Members of Congress Seeking To Gut The First Amendment

Members of Congress Seeking To Gut The First Amendment

In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United, several Democrats on Capitol Hill are advocating a Constitutional Amendment: Democrats in Congress want to amend the U.S. Constitution to say free speech does not extend to corporations in response to the Supreme Court’s decision allowing freer corporate spending in political campaigns.

Read The Rest Here

Citizens United Huge Step Forward for Free Speech

by Ken Blackwell and Ken Klukowski

On January 21, the U.S. Supreme Court empowered ordinary Americans to speak out on an equal footing with millionaires and the media in U.S. elections. Threatened by people being able to freely speak their minds, the president of the United States deceived the American people when discussing this court decision in the State of the Union.

Berkeley Daily Planet’s free speech battle goes national

Since March of this year, The Berkeley Daily Planet (BDP) has been struggling against a campaign by three long-time critics to scare away advertisers and shut the paper down, based on accusations that its publication of letters to the editor and op-eds critical of Israel constitute an anti-semitic bias.

On November 27th, the local controversy came to national attention when the New York Times published an article in its Business Section – “In a Home to Free Speech, a Paper is Accused of Anti-Semitism”

Jim Sinkinson, who has led the campaign against the BDP, is quoted as saying: “We think that [publisher Becky O’Malley] is addicted to anti-Israel expression…If she wants to serve and please the East Bay Jewish community, she would be safe avoiding the subject entirely.” Ms. O’Malley denies any personal or editorial bias, and says “I think that is unusual to say the least that anybody would think that they could dictate a whole area of the world that is simply off limits for discussion….” She points out that the Planet has always had an open-forum policy of printing all letters from local readers that are not obscene or defamatory.

Not covered in the New York Times article was the community response to the censorship campaign. Although many advertisers have been frightened away, readers have spoken out to protect free speech in their town and to keep the BDP alive. Scores of people have weighed in with supportive letters to the editor, and many Jewish residents signed petitions letting it be known that Mr. Sinkinson and his two allies in no way speak for the Jewish community. In addition, a coalition of local peace and justice groups — including Jewish Voice for Peace-Bay Area — took out a series of ads to expose the facts of Palestinian life under Occupation, to support the BDP free-speech policy, and to provide desperately needed advertising revenue to the paper.

–www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/pdfs/07-02-09.pdf: See Jewish Voice for Peace ad in page 14
–www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/pdfs/07-09-09.pdf: See statement of Jews who support the Daily Planet in page 28
–www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/pdfs/07-30-09.pdf: See Bay Area Friends of Sabeel ad in page 28

Now, in immediate response to publication of the New York Times article, people from around the country have been moved to write to the BDP. Of some 20 letters to the BDP editor generated by the article, all but two supported the Planet and deplored the cynical use of charges of anti-semitism as a censorship tactic.

Notwithstanding reader support, BDP advertising revenue has been drastically reduced as a result of the campaign against it, together with the impact of the economic recession. To support the BDP’s commitment to free speech, you can write to the editor at opinion at berkeleydailyplanet.com. Consider also contributing to the paper’s Fund for Local Reporting.

– Carol Sanders

Source: Jewish Voice For Peace

Report Shows 70% of California Public Universities Violate Free Speech Laws

Yee: Report Highlights Need to Continue Efforts to Protect Student Speech Rights

California State Senator Leland Yee, Ph.D

While California may lead the nation in providing legal protections for student speech rights, a report released today showed nearly 70 percent of our public universities are violating state law or the US Constitution through policies restricting free expression.

The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) conducted a rigorous study of restrictions on speech at America's colleges and universities. Within California, ten California State University campuses and five University of California campuses received a "red light" rating, meaning the schools have at least one policy that clearly and substantially restricts freedom of speech in violation of law.

"It is certainly disheartening that rather than serving as public forums of free expression, many of our public universities are restricting speech and violating state law and the Constitution," said Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco). "This report clearly highlights the need to continue our efforts in protecting student speech rights and prohibiting retaliation against students, faculty and workers."

"Shockingly, FIRE's research demonstrates that a majority of California's public universities are restricting student speech protected by both the Constitution and state law," said Will Creeley, FIRE's Director of Legal and Public Advocacy. "If challenged in court, these policies will fall. The fifteen UC and CSU campuses earning a 'red light' rating from FIRE should consider themselves on notice."

Yee has authored two laws to protect such rights at California campuses. AB 2581 (2006) made California the first state in the nation to specifically prohibit censorship of college student press and explicitly granted free speech rights to students. SB 1370 (2008) further protects school employees from retaliation for assisting students in exercising such speech rights.

One of the more egregious violations has taken place at Southwestern College, a community college in Chula Vista. Campus administrators deemed the entire public campus a censorship zone except for a narrowly defined area referred to by FIRE as a "free speech patio." FIRE has referred to the policy as "utterly indefensible."

San Francisco State University also had policies that attempted to restrict student speech activity to narrowly defined "public forum areas," as well as prohibited distribution of literature to the "Student Union Plaza behind the blue lines marked on the pavement" and required students to "obtain authorization from the Student Activities Office."

Earlier this year, a student club at UC Berkeley faced a $3,200 security fee to host a controversial speech about the Arab-Israeli conflict. In clear violation of a Supreme Court decision, students were told that uniformed officers would be required for the event because of the subject matter of the presentation. As a result of public criticism and possible legal action, university officials withdrew the unlawful security fee.

To read the full report titled "Spotlight on Speech Codes 2010: The State of Free Speech on Our Nation's Campuses," visit www.thefire.org. FIRE works to protect fundamental rights on campus including the freedom of speech and expression; religious liberty and freedom of association; freedom of conscience; and due process and legal equality.

For his efforts to protect student speech rights, Senator Yee has been honored with several awards including the Freedom of Information Award by the California Newspaper Publishers Association; Distinguished Service to Journalism Education Award by the Journalism Association of Community Colleges; Champion of Journalism Education Award by the California Journalism Education Coalition; Beacon Award by the First Amendment Coalition; and the Friend of Scholastic Journalism Award by the Journalism Education Association

Source: FIRE

Woman Wants Book About Sex Banned From Library

PATASKALA, Ohio — A woman is campaigning to permanently take a book off library shelves, 10TV's Cara Connelly reported Thursday.

Marti Shigley said she found the book on the shelf at her local library - according to her - available right at a child's eye level.

"When I opened it, I could not believe how graphic it was, and I thought my word if one of those kids had picked this up and looked inside of it they would have been ruined for life," Shigley said.

SLIDESHOW: Images From Report

The library's director, Matt Nojonen, said the book in question, a sexual health manual, is in the adult section and he stands behind the book.

"There is a demand for them the other manuals and the books that we have on the subject are frequently borrowed," Nojonen said.

Shigley said she does not just want the book out of a child's reach, she wants it gone for good.

Nojonen said he fears when you take every book off the shelf that someone objects to, you may have nothing left.

"Our policies very clearly state that we will buy books that represent all sides of issues," Nojonen said.

Pataskala resident John Glaze said he wants the shelves at his library to stay full.

