Daily Archives: October 24, 2012

Doss_High_School_Football_FieldLyle Denniston examines a recent case of Texas public high school cheerleaders who claim free speech allows them to use religious statements at football games.

It is the individual speech of the cheerleaders and not in fact the government speakingThat is their individual choices that are being portrayed on the banner.

David Starnes, a Beaumont, Texas, attorney, in a statement on October 18 defending the public school cheerleading squad in Kountze, Texas, whom he represents in a lawsuit over their right to display banners containing religious messages at the Kountze High Schools football games.

If the temporary injunction is not issued, the [high schools] unlawful policy prohibiting private religious expression will remain in effect and the [students] will be prohibited from exercising their constitutional and statutory rights at all football games and other school sporting events.

Hardin County, Texas, District Judge Steven Thomas, in an order October 18 temporarily forbidding Kountze High School administrators from banning the display of cheerleaders banners bearing religious messages at school football games. The judge set a trial date of next June 24.

checkThe First Amendment both guarantees religious freedom and forbids official government endorsement or promotion of a particular faith. Separating the two, though, has long been a problem for the courts as they confront religious expression in the public sphere. There is no more disputed arena in which this constitutional drama plays out than the public school. What is happening now in the small eastern Texas town of Kountze is a perfect illustration.

There, the high school cheerleading team for years has prepared banners that are unfurled at the start of home football games, with the Kountze players bursting through the streamers, measuring 30 feet by 10 feet. They are meant to inspire the team, and encourage the crowd. They used to be taunts of the visiting team, but this year the cheerleaders decided to engage in what their lawyer calls positive encouragement. And, for these students and followers of the Christian faith, that has meant banners with religious messages, such as Thanks be to God, which gives us victory, through our Lord Jesus Christ.

School officials banned the practice this semester, after a protest from a private advocacy group, the Freedom from Religion Foundation, which promotes separation of church and state. The cheerleaders and their parents sued in Hardin County District Court and, so far, they are winning, with the school ban now on hold by Judge Steven Thomass order until a trial can occur, now set for next June.

The wording of Judge Thomas order and, in fact, the description of the banner activity in the text of the cheerleaders lawsuit both treat the expression on the banners as purely that of the students. That was decisive for the judge, and it was the strategic choice of the students attorney, because the Supreme Court has made clear that government has less power to restrict the private speech of students even while they are at school than it does to curtail student expression that seems to speak for the school, making the school the endorser of the students message.

When the message is religious, and is attributed to the school system, that violates the First Amendments separation doctrine, the Court has said.

Read the rest here:
Constitution Check: Do students speak for themselves, or for the school?

The race for Clackamas County Commission chair is really turning into a mud fight. Instead of debating the issues, giving logical answers that will help the people of Clackamas County, the supporters and/or the fringe groups of the current county commissioners are engaging in tried-and-true Chicago-style politics: 1) campaign sign destruction; 2) unknown websites calling candidates names.

We have all heard the stories of conservative signs disappearing throughout the county, most recently in the Oak Grove-Milwaukie area. Radio talk show hosts have been highlighting the double standard of the liberal and conservative perspectives on the First Amendment right of freedom of speech.

Liberals most often believe freedom of speech applies when it supports their viewpoint but if it supports a conservative, there is a backlash against them. President Obama said back in 2008 "if you don't have a record to run on, you paint your opponent as someone to run from." That is exactly what is happening in the race for Clackamas County chair. Scoundrels or vandals have been lurking around the area looking to do damage to conservative campaign signs. Some people are creating websites trying to scare voters away from conservatives and their positions by name-calling and or other disruptive behavior.

Recently, while traveling around the county and talking with candidates on the issues, people have approached me about the new "John Ludlow is a Bully" signs with a website that are popping up all around the county. I typed in the website and wanted to learn more about these comments. Upon reading through the website, it is full of name calling and unfounded claims against Mr. Ludlow. The most telling part of the site was at the end -- it does not accept comments to refute any of the claims made by the unknown author.

We are Americans and take our First Amendment very seriously and I stand up for it, but if you create an opinion site, you should take responsibility and be accountable for your words. I created my own blog to highlight and discuss the issues in the news from the federal, state and local levels; however, my blog is an opinion forum. I welcome comments and discussion if I get something wrong or misspeak; I will not hide behind a curtain and call candidates names. I will give reasons why I believe their policies are wrong.

We are better than this and that's why I support a change in course. I will not stand for reckless denial of free speech just because someone has a different point of view from you. Campaign-sign destruction cannot stand and I call for candidates to come out and stand on principles and denounce this type of behavior. We are not Chicago, we are Oregon, we reject partisan rhetoric and welcome discussion on the issues. We believe in the voice of the people and the freedom of speech of our citizens. Kevin Moss lives in Sandy and is vice chair of the 3rd Congressional District for the Oregon Republican Party.

Originally posted here:
Commentary: Free speech denied in race for Clackamas County chair

Rumors are swirling that the federal government is about to sue Google over claims that the company rigs its search results. Google has responded by invoking its right to free speech but not everyone is buying this.

Tim Wu, a prominent law professor at Columbia, is not convinced that Google is invoking its First Amendment rights in good faith. He suggests that Google and other big companies are cynically invoking constitutional freedoms as part of a corporate deregulation agenda.

Were living in a golden age of First Amendment opportunism, said Wu, speaking Friday at a Penn Law School conference titled The Evolving Internet.

In Wus view, search results are not really speech in the first space. Instead, he argues, Googles algorithms are closer to other automated communication tools like navigation devices or even car alarms.

Google, of course, doesnt share this view. The company prefers to be compared to a newspaper editor whose choice of what to put in the paper is an undisputed free speech right. In practical terms, this means Google should be able to favor its own restaurant reviews over competing services like Yelp.

So who is right? Most of us would agree with Wu that Googles search results fall somewhere in the middle of a communication continuum where the editor is on one end and the car alarm is on the other. The hard question is whether Google is far enough along the line to qualify for the First Amendment.

More broadly, this dilemma doesnt apply just to Google. In the age of the algorithm, other companies may also rush to protect computer-based communication. Should Amazon, for instance, be allowed to argue that its product recommendation are a form of free speech?

The point here is that the choice of whether or not to sue Google is part of a larger process in which the country must decide where free speech stops and legitimate regulation begins.

(Image bykentohvia Shutterstock)

More From paidContent.org

Originally posted here:
Is Google a free speech opportunist?

LONDON Americans often cite free speech when controversial statements offend certain groups of people, but what if you went to jail for making an ill-humored joke on Facebook? That's what happened to one British man recently, over his status update. But the case raises questions about free speech laws in the U.K.

Matthew Woods, 20, became one of the most hated people in the U.K. after posting an offensive status update on Facebook about an abducted 5-year-old girl. Woods "offensive" comments included sexually aggressive and suggestive references, which attracted a number of supportive and equally derogatory replies.

Woods was charged by British police under section 127 of the U.K. Communications Act 2003, which found that his message was "grossly offensive" or "of an indecent, obscene or menacing character." He was arrested "for his own safety," reports The Guardian, following the comments posted on Facebook about 5-year-old April Jones, who was abducted close to her home in Machynlleth, Wales early this month.

The British media capitalized upon the conviction: Was Woods' comment truly "criminal?"

Free speech and social media's delicate dance

Despite being the closest ally to the United States on political, economic and defense matters, by comparison the U.K.'s free speech principles feel archaic and its laws stagnant in the digital age.

It was the same law that found Paul Chambers, 28, of Northern Ireland, guilty of unlawfully sending a message that was also deemed "grossly offensive" or "of an indecent, obscene or menacing character," in 2010, after he tweeted that he would "[blow] the airport sky high!" after his flight was cancelled following poor weather at Robin Hood Airport, U.K.

Chambers' conviction was subsequently quashed on a second appeal at the U.K. High Court in London earlier this year. The judge in the Chambers' case noted in his ruling:

"Satirical, or iconoclastic, or rude comment, the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter or humor, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it should and no doubt will continue at their customary level, quite undiminished by [the Communications Act]."

While U.S. prosecutors could have charged Chambers with terrorism offenses, U.K. prosecutors instead opted to charge him by the contents of his tweet, despite being arrested initially by British anti-terror police.

Read the original:
U.K. man jailed over Facebook status raises questions over free speech

Courts College says misunderstanding led to religious groups getting affiliate status.

An evangelical Christian club claims Snow College is unfairly giving "second tier" status to student groups that have a religious affiliation, constitutionally infringing on free speech and free association rights.

In a complaint filed Monday in U.S. District Court, the Solid Rock Christian Club alleges the designation deprives such groups from being able to reserve campus facilities without charge, to advertise events on campus and to receive funding from student fees. That allows the college to favor "the speech of popular groups and exclude unpopular ones," the club alleges.

The lawsuit names the college, top school officials, the schools board of trustees and the state Board of Regents as defendants.

Scott Wyatt, president of Snow College, said Tuesday the lawsuit may be a result of a misunderstanding. He said that after realizing the impact of the affiliate status on religious clubs, "we undid this." Wyatt, who said he just received a copy of the lawsuit and had not yet read it, said it is possible none of the clubs were aware of that course correction.

"The Solid Rock ministry is a very important organization for us," Wyatt said. "They serve a number of students and we value them highly and want to continue to be a support in every way we can of their mission and their goals. I think this lawsuit is largely a misunderstanding and am confident we will work it out in a good manner and everyone will be satisfied. I am just very confident in working through all this.

Solid Rock has operated on the Snow campus, located in Ephraim, for eight years. The complaint describes the club as committed to "exalting and glorifying Jesus Christ on campus" and encouraging students and faculty to believe in Jesus Christ. The club is associated with Tri Grace Ministries, which according to their web site, also is committed to "challenging the heretical doctrines of Mormonism and ... leading as many Mormons as possible into a personal saving relationship with Jesus Christ."

With a brief exception during the 2010 school year, the club was able to use facilities without paying a community rental rate, the lawsuit states. It freely advertised activities and received student fee funding. During the 2010 school year, the college designated Solid Rock an "organization," with fewer privileges, but relented after student leaders of the group protested.

The club, one of about 32 at the college, now alleges that over the summer, college officials changed its policies regarding student groups and gave Solid Rock an "affiliate" rather than "club" status that deprived it of those benefits.

According to the current handbook, clubs must not be affiliated with any commercial or for-profit organization or religious institution. An official told the clubs advisor that "due to an internal audit, funding will not be allowed for religious organizations."

Read this article:
Christian club sues Snow College over alleged free speech issues