Archive for November, 2010
U.S. Supreme Court protects Westboro’s right to obnoxious speech
Monday, November 29th, 2010
I do not need to say much about how contemptible Fred Phelps and the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are, showing up at military funerals to show signs saying “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “America is Doomed,” “Priests Rape Boys,” and “You’re Going to Hell.” They are scum.
And it’s scum like them who are most in need of First Amendment protection, the existence of which was affirmed in an 8-1 ruling of the Supreme Court today.
Today’s case concerned a civil suit filed by the decedent’s family at which the Westboro protestors showed up (a few hundred feet from the funeral, for what it’s worth)—against Phelps, his daughters present and the church itself—alleging state tort claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress (“IIED”), intrusion upon seclusion, and civil conspiracy. A jury agreed, finding Westboro liable for .9M in compensatory damages and M punitive damages. The Fourth Circuit struck down the verdict as violating their First Amendment rights, and today the Court affirmed that judgment.
[This case does not involve the constitutionality of Maryland's new law, or other laws now on the books, regarding buffer zones around funerals.]
The Chief Justice wrote for the eight in the majority, with Justice Breyer writing an additional concurrence. As with the ban on “animal cruelty” images last term, only Justice Alito was willing to find the restriction on speech to be constitutionally permissible.
For the majority, the case turned on whether the Westboro speech was of “public” or “private” concern, the former receiving far more First Amendment protection than the latter.
Speech deals with matters of public concern when it can “be fairly considered as relating to any matter of political, social, or other concern to the community,” or when it “is a subject of legitimate news interest; that is, a subject of general interest and of value and concern to the public.” The arguably “inappropriate or controversial character of a statement is irrelevant to the question whether it deals with a matter of public concern.”
… The “content” of Westboro’s signs plainly relates to broad issues of interest to society at large, rather than matters of “purely private concern.” The placards read “God Hates the USA/Thank God for 9/11,” “America is Doomed,” “Don’t Pray for the USA,” “Thank God for IEDs,” “Fag Troops,” “Semper Fi Fags,” “God Hates Fags,” “Maryland Taliban,” “Fags Doom Nations,” “Not Blessed Just Cursed,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” “Pope in Hell,” “Priests Rape Boys,” “You’re Going to Hell,” and “God Hates You.” While these messages may fall short of refined social or political commentary, the issues they highlight—the political and moral conduct of the United States and its citizens, the fate of our Nation, homosexuality in the military, and scandals involving the Catholic clergy—are matters of public import. The signs certainly convey Westboro’s position on those issues, in a manner designed … to reach as broad a public audience as possible. And even if a few of the signs—such as “You’re Going to Hell” and “God Hates You”—were viewed as containing messages related to Matthew Snyder or the Snyders specifically, that would not change the fact that the overall thrust and dominant theme of Westboro’s demonstration spoke to broader public issues.
…The fact that Westboro spoke in connection with a funeral, however, cannot by itself transform the nature of Westboro’s speech. Westboro’s signs, displayed on public land next to a public street, reflect the fact that the church finds much to condemn in modern society. Its speech is “fairly characterized as constituting speech on a matter of public concern,” and the funeral setting does not alter that conclusion.
And once the Court concluded that this was speech on a matter of public concern, its conclusion became obvious:
Simply put, the church members had the right to be where they were. Westboro alerted local authorities to its funeral protest and fully complied with police guidance on where the picketing could be staged. The picketing was conducted under police supervision some 1,000 feet from the church, out of the sight of those at the church. The protest was not unruly; there was no shouting, profanity, or violence.
The record confirms that any distress occasioned by Westboro’s picketing turned on the content and viewpoint of the message conveyed, rather than any interference with the funeral itself. A group of parishioners standing at the very spot where Westboro stood, holding signs that said “God Bless America” and “God Loves You,” would not have been subjected to liability. It was what Westboro said that exposed it to tort damages. Given that Westboro’s speech was at a public place on a matter of public concern, that speech is entitled to “special protection” under the First Amendment. Such speech cannot be restricted simply because it is upsetting or arouses contempt. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.” Indeed, “the point of all speech protection . . . is to shield just those choices of content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”
Cue patriotic finish:
Westboro believes that America is morally flawed; many Americans might feel the same about Westboro. Westboro’s funeral picketing is certainly hurtful and its contribution to public discourse may be negligible. But Westboro addressed matters of public import on public
property, in a peaceful manner, in full compliance with the guidance of local officials. The speech was indeed planned to coincide with Matthew Snyder’s funeral, but did not itself disrupt that funeral, and Westboro’s choice to conduct its picketing at that time and place did not alter the nature of its speech.Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and—as it did here—inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.
Justice Breyer’s concurrence seeks to draw limits on the conclusion here:
While I agree with the Court’s conclusion that the picketing addressed matters of public concern, I do not believe that our First Amendment analysis can stop at that point. A State can sometimes regulate picketing, even picketing on matters of public concern. Moreover, suppose that A were physically to assault B, knowing that the assault (being newsworthy) would provide A with an opportunity to transmit to the public his views on a matter of public concern. The constitutionally protected nature of the end would not shield A’s use of unlawful, unprotected means. And in some circumstances the use of certain words as means would be similarly unprotected. See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942) (“fighting words”)
And in this case, Breyer writes, given the physical separation between the Westboro protestors and the Snyder family, any liability would be a disproportionate response, whereas something more direct could, on the facts, find potential liability for speech which threatened privacy or other interests, such as the interest in preventing emotional harm.
Justice Alito’s dissent begins by focusing not on the speech, but on the audience:
Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case.
Petitioner Albert Snyder is not a public figure. He is simply a parent whose son, Marine Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder, was killed in Iraq. Mr. Snyder wanted what is surely the right of any parent who experiences such an incalculable loss: to bury his son in peace. But respondents, members of the Westboro Baptist Church, deprived him of that elementary right. They first issued a press release and thus turned Matthew’s funeral into a tumultuous media event. They then appeared at the church, approached as closely as they could without trespassing, and launched a malevolent verbal attack on Matthew and his family at a time of acute emotional vulnerability. As a result, Albert Snyder suffered severe and lasting emotional injury. The Court now holds that the First Amendment protected respondents’ right to brutalize Mr. Snyder. I cannot agree.
This is, perhaps, the key graf:
This Court has recognized that words may “by their very utterance inflict injury” and that the First Amendment does not shield utterances that form “no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality.” Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568, 572 (1942); see also Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 310 (1940) (“[P]ersonal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution”). When grave injury is intentionally inflicted by means of an attack like the one at issue here, the First Amendment should not interfere with recovery.
Justice Alito goes on to state that there were plenty of other relevant public places where the Westboro folks could have protested that day, and as with the animal cruelty case goes into great detail as to how vile the Westboro speech was (and has been nationally), and suggests that the Court’s attempt to focus on the speech rather than the audience missed the mark:
Respondents’ motivation—“to increase publicity for its views,”—did not transform their statements attacking the character of a private figure into statements that made a contribution to debate on matters of public concern. Nor did their publicity-seeking motivation soften the sting of their attack. And as far as culpability is concerned, one might well think that wounding statements uttered in the heat of a private feud are less, not more, blameworthy than similar statements made as part of a cold and calculated strategy to slash a stranger as a means of attracting public attention.
Moreover, he argues, the new “funeral buffer” statutes are inadequate:
The Court suggests that the wounds inflicted by vicious verbal assaults at funerals will be prevented or at least mitigated in the future by new laws that restrict picketing within a specified distance of a funeral. It is apparent, however, that the enactment of these laws is no substitute for the protection provided by the established IIED tort; according to the Court, the verbal attacks that severely wounded petitioner in this case complied with the new Maryland law regulating funeral picketing. And there is absolutely nothing to suggest that Congress and the state legislatures, in enacting these laws, intended them to displace the protection provided by the well-established IIED tort.
The real significance of these new laws is not that they obviate the need for IIED protection. Rather, their enactment dramatically illustrates the fundamental point that funerals are unique events at which special protection against emotional assaults is in order. At funerals, the emotional well-being of bereaved relatives is particularly vulnerable. Exploitation of a funeral for the purpose of attracting public attention “intrud[es] upon their … grief,” and may permanently stain their memories of the final moments before a loved one is laid to rest. Allowing family members to have a few hours of peace without harassment does not undermine public debate. I would therefore hold that, in this setting, the First Amendment permits a private figure to recover for the intentional infliction of emotional distress caused by speech on a matter of private concern.
…In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner. I therefore respectfully dissent.
One of the most consistent aspects of the Court over at least the past decade is that restrictions on speech—except for the speech of minors—are going to lose once they reach the Supreme Court. I’m reminded, as I often am, of Justice Brandeis’s concurrence in the Whitney case, from 1927:
Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties, and that, in its government, the deliberative forces should prevail over the arbitrary. They valued liberty both as an end, and as a means. They believed liberty to be the secret of happiness, and courage to be the secret of liberty. They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that, without free speech and assembly, discussion would be futile; that, with them, discussion affords ordinarily adequate protection against the dissemination of noxious doctrine; that the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people; that public discussion is a political duty, and that this should be a fundamental principle of the American government. They recognized the risks to which all human institutions are subject. But they knew that order cannot be secured merely through fear of punishment for its infraction; that it is hazardous to discourage thought, hope and imagination; that fear breeds repression; that repression breeds hate; that hate menaces stable government; that the path of safety lies in the opportunity to discuss freely supposed grievances and proposed remedies, and that the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones.
See psychodrew’s diary for more discussion.
All the Pieces Are Coming Together for the Show: Here’s What’s Happening Next
Saturday, November 27th, 2010
Two designers. One hair & make-up plan
Things are starting to heat up. Tickets to the show are selling. The sponsors have been announced. Event plans are well underway.
When last I visited the designers, I saw lots of garments that appeared to be in the final stages of production. Most of the students seemed to be working on those last details and finishing touches that take a look from nice to WOW.
This is good.
In a few short weeks the students face the jury. The jury members have the option of excluding a designer from the show if they feel the work is not going to be where it needs to be for the runway. So, the designers know they need to deliver. More importantly this group of professionals will be providing strong, constructive critiques.
Not long after the jurying is the photo shoot. This is an intensive daylong affair. We tap local professional talent (the fabulous Mr. Scott Cunningham) to shoot the models in their garments for the catalog.
I’ll be taking photos of people taking photos to share here. I can’t wait for this. I can’t wait to see the make-up and hair designs in 3D—side note: many of the designers share models, which means that the make-up and hair folks have the added challenge of creating looks that will work with more than one design.
If you’re curious about the photo shoot, check out the coverage of last year’s shoot.
After the photo shoot I’ll start introducing individual designers and their Masters of Design muse.
Below are more images from the hair & makeup consult and the Dec. garment review.
Check out our new fashion show video promo.
Tickets are on sale at www.ccad.edu/fashion. FYI: the prices will go up in March—so buy now and save.
Columbus College of Art & Design Blog
GOP Boss Gets Job Lobbying Ohio Governor
Friday, November 26th, 2010An influential GOP political leader who helped field Ohio's winning 2010 gubernatorial ticket will now be paid ,000 a month to lobby the new administration and lawmakers for the University of Akron.
www2.nbc4i.com – Govt_politics
Lindsey Graham’s delusional fight against Social Security
Thursday, November 25th, 2010
When we last heard from Sen. Lindsey Graham on Social Security, he was arguing that raising the retirement age is what our brave troops in Iraq would do. Or something like that; it was a little hard to follow.
He’s not being any more coherent on the issue now, talking about the legislation he’s developing with Sen. Rand Paul to raise the retirement age and implement means testing.
“We’re going to have a Social Security solvency bill next week that deals with age adjustment and means testing,” said Senator Lindsey Graham, who is working on legislation with newcomer Rand Paul, a Tea Party activist.
Graham did not give details but an age adjustment would raise the age for full retirement benefits from the current level, which already is gradually increasing to 67. Means testing would diminish Social Security benefits for the wealthy.
“I’ve never seen a better moment to deal with Social Security in a bipartisan fashion than right now,” Graham told reporters, saying company-backed pension plans “are going by the wayside” and “a lot of Americans are going to outlive their 401k (retirement) plans.”
Graham must somehow thing that if he says the magic word—”bipartisanship”—he’ll get what he wants, even when he’s devising his plan with, of all people, Rand Paul. According to The Hill, he’s also working with Sen. Mike “child labor laws are unconstitutional” Lee on the effort. With the company he’s keeping, this effort seems more like Graham hedging his bets against a teahadist primary challenge in 2014 than anything else.
Graham also “called on President Obama to join with Republicans to forge a bipartisan deal on Social Security.” His choice of legislative companions make that offer questionable, and will likely only shore up the stiff opposition from a core group of Senate Dems.
A group of Senate Democrats, led by liberal Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), is trying to establish procedural protections to guard against cuts to Social Security benefits…..
At least nine senators, Sanders and eight Democrats, have signed a letter seeking co-sponsors for legislation to block changes in Social Security benefits, according to a copy obtained by The Hill.
“Our legislation would establish a point of order against any legislation that would reduce Social Security benefits or privatize Social Security,” the lawmakers wrote in a Dear Colleague letter dated February 28. “The point of order in our legislation could only be waived by the affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Senate and the House present and voting.”
Sens. Daniel Akaka (Hawaii), Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.), Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Barbara Mikulski (Md.), Barbara Boxer (Calif.), Debbie Stabenow (Mich.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) also signed the letter.
It took a while, but Senate Dems and the White House have seemed to coalesce behind telling the truth about Social Security—it’s not a crisis. They unfortunately let that narrative go unanswered for too long, thanks in large part to Obama’s catfood commission, and now have to fight doubly hard to get the truth out, and to protect Social Security from the likes of Graham, Paul and Lee.
Ford Asset Program at Columbus State Community College
Monday, November 22nd, 2010
 |
Ford ASSET is a partnership between Ford Motor Company, Dealerships, and Columbus State Community College. The program provides students the opportunity to become highly trained technicians employed by Ford, Lincoln, Mercury or Mazda dealerships. The program:
· Trains students to diagnose, service, and maintain vehicles using Ford recommended procedures, special tools, and service publications. · Ensures that ASSET-trained technicians can easily become familiar with new systems and components as they are introduced. · Provides Paid Work Experience during the program to reinforce what is being taught in the classroom. · Allows an ASSET-trained student to earn an Associate's Degree in Automotive Technology, ASE Certifications, and, most importantly, Ford STST Certifications. |
Views:
182  0
ratings |
| Time: 01:33 |
More in Education |
Continuing Ed Offers Three Public Lectures
Sunday, November 21st, 2010Growing an already popular roster of classes and workshops for the community, CCAD’s Continuing Education (CE) office is now offering a lecture series.
“Adding a lecture series just made sense,” said Cat Sheridan, director of Continuing Education. “A lecture is a great introduction to taking CE classes at CCAD and is convenient for someone who is just beginning to explore art instruction. For people who have taken classes with us before, these lectures offer something new for them to explore.”
“The lectures are interesting on their own, and are a nice professional development opportunity for people working in creative fields” added Sheridan. “However, the lectures are also a fun way to add value to a CE class you are already taking—for instance if you are taking a painting class you might want to check out the the Color Basics lecture and then apply what you learn during your next class session.”
Options include:
- Developing a Critical Eye, Thursday, March 31, 6:45-9:30 p.m. Discussion will focus on what makes things visually appealing and how to critique and improve basic designs in your personal and professional life.
- Color Basics, Thursday, April 7, 6:45-9:30 p.m. Come to explore the basic principles of color theory (how colors contrast, complement or work in concert) and leave seeing the world a little different.
- Portfolio Development, Thursday, April 21, 6:45-9:30 p.m. This program introduces potential art students, parents, and art educators to the admissions process and success as an artist or designer. Learn what constitutes an acceptable portfolio, how to finance a private art school education, and where career paths lead.
Registration is per lecture. All lectures are in the Canzani Center auditorium. Parking is free in CCAD parking lots (see Campus Map for lot locations).
Columbus College of Art & Design Blog
Joanne Ritter watercolors at Mowry Alumni Center
Tuesday, November 16th, 2010
You have 2 weeks left to enjoy the talented work of alum Joanne Ritter at the Mowry Alumni Center!
Joanne’s watercolors are luminous, and reflect her love of flowers and travel, and her ability to see the beauty in every place.
Mowry Alumni Center is open Monday through Friday, 8:30am – 5:00pm, and is located on the Jaywalk. Don’t miss these!
Senate passes stop-gap to keep government open, but debt limit looms
Monday, November 15th, 2010
Following the House’s lead, the Senate has passed a stop-gap measure to keep government open through March 18 by a margin of 91-9. But even as a long-term spending deal has yet to materialize, the possibility of running into the national debt limit in early April continues to loom.
If Congress does not raise the limit, the U.S. could miss interest payments on its debt and see its triple-A credit rating downgraded.
Either of those outcomes, economists and money managers say, could significantly damage the economic recovery and further erode the nation’s status in the eyes of investors, especially foreign governments that own large amounts of U.S. debt.
That, in turn, could lead to significantly higher interest rates as investors demand higher premiums to take on the risk of a collapse in U.S. finances.
The question really is whether Republicans want to play hardball on both the debt limit and the discretionary spending bill at the same time. On the face of it, it seems that if they try to fight both battles at once, they risk diluting their message. And if they get their way on spending—which so far, they are—it’s hard to imagine how they could possibly justify blocking a debt limit increase, since they support the policies that make increasing the debt limit necessary. Of course, that assumes Republicans will take a rational approach to the debt limit. And I suppose that doing that might just be a tad optimistic.
Crowds Descend As Ohio Debates Union Overhaul
Saturday, November 13th, 2010Union protesters and tea party activists descend on the Ohio Statehouse on Thursday in opposing shows of force as senators hear more testimony on a bill that would strip public employees of collective bargaining rights.
www2.nbc4i.com – Govt_politics
Landscapes
Friday, November 12th, 2010Back before media of any kind existed–think past SOCIAL media here–before tv, radio, I’m talking pantaloon wearing horse and buggy era–landscape paintings were a visual escape. An image of a serene landscape with gentle breezes, far removed from the dreary toil and stench (horses remember) of everday life. I am talking about the merchant class , peasants couldn’t get away from stench, and the aristocracy had little toil and could probably frolic in the landscape whenever. So, the middle class escape–most of us right?
We escape the confines of our everday life by surfing the net searching out hot vacation deals in hot locations that we can’t afford, chatting with friends on facebook, watching horrifyingly embarrassing videos of fools on YouTube. We look at images and grasp at stress releases through media everyday.
Landscape paintings can say many things through color, imagery, perspective. I encourage you to take a look at the “Landscapes” show at the Art Access Gallery on Drexel Ave. in Bexley. The show opens on January 7, runs to through Feb 3, and features works by Richard Clem, Valerie Craig, Andy Reed, Diane Young and Kim Zarney. Check out: artaccessgallery.com
Art can still take us away from our dreary everyday, open our eyes to new ideas, encourage us to breathe a little deeper and reflect–we don’t allow much of that with all the opportunities to distract ourselves on a daily basis.
We need art as much as the pantaloon wearing folk did. As a way to pause, look at and reflect on something visual that is without a hash tag and outside our “daily landscape”.
