Slashdot Mirror

Just because they're well off does not mean their motivations are any different to yours: happiness, family, safety, achievements, fulfilment, etc.

Its not that they are well off that irks people. Its what they choose to do with that wealth.

I'm a physician and make about $250-300k a year. With this I pay off the debt I accrued in medical school (I put myself through undergrad and med school because I am from a very poor background. Poor as in welfare, foodstamps, and housing projects.) I also pay the mortgage on two adjacent (although modest) homes for myself and my partner's elderly parents. My partner and I share a 6 year old civic (hybrid) although he has 2 used motorcycles as well. We donate about 10% of our income, and I volunteer 2 days a week at a free clinic.

If I had ten times the money I wouldn't buy a porche. I also wouldn't spend my money on a quixotic quest for retribution through the legal system.

That said, the parents of this girl have every right to do so. And we have every right to say that their quest, while understandable, is dangerous in that it threatens the freedoms of speech rights of an entire country. And that statement is not from a place of class rivalry, but from an understanding of free speech and the necessity of defending even repulsive free speech.

You can't just say that censorship is OK when applied to douchebags. Arguably the people who post these pictures and link to them are supreme douchebags. However, I also think that Bobby Jindal, Karl Rove, and the entire membership of the KKK are also arguably supreme douchebags. However others would disagree with me. So we can't use douchebaggery as a bar for censorship. In fact its the very speech that repulses us most that we must defend because that's where freedom of speech is most easily chipped away. See Virginia v. Black et al. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx?id=14776

In order for speech to be free, even the most repulsive speech must also be protected.

Yes, and rightfully so. A little Googling:

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/faqs.aspx?id=14038&

Generally, the material published must be private information that "is not of legitimate concern to the public." Its disclosure must also be "highly offensive to a reasonable person." ... The pressing question in public disclosure of private-facts cases is whether the information is newsworthy or of legitimate concern to the public. ... "The right to privacy does not prohibit any publication of matter which is of public or general interest."

http://epic.org/privacy/boyer/

Intrusion Upon Seclusion. Intrusion upon seclusion occurs where there is an invasion, through conduct offensive to an ordinary person, of an individual's information in which she has a "reasonable expectation of privacy." Amy Boyer's estate argues that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in her address and social security number, and that Docusearch's action in indiscriminately releasing this information was reasonably offensive.

So basically private information of yours that nobody has any right to should never be published openly unless you can show a public interest angle. That's totally reasonable in my book.

My bank has a record of every purchase I make, my doctor has my medical history, and my ISP knows what web sites I visit, but I'm not worried. So why do I care if the federal government has that information? Because I don't trust them, and for good reason. The Patriot Act was supposed to protect us from terrorists, but as soon as it was enacted the government used it to enforce copyright violations, kick homeless people out of a train station, and investigate drug dealers. Demonstrate some integrity and you'll earn people's trust.

While, as far as I am aware, there are no actual studies regarding this specific subject (I'd love to know of one if it exists), there have been similar studies on pornography in general that showed no causal relationship between viewing pornography and delinquent or criminal behaviour. Of course, politicians didn't like these results the first time either, and so decreed they were invalid, despite strong scientific evidence to the contrary.

This happens over and over again for just about every "vice" in our society -- a small group gets in an uproar, studies are commissioned, studies show no harm, politicians ignore study results in lieu of their predetermined conclusions and continue beating the drum of war. It's shameful and horrifying and makes me sick.

Given how many studies have shown there is no causal relationship between viewing "obscene" or "unsavory" material and actually committing crimes, one would think that people would eventually stop jumping to the same invalid conclusion for every social problem. Sadly, it seems to not to be the case, and so we continue to allow actual criminals -- murders, rapists, torturers, child abusers, warmongers, ponzi schemers -- to get away with harming others, while others that haven't hurt anyone are put in jail.

Stupid Asshole me allows this shitty browser to lose what I typed in here, then I re-enter the message but instead of using an external program to store the comment until I could post it, I allow myself to be fucked-in-the-ass a second time and it loses my comment while I'm formatting it. I am typing this in a separate program, I won't get bit a third time.

Here's how the statute is unconstitutional:

• Cohen v. California , 403 U.S. 15 (1971), guy is wearing jacket in the county courthouse (but not in the courtrooms) which reads "fuck the draft." Is convicted for disturbing the peace. Conviction overturned; these mere words are inadequate to constitute disturbing the peace, and the idea does have First Amendment Protection
• People v. Boomer, 655 N.W.2d 255 (Mich. App. 2002), guy in canoe hits rock, dumps him into river, he responds with loud curses that are heard quite a distance away by police officer and a family with kids.

