Slashdot Mirror

The easiest way to solve this problem is by supporting & giving money to groups like the EFF who'll go to court on behalf of the little ISP, and help them fight.

For communications freedom support the EFF, for Constitutional freedoms join the ACLU. They're both very necessary

Thalia

If you're really fed up, do something about it.

Write your Congressmen.

For all of the highly-moderated comments here, your Congressional representatives do not read Slashdot. They do read your letters. (But not necessarily your email.)

Look up your House Representative at www.house.gov/writerep/ and your Senators at www.senate.gov. Write a letter, and address a copy to each of representatives.

Be clear, concise, and non-technical. Explain how the DMCA affects average citizens and consumers. Use examples from mainstream news sources to back up your argument. Keep it down to a page.

The ACLU has more tips for writing effective letters to your Congressmen.

Unless you write your representatives, you are one of the ones who stood by and did nothing.

I trust that you, like myself, have given money to the EFF and the ACLU (to name a few worthy organizations). (Note that I find it somewhat ironic that the ACLU once gave Hillary Rosen an award, but I digress...)

If you haven't then everything you say is nothing more than posturing. It it very easy to talk big and to tell these people to stand up for themselves, but not so easy to do so when faced with the RIAA's thundering herd of lawyers.

A legal battle against a major corporation is almost guaranteed to be very costly, and while paying US$50k to a team of lawers may be a pittance to BigCorp (especially when protecting a business interest), most private citizens do not have anywhere near that kind of capital to spend on a lawsuit that they have nothing to gain from (financially).

Groups like the EFF and the ACLU help to level the playing field by leveraging the social goodwill (and their associated dollars) of millions. They help provide for the defense of those who otherwise would have to go without. But there is no guarantee that they can help you (or even that you'll win) and you're still spending time dealing with the case (the lawyers get paid for every hour they're in there but you, as the defendant, probably don't). So even fighting may not get you anywhere...

So give money. If you already have, then I applaud you. If not, then perhaps you should think about the practical implementations of your noble goals.

Of course, if you're too young or broke to give, that I understand as well....

Christ, this right up there with Fahrenheit 451. Why blame the games? It was the parents of the shooter who didn't teach thier kids the morals they needed.

Edward Felten is amazing.

• This is the same guy that provided Boies with his technical ammunition in the Microsoft trial. It was while trying to prove that Felten's IE-remover program didn't work that Microsoft was devastatingly caught showing a faked video.
• Would you prefer this incident has been used as a First Amendment challenge on DMCA? Say by the ACLU? Back in January, baby!!! (See page 15, or 8 by the document's own numbering.)
• And now, just to pour salt on the wounds, his group leaks the SDMI cracks anyway. I love it!

This guy is my hero! Looks so *innocent*, doesn't he? :-)

Here's A link to the ACLU's Student Rights Page.

Ender's Game is usually on someone's shit list.

--

yes, absolute and unquestioning compliance is definitely the way to go.

for instance, if you live in a state that hasn't repealed or at least set precedents against "sodomy statutes," you'd better make sure you don't have sex that isn't legal. you can check for your state here also, many states have laws against premarital sex, so wait 'til you're married, folks!

my point is that not all laws are just (for a better parallel, read about america's prohibition of alcohol). there are some things that the government just has no business enforcing upon me. i'm not necessarily saying that the answer is simply to disobey the laws, just that if everyone accepted unjust laws, as you're suggesting, unjust laws would never be changed.

Actually the DEA gets to take your house and your car and most of your money if they arrest you for drugs. They needn't even convict you. We are essentially living in a modern-day Germany with respect to the abandoment of basic human rights brought on by this agency (and its government-wide supporters). When was the last time you had to sign a loyalty oath saying you don't use drugs? Or provide a urine sample to prove it before there was any evidence against you?

government assest seizure laws

It seems clear to me that a constitutional challenge by the ACLU and other organizations would follow, treaty or no treaty. Since when do we allow enforcement of foreign laws within the United States? With treaties like this in the works, only anonymized Internet access AND servers located in data havens like HavenCo are likely to provide us with protections we (Americans) should already enjoy under the 4th Amendment.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, "A people who give up freedom for security deserve neither."

Ok--now go read about the deaths of 80 innocent civilians in their own homes at the hands of US Defense and the FBI in 1993; read how the United States is the world leader in incarceration, with many of the jailed being casualties of the War on Drugs; read about the victims of racial profiling in the US ("Driving while black"); read about prison labour in the United States; or police brutality; perhaps even the many violations of international law by the United States.

Go read all of those links (and while you're at it, brush up on your history; for instance, slavery in the United States), and come back and tell me that you welcome the US as a power any more than China. Take off your rose-coloured US-media-manipulated glasses, and realize that America is as affected by propaganda convincing its citizens that their country faultless as China is.

The ACLU of Oregon believes that the safety of the physicians and clinic workers who provide abortion services can be protected without compromising the fundamental protections of free speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. Our involvement as a friend of the court in this case has been designed to help the court find the appropriate line between protected and unprotected speech under our Constitution. We will continue to play that role as this case moves forward.

...

Prior to trial, we argued that the Court should have adopted a stricter constitutional standard in this case to distinguish between unlawful threats and protected speech. We still believe the jury should have been asked to determine whether the evidence showed that the defendants intended to threaten these abortion providers.

You can say what you'd like about the man, but Congressman Boucher is fighting the good fight on this one, even if you don't agree with his politics. At least show some respect for the man, he's gotten to the point where his opinion matters.

I'm guessing that not too many people take you seriously if you sprinkle "egg-sucking" into your political rants.

The DMCA is an atrocity and I'll happily back anyone who has the nerve to to stand up to the corporations that are trying to take this country over.

Also, you might want to do some research before you sing praises to John Warner. You'll note that John Warner voted for the "Flag Desecration Amendment", and obvious attempt to even further limit free speech in this country by limiting criticism of the United States. You will note that Rick Boucher did not vote for this Amendment.

Maybe you should write a letter to Warner and ask him to start standing up for your rights once in a while instead of doing his best to pass legislation to take them away.

You can say what you'd like about the man, but Congressman Boucher is fighting the good fight on this one, even if you don't agree with his politics. At least show some respect for the man, he's gotten to the point where his opinion matters.

I'm guessing that not too many people take you seriously if you sprinkle "egg-sucking" into your political rants.

The DMCA is an atrocity and I'll happily back anyone who has the nerve to to stand up to the corporations that are trying to take this country over.

Also, you might want to do some research before you sing praises to John Warner. You'll note that John Warner voted for the "Flag Desecration Amendment", and obvious attempt to even further limit free speech in this country by limiting criticism of the United States. You will note that Rick Boucher did not vote for this Amendment.

Maybe you should write a letter to Warner and ask him to start standing up for your rights once in a while instead of doing his best to pass legislation to take them away.

Just because the dweeb behind the video-store counter can't change his company's rules doesn't mean you have to play by them. I've never once had a problem giving a bogus SSN to companies that have no right to it but insist on having it. That includes video stores, cable companies, and even the university I'm attending, which seems to think SSNs make brilliant student ids.

Occasionly you'll find a company that will refuse SSN 123-45-6789 because it's "obviously invalid." It's almost pathetic when they turn around and gladly accept 521-43-9876. Guess it just look better.

Of course, if your SSN is 521-43-9876, then you might want to pick a different number.... ;-)

ummm... no... they only lose the right to speech which is contrary to an educational environment. you don't have the right to spontaneously organize a protest in the middle of class as its disruptive to the educational environment. but you do have the right to wear a shirt protesting something or another.(the supreme court case you want is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969. "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech . . . at the schoolhouse gates.")

and the press? the last i checked high school press was limited by the fact that the school usually acts as publisher, meaning they pay for the production, printing, and distro of the press. if you want to form an alternative press at your own expense, the school cannot impose unreasonable limitations on its distrobution on school grounds. (college press, i know for a fact, has practically no differentiation with commercial press as far as press rights go.)

ummm... no... they only lose the right to speech which is contrary to an educational environment. you don't have the right to spontaneously organize a protest in the middle of class as its disruptive to the educational environment. but you do have the right to wear a shirt protesting something or another.(the supreme court case you want is Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, 1969. "It can hardly be argued that either students or teachers shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech . . . at the schoolhouse gates.")

and the press? the last i checked high school press was limited by the fact that the school usually acts as publisher, meaning they pay for the production, printing, and distro of the press. if you want to form an alternative press at your own expense, the school cannot impose unreasonable limitations on its distrobution on school grounds. (college press, i know for a fact, has practically no differentiation with commercial press as far as press rights go.)

So, if you want to really stir some shit up, you can call them and see if they can use your situation as a test case. We know for a fact that the ACLU thinks that censorware in public institutions is unconstitional. (I also know some of the law students there, so I'll tell you that they're pretty nice people, too.) You could be that test case, if you felt you were up for it -- you wouldn't have to pay a dime in lawyer's fees, but you'd probably have to spend a lot of time in courtrooms, and talking to reporters. But who knows, some people really like that stuff. Good luck.

So, if you want to really stir some shit up, you can call them and see if they can use your situation as a test case. We know for a fact that the ACLU thinks that censorware in public institutions is unconstitional. (I also know some of the law students there, so I'll tell you that they're pretty nice people, too.) You could be that test case, if you felt you were up for it -- you wouldn't have to pay a dime in lawyer's fees, but you'd probably have to spend a lot of time in courtrooms, and talking to reporters. But who knows, some people really like that stuff. Good luck.

www.aclu.org

For some info on SLAPPs go here or Here or even here.
This is a handbook on SLAPP from firstamendemt.org, so take that for what you will.
And for the DIY out there, this is the google search for slapp.

Brant
Brant

For some info on SLAPPs go here or Here or even here.
This is a handbook on SLAPP from firstamendemt.org, so take that for what you will.
And for the DIY out there, this is the google search for slapp.

Brant
Brant

For some info on SLAPPs go here or Here or even here.
This is a handbook on SLAPP from firstamendemt.org, so take that for what you will.
And for the DIY out there, this is the google search for slapp.

Brant
Brant

Seriously, though, the idea is to prevent criminals from committing crimes. It seems strange to then say that, wait, there will be bad consequences if these criminals aren't allowed to commit their crimes.

If that seems messed up, check out where the US Constitution actually says people are innocent until proven guilty. That means the Constitution itself says the cops ought to wait until *after* someone commits a crime before treating them like a criminal. Fortunately the police are well aware that paying too much attention to the Constitution makes their job inconvenient, so they don't.

ACLU

1) http://www.aclu.org

2) "join the ACLU"

3) "read our privacy policy"

ACLU Press Release

"Several factors are essential in establishing ethical standards for education-business partnerships and sponsorships. First, the expectations of each partner must be clearly defined before entering the partnership. Second, partnerships should not in any way compromise the goals of public education. Third, the participation of teachers in partnerships must be voluntary. Fourth, neither students nor their families should be exploited as a result of an education-business partnership. Finally, business partners must not promote specific products, determine curricula or influence education policies." [Alberta Teachers Assoc.]

The above, from my research, is a commonly held view amongst most teacher organizations. This WAVE project is a blatant violation of such ethics. It encourages duplicity amongst school children and could lead to greater levels of fear and viciousness in revenge. How often in high school did someone piss you off and you wished you had a way to really get back at them? What better way than to drop an anonymous tip to the Pinkerton run WAVE hotline, which, as Katz stated, is fed to local law enforcement.
As someone who is planning on becoming a public system educator, it disturbs me that North Carolina has provided its students with this new, and potentially damaging, system of paranoia. I greatly hope the ACLU looks into this and files a court action, as this project blatantly violates students civil liberties and exploits the youth in North Carolina.

A sick puppy like Gunter Grass?

Or did you mean like Vladimir Nabokov?

Mystere?

Nicola Griffith?

Diane Duane?

Who?

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, they apparently were on the opposite side in all those cases, nevermind.

-David T. C.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, they apparently were on the opposite side in all those cases, nevermind.

-David T. C.

Oh, wait, I'm sorry, they apparently were on the opposite side in all those cases, nevermind.

-David T. C.

It's unfortunate that the ACLU and a few other's are the only organizations remaining to fight for our freedom. Especially since we have new technology evolving so quickly, we shouldn't let our rights be taking away at a time when they're most vulnerable (ie on the internet).

I suggest to you all that you join the ACLU and sign up for the e-mail newsletter. It needs all the support it can get, and there is nothing more precious then our rights.

Before cheering for the ACLU as the default good guy, try actually reading their wordy and convoluted letter explaining why they are protesting. In a specific example in the letter, they contend that McDonalds Farm of Scotland and McDonalds Restaurants would somehow have more equal freedom of speech if the farm could use a domain name like McDonalds.farm instead of, I suppose, something like McDonaldsFarm.com. You could just as well argue that the burger company's freedom of speech is being limited in exactly the same way by the lack of a McDonalds.Burgers domain. As much as I agree with more variety in TLDs, I just don't find the ACLU's arguments compelling, or even rational.

My employer does not allow the employees to see the ACLU link. The net nanny software displays a message that threatens with termination if I don't stop trying to violate the company policy.

Is this message off topic?

Marko

I'm not saying they, like many other respected brand-name NPOs, haven't done great things in the past.

But this is just another sign of how every sufficiently old organization becomes infested with risk-averse bureaucrats who are more worried about keeping their paychecks rolling in than actually getting results.

For instance, the ACLU has a clear record on wanting to limit police power. To me, the obvious flip side of this is making sure that the cops can't claim sole responsibility for defending the law-abiding populace, which implies armed citizens. If the citizens aren't armed, and the criminals are (and they are now and will be for the forseeable future, police-state or not), the police need broad, sweeping power to defend the helpless citizens. But the ACLU doesn't oppose gun control. Instead they support both tying the hands of the police and disarming civilians.

Their justification? In their humble opinions, the second amendment means that the state has the right to bear arms, not civilians. Regardless of practical or moral implications, they don't care about whether civilians can carry guns, because the law doesn't say there's a guarantee. And the law's always right, right? Of course, these people would never lobby to change an unjust law...

An awfully thin reed, if you ask me. Perhaps a more honest answer is that their leftist contributors like gun control. Better to ignore a basic dilemma and screw everyone involved than alienate their income-source.
---

This link: first decision which michael linked on the word "available" contains almost the exact same text. It clearly states that any researcher with a valid reason to circumvent this law simply has to request permission. It is at the end of section I of the Memorandum Opinion:
"Although the Act restricts the ability of state employees to research, speak on, or receive information concerning sexually explicit topics via state computers, it does not completely prohibit such activities. Instead, the Act permits an employee to access sexually explicit material only after receiving written approval from the appropriate agency head who may grant such approval only if the proposed use is "required" in connection with a "bona fide" research project or undertaking. See Va. Code 2.1-805."

B. Elgin

I don't think corporations mean to strip anyone of anything, but common sense would point out most of the things they are being restrictive to are possibly done in an effort to avoid lawsuits, and this can be seen with earlier actions such as companies blocking certain types of emails floating around.

We still have groups like the A.C.L.U., EPIC, and others who continuously fight to retain what can be seen as questionable issues. These people are often unsung heroes who operate mainly out of the hopes of not becoming somewhat of communist country.

As to whether we're becoming too restrictive if you'd take a quick minute to view this article on strict regulations that were just passed on to the chinese, you would see that no matter how hard you think things are over here, things are much more difficult to live abroad.

It is a strange thing to see politicians playing games especially when we can't fully determine a rightful president without falling into some sort of 'agenda' from some right wing like sector who may have been afraid to fully count votes. Its also annoying to have politicians try to sneak in some shady bills in hopes no one would notice.

Thats life no matter where you go I guess...

Recently I went to Sweden in which I found things more relaxing although their taxes were higher I heard little complaints their and things were much more relaxed and I plan on heading out there within the next 2 years.

As with any business, traditional companies lobby, both in court and in the legislature, for laws to protect their interests. Often the laws these companies advocate hinder open source software development, or are otherwise antithetical to the values of many members of the open source community. Among the legal defeats that the open source ommunity has suffered:

• legal recognition for software patents
• UCITA
• Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) bans on reverse engineering
• Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act

• future versions of the Communications Decency Act
• Carnivore
• internet gambling statutes

• Recording Industry Association of America
• Federal Bureau of Investigations
• Business Software Alliance
• Software and Information Industry Association
• Disney Corporation
• Microsoft Corporation

Non-profit organizations that help defend our online freedoms, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, League for Programming Freedom, the Free Software Foundation, and the ACLU get their funds from companies and individuals who share values with them, e.g. open source companies and programmers. If the individuals and companies sympathetic to these organizations are impoverished or go bankrupt, the non-profits can't effectively fight for the freedoms we want.

We are losing our liberty at an alarming rate, and SOMETHING MUST BE DONE!

#include <ianal.h>

But I can read English. The Fifth Amendment says (emphasis mine):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

It seems to me that this concentration of power will certainly lead to abuse. I had been hoping that the FTC would impose restrictions on this new behemoth, but that does not appear to be the case. You've all heard the arguments before, but no one expresses the need for dissent better than Noam Chomsky.

From Noam Chomsky:

"There's a general tendency for the whole system to move toward oligopoly, a small number of huge corporations which dominate one or another area and usually interact."*

"The current merger is ... a step towards restricting control over the global media system to an even narrower range of private power interests, relying -- as is often the case -- on publicly funded initiatives, ideas, development, provided to them as a gift without public consent, even awareness."*

A good Chomsky resource.

For those with a taste for the ironic, here's the transcript of a chat with Prof. Chomsky in 1995 on AOL.

For general corporate news, try http://www.corpwatch.org/

Check out this concern from the ACLU about the possibility of censorship as a result of this decision.

We've been caught in several government problems, most notably when our AUP and our reaction to the CDA was used in the Supreme Court case about the CDA. (Unfotunately, that paper is no longer available at the ACLU website.)

I am firmly opposed to the idea of the a board from the government having oversight over massive multiplayer games for two reasons:

1. Massively multiplayer games are businesses (although many are not for profit.) No business can maximize whatever it's seeking (profit, number of players, or fun) if another board is overseeing it. The board will have wildly different motives than the people running the game.
2. Although privacy concerns are real in any massively multiplayer game, they are equally real with any business. Unless you can show that massively multiplayer games are worse on privacy issues than the average business, I see no need to demand that they be treated any differently than any oter business.

I don't notice anyone mention the the ACLU. They were instrumental in stopping the Communications Decency Act, and they continue to work to protect our freedom of speech rights both online and in the 'real world.'

Here is a verbatim transcript of Filthy Words prepared by the Federal Communications Commission. (From Law suit FCC vs. Pacifica Foundation).

From Biafra's Bio:

(I hope that slashdot doesn't munge the links this time)

1985

Infamous Senate anti-music hearings are staged by Senator Al Gore and his cohorts as a favor to his wife Tipper and her openly bigoted fundamentalist friends calling themselves the Parent's Music Resource Center (PMRC). Among the PMRC's demands were the censorship through a labeling system of warning stickers, the "Reassessment of contracts" of artists whose lyrics are, "sexually explicit", "anti-Christian" or mention suicide or homosexuality. "Expert witnesses" called by the Washington Wives blame rock music for gang violence, suicide, murder, devil worship and sexual perversion. Frank Zappa stands virtually alone in opposing the PMRC and sensing their significance. The music industry above and below ground keeps their head in the sand, preferring to sleep through the hearings.

April 15, 1986

Two weeks after Dead Kennedys are publicly targeted by Susan Baker of the PMRC, Biafra's house in San Francisco is raided and torn apart by a squad of Los Angeles and San Francisco police officers. Cops even ransack the cat-box hoping to find - well? ask them. "Frankenchrist" albums and Giger posters are taken from the house and the Alternative Tentacles/Mordam offices.

June, 1986

Biafra and four others are charged in Los Angeles with one count each of "Distribution of Harmful Matter to Minors". They are the first people in American history to face criminal charges over a record; three years before the attack on 2 Live Crew. Biafra and other supporters form No More Censorship Defense Fund to cover the money to fight the charges. Defendants face a possible one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The law had never been used before. The L.A. City Attorney's office admits to L.A. Weekly reporter Don Bolles that they kept files on several other PMRC-targeted musicians, but chose Biafra because it was, "a cost effective way of sending a message". The prosecuting attorney later says one of his goals was to destroy Alternative Tentacles. Fund-raising and the ensuing media circus delay the completion of the follow-up album to Frankenchrist, the appropriately titled Bedtime for Democracy .

August, 1987

Charges against Biafra and the other defendants are dismissed after a three-week criminal trial in Los Angeles. Even though Frankenchrist was not found to be obscene; Biafra, Dead Kennedys and Alternative Tentacles records are subsequently banned from a multitude of chain stores nationwide. This is exactly the type of de-facto censorship Tipper Gore and the PMRC had in mind. By this time, controversy has vaulted Biafra's spoken word performances from coffeehouses to the college lecture circuit, where he is brought in to "lecture" on censorship. For the first time the media is more interested in Biafra's political views than music-industry shoptalk on his latest music album. His documentation of Tipper Gore and the PMRC's ties to fundamentalist Christian extremists is no longer dismissed as lunatic. He also appears as an FBI agent in the Tim Robbins-John Cusack film, Tape Heads, wearing the same blue pin-stripe suit he wore at the trial.

