A defense of WikiLeaks: Some inconvenient facts

No one wants to require diplomats to wear bathing suits and work in glass embassies, and you can have qualms about the effects of (some of) what WikiLeaks has done or will do without signing on to the fury with which it's being pursued.

Consider the following points, presented in no particular order.

Read the rest.

Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway (or, the Privatization of the English Language)

I find it unbelievable that a common phrase (that was used way before it was the title of any book) can be trademarked. We’re not talking about the names of products … we’re talking about the English language. You know, the words many of us use for such things as … talking, and writing, and general communication? Perhaps I’m a little behind the times, but is it really possible to claim whole chunks of the language, and force people to get permission to use the language, just in everyday speech?

What if this were taken to an extreme? What if some billionaire (say, Bill Gates) decided to start trademarking thousands and thousands of phrases, so that he could charge us for each use, or so that we’d have to link back to the Microsoft homepage with each reference? The language, in this scenario, could be entirely privatized if we allow this sort of thing.

Read more.

At the uneasy intersection of bloggers and the law

This, of course, is a blogger's nightmare: enforced silence and the prospect of jail time. The district attorney eventually withdrew the subpoena and lifted the gag requirement after the bloggers threatened to sue. But the fact that the tactic was used at all raised alarm bells for some free-speech advocates.

Read more.

'Public' online spaces don't carry speech, rights

Rant all you want in a public park. A police officer generally won't eject you for your remarks alone, however unpopular or provocative.

Say it on the Internet, and you'll find that free speech and other constitutional rights are anything but guaranteed.

Read the rest.

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S.

"In much of the developed world, one uses racial epithets at one's legal peril, one displays Nazi regalia and the other trappings of ethnic hatred at significant legal risk and one urges discrimination against religious minorities under threat of fine or imprisonment," Frederick Schauer, a professor at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard, wrote in a recent essay called "The Exceptional First Amendment."

"But in the United States," Schauer continued, "all such speech remains constitutionally protected."

Canada, Britain, France, Germany, the Netherlands, South Africa, Australia and India all have laws or have signed international conventions banning hate speech. Israel and France forbid the sale of Nazi items like swastikas and flags. It is a crime to deny the Holocaust in Canada, Germany and France.

And we fight every day to keep our free speech.

Read more.

Kent officer tickets man for 'Impeach Bush' sign

A soft-spoken teacher posted the words "Impeach Bush" in a public garden, and Kent police cast him as an outlaw.

Today Kevin Egler is fighting that in Kent Municipal Court, and the case is emerging as a free-speech issue of interest well beyond the boundaries of placid Portage County.

Read more.

NYC man held for reciting 1st Amendment

Reverend Billy, whose real name is Bill Talen, was joined by women in red choir robes who sang a hymn version of the amendment, which guarantees freedom of speech. Other activists distributed an amateur videotape of his arrest.

Read more.

Supreme Court limits student speech

The Supreme Court tightened limits on student speech Monday, ruling against a high school student and his 14-foot-long "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner.

Schools may prohibit student expression that can be interpreted as advocating drug use, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court in a 5-4 ruling.

Learn to shut up and be quiet here.

A Blog Is a Little First Amendment Machine

With blogging, an awkward term, we designate a fairly beautiful thing: the extension to many more people of a free press franchise and the right to publish your thoughts to the world.

So everyone, blog away.

Link.

Comics = Terrorism

Details are sketchy at this time, but it appears that making a comic about his experience counts as making terroristic threats. I realize that by this logic, me reporting on the making of a comic that’s seen as a terroristic threat may count as lending support to terrorists. If I wake up in Gitmo, tell my wife that I love her, and I’m sorry I’m not there to help walk the dog.

Here's the comic in question.

Read the rest of the story.

Blogs Chronicle War from Soldiers' Perspectives

Today, many of the stories coming from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are being written by those fighting them, in the form of thousands of soldiers' military blogs, or "milblogs." Their tales are unfolding as they occur, with limited censorship from the military, and they are attracting a growing readership from inside and outside the military.

Ward Carroll, the editor of military.com, an online military and veteran membership organization, said some of the best milbloggers have the ability to shape opinions on the war.

Thus, these blogs are important not just for the soldiers writing them, but for those that desire a non-sanitized version of war.

Read the rest here.

Rosie Tells ABC To Screw Its 9/11 Censorship

The Rosie story gets more interesting:

We can reveal that the "key elements" that could not be agreed upon were O'Donnell's propensity to continue to expose the fraud that is the government's official story of 9/11 and her pledge of allegiance to 9/11 truth.

...

According to our source O'Donnell has described some involved with the production of The View as "Neocon gate-keepers" and found it impossible to continue as she was increasingly being heavily edited during recordings.

The same associates were also blocking Rosie from bringing on guests of her own choosing whom she believed would further expose the 9/11 cover up.

What's the truth? Who the hell knows?

Violating Students’ Constitutional Rights

Displaying a dramatic disregard for students’ constitutional rights, a committee of the University of Rhode Island (URI) Student Senate voted on Monday to derecognize the College Republicans student group. For months, the Student Senate has demanded that the group publicly apologize for advertising a satirical $100 “scholarship” for white, heterosexual, American males. The College Republicans refused to apologize and contacted the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) for help. FIRE is now calling upon URI President Robert Carothers, who has already informed the Senate that it could not compel student speech, to reverse the decision to derecognize the group.

Read the rest here.