  The police officer ticketed Boomer, citing him for violating a more than 100-year-old Michigan law that criminalized the use of profane language in front of women and children.

  The Michigan Court of Appeals threw out Boomer's conviction and overturned the Michigan law, stating that "allowing a prosecution where one utters 'insulting' language could possibly subject a vast percentage of the populace to a misdemeanor conviction." The court went on to hold that the law violated the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech and that it would be "difficult to conceive of a statute that would be more vague." First Amendment Center

• Idaho v. Suiter (2003), man goes to police station to talk to them about a check fraud case dealing with his friend, but apparently they can't do anything with him because he's not the one who committed the crime. This gets him mad, and after he's told to leave, tells the cop to go fuck himself, and turns to walk out the door; is charged and convicted for disturbing the peace. Idaho Court of Appeals upholds conviction. Idaho Supreme Court overturns conviction; "the phrase was the vulgar equivalent of saying 'go jump in the lake.'"

There are far too many others to list, but even misdemeanor or fine-only charges have been struck down; a felony law wouldn't stand 30 seconds.

Amen. According to the 2008 State of the First Amendment Survey, only 3% knew that the 1st Amendment protects the right to "petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Even the EFF didn't mention this in their brief. They framed the right to sue as "property" and then invoked the Due Process Clause.

By looking at the context of the time; the turmoil from the Revolution was still fresh -- they were essentially codifying the things that they had fought for. Here's an interesting timeline that gives some perspective; though it's only one slice of the picture.

Do you mind sourcing that? The closest I'm able to find is that "74% would prevent public school students from wearing a T-shirt with a slogan that might offend others." Source I've no doubt that many people have very different views than me on what the first amendment guarantees, but I honestly doubt your figure, particularly considering the other data on the same site.

On the subject of the article, I must say that I'm rather skeptical. It's possible that Chinese citizens really do appreciate censorship by such an overwhelming majority, but I am reminded of this article, particularly the line "Having lived in a society where millions were arrested for speaking inadvertently to informers, many older people are extremely wary of talking to researchers wielding microphones (devices associated with the KGB)." This was last December, mind you, more than a decade after the fall of the USSR.

In McCulloch v Maryland (17 US 316, 1819), Chief Justice John Marshall ruled that "the power to tax is the power to destroy." While that ruling was in a different context, that principle still holds today. For example, in Speiser v Randall (357 US 513 [1958], citing an earlier case, sorry can't get Findlaw working for this one), the Supreme Court held that "It is settled that speech can be effectively limited by the exercise of the taxing power."

It is legal to tax First Amendment-protected material, but such a tax must never:
1. Single out the press
2. Target one group of speakers over another group
3. Discriminate on the basis of content of taxpayer speech.

So, while you pay sales tax on a CD, you pay the same tax on your CD as you pay on your couch and your Jolt! cola. Such a tax applies, but it does not apply only to something that is protected. It encompasses protected things, but it does not single out protected things as the subject of the tax. You pay sales tax on books, but you do not pay a tax that applies only to books.

A "music download tax" targets a specific kind of expression --music -- and is thus illegal under the First Amendment. Similarly, porn taxes are illegal for exactly the same reason, and in Texas bar owners are litigating a tax on admission to topless bars (because dancing, including nude dancing, is also protected, although the extent of that protection is far from settled). One poster asked if the porn industry has a lobby. Yes.

There are two ways such a tax could work:
1. An internet sales tax that applies to all goods and services sold over the internet. This has obvious problems.
2. An internet download tax that covers all downloads, eg, including your web traffic, email, and so on, essentially a bandwidth consumption tax. This has other problems in that pretty much everything on the internet can be construed as speech in one way or another, and thus the argument can be made that the tax targets only internet-based speech, which would be protected.

Note that the First Amendment itself does not differentiate between commercial and non-commercial speech, and thus the courts have tended to err on the side of freedom in commercial speech. There are of course exceptions for things that are deceptive, defamatory, libelous, and harmful; however, for the most part, if what you have to say, even in a commercial enterprise, if it's true, it's pretty much fair game.

Amendment I
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.

Where in this amendment does the statement "Seperation of Church and State" occur?

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/case.aspx?case=McCreary_County_Ky_v_ACLU_of_Kentucky/

Mike

First, Oregon is in the 9th Circuit, so this decision isn't binding, but Oregon has one of the nation's most powerful free speech clauses in their constitution. Practically any state or local attempt to restrict obscenity gets struck down in the state courts.

Because of this:
1) Localities can't prevent the creation of strip clubs with zoning laws.
2) Can't bar live sex shows.
3) Can't bar someone from being nude on their own lawn.

The first is why Portland has the highest number of strip clubs per capita in the nation. It's a statistic that the local chamber of commerce doesn't brag about.
(Strange that I've seen more in GA than in OR, but maybe I just live in the wrong/right place...)

This is just the latest rehash of what is getting to be old news. http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=13437 Recall the arrest of the guy with the FUGW sign? You forget your place citizen, keep your mouth shut and no one needs to get hurt. All things considered, I'd rather take a public tasering than a private trip to a "re-education camp."

When I want my men to remember something important, to really make it stick, I give it to them double dirty. It may not sound nice to some bunch of little old ladies at an afternoon tea party, but it helps my soldiers to remember. You can't run an army without profanity; and it has to be eloquent profanity. ... Sometimes I just, by God, get carried away with my own eloquence. (The Unknown Patton, by Charles M. Province, CMP Productions, 1998)

Add this to:

- McCain-Feingold censoring of political speech that criticizes incumbent politicians before elections.
- Reinstitution of the fairness doctrine to censor all "controversial" broadcasts
- Opening the door for terrorists to sue ordinary citizens who say "I saw something suspicious" to security personnel
- PBS censors film for not being sensitive to radical "insurgents" who threaten folks who argue for moderation
- Don Imus shut up by Al Sharpton's forces
- Numerous incidents on college campuses

Free speech is too important. It needs to be protected and the Supreme Court isn't doing an adequate job (see the McCain-Feingold decision).

is where wikipedia is the weakest, and most prone to being jacked.

Even without viewing the stub, I recommend that any who visit the link take a long hard look at the history versioning, but even that feature can no longer be fully trusted, as methods have been implemented which allow for the removal of versioning entries by just a few of wikipedia's elites.

Of course they promise to only use that memory hole for good, not evil, and only sparingly, when the data carries with it a taint of defamation or slander, which is extra-especially sensitive when it comes to biographical data of persons living.

I immediately wonder how this could possibly apply to information regarding potential conflicts of interests between a sitting vice-president, who has a known predilection to engage in over the top vindictiveness(he may even roll your wife!), and large international corporations, who have skimmed the top of the classes from America's first-tier Law Universities for their law departments' staff.

,p>Then there is the newest trend in abuse of international tort law being played in a despicably unamerican fashion. It gives one great leverage to those whose have at their beck and call as a staff member, a retained English barrister. Contemporary Conservatism whiny relativism offers illuminative irony though, as it seems the Perles were cast a wee bit before the other swine got into the act.

The Wikimedia Foundation, in their vested survival interests, can do little else but fold. Whitewash by any other name is just a blinding.

and we have always been at war against {fill in blank}...

Who's a liar? If you dare to read from one of those dangerous books, you will be disciplined.

"Lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
Considering what the NEA considers "art", then every video game *IS* art and this law is doomed to be struck down. Yet again, wasting taxpayer money and judicial resources.

And really, what made "email" worthy of its own add-on penalties, beyond the existing penalties for solicitation of a minor?

I'm not sure but it looks like this guy was trying to get away altogether with the fact he solicited a minor on the argument that soliciting a minor over instant messaging was not illegal. That's a bit scary. As for "added penalties," given what this guy was up to I think 5 years probation is an awfully light penalty. Maybe we need more, or someone needs to get some balls and start applying the law properly.

In that case, I default to the first amendment of the United States consitution-the supreme law of the land. Politicians who are looking for scapegoats along with "parental watchdog groups" seem to think that they can censor video game content. Actually, if you think about it, all of this started with the ongoing Puritannical fear of dealing with the topic of sex-or simulated sex, since politicians didn't get in an uproar until the "hot coffee" mod was made known to them, even though the game had been on the market for a while before that happened (I do not sympathize with the way Rockstar games handled the situation, just to be clear). Leland Yee (who launched an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to regulate purchasing habits by trying to legally discriminate that minors do not have the same speech rights as adults), didn't gain ANY significant traction in his anti-video game crusade until after the "hot coffee" incident happened. In each time where the pro-censorship folks have convinced one or more politicians that they are correct, the industry fights it in the form of a lawsuit, and then multiple federal judges from multiple circuit courts have sided with the industry, and leave a very detailed explanation as to why the politician-and ultimately the person(s) possibly behind the politicians are wrong. You will note that when the industry wins, and the politician loses, they "dig in" by talking shit, and NOT citing the fact that they lost based on constitutional first amendment grounds. One might think that these pro-censorship types would learn a few things by now, but apparently not

The latest politician who is an example of this is Fred Morgan, from Oklahoma. Quote: "I am very disappointed in the industry that continues to challenge any type of restrictions on their games without being responsible enough to work with legislators to try to solve the problem."

The pro-censorship (and people who feel that government's role is to raise your child) types often cite that there is a real problem going on with video games directly causing violence, but the evidence is non-existent, save hyperbole and political posturing. Like Nomad says from Star Trek:TOS, "Non-sequitur. Your facts are uncoordinated." What is more likely is that we have a disconnect with politicans (with an average age of 55) and some realities of this situation. All of this does not give legitimacy to this NIMF-sponsored "what can we do next to censor video games" summit.

I do not work for the industry, and I like XMAME, but as a military employee and a part time public school teacher, I find this witch hunt to try to censor the first amendment disturbing to say the least. Since when did the first amendment of the U.S. Constutition become unimportant? It never did. It has been whittled down a little bit since it was created, but for the most part, the majority of what it stands for and does is fully intact. The 14th amendment protects the 1st amendment from being heavily modified, so that failsafe mechanism has yet to be truly tested.

Finally, where is the evidence that an ESRB "M" rated game will cause panic in the streets? To me, the ESRB is the first form of censorship...

Section 215 also provides: No person shall disclose to any other person (other than those persons necessary to produce the tangible things under this section) that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has sought or obtained tangible things under this section. This gag order would prevent a library, for example, from ever notifying its patrons that the government has requested information from it under Section 215.

Hope you woke up from your sweet dreams. You may now remod GP 5 - Interesting.

Martin suggested that white people should celebrate the murder, that Anthony's family should be burned and made references to slavery and a "banana boat".

That you are able to freely express dissent exposes the freedom in our country. You have freedom to dissent, evidenced by your post.

That is being chipped away at... http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=1 6950

I actually found some stuff on disclosure of private fact.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Press/faqs.asp x?id=14038&#q14038

Not sure if outing someone or posting their fetish would violate a criminal law, but it apparently makes you liable in civil court, unless you can show the information to be newsworthy.

Pervs outed for going after 14 year old girls shown on 20/20 (US news TV show) would probably be newsworthy, as they are breaking the law.

Actually not so sure on this case now. The story is now newsworthy, but the individuals that had private information published may not be so newsworthy individually. Also, not so sure if this is "highly offensive to a reasonable person." So you like to spank little girls? Sick, but not highly offensive to most people with dead morals thanks to years of MTV.

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/news.as px?id=17204 There's your new hero. asshat.

There is a right to receive information. In the Pico case

Writing for the plurality, Justice William Brennan reasoned that the First Amendment right to express ideas must be supported by an implied right to receive information and ideas.

As a parent, a tax payer, and a voter I want to know what is happening at school. If I am unhappy about the tales that my child is bringing home from school, I would naturally ask other parents what their children are saying about what is happening at school.

In the internet age I can also look at what other children are saying in their blogs. I know what I expect to see: age-appropriate humor, whining, angst, bad poetry, etc. As an adult I know how to read between the lines of what children are writing. If the children are complaining that the teachers make them learn things, that is good. If the children are complaining that the teachers are strict and punishing them for larking about when they are supposed to be studying that is good too.

Conversely, if the children are complaining that they are bored because the lessons are too easy, that is bad. If the children are complaining that bullying is on the increase because the teachers are not strict enough that is bad too. I expect something to be done. Obviously I do not mean that the school should suppress the children's blogs in order to conceal the problem from me.

As a parent, a tax payer, and a voter, it is unacceptably for government employees to be suppressing information that is useful to be me in assessing how good a job they are doing, and the constitution forbids them from doing so.

There is a right to receive information. In the Pico case

Writing for the plurality, Justice William Brennan reasoned that the First Amendment right to express ideas must be supported by an implied right to receive information and ideas.

As a parent, a tax payer, and a voter I want to know what is happening at school. If I am unhappy about the tales that my child is bringing home from school, I would naturally ask other parents what their children are saying about what is happening at school.

In the internet age I can also look at what other children are saying in their blogs. I know what I expect to see: age-appropriate humor, whining, angst, bad poetry, etc. As an adult I know how to read between the lines of what children are writing. If the children are complaining that the teachers make them learn things, that is good. If the children are complaining that the teachers are strict and punishing them for larking about when they are supposed to be studying that is good too.

Conversely, if the children are complaining that they are bored because the lessons are too easy, that is bad. If the children are complaining that bullying is on the increase because the teachers are not strict enough that is bad too. I expect something to be done. Obviously I do not mean that the school should suppress the children's blogs in order to conceal the problem from me.

As a parent, a tax payer, and a voter, it is unacceptably for government employees to be suppressing information that is useful to be me in assessing how good a job they are doing, and the constitution forbids them from doing so.

A couple of more insane examples of HOAs Gone Wild:

New Fla. town could be governed by Catholic principles
Celebration, FL, the only HOA in the country with Mickey Mouse and Goofy on the Board of Directors.

This is so far off topic, but I can't help but respond (I hate HOAs more than I hate SUVs, or nuclear power for that matter)

As posted here, it's essentially a contract attached to the property, and they're generally enforceable to the same extent that contracts are enforceable, with the added caveat that states can regulate what can and cannot be enforced. Most of the discriminatory restrictions like barring blacks and such have been struck down by courts, and thought they can still be found in CCRs, they're unenforceable. I remember something with somebody wanting to put up a flag pole post Sept. 11th in AZ, and the HOA raising a fuss, and so the state legislature passed a law specifically stating that they couldn't ban flying U.S. flags, as well as forbidding HOAs from banning campaign signs:

In Arizona, lawmakers responded to the practice of boards meeting outside the state -- an attempt to keep members from voting -- by passing a bill requiring those gatherings to be held in Arizona.
Update: In 2004, the Arizona State Legislature amended existing legislation to protect homeowners' and condominium residents' right to fly flags. The revised statues (33-1261 and 33-1808) allow for residents to fly flags that are consistent in size with dimensions noted in the federal flag code (P.L. 94-344; 90 Stat. 810; 4 U.S. Code sections 4-10). Arizona homeowners' associations may not prohibit the installation of a flagpole, but may dictate its height and placement.

The revised statute 33-1808, which concerns homeowners in planned communities, also secured the right to post political signs. Signs may be displayed unless regulated by the association. All sign prohibitions must be consistent with and not exceed restrictions in local sign ordinances. Political signs may never be prohibited 45 days before or 7 days after an election.

Full article here

Incidentally, AZ law also forbids HOAs from banning solar panels on homes (more info here and here)

The problem with HOAs is that they are private little governments that are unencumbered by many of the constitutional restrictions that the federal and state governments have to follow. In response to the person who said "well, don't move into a neighborhood with a HOA," I'd like to point out that it's getting increasingly difficult to do that. Almost every new house built in the last 10-20 years is covered by a HOA because people are silly enough to believe their hype that they'll keep neighborhoods clean and safe and protect property values (property values that would be better protected if they actually built quality homes and better neighborhoods). In fast-growing cities like Phoenix, that's a huge percentage of the housing stock (I've read as high as 50% of all houses in metro Phoenix).

Whatever happened to 1st Amendment rights? Should people be afraid of what they write?

They need to contact http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/

The lawsuit said the Department of Defense acknowledged receipt of the request on Dec. 30, 2005, but the response, required in 20 business days, never came.

1. Under federal law, (18 U. S. C. 2251 et. seq.) definitions of child porn are limited to visual depictions, i. e., images. You can write anything you wish about minors. The problem with "fictitious minors" is that since the advent of sophisticated computer imaging technology, nearly everyone charged with child pornography has claimed that the images did not depict real minors. 2. In Free Speech Coalition v. Ashcroft (April, 2002), the Supreme Court overturned sections of 18 U. S. C. 2256 which defined as porn any image that "appears to be" or "conveys the impression" that it is of a minor, even if no minor was involved in the image's creation. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-795.ZO.ht ml 3. Congress responded in March, 2003, with a new definition (18 U. S. C. 2256(8),(9), & (11)), that criminalizes any porn image that is "virtually indistinguishable" from an "identifiable minor." http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx? id=11865 4. 18 U. S. C. 2256(11) says, "This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults." Bottom line: don't make your fake porn so well that an ordinary person using ordinary means of inspection can't tell if it's fake or real. This leaves a lot of room for protected depictions of apparent minors engaging in sexual acts or just standing around naked. The new definition of "fictitious child porn" has not yet been challenged in court.

