TresSugar

Should a Girl Have a Right to Wear Pro-Life Shirt to School?

TresSugar — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 04:00:05 -0700

When she was in the seventh grade last year, Anna Amador wore this graphic t-shirt to school for National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day. Her principal ordered her to change out of the "growing, growing, gone" shirt, a decision Anna's mom says violated her First Amendment rights. Now, on Anna's behalf, her mom is suing the school in federal court.

The school claims that the t-shirt, which shows a growing fetus, violated dress-code regulations against clothing with suggestions of "tobacco, drug or alcohol use, sexual promiscuity, profanity, vulgarity, or other inappropriate subject matter." It seems like the shirt falls under these broad rules, but the girl argues that the school inconsistently applied the dress code based on the subjective opinions of officials.

Do you think Anna had a right to wear this shirt?

Jury: Prof. Who Compared 9/11 Victims to Nazi Wrongly Fired

CitizenSugar — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 00:01:42 -0700

A jury ruled yesterday that Ward Churchill, a formerly tenured professor at the University of Colorado, was wrongly fired after he compared victims of Sept. 11 to Nazi leader Adolf Eichmann. The jury granted him just $1 in damages, and a judge will rule soon whether he should get his job back.

Following Sept. 11, Churchill wrote of those in the World Trade Center:

Let's get a grip here, shall we? True enough, they were civilians of a sort. But innocent? Gimme a break. They formed a technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire.

Once the essay came to light in 2005, Churchill came under fire. He eventually lost his job. The jury decided that the University of Colorado couldn't prove it would have fired him were it not for his political views. Officials had sited plagiarism and falsified research as reasons for the dismissal.

Do you think professors should be free to say such things and still keep their jobs?

Source

License to Live: Virginia Riles Pro-Choicers With License Plate

CitizenSugar — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 14:00:42 -0700

Forget that lighthouse plate you were about to order, you can take your personal view on abortion to the street now in Virginia. Governor Tim Kaine, who also happens to be chair of the DNC, signed legislation to legalize license plates with the phrase "Choose Life." And it's decidedly not a Trainspotting reference.

Though not the first state to offer pro-life plates, Virginia's law has incurred the wrath of pro-choice groups like Planned Parenthood and NARAL/Pro-Choice, who sent more than 17,000 emails and 200 calls to the DNC urging the governor to veto the bill. But Kaine, who personally opposes abortion but politically supports it, said it's not about reproductive rights; it's about freedom of speech.

Besides, he's told Planned Parenthood it can make its own license plate. Choose Choice?

Source

Negative Online Reviews: Freedom of Speech or Libel?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 03:00:00 -0800

A dentist has sued two people for posting negative reviews on the online review site Yelp, accusing them of libel. The reviewer stated that her son felt "light headed" after a visit thanks to laughing gas, and was given fillings that contained mercury. While the dentist agrees that the fillings were mercury, she says that the parents should have read the disclosure form they signed. The dentist is now suing because she doesn't want "lies to be posted on the website" about her.

This isn't the first time someone has been sued for something they posted on the Internet. Last week another Yelp user was sued by a doctor, and a model recently sued Google for negative comments posted on a Blogger-hosted blog. Considering the often casual nature of online reviews, I can't help but think suing someone for something they posted would be like suing a person for casually telling a friend that a hairdresser gave them a bad haircut. Then again, a one-star review could really hurt a person's ability to make a living.

Under US law, websites that publish third-party reviews cannot be sued for that content. Should the law protect the reviewers, too?

Source

What's Missing From Your Internet? Google Deletes Content

CitizenSugar — Mon, 01 Dec 2008 14:30:09 -0800

Google controls 63 percent of the world's Internet searches. It also owns YouTube, where 13 hours of content are uploaded every minute. It's the most influential company on the wild, wild Web, controlling more of what we view and how we view it than anyone else.

With this power come requests to remove content from around the world, but Google is not as interested in censoring as much it is in ensuring its presence worldwide. The one mandate? "Be everywhere, get arrested nowhere, and thrive in as many places as possible."

Flagged YouTube content goes straight to 20-something reviewers in its California office, but requests coming from governments quickly work their way up Google's chain of command. If content violates a country's law or YouTube terms of service, it's immediately removed; however, not all requests are so black and white.

So what's being removed? To find out, read more.

Holocaust-denial sites from Google search engines in France and Germany. Why? Denying the Holocaust is illegal in both countries.
After protesters outside the Google India office demanded a group be removed from Orkut, a social networking site, Google half complied. It removed content that criticized religion - illegal in India - but left content critical of political parties.
In Thailand where it's illegal to criticize the king, videos were removed after government threats to block all Thai IP addresses. While videos attacking the king were removed, those that simply offended the government remained.
Think this doesn't happen in the US? Senator Joe Lieberman's requests to remove so-called jihadist videos were initially denied because the content did not violate US law. However the videos were later removed after YouTube edited its guidelines, prohibiting videos that "incite violence.” The angry followup after the initial denial to Google's CEO couldn't have hurt either!

Since most requests come complete with threats to block entire countries, I can't blame Google for wanting to work it out. Even Google agrees that self-censoring is not a long-term solution, but the best option for now. Considering Google is far more permissive of free speech than many strict countries, I can't say I disagree. But with such a conflict of interest, how long can Google be trusted?

Source

The Banned Book Club: What Books Have Joined?

CitizenSugar — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 11:00:00 -0700

Though most book-ban inquiries remain hush hush, 9,600 requests to censor have been logged since 1990. With the help of news and librarian reports, the American Library Association tracks what tawdry titles threaten to jump off bookshelves into children’s knapsacks. And now USA Today has made a fancy chart, sortable by title, author, reasons for challenge, location, and final decision.

Sexual content was the most oft-cited reason - 144 out of the 272 times - while the racially themed, vulgarly worded, and violently depicted were other chart toppers. Someone even tried to remove the dictionary!

So what aren't we reading? To see some of the most well-known titles and why they were banned, read more.

Removed Books

The Bluest Eye: A Toni Morrison novel - and Oprah Book Club selection - was removed from a Colorado school for sexual and violent content.
Clifford the Big Red Dog: The bilingual edition was removed from a California school for unspecified reasons. Que?
Girl Interrupted: Removed from a Maine school for language.
The Lovely Bones: Moved to the faculty section of library after concerns that it was too frightening for students. So, violence?
Huck Finn: Removed from multiple schools for racial themes.
Harry Potter series: A Catholic school removed them because of inappropriate religious content.
Beloved: Removed from an AP English class's reading list because of sex and racial themes.
Prep: A Novel: Removed from a school after a parent complained it was pornographic.

Any here shock you? Was a book ever banned from your library or school?

Is the Sarah Palin Effigy a Hate Crime?

CitizenSugar — Wed, 29 Oct 2008 14:30:16 -0700

Does seasonality determine intent? Here's what I mean. Earlier this fall, a likeness of Obama was hung from a tree at a college in Oregon. Now, a similar display of Sarah Palin in West Hollywood has been determined by the Secret Service to not be a threat. The display is apparently part of a Halloween decorative scene and shows the vice presidential candidate dangling by her neck from the rafters. The display also shows John McCain surrounded by flames coming out of the house's chimney.

The FBI in LA agrees saying, "It's clearly distasteful, but it doesn't appear to be a violation of federal civil rights statutes. Currently, we do not have an investigation open." The local sheriff's department says that it doesn't rise to the level of a hate crime saying, "I'm not defending this; I'm not criticizing it. It doesn't rise to the level of hate crime. Now, if there was a crime against bad taste . . . " The mayor of West Hollywood on the other hand wants it taken down right away. He says, "While these residents have the legal right to display Sen. John McCain and Gov. Sarah Palin in effigy, I strongly oppose political speech that references violence - real or perceived."

View 5 Photos ›

Source

Human Rights Online: Tech Companies Adopt Conduct Code

LibertySugar — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 00:00:15 -0700

Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft are set to adopt voluntary and uniform guidelines to govern their international business practices, this week. These Internet companies have struggled to find acceptable means to deal with countries like China, which silence the voice of dissidents on the Internet, and block certain websites. China has used emails sent by dissidents as evidence to put them behind bars.

Part of the code of conduct will require the companies to carefully scrutinize a government's demand for information about users, or government requests for nationwide censorship. The rules, generated by teams from the tech companies, public interest groups, academics, and socially conscious investment funds, weren't just created in the name of human rights - they're also designed to counter bad publicity surrounding tech company compliance with repressive governments.

Should international companies stay true to their hometown freedoms, or should they expect to play by the rules of all the countries where they do business?

Source

Anti-Islamic Documentary Distributed Free in Newspapers

LibertySugar — Tue, 21 Oct 2008 14:30:33 -0700

If a DVD titled Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West has fallen out of your newspaper, it's not because print media has given up on people reading. You can thank, or blame, the Clarion Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to exposing the "threat of radical Islam," which has placed the DVDs in ad sections of swing-state newspapers.

Obsession is a documentary that compares Islam to Nazism, citing similarities in hate speech, paranoia, and us-against-them mentality. Very few newspapers have refused the DVD and its accompanying ad revenue. Those that have placed it in their pages - like the New York Times - have justified it by saying that it would violate sponsors’ right to free speech if they were to reject it.

While the Clarion Fund takes credit for distributing the DVD, it does not admit to paying for it. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC), saying the Clarion Fund has tried to influence the presidential election and violated its status as a tax-exempt nonprofit.

On air at Democracy Now!, Ibrahim Hooper, a spokesperson for CAIR, questioned the Clarion Fund's motives. To see what he had to say, read more.

It’s a tremendous campaign. It’s unbelievable in its magnitude. We’re talking 28 million households, plus mailings, plus automated phone that are going to people in these swing states, saying, "We just sent you a DVD. Watch it and remember it when you go into the voting booth." So it’s obvious they were trying to influence the presidential election by sending to only key swing states around the country.

And we still don’t know who’s behind this. The Clarion Fund, that claimed to distribute this, is really just a virtual organization. It appears to be a front for a group based in Israel called Aish HaTorah. They share - they shared offices, they shared personnel, and they’re refusing to say who is paying for this, that’s got to be a minimum $50 million campaign.

Do you think the Clarion Fund is trying to promote awareness for what it believes, or is there something more sinister going on?

Valedictorian Must Apologize For Jesus Name Drop in Speech

LibertySugar — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:00:45 -0700

A Colorado high school valedictorian, Erica Corder, mentioned Jesus in her 30-second graduation speech back in 2006. As a result, the school told her an apology was in order if she wanted her diploma. The school still doesn't have its apology and Erica still doesn't have her diploma.

The resourceful teen took her situation to federal court. The court rejected her petition for an injunction, and now she's appealing that decision. The lower court held that since the speech was school sponsored, restrictions were constitutional.

Erica's address about her Christian faith differed from that presented during graduation practice. Thus, after the Jesus-switch-a-roo, and after graduation had ended, the school said she must apologize if she wanted her diploma.

Leaving legal reasoning aside, I'm surprised neither the school nor the student has been able to swallow their pride and move on. What would Jesus do?

Source