Louisiana Parish's Ignorance of Constitution May Cost Taxpayers in Legal Fees

by Nomad

Taking a Stand in Louisiana

Last week, a Louisiana parish school district took a controversial step to support President Trump and his stand against the NFL players who refused to honor the American flag.  

Superintendent Scott Smith of Bossier Parish notified 34 schools that standing during the national anthem prior to sporting events would be mandatory for all student-athletes. Smith said he would support decisions taken by school principals to make sure athletes stand.
According to his statement, it would be up to individual schools to discipline any defectors. Potential punishments range from “extra running to a one-game suspension.” 

To make this policy clear, a letter to athletes and parents describing the school’s rules during playing of the national anthem. Smith said:

"In Bossier Parish, we believe when a student chooses to join and participate on a team, the players and coaches should stand when our National Anthem is played in a show of respect. It is a choice for students to participate in extracurricular activities, not a right, and we at Bossier Schools feel strongly that our teams and organizations should stand in unity to honor our nation's military and veterans."

That might have been music to Trump's furry ears, but it, as we will see, extremely misguided.

Kierkegaard on Free Speech vs Free Thinking

by Nomad

Scrub: How the EU's "Right to be Forgotten" Policy Highlights the Internet's Built-in Shortcomings

by Nomad

The Internet is a "gift from God," said Pope Francis and yet that it comes with some dangerous limitations. For good reasons and bad, that divine offerring is under threat.

The News Written on the Wind

Most of us didn't think too much when the Internet ground print media into the  dust.

It was a breakthrough.

An astonishing step forward. If the former system of print media disappeared, then that's what progress looks like. The hard copy was dead, silently murdered by the website.

It was certainly more convenient and in many ways, it led to a revolution when it came to access to news and information. There's no question that it allowed news addicts their daily (hourly) hits. When it came to breaking news, the Internet outstripped CNN, a network that once broke the speed barrier for the live broadcast and the on-the-scene interviews. 

As the Internet became the predominant means for the average citizen to get the news, few considered the very real difference between them. I am not referring to the vast amounts of propaganda- that's nothing new. I am not speaking about faulty information online, especially given the rise of "fake news" and spoof sites. 

The problem with using the Internet as your only information source is its uniquely ephemeral (and indeed its rescindable) nature. Things appear and disappear seemingly at random.
Despite impressive efforts, the sheer volume of information makes any comprehensive attempt to archive the information fairly impossible.

Auld Lang Syne: European Courts and the Right to Be Forgotten

by Nomad

One of Internet's biggest stories of the year went practically unnoticed in the American press. A European court ordered Google to provide a means for individuals to control what has been written online about them.
At least, the ruling says, search engines cannot help search engine users find that information.

The desire to be remembered is, generally speaking, something most of us aspire to. However, when it comes to our online footprint, there are a lot of people who would strongly prefer to be forgotten. Although the event cannot entirely be erased from the vast public forum known as the Net, then at least we can try to separate our names (and our reputations) from the information. 

Should that photo of you when you weighed as much as a Volkswagen be a burden you must carry forever? Must a teenage shoplifter who has changed her ways in adulthood have the details of her pop up every time she looks for a new job? Should an admitted wife-beater have one incident ruin the rest of his life? What about a convicted bank embezzler who has served his time, does he have the right to be forgotten?

Making good use of a seasonal reference, we might ask:

Should old acquaintance be forgot, and never brought to mind?

Approved Speech: Tennessee Town Bans Negative Remarks and Criticism on Social Media

by Nomad

Yesterday we reported how one Russian governor decided that the best way of handling the national economic crisis was by banned the use of the word "crisis." 

Such a backward idea, right?

Well, Americans shouldn't laugh too hard at those crazy Ruskies. Bloomberg recently reported that a similar effort in Tennessee to silence discussion that local government approves of. 

No Expectation of Privacy Whatsoever

Earlier this month, the town of South Pittsburg, Tennessee, near Chattanooga, passed a resolution that prohibits anybody professionally connected to South Pittsburg, from “publicly discuss[ing] information about other employees and/or volunteers not approved for public communication” on social media. This includes employees, volunteers, and contractors. 

The resolution also wags a finger against posting anything on a personal Facebook page or on Twitter that anybody might consider either defamatory or libelous. The policy states that citizens "should have no expectation of privacy whatsoever."

The Chatanooga Times Free Press supports the Bloomberg piece:

It applies to all city elected representatives, appointed board members, employees, volunteers, vendors, contractors and anyone associated with the town in an official capacity who uses social networks. The policy says those persons can't post anything negative about the city, its employees or other associates.

The officials said that the tough policy was necessary because over the past year, their work has been "hampered by criticism and lies on social media."

Mayor Jane Dawkins defended the action, saying that this was "not a new concept." 
Nobody is arguing that. The question is whether it is legal or wise.

Flying the Flags: Is Support for a Hate Group Protected Free Speech?

by Nomad

A Boca Raton man flies the flags of the Confederacy and the KKK over his home. A recruitment sign along with a noose are also features in his front yard. Is this really free speech, protected by the Constitution or symbols meant to intimidate black Americans and other minorities?

Does freedom of speech include the freedom to demonstrate open support for a racist hate group? According to one west Boca Raton Florida man, it certainly does.  "Mr. Hayes" - the only name he would give-   hoisted both the KKK and confederate flag over his mobile home a couple weeks ago. He has also posted a sign recruiting new members.  

Hayes told  the reporter that he had moved to Florida from New York about four years ago.  Although the KKK has always had a violent history against blacks and other minorities, Hayes says he doesn't condone such acts. Nevertheless, he does think his right to free speech allows him to hang a noose in his front yard.

Unfair Use: How Copyright Violation Claims are Used to Suppress Intelligent Debate

by Nomad

Online hosting sites like YouTube and others routinely chose to ignore the fair use provisions of of the copyright laws at the cost of online free speech.

When does one man's education and debunking through science become another man's propaganda?

Deconstructing the House of Numbers

The website TechDirt has an interesting article that caught my eye. Here's the story.

When a 2009 documentary called House of Numbers made the claim that HIV and the AIDS epidemic was part of a conspiracy theory, it - not unexpectedly- became the center of some fierce controversy. Supporters of the film said it provided "a number of challenging and disturbing thoughts" but the New York Times described the documentary as "a weaselly support pamphlet for AIDS denialists." The Portland Oregonian criticized its makers for "not being entirely honest with viewers," and the Wall Street Journal just wrote the whole film off with the words: "this season's fashion in conspiracy theories."

Conspiracy theories come in all varieties, from the absolutely nutty to the quite plausible. Some are based on opinion, some on facts and some on misrepresentations and lies. 

In fact this theory has been floating around for quite a long time but unfortunately, to some of the less discerning minds, it could sound plausible. So, even if the film's premise was 99 % irrefutable, the message of the film would still be more than a little irresponsible based only on that 1% of doubt. After all, believing in this particular conspiracy theory could have some serious consequences.

And the nature of the Internet makes things still worse. Once this kind of material gets online it can take on a life of its own. Such ideas can spread quickly on the Internet, and after being completely destroyed, it may re-surface over and over, "reinfecting" new victims.  

In this age of nearly unlimited speech, it is something most of us have reluctantly had to put up with. After all, the possible harm can only be mitigated by more free speech and science, right? 

It was for that reason, famous scientific debunker Myles Powers decided to put out a series of videos showing both why the claims in House of Numbers are rubbish and how the producers of the film had manipulated the evidence. Naturally in order to properly debunk the material in the film, he used excerpts of it. And why not? What other way can it be done?
However, producers (or those featured in the film) quickly filed claims of copyright violation against Powers and his videos. As soon as it received the copyright violation claims, YouTube immediately took down the debunking videos.

Obama's Dubious Legacy: Intimidation of Whistle-Blowers using the Espionage Act?

by Nomad

It's a sad fact of political reality. Candidates' views change once they enter into office and many of their noble aspirations seem to be left at the door once they take charge. It is related, no doubt, to practicalities of modern politics. Until one is actually in the hot seat, it is easy to be idealistic and pedantic. 

The Promise of Open-Sourced Government

Unfortunately, looking over Obama's record, it is hard not to be more than a little disappointed, with the president's own turnaround, especially in regards to his approach to whistle-blowers. One might have expected people like Cheney and all his cronies to go after "enemies of the state" with a sinister vindictiveness. (He was after all the closest Darth Vader ever got to being president.)
But Obama? This was the candidate that promised a change.

Back in November 2007, at a speech on the Google campus, Obama said what geeky Google-ites wanted to hear, that he would use technology to make government more accessible to the public. He would, he told the crowds as president he would insure that government information became more freely available.

And as a senator, Obama also pushed for and co-sponsored legislation in late 2007 that strenghten the Freedom of Information Act, initiated under Carter, and practically destroyed under Bush.

As outline in his campaign speeches, Obama planned to embrace cutting edge tech so that Americans could have access to administration records.

Among Obama’s proposals are the creation of internet databases for lobbying reports, ethics records and campaign finance filings as well as a “contracts and influence” database to track federal contractors’ spending and lobby efforts.

 What we got was Citizens United.

There will also be a readily available online database of corporate tax breaks, the posting of non-emergency legislation on the White House web site for public view and comment and cabinet-level town hall meetings on broadband.

I suppose, it is fair to ask, is open-sourced government even possible? It's never been tried but that's not to say, some aspects can't be applied.
In any case, such revolutionary solutions were certainly vote-catching after long and painful years in which, under the Bush/Cheney regime, politically-damaging information could easily be classified and never see the light of day.
As Charles Davis, executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition, said at that time:

“The openness community will expect a complete repudiation of the Ashcroft doctrine.” 

The Ashcroft Doctrine allowed the Bush administration to withhold information requested through FOIA whenever legally possible. (Ironic, isn't it? that the link to Department of Justice web site explaining the Ashcroft doctrine leads nowhere? We can't see what it was so we can't compare it to what has replaced it.)

It didn't take long for Obama to go into secrecy mode soon after becoming president. It might have been dismissed as the usual campaign promises or of a politician biting off quite a bit more than he could chew regarding what he could actually do if elected.
However, things were worse than that. Change might have happened but it was not quite the change the voters had been promised.