I'm not sure I agree. Creationism seems to be the "traditional" God creation myth from the Bible. I think "intelligent design" advocates could arguably be a bit more enlightened. Consider the following argument.
[snip AI argument]

In the end, ID removed from explicit creationism is vacuous. There is at most a trivial amount of science to it. When formalized, it falls apart. Heck, even when examined critically (yet short of formalization,) it falls apart.

Cheers,
Craig

Consider speech codes on campus, for example.

Or, consider that professors are human beings, and human beings are prone to abuse of power. I've had students who have been targeted for beliefs *not relevant* to the class material. There are professors (right and left, but statistically left) whose entire mission is to force a particular worldview.

Case in point: The professor of logic at UMBC (University of MD, Baltimore College) taught a course in Critical Reasoning. Turned out this particular professor had a "thing" against Christians. So several of the examples in his text ... which he wrote ... pulled random quotes out of the Bible, out of context, and used them as examples of X, Y, and Z logical fallacies. Without exception, each of his "examples" could be shown on further scrutiny to be instances of irony, rhetoric, or what have you. One would think that a brilliant professor capable of teaching at the college level would (a) be able to find clearer examples, (b) be conscious of his own biases, and (c) have a desire to teach his students the actual subject instead of distracting them with his polemic. And, I believe that he *was* capable of those things, but chose not to do them.

Another case in point: here.

That said, I think "outing" liberal professors is silly. The students know, and they can generally avoid the obnoxious ones.

Hi -

Don't forget that around 1997 the NBA tried to prevent a wireless provider (Motorola?) from offering real time updates of scores of NBA games in progress. You can read about this below (I have included an excerpt), and how the PGA won a similar case about golf scores:

from:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.asp x?id=13182&printer-friendly=y

That outcome was a bit surprising, given the decision that another federal appeals court, the 2nd Circuit, reached in 1997. In that case, the National Basketball Association attempted to prevent Motorola from transmitting real-time basketball scores to its pager customers. The court concluded that the NBA had no exclusive rights to facts. The scores of the games in progress could be reported as part of the newsgathering process.

Hmmm...could that NBA lawsuit have been the reason that Charlie Ward said the things he did? :)

Perhaps he should call well-known philanthropist and First Amendment Center founder John Seigenthaler and ask him to help spread the word!

With freedom of speech (At least the American ideal) you should be able to state your views without getting arrested for it. But it doesn't state that you can say it without anyone knowing that you said it.

The Supreme Court ruled today that an ordinance requiring door-to-door petitioners to obtain a permit and identify themselves upon demand violates the right of anonymity inherent in the First Amendment freedom of speech. [link]

The First Amendment, said the court, protects the anonymity of Internet speech. It called anonymous speech a "great tradition that is woven into the fabric of this nation's history," and added that "the ability to speak one's mind on the Internet without the burden of the other party knowing all the facts about one's identity can foster open communication and robust debate." [link]

> I think that there are different definitions in use.

Yes. The ones you are using are not precisely representative of the law in the US, however.

> I have a freedom from having religion forced upon me.

Yes.

> I do not have the "freedom" of forcing all those around me from expressing their religion.

Yes.

> I have the freedom of not having the state force it upon me.

Yes.

> They can't make me pay for and walk past the 10 Commandments in the courthouse.

Actually, they can. This is an area where a lot of people are unaware of the current rulings by the courts. The Supreme Court has ruled that displaying the Ten Commandments in a public facility, including a courthouse, is often permissible.

This is partly due to the fact that many of the Ten Commandments factor into the historical basis for the law, and partly because religious expression isn't prohibited, only endorsement. If the context indicates many religious and non-religious views can be expressed in that area, it can be permissible. Context is critical.

If it's paid for privately, there is even more leeway.

A link with a decent analysis and references to cases:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/analysis.aspx? id=15483

> They can't force me to pray every morning.

True.

> But I can't force you, a private citizen, from expressing your religion,
> whether on your private property or unobtrusively on public property.

Yes and no. You actually -can't- require that religious expression be unobtrusive in public places. Obtrusive, in your face, loud, boisterous, impossible to ignore religious expression is not only permissible in public places, it can only be prohibited or restricted in very narrow ways.

One factor is that it cannot be restricted more than non-religious expression. If I can have a "Promote Recycling" rally that uses bullhorns, chanting, direct contact with passers-by, then I can do all the same things for a religious event in the same public venue. Religious speech is almost -never- more restricted than other speech.

