…Shall Make No Law…

An employee at Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis was (sort of) absolved this month after being reprimanded for reading a book about the history of the Ku Klux Klan during a break from his janitorial work last November.

The employee, Keith Sampson (also a student at the university), apparently hit a nerve with coworkers when they noticed he had been reading Notre Dame vs. The Klan: How the Fighting Irish Defeated the Ku Klux Klan, a history text describing an incident that happened in 1924. One more time: he was reading a history book.

When several of Sampson’s coworkers complained, IUPUI’s Affirmative Action Office intervened and sent Sampson a letter accusing him of “racial harassment,” ordering him to stop reading the book in the presence of his colleagues—and threatened him with “serious disciplinary action” should he continue.

Also in the letter:

“You contend that you weren’t aware of the offensive nature of the topic and were reading the book about the KKK to better understand discrimination. However you used extremely poor judgment by insisting on openly reading the book related to a historically and racially abhorrent subject in the presence of your Black coworkers…”

On February 7 the AAO sent another letter, this one determining that the administrators were “unable to draw any final conclusion” in interpreting Sampson’s actions and informed him no disciplinary action would be taken.

The events are still being bandied about the blogosphere (ugh, promised myself I’d never use that word), despite the fact that the incident was resolved more than a month ago. Still, it makes sense to keep discussions going, given the apparently egregious manner in which the school (mis)handled Sampson’s case.

Thanks to The FIRE for drawing my attention to this case.

Tags: racism, right to not be offended, speech on campus, university

The website Stop the ACLU posted an interesting video this week of a 1986 “Crossfire” segment in which rock musician Frank Zappa takes issue with the practice of censoring explicit song lyrics.

In the clip, Zappa is under attack from all sides—especially from Washington Times reporter John Lofton and conservative pundit Robert Novak—in defending his notion that even the most offensive words should be allowed to be spoken, lest people lose their full ability to express themselves.

At one point Zappa (rather prophetically) says the country is moving toward a “fascist theocracy,” which he defines as:

“… a government that prefers a certain moral code derived from a certain religion, and that moral code turns into legislation to suit a certain religious point of view, and if that code happens to be very, very Right Wing—almost toward Attila the Hun…”

Tags: censorship, Freedom of Speech, video, youtube

A Connecticut high school junior is suing her school after administrators disciplined her for using “vulgar speech” on a personal blog.

The student, who was upset about the cancellation of a music festival, called the administration “douchebags” and implored other students contact the school superintendent and “piss him off.”

The school subsequently banned the girl from running for student government office and demanded that her friends not wear t-shirts in support of her cause.

Julie Pippert at Using My Words writes about the issue,

“Color me surprised a teen said douchebag about a school administrator and used the phrase “pissed off.
Had she said this aloud, she would not have been punished. But because she wrote it, the school and a court believe she should be. That? In my humble opinion? Is excessively unreasonable.

She didn’t threaten, nor did she employ libel, slander, hate speech or anything else we disallow from the protection the First Amendment provides.”

Tags: blogs, high school, online speech, speech on campus, student speech, students

After releasing more than 4,000 pages relating to presidential pardons issued in the final days of Bill Clinton’s presidency (documents obtained this week through a FOIA request entered in 2006…!), Clinton’s legal counsel announced it would withhold an additional 1,500 pages relating to the pardons.

Clinton’s camp claims the exclusions are permitted by the FOIA’s exemption of documents concerning matters of personal privacy. Plenty of observers disagree with this claim, saying that the clemency documents (many involving people convicted in federal court) are matters of public record.

For his part, while in office Clinton apparently encouraged representatives from his library to facilitate access to presidential records but made specific exceptions for communications with his close staff—a right already afforded to him by the Presidential Records Act of 1978, which seals correspondence between a president and his advisers for 12 years after he leaves office.

Tags: classified information, FOIA, freedom of information, Freedom of the Press, president, white house

An Army soldier who says his promotion was denied because he is atheist filed a new suit this week against several military leaders.

Spc. Jeremy Hall had attempted to hold a meeting with fellow soldiers last fall during which he planned to discuss atheism and other subjects. When his commanding officers told him he could not hold such a meeting, Hall began legal proceedings against the officers—and was later denied a rank promotion after word got out about the pending lawsuit. According to Hall, one of his superiors told him he could not advance rank because he would likely be “unable to put aside his personal convictions and pray with his troops.”

This week Hall re-filed the lawsuit, adding further allegations not addressed in the first suit.

