The ambiguity of anonymity

On March 15 the Wisconsin State Journal published an article about the hunt for an anonymous blogger who posts -- amongst other information-- criticisms of the city government of Whitewater, Wisconsin under the pseudonym John Adams.

Adams' posts and comments appear on what is likely a self-designed website. The article is an excellent example of the question of anonymity and the First Amendment freedoms of free speech and freedom of the press, and as the article pointed out the situation also has the potential of considering violations of civil rights.

The Supreme Court has set precedent that anonymous speech deserves First Amendment protection. (Talley v California, McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, American Knights of the Ku Klux Klan v. City of Goshen). Political speech has often been given heavier weight when it comes to protection, so in the case referred to in the article, the anonymous speech of Admas is clearly the type of speech which is fundamental to the protections granted by the First Amendment.

Especially in the context of the proposed Federal Shield Law to protect journalists, many commentaries and minds have considered the question of what a journalist is and if "bloggers" or "citizen journalists" should be granted the same protections as traditional journalists.

You may have noticed that I have chosen to retain a minor level of anonymity using the pseudonym of Skippyn8. My decision was not based on feeling the need to protect my reputation or life from retaliation from my comments but more so to protect my identity from theft. I do not claim to be a journalist on this blog --this should be evident in the fact that I am currently using a pseudonym and the pronoun "I"-- but I do try to incorporate journalistic standards, such as objectivity, to promote public discussion and dissemination of information.

The jury may still be out on whether or not bloggers should be considered journalists. Many state shield laws use language that does include bloggers, and many critics argue the language of the federal shield law is too broad in defining journalists. The question of giving journalist privileges and protections to anonymous bloggers is absurd. You'll notice as an example the Wisconsin Journal Article was written by Dee J. Hall and goes even further to give you a phone number and email address. This is accountability. This is responsibility. This is journalism.

Being anonymous and being a journalist do not mix.

The article is also a great example of how the internet and changing media may bring cause for a reformation of the First Amendment. For example could this anonymous John Adams be considered a public figure because he is posting? Would a person on Facebook or Myspace fall under the public figure context in a libel and defamation case?

The internet is changing not only definitions of the Press but of many other First Amendment topics and issues.

Perhaps the real identity of Skippyn8 will soon be revealed... Though I am certain you all know who I am.

New Jersey high school football coach can't bow his head and kneel because he has a history of doing so.

According to the New York Times article, and other numerous reports (links below), Marcus Borden has been the head football coach at East Brunswick High School for over 24 years, and can no longer bow his head or kneel with his team in silence.

In their unanimous opinion the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed the lower courts decision based on the fact that the coach had a history of leading the team in silent prayers.

Borden wanted to silently bow his head during his team’s pre-meal grace and take
a knee with his team during its usual game day locker-room prayer. Borden brought the suit against the East Brunswick School District’s policy prohibiting faculty participation in student-initiated prayer.

I am pleased to hear that Borden plans to appeal to the Supreme Court. This case is a great example of how in certain circumstances many individual rights can conflict, and a proper balance must be found. A federal ruling and opinion could be helpful.

The case involves the freedom of speech, academic freedom, freedom of association, free exercise of religion and due process. The lower district court felt that Borden's silent acts did not violate the Establishment Clause. However, the federal appeals court felt the policy did not violate Borden's rights and further found that his silent acts did violate the Establishment Clause because a reasonable person would view his acts as endorsing religion due to his history of leading prayers in the past.

I agree with Borden's lawyer in the Time's article that the decision is ambiguous because it considers a public official's history. This court ruling essentially restricts a coach from assembling and being associated with his own team, and it appears like --because his acts are silent-- the court is almost trying to get into Borden's head to determine if he is endorsing a certain religion. Keeping the government from crawling into an individual's thoughts and telling them what they can say, think, and do is one of the most fundamental principles in the First Amendment.

Side note: My high school football team had "a moment of silence" before meals and games. The moment had a strong unifying power. We had a great season and ended as State Champs for the first time in 14 years. It was our coach's first season as head coach.

I wonder how coach Borden's team has fared in the last 24 years?

Other Links:
Americans United news release
Courier News Online
Another Courier article
Home News Tribune
A Google search on the subject

High school students denied right to assemble at a Bill Clinton assembly

According to a news station broadcast in Terra Haute, Indiana, a young girl and some of her classmates were denied the opportunity to attend an assembly featuring former president Bill Clinton at South Vermillion High School on Friday the 11th of April.

The mother of the student feels her daughter's 1st Amendment right to assemble was violated, and told the news station that she has contacted the American Civil Liberties Union. Her daughter Kristen, 15, is a special needs student with cerebral palsy. The school district offered a written statement saying it was in the best interest for the students to participate in alternate activities.

My biggest question with this story is why the mother was not able to get her child and take her to the assembly. She said the doors were locked and the lights were out. Was she able to call the school? Did they not answer the phone?

The constitutional issue, however, is whether or not the students' right to assemble was violated? I do not wish to be disrespectful in anyway, and only to consider the issue. The students were definitely not able to attend the assembly because of the actions of the school. The school I think would have a difficult time convincing a court that they indeed had a compelling interest due to these "extenuating circumstances," but it is arduous to decide without further information, or specifics. Perhaps the location and the large crowd made it more difficult to accommodate the special needs of these students, such as wheelchair ramps not being available. Other questions that may arise might deal with the fact that the mother was not able to pick her daughter up and take her herself.

Were all students required to go? If so, did this violate some of the students' right to not assemble? Judging by the information given by WHTI it appears students could opt-out of attending, and some chose to.

That leaves me with the most controversial question and one that would not reasonably be argued in court: Does the school district, or Mr. Clinton, or the others attending the assembly have a right to not assemble with these students who were left behind?

It will be interesting to see if this situation develops further.
Ironic side note: the city Mr. Clinton visited is named Clinton......
(Of course the First Amendment right to assemble applies to the state school district through incorporation)

OUR VIEW: Overreaction also breaks that law - Opinion

OUR VIEW: Overreaction also breaks that law - Opinion

Here is the reaction and opinion of the Editorial Board of the Utah Statesman regarding their papers being thrown away.

Student newspaper's good will gone bad

The features staff at the Utah Statesman, the student-run newspaper at Utah State University, recently decided to devote a whole section based on the Greek life of the campus. The articles were actually based on trying to portray the Greek's in a more positive light than the usual "Animal House" stereotypes. Despite this, some of the Greek students took offense to some of the articles' comments, and felt threatened that the articles may give readers the perception that an individual involved in a Greek organization cannot also be a member of the campus' prominent Latter-day Saint (Mormon) religion.

A few vigilante Greek students adorned in Greek logo T-shirts decided to take a stand and began collecting the newspapers from the bins around campus and disposing of them in nearby recycling bins.

The potential for all kinds of criminal violations could be argued in this case. The paper could apply to freedom of the press. The advertisers in the paper could appeal to their commercial speech being restricted. Even more interesting is the potential for the Greek students to claim their conduct as speech. If the students did claim their speech as symbolic, the O'Brien test would likely be applied and the conduct would likely not be protected.

Obviously the more reasonable and simple laws to apply would be the destruction of property but the potential First Amendment situations are more interesting.

According to members on the Utah Statesman editorial staff a complaint has been filed by the newspaper to the associated student organization of the university.

Virginia student papers can have "Happy Hour"?

Alcohol reference bans in student newspapers exist throughout the country. The magistrate in this case not only overturned a long standing rule, but may have offered hope. Will it ignite a flood of similar cases throughout the nation?

I personally work as an advertising manager at a campus paper, and have had this issue come up a few times. My circumstance is unique because drinking, surprisingly, is not as part of the campus culture -- or the state itself -- as most other schools.

The observations I can make, as one who has worked in the business, is restrictions on certain references to alcohol in college media advertising does limit possible revenue, but mostly it just forces more creativity in developing the advertisements. Some have found ways to work around the bans.

Speech of the newspaper staff isn't necessarily limited, usually editorial content about liquor is untouched. It is definitely a question of the commercial speech of the advertisers being violated. The big question is whether or not possibly reducing underage drinking is a compelling enough reason to limit it. The magistrate in this case wasn't convinced alcohol advertisements were directly correlated to underage drinking problems.

If I were to assume my situation applies to most others, many alcohol advertisers -- whether motivated by civic obligation or commercial duty -- will limit themselves in areas where there is a concern.

A MONUMENTAL free speech and establishment case?

Among the cases the Supreme Court agreed to hear on Monday March 31 was the Pleasant Grove City v. Summum case considering whether the religious group known as Summum, headquartered in Salt Lake City, had its First Amendment right of free speech violated when the city of Pleasant Grove Utah denied the group’s request to erect a monument similar to an existing monument of the Ten Commandments in a city park

The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of Summum, following the precedent that private speech (the monument) is protected in a public forum (the park).

It will be interesting to watch how the Supreme Court will consider many precedents in this case and try to base their ruling on them.

The Court will first likely be faced with the argument that the First Amendment right of free speech doesn’t apply to the city of Pleasant Grove or the state of Utah because the First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law..." but the court will likely pass over this argument quickly citing that the 1st Amendment was incorporated through the due process clause decades ago.