Category Archives: Free Speech

A federal judge today all but threw out Michael Jordan’s lawsuit against Jewel-Osco over a congratulatory ad it ran when he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame three years ago.

Judge Gary Feinerman ruled that the ad, which appeared in a Sports Illustrated issue commemorating Jordan’s induction, was “noncommercial speech” protected by the First Amendment.

But he deferred a ruling on whether to toss the case until the parties submit detailed briefs next month.

The ad featured a pair of basketball shoes with the number 23 on the soles below the words “Jewel-Osco salutes #23 on his many accomplishments as we honor a fellow Chicagoan who was ‘just around the corner’ for so many years.”

The ad includes the Jewel-Osco logo and the grocery chain’s slogan “Good things are just around the corner.”

“The page does not propose any kind of commercial transaction,” Feinerman wrote, contrasting it with a 1993 General Motors television ad that compared Kareem Abdul Jabbar to an Oldsmobile.

“The reader would see the Jewel page for precisely what it is – a tribute by an established Chicago business to Chicago’s most accomplished athlete.

He also found that the use of Jewel’s slogan in the ad was “simply a play on words” and offered a hypothetical 2009 ad from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Congratulations to our Lakers for ‘terminating’ the Orlando Magic and bringing home yet another NBA title, and to Kobe Bryant for winning the Finals MVP. Let me join all Angelenos in saying that Kobe and the team will surely “be back” in the 2010 (season)!”

A Jewel-Osco spokesman issued a statement saying the company was “pleased” by the judge’s ruling.

“We continue to believe that we acted appropriately and that we will prevail in this matter,” said spokesman Mike Siemienas.

Jordan’s attorney, Fred Sperling, said “we disagree with the court’s ruling.”

“Jewel’s witnesses testified that Jewel used Michael’s identity in its ad to promote its goods and services. That is an admission that the ad was commercial speech.”

A lawsuit Jordan filed against Dominick’s Finer Foods, LLC after it ran an ad in the same Sports Illustrated issue saying the Hall-of-Famer was “a cut above” next to a $2 off “Rancher’s Reserve” steak coupon is pending in federal court.

sschmadeke@tribune.com

More here:
Judge: Ads relating to Michael Jordan are free speech

A federal judge today all but threw out Michael Jordan’s lawsuit against Jewel-Osco over a congratulatory ad it ran when he was inducted into the Basketball Hall of Fame three years ago.

Judge Gary Feinerman ruled that the ad, which appeared in a Sports Illustrated issue commemorating Jordan’s induction, was “noncommercial speech” protected by the First Amendment.

But he deferred a ruling on whether to toss the case until the parties submit detailed briefs next month.

The ad featured a pair of basketball shoes with the number 23 on the soles below the words “Jewel-Osco salutes #23 on his many accomplishments as we honor a fellow Chicagoan who was ‘just around the corner’ for so many years.”

The ad includes the Jewel-Osco logo and the grocery chain’s slogan “Good things are just around the corner.”

“The page does not propose any kind of commercial transaction,” Feinerman wrote, contrasting it with a 1993 General Motors television ad that compared Kareem Abdul Jabbar to an Oldsmobile.

“The reader would see the Jewel page for precisely what it is – a tribute by an established Chicago business to Chicago’s most accomplished athlete.

He also found that the use of Jewel’s slogan in the ad was “simply a play on words” and offered a hypothetical 2009 ad from then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

“Congratulations to our Lakers for ‘terminating’ the Orlando Magic and bringing home yet another NBA title, and to Kobe Bryant for winning the Finals MVP. Let me join all Angelenos in saying that Kobe and the team will surely “be back” in the 2010 (season)!”

A Jewel-Osco spokesman issued a statement saying the company was “pleased” by the judge’s ruling.

“We continue to believe that we acted appropriately and that we will prevail in this matter,” said spokesman Mike Siemienas.

Jordan’s attorney, Fred Sperling, said “we disagree with the court’s ruling.”

“Jewel’s witnesses testified that Jewel used Michael’s identity in its ad to promote its goods and services. That is an admission that the ad was commercial speech.”

A lawsuit Jordan filed against Dominick’s Finer Foods, LLC after it ran an ad in the same Sports Illustrated issue saying the Hall-of-Famer was “a cut above” next to a $2 off “Rancher’s Reserve” steak coupon is pending in federal court.

sschmadeke@tribune.com

See the article here:
Judge: Michael Jordan ads are free speech

Montana's high court challenges the moral basis for the US Supreme Court's Citizens United ruling that spawned super PACs. The high court needs to rebalance free speech vs. democracy.

More than a century ago, a Montana industrialist named W.A. Clark used his wealth to buy a seat in the US Senate. Mark Twain wrote that Clark’s well-monied politicking had so sweetened corruption in Montana that “it no longer has an offensive smell.”

Skip to next paragraph

The state’s voters did rise up, however, at the power of money. They passed the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act. Ever since, the law has prohibited corporate spending on state political campaigns.

Now the law is under challenge in the US Supreme Court – the same court that decided in its 2010 Citizens United ruling that corporations have free-speech rights in unlimited spending on campaigns because there is no compelling case that they will demand something in return from politicians. The ruling has spawned a new kind of political-action committee, the “super PACs” now dominating the 2012 election campaigns.

The high court is reviewing a decision in December by the Montana Supreme Court that found the state still has a continuing and compelling interest to justify speech restrictions on corporations under the 1912 law.

Montana, being a state with a sparse population that is highly dependent on big farms and expensive mining, is “especially vulnerable to continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government,” the state court wrote.

It cited many historical and recent examples of well-financed corruption as well as the fact that corporations have “a substantial presence and are active participants in Montana politics. The many lobbyists and political committees who participate in each session of the Montana Legislature bear witness.”

In addition, the court found a negative influence on voter enthusiasm from the outsized effects of corporate money. Even Clark himself admitted in 1900 that “[m]any people have become so indifferent to voting” in Montana as a result of the “large sums of money that have been expended in the state....”

The Montana court isn’t challenging the US Supreme Court directly on its reasoning in the Citizens ruling. Instead, it points to the ruling’s demand for a compelling interest – evidence – to curb corporate speech. In Montana, if not elsewhere, the evidence is clear.

If the US justices take the Montana case, they have a chance to refine their 2010 ruling and acknowledge that many states have a compelling case to curb big-money influence. Too many elected leaders allow big donors to influence official decisions.

The corrosive effects of big money on democracy are the legal equivalent of yelling fire in a crowded theater – a reason to impinge on free-speech rights under certain circumstances. The high court must find a better balance between its protection of free speech for corporations and the rights of a democracy to protect itself from large campaign donors who expect favors.

Read more:
Montana's challenge to 'super PACs'

Booksellers offering their wares in Old Delhi, India. (Photo: Natalia Antelava)

Dozens of books have been banned in India because of their themes and topics. The country is trying to get Google and Facebook to devise a means of pre-filtering religiously objectionable content. All this, taken together, has many saying the country's freedom of speech is disappearing.

Book sellers in Old Delhi spread their goods on the pavement along one the city’s busiest streets every Sunday.

People push and shove as they scan rows of books laid out on the road. From Tolstoy in Russian to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, it looks as if you could find anything here. But you can’t.

A bookseller offers an obscure tome on Siberian railroad systems by Salman Rushdie. But ask instead for a copy of India’s most famous author's best known book, “The Satanic Verses” and the conversation is over.

The man just grins and looks away.

Rushdie’s 1988 novel infuriated some Muslims for its portrayal of the Prophet Muhammad. More than 20 years after its publication, the book is still banned in India.

Last month, Rushdie canceled a visit to India after he was told it was too dangerous for him to take part in a literary festival in Jaipur. He accused the Indian government of fabricating threats and preventing him from coming, just to please Muslim voters ahead of a key regional election.

Nilanjana Roy, an Indian literary critic, said whether Rushdie’s right, people who are running the world’s biggest democracy are failing to protect free speech.

“This entire business about having to cave in because the other side is being violent means you are allowing yourself to be bullied,” she said. “It is the state’s job to stand up and say we will not allow that to happen.”

It’s not just the Satanic Verses. Dozens of books and films are banned in India, often because of what’s deemed offensive religious content, though one of the Indiana Jones movies is banned for its so-called imperialistic tendencies and racist portrayal of Indians. Roy said she worries where things are heading.

“If everyone is free to claim offense, it will become less and less possible to accuse a politician of corruption, for example,” Roy said. “We love comparing ourselves to China in terms of how free we are, but if you look closely on it we’ve slid down to 122nd place in the list of countries when it comes to media freedom, to Internet freedom. That isn’t a happy ranking.”

Comparisons with China are growing increasingly common in India. Last year the country’s communications minister asked social networking sites to devise a system to filter and block “objectionable” comments. And the Delhi High Court is currently reviewing a case filed against 20 companies, including Google and Facebook, demanding that they pre-screen religiously “offensive” comments.

Vinay Rai, editor of Akbari magazine, who filed the criminal lawsuit, said India is a country that needs some censorship.

“Posting offensive content in a socially conservative country, which has a history of religious violence, presents a real danger to public,” Roy said.

But even when there’s no obvious danger to the public, the Indian government may still take offense.

Recently, a joke on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno turned into a diplomatic incident. The Indian government complained to the U.S. State Department after Leno showed a photo of India’s Golden Temple, which is sacred to Sikhs, and described it as Mitt Romney’s summer home.

The issue of free expression has prompted heated discussion in India. In a debate that was later televised, Shoma Chaudhury, managing editor of the liberal Tehelka magazine, recently took on Justice Markandey Katju, the government-appointed head of India's press council.

“India is different,” Katju said. “For many in India, freedom is food and security.”

“But how do you change a society unless you push the boundaries?” Chaudhury asked. “How will the boundaries of the society be pushed unless we question them?”

But pushing boundaries can be dangerous here. There is a growing list of artists, writers, academics and journalists who have been beaten, harassed and pushed into exile.

In central Delhi, an artist named Balbir Krishan, a double amputee who is also openly gay, was attacked during a recent exhibition by masked men who pushed him to the ground and kicked him. His most recent work deals with gay themes.

The men shouted “Get out of the country, you don’t belong here.” It was only after 24 hours of media pressure that the police launched an investigation.

“It’s going to become more dangerous,” Krishan said. “I am scared.”

Krishan said his role as an artist is to show people things they don’t want to see, to make people uncomfortable and make them think.

But he added that unless politicians step in and protect his right to do that, then the voices of those who are against him will become louder and clearer than his.

----------------------------------------------------------

"PRI's "The World" is a one-hour, weekday radio news magazine offering a mix of news, features, interviews, and music from around the globe. "The World" is a co-production of the BBC World Service, PRI and WGBH Boston. More about The World.

Go here to see the original:
In India, free speech a wavering ideal

13-02-2012 01:02 Dr.Nick Feat Monarch and Mr.HK (of Free Speech Syndicate) track recorded on 2/12/12 at SEM studio prod. by Russell Rock

Read the original here:
Dr.Nick feat. Monarch and Mr. Hk (of Free Speech Syndicate) -"Been Too Long" - Video

13-02-2012 13:45 The ACLJ is an advocate for your religious liberties, free speech and constitutional rights.

View post:
ACLJ Fighting for Your Rights - Video

Underlying the heated political discussion surrounding the Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions conference last weekend was an issue that has long been intertwined with the University’s history: the First Amendment.

However, the BDS conference is not the first time that controversial speakers brought to campus by student groups have caused tension and debate over freedom of speech.

From student protests during the Vietnam War era to various racially charged disputes, Penn is no stranger to questions of what types of speech it will protect — and where, if ever, it should draw the line.

BDS and beyond

In the weeks leading up to BDS, students and faculty debated the administration’s policy to allow the conference on campus.

In a Feb. 2 Daily Pennsylvanian guest column, Penn President Amy Gutmann and Board of Trustees Chair David Cohen wrote that, while the University disagreed with the positions espoused by BDS, “we recognize and respect their right to open expression.”

Penn Friends of Israel President and College sophomore Noah Feit said he was pleased that Penn allowed BDS to take place on campus.

“It sends a clear message that we’re open for free speech, and I hope it will extend to everyone,” he said.

While Feit disagrees with the political message behind BDS, he added that he does not think it should have been censored.

“It’s an issue that’s really important and deserves to be debated in the academic setting,” PennBDS member and College freshman Clarissa O’Conor added. “There was no hate speech whatsoever on the part of the organizers or the people who attended the conference.”

Others, however, have said that Penn should not have allowed the BDS conference to take place.

“Allowing such rhetoric on campus amounts to an implicit, if not an explicit, endorsement of BDS,” 1958 Wharton graduate Eugene Jaffe wrote in an email.

Looking back, previous Penn administrations have also had to address outcry over events dealing with free speech and sensitive topics.

In 1988, for example, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan — who is known for his radically anti-Semitic views — was invited to speak at Penn by 10 campus groups.

“Many people harshly criticized the administration for allowing him to come on campus and preach hate speech,” University Archives and Records Center Director Mark Frazier Lloyd said.

Soon before the speech took place, Sheldon Hackney — who was Penn’s president at the time of the Farrakhan visit — told The New York Times that “I’m hoping it will be an occasion for some educational discussions of race relations on campus. But it could be confrontational and arouse a lot of emotion in which nothing constructive can take place.”

Racial controversy also came to the fore of discussion at Penn during the 1993 “water buffalo incident.”

In the incident, Eden Jacobowitz, a freshman at the time, was charged with racial harassment under Penn’s Code of Conduct for shouting, “Shut up, you water buffalo!” at a group of black sorority sisters who were making noise outside his room in a high-rise College House. The charges — which were later dropped by the women and the Office of Student Conduct — brought Penn’s racial and sexual harassment speech policies under fire, according to Lloyd.

The incident “marked the beginning of an awareness of speech codes on campus and its impact on students … In the years since then, Penn has done a really good job of reforming its policies to be protective of student speech,” said Samantha Harris, director of legal and public advocacy for the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, a nonprofit organization that defends students’ free expression rights.

However, Penn’s free expression policy was once again brought into question in 2006, when the OSC brought charges against an undergraduate who took photos of two students having sex against a high-rise dormitory window. Although the charges were later dropped, the University drew criticism for its handling of the case from FIRE and The Chronicle of Higher Education.

How Penn stacks up

Despite these past disputes, Penn today is considered a leader among universities in promoting freedom of speech and expression.

Penn currently has a “green light” ranking from FIRE. Receiving this highest possible ranking indicates that Penn’s written policies have been found to promote unrestricted free speech.

“Although private schools are not bound by the First Amendment the way state schools are, private universities are required to uphold the promises they make to their students,” Harris said.

Harris added that many universities routinely violate their speech codes, citing the recent firing of a Harvard University professor who expressed controversial views about Muslims in an Indian newspaper as an example of free speech restrictions at peer institutions.

“Academic freedom is fundamental to the central value of a university, and academic freedom demands that universities protect freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech,” Gutmann said. “The university must be a place of unfettered debate and the free exchange of ideas.”

Last year, FIRE named Penn one of the seven best colleges and universities in the country for freedom of speech. Among other Ivy League schools, only Dartmouth College also made the list.

A legacy of activism

As Penn’s speech codes have evolved over the years, so have the causes that Penn students have chosen to speak out about.

In the 1960s and 1970s, students and faculty organized anti-war rallies on College Green and protested local issues like the construction of Meyerson Hall and the University City Science Center. More recently, campus activism has taken form in the Occupy movement — through OccupyPenn’s teach-ins outside Van Pelt Library, as well as Occupy Philadelphia’s demonstrations inside Huntsman Hall on Oct. 21.

The issue of race relations has also continued to play a role in campus discourse, with last year’s silent protest against racism on College Green as the latest in a history of race-based discussions.

For History professor and FIRE co-founder Alan Kors, Penn has come a long way in its protection of freedom of speech over the decades.

“As long as Penn continues to protect freedom of expression with no double standards, which I believe it is currently doing, we all can and should live with speech we find wrong or wicked, to which the best response is further speech, legal protest and both intellectual and moral witness,” he wrote in an email. “A university should be a place that encourages debate.”

INTERACTIVE TIMELINE: Free speech at Penn

Link:
From ‘water buffalo’ to BDS, Penn faces free speech questions

On several occasions already, in what is still a very new year, various arms of the Indian state have recused themselves from their duty of protecting free speech, citing the threat of violence as fair justification. The Rajasthan police have been accused of inventing a plot to kill Salman Rushdie, in order to prevent the disruptions to public order that were promised by some Muslim organizations upon Mr. Rushdie’s visit to the Jaipur Literature Festival.

In Lucknow, a play satirizing the Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati was banned. In Hyderabad and Pune, police “advised” the organizers of seminars – on Mr. Rushdie and on Kashmir, respectively – to cancel their events. On Twitter, Taslima Nasreen claimed that the “Kolkata police asked Kolkata Book Fair committee to cancel my book release program.” In all these instances, the potential for actual violence was unclear; what was more apparent was the state’s eagerness to choose the easiest way out by simply suspending the exercise of free speech.

Perhaps the most biting legal opinion of such spinelessness came in 1989, in a Supreme Court case called S. Rangarajan vs. P. Jagjivan Ram. Mr. Rangarajan, a film producer in Chennai (then Madras), was fighting for his right to release “Ore Oru Gramathile,” a movie that criticized the caste-based reservation policy in Tamil Nadu’s educational institutions. Members of the Dr. Ambedkar People’s Movement and the Republican Party of India had already embarked upon protests, and the general secretary of the Republican Party had warned that demonstrators “would not hesitate to damage the cinema.” In response, the Tamil Nadu government had stopped the film’s release, fearing “very serious” law and order problems across the state. Professing himself by turns amused, troubled and anguished, Justice K. J. Shetty wrote: “The State cannot plead its inability to handle the hostile audience problem. It is its obligatory duty to prevent it and protect the freedom of expression.”

The plot of “Ore Oru Gramathile” (“In a Single Village”) runs as follows: Shankara Sastry, a Brahmin, procures a fake lower-caste certificate for his daughter Gayathri, worried that she will otherwise not be able to attend university. Gayathri turns out to be a good student and, later, an excellent civil servant, but when she is working on a flood-relief mission in a village named Annavayil, she is recognized and her true caste exposed. In rousing court scenes, Gayathri and her father argue that the reservation policy should be based on economic backwardness and not on caste. Improbably, the case against Gayathri is withdrawn when the people of Annavayil flood the government with petitions demanding that she be restored to her job. (“As usual,” Justice Shetty wrote in his judgment, the film “contains some songs, dance and side attractions to make the film more delectable.”)

S. Rangarajan, the film’s producer, passed away a few years ago. His son Ramesh, as well as Aryama Sundaram and S. Raghunathan, two senior lawyers who worked on the case, helped reconstruct the chain of events that led to Justice Shetty’s landmark judgment.

S. Raghunathan: The movie was based on a script by a poet named Vaali. That was called something else – I don’t quite remember that title now. By that time, S. Rangarajan had been producing films for a number of years. He made “Gauravam,” which was an excellent movie.

Ramesh Rangarajan: My father felt very strongly about [reservation policy]. He saw that some people who got the barest passing mark would get into college, and others who got 90 percent would not. It was a bold movie, and nobody was prepared to make it, so it came to him. He took it as a challenge. In a way, maybe he knew he was going to face this [legal challenge].

S. Raghunathan: At the time, Aryama and I were part of a firm called Natraj, Rao, Raghu & Sundaram. We were partners. S. Rangarajan being my brother-in-law, this case came to us, and Aryama got really deeply involved with it. It was immediately apparent that this could be a landmark case.

Aryama Sundaram: “Ore Oru Gramathile” was clearly a movie on reverse discrimination. It was very hard-hitting, because it criticized the Supreme Court’s upholding of reservation, and it criticized politicians who were using reservation as a method of stirring up passions. It had gone for censorship approval [in August 1987], and first the committee refused the certificate. Then an appellate committee granted it, and a second revising committee [in December 1987] also approved a certificate. At which point, a writ petition was filed in the Madras High Court.

S. Raghunathan: There had been a few demonstrations outside the offices of The Hindu [where S. Rangarajan was publisher] by the Dravidar Kazhagam and the Dr. Ambedkar People’s Movement. So this was what the government was pointing to, when it said that there might be law and order problems.

Ramesh Rangarajan: By this time, the distributors of the film had started to worry. A lot of money was stuck. Anybody else, I think, would have just shelved the whole bloody project.

The writ petition was dismissed by a single judge in the Madras High Court, but on appeal, a Division Bench allowed the petition and revoked the censor certificate that had been granted.

Aryama Sundaram: So it came up before the bench, and there were long arguments on it, and on a Thursday, judgment was reserved after hearing these arguments. But in the meantime, the government of India had given the film a national award, in the “Best Film on Social Issues” category. It hadn’t even been released, but we had sent it in.

Ramesh Rangarajan: It won an award! That was the beauty of this whole thing!

S. Raghunathan: I must have watched this film at least four times in that period, including once with the judges in the Division Bench. There was a brilliant performance by Lakshmi [Narayan, the starring actress], I remember.

Aryama Sundaram: The award was supposed to be presented by the president on Monday, in New Delhi. On Friday, at 3 p.m., the bench sent for us and told us that the film was banned for opposing reservation policy and going against the judgments [on reservation] of the Supreme Court. They also said that they were restraining the government from giving this award. It was a very long judgment – a hundred-odd pages – which was in a way a blessing in disguise, because it gave the Supreme Court a chance to reiterate the Constitution’s values of free speech.

Ramesh Rangarajan: I was in my first or second year of college when this was all happening, and I remember my father coming home every day from his office to tell us what had happened in court.

S. Raghunathan: Rangarajan was initially not very worried about this process, but in its later stages, he started to become very tense. I don’t remember him personally appearing in the high court, or even in the Supreme Court. But he never really expected the decision to go against us, I think, because this was such flimsy ground.

Aryama Sundaram: After the Division Bench gave us its judgment, we prepared an overnight appeal to the Supreme Court and filed it on Saturday morning. We got special permission from the Chief Justice of India to have the case listed. It was the first case listed on Monday morning, and the Supreme Court immediately stayed the order as far as the award was concerned.

S. Raghunathan: Ramesh had to rush from the
court to Siri Fort Auditorium to receive the award from the president that Monday.

Aryama Sundaram: Justice Shetty was an excellent judge, and I think the others on that bench were Justices K. N. Singh and Kuldip Singh. They heard really elaborate arguments and saw the film as well, with English subtitles. Then [on March 30, 1989] they upheld the right of the producer to release the film, and they held that freedom of speech could not be suppressed. And I had expected exactly this. I remember there were huge demonstrations outside the Supreme Court on the days of arguments, by people thinking they could influence the court. But fortunately they couldn’t.

S. Rangarajan: There’s no doubt about it: The spirit of that judgment is being violated today [with the Rushdie affair and others].

Aryama Sundaram: Look at this situation today. If people want to suppress somebody saying something, threatening some violence is the line of least resistance. This is exactly what Justice Shetty was talking about. Rangarajan believed in his film, and he felt it had a right to say what it did.

More:
India Ink: From Tamil Film, a Landmark Case on Free Speech

Question: The American Civil Liberties Union is backing a lawsuit filed against Twin Lakes School Corp., which asked a Roosevelt Middle School eighth-grader to remove a breast cancer awareness bracelet -- which read "I (Heart) Boobies" -- or turn it inside out. The suit contends that wearing the bracelet was a matter of free speech and should have been allowed. What's your take?

• As correctly stated in Tinker v. Des Moines, First Amendment speech rights apply to youths as well as adults and don't end at the schoolhouse door. Twin Lakes' decision to threaten expulsion for doing something so harmless boggles the mind and embarrasses the corporation.

Frank Arnold

Lafayette

• Hasn't this all been covered before? Under free speech, students are allowed to wear arguably offensive T-shirts as long as the district retained the right to make sure the shirts don't cause a disruption of the school process. The same will apply to the breast cancer awareness bracelets.

Edward Priest

Battle Ground

• Breasts. Now there's something controversial. Next it'll be elbows. Or fingers. Middle fingers, even.

Jason Dufair

West Lafayette

• Either support the rules/dress codes established by your schools, be a part of changing the rules (without lawsuits) or home-school your children. I'm a breast cancer survivor and dislike that slogan because I find the wording demeaning -- even though the intention is good. There are better ways to fight cancer and exercise free speech.

Jane Anderson

West Lafayette

• Where do you draw the line? How far will attention-getters take you? Do you think he was wearing that bracelet for what it said or for what it stood for?

Mark Acles

Lafayette

• What part of "no" do these kids/parents not understand? Rules are rules. That's why no guns, knives, etc., are allowed in school. Cancer has nothing to do with "I (Heart) Boobies." Imagine a doctor telling a woman "Gee, Mrs. Jones, sorry, you have boobie cancer!"

Cliff Davenport

Rossville

• Would it have been "free speech" if the same boy went down the hall at school just saying the words. Can we call the word "bomb" at the airport free speech? I would not allow my child to wear the bracelet to school. The words are not appropriate in school.

(Page 2 of 5)

Shelby Branstetter

Lafayette

• The school is fighting a battle it did not need to take on. All it did was make a cause celebre of the student, which was exactly what he was striving for. Common sense is such a lacking commodity. I assume this school has no other "issues" that need attention versus this earth-shattering situation.

Bud Wang

Lafayette

• If this is a legitimate charity for breast cancer research, it is protected free speech. Bad taste and no class still is protected speech.

