Florida Judge Protects Political Speech

by Paul Jivoff

Photo of Secretary of State Kurt Browning, primary defendant in the case,

© 2007 Associated Press (Photo by Phil Coale)

U.S. District Judge Stephan P. Mickle granted an injunction against a Florida electioneering law, not allowing it to be enforced. According to the Associated Press, the law currently requires that any organization mentioning political issues in any kind of publication register with the State of Florida. The law provides for imprisonment and fines for its violation, but no violators have been imprisoned or fined since its 2004 passage.

The Broward Coalition of Condominium, Homeowners and Community Organizations, the University of Florida's College Libertarians and the National Taxpayers Union contested the electioneering law. Secretary of State Kurt Browning was the defendant in the case. The lawyer representing the groups, Bert Gall of the Institute for Justice, said he saw this decision as a victory for political free speech.

Judge Mickle wrote in his decision that "no court has ever upheld such a sweeping regulation of political speech," according to the AP. He further wrote that Gall and his clients have a very good chance to successfully argue that the law violates the First Amendment. In the meantime, the injunction he granted will prevent any other organizations from being penalized for violation of the electioneering law.

School Bus Videotapes Not Released

By Gina Colonette

KCRG reported that in Jeffereson City, Missouri parents were once again not allowed to view school bus videotape of a fight that occurred. The fight is still under investigation and more students need to be questioned. According to Jefferson city school officials it is against the law to allow the parents of students to view the footage from videos taken on school buses.

Student privacy laws are in affect when parents are not allowed to view school bus videotape. Jefferson City Public Schools spokesman David Luther says “We have student privacy laws that kick into effect because you're going to have more than just their child on that tape and so we can't do that.”

According to Eldon’s superintendent Matt Davis, the video cameras on school buses and in schools are law enforcement records not public education records, therefore the school can deny parents from seeing them.

According to KRCG, this is the second time in the past few months that parents have not been allowed to see the school bus videotapes of their children. According to ABC News, this type of incident also occurred in Colorado six months ago when the father of a suspended 13-year-old boy tried to get the tape of his son “using self defense”. Once again the father was denied access to the tapes because of privacy laws.

Dispute in North Carolina over "Godless" Ad

Image of North Carolina Senate contenders, from left: Elizabeth Dole, Christopher Cole and Kay Hagan. Photo from the Associated Press.

By Alison Baitz

North Carolina Senate incumbent Elizabeth Dole is under controversy because of an ad made and aired accusing Democratic opponent Kay Hagan of "accepting money from 'godless Americans,'" according to Fox News. Dole was asked to take down the ad but refused.

The ad, which began running around North Carolina on Tuesday, "accuses Hagan of attending a 'secret fundraiser' hosted by the Godless Americans PAC last month," according to the article. The ad claims that Hagan "hid from the cameras" and "took godless money" and then features a female voice at the end stating "There is no God."

Hagan said that the voice was not hers. Colleen Flanagan, a spokesperson for her campaign said that "this entire ad was a deliberate attempt to mislead." Dole's campaign claimed that the voice at the end of the advertisement was not implied to be Hagan's. It was a quote reused from earlier in the ad, the voice of a Godless Americans PAC member.

The accuracy of the comments contained in the ad is in question, as the Dole camp claims that it is true, the Hagan camp said that the fundraiser was hosted by 40 people, including Senator John Kerry. Spokesperson for the Dole campaign Dan MacLagan said that the fundraiser was held at the home of a member of the Godless PAC.

Flanagan said that Hagan has not accepted money from the PAC and that the fundraiser was not that of the group. "Campaign finance records, however, show that Woody Kaplan -- who is listed as an advisory board member for the PAC and according to Dole's campaign hosted the September fundraiser -- contributed the maximum $2,300 to Hagan's campaign in September," according to Fox News.

LA Times denies request by McCain campaign to post video

By Matt Gelb

Photo by Laurent Gillieron
© 2003 Associated Press

Despite claims of "suppressing information" by the John McCain campaign, the Los Angeles Times will not post a video of Barack Obama discussing his friendship with Rashid Khalidi, a Palenstinian activist.

The newspaper said Wednesday that it promised a confidential source it would not publish the video. "The Times keeps its promises to sources," Los Angeles Times editor Russ Stanton said.

The McCain campaign is requesting the video be posted so more information can be learned about Obama's relationship with Khalidi, which has led some to believe Obama is sympathetic to the Palestinian side in the Middle East conflict, despite stating otherwise.

