Monthly Archives: June 2012

The residents of Middleborough, Mass., have had enough. In a state with a storied history of Puritan-inspired prohibitions, they voted 183-50 in a town meeting last week to approve a proposal that would, among other things, impose a $20 fine on public profanity, First Amendment be damned.

In a town of roughly 20,000 people best known for its cranberry bogs, profanity was just one of several practices addressed in the recently passed bylaw.

This proposal toes an uncomfortable line, as do most attempts to restrict speech of any kind in public. Even if the goal is to foster respect among residents, its not the best idea to let officers start ticketing vulgar language they hear in public spaces like parks or downtown. In fact, its not even clear where the line is and just what, exactly, the officers would be ticketing. As a local sergeant recently told the Boston Globe: I think we all know, in our minds, what is inappropriate. Do we? And is that really something thats best for police to decide?

Its easy to sympathize with Middleborough residents who dont want to live in a perpetual rap song and encounter profanity everywhere they go. Its also easy to see why the towns Board of Selectmen would want to make their community a kinder, more genial place. Still, there are arguably bigger risks in imposing a law. If the Massachusetts attorney general approves it, the ordinance would encourage police to ticket speech that is, and likely will eventually be found to be, constitutionally protected. As it stands, the First Amendment protects profanity unless its coupled with true threats, fighting words or an incitement to imminent lawless action.

If not, as former Supreme Court Justice John Marshall Harlan II famously wrote in the courts Cohen v. California opinion: One mans vulgarity is another mans lyric.

Another mans lyric shouldnt have to cost him $20.

Read the original:
Free speech be damned

Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? In Knox v. SEIU, Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks

by Horace Cooper

Summary

Labor unions are notorious for coercive, strong-arm tactics. They have a sordid history of intimidating workers to join a union and stifling members and non-members who oppose that union's agenda. The facts in Knox v. SEIU show that California's public employees' union is no exception to this general rule, resorting to trickery and gimmicks in order to suppress the First Amendment free speech rights of 28,000 non-union workers.

Background

The U.S. Supreme Court soon will decide whether California's Service Employees International Union ("SEIU") -- or any other union -- may temporarily hike union dues or issue special short-term assessments for political advocacy without formally notifying employees. In Knox v. SEIU, the Court will decide whether a State or its union may require a special union assessment intended solely for political campaigning purposes without giving formal notice, or providing employees with an opportunity to opt out of those assessments.

Under California law, California's non-union employees must pay compulsory "fair share fees" to the SEIU as a condition of their employment in order to defray the union's collective bargaining expenses.1 But the U.S. Supreme Court's First Amendment jurisprudence has recognized that every state and local employee is entitled to object to compulsory dues being used for political advocacy that is unrelated to collective bargaining, and as such, a notice advising employees of the union's expenses, as well as the fees and dues it plans to collect, is required.

In June 2005, the SEIU sent its annual notice laying out the union's finances and giving non-union employees thirty days to object to the fair share fee. After the thirty days had expired, the SEIU announced that a new, undisclosed fee would be assessed to fund the "Emergency Temporary Assessment to Build a Political Fight-Back Fund." According to the union, the money was slated for a variety of political advertisements and campaigns, including four California ballot initiatives aimed at reining-in the power of public sector unions -- not exactly geared to collective bargaining. The compulsory "Fight-Back Fund" fee, employees would later learn, amounted to a 25%-33% increase over the paycheck deductions that had been announced in June -- and this time, no one was able to object or opt-out.

In other words, the union forced workers to pay for "short term or interim assessment hikes" in order to fund left-wing initiatives and political activities that had absolutely nothing to do with bargaining for better benefits and wages.

Here is the original post:
Do Free Speech Rights Apply to Union Members, Too? Supreme Court Soon to Rule on SEIU Funding Gimmicks in Knox v. SEIU

We worry about rising crime, the shocking standards in education and public safety, increased cost of living, but now we face the new fear: words.

Malaysia is known for its double standard. Nizar faces the royal wrath and is being investigated for sedition, but the Utusan publication Kosmo, which published two cartoons about the number plate, on May 28 and May 30 has escaped censure.

Mariam Mokhtar, FMT

In the history of early Malacca, Indian traders introduced the bullock-cart or kereta-lembu, which became the main mode of transport. Those who could afford bullock-carts had some form of identification tag, much like our modern-day registration plates.

During a recent excavation near the Malacca River, archaeologists unearthed Ming pottery, several timber structures and gold. Much of the wood had been preserved by layers of sediment, soft silt and compacted clay. These timber structures were believed to be the remnants of bullock-carts of early Malacca.

The most valuable find was a rectangular gold shield with the inscription which looked curiously like LLL1.

Some speculate that LLL1 could mean Lembu Lari Laju. The remains of the cart are of course priceless, but the gold has retained its intrinsic value. If modern cars are found in a future archaeological site, their plastic number plates will be worth nothing and the cars would have rusted away.

The Sultan of Johor, who paid RM520,000 for a number plate, was enraged when former Perak menteri besar, Nizar Jamaluddin, suggested ways in which a similar amount of money could benefit the poor.

Malaysia is known for its double standard. Nizar faces the royal wrath and is being investigated for sedition, but the Utusan publication Kosmo, which published two cartoons about the number plate, on May 28 and May 30 has escaped censure.

Read the rest here:
Free speech sends shivers down our spines