First Amendment

A three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing its earlier decision, ruled that the phrase "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance does not violate the Establishment Clause of our First Amendment.

Two members of the panel thought the phrase "under God" when read in a larger historical context simply expresses a non-religious or patriotic secular purpose—placing inalienable rights beyond our government's power.

The majority's unsatisfying attempt to ineffectively secularize the concepts of Creator-God likely reflects its understandable, if unfortunate² reluctance to entangle (weak lemon pun) the court in the ongoing debate over our nation's religious delusion of one nation under God.

Or as the dissenting Circuit Judge Reinhardt¹ more eloquently puts it:

"...Only a desire to change the rules regarding the separation of church and state or an unwillingness to place this court on the unpopular side of a highly controversial dispute regarding both patriotism and religion could explain the decision the members of the majority reach here and the lengths to which their muddled and self-contradictory decision goes in order to reach the result they do..."--Circuit Judge, Reinhardt--

Fortunately, more Americans are engaging the unpopular and controversial debate—eventually the disentanglement of our nation from its religious delusion will be neither unpopular nor controversial.

Web:

• SFGate, Appeals Court says 'Under God' not a prayer
• Findlaw, Newdow v. Rio Linda Union Sch. Dist., No. 05-17257

-----notes-----

1. Reinhardt's dissent simultaneously demonstrates the strength of our Constitution, judiciary, nation, and Americans.

2. On constitutional questions where there exists a low probability that our legislative branch can or will act in remediation of the constitutional issue a high probability of remedial action by our judicial branch is required.

By definition these questions will always be unpopular and controversial, but no less offensive to our beautiful and magnificent Constitution or no less deserving of immediate remediation by a respected and intrepid judicial branch.

Transmutation of the religious phrase "under God" into the a secular patriotic phrase is neither decisive nor intrepid, or constitutional.

It will not be "God" that saves our courts, but rather well reasoned and respected opinions, notwithstanding controversy or popularity.

In a bit of low scoring mental gymnastics a three judge panel from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals says dicta in County of Allegheny v. ACLU, 492 U.S. 573, 602-03 (1989) is not inconsistent with Aronow v. United States, 432 F.2d 242 (9th Cir. 1970) which remains valid Ninth Circuit law holding that our national motto, "In God We Trust" does not violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

Specifically, "In God We Trust" is patriotic or ceremonial in character, according to the court.

Does that mean Americans rejecting our national motto "In God We Trust" are unpatriotic?

Web:

• SFGate, Court: 'Under God' in Pledge is constitutional
• Findlaw, Newdow v. US Congress, No. 06-16344

Originally Published February 16, 2008; Last Updated March 10, 2010; Last Republished March 10, 2010:

Danish newspapers should continue publishing the cartoons parodying the violence advocated in the name of the prophet Mohammad until Danish authorities have locked up all those using violence to suppress ideas they find offensive.

Muslim clerics and followers of the prophet Mohammad, in Denmark and elsewhere need a different message. Advocating or using violence on behalf of the prophet Mohammad is a brain-dead message and strategy—whether to suppress speech, cartoons or the film Submission.

Not everybody thinks that rocking, reciting, and chanting the Koran until you're brain dead is a good idea!

The controversial cartoons that were published and republished by Danish newspapers (and others) can be viewed by clicking on the below published cartoon:

Web:

• UPDATED 03/10/2010 NYT, Pennsylvania Woman Tied to Plot on Cartoonist.
• UPDATED 10/28/2009 CSM, FBI arrests two Chicago men for Danish terror plot.

• UPDATED 10/27/2009 CSM, Islamic countries push a global 'blasphemy' law.

  It might not be obvious to some followers of Islam but the world in general and America in particular has had quite a bit of experience with "blasphemy laws" to nefarious affect and effect.

  Stated differently, if Islam is beneficial to people it will not need blasphemy laws, promises of seventy-two virgins in heaven, suicide-bombers, jihadists, jihad wars, suppression of critical speech, physical violence, censorship, filters, repression, coercion, or ignorance¹ to protect and perpetuate it.

  If on the other hand Islam (or other religions) proves not to be beneficial to people it will need all of the above and more to protect and perpetuate it.

• UPDATED 02/19/2008 CSM, Republished Danish cartoon of prophet Muhammad ignites tensions

• UPDATED 02/17/2008 BBC, Danish MPs refuse cartoon apology Danes tell the Iranians to fuck off, diplomatically of course: "If anyone needs to apologise for freedom of speech, human rights, imprisonments, executions and lack of democracy, it is the Iranians."--Villy Soevndal--

  Kudos to the Danes!

• UPI, Muslim clerics upset about cartoon revival

-----notes-----

1. Lacking access to education and uncensored and unfiltered ideas—inhibited or impeded in freedom of thought, judgment, and decision.

Originally Published January 30, 2010; Last Updated March 10, 2010; Last Republished March 10, 2010:

Last week our Supreme Court decided Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a monstrous 5-4 opinion unconvincingly¹ characterizing our corporations as associations of citizens entitled to First Amendment political speech rights, limited only by disclaimer and disclosure requirements.

The majority seems to have conflated the regulatory process applicable to our corporations with the political process applicable to our citizens. Evidently, an interest to protect is sufficient for the majority to guarantee our corporations First Amendment rights in our political process.

That said one can only hope for such a simplified, expansive, and unlimited approach for all First Amendment case law—call it the return to ancient First Amendment principles approach to First Amendment case law.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/10/2010 ProPublica, Higher Corporate Spending on Election Ads Could Be All but Invisible.

• UPDATED 03/10/2010 WP, Chief Justice John Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'very troubling'.

  Our chief justice does the Supreme Court and our nation a disservice by engaging in polemics with respect to the courts recent decisions.

  It may be news to a youthful and energetic chief justice but that's what a Supreme Court justice does—sit, study, listen, and decide hopefully with dispassionate interest and without political polemics².

  It’s unlikely Supreme Court justices can successfully and simultaneously engage the role of polemic politician and credible Supreme Court justice without doing harm to themselves and the Court.

-----notes-----

1. Many have viewed the decision as an unreasoned political polemic, which further dulls our Supreme Court's patina of credibility.

Originally Published February 25, 2010; Last Updated March 09, 2010; Last Republished March 09, 2010:

An Italian court has convicted three Google executives for privacy violations because they failed to screen an offensive video¹ before a third party posted it.

Google is no more civilly or criminally liable for the posting of videos (expressions) by a third party than a Good Samaritan is liable for helping another². Contrary to the court's analogy Google is not making the expression itself, but facilitating the expression of a third party.

It would be like holding the manufacturer of a megaphone criminally liable because somebody used the megaphone to express encouragement to those picking on a person with Down’s syndrome. Surely an appellate court will quickly reverse the lower courts wrongful and imprudent action.

Web:

• UPDATED 03/09/2010 Reuters, Cyber-bullying cases put heat on Google, Facebook.

  Of course we wish and hope that all speakers or those refraining from speaking will engage in responsible speech but there is no requirement to engage in "responsible speech" as the director of the Annenberg Program on Online Communities at the University of Southern California seems to assume in her comments.

  A moment’s reflection reveals the futility and danger in trying to define or require "responsible speech"—at the very least a society stagnates...

  Every society believes their understanding and definition of "responsible speech" at any moment is entirely correct and worthy of enforcement...consider an 1850's slave posting to their version of a Facebook Page or Google Blog:

  "...my master is an inhuman and inhumane scumbag not worthy of living—he repeatedly raped my wife and beat me and my oldest child last night...I can't go on living like this"--1850 American Slave--

  Speech Responsible or Irresponsible? Then or Now? Slavery End Sooner or Last Longer? Today Different or Same? Terrorist or Patriot? Then or Now?

• NPR, Italy Convicts 3 Google Executives In Privacy Case

-----notes-----

1. The offensive video reportedly depicted several youth picking on a peer with Down’s syndrome.

2. Some have speculated that Google may be experiencing push back because of its success, size, and market dominance. We can only hope that all of our corporations are as successful at doing good while doing well.

It's more likely that governments are simply having a very difficult time envisioning a world without censorship and adapting to it.

It may be wise for Google to help nations begin to envision and adapt to this future—a future with infinitely more promise than peril.

Periodically cases come along to remind us that possessing our precious First Amendment rights is not synonymous with responsible exercise of those rights for a non-pernicious or beneficial purpose¹.

Such is the case of Snyder, Albert v. Phelps, Fred W., et al. (09-751), which our Supreme Court has granted certiorari (pdf).

Mr. Phelps and other members of the Westboro Baptist Church² specialize in showing up at selected funerals of our fallen hero's, no doubt directed by "God", where they stand about 1,000 feet away literally wrapped in an American flag and holding a variety of offensive and pernicious signs³.

Parenthetically, if Mr. Phelps is in heaven who wouldn't rather be in hell?

Web: UPI, Court to hear case of funeral pickets

-----notes-----

1. Protecting public speech regardless of how pernicious or offensive is vital for our nation—regardless of whether the speech makes any sense or has any beneficial purpose or may be calculated to hurt or in fact hurts others.

2. Westboro Baptist Church appears solely focused on condemning America, Jews, and homosexuals using all the well known biblical verses.

3. The signs expressed general points of view such as "America is doomed" and "God hates America." However, the signs also expressed more particularized messages, like: "You are going to hell," "God hates you," "Thank God for dead soldiers," and "Semper fi fags."

Originally Published April 28, 2008; Last Updated March 08, 2010; Last Republished March 08, 2010:

The Open Net Initiative (ONI) has consolidated five years of nation-state Internet censorship and surveillance research into a recently published book, Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. Access Denied significantly advances our ongoing discussion of methods for reducing global Internet IP packet friction, particularly at national borders and their virtual gateways. Access Denied has published an excellent first approximation of relative indexes for nation-state censorship and surveillance.1

Worldcat

Access Denied focuses on the technology of IP packet impediment, but ultimately nation-state sponsored packet friction is the manifestation of symptoms for a widespread illness—the inability of the nation-state to understand, mediate, and resolve conflicts as virtual boundaries elide national boundaries—treatment begins by recognizing the symptoms.

ONI’s, Access Denied has begun the important work of documenting the developing symptoms of this serious pandemic illness—an essential read for everyone working² or planning to work treating the symptoms of nation-state Internet censorship and surveillance!

Res: The Open Net Initiative (ONI)

Web:

• UPDATED 03/08/2010 Reuters, Four in five believe Web access a fundamental right.

  What an encouraging article reporting the results of a cross-country Internet user survey: 80% thought of Internet access as a fundamental right; 90% thought it's a good place to learn; and half thought it should never be regulated by government anywhere.

-----notes-----

1. When the second edition is published its editors will help readers and improve readability by differentiating between regimes and regimens.

It will help readers distinguish the dictatorial regimes from the oppressive IP censorship and surveillance regimens they implement.

2. For example the Global Online Freedom Act of 2007, H.R. 275, has been introduced in the United States House of Representatives.

It aims to increase online freedom of expression and decrease nation-state coercion of multi-national entities.

Originally Published February 21, 2010; Last Updated March 08, 2010; Last Republished March 08, 2010:

What a delightful initiative; the government of Iceland is considering using its national sovereignty to encourage and facilitate frictionless and transparent Internet information flows.

The first nation to adopt¹ the 21^st century motto² "no secret is safe with us"—a global shield law for modern media journalists—the "goto" nation for all your national intelligence needs.

The implications of such a "first mover proposal" are potentially far reaching, as we transition toward a global Internet and more transparent world.

Res: Icelandic Modern Media Initiative

Blog:

• UPDATED 02/22/2010 Jurist, Iceland's example on press freedom worthy of global emulation.

  There is a huge difference between a world whose default is transparency and one whose default is opaqueness.

  Somebody or someone or some nation always has to be first.

  Why can't free speech be a global inalienable fundamental human right and Iceland the Hague of Free Speech?

Web:

• UPDATED 03/08/2010 CSM, Iceland financial crisis: Voters reject debt repayment plan.

  IceSave raises important issues about when financier behavior or financial terms become so unconscionable and odious (cannibal) that they cease to be enforceable morally if not legally in our modern society.

  Many nations have limited, reduced, or no access to capital during economic downturns (especially deep global downturns) and thus cannot use fiscal and monetary policy to cushion the draconian declines in their GDP⁴ as a result of the downturn.

  This can lead to a very harmful and repeating cycle: odious terms, default, shrinking economy, odious terms, default, shrinking economy...a nation never "graduates" beyond this harmful cycle.

  Cycling of this sort is not in the interest of the community of nations or global growth and stability and every effort must be made to systemically study and eliminate this harmful cycling.

  Much research is needed to better understand the causes of this cycling, but pending that research and understanding surely we can ensure that the cannibal capitalists (not to be confused with capitalists) are treated consistent with the odious and unconscionable terms they seek to impose on others.

  Next we can ensure that all nations collect and transparently report the financial and economic data necessary and sufficient for an international and independent entity to conduct meaningful research into this harmful cycling and reduce or eliminate its harm.

• UPDATED 03/05/2010 BBC, Iceland holds referendum on Icesave repayment plan.

  The Internet is adding new dimension to sovereign default and restructures—citizen referendums bypassing their governments.

  The IceSave referendum is also an example of how "anti-terrorism" laws are and can be abused and misused not to fight terrorists but to silence expressions.

  In this instance Britain used anti-terrorism law to freeze the assets (the magnitude of the frozen funds is unclear) of IceSave. Presumably to silence the IceSave referendum, which advocates default or significant restructure as a response or remedy to the financial abuses³ inflicted on Icelanders as a result of the Great Panic of 2007.

• UPDATED 02/27/2010 IceNews, Confidential Icesave documents leaked on Wikileaks
• NYT, A Vision of Iceland as a Haven for Journalists

-----notes-----

1. Eventually all nations will be adopting this motto; some voluntarily, others involuntarily; some with delight, others with disgust; some in discrete steps, others in continuous steps; some with forecasts of utopia, others with forecasts of dystopia...

2. Iceland may not have an official motto.

3. Icelanders saw their real housing prices skyrocket north of 50% increases in the run-up (2002-2006) to the Great Panic of 2007—then head south toward 20% decreases where they hover today.

4. UPDATED 03/08/2010 The CIA Factbook, as a point reference, reports Iceland's 2009 Domestic Debt to GDP ratio at 100.6%.

Domestic Debt is government debt denominated local currency and External Debt is public and private debt denominated in foreign currency.

Two contrasting point are given in Reuters, Portugal follows Greece down austerity path. Greece's Public Debt:GDP is expected to reach 125% this year and Portugal's Public Debt:GDP is expected to peak at 90.1% in 2012.

Originally Published September 06, 2007; Last Updated February 23, 2010; Last Republished February 21, 2010:

In a closely watched case, Doe v. Gonzales, United States District Court Judge Victor Marrero has declared the "gag provision" of the Patriot Act unconstitutional¹.

“… the Court concludes that § 2709(c) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it functions as a licensing scheme that does not afford adequate procedural safeguards, and because it is not a sufficiently narrowly tailored restriction on protected speech. Because the Court finds that § 2709(c) cannot be severed from the remainder of the statute, the Court finds the entirety of § 2709 unconstitutional. Additionally, the Court concludes that § 3511(b) is unconstitutional under the First Amendment and the doctrine of separation of powers.”--Judge Marrero, Doe v Gonzales, 04 Civ. 2614(VM)

The "gag provision" section of the Patriot Act sought to silence those receiving an extra-judicial National Security Letter (NSL), contrary to and in violation of their free speech rights.

However, we might still be required to gag, because the judge stayed his decision to give our government time to appeal, if they so desire - perhaps if we all send them our buckets of vomit they won't appeal?

Web:

• UPDATED 02/21/2010 UPI, U.S. Supreme Court to hear terrorism case. (for a short case summary see Willamette Online Case Summaries, Supreme Court)

  Another challenge to the vast sweeping and pathetic piece of legislation we've come to know as the Patriot Act (it was enacted in the wake of the hysteria caused by the 9/11 attacks).

  The latest challenge is to the broad sweep of the "material support" provision seeking to criminalize any support for a group that our government decides, in its infinite wisdom is currently a terrorist group.

  Of course blindly following such a government designation without distinction is very dangerous. It ignores the fact that you might support the reform objectives of a group while vociferously decrying its violent means.

  The idea that our government can end support for a group's reform objectives simply by listing it as a terrorist organization is potentially very harmful and likely very unconstitutional...more later².

• UPDATED NYT, Judge Voids F.B.I. Tool Granted by Patriot Act
• WP, Judge Rules Provisions of Patriot Act Unconstitutional
• NYT, Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act
• AP, Judge Strikes Down Part of Patriot Act
• Judge Rules Feds Cannot Silence ISPs With Patriot Act

-----notes-----

1. The judge also, not so subtly provides Congress with an introductory refresher course on constitutional law.

UPDATED 02/21/2010 During the appellate process our Congress amended the legislation with the result the one case was remanded, DOE I (New York) and one case, DOE II (Connecticut) the gag was removed (see Google, Doe v. Gonzales, 449 F. 3d 415 - Court of Appeals, 2nd Circuit 2006).

Our FBI has abandon secretively seeking Doe I records but DOE I remains gag—the gag is under reconsideration and an appeal is again likely, so that DOE I can eventually speak (see ACLU, Doe v. Holder : Internet Service Provider's NS).

It's shocking to say the least that any American would need our government's permission to speak—such is the burden of fear and hysteria!

Guess it's going to take sometime before we realize the "government shall make no law..." part of our first amendment.

2. UPDATED 02/23/2010 Read oral argument transcript for Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, February 23, 2010, 08-1498.

Originally Published October 14, 2008; Last Updated February 18, 2010; Last Republished February 18, 2010:

"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 12/31/2009 LSSU, 2010 Banished Words List.

  Lake Superior State University, Word Banishment Committee students have included "sexting" (sexy cellular phone texting) on its Banned Word List for 2010.

  Topping the popular 35^th annual list of the top 15 misused, over-used and generally useless words was "shovel-ready".

• 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 02/18/2010 UPI, Wash. teens in court for sexting case.

  In addition to using software to ensure digital objects expire in due course it might be useful for our teens to create a fact based index of individuals with an objectively verifiable history of harassment and intimidation aimed at inflicting harm on others, whether any harm actually occurs. Call it the Golden Rule Index Wiki:

  • GRIW ID 127693: David Dumb Ass: On January 20, 2009 David D. Ass sent a nude photo to at least 13 others without the permission of the individual depicted in the photo – distribution of photo had no apparent purpose other than inflicting emotional distress on the person depicted in the photo (see UPI, Wash. teens in court for sexting case)
  • GRIW ID 127693-1 On February 18, 2010 David D. Ass was charged with telephone harassment.
  • GRIW ID 127693-13 On March 02, 2013 David D. Ass stated that he did not want to harm Bonnie Bare Ass and has apologized to her. He has agreed to pay and is paying Bonnie royalties for the rest of his life on the estimated number of times that Bonnie’s nude photo will be displayed during Bonnie’s lifetime or the photo is proven nonextant, whichever occurs first.
  • GRIW ID 127693-203 On March 02, 2087 David D. Ass is no longer...

  Others can consult the index to ensure they understand an individual's harassment and intimidation propensity aimed at inflicting harm on another.

  It's no longer necessary to await our authorities, with their meager resources, to provide a criminal record—if an individual is intentionally harming another, others should know about that harm and who is responsible for inflicting it whether its legal or illegal.

  Then instead of asking do I want this on the front page of the New York Times people can begin asking do I want this in the Golden Rule Index.

  A sort of Wikileaks for individuals (Wikileaks is to nations what the Golden Rule Index Wiki is to individuals).

• UPDATED 12/24/2009 UPI, Nude photo of teen disrupts high school.

  One wonders how many of these reports will precede the report that parents, police, prosecutors, principals, priests, and preachers et al. have stopped getting excited and exercised about teenage sexting.

• UPDATED 12/17/2009 CSM, How to keep your teen safe on the Internet.

  ...the old fashion way—talking to the teens even when you're utterly convinced they're not listening.

  The article includes a link to a Federal Trade Commission Publication, Net Cetera: Chatting with Kids About Being Online.

• UPDATED 12/15/2009 UPI, 15 percent of teens may be sexting
  • PewInternet, Teens and Sexting Survey

  • U.S. Census Statistical Abstracts; Section 24

    The total number of cellular text messages has exponentially increased from 2.1 billion in 2003 to 110.4 billion in 2008. (see UPI, Texting Up Newspapers Down).

• UPDATED 08/04/2009 Reuters, "Sexting" craze on the rise among children⁴.

  Our wonderful teens might want to check out (or write) software that enables them to encapsulate their sexting activity into a self-expiring object (e.g. "Vanish").

  In this way it will be more difficult for sexting activity, that give many adults apoplexy and our religious crowd infarction, to outlast the very important "first love" relationships.

  In the event a relationship period exceeds the self-extinguishing sexting activity—more self-extinguishing sexting activity will surely follow.

  Self extinguishing objects have the added feature of enabling our teens to estimate the length of their relationships, a valuable skill to learn.

• UPDATED 07/14/2009 UPI, Houston schools may ban 'sexting'.

  It's unlikely that any school district has the authority to ban sexting and even less likely, the ability to enforce such a ban.

  Hopefully the Houston Independent School District does a better job teaching our children than making policy restricting their expressions.

• 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!

4. British teens have the benefit of a slightly more progressive healthcare system than American teens.

England's National Health Service Sheffield recently told teens "an orgasm a day keeps the doctor away"³—and you thought it was an apple.

Information about the Sheffield self pleasuring publication, can be found here.

Unfortunately American still has a tendency to pressure, intimidate, and fire its healthcare professions, parents, and teachers for daring to teach our children to masturbate.

America is changing and the debate over sexting is commingled in that change.