Public prayer, and religious assembly is expressly protected, -even- in public schools. There have been some cases about that; students leading public services against abortion and the like on school grounds. The ruling is always that it can't be prohibited, only controlled to the minimum level needed to avoid distrupting learning.

Some ACLU references:
http://www.aclu.org//religion/tencomm/16254res2005 0302.html

If you follow the biography link http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/biography.aspx ?name=seigenthaler you will find that JS is a (historic) public figure. He is (or has been) a journalist and an activist involved with historical celebrities in public office. This IMHO makes him ineligible for libel protection as a public figure.

I agree that he should also understand as a journalist that what he really wants when he whines about the Wikipedia is editorial control, and he is too stoopud to really look for an opportunity to take care of his own problem. He could have editied the crap out himself if he didn't like it, and he could have appealed to the broader community of Wikipedians for help if he got into an edit war with vandals. What a crybaby!

What is interesting is that he is a founder of the First Amendment Center.
Apparently he feels that the First Amendment only applies to the Corporate press he was affiliated with. Personal press freedom don't count in his book. What he or his son are perfectly free to do with Wikipedia is to correct the incorrect portions of his biography or add a counterpoint to the disputed protions of it. Unfortunately that is not true with most of the Corporate press for the rest of us.

Actually, you're wrong. Inciting to riot is illegal in the US, and has been upheld in the Supremes, and it seems pretty clear that the blogs in question were guilty of this.

Here's a link from The First Amendment Center

And here is the Wikipedia Entry for Brandenburg v. Ohio, which was the Supreme Court Case that set the predicent.

I don't have the exact wording in front of me but it does exist to an extent. The only exception is when ordered to reveal the source by a judge and it takes a hearing to prove it is necessary.

Here is a good link with plenty of info on who has been ordered to reveal sources and why they would like even more protection.

The recent one is just rediculous based on getting people fired without even having enough evidence to indite (yeah I probably misspelled that...I'm not a lawyer).

Many years ago, we (Meow Media, Inc - parent company of Persian Kitty's Adult Links) were sued by Jack Thompson in what later became a landmark sixth circuit court of appeals first amendment case. Granted, we were vindicated after two years of legal expenses... but it still cost us several hundred thousand dollars in attorney fees, expert witness fees, and appeals fees (which required a second set of attorneys).

While Jack Thompson's lawsuit was grinding its way through the court of appeals, another copy-cat attorney by the name of John DeCamp decided to sue us (Meow Media) for the Columbine shootings!

Soon, every attorney with expensive car payments was jumping on the bandwagon, in [what I perceive as] an effort to collect a "nusiance" settlement from us and other defendants. In fact, this practice became so common and popular that PBS FrontLine ran a feature story on our collective plights.

Fortunately, when the Court of Appeals ruled in our favor on the Paducah lawsuit (and reaffirmed this when they rejected the appeal for reconsideration), the other defendants were quick to drop their lawsuits, else face an action sounding in tort. However, that too required attorney fees and retainers for each case, in each particular venue.

For those of you who have not yet gone through lengthy and cumbersome litigation... there is not much you can do to recover the costs involved with defending yourself from most tort litigation. Sure, we could turn around and sue the families of the deceased children who were killed by the shooter... but that's not exactly good publicity, nor does it make for a sympathetic jury.

So here I sit today, a few hundred thousand dollars poorer, watching history repeat itself.

We have obscenity laws on the books, right now, that are being used to prosecute citizens of the U.S. for exercising their dear 1st amendment rights. We have "free speech zones" outside of which protest is illegal. By comparison, some of the EU member states have laws against hate speech.

First, here's the 2004 list: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=11716
2005 should be coming out soon. Comparing the 2002 and 2004, the US has improved some, some european countries are a bit worse than before. Then you have some EU countries that are way below the US.

Best I can say is this. I have yet to see a successful prosecution under those "obsenity" laws in the US, most of the laws being struck down as unconstitutional under the 1st amendment quite quickly. Notice that Larry Flint and Hugh Hefner, among others, are not in jail. The only ones I have heard of lately with this happening to generally deal with sites that have been accused of having either minors or kiddy porn on them. If you can provide a link on one that is about a straight porn site, please provide it, along with any reasons the FBI/DA are providing for the reason.

The EU states have, aside from hate speech you can include a chunk of things having to deal with WWII in germany that, while not hate speech directly, is hate speech related. One other thing that is interesting are their libel/slander laws. Burden of proof is put on the defendant not the plantif.

