that it treated violence and discrimination against Roma peoples as acceptable behavior. In the film, a satire, Mr. Cohen plays Borat Sagdiyev, a fictional Kazakh television journalist who travels to the U.S. to report on the American way of life. The comic barbs in the film target gypsies, Jews, women, and a number of other groups. This complaint adds to a series of protests against Cohen's work, whose views are reportedly racist, anti-Semitic, misogynist, and homophobic. Some of the most prominent criticism has come from Kazakhstan. Mr. Cohen is also the creator of the comic character Ali G.

[Anti-semetism is a branch of racism, it is not a separate kind of intolerance. And if Cohen is bashing everybody equally instead of singling out a particular group, then nobody has any real grounds for complaint. --MN]

By Reporters Without Borders. On 06 Oct the Reuters cameraman was arrested in the West Bank village of Bil'in; he was accused of throwing stones at a border policeman while filming him. Mr. Bornat was arrested after filming the arrival of Israeli soldiers in Bil'in, which is often the scene of clashes between the Israeli army and town inhabitants; the villagers demonstrate every week against the route of Israel's protective wall, which will take up more than half of the village's farm lands and destroy some of its wells. Mr. Bornat might have been beaten while in custody; RSF reported that he had a head wound (needing several sutures and which had been closed at a hospital) when he and his escort arrived at the nearest police station. The officers, who had transported him in a jeep, said a radio set had fallen on his head.

On this day, the judge hearing the case agreed to release Mr. Bornat on a bail of 30,000 shekels (5,300 euros), subject to his remaining under house arrest in a village near Bil'in, where he has his home; he was still being held by the Israeli Defence Force because it had until the afternoon of 22 Oct to appeal the release. Gaby Lasky, Mr. Bornat's lawyer, said he thought it was unlikely the decision would be overturned on appeal, and there was every chance his client would be freed after two weeks in detention.

On 19 Oct, the press organization released a statement decrying Mr. Bornat's detention, saying: "Neither Bornat's alleged attack on Israeli personnel nor the explanation regarding his injury given by the officers who took him to the police station seems credible. We hope the investigation requested by a judge will be thorough, and thereby help put a stop to the widespread sense of impunity within the Israeli security forces."

By the 7th Judicial Circuit Court. On 05 Oct the court ruled that women can demonstrate bare-breasted as part of a legitimate political protest. This decision upheld a Volusia County judge's opinion that Ms. Elizabeth Book could protest top-free on Daytona Beach city's Main Street Bridge. Ms. Book was arrested during Bike Week in March 2004 by Daytona Beach police and fined two hundred-fifty three dollars. The city said she had violated an ordinance banning public nudity; which law was passed in 2002 to curb indecency at special events. Lawrence G. Walters, Ms. Book's attorney, said this ruling was a victory for his client, who had set out to test anti-nudity laws because they are unfairly applied to women. Deputy City Attorney Marie Hartman said the city "respectfully disagrees with the opinion", and that the city was looking into an appeal to the 5th District Court of Appeal.

[What this law was about, in my not so humble opinion, was not in curbing indecency, but in the suppression of free speech by women employing a mode of expression men cannot. Breasts are not reproductive or excretory organs and do not fall under the U.S. Supreme Court definition of "indecent". By which one could conclude that any law banning the exposure of breasts as indecent has no legal basis. --MN]

By U.S. District Judge Leon Holmes. In a case very similar to that landmark case. The Watson Chapel School District, in Little Rock, Arkansas, had implemented a positively asinine dress code; the code specifies that:

• students must wear khaki pants with belt loops,
• a white polo-style shirt with two or three buttons,
• the shirts must have so many pockets (probably one, but the number was not reported), and,
• students must also wear identification badges.

Some students who were not pleased with this dress code protested on 06 Oct by wearing black arm bands; some twenty students were suspended from school for a day for protesting. the American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas filed a law suit on behalf of the students, and on this day Judge Holmes issued a temporary injunction that allows students in the Watson Chapel School District to wear black armbands without fear of reprisal. In his decision, he specifically compared this case with Tinker v: Des Moines

Mike Dennis, representing the district, had argued that a temporary injunction would allow teens to further violate the uniform policy; he is quoted: "An injunction would bring substantial harm to Watson Chapel School District as undermining the authority of the board and the district to take disciplinary action for what it considers a serious violation of school policy." The district's attorneys had written in a brief filed before the hearing."Administrators will be undermined in their ability to enforce school policy."

[Unwarranted assumptions and utter bullshit to boot. If this dress code was implemented for the reasons implied in those statements, then it clearly does not have as much to do with pedagogy as it does with authoritarian control. Rules, ideally, should be solely for the personal safety and wellbeing of people; this dress code does not support that principle. Ergo: it is simply another rule for the sake of having rules. If those assholes want the student body to respect their authority, they should exercise authority in a way that will garner respect in and of itself. Petty and oppressive rules is not the way to go about it. The allegations about dress code violations appear to be directed at the arm bands themselves; which are not specifically permitted. --MN]

By Reporters Without Borders. On this day the watchdog group released a report entitled Going online in Cuba - internet under surveillance with the results of tests carried out in that country during Aug 2006. It includes a survey of the internet control methods used by the government there, and the personal account of a French journalist who spent several weeks on the island over the summer. The report reads in part:

With less than 2 per cent of the population online, Cuba is one of the world's most backward countries as regards internet usage. The worst off by far in Latin America and with a thirteenth of Costa Rica's usage, it is down there with Uganda or Sri Lanka. This is quite surprising in a country that boasts one of the highest levels of education in the world. The authorities blame this disastrous situation on the US trade embargo, which supposedly prevents them from getting the equipment they need for internet development. In particular, they say they are unable to use underwater fibre optic cable to connect to the internet outside Cuba and are therefore reduced to using costly and less effective satellite links.

This may indeed explain the slowness of the Cuban internet and the endless lines outside internet cafes. But in no way does it justify the system of control and surveillance that has been put in place by the authorities. In a country where the media are under the government's thumb, preventing independent reports and information from circulating online has naturally become a priority.

Some of the methods of control enumerated are:

• the government has more or less banned private internet connections:
  • to surf the 'net or check e-mail, Cubans have to use public access points such as internet cafes, universities, and "Youth computing centers" where it is easier for the state to monitor activity;
  • the Cuban police have installed, on all computers in internet cafes and big hotels, software that triggers alerts when "subversive" key-words are noticed.

• the Castro regime ensures there is no internet access for:
  • its political opponents, and,
  • independent journalists; for whom reaching outside news media is difficult.

• the government counts on self-censorship, creating a strongly chilled atmosphere in which you can get:
  • a 20-year sentence for writing a few "counter-revolutionary" articles for foreign websites, and,
  • a five-year sentence for connecting with the internet in an illegal fashion.

By Ontario Superior Court Justice Lynn Ratushny. The Justice struck down sections of the Security of Information Act anti-terrorism law, in a ruling that threw out warrants used to search the home of a reporter who was covering U.S. efforts to secretly and unlawfully send Maher Arar to Syria for interrogation as a suspected terrorist. The provisions were drawn directly from the decades-old Official Secrets Act and deal with unauthorized communications of intelligence by officials who are bound to secrecy. In her ruling, Justice Lynn Ratushny said the provisions were vague and violated the constitutional rights to justice and freedom of the press, saying in part: "They arbitrarily and unfairly and with a blunt club of criminal sanction restrict freedom of expression, including freedom of the press." David Paciocco, a lawyer for reporter Juliet O'Neill, of the Ottawa Citizen, commented: "It's a tremendous affirmation of the importance of freedom of the press and freedom of expression." Prosecutor Robert Frater said there was no immediate decision on whether to appeal.

Maher Arar was wrongfully convicted, summarily and without trial, of being a terrorist by agents of the U.S. federal government in the wake of the World Trace Center attack, and sent to Syria for imprisonment, and where he was subjected to torture. This ruling is almost certainly an indication that Canadian anti-terrorism hysteria is as badly misplaced as that of the Bush administration hysteria.

By the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. On this day the court rejected in its entirety a city ordinance from 1997, that prohibited any form of solicitation and leafleting at the Fremont Street Experience. In 1995 Fremont Street was turned into a pedestrian mall; a project funded in part by $70 million in public and private money; five blocks were closed to traffic and a giant canopy was constructed overhead. The property was eventually transferred to Fremont Street Experience LLC, a profit-based organization of casino owners. The court had previously ruled that the remodeling did not change the area's status as a public forum. In this ruling, Judge Richard Paez wrote for the three-judge panel that: "We hold that Las Vegas solicitation ordinance is facially unconstitutional. The ordinance regulates protected speech based on its content." The case was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union and the Unitarian Universalist Social Justice Committee, and groups will now be allowed to set up tables to disseminate their speech.

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

By city employees of Albuquerque, New Mexico. A group of five police officers and one firefighter were to take part in a charity boxing tournament -- the so-called "Rumble in Rio" -- at Santa Ana Pueblo's casino on this day. Mayor Martin Chavez and Nick Bakas, chief public-safety officer for the city, had threatened to punish or fire employees who entered the ring. The American Civil Liberties Union of New Mexico sued on behalf of two firefighters. The city argued in court that the event would expose off-duty employees to unsafe conditions and would tarnish the city's reputation. The concerns over a possible tarnishment of the city's reputation stem from excessive violence, the consumption of liquor. and scantily clad ring girls which were at the 2005 tournament. on 17 Oct U.S. District Judge William P. Johnson blocked the city from carrying out its threat, In his decision, Judge Johnson said that employees are allowed to participate in full-contact football leagues, that the ring girls are no more scantily clad than NFL cheerleaders, and that off-duty city employees are allowed to visit strip clubs. Some of the commentary arising from this case includes:

• Judge Johnson, in his decision: "It seems that the Rumble in Rio offends the sensibilities of some of the officials of the city of Albuquerque. But the fundamental right of all citizens to form their own sensibilities is really the essence of the First Amendment."

• Pete Camacho, a lieutenant in the Rio Rancho Fire Department and the event's main organizer: "I'm disappointed that the mayor of Albuquerque wasted so many taxpayer dollars on this. He would be better off cutting a check to his favorite charity."

Unfortunately, the threats by the city officials did create a chilling effect; organizers of the event have said they tried to address the concerns by limiting liquor sales, ring girls are to be less scantily clad, and a handful of Albuquerque city employees who had dropped out in the face of the threat will not be able to fight this year. The 2005 tournament raised $36,000 for charities.

By Paul K. McMasters. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful To Minors page.

By Salon.com, Nerve.com, et al v: the U.S. Justice Department. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Ontario Superior Court Justice Douglas Rutherford. In this second repudiation of post-World Trade Center Attack hysteria in Canada, Justice Rutherford struck down a provision of the Anti-terrorism Act because it violates charter rights. He decided to sever a section in the law that defines ideological, religious, or political motivations for criminal acts. The rest of the law, however, remains in place. As a result, the trial of Mohammed Momin Khawaja can now proceed. Mr. Hkawaja is the first person charged under the law; he was charged in connection with seven criminal charges related to allegations that he took part in and helped an extremist organization in Great Britain; he is accused of plotting to blow up the British electricity transmission network, trains, and pubs and nightclubs. Mr. Khawaja's lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, said the ruling strikes to the core of the law and should have resulted in the seven terrorism charges being quashed. Prosecutors and various government officials do not agree with viewpoint, of course. See the source article for more background on what political and social issues are likely to derive from this ruling.

By Reporters Sans Frontieres. The group published the 2006 index at its web site. Canada came in in 16th place, up five rankings from 2005. The United States proper fell nine places to 53rd, due to the consistent attacks on free press principles by the government. The American Occupied Territory of Iraq came in at 154th, against 137th for 2005. The Index covers 168 nations. North Korea continued dead last. Others were not included for lack of data. RSF began publishing the Index in 2002.

By Iran. Rouzegar (Time),has recently increased its print run and expressed a desire to cover political issues after being reinforced by an influx of journalists from the banned daily Shargh. A social and cultural daily with a small circulation, the paper shifted its editorial line in a pro-reform direction by including the journalists from Shargh on its staff, and after its 16 Oct issue, which included political articles, it was seen as a new moderate publication that could fill the gap left by the banning of Shargh in Sep. On 18 Oct, however, the culture ministry rounded on Rouzegar, expressly banning it from covering politics on the grounds the subject did not come under the range of topics specified when it originally requested its licence from the Press Surveillance Commission. Rouzegar’s reaction was to provisionally suspend publication the same day, but it reappeared on 20 Oct; that issue that had its political section replaced by general-interest and cultural articles. Nonetheless, it was banned altogether on 23 Oct, with Culture ministry spokesperson Alizera Mokhtapour saying that the decision was based on article 33 of the press law, which provides for "an immediate ban on the publication of a newspaper that replaces a banned newspaper with a name, logo and format that is similar."

On this day, Reporters Without Borders commented on the situation: "The ban on Rouzegar is absurd. Not content with censuring newspapers when they are slightly critical, the Iranian government has now established prior control. Rouzegar did not have a chance to upset the regime, but it is viewed as a potential threat, especially at election time."

By the Department of Homeland Security and JetBlue Airline.

On 12 Aug, Raed Jarrar, who works for Global Exchange in Washington, DC, was wearing a T-shirt with a political message as he went to board a JetBlue flight from New York City (JFK Airport) to California. The message -- We will not be silent -- was written in both English and Arabic Script. He was treated as a suspicious person and ordered to cover it up. He was originally told it was because some other passengers had been offended by the shirt; probably misrepresenting the situation out of ignorance. He opted to cover up the shirt, but the matter did not end there; once he boarded the aircraft, he was seated at the very rear of the plane, whereas his ticket was for seat 3a. Jarrar says he told the law enforcement agent and the JetBlue employee: "I feel very sad that my personal freedom was taken away like this. I grew up under authoritarian governments in the Middle East, and one of the reasons I chose to move to the U.S. was that I don’t want an officer to make me change my T-shirt. I will pursue this incident today through a constitutional rights organization." On 23 Oct, he spoke about the incident with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now!

On 09 Oct, there was a second incident over the shirt, this time involving Stephanie Schwartz, who goes to Hunter College in New York City. She had boarded the Staten Island Ferry, and once on it, four Coast Guard officers positioned themselves in front of her. When she was leaving, one of them told her, "You better not wear that shirt on this ferry again", and, "You remember what happened on that JetBlue flight?" The Coast Guard related a mutually exclusive incident. Ms. Schwartz also told her story to Ms. Goodman on 23 Oct. Mr. Jarrar was shocked and appalled to hear that what happened to him was being invoked as a precedent to squelch free speech.

See the source article for more background on both these cases.

By U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. The court denied the government's motion for a protective order for unclassified files in the trial of Syed Ahmed and Ehsanul Sadequee, charged with providing material support to terrorists. The court said: "The press and the public enjoy a qualified First Amendment right of access to criminal trial proceedings." While the government has the right to seal sensitive information when there's a compelling interest, the court found that the proposed order would have covered all unclassified discovery material and thus essentially all filings in the case.

By American broadcasters. In an article at The Huffington Post web journal, the film "Shut Up And Sing" is described as: "the rockumentary-turned-sociopolitical-exegesis that follows the Dixie Chicks before, during and after singer Natalie Maines' infamous anti-Bush statements at a London concert in 2003." This article reported that NBC had refused to run advertisments for it, stating that it: "cannot accept these spots as they are disparaging to President Bush." There was some question as to whether a fledgling network called CW had also rejected the ads.

Harvey Weinstein, whose production company will release the film nationwide on 10 Nov, released this statement: "It's a sad commentary about the level of fear in our society that a movie about a group of courageous entertainers who were blacklisted for exercising their right of free speech is now itself being blacklisted by corporate America. The idea that anyone should be penalized for criticizing the president is sad and profoundly un-American."

[NBC seems to be terribly unclear on the concepts of both core political speech and commercial speech. The decision on this one was most likely made purely for business reasons, although, cynic that I am, I have to wonder about this refusal given the proximity to the mid-term elections. I can only conclude that this decision, if it was made to protect profits, stems from the chilled environment that has been created in the U.S. by ultra-right wing reactionism. The phrase "shut up and sing" is from a death threat, and is included in their song "Not Ready To Make Nice". --MN]

By the American Civil Liberties Union. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Freedom of Information advocates. Scheduled to run to 02 Nov, te forum follows the World Summit on the Information Society held in Tunis in 2005. Reporters Without Borders commented about the forum: "This event is an opportunity to remind governments that the free flow of information online must be one of the leading principles of any model of Internet governance. Governments that censor the Internet and imprison Internet users will be represented at the IGF. It is vital that they should not decide the Internet’s future." The group wrote about one of the issues at their web site:

The debate: The United States currently controls the organisations that run the Internet, the leading one being ICANN, based in California, whose duties include managing domain names worldwide. This situation is criticised by virtually all other countries, which say it is unacceptable that the Americans should be in this all-powerful position. The reaction is understandable as ICANN’s decisions, despite seeming very technical, have direct political repercussions. To take just one example, ICANN could in theory completely eliminate the domain names of certain countries (such as .fr or .cn for example) from the Internet. Money is also at stake because the entity that runs the Internet could favour certain technologies, and therefore certain companies.

[...]

The Reporters Without Borders position: It is not right that the United States should have sole control of the Internet’s regulatory bodies. So it is understandable that other countries should try to establish a new mode of Internet governance. But any reform must respect the following principles:

Do not give too much power to governments. The Internet must continue to be a network that is mainly developed by the private sector and civil society.

Ensure that repressive governments are not able to assume a dominant position within the Internet’s new regulatory structures.

Give the Internet management bodies the means to defend free expression. For example, give them the possibility of adopting sanctions against countries or corporations whose policies violate article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Other issues to be examined include the business of censorship in support of repressive regimes in the interest of making a buck, and net neutrality. See the source article for more background.

By Douglas Lee. In an article Special to the First Amendment Center Online, dated this day and titled Ill. attorney general takes on governor in FOI fight, Mr. Lee looks at an effort by Lisa Madigan to protect open government. The Illinois state attorney general was awarded a Sunshine Award at the 2005 national convention of the the Society of Professional Journalists; a move that was seen as controversial due to Ms. Madigan's role in a case limiting the First Amendment rights of the college press in Hosty v: Carter. Mr. Lee reports, however, that her recent challenges to Governor Rod Blagojevich leave little doubt about her commitment.

On 26 Oct, Ms. Madigan said the Illinois Freedom of Information Act required that the governor release copies of federal grand jury subpoenas directed to his office. Governor Blagojevich acknowledged in Nov 2005 that he had received four grand jury subpoenas, but has refused to confirm the issuance of additional demands for records since then. Assistant Attorney General Terry Mutchler wrote to the governor's general counsel on Ms. Madigan's behalf: "Our research has disclosed no federal or state statute, rule or regulation that specifically prohibits an officer or agency of the state of Illinois from releasing a federal grand jury subpoena pursuant to a FOIA request. Without legal support, the office of the governor and the agencies under his control cannot withhold federal grand jury subpoenas in their possession and must release these documents pursuant to a FOIA request." Governor Blagojevich said in reply that he would maintain secrecy at the supposed request of the U.S. attorney.

[The governor, of course, has a vested interest in not revealing information that could prove embarrassing under ordinary circumstances, but given his past free-speech-unfriendly consistent pattern of behaviour, I don't think he'd do this out of any regard for supposed confidentiality guidelines. These are not ordinary circumstances, however, as Blagojevich is currently in an election race. Moreover, the documents that were requested are considered public records. --MN]

By Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting. This watchdog group issued a Media Advisory on this day, titled Air America on Ad Blacklist?. In it, the group describes how ninety advertisers have a standing order that their commercials never be placed on syndicated Air America programs that air on ABC affiliates. The memo outlining this boycott, dated 25 Oct, reads in part:

"Please be advised that Hewlett Packard has purchased schedules with ABC Radio Networks between October 30th and December 24th, 2006. Please make sure you blackout this advertiser on your station, as they do not wish it to air on any Air America affiliate."

[...]

"Please see below for a complete list of all advertisers requesting that NONE of their commercials air within Air America programming."

The list includes some of largest and most well-known corporations in the U.S.:

Allstate Bank of America Exxon Fed-Ex GE

Hewlett Packard Johnson & Johnson McDonald's Microsoft Mobil

Sony United Sates Navy United States Postal Service Visa Wal-Mart

The memo is seen as evidence of the potentially censorious effect that advertisers' political preferences can have on the range of views presented in the media. Air America is seen as being liberally biased, and this action would certainly suppport a comment by a Fox News executive to Advertising Age (13 Oct 2003), when Al Gore proposed launching a progressive TV network: "The problem with being associated as liberal is that they wouldn't be going in a direction that advertisers are really interested in. ... If you go out and say that you are a liberal network, you are cutting your potential audience, and certainly your potential advertising pool, right off the bat."

By the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. In 2005, U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier issued a ruling that prevented South Dakota from enforcing a law that would require doctors to tell women that:

• abortions end human lives;
• may later cause serious psychological problems;
• a woman has a legal relationship with her unborn child which would be terminated by an abortion.

The injunction was issued while a law suit against the law proceeds. On 30 Oct, in a 2-1 decision, the panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that decision.

[The state argues that the required information is medically accurate and supported by science. This is a clear and present lie in my books. The anti-abortion movement is almost entirely religious based and anti-intellectual. Moreover, this violates a doctor's right to engage only in speech in which he or she believes, and I would also argue that it violates doctor/patient confidentiality. No doubt there are women who will come to be troubled by having had an abortion; that does not mean, however, that it should be used to strike fear into all patients, and there is still no hard and fast point at which life could be said to have started; statements on that topic continue to be no more than opinion. --MN]

By Michael Stark. A former Marine and a first year law student, Mr. Stark was asking Republican senator George Allen some questions about his arrest records that he will not make public, and whether the senator had ever spit on his first wife. (Rumors he had done so have been circulating). Men wearing "Allen" buttons assaulted Mr. Stark, wrestled him to the ground, and forcibly removing him from the premises. A video of the incident can be seen by way of AlterNet.org. On this day, his letter to NBC29 about the incident was reprinted in Richmond Times-Dispatch; it reads in part:

I demand that Senator Allen fire the staffers who beat up a constituent attempting to use his constitutional right to petition his government. I also want to know why Senator Allen would want his staffers to assault someone asking questions about matters of public record in the heat of a political campaign. Why are his divorce records sealed? Why was he arrested in the 1970s? And why did his campaign batter me when I asked him about these questions. George Allen defends his support of the Iraq war by saying that our troops are defending the ideals America stands for. Indeed, he says our troops are defending our very freedom. What kind of country is it when a Senator's constituent is assaulted for asking difficult and uncomfortable questions? What freedoms do we have left? Maybe we need to bring the troops home so that they can fight for freedom at George Allen's campaign events.

Senator Allen subsequently went on to blame the campaign of his Democrat opponent, Jim Webb, for causing the assualt, alleging that group had set him up. Candidate Webb denied any affiliation with Mr. Stark. Mr. Stark has been quite politically active during this campaign; his activism, by his own admission, inovlves being deliberately provocative.

[That, of course, does not excuse the criminal actions by apparent staff members, or at least volunteer supporters, of a public official. It didn't work when Nixon's people pulled it, it shouldn't be allowed now. --MN]

By the the Commerce Department and NASA. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Al Jazeera. Launched by the emirate of Qatar on 01 Nov 1996, the satellite channel has continued to arouse strong passions. Reporters Without Borders reviewed the main attacks against channel over the past two years alone:

"This satellite channel, beamed into the majority of Arab homes, took an immediate stand in opposition to traditional news broadcast by authorised media. On one hand its programmes regularly enraged Arab leaders for giving a voice to their opponents and to viewers themselves and because it raised political and social issues considered taboo in many countries in the Arab world.

"On the other hand, the US government frequently accused it of fomenting anti-American sentiment in the region and in citing violence against the US-British forces in Iraq.

"Numerous governments have tried to censor al-Jazeera, using financial and advertising boycotts, closing down its offices, banning it from covering major events, expulsions, arrests and deaths of its journalists, bombings of its premises and putting diplomatic pressure on Qatar. But while its outspokenness created a genuine precedent in the Arab broadcast landscape, it still rarely raises Qatar’s internal issues."

The source article then lists a number of such incidents.

By major, solely profit-based corporations. See the entry on the anti-Net Neutrality movement page.

By HBO. The program was scheduled to debut on this day, five days before the U.S., 2006, midterm elections. The film claims that Diebold voting machines that wil be used in the election are not tamper-proof and can be manipulated to change voting results. This contention has been the center of opposition to the use of machines since the 2004 presidential elections, at least. The contentions arose in part due to the win by the Republican party, which was seen as a stolen election, and as part of a series of allegations of efforts to fraudulently and illegally sway the election. The main point supporting the contention is that there was a blatant and highly anamolous margin between the election results and exit polls. Exit polls, up unti l this anamoly, have been highly accurate early indicators of how an electin is going to turn out.

Diebold Inc. insisted that cable network cancel the documentary, calling the program inaccurate and unfair. Diebold Election System President David Byrd said in a letter to HBO President and Chief Executive Chris Albrecht, "Hacking Democracy" is "replete with material examples of inaccurate reporting." While stopping short of demanding that the film be cancelled, Mr. Byrd certainly seems to violate the principle of Free Press by asking for disclaimers to be aired and for HBO to post Diebold's response on its Web site. Mr. Byrd had constitutionally exercised his right to speak out against the film by posting his letter on the Diebold web site, but he cannot demand that HBO publish a viewpoint with which it does not agree.

According to the letter, inaccuracies include the assertion that Diebold tabulated more than 40 percent of the votes cast in the 2000 presidential election, and goes on to state that Diebold wasn't in the electronic voting business in 2000. Jeff Cusson, a spokesman for HBO replied to the letter: "We stand by the film. We have no intention of withdrawing it from our schedule. It appears that the film Diebold is responding to is not the film HBO is airing." The company hasn't seen the film, its complaints are based on material from the HBO Web site.

By Taylor School District, Taylor, Michigan. While it remains on the library shelves, the book has been pulled from high school classes after a parent of a black student complained that a teacher had students read portions aloud and act out. The class's African-American student would hear classmates repeat the slur repeatedly. The decision does not sit well with a number of the other parents and students, however; commentary by those opposed to the action includes:

• Parent Cyndee Push: "She [her daughter] said, 'Mom, it's a good book; there are other books on the shelves that have worse words in it'. It didn't sound like the teachers were happy about it, the kids weren't happy about it, nobody was happy about it. We all read this book as a kid -- I want to see this book on the shelves. It's about what it was like then. I don't think it should be removed, it should just be discussed."

• Jim Netter, ex-chairman of the Legal Redress Committee for Western Wayne County chapter of the NAACP:
  • "We say nothing when it's in rap songs, but we want to burn the books of history."
  • [To ban the book] "would be to deny all points of history such as the (history) of Rosa Parks and her humiliation the Brown v. Board of Education decision as well as Plessy v. Ferguson.

    "The real story was to set Jim free (The book) is necessary in order to show the unfortunate truth of American history and to bring it to modern history."

• Kathy Ladd, English Department chair, Stevenson High School, who has taught the book for over 30 years: "This is an old, old controversy -- it goes back to the '60s, and I think its unfortunate that it can get in the way of teaching what many believe might be the greatest American novel, by the greatest American author.

  "It's a picture of a world, that's what it is. You're getting a view of how people lived it reflects not only the times, but also the mood of the times. Kids deserve to be presented with tough issues. They do not deserve to be sheltered."

• Lawrence Berkov, a professor emeritus who teaches Twain at the University of Michigan-Dearborn: "The fact that the (word) is used in the novel is disturbing, but it's the job of the teacher to explain why. The fact that an ugly word appears is no reason at all to ban the book."

[Lynette Sutton, assistant superintendent for secondary instruction, said of the decision: "We want to be sensitive to how the children feel." The problem with this attitude, however, is that it is not about senstitivity to how young adults feel; it is, in this editor's not so humble opinion, a slap in the face to their intelligence and their potential for learning how to deal with hard issues. It is also the action of an enabler; if the student or parent is offended by the material, it is up to them to deal with their offended senstivities, it is not up to rest of humanity to tiptoe around them. See my commentary on the issue of the word "nigger". --MN]

By the House Armed Services Committee. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Dennis Hawver. See the anti-Bush sentiment suppression timeline.

By the Iraq Interior Ministry. Security forces raided Al-Zawraa TV in Baghdad and Saleheddin TV in Tikrit in the aftermath of former American ally Saddam Hussein being sentenced to death, on the grounds they were inciting violence. The privately-owned Saleheddin TV broadcasted pro-Saddam demonstrations live, and then opened its phone lines for callers to express their opinions. Police were seeking the station’s owners, Hassan Khatab and Abdelrahman Dahash for questioning. Al-Zawraa, owned by Mishaan al-Jubouri, a legislator from the Liberation and Reconciliation Party, had previously received several warnings from the government to change its political coverage or face closure; sources said the channel had sought to avoid a confrontation on this day by ignoring demonstrations that erupted after Saddam’s sentence.

[Let's see . . . there is an occupation by illegally invading forces; which forces have killed an estimated 655,000 innocents; which perpetrated this crime against humanity to "bring democracy" to Iraq; which effort has generated numerous atrocities in its turn; and the invader has installed what is little more than a puppet government; in a situation that might already have devolved into a civil war; and which situation the invading regime seeks to rectify with the cold-blooded murder of its former ally; and the puppet government fears a news outlet reporting actual current events and opening its phone lines to callers much the way numerous outlets do in the overlord regime, on the grounds that the broadcast of those opinions will foment violence. . . .

. . . and my friends wonder why I'm such a cynic. --MN]

By PBS. A program about the Iraq war, it features interviews with local congressional candidates; it aired on other PBS stations on 03 Nov, but the PBS station serving Fort Hood's congressional district, KNCT, refused to air it. KNCT said there were no political motivation behind the decision; station officials said they were concerned that the show violated federal requirements to give all candidates equal airtime. The show includes only a picture and statement from Libertarian candidate Matt McAdoo. Joel Schwartzberg, a senior producer for the New York-based show, said the Libertarian candidate wasn't included in greater length because the war is not an essential part of his platform. Democratic challenger Mary Beth Harrell threatened, on 04 Nov, to file a federal complaint if KNCT did not air the program and explain why it was pulled. In face of this pressure, the station rescheduled it for broadcast on this day.

Jim Anderson, chancellor of Central Texas College, which runs the station, said on 05 Nov that the show was pulled because the station was following a policy not to give political candidates exposure 72 hours before an election. Mr. Schwartzberg, said that Now had contacted KNCT officials on 01 and 02 Nov to alert them about the upcoming program; he said the program is classified as a documentary, and "according to the Federal Communications Commission, it is exempt from having to present equal time."

[Chalk this one up to a collosal misunderstanding and misinterpretation of regulations. --MN]

By the Federal Communications Commission. In a court filing the agency dismissed charges against two television shows it had deemed indecent, but upheld its findings against two others. The two shows the commission still considers indecent are:

• 09 Dec, 2002: broadcast of the Billboard Music Awards on Fox; Cher used the phrase, "Fuck 'em."
• 10 Dec 2003: Billboard awards show; reality show star Nicole Richie said: "Have you ever tried to get cow shit out of a Prada purse? It's not so fucking simple."

The complaints about several episodes of NYPD Blue and one editon of The Early Show, a news program, were dismissed; in the matter of NYPD Blue: "solely on procedural grounds and they were not decided on the merits."

By FAIR. On this day the watchdog group issued a media advisory titled Midterms and the Media. In it, they quote members of the corporate press justifying and defending the failure of said press to properly report on candidates seeking public office:

• CBS reporter Jim Axelrod on how reporting information about candidates is not a top priority, and voters can get all they need somewhere else: "In this Internet age there's no shortage of places to go if you want to read position papers or hear what candidate are holding forth about the economy, education, the environment, anything like that. But our job, especially in the last four or five days, is to take everything that's coming in and crystallize it through a filter of what is popping, what seems to be the most--I guess, what you'd call man biting dog, what's out of the ordinary."

• Fox News Channel anchor and managing editor Brit Hume explaining why journalists should not evaluate political advertising for accuracy: "I don't like the reporters that try to police them, tell you what's true and what's not. Most political ads are arguably true and arguably false. It you start trying to get into issues of truth and falsity, you end up doing what the candidates do, which is arguing. My view is, let 'em play. The truth is, negative ads work."

• ABC political director Mark Halperin on how fact-checking and tracking stealth campaign techniques is too much like work: "The networks don't spend anything like they used to on covering elections, but we still have as many resources as anyone else devoted to trying to hold the candidates and campaigns accountable to the public interest. But it isn't easy. Even with all the modern technology out there, tracking new television ads is merely really, really hard, while tracking radio ads, church fliers, and those robo-calls that come at the very end is nearly impossible. And once you get a hold of the content, figuring out how to truth-squad the item, and then report it in context, is among the toughest tasks in daily journalism."

FAIR points out that: Judging media coverage of elections is often reduced to asking whether the press was fair to this candidate or that. The better question, though, is whether the press was fair to the American voters.

[Real news is the news you and I need to keep our freedoms. --Richard Reeves]

By Reporters Without Borders. The most internet-restrictive countries as determined by the watchdog group are, in alphabetical order:

Belarus Burma China Cuba

Egypt Iran North Korea Saudi Arabia

Syria Tunisia Turkmenistan Uzbekistan

Vietnam

Removed from the list because of improvements were Libya, Maldives, and Nepal.

By President Jalal Talabani. Reporters Without Borders met the Iraqi President in Paris on this day, and voiced concern about the mounting difficulties for journalists in the occupied territory. Since the start of the illgegal invasion in Mar 2003, at least 128 journalists and media assistants have been killed. A number of them under highly questionable circumstances. President Talibani responded to the RSF's concerns with an obvious and blatant falsehood; on 08 Nov, RSF wrote of the interchange:

President Talabani said Iraqi journalists were among the freest in the Middle East. He described a thriving press with more than 100 dailies and journalists who are free to criticise the authorities and government decisions. The new Iraqi state has never given orders for any journalist to be killed, he stressed.

Reporters Without Borders pointed out that journalists are facing not only violence but also many restrictions in the course of their work. Journalists, mostly Iraqi ones, have been subjected to curbs on their freedom of movement and professional freedom, including bans on filming religious festivities, the army or police, and members of parliament.

Since the start of the summer, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Al-Maliki has repeatedly threatened to use a 2004 anti-terrorism law to close down media that "incite violence." Reporters Without Borders secretary-general Robert Ménard asked President Talabani to ensure that this law, which provides for long prison terms for journalists who incite "sedition and sectarianism" is not applied in a draconian fashion.

Reporters Without Borders also queried the government's closure of two privately-owned TV stations on 5 November after they broadcast images of demonstrators protesting against Saddam Hussein's death sentence.

The organisation asked Talabani to authorise the reopening of the Baghdad bureau of the pan-Arab satellite TV station Al-Jazeera, which has been closed since August 2004. Talabani said negotiations were under way with the station's regional director to work out a "compromise." He said "many Baathists" worked at the station and that it was "hostile to Iraq."

["There is no such thing at this date of the world's history in America as an independent press. --John Swinden, 1953"; this certainly goes double for Iraq. And kindly note that while neither the puppet government nor the overlord regime has specifically given orders for the execution of journalists, neither has either done anything to put a stop to such murders by the occupation forces. --MN]

By Cuba. Guillermo Espinosa Rodriguez of the independent news agency Agencia de Prensa Libre Oriental (APLO), was sentenced to two years of house arrest for being a: "danger to society." He was also ordered to get a state job and banned from continuing his journalistic activities under threat of being imprisoned. Senor Espinosa worked as a nurse until three months before this when he was fired because of his dissident views. Reporters Without Borders said in a statement from 07 Nov: "Espinosa is likely to get a prison sentence for being a 'danger to society,' in other words, not for any crime he has supposedly committed but for the threat he supposedly represents. His case is a new example of the absurdity of a judicial system that can convict a person without any grounds." Senor Espinoza was currently the 25th journalist imprisoned in Cuba, as he was being held in an isolation cell at Department 21 of the Cuban state security police in Santiago de Cuba pending his trial.

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

By Iraqi murderers unknown. Muhammad al-Ban, a reporter and cameraman for the privately owned Al-Sharqiya TV, was executed by machine gun fire as he was leaving his home for work. The gunmen used a pickup truck mounted, Russian-made, BKC machine gun; a standard weapon of Iraqi police and security, according to a Committee to Protect Journalists source. Four men got out of the vehicle after the initial fussilade and shot several more times; his wife was also wounded in the attack. Also according to the CPJ, Mr. Al-Ban worked for three years at Al-Sharqiya and was well-known as an experienced journalist; he had also been deputy editor of the leading local daily Al-Masar but resigned in April this year to focus on his work for Al-Sharqiya.

This is the second murder of an Al-Sharqiya journalist in the past 10 days. Ahmad al-Rashid, a correspondent, was shot in Baghdad on 03 Nov. Mr. Al-Rashid began working for Al-Sharqiya in August, and was visiting family when he was stopped by gunmen, asked to exit his vehicle, and was then shot in front of witnesses. CPJ is investigating the circumstances behind both murders.

According to CPJ research, at least 11 journalists have been killed in the northern city of Mosul, and in all, eighty-six journalists and thirty-seven media support workers have been killed in Iraq in direct relation to their work since the invasion started on 20 Mar 2003, making it the deadliest conflict for journalists in CPJ’s 25-year history.

By FreePress.net and the Center for Media and Democracy. Residents of hurricane-ravaged Mississippi were told in a newscast over the year that global warming is a myth, but were not told that the segment was bought and paid for by ExxonMobil lobbyists. Nor does the issue stop in Mississippi. On this day, Free Press and the Center for Media and Democracy released a second report in which they expose more corporations putting out propaganda as news on television stations throughout the U.S. This follow-up report captures another forty-six stations, aside from the first seventy-seven, that are airing corporate propaganda; and which shows that these abuses continue unabated despite a currently running FCC inquiry. An e-mailed call to take action, also issued on this day, states that Free Press and CMD have delivered extensive evidence of this local TV abuse to the FCC. It also says that these two investigations detail less than one percent of fake news being offered to newsrooms.

The e-mail alert, signed by Campaign Director Timothy Karr, also said that the evidence suggests a strong tie between media consolidation and the tendency to abuse the airwaves with deception, as more than eighty percent of the stations revealed are owned by large conglomerates such as Sinclair, Fox Television, Tribune Company, and Clear Channel. On 15 Nov, Joe Garofolithe of the San Francisco Chronicle reported on this development in a piece titled Probe of Non-News News Sought, reprinted at CommonDreams.org. This piece contains a great deal of contextual background, including the impact of VNRs on the ability of the public to distinguish between news and outright fraud.

By the courts of France. journalist Claude Ardid and lawyer Albert Lévy had been charged for revealing details of a judicial investigation into alleged corruption in school meal contracts. The case on which they reported happened in 1998 in the city of Toulon. On this day the court ruled that: "they [journalists] should only be taken to task for any abuse of the freedom of expression (...) they may have committed, but not on account of any possible violation of confidentiality which helped to inform the public." This ruling flatly goes against article 38 of the 1881 press law that reads in part: "it is forbidded to publish indictments or any other criminal procedural document"; this was in order to comply with article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Reporters Without Borders said of the decision: "This ruling is a decisive step forward for press freedom."

By Al-Jazeera. The newscaster launched an English-language channel that is available in more than 80 million homes, but which lacks major U.S. distribution. This is not surprising considering that the news channel is known for angering policians in the Western and Arabic worlds; there it has been banned at various times from operating in eighteen countries. Four Arab nations still forbid Al-Jazeera reporters from entering their sovereignty.

[Addendum (21 Nov 2006:) On 20 Nov Pierre Tristam had a piece reprinted at CommonDreams.org, titled Al-Jazeera in the No-Fluff Zone of Eye-Opening network News. The piece is one part critique of the new channel, one part comparitive journalism, and well worth the read. --MN]

By the U.S. Justice Department. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Norman Solomon. His piece, titled The New Media Offensive for the Iraq War, was published by CommonDreams.org on this day. In it, Mr. Solomon excoriates, first, the New York Times, and then the media in general for engaging in a wholesale reprise of the self-destructive mindset it the press had during the Viet Nam debacle. He wrote in one brief passage:

These days, media coverage of U.S. policy in Iraq often seems to be little more than a remake of how mainstream news outlets portrayed Washington's options during the war in Vietnam. Routine deference to inside-the-Beltway conventional wisdom has turned many prominent journalists into co-producers of a "Groundhog Day" sequel that insists the U.S. war effort must go on.

During the years since the fall of Saddam, countless news stories and commentaries have compared the ongoing disaster in Iraq to the Vietnam War. But those comparisons have rarely illuminated the most troubling parallels between the U.S. media coverage of both wars.

Whether in 1968 or 2006, most of the Washington press corps has been at pains to portray withdrawal of U.S. troops as impractical and unrealistic.

Contrary to myths about media coverage of the Vietnam War, the American press lagged way behind grassroots antiwar sentiment in seriously contemplating a U.S. pullout from Vietnam. The lag time amounted to several years -- and meant the additional deaths of tens of thousands of Americans and perhaps 1 million more Vietnamese people.

A survey by the Boston Globe, conducted in February 1968, found that out of 39 major daily newspapers in the United States, not one had editorialized for withdrawing American troops from Vietnam. Today -- despite the antiwar tilt of national opinion polls and the recent election -- advocacy of a U.S. pullout from Iraq seems almost as scarce among modern-day media elites.

[Read it and weep; . . . for a lack of honest reporting in the corporate press. --MN]

By the Florida Supreme Court. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By William Gentry. This art student said of his piece, The Fat Is in the Fire, that it was a commentary on obesity in America. "I deep-fried the flag because I'm concerned about America and about America's health." The exhibit featured three U.S. flags along with dozens of smaller flags, all of which had been fried in peanut oil, egg batter, flour, and black pepper. the U.S. flags were imprinted with such phrases as "Poor people are obese because they eat poorly".

Ned Crouch, the executive director of Customs House Museum in Clarkeville, Tennessee, took the piece down less than eighteen hours after it went up. The community is next to Fort Campbell, and Mr. Crouch defended this violation of free speech rights by saying: "It's about what the community values. I'm representing 99 per cent of our membership - educators, doctors, lawyers, military families." Mr. Crouch also said the timing of the piece could cause "incendiary reactions", and "Never in the history of the country has the flag been more hated or more loved."

[It seems that one more fool has crawled out of the woodwork who thinks that the flag is more important than the principles and freedom the flag only stands for. Principles those servicemen are sworn to uphold; or so we are told. --MN]

By the American Civil Liberties Union of Nevada. City officials responded to a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling by passing two ordinances on 15 Nov that restrict behavior at the Fremont Street Experience. The laws were tailored to comply with the courts decision in Oct that declared a similar 1997 city law from was unconstitutional. Gary Peck, ACLU executive director in Las Vegas commented about the situation: "The new ordinance is as unconstitutional as the old ordinance." He characterized the city position as: "Free speech is bad for business, and because it's bad for business, we're going to outlaw it." City Attorney Brad Jerbic insisted that the new ordinances addressed the constitutionality issues cited by the appeals court. See the source article for more background.

This is an illustrated children's book and is based on a true story of two male penguins at the Central Park Zoo in New York City, that adopted an egg and raised the hatched chick. Some parents of Shiloh Elementary School students believe the book's homosexual undertones tackles topics their children aren't ready to handle. They are attempting to have the book moved from the regular shelves and restricted to a section for mature issues, and perhaps to have parental permission required. school district Superintendent Jennifer Filyaw says the book will remain in general circulation as it undergoes a review process.

[Take note that the book is written for four to eight year old readers. It is not these children who are not ready to handle issues of same-sex couples, it is their parents. I am willing to state unequivocally that the idea of homosexuality is far and away beyond the curiosity of four to eight year olds. It is not that they can't handle homosexuality, it's just that they don't have any interest in such issues. --MN]

By Robert Jensen. The professor of journalism at University of Texas at Austin had a piece titled Opportunities Lost: When Bullies Derail Dialogue, We All Lose, that was published by CommonDreams.org. In it, he details two incidents in which he was disinvited from public speaking events and goes on to explore the powerful negative impact this kind of censorship has on private citizens who prefer to think for themselves:

In both cases, of course I can’t know exactly what was behind these decisions. I assume the folks in charge decided it was safer to exclude someone with left/radical politics than to risk the backlash from more centrist and conservative constituencies. But I didn’t give the cancellations much thought until last week at the end of a long evening at a private school in California, where I had been invited to speak about power and privilege. When the formal program ended, a dozen people lingered, and we pulled chairs into a circle to continue the conversation about race and gender, capitalism and empire.

When I finally suggested that I was running out of steam and should head toward my hotel and bed, one of the parents from the school said, "I realize you are tired, but I would stay here all night if I could -- I’m so hungry for this kind of conversation."

That remark led to more talk about how these conversations are too rare in a depoliticized society where so many people are afraid to speak their minds. Others agreed that they wished for more spaces to talk honestly about fundamental questions: What it means to be a person in a complex world, to be a U.S. citizen in a time of imperial war, to be materially comfortable in a world where so many lived without the basics.

(see 22 Jan 2006; 16 Mar 2006; 17 Jul 2006)

By the California Supreme Court. The court ruled that web sites that publish inflammatory information which has been written by other parties cannot be sued for libel. The ruling is a victory for Ilena Rosenthal, a woman's health advocate who runs various message boards and promotes alternative medicine, and who was sued by two doctors for posting an allegedly libelous e-mail on two Web sites. Some major internet corporations, including Amazon.com, America Online Inc., eBay Inc., Google Inc., Microsoft Corp. and Yahoo Inc., had taken Ms. Rosenthal's side out of concern that a ruling against her would expose them to liability. A scathing missive by Tim Bolen, accused Dr. Terry Polevoy, a Canadian, of stalking a Canadian radio producer, and included various invectives directed at Dr. Polevoy and Dr. Stephen Barrett of Pennsylvania. The two operated Web sites devoted to the exposure of health frauds. After Ms. Rosenthal posted the letter to two newsgroups, both men sued her, Bolen, and others, for libel. The trial court ruled that her actions were protected, a state appeals court decided there were not, and the state Supreme Court's ruling has reversed the Appeal court's decision. Christopher Grell, the attorney for the plaintiffs, said they have not decided whether to appeal this decision, and is quoted, "What this decision does is, it basically promotes the distribution of offensive material, which I can't imagine Congress ever intended."

[Note the overbroad use of the word "offensive". --MN]

By Iraqi person or persons unknown. Walid Hassan was the star of the weekly programme Caricatures on the privately-owned TV station Al Sharkiya; on which he made fun of the US army, Iraqi politicians, Sunni insurgents, and Shiite militias. Under the Hussein regime he took part in many arts and sports programmes on public television. He was murdered on this day, apparently while resisting a kidnapping attempt. Mr. Hassan was the third employee of Al Sharkiya to be killed since the start of Nov.

By CACI International. This company is a defense contractor whose services have included the interrogation of Iraqi prisoners. On this day, Joshua Holland, of AlterNet.org, had posted at the indy media site a piece titled CACI: Torture in Iraq, Intimidation at Home. In it, he details how CACI International has been trying to threaten and intimidate Robert Greenwald in the pursuit of his most recent project: Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers. In the article, Mr. Greenwald is quoted as saying: "The threatening letters started early, trying to get us to back off. We refused, and went back at them with a very strong letter saying, 'no, you're war profiteers and we won't be silenced.' Like any bully, they backed down when confronted. No lawsuit was filed-- they're a paper tiger."

Mr. Holland also wrote, among other inicidents, that CACI International sued Air America Radio host Randi Rhodes for having no more than read a portion of an interview with former Brigadier General Janice Karpinski; she commanded the military police at Abu Ghraib. That suit was dismissed with a summary judgment.

[NB: Robert Greenwald is a member of the board of the Independent Media Institute, which is the parent organization for AlterNet.org. --MN]

By Cuba. On this day the Committee to Protect Journalists welcomed the release of Oscar Mario Gonzalez, who had been held in jail without charges for sixteen months. He was unexpectedly set free on 20 Nov without explanation. CPJ Executive Director Joel Simon commented: "We are relieved that Oscar Mario Gonzalez has been freed. We now urge Cuba to release the other 24 journalists it keeps behind bars on spurious antistate charges." As of this date, Cuba continued to be the second worst violator of Free Press principles in the world, following China.

By District of Columbia police. A law suit stemming from an incident in which Partnership for Civil Justice alleged the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department unlawfully prevented people from approaching the 2001 inauguration parade route and used plainclothes officers to assault demonstrators, was settled on this day. Under the terms of the settlement:

• The Metropolitan Police Department has agreed to make sure requirements that officers report the use of force remain in place during public protests; those requirements had been suspended during demonstrations;

• training:
  • will be changed to reflect that requirement,
  • will include restrictions on the use of police lines against protesters,
  • and instruction that no one can be arrested for parading without a permit;

• the district has agreed to pay $685,000 to cover damages to two people who were assaulted by plainclothes officers and attorney fees and other costs.

PCJ attorney and co-founder Mara Verheyden-Hilliard said in a statement: "This is a victory for the First Amendment rights of all people who seek to protest in the capital of the United States without police brutality and disruption of assembly." A spokeswoman for city lawyers said she had not yet seen the settlement and therefore could not comment. The PCJ also sued the Secret Service and the National Park Service for their roles in the incidents, and that part of the case is still pending.

By the Committee to Protect Journalists. The Committee honoured its 2006 Award winners at an awards ceremony in New York City on this day. The awards were announced on 17 Nov at a press conference. The journalists, Jesús Abad Colorado of Colombia, Jamal Amer of Yemen, and Madi Ceesay of Gambia, were honored at the event, which also marked CPJ’s 25th anniversary. The three reporters have risked their lives to report the news, withstanding attacks, harassment, and imprisonment. CPJ also posthumously honored Atwar Bahjat, correspondent for Al-Arabiya satellite television and former reporter for Al-Jazeera, who was gunned down in February while covering a bombing near Samarra, Iraq.

By Eric Boehlert of Media Matters for America. Ed Bradley passed away from Leukemia recent to this day, and tributes to the journalism giant were in no short supply. On this day, Mr. Beohlert paid his tribute by criticizing CBS for its wholesale failure to support honest journalism and smearing Ed Bradley in the process. His piece, titled CBS Owes Ed Bradley an Apology, and which is reprinted at AlterNet.org, is an indepth study about how Mr. Bradley's work on the fraudulent use of the counterfeit Niger documents by the Bush administration was wrongfully scrapped by CBS as fallout from an honest journalistic mistake. Mr. Boehlert wrote in part:

But spooked by the controversy still raging over CBS' botched 60 Minutes II report on Bush and the National Guard, the one featuring the now-infamous unauthenticated memos allegedly written by Bush's commander, CBS News president Andrew Heyward completely abdicated the network's news responsibility and announced that Bradley's hard-hitting, and previously scheduled, story would not be broadcast in 2004. "We now believe it would be inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election," a CBS spokeswoman said at the time. (In fact, it was 18 months before Bradley's report, in an altered state, was safely broadcast on 60 Minutes.)

I realize the certified corporate-media takeaway from CBS' National Guard controversy, featuring Dan Rather, is supposed to be that the network was guilty of a colossal, historic newsroom blunder that ranks as one of the real earth-shattering journalism scandals of recent decades.

But I think any journalism pro who looks at the facts objectively would conclude that CBS' weak-kneed decision to spike Bradley's story represented the real newsroom calamity; a calculated capitulation that did far more long-lasting damage to CBS' newsgathering integrity than the Guard story, which, after all, the network eventually apologized for.

Mr. Boehlert then goes on to examine a number of questions raised by attempts to defend that capitulation. This is a piece well worth the read.

By Craig Thompson and Alison Bechdel, respectively. These two graphic novels, semi-autobiographical accounts of the respective turbulent childhoods of the authors, include ruminations on a strict religious upbringing and homosexuality. They have touched off what librarian Amy Crump said is the first challenge of materials in the 16-year history of the Marshall Public Library, in central Missouri. Some parents complained that the books, which include pictures of naked couples, could be read by children. As is frequently the case, the books were misrepresented as pornography by those bringing the challenge, and the standard plaint was uttered that "tax dollars" should not be used to purchase materials the challengers find offensive. The library board removed the two books from circulation pending the development of a policy governing the collection of materials in the future.

According to the source article for this entry, sales of graphic novels, commonly referred to formerly as comic books, has been increased dramatically over the last few years, particularly to public libraries, but perceptions of such works are egregiously out of date. Milton Griepp, chief executive of ICV2, which tracks pop-culture retail, commented about the situation: "I think there's still a perception in the general public that comics are just for kids, which isn't true and hasn't been true for years."

[I will point out to the reader that that misperception was used to procure a conviction against a bookseller in Texas not too long ago, on obscenity charges. The prosecutor fatuously and fraudulently proclaimed in his arguments that comic books are for kids, as if there were some kind of natural or man-made law against adults reading comic books. --MN]

By Peter Hedges. This book was summrarily removed from a Carroll High School's literature-to-film class, in Carroll, Iowa. The district superintendent, Rob Cordes, expressed concerns about the content of the book, apparently out of context. It was reported that he hadn't read all of the book, but said that its sexual content is out-of-bounds for high school students. He says the issue is a matter of curriculum, not censorship, as the book remains available to students in the school's media center. As Carroll High teacher-librarian Kelly Fischbach pointed out, however, the book deserves to be judged in its entirety, not for a few sentences. He is quoted as commenting about the incident: "It's a great book. Kids love it. Boys who are at risk love it -- you know, the people whose test scores we're trying to raise." Mr. Hedges himself is an Iowan, and the book is about a boy in Iowa who is stuck in a job that's going nowhere and living in a dysfunctional family.
(see 02 Jan 2007)

By John Nichols, of The Nation. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By Charles C. Haynes First Amendment Center senior scholar. On this day, Mr. Haynes had posted his analysis of the 2006 State of the First Amendment survey. While the American public has generally gotten over its anti-liberties hysteria stemming from the World Trade Center attack, the numbers continue to be a mixed bag, with three quarters of respondents saying that newspapers should respect government decisions on what, effectively, can be published about the government.

By David Rossie, of Press & Sun-Bulletin. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By the government of Iran. In a report titled How provisional release is turned into a tool of censorship, and released on this day, Reporters Without Borders, shows how the ultraconservative government of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is very slyly using fear as a means to promote self-censorship. The watchdog group reported:

Using arbitrary arrest and incarceration to decimate its independent press, the Islamic Republic has been the Middle-East's biggest prison for journalists and cyber-dissidents since 2000.

Nowadays fewer journalists are imprisoned in Iran but this does not mean the authorities have relaxed the pressure on the press. Journalists are now often released provisionally after several days or weeks in detention, but no date is set for their trial, still less for their acquittal or the withdrawal of charges. Sometimes they are given prison sentences without ever being ordered to report to prison.

Prosecutions that are delayed and sentences that are not implemented are threats that hang over journalists and prevent them from writing freely. The Ahmadinejad government and the judicial authorities have turned the entire country into the region's biggest open prison.

By the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens. In a piece titled Justice shares his change in thinking about flag desecration, Tony Mauro examines Justice Stevens's change in viewpoint through progressive thinking. In remarks he made in September, before the Chicago Bar Association, Justice Stevens said that "after thinking a good deal about the issue", he now believes that the passage of a constitutional amendment against flag desecration would be "unwise" and unnecessary. Not out of any particular concerns over constitutionality, however, but from changing social conditions. The decisions allowing flag-burning in 1989 and 1990, from which he dissented, have allowed the practice to fall into desuetude; according to the Justice; "Nobody burns flags anymore. What once was a courageous act of defiant expression is now perfectly lawful and therefore is not worth any special effort." In addition, said Justice Stevens, now that the rulings have become the entrenched, "burning the flag is now a symbolic act that conveys a far different message than it once did. If one were to burn a flag today, the act would convey a message of freedom that ours is a society that is strong enough to tolerate such acts by those whom we despise."

Justice Stevens dissented strongly in Texas v. Johnson, and read his dissent from the bench; within which he said: "The value of the flag as a symbol cannot be measured. Sanctioning the public desecration of the flag will tarnish its value -- both for those who cherish the ideas for which it waves and for those who desire to don the robes of martyrdom by burning it."

By the state of Georgia Supreme Court. In a 4-3 ruling, the court held that the Georgia anti-SLAPP law covers only free speech linked to official proceedings. The decision upheld an earlier ruling from the Georgia Court of Appeals that refused to expand the scope of the state's 1996 anti-SLAPP law. This means that in Georgia, only governments will be forbidden to sue citizens who are critical of public policy, but corporations, the bodies which commonly bring such suits, will have a free hand at suing anyone who publicly says they don't like the corporation, its practices, or its products.

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

By U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins. Judge Collins struck down two provisions of Executive Order 13224 in which President Bushs gave to himself the authority to designate groups and individuals as terrorists. The 45-page ruling in Humanitarian Law Project v. U.S. Department of Treasury granted in part and denied in part a legal challenge brought by the group; which group seeks to provide training to the Liberation Tigers (the Tamil), and Partiya Karkeran Kurdistan, in human rights advocacy and provide them with humanitarian aid. With the Executive Order, President Bush blocked all property and interests in property of twenty-seven groups or individuals named as specially designated global terrorists (SDGT). He also authorized the secretary of the treasury to designate anyone who "assists, sponsors or provides services to" or is "otherwise associated with" a designated group. Judge Collins found this authority "unconstitutionally vague on its face." She also found that the provision involving those "otherwise associated with" the groups is vague and overbroad and could impinge on the right of free association.

David Cole, a lawyer for the Center for Constitutional Rights, and who represented the plaintiff, is quoted: "This law gave the president unfettered authority to create blacklists. It was reminiscent of the McCarthy era." He further said that the value of the current decision is: it "says that even in fighting terrorism the president cannot be given a blank check to blacklist anyone he considers a bad guy or a bad group and you can't imply guilt by association."

By peace activists. See the entry on the COINTELPRO page.

By the U.S. Department of Justice. See the entry on the Child Porn/Harmful to Minors page.

By research done in the United States. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Women's groups, health advocacy organisations, and 21 members of the United States Congress. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By The People's Republic of China. Reporters Without Borders hailed a decision, taken under international pressure by the foreign ministry and announced on this day, to loosen travel regulations for foreign journalists who will be working in China for the Olympic and Paralympic Games. From the beginning of Jan 2007 until Oct 2008, foreign journalists with accreditation for the games will be able to travel freely throughout China. The will also be allowed to travel without hindrance to the illegally occupied country of Tibet. See the source article for more background on this and related issues.

[Personally, I tend to look askance at this development. For one thing, it applies only to foreign journalists, not to domestic reporters, and the last time the government of China relaxed journalistic restrictions, it followed up the action with the wholesale massacre of political activists and demonstrators at Tiananmen Square. See Dr. Jiang Yanyong's call to the government of China concerning that matter. --MN]

By Daphne Evitar, of The Nation. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By Paul K. McMasters. The First Amendment Center ombudsman, he had a piece posted at the Center web site on this day that paints an ugly, ugly picture of the state of the American fifth estate. In it, he examines a conglomeration of legal, economic, technological, and professional problems that are threatening the entire institution of the traditional press. He wrote, in part:

Should Americans really worry whether the news media are in the middle of a meltdown?

Many believe they have access to all the news and information they want, without the major media. The Internet, for example, oozes information. Record numbers of Americans are now posting content online themselves, either on personal Web pages or blogs. Others blithely boast that they get all the news they need from family and friends, or from late-night comics Jon Stewart, David Letterman and Jay Leno.

And while these alternative sources of information make a vital contribution to the national conversation, the problem is that they are largely derivative. For the most part, they live off the facts, enterprise and resources that the mainstream press provides. Most have a different take on professional standards or journalistic goals.

More important, they lack the expertise, the resources and the will to fight the long and expensive legal battles that regularly confront the mainstream press. Imagine what this nation would be like if there were no major newspapers or network news operations. Or if the press were in a permanent state of economic disarray or government subservience.

By Islamist priest Fazel Lankarani. On 06 Nov, Azerbaijani fortnightly newspaper Sanat (Industry), published an op/ed piece by Rafiq Nazar Oughlo Taghizadh. Entitled "Europe and us", the piece claimed that European values were superior to those of Muslim countries. This claim sparked outrage in both Azerbaijan (an Islamist country), and Iran, with Azerbiajani authorities appealing to Iran for advice on how to handle this "offense". Fazel Lankarani, a leading Iranian ayatollah, replied to the appeal by issuing a religious decree (a fatwa), calling for the execution of both the journalist and the paper's editor, Samir Sadaght Oughlo. The fatwa was posted to the ayatollah's web journal on 25 Nov. On this day, Reporters Without Borders condemned the decree, saying: "It is deeply shocking and completely unacceptable that religious fundamentalists should call for the murder of two people who just expressed their opinions."

By the State of Hawaii. The anti-sexuality group called The Center for Bio-Ethical Reform lost out against the City of Honolulu when the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the group's lawsuit against the Honolulu law against tow-banner advertising. Not happy at being treated the same way as all advertisers and advocay groups, Gregg Cunningham, director for the group, vowed to take the matter back to the courts on the grounds that the Federal Aviation Administration permitted his company to fly over Hawaii after the facts of the case were presented. His hope is to get the FAA involved in the law suit. Mary Steiner, head of the Outdoor Circle, which has supported the city, lauded the decision and commented: "This is important for other jurisdictions that have been bothered by these banner-towing planes. We have our right to maintain the beauty of Hawaii and the right to say no to this visual blight." Supporters said the denial could open the way for other cities to prohibit banners towed by aircraft and would preserve the state's natural beauty and its tourist industry.

[I don't know where Cunningham thinks he's going by dragging in the FAA; a federal government department does not outrank or supercede the authority of even a municipal court or any other court anywhere in the land. I don't know if this point is enough to warrant a new trial, and I certainly wouldn't be amused to have some stuffed-shirt showing up in my court again on a matter I've already settled without very compelling arguments, indeed. --MN]
(see 23 May 2006)

By The Women's Studies Organization at Rhode Island College. The Organization had posted signs bearing the above near a campus entrance in Dec 2005 for a day of activism for women's rights. According the law suit, filed in federal court on this day, after a priest on his way to conduct a weekly Mass observed the signs and alerted the president of the public college, John Nazarian, police removed the signs. The group had been negotiating with the college over the past year, but have been unable to resolve the problem and decided to sue. The complaint seeks unspecified damages and asks that the action be declared unconstitutional; it also challenges a policy on campus signs that the group says was recently adopted and is being selectively enforced. College spokeswoman Jane Fusco commented about the incident: "The college was not objecting to the use of the signs or the message the signs carried. The college was concerned about the location of the signage and that, at the time, it didn't have a program associated with it." See the source article for more background.

By Norman Solomon. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By the media outlets of the nation of Fiji. The country underwent a military coup d'etat on this day. Due to hostility toward press freedom by the military, at least two newspapers stopped publishing, the state-owned broadcast media suspended their news programmes, and foreign journalists were prevented from providing some coverage. The domestic services, however, seem to have ceased publication on their own so that they would not be used as propaganda mouthpieces by the press-hostile military. The military had been threatening to topple the elected government for weeks, and the Fiji Media Council had condemned the coup plans on 04 Dec, calling them a violation of the constitution and a "shame for the country." RSF reported that in the aftermath of the coup:

• Fiji's public television announced the suspension of its news programmes a few hours after the takeover, commenting: "Fiji Television's news service will not resume until it can be independent and free of censorship."

• Radio Fiji and Communications Fiji, privately-owned radio networks, received visits from the military, which imposed prior restraint upon them.

• The Fiji Times, the main daily newspaper, suspended publication after being threatened with censorship by the military; an article on its website reported that armed soldiers came to the newspaper and asked it not to publish any "hostile propaganda" about the new military government; managing director Tony Yianni tried to defend the paper's right to editorial independence, but decided to temporarily stop publishing due to military hostility.

• The Flash d'Océanie news agency quoted editor Samisoni Kakaivalu as saying: "This is not journalism any more, this is propaganda."

• The Fiji Daily Post:
  • suspended publication on 04 Dec after being warned not to continue supporting the Prime Minister;
  • journalists abandoned the paper's offices and the managing editor went into hiding;
  • Commodore Bainimarama's open criticism of the newspaper was followed by threatening phone calls;
  • the paper was reportedly warned in November that it would be the first to fall in the event of a coup.

• Soldiers prevented foreign journalists from approaching the home of the deposed prime minister on this day; he had been placed under house arrest.

The Fiji Daily Post supports Prime Minister Qarase's party, the SDL, and has always maintained that he was constitutionally elected and has a popular mandate.

By Reporters Without Borders. The international watchdog reported on this day on the cases of Ahmed Rodríguez Albacia, of the Jóvenes sin Censura independent news agency, and independent journalist Raymundo Perdigón Brito.

On 04 Dec, Senor Albacia who was arrested in Havana by the State Security police. RSF condemned the action, saying: "Rodríguez Albacia and his family have been the victims of constant harassment by the political police since the start of the year. This young journalist was even detained and ordered to stop his journalistic activities in September. This time the State Security has deprived him of his work material and thrown him in prison. Is any further proof needed that he been arrested simply for being a journalist?"

On 05 Dec, Senor Brito was sentenced to four years imprisonment for being a "pre-criminal danger to society." The Cuban criminal code allows the authorities to arrest anyone as a "pre-criminal danger to society" even if they have not committed a crime, simply on the grounds that they pose a potential threat. The charge is often used to detain dissidents. A dissident journalist based in Cuba told RSF that Senor Brito was arrested on 29 Nov and told to cease his journalist activities or face prison. Twelve days before he had founded Yayabo Press, a small independent news agency, with his sister Ana Margarita Perdigón. She was to take over as its editor. Some one hundred demonstrators attacked members of his family as they left the court on 5 Dec, and his father had to be hospitalised due to a blow to the chest.

By person or persons unknown. Ms. Jess Moore, who runs the student monthly Tertangala [Smoke Signal] in the coastal town of Wollongong in south-eastern Australia, was suspected of attending a meeting in support of the Hamas movement on 18 Oct 2006. Hamas and the Lebanese-based Hizbollah are seen as terrorist organisations in Australia, and all support for them is punishable under terrorism laws. Ms. Moore had gone to a conference with around 20 other students as a student activist herself and as a journalist. The meeting had nothing to do with Hamas, however, it focused on the misohomonist political stance of the Australian government. Someone one called into a anti-terrorism hotline and denounced her as a terrorist. RSF wrote of the incident at their site on this day:

Misled by the message left on the hotline, police in Wollongong alerted the authorities. A police inspector turned up at the campus before realising the mistake. Police in Wollongong however told Jess Moore, who is also an anti-war activist, that the investigation against her was continuing.

The Sydney Morning Herald condemned the incident and Moore said she was stunned by the investigation, which she had only been told about on 5 December, two months after the meeting. "I spoke to several lawyers and they told me to take this case seriously," she told a journalist on ABC Online.

On 06 Dec 2005, the Australian Parliament adopted the Australian Anti-Terrorism Act 2005, a law which simply overrides any principles in favour of a free press. It provides for penalties of up to five years in prison for anyone making contact with a person suspected of terrorism, and journalists investigating terrorist activity can be subject to arrest, particularly if they published the names of suspects. Furthermore, under the new law reporters have no right to refuse to reveal their sources in terror cases, and security forces can conduct searches of media premises in pursuit of evidence in such cases.

[This incident clearly and presently demonstrates the folly of having private citizens doing anti-terrorism surveillance, and it is also mind-bogglingly stupid for the police to continue an investigation they have already realized and admitted is being conducted in error. These actions alone are not the sort of things one would expect in a supposedly free country. --MN]

By the Bayonne school district and several of its officials. The distict implemented a school uniform dress code in Sep this year; against which two students engaged in a silent protest. They wore lapel buttons with the words "no school uniforms" with a slash through them superimposed on a photo of young German boys wearing identical shirts and neckerchiefs. The image is of Hitler Youth Movement members. One student wore the button for at least six weeks before objections were raised in Nov. The school district threatened to suspend the boys for wearing the buttons. In a letter to the protester's parents, the district said the images, "are considered objectionable and are offensive to many Bayonne citizens and do not constitute free speech according to Mr. Kenneth Hampton, attorney for the Bayonne Board of Education." The parents filed a law suit on 01 Dec, and the hearing was scheduled for this day before U.S. District Judge Joseph A. Greenaway. Although the ACLU is not involved in the case, Ed Barocas, legal director of the ACLU's New Jersey chapter, commented: "The school cannot prohibit student free speech even where some may find the speech offensive. The school must show that the free speech is actually going to be disruptive, in order to censor it."

Ms. Laura DePinto, mother of student Michael DePinto, said of the situation in a written statement: "I've gotten overwhelming support from MANY people that tell me that they absolutely agree with what the image depicted, an ominously homogenous group of blindly cooperative children. That image showed no swastikas, no weapons, and Hitler himself wasn't depicted. The picture makes a profound statement about what can happen when we turn children into 'uniform' followers. Our intent was not to offend but to make a bold statement about what we, as an American family believe is an erosion of a simple right, to be individuals, not blind followers. The very basic rights, to wear clothing we choose, and to peacefully protest what we know was the undemocratic stripping of those rights from us as parent and student."

[Amusing, n'est ce pas, that a person who finds any depiction of naziism so offensive should act so much like a nazi? Perhaps it is merely that this expression of protest has struck a little too close to home. Bravo to Ms. DePinto for scoring such a telling point with such a simple expression. As an artist myself, I've just got to love it when stuff like happens. --MN]

[Addendum (20 Dec 2006:) A follow up article on this incident posted at Student Press Law Center on 15 Dec, put the date for oral arguments on the Fifteenth. I'm guessing that at the preliminary hearing the parents had agreed that their children would not wear the buttons until the matter was settled, making an injunction against the buttons a moot point. --MN]
(see 20 Sep 2007)

By Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority. Under pressure from a group called Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood, advertisements for the video game was pulled off the subways. MBTA General Manager Daniel Grabauskas told the group on this day that the board had approved a ban on ads for games rated suitable only for players seventeen years in age or older. Susan Linn, co-founder of the group, commented: "We are thrilled that the MBTA has been so responsive to community concerns. The children of Boston can now ride the MBTA without being targets for advertising that glorifies violence. [The decision] sends a strong message to the videogame industry that public property cannot be used to promote violence to children. We hope that other cities will follow suit."

[The all important question is: is this restriction reasonable as to time, place, or manner. Given that this is public property, and commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment, this appears very much to be a matter of Congress (in the form of government employees) abridging the freedom of speech in a public space. And there are court rulings that state: one cannot prevent the transmission of information concerning adult matters to adults because that information will also be accessible by children. --MN]

By William Bennett Turner, of San Francisco Chronicle. He had a piece, titled The Government's Assault on Press Freedom, reprinted at AlterNet.org. In it, he examines the various degrees of freedom by which journalism is practiced in various countries, including the U.S., and how the practioners generally fare. He begins his piece with:

Vladimir Posner, the former Soviet journalist, used to claim the press was freer in the Soviet Union than it was in the United States. This was during Glasnost, as the Soviet empire was disintegrating. Posner explained that the government was dysfunctional, so journalists did not have to worry about the official censors, and the media had not been privatized, so journalists were not accountable to commercial sponsors and advertisers. The result was a kind of anarchic freedom. The press was free, but only for a brief window in time. The window in America once was open wide and, I thought, permanently so. I used to tell my students on the first day of class that we had the freest speech and press in the world. I can't do that anymore.

By the United States government. It was reported on this day today by Miami New Times that Oliver Stone's Ixtlan production company and four individuals agreed to pay $6,322.20 to: "resolve allegations of violations of the Cuban embargo". The government of the supposedly freest land in the world made it illegal for American citizens to travel freely to Cuba when it launched a trade embargo against the communist state. The announcement by the Department of Treasury Office of Foreign Asset Control was released 01 Dec.

[I say that the embargo and the action against Mr. Stone are in violation of:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Article 2. Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any ot her limitation of sovereignty.

Article 12. No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Bill of Rights:

Amendment I: Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech. . . .

I see this as violating the First Amendment in that it disrupts the free flow of information. Journalists are allowed to travel to Cuba, but Stone does not self-identify as a journalist; he saw himself going there only as a filmmaker, even though the material he was gathering was for a documentary. The keyword here, however, is "documentary", not "filmmaker". --MN]

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

By the artists and peoples of Lebanon. On this day Ms. Souheila Al-Jadda had a piece titled Art Becomes Yet Another Victim of War reprinted at CommonDreams.org in which he illustrates the impact the occupation and repression of Lebanon by force of arms has on the arts industry in that region. She wrote in part:

A dozen of the most prominent Lebanese artists, and possibly more, reportedly lost their works in the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon this summer. Their numbers might be small, but the loss of such artworks can have lasting effects on Lebanese society and culture. As in Iraq and other war zones, the nation's identity falls victim to violence, sometimes to be replaced with a new, wounded culture that carries the resentments of past conflicts.

By the Georgia Board of Education. The board voted without discussion to uphold the Gwinnett County school board decision to deny a request to remove the books from school libraries. This challenge was launched by Laura Mallory, whose children attend J.C. Magill Elementary School. She has worked for more than a year to the books banned from Gwinnett schools claiming the series is an attempt to indoctrinate children in religious witchcraft. She is quoted: "It's mainstreaming witchcraft in a subtle and deceptive manner, in a children-friendly format." In actuality, the books do not have anything to do with Wiccanism, any kind of religion, or even spirituality; the sorcery is purely Fantasy writing. Gwinnett County school officials argued in making their decision that the books are good tools to encourage children to read and to spark creativity and imagination. They also pointed out that a ban against books with references to witchcraft would include classics like MacBeth and Cinderella. Ms. Mallory's next option is to take the matter to Superior Court.

By Paul K. McMasters. He had a piece titled Fear spoils freedom's promise published at the First Amendment Center web site. He opened his piece with:

The First Amendment turns 215 years old today. At its birth as it is today, this constitutional guarantee was a breathtakingly beautiful testimony to the value of freedom of conscience and expression.

When it was ratified as part of the Bill of Rights in 1791, the First Amendment secured all other freedoms because it provided protection for a nation of citizens to question their government, to foment change, to fight injustice. It encouraged a democratized conversation in which individuals could freely create and criticize, give voice to passion and pain, give substance to their dreams.

It invited all Americans to proclaim their power as citizens and their worth as human beings.

By County Judge David B. Beck. Judge Beck ruled that Elizabeth Book did not violate a Daytona Beach disorderly conduct law by disrobing in public, seeing as to how her action was politically motivated. She was arrested by the police on 02 Jul 2005 for protesting what is, in effect, a public dress code law. This is the second time such a ruling has been made in her favour. Deputy City Attorney Marie Hartman said an appeal was filed, and is quoted: "We have no problems with her holding up signs, to hold public forums to protest nudity laws, but that does not include the right to go nude. Any more than you can stand on a podium and snort cocaine to protest cocaine laws." Lawrence G. Walters, who represents Ms. Book, said: "I've never seen another city or case where the city has shown so much time and effort to shut down one person's First Amendment right of protected speech. "They just can't seem to let it go. They need to stop wasting taxpayers' money." The point of Ms. Books protest is that dress code laws forbidding women from going top-free while not forbidding men from doing so are discriminatory.

[The Most Ineffably Stupid Comment Award goes to Hartman for equating the exposure of non-reproductive organs with a self-destructive behaviour. And drug laws are just as self-destructive to a society as drub abuse is for individuals. Aside from which, Ms. Book was not nude, a term that connotes complete unclothedness, she was only top-free. And there is nothing physically harmful towards others in being completely nude. --MN]

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

By Florida Governor-elect Charlie Crist. Currently serving as attorney general, he announced during this week that he is creating the Office of Open Government; the function of which will be to ensure compliance with public records and open-government laws, and to train all government agencies on those laws. The announcement was made on 12 Dec.

[Barbara Petersen, president of the First Amendment Foundation, commented: "Charlie gets it. Some people embrace open government because of political expediency, but Charlie truly believes in open government." So Florida appears to be getting out from under the Bush family mindsets and penchants for repression and unnecessary secrecy. Who knows? -- perhaps they will even have fair and legal elections there by 2008. --MN]

By Saturday Night Live. This parody of two boy-band singers, one of whom was played by Justin Timberlake, featured a holiday song about the guys making gifts to their girlfriends of their penises; which appeared to have been wrapped in boxes topped with bows. The boxes covered the front of their pants. NBC bleeped a word, beleived to be dick, sixteen times as it recurred in the chorus. As soon as the broadcast of the show ended, an uncensored version of the three-minute digital film was uploaded to the YouTube social networking site by the television network. All indications are that this was strictly a marketing ploy, however.

[What makes this censorship in my books is that the broadcast ran from 00:00 to 01:00; during the safe harbor when indecent material is protected from such prudery. --MN]

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

By the U.S. government. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Jon Wiener. See my commentary on this issue.

By the state of Morroco. For its 09-15 Dec issue, Nichane, an Arabic-language weekly, carried a feature titled Jokes: How Moroccans laugh at religion, sex and politics. On this day, the Moroccan government banned the paper and the king's prosecutor at the Casablanca high court ordered police to investigate the article. The prosecutor's office launched legal proceedings against editor Driss Ksikes and journalist Sanaa Al Aji for "damaging the Islamic religion" and "publication and distribution of articles contrary to morality". The reader is asked to note that this action is not for the paper's having published such jokes as humour, although the article doubtless contained samples, but for publishing a pedagocical discourse on such materials.

