The teacher and students learn together

When education actually educates.

I do not have to be tolerant of your intolerance.

Friday

Are you being persecuted because of your faith?  Because claiming you are persecuted is cool and makes people bond together against the bad guys and give money to churches and stuff.

We knew this when it happened.  It was obvious to those who could watch the news and think for themselves.  Bush and Cheney knew a lot more than they shared with us about Bin Laden and 9/11.  So when's the war crimes tribunal?

Jupiter saves Earth ... again.

If You Plan On Ever Getting Old And/Or Sick, You Need To See This

When the buffaloes roamed the prairies... and then when they didn't.

Should women be criminalized for having abortions?  Are we that close to losing the right to choose?  On the edge.

Scott Walker has a goon squad because 8x11 1/2 signs are a threat.  And being a mayor means you can do what you want.

Elizabeth Warren:



Rachel Maddow:  (sorry for the ads)

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Shut up shut up shut up!1!

Or you will get stomped, handcuffed, threatened, and wrestled to the ground. All because teabaggers love God, the Constitution, and free speech....

Update: waterboarded....

They're sneaking those anti-freedom of speech laws in

While we aren't looking!!1!!



Just give me a minute to think of the laws they've done here... um....

Don't be evil

The petition reads:

"As a Google user, I am telling you, 'Don't be evil.' The deal between Google and Verizon as reported by the New York Times is evil because it undermines the open Internet upon which hundreds of millions of people rely. Live up to your founding motto, walk away from this deal and save the Internet."

Tell Google what you think.

74 Democrats sold you out to AT&T, Verizon and Comcast

They signed industry-backed letters telling the FCC to abandon efforts to protect Internet users by prohibiting big companies from blocking Internet traffic.

Not only is this letter an attack on net neutrality, but by signing the industry letter, they are attempting to drastically undercut the FCC's ability to make a fast, affordable and open Internet available to everyone in America. They are actually taking a position against the interests of rural and low-income communities.

This is unacceptable.

We need to make sure these members of Congress know that their constituents are paying attention and will hold them accountable when they undermine net neutrality protections.

Sign our petition to these representatives telling them that you're upset by their decision to side with the wealthy telecommunications corporations over their constituents.

What this comes down to is a principle known as "net neutrality." Net neutrality means that Internet users, not Internet service providers, should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

Of course broadband providers are insisting that we should just trust them and there's no need for consumers to be protected by net neutrality rules. But we cannot trust AT&T, Verizon and Comcast to protect a free and open Internet any more than we could trust BP to protect the oceans.

Without strong net neutrality rules, we might have to rely upon the good will of large telecoms to protect our access to the diversity of political perspectives. We might have to trust companies like Comcast, which actively and secretly interfered with users' ability to access popular video, photo and music sharing applications. We might have to trust companies like AT&T, which censored anti-Bush comments made by Pearl Jam's lead singer during a concert.

A free and open Internet is an important part of 21st Century democracy, but these 74 House Democrats signed a letter that undercut the efforts of the FCC to make sure the Internet stays free and open.

In other words, they decided to stand with wealthy corporations rather than stand up for your interests.

The simple fact of the matter is that powerful companies with a vested interest in this fight like AT&T have armies of lobbyists to push their agenda.

If these 74 House Democrats are going to get the message that it's unacceptable for them to sell out their constituents, it's only going to be because people like you speak up.

So take a minute right now to sign our petition.



The following Democratic members of the House signed the industry-backed letter:

Bobby Bright (AL-02), Mike Ross (AR-04), Ann Kirkpatrick (AZ-01), Ed Pastor (AZ-04), Gabrielle Giffords (AZ-8), Dennis Cardoza (CA-18), Jim Costa (CA-20), Laura Richardson (CA-37), Joe Baca (CA-43), Loretta Sanchez (CA-47), Allen Boyd (FL-02), Corrine Brown (FL-03), Alcee Hastings (FL-23), Suzanne Kosmas (FL-24), Sanford D Bishop, Jr. (GA-02), John Barrow (GA-12), David Scott (GA-13), Leonard Boswell (IA-03), Wally Minnick (ID-01), Bobby Rush (IL-01), Debbie Halvorson (IL-11), Baron P Hill (IN-09), Dennis Moore (KS-03), Charlie Melancon (LA-03), Frank Kratovil, Jr. (MD-01), Dutch Ruppersberger (MD-2), Elijah Cummings (MD-07), Gary Peters (MI-9), William Lacy Clay Jr (MO-01), Russ Carnahan (MO-03), Travis Childers (MS-01), Bennie G Thompson (MS-02), Gene Taylor (MS-04), G. K. Butterfield (NC-01), Heath Shuler (NC-11), John Adler (NJ-3), Albio Sires (NJ-13), Harry Teague (NM-2), Tim Bishop (NY-01), Gregory Meeks (NY-06), Joseph Crowley (NY-07), Ed Towns (NY-10), Yvette Clarke (NY-11), Michael McMahon (NY-13), Scott Murphy (NY-20), Bill Owens (NY-23), Michael Arcuri (NY-24), Daniel Maffei (NY-25), Steve Driehaus (OH-01), Charlie Wilson (OH-06), Marcia Fudge (OH-11), Zachary T. Space (OH-18), Dan Boren (OK-02), Kurt Schrader (OR-05), Robert Brady (PA-01), Chaka Fattah (PA-02), Kathleen Dahlkemper (PA-03), Jason Altmire (PA-04), Christopher Carney (PA-10), Allyson Schwartz (PA-13), Tim Holden (PA-17), Lincoln Davis (TN-04), John Tanner (TN-08), Al Green (TX-09), Ruben Hinojosa (TX-15), Charlie Gonzalez (TX-20), Ciro Rodriguez (TX-23), Solomon Ortiz (TX-27), Henry Cuellar (TX-28), Gene Green (TX-29), Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30), Glenn Nye (VA-02), Rick Larsen (WA-02), Nick Rahall (WV-03)

Support Marxist utopias!

Thursday deadline: Protect net neutrality

One of Glenn Beck's latest conspiracies involves a "gang of communists" who want to turn the Internet into a "Marxist utopia." That dangerous gang of communists he's warning Fox News viewers against? They're net neutrality supporters.

Glenn Beck has it all wrong: Net neutrality protects -- not threatens -- free speech online. Net neutrality is the principle that Internet users, not Internet service providers, should be in control. It ensures that Internet service providers can't speed up, slow down, or block Web content based on its source, ownership, or destination.

The FCC is accepting public comments until Thursday on a proposed regulation that would protect net neutrality. Will you say that you won't be fooled by scare tactics and that you support an open Internet?

We've made it easy to submit a public comment in support of net neutrality. Just use the sample comment at right to craft your own personal comment.

When the FCC initially took comments in January, pro-net neutrality submissions vastly outweighed comments from opponents of Internet freedom. As a result, big telecom companies are running scared. They're worried that the FCC might agree with us and prohibit them from inspecting and filtering the Internet content you access, blocking Web sites and applications they don't like, and overcharging you for using the Web. Out of the 120,000 comments submitted, 98,000 of them - a whopping 74 percent - were from CREDO Action members like you.

The FCC has opened a second round in the comment period. So we need to repeat that performance and beat back the media monopolists once again.

You can help us dominate the second round, too. Submit your comment today!

The big telecom companies have deployed hundreds of lobbyists and pushed outrageous lies. Their goal? Overcome our voices by duping the public into believing their net neutrality myths.

We have only two days to debunk these lies and protect the free-flowing Web, as the FCC is only accepting the second round of comments until April 8. We've made it easy for you to submit your comment on our site -- but we'll need it by 10 a.m. Pacific time on April 8 in order to get it into the docket by the deadline.

Without strong net neutrality rules, we might have to rely upon the good will of large telecoms to protect our access to the diversity of political perspectives. We might have to trust companies like Comcast, which actively and secretly interfered with users' ability to access popular video, photo and music sharing applications; AT&T, which censored anti-Bush comments made by Pearl Jam's lead singer during a concert; and Verizon Wireless, which interfered with NARAL Pro-Choice America's ability to send text messages to its members.

Without net neutrality, the Internet would cease to be a public platform for free speech, political organizing, and equal opportunity.

Speak out against the corporate lies. Submit your public comment today.

We need a constitutional amendment

Declaring corporations are NOT people.



Go to Free Speech is for People and take back control of our elections and our country.

The amendment as it stands (and the site is welcoming ideas):

What will the Free Speech for People Amendment say and what will it do?

* Solution Q&A

The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the Citizens United v. FEC case and return the First Amendment to its longstanding purpose as a guarantee of the fullest rights of a free people and the press. The Free Speech for People Amendment will overrule the fabrication by activist judges of a “corporate rights doctrine” to defeat democratically enacted laws, and will restore the First Amendment to its meaning and intent for two centuries. The Amendment will ensure that all people have the most robust freedom of conscience, speech and debate and that a vibrant, diverse press remains free and unfettered, thus strengthening, rather than weakening, democracy.

The Free Speech for People Amendment Campaign will work with others to develop specific language for the Free Speech for People Amendment. Here is one example of language for the Free Speech for People Amendment:

Amendment XXVIII

Section 1 The sovereign right of the people to govern being essential to a free democracy, no corporation, limited liability entity, or other corporate entity created by state or federal law or the law of another nation shall enjoy the rights of free speech and expression protected for the people by the First Amendment.

Section 2 Congress and the States may regulate the expenditure of funds by any corporation, limited liability company, or other corporate entity in public election activity.

Section 3. Nothing contained in this Article shall be construed to abridge the freedom of the press.

h/t to Dusty Crickets in comments and Southern Beale.

Update: Greg Palast gives examples of what the Supreme Court has allowed to happen:

In today's Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Court ruled that corporations should be treated the same as "natural persons", i.e. humans. Well, in that case, expect the Supreme Court to next rule that Wal-Mart can run for President.

The ruling, which junks federal laws that now bar corporations from stuffing campaign coffers, will not, as progressives fear, cause an avalanche of corporate cash into politics. Sadly, that's already happened: we have been snowed under by tens of millions of dollars given through corporate PACs and "bundling" of individual contributions from corporate pay-rollers.

The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates.

Something to celebrate

The site.

Republicans in burkas

Juan Cole:

Sept. 9, 2008 | John McCain announced that he was running for president to confront the "transcendent challenge" of the 21st century, "radical Islamic extremism," contrasting it with "stability, tolerance and democracy." But the values of his handpicked running mate, Sarah Palin, more resemble those of Muslim fundamentalists than they do those of the Founding Fathers. On censorship, the teaching of creationism in schools, reproductive rights, attributing government policy to God's will and climate change, Palin agrees with Hamas and Saudi Arabia rather than supporting tolerance and democratic precepts. What is the difference between Palin and a Muslim fundamentalist? Lipstick.

McCain pledged to work for peace based on "the transformative ideals on which we were founded." Tolerance and democracy require freedom of speech and the press, but while mayor of Wasilla, Alaska, Palin inquired of the local librarian how to go about banning books that some of her constituents thought contained inappropriate language. She tried to fire the librarian for defying her. Book banning is common to fundamentalisms around the world, and the mind-set Palin displayed did not differ from that of the Hamas minister of education in the Palestinian government who banned a book of Palestinian folk tales for its sexually explicit language. In contrast, Thomas Jefferson wrote, "Our liberty cannot be guarded but by the freedom of the press, nor that be limited without danger of losing it."

Shut up and die

Admiral Mullins tells the soldiers fighting for freedom to shut up:

He told the troops to keep quiet in voicing their opinions when it comes to the presidential race:

The highest-ranking U.S. military officer has written an unusual open letter to all those in uniform, warning them to stay out of politics as the United States approaches a presidential election in which the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will be a central, and certainly divisive, issue.

“Keeping our politics private is a good first step,” he added. “The only things we should be wearing on our sleeves are our military insignia.”

Mullen said he was inspired to write the essay after receiving a constant stream of legitimate, if troubling, questions while visiting U.S. military personnel around the world, including, “What if a Democrat wins?” and, “What will that do to the mission in Iraq?”

Gee. What will happen to the glorious Mother of all Quagmires if a Democrat wins?

Update: Bryan of Why Now? puts me straight:

This isn't a change; this is what should have been happening. When you are identifiable as a serving member of the US military, you are not allowed to engage in any political activity. The rule goes back to the Civil War.

The Hedgemony has been enforcing the rule selectively against anyone who disagrees with them, but it applies to partisans of either side.

No one who worked for me ever knew who I voted for in elections when I was serving. There are no campaign signs on military bases.

This shouldn't be happening, and Mullen knows it, and is concerned about it. Politics and religion have no place in the military. Do what you want off-base, off-duty, and out of uniform, but not when you are identified as a member of the military.

My question: So will Georgie stop using the soldiers as a backdrop to his speeches? And when will Petraeus get yanked off the national stage?

Update 5/31: Think Progress says McCain agrees it is wrong to be using a picture of Petraeus for fundraising:

On Memorial Day, Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen published a letter to uniformed soldiers warning that “the U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times.” Just three days later, however, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) presidential campaign sent out a fundraising appeal featuring a picture of McCain with Gen. David Petraeus. McCain spokesman Brian Rogers told ABC News’s Jake Tapper that “the image of Petraeus is not at all contrary to the spirit of Mullen’s directive.” But in a press conference today, McCain himself admitted that it was inappropriate, saying “it won’t happen again.”

Free speech means even the people you hate get to talk

You don't have to listen.

Senator Lieberman's staff identified numerous videos that they believed violated YouTube's Community Guidelines. In response to his concerns, we examined and ended up removing a number of videos from the site, primarily because they depicted gratuitous violence, advocated violence, or used hate speech. Most of the videos, which did not contain violent or hate speech content, were not removed because they do not violate our Community Guidelines.

Senator Lieberman stated his belief, in a letter sent today, that all videos mentioning or featuring these groups should be removed from YouTube -- even legal nonviolent or non-hate speech videos. While we respect and understand his views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone's right to express unpopular points of view. We believe that YouTube is a richer and more relevant platform for users precisely because it hosts a diverse range of views, and rather than stifle debate we allow our users to view all acceptable content and make up their own minds. Of course, users are always free to express their disagreement with a particular video on the site, by leaving comments or their own response video. That debate is healthy

We might even find out that Iran is filled with innocent Iranians and that most of them have no desire to attack Israel or the United States...

Wear a t-shirt

Get arrested. Sinfonian of Blast Off! posts on the latest erosion of free speech in Florida:

Did you know that in Florida, a protest T-shirt might get you thrown in jail?

Sounds preposterous ... but Fla. Stat. § 540.08 makes the unauthorized commercial use of persons' names illegal ... and it adds a bonus provision, an extra fine, if the person or persons happen to be (or, in the case of deceased people, have been) members of the armed forces[.]

[snip]

The statute goes on to exclude "news medi[a] or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest," so at least we bloggers can focus our worry where it belongs: NSA, CIA, Secret Service ....

However, I've read the statute over and over again, and I don't see any exception for public figures akin to that requiring "actual malice" in order to sustain a defamation claim. Therefore, as an example, if you wear a T-shirt that bears the image of Drunky McStagger with the caption "War Criminal," you're breaking the law. Indeed, since such displays are illegal for 40 years after the subject's death, even a T-shirt I had 20 years ago, showing Richard Nixon with the caption "Nixon in '88: He's Tanned, Rested, and Ready" would be illegal today.

Update: Connecting this post to the one about the Ranks who were just awarded money for their arrest for protest t-shirts. Hipparchia at Over The Cliff, Onto The Rocks has the picture and more.

Wonder if Bush will have a special place in Gitmo for anyone who wears these or these?

It's getting harder and harder to keep that bubble inflated

When people are beginning to come out of their trances and share how they were used to silence protesters to protect Our Dear Leader.

The Kenosha Kid shares the pdf that talks about a White House manual telling how the faithful and righteous can wave signs to block protesters, or shout them down, or have them removed from the area... making sure the media does not see them!

You mean... all that speechifying by the preznit... was only to LOYAL Bushies and not to ALL Americans?

I'm so shocked....

When the handcuffs were on their wrists

That was the moment when they realized how far the United States had fallen away from supporting freedom of speech, freedom of assembly..... as they were being arrested and removed from the hotel where Bush was to yammer about all those freedoms in a Fourth of July speech.

Logan Murphy at Crooks and Liars:

On July 4th, 2004, Jeffery and Nicole Rank attended an public Independence Day event in Charleston, WV where President Bush was to speak. Despite the fact that the event was open to the public and was held on public land, the Ranks were arrested for wearing anti-Bush t-shirts. On Monday’s “Hardball” the couple told their astonishing story of being arrested, the charges that were filed against them and eventually dropped and why they decided to sue the United States government — a suit they thankfully won.

I heard this woman on the radio

Trying to make her case for the removal of books from school libraries that she found threatening or offensive, ones that described sexual activity, incest, rape, drug use. Linda Lopez wants to remove books that do not agree with her translation of the Bible, which she says is the literal word of God.

Um... Has she READ the Bible? All that sexual activity, incest, rape, and drug use is in the Bible and how! Lots more about odd rules for preparing food, ways to treat slaves and wives, stoning people for transgressions we no longer think of as crimes.....

By her definition of threatening books, the Bible would be on the list.

And how on earth would she 'clean up' the library? There would be no books in it at all.

Start with your own family, Linda Lopez. You cannot sweep all difficult situations away from your kids, you cannot protect them from the world. The only thing you can control is your relationship with your kids. Faith should not be so weak that the parent must run ahead trying to change things, block things so it is never challenged. The children's religion should support them in the world not make them afraid of it. Religion should have muscles, should be able to stand up for itself. Ideas should strengthen it, not threaten it.

Isn't God supposed to be Truth?

Shakesville

Under DOS attack and temporarily silenced. The blogosphere takes notice:

Bryan of Why Now? and whig of Cannablog explain.

Mustang Bobby of Bark Bark Woof Woof keeps track of the bloggers.

The police in Los Angeles have begun to impound people's cars who drag race on streets. They then FLATTEN the cars. Maybe when (not if) they catch the hacker responsible, they take his computer out on to the street and drive over it a few times....

The Freedom of Speech

Brought to you by the Tales of the Freeway Blogger:

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.