Do We Need to Call in Team America??

A group opposed to radical Islam - and some say Muslims, in general – somehow won an injunction to run anti-jihad ads on public buses in Michigan. 
     

U.S. District Judge Denise Hood of Detroit said the local transportation authority's efforts to block the ads constituted a First Amendment violation.
     

American Freedom Defense Initiative – one of the main opponents of the mosque build in New York City – was the party that ran the ads and subsequently brought suit against the Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation (SMART), which subsidizes its public transportation service in four Michigan counties through advertisements. 
     

Claiming that the ban was arbitrary and in violation of its constitutional rights, AFDI argued its original complaint that "the treason being committed by national, state, and local government officials, the mainstream media, and others in their capitulation to the global jihad and Islamic supremacism, the ever-encroaching and unconstitutional power of the federal government, and the rapidly moving attempts to impose socialism and Marxism upon the American people."
     

SMART countered that – and I would agree – the ads are political, anti-Islamic and happen to be in conflict with its contract with CBS Outdoor, SMART's advertising agent. SMART’s stance is that it cannot accept political advertisements that are "likely to hold up to scorn and ridicule of a group of persons.”

The AFDI countered with the fact that SMART had previously run an atheist group's ad that said: "Don't believe in God? You're not alone." To me, this is far less political than an anti-jihad ad.     

Is 300 Feet Enough?

In Oregon, the state legislature is considering legislation that is a direct result of the Synder v. Phelps Supreme Court decision. The proposed law would prohibit picketing at funerals.

But the law has its limits. The law would ban picketing within 300 feet of funerals, burials, and memorial services. Is 300 feet really enough to serve the purpose they are intending it to serve? I can think of a lot of ways protesters/picketers could get their message across from 301 feet away.

Its Just a Sign...

A man in Columbus, Ohio felt that the cit was not doing enough to prevent accidents at a specific intersection that has taken the lives of 13 people since 1998. So what did he do? He posted two signs that looked like a grave headstones that read “Mayor Coleman, R U Next?” Not surprisingly, this signs weren’t too popular and were taken down within a couple hours.

The man, Keith Hatton, believes someone is denying him the right of free speech. Mr. Hatton has a connection to this intersection, thus leading him to post the signs. On November 15, 2010, he pulled a man out of a burning car that had crashed at the intersection and stayed with him until rescue authorities arrived.

Are Mr. Hatton’s rights being violated? The signs were posted next to 13 white crosses that symbolize the 13 people who have been killed at the intersection...

Porn in Libraries

In a story that will undoubtedly grab one of our colleague’s attentions, the city of Los Angeles is talking about porn. And its not just any type, it’s the type viewed in libraries; as in public libraries. People are looking at porn in public libraries in Los Angeles. What is their response?? None other than privacy screens.

The discussion had was aimed at balancing a patron’s First Amendment right to look at explicit material with other patrons’ rights to shield themselves from porn in public. This stemmed from January 6 incident when a librarian was notified that a man was viewing explicit material on a computer in a Chinatown library.

“The community was very upset. This is not the type of thing that generally happens in the Chinatown branch,” said Cheryl Collins, interim director for branch libraries.

At the Chinatown branch, the computers were moved to a more private area and outfitted with privacy screens, something that is also done at the other 71 branches and Central Library in downtown.

City Councilman Ed Reyes said, “[i]f we could maintain the level of privacy without compromising security, I think we’ll find a win-win where no one can sue the city for violating their First Amendment rights. . . . At the same time, we have to be cognizant that there are certain characters that don’t have the best judgment in their behavior around children, around families in our libraries.”

Their porn privileges are unlimited however. Patrons may not view child porn, which is obviously illegal, or engage with other patrons while viewing pornographic material. I doubt this topic is on the agenda with the proposed Grand Forks library.

And the Winner Is...

For the 20th consecutive year, the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression celebrated Thomas Jefferson’s birthday on April 13. In doing so, they continued their streak of awarding their annual “Jefferson Muzzle” awards. These awards are handed out to “those responsible for some of the more egregious or ridiculous affronts to free expression occurring in the previous year.”

2010’s biggest winners were President Obama and oil giant BP. They received this high honor for “their roles in restricting news media access to the Gulf of Mexico oil spill.” The Jefferson Center stated that BP and other authorities, including Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Coast Guard officials, repeatedly restricted journalists from public beaches or waters as the oil made its way into the Gulf.

Other “Jefferson Muzzle” winners were everyone’s favorite inappropriate touchy-feely agency, the TSA; a Mississippi judge who threw an attorney in jail for not reciting the Pledge of Allegiance; and the Virginia prison agency responsible for banning a “Jailhouse Lawyers Handbook.” Sounds like all award winners were deserving of their “Muzzle.”

A Former UND Law Student and His 1st Amendment Battle

John Hoff, former Grand Forks City Councilman (and UND School of Law student) is on trial in Minneapolis, facing allegations that his blog, “The Adventures of Johnny Northside” got Jerry Moore fired. Mr. Moore is the former executive director of University of Minnesota’s Urban Research and Outreach/Engagement Center - a neighborhood community council in north Minneapolis. He claims that Mr. Hoff’s blog lied about him and that is what got him fired. Mr. Moore is seeking more than $50,000 from Hoff. 

The blog in question has contained entries about Mr. Moore’s association with a big mortgage fraud case. The exact details of the entries were not readily available in the article I read, but one of the main issues in the case will be whether Mr. Hoff is afforded the same First Amendment protections from libel and slander as do mainstream journalists. “My defense is the truth,” Hoff told the Star Tribune. “I’m not being sued because I defamed anybody. I was sued to shut me up.” This brings to mind discussions we had in class regarding Perez Hilton, Matthew Drudge, etcetera and whether the law would treat these bloggers as mainstream journalists.

Without knowing the exact facts of the case, I am not sure how I think the law will treat this case. What may be interesting to consider: what would change if Mr. Hoff had an anonymous blog (or posted under a pseudonym)? Would the analysis shift to a strictly content-based one? If so, I wonder what the implications would be on his ISP.

Some additional factors to consider when thinking about this case are that during the1990s, he lived in Seattle, and apparently raised some hell with the local politicians on homelessness issues, while also making headlines for his grandstanding for open records issues as well. In Minneapolis, he seems to have continued his outspoken ways of activism, allegedly making both friends and enemies.

According to the Star Tribune, his case has attracted the attention of a Harvard free speech group who persuaded an attorney to represent him at no cost.

Utah Bullying Bill

Is the nationwide creation of bullying laws getting out of hand? Utah's Senate just passed SB304, which would require schools to have a bullying policy in place by 2012. The bill, titled "PREVENTING BULLYING AND HAZING IN ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOLS" defines bullying and situations that constitute "bullying." The bill states that bullying "means intentionally or knowingly committing an act that: [C] involves consumption of any food, liquor, drug, or other substance[.]" Am I missing something here? What does bullying have to do with the consumption of food, liquor, drugs, or other substances? Is the Utah legislature over-reaching a bit?


The statutory definition of cyberbullying "means using the Internet, a cell phone, or another device to send or post text, video, or an image with the intent or knowledge, or with reckless disregard, that the text, video, or image will hurt, embarrass, or threaten an individual, regardless of whether the individual directed, consented to, or acquiesced in the conduct, or voluntarily accessed the electronic communication." Does this mean someone overly sensitive will be found to have been a victim of cyberbullying because someone sent a text message that embarrassed them? I am all for punishing bullies when appropriate, but are legislatures going too far?