The ACLU of Virginia has asked Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) to revise or remove two questions from his questionnaire for judicial applicants regarding mental and physical disabilities that the group says may violate the American with Disabilities Act.

The questions are: “Have you ever been treated for any emotional or mental illness or condition. If so, please give the particulars.”and “Do you suffer from any impairment of eyesight or hearing or any other physical limitation?”

“These questions are unnecessary, inappropriate, invasive and very likely illegal,” said Kent Willis, executive director of the ACLU of Virginia. “Persons with disabilities fought for many years to eliminate employment and other forms of discrimination against them. The governor’s questions are an affront to them and the law, and we hope he will move swiftly to remove them.”

The application is available.  After reading it, it seems far more invasive and inappropriate than just the health questions.  Why does the governor need to know what political candidates an applicant has contributed to?  I guess you don’t want anyone who has ever contributed to a Democratic candidate.  This administration seems to just go by its own set of rules.  The hell with  HIPAA laws and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 

Should judges and other appointment applicants be subjected to questions of this personal of a nature?  Should questions like this be part of the initial vetting or should they be part of a final selection?  Perhaps this type of question should never be asked.  How much do we really get to know about a public servant?

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

On his Monday radio show, Glenn Beck highlighted claims that before he started targeting a little-known, left-leaning organization called the Tides Foundation on his Fox News TV show, “nobody knew” what the non-profit was.

Indeed, for more than a year Beck has been portraying the progressive organization as a central player in a larger, nefarious cabal of Marxist/socialist/Nazi Obama-loving outlets determined to destroy democracy in America. Beck has routinely smeared the low-profile entity for being staffed by “thugs” and “bullies” and involved in “the nasty of the nastiest,” like indoctrinating schoolchildren and creating a “mass organization to seize power.”

As Media Matters reported, the conspiratorial host had mentioned (read: attacked) the little-known progressive organization nearly 30 times on his Fox program alone since it premiered in 2009, including several mentions in the last month. (Beck’s the only TV talker who regularly references the foundation, according to our Nexis searches.)

So yes, Beck has done all he can to scare the hell out of people about the Tides Foundation and “turn the light of day” onto an organization that actually facilitates non-profit giving.

And guess what? Everybody in America would have found out about the Tides Foundation last week if Byron Williams had had his way. He’s the right-wing, government-hating, gun-toting nut who strapped on his body armor, stocked a pickup truck with guns and ammo, and set off up the California coast to San Francisco in order to start killing employees at the previously obscure Tides Foundation in hopes of sparking a political revolution.

 

Thankfully, the planned domestic terrorist attack never came to pass because California Highway Patrol officers pulled Williams over for drunk driving on his way to his killing spree. Williams quickly opened fire, wounding two officers during a lengthy shootout. Luckily, Williams wasn’t able to act out the ultimate goal of his dark anger — fueled by the TV news he watched — about how “Congress was railroading through all these left-wing agenda items,” as his mother put it. Williams wasn’t able to open fire inside the offices of the Tides Foundation, an organization “nobody knew” about until Glenn Beck started targeting it.

Who is Byron Williams, what was his plan and how was he stopped?

According to CNSnews:

OAKLAND, Calif. (CBS/KPIX/AP) A California man accused in a shootout with California Highway Patrol officers in Oakland early Sunday told officials that he traveled to San Francisco and planned to attack two nonprofit groups there “to start a revolution,” according to a probable cause statement released by police.

 Bryon Williams, 45, a convicted felon with two prior bank robbery convictions, targeted workers at the American Civil Liberties Union and the Tides Foundation, said Oakland police Sgt. Michael Weisenberg in court documents.

 Officer Jeff Thomason, an Oakland police spokesman, claimed Williams targeted the two nonprofit organizations because of their political ideologies. The Tides Foundation works to advance progressive social change, according to its Web site.

 Williams was pulled over for speeding and weaving through traffic Saturday night on an Oakland highway. California Highway Patrol officers say once they approached his truck they found Williams alone, donning a bulletproof vest and armed with three guns, including a rifle.

 Police say Williams armed himself with a handgun and started to exchange fire with the officers, and a 12-minute shootout followed. More officers responded after Williams reportedly reloaded three different guns inside his truck, reported CBS affiliate KPIX. After the exchange two CHP officers were taken to a hospital where they were treated for minor injuries. Williams was admitted to a hospital and treated for gunshot wounds to his arms and legs.

If a radio or TV personality  continually rails against an individual or an organization, night after night, and that message is listened to by an unstable individual, there are bound to be negative consequences.  Beck gets on his show and hisses, blubbers, cries, and acts out against the current administration, Congress, members of congress, the President, the Tides, the ACLU, ACORN, Soros, just to name a few of his hit list.  Beck needs to tone it down before there are unalterable consequences.  Maybe while he is down on his knees, he needs to speak to his Lord about bearing false witness.  He really is out of control.  Fox News needs to rein him in. Need we say more?

UPDATE: See Video at end of Post

March 11, 2010

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT: (212) 549-2666; media@aclu.org

OXFORD, MS – The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit today against a Mississippi High School that has canceled prom rather than let a lesbian high school student attend the prom with her girlfriend and wear a tuxedo to the event. In papers filed with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, the ACLU asks the court to reinstate the prom for all students at the school and charges Itawamba County School District officials are violating Constance McMillen’s First Amendment right to freedom of expression.

“All I wanted was the same chance to enjoy my prom night like any other student. But my school would rather hurt all the students than treat everyone fairly,” said McMillen, an 18-year-old senior at Itawamba Agricultural High School in Fulton, Mississippi. “This isn’t just about me and my rights anymore – now I’m fighting for the right of all the students at my school to have our prom.”

Read entire Press Release

How about let’s just alter this scene just a little bit.  How about if the girl didn’t say she was a lesbian and 2 girls just showed up at the door to go to prom, like unromantic friends.  Would they be denied admission?  What is wrong with schools? 

There was a suggestion made that a private group should sponsor a private prom for ”people like this.’  Now just what is that supposed to mean?  I read in the paper that Bull Run Unitarian Universalist Church did sponsor a special prom for gay and lesbian students last spring.  Good for them.  That church is a real standard bearer for helping those who are under-represented.  I hope they will do that every year, despite the fact that local bloggers (many who claim to be good Christians)  had a field day and made extremely disparaging remarks about the church and the kids.   It’s easy to point fingers.  Its harder to step up to the plate and provide for those amongst us who might not have an advocate. 

Most of the time I think the ACLU is a pain in the ass.  I think we are supposed to think that.  However, this is one time I am glad they are out there, defending those who might not otherwise have a line of defense.  Schools need realize that gay and lesbian students are not all closeted like they were a generation ago, not should they be. 

If  the school wants to ensure that people’s sensibilities are not offended, it  needs to address the behavior of everyone coming to the dance.  It  needs to set standards of conduct and stick to its  guns.  It  should demand the same lines of decency from the heterosexual students as it is  obviously going to do with the homosexual students.  They can all do their dirty dancing after the prom.

More from the hometown newspaper

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

According to the Washington Post:

“We have two problems here,” said Rebecca Glenberg, legal director of the ACLU of Virginia. “One is that there appears to be a pattern of using this ordinance to target the Latino community, and two, the loitering ordinance [overall] is unconstitutional.”

It was the second time in four weeks the ACLU has acted on behalf of Latinos in the county. A similar motion to dismiss loitering charges filed last month on behalf of four men stated that the county’s loitering ordinance is unconstitutional. Both motions are set to go before a Prince William General District Court judge Oct. 27.

This appears to be a wait and see situation. The 3 men live in Coverstone Apartments. Their attorney, Daniel Voss, reported that the men were doing nothing wrong and were standing outside the complex on a grassy area. However, something seems odd:

All the men were released after the incidents. If, however, they had been detained in the jail, they would have been questioned about their immigration status under Prince William’s agreement with federal immigration authorities, said Voss, who would not comment on whether the men are in the United States legally.

Is that how the Resolution works? Isn’t a person’s status checked post arrest? Does a person have to be jailed to have status checked? I must not have understood the Resolution after all–or are the men arrested legal residents?

Published: August 14, 2009

The American Civil Liberties Union on Friday filed a motion to dismiss charges against four Hispanic men arrested for loitering near the Coverstone apartment complex in Manassas earlier this year.

In the papers, filed in Prince William General District Court, the ACLU challenges Prince William County’s loitering ordinance, saying the law is “unconstitutionally vague,” and allows police to target “disfavored groups.”

According to the court documents filed by the ACLU, Alberto Miguel Arias, 35, Juan Canseco-Rodriguez, 51, Jesus Velasquez Lopez, 43, and Isreal Lopez Amador, 36, were arrested for loitering on May 5.

According to the ACLU, the men were part of a larger group of men standing on the sidewalk near a bus stop outside Coverstone Apartments, where they lived, when police officers approached them on May 5.

The police officers asked each of the men for identification. The men who were unable to prove they lived in the apartment complex were charged with trespassing and the men who could prove they were apartment complex residents were charged with loitering, according to the ACLU.

Prince William County police late Friday said they had no information available about the case.

According to online court documents, Arias, Canseco-Rodriguez, Lopez, and Amador were all charged with loitering.

According to the Prince William County code, loitering is a Class1 misdemeanor, punishable by up to 12 months in jail and/or a fine of up to $2,500.

Nancy Lyall of Mexicans Without Borders said the four men charged with loitering contacted the group shortly after their arrests.

Nancy Lyall of Mexicans Without Borders said the four men charged with loitering contacted the group shortly after their arrests.

“We don’t understand the reason for the arrests,” she said. “They were standing in a public area.”

Lyall said the group received several complaints of police arresting day laborers in the Coverstone area this spring, but hadn’t heard of any recent arrests under the county’s loitering ordinance.

“We believe these individuals were targeted because of their ethnicity,” stated ACLU of Virginia Legal Director Rebecca Glenberg in a statement.

The four men are due in Prince William General District Court on Sept. 1 for a hearing on the loitering charges.

I decided this one couldn’t be summarized. Was this predictable or what?

Does anyone else wonder who else was involved in this case? I drive in that area frequently. I always see Hispanic men. I never see cops or people being arrested.

Stay tuned. This case should bring out the hounds of Hell and some lively red circles beating the war drums.

Meanwhile, who pays for this? Just askin’. I know who I would like to send the bill to.