This is like the story that keeps giving.

First, Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback got high school senior Emma Sullivan in a bit of trouble at school after the teen tweeted that she “Just made mean comments at gov. brownback and told him he sucked, in person #heblowsalot,” …probably because the hashtag just pushed his tolerance level of online bullying into “not okay” territory. Gov. Brownback’s office rang the student’s school to explain that the teen had teased him on the internet and caused intense butthurt, and Sullivan was called onto the carpet at school, where officials dressed her down for the better part of an hour over her injudicious and hilarious use of social media. But Sullivan almost instantly became a blogosphere darling, both for her outspokenness on the Twitters as well her response, which was basically “deal with it.”

Yes, Sullivan’s school requested a written apology from the student to Gov. Brownback, which she respectfully declined to write. Awesomely, this got the school to shut its face about the infringement on Sullivan’s First Amendment rights. The district issued a statement indicating that they’d “reviewed recent events surrounding the reported tweet by Shawnee Mission East High School student Emma Sullivan… [and acknowledged] a student’s right to freedom of speech and expression is constitutionally protected.”

Oh snap. But it gets better! Gov. Brownback’s flak also backed down on their request, apologizing for the overreach and issuing a statement from the governor:

“My staff over-reacted to this tweet, and for that I apologize. Freedom of speech is among our most treasured freedoms.

“I enjoyed speaking to the more than 100 students who participated in the Youth in Government Program at the Kansas Capitol. They are our future.

“I also want to thank the thousands of Kansas educators who remind us daily of our liberties, as well as the values of civility and decorum. Again, I apologize for our over-reaction.”

Do you think tweets sent during school hours are protected speech?

Gov. Brownback Apologizes to Twitter Teen For Free Speech Controversy is a post from: The Inquisitr

What could possibly go wrong here? So, about those civil liberties you appeared to be enjoying…

Tennessee Gov. Bill Haslam signed a law into effect last week that makes it illegal to “transmit or display an image” on the internet that is likely to “frighten, intimidate or cause emotional distress” to any individual who might be exposed to said image. As Ars Technica points out, Tennessee is becoming a pretty sucktastic place to use the internet- it was also recently decided in the state that misappropriation of your Netflix login constitutes “theft of services.”

The frightening thing about the harassing images legislation is that it does not matter with whom the image was shared- if it is exposed to the wrong set of eyes, you could wind up in jail for a year and incur fines:

The ban on distressing images, which was signed by Gov. Bill Haslam last week, is also an update to existing law. Tennessee law already made it a crime to make phone calls, send emails, or otherwise communicate directly with someone in a manner the sender “reasonably should know” would “cause emotional distress” to the recipient. If the communciation lacked a “legitimate purpose,” the sender faced jail time… for image postings, the “emotionally distressed” individual need not be the intended recipient. Anyone who sees the image is a potential victim. If a court decides you “should have known” that an image you posted would be upsetting to someone who sees it, you could face months in prison and thousands of dollars in fines.

Aside from significant First Amendment concerns inherent in legislation such as this, Ars also goes into how, scarily, the law reaches its tentacles into the realm of private communications made across social networks. Although certain protections are in place for emails, one-on-one messages via services like Facebook are being treated differently.

“‘Images or communications’ posted to a social networking site by offering ‘specific and articulable facts,’suggesting that the information sought is ‘relevant and material to an ongoing criminal investigation’” could be accessible by law enforcement- seemingly in direct conflict with constitutional protections against unreasonable search and seizure in the absence of a warrant.

Does this freak you out at all? Is it possible to retain privacy rights in the digital age, or are proponents fighting a losing battle?

[WTF?] Tennessee Bans Posting Offensive Images Online is a post from: The Inquisitr

One of the more frightening aspects of the ever more free exchange of information on the internet is the apparent impulse in many to stifle this open dialogue, particularly many who have a great deal of power, money or influence.

Censorship, of course, far predates the internet. But it seems every day there is a new venue where someone is trying to get someone to STFU. And while the internet is certainly used for spreading misinformation, accidentally or deliberately, should people be allowed to tell a story that is true and correct to their knowledge if the spread of that information stands to harm another individual?

The answer, of course, is yes. But Ars Technica writer Timothy Lee brings the issue of online reviews and medical reviews to the forefront again with his tale of an inadvertent almost-gagging when seeking a new dentist. Lee hadn’t planned on reviewing the dentist necessarily, but while filling out the stock-standard medical forms in the new patient intake, Lee noticed something out of sorts and investigated. What he found is a little disturbing and creates a few questions as far as the rights of private citizens to- well, speak. Lee explains:

Yelp says Dr. Cirka is one of the best in the Philadelphia area. The receptionist handed me a clipboard with forms to fill out. After the usual patient information form, there was a “mutual privacy agreement” that asked me to transfer ownership of any public commentary I might write in the future to Dr. Cirka. Surprised and a little outraged by this, I got into a lengthy discussion with Dr. Cirka’s office manager that ended in me refusing to sign and her showing me the door.

Lee explains that the agreement was supplied by a group called “Medical Justice,” purporting to aggressively defend doctors against frivolous malpractice claims. But on their site, buried in marketing-speak that can almost make you sympathetic to their free-speech objections, is a stance on net reviews that is chilling.

The practice also seems to rely heavily on both patients’ and doctors’ lack of understanding of laws surrounding these issues. Lee describes how the office was unable to explain some very simple implications of the agreement it enters into with patients on a daily basis:

I had a long conversation with Dr. Cirka’s office manager, who insisted that the agreement was not intended to censor the truthful reviews of Dr. Cirka’s patients. Rather, she said, it gave Dr. Cirka a tool to remove fraudulent reviews. She said they were especially concerned about non-patients (such as competitors, ex-spouses, or former employees) writing fake reviews to damage Dr. Cirka’s business.

She didn’t have a good answer when I pointed out that the agreement’s text didn’t say anything about fraudulent reviews. She also couldn’t explain how the agreement could bind non-patients, who by definition will not have signed it.

The conversation Lee recounts is really the crux of the issue here- it’s almost impossible to root out unethical negative complaints without stifling the many others who may have legitimate reason to post an unfavorable review. Recently, a doctor in Wisconsin brought a defamation suit against a patient’s son after the man posted a negative review online. The case was thrown out.

Do you find this practice unsettling? Should doctors be able to interfere with information you share outside their offices? Are the limits of HIPAA laws alone enough to place doctors into a protected class immune from online opinion that doesn’t apply to restaurants, nail salons, bars and other businesses?

Should doctors be able to gag patients online? is a post from: The Inquisitr

Good for you, Natalie Munroe.

Munroe, 30, is a full-time teacher and personal blogger, who candidly wrote of her experiences with other peoples’ kids all day long. Now she’s unsurprisingly suspended from her teaching duties because some students at Central Bucks East High School found her blog and complained that she’d characterized them less than charitably, even (gasp!) using swear words.

The case yet again brings up questions of how closely an employer can monitor your online activities outside of work, and whether certain kinds of speech are protected- particularly when an employee takes steps to cloak details of their personal and professional life from readers.

Munroe is admirably unapologetic when it comes to the content of her blog, and has replaced most posts with a lengthy explanation in the wake of the controversy. (You can read Natalie Munroe’s blog, “Where are we going & why are we in this handbasket” here.)

One of Munroe’s most quoted “pithy” remarks? The teacher opined:

“I don’t care if you lick the windows, take the special bus or occasionally pee on yourself. You hang in there, sunshine. You’re friggin’ special.”

What do you think? Should Munroe be axed from her teaching job due to the honest comments she made on her blog? Or is it more important to set a precedent that regardless of occupation, your time outside work is your own? Personally, I’m inclined toward the latter- if employers gain the ability to insinuate themselves into our online as well as offline lives outside work, let he who hath never been tagged in a questionable Facebook photo throw the first stone.

Teacher stands by personal blog despite media controversy is a post from: The Inquisitr

Phillip R. Greaves II, the author of controversial ebook The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct, has been arrested… wait for it… on child porn-related obscenity charges.

The book sparked a bit of debate as to whether Amazon should vet certain kinds of content after it was thrust into the spotlight for its questionable subject matter. According to this local news report found on Fark, Greaves unwittingly shipped “his own personal copy of the book” to law enforcement agents:

Judd says the book contains two graphic stories depicting an adult engaged in sex acts with children, and also trains adults regarding illegal sex acts between adults and children… Detectives and attorneys reviewed the book and presented the material to Polk County Judge J. Michael McCarthy.

Greaves is facing the third degree felony charge of “distribution of obscene material depicting minors engaged in conduct harmful to minors” in Polk County, Florida.

Man who authored Amazon pedophile’s guide arrested on obscenity charges is a post from: The Inquisitr

Online retailer Amazon has sparked a bit of debate surrounding whether objectionable content available for sale on their site is a decency issue or a censorship one.

The concern is due to a book most people would find indefensible- The Pedophile’s Guide to Love and Pleasure: a Child-lover’s Code of Conduct penned by Philip R. Greaves II. The book’s description, nevermind the content, is enough to make most people ill and angry:

“This is my attempt to make pedophile situations safer for those juveniles that find themselves involved in them, by establishing certain rules for these adults to follow. I hope to achieve this by appealing to the better nature of pedosexuals, with hope that their doing so will result in less hatred and perhaps liter sentences should they ever be caught,” the author says in the product description.

Free speech hugger? Even the boldest of anti-censorship folk would probably have a hard time taking up a sign and protesting against the banning of that book. But Amazon has reportedly taken the less popular road with the decidedly unpopular bit of Kindle content, according to ABC:

“Amazon believes it is censorship not to sell certain books simply because we or others believe their message is objectionable. Amazon does not support or promote hatred or criminal acts, however, we do support the right of every individual to make their own purchasing decisions,” the company said.

When it comes down to rights, no one really wants to stand up for the kiddy diddlers, who are among the most reviled of humanity even among hardened criminals. However, if Amazon truly backs free speech on its site, banning this particular horrible work could lead to less amenable acts of censorship in the future. In doing a cursory search, the book did not show up among Amazon’s listings, so they could have very well caved to the Twitter pressure and yanked the work from their store.

This definitely raises an interesting conundrum. As a parent of two relatively little kids, I hate to think of a book like this being “available for download in less than a minute.” But as an avid writer and reader, does censoring even the worst of content ever lead to a good place? I’m an avid fan of zombie lit- what if those show up next on the non-grata list for gore and violence? Will banning one e-book lead to future banninations on less objectionable works?

Amazon draws web ire for stocking pedophilia guide is a post from: The Inquisitr

The censorship craziness that has beset the Australian Government continues to know no bounds with news that a Government body has set its sites on Encyclopedia Dramatica (ED.)

The Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) is threatening legal action against the satirical site on the grounds that ED constitutes racial hatred and is in breach of the Racial Discrimination Act 1975, reports Fairfax Media.

That may well be true, except for one major fact: ED is not an Australian site, and it is not hosted in Australia.

But it gets worse, because if wasting tax payer money threatening a site over which it has no jurisdiction isn’t stupid enough, AHRC is also getting dodgy legal advice and is claiming that Gutnick vs Dow Jones means that ED and its owners can be targeted in Australia.

As the EFA rightly points out, Gutnick v Dow Jones was a civil defamation matter, where as any AHRC action would be a public matter and not pertain to defamation, so the precedent doesn’t apply.

Love or hate ED, actions like this continue to make the Australian Government, and its statutory bodies an international laughing stock. Australia has zero jurisdiction here, and if it was a criminal matter it would be best left for the Australian Federal Police to liaise with the FBI; of course that isn’t going to happen because unlike Australia, the United States actually believes in free speech, and Australian law doesn’t apply there…along with the laws of similar countries such as Iran, North Korea and China.

The ultimate irony, or is that fail, is that Australia has a body like the AHRC that fails to recognize that free speech is one of the most important, fundamental human rights of them all.

Goebbels would be proud.

The price of freedom of religion, or of speech, or of the press, is that we must put up with, and even pay for, a good deal of rubbish.
Justice Robert H Jackson.

Australian Government Body Goes After Encyclopedia Dramatica In Epic Waste Of Taxpayer Dollars is a post from: The Inquisitr

Site execs agreed to the change following an ongoing effort from Senator Joseph Lieberman. Lieberman had pointed out the high number of terrorist-affiliated videos on the site, many of which even had Al Qaeda logos stamped in the corners, and demanded the clips be removed.

Initially, YouTube shot the senator’s request down, as the videos didn’t technically violate the site’s terms of use. (They didn’t show graphic violence, even if they suggested it.) Representatives said they didn’t prescreen videos, instead banking on the site’s user flagging system to mark out any inappropriate submissions. A statement also raised the issue of free speech:

“While we respect and understand [Lieberman's] views, YouTube encourages free speech and defends everyone’s right to express unpopular points of view.”

Now, though, YouTube has revisited its terms of use and left open the door to subjective decisions on what content might be considered “inciting others to violence.” A spokesperson told the Washington Post the site will follow the “common sense rule” when deciding whether or not to remove a video.

It’s that ever-fine line between free speech and national security, and it’s never an easy answer. In agreeing to remove the Al Qaeda content, YouTube may have also opened the door to subjectively censoring other content that may or may not pose any real danger. Did they make the right decision?

Should YouTube Ban Violent Videos? is a post from: The Inquisitr