Daily Archives: April 27, 2012

LOS ANGELES, April 26 (UPI) -- The American Civil Liberties Union said a U.S. Marine's constitutional rights were violated when he was discharged for criticizing President Obama on Facebook.

Sgt. Gary Stein, 26, on his Facebook page called Obama a coward and an enemy and promised never to salute him or follow any of his orders he considered illegal. The military's administrative separation board said Stein, a nine-year veteran who served in Iraq, made disparaging comments that were detrimental to good order and violated military law.

The board demoted Stein to lance corporal and gave him an other-than-honorable discharge, making him ineligible for many federal benefits, the Los Angeles Times reported.

Civilian lawyers said they will fight to have Stein reinstated to the military, the newspaper said.

"I don't believe Sgt. Stein did anything other than engage in political speech," said the ACLU's David Loy. "Since the days of Valley Forge, I seriously doubt that there haven't been members of the armed forces who haven't complained about their government."

Follow this link:
ACLU: Marine's free speech rights violated

Americans protect freedom of speech more vigorously than any other Western democracy. We also have a venerable tradition of respecting academic freedom at colleges and universities.

Sometimes the heat and passion of political protests obscures the essence of these principles, however, as a recent episode at our campus, the University of California, Davis, illustrates. Briefly, protesters repeatedly obstructed access to a bank branch in our student union complex. The bank had leased the space to serve the campus community under an agreement that would have generated $2 million or more to the campus for student services over 10 years. Ultimately, citing the protesters' conduct, the bank closed the branch.

During the course of the blockades, campus police identified 11 students and one faculty member who participated in the obstructive protests. This information was referred to the Yolo County District Attorney; the bank also provided evidence. Today, these individuals are expected to appear in court for arraignment on misdemeanor charges. Under the state penal code, it is a misdemeanor to willfully obstruct public walkways and places or intentionally interfere with a lawful business.

In a letter to the campus administration, the Davis Faculty Association, an organization whose membership comprises a very small fraction of professors at UC Davis, appealed to campus leaders to seek dismissal of these charges because of "the political content of the U.S. Bank blockade." The DFA argued that protesters obstructing access to the bank believed they were defending the UC system against privatization, and thus should not be subject to criminal sanction.

That even a few faculty members at one of the nation's top universities would misunderstand the basics of freedom of speech and academic freedom in this way suggests the need to use this episode as a "teachable moment."

The important starting point in our First Amendment analysis is that a blockade is not constitutionally protected speech. It is conduct that government has always had the legitimate authority to proscribe because it so obviously obstructs the liberty and lawful pursuits of others.

To cite just one example, the federal Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act, which prohibits anyone from physically obstructing access to reproductive health services, has been upheld repeatedly against constitutional challenge.

One critical reason blockades can be prohibited is that they are employed to coerce behavior, not change minds. They are thus antithetical to the values on which freedom of speech and academic freedom are grounded a commitment to the power of ideas rather than the use of force to change the way that people act.

Indeed, if obstruction or disruption were protected expressive activity, it could be used to silence other speakers. The California Supreme Court explained the problem in an important free speech case, In Re Kay: "(T)he state retains a legitimate concern in ensuring that some individuals' unruly assertion of their rights of free expression does not imperil other citizen's rights of free association and discussion. Freedom of everyone to talk at once can destroy the right of anyone effectively to talk at all."

The argument that a public university should pick and choose whether obstruction should be permitted or not based on the political content of any particular blockade is also a dubious proposition. Treating one political topic or perspective more favorably than another constitutes subject-matter or viewpoint discrimination which almost always violates the First Amendment. Moreover, a university engaging in such discrimination demonstrates that it is no longer committed to open inquiry and the free exchange of ideas. The university instead morphs into a political institution committed to particular perspectives so much so that it excuses violations of law in support of its own political positions.

Read more here:
Viewpoints: College protests stepped beyond free speech

April 26, 2012 (GRIFFITH, Ill.) (WLS) -- The issue at the center of a lawsuit involving students who were expelled for writing comments on Facebook interpreted as death threats is whether those posts should be protected as free speech.

It all started with three teenage girls having a conversation on Facebook.

"When we made those comments we didn't think ahead," said Sabrina Munsie of Griffith Middle School.

"I didn't mean anything that I said," Kennedy Fortier said. "I was just joking around."

According to a police report filed by Griffith Middle School, the girls, including Fortier and Munsie, were joking about killing all the ugly people.

One comment says, "OMG, before I die, I wanna kill 20 people. Another reads, "If I killed with a knife, I'd fill a tub with acid and put the body in there and nothing would be left."

One of the people mentioned at the beginning of the thread was fellow student, Courtney Tinsley.

"I felt really hurt and upset, and I started to cry," Tinsley said.

"Bullying is getting people shot and killed in schools," Courtney Tinsley's father, Timothy said. "We just don't know what to do. We want this to stop."

Within hours Fortier, Munsie and the third girl involved in the online conversation had been suspended.

Read the original:
Lawsuit filed over Facebook free speech

Sgt. Gary Stein (credit: CBS)

DENVER (CBS4) A Marine from California claims he was just exercising his rights to free speech, but his comments on President Obama led to his discharge.

Sgt. Gary Stein posted the comments on Facebook. The Marine Corps didnt buy the free speech argument. They say they dont let anyone in the military do anything that might give off the perception that they support any political cause or party.

Stein called President Obama a coward and said he wouldnt follow orders from him. He even touted he was a proud member of Obamas enemy list.

I look back on them saying, I wish I didnt say those statements, Stein said.

Political activism in the military isnt tolerated. The Marines say Stein had even been warned about his postings by superiors.

Were in the military and we have to follow the directives and the uniform code of the military justice, thats about as simple as I can make it, Maj. Michael Armistead said.

Steins lawyers say its a violation of his free speech.

Sgt. Stein did nothing but engage in political speech that is protected by the First Amendment, his lawyer said.

The military doesnt put up with that, Denver lawyer David Lane told CBS4.

Continue reading here:
Marine Booted From Corps For Facebook Comments About President Obama