In Morroco, forbidden items include:

• the sacred status of the king,
• Islam as state religion,
• Western Sahara,
• the army, or,
• morals.

These bans are found as often in the 2002 press code as in the anti-terrorism law or the draft law on opinion polls, and always in vague enough terms to allow the widest interpretation. These bans also appear in a code of ethics that was recently adopted by the Federation of press editors.

By Committee to Protect Journalists. Worldwide, CPJ found fifty-five journalists were killed in direct connection to their work over the year, and it is investigating another twenty-seven deaths to determine whether they were also work-related. Both the occupiers and resisters in Iraq killed thirty-two journalists, the deadliest year for the press in a single country the CPJ has ever recorded. Afghanistan and the Philippines, with three deaths apiece, were the second most dangerous datelines, with Russia, Mexico, Pakistan, and Colombia each seing two journalists murdered. All are traditionally dangerous countries for the press. For the fourth consecutive year, Iraq was in a category all its own; this year's killings bring the number of journalists who have died violently since the illegal invasion of Mar 2003 to ninety-two. Four of those could be categorized as death by misadventure; the remainder of the deaths are called murders. In addition, thirty-seven media support workers -- interpreters, drivers, fixers, and office workers -- have also been killed since the war began.

Joel Simon, CPJ Executive Director, commented: "The deaths in Iraq this year reflect the utter deterioration in reporters' traditional status as neutral observers in wartime. When this conflict began more than three and half years ago, most journalists died in combat-related incidents. Now, insurgents routinely target journalists for perceived affiliations -- political, sectarian, or Western. This is an extraordinarily alarming trend because along with the terrible loss of life, it is limiting news reporting in Iraq -- and, in turn, our own understanding of a vital story." See the source article for more background on killings of journalists around the world.
(see 31 Dec 2006)

By Donald Trump. He is suing the town of Palm Beach for ten million dollars after being cited for flying an oversized American flag over his Mar-a-Lago Club. Town officials said Trump violated zoning codes when the club hoisted a 15-by-25-foot flag atop an 80-foot pole on 03 Oct. The citation was for:

• having a flagpole taller than 42 feet,
• not obtaining a building permit, and,
• for not getting permission from the landmarks board.

The lawsuit accuses the town of selectively enforcing its ordinances, in that other locations display flags violating its statutes. Mr. Trump had until 27 Nov to apply for approvals or face a hearing on this day that could have resulted in fines of $250 per day; it was unclear on 23 Dec whether that meeting had taken place. the lawsuit says, in part: "A smaller flag and pole on Mar-A-Lago's property would be lost given its massive ++size, look silly instead of make a statement, and most importantly would fail to appropriately express the magnitude of Donald J. Trump's and the Club's members' patriotism."

[The only question at stake here is: is the 42 foot limit a restriction reasonable as to time, place, or manner. It will be incumbent upon the city to prove that the 42 foot limit is indeed reasonable as to manner of display, and that it can likewise restrict the size of flags flown. But as for that codswallop about the size of the flag representing the amount of patriotism felt? . . . BU-U-U-U-U-U-ULLSHI-I-I-I-I-I-I-IT! --MN]

By Geov Parrish. A Seattle-based columnist and reporter, his piece titled Media Follies 2006! The Year's Most Overhyped and Underreported Stories was reprinted at CommonDreams.org. The selections are entirely his choices, the work is basically a polemic, and the discerning reader who is able to separate fact from opinion will do well to read it and consider the socio-cultural context he illustrates. Also pay attention to the instances in which he lauds citizen journalism and grass-roots movements.

By U.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker. Cody Overbay and Isaac Imel, both sophomores, were punished for doing something ineffably sophomoric. From fall 2005 through summer 2006, they worked on a short film they called The Teddy Bear Master. It depicts a "teddy bear master" ordering stuffed animals to kill a teacher who had embarrassed him. According to documents filed in court, students battled the toy beasts in the film. The thing is, the name of the teacher in the film is the same as a real teacher at Knightstown Intermediate School. In Oct, the two were expelled from Knightstown High School. They sued, they won. So far.

The ACLU of Indiana had sued on their behalf in Nov, arguing that school officials had overreacted to a parody and violated the First Amendment rights of the young gentlemen in the bargain. The school officials had argued that the film was disruptive and that the teacher whose name was used found the film threatening. Here's the kicker: Prosecutors reviewed the film and declined to press charges.

Judge Barker ruled on 22 Dec that the two must be allowed to return to school for the second semester and ordered the school to allow the students to make up any work they had missed since their expulsions. This sophomoric exercise was not without its costs despite the win, however. While the judge ruled that the school officials had not proven the movie disrupted the school environment, she did say the it was "vulgar", "tasteless", "humiliating", and "obscene", and further said she did not believe it was a coincidence that the teacher in the movie had the same name as a real teacher in the lower school. She urged the teens to apologize to that teacher as well as the school administration. There was no word, as of this date, as to whether the decision would be appealed.

[In short: "Nice try, boys, but I'm giving it two thumbs down." Tough critic. This criticism might not be warranted, however, giving that the artistry was so strong the metaphor of teddy bears for crazed, blood-lusting students caused a "grown up" to fear for his or her safety. Sophomore: from the Greek, meaning, literally, wise idiot; because students in their sophomore year are impressed with the vast volume of material they have learned, but don't yet know what to do with it. Given that the school officious (sic) acted the way they did even after prosecutors told them the work was not actionable, I'd say the school officious were more than a little sophomoric in their own right. --MN]

[Addendum (07 Apr 2007:) An article posted to First Amendment Center web site on 25 Mar 2007 reported that the three students and their families settled their lawsuit. The settlement with the Charles A. Beard School Corp. was approved by the school board on a 5-2 vote 20 Mar. Superintendent David McGuire said the school district's insurance company would cover the cost of the $69,000 settlement that will be split among the plaintiffs. The settlement terms also require the students' suspensions and expulsions be expunged from their records, that the students be allowed to make up missed work, and that Imel and Ours write a letter of apology to Dan Clevenger and his wife. --MN]

By UN Security Council. This resolution protecting journalists operating in conflict areas was passed on this day. Reporters Without Borders first proposed it on 16 Oct 2006, and were pleased that it was passed so quickly. RSF wrote of the resolution and its adoption:

The international press freedom organization acknowledges the efforts of the French Foreign Minister, Philippe Douste-Blazy, and of French diplomats in initiating and securing the passage of the resolution. Reporters Without Borders is glad its collaboration with the French Foreign ministry has resulted in such a quick adoption of the resolution. Reporters Without Borders submitted the first draft of the resolution to the French foreign minister on 16 October 2006. Reporters Without Borders wants to highlight the instrumental role played by Pierre Lellouche and Francois Loncle, members of the French Parliament, who recently issued a report on risks faced by reporters in war zones.

At a time when reporters and media assistants are facing increasing risks -110 of them have been killed so far this year - this resolution is a necessary reminder to all States of their obligations under the international law. It is also a call to governments to fight against impunity too often enjoyed by those committing crimes against journalists. . Resolution 1738, introduced by France and Greece, draws upon the fundamental principles of press freedom and reasserts the necessity of preventing violence against journalists and bringing to justice those responsible for these crimes.

The resolution itself is available from RSF.

By Jeff Cohen. See the entry on The Lackey Journalists Affair page.

By Norman Solomon and Jeff Cohen. This year's "winners" are:

• "Fact-Free Trade" Award -- New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman: By his own admission he will blindly support anything having to do with free trade, and, on at least one occasion, did so without even knowing what was in the agreement.

• Lock up the First Amendment Prize -- CNN's William Bennett: Called for greater government oversight of media outlets that had reported on warrantless wiretapping by the Bush administration.

• Broke-Brain Mouthing Award-- MSNBC's Chris Matthews: He appeared on the Imus show to hail "the wonderful Michael Savage" and that talk-show host's nickname "Bareback Mounting"; a sneer at the film Brokeback Mountain, and at homosexuals by extension.

• Casual About Casual Ties Award -- Fox mogul Rupert Murdoch: For downplaying the death toll of American servicemen in Iraq as "minute"; which toll had already exceeded those in every previous incidence of American military adventurism, starting with the War of 1812, with the sole exception of Viet Nam.

• Front-Page Pundit Award -- Reporter Michael Gordon and The New York Times: The Times front-paged a post-election analysis by Michael Gordon -- headlined "Get Out of Iraq Now? Not So Fast, Experts Say"; which work was blatant propagandizing for the Bush administration.

• "Prove You're Not a Traitor" Prize -- CNN's Glenn Beck: Demanded in an interview with Congressman-elect Keith Ellison, a Muslim American, that he prove that he is not "working with America's enemies"; he went on to qualify this demand, but only demonstrated his own bigotry by doing so.

• Goundhog Day Award -- Ted Koppel: In a New York Times column on 02 Oct the former ABC News star wrote that Washington should tell Iran it is free to develop an atomic bomb, and also warn that country that if a nuclear weapon is detonated within the U.S. Iran will be the automatic target for retaliation.

By Ohio Governor Bob Taft. On this day he ratified a bill requiring state and local public offices to send at least one representative for training on state open-records law, and which will make it easier to collect lawyer fees in successful court cases where access was found to have been improperly denied. Ohio news organizations pushed for the bill after a statewide audit in 2004 found that such requests were properly filled only about half the time; it was sponsored by Representative Scott Oelslager, a Canton Republican. The bill also contains language that attempts to balance privacy rights; a last-minute revision allows reporters to look at information on concealed-weapons permit holders, but forbids them from making copies as such information is not available to the general public.

By U.S. federal government officials. See the entry on the Bush censorship page.

By Riverside Beaver County School District, and North Sewickley and Franklin townships of Pennsylvania, respectively. In Apr 2005, Anthony Latour, then a fourteen year old student, was led out of his middle school in handcuffs and then spent time in a juvenile facility for writing amateur rap songs with violent imagery. He was expelled from the school, but the charges filed by the police were dropped. He sued both the school district and the municipalities. A federal judge overturned the expulsion in Aug 2005, finding that the images of violence did not constitute true threats against the school, and the district settled to the tune of 90,000 dollars. On 27 Dec, the townships also settled, for 60,000 dollars. Francis Moore, who represented Mr. Latour, commented on the incident: "It was a brief encounter, but it really had long-term effects for him. This all would have been resolved if they simply would have called the boy in and interviewed him."

By the Bush administration in conjunction with the satrapy of Iraq. See my commentary on this issue.

By Reporters Without Borders. This report sums up violent, criminal actions against reporters around the world, and compares the stats for 2006 against 2005; 1994 continued to be the worse year on record with 103 work-related deaths of journalists (the article did not report how many media assistants were also killed that year).

Year	Killed	Arrested (at least)	Attacked or Threatened	Kidnapped	Outlets Censored
2006	81 journalists 32 assistants	871	1,472	56	912
2005	63 journalists 5 assistants	807	1,308	?	1,006

[I include false arrest under the rubric of crime, myself, which is why those stats are included. Of course, arresting someone for reporting the news is alway perfectly legal under the laws of the land in most censorial regimes. Making something legal, however, does not make it right, and in my books, a crime is a physical action in which you inflict yourself on someone else against that person's will. See the source article for more background. --MN]
(see 20 Dec 2006)

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: