Moonhowlings » 1st Amendment http://www.moonhowlings.net A Place for Civil Debate: not your typical ideologue blog Thu, 09 Feb 2012 05:00:06 +0000 en hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 Col. Morris Davis again attempts to ask Congressman Connolly for assistance http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/11/28/colonel-morris-davis-again-attempts-to-ask-congressman-connolly-for-assistance/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/11/28/colonel-morris-davis-again-attempts-to-ask-congressman-connolly-for-assistance/#comments Mon, 28 Nov 2011 22:35:21 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=16932 Sometimes people have a representative but its in name only.  Perhaps this blog can get the attention of Rep. Connolly.  There is nothing like a little embarrassment to bring everyone front and center. 

Colonel Morris Davis, better known to all of us at Moonhowlings as Moe Davis, once again attempts to get hold of his Congressman for some assistance with his on-going problem–that problem being he was denied his first amendment rights by his government.   You don’t have to agree with Moe, but damn he does have a right to his opinion. 

Here is his correspondence, again, to his congressman, Gerry Connolly, who is pretending Moe does not exist. 

Dear Rep. Connolly,
 
I have tried several times over the past two years to contact you by email and regular mail to request your assistance.  To date, I have not received so much as a form letter reply.  [Although I did get an out-of-office email response once in Dec. 2009 from Mr. Fields.]  Copied below is an article published earlier today on CBSNews.com that explains why I have tried to contact you repeatedly the past two years.  As one of your constituents, I again ask for your assistance.
 
Best regards,

–

Morris D. “Moe” Davis

No free speech at Mr. Jefferson’s library

By
Peter Van Buren

Here’s the First Amendment, in full: “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.”

Those beautiful words, almost haiku-like, are the sparse poetry of the American democratic experiment. The Founders purposely wrote the First Amendment to read broadly, and not like a snippet of tax code, in order to emphasize that it should encompass everything from shouted religious rantings to eloquent political criticism. Go ahead, reread it aloud at this moment when the government seems to be carving out an exception to it large enough to drive a tank through.

As the occupiers of Zuccotti Park, like those pepper-sprayed at UC Davis or the Marine veteran shot in Oakland, recently found out, the government’s ability to limit free speech, to stopper the First Amendment, to undercut the right to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances, is perhaps the most critical issue our republic can face. If you were to write the history of the last decade in Washington, it might well be a story of how, issue by issue, the government freed itself from legal and constitutional bounds when it came to torture, the assassination of U.S. citizens, the holding of prisoners without trial or access to a court of law, the illegal surveillance of American citizens, and so on. In the process, it has entrenched itself in a comfortable shadowland of ever more impenetrable secrecy, while going after any whistleblower who might shine a light in.

Now, it also seems to be chipping away at the most basic American right of all, the right of free speech, starting with that of its own employees. As is often said, the easiest book to stop is the one that is never written; the easiest voice to staunch is the one that is never raised.

It’s true that, over the years, government in its many forms has tried to claim that you lose your free speech rights when you, for example, work for a public school, or join the military. In dealing with school administrators who sought to silence a teacher for complaining publicly that not enough money was being spent on academics versus athletics, or generals who wanted to stop enlisted men and women from blogging, the courts have found that any loss of rights must be limited and specific. As Jim Webb wrote when still Secretary of the Navy, “A citizen does not give up his First Amendment right to free speech when he puts on a military uniform, with small exceptions.”

Free speech is considered so basic that the courts have been wary of imposing any limits at all. The famous warning by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes about not falsely shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theater shows just how extreme a situation must be for the Supreme Court to limit speech. As Holmes put it in his definition: “The question in every case is whether the words used… are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent.” That’s a high bar indeed.

The government v. Morris Davis

Does a newspaper article from November 2009, a few hundred well-reasoned words that appeared in the conservative Wall Street Journal, concluding with these mild sentences, meet Justice Holmes’s high mark?

“Double standards don’t play well in Peoria. They won’t play well in Peshawar or Palembang either. We need to work to change the negative perceptions that exist about Guantanamo and our commitment to the law. Formally establishing a legal double standard will only reinforce them.”

Morris Davis got fired from his research job at the Library of Congress for writing that article and a similar letter to the editor of the Washington Post. (The irony of being fired for exercising free speech while employed at Thomas Jefferson’s library evidently escaped his bosses.) With the help of the ACLU, Davis demanded his job back. On January 8, 2010, the ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Library of Congress on his behalf. In March 2011 a federal court ruled that the suit could go forward.

The case is being heard this month. Someday, it will likely define the free speech rights of federal employees and so determine the quality of people who will make up our government. We citizens vote for the big names, but it’s the millions of lower-ranked, unelected federal employees who decide by their actions how the laws are carried out (or ignored) and the Constitution upheld (or disregarded).

Morris Davis is not some dour civil servant. Prior to joining the Library of Congress, he spent more than 25 years as an Air Force colonel. He was, in fact, the chief military prosecutor at Guantánamo and showed enormous courage in October 2007 when he resigned from that position and left the Air Force. Davis had stated he would not use evidence obtained through torture back in 2005. When a torture advocate was named his boss in 2007, Davis quit rather than face the inevitable order to reverse his position.

In December 2008, Davis went to work as a researcher at the Library of Congress in the Foreign Affairs, Defense and Trade Division. None of his work was related to Guantanamo. He was not a spokesperson for, or a public face of, the library. He was respected at work. Even the people who fired him do not contest that he did his “day job” as a researcher well.

On November 12, 2009, the day after his op-ed and letter appeared, Davis was told by his boss that the pieces had caused the library concern over his “poor judgment and suitability to serve… not consistent with ‘acceptable service’” — as the letter of admonishment he received put the matter. It referred only to his op-ed and Washington Post letter, and said nothing about his work performance as a researcher. One week later, Davis was fired.

But shouldn’t he have known better?

The courts have consistently supported the rights of the Ku Klux Klan to use extreme and hateful words, of the burners of books, and of those who desecrate the American flag. All of that is considered “protected speech.” A commitment to real free speech means accepting the toughest cases, the most offensive things people can conceive of, as the price of a free society.

The Library of Congress does not restrict its employees from writing or speaking, so Davis broke no rules. Nor, theoretically at least, do other government agencies like the CIA and the State Department restrict employees from writing or speaking, even on matters of official concern, although they do demand prior review for such things as the possible misuse of classified material.

Clearly, such agency review processes have sometimes been used as a de facto method of prior restraint. The CIA, for example, has been accused of using indefinite security reviews to effectively prevent a book from being published. The Department of Defense has also wielded exaggerated claims of classified material to block books.

Since at least 1968, there has, however, been no broad prohibition against government employees writing about political matters or matters of public concern. In 1968, the Supreme Court decided a seminal public employee First Amendment case, Pickering v. Board of Education. It ruled that school officials had violated the First Amendment rights of teacher Marvin Pickering when they fired him for writing a letter to his local paper criticizing the allocation of money between academics and athletics.

A thought crime

Morris Davis was fired by the Library of Congress not because of his work performance, but because he wrote that Wall Street Journal op-ed on his own time, using his own computer, as a private citizen, never mentioning his (unrelated) federal job. The government just did not like what he wrote. Perhaps his bosses were embarrassed by his words, or felt offended by them. Certainly, in the present atmosphere in Washington, they felt they had an open path to stopping their own employee from saying what he did, or at least for punishing him for doing so.

It’s not, of course, that federal employees don’t write and speak publicly. As long as they don’t step on toes, they do, in startling numbers, on matters of official concern, on hobbies, on subjects of all sorts, through what must be an untold number of blogs, Facebook pages, Tweets, op-eds, and letters to the editor. The government picked Davis out for selective, vindictive prosecution.

More significantly, Davis was fired prospectively — not for poor attendance, or too much time idling at the water cooler, but because his boss believed Davis’s writing showed that the quality of his judgment might make him an unsuitable employee at some future moment. The simple act of speaking out on a subject at odds with an official government position was the real grounds for his firing. That, and that alone, was enough for termination.

As any devoted fan of George Orwell, Ray Bradbury, or Philip K. Dick would know, Davis committed a thought crime.

As some readers may also know, I evidently did the same thing. Because of my book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People, about my experiences as a State Department official in Iraq, and the articles, op-eds, and blog posts I have written, I first had my security clearance suspended by the Department of State and then was suspended from my job there. That job had nothing to do with Iraq or any of the subjects I have written about. My performance reviews were good, and no one at State criticized me for my day-job work. Because we have been working under different human resources systems, Davis, as a civil servant on new-hire probation, could be fired directly. As a tenured Foreign Service Officer, I can’t, and so State has placed me on indefinite administrative leave status; that is, I’m without a job, pending action to terminate me formally through a more laborious process.

However, in removing me from my position, the document the State Department delivered to me darkly echoed what Davis’ boss at the Library of Congress said to him:

“The manner in which you have expressed yourself in some of your published material is inconsistent with the standards of behavior expected of the Foreign Service. Some of your actions also raise questions about your overall judgment. Both good judgment and the ability to represent the Foreign Service in a way that will make the Foreign Service attractive to candidates are key requirements.”

There follows a pattern of punishing federal employees for speaking out or whistle-blowing: look at Davis, or me, or Franz Gayl, or Thomas Drake. In this way, a precedent is being set for an even deeper cloud of secrecy to surround the workings of government. From Washington, in other words, no news, other than good or officially approved news, is to emerge.

The government’s statements at Davis’s trial, now underway in Washington D.C., do indeed indicate that he was fired for the act of speaking out itself, as much as the content of what he said. The Justice Department lawyer representing the government said that Davis’s writings cast doubt on his discretion, judgment and ability to serve as a high-level official. (She also added that Davis’s language in the op-ed was “intemperate.” One judge on the three-member bench seemed to support the point, saying, “It’s one thing to speak at a law school or association, but it’s quite a different thing to be in The Washington Post.” The case will likely end up at the Supreme Court.

Free Speech is for Iranians, not government employees

If Morris Davis loses his case, then a federal employee’s judgment and suitability may be termed insufficient for employment if he or she writes publicly in a way that offends or embarrasses the government. In other words, the very definition of good judgment, when it comes to freedom of speech, will then rest with the individual employer — that is, the U.S. government.

Simply put, even if you as a federal employee follow your agency’s rules on publication, you can still be fired for what you write if your bosses don’t like it. If your speech offends them, then that’s bad judgment on your part and the First Amendment goes down the drain. Free speech is increasingly coming at a price in Washington: for federal employees, conscience could cost them their jobs.

In this sense, Morris Davis represents a chilling precedent. He raised his voice. If we’re not careful, the next Morris Davis may not. Federal employees are, at best, a skittish bunch, not known for their innovative, out-of-the-box thinking. Actions like those in the Davis case will only further deter any thoughts of speaking out, and will likely deter some good people from seeking federal employment.

More broadly, the Davis case threatens to give the government free rein in selecting speech by its employees it does not like and punishing it. It’s okay to blog about your fascination with knitting or to support official positions. If you happen to be Iranian or Chinese or Syrian, and not terribly fond of your government, and express yourself on the subject, the U.S. government will support your right to do it 110% of the way. However, as a federal employee, blog about your negative opinions on U.S. policies and you’ve got a problem. In fact, we have a problem as a country if freedom of speech only holds as long as it does not offend the U.S. government.

Morris Davis’s problem is neither unique nor isolated. Clothilde Le Coz, Washington director of Reporters without Borders, told me earlier this month, “Secrecy is taking over from free speech in the United States. While we naively thought the Obama administration would be more transparent than the previous one, it is actually the first to sue five people for being sources and speaking publicly.” Scary, especially since this is no longer an issue of one rogue administration.

Government is different than private business. If you don’t like McDonald’s because of its policies, go to Burger King, or a soup kitchen, or eat at home. You don’t get the choice of federal governments, and so the critical need for its employees to be able to speak informs the republic. We are the only ones who can tell you what is happening inside your government. It really is that important. Ask Morris Davis.

Bio: Peter Van Buren spent a year in Iraq as a State Department Foreign Service Officer serving as Team Leader for two Provincial Reconstruction Teams (PRTs). Now in Washington, he writes about Iraq and the Middle East at his blog, We Meant Well. His book, We Meant Well: How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People (The American Empire Project, Metropolitan Books), has recently been published. This piece originally appeared on TomDispatch. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

© 2011 TomDispatch

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/11/28/colonel-morris-davis-again-attempts-to-ask-congressman-connolly-for-assistance/feed/ 9 Bocephus Blames Fox News http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/10/12/bocephus-blames-fox-news/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/10/12/bocephus-blames-fox-news/#comments Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:23:10 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=16056 Yesterday Hank Williams Jr. appeared on The View, sporting a Mickey Mantle baseball shirt. He made an even bigger fool of himself and showed little class. He did explain that he didn’t think of Obama as Hitler, he was making an analogy. He has another analogy about ‘kicking cow turds.”

He now is blaming ESPN and Fox News for his troubles and feels he was set up. He is calling for a boycot  of ESPN and Fox News in his new song that came out at 3 pm 10/10/11,” Keep The Change.”

You know, I never ever thought I would be in the position of defending Fox News.  I guess this is just one of those times.  Williams might as well be saying the Devil Made Me Do It.

I am also getting over the gross out of Williams wearing the shirt of St. Mickey Mantle.  Some things are sacred!  The Mick wouldn’t like this.

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/10/12/bocephus-blames-fox-news/feed/ 10 Hank Williams Jr.: Out-Foxed and Outta ESPN http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/10/03/hank-williams-jr-out-foxed/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/10/03/hank-williams-jr-out-foxed/#comments Tue, 04 Oct 2011 03:55:49 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=15908

Longer version:

Gretchen disavows his remarks about the president.

Hank Williams Junior mouth flashed on Fox and Friends. He compared President Obama to Hitler. In addition, he said that Obama and Biden were the enemy. His bosses at ESPN didn’t like it and they fired him from singing “Are You Ready for Some Football,” his Monday night theme song.

From ESPN.com:

The Hank Williams Jr. song that has opened Monday Night Football for 20 years was not part of the opening of this week’s Indianapolis-Tampa Bay game after Williams made controversial comments about President Barack Obama.

Williams compared Obama to Adolf Hitler on Fox News Channel’s “Fox and Friends” show Monday morning.

ESPN, in a statement, said: “While Hank Williams, Jr. is not an ESPN employee, we recognize that he is closely linked to our company through the open to Monday Night Football. We are extremely disappointed with his comments, and as a result we have decided to pull the open from tonight’s telecast.”

Williams issued a statement through his publicist, saying: “Some of us have strong opinions and are often misunderstood. My analogy was extreme — but it was to make a point. I was simply trying to explain how stupid it seemed to me — how ludicrous that pairing was. They’re polar opposites and it made no sense. They don’t see eye-to-eye and never will. I have always respected the office of the president.”

Williams, whose song “All My Rowdy Friends” has been the Monday Night Football theme on both ABC and ESPN since 1991, told “Fox and Friends” that he thought Speaker of the House John Boehner playing golf with President Obama “would be like Hitler playing golf with (Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin) Netanyahu … In the shape this country is in?”

 

In the first place, what was he smoking?  That guy is just an embarrassment.  Even the Foxies looked embarrassed.  Why was he on ESPN in the first place.

Folks are divided about issues like freedom of speech, employer rights, employee rights etc. Last week we discussed a teacher who called a tea party member a Nazi in response to a discussion they were having. Some people here have compared the two incidents. Are they similar or very different. Does ESPN have the right to fire someone they feel does not represent them well?

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/10/03/hank-williams-jr-out-foxed/feed/ 42 Pitchforks and Torches rise up again http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/07/03/pitchforks-and-torches-rise-up-again/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/07/03/pitchforks-and-torches-rise-up-again/#comments Sun, 03 Jul 2011 10:10:48 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=14443

Rewind back to last summer.  The local uproar was over the new kids in town, KK’s Temptations  adult boutique, that was to open in October.  Some of the City folks had a fit because the shop was in Old Town Manassas.  People envisioned hordes of perverts lining up to see the bustiers and nighties.  It didn’t matter that the City also has Fashion Fantasy over on route 28 and at least one adult movie store over near the library, within blocks of Kindercare and Parkside Middle School on Mathis Avenue.  This new store was going to be in Old Town near the Candy Factory.  Each and every person I talked to who was opposed to the opening of KK’s used the location as the main, if not only reason for objection. 

Fast forward back to the present.  In the past couple of weeks, I have heard some mumblings and grumblings over KKs from two friends who I can clearly say are on different ends of this argument.   KK”s had planned to do some events for  Susan G. Komen for the cure to raise money.  Their  first plan had been a wet tee shirt contest.  Elena and I spoke briefly but negatively about this plan and basically backed off.  Because of issues with the City, KK’s plans changed to a bikini contest at Backyard Grill at the corner of Sudley Road and Williamson Blvd.  We didn’t like that idea either because of the objectification of women but kept our mouths shut.  It was Kim’s business.  In other words, do no harm.  We didn’t.

Fast forward again.  I go out to Backyard Grill  at least once a month.  I consider it to be in my extended neighborhood, so I thought I would just go have a little chat.  It appears that some of the rumblings I had heard were true.  Backyard Grille had cancelled the KK’s event.  A week before it was to take place, on a Friday night, there was a sweep.  you know, one of those events where the ABC, the county cops, and the fire marshall all show up simultaneously.  It isn’t real good for your business.  They got cited for not having enough security during  DJ time, even though there were only 10 people in the bar area. 

More to the point, Why did this raid happen?  Had some folks been lying?  That is a fairly low key establishment that causes very few problems.  I also f0und out that lots and lots of phone calls came in complaining about the KK event, even though contests of that nature are not unusual at Backyard.  The complaints all were directed over KK’s.  Most of the callers were anonymous.  One in particular, when pressed, said she was with the City of Manassas.  Yea.  Right.  Callers asked very complex questions that tipped off the manager. 

I immediately told the person I spoke with that it was the Pitchfork and Torches crew putting pressure to bear.  My dining friends wanted to know how come the cops, fire marshall and ABC board all cooperated.  Easy.  If enough bogus complaints are made, they would be remiss not following up.  Furthermore, the likelihood that some ‘torch carriers’ work for the cops, ABC board, and fire marshall’s office is fairly good.  I might have to put a little pressure to bear myself about wasting county resources for political gain. 

Backyard Grille basically got the word if they wanted the sweeps and complaints to stop, they would cancel the event.  Much as they hated to do so, they complied.  I was told too many of the employees count on their jobs and money from tips for the restaurant to put them in jeopardy. 

Some of those  who participated in this intimidation  and who are reading this account are probably cheering and hi- fiving each other that they   won.  They need to ask themselves if they won a battle or a war.  Most Virginians don’t take too well to intimidation.  This situation was clearly intimidation by the social do-gooders.  These same do-gooders have lied.  They have lied about their intentions.  KK’s was not going to hurt the City of Manassas by having an event in the county. 

Remember,  every person I spoke with who wanted KK’s to disappear used the excuse that the shop was in Old Town.   I was told by ring-leader Jackson Miller, who claimed to represent many City folks,  that he had never said anything about Fashion Fantasy or MCV because those retail stores were NOT in Old Town.   I guess the latest episode of Moms Against Sex Shops (MASS) really weren’t being very honest, now were they?

The problem with these kinds of lies is, they often push people over to the other side.  Elena and I weren’t involved.  We don’t like those types of contests so we just didn’t offer our support.  We didn’t blather on about it.  We said nothing.  And when we say nothing, assume we aren’t in support.  I don’t like intimidation and I don’t like the Pitchforks and Torches coming on my turf and wasting county resources over a ridiculous raid.They also hurt the employees of Backyard because no one comes to an establishment with 20 cop cars in the parking lot.  Most of them went home that night with fairly empty pockets. 

The world is big enough for KK’s Temptations and the Pitchfork and Torches crowd to co-exist.   Meanwhile, the Pitchforks and Torch crowd needs to tell the truth.  They need an enemy and Kim Skokal is it.  They targeted her and regardless of what she did, some of them were going to go after her.  They didn’t care who they hurt in the process.  It might be wise to stay off our turf out here in the county.  It is mighty stupid to take people like Elena and me and force us back into the fray by being bullies and control freaks and worst of all, by telling lies. 

 

Further reading:

Manassas Busts Up Wet T-Shirt Contest

In Manassas, a sex shop battle drawn along class lines 

Manassas Adult Store Continues to Receive Harsh Criticism

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/07/03/pitchforks-and-torches-rise-up-again/feed/ 86 Westboro Grosses Out the KKK http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/05/31/westboro-grosses-out-the-kkk/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/05/31/westboro-grosses-out-the-kkk/#comments Tue, 31 May 2011 15:35:36 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=13956 Its pretty bad when an organization makes even the KKK look decent.  It appears that the KKK even came out to protest Westboro Baptist Church’s intrusion into the Memorial Day observance at Arlington National Cemetery. 

Westboro has even grossed out the KKK. That’s when you know you are just VILE. 

The KKK was cordoned off from the other protesters who were there to support the troops on this Memorial Day.

Full story at CNN.com

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/05/31/westboro-grosses-out-the-kkk/feed/ 3 ACLU blindsides PWC Schools http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/04/14/aclu-blindsides-pwc-schools/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/04/14/aclu-blindsides-pwc-schools/#comments Thu, 14 Apr 2011 04:06:41 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=13189 School officials in Prince William County were blindsided on Monday with a letter from the ACLU threatening a lawsuit over Internet filters on gay and lesbian sites.  According to the Gainesville Times:

The letter, signed by Rebecca Glenberg and Joshua Block of the ACLU of Virginia, states that the school system is blocking gay support group sites in violation of students’ First Amendment rights.

The issue is filtering software that blocks access to, among other sites, the Gay Student Alliance Network, Day of Silence and It Gets Better.

“The Prince William County Public Schools do not have a legitimate pedagogical basis for censoring students’ access to these websites, which provide support and resources for LGBT students and gay-straight alliances,” states the letter.

PWC Spokesman Ken Blackstone had the following to say on the subject, in the same article:

“The ACLU is making some claims and we’re reviewing them to see if they’re accurate and to see how we can respond to that,” he said. “They bring up important points.”

Blackstone said the school system is required by federal law to use Internet filtering software to keep students and staffers from looking at inappropriate content at school.

The school software, Blue Coat Filtering, filters 32 different categories.  It doesn’t distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate.  Generally, if students or staff believe something is being filtered that is acceptable for use, there is a process by which the site can be reviewed and unlocked.  Mr. Blackstone said that no such request, to his knowledge, has been submitted for  review  of the sites for student appropriateness. 

On the other hand, who really owns the power to determine what is appropriate or inappropriate?  Should PWC  Schools not have that final determination?  Kids today find enough ways to skirt around filters and get to content that isn’t acceptable.  The school has a legal, and to some folks , a moral responsibility to protect the children in its charge from pornography and other inappropriate content. 

There are ways around the school filters.   Many students have Ipads and smart phones that use 3g and are not reliant on school equipment.  Special permission could be granted to use such equipment for after school activities.  The sponsor of any clubs that needed to access information could request the internet filter be removed for a particular site.  That is standard procedure that has been in place for years. 

On the other hand, this ACLU challenge has the potential of opening Pandora’s box.  Hopefully PWC will handle the problem so that they are not plagued with challenges over other types of materials every time someone turns around. Until software is able to make human decisions, we will be stuck with this kind of situation.  It seems to me that the student or teacher should have applied to have the websites they needed to access unlocked rather than bringing in the ACLU.  There is an expression about getting out a cannon to kill a fly.  Why threaten when a request works just as well. 

Finally, I am not sure this is really a first amendment issue.  When we start unlocking S & M and bondage support sites and stocking the library with Playboy then perhaps there is a beef.   I am not sure there is a ‘right’ to the internet. 

Update:

ACLU Point of View:

Read more at the Washingtonpost.com

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/04/14/aclu-blindsides-pwc-schools/feed/ 24 What More Do They Want? Don’t like unions, try China http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/21/what-more-do-they-want-dont-like-unions-try-china/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/21/what-more-do-they-want-dont-like-unions-try-china/#comments Mon, 21 Feb 2011 21:23:12 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=12171

The Public Employees Unions have conceded the pension and health care contributions to Governor Walker. What remains on the table is collective bargaining. To give this up would be total loss of power.

Link to Wisconsin Education Association. (WEAC)

Nurses, firefighters, EMTs, doctors, are all in here with the teachers, security personnel, bus drivers etc.
Listen to their point of view. It has changed my mind.  I had to step out of my own regional ethnocentrism for a minute since I am not of a union mind set.  If I were, I would definitely want collective bargaining.  Otherwise, I would not have a union.  Collective bargaining is what really defines a union.  Otherwise, you are just another group of employees with a wish list. Collective bargaining gives that wish list some teeth and some nads.

 

 

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/21/what-more-do-they-want-dont-like-unions-try-china/feed/ 54 Giles County reposts the 10 Commandments http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/20/giles-county-reposts-the-10-commandments/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/20/giles-county-reposts-the-10-commandments/#comments Sun, 20 Feb 2011 12:28:00 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=12148

Washingtonpost.com

PEARISBURG, VA. – Nearly 12 years ago, in the aftermath of the shootings at Columbine High School, officials quietly posted the Ten Commandments on the walls of Giles County public schools. It was a natural reaction, said residents of this rural county peppered with churches, to such an alarming moral breakdown.

There the commandments stayed, within nondescript frames that also featured the first page of the U.S. Constitution, stirring little controversy until December. That’s when an anonymous complaint prompted the superintendent to order the removal of the displays. The decision sparked such passionate community backlash that the county school board voted to post them again in January.

Giles County is down on the Virginia/West Virginia border, just for a location.  It is in the heart of Virginia’s bible belt.  In fact, it is so bible belt that they run a bible bus to Christian classes during the school day, according to the WaPo:

The district also runs a so-called “Bible Bus” so that students can get privately organized Christian instruction off site during the middle of the school day.

As the state becomes more secular, Giles County Schools spurred on by the community  push back.  Students have hung 8.5 x 11 copies of the 10 commandments on the outside of lockers at high school and it appears this case will go to court.  Apparently some of the complaint over the 10 commandments displays originated right here in the Manassas area a few years ago:

The displays were the idea of a Giles County pastor, and they have generated objections on at least one other occasion. In 2004, Sarah McNair, Giles High School senior, sent letters to county politicians, calling the display of the commandments an infringement on her rights and a “serious issue that cannot be ignored.”

Both Virginia’s secretary of education and the superintendent of public instruction dismissed her concerns, said McNair, now 23, who moved from Manassas to Giles County. 

I expect that the secretary of education and state superintendent of public instruction didn’t dismiss her concerns.  They probably felt it wasn’t in their purview.  This case is probably headed to the courts. 

Scholars say that the 1980 case, Stone v. Graham, will probably preclude the school board from legally displaying the commandments on school grounds. “The school board is making a bet that the Supreme Court will overrule that decision,” said Douglas Laycock, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Virginia School of Law. “For a little school board down in the mountains, it’s an expensive endeavor.”

Should the 10 commandments be on display in schools?  Didn’t Del. Bob Marshall attempt to get a bill through the General Assembly several years ago mandating that a copy be in each classroom in Virginia?   Hasn’t this issue been resolved time and time again at the federal level?  Why do we think the outcome will change?  Why can’t observant students keep a copy in their notebook?  Does a copy of the 10 commandments really change behavior if posted?

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/20/giles-county-reposts-the-10-commandments/feed/ 33 Don’t Tread on Freedom of Speech! http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/18/dont-tread-on-freedom-of-speech/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/18/dont-tread-on-freedom-of-speech/#comments Fri, 18 Feb 2011 20:34:44 +0000 Elena http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=12123 I can tell you, on many occasion I saw this very quiet peaceful protester on 234 throughout the past several years. All he did, was stand in the grass, next to his signs. I don’t recall it saying anything incendiary, but he was definitely against the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. He never shouted, he never waved his arms crazily,he just stood there, like a man on his own private mission to make his voice heard.

I was very surprised to read in the paper, the thuggish behavior of a young person in “uniform”. This “teenager” exited his van, kicked Mr. Hersch’s poster and then got back into his van.

He said that about 12:30 p.m. a green van with an advertisement on the side that read “1-800-Marines” drove up to the intersection and a teenaged passenger got out and kicked down one of his signs.

That’s when the act of civil disobedience or disorderly conduct came into play.

Hersch said he stepped out in front of the van to prevent the driver — who he said was in uniform — from driving away.

 

Does this “teenager” not understand the very foundation of America IS our ability to express our opinion without threats of violence or intimidation? His action, by getting out, and kicking the sign down, was meant as a form of intimidation,  NOT a very “marine” like behavior. Maybe this kid missed the recent events in Egypt and other places in the middle east, where people fought, and died, to have their voices heard.

Mr. Hersch, believing this act was indeed wrong, forced a situation where the police would be called. But instead of having them mediate what happend upon arrival, from his perspective , he was the one being accused of wrong doing.

As he expected, people did call the police and a lot of them soon showed up.

Hersch said that at least 10 cruisers arrived, including state police, sheriff’s deputies and Prince William police.

According to Hersch, a Prince William police officer named L. Lewis took the lead and the outcome of the situation was not what he expected.

“I really thought that once the police were there they’d pull us both over to the side and say, ‘Alright guys, what happened?’” he said.

That’s not how things went.

Hersch said that police gave the teenager and the Marine his name, but wouldn’t give him their names.

In addition, Hersch said, the officer wouldn’t answer any of his questions.

It is clear to me, that this “teenager” provoked the entire event. The ACLU is intending to discern the facts and determine if Mr. Hersch’s right to freedeom of speech was infringed upon by the police.

The officer made Hersch remove the signs, which Hersch considered an infringement of his freedom of speech. He thought he was within the law in placing his signs 15 feet from the road.

“We thought we had permission … to place signs as long as we were in attendance,” he said. “We’ve never been challenged.”

Hersch said he would do the same again given the same circumstances.

Kent Willis of the ACLU of Virginia said he would have to to talk to Hersch to get details of what happened, but the organization is interested in freedom of speech issues.

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2011/02/18/dont-tread-on-freedom-of-speech/feed/ 16 An Update from Leesburg Courthouse http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2010/12/25/an-update-from-leesburg-courthouse/ http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2010/12/25/an-update-from-leesburg-courthouse/#comments Sun, 26 Dec 2010 03:37:18 +0000 Moon-howler http://www.moonhowlings.net/?p=11315 It looks like everyone is going by the rules….but is there more to it?

Nativity Scene (And More) At Leesburg Courthouse: MyFoxDC.com

 

 

I find it odd that they continue to allow any displays at all.  On the other hand, is a Christmas tree a religious symbol? I have always thought of Christmas trees as a symbol of the season.  Its origins were pagan and at least in America, Christmas is a national holiday.  The tree is its symbol.  Christians do more and have their own special relics and artifacts of the season.  And that’s a good thing.  But for right now, I like the tree being neutral, like wreaths and candy canes.  Anyone who objects to Christmas trees, wreaths and candy canes is just a grinch and trying to make an issue.

]]> http://www.moonhowlings.net/index.php/2010/12/25/an-update-from-leesburg-courthouse/feed/ 4