Back to the US, the "free speech zones" as you reference them is somewhat missleading. They are only setup during major events and used as a way to keep the events flowing smoothly. As has been said, you can say whatever you want, but you can't force people to listen. If someone rents out an area for use, they should be able to deny access to that area to anyone they want to. I'd put it in the same category as keeping abortion protesters a minimum distance away from abortion clinics (usually across the street). If we want to depate the pros and cons of them, that is one thing. But they are essentially set up to keep the protesters away from those who don't want them around them. I seem to recall Richard Stallman complaining a few weeks ago about being ejected from an airport where he tried to publicize something. The Hare Krishna group have been pretty much barred from airports for similar reasons. Here's something similar from the UK. I'd personally say that it is more a point of controlling access to an area in most cases rather than limiting free speech. However, the ones where there are permanent ones I would say are another matter. Basically I see temporary ones for special events as crowd control and permanent ones as problems. Again, we can discuss the pros and cons of them if you want.

The main reason according to the 2002 report that the US is "so low" is:
Arrests are often because they refuse to reveal their sources in court. Also, since the 11 September attacks, several journalists have been arrested for crossing security lines at some official buildings. (Different complaints for the 2004 report)
The first reason is debatable. I have no problem with ones similar to the "Pentagon Papers". I do have problems with ones similar to the revealing of undercover CIA agents or other things of a similar nature, especially when it can/does get people killed. In WWII reporters were revealing what our military was going to be doing and the germans were reading the papers to find out. That got a lot of people killed. Also, it was said during the gulf war that Sadam Husein didn't need inteligence ops, he just needed to watch CNN. Th

OK, I'm wrong about that, apparently.

When googling for this, I came across a reference to the concept originating in company towns of the early half of the century. Now, I'm no Clinton fanboy. He did plenty of wack shit (and no, I don't include blowjobs under that heading.) I just hadn't heard about him fencing off protesters. To be sure, Bush has escalated the use of the policy.

To quote Barney Frank from this article (which contains anecdotal evidence for Clinton-era free speech zones), "We have a free-speech zone already, it's called the United States of America."

The people on the pro-censorship side of the debate get this. That's why they say things like:

"Video games are not art or media," she said. "They are simulations, not all that different from the simulations used by the U.S. military in preparation for war." -- Sen. Deanna Demuzio

They are not looking for equal treatment between games and other forms of media and they are willing to be quite clear about it.

Meanwhile, we get people posting on Slashdot as though what we have is a reasonable debate between two sides as to what would be an adequate restriction on what kids are allowed to play (with "kids" being portrayed as toddlers or grammer school students but actually being more likely teens in the 13-16 year old category in the real world.).

What I don't understand is why an industry that makes so much money hasn't done something about this so far. The strategy seems to be, "We'll cave, then we'll cave some more, and then to show we're really serious we'll cave even more." Meanwhile, people who would like nothing better than to ban video games outright get to frame the debate.

You are free to say anything you want excluding the proverbial 'Fire!' in a crowded theater (or any other place) or if you slander someone
Parent poster was mostly right. I just wanted to address this one point.
You do have the right to shout fire in a crowded theater. Sometimes it's a line in a play. Sometimes the theater is on fire. The case that says you can't, Schenck v United States, is taught specifically because it was wrong, and has been overruled. In Schenck, some antiwar protestors were convicted of having argued that the draft is unconstitutional, a violation of the 13th amendment. For one thing, they are probably right - the draft probably does violate the 13th amendment. But even if they are wrong, it's a basic mater of free speech to be able to discuss the topic.
So please be careful with the "proverbial" shouting fire in a crowded theater angle.
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/faclibrary/cas e.aspx?id=6466

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=3 461
That is the most legitimate news source I could find. It was not listed on any other major news service. I also cross referenced ( http://cnnstudentnews.cnn.com/2001/ALLPOLITICS/03/ 09/bush.budget/ )when the President was in Sioux Falls, and it does match up.

This kind of tactic for shutting up critics is so common that there is an acronym for them: they're called SLAPP suits, for "Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation". They have been used especially by developers against environmental and/or community critics of their projects. They have been so badly abused that some states have passed legislation against them. They problem with them is that they are filed by organizations with lots of money, who can afford to pay their lawyers, against individuals or organizations that are often unincorporated and usually impecunious, who can ill afford to pay for legal advice and representation. Those threatened with SLAPP suits are therefore likely to give in even when the suit has no merit.

If you Google for "SLAPP suit" you'll find oodles of information. Here's one informative site.