City Violates Free Speech on Fourth of July

As area residents gathered at Faurot Park to celebrate American independence Monday, the city of Lima and its agents behaved in a most un-American fashion.

Don Kissick, Allen County Libertarian Party Chairman, was stopped from passing out free copies of one of the nation’s founding documents, the Declaration of Independence — a letter from the American people to King George III outlining the government abuses to which the Americans were being subjected. It is the document that those at Faurot Park were gathering to celebrate.

To justify this gross abuse of a basic human right, the city agents expressed some lame excuse that the Star Spangled Spectacular is a private event. I will explain below why that thinking is wrong. First, let's look at what transpired.

Kissick, in a July 5 letter to the city, explains best what happened:

The gentleman in question who approached my fellow Allen County Libertarian Party members and I (this was approximately 6 p.m.) did so in the most unprofessional manner possible.

As he rolled-up in the cart, he began repeatedly bellowing, “Give me that box,” and, “Hand over that box!”

In light of the fact he never once identified himself or under what authority he operated to be able demand forfeiture of anyone’s personal property, I politely refused.

At that point, his behavior went from threatening and combative to outright belligerent. All the while he insisted we were not allowed to distribute copies of the Declaration of Independence, he never once explained why or under what authority it was prohibited. He then attempted to interrogate me as to whether or not we had gotten “a permit from the committee” to pass out copies of the Declaration of Independence but refused to explain to what committee he was referring or how a permit was necessary to distribute anything on public property. ...

... Next, he once more demanded that I surrender my property to him and this time included I had to “get out of the park” – again, without ever even hinting to what authority he retained to eject anyone from public property – and if I did not comply he would involve officers of the Lima Police Department.

Here is my favorite part:

When I reiterated we had every right to be on public property and distribute copies of the Declaration of Independence under the protection of the First Amendment he then employed his radio to contact others working the festival and asked them to direct law enforcement to our location, saying, “He thinks he’s got rights but he ain’t got no rights!” (Emphasis mine.)

You Be The Judge: Free Speech or Harassment?

You be the judge.

A man jilted by his girlfriend in New Mexico paid about $1,300 for a  billboard that shows the 35-year-old Greg Fultz holding the outline of an infant. The text reads, “This Would Have Been A Picture Of My 2-Month Old Baby If The Mother Had Decided To Not KILL Our Child!”

The billboard was to remain on the main thoroghfare of Alamogordo, N.M., for  three months.

The girlfriend, Nani Lawrence, of course, filed a lawsuit for harassment and violation of  privacy.

Fultz, for his part, is arguing that he is simply exercising his First  Amendment free speech rights.

On Friday, county domestic violence court officials ordered that the sign be taken down by June 16, according to the Alamogordo Daily News.

Adding to the controversy is that Lawrence's friends and lawyer said she had a miscarriage, not an abortion.

"As distasteful and offensive as the sign may be to some, for over 200 years in this country the First Amendment protects distasteful and offensive speech," his lawyer, Todd Holmes, told the Alamogordo newspaper. "My argument is what Fultz said is the truth."

Holmes said his argument is bolstered by the recent Supreme Court ruling that said the activities of the Westboro Baptist Church, who often pickets military funerals, are protected by the First Amendment.

Racists battle homophobes: Only in America

All I can say about this story is, "Only in America."

Freaks from the Westboro Baptist Church, you know, that Kansas "church" that has gained national notoriety for protesting at military funerals and claims that God is killing American soldiers as punishment for homosexuality in the country, showed up at Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day to state their usual nonsense.

This time, however, they were met with a group of counterprotesters from the Knights of the Southern Cross, a branch of the Ku Klux Klan in Virginia.

According to a CNN story:

They were cordoned off separately in a nearby area, but drew little attention as they gave out small American flags behind a banner that read "POW-MIA."

They said they were there to object to the Westboro Baptist Church's anti-troop message.

"It's the soldier that fought and died and gave them that right to free speech," said Dennis LaBonte, the self-described "Imperial Wizard" of the KKK group that he said he formed several years ago.

Of course, the Westboro nuts countered:

$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: