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?

A teacher anonymously calls out her students... So what?

A high school teacher in suburban Philadelphia was suspended for a profanity-laced blog where she called her students – among other things – “disengaged, lazy whiners.” She was placed on a paid suspension when she made some of the following comments (the teacher, Natalie Munroe, did not use her full name or identify her students or school in the blog).

“My students are out of control”

“They are rude, disengaged, lazy whiners. They curse, discuss drugs, talk back, argue for grades, complain about everything, fancy themselves entitled to whatever they desire, and are just generally annoying.”

“Kids! They are disobedient, disrespectful oafs. Noisy, crazy, sloppy, lazy LOAFERS.”

“They get angry when you ask them to be creative.”

“Parents are more trying to be their kids’ friends and less trying to be their parent.”

Some of the comments she said she wishes she could post on student evaluations:

“I hear the trash company is hiring.”

“I called out sick a couple days just to avoid your son.”

“Just as bad as his sibling. Don’t you know how to raise kids?”

A former student of Munroe’s said he thought “much of what Munroe said was true and that she had a right to voice her opinion . . .” he continued to say “[w]hatever influenced her to say what she did is evidence as to why she simply should not teach.”

Is there anything wrong with her comments if she did not use her full name or identify her students or school in the blog (I’m still wondering how people found out it was her if she did not use any identifying names/places)? I’m sure there are many of you have friends who are teachers who insist on posting quotes from their students on Facebook; is there anything wrong with those comments?

Bullying and why we need to blame the victim

North Dakota State Senator Oley Larsen (R-Minot/District 3) recently testified against SB-2167 which would designate the fourth Wednesday in January as “No Name Calling Day” and make bullying/harassing a criminal offense. The bill can be read in its entirety here: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-2011/documents/11-0210-01000.pdf. Mr. Larsen is the same Senator who recently introduced SB-2367 that would require ALL divorces in the state (not directly involving allegations of domestic abuse, those cases would not be subject to the bill) to be subject to a mandatory twelve-month waiting period where couples would be required – by law – to take part in ten (10) one-hour marital counseling sessions. That bill can be read in its entirety here: http://www.legis.nd.gov/assembly/62-2011/documents/11-0756-01000.pdf.

Here is what is most troubling about Mr. Larsen’s viewpoints: he is a teacher in the Minot Public School system. Although no one may limit what crazy views Mr. Larsen has, what can be done to protect the students from his outrageous viewpoints? In testifying against the anti-bullying legislation, he said, “[i]f we actually succeed in raising children who never experience any abuse or neglect, they would grow up to be emotional marshmallows . . . frustrated when they don’t get what they want; and unable to people mean or inconsiderate towards them.” He continued by saying, “[t]o develop emotional resilience, children need to be exposed to this type of aggression and learn to deal with it effectively.” Oh, it gets better...

“How do I help victims,” he asks? “By holding them responsible for their problem.” Well done, Senator. You are correct; we need to blame the victims for being bullied. Wow... Mr. Larsen then offers some explanation to why the victims should be blamed. When discussing the topic of school shootings, asks, “are the bullies shooting up schools?” “[A]re they going on violent rampages at their workplace? No. . . . The . . . acts of violence are all committed by people acting as victims. . . . A victim believes he’s totally innocent and blames the bullies for his misery and unfair . . . life. . . . Yet society is blaming the bullies and not the victims.” I cannot imagine why society would blame bullies for pushing victims to the breaking point. Just before he is cut off (due to time restraints pursuant to Rule 306 limiting debate to 10 minutes) Mr. Larsen begins to address the topic of rape victims. We can only imagine what type of hate Mr. Larsen would have continued to spew.

Here is Mr. Larsen’s contact information

(701) 852-9006

olarsen@nd.gov

And here is the audio of his testimony.

And the Hoooooome ooof thhhhhhhe SIOUX

If you’ve ever been to a UND Fighting Sioux hockey game (home or away), you’ve heard it. Rather than the traditional version of the National Anthem, Sioux fans – every game – replace the “brave” with “Sioux.” It is one of the many Sioux hockey  traditions that have been going on for as long as most can remember.

Recently, UND traveled to Colorado Springs, CO to play the Colorado College Tigers in a weekend WCHA series. As is always the case at away games, Sioux fans were well represented in the stands. Some say they out-numbered the home team’s crowd. True to their (our) form, the Sioux fans replaced the “brave” with “Sioux” and the game proceeded.

But following the game, Colorado Springs Gazette writer David Ramsey took exception to what is turning into “National Athem-gate.” Ramsey wrote:

            “. . . they began the night by shouting “home of the SIOUX” instead of “home of the brave.” Guess the actual words of the anthem aren’t quite good enough for North Dakota fans. And, I guess, in the land of free North Dakota fans can sing the anthem any way they want, even if this behavior offends and saddens those who care about our great country and its great anthem.”

(here is the link to the story; the comments are great: http://daveramseysez.freedomblogging.com/2011/01/30/what-do-you-think-of-people-who-end-anthem-with-sioux-instead-of-free/4662/)

DOH-K Mr. Ramsey. “[T]he actual words of the anthem aren’t quite good enough” for us? I assure you that few – if any – of the North Dakota fans think the Anthem’s words “aren’t quite good enough.”

I appreciate Mr. Ramsey’s point of view – however much he is missing the point. Just as Sioux fans (or any fan at a sporting event) can add their team’s name at the end of the Anthem, Ramsey can write whatever he pleases. What are your thoughts on Sioux fans saying “home of the SIOUX” and do you think this is an issue/non-issue?

President Kelley, I want the truth

See what I did there? I threw in a little “A Few Good Men” reference. I am so witty. Ok I’m not, but you get the point. As I’m sure most of you are aware, but for those of you who are not, both the Herald and Forum recently printed articles saying that Summit League commissioner Tom Douple was approached by UND president Robert Kelley and athletic director Brian Faison and they told Douple to publicly say that the Summit League would not consider accepting UND until the nickname fiasco was resolved.

I have multiple issues/thoughts about Douple’s allegations. First, it is no secret that President Kelley has been more than compliant with the SBoHE decision to retire the Fighting Sioux nickname. He has put up little-to-no fight (relatively) to keep the nickname. This is likely due to the fact that he has no real ties to the nickname. Before taking the reigns at UND in 2008, he was previously dean of the College of Health Sciences and professor of medical education and public health at the University of Wyoming so his reason for fighting tooth and nail to keep it are few, if any.

The same can be said about Brian Faison. He took over in 2007, after he was the Special Assistant to the President and Major Gifts Officer at New Mexico State University. Faison and Kelley were seen as “outsiders” when they took their respective positions and that may very well be the case. But that leads me to the most obvious point stemming from Douple’s comments. What did Douple have to gain by saying Kelley and Faison pressured him?

Since the UND/Summit League courtship has ended, UND announced they were accepted into the Big Sky Conference on November 1, 2010. So why would Douple, over two months later, make these statements? I understand things happen behind closed doors that few people learn about. But these allegations have raised some very troubling questions about UND’s leadership. To me, it seems like some shady, back-room shenanigans are taking place that are contrary to what current students and alumni would like to see happen.

What was most troubling to me was Kelley’s response to the allegations. Instead of adamantly denying he said those things, he simply stated that he “[doesn’t] recall ever putting pressure on Tom (Douple) as he implied.” He doesn’t recall? Either he remembers or he doesn’t. We need a more definitive answer.

Cyberbullying/Cyber-harassment/Cyberstalking

Call it what you want to call it, we all know what it is. This has been a prevalent topic in the news throughout 2010. But why does it happen? The answer to this question in everyone's mind probably sounds like this: because people (kids mostly) are extremely mean. But the 'why does this happen' question I am trying to get at is why is cyber-negativewordofyourchoicehere happening at all? What can we be doing in order to prevent a.) people from being so mean to others online and b.) people from taking other's words so personal? Is there anything that can be done to prevent it? I am well aware that we will not be able to censor every mean word someone says. But something needs to change. 

Here you go Kevin

North Dakota House Bill 1212

This bill would prohibit alcohol at college sporting events with minors present. A person may not possess or sell alcohol in the presence of minors at public or nonpublic college sporting events of student athletes.

I posted this on the Book earlier so I apologize if you have already experienced my complaining... 

Here is the text of the bill:

A BILL for an Act to create and enact a new section to chapter 5-01 of the North Dakota CenturyCode, relating to the possession and sale of alcoholic beverages at college sporting events; and to provide a penalty.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF NORTH DAKOTA:

SECTION 1. A new section to chapter 5-01 of the North Dakota Century Code is created and enacted as follows: 

Prohibition of alcohol at college sporting events with minors present - Penalty. A person may not possess or sell an alcoholic beverage in the presence of a minor at a public or nonpublic institution of higher education sporting event of student athletes, whether on

the real property under contiguous ownership or control as the location of the sporting event or on the real property of the institution contiguous to that location. The contiguity of property is not broken due to a highway or other transportation corridor. A violation of this section is a class B misdemeanor.

I feel like I am on an episode of Punk'd right now. I can not fathom a scenario where something like this would pass. Or can I?

Jaxon

I decided to post a picture of my son to make my blog not seem so empty. The "1" on his shirt is for his favorite Amendment... the 1st.

Jaxon on his first birthday