freedom of speech

Court Blocks Mo. Law, Calling It A “Chilling Effect On Freedom Of Speech”

The new Missouri law banning teachers from interacting with current and former students on social networking sites has been blocked by a court today. The law is supposed to go into effect on Monday. Here is a copy of the injunction:

Injunction

The judge, Joe Beetem, had some very strong words against the new law and concluded that the wording in it would even bar teachers from interacting with their own children on social networking sites:

It clearly prohibits communication between family members and their teacher parents using these types of sites. The Court finds that the statue would have a chilling effect on speech.

Politics

Republicans Will Never Learn

Just a few weeks after the shooting in Arizona, we still have moronic Republicans out there using gun metaphors:

A state senator in Alabama said Monday his call for Republicans to "empty the clip" on the issue of illegal immigration was taken out of context.

At a Republican breakfast in Cullman County, Alabama, last weekend, State Sen. Scott Beason reportedly urged his fellow Republicans to "empty the clip and do what has to be done" to enact stricter immigration laws, the Cullman Times reported.

Beason has since been flooded with angry calls denouncing the remark, which came in the wake of the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson last month. That tragedy saw 19 people shot and six killed, including a nine-year-old girl, sparking a debate about the use of violent metaphors in American politics.

And here’s the problem:

Beason on Monday told the media the comment was taken out of context, and he did not mean to suggest violence against illegal immigrants.

Republicans have a serious inability to take responsibility. There is nothing there to take out of context, just like Sarah Palin’s map with gun sights and using the phrase “locked and loaded” in connection with it was a very clear statement. Either these people are trying to make excuses, or they are they have a serious problem with communication, in the most basic sense.

But why aren’t these people being held to the same standard as you and me? If I went out and started saying someone should “empty the clip” in Beason, I would be visited by the police, and rightfully so. Yet politicians and even the big talkers like Rush Limbaugh get away with it all the time.

Society

Well This Is Rather Interesting

Looks like the Rev. Terry Jones got an unexpected visit today:

A few men entered the Dove World Outreach Center building today who identified themselves as FBI, they did not make any comments to the press. Both Pastor Terry Jones and his associate pastor are saying they are carrying weapons because of death threats.

I hate to speculate here, but I wonder if this isn’t a final push to put an end to this “burn the Quran” nonsense?

I also understand people arguing the freedom of speech point, but there are limits to that. Everyone with a level head agrees that this will hurt our chances in the current war and increase the ever growing risk our troops already face. In short, it amounts to treason.

Yes we have freedom of speech in this country, but you still can’t yell “FIRE” in a crowded theater.

And unlike the Park51 project, the Rev. Jones is doing this to purely incite hate, so comparing the two stories is a strawman at the best.

Society

Dove World Outreach Center's Web Hosting Cancelled

Rackspace, one of the largest hosting providers on the Internet, has decided that the Dove World Outreach Center’s planned Quran burning is hate speech and in violation of their policies. In response to that decision, Rackspace has pulled the plug on their website:

"We feel that it's definitely an indirect attack on our freedom of speech," Jones said, adding that the provider, Rackspace, is "trying to shut us down."

But he said, "This is not going to affect the event going forward."

A spokesman for the provider, Rackspace, said the company decided to cancel the center's sites after investigating a complaint and reviewing both sites.

The center "violated the hate-speech provision of our acceptable-use policy," said Rackspace spokesman Dan Goodgame.

"This is not a constitutional issue. This is a contract issue," said Goodgame, adding that his company had given the center until midnight to find another host and move its content. Goodgame said Rackspace has about 100,000 customers and he did not know how long it had hosted those two specific sites.

Now when you go to the site, www.doveworld.org, this is what you see:

It will be interesting to see how long the site remains down. I’m sure they will be able to find another provider that doesn’t have the same high standards as Rackspace, but finding a host that isn’t a reseller through Rackspace might be a little harder.

National Security

New Gun Control Laws Could Be A Big Win For Democrats

Michael Bloomberg has a post up at the Huffington Post that addresses something very important in this age of terror:

It's amazing but true: we can prevent terror suspects from boarding an airplane, but the FBI doesn't have the power to block them from buying dynamite or an AK-47.

I believe strongly that they should. And so do the 500 mayors who are members of our bi-partisan coalition of Mayor Against Illegal Guns.

It is time to close the "Terror Gap" in our gun laws.

This morning I will be testifying at a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security Committee about the easy access that terror suspects have to guns and explosives. I wanted to share with lawmakers the hard-earned perspective New Yorkers have on this national security risk.

Democrats always run when it comes time to talk gun control. They are afraid that the NRA might attack them. In this instance I say “good – let them attack”.

Since 9/11 we have seen the right attack the 1st and 4th amendments. National security should trump freedom of speech and our rights against unwarranted search. It’s funny though. If we say that it should also prevent certain people from buying guns, the right goes into full defense mode accusing people of trying to violate constitutional rights. I missed the part of the Constitution that states the 2nd amendment trumps all others, but apparently the Republicans have found it somewhere in their minds.

So how big of a problem is it when talking about suspected terrorists buying guns? It’s this bad:

Today, the Government Accountability Office has released new data showing that suspects on the terrorism watch lists were able to buy guns and explosives from licensed US dealers 1,119 times between 2004 and 2010.

Politics

Will Today’s SCOTUS Decision Be Fixed?

President Obama seems pretty pissed about the decision by the Supreme Court to open the flood gates on corporate money into the political arena:

With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington — while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates.

That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.

The bipartisan talk really gets me here. The only Republican I have heard bash the decision so far is Olympia Snowe. The rest seem rather giddy about it. Here’s a list of some reactions from GOP leaders:

– Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX): “It is about a nonprofit group’s ability to speak about the public issue. I can’t think of a more fundamental First Amendment issue. … [The ruling could] open up resources that have not previously been available [for Republicans].” [NYT]

The Real Warning About Palin

This week we had another example emerge of why a V.P. Sarah Palin would be detrimental to the future of our nation.

Palin told WMAL-AM that her criticism of Obama's associations, like those with 1960s radical Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, should not be considered negative attacks. Rather, for reporters or columnists to suggest that it is going negative may constitute an attack that threatens a candidate's free speech rights under the Constitution, Palin said.

So questioning Palin is a violation of freedom of speech. Glenn Greenwald has torn this statement apart. Perhaps Palin should read what a constitutional attorney has to say about it. Perhaps she should ask another constitutional attorney - Barack Obama.

But here is why this statement is so dangerous. If McCain/Palin wins on Tuesday there is an enormous chance that Palin could end up taking over the top office. If this is her judicial thinking, can you imagine the kind of justices she would appoint? This lady is a risk to the very fabric of our democracy - an ideologue with no understanding of the corner stone of our nation.

This statement was so bad that even a McCain spokesman had trouble spinning it:

No Freedom Of Speech Online

After years of being involved in administering different online communities, as well as developing the software for them, one thing never stops shocking me. When you get a user that crosses the line and you ban them, or take any action so they can no longer contribute to your online community, they start yelling that you are violating their constitutional right to freedom of speech.

The AP takes a good look at this today:

Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.

Companies in charge of seemingly public spaces online wipe out content that's controversial but otherwise legal. Service providers write their own rules for users worldwide and set foreign policy when they cooperate with regimes like China. They serve as prosecutor, judge and jury in handling disputes behind closed doors.

When I hear people complain that a site is taking away from someones freedom of speech, I always point to shopping malls. Go into a shopping mall and start saying whatever you feel like. If the management of that mall doesn't like that, they will throw you out. It's private property and they have the right to. The same thing applies to websites. The owners of that website pay for hosting and have to adhere by the terms of a hosting company. That hosting company is also a private business, so in the end it's much like the mall scenario.

So next time you want to go on a rant in the comments section of a blog, just remember that the owner of that blog can stop you from posting, and it's not a "violation of freedom of speech". Instead they are exercising their rights as a business/site owner.

Now FOX Needs Denounced

Glenn Greenwald has torn apart the smear attack against our troops, which was launched by FOX news analyst David Hunt. The entire thing deserves a good reading, because this is a far more brazen attack than any Move On ad. Hunt is targeting the generals, and as the resolutions passed by the House and Senate tell us - if you attack the general you also attack the troops.

So will we have yet another resolution denouncing Hunt and FOX news for this attack? As we hear more about these attacks, it shows Barbara Boxer's resolution denouncing "any attack" was the more appropriate approach for the Senate.

There is a catch-22 on these resolutions though. Every member of House and Senate must vote exactly the same on the new resolution condemning Rush, as well as one condemning FOX (if there is one). That includes Obama not voting. Democrats who voted against the MoveOn ad must vote against any other resolutions of this nature. If they fail to then it shows a definitive sense of hypocrisy.

Personally I feel that the Senate should never have voted on the MoveOn resolution. They are sworn to help uphold the Constitution, and this was an attempt to silence the freedom of speech that makes our country great. Times have changed over the past couple of weeks though and some politicians greedy for political cover decided to open Pandora's box. The Move On resolution set a precedent and now it must be followed.

The more our Congress follows these idiotic decisions, the closer we get to needing another constitutional convention. If you are for the war or not, you should be ashamed of the fact our Congress spends time debating what we say instead of debating what can change our country for the better.

Tis the Holiday Season

Remember when Christmas was about "peace on earth and goodwill towards men"? This would be a perfect way to symbolize that sentiment.

Well it is unless you live in one of those corporate run communities that have a home owners association:

A homeowners association in southwestern Colorado has threatened to fine a resident $25 a day until she removes a Christmas wreath with a peace sign that some say is an anti-Iraq war protest or a symbol of Satan.

Some residents who have complained have children serving in Iraq, said Bob Kearns, president of the Loma Linda Homeowners Association in Pagosa Springs. He said some residents have also believed it was a symbol of Satan. Three or four residents complained, he said.

"Somebody could put up signs that say drop bombs on Iraq. If you let one go up you have to let them all go up," he said in a telephone interview Sunday.

So the home owner's association is upset because they feel it speaks out against Iraq - you know that war where we are supposed to be spreading democracy? So how about this democratic approach to handling the situation:

Kearns ordered the committee to require Jensen to remove the wreath, but members refused after concluding that it was merely a seasonal symbol that didn't say anything. Kearns fired all five committee members.

That sounds like George Bush styled democracy to me - if something isn't decided upon the way you want then you fire them. I really hope this case ends up going to court so that these so-called "activist judges" can rule in favor of freedom of speech.

Could It Be Another Scandal?

Well here is a name we haven't seen really associated with any scandals yet - Condi. Now that looks like it could be changing:

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice leaked national defense information to a pro-Israel lobbyist in the same manner that landed a lower-level Pentagon official a 12-year prison sentence, the lobbyist's lawyer said Friday.

Prosecutors disputed the claim.

The allegations against Rice came as a federal judge granted a defense request to issue subpoenas sought by the defense for Rice and three other government officials in the trial of Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. The two are former lobbyists with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee who are charged with receiving and disclosing national defense information.

Defense lawyers are asking a judge to dismiss the charges because, among other things, they believe it seeks to criminalize the type of backchannel exchanges between government officials, lobbyists and the press that are part and parcel of how Washington works.

During Friday's hearing, U.S. District Judge T.S. Ellis III said he is considering dismissing the government's entire case because the law used to prosecute Rosen and Weissman may be unconstitutionally vague and broad and infringe on freedom of speech.

Funny how they are now considering dismissing the case. I guess if it could hurt Condi then we better just get rid of everything.

Ohio Looking To Ban Funeral Protests

Last week I posted a story of a soldier, Adam Shepherd, who died in Iraq from
an unknown illness. His cousin is a friend of our families and was in attendance
at his funeral. At the funeral, Fred Phelps had his goons from
godhatesfags.com out in full force
picketing and showing their lack of contempt for our fallen soldiers. Now the
state of Ohio is taking action:

COLUMBUS, Ohio Feb 6, 2006 (AP)ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Â States are rushing to limit when and
where people may protest at funerals all because of a small fundamentalist
Kansas church whose members picket soldiers' burials, arguing that Americans
are dying for a country that harbors homosexuals.

During the 1990s, the Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka, Kan., went
around picketing the funerals of AIDS victims with protest signs that read,
"God Hates Fags." But politicians began paying more attention recently when
church members started showing up at the burials of soldiers and Marines
killed in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Legislation is being considered in at least 14 states, and several of the
bills moving quickly, with backing from legislative leaders and governors.

If they pass, the bills could set up a clash between privacy and free
speech rights, and court challenges are almost certain.

Article continues
here.

About That Joint Chiefs' Letter

You may have read about the letter sent to the Washington Post from the Joint
Chiefs in response to a cartoon. If not then head over to

AMERICABlog for the details.

I am not in total agreement on this issue. I believe in the freedom of speech
and that the Joint Chiefs should also be allowed to express that freedom.
However, if they are going to show outrage over a political cartoon in a
newspaper, then they should also show outrage to groups like
Westboro Baptist Church.

The Joint Chiefs make the point that the families and individuals who are
hurt feel great pain and loss. That pain and loss is also great during the
funerals of fallen soldiers but there is no proof the Joint Chiefs have
expressed any outrage over this. How about outrage when right wing pundits also
insult Casey Sheehan because his mother is a war protestor? Those pundits
deserve the same type of outrage that the Washington Post was given.

Last night our President mentioned the word "freedom" a total of 17 times.
Cindy Sheehan had her freedom taken away last night when she was arrested at the
Capital Building. Now we find out her only crime was being in the same place as
a Capital police officer who was ignorant to the rules and laws of the land.
Outrage should be expressed from the Joint Chiefs to the officers who arrested
Cindy and also escorted

Mrs. Young out last night. The Joint Chiefs are leading the fight to spread
freedom and that fight doesn't stop here at home.

Banned From The U.S. - New Address A .COM

Here is an interesting story about a blogger who has now found himself not
welcomed in the United States:

Bloggers have no privacy and should expect noneÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã¢â‚¬Âa lesson painfully
learned by a Canadian citizen who was recently turned away after U.S. border
guards Googled him and pored over his blog to discover where he lives.

Hossein Derakhshan, born in Tehran and now living in Toronto, posted
details of his border experience on his blog, which is titled Editor:
Myself. The blog is concerned with Iran, technology and pop culture.

Derakhshan is a freelance Web designer, journalist, and someone referred
to in the blogosphere as "one of the great pioneers of international
blogging and freedom of speech online."

He is also, ironically, a member of the advisory board to the Committee
to Protect Bloggers.

Article continues
here.

His blog -
Editor:Myself - has a very detailed account of his experience at the border.
I suggest reading it as it gives a very detailed account of his ordeal at the
border crossing.

Perhaps we should start a movement to change the Statue of Liberty to read
"Middle Easterners need not apply"

The Christian Crusade of America

There is a Christian Crusade going on in this country. In a
land where we preach freedom of speech and religion, the push is on to force
people into Christianity.

In Chicago, the residents of a public housing project for
seniors filed a lawsuit in federal court stating they were coerced and
intimidated by management into practicing Christianity and attending Bible
studies. The
Chicago Sun Times article reporting this story talks about how residents had
to hide in bathrooms to get away from these people.

This is not the only sign of the crusade being fought on
our home front. Last week it was

reported about a pilgrimage to South Carolina, where Christian families are
moving to the southern state in an attempt to turn it towards conservative
Christianity.

In the South Carolina of their dreams, abortion would be
illegal. The Ten Commandments would be proudly displayed. Public schools would
be a thing of the past. Taxes would be severely limited, and property rights
would be paramount.

And if the federal government tried to interfere, well,
they'd secede.

This is starting to take place all over the country, and is
a sign of truly frightening times to come.

We are starting to see a diminishing separation of church
and state as powerful religious basis such as the Catholic Church begin to take
a strong hold in government. The very rights that liberal groups such as the
ACLU have fought tirelessly to defend are now being used in order to convert a
diverse nation to a Christian nation.