First Amendment

Originally Published October 14, 2008; Updated and Republished December 11, 2008; Updated and Republished February 15, 2009; Updated and Republished February 18, 2009; Updated and Republished March 27, 2009; Updated and Republished March 28, 2009; Updated and Republished April 14, 2009; Updated and Republished May 01, 2009; Updated and Republished May 04, 2009; Updated and Republished May 15, 2009; Updated and Republished June 25, 2009:

"Experts say U.S. teenagers who post nude photos of themselves on the Internet or send them out in e-mails do not realize how public they can become."--UPI--

Wonder if our teens do realize how public their nudity is and are simply rejecting the alleged "protection" which they perceive as intended to shame them¹ into rejecting their body and sexuality?

How better to illustrate this “shaming” than for a Newark, Ohio (City-Data for Newark, OH) prosecutor² to file criminal charges against teens for sending a nude likeness of themselves (wonder if our First Amendment applies)?

Blog:

• UPDATED 03/28/2009 ZDNet, Girls sue DA who threatened them over bra photos.
• UPDATED 03/27/2009 Wired, ACLU Sues Prosecutor Over 'Sexting' Child Porn Charges. Includes comments from Skumanick.

Web:

• UPDATED 05/15/2009 BBC, Alarm bells ring over "sexting". Finally, the debate appears to be focusing on educating our wonderful teens; not punishing them or suppressing their quite normal and natural sexuality; or shaming them for self-expressions (however inept) of their sexuality.

  It's a perfect opportunity to reflect back healthy attitudes in response to their initial efforts to develop and test their sexuality.

  Let's not pretend that a healthy sexuality will develop by suppressing or reflecting back criminal charges for their expressions of their sexuality.

  Or far worse explicitly or implicitly teach or communicate to our wonderful teens that developing their healthy sexuality is in any way connected or dependent on the usage of their naked likeness by another person—it is not!

• UPDATED 05/04/2009 Reuters, Safe "sexting?" No such thing, teens warned. The article states but does not provide any supporting data or studies on how sexting can damage our girls’ futures?

  It cites Vanessa Hudgens' semi-nude photo becoming public, public humiliation, harassment, or even sexual assault as dangerous consequences but again provides no supporting data.

  Supporting data is important because we want to ensure sexting is not used as a pretext (attempted pun) for continuing oppressive stereotypes about a woman’s body and sexuality.

  If a woman is being sexually assaulted it's not because she is sexting and to imply that it is perpetuates a very dangerous and harmful stereotype—that a woman is responsible for provoking their sexual attackers! Same with harassment! It's not clear how a naked photo humiliates—unless you first infer all the dangerous and harmful stereotypes about a woman's body—then you can justify all oppression of women, including forcing them to wear a burka, so their body is opaque and does not provoke!

  Most do not want harm to come to our teen children from sexting, but perpetuating stereotypes seems much more harmful (e.g. suicide because her naked likeness is public). One hopes someday when we read stories of a boy/girlfriend posting a naked photo of their former girl/boyfriend our response will be what an asshole—not to tell our girls how shameful it is that they are exposing their bodies and then make general unsubstantiated statements about “dangerous consequences”!

• UPDATED 05/01/2009 UPI, Sexting at middle school investigated. It seems like Virginia is taking a more educational and welcomed approach to sexting?

  Assuming the police investigate to ensure our children are not being harmed, exploited, or abused and that the sexting is typical teenage sexual shenanigans, silliness, and stupidity then education is always the solution set.

  Coercive and threatening indoctrination, arresting, and prosecution of our teens for sexting is not in the solutions set.

• UPDATED 04/02/2009 UPI, Canadian teens low on sex, booze, tobacco. Wonder if they're sexting less, too?
• UPDATED 03/31/2009 UPI, Judge: Teens can't be charged for photos. Download the judge's order. A hearing on the injunction has been scheduled for June 2, 2009.
• UPDATED 03/28/2009 MTV, Teens Could Get Hit With Child-Pornography Charges For Sexting.

• UPDATED 03/28/2009 NYT, Judge Sees ‘Serious’ Issues in Cellphone Photos Case.

  “It seems like the children seemed to be the victims and the perpetrators here,...How does that make sense?”--NYT quoting District Court Judge James M. Munley--

  It doesn't make sense, regardless of how nakedness or the physical position depicted in the girls' non-coercive self-shot-image.

  A prosecutor, regardless of how well intentioned, IS NOT qualified and should not be running human sexuality workshops to teach our young girls how to understand, appreciate, and protect their hormone saturated body. Especially a male prosecutor threatening coercive criminal prosecution—talk about obscene—it’s not the teen girls who are the goofballs!

  CBS Julie Chen Interviews DA Skumanick

• UPDATED 03/27/2009 SFGate, NJ girl, 14, arrested after posting nude pics.

• UPDATED 03/27/2009 ACLU, ACLU Sues Wyoming County D.A. For Threatening Teenage Girls With Child Pornography Charges Over Photos Of Themselves (3/25/2009).

  Kudos to the ACLU and the very brave teen girls Marissa Miller, Grace Kelly, and Nancy for filing a lawsuit (pdf) to stop the abusive threat of prosecution by Pennsylvania prosecutor George P. Skumanick.

  The threat of prosecution may say more about Skumanick than the teenage antics of Marissa, Grace, and Nancy?

  • NYT, Students Sue Prosecutor in Cellphone Photos Case
  • CBS News, Sexting Girls Facing Porn Charge Sue D.A.
• UPDATED 02/18/2009 UPI, Boy could face kid porn charge for sexting. It appears the adults (who else but our (over)zealous school administrators³) are shoe-horning a teenage playboy phenomena into a criminal act—breathe, deep breaths...wonder how much, if any, of this is "agenda" or persistent Puritan psychology masquerading as "protection"?
• UPDATED 02/18/2009 NPR, 'Sexting': Racy Teen Messaging Could Be Illegal

• UPDATED 02/15/2009 Newsweek, Teens, Nude Photos and the Law

  "Judging from the sexting prosecutions in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana this year, it's clear that the criminal-justice system is too blunt an instrument to resolve a problem that reflects more about the volatile combination of teens and technology than about some national cybercrime spree. Parents need to remind their teens that a dumb moment can last a lifetime in cyberspace. But judges and prosecutors need to understand that a lifetime of cyberhumiliation shouldn't be grounds for a lifelong real criminal record."--Dalia Lithwick"

• UPDATED 12/11/2009 UPI, Sociologist: Few teens 'sexting'

  "No one brought it up [sexting],'' she [researcher C.J. Pascoe] said. "I had them go through their last 10 messages, their last 10 photos and I never saw it."...--UPI--

• UPDATED 12/11/2008 IW, Teens Post, Send Nude Pix As Sexy Presents
• Nude pix can mean trouble for teens

Res:

• Midwest Teen Sex Show (ORGASMS - Midwest Teen Sex Show #19)

-----notes-----

1. This also seems like a perpetuation of the very harmful logic that says a person is responsible for provoking another simply by expression.

Usually the logic is applied in the context of a female "provoking" a male into sexual assault by virtue of her naked likeness or nakedness.

One of the most effective ways to protect our teens from sexual predators is to ensure they develop a strong and healthy sexual identity—repressing our teens' sexuality and simultaneously teaching them to develop a strong and healthy sexual identity are mutually exclusive.

Shots of Britney's and Paris' vagina going viral on the Internet seem like confirmation a reminder of how much we have to learn—or how much their publicists have learned?

2. Kenneth Oswalt is Licking County's current prosecutor.

3. How long before our school administrators are conducting dragnet strip searches for students' cellphones and inspecting the contents?

• UPDATED 04/14/2009 see UPI, High court to consider strip-search case and NYT, Strip-Search Case Tests How Far Schools Can Go on April 21, 2009 at 10 a.m and U.S. Supreme Court Safford Unified School District #1, et al., Petitioners v. April Redding

  • UPDATED 06/25/2009 Opinion Safford Unified School Dist. #1 v. Redding.

    Fortunately, our Supreme Court upholds our students' reasonable expectation of privacy not to have their undergarments searched; unfortunately the court still fails to grant our students full "probable cause" 4th Amendment protection against school searches, opting for a lesser standard. Additionally, it continues to provide school administrators with "qualified immunity" for all but the most shockingly offensive illegal searches (see BBC, Strip-search of US girl illegal).

  • UPDATED 04/21/2009 Oral argument transcript - when Supreme Court justices begin asking, what's next cavity searches, you've probably cross a threshold.

    Intrusive humiliating strip-searching our children (here Savana Redding) at school seems like indicia of disorder not order especially as here little or no investigation was conducted before the knee jerk strip-search looking for ibuprofen!

    But consider whether it is permissible to MWave scan our students when you suspect they're "popping" ibuprofen or you just want to recover their cell-phone?

Recently a 14 year-old female student was searched and arrested after she was caught texting in class (not sexting) and wouldn't surrendering her cellphone to the teacher or authorities—you'll be happy to know the phone was recovered from the girl's clothing (see Girl arrested after texting in class)!

Are these confrontational encounters frequent? Necessary? Helpful? Creating more problems than they solve? The result of ? ? They certainly are offensive—perhaps Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas misspoke when saying "students do not shed their rights at the schoolhouse gate" (Tinker v. Des Moines School District)? Wonder what would have happened if the young girl had been sexting instead of texting—or talking?!

The young girl can take some solace in the fact that shortly all, students and teacher, will be texting "in class"—it'll be called learning not disruption!

The open-source community to assist Iranians with their Internet communications in a heavily government censored, filtered, blocked, and monitored environment—initially adding bandwidth, proxy servers, and anonymizers.

Res:

• NedaNet¹ Resource Page

Web:

• WSJ, Neda Soltan’s Death Inspires New Site

-----notes-----

1. Respected open-source advocate and guru Eric Raymond has graciously volunteered as front-office spokesperson for the nascent NedaNet project.

Fathers' Day 2009 in support of Iranians struggling for change—especially for the father whose daughter¹ was so brutally and senselessly murdered as she stood at his side.

-----notes-----

1. Internet and media outlets are referring to the young Iranian girl as 16 year-old Neda.

Updated reports indicate Neda is in her late 20s and was with her music instructor not her father. Facts, which make her murder no less traumatic, brutal, or senseless.

Let us remember too that our young guardians are currently dying¹ in two discretionary conflicts³—let our policymakers immediately cease these discretionary conflicts² and bring our guardians home.

YouTube:

• History of Memorial Day

-----notes-----

1. First Lieutenant Roslyn Schulte, 25, died Wednesday (May 20, 2009) near Kabul, Afghanistan—she graduated from the Air Force Academy in 2006 (UPI, Female Air Force Academy graduate killed).

2. In a speech to our Midshipmen, Class of 2009 our current commander in chief has promised:

"I will only send you into harm's way when it is absolutely necessary, and with the strategy, the well-defined goals, the equipment and the support you need to get the job done,"--President Barack Obama--

Only one problem—point me to those who have started a conflict and did not assert it was absolutely necessary?

Instead of hollow and meaningless rhetoric let us commit the same amount of resources to studying and learning how to avoid conflict as we do to studying and learning how to fight and win them.

3. ...and some are working very hard to start a third disastrous discretionary conflict with Iran—you can bet this conflict, if begun, will be "absolutely necessary" too!

• UPI, Mullen: Iran close to having a nuke

  "The unintended consequences of a strike against Iran right now would be incredibly serious,"--UPI, quoting Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mullen--

It cannot be over emphasized that America has no, zip, nada, zero interest in attacking Iran, not even to prevent a nuclear Iran—if Israel believes their interests are best served by attacking Iran then let Israel attack Iran, without direct or indirect economic support, military aid, or intervention from us (America), except to provide humanitarian and diplomatic assistance.

• California Firm Recalls Beef and Pork Products Due To Undeclared Sulfites - Risk High
• Illinois Firm Recalls Ground Beef Products Due To Possible E. coli O157:H7 Contamination - Risk High

Originally Published December 20, 2006; Updated and Republished May 14, 2009:

Holocaust denier David Irving has been released from jail.

It is shocking that any nation adhering to democratic principles would enact and enforce a law prohibiting a person from denying the holocaust or anything else!

Shame on Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Israel, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Switzerland, and Australia for enacting and enforcing such an anti-democratic law!

Link to Misblog's Austria's Supreme Court Deserves Muzzle Award

Web:

• Holocaust denier to be released
• Other Incidents of Suppressing Speech Freedoms of Holocaust Deniers:

  • UPDATED 05/14/2009 UPI, Holocaust denier sentenced to three months.. Surprisingly Australia has joined the nations engaging in the ridiculous behavior of jailing Holocaust deniers—jailing Holocaust denier Frederick Toben for three months.

    How is it that a nation jailing anybody for speech can be rated "green" by Freedom House?

    "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers."--Freedom House quoting Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19--

Web:

• Newsweek, A Mother’s Day Uprising.
• UPI, Many U.S. women short on health insurance . Wonder why we say we love our mothers and do not give them any or inadequate healthcare or leave them to struggle alone¹ when raising one of our greatest resource, our children?
• SFGate, 'Because I Love Her': Daughters write about Mom.

-----notes-----

1. Are we really going to keep pretending that our mothers' lack of resources is because they refuse to exchange their individual identity for some ridiculous "family values" model rendered obsolete more than two decades ago?

Freedom House's global map on press freedom is less green and more yellow in 2009 as more state actors seek to impede global information flows.

It is difficult to understand how states will cooperate on the scale required to solve our global issues (30 billion tons of CO₂ comes to mind) while simultaneously impeding and censoring access to information flows necessary and vital to understanding those issues?

Every human being regardless of culture, citizenship, nationality, or ethnicity has a fundamental right to continuous, unimpeded, and uncensored access to information—press freedoms are a vital and integral part in providing that access.

Res: Freedom of the Press 2009 Survey Release

Web: VOA, Global Press Freedom Declines

Originally Published November 04, 2008; Updated and Republished April 28, 2009:

Today our United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments on whether the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) can prohibit the broadcast of words, traditionally considered obscene, indecent, or profane—think George Carlin's "Seven Dirty Words":

• Cocksucker
• Cunt
• Fuck
• Motherfucker
• Piss
• Shit
• Tits

It's hilarious to read the oral argument transcript (FCC v. Fox Broadcasting Networks, No. 07-582 (.4M pdf)) where highly educated and trained men and women a woman refer to the "F-Word" or "S-Word", and at one point the "F-bomb" dropped by Sesame Street's Big Bird—as if saying the words Fuck and Shit can somehow result in death¹!

First Amendment Reminder:

"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."

Res: UPDATED 04/28/2009 U.S. Supreme Court, Slip Opinion, FCC v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Web:

• UPDATED 04/29/2009 WP, Supreme Court Rules that Government Can Fine for 'Fleeting Expletives'.
• UPDATED 04/28/2009 BBC, US TV swearing policy 'correct'.

The FCC acted neither arbitrary or capricious when it abolished the so called "one free expletive" public broadcast rule for words like fuck, piss, tits, cunt, shit etcetera—the so called sexually secretory words—what about sperm, spit, snot, and mucus etcetera?

Now it's back to the lower court to test whether the now upheld FCC rule completely censoring words like fuck, piss, tits, cunt, shit etcetera violates the First Amendment—hopefully the answer will be yes.

If you don't like Fox, ABC, NBC, or CBS broadcast speech try one of the other bazillion channels, including religious channels where they routinely chant "praise god", "praise be to allah" and "god is great" which many may find more offensive than fuck, shit, piss .... Or try the Catholic Church’s Vatican TV on YouTube.

The solution to so called offensive or sexual or secretory speech is not censorship or a ridiculous one free sexually secretory word rule—it’s more speech, more beautiful human speech, more beautiful human uncensored, unrestricted, and unregulated speech...

-----notes-----

1. It will be helpful for our Supreme Court Justices and United States Solicitor Generals to periodically and anonymously ride in a Washington, D.C. metro car or bus—if the words Shit and Fuck could kill the metro and buses would be transporting corpses.

Stunt clown Jackie Chan's comment that freedom for the Chinese people might not be a good thing draws no laughs.

The stunt clown Chan did not say what he thought would be good for the Chinese people, but implied the current authoritarian regime might be just fine.

One wonders what behind the scene negotiations are or have occurred between Chan, his movie company JC Group, and China's authoritarian regime—at least Google, Yahoo, Cisco, Microsoft, et al. have not endorsed China's authoritarian regime, even if some of their activity aids the regime.

This is an amazingly ignorant statement coming from an artist and individual serving as Vice President of the Chinese Film Association—is Chan switching from making stunt clown comedy to stunt clown propaganda?

Web:

• RTI, 美聯社關注成龍失言事件
• Telegraph, Jackie Chan says Chinese people need to be 'controlled'

• CDT, Jackie Chan: Chinese People Need to Be Controlled (Updated)

  “He’s insulted the Chinese people. Chinese people aren’t pets,” Hong Kong pro-democracy legislator Leung Kwok-hung told The Associated Press. “Chinese society needs a democratic system to protect human rights and rule of law.”--CDT--