Furman A. Powell

Lafayette

• Catholic charities are being forced by the federal government to go against their theological convictions and provide support for birth control. In the meantime, the ACLU courageously stands against local school board authority to regulate classroom conduct and champions a teenager's right to tacky fashion accessories. Is that Nero's fiddle I hear?

Eric Schlene

West Lafayette

• Three things I would bet a significant amount of money on: 1. Whoever told the student he didn't want it in his school has never lost a mother, or wife, to breast cancer. 2. Administrators are not paying for the ensuing litigation. 3. It probably wasn't a girl wearing the bracelet, which brings up a whole other issue.

Jim Derringer

Lafayette

• To provide an environment conducive to learning, we ask our schools to define and enforce codes of conduct, dress and speech. When gray areas arise in the interpretation of these codes, I think we should generally back the school administrators and save our concerns for an annual review of the codes.

Jim Cook

Delphi

• If the kid is running around hollering, "Look! It says boobies!," then maybe you do something. Otherwise, take it easy, everybody. In 1970, I was sent home from school for the heinous crime of not having a belt on, while teachers were measuring guys' sideburns and girls' skirts. Seems silly now.

Rick Mummey

Lafayette

• I think public schools have the responsibility to maintain some standards of decency, norms and non-disruption of education when it comes to clothing and language allowed in school. But "boobies?" Do they actually listen to students in the hallways?

(Page 3 of 5)

Noemi Ybarra

Lafayette

• There is freedom of speech, and then there is good judgment. We substitute words to convey what we wished we could say all the time on TV. A school is where we send our children to teach them civility and how to apply good judgment. Apparently the ACLU doesn't get it.

E. Lloyd Wells

Lafayette

• I've always believed that free speech demands good taste supporting any point. By anyone's standards, this cannot be considered in good taste. I support breast cancer awareness. Loved ones dear to my heart have suffered from breast cancer, but "boobies" lowers the taste standard. They're breasts, not boobies.

Tom Haynie

Buffalo

• I'd like to know why they made those bracelets with those words on them in the first place.

Kevin Spires

Lafayette

• If we didn't have government-run schools, this wouldn't be a problem. Civil liberties would not be implicated because this would be a private dispute over the terms of the contract between the school and the student.

Rob Keeney

Flora

• I think breast cancer is a serious and sensitive matter to those who have had it. The bracelet borders on being inappropriate for a student, or an adult for that matter. There are many ways to show your support for breast cancer awareness without making fun of it.

Dennis Donoho

Sedalia

• I agree with the school's actions. It's time to use some common sense here. If it's disruptive or profane, it shouldn't be allowed in school. It is, however, time for frivolous lawsuits to reap some consequences for those who pursue them.

Christopher D. Fullerton

Reynolds

• Today we seem to be able to make a mountain out of the smallest molehill. We all need to lighten up on the small stuff and focus on solving our really big problems -- ones that put our whole country at risk of collapse.

Carl V. Covely Jr.

Sheffield Township

•
Most schools have rules against wearing clothing that depicts alcohol, tobacco and gang symbols. If we allow students to break this rule this time, then we might as well allow them to wear whatever they want. There are other ways to show support for breast cancer awareness than this bracelet.

(Page 4 of 5)

Terry Smith

Shadeland

• In this case, as the message on the bracelet is deliberately suggestive (albeit for a good cause), it is appropriate for the school to disallow it. Allowing it would open a floodgate of slogans that are nominally for good causes but suggestive. This is middle school after all.

Randy Myer

Lafayette

• I believe the school has the right set and enforce rules. Would it be all right for a student to yell out, "I love boobies," in school? Is that free speech, and should it be allowed? I don't think so. There are much more important issues to tackle than this.

Jon Sexson

Lafayette

• The ACLU really needs to be banned from the United States of America. But, if the ACLU were in any other country on the planet, it would have been dissolved 50 years ago as political enemies against national security. Isn't this a great country?

Tom Anderson

Lafayette

• Clearly, not everything that is "speech" is protected by the First Amendment, which reads, "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech." Twin Lakes School Corp. is not Congress. I hope it re-reads the Constitution, then sends the ACLU packing. What an excellent teaching opportunity.

Jon Held

Lafayette

• Neither the teachers, nor the students, really have free speech in school. If this weren't a popular charity, would we be having this discussion? A no boobies policy is every bit as appropriate as banning "God hates fags" shirts. School is not the place to make political or religious statements.

Scott Schnarr

Rossville

• It is a matter of free speech, but the courts have time and again given schools leeway to blunt this kind of thing. From dress codes on T-shirts to censoring student newspapers, the courts almost always side with the school. If I ran the school, I would allow it, but then the only words the offend me are the ones written to censor others.

Mike Dudgeon

Lafayette

• If the boy can't wear it because of his gender, then girls can't wear it because of sexual preference. Sounds fair to me.

(Page 5 of 5)

Ray Faber

Crawfordsville

• I know the money is going for breast cancer research, but my grandson, who is a freshman in high school, wears one and all his friends wear one, and they like it because it says, "I love boobies." To him, it doesn't have anything to do with awareness of breast cancer. I wish he would not wear it because I don't think he and others are wearing it to raise awareness of breast cancer. Breast cancer is not a joke.

Jean Wichterman

Lafayette

• The school has a right to limit distractions to the learning environment. An eighth-grade boy wearing anything with "boobies" is a distraction. Life is very hard on people who fight every injustice to this degree. Sadly, his parents are missing an opportunity to teach him this valuable lesson. Mom and dad are the problem here, not their son.

Tim Delworth

West Lafayette

• This is just another classic example of the ACLU backing anything titillating (pun completely intended). It is a statement promoting "breast awareness" as much as "breast cancer awareness," as a letter-writer penned last week. The double entendre is completely intended and if the bracelet is causing a distraction, then it should be removed. If incessant giggling has not resulted from its presence, then leave it alone -- they are giving more attention in a negative way and the fight against breast cancer does not need that, either.

Carol Sikler

Lafayette

• We are in the North Montgomery County School Corp. My nephew had the same response. I think it's absolutely ridiculous. I think that more important issues should be addressed in today's school systems. 1. The dress attire for the young ladies is atrocious. Mini skirts that you can almost see their underwear. Tops cut so low to see cleavage. Not to mention the young men who wear pants to their knees. It's disgusting and vulgar. So what if a student wears a bracelet that states, "I (Heart) Boobies?" Maybe his/her grandmother, mother, aunt, sister, cousin, or close friend is a survivor! You don't know that. Or simply he/she likes boobies and wants to let everyone know that. At least he/she is not going around touching women's breasts! Really! Geesh!

Julie Thompson

New Richmond

• Fighting the battle for purity of language is a lost cause. It would behoove schools to communicate in the students' language if they wish to impart information. Judging by the state government's evisceration of our educational system, I have no doubt they'll come up with a verbal version of the chastity belt.

Ed Posey

West Lafayette

• Even a blind squirrel (the ACLU) finds an acorn once in a while.

Jason Roehl

Lafayette

• Where are the parents of this child? The ACLU has gotten out of hand. This type of thing is wasting court time and taxpayer money. I am glad the school administrators have some backbone. Too bad they have to parent this child as to appropriate behavior in school.

Dan Sommers

West Lafayette

Go here to read the rest:
Rapid response: I (HEART) ... school rules vs. free speech

An anonymous reader writes "Jeffrey Rosen, Legal Affairs Editor for The New Republic, explains why the E.U.'s proposed data protection regulation known as the right to be forgotten is actually 'the biggest threat to free speech on the Internet in the coming decade.' In the Stanford Law Review Online (there's a shorter version in TNR), he writes: 'The right to be forgotten could make Facebook and Google, for example, liable for up to two percent of their global income if they fail to remove photos that people post about themselves and later regret, even if the photos have been widely distributed already. Unless the right is defined more precisely when it is promulgated over the next year or so, it could precipitate a dramatic clash between European and American conceptions of the proper balance between privacy and free speech, leading to a far less open Internet.' According to Rosen, the 'right' goes farther than previously thought, treating 'takedown requests for truthful information posted by others identically to takedown requests for photos I've posted myself that have then been copied by others: both are included in the definition of personal data as "any information relating" to me, regardless of its source.' Examples of previous attempts this might bolster include 'efforts by two Germans convicted of murdering a famous actor to remove their criminal history from the actor's Wikipedia page' and an 'Argentine pop star [who] had posed for racy pictures when she was young, but recently sued Google and Yahoo to take them down.'"

Follow this link:
Europe's 'Right To Be Forgotten' Threatens Online Free Speech