"When you start yanking books off the shelf then we all need to start wearing swastikas," Glaze said.

Leah Swan disagrees and said she brings her daughter, Caroline, to the library, and worries the book could fall into the wrong hands.

"I think free speech can sometimes be abused in the name of getting weird and bizarre," Swan said.

The library's advisory board heard Shigley's complaint and decided to keep the book in the collection if they can get it back, Connelly reported.

Shigley checked it out and said she does not plan to return it.

"It may cost me a little bit of money but I don't want anyone else to see this book," Shigley said.

The library said that if Shigley fails to return the book, they may revoke her library card.

Contact Matt Nojonen, Library Director, to Show Support at : Mattnoj@hotmail.com

Source: 10 TV News

Maryland cops force photographer to delete photos

Another town. Another cop. Another photographer gets his photos deleted.

This time it went down in Anne Arundel County, Maryland when Antonio Amador grabbed his camera to photograph an fatal accident that took place outside his home on October 24. This was part of an ongoing project to get drivers to slow down in the area.

He started filming the accident scene when an angry cop approached him, demanding he delete his memory card, according to the Maryland Gazette.

“Suddenly I hear this screaming, like somebody really mad,” he said. “I see this guy charging at me saying, ‘delete those pictures now!’ “

The officers threatened to arrest him if he didnt’ delete his photos. Amador tried to explain to them that he had a Constitutional right to take the photos.

“They couldn’t care less,” he said. “They threatened to handcuff me just because I questioned why I should delete my photos in the first place.”

The man who died in the accident was the son of a Baltimore police officer, so maybe that is why the officers felt they needed to violate Amador’s Constitutional rights.

Now the ACLU is looking into it. And Amador has filed a complaint against the department.

Popularity: 1% [?]

Related posts:

1. Maryland jury slaps police on wrist in journalist abuse suit
2. Maryland cop’s lies about DUI arrest exposed by surveillance video
3. Dash cam proves Maryland cop to be a boldface liar

Source: Photography is Not a crime

James Madison University Revises Speech Code of the Month After FIRE, Students Challenge Unconstitutionality

We have good news from the front in the fight to eradicate speech codes from our nation's campuses. James Madison University has revised its policy on Obscene Conduct, no longer banning "lewd, indecent or obscene...expression." Yet the university's strained relationship with First Amendment principles has recently manifested itself in another way, with students charged with offenses for investigating newsworthy events on campus.

First the good news. Torch readers will remember that FIRE expressed concern in September that JMU's policy on obscene conduct had been changed to include not only on-campus but also off-campus expression, threatening a large volume of student speech—including online expression. The policy was already problematic, banning expression that could be constitutionally protected. (Can you say for certain what is lewd, indecent, or obscene expression as opposed to what is just offensive? Would you trust JMU to always agree with you? I didn't think so.) The revision drastically expanded the policy's reach, giving the administration the power to censor online and off-campus speech. Certainly, as Sam pointed out at the time, there's a great deal of speech on Facebook and other sites that is lewd and indecent but does not reach the high legal standard for obscene expression. In fact, legal "obscenity" is a term generally reserved for hard-core pornography.

Sam's post caught the attention of the JMU student paper The Breeze, which published an article on the policy change. Josh Bacon, director of JMU's Judicial Affairs, told the paper that "the intention is not to police social networking sites," but to protect students from "people who have been exposing themselves off campus." The university may certainly have a legitimate interest in prohibiting such conduct, but as FIRE and JMU students pointed out, the policy need not prohibit "expression" to reach behavior like indecent exposure. Initially, the administration stuck to its guns; Mr. Bacon told The Breeze that "It's an interpretation of how you say expression; is it physical expression? Again, to me, it says obscene conduct, not obscene expression." As Sam responded, "But of course, as anyone who can read the policy knows, what it says is ‘obscene conduct or expression.'" Why a policy that Bacon always insisted was meant only to reach conduct also originally included the word "expression" was never explained. After all, few people consider episodes of indecent exposure like public urination to be legitimate examples of expression.

JMU student and CFN member John Scott penned an excellent essay in The Breeze on the policy change, challenging the ethics and constitutionality of such a policy. The administration promised that the policy would never be enforced to censor protected expression, which was another way of saying it would never be enforced as written. Yet even if the current administration did respect student speech rights in practice, there's no guarantee its successors would follow suit. As John writes, "This is exactly why personal guarantees do not hold the same legal weight as written policy."

FIRE then added to the pressure by naming the policy its Speech Code of the Month for October, writing,

Eliminating two words—"or expression"—from this policy is a simple change that would leave the administration with full power to punish the kinds of activities it is ostensibly concerned with, and at the same time remove the threat to free expression. The fact that the administration seems unwilling to do so-and is instead resorting to verbal chicanery to try and convince concerned students that the policy doesn't actually prohibit free expression-should be of great concern to anyone who cares about student rights. We hope that JMU students will find Bacon's answer as unsatisfactory as we do and will keep the pressure on the administration to revise this unjust policy.

Today, we are pleased to say that JMU students did not stand down, the pressure continued, and the JMU administration has officially changed the offending policy, deleting "or expression" from the policy. In an e-mail sent to all students, the Office of Judicial Affairs wrote,

University Policy Obscene Conduct J24-101 has been revised and now states: No student shall engage in lewd, indecent or obscene conduct, regardless of proximity to campus.

For more information on this and all University policies please refer to the Student Handbook at: http://www.jmu.edu/judicial/handbook/index.html

The new policy can be viewed here. We are glad to announce the policy change and we commend the JMU administration for moving to preserve the constitutional rights of its students to free expression in its policies, just as The College of William & Mary and the University of North Texas, where coalitions of students have worked with FIRE to change their unconstitutional policies, recently did. We also congratulate the JMU students who have done so much to expose the unconstitutionality of the policy, and will be offering further analysis of the change in upcoming blog entries. If you would like to challenge the unconstitutional policies at your school, register for the Campus Freedom Network and contact us at cfn@thefire.org.

Yet this incident is unfortunately not the only way in which JMU's administration has demonstrated a questionable understanding of students' rights. Indeed, JMU Judicial Affairs--the office of the aforementioned Josh Bacon, in fact--is currently charging two student journalists from The Breeze for trespassing, disorderly conduct, and failure to follow the order of a university official while investigating a story about trespassing in one of the residence halls, despite the fact that it appears that they did not actually break any college regulations. If the reporters' accounts hold up, JMU's actions would constitute a clear violation of the freedom of the press by punishing student journalists who were investigating a story of general concern while following residence hall policies.

Liberty will not be secure at JMU as long as the administration is willing to unjustly punish student journalists. Unless the facts of the case are different than we have been led to believe (and JMU has provided no countervailing facts), the administration must immediately drop the charges against the students and cancel the hearing currently scheduled for November 5.

Source: FIRE

Hey, kids! Hate school? Don't tell Facebook!

MSNBC

High school sucks. Did you forget? Don't believe it? Check out Facebook.

Contrary to the evidence on Facebook student pages however, high schools aren't the only educational institutions capable of totally sucking.

Even schools you elect to attend, for example, the Salon Professional Academy of Elgin, Ill., can also act as an oxygen vortex. At least that's the opinion of a Nicholas Blacconiere, an academy student under legal fire for enshrining his negative opinions and those of others on a private page he posted on the world's most popular social networking site.

"Facebook 'suck sites' to be tested in court," proclaimed the Chicago Tribune in reporting the academy's $50,000 suit against Blacconiere for unauthorized use of the school's logo and for emotional damage caused by defamatory comments posted on his page, titled "Tspa RobinHood."

Other media followed suit, with headlines such as " ‘My School Sucks' pages under attack," and the like. Why it's as if just now, a couple of months short of 2010, the First Amendment rights of Internet-savvy students are under fire and not, in fact, an ongoing and troublesome issue.

While the medium of expression has changed over the years - from the cover of one's Mead Trapper Keeper to Facebook and other Internet-loitering spots - proclaiming the suckitude of one's school is an ancient rite of passage. It may even be a necessary for growing personalities to assert such independence, according to some experts. The change of venue, however, has led to myriad lawsuits involving disgruntled students and the schools that punish them.

"Forty years ago, the Supreme Court resoundingly affirmed that young people attending public schools do not ‘shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,' " writes Frank D. LoMonte in "Reaching Through the School House Gate: Students' Eroding First Amendment Right," his February 2009 brief for the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.

Recent developments in the law of online speech, however, are rattling the certainty of that assumption," the Student Press Law Center executive director continues. "In the view of at least some federal judges, students do not enjoy - anywhere, anytime -the same right to comment on school as ordinary citizens."

One of the more prominent cases still pending started two years ago, when Katherine "Katy" Evans, then a Pembroke Pines Charter junior in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., built a Facebook page titled "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met." It featured a photo of the teacher who disgruntled Evans so, as well as an invitation to others to "express your feelings of hatred." Evans created the page to blow off steam. Now it's the subject of an ACLU lawsuit.

It was hardly the first Facebook page posted by a disgruntled student. Even now, a Facebook search for "student organizations" with "high school" and "sucks" in the title returns hundreds of results augmented with the names of specific schools, pages that have been online for months, even years.

For Evans, however, this teenage indiscretion - which she removed after a few days - cost her a three-day suspension and removal from her college-critical "advanced placement" status in her senior year.

"It is ironic that high school is where students first learn about First Amendment rights, including the right to free speech, yet it is Katy's high school that unconstitutionally trampled those very rights," ACLU cooperating attorney Matthew D. Bavaro, said in a press release announcing the suit last December.

Unfortunately, interfering with an adequate education has served before as punishment for such online shenanigans. In 2007, the ACLU successfully defended Justin Layshock, a high school senior who received 10 days suspension for a MySpace parody of his principal. What's more, Layshock, a "gifted" student, was removed from his classes and placed in an "alternative learning environment" far below his capabilities.

"Significantly, the Layshock court took care to examine the basis for the punishment, and had no difficulty concluding that the suspension was imposed purely for the content of the student's speech, and not for any non-speech disruptive conduct on campus," LoMonte writes in "Students' Eroding First Amendment Right."

"Thus, the school could not justify its actions by claiming that the discipline was for on-campus misconduct," one of few reasons schools can legally interfere in a student's off-campus behavior.

Still, these cases are never so clear-cut. The precedent set 40 years ago that ensured First Amendment rights for public school students took place long before the Internet era, with its cyberbullying and the like.

Appeals are still pending for the case of Avery Doninger, who in 2007 was not permitted to run for senior class secretary after she referred to faculty at Lewis Mills High School in Burlington, Conn., as "douchebags" on her LiveJournal blog. Faculty called the student, who'd previously never been in trouble, a cyberbully.

The Internet "is bringing up things we used to say verbally, that's now searchable and online," says Robert L. Shibley, vice president at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). While FIRE advocates for university students, who have significantly more rights than high school students, Shibley notes the slippery slope between the two education levels.

It is not unusual, Shibely says, for a university to note a precedent set for high school students and First Amendment rights and attempt to apply that precedent to people old enough "to fight in a war, vote and drink."

"You have sort of an Orwellian atmosphere at universities, and especially at high schools, Shibley says. "Administrators feel they have to tamp down (online speech) or somebody going to sue the high school."

"It's a big mess, and it's just coming out everywhere."

Attacking the First and Second Amendments at the same time - FIRE

Examiner.com, New York

A couple separate recent incidents illustrate the fact that to the forcible citizen disarmament lobby, the Constitutionally guaranteed, fundamental human right of the individual to keep and bear arms is only one of the freedoms that must be suppressed. To such people, when faced with concerned citizens who dare to speak out against citizen disarmament, the only option is to go after their First Amendment rights, as well.

First, we have the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC), a Pittsburgh area community college. Back in April, a student, Christine Brashier wanted to start a chapter of Students for Concealed Carry on Campus (SCCC). This group, as one may have guessed, advocates permitting defensive handgun carry on college campuses, thus ending the status, shared by nearly every institution of higher learning in the nation, of mandated victim disarmament.

Stunningly, she was told she could not form such a group at CACC.

A student who wants to form a gun-rights group at the Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) has been threatened with disciplinary action for her efforts. Student Christine Brashier has turned to the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help after reporting that administrators banned her informational pamphlets, ordered her to destroy all copies of them, and told her that further "academic misconduct" would not be tolerated.

"CCAC has demonstrated a shocking lack of respect for the rights of free speech and free association," FIRE President Greg Lukianoff said. "Across the country, students are increasingly denied the First Amendment right to debate the Second Amendment. At CCAC, this censorship trend has reached a new low."

Fortunately, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) took up Ms. Brashier's cause. No matter what one's position is on defensive handgun carry on college campuses, we should all agree that students must not be forbidden to debate the issue. Because of the attention brought by FIRE, to CCAC's free speech suppression, the school was recently forced to relent, and has rescinded the Orwellian policy it held this spring.

After months of national media attention, a student threatened with punishment for attempting to form a gun-rights group at Community College of Allegheny County (CCAC) is finally allowed to distribute pamphlets about the group on campus. The college has also rescinded its unconstitutional policy demanding "prior written approval" for "personal contact with individuals or groups related to non-sponsored college material or events."

Ms. Brashier, FIRE, and SCCC all deserve kudos for their hard work.

The second incident might be even more unforgivable. This time, the advocacy group was the Second Amendment Sisters, and the event was an "empty holster" day in Washington D.C. The response, this time apparently by an officer of the Department of Homeland Security, was a threat far more grave than the prospect of "academic misconduct."

He then said that he would have to ask me to remove my holster and I got the distinct feeling that he intended to confiscate it. When my husband pulled the video camera out of the bag, he changed his tone only slightly and asked me again to remove the holster, this time saying that I needed to "put it away". I asked him why and he told me that it was illegal to have "gun paraphernalia". I told him that I had no guns, no ammunition and no magazines and that the holster was only a piece of leather and not against the law.

That is exactly the kind of attitude an aspiring agent of tyranny hates to encounter.

The DHS officer asked her to [sic] get that camera out of his face, which of course she did not comply with. As time progressed, the officer gradually backed down from demanding to requesting that I remove my holster until he was "advising" me that it was in my best interest to comply. Finally he conceded that he could not make me remove my holster but warned me that if I persisted that I *would* be detained and possibly arrested or shot, that not every LEO was "pro-gun" like he was!

You read that correctly--a woman was threatened with arrest or with being shot, for wearing an empty holster.

Some among those who wish the citizenry to be disarmed would prefer that we not utilize the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment in defense of the rights guaranteed by the Second. They should draw comfort from the fact that we have not--yet--been forced to do the reverse.

Posted using ShareThis

IS THERE NOT A CONSTITUTION ON WHICH THIS COUNTRY RUNS

How can we still be arguing over "hate crime" laws? Is there not a Constitution on which this country runs that claims equal treatment under the law for one and all? Unfortunately, over the years, under the influence of special interest groups, one municipality and state after another has enacted some form of law that gives greater legal protection only to certain victims, based on their race, gender, sexual proclivities, etc.

Over most of this time, with a few exceptions, one heard hardly a peep in protest against the injustice of these biased laws from the "conservative" evangelical community. I guess the activists among them were too occupied with their futile endeavors to rid the nation of Roe v. Wade, which kept them too busy to think of other matters. Now, however, when it appears that a federal hate crime statute is likely to pass in Congress – one that adds homosexuals to the special status categories of aggrieved groups, the right wing evangelicals are mobilized as never before.

Long before this homosexual dimension presented itself, it was clear to anyone who cared about traditional American principles that so-called hate crime legislation is designed to punish thoughts. In reality, these are thought crime laws, and constitutionalists, among others, who cherish individual rights, have condemned such decrees for at least the past decade. [See here and here.]

What is now worrying the good "Christians" about this latest proposed federal bill is the prospect of the law being used here in the U.S. as it is in places like Canada and several European countries (especially those under the aegis of the EU). In those countries, the interpretation of "hate" has resulted in arrests and prosecutions of citizens, usually of a religious bent, who speak out against the normalization of homosexual behavior. To publicly criticize aspects of a "protected" group, such as blacks or Jews or Muslims or homosexuals, is considered promoting or inciting "hate" and is, therefore, a crime.

In the U.S., the typical "conservative" does not worry himself about the general un-American nature of such specially targeted laws; he is simply opposed to the addition of homosexuals to the list of aggrieved, possibly putting their behavior and practices beyond the bounds of public criticism.

Now, along comes the upfront homosexual activist and writer Andrew Sullivan expressing agreement with opponents of hate crime laws. In "Intent vs. Motivation," Sullivan makes the rational case that there is plenty of legislation on the books to punish all infractions of the law, and that these special laws now being proposed are not to protect citizens from crime. Instead, they are the brainchild of special interest groups that desire "boutique legislation to raise funds for their large staffs and luxurious buildings."

In this regard, Sullivan cites the Human Rights Campaign, the most prestigious of the organized crusaders for homosexual civil liberties. He could just as well have cited the NAACP and the B'nai Brith Anti-Defamation League, both of which hype racism and anti-Semitism in order to justify their endless fundraising drives. (The ADL's Abraham Foxman brags about the role he has played in crafting many of these "hate crime" statutes that now exist in various cities and states.) Claiming the need for special status is, as Sullivan says, "very, very powerful as a money-making tool."

In a related article, "Hate Crime Laws" (The Atlantic, 5/1/09), Ta-Nehisi Coates writes, "The thing that made me leery of Hate Crime Law was the infamous Fat Nick case," and goes on to describe how a teenager was sentenced to a total of 15 years in prison (instead of seven), because he used the expletive "Nigger" in an assault he believed to be justified. Syndicated columnist and civil libertarian Nat Hentoff was outraged by this sentence and wrote, "Those eight years were not because of Minucci's act, but for what he said." In other words, a thought crime. [See details of the Minucci case here.]

See also the separate cases of two young men hardly out of their teens sentenced to 10 years each for activities in which no one was physically harmed.

Source: Issues and Views

When Did We Lose the First Amendment?

The First Amendment to our Constitution seems to have disappeared. It appears we lost it on June 27, 2009.

In an LA Times interview with California State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass is asked the question, “How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature’s work?”

The Speaker answers with this gem…

The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: “You vote for revenue and your career is over.” I don’t know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it’s about free speech, but it’s extremely unfair.

Its unfair… Its terrorism. Oh yes we don’t want competition for these jobs of running the state of California and we certainly don’t want any Constitutional Ballyhoo.

Ok for all you Constitutional slackers let’s look at the 1st Amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It appears that Bass doesn’t believe in the right of the people to petition the Government for a redress of grievances; a right guaranteed by one of the most powerful documents ever created.

There’s a lot of stupidity and tyranny locked into those few words. The First Amendment guarantees the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, even apart from the “free speech” issues Bass casually discards. Elected politicians are accountable to the people who elect them in a free society. Politicians do not acquire lordly status when they go to the Assembly, or anywhere else. The Hot Air Blog

How the hell is it that our “leaders” don’t understand the foundation of the Government they work for? I guess it’s because America aka the voters are so caught up in non-important matters as to ignore the particularly important ones.

Let’s just look at the last week. TV News Devotes 28 Hours to Michael Jackson; 93% of Cable Airtime. While the media was eating up Michael Jackson’s death they failed. The media missed Iran having a major upheaval over a tainted election. Congress is working on the largest tax of all time, a tax that will kill our economy. Obama is attempting to spend Trillions of dollars on social programs like government healthcare insurance. Many important issues are being swept aside by the mainstream media and in turn our 2 second attention spans and a society that is showing signs of missing a moral compass are not monitoring what is important to this country.

No one is watching our political leaders. Our political leaders are as confused as anyone as to right and wrong. Our leaders choose to cheat, lie and do whatever with impunity. We see failure to pay taxes, failure to promises and committments including family bonds. We as a society have lost our ability to choose right from wrong. We have become confused as to what is what. Our societies moral compass is broken. Unfortunately if we don’t change, we will find bondage as the country as we are crushed under a massive debt created by a failure to choose good from evil.

Source: Erins's World

In Blow to Religious Liberty and Freedom of Association, Supreme Court Declines to Hear Appeal of Truth v. Kent

In a setback for religious liberty and freedom of association on campus, the Supreme Court of the United States today declined to hear an appeal of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Truth v. Kent. The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the appeal means that the Ninth Circuit's deeply flawed ruling in Truth will stand. As a result, the rights of student groups at public campuses in Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, and Washington to define themselves in accordance with their shared beliefs may be threatened.

FIRE submitted a friend-of-the-court brief in late April urging the Court to hear the appeal. In our press release announcing the filing of our brief, we described the facts of the case:

The controversy surrounding Truth began in the fall of 2001, when two students at Kentridge High School first applied for official recognition of Truth from the Associated Student Body Council (ASB). Despite consulting with the school's counsel and principal, the ASB did not take any action on the application for the entire 2001-2002 school year. In January 2003, Truth submitted a second application, stating that while general membership would be open for all Kentridge students, voting membership and leadership positions would only be open to students who shared Truth's faith-based beliefs. This application was also denied, prompting Truth to file suit in federal district court, alleging a violation of the group's right to free speech and expressive association, among other claims. A third application submitted in April 2003 was also denied.

The ASB cited the group's name, mission, and the fact that it was "segregating" as reasons for the rejections, despite the fact that each of the 30 student groups recognized by the school maintain "Membership Criteria" requiring that students be, for example, committed to certain causes (EarthCorps) or even of a specific sex (the Men's Honor Club and the Girl's Honor Club). Both the district court and the Ninth Circuit found against Truth, holding that its First Amendment right to freedom of expressive association had not been violated.

Because Truth tried to ensure that its membership consisted of students who shared its core beliefs, both the ASB and the school district refused to grant the group recognition, arguing that Truth was in violation of the district's nondiscrimination policy. And in finding that this refusal did not violate Truth's First Amendment rights, the Ninth Circuit essentially held that the First Amendment right to freedom of association somehow does not apply when the association in question involves high school students seeking to form a group around their shared religious beliefs. But this holding completely misunderstands the concept of freedom of association—because, as the Supreme Court held in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 623 (1984) "freedom of association plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate." Under the First Amendment, groups like Truth cannot be forced by the government to accept members that do not agree with their mission; nor can they be penalized (here, by denial of recognition) for seeking to exclude those students who disagree with their core purpose.

But under the Ninth Circuit's flawed reading of the right to expressive association in Truth, this simple principle has been discarded. Under Truth, for example, College Democrat groups may no longer require that their members be Democrats. Nor may campus pro-life groups require that their members not volunteer for pro-choice groups. As we explain at length in our brief, this interpretation of the First Amendment is not only illogical, but it is also at odds with the rulings of both the Supreme Court and other federal circuits. That the Supreme Court ignored the plain tension between the existing jurisprudence and the Ninth Circuit's cramped understanding of the right to freedom of association does not bode well for civil liberties on campus.

Still more troubling is the fact that FIRE's concerns about Truth's impact on college campuses are not hypothetical. In fact, our brief pointed out that the Ninth Circuit's faulty decision in Truth has already been cited as controlling precedent in similar cases in the Ninth Circuit's jurisdiction involving collegiate, religious student groups. We wrote:

The Ninth Circuit's holding in Truth has already negatively impacted expressive association on college campuses. Despite the fact that Truth arose in the high school context, the Ninth Circuit subsequently applied its decision and reasoning to the university setting. See Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California v. Kane, No. 06-15956 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 2009).

In Kane, a religious student group at the University of California at Hastings Law School challenged the school's nondiscrimination policy, which required all student groups to "accept all comers as voting members even if those individuals disagree with the mission of the group." Kane, No. 06-15956. The student group was denied official recognition because it required all voting members and officers to agree to a Statement of Faith. In a one-paragraph opinion, the Ninth Circuit upheld the law school's nondiscrimination requirement as "viewpoint neutral and reasonable," citing Truth as controlling precedent. Id.

Anticipating Kane, a district court in the Ninth Circuit applied the Truth decision to other religious college student groups. Every Nation Campus Ministries v. Achtenberg, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12251 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 6, 2009). Relying almost exclusively on Truth, the district court denied four religious groups at two California State University system schools the right to choose their members or leaders by reference to religious beliefs. Id. Repeating Truth's mistaken application of forum analysis, the district court held that "CSU may restrict access to its recognized student organization forum so long as the restrictions are viewpoint-neutral and reasonable in light of the purposes served." Id. at *48–49. Having determined that CSU's regulations were viewpoint-neutral and reasonable, following Truth, the court concluded that "CSU's nondiscrimination policy burdens Plaintiffs' expressive activity, if at all, only incidentally." Id. at *55.

Unfortunately, today's denial means that these erroneous rulings will stand—and that more such rulings and denials of recognition could very well follow.

For example, a federal lawsuit filed recently by the Christian Legal Society at the University of Montana School of Law against the school following the school's refusal to grant the group official recognition is headed to the Ninth Circuit on appeal. The appeal's only chance for success now is the empanelled judges diverging from their colleagues and refusing to apply Truth to colleges wholesale. That's precisely why clarity from the Supreme Court about how Truth does or does not conflict with the Seventh Circuit's ruling in Christian Legal Society v. Walker, 453 F.3d 853 (7th Cir. 2006) (holding that Southern Illinois University's denial of recognition to the Christian Legal Society was likely an infringement of the group's First Amendment right to expressive association) would have been so helpful. The Court's silence means that Truth's negative impact on college campuses in the Ninth Circuit may fester for years.

By choosing not to correct the Ninth Circuit's flawed holding in Truth, the Supreme Court has failed to address the use of nondiscrimination policies to discriminate against religious student groups at high schools and colleges across the Ninth Circuit. As such, today's Supreme Court holding is deeply disappointing to FIRE and citizens across the country who recognize that "[h]igh school and college administrators who deny Christian groups official recognition engage in the discriminatory conduct they condemn—excluding people who will not pledge allegiance to official views," as noted civil libertarian and FIRE Board of Advisors member Wendy Kaminer put it last week in a blog entry for The Atlantic. Nevertheless, while we strongly disagree with the Court's decision not to hear Truth's appeal, FIRE's efforts on behalf of religious liberty and freedom of association on campus will continue unabated.

Source: Foundation For Individual Rights In Education

The First Amendment in trouble… again!

by Rocket Kirchner

The Fairness doctrine, hate speech laws coming before Congress, radio talk shows being bullied by boycotts. Well, here we go again. The fact of the matter is that we never got it right the first time around. President Adams threatened to jail protesters for speaking out on American-French relations, until Jefferson told Adams, “Not only do they have the right, they have the obligation”.

Then along came our first dictator old honest Abe, who arrested and jailed northern writers for speaking out against theCivil War. And Lincoln’s hagiography goes unchallenged in public class rooms until this very day. Next came Oliver Wendall Holmes passing a law in the supreme court that one could not yell fire in a crowded theater, as a reaction to the Trotskyites protesting WWI. Then McCarthyism, then Bush 2 and the Dems Patriot Act that shredded the 4th and 5th Amendments, hence setting the stage for today’s Liberal Fascists to snuff out any dissenting voices against them whether it be from the grassroots left or right.

Lest you think I am just crying wolf, answer me this: is it any coincidence that radio talk show host Micheal Savage was banned from England just after Obama left that country? Well, you might say, “Maybe, maybe not, but England is not America”. True, but the fact that our government has not stood up for one of its own citizens for doing nothing wrong considering Anglo-American relations, and the fact that the hate speech bill bill is coming before Congress up for a vote, I think you catch my drift.

There is a reason why the First Amendment is FIRST. Because if it goes, then the whole Bill of Rights could come crumbling down. Many American citizens don’t take the First so literally. They are fools. These prim and proper Americans don’t think that you can cry fire in a crowded theater. Given the present danger that the First Amendment is in, not only can you… but you have an obligation to.