________________________________________

From Biafra's Bio:

1985

Infamous Senate anti-music hearings are staged by Senator Al Gore and his cohorts as a favor to his wife Tipper and her calling themselves the Parent's Music Resource Center (PMRC). Among the PMRC's demands were the censorship through a labeling system of warning stickers, the "Reassessment of contracts" of artists whose lyrics are, "sexually explicit", "anti-Christian" or mention suicide or homosexuality. "Expert witnesses" called by the Washington Wives blame rock music for gang violence, suicide, murder, devil worship and sexual perversion. Frank Zappa stands virtually alone in opposing the PMRC and sensing their significance. The music industry above and below ground keeps their head in the sand, preferring to sleep through the hearings.

April 15, 1986

Two weeks after Dead Kennedys are publicly targeted by Susan Baker of the PMRC, Biafra's house in San Francisco is raided and torn apart by a squad of Los Angeles and San Francisco police officers. Cops even ransack the cat-box hoping to find - well? ask them. "Frankenchrist" albums and Giger posters are taken from the house and the Alternative Tentacles/Mordam offices.

June, 1986

Biafra and four others are charged in Los Angeles with one count each of "Distribution of Harmful Matter to Minors". They are the first people in American history to face criminal charges over a record; three years before the attack on 2 Live Crew. Biafra and other supporters form No More Censorship Defense Fund to cover the money to fight the charges. Defendants face a possible one year in jail and a $2,000 fine. The law had never been used before. The L.A. City Attorney's office admits to L.A. Weekly reporter Don Bolles that they kept files on several other PMRC-targeted musicians, but chose Biafra because it was, "a cost effective way of sending a message". The prosecuting attorney later says one of his goals was to destroy Alternative Tentacles. Fund-raising and the ensuing media circus delay the completion of the follow-up album to Frankenchrist, the appropriately titled Bedtime for Democracy .

August, 1987

Charges against Biafra and the other defendants are dismissed after a three-week criminal trial in Los Angeles. Even though Frankenchrist was not found to be obscene; Biafra, Dead Kennedys and Alternative Tentacles records are subsequently banned from a multitude of chain stores nationwide. This is exactly the type of de-facto censorship Tipper Gore and the PMRC had in mind. By this time, controversy has vaulted Biafra's spoken word performances from coffeehouses to the college lecture circuit, where he is brought in to "lecture" on censorship. For the first time the media is more interested in Biafra's political views than music-industry shoptalk on his latest music album. His documentation of Tipper Gore and the PMRC's ties to fundamentalist Christian extremists is no longer dismissed as lunatic. He also appears as an FBI agent in the Tim Robbins-John Cusack film, Tape Heads, wearing the same blue pin-stripe suit he wore at the trial.

________________________________________

If your on the ACLU's action email list (free registration), they alert you to important violations of free speech and other laws and bills, then they provide a link where u can send a free fax (or email) to your representative, senator, president, etc. The last email I received asked us to fax the President and ask him to veto this bill.

So some kid opposed to the popularity contest that is the homecoming charade pulls a fast one on the school. Suspending him has really rewarded him for this act-- which is one of a number of great reasons for the school to have just let it go. If I recall the aphorisms of my youth correctly, they went something like, "Sticks and stones..." and "Ignore them and they'll go away."

This crap is not front page news for Slashdot. If this is news here, how much moreso is news like this case, where a teenage girl was suspended from school for casting a spell on her teacher.

What concerns me is the increasing amounts of money funneled into the War on Drugs and the meagre results being shown. I am also getting sick of hearing how people's basic Constituional rights keep getting trammeled by drug police (DEA, FBI, and local law enforcement) whether or not they are using drugs.

Harvard Study: Survey Finds Increased Use of Marijuana and Other Illicit Drugs at U.S. Colleges in the 1990s

Scientific American: Marijuana Use among Teens Increased Consistently through the 1990s

Nader is for decriminalization of marijuana use (not sale) and treatment for offenders (not mandatory prison sentences). This is in sharp contrast to both Gore/Bush who want to continue with the failing War on Drugs and its accompanying problems.

--

Some instructions on what to do if you are stopped by the police and a handy card to carry in your wallet.