The Times originally reported on the content of the video in April 2008 and said it does not need to post the video because it has already been described at length. Khalidi is a professor at Columbia University and a long-time friend of Obama. On Wednesday, McCain called Khalidi a spokesperson for the Palestinian Liberation Organization, a claim Khalidi has denied before.

Leader of neo-Nazi group jailed on suspicion of making threats

(left) Bill White, leader of a neo-Nazi group.
photograph by Casey Templeton for The New York Times

By Gillian Arndt


Bill White, the leader of a neo-Nazi group, was jailed on “suspicion of making threats against a juror who was on a panel in 2004 that convicted a white supremacist of plotting to kill a federal judge” according to The New York Times.

Mr. White’s Web site went down last month. On Friday, The Roanoke Times reported that the Federal Bureau of Investigation had seized his computer equipment as part of the investigation that led to his arrest.

According to The Roanoke Times, Federal authorities have been investigating White's online ranting for more than a year now.

The only charge against White so far comes from a federal grand jury in Chicago. Last week, White was indicted on a charge of encouraging violence against the foreman of a jury that in 2004 convicted a fellow white supremacist of soliciting the murder of a Chicago judge.

"Even if it's not a threat, if it does cause a clear and present danger to the operation of the judicial system ... then that kind of speech can be proscribed," said Wat Hopkins, a communications law professor at Virginia Tech to The Roanoke Times.

"It is a very interesting legal issue as to whether the language used in this case constitutes a true threat," Judge Michael Urbanski said to The Roanoke Times.

Author Trumps Donald on Appeal

By: Kimberly Harris
Photo by: Charles Rex Arbogast
© 2007 Associated Press

An author won an appeal on Friday, allowing him to maintain the confidentiality of his sources used to write a book about Donald Trump, according to The Associated Press via the First Amendment Center.

A New Jersey appellate panel reversed the state’s Superior Court ruling to compel Timothy O’Brien, a former New York Times business editor, and the Time Warner Book Group (now Hachette Book Group) to disclose the identities of the anonymous sources who claimed that Trump was worth “millions, not billions” in TrumpNation: The Art of Being the Donald.

Trump sued O’Brien, alleging that the author knowingly understated his wealth and damaged his reputation. The business magnate estimated his fortune at $2.7 billion, but the book’s sources offered a figure closer to $250 million.

This new ruling marks a victory for the media community that supported O’Brien during the lawsuit. Broadcasters, publishers of books, magazines, and newspapers, and other news-media organizations, including the Associated Press, argued that the Superior Court’s decision would discourage confidential sources from providing information to journalists and prevent the free flow of news to the public, reported the AP in May 2007. They predicted that the damage to the public would be “irreparable” and cause a “chilling effect,” or self-censorship, among journalists and news professionals who feared an increase in lawsuits and challenges of their credibility.

Christiansen sues local radio station for endorsement editorial

By: Emily Arrighi

Photo by: David Smith

© 2008 Associated Press

According to newarkadvocate.com Vicky Christiansen, a candidate for Licking County Domestic Relations judge, filled a lawsuit against WCLT's General Manager and President Douglas C. Pricer. WCLT is a radio station in Ohio. The station aired and published on their website an endorsement editorial which Christiansen claims was "defamatory libel and slander."

The editorial read: "In July of 2007 a police report alleging assault was filed with the Newark Police Department against Vicky Christiansen. In the report she is accused of striking a person in a courthouse elevator. She has also had several complaints concerning her behavior filed with the Ohio Supreme Court's disciplinary counsel."

However, the Ohio Supreme Court told The Pataskala Standard that “no public fillings are pending” for complaints and that “none of the three candidates in the race have been sanctioned by the court for their work as attorneys."

In 2007 there was a police report filled claiming Christiansen slapped another women in an elevator, no charges were filled.

Richard Wright and Paul Harmon were endorsed by WCLT. Christiansen is seeking $500,000 in damages, a permanent injunction, and immediate removal of the editorial from their website.

Media say OJ questionnaires are too little, too late

© 2008 Associated Press
Photo by Isaac Brekken

(Photo of Judge Jackie Glass)


By Akiko Matsumoto

The Associated Press and the Las Vegas Review-Journal are challenging the trial judge of the O.J. Simpson armed robbery-kidnapping trial for improperly withholding jury questionnaires, according to firstamendmentcenter.org.

In documents addressed to the Nevada Supreme Court, attorneys for the two media organizations argued that Clark County District Judge Jackie Glass did not give any valid legal reason for delaying the release of the questionnaires or for editing parts upon release.

Glass censored usually public information from the questionnaires, including where jurors were born and raised, whether they had any children, and whether they owned a house.

AP lawyer Colby Williams argued that the press and public would have been entitled to this information in an open court and that completed questionnaires should have become public by the time the jury was selected.

Glass told the state Supreme Court that she denied access to the court proceedings for the safety of the jurors. Jurors could have been endangered by users of three gambling Web sites that had bet on the trial's outcome.

X-Files Actor Sues Tabloid for Defamation

By Lauren Foley

Photo by Mark Mainz (2008 Associated Press)

American actor and sci-fi icon David Duchovny plans to sue London-based tabloid the Daily Mail for a story it ran on Sunday, October 19, according to a report from TV Guide’s official news feed. The article alleged that Duchovny, a self-proclaimed sex-addict recently estranged from wife Téa Leoni, had an affair with his 28-year-old Hungarian tennis coach Edit Pakay.

While the story claims that it was his relationship with Pakay that led to his estrangement, Duchovny denies ever having any kind of physical relationship with the instructor.

Stanton “Larry” Stein, Duchovny’s lawyer, was contacted by Daily Mail staffer Caroline Graham for comment on the article prior to publication. According to a report on The Celebrity Café.com, “Stein said he warned the paper about publishing the article, saying, ‘It is all lies and deceit.’"

“I advised her that it was false and not to run with it, and she went ahead with it anyway," Stein said.

This piece comes in the wake of Duchovny completing a rehabilitation program for his sexual addiction in early October and rumors that he cheated on his wife in the past, said another article on the Daily Mail's online edition.

In the Daily Mail story, Pakay seems to admit that she had some kind of relation with the X-Files alum outside of tennis practice.

“David and I are very close friends and we still play tennis together. He's an excellent player. He likes physically strong, fit women,” she told the UK tabloid. “I don't want to say anything that might hurt David. I am not going to deny it. I don't know what our relationship means to him.”

However, after the Duchovny camp released statements alleging that the material published in the article was false, Pakay changed her tune. She now vehemently denies that they were anything more than friendly tennis partners, according to celebrity gossip blogger Perez Hilton.

Duchovny and his legal team are currently preparing to file a defamation suit against the British tabloid. All Headline News is reporting that Duchovny will seek $1 million in damages.

Simpson Trial Witness Sues Dr. Phil

Photo by John Locher
© 2008 Associated Press

(Photo of Thomas Riccio, a witness in the recent O.J. Simpson robbery trial)

By Donna Ho

The man who helped O.J. Simpson get access to sports memorabilia in a high profile robbery case, has filed a lawsuit against the "Dr. Phil" show. Thomas Riccio, who recently testified at Simpson's robbery trial is suing Philip McGraw, better known as Dr. Phil and Stage 29 Media for unspecified damages, according to The Associated Press. Riccio claims his comments in an interview were edited to change their meaning in the show's promo.

Riccio said he was referred on the show as "the shady deal maker," "a puppet master who would sell his soul for a coin" and "the ring leader of this crime." The lawsuit claims defamation, fraud, emotional distress and being portrayed in a false light, the AP reports.

He also said that McGraw falsely claimed that Riccio "set O.J. Simpson up and told people to bring guns into the room."

Riccio said parts of his interview were left out-- including his denial of those statements and his claim that he is anti-gun. He said that the statements were replaced with a shot of him nodding his head as if were agreeing with the host. The interview aired October 8 following Simpson's conviction of twelve charges in a Las Vegas court on October 3.

Theresa Corigliano, a spokeswoman for Dr. Phil, would not comment on the lawsuit.

Spammer Conviction Overturned Under Unconstitutional Va. Spam Law

Photo by Rick Bawmer 2008 Associated Press (Photo of Virginia Governor Mark Warner at an AOL anti-spam bill signing in Dulles, VA.)

By Chelsea Choi

According to ADLAW By Request, the Virginia Supreme Court found a Virginia anti-spam law to be unconstitutional.

In the state's first ever conviction under the anti-spam law, Jeremy Jaynes was convicted under the Virginia Computer Crimes Act of illegal spam. Jaynes sent tens of thousands of junk emails to subscribers of America Online, Inc. (AOL). Jaynes used fake domain names and header information when sending the emails.

Jaynes was convicted by a jury and the conviction was upheld by a Virginia Court of Appeals.

But the Virginia Supreme Court dropped the conviction claiming the statute was unconstitutional because it “prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mails including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution” (ADLAW by Request, 2008).

The battle continued as the Commonwealth of Virginia argued that its statute only prohibits the sending of email that is sent using false information. The Commonwealth argued that there is no First Amendment right to use false identification to gain access to private servers.

Because email transmission can be traced by a user's IP address and domain name, the only way somone can send annonymous email is to use false information. Anonymous speech is an aspect of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.

The Virginia Supreme Court found the statute is not narrowly tailored to protect the compelling interests of the Commonwealth, the court concluded. The ruling also favors email marketers. It recognizes that First Amendment speech includes and protects email.

News Organizations Win Access to Minnesota Polling Places

(A Minnesota voter receives an "I voted" sticker from a polling place worker)

Photo by Jim Mone © 2004 Associated Press

By Kate Fagut

According to the firstamendmentcenter.org, reporters in Minnesota will now be permitted to conduct exit polling in the upcoming election. U.S. District Judge Michael Davis ruled in favor of the AP, ABC, CNN, CBS, Fox News and NBC new organizations, ordering that they be allowed to conduct exit polling as long as it does not interfere with people coming and going from the polling place.

According to Davis, "There has been no evidence presented to the Court that exit polling in any way has a detrimental effect on the orderly and corruption-free polling place.”

The news organizations had sued Minnesota alleging that a law banning anyone but voters and election judges from standing within 100-feet of a designated polling place violated their First Amendment Rights.

The law was previously enacted to ensure peace at the polls and give election officials the power to prevent disturbances. The preliminary injunction, granted in favor of the news organizations, will apply directly to pollsters and will allow them to conduct interviews as citizens leave the polling place. News organizations are still looking to make the preliminary injunction permanent.

Susan Buckley, Attorney for the news organizations, was very happy with the verdict. "I think this is a terrific victory for the First Amendment and for the right of voters in Minnesota to express their views about this extraordinary election, should they choose to.”

News-Media Gains Access to Governor's E-mail

Photo by John S. Stewart (Associated Press, 2004)

By Caylin Harris

According to First Amendment Center, the governor of Missouri has been forced by a court settlement to hand over old emails to the news- media. Governor Matt Blunt’s administration was sued by news-media outlets when they were told that access to the records would cost them over $23,000.

The legal settlement stated that Blunt’s administration should give free copies of his email records to various news-media to comply with the Sunshine Law requests.

The battle for the email records started when the Springfield News-Leader was unable to gain access to deleted emails that the paper had requested from a member of Blunt’s administration. Before long The Associated Press, St. Louis Post-Dispatch and Kansas City Star were involved in the lawsuit, which was originally brought against the governor by court appointed attorneys.

The settlement requires the emails to be provided within 30 days unless they are pertaining to matters exempt under the Sunshine Law. According to the article, “the emails of Governor Blunt; former chief of staff Ed Martin; communications director Rich Chrismer; former general counsel Henry Herschel; former legal counsel Scott Eckersley; and Rich AuBuchon, the former legal counsel and acting director of Blunt’s Office of Administration” are included in the settlement.

Federal Courts Allow 'Matching' Funds in Ariz.

Photo by Doug Mills (Associated Press, 1996)


By Mirel Ketchiff



According to the firstamendmentcenter.org, on Wednesday U.S. District Judge Roslyn Silver ruled that publicly funded election candidates in Arizona can receive supplemental money if privately funded opponents outspend them, or if independent groups target them during their campaign. Judge Silver said that she would explain her reasoning by Oct. 17.

Candidates begin with base funding allotments for their campaigns if they participate in the Clean Elections campaign-funding system. These candidates then can receive matching funds depending on either opponents’ spending in primary elections or their fundraising in the general election. Matching funds can also be triggered by independent expenditures.

In late August Silver ruled that matching funds were a First Amendment violation but didn’t issue an injunction at the time, saying the case was brought to her too near the Sept. 2 primary election. Those against supplemental funds (including the Institute for Justice) believe they violate free speech rights since supporters of a candidate would be reluctant raise funds privately, fearing they would trigger matching funds for an opponent. Supporters, however, say that matching funds reduces the ability of private contributions to corrupt a candidate. They also believe that a change in the candidate funding system this close to Nov. 4, the general election, would be unfair.

Attorney Nick Dranias of the Goldwater Institute, who is representing some groups and candidates opposed to supplemental funding, said his clients would decide whether to appeal after Silver explained her ruling.

Virginia Bans Voters from Wearing Campaign Paraphernalia at the Polls

Photo courtesy of Jae C. Hong (Associated Press, 2008)


by Sarah Casey

According to firstamendmentcenter.org, Virginia legislators have passed a law banning any and all political clothing or paraphernalia at polling locations. This law is following an already existing law banning electioneering within 40 feet of the entrance to a polling precinct.

Though the ban is “inviting litigation” as American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) attorney Rebecca Glenberg put it, Virgina’s State Board of Elections said the prohibition “strikes a balance between the First Amendment right to free speech and the right of people to cast secret ballots in a safe, orderly way free of undue influence or harassment.”

According to firstamendmentcenter.org, Virginia now joins several states that have banned campaign materials at polling stations. According to the site, “A 2006 article in the Thurgood Marshall Law Review said that eight states prohibited the display or exhibit of campaign materials inside a polling place, and 10 barred buttons, badges or lapel stickers inside voting places.”

The new legislation bars all political advertising for or against either candidate that could be considered “clear, unambiguous expressions of support for or opposition of a candidate or ballot issue.”

Local (county) boards can make their limitations at the polls even more stringent by prohibiting implied political messages as well. An example of implied political messages, according to firstamendmentcenter.org, would be “a T-shirt that mocks or affirms support for a well-known position of one candidate without explicitly identifying the candidate.”

“Some localities that have prohibited campaign clothing or paraphernalia in polling places keep cloaks on hand to help people conceal political messages while they vote. They range from modified trash bags to vests and ponchos,” Virginia Board of Elections’ chairwoman Jean Cunningham said.

According to Kent Willis, the Virginia ACLU executive director, “While the state has a right to keep polling places free of electioneering, the state lacks sufficient grounds to ban politically inspired fashion statements.”

“The state needs to establish that allowing campaign garb inside election precincts would create a high probability of a problem that would impair people’s right to vote, not just the prospect of tension or disruption,” Willis said.

According to firstamendmentcenter.org, Glenberg and Willis said the ACLU would have to continue researching the implications of election paraphernalia before deciding whether to challenge the issue in court.

Two Media Outlets Sue for Release of Information in Louisiana

New Orleans Memorial Medical Center

Photo by Alex Brandon, Associated Press

by Kaitlin Ahern

According to the Reporter's Committee for Freedom of the Press, both The (New Orleans) Times-Picayune and CNN are suing the state of Louisiana for the release of Katrina-related investigations records.

The argument by the two groups, brought before the Louisiana Supreme Court Monday, was for the release of state investigative files concerning patient deaths at Memorial Medical Center in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina. According to an article in The Times-Picayune, the paper and CNN sought the records last year after a state grand jury did not indict Dr. Anna Pou on charges of murder and conspiracy to murder. Pou and two nurses were arrested in July 2006 and charged with killing 34 hospital patients with lethal doses of medication.

According to the article, investigative files in Louisiana are typically closed to the public while criminal charges are pending or “reasonably anticipated.” The media plaintiffs argued Monday that the court's decline to indict Pou in 2006 meant the case was closed, and that the public has a right to know if the investigation conducted by the state was fair.

A response by the state countered that the files should remain closed because an investigation could still occur in the future, noting that there are still three civil lawsuits pending against Pou and the former Memorial hospital owners.

Debate Over Online Access to Court Records Ensues in Wisconsin

AP Photo by Dado Galdieri

Article by Michelle Halpern

Since 2007 when Wisconsin Rapids Democratic Representative, Marlin Schneider, tried to pass a bill that would place limits on Wisconsin's open-records law, debate over the issue still ensues, says the Associated Press.

In celebration of the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council's 30th Anniversary, the group held a debate on the University of Wisconsin-Madison campus, October 13, that addressed issues concerning individuals' rights to privacy in regards to the state's online record system.

President of the council, Bill Lueders, who is also editor of Isthmus, an alternative weekly newspaper in Madison, debated in favor to keep the online records system as is, while Schneider remains in favor of restricting access to the website to some extent.

The online database, officially called the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Site, but commonly known in the community as CCAP, allows anyone access to details of criminal and civil court records with the click of a button. While the website is most often used by court officials, the media, and attorneys, some community members and Wisconsin officials feel that the site has been abused on numerous occasions whether it be by snooping neighbors or job employers checking up on possible employees. 

A main concern about the website is that even in such cases where a person may have been taken to court and found not guilty, this presence on the site can tarnish a person's image or may easily be misread by someone skimming through the information quickly. 

The CCAP website receives anywhere between 3.4 million to 3.9 million hits each day. 

While Lueders understands that this readily public information can be easily abused, he says, "I just don't think the solution to that is to deprive people of access to these records." 

Under Schneider's suggested bill, access to the site would be limited to judges, police offiicals, reporters and prosecutors. However, all records would still be available to the public in hard copy at court houses. 

 

Watchdog Requests Investigation of Two Political TV Ads

Photo by Laura Brandon

Article by Laura Brandon

A campaign-finance watchdog group has requested an investigation of two groups’ political ads, complaining that they violated the law by airing such ads, according to an article from The First Amendment Center.

Democracy 21 filed a complaint on Oct. 10 with the Federal Election Commission against the American Issues Project, a 501(c)(4) that ran ads against Barack Obama, and the American Leadership Project, a 527 pro-Hillary Clinton group that ran ads supporting her and against Obama during the primaries.

In the complaint, Democracy 21 argues that the two groups violated campaign finance laws because they did not properly register as federal political committees and did not comply with the requirements for those committees. Under campaign finance laws, there are contribution limits and reporting requirements for such committees.

For more information on Democracy 21's complaint, see the literature on their Web site.

Middle school student banned from handing out pro-life flyers in school halls

Sex education and contraceptive pamphlets on the health clinic door at King Middle School in Portland, Maine Photo by Cheryl Senter, AP

By Taylor Engler

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Tuesday, October 7, that a Michigan middle school did not violate a student’s free speech rights when it banned him from distributing pro-life flyers in the school hallway, according to an
article on the First Amendment Center Web site.

The student, referred to in court papers as M.A.L. or Michael, was prohibited by Jefferson Middle School in Monroe, Mich. from distributing pro-life flyers in the hallways in January 2007. The school created the ban, citing their literature-distribution policy which requires official approval of handouts as well as time and place limitations. Michael and his parents sued Jefferson in federal court on January 24, 2007, according to the article.

Michael was 14-years old when he joined the Pro Life Group of Silent Solidarity in October 2006. The group is part of the national organization, Stand True, and promotes anti-abortion awareness. Michael wanted to hand out the flyers for the Stand True national protest day on January 31, 2007, the article said.

In court on January 30, U.S. District Judge Victoria A. Roberts struck down the ban and Jefferson’s literature-distribution policy, citing the 1969 case Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The Tinker case was brought to court by students banned from wearing black armbands to protest the Vietnam War. The court ruled that the school could not prove the armbands caused significant disruption of learning and set a standard that public schools, in order to prohibit student’s free speech, must prove that the expression will disrupt the school operations or endanger other’s rights, according to the article.

Two months after the original M.A.L. ruling, in March 2007, Judge Roberts enforced a permanent injunction on Jefferson, prohibiting the school from enforcing its literature-distribution policy, the article said. Jefferson appealed to the 6th Circuit, arguing that the policy did not prohibit the expression of free speech as in Tinker, but instead regulated when and where speech could occur, the article said.

The 6th Circuit sided with Jefferson on October 7, 2008, citing that the regulations on Michael’s flyers did not prohibit his free speech, but merely delegated the speech to a more appropriate forum (on bulletin boards and in the cafeteria) than the school hallway. The court said that the literature-distribution policy was “view-point neutral” and simply sought to “prevent hallway clutter and congestion,” the article said.

Michael is likely to appeal, the article stated.

NYC Public Schools Accused of Limiting Political Free Speech

(AP Photo/Jack Dempsey)

by Sarah Kestenbaum

The teachers union for the New York City’s public school system has accused the city of violating its first amendment rights by banning teachers from wearing political campaign buttons, according to the Associated Press. The American Federation of Teachers, which includes the NYC United Federation of Teachers, voted over the summer to endorse Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.

City school Chancellor Joel Klein told school principals more that two weeks ago to enforce the Department of Education policy that requires complete neutrality when regarding political candidates. A letter sent to the UFT from the schools told teachers to restrict political activity in the school buildings and also stated that failure to comply with this policy could result in disciplinary action.

A lawyer representing the teacher’s union has said that there have been no complaints from students or parents concerning the use of political buttons during campaigns and that the city would have to prove the buttons were disruptive in the schools in order to ban them.

The UFT announced Friday, Oct. 10 that a lawsuit has been filed in the U.S. District Court in Manhattan. It is still being reviewed by the city.

Senate to investigate government privacy violations against American journalists and others in Iraq

Senator Jay Rockefeller, (D) West Virgina--Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee
Photo by Dennis Cook, AP

Article by Mike Schottenstein

The Senate Intelligence Committee is investigating claims that the National Security Agency eavesdropped on private conversations made by journalists, people in the military and aid workers in Iraq, according to a report by the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP).

President Bush initially authorized the program to monitor calls from suspected terrorists without warrants, but two people who worked at the NSA's monitoring facility in Georgia say they were ordered to listen to non-suspects, as well, the RCFP report says. Adrienne Kinne was linguist working for the army from 2001-2003. She says she received a Joint Service Achievement Medal from the National Security Agency (NSA) for her work in monitoring the calls. Kinne told Brian Ross of ABC's Nightline that the award came at a time when she was listening in on calls from "members of the military, journalists, and aid workers."

David Murfee Faulk worked at the NSA facility for four years. He told Ross that people in the program would sometimes listen to calls that contained "pillow talk" or "phone sex" from military officers or aid workers for fun. Both Faulk and Kinne told Ross they questioned the legality of what they were doing to their superiors, but were told to continue the monitoring without changes.

Spokesmen for former NSA director, and current CIA Director, Michael Hayden deny that any privacy laws were broken during the program and Faulk says that some good things did come from the monitoring, Nightline reported. The NSA did sometimes find out where some weapons were located and the military was then able to disarm bombs before they went off.

The Chairman of the Intelligence Committee, Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV), says his staff is investigating the situation and that, "Any time there is an allegation regarding abuse of the privacy and civil liberties of Americans, it is a very serious matter."

Freedom of Speech in Jeopardy for University of Texas Students

AP Photo by Charlie Neibergall

By Christine Tebcherany


At the University of Texas, two roommates seem to be facing a freedom of speech issue, involving Barack Obama posters placed in their window. According to the Associated Press, Connor Kincaid and his roommate and cousin, Blake Kincaidwere told to remove their poster supporting Obama from their dorm room window. The two roommates refused to do so, and as a result school officials banned them from enrolling for spring classes.

President of the University of Texas Bill Powers, had a committee formed to figure out the school’s policies and propose solutions. Powers stated in a written statement that The University of Texas now “expressly allows the display of signs and posters in students' residence hall room windows”.


Conner Kincaid stated that, “This is an important free speech issue”. Kincaid allegedly had seen a supportive ad for John McCain in a different dorm window, which raises the question if the democratic content had anything to do with the uproar.The University declares that the situation was not about the candidates represented in the poster. Jeff Graves the associate vice president for UT legal affairs told the Associated Press that, “UT has had a policy for more than 10 years forbidding the posting of signs in dorm windows in order to control the look of the campus and avoid the appearance that the university is supporting any candidate”.


In response to the situation, the University’s Democrats and Republicans came together to exercise their rights first amendment rights, by motivating students to place posters in their dorm windows as a form of protest.


“It's never been an issue…obviously this is a hot political issue, and it got pushed this time" stated Graves. The University of Texas trusts their policy to be constitutional, however, according to The First Amendment Center, they believe that it is fair to allow posters to be hung up inside individual dorm rooms.

Palin sued for access to Yahoo emails

(Photo by Al Grillo, the Associated Press)


By Abha Gunjal

Andree McLeod, a former Alaska state worker, filed suit against Gov. Sarah Palin on Oct. 2 to force preservation of any government-specific emails Palin had sent from her private accounts. The correspondence revealed a few personal emails exchanged back and forth with Sen. John McCain after her selection as his running mate.

According to the Associated Press, two of Palin’s Yahoo email accounts were hacked last month and subsequently shut down. The emails that were disclosed stated Palin’s administration’s preference of private accounts to conduct state business as an alternative to “.gov” accounts. According to Alaska’s Open Records Act, the emails, since sent from a private account and not a government one, could possibly be released to the public.

“Palin’s decision to conduct state business in such an unprofessional and secretive manner suggests that her promise to have an ethical, open, honest and transparent administration is pure bogus,” said McLeod in an Oct. 4 statement.

McLeod, as well as the Associated Press, had filed an open records request with the state of Alaska to obtain Palin’s email records, as well as her husband’s. Palin’s spokeswoman said on Oct. 4 that Palin could not comment on the pending proceedings.

Red, White and Blog: the Digital Age’s Effect on Your Love of American Liberties

(Allison Martin sits in a coffee shop with a laptop displaying her blog Tuesday June 28, 2005 in downtown Chicago. Blogs' place in democracy was the center of discussion at a recent Yale University debate. by M. Spencer Green, AP Photo)
by Paige Dearing

The Huffington Post reported on the recent student debate on blogging’s effect on democracy at Yale University. The Yale Political Union agreed, 33 to 22, that blogs are good for democracy.

Arguments ranged from discussing the rise of single-issue campaigning to the deconstruction of complex issues. Leah Anthony Libresco spoke on how a well-informed citizenry is necessary for a free state, with a focus on First Amendment rights, and was one of the four speeches Huffington Post posted to their blog.

Libresco reasoned that blogs improve democracy because they “giv[e] ordinary citizens access to the ideas they care most about” and noted that blogs' “real power lies in their ability to provide broad overviews of the issues at stake and quick links for citizen activists," according to the Huffingtonpost.com post.

She recounted a visit to a high school where she asked students to rank the Bill of Rights' amendments in order of importance. She said one group placed the Second Amendment as number one, because they believed that no one cared or listened to what they said.

Blogs empower citizens to share their opinions with friends and politicians, she said. These words or opinions would otherwise be left out of mainstream coverage, but posting them online makes them readily available, and sometimes easily found with the help of search engines.

Read all of Libresco's speech here.

Does this make you cherish your First Amendment rights more because you have an effective and far-reaching medium to communicate your opinons? Or if not cherish them more, at least make free speech/free press rights more relevant to the average American’s life than in the past?

Michigan GOP official sues newspaper for libel

(AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

By Sammy Kanter

A newspaper in Michigan, the Michigan Messenger, is being sued for libel by the local GOP for comments the GOP chairmen claims are "fabricated," according to the Editor and Publisher.  Published on September 10, the article makes references to the GOP allegedly having plans to stop citizens from voting in Macomb County, Michigan.  

The article published last month in the Messenger entitled "Lose your house, lose your vote" quoted party chair James Carabelli saying he would "have a list of foreclosed homes and will make sure people aren't voting from those addresses."  The party demanded a retraction, but the Messenger refused, with CEO of the Center for Independent Media David Bennahum(which funds the paper) saying, "We stand by our story.  We stand by our reporter.  We knew that there was the possibility(of the Michigan GOP suing for defamation)."  

According to the Editor and Publisher, Michigan law allows citizens who have foreclosed on their homes two months prior to Election Day the ability to vote in their old precinct.  Sen. Barack Obama's campaign filed a class-action lawsuit a week after publication of this article against state Republicans for "voter caging," a technique the Editor and Publisher describes as an attempt to block voters in Michigan.  

Montana Radio Host Guilty of Slander

(AP Images/Associated Press, David Zalubowski)

By Emma Dovi

John Stokes, a radio host for KGEZ AM radio in Kalispell, Montana has been found guilty of slander, according to the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. Davar Garder and his son Todd Gardner took Stokes to court claiming that he spoke falsely about them during his radio talk show. Stokes said during one of his shows that the father and son had lied under oath in previous litigation between Stokes and the Gardners and he also stated that the Gardners had committed bank fraud.

These comments were found to be defamatory and the Gardners were awarded by the Flathead County District Court "$3.8 million in compensatory and punitive damages, an amount that is one of the largest in Montana history, " says the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. This case was the result of another legal dispute that had resulted from fueding between Stokes and the Gardners about land ownership.

Stokes has had issues in the past in his community in Montana. Many local residents are unhappy with his point of view and remarks which have been said to be racist and anti-semitic. Some have even started a website speaking out against Stokes and his radio show: About the Facts: Promoting Democracy, Defending Human Rights. Despite community unpopularity, Stokes claims that this law suit and its results is a scary thing for the media and a direct restriction on freedom of speech.

Bill passed to protect U.S. media from "libel tourism"

by Sandra Plasse

Congressman Steve Cohen is the sponsor of the bill passed by The House of Representatives against foreign libel suits. (AP Photo © 2005 John Russel)

Congress was prompted by an American author, Rachel Ehrenfeld, to propose the bill in order to protect citizens from "libel tourism." If the bill passes through Senate, a foreign libel judgment will only be maintained in the U.S. if it coincides with the same freedom of speech and press guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution.

The House of Representatives passed the bill last weekend that, in effect,will protect the U.S. media from an overseas court using a U.S.court to enforce any overseas’ judgment, according to The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press. The bill, H.R. 6146, prohibits the “recognition and enforcement of foreign defamation judgments.” The bill’s sponsor is Congressman Steve Cohen (D-Tenn).

Ehrenfeld wrote a book in 2003 called Funding Evil: How Terrorism is Financed and How to Stop It. Khalid Salim Bin Mahfouz sued Ehrenfeld for libel in the U.K. because the book accused him of funding terrorism, according to Publishers Weekly.

Although it wasn’t published in the U.K., citizens purchased copies of the book over the Internet. An English court demanded retractions by Ehrenfeld but when she refused Mahfouz sued her. She decided not to contest the suit in an English court because “under English law, it wasn’t enough that I could prove that I had written what my sources told me, but I would have had to prove the underlying truth of the accusations as well. No one can meet that standard,” she told The New Yorker.

She appealed the case in New York and it eventually went to The New York Court of Appeals. The court said it couldn't rule because the case was out of it's jurisdiction and Mahfouz didn't fall under the “long-arm” clause for New York. In an editorial published by The New York Times, Adam Cohen writes that libel tourism is a threat to robust free speech. "The result is what lawyers call a “chilling effect” — authors and publishers may avoid taking on some subjects, or challenging powerful interests."