$1 million check gets doc out of jail

The above check was posted as bail for Dr. Mark Wangler, the anesthesiologist accused of killing his first wife three years ago.

I am only posting the check because I have never seen a $1 million check before. (Click on the image to see a better quality copy.)

And because Kurt Neeper, a candidate for City Council and an employee with Superior Federal Credit Union, was whining that the check should not be posted online.

Consider this a blow for the First Amendment and Ohio's public records laws. If Neeper is going to be on a government body, he must learn to have a better appreciation for the value of public records.

Don't bother calling your lawyer, Kurt, it is staying online.

Off-campus online speech deserves protection

If preserving the First Amendment is something important to you, as it should be, then there is a case in the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals worth watching.

The question concerns whether in this age of Facebook, Twitter and other social networking Web sites, should schools be permitted to discipline students for online speech when it occurs away from the school.

In 2005, while a high school senior in the Hermitage School District in western Pennsylvania, 17-year-old Justin Layshock created a fake Facebook profile parodying the high school principal. He was suspended for 10 days and, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the school district.

In 2007, a federal judge sided with Layshock and ruled that school districts cannot discipline students for off-campus speech.

The school district appealed and oral arguments were held in December (read the briefs in the case at http://www.aclupa.org/legal/legaldocket/studentsuspendedforinterne.htm).

School officials argue that they have the right to regulate online off-campus speech because the speech can be accessed at the school.

U.S. District Judge Terrence McVerry rejected that argument: "The mere fact that the Internet may be accessed at school does not authorize school officials to become censors of the World Wide Web."

While that would seem to be the correct decision in a free society, not all judges agree.

NBC wrong to nix pro-life ad

I find it outrageous that NBC refused to carry this ad during its Super Bowl broadcast tomorrow.

Despite how you feel about abortion, all groups have the right to express their opinions. The airwaves are owned by the people and NBC and its affiliates are only licensed to use them. While I disagree with this arrangement, that is how it is. Because of that, NBC should not be rejecting ads based on the message.

What is more appalling is that NBC told CatholicVote.org that it would not accept the ad because it won't accept advocacy or issue ads. However, as is pointed out in the news release below, NBC told People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals that it would accept its now-infamous sex ad "Veggie Love" if it made certain changes toning down the sexual content (the "Veggie Love" ad can be found at the bottom of this post). So apparently, PETA ads are acceptable so long as they are not too sexual, but an anti-abortion ad, tastefully done, is not.

Funny thing about that, I don't even think PETA expected its ad to be accepted. I think it probably created the ad knowing it was too sexual for TV in hopes that NBC's rejection would spark interest in the ad on the Internet. Conversely, CatholicVote.org had no reason to expect its ad would be rejected.

I guess this is life in 21st century America. Honest debate is restricted to issue approved by the powerful.

The news release: