Sick bigots from Westboro Baptist "Church" picketing in south Florida this week

If you're smelling a rancid, disgusting stench emanating from America's Glans™ today, most likely it's those hate-spewing, foul excuses for humanity from Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. We've seen them occasionally on Blast Off! before, spreading their message of anti-gay, anti-Semitic hate at soldiers' funerals, schools, and street corners alike.

This week they're focusing their repulsive message at the Jewish community in Palm Beach County:

This afternoon, the group is scheduled to be at the Jewish Community Center branch in Palm Beach Gardens, at Seminole Ridge High School in Loxahatchee, at the Chabad of West Palm Beach, and at the Jewish Federation of Palm Beach County in suburban West Palm Beach.

Tuesday morning, the group is scheduled to picket three Boca Raton area locations: Spanish River High School, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County.

The group also plans pickets today in Miami Beach and Tuesday and Wednesday in Miami-Dade and Broward counties, including just before Tuesday night's Miami Heat-Toronto Raptors professional basketball game in downtown Miami.

[...]

The Westboro demonstration at the Jewish Federation is scheduled for Tuesday morning, when parents are dropping off children at school on the federation campus.

"We will ignore them," said Bill Bernstein, president and CEO of the Jewish Federation of South Palm Beach County.

[...]

Westboro representatives did not respond to an interview request but had this message for any "Buddhists, Hindus or Christ-rejecting Jews" who called them: "You are all heads of the exact same monster. God hates you all and you are all headed to the same hell."

What kind of God, particularly a Christian God, hates anyone? I mean, I'm admittedly no expert on Christian theology, but I always learned God loves everyone. These Westboro cretins have an extraordinarily perverted view of Christianity ... and at some point, their ability to rely on constitutional freedom of speech ought to be questioned.

Here's what I'm trying to say: as a lawyer and an amateur First Amendment scholar, I know that expressions of opinion cannot be censored for their content; while there is room for reasonable restrictions based on the time, place, and manner of the expression, such restrictions must be "content-neutral," that is, imposed regardless of the message being delivered by the expression in question. My feeling, though, is that at some point, these Westboro assholes are crossing a line from free expression into, frankly, terrorism. What other purpose could they have in picketing military funerals to claim that God took the servicemembers' lives because He "hates fags?" And why else would they go to the JCC, the ADL, and high schools with large Jewish populations other than to terrorize the targets of their hatred?

If Westboro's message can be construed to be directed at placing Jews (or gays or whatever group) in fear for their safety and well-being, then perhaps it is not such a large step to interpret it as terrorism. And that ought to be the focus of some investigation at the local, state, or federal level: not as "censorship" per sé but as a means to rid our nation of this terroristic scourge -- the vile, destructive hate of these putrid, squalling scumbags who claim to wield the power of Christianity to defend their evil statements and actions.

Radical? Maybe. Appropriate? Absolutely.

Teacher suspended for anti-Obama emails: it's NOT a free speech issue

Predictably, the wingnut commenters are out in force, decrying the suspension of Palm Beach County high school teacher Paula Prudente for sending numerous political emails critical of Barack Obama from her school-provided email account. The wingnut CW seems to be that any teacher who would have, say, criticized Drunky McStagger in an email would have been lauded, not disciplined ... but, needless to say, that's not only overly simplistic, it's just flat-out wrong.

Here's the basic scoop:

Administrators said Prudente defied warnings and repeatedly sent e-mails with "political innuendos" in violation of School Board policy. The e-mails included criticisms of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.

In an interview, Prudente called the suspension a "wrongful retaliation" for her attempt to expose school district corruption.

Let me throw a little legal knowledge at all you mouth-breathers ranting about freedom of speech and urging Prudente to sue the school district for limiting her First Amendment rights: there's no case. Courts consistently recognize valid limitations to the time, place, and manner of speech, provided such limitations are content-neutral -- that is, they don't favor some content over others. You folks who think emails critical of Republicans would be permitted are, well, just wrong (again).

A government-owned mode of communication for political messages is not a public forum for First Amendment purposes. If the school district has a policy against political email on their system, they have every right to enforce it, whether the employee in question was criticizing Obama or praising him, or anyone else for that matter.

It's quite simple, and Prudente's discipline was well-deserved -- not because she's a wingnut, but because she broke the rules. But, then, I've never really expected right-wingers to care very much about rules ....

At the intersection of religion and free speech: Liberty University and the College Democrats

There's an interesting juxtaposition in national and local (northwest Florida, a/k/a America's Taint™) news this morning with regard to the First Amendment. While the Amendment's text guarantees freedom of and from religious expression and freedom of speech, the two aren't always synchronous. And two news stories are bearing that out today.

The first* comes from Lynchburg, Va., where Liberty Zombie Jerry Falwell University has denied its College Democrats club the right to exist.

Officials at the private Lynchburg school, which was founded by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, said they made the decision after receiving complaints from trustees, parents and donors.

"They really are great kids and good friends of mine," said Jerry Falwell Jr., who became the school's chancellor after his father died in 2007. "It's just an issue of what Liberty's mission is."

[...]

Diaz was informed in a May 15 e-mail from Student Affairs Vice President Mark Hine that the club, which has about 30 members, will no longer be able to use Liberty's name or be eligible for funding because of the party's stand on abortion rights and gay rights issues.

Mathew D. Staver, dean of the university's school of law, said Liberty recently came up with new guidelines for all student groups. On May 15, a campuswide review began. The recognition of only the Democratic club has been revoked. Staver said the students can continue to meet in certain locations on campus, and school officials have encouraged them to find a parent organization that supports a "pro-life, pro-family" platform.

Maria Childress, the club's adviser and an administrative assistant at the school, said she is trying to appeal the decision to Falwell.

Katie Naranjo, president of the College Democrats of America, said, "It's astonishing that in the 21st century an institution for higher education would demand a student group be thrown off campus for their political views."

First of all ... Mathew Staver ... I've heard that name before ...

Right! Staver is representing the woman who wants to uphold Florida's ban on same-sex adoptions. And he got smacked down by a state appeals court last week. Poor guy. But at least he's consistent in his bigotry.

Anyway, granted, Liberty is a private institution, and as such they pretty much can do what they want (although, since they accept federal funds for financial aid, they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, gender, etc., unless they disavow that funding like Hillsdale College has done). And, frankly, students who go to Liberty have to expect that if they are Democrats or have non-conservative political beliefs, they might not be in a friendly environment. But still, this is different than, say, outlawing dancing at Bob Jones University or even the anachronistic rules at Pensacola Christian College. This is direct censorship of opinion. Yet, because it's a private entity, it may very well be legal.

But it certainly doesn't bode well for receiving an even nominally well-rounded education at Liberty University. Ironic, given Chancellor Falwell's statement last fall: "My father always said you can disagree without being disagreeable, and that’s the message we’re trying to teach these kids [...] We’re all part of the same LU community." That's a pretty intolerant community, eh, Chancellor? I mean, even an official of the LU College Republicans acknowledged the benefits of having a College Democrats chapter there, when she said in April:

“You can’t have College Republicans debating each other,” [College Republicans Public Relations Director Melinda] Zosh said. “Now we can have an open forum where the College Republicans and the College Democrats can debate the issues.”

Zosh thinks it is important to have both a College Republicans and a College Democrats on any academic university.

“I think it’s great for students to have opportunities to explore different viewpoints,” Zosh said. “Having this kind of forum will help prepare students for the world they will go into after they graduate.”

Which brings us back to Liberty's mission. Recall that Chancellor Falwell said that the decision to force the College Democrats to disband is "just an issue of what Liberty's mission is." So, what is that Mission?

To develop Christ-centered men and women with the values, knowledge, and skills essential to impact tomorrow’s world. The mission is carried out for resident students through a rigorous academic program and structured social environment. It is carried out for external students in a comparable academic program but without the structure of the resident community.

Are they now saying Democrats can't be Christians? Or that Christians can't be Democrats? (They'd probably agree with the latter, actually ...) Is it really possible to imbue the "values, knowledge, and skills essential to impact tomorrow's world" by exposing students to only one ideological perspective? Perhaps that's what LU wants to do, but I don't think that strictly follows the letter of the Mission.

Let's drill down further, to the Aims by which the university seeks to accomplish its mission. (Note how they number the introductory phrase. Remedial outlining, anyone?)

1. In support of its Philosophy and Mission, Liberty University seeks to develop the whole person by providing its students with intellectual and cultural pursuits that:
2. Contribute to a knowledge and understanding of other cultures and of international events.
3. Promote an understanding of the Western tradition and the diverse elements of American cultural history, especially the importance of the individual in maintaining democratic and free market processes.

[...]

6. Convey the different ways of acquiring knowledge in the humanities, social sciences, and natural sciences.
7. Enable them to engage in a major field of study built on a solid foundation in the liberal arts.
8. Explore the moral dimensions and ethical implications in the disciplines offered by the University.

[...]

11. Cultivate a sensitivity to the needs of others and a commitment to the betterment of humanity.

I'm not going to comment on the irony of a radically rightist university desiring to "cultivate a sensitivity to the needs of others ..." (and yeah, I see the bit about "free market" in there to appease the Randians), but there is a lot of language in those Aims about diversity and exposing students to different viewpoints. Thus, it seems misguided, even hypocritical, for Falwell to cite the university's Mission as the reason for this kind of viewpoint discrimination, this blatant violation of academic freedom.

Finally, you shouldn't miss what I think is the ultimate driving force in this decision. As quoted above, the university experienced pressure from "trustees, parents, and donors." Oftentimes, those categories overlap, and I assure you as a longtime university fund raiser myself, if the institution gets a lot of complaints from donors and threats to withhold future gifts, that has a powerful effect on the institution's decisionmaking process. I believe that's exactly what's happened here, and as a result, Liberty's students, liberal and conservative alike, are going to be deprived of a big part of the educational diversity the university's own Mission promises.

---

* I'll post on the second, local story later this afternoon. Related post is now available.

Blast Off! Radio today at 4:00 pm EDT: Taking a Constitutional

While thinking about today's exciting edition of Blast Off! Radio, it occurred to me that there is really a great deal of ignorance and misunderstanding regarding the U.S. Constitution. Now, that's not altogether surprising, considering the lengths to which the Bush crime syndicate went over their eight-year reign of terror to hide, obfuscate, ignore, and generally wipe their collective asses with the Constitution.

But even though Drunky McStagger rapidly is becoming a footnote in history and Dick "Dick" Cheney is busy working on his memoirs (at least according to President Obama), there still are a lot of -- well, for lack of a better word, morans out there (as shown at right). Therefore, today's show will focus on the U.S. Constitution, and we'll talk about some of the key points therein ... for example:

• The First Amendment, which gives us freedom of speech, as demonstrated so capably at the White House Correspondents' Dinner (a/k/a the "Nerdprom") on Saturday night by the president; and religious freedom, which is under attack again right here in northwest Florida as well as at a little college in Indiana you may have heard of;


• The Second Amendment, about which I'll have a little rant regarding the oft-ignored first clause: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ..."; and


• Article I, which establishes Congress, a body Florida governor Charlie Crist evidently would like to join -- we'll find out for sure tomorrow.

Of course, there's sure to be plenty of other topics to discuss, but much of that depends upon you, the Blast Off! Radio listener! Yes, you can participate -- in fact, it's encouraged -- and it's oh, so easy to do:

TIME: 4:00 pm Eastern TODAY

Click here to listen

Call in number: (646) 716-7543

E-mail: blastoffradio-at-gmail-dot-com

So please, make it a point to join me this afternoon for your daily constitutional. You'll be glad you did.

More license plate madness

Hey, remember the "I BELIEVE" license plate about which I rather vehemently ranted a year ago? It didn't make it through the Legislature last year ... but it's back, sponsored once again by none other than state Sen. Ronda Storms (R-Batshit Crazy Land).

Only this time, it has a companion plate that might be -- if possible -- even more objectionable:

Jesus H. Christ on a Florida license plate, it's Jesus H. Christ on a Florida license plate! Just in case "I BELIEVE" (see below) wasn't unconstitutionally insipid enough, now we've got this one to, um, hammer the last nail into the separation of church and state ... so to speak ...

The Florida Senate preliminarily approved these plates, among others, on Friday, but final authorization has a few hoops left through which to jump. There still needs to be a vote by the full Senate, which is pretty much the only hope of preventing this travesty since the overwhelmingly wingnut state House is almost certain to jump on the Christianist bandwagon for this one; likewise Republican Gov. Charlie Crist.

The floor debate on the Jesus plate got a little interesting:

Boca Raton lawyer Ted Deutch repeatedly asked [plate sponsor Sen. Gary] Siplin, a fellow Democrat, to describe the image on the license plate.

“The Trinity license plate has the picture of my lord and savior Jesus Christ on it,” Siplin, D-Orlando, said.

Proceeds from the tag will go to the Toomey Foundation, a natural sciences organization.

The chamber also approved the “I Believe” license plate that features a cross on a stained-glass background.

Deutch, who is Jewish, argued that religious symbols of any type don’t belong on license plates produced by the state.

Well, that's not just an argument, as Sen. Deutch well knows -- that's constitutional law, specifically the First Amendment, which forbids laws "respecting the establishment of a [state] religion." In other words, Sen. Siplin, regardless of whether or not you think He ought to be, Jesus is not everyone's "lord and savior." Ergo, ixnay on the ateplay with the ucifixioncray, you dig? (And are you sure you don't want to reconsider that "D" after your name?)

The "I BELIEVE" plate (right) ultimately failed to get to the governor's desk last year, and both of these heinously Christianist plates deserve the same fate this year. If not, I'm sure some lawyers will be getting phone calls very soon ... and I'd love to write some pleadings and briefs for that one!

UPDATE (1:30 pm 4/27/09): Some of my blogfriends are taking the plate and running with it, so to speak.

First, this gem from Firefox, with the obligatory fashion accessory:

Meanwhile, Blue Gal already has personalized the plate in a special -- and appropriate -- way.

Remember, I don't make 'em up ... I just share 'em. ;)

UPDATE: PBAU changes course, decides to let gay Christian group onto campus

About two weeks ago, I told you about Palm Beach Atlantic University's refusal to allow Soulforce, a national Christian gay rights group, visit its campus. Tonight comes word that the university has reconsidered its decision ... sort of:

Palm Beach Atlantic University officials reconsidered their initial ban of a gay students' rights group from campus, offering members a space for a few hours on Monday to meet with select students and staff from the private Christian school.

But the group, called Soulforce, said the invitation is too restrictive and that members plan to walk onto PBAU's downtown West Palm Beach campus at noon hoping to conduct a more open forum.

"Unfortunately, the format is not conducive to reaching out to the Palm Beach Atlantic community in the spirit of open dialogue," a statement released by Soulforce today said in reference to PBAU's offer.

"Additionally, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students who need to hear our message of love and affirmation would not be reached in this format."

Looks to me like the classic right-wing tactic of doing just enough to appear to be open-minded, yet still controlling the playing field in every meaningful way. The point of Soulforce's visit is to minister to GLBT students, not just to meet with "pre-selected" students and staff.

Moreover, PBAU may have opened up a legal can of worms here, I think. If they stuck with their original decision to refuse access outright, they could rest quite easily on their status as a private university and the accompanying right to permit access to whomever they please. However, by granting limited access in this way, I think they've opened themselves up to a First Amendment challenge: if you give Soulforce access, you've got to allow them to deliver their message.

Granted, it's been a long time since I studied First Amendment law, and PBAU's private status may trump free speech objections anyway. But this wishy-washy response might create additional problems, if it's determined that, once they permit access, the university must provide a complete forum free from obstructions or parameters.

Ultimately, though, at bottom, you have to ask: what is PBAU so afraid of anyway?

This is Soulforce's third annual "Equality Ride," although Monday will be its first visit to a Florida school. This year's ride includes 17 young adults who travel in a tour bus and have been trained in non-violent resistance and how to speak with students who have different religious beliefs.

Soulforce members are known for challenging school administrators with attempts to go on private campuses, and past tours have resulted in trespassing arrests.

Soulforce is scheduled to arrive on PBAU's West Palm Beach campus at 10:00 a.m. on Monday morning. This could be a very interesting confrontation. Stay tuned ...

(cross-posted at Pax Americana)

You're under arrest ... for wearing a T-shirt

Did you know that in Florida, a protest T-shirt might get you thrown in jail?

Sounds preposterous ... but Fla. Stat. § 540.08 makes the unauthorized commercial use of persons' names illegal ... and it adds a bonus provision, an extra fine, if the person or persons happen to be (or, in the case of deceased people, have been) members of the armed forces:

540.08 Unauthorized publication of name or likeness.--

(1) No person shall publish, print, display or otherwise publicly use for purposes of trade or for any commercial or advertising purpose the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of any natural person without the express written or oral consent to such use given by:

(a) Such person; or

(b) Any other person, firm or corporation authorized in writing by such person to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness; or

(c) If such person is deceased, any person, firm or corporation authorized in writing to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness, or if no person, firm or corporation is so authorized, then by any one from among a class composed of her or his surviving spouse and surviving children.

(2) In the event the consent required in subsection (1) is not obtained, the person whose name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness is so used, or any person, firm, or corporation authorized by such person in writing to license the commercial use of her or his name or likeness, or, if the person whose likeness is used is deceased, any person, firm, or corporation having the right to give such consent, as provided hereinabove, may bring an action to enjoin such unauthorized publication, printing, display or other public use, and to recover damages for any loss or injury sustained by reason thereof, including an amount which would have been a reasonable royalty, and punitive or exemplary damages.

(3) If a person uses the name, portrait, photograph, or other likeness of a member of the armed forces without obtaining the consent required in subsection (1) and such use is not subject to any exception listed in this section, a court may impose a civil penalty of up to $1,000 per violation in addition to the civil remedies contained in subsection (2). Each commercial transaction constitutes a violation under this section. As used in this section, the term "member of the armed forces" means an officer or enlisted member of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard of the United States, the Florida National Guard, and the United States Reserve Forces, including any officer or enlisted member who died as a result of injuries sustained in the line of duty. ...

(emphasis added)

The statute goes on to exclude "news medi[a] or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest," so at least we bloggers can focus our worry where it belongs: NSA, CIA, Secret Service ....

However, I've read the statute over and over again, and I don't see any exception for public figures akin to that requiring "actual malice" in order to sustain a defamation claim. Therefore, as an example, if you wear a T-shirt that bears the image of Drunky McStagger with the caption "War Criminal," you're breaking the law. Indeed, since such displays are illegal for 40 years after the subject's death, even a T-shirt I had 20 years ago, showing Richard Nixon with the caption "Nixon in '88: He's Tanned, Rested, and Ready" would be illegal today.

So why the super-special double secret punishment for using names of military personnel, living or dead? Well, that is quite intentional:

The "Bush Lied They Died" T-shirt was the first T-shirt ever produced by CarryaBigSticker. It evolved from a bumper sticker that included the names of 500 fallen troops and the words "Bush Lied." In June of 2005, we printed about 100 shirts similar to the Bush Lied They Died shirt shown above (but with only 1,693 names). Over the course of about a year, we sold them all.

We were not planning to print more shirts because the first batch sold slowly. We also knew it would be difficult to fit more names on a shirt. In early 2006, at the urging of certain family members who lost loved ones in Iraq, legislators in Oklahoma and Louisiana introduced legislation intended to stop the sale of the shirts. Federal legislation was introduced during the summer of 2006 to outlaw such products nationwide.

[...]

Louisiana and Oklahoma eventually both passed laws targeting the shirts. ... The Florida legislation (Chapter XXXIII, section 540.08) was passed in the summer of 2007. Generally, these laws prohibit using the names of fallen troops on certain types of products for sale without permission from their families. Florida's law goes further, prohibiting the use of anyone's name without permission on certain types of products. We continue to sell the shirts in all of the above states.

[...]

The proposed federal legislation would go even further. The bill introduced in the House, HR 269 says, "no person may knowingly use the name or image of a protected individual in connection with any merchandise, retail product, impersonation, solicitation, or commercial activity in a manner reasonably calculated to connect the protected individual with that individual's service in the armed forces."

In May of 2007, the sponsors of HR 269, Congressmen Dan Boren (D-Okla.) and Charles W. Boustany Jr. (R-La) announced in a press release that the House of Representatives had approved an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008. The amendment, Section 582, is similar in its effect to HR 269. The amendment is awaiting a vote in the Senate.

Welcome to the further evisceration of the First Amendment, brought to you by the batshit crazy wingnut-dominated Florida Legislature (and, perhaps soon, Congress).

How many more assaults can the Constitution take before it disintegrates completely? On the one hand, I'm appalled. On the other hand, given the Bush crime syndicate's Sherman-like destruction of law and precedent, I'm not the least bit surprised.

Plate spinning

As I noted a few posts down, I spent the weekend in Indiana at a board meeting. Big fun was had by all.

But upon returning to the Hoosier State (I go there about five times a year for various meetings), I was reminded about their specialty license plate fiasco.

We know a little about specialty license plates in America's Wang™, of course, since we have around a hundred of them. But at least when Florida is being blatantly political (read: wingnutty) on their license plates, they charge drivers an extra fee for displaying them.

Not so in Indiana. Hoosier drivers can get a lovely "In God We Trust" specialty plate (left) for no additional charge. Indeed, it's the only plate other than the generic plate that doesn't have an extra fee attached.

I've long been angered by the obvious right-wing slant by many of Florida's license plates, "Choose Life" being the most egregious among them. The obvious blurring of the line between church and state through Florida's "Choose Life" tag, though, is exacerbated in Indiana when there isn't even an extra fee charged. Essentially, this is blatant state-sponsored religion. As one Indiana resident told me yesterday, "you can't get any other religions" ... no "In Allah We Trust" or "In Gaea We Trust" or "In Satan We Trust." How much more blatant does it need to be before we get judicial intervention?

Perhaps Florida is more blatant? Our "Choose Life" tags do cost an extra $20, but the fees go to an Ocala-based organization called "Choose Life, Inc.," touting itself as a non-profit organization "which raises funds to support adoption efforts of Crisis Pregnancy Centers, Maternity Homes and not-for-profit adoption agencies." Sounds great, right?

Well, one look at the website reveals the real purpose of the plate:

Now, for a donation of $22 you are able to use this same method to "Take a Stand for Life," thanks to Marion County Commissioner Randy Harris. In 1996, Commissioner Harris had an idea to create a license plate to raise funds, and awareness, in support of women in crisis pregnancies who would commit to carrying their unplanned pregnancies to term and making an adoption plan for these babies, rather than opting for abortion. He began a grass roots campaign to raise $30,000 for the application fee that was required by the state to initiate the program. The Florida statute also required 10,000 signatures of people who commit to buying the plate if it becomes available. A non-profit corporation, Choose Life, Inc., was formed to raise the funds and secure the necessary signatures.

On February 4, 1997 the effort was launched and by March 1, 1997 the $30,000 application fee was delivered along with 14,500 signatures to the Florida Department of Motor Vehicles. A completely volunteer effort, this was a remarkable accomplishment and is testimony to the grassroots support the Choose Life license plate had and to what people can achieve when they believe what they are doing is right. Choose Life, Inc. was headed by Randy Harris, Jim Steel and Russ Amerling, ably assisted by a small army of faithful helpers from Pensacola to Key West who brought the needs of women in crisis pregnancy situations to the attention of the Florida Legislature.

And the testimonials are even more open about this faith-based initiative, to the point that they aren't even called "testimonials" but, rather, the fundie term "testimonies."

One woman was trying to complete her college degree while she was pregnant. She had another child and was convinced the Lord wanted her to place this baby for adoption. We were able to help her with rent money and transportation costs.

[...]

Teresa (not her real name) arrived at the abortion clinic in Tampa and told her story to a counselor. She was coming to have an abortion and saw several Choose Life license plates on the 10 mile drive and then told Judy, the counselor out front “she was the sign and seal that what she was about to do was wrong…” She drove off knowing her future was going to be rough, but pretty well assured that God was going to use her in His plan.

[...]

We were so blessed by your ministry. Actually, our 3rd adopted child, Allyson Joy, joined our family partly due to your ministry of Choose Life license plates. After buying the plates for our cars almost 3 years ago, we received a note from Adoption by Shepherd Care thanking us for supporting adoption in Florida. Their letter touched us. Then last year, God brought this agency to our minds again when we felt God calling us to adopt another child. After meeting with them, we knew they were the agency for us. Several months later they placed our precious "gift of life" into our arms. "Ally" is now a 5 month old bundle of joy! We might not have ever known about their agency if we hadn't bought our Choose Life tags! God is so good!

Of course, I'm not saying that these people can't worship in the way they wish. But why must there be state resources allocated to their faith?

Apparently there was one unsuccessful judicial challenge to the "Choose Life" plates:

In November 1999, before the plate could go on sale, the National Organization for Women filed a lawsuit against the State of Florida to try to prevent them from distributing the Choose Life license plate. The suit languished in Palm Beach County for eight months, but was finally ordered sent to Tallahassee and the tags were finally released to the public on August 11, 2000. The court in Tallahassee finally ruled in favor of the plate in November 2003. However, because of the national publicity caused by the lawsuit, Choose Life, Inc. helped create Choose Life license plate initiatives in 46 states.

My guess, without having read the court's ruling, is that there was no showing that pro-choice advocates didn't have the same opportunity to get a license plate. Of course, reality is much different, in the same way that, say, a Wiccan license plate probably wouldn't get very far in the Indiana Legislature.

So, there it is. State-sanctioned religious fever -- catch it!

Fort Myers says no to teen's Iraq memorial

This one really grinds my gears today ... but it's not silly like the last time. It's quite serious, and quite troubling.

The city of Fort Myers has decided that a 15-year-old's tribute to soldiers killed in Iraq constitutes graffiti, and they won't grant him a permit to continue.

Fort Myers police have stopped a teenager from chalking the names of Iraq war casualties on downtown sidewalks.

Willie Filkowski, 15, and two companions were told to stop their writing after a city worker called authorities claiming there was an anti-war protest going on in downtown.

Filkowski had begun his chalk work on July 1 and had worked on his memorial most nights along with his parents, sister and friends. He started writing the names beneath a flagpole in an area park and had written almost 300 names before being stopped Monday evening. Recent rains and power washings have since swept away much of the writing.

"I thought it would be thought-provoking, and it appeals to people on both sides of the issue," Filkowski told The News-Press in Fort Myers.

Authorities told him the chalk was graffiti, he said.

The city is arguing that it's a public safety issue, because according to the article, it "could distract drivers and pedestrians, causing accidents or affecting foot traffic." And even if Filkowski applies for a permit, as the police suggested he should do, he's not likely to get one:

The acting city manager told The News-Press he wouldn't grant a permit because Filkowski does not have any signs or plaques recognizing his work as a memorial.

So it's not self-evident that writing the names of deceased soldiers is a "memorial?" And even so, might it not be protected speech under the First Amendment? You know, the Constitution? I know, after six and a half years of the Bush crime syndicate, it's hard to remember that we even have a constitution, but we do ...

Incidentally, the acting city manager in Fort Myers is Al Abdo, the city's Public Works Director. His office phone number is (941) 332-6850. Just saying.

The ACLU has been apprised of the situation, so stay tuned ...

Ironic quote of the day

Okay, so here's the set-up. A Tampa resident, Donnie James White, was arrested Monday for "public mutilation of a U.S. flag," which is still nominally illegal in Florida.

According to arrest reports, White got off his bicycle and stomped on the flag numerous times. When police confronted White at 3611 W. Hillsborough Ave., he rubbed himself with the flag, threw it on the ground, stomped on it and sat on it, the report said.

Yesterday, the state's attorney's office dropped charges, on the grounds that the 1919 statute creating the offense is unconstitutional and White's behavior was protected by the First Amendment.

As you might expect, not everyone was pleased with White's behavior.

Hernando County firefighter Pete Paolillo said he was one of several witnesses who saw White threatening to defecate on the flag Monday in Tampa. He was upset but not surprised after learning of White's release from jail.

"It seems like everyone takes freedom of speech for granted," said Paolillo, who claimed he tried to wrestle the flag from White. "I don't think that when our forefathers were coming up with the Constitution they thought people would be using freedom of speech to desecrate the United States flag."

And now for the irony:

"The fabric of the Constitution is being stepped on just like that flag was," Paolillo said. "And I think it's pretty sad."

One wonders if Mr. Paolillo is a Republican and, if so, if he is aware of who has been doing most of the stepping on the "fabric of the Constitution" over the last six years or so ...

The Constitution takes another hit

The Roberts Court today managed to restrict the rights of Americans yet again today, as they announced their decision in Morse v. Frederick (PDF).

Joseph Frederick displayed a banner with the message "BONG HiTS 4 JESUS" as the Olympic torch went through Juneau, Alaska, in 2002. Because it was a "school-sanctioned event," principal Deborah Morse suspended Frederick for his "pro-drug message," despite Frederick's protestations that the banner was meant simply as a nonsense phrase; he had seen it on a snowboard and thought it was funny.

As you might have expected, the Roberts Court handed down a 5-4 decision in favor of the principal in this important First Amendment case, despite the surprising opposition of "conservative groups that often are allied with the administration," which "are backing Frederick out of concern that a ruling for Morse would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion."

For those interested, here is the holding of the Court, as presented in the syllabus of the slip opinion (PDF):

Held: Because schools may take steps to safeguard those entrusted to their care from speech that can reasonably be regarded as encouraging illegal drug use, the school officials in this case did not violate the First Amendment by confiscating the pro-drug banner and suspending Frederick. Pp. 5–15.

(a) Frederick’s argument that this is not a school speech case is rejected. The event in question occurred during normal school hours and was sanctioned by Morse as an approved social event at which the district’s student-conduct rules expressly applied. Teachers and administrators were among the students and were charged with supervising them. Frederick stood among other students across the street from the school and directed his banner toward the school, making it plainly visible to most students. Under these circumstances, Frederick cannot claim he was not at school. Pp. 5–6.

(b) The Court agrees with Morse that those who viewed the banner would interpret it as advocating or promoting illegal drug use, in violation of school policy. At least two interpretations of the banner’s words—that they constitute an imperative encouraging viewers to smoke marijuana or, alternatively, that they celebrate drug use—demonstrate that the sign promoted such use. This pro-drug interpretation gains further plausibility from the paucity of alternative meanings the banner might bear. Pp. 6–8.

(c) A principal may, consistent with the First Amendment, restrict student speech at a school event, when that speech is reasonably viewed as promoting illegal drug use. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, the Court declared, in holding that a policy prohibiting high school students from wearing antiwar armbands violated the First Amendment, id., at 504, that student expression may not be suppressed unless school officials reasonably conclude that it will “materially and substantially disruptthe work and discipline of the school,” id., at 513. The Court in Bethel School Dist. No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, however, upheld the suspension of a student who delivered a high school assembly speech employing “an elaborate, graphic, and explicit sexual metaphor,” id., at 678. Analyzing the case under Tinker, the lower courts had found no disruption, and therefore no basis for discipline. 478 U.S., at 679–680. This Court reversed, holding that the school was “within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions . . . in response to [the student’s] offensively lewd and indecent speech.” Id., at 685. Two basic principles may be distilled from Fraser. First, it demonstrates that “the constitutional rights of students in public school are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings.” Id., at 682. Had Fraser delivered the same speech in a public forum outside the school context, he would have been protected. See, id., at 682–683. In school, however, his First Amendment rights were circumscribed “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506. Second, Fraser established that Tinker’s mode of analysis is not absolute, since the Fraser Court did not conduct the “substantial disruption” analysis. Subsequently, the Court has held in the Fourth Amendment context that “while children assuredly do not ‘shed their constitutional rights. . . at the schoolhouse gate,’ ... the nature of those rights is what is appropriate for children in school,” Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton, 515 U. S. 646, 655–656, and has recognized that deterring drug use by schoolchildren is an “important—indeed, perhaps compelling” interest, id., at 661. Drug abuse by the Nation’s youth is a serious problem. For example, Congress has declared that part of a school’s job is educating students about the dangers of drug abuse, see, e.g., the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act of 1994, and petitioners and many other schools have adopted policies aimed at implementing this message. Student speech celebrating illegal drug use at a school event, in the presence of school administrators and teachers, poses a particular challenge for school officials working to protect those entrusted to their care. The “special characteristics of the school environment,” Tinker, 393 U. S., at 506, and the governmental interest in stopping student drug abuse allow schools to restrict student expression that they reasonably regard as promoting such abuse. Id., at 508, 509, distinguished. Pp. 8–15.

439 F. 3d 1114, reversed and remanded.

So fundie groups are worried that a decision for Morse (which is what we've got) "would let schools clamp down on religious expression, including speech that might oppose homosexuality or abortion?" Sounds like it's time to make lemonade from lemons, eh?

UPDATE (12:48 pm 6/25/07): It gets worse. The Court, in another 5-4 decision today, also announced its opinion in Hein v. Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc. (PDF), where a group of individuals challenged the Bush crime syndicate's concept of government funding of "faith-based initiatives." Justice Alito, writing for a plurality, stated essentially that a taxpayer's standing (i.e., legal permission to sue, in this case, the federal government) is limited to congressional expenditures pursuant to Art. I, sec. 8 of the Constitution.

Unbelievable, and sad.