#8 - An Internet Murder

It is a terrible shame when any form of life is taken away. However, it is an even greater shame if that life is that of a 13-year-old girl who died at the hands of an Internet prank.

Thirteen year old Megan Meier was, as most teenage girls would be, thrilled to see a friend request from an attractive boy of a few years older [1]. After receiving her mother Tina’s permission to accept 16 year old Josh Evans as a friend, Megan began exchanging messages with this mysterious boy.

I could write an endless amount of blogs concerning the dangers of MySpace and websites of the like. We are all aware that nothing posted on the Internet is private and even the slightest bit of information can bring about a whirlwind of trouble. An individual must only be 14 years old to create a MySpace, but there is no way to enforce this age limit. Over Thanksgiving break I was shocked to see that my 11-year-old neighbor had created a very thorough MySpace page. There is a great deal of naivety at that age and after prompting him to at least make it private if he wouldn’t remove it, he responded, “Gezz Jen, you’re like so overreacting, nothing bad is going to happen.” Well, Megan Meier and her family believed the same idea.

Suddenly this conversation between Megan and Josh gave Megan things to smile about and feel confident about [1]. Their interaction even led others to notice that Megan “Was the happiest she had ever been in her life," remembers her father, Ron [1].

I’m all for Free Speech, there’s no doubt about that. And even after all of this blogging, I’m still struggling between identifying myself as a Libertarian or a Neoliberal. I think, that at least for now, this conflict will continue. The Internet is an extraordinary thing that offers a free flow of information with more anonymity than Catholic Confession.

One day, on October 16, 2006, that all changed. Josh’s messages suddenly began to become unfriendly. He had shared their prior conversations with others and Megan was being bombarded by others calling her ‘fat’ and a ‘slut’ [1]. Defensively, Megan used to vulgar language to respond to them. However, when her mother was finally able to intervene, Tina was shocked at Megan’s retorts. Feeling abused and alone, Megan fled upstairs in hysterics. She met her father at the top of the stairs. He tried to calm her, but Megan flew past him. Ron proceeded downstairs to cook dinner with his wife and discuss what was bothering Megan. Suddenly, Tina could not concentrate on her and her husband’s conversation, "I had this God-awful feeling and I ran up into her room and she had hung herself in the closet [1]." Megan died in the hospital the next day. Ron checked Megan’s MySpace to find the last message between his daughter and Josh Evans. “According to Ron's best recollection, it said, ‘Everybody in O'Fallon knows how you are. You are a bad person and everybody hates you. Have a shitty rest of your life. The world would be a better place without you [1].’" Hours later, Josh Evan’s MySpace had been deleted.

I can’t say that I want Internet Watchdogs perusing every site at every hour, but there really must be more protection. Megan’s death is a tragedy that should never have happened. Its success came from the ability to act and speak anonymously. Many preach parental monitoring of such forums like the Internet, but that didn’t help Megan. Her mother was the only individual that had Megan’s password. Tina’s watchful eye never allowed Megan to get into trouble, or so she thought [1].

Six weeks after Megan’s death, a lady from down the street contacted the Meiers. She said that Josh Evans never existed - he was created by the mother of one of Megan’s former friends, a family that also lived down the street. The mother created Josh to gain Megan’s trust and to understand why Megan had ended the friendship between her and this mother’s daughter [1].

I understand that the risky part of Internet protection laws is that it is quite easy to step on First Amendment rights. However, there is no First Amendment protection for those that use harassment and true threats. My blog from last week touched on a similar topic, but these two situations are yet so different.

As for the Meiers, there is little sun in their lives. Ron and Tina have divorced under the pressure of their guilt. Tina continues to blame herself and Ron cannot keep himself together. There have not been any charges filed because, according to Lt. Craig McGuire, "We did not have a charge to fit it. I don't know that anybody can sit down and say, 'This is why this young girl took her life [1].'" However, the Meiers “want the law changed, state or federal, so that what happened to Megan - at the hands of an adult - is a crime [1].”

Well, the day the Meiers have been wanting has finally arrived. “City officials in this eastern Missouri community unanimously passed a measure last week making online harassment a crime, just days after learning that a 13-year-old resident killed herself last year after receiving cruel messages on the Internet [2].” On November 21, 2007 the board “made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail [2].”

“According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, 44 states now have some form of cyberstalking or computer-harassment law on the books [2].” These policies often mention that this form of coverage can easily intrude of First Amendment rights. Dave Sobel, the general counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center agrees that, “'The Internet shouldn’t be a safe haven for activities that should otherwise be prohibited [2].’” President Bush had passed a bill in 2005 declaring that any perpetrator using the Internet to annoy other individuals must not be anonymous [4]. However, ‘Josh Evans’ did not annoy Megan, he greatly harmed her. Therefore, this cyber-harassment bill was not used to protect Megan.

I find myself wracking my head against a wall. How could one individual do such a terrible thing to another. There is no excuse for this type of activity. And fortunately, some justice has been served. 'Josh Evans' is truly an abuse of the First Amendment.

[1] http://stcharlesjournal.stltoday.com/articles/2007/11/10/news/sj2tn20071110-1111stc_pokin_1.ii1.txt

[2] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19361

[3] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=cyberstalking

[4] http://www.news.com/Create-an-e-annoyance,-go-to-jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.htm

#7 - I freaking hate HATE SPEECH

Dr. David Gunn was only 47 when he was murdered for his profession [1]. As a licensed OB/GYN that performed abortions, Gunn was not considered a popular man amongst anti-abortion groups like the Army of God. Therefore, when leaving his clinic on March 11, 1993, Gunn was shot three times by Army of God member, Michael F. Griffin [2]. This brutal murder was the first killing of several abortionists in the early 90s. This and the following acts led to the creation of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE).

The Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances Act is a piece of legislation passed in 1994 used to protect an individual’s right to chose. “FACE makes it illegal to intentionally use force, the threat of force, or physical obstruction to injure, intimidate, interfere with, or attempt to injure, intimidate or interfere with individuals obtaining or providing reproductive health care services [3].”

Between 1994 and 2000, FACE helped reduce the violence directed toward clinics, doctors, and patients by 20% [3]. However, this problem is far from over. Pro-Life activists are incredibly determined to ensure that all people know their stance, and in doing so can overstep the line between speech and conduct.

Later last week a US District Judge declared that an anti-abortionist must remove his webpage that condoned the execution of a former abortion doctor. These postings, dated since 2005, forced this clinician to leave the practice because she feared for her life [4]. Seventy-two year old John Dunkle is the web manager of the site that published a post that “Featured the [abortion] provider's name, photo and address, stat[ing] that ‘While it does not sound good to say go shoot her between the eyes, it sounds even worse to say let her alone [5].’"

Dunkle is not even sure that he agrees with the printed statements, and he continues to reiterate that he is not the writer of these messages, only the publisher. “’If they tell me not to print it, I won't print it,’ [Dunkle] said [5].”

U.S. Attorney, John Meehan, sought this injunction in August saying that “’This type of intimidation and scare tactic, regardless of one's beliefs or religious convictions, simply cannot be condoned. Using a public forum, such as the Internet, to incite and instruct people to kill is tantamount to a form of domestic terrorism [5].’"

The injunction also forbids Dunkle from printing any future posts “Containing names, addresses or photographs of health-clinic staff members [5].”

Dunkle’s website took the form of a blog. I’m sure Dunkle believed that he, just like the students in JOUR 199, was exercising his right to the First Amendment. His postings were the written opinions of others and the protection of minority viewpoints is a main function of the First Amendment. However, at what point can Dunkle’s posts be considered hate speech or fighting words?

The First Amendment Center has an excellent site dedicated to the understanding of Hate Speech on the Internet. From the get-go it acknowledges that the U.S. Supreme Court has not yet ruled on online hate speech and that only previous decisions on non-virtual hate speech set the standards for future cases [6].

The concern regarding hate speech legislation is that it can either be overbroad or under-inclusive and often infringe on First Amendment rights.

The most closely related ruling to the situation involving Dunkle is Planned Parenthood of the Columbia/Willamette, Inc. vs. American Coalition of Life Activists (ACLA) [6]. This 2001 case was ruled on by the 9^th Circuit Court.

The ACLA ran a website called the “Nuremberg Files.” This page published the personal information of abortion doctors [6]. After these doctors had been threatened, abused, wounded, or killed by various Pro-Life activists, their names would be crossed out or changed to a grey color. While this site did not expressly threaten the doctors, it did, perhaps, encourage individuals of a certain mindset to bring action upon those they did not agree with.

The court acknowledged this idea as an implied threat, but declared that this form of danger does not constitute as an imminent threat and thereby cannot be restricted without violating the First Amendment.

However, I do not agree with the court. To me, this list of doctors is a hit list. How can they allow for this information to be printed? This is not meant to be a directory for those seeking health services. It is meant to be a published list for Pro-Life activists to act upon. This information does not automatically mean that those listed are in danger, but what sort of redeeming social qualities might this list possess? I can see no reason to allow for its publication. The source marked [7] is a link to the current “Nuremberg Files.” Search around and try not to lose your breakfast. I have yet to decide if I am Pro-Life or Pro-Choice, but this website makes me sick to my stomach.

On that note, have a great Turkey Break!

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gunn_%28doctor%29

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_F._Griffin

[3] http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/facts/face_act.html

[4] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/%5Cnews.aspx?id=19312

[5] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18977

[6] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/internet/topic.aspx?topic=internet_hate_speech

[7] http://www.christiangallery.com/atrocity

#6 - Giving your own slander case media coverage

As recent graduates from the high school scene, we know the bitter taste of rumors. These blatant lies or extensions of the truth can do significant damage to those discussed in the gossip. A person’s reputation is, unfortunately, the most frequent way in which individuals are judged and when damage is done to these mighty reputations, the outcome can be devastating. However, in the right setting, legal action can be taken to defend someone’s honor.

“Defamation is the issuance of a false statement about another person, which causes that person to suffer harm. Slander involves the making of defamatory statements by a transitory (non-fixed) representation, usually an oral (spoken) representation. Libel involves the making of defamatory statements in a printed or fixed medium, such as a magazine or newspaper” [1].

As we have previously learned in class, sometimes there are legitimate reasons for issuing a defamatory statement. I believe that our broad First Amendment protection stems from the ability to speak freely in order to maximize our democracy. Often times certain statements must be issued. Therefore, if the supposed slander or libel may be vital to furthering our nation’s freedoms, the public’s right to know greater outweighs the individual’s desire to avoid being discussed. And let’s be honest, the more true a statement is, the more likely an individual will do whatever they can to avoid being conversed about, even if that means declaring the incriminating statements as slander or libel.

As a broad refresher, the defenses to issuing a defamatory statement include truth, statements made in good faith with reasonable belief that they were true, privilege, opinion, fair comment on a matter of public interest, consent, innocent dissemination, and incapable of doing further defamation to one’s reputation [2].

Asma Gull Hasan is an American lawyer, writer, and Muslim. Her and her family are outspoken supporters of George W. Bush and the Republican Party. Hasan, unlike traditional Muslims, does not cover her hair in public and does not dress as a many of her fellow Muslim women do. Her written and spoken scrutiny of Muslim ways has gained her much support, but also much dissent. [3]

“ Hasan claims Michael Muhammad Knight wrote an unflattering portrayal of her in his book "Blue-Eyed Devil" and influenced a band called The Komina’s to write defamatory lyrics describing her performing a sex act” [4].

This false representation of Hasan in written and spoken form has prompted her to sue Knight and the five members of The Kominas for libel and slander.

Hasan’s attorney, Glenn Merrick is arguing that, “The purpose, intent and effect of these highly offensive, denigrating and defamatory lyrics - written and performed by the Kominas with Knight's knowledge, encouragement and support - was to mock, deride and ridicule Hasan, and to hold her up for public scorn and contempt. Of course, the verse was written and has been performed with actual malice toward Hasan - it was written and performed as knowingly false within the meaning of the applicable law of defamation" [5].

While I could find numerous stories referencing this website that linked directly to The Komina’s lyrics, I could not access the actual page. This leads me to believe that due to the buzz about this suit, the page has since been taken down. I also tried searching for the song in a lyrics web bank, but had no such luck. Eventually, I was able to gain entrance to the cached version of the former site. (This cached version is what is going to get all those scandalous facebook users in trouble. It is a service that goes to all searchable websites and takes photographs of the screenshot. These pictures are then saved in a database for use when webpages are taken down or are temporarily unavailable.)

The portion of the lyrics involving Hasan have been removed from this blog on 1/13/09.

The lyrics are very crude. My caution to you is that is does use foul language and depicts explicit images. And do not expect anything musically aesthetic. Personally, I think Hasan was remiss for giving this song media coverage. She should have let it go, and few would have heard of the song. However, since doing this, she gave the song media attention, which was, I’m sure, The Komina’s point.

The fuzzy area in this case is that it involves matters of race, religion, and political preference. People are allowed to disagree on such matters, but at what point do these disagreements cross the line from being portrayed appropriately to being uncalled for?

“Under United States law, libel generally requires five key elements. The plaintiff must prove that the information was published, the defendant was directly or indirectly identified, the remarks were defamatory towards the plaintiff's reputation, the published information is false, and that the defendant is at fault” [2].

The song lyric, while inappropriate, is not sung to be a true statement. I assume it is said for entertainment purposes. And there is a difference between saying something in jest and saying something to be truthful.

Hasan should have left these sleeping dog rest. Little would have come of it and few would have recognized the song as being a direct diss to her. In giving this national attention, people are searching for the song and giving the band media time. I understand her desire to keep her name in tact, but she should have ignored it all together.

[1] http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel

[3] http://eteraz.wordpress.com/2007/10/24/asma-gul-hasan-suing-progressive-muslim-kids-for-defamation/

[4] http://www.dailypress.com/features/dp-life_religionbrfs_11032nov03,0,6317004.story

[5] http://pueblochieftain.com/metro/1193837385/21

[6] http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:a4eyRU21YacJ:sinsanctuary.com/kominas/lyrics.php+Rumi+was+a+Homo&hl=en&client=firefox-a&gl=us&strip=1

[7] http://muslimwakeup.com/clips/KominasRumiWasaHomo.mp3

[8] http://www.attorneys-usa.com/intentional/defamation.html

#5 - You can Equally Access my Blog

Toward the end of last school year, I remember seeing specific posters around my school. These posters contained silly sayings or funny pictures to gain student attention. Needless to say, I was suckered in by the bright colors and for once, actually stopped to read a school poster. The poster advertised free food and fun through a club called “The Word.” In smaller print, a list followed. I can’t remember verbatim what the declarations said, but it was something like, “This club is student initiated, student run, and completely separate from Elk Grove High School and School District 214.”

At the time, I did not realize why it was necessary for an after-school club to declare themselves as detached from the school. But this week’s search for a blog topic has given me my answer.

A “lawsuit, filed…in U.S. District Court in Burlington, claims the Middlebury Union High School has violated the federal Equal Access Act and First Amendment by refusing official club status to the Youth Alive Club, while granting it to other groups such as the Gay/Straight Organization, the Arabic Club and the Outing Club” [1].

My initial response to the suit put forth by a female student is of curiosity. How can a school grant access to the Arabic Club but not to a Christian-oriented group? That doesn’t seem fair. This girl’s intention is simple. She wants a space to advertise, a photo in the yearbook, listing in the school’s handbook of clubs, and access to supplies. She is not trying to force anyone into the club nor is she trying to cause harm or a disruption to the day.

Early cases involving high school’s and religious clubs held that in order to separate church and state, schools do not need religious messages in the scholastic environment. However, as time went on, Congress came to understand a different reasoning. “While Congress recognized the constitutional prohibition against government promotion of religion, it believed that nonschool-sponsored student speech, including religious speech, should not be excised from the school environment,” [2]. This realization helped procure the Equal Access Act in 1984.

“Congress’s primary purpose in passing the act, according to the Supreme Court, was to end ‘perceived widespread discrimination’ against religious speech in public schools” [2] and the Equal Access Act has several different concepts. “The first [basic concept] is nondiscrimination…The second basic concept is protection of student-initiated and student-led meetings… The third basic concept is local control” [2]. In simple, this means:

• “If a public secondary school permits student groups to meet for student-initiated activities not directly related to the school curriculum, it is required to treat all such student groups equally.

• The school cannot discriminate against any students conducting such meetings “on the basis of the religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.” This language was used to make clear that religious speech was to receive equal treatment, not preferred treatment.

• The act does not limit the authority of the school to maintain order and discipline or to protect the well-being of students and faculty” [2].

It seems like a no-brainer that the Youth Alive Club should be given equal access to the things the other clubs receive. However, for some, it obviously isn’t. When denying the petition, the school’s principal William Lawson said, “’Even assuming…that Youth Alive could be deemed accurately as ‘co-curricular,’ such club status would mean that Youth Alive’s activities would become school sponsored with monetary support and an advisor assigned’” [1]. However, the plaintiff acknowledges the point that the Arabic Club and Outing Club are both co-curricular. Therefore, I cannot seem to understand why Youth Alive would not receive the same benefits.

The student’s attorney is arguing the same idea, “The school has recognized other non-curriculum clubs, and “’the government doesn’t endorse religion merely by allowing it on a neutral basis’” [1].

The Equal Access Act applies only to high schools and “School districts can opt out of the Act by not allowing any non-curriculum clubs” [3].

The answer to this question may vary at each different school district, but I wonder that if the Equal Access Act allows for a faculty member to be present for meetings, does this person get paid for their time? Also, if a club can receive school funding, how much money should these religious clubs get? The answer to this question seemed hazy. No particular source would make a clear cut declaration. However, this too probably varies at different schools. I know that at my school, each club got different amounts of money based on need and involvement, but each club could ask the Student Council for more funding if needed.

“The Word” ended up failing after a few months. However, it had nothing to do with lack of equality from the school when compared to other after school clubs. I believe the students of my high school were not ready for such a group, because it seemed that at my suburban high school it was so much cooler to be a hardcore atheist and an anarchist. But that’s a topic for another time. : D

[1] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=19224

[2] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/publicschools/topic.aspx?topic=religious_clubs

[3] http://www.religioustolerance.org/equ_acce.htm

OTHER BACKGROUND INFORMATION

http://www.telladf.org/UserDocs/VOComplaint.pdf

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_24_37/ai_73624116

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=18065

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=4955

Blog #4 - Aye! Me achin' throat!

Take your vitamins and don't get strep.

Blog to continue next week.

Have a nice weekend.

#3 - All Hail the Mighty Scammer

Where I’m about to go may not be in the direction in which we are supposed to take our blogs. However, I’ve had some things bouncing around in my head, so I’ve let the research lead me forth to unknown territory in my discovery of a blog topic. Surprisingly, I’ve sort of made it up as I’ve gone and my Point A musings have combined with Point B for a conclusion that I did not foresee at the beginning of my journey. If this sort of material is not appropriate for said blog, I understand, but I was nearly the victim of a scam, so I’m going to talk about it.

This summer my family and I moved. We left my comfort zone of suburbia in lovely Elk Grove Village and headed northwest to beautifully bland Huntley, Illinois. We were downsizing and my bedroom furniture just wouldn’t fit appropriately in my new room. So we decided to do what millions before us had done and post a classified ad on craigslist.com. The furniture was sturdy, attractive, and in great shape. I spent a few hours snapping some truly breathtaking photographs of the furniture and crafting a rather appealing advertisement. The asking price was a steal, but we so desired to sell the piece before the move. I must admit, I was nervous. For those of you unfamiliar with craigslist, familiarize yourself. It is a really crafty invention. Craigslist allows people to post free ads on a website for seven days. Ads can be sorted by location, type, or asking price. This is geared toward 450 cities in 50 countries and boasts a whopping 14 million self-produced advertisements a month [1]. My mom’s best friend had wonderful luck with the website and recommended it to us fervently. I’m naive, I’ll admit it. I’m a sucker for nearly everything. So when I received this e-mail, my initial reactions were not of concern:

“Hello ,
Thanks for your response,am ok with the price and the conditions..I
would have love to come and look at it its just that time wont permit
me cos am very busy woman ... Just to let you know that i will be
paying through a certified or cashiers check and i will be
responsible for the shippment ok and the pickup.As soon as you receive
the payment and it clears in your bank you will be deducting your
actual fund and send the remaining amount to my shipping agent via
western union money transfer.They will be the one to do the pick-up
at your place ok..I hope i can trust you with my balance.
Do get back to me with the following details that will be on the payment:
1.Name to be issue to...
2.Contact Address(City,State,Zip code,Country):
3.Contact telephone number:(home,cell or work...)
Do get back to me as soon as possible with this details for payment
to be made out to you immediately.In other for the payment to be sent
to you on time.Also i will want u to remove the item from the site u
posted it so that no one will contact u for it.Deduct $50 from the
check for compensation.
Hoping to hear from you soon.
Regards,
Hilda”

Score! It hadn’t even been up for a full day and I already had legitimate business! I forwarded the e-mail to my mom to see what she thought. When she called me back, she was laughing. She knew from the get go and I still thought the ad was real. Opps! She told me it was a modern day version of the Nigerian Scam.

(Thank you for sticking through to this point, you’ll see in just a moment why such in-depth background information is warranted.)

In the SPJ notes I found an article from Editor & Publisher concerning an experience similar to my own. A man, Paul Rozendal, posted an advertisement in an Oregon newspaper selling a wooden trunk and a radio. Leaving his phone number for contact information, he soon received a telephone call from a special service. This service is geared toward those with hearing or speaking impairments. The dialer goes to a website that allows him to type what he would like to say into a chat. A translator then gets on the phone and dials the correct number and says to the receiver of the phone call the messages that the dialer typed. The translator will also type the receiver’s comments back into the chat box for the dialer to see. It’s a really neat service and I’m honestly sickened that people are using it to do their scamming.

“Scam artists operating from foreign countries have started using the service in order to disguise their foreign accents and foreign phone numbers. Rozendal thought the potential buyer for the chest was hearing impaired. In the relay call, the buyer provided an e-mail address and began communicating with Rozendal online” [2].

Similarly to my encounter, “The retired school teacher was contacted by a potential buyer for the chest and was led into an e-mail exchange which ended with four separate money orders totaling $3,320 to pay for the $500 chest. The buyer asked Rozendal to cash the money orders, keep the $500 plus $50 for his trouble, and send the balance back to him via Western Union.

The object of this scam is to get a person to cash a fake check and wire the money to the scammer. When the check turns out to be phony, the bank customer has to pay the bank” [2].

Luckily, Rozendal was quick to catch the scam and all correspondence to the scammer was stopped.

I honestly thought my experience was rare. But my frolic through the internet brought me to countless pages addressing this same exact scam. Craigslist.com has a site explaining the different scams, ways to avoid being scammed, and what to do if you’ve been contacted by a scammer [3].

Unfortunately, “The scam is repeated over and over all across the country. All the scammer needs is access to a newspaper and a printer to make the false checks” [4].

My original blog consideration was going to be a declaration to why people are protected to post their classified ads and should be able to do so without being taking advantage of. These scams are commonly done on elderly people that may not been as keen to new trends. Just because they aren’t up to date, doesn’t mean they don’t deserve the right to sell something without the possibility of punishment. I understand that there is no clause in the First Amendment saying something along the lines of, “the right to sell goods and services without the hindrance of scammers.” However, the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of the Press allow that advertisements receive protection, albeit a bit minimalized, under the First Amendment.

Edenfield v. Fane declared that, "The commercial market place, like other spheres of our social and cultural life, provides a forum where ideas and information flourish. Some of the ideas and information are vital, some of slight worth. But the general rule is that the speaker and the audience, not the government, assess the value of the information presented. Thus, even a communication that does no more than propose a commercial transaction is entitled to the coverage of the First Amendment” [5].

Therefore, as long as the ad is not false, individuals are protected to advertise, with reason, what they would like to advertise.

In the Federal Communications Commission v. Pacifica Foundation, the court decided to protect the rights of the listener from indecent material [6]. Shouldn’t there be a clause to protect the sellers from fraudulent buyers?

“So what is there to be done about this problem? Consumer awareness is certainly a critical factor. If the victim does not cooperate, the scam fails. But, unfortunately, there will still be victims…The current laws have not stemmed the tide of fraudulent schemes proliferating over the Internet. Most of the current issues and cases in the United States have focused on the First Amendment and intellectual property laws, not on consumer fraud. Regardless, the debate about the need for more government control or interference with the Internet versus the ability of the Internet community to police itself is still ongoing. Either way, there will be people who will be unsatisfied with the outcome of this debate. Until there is an effective way of enforcing and preventing fraud, the average surfer should be very cautious and informed before entering into a substantial transaction with someone he or she does not know at least by reputation” [7].

And so there we have it: The internet and all its free reign glory. I believe that it was originally meant for the advancement of society through easy access to knowledge, quick communication with near and far friends and family, and general entertainment. But through that process, it's become a hot bed of hacking, scamming, stealing, stalking, and other countless crimes. Where are the e-police? Should there even be such people? Or should individuals just be suspect of everyone and understand that posting ads will gain the attention of scam artists? But then again, scamming is a crime, shouldn't it be treated as such? New technology is making it even harder to "quality control" the internet. At what point does regulation of the internet become an infringement on the First Amendment?

"Information Superhighway is really an acronym for 'Interactive Network For Organizing, Retrieving, Manipulating, Accessing And Transferring Information On National Systems, Unleashing Practically Every Rebellious Human Intelligence, Gratifying Hackers, Wiseacres, And Yahoos'."

-Keven Kwaku

Oh, and in case you were curious, we never did sell the furniture. But that’s okay, it actually looks really nice in the new room.

[1] http://craigslistt.us

[2] http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/departments/ad_circ/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003658249

[3] http://www.craigslist.org/about/scams.html

[4] http://fileblogs.com/Senior-Scam-Alert-6-Newspaper-Ad-Scams&article_31934

[5] http://www.lawpublish.com/amend1.html

[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Communications_Commission_v._Pacifica_Foundation

[7]http://www.fmew.com/archive/fraud/index.html

OTHER SOURCES

http://www.identitytheft911-sunj.com/alerts/alert.ext?sp=93

http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october062007/nigerian_scam_10607.php

#2 - The Tensions of Racism

In 1954, the United States Supreme court declared that "separate educational facilities are inherently unequal” [1]. This case, Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, would spark countless, and often violent, conflicts across the nation. In fact, more than 50 years after the start of desegregation, the violent trends of racism have yet to stop.

For those of you unaware of the racial tensions at Jena High School in Jena, Louisiana, the story involves multiple incidents involving aggression between white and black students. The spark to this powder keg was prompted when a black student asked the Principal at an open assembly if he could sit at the school’s “white tree.” While faculty would disagree with the student body’s attitude that a certain portion of the school grounds were not welcoming to certain races, the Principal, likely surprised by the student’s questions remarked that students could “sit wherever they wanted" [2]. The next day nooses hung from said tree. [3] From the initial question on August 31, 2006 to the arrests of six black students for beating up a white boy in December, racial aggression was at an all time high in Jena. The animosity continued to grow as white students would face minor, if any, punishment from their fellow white superiors, whereas black students would go on to face up to 100 years in prison for much less.

That is, of course, a very brief version of the story and much more can be found in the links below. My blog this week concerns these ‘Jena 6’ as background, so I thought it relevant to include this information. The story at hand involves a t-shirt similar to this:

[4]

And this school, Smyrna High School in Smyrna, Tennessee:

[5]

“According to a lawsuit filed in federal court in Nashville last week, Danielle Super came in to school late on Sept. 20 after having attended a march. As she was waiting for her mother to sign her in, Smyrna High School assistant principal Jolene Watson told her she could not come into the school wearing the Jena Six T-shirt because it could "cause a problem."After protesting the order, Super changed shirts and returned to school” [6].

I can understand the surprise Danielle and her mother, Norma, felt when hearing they were dressed inappropriately. Their outfits were, to them, a form of speech and an expression of their beliefs; exactly what the First Amendment was made for. They were demonstrating their support for the Jena 6 at a peaceful march.

“But district officials said they were only trying to prevent a disruption. Before school started on Sept. 20, a group of students were making racial slurs in the hallway and the assistant principal had to break it up. This incident coincided with a national day of support for the Jena Six on which people were urged to wear black clothing and stand up for the Louisiana students.” [6].

The school claimed that they were acting under the Tinker Standard. “This standard asks whether school officials can reasonably forecast whether the student expression will cause a substantial disruption or material interference with school activities” [7].

Since Watson had heard talk of the day’s significance in explicit terms, she felt that it was appropriate to ask Super to change. I cannot say Super’s outfit would have prompted a mass riot during the day, but I do know the brutal tongues of young minds, particularly when it comes to matters of race. The risk of having a student say something which would later be regretted or cause for emotional damages is not a risk the school should be required to take.

"Tensions were high and we made the decision that students wearing shirts that expressed a clear opinion, like 'Free the Jena Six,' wouldn't be able to wear those," said James Evans, Rutherford County Schools' spokesman. "Of course we support free expression, but we also need to maintain a safe environment"[9].

I could not find specific demographics for the high school, but I did find the school’s district, Rutherford County, school’s demographics. This information concluded that 75.7% of the district’s students are white and 14.3% are African American [10].

The American Civil Rights Union (ACLU) of Tennessee agreed with the school’s decision [11].

Super's shirt did not used crude language, display violent images, or insult anyone directly. Her shirt, unlike "F*ck Bush" messages may have caused for a more rational, scholarly debate. However, the minds of high school students are still irrational. When it comes to matters of race and religion, a school cannot be too careful. I remember seeing a student I went to high school with wearing a t-shirt that said, "Jesus is a C*nt." I had never seen such a blatantly offensive shirt in my life and within minutes of arriving to school, he was told to turn his shirt inside out. While this boy's shirt was much more offensive than Super's, his message confronted a touchy subject. Had his shirt said, "Cheney is a C*nt," I doubt I would have been so utterly shocked.

Since Super's public school was acting under the Tinker Standard, she is unlikely, in my opinion, to find a court to side with her view.

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education

[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jena_Six

[3] http://www.jenasix.org/timeline.html

[4] http://www.allaboutrace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/06/free-jena-six.jpg

[5] http://www.rcs.k12.tn.us/rc/general/general_frameset.htm

[6] http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5201517.html

[7] http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/speech/studentexpression/topic.aspx?topic=clothing_dress_codes_uniforms

[8] http://www.shs.rcs.k12.tn.us/administration/watson/

[9] http://www.splc.org/newsflash.asp?id=1624&year=

[10] http://www.rcs.k12.tn.us/rc/general/about_rcs.htm

[11] http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA6487404.html?rssid=190

#1 - Profanity and Tact

Often times, I wonder whether tact and social norms are meant to be broken rather than abided by. After our class discussion of the Rocky Mountain Collegian Editorial, I could help not help but feel a slight bit disappointed and shocked. These emotions have since led me to entertain the blog opinions of others, research the staff’s motives in printing such a profane statement, and form a more solid opinion on the matter.

For those of you that are unaware of the incident at hand, the Colorado State University’s student-run newspaper printed a four word editorial in response to the tasing of the University of Florida student on September 18, 2007.

Their statement read:

“TASER THIS: F--K BUSH”

Followed by:

“This is the view of the Collegian editorial board” (1).

I may be a softy, but the publicly printed use of profanity gives me the chills. Especially when done in a fashion that only is prompted by the desire to gain attention. The act of being controversial just to be controversial is a disgrace to good journalism and writing everywhere.

While the Editorial made its point loud and clear, I cannot help but feel they went about it the wrong way. Their act to stand behind a fellow university student could have been done with decency, and their actions would have seemed far more just.

After an incident involving a man sporting a jacket that bore the statement, “F--K THE DRAFT, the court held that, The First Amendment, as applied through the Fourteenth, prohibits states from making the public display of a single four-letter expletive a criminal offense, without a more specific and compelling reason than a general tendency to disturb the peace” (2).

The two statements were similar in that they short, simple, and crude. They do little to prompt scholarly debate and come off as immature.

However, what has since erupted from this statement is a battle of republicans vs. democrats; Not the Editorial Board’s supposed desire to defend the First Amendment by practicing the freedoms it stands for.

As I am an aspiring journalist, my thoughts and hopes are now with the Editor – in – Chief of the Collegian, J. David McSwane. As he is the sole individual that has taken the rap for this statement, his position as editor is in jeopardy. While I cannot agree with his decision to run such a message, he is still learning and this ordeal has served as a great lesson for him.

As for immediate consequences, “The editorial board [while] facing criticism on and off campus and losing an estimated $30,000 in ad revenue, claims the editorial was an exercise of, and call to protect, free speech on campus” (3).

In response to demands for McSwane to resign, McSwane is holding firm. In a letter written to the public defending his decision to print the message, McSwane admits his frustration with the situation, “While the editorial board feels strongly with regard to first amendment issues, we have found the unintended consequences of such a bold statement to be extremely disheartening. The First Amendment is at the very core of what we do as a newspaper. We as journalists wish to celebrate it, utilize it and, sometimes, defend it” (4)

I am completely in agreement with McSwane’s last sentence; The First Amendment is something I refuse to take for granted and I will do whatever I can to uphold its incredible freedom. While he was within his limits, I cannot agree with his method for exercising this freedom.

(1)http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Taser.This-2984348.shtml?refsource=collegeheadlines

(2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cohen_v._California

(3)http://www.nsns.org/news/taser-this

(4)http://media.www.collegian.com/media/storage/paper864/news/2007/09/21/News/Letter.From.Collegian.Editor.In.Chief.Regarding.Bush.Statement-2984663.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/business/media/01taser.html?_r=1&ref=us&oref=slogin