Naturally the blog world is blowing up about this. Kemal Eren of Spread Rationality writes,

“First of all, no officer should have to pray with his troops, and no troops should have to participate in prayer if they do not want to. Second, religion is not a prerequisite for bonding with anybody. Charisma, confidence, intelligence, and competence should be the prerequisites for potential officers, not religious belief.”

Masala Skeptic of Skepchik wonders if military culture itself fosters an environment that is inherently favorable to Christians:

“In the military, chain of command and obedience to a higher authority is paramount. And following orders without question is key, at least when the fighting starts. Does that sound familiar? Is the real question, do Christians make better soldiers, because they prefer being unquestioning followers of authority?”

Tags: atheism, atheists, Freedom of Religion, lawsuits, military, religion, religious beliefs

Learn to become a master of FOIA-Filing in 4 Easy Steps!

Tags: FOIA, how-to, video

In a rather odd case that has snaked its way through the courts for more than two years, the Virginia Supreme Court upheld charges against a man charged with violating a Virginia state law against sending unsolicited commercial “spam” emails.

The statute prescribes felony charges for anyone who:

“Uses a computer or computer network with the intent to falsify or forge electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in any manner in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail…”

The man, North Carolina resident Jeremy Jaynes, was accused of sending more than 25,000 spam emails in three days. He is the first person charged with felony spamming. Continue Reading »

Tags: anonymous, commercial speech, court case, email, online speech

A student at Valdosta State University in Georgia, expelled last year for posting activist flyers on Facebook, says he still doesn’t understand why the administration took such extreme action against him.

The student, Hayden Barnes, was attempting to raise awareness about a new parking garage development being built on campus when he posted the flyer in question—which caused alarm, the university said, because Barnes referenced the president’s name in dubbing the garage the “S.A.V.E.-Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage.” The school construed the word “memorial” as a threat, and without notice posted a letter of expulsion on Barnes’ door. The expulsion was later reversed, but Barnes decided not to return to Valdosta and requested that the school reimburse him for moving expenses.

Barnes continues to give interviews about the incident these days, referring to the Valdosta administrators’ actions as attempts to quash potential negative attention that accompanied Barnes’ advocacy.

Tags: administrators, college, flyers, free speech, speech codes, speech on campus, students, university

The Huffington Post reports that despite city officials’ initial insinuations that the entire “City of St. Paul” would be fully open to demonstrators during the Republican National Convention this fall, new city plans say otherwise:

“The guidelines include a primary event area… a secondary event area (a wider perimeter, the boundaries of which are yet to be determined) and something called a, ‘designated public assembly area’.

To be located at the edge of the primary event area, the designated public assembly area looks suspiciously like a first amendment zone.

According to the guidelines, groups and organizations who have applied for and received permits will assemble in a “parade staging area”. Then they will march along a “secondary event area parade route” to that designated public assembly area.

At that point, groups will be free to demonstrate. To go ahead and knock themselves out.”

So-called “Free Speech Zones”—typically small, fenced-in areas that are located away from main event proceedings—have been staples at high-profile political events for decades, criticized by speech advocates who suggest the zones go beyond the stated goal of protecting attendees and into the territory of unconstitutional content-based restriction. Continue Reading »

Tags: buffer zones, election, Freedom of Speech, protesters, protests, speech zones

Another update of a previous story: A federal judge ruled Friday that the leaked-documents website WikiLeaks would be allowed to re-open after initially being shut down for posting confidential bank documents.

The unusual case involved internal documents from the Cayman Islands branch of Swiss bank Julius Baer, purported to include highly damaging information regarding money laundering and other illegal activity. Although WikiLeaks’ owner is Australian, his domain host Dynadot—which dodged a lawsuit by agreeing to close access to the site—is American, which was apparently enough to trigger the jurisdiction of the U.S. court system.

After a mild outcry from civil liberties groups such as the ACLU and the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, San Francisco federal district court Judge Jeffrey White reconsidered the initial injunction, writing,

“It is clear that in all but the most exceptional circumstances, an injunction restricting speech pending final resolution of the constitutional concerns is impermissible.”

The case is strange because the parties are from different countries, yet even the American standard of the First Amendment was (at first) not enough to protect the site’s right to publish the documents. It’s always tricky to determine what kind of sensitive information can be released, but here it seems that WikiLeaks did nothing different than any other media organization would do when presented with the same information.

Tags: confidentiality, court case, lawsuits, leaks, online speech