Cyborg | Designer-Babies | Futurism | Futurist | Immortality | Longevity | Nanotechnology | Post-Human | Singularity | Transhuman

Wednesday, Feb. 22, 2012

By ROBERT J. SAMUELSON

WASHINGTON — The emergence of super PACs shows once again that “campaign finance reform” has failed abysmally. After nearly four decades, it has achieved none of its goals. It has not purged politics of big donations, nor cured public cynicism about the influence of the rich, nor made elected leaders more trusted. What it has done is compromise basic First Amendment rights, clutter politics with baffling laws and regulations, and actually deepen cynicism.

Except for contribution disclosures, campaign finance laws should be scrapped. If there were no limits on individual contributions to candidates (the basic limit is $2,500 per candidate per election, meaning $5,000 for a primary and general election together), there would be few — if any — super PACs. The wealthy would give to candidates directly instead of resorting to some contorted alternative. Super PACs are merely the latest of many contortions born of a muddled Supreme Court.

On the one hand, the court has blessed limits on direct contributions to candidates and political parties. The rationale: to prevent corruption and its appearance — undue influence by big contributors. On the other, the court has also said that the First Amendment guarantees Americans the right to spend unlimited amounts to elect anyone they wish. It's free speech. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the court tried to reconcile the contradictions by saying people could make unlimited “independent expenditures” not “coordinated” with the candidates or their campaigns.

The unsurprising result is that both parties searched for new ways to maximize spending without violating the letter of the law. These have included PACs (political action committees), so-called 527 groups, “soft money” and now super PACs, which can accept unlimited contributions and make “independent expenditures” (mainly media advertising). The trouble is that these various responses, though legally clever, seem ethically suspect to many Americans. The press generally adopts the same attitude.

The perception that political operatives and wealthy donors are skirting contribution limits — as they are — creates the aura of corruption and even criminality. Super PACs also seem to make candidates' campaigns less accountable. The fact that all this is an exercise of First Amendment rights is simply ignored. The paradox is that campaign financial “reform,” far from allaying public suspicion of the political system, deepens it.

What started as an understandable reaction to Watergate abuses now imposes a tangle of rules on free speech and political activity. Go to the Federal Election Commission's website and download its summary of regulations on “coordinated communications and independent expenditures.” It's 11 single-spaced pages of legalese. This is not what the Founders imagined when they said Congress “shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” or the right “to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Three myths buttress the status quo.

Myth One: The rich and corporate interests rule government through campaign contributions and lobbying.

This is absurd. In 2009, $2.1 trillion (60 percent) of federal spending went for “payments for individuals.” This included 52.5 million people receiving Social Security; 46.6 million on Medicare (many of the same people); 32.9 million on food stamps; 47.5 million on Medicaid; 3.9 million with veterans benefits. Almost all these benefits go to the poor and middle class. Meanwhile, the richest 5 percent of American pay 44 percent of federal taxes.

Does this look like government for the rich? Of course, businesses and wealthy individuals support candidates that share their interests. This is their right. But many super-rich contributors (George Soros and the like) are focused on political philosophies, not their net worth.

Myth Two: Political spending is out of control.

Not so. In 2008, spending for federal elections (the president, Congress) totaled $5.3 billion, up 27 percent from 2004. Over the same period, the economy grew 21 percent. By comparison, Americans spent $297 billion in 2008 on mobile and landline phones. Neither party has a permanent fundraising advantage over the other. In the last seven elections, Republicans raised more money in four, Democrats in three.

Myth Three: Spending isn't speech.

Well, try “getting your message out” without spending. If money is necessary to disseminate campaign themes, then limits on spending (“independent” or otherwise) restrict speech.

The widespread belief in these myths makes campaign finance regulation seem respectable. It's always convenient to blame the nation's problems on moneyed “special interests” and to pretend that controlling them will advance obvious solutions. This is usually a delusion. Solutions aren't always obvious, and the most powerful constituencies are not those with big bags of money but those with huge blocs of voters. AARP outguns the American Petroleum Institute.

The greater threat to our democracy arises from the well-intentioned effort to curb traditional First Amendment political freedoms under the guise of cleansing the system of the evils of money. There lies the true corruption of the U.S. Constitution.

© 2012 Washington Post Writers Group

Read more:
Campaign finance reform fails to reach goals

February 21, 2012 11:59 PM

”Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

— The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution

 

Three words: Freedom of religion. Individually, such clear definitions. Collectively, open to interpretation. The debate over that First Amendment guarantee has raged for more than 200 years — and with slim chance of easing up.

Back in the news over the Supreme Court’s recent decision not to hear an appeal of a Forsyth County case, the latest debate over the meaning of “freedom of religion” springs from a lower federal court ruling that Forsyth’s county commissioners cannot offer prayers endorsing a specific religion.

Now, the American Civil Liberties Union claims the General Assembly is on the wrong side of the ruling with prayers favoring Christianity. The same could be said of many elected boards around the state. The Alamance Board of Commissioners earlier this month changed its policy regarding prayers that open its meetings to conform to court and ACLU guidelines. From this point forward, a general prayer without references to Christianity or Jesus will be used. For Alamance County, it was a logical and well-considered move that protects the right to pray without choosing one religion over another. Individuals may then choose to pray in whatever way they wish quietly.

Republican leaders in the Legislature don’t see it that way. They say the ACLU is “out of touch” and, according to House Speaker Thom Tillis, “has an affinity for pushing a radical, far-left agenda.”

The issue here is not the ACLU, although that is the organization making a point about General Assembly prayers in a letter to state Attorney General Roy Cooper.

The issue is whether a government body is promoting a particular religion.

We live in an area where there’s no question that Christianity is the dominant religious belief and where few flinch when prayers are said in Jesus’ name at a public meeting. It’s generally accepted, if not strictly legal.

That’s the question that fuels the ongoing debate over the meaning of “freedom of religion.”

Our founding fathers based the guarantee of religious freedom on what they saw back in England — persecution based on one’s religious beliefs. It was the very thing that brought the Pilgrims to this continent, and the founders took no chances that America would follow that path. They wrote the guarantee of freedom of religion into the First Amendment.

While for 200 years there has been tension between the “free exercise” and the “establishment” clauses, it’s clear that our country’s governing document guarantees that any person is free to practice any religion. And that the government must never favor one religion over another.

That is a guarantee of freedom all Americans should work endlessly to preserve no matter how long the debate goes on.

More:
Religious freedom a right to be protected

The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal Tuesday from a former high school student who sued his history teacher, saying he disparaged Christianity in class in violation of the student's First Amendment rights.

The high court denied Chad Farnan's written demand for a review of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision last year that exonerated Capistrano Valley High School teacher James Corbett.

High school history teacher James Corbett, pictured speaking at a 2010 meeting of the high IQ society Mensa, rocketed into the national spotlight when a federal judge found he violated a student's First Amendment rights by disparaging Christianity in class. An appeals court subsequently tossed out the lower court's ruling, and the appellate court ruling became final after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

TEXT BY SCOTT MARTINDALE, FILE PHOTO: KEN STEINHARDT, THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

ADVERTISEMENT

“It was not at all surprising that the Supreme Court denied review,” said Corbett's attorney, Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of UC Irvine's law school and a constitutional scholar. “The 9th Circuit decision was sound … and made it clear he could not be held liable.”

The Supreme Court's decision not to hear the Mission Viejo case – in legal terms, denial of Farnan's petition for a writ of certiorari – puts a final lid on a legal battle that spanned more than four years and raised fundamental questions about the limits of what a public school teacher can say about religion in the classroom.

Farnan's attorneys, Jennifer Monk and Robert Tyler of the Murrieta-based Christian legal group Advocates for Faith & Freedom, did not immediately return a phone call seeking comment.

NATIONAL HEADLINES

The Corbett case received a high-profile boost into the national spotlight in 2009, when a federal judge in Santa Ana ruled that Corbett violated his student's First Amendment rights by referring to creationism as “religious, superstitious nonsense” during a fall 2007 classroom lecture.

A three-judge 9th Circuit panel in Pasadena reversed the lower court's decision in August 2011, ruling that Corbett could not have known he might be breaking the law.

“I think Dr. Corbett's victory is a really important victory for teachers,” Chemerinksy said Tuesday. “Had Dr. Corbett been held liable, it could have opened the door for other teachers to be held liable. The 9th Circuit said there is no clear law that he violated. That means for any teacher, there is no clearly established law that says he can't do this.”

Legal experts not connected to the case interpreted the 9th Circuit's ruling a different way, telling the Register last year that the appellate court decision side-stepped the core constitutional question of whether Corbett violated his student's First Amendment rights with his purportedly anti-Christian commentary.

“This is an example of a systemic problem in constitutional litigation,” Douglas Laycock, a University of Virginia law professor who is an expert on the law of religious liberty, told the Register last year. “They can't hold the teacher liable because the law was not clearly settled. Because they can't hold him liable, the law will never become clear on what teachers can say in class.”

At the time of the appellate ruling, the legal experts also said the case likely would never be accepted by the Supreme Court because the underlying constitutional issues did not appear to be a systemic problem among teachers nationwide.

Farnan took Corbett's Advanced Placement European history class in 2007 and graduated from the Mission Viejo high school in 2010.

Farnan is now a student at Pepperdine University in Malibu; Corbett remains in his teaching position at Capistrano Valley High.

ORIGINS OF THE LAWSUIT

Corbett was sued in 2007 by Farnan, then a sophomore, who alleged 22 statements Corbett made during a fall Advanced Placement European history course were disparaging to Christians.

Farnan argued in his lawsuit that Corbett violated the First Amendment's establishment clause, which has been interpreted by U.S. courts to bar government workers such as public school teachers from displaying religious hostility.

In 2009, U.S. District Court Judge James Selna in Santa Ana ruled that Corbett violated the establishment clause with his “religious, superstitious nonsense” remark about creationism. But Selna dismissed more than 20 other statements cited in a lawsuit brought by Farnan.

Selna also granted Corbett qualified immunity, a federal protection that shields government workers from financial liability if they've violated someone's constitutional rights.

Farnan appealed, seeking to toss out the immunity and get the appeals court to reconsider all 22 comments; Corbett's team, which grew to include Chemerinsky, appealed as well.

In August 2011, the three-judge appellate panel overturned Selna's ruling, emphasizing there was “no prior case” alerting Corbett he had violated the law.

Contact the writer: 949-454-7394 orsmartindale@ocregister.com

Related:

Visit link:
Supreme Court won't hear appeal of student's anti-Christian lawsuit

Feb 232012

First Amendment draws fire
Board discusses limiting residents? First Amendment rights
Heather Beck – Thu, Feb, 23, 2012

Farragut elected officials took aim at the farragutpress editorial page during a strategic planning session Saturday, Feb. 18, at Turkey Creek Medical Center.

Alderman Ron Honken called for the ?end of presstalk? in its current form, amid agreement from other members of Farragut?s Board of Mayor and Aldermen.

?I think it creates an air of divisiveness and it makes our community look bad,? Honken said, later calling the page ? which allows readers to call or e-mail in anonymous comments ? an ?avenue of bitching.?

For complete story, please see our print edition.

See the original post:
First Amendment draws fire

NEW YORK — Barney Rosset, the fiery and fearless publisher who introduced the U.S. to countless political and avant-garde writers and risked prison and financial ruin to release such underground classics as “Tropic of Cancer” and “Lady Chatterley's Lover,” has died. He was 89.

Rosset died at a New York hospital Tuesday night, said Kelly Bowen, publicity manager for Algonquin Books, which was to publish Rosset's autobiography. Rosset had recently had heart surgery.

“Barney was a great, great American publisher,” said Morgan Entrekin, publisher of Grove/Atlantic Books, who called Rosset among the last of a breed of publisher powerfully motivated by social responsibility. ”

As publisher of Grove Press, Rosset was a First Amendment crusader who helped overthrow 20th century censorship laws in the United States and profoundly expanded the American reading experience. Rosset had an FBI file that lasted for decades, and he would seek out fellow rebels for much of his life.

Between Grove and the magazine Evergreen Review, which lasted from 1957 to 1973, Rosset published Samuel Beckett, Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Jean-Paul Sartre, Allen Ginsberg, Henry Miller, D.H. Lawrence and William Burroughs. He was equally daring as a film distributor, his credits including the groundbreaking erotic film “I Am Curious (Yellow),” and art-house releases by Jean-Luc Godard, Marguerite Duras and others.

Rosset himself was the subject of a movie, “Obscene,” a 2008 documentary that included commentary from John Waters, Gore Vidal and Amiri Baraka. The same year, he received honorary citations from the National Coalition Against Censorship and from the National Book Foundation, which sponsors the National Book Awards.

His autobiography was tentatively titled “The Subject Was Left-Handed,” and Algonquin's publisher Elisabeth Scharlatt said she hopes to release it within the year.

A bon vivant who enjoyed long lunches and strong martinis, Rosset was a slightly built man with a brisk, peppery voice; and a breathless laugh, often at his own expense. His longtime editor in chief at Grove, Richard Seaver, would remember him as “often irascible, a control freak, prone to panic attacks,” with a “sadistic element” that shadowed his “innate generosity.” Rosset, interviewed by The Associated Press in 1998, called himself an “amoeba with a brain,” ever slipping into enemy territory.

“I'm half-Jewish and half-Irish, and my mother and grandfather spoke Gaelic,” he explained. “From an early age my feelings made the IRA look pretty conservative. I grew up hating fascism, hating racism.”

A Chicago native, he was the only child of a banker, a rich kid with a passion for the arts and a rage to make trouble. His hero was John Dillinger, the nation's foremost bank robber. By eighth grade he was printing a newspaper called Anti-Everything and he had joined the left-wing American Student Union.

“By the time I was a sophomore in college, second year at UCLA, I had reports that government agents had entered my apartment and took books and that they followed my mail and who I sent things to,” he said.

American Idol's Top 42 Face Elimination Before Live Shows Zoe Saldana Has a Movie Date with Bradley Cooper's Mom Danica Patrick: I Could Win the Daytona 500 Michael Phelps Will 'Never' Shave His Head Justin Theroux: Jennifer Aniston Made Me Breakdance for Her Birthday

“At the time it was not fashionable to be against Hitler. It was called 'premature anti-fascism.' Then I volunteered in the infantry and that confused them.”

Rosset's first interest was film. Cinematographer Haskell Wexler was a childhood friend and during World War II Rosset met the directors John Huston and Frank Capra while attending the Signal Corps photographic school. After leaving the service, he moved to Manhattan and produced “Strange Victory,” a docudrama about racism in the post-war United States.

A minor investment changed his life, and changed the world. In 1951, he paid $3,000 for Grove Press, a publishing house with only three titles to its credit. Rosset put the books in a suitcase, carried them to his apartment and opened shop. The story of Grove soon became one of turning the obscure and the forbidden into the best-selling and the essential, from Burroughs' “Naked Lunch” to Beckett's “Waiting for Godot.”

Rosset waged long and costly war on behalf of free expression. When he started Grove, his wish list included two erotic books, both decades old, that had never been distributed unexpurgated in the United States: Lawrence's “Lady Chatterley's Lover” and Miller's “Tropic of Cancer.”

In 1954 a copy of “Chatterley” was mailed from Paris to New York. Officials seized it and charged Rosset with promoting “indecent and lascivious thoughts,” a policy that dated back to obscenity legislation passed in the 1870s. Rosset sued the U.S. Post Office in 1959 and his attorney, Charles Rembar, crafted a defense based on a Supreme Court decision written two years earlier by Justice William Brennan that “all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance — unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion — have the full protection of the guarantees.”

A federal judge, Frederick van Pelt Bryan, ruled in Rosset's favor. An appeals court upheld Judge Bryan and the government declined to take the case to the Supreme Court. The Post Office's ability to declare a work obscene had effectively been ended.

In 1961, over a game of Ping-Pong, Rosset and Miller agreed to let Grove Press distribute “Tropic of Cancer.” The book sold a million copies in its first year but led to dozens of court cases; Rosset himself was arrested, fingerprinted and taken before a grand jury.

“The district attorney said, 'Do you realize that members of the grand jury have children who are buying that book at newsstands right near their school?'” Rosset recalled.

“And I looked at him and said, 'If that's true and they buy it and read it all the way through, you as parents are to be commended.'”

The jury refused to indict and in 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Grove.

“It's hard to remember how puritanical America is and was,” Martin Garbus, a First Amendment lawyer and friend of Rosset's, told the AP in 1998. “Barney was the guy who fundamentally broke down censorship barriers in this country. He put up the money. There's a very famous picture of him in the Saturday Evening Post: Barney coming out of the sewer, lifting up the lid — the whole idea of him as this purveyor of filth.”

Grove was equally busy defending its film releases. It was sued in the 1960s by the State of Massachusetts for releasing “Titicut Follies,” Frederick Wiseman's horrifying documentary about the abuse of patients at Bridgewater State Hospital. The film was kept out of circulation until the 1990s. In 1968, Rosset attempted to distribute the erotic Swedish film “I Am Curious (Yellow).” The movie was seized by the U.S. Customs Office, screened in some communities and banned in others. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 4-4 on this case, with Justice William O. Douglas recusing himself because one of his books had been excerpted in Evergreen Review.

An appeals court later ruled the film could not be banned.

Other Grove books included “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” the anonymous erotic classic “The Story of O” and Che Guevara's “The Bolivian Diary.” Rosset also attempted an ambitious union of film and avant-garde literature, short works written by Beckett, Eugene Ionesco and Harold Pinter. The trilogy was never completed, but the project did lead to one of the movies' most unusual collaborations, “Film,” released in 1965 with a script by Beckett and a cast featuring Buster Keaton, just a year before his death.

Rosset only enjoyed limited profits from his legal victories. Although “I Am Curious (Yellow)” made millions and “Lady Chatterley” and other books sold well, he had to cover not only his own legal bills, but those of stores that carried his publications. Grove was also harmed by rival publishers who released cheaper editions of “Tropic of Cancer” and other works that had no copyright in the U.S.

By the late 1960s, the times were outrunning Rosset. When Grove employees attempted to unionize, he was enraged and fired the key organizers. The Grove offices were soon taken over by feminist protesters demanding that a union be permitted, among other concessions, and accusing Grove of treating women poorly. Rosset, the one-time upstart, called in the police. The occupiers left and the union was eventually voted down.

As longtime Random House editor Jason Epstein once observed, Rosset was “a gifted and courageous publisher and a terrible businessman.” Using profits from “I Am Curious (Yellow),” he had overextended Grove, moving into fancy new offices the publisher couldn't afford. In 1985, to his lasting regret, Rosset was persuaded by British publisher George Weidenfeld to sell Grove to Ann and Gordon Getty. Rosset was supposed to remain president, but a year later he was fired. Grove, now Grove Atlantic Inc., still owns the list Rosset built.

In his later years, he ran the erotic publisher Blue Moon Books, although legal troubles left him nearly penniless. He worked on a memoir, revived the Evergreen Green Review online and even started a blog. Upon receiving his honorary National Book Award, Rosset reviewed his long history of defiance and stated that the “principal that no one has the right to tell us what we can and cannot read is one that has always been dear to me.”

Rosset was married four times, including to the artist Joan Mitchell. He had three children, of them named Beckett.

Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read the original here:
Crusading First Amendