A Stitch in Haste

Quick dispatches from here and there —

ITEM: The federal government continues its futile, warm-fuzzy-feeling efforts to censor the Internet in the name of "protecting children." The Child Online Protection Act, enjoined by the Supreme Court in Ashcroft v. ACLU, 542 U.S. 656 (2004) (a/k/a "Reno II" — and yes that's "Reno" as in "Janet" from way back in 1998) is again before the Third Circuit, where the Justice Department must convince the court that:

• the availability to parents of built-in content filters


• the fact that U.S. law cannot reach online porn posted overseas anyway


• the fact that COPA "does not cover chat rooms, You Tube and other interactive sites that emerged in the last decade"

are all somehow irrelevant and that age verification ("a belt and suspenders approach" according to the DOJ lawyer arguing the case) is the "least intrusive way" to achieve the law's stated goals. Expect the court to yet again find the law unconstitutional. Flagship post here.

---

ITEM: Here's an incident where the censors claim not to be protecting the children but rather the parents —

In the short walk across stage, Joseph Bryan Shore, 18, elicited more than boos when he allegedly cursed out his family and flipped the bird to the crowd, according to authorities. Immediately after the [high school graduation] ceremony, two police officers took him into custody and charged him with disorderly conduct.
...
The principal of Arab City High School, Patrick Crowder, said he regretted the incident but that he had no choice other than to have Shore arrested.

MY TAKE: The principal "had no choice"? Over a few moments of some profanities and the finger — both of which are unambiguously protected free speech, even in "dignified" (the principal's term) settings such as, e.g., a courthouse? Without more, this sounds not only like a improper arrest but also a civil rights violation that would survive a qualified immunity challenge. (Related late entry here — it is graduation season, after all.)

---

ITEM: Let's switch from "commencement and freedom of speech" to "commencement and freedom of religion" —

Newark Public Schools has settled a lawsuit filed by a former student who claimed he couldn't attend his graduation from West Side High School because it was held in the sanctuary of a local Baptist Church.

Bilal Shareef, a Muslim student, said his religious faith prohibited him from entering a building with religious icons, such as pictures of God or images of the cross. He skipped the ceremony held at New Hope Baptist Church in June 2006.
...
The district also agreed not to sponsor or promote religious events, not to hold student events in places of worship and not to hold student events in other religious buildings unless religious images are covered.

MY TAKE: It is beyond absurd to suggest that a public school district as large as Newark's cannot find suitable secular locations to hold high school graduations and therefore simply "must" have them in churches. If all else fails, then have them at the schools themselves — that's where mine was held. I don't buy the "no other suitable site" excuse for using churches as polling places, and I don't buy it here. (Via Religion Clause.)

---

ITEM: And will students be reading about such stories in the school newspaper?

A high school newspaper in Northern California has been disbanded after it published a front-page photo of a student burning an American flag, triggering criticism that the administration was stifling free expression.
...
The Redding controversy is the latest example in recent years of high school and college administrators in California attempting to censure [sic] student-run newspapers or punish those who oversee them.

MY TAKE: I always tread lightly on this topic, since I am not convinced that there is a "right to a (taxpayer-funded) school newspaper." And no student was disciplined or penalized for exercising her free speech rights (cf., the Doninger case I recently updated here). But the fact that the topic that resulted in the newspaper's termination — flag burning — is itself protected expression and generates so much faux indignation by activist legislators and other anti-rights malcontents certainly gets my libertarian dander up.