Source: Dandelion Salad

The Hate Crimes Bill: How Not to Remember Matthew Shepard

The Hate Crimes Bill: How Not to Remember Matthew Shepard By Alexander Cockburn « Dandelion Sa...

We’ve got the Hate Crimes Bill, aka the Matthew Shepard Act, aka the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, before Congress and far advanced on its repellent journey towards the statute book. On Thursday the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the bill, which passed the House of Representatives by a 249-175 vote in April. If passed, President Obama is expected to sign it.

The Matthew Shepard Act is a ham-handed attempt to right injustice by establishing different legal treatment for some classes of crime victims. The proposed statute classifies as “hate crimes” attacks based on a victim’s actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity or disability. America is well on its way to making it illegal to say anything nasty about gays, Jews, blacks and women. “Hate speech,” far short of any direct incitement to violence, is on the edge of being criminalized, with the First Amendment gone the way of the dodo.

[...]

The problem with the Hate Crimes Prevention Act is that it creates a thought crime and also categories of crime victims for disparate treatment. Goodbye to equality under the law. How will a prosecutor prove that a lesbian was murdered because of her sexual orientation rather than because she refused to give the mugger her purse? Given the way case law evolves and the manner in which prosecutors advance their political careers, crimes against some types of victims will incur greater penalties, with this injustice spurring resentment.

[...]

via CounterPunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names

Source: Dandelion Salad

Shared via AddThis

Talk Show Hosts May Be Accomplices Under ADL's Hate Bill

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act HR 1966 which has passed the Congress by overwhelming margins is now facing hearings in the Senate. There are already similar hate crime laws in place, however, this bill imposes much stronger federal enforcement, which is a clear violation of the Tenth Amendment. It grants greater power to federal prosecutors to prosecute hate crime laws by prosecuting those who have been found innocent by local or state courts. The current bill will extend special privileges to gays and transgender individuals that are currently only granted to ethnic and religious minorities. The most dangerous part of the Bill which is a direct assault against the First Amendment is that it allows for the prosecution as accomplices in a hate crime for talk show pundits that the person who commits the alleged crime claims to influence their actions.

Here is the essential text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)

Reverend Ted Pike of the National Prayer Network says that "this means that if any pastor, talk show host or guest, or anyone communicating on radio or the internet is repeatedly “hostile” to the practice of homosexuality and “intends” to cause “substantial emotional distress” in homosexuals, leading to repentance, he is guilty. The speaker doesn’t even have to succeed in causing such conviction for sin, even though he will be especially guilty if he does. In either case, the federal government is empowered under this bill to invade any state to prosecute the “bully” of the airwaves."

This Bill is the first major step to stripping away our rights to freedom of speech in the 1st amendment. Recently the Plains State ADL Director denounced the 1st Amendment by saying that "freedom of speech does not extend to racist groups, nor give their supporters the right to threaten and intimidate others or commit acts of violence."In many western nations, an individual can be prosecuted by the government for certain speech.

Though we still have the First Amendment we are headed in that direction of Europe and Canada where people can be prosecuted for thought crimes. Organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Anti-Defamation League have aggressively promoted hate crime legislation. These organizations have endorsed Europe and Canada's policies on prosecuting what they deem as hate speech. The ADL openly advocates for their model anti-hate law. In 1988 the ADL gave out an award to law student Joseph Ribikoff for writing a proposed hate crime bill that would criminalize hate speech against gays and minorities.

In testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, ADL Washington counsel Michael Lieberman spoke in support of the Hate Crimes Bill. "We have no illusions about this legislation," Lieberman testified. "We know that bigotry, racism, homophobia, and anti-Semitism cannot be legislated out of existence. A new federal law that finally addresses all victims of hate crimes will not eliminate them."

Source: LA Ron Paul Examiner

Our Political Prisoners

By David Swanson

Did you know the United States has in recent years prosecuted hundreds of people for political reasons? This is a crime, or rather a crime wave, that has thus far been addressed primarily by ignoring it. You can read a lot about it from bloggers like Larisa Alexandrovna or Scott Horton. But you won't hear the president mention it on TV.

In an attempt to convince the corporate media that this issue ranked right up there with governors' sex lives and celebrities' deaths, a group of notable speakers, judges, attorneys, victims, and witnesses, gathered and spoke on Friday morning at the National Press Club. You can watch the whole forum on C-Span. You won't find it anywhere else. Below is what I blogged from the event:

8:00 a.m. Don Siegelman (former governor of Alabama and victim of a politically motivated prosecution) had to go back to Alabama and won't be here. House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers may not make it either. But everybody else is milling and chatting. Some people, I'm not supposed to say are here. I spoke with Scott Horton about Spain. He thinks they're going to spend 1.5 years on the 6 lawyers and prosecute and convict 'em. He also thinks Italy will soon convict the CIA agents and report them to Interpol and end their traveling.

8:11 John Edward Hurley, President, Sarah McClendon Group, opening, welcoming.

8:31 Andrew Kreig, journalist, author & attorney, says Siegelman was here yesterday but had to get back to Alabama for a filing of new evidence with his attorney.

8:36 Kreig says the Department of Justice (DOJ) declined an invitation to participate in today's forum.

8:37 Scott Horton: prosecutorial misconduct is the topic. Prosecutors wield incredible powers. Abuse must be held in check by Justice Dept itself. [Isn't that a weakness?] Horton quotes Robert Jackson on danger of targeting people rather than taking up important cases, of picking individuals to find a crime for rather than picking crimes and finding the guilty parties.

8:42 Horton notes that as attorney general, Michael Mukasey gave one speech on corruption and claimed to know of none, at the same time that stories of former attorney general John Ashcroft's corruption were in the news. Mukasey claimed that for the 14 months he headed DOJ there was no evidence of politically motivated prosecutions. Yeah? What about Don Siegelman, Sen Walker, Paul Minor, and many others? And what about all of the cases of refusing to prosecute Republicans or sabotaging possible prosecutions of Republicans, like Renzi, as exemplified by yesterday's report by Murray Waas -- a story documenting sabotage of a case by a man then appointed as director of public affairs by Mukasey? Mukasey repeatedly promised in Congress to look into the Siegelman case but never did. The current DOJ says it has inherited a mess (detentions, torture, etc.) but there is another mess. Holder did the right thing in the Stevens case. But what about all of these other cases?

8:51 Nan Aron, President, Legal Director, Alliance for Justice, introduces Elliot Mincberg, Head Counsel for the House Judiciary Committee, speaking in place of Chairman Conyers who has to stay on the hill and vote this morning. Mincberg refers to reports like this one and this one. Committee is still investigating 2006 firing of US attorneys and has already demonstrated clear political motivation in firings, based on which prosecutors were too aggressive or insufficiently aggressive in going after Republicans or Democrats respectively. Mincberg recounts holding Miers and Bolten in contempt, and says settlement has given the committee more White House documents and that the terms of the settlement will be revealed after interviews, and there may be hearings. Second, the political hiring and firing, the testimony of Monica Goodling ... but we now have a new AG. [So what?] Holder might reconsider prosecuting Brad Schlossman. Third, the torture [he doesn't use the word]. Mincberg stresses the importance of the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) report, and says Conyers will hold hearings with Yoo, Bybee, Bradbury, and "hopefully a representative of the DOJ" after that report is released? [Why must this town shut down until that report is released? Who will enforce the subpoenas? Will Conyers use the Capitol Police? Why can they not subpoena a representative from DOJ?] Fourth, the warrantless spying (also waiting for a report). Fifth, today's topic: selective prosecution. We held LOTS of hearings, claims Mincberg and found extensive evidence of political prosecutions. Just the percentage of prosecutions of elected officials that were against Democrats had a 1 in 10,000 chance of being coincidence. A couple of cases in WI and PA have now been thrown out. But what about all the troubling activity by Republicans not prosecuted, such as the Republican voter registration firm in Nevada tearing up registrations of Democrats. See report on HJC website. Sixth, deferred prosecutions - Ashcroft. Seventh, abuse by FBI of Natl Security Letters (warrantless search warrants). Eighth, state secrets abuse. This is area where Mincberg admits great disappointment with the current DOJ and cites its sovereign immunity claim. Says committees in House and Senate are waiting [absurdly] for the DOJ's statement prior to marking up the State Secrets Protection Act. Ninth, the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) had been turned into an office that told the White House what it wanted to hear. Tenth and final, voting rights was dealt with politically -- we held hearings, John Tanner - chief of civil rights division - resigned. [To Mincberg's credit he says a lot more a lot faster than Conyers would have.]

9:14 Q&A: Scott Horton asks Mincberg about settlement but he says he can't give details but that they have received new documents and that the White House continues to claim privilege to withhold other documents.

Go to 1:06:12 in the C-Span video, and watch what I ask Mincberg and how he answers. The camera is on me when I'm asking the question, and I wish it had been on him. Another camera in the room may have been on him. You'll notice that partway through my question I stop and ask him what he thinks is funny. What had happened was that I had asked whether the House Judiciary Committee would ever use the Capitol Police to enforce its subpoenas. The very idea of thus defending the powers of the first branch of our government made Mincberg giggle nervously. The notion that one might assert such power completely apart from the decrees of the emperor always disturbs congress members and their staffers.

9:20 I asked Mincberg why in the world his committee would delay subpoenaing Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury until the OPR report and whether they would use inherent contempt if subpoenas are violated, and why in the world not impeach Bybee. He said he really does believe that the OPR report will be out soon, although Holder recently said otherwise if you use the word "soon" the way I do. Mincberg also said that every subject of every OPR report is permitted to submit comments, even though Senator Whitehouse has said this is unprecedented - allowing Yoo, Bybee, and Bradbury to submit edits. Mincberg thought that inherent contempt was funny and claimed that they had done better going through the courts, a claim that the public cannot judge except by saying there have been no hearings and no public satisfaction, and it's hard to imagine what secret outcome could have been BETTER than compelling all the recalcitrant witnesses to appear and testify. Mincberg said the House had just impeached Kent and probably would impeach another judge soon, and so was very busy, apparently too busy to impeach Bybee.

9:21 Mincberg says an interview with Rove has been scheduled but not occurred. No straight answer as to whether Rove will be put under oath. But every word will be transcribed and made public and under 18 US Code Section 1001 Rove cannot legally lie. In other words, the BETTER outcome than locking Rove up until he testified is this: he will testify in secret and not under oath, and he has still, years later, not yet done so.

9:28 End of Q&A. And speaking of abuses of justice, check this out: Proposal Offers Specifics On Preventive Detention.

9:30 We're running 30 mins behind schedule. Kreig introduces Hon. U.W. Clemon, Shareholder, White, Arnold & Dowd, former Chief U.S. District Judge, Alabama’s Northern District (1981-2009). He says Siegelman case in May of 2004 didn't just spring up, but like a phoenix rising from the ashes it had an earlier existence. Two years earlier Dr Phillip Bobo convicted of Medicaid fraud and narrowly defeated in reelection. Siegelman was leading in polls for his reelection. 11th Circuit Appeals reversed conviction of Bobo. But Bobo was reindicted with Siegelman and an aide to him added as part of a conspiracy. And prosecutors were already shopping for a Republican judge and had requested a Judge Johnson to recuse herself. Then a Bush Sr.-appointed judge recused himself. Then a Clinton-appointed judge Smith was lobbied to recuse himself although Siegelman had no complaint and he saw no reason to recuse himself - but he did so. Then a Bush Jr.-appointed judge got the case and Bobo was doctor to this judge's children. Siegelman objected. So then the case came to Judge U.W. Clemon. A dishonest campaign in the media sought to disqualify Clemon. Clemon denied double jeopardy claim by Bobo but granted motion to disqualify Siegelman's lawyers. Justice Dept still sought to have Clemon removed and sought to poison the jury pool through the media. Clemon found no conspiracy. Government moved to dismiss and Clemon granted. Prosecutor said she was untroubled because a new indictment of Siegelman would come in a different district. DOJ was focused on the man, not the crime. It was the most unfounded case Clemon ever saw. (Of course, that new indictment did come.)

Q&A: Clemon answered a question by saying that Holder last week told him the DOJ was looking into Siegelman case. [Believable?]

9:59 Charles “Champ” Walker, Jr., business executive and son of imprisoned former George State Sen. Majority Leader Charles Walker, Sr., owner of the Walker Group and Augusta Focus newspaper. Describes a "war against Democrats," hundreds of cases around the country of local prosecutions of Democrats, people like Paul Minor. Prosecutor Richard Thompson investigated on behalf of a Republican politician (who has since made him a judge) four top Democrats in Georgia, including Walker Sr. Numerous attempts to charge Walker Sr. with made-up crimes failed. Judge with conflicts of interest refused to allow defense to raise prosecutorial misconduct, and removed black jurors, changed jury from 65% urban black to 65% rural white with jurors from outside district. Walker had led the fight to take Confederate flag out of state flag. See: http://politicalprosecutions.org

10:22 Bruce Fein, author of “Constitutional Peril,” and former Reagan Administration Associate General Counsel of the Justice Department and General Counsel of Federal Communications Commission: Fein denounces corruption of our system in recent years. No principles. Partisan loyalty. Assumption of guilt. Destruction of lives with baseless public accusation. Complete immunity for prosecutors. Culture must change. Education must change. And Congress must step up and create statutes.

10:31 Bill Yeomans, Legal Director, Alliance for Justice, worked 26 years at DOJ and 3 years at Senate Judiciary Committee for Kennedy. He notes accurately that we seem to be concluding each discussion by deferring to a pending report by the Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR). This is the office through with the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigates itself. Alberto Gonzales began the practice of sending really big projects to OPR, knowing it did not have the resources. The OPR investigation of the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) memos on torture is five years old. The OPR shared responsibility with Inspector General (IG) for report on US Attorney firings, and that report got done. OPR is overtaxed and also NOT independent. OPR answers to attorney general who can approve an investigation or its results, or not. So we should stop accepting that sending a problem to OPR takes care of it. We should question how and whether OPR should exist. -- Then Horton said that on April 21 Holder met with chief judges from around the country who all raised impassioned complaints about failures of OPR.

10:36 Cliff Arnebeck, Chair, Legal Affairs Committee, Common Cause Ohio, National Co-Chair, Alliance for Democracy and 2004 Ohio election voting litigation expert: Ohio was ground zero in 2000 for judicial independence on state supreme court. $7 million of illegal corporate money ran ads attacking Justice Alice Robie Resnick. Whole court now Republican. Arnebeck and others litigated successfully. FBI investigated, but in 2004 DOJ dropped prosecution just before election -- did not want to prosecute Republicans, a nationwide pattern. Arnebeck also recounted election fraud investigations closed down. These investigations should be reopened.

10:44 Former Mississippi Supreme Court Justice Oliver E. Diaz, Jr., acquitted, had -- according to Horton -- been prosecuted for purely political reasons. There are many hundreds of these cases around the country, Diaz says, and people falsely convicted. Project Save Justice took report by U of Missouri on prosecutions of Democrats. Gail Sistrunk, Executive Director, Project Save Justice (Producers of the video, “Political Prosecutions of Karl Rove”) has interviewed these people who have never heard of each other all tell the exact same story, and the video is stunning, Diaz says rightly.

Sistrunk described the video and hands them out. See: http://www.politicalprosecutions.org

She describes prosecuting grown children and elderly parents, investigating clients to destroy businesses, and other abuses used rampantly. She calls OPR the Bates Motel: cases go in and never come out. And the statistics show improbably high rates of prosecution for moderate Republicans as well as Democrats. This is not a Republican crime wave but a Federalist Society crime wave.

Diaz points out Paul Minor's daughter here, Kathryn. He also credits Harper's and Raw Story (Scott Horton and Larisa Alexandrovna) for their reporting on these stories.

10:58 Diaz describes Paul Minor's father Bill Minor a newspaper man who spoke up for civil rights in Mississippi in the 1950s. As a child, Paul Minor saw crosses burned on his lawn. He went and killed Asians in Vietnam. He came back and took an interest in politics. (All of this is told as if it's good, including the fighting in Vietnam.) Paul Minor gave money to candidates. He was the single largest contributor to Democrats in Mississippi and one of the biggest nationally. Diaz served in the Mississippi legislature as a Republican and knew Minor as a friend and ally. Minor supported Diaz in campaigns for judgeships including for the Mississippi Supreme Court. The US Chamber of Commerce spent millions against Diaz. So, Minor contributed and raised contributions from others for Diaz. A US attorney indicted Minor and Diaz for bribery. But Diaz had refused to vote on a single case brought by Minor. That, he says, is why he's free to stand here today. Yet, there is almost always a conflict in every case and he could very well have voted on some of those cases. Diaz was dragged through a 3-month prosecution. His wife Jennifer who is here was indicted too. For what, it was not clear. They faced over 30 years in prison. DOJ told wife she could plead guilty to an unrelated tax charge and stay home with her children if she turned evidence against her husband. He told her she had to do it and should give them every scrap of info. But there was no evidence of any wrongdoing. So she was not called as a witness.

Diaz refers to Paul Minor's case as the Ted Stevens case on steroids. Prosecutor Welch is now appropriately the target of a criminal investigation at the instigation of a federal judge. He withheld evidence from the defendants, known as Brady violations. Diaz was acquitted. Others got hung juries. Minor was re-indicted. Diaz points out that everyone accepts that prosecutors were fired for not bringing political prosecutions, but not enough attention is paid to the fact that some prosecutors were not fired, because they DID bring political prosecutions. Paul Minor has been in prison these past 3 years. He was denied the right to visit his wife as she fought cancer and died a couple of months ago. He is a political prisoner. DOJ refused to allow him to attend his wife's funeral. We need investigations and we need them now. Very well said.

11:12 Puerto Rico State Senator & Minority Whip Eduardo Bhatia (D), representing former Gov. Anibal Acivedo, acquitted. Another similar story of abuses, bogus charges, leaks manipulating the press to damage a public figure, a trial with no evidence, immediate acquittal, and $3 million in legal fees still unpaid by innocent defendant.

If any of this disturbs you, please click the links in this blog, learn more, and make your opinions known to Attorney General Eric Holder 202-514-2001, House Judiciary Committee Chairman John Conyers 202-225-5126, and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy 202-224-4242.

Source: After Downing Street

The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S. 773) grants Obama power to shut down internet, ignore laws

A new Cybersecurity bill would grant the President unprecedented power to shut down the internet and ignore privacy laws. Learn more:

Resources:
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-s773/show
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-773

Contact your reps:
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/officials/congress

Contact your reps and local newspapers:
http://www.usalone.net/cgi-bin/oen.cgi?qnum=7499

More information:
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/cybersecurity-act
http://blog.cdt.org/2009/05/11/rockefellersnowe-bill-jumpstarts-cybersec...
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Security/What-Will-the-Cybersecurity-Act-of-200...
http://www.breakthematrix.com/content/Congress-Introduces-Cybersecurity-...

Source: Byte Style TV

Graduates Recite The Lord’s Prayer Despite ACLU Ban

Nearly 400 graduating seniors at Pace High School in Santa Rosa County, Fla. stood up in protest against the ACLU and recited the Lord’s Prayer during their graduation ceremony on Saturday. Many painted crosses on their graduation caps to make a statement of faith. This event follows a lawsuit the ACLU filed against the Santa Rosa County School District, claiming some of the teachers and administration endorsed religion. Liberty Counsel, a law firm represents Pace High School Principal Frank Lay and schoolteacher Michelle Winkler.

The protest was preceded by a lawsuit filed six months ago by the ACLU. The school district entered into a consent decree, which essentially bans all Santa Rosa County School District employees from engaging in prayer or religious activities. The ACLU alleges that during a dinner event held at Pace High School, Lay asked the athletic director to bless the meal.

The ACLU also alleges that Michelle Winkler’s husband, who is not a school board employee, offered prayer at an awards ceremony. Leading up to the graduation ceremony, the ACLU demanded the school stop students from offering prayers or saying anything religious. The ACLU then charged Lay and Mrs. Winkler with contempt of court.

The students were furious with the ACLU for hijacking their free speech rights and decided to take a stand at graduation. As soon as Lay asked everyone to be seated at the ceremony, the graduating class remained standing and recited the Lord’s Prayer. The ACLU has not taken any legal action yet.

Mathew D. Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel and dean of Liberty University School of Law, commented:

“Neither students nor teachers shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. The students at Pace High School refused to remain silent and were not about to be bullied by the ACLU. We have decided to represent faculty, staff and students of Pace High School, because the ACLU is clearly violating their First Amendment rights. Schools are not religion-free zones, and any attempt to make them so is unconstitutional.”

by By Julia Foster

Source: American Free press