March 2006 Archives

8.4.2003 - Various Thoughts

The Drug War

Several black men, driving a new sport utility truck in a "white" neighborhood, are stopped by the police. The officer says that the car “stopped too long at a stop sign” and things didn-t look right, so he pulled the car over. When officers approach the car they see a tray, containing illegal drugs, on the lap of one passenger. The men are arrested for drug possession. Lawyers attempt to have the evidence thrown out as a product of an illegal stop. The public's reaction to this case is typical. “Damn lawyers looking for a loophole. If you don't want to be busted, don't carry drugs. They deserved to be caught.”

Did they? Assuming that we believe that drug use should be illegal, those who get caught must pay the price. But do you have concerns about pulling someone over because they “stopped too long at a stop sign.” We all know the real reason these men were stopped. Some will say that they deserved to be caught through whatever means necessary. Does this view have a strong “us” vs. “them” feel? You would never do that would you? “They” are the root of all of our problems and must be stopped through any means.

However, considering the reality of the drug war - that huge numbers of black men have been incarcerated and drug use continues, does “they” refer to drug users or black men? Remember that this event began due to a hunch, which we know was a profile at best and the actions of a racist cop at worst. Do processes that assure fairness reduce this type of discrimination? If you say yes, you might be a civil libertarian.

7.23.2003

Speech and the press

The media has the potential to serve as a tool for building justice and exposing the root causes of inequality in our society. However, it doesn't seem like they perform this role particularly well. Why does the media fall short of achieving this goal?

As pointed out in the readings, the Supreme Court makes no distinction between freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Legal scholars, politicians, and the courts often think back to what the framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights were thinking when these documents were crafted. Some politicians prefer a strict interpretation of the Constitution while others prefer to think of the Constitution as a "living document." Typically, those who want a strict interpretation are generally happy with the way things are going and don't want to legitimize the process of "finding" new rights in the Constitution. Those who prefer a living Constitution often seek social change and look to the intent of the framers and the meaning behind the words that were (we assume carefully) included in our earliest governing documents.

7.18.2003

Symbols and Speech

The first week of journals covered a range of topics. Journals discussed the rights of athletes - do they give up rights for fame? Other journal entries discussed blue laws, campus speech, the Dixie Chicks, and telemarketers. Good stuff, much of it focusing on free speech.

Of course, our first essay came up too. To many people, the three crosses are more than a logo. Some argue that since the crosses represent a part of the history of Las Cruces, they are valid symbols for the city and as such, are not religious symbols. My guess is that most of these people are Christian. Their comments express disbelief that anyone could possibly have a problem with crosses. Many comments seem to suggest that there is something wrong (morally?) with anyone who has a problem with crosses. It seems odd to suggest that a cross isn't actually a religious symbol. Doesn't it seem disingenuous for a Christian to suggest that they do not see the religious symbolism of a cross?

A few days ago the newspaper told about an effort to create a Las Cruces license plate. Three crosses appear on this plate. Given the current controversy, why would the designer of this plate, a city council member, choose this design? Is this an effort to thumb a collective nose at those who are opposed to the logo? If this plate were chosen to represent the city would people buy the plate in support of the crosses and all they represent, or would they buy the plate to support the city? Would an alternate plate be offered to those who refuse to place a Christian symbol on their car but still want to support the city?

The next few entries are from a class I taught in 2003. We used another blogging tool, and I want to close down that site, so I am moving these comments to this blog.

7.7.2003

First Journal

For my first journal I am thinking about the 4th of July. I am not particularly patriotic, especially not in the times of Bush. I am, however, extremely impressed by the wisdom of the framers of the Constitution and the wise citizens who amended the Constitution by creating the Bill of Rights. I am also proud of a legal system that usually functions in a way that meets the interest of the majority while remembering the importance of minority interests.

The Las Cruces newspaper has a "Sound Off" section in which readers can call the paper, say anything they damn well please, and the paper may print it. Some have argued that this is a form of free speech. I am not sure that I agree, since these things are selected by the editors. At times, the conservative bias of the paper has been obvious.

In a "Sound Off" on July 5, a caller was complaining that the paper did not have a picture of the flag on the front page of the July 4 edition. Is this an example of free speech being exercised in an attempt to alter the newspaper's right to free speech? The press is often censored and we wonder how the press has become so reluctant to voice alternate views. Perhaps this simple message from an irate "Sound Off" caller provides an example of subtle citizen-based censorship?

Guardian Unlimited | The Guardian | Former top judge says US risks edging near to dictatorship

Sandra Day O'Connor, a Republican-appointed judge who retired last month after 24 years on the supreme court, has said the US is in danger of edging towards dictatorship if the party's rightwingers continue to attack the judiciary.

America's Blinders | The Progressive

"Now that most Americans no longer believe in the war, now that they no longer trust Bush and his Administration, now that the evidence of deception has become overwhelming (so overwhelming that even the major media, always late, have begun to register indignation), we might ask: How come so many people were so easily fooled?"

The information revolution holds great promise for development, freedom, and justice, but this potential is fragile. Without a coherent framework for why access to knowledge matters and an agenda how to achieve it, this potential could be undermined by the growing propertization and regulation of knowledge. The Information Society Project (ISP) at Yale Law School invites you to help determine the future of A2K.

From April 21st to April 23rd, 2006, join policy makers, activists, industry leaders, and academics at Yale Law School for a conference addressing this topic in areas such as intellectual property policy, telecommunications, education, culture, science, and health care. Leading thinkers and advocates from North, South, East and West will focus on generating cutting edge research agendas, concrete policy solutions, and strategic partnerships for the next decade.

Please register from the conference website.

Plenary Panel defining Access to Knowledge include:

-- Framing A2K in human rights and development
-- Political economy of trade treaties and intellectual property
-- The economics of information
-- Privacy, national security, and free expression
-- Innovative public and private solutions to knowledge access and knowledge production in developing countries

Policy Panel topics include:

-- Measuring Access to Knowledge
-- Wireless Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) and A2K
-- Traditional Knowledge
-- Access to Scientific Knowledge
-- Network Neutrality in the Developing World
-- Exceptions and Limitations to Copyright
-- Access to Medicines: India and TRIPS
-- Peer Production and Education
-- Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Globalization
-- Agriculture, and Genetically Modified Crops
-- Licensing Frameworks for Access to Knowledge
-- Open Archives (OA), OA Publishing and Libraries

For a full conference description and list of speakers, please visit the conference website. Space is limited, so please register soon.

The Free Press -- Independent News Media - Election Issues

Did 308,000 cancelled Ohio voter registrations put Bush back in the White House?
by Bob Fitrakis and Harvey Wasserman
February 28, 2006

While life goes on during the Bush2 nightmare, so does the research on what really happened here in 2004 to give George W. Bush a second term.

Pundits throughout the state and nation---many of them alleged Democrats---continue to tell those of us who question Bush's second coming that we should "get over it," that the election is old news.

But things get curiouser and curiouser.

In our 2005 compendium HOW THE GOP STOLE OHIO'S 2004 ELECTION & IS RIGGING 2008 (www.freepress.org), we list more than a hundred different ways the Republican Party denied the democratic process in the Buckeye State. For a book of documents to be published September 11 by the New Press entitled WHAT HAPPENED IN OHIO?, we are continuing to dig.

It turns out, we missed more than a few of the dirty tricks Karl Rove, Ken Blackwell and their GOP used to get themselves four more years. In an election won with death by a thousand cuts, some that are still hidden go very deep. Over the next few weeks we will list them as they are verified.

One of them has just surfaced to the staggering tune of 175,000 purged voters in Cuyahoga County (Cleveland), the traditional stronghold of the Ohio Democratic Party. An additional 10,000 that registered to vote there for the 2004 election were lost due to "clerical error."

As we reported more than a year ago, some 133,000 voters were purged from the registration rolls in Hamilton County (Cincinnati) and Lucas County (Toledo) between 2000 and 2004. The 105,000 from Cincinnati and 28,000 from Toledo exceeded Bush's official alleged margin of victory---just under 119,000 votes out of some 5.6 million the Republican Secretary of State. J. Kenneth Blackwell, deemed worth counting.

Exit polls flashed worldwide on CNN at 12:20 am Wednesday morning, November 3, showed John Kerry winning Ohio by 4.2% of the popular vote, probably about 250,000 votes. We believe this is an accurate reflection of what really happened here.