The Power of Recycling and of Words

One woman changed the way we throw out our trash.

First amendment.

States' rights ... and wrongs

You go, Georgia!

A Georgia man panicked parents and children at a local park and baseball field by randomly walking around and displaying his gun to anyone he encountered in the parking lot. According to witnesses who spoke with WSB-TV, the man wandered around the Forsythe County park last Tuesday night showing his gun to strangers, telling them “there’s nothing you can do about it.”

Just what exactly did you think would happen when you pass these kinds of laws? That people would behave in a civilized manner?  Really?

You go, South Carolina!

SC GOP candidate: Women cause ’95 percent’ of divorces by loving their kids too much

And

SC Republican wants to end public schools: Nothing ‘in the Bible about state education’

And you go, Tennessee!

TENNESSEE PASSES BILL ALLOWING THE BULLYING OF LGBT STUDENTS IN THE NAME OF ‘RELIGIOUS FREEDOM’

You go, Alabama!

Alabama’s chief justice: Buddha didn’t create us so First Amendment only protects Christians

You go, New York!

 NYC cyclist arrested for using cellphone to film cop, told iPhones are ‘being used as guns’

Occupy it all

And so, at bottom, we have a spiritual crisis. How long can people of goodwill support billy-clubbed police officers knocking about citizens who are peaceably assembling, as is their right? If they assemble for longer than you want them to, then it's inconvenience versus the First Amendment. It is not OK to shout "fire" in a crowded theater just because you don't like the movie.

Really, the police and the city officials should be guarding the rights of those with legitimate grievances. They should protect those who have been laid waste by the rest of society. That's what government is for, to ensure that constitutional liberties are maintained. Anything else is just oligarchy.

There is a constituency here, people who have lost their homes or their jobs or life savings because of a system designed to make them suckers. They have experienced a profound loss of faith, and that is what will still be true come spring. I don't think this thing is going away anytime soon.

What would Jesus do? Chase the moneychangers from the temple, is my guess. There's precedent.

Says right there in black and white....

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Update: Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist association in Connecticut.:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.

Update10/21: The Dunning–Kruger effect which is apparently the strongest in Americans:

Kruger and Dunning proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:

tend to overestimate their own level of skill;

fail to recognize genuine skill in others;

fail to recognize the extremity of their inadequacy;

recognize and acknowledge their own previous lack of skill, if they can be trained to substantially improve.

They never stop trying

To take over the world, do they?

Citizens United, Take Two

The Supreme Court case that could help corporations keep their massive election spending secret.

— By Stephanie Mencimer

This week, congressional Democrats are crafting legislation to undo the Supreme Court's recent decision in Citizens United, which allowed unlimited corporate spending in elections. At the same time, the legal genius behind that case will be asking the court to take a whack at another long-standing pillar of campaign finance transparency: state disclosure laws. Call it Citizens United, take two.

On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in Doe v. Reed, a case from Washington state that looks at whether the public disclosure of referendum petitions violates signers' First Amendment rights to privacy, free association, and free speech. While important on its own, Reed is also a warmup for cases coming down the pipeline in California and Maine over whether disclosing the names of campaign donors violates free speech rights by exposing contributors to harassment and other unpleasantness. Together, these cases form a backdoor assault on one of the most accepted tenets of clean elections: that the public should be able to see where the money is coming from.

Putting our trust in one single company

What could possibly go wrong?:

The ACLU has taken on a patent case for the first time in its nearly 90-year history. The government’s been allowing private companies to patent human genes. The ACLU thinks that violates the First Amendment and patent law. This is heady, complicated stuff. But when a patent creates a monopoly that restricts the free flow of information, a lot is at stake, and when we’re talking about something like genes associated with breast and ovarian cancer, real women are hurt. This video about the case features some of those women’s stories.

Thank you, ACLU!

Representative Sali suddenly realizes he has cooties

Because a Hindu was allowed to pray aloud on the floor of the House and we have an actual breathing Muslim member of Congress. Who has been there since this session started. Which was in January. Of this year. Not too quick off the mark is he?

PZ Myers:

Last month, the U.S. Senate was opened for the first time ever with a Hindu prayer. Although the event generated little outrage on Capitol Hill, Representative Bill Sali (R-Idaho) is one member of Congress who believes the prayer should have never been allowed.

"We have not only a Hindu prayer being offered in the Senate, we have a Muslim member of the House of Representatives now, Keith Ellison from Minnesota. Those are changes -- and they are not what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers," asserts Sali.

Sali says America was built on Christian principles that were derived from scripture. He also says the only way the United States has been allowed to exist in a world that is so hostile to Christian principles is through "the protective hand of God."

Maha of Mahablog:

In fact, one of the Founders did speak to this. Thomas Jefferson wrote about this in his autobiography, discussing the adoption of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom:

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason & right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that it’s protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word “Jesus Christ,” so that it should read “a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion.” The insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of it’s protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and infidel of every denomination.

Seems pretty clear to me. It’s a shame we elect people like Bill Sali who doesn’t share America’s true founding values, huh?

David Neiwert of Orcinus:

But what we do know about them is that they believed in the freedom of religion. It's one of America's true founding values. See, e.g., the First Amendment.

If you talk to most Christians, actually, they get this. They understand that the freedom of religion -- the absolute freedom to find and practice any belief system you like, whether it's Abyssynian fire worship or atheism -- is what keeps us all together as Americans. It's our national glue. That's because it prevents any one belief system from imposing its values on any of the others. It implies an automatic respect for others' private religious beliefs.

This is true of a number of fairly conservative belief systems, including Mormonism (see the onrunning battle within the Republican religious right over Mitt Romney's candidacy), Catholicism (which has a long history of facing outrageous discrimination and demonization in America, e.g., the anti-Catholic Ku Klux Klan of the 1920s), and, for that matter, Islam, which behaviorally speaking is generally quite conservative, especially by Western standards.

People who come from these faiths instinctively understand that what enables them to practice their faiths as they wish is the freedom of religion. And Keith Ellison's presence in the House, and the saying of a Hindu prayer in the Senate, are crystalline examples of that freedom in action.

No one can say whether the Founding Fathers could have envisioned a day when international trade and communication were daily commonplaces in American lives; when immigrants would come to our shores from around the globe, bringing with them not just industry and creativity but also their various religious beliefs; when Muslims would become Americans and Americans Muslims. But that day certainly has come to pass. And in a competitive global economy fueled by the high technology we produce, we are the better for it.

Moreover, it's important to understand that Sali's words amount to hatemongering: He is arguing that Muslims do not belong in American society. This kind of exclusionism is not just profoundly antidemocratic, it's incredibly counterproductive in the 21st century.

Nor can Sali say legitimately that Muslims do not deserve representation on the floor of Congress. By definition in our democracy, Muslims have earned representation in the House by electing one of their own there.

Sali also clearly suggests that allowing Muslims to say prayers in Congress would at best alienate what he thinks is the Christian God, and at worst perhaps bring down His wrath on them. If that isn't an argument for excluding them, I don't know what it is.

Pastordan of Street Prophets has the last word:

Amidst the obvious intolerant jackass fireworks, Sali's use of scripture is easy to skip over. But the Matthew text he cites is not to be missed:

‘You have heard that it was said, “You shall love your neighbour and hate your enemy.” But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax-collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Wouldn't this say, you know, the exact opposite of what Sali intended?

Little wonder then that Right Wing Watch follows up the blockquote with this summary:

Sali, with the backing of the Club for Growth and a following of social conservatives, won a divisive Republican primary in his GOP district last year, despite warnings from fellow Republicans that Sali was “an absolute idiot.”

Sounds about right to me.

Amen!

Giuliani thinks he's Mussolini

And can arrest pesky reporters for asking the wrong questions.

Todd of Shakesville has the article and the video:

Apparently, at a recent press conference, Rudy Giuliani was asked a question about his prior knowledge of the collapse of the WTC towers - and the reporter was arrested at the orders of Giuliani’s press secretary. The reporter was taken to jail - in violation of the First Admendment - and is being charged with felony criminial trespass. Because the reporter was using a camera, state police are even considering charges of espionage.

Separated at birth?





Update 6/8, Giuliani just loves Bush and Cheney:


(found via Attaturk at Rising Hegemon.)

It doesn't matter if the banner said 'Bong Hits 4 Jesus'

Or 'Impeach George W. Bush', it is a matter of free speech. It wasn't even on the school campus.

Wikipedia:

Morse v. Frederick is a First Amendment student free speech case argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 19, 2007. The case involves Joseph Frederick, a then 18-year-old high school senior in Juneau, Alaska, now 24, who was suspended for 10 days after displaying a "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner across the street from his high school during the Winter Olympics Torch Relay in 2002.

Wikipedia's background:

In January 2002, students were released from Juneau-Douglas High School to watch the Olympic torch pass by. Frederick, who had not attended school that day, joined some friends on the sidewalk across from the high school (off school grounds). Frederick and his friends waited for the television cameras so they could unfurl a banner reading "Bong Hits 4 Jesus." When they displayed the banner, then-principal Deborah Morse ran across the street and seized it.

Morse initially suspended Joseph Frederick for five days for violating the school district's anti-drug policy, but increased the suspension to 10 days after he refused to give the names of his fellow participants and quoted Thomas Jefferson on free speech.^[2] Frederick administratively appealed his suspension to the Superintendent, who denied his appeal but limited it to the time Frederick had already spent out of school prior to his appeal to the Superintendent (eight days). Frederick then appealed to the Juneau School Board, which upheld the suspension on March 19, 2002. On April 25, 2002, Frederick filed a §1983 lawsuit against Morse and the school board in the United States District Court for the District of Alaska claiming they violated his federal and state constitutional rights to free speech.

Kenneth Starr, continuing to put his considerable might behind things that are of vital importance to the nation brings this case before the Supreme Court. He will make it about drugs and dirty hippies, it is really about free speech:

JUNEAU, Alaska - Former Whitewater special counsel Kenneth Starr petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up Alaska’s “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case, a dispute involving a high school student, a banner and a tough school policy.

Starr, who gained national prominence while investigating former President Clinton’s Whitewater land deal and relationship with Monica Lewinsky, filed the petition Monday on behalf of the Juneau School District in response to a March ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Frederick, then a senior, was off school property when he hoisted the banner but was suspended for violating the school’s policy of promoting illegal substances at a school-sanctioned event.

“The principal’s actions were so outrageous, basically leaving school grounds and punishing a student for a message that is not damaging to the school,” said his attorney, Doug Mertz.

Superintendent Peggy Cowan said clarification is needed on the rights of administrators when it comes to disciplinary action of students who break the district’s drug message policy.

“The district’s decision to move forward is not disrespectful to the First Amendment or the rights of students,” she said. “This is an important question about how the First Amendment applies to pro-drug messages in an educational setting.”

If the principal had had a sense of humor and just laughed it off, this would never have become a case. Either way this case goes, students everywhere will continue to challenge the limits of free speech.

Good.

Update: The Washington Post:

When a joke is taken seriously, that's irony, but when it's taken so seriously that the Supreme Court is called upon to determine how future jokes can be made, that's meta-irony. And yet, there it was, a Borat-like moment in the most hallowed of judicial halls: the Morse V. Frederick case. At question in the narrow interpretation: Was it wrong for an Alaska high school principal to tear down her student's banner during an off-campus field trip because it read "Bong Hits 4 Jesus?" And, despite the absurdity of hearing justices parse the minutia of that "sophomoric" prank, what was at stake in the wider scope could not have been more serious: the regulation of free speech within America's public schools.

[snip]

...a more narrow focus on the specifics of this case is necessary to further define what constitutes disruption and free speech. And this is where the oral arguments become really ironic. It appears that because Frederick's banner was a joke, and not a political statement (protected under Tinker V. Des Moines), he might be on shakier ground. The justices seemed to hint that if in the school's mind he was encouraging drug use rather than advocating its legalization, tearing down the banner may have been justified. That is to say, had it read "Vote Yes For Bong Hits" or "Give Pot A Chance" or "Make Marijuana Mandatory," he may have been better protected. However, as one reader noted -- and this case seems to exemplify -- humor and satire that point out absurdity are often vehicles for political statements. Take away students' capacity to mock authority, and you undermine political expression. Protect it, and every class clown will test and push the limits further. Therefore, it would seem no matter which way the Court leans, the joke's on them, and us.

Update 11/6/08:

The Juneau Board of Education has agreed to a settlement in the “Bong Hits 4 Jesus” case that led to a Supreme Court decision in its favor. Under the settlement, former Juneau-Douglas High School student Joseph Frederick will receive a $45,000 payment.

Something to remember as we teeter on the edge of the 2008 campaigning

Bryan at Why Now? reminds us there are no quick fixes. McCain wants get political points suggesting we legislate the internets: demanding fines for those who 'misuse' it?
Bryan: (My bold)
"I’m getting tired of all the crap required to comment anymore, but I’m turning furious at all of the attempts by pandering politicians to violate the letter and spirit of the First Amendment because it is considered a political plus.

McCain, and most politicians, don’t care about “collateral damage,” like Constitutional rights, only scoring political points. There aren’t any short cuts. Discover the crime, investigate it, determine the suspect, and prosecute. That’s what works - always. These wide-net tactics don’t work and just annoy innocent people to the point they give up on the government."

Those damned activist judges!

Always getting in the way and slowing down the New World Order!

"A federal judge struck down President Bush's authority to designate groups as terrorists, saying his post-Sept. 11 executive order was unconstitutional and vague.
Some parts of the Sept. 24, 2001 order tagging 27 groups and individuals as "specially designated global terrorists" were too vague and could impinge on First Amendment rights of free association, U.S. District Judge Audrey Collins said.

The order gave the president "unfettered discretion" to label groups without giving them a way to challenge the designations, she said in a Nov. 21 ruling that was made public Tuesday.

The judge, who two years ago invalidated portions of the U.S. Patriot Act, rejected several sections of Bush's Executive Order 13224 and enjoined the government from blocking the assets of two foreign groups."