A brief chronological Compendium of a Few Banned or Challenged Works, and Censorship and Anti-Censorship Efforts 01 Jan - 30 Jun 2008

We know what it is like to live in a society where freedom is repressed in the name of democracy and national sovereignty, and where the voicing of dissent is banned in the name of safeguarding freedom of expression. As for the Cuban government's efforts to portray the independent librarians as traitors and foreign agents because they receive support from abroad. We speak from our own experience in rejecting such claims. It can never be a crime to oppose censorship or to open a library. --Eastern Europe dissidents appeal to the International Federation of Library Associations about the matter of Cuban censorship against independent libraries, circa 2005

Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

2009, February 22: Freedom To Read Week

By the Book and Periodical Council. This year marked the 25th annual event to celebrate the freedom to read and to receive information at one's sole discretion. For the occasion, the Book and Periodical Council issued a booklet in PDF looking at some censorship and some free speech actions during the past 25 years.

By Anonymous. See The Scourging of Savita.

By a unanimous three-judge panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. The court ruled that Hustler Magazine did not have the right to publish decades-old, nude photographs of the wife of wrestler Chris Benoit, who had killed her and his son in a murder-suicide in 2007. The court found that a notorious death doesn't give publishers a blank check to publish any images they wish -- including those not linked to a newsworthy event. Nancy Benoit's family filed a federal lawsuit against the Larry Flynt Publishing Group last year after the magazine published the photos of Benoit's wife. The judge ruled in the magazine's favor in Oct 2008, dismissing the lawsuit and concluding that the magazine had the right to publish the photos in part because Ms. Benoit's death was a "legitimate matter of public interest and concern." In reversing that decision the 11th Circuit panel found that while her death might be newsworthy the photographs were not. It noted the article, which advertised "long-lost images of wrestler Chris Benoit's doomed wife," was brief and made only scant mention of her desire to become a model. Judge Charles Wilson wrote: "These private, nude photographs were not incident to a newsworthy article; rather, the brief biography was incident to the photographs."

By the U.S. 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals. Joe Kaufman is described as a full-time investigative reporter who has written for national publications since 1995, as focusing on issues of terrorism, and as writing regularly for Front Page Magazine. This publication is an online magazine published by the David Horowitz Freedom Center and has approximately 500,000 readers a month. David Horowitz is described as a nationally recognized author and political commentator. Mr. Kaufman has likewise spoken at various conferences and universities and appeared on several cable-television news shows. While these descriptions, in a commentary by Douglas Lee, and which was published at the First Amendment Center Online are correct, Mr. Lee did not mention that Mr. Horowitz is also infamous for actions to strip universities of their academic freedoms and for being an anti-Islamic.

In Sep 2007, Kaufman wrote an article for Front Page Magazine that was titled Fanatic Muslim Family Day. In it, he reported that the Islamic Circle of North America Dallas, along with other Muslim groups, was sponsoring a Muslim Family Day at an amusement park in Arlington, Texas. He also reported that the international ICNA had supported and financed terrorism and he urged readers to join him in holding a protest against the group. Several Dallas-based Islamic groups sued Mr. Kaufman, claiming that the article unfairly and inaccurately linked them the ICNA.

On finding the evidence conflicting the court denied the motion and ordered the case to trial. Kaufman would not ordinarily have been allowed to appeal until the case concluded, however, Texas allows "a member of the electronic or print media" to immediately appeal a denial of summary judgment in order the protect news-media defendants from meritless litigation that is nevertheless expensive and time-consuming. Claiming this right, Mr. Kaufman appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals.

The Second District Court of Appeals found in his favor, and ordered the lower court to render a summary judgement. In his commentary, Mr. Lee explores some of the issues involved in the case, one of which is attempting to determine when a particular web journaler or independent journalist qualifies for the protections Mr. Kaufman claimed.

[See my commentary on this issue, A "Real" (whatever)?, from July 2003. --MN]

By U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson. Judge Robinson blocked a Kansas state law that was passed in 2006 and due to come into effect on 01. Jul. The law put strict limits on signs that are within one mile of a highway and advertise businesses such as strip clubs and sex-shops. Signs can be no larger than 40 square feet and show only the name, location, phone number and operating hours of such businesses. The Lion's Den Adult Superstore sued on the grounds that the law is an improper restraint of commercial speech. The store sought to block enforcement while the courts consider the lawsuit.

The state attorney general's office said it was deciding how to proceed in the case. Ashley Anstaett, a spokeswoman for A.G. Steve Six, pointed out that nearly identical laws in Georgia, South Carolina, and Missouri had been struck down and that: "Given those decisions, we are evaluating our options." Richard Bryant, attorney for Lion's Den, is quoted: [Judge Robinson] "has concluded there's a substantial likelihood of us prevailing. You can't get much stronger than that. It would be best to save the tax payers $100,000 and agree the statute is unconstitutional."

The A.G.'s office argued that because some items sold at the store are considered obscene, and illegal under state law, then the signs are promoting illegal activity. Judge Robinson pointed out in her decision: "Because [the state] acknowledges, as it must, that not all of the products offered for sale at Lion's Den are illegal, its claim that the advertising necessarily proposes an illegal transmission is misplaced."

[For my money, this law is doomed to extinction on the grounds that it targets the advertizing for sexuality-based businesses only, and that makes it content discriminatory. --MN]

By the country of Ukraine. On this day President Viktor Yushchenko ratified law making the possession of pornography a criminal offense, although the law does allow that pornography can be possessed legally if it is for medicinal purposes. The punishment for possessing pornography will include fines and imprisonment for up to three years. Critics had urged Pres. Yushchenko to return the vague and overly broad law to the legislature for amendments; they insist that this version fails to clearly define pornographic materials or do anything to protect exploited children.

Unfortunately, the law, which was adopted by parliament on 11 Jun, mustered 343 votes in favor out of a possible 450; showing enough support to override a presidential veto. Speculation is that the president ratified this egregiously flawed legislation to garner votes in the 2010 national election. Experts and activists have been calling for tighter regulation of pornography in Ukraine, which is seen as a large source of child pornography due to weak protections for children’s rights and weak punishments for violators.

Some comments about it are:

• Lyusya Komarnytska, art exhibition manager: "Anyone of us can now be punished for possessing very simple images, if somebody defines them as pornography."
• Evhen Karas, owner of an art gallery in Kyiv: "the president demonstrated he doesn’t understand the principles of democracy. A person needs to know the truth and build personal morality on the basis of truth, not illusions developed by a state ban."

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: