First Amendment

Ethics Dunces: The Videogame Burners of Southington, Conn.

/ Jack Marshall / 18 Comments

book burning

On January 12, they are burning “violent videogames” in Southington, a Connecticut town not far from Newtown, scene of the Sandy Hook massacre.

Is there a more irresponsible, historically ignorant, un-American, First Amendment-offending, foolish, ignorant and ugly act than burning speech and art because you object to their content? They burned rock and roll records  in the Bible Belt during the 1950s—that was stupid, disgusting and frightening. Hitler, you may recall, burned books; the USSR too. In 2013, consigning electronic media like videogames to the flames is indistinguishable from burning books. I would expect American citizens of normal intelligence to immediately realize that.

I guess I would be wrong.

The local group organizing the bonfire has put out some rationalization for it. I could not care less what sad reasoning and warped values motivate their book-burning. It is a symbolic insult to freedom of thought.

No question: book burnings are legal and protected speech. It is also conduct redolant of mob rule, ignorance, intolerance, fear, hate, and Ray Bradbury novels. Some activities have earned permanent revulsion, legal or not, in American culture because they are the traditional tools not of democracies, but of totalitarian governments,  the enemies of democracy and free thought. Book burning is one of them.

And burning videogames is exactly the same thing.

Update: The news accounts eventually make it clear that the group will collect the various forms of violent entertainment in a dumpster, which will also include movies and recordings, and that the actual incineration will be performed by city workers, as part of their rubbish disposal duties. Is this better? Worse, because now the town government is participating? I don’t think it is useful or enlightening to play parsing games. I see this event as indistinguishable from a book-burning, and while The Guardian’s description of it as such could be called misleading (or inflammatory?), I salute them for correctly diagnosing what this is in its essence.

Torii Hunter and The Bigoted Teammate Principle

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments
No, this isn't Detrot Tigers outfielder Torii Hunter. This is gay-bashing "Teacher of the Year" Gerald Buell. Six of one, half-dozen of the other...

No, this isn’t Detrot Tigers outfielder Torii Hunter. This is gay-bashing “Teacher of the Year” Gerald Buell. Six of one, half-dozen of the other…

Over at the NBC Sports baseball blog Hardball Talk, the baseball  writer/lawyer Craig Calcaterra explained today why the quoted comments of Detroit Tigers outfielder Torii Hunter regarding gay professional athletes are not just wrong, but misconduct. My message to Craig: “Bingo.”

In its recent article about closeted gay athletes, the Los Angeles Times quoted Hunter explaining why he felt having a gay team mate would be divisive:

“For me, as a Christian … I will be uncomfortable because in all my teachings and all my learning, biblically, it’s not right. It will be difficult and uncomfortable.” Continue reading →

“Should CNN Fire Piers Morgan?” It Should, But It Can’t.

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments
If only.

If only.

In the wake of the tsunami of criticism directed at CNN talk show host Piers Morgan for his anti-gun rantings, particularly during his interview with Gun Owners of America president Larry Pratt, Slate posted a Quora response to the question, “Should CNN Fire Piers Morgan?” from internet entrepreneur Mark Rogowski, who begins his answer (summary: “no”) with the rejoinder, “For what? For having an opinion?”

No, Morgan should be fired for allowing his opinion to lure him into thoroughly rude, unprofessional, abusive and inappropriate interview practices, which a major news network like CNN shouldn’t permit, endorse, tolerate or risk recurring. That’s why. Continue reading →

Gross Abuse of the First Amendment: The Journal News’ Attack on Gun Owner Privacy

/ Jack Marshall / 39 Comments
"Here are the names and addresses of people with blood on their hands, Just thought you might be interested."

“Here are the names and addresses of people with blood on their hands. Just thought you might be interested in paying one of them a little visit.”

New York’s Journal News has published a map showing the homes of pistol permit holders in two New York counties. (They are acquiring data for a third.) Now, on the Journal News website, you can click on any of the dots indicating a permit holder and see his name and address—very useful, should you want to go to the owner’s home and kill him, since we all know gun owners have “blood on their hands” after the massacre in Newtown. The Journal News acquired the personal information through the Freedom of Information Act.

A story like this one renders me depressed, confused and lost. It should not be unnecessary for me or anyone to explain what is wrong with this conduct, and yet not only has a media organization done it, but many Americans undoubtedly will cheer them on. If people can’t figure out on their own what is wrong with this—the ethical offense is “publicizing citizens’ names and addresses in an attempt to intimidate them and expose them to harassment for exercising their legal, Constitutionally protected rights in a responsible fashion”— I suspect that it is a waste of time trying to enlighten them. Continue reading →

Ethics Quote of the Week: Prof. Glenn Reynolds

/ Jack Marshall / 41 Comments

“A 20-year-old lunatic stole some guns and killed people. Who’s to blame? According to a lot of our supposedly rational and tolerant opinion leaders, it’s . . . the NRA, a civil-rights organization whose only crime was to oppose laws banning guns. (Ironically, it wasn’t even successful in Connecticut, which has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation.) The hatred was intense. One Rhode Island professor issued a call — later deleted — for NRA head Wayne LaPierre’s “head on a stick.” People like author Joyce Carol Oates and actress Marg Helgenberger wished for NRA members to be shot. So did Texas Democratic Party official John Cobarruvias, who also called the NRA a ‘terrorist organization,’ and Texas Republican congressman Louis Gohmert a “terror baby.” Nor were reporters, who are supposed to be neutral, much better. As The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg commented, ‘Reporters on my Twitter feed seem to hate the NRA more than anything else, ever. ‘Calling people murderers and wishing them to be shot sits oddly with claims to be against violence. The NRA — like the ACLU, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers or Planned Parenthood — exists to advocate policies its members want. It’s free speech. The group-hate directed at the NRA is ugly and says ugly things about those consumed by it.”

–—- University of Tennessee law professor (and conservative blogging icon) Glenn Reynolds, in a USA Today op-ed piece called “Reflections on Newtown.”

Stop the NRAI’m tempted to go further than Prof. Reynolds and suggest that this also says ugly things about what the extended recession has done to our culture, which once was characterized by the initiative, determination and innovation to solve problems, but now increasingly resorts to the useless strategy of  pointing fingers. The tradition of picking out convenient public scapegoats to blame and demonize in response to complex societal problems is a long-running historical phenomenon around the world, but it seems to me that the United States has never before embraced it with the fervor we are seeing now.

Unethical Quote of the Month: 34,812 Americans*

/ Jack Marshall / 7 Comments

“British Citizen and CNN television host Piers Morgan is engaged in a hostile attack against the U.S. Constitution by targeting the Second Amendment. We demand that Mr. Morgan be deported immediately for his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights and for exploiting his position as a national network television host to stage attacks against the rights of American citizens.”

—- The language on a petition posted at whitehouse.gov and signed by 34,812 American citizens,* asking the Obama Administration to deport Piers Morgan.

brainless-empty-open-head-screamingYou can’t get much more ignorant, hypocritical and dumb than this, can you? A talk show host criticizes the Second Amendment, and these fools think the appropriate remedy for “his effort to undermine the Bill of Rights” is for the government to punish him with deportation, thus violating the First Amendment, from the Bill of Rights.

Passionate, engaged, and completely incapable of rational thought: what a frightening combination.

* UPDATE, 12/26/2012  The number is now over 75,000, and still rising. If every American who can’t see that this petition represents an absurd contradiction signs it, we’re looking at about 200,000,000 people, maybe more. This would probably spell doom for Morgan’s show, as it would mean that the only people conceivably dumb enough to watch him want him deported.

_______________________________

Pointer: Drudge

Bad Neighbor, Uncivil Citizen and Christmas Jerk, But Sarah Childs Knows Her Rights!

/ Jack Marshall / 26 Comments

christmasfinger

Sarah Childs decided to give her neighbors a bird that wasn’t mentioned in “The Twelve Days of Christmas.” The neighbors, for some reason, weren’t charmed, and in response to their complaints, police ordered Sarah to turn off the lights.

But U.S. District Judge James Brady granted  Childs’ request for a temporary restraining order blocking the City of Denham Springs in Louisiana from interfering with her  vulgar Christmas display on the roof of her house, giving a large, bright, middle finger to everyone within sight.  Marjorie R. Esman, the Executive Director of ACLU of Louisiana rejoiced, “This is a victory for the First Amendment and for the rule of law. We are gratified that Ms. Childs can express herself as the law permits without further risk of interference by the police.”

Yup, the First Amendment allows Sarah Childs to be an uncivil and intentionally offensive jerk, and to flip off her neighborhood with a Christmas flair. “Peace on Earth, and Up Yours! ” A better example of how conduct can be legal, Constitutionally protected, and completely, utterly, wrong would be hard to find. Apparently Childs was angry at her neighbors over an ongoing dispute, and this was her kind, polite, classy, Christmas-y way of handling the situation.

It is times like these that one really, really wishes there was a Santa Claus, so he could leave something appropriately disgusting in a deserving stocking.

_______________________

Pointer, Graphic: Volokh Conspiracy

Facts: Louisiana ACLU 1, Louisiana ACLU 2

Unethical Quote of the Month: The Washington Post

/ Jack Marshall / 50 Comments

“When will America choose to protect children instead of guns?”

—- The headline writer for the Washington Post, introducing columnist Petula Dvorak’s column this morning on the Newtown, Connecticut elementary school shooting, which took the lives of 26, including 20 children.

Newtown shooting

Presumably the Post’s headline writer was inspired to come up with that headline by the similar statement from Marian Wright Edelman, president of the Children’s Defense Fund, who was quoted in Dvorak’s essay. Edelman said,

“This latest terrible tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School is no fluke. It is a result of the senseless, immoral neglect of all of us as a nation to fail to protect children instead of guns and to speak out against the pervasive culture of violence. It is up to us to stop these preventable tragedies.”

This is not quite as irresponsible and dangerous as the Post’s headline, but it is close. The suggestion that greater safety and security compels and justifies abandoning the core rights that make the United States unique and free is the ticket to tyranny, benevolent or otherwise. Continue reading →

Ethics Dunces: North Carolina General Assembly

/ Jack Marshall / 10 Comments

Choose LifeWhy should Federal courts have to waste time on idiocy like this? The North Carolina General Assembly passed a law green-lighting a license plate that had the message “Choose Life” on it, just as there are license plates you can get in my state, Virginia, that endorse everything from birds to college athletic teams. The assembly refused to allow a plate, however, with the adverse message, “Support Choice,” or  “I Like Reproductive Freedom” or “Yay Abortion!” or something similar.

Now, all those Republicans who voted for the “Choose Life” plate are supposedly in favor of a government that doesn’t dictate what its citizens say or believe, that principle being enshrined in the Bill of Rights. Why, then, can’t they see that providing a license plate that supports one side of a contentious issue to drivers, while refusing to allow drivers of a different mind to sport a contrary message, is an abuse of power, or, as the judge that banned the “Choose Life” plate referred to it, “viewpoint discrimination” ?The state can’t give special privileges, like the privilege of annoying other drivers by preaching to them with their license plates, to citizens whose politics or beliefs state officials happen to like. That’s a First Amendment violation, an abuse of personal autonomy, and wrong.

I would say “obviously,'” but clearly that wasn’t true in this case.

I think there should be a North Carolina plate that reads, “Choose Competent Legislators.” Of course, “Choose Stupid Legislators” would have to be available too.

______________________________________

Facts and Graphics: My Fox 8

 

The Despicable Non-Crime of Briana Augustenborg

/ Jack Marshall / 11 Comments

Alexander Jordan, 2002-2012

In US v. Alvarez, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 9th Circuit’s ruling that the Stolen Valor Act, which made it illegal to claim military honors that one has not in fact received, was unconstitutional. There is, the courts say, a Constitutional, First Amendment right to lie. Fraud—using lies for monetary profit, is already a crime, the courts argue, and so is slander. Making up stories about yourself and others may be unwise, annoying, even hurtful. Still, it is protected speech; so sayeth a majority of the U.S. Supreme Court, and it is now the law of the land.

This was a bad ruling, and I was surprised at it. Briana Augustenborg shows why.

One day this year she shared a story with a co-worker about a little 10-year-old boy she knew who was terminally ill with leukemia. The boy, Alex, was a big fan, she said, of Eagle Valley (Colorado) High School’s  football team. The colleague, a woman named Holly Sandoval, had a son that played on the team, and she offered to share the story with her son and get the team to sign a football for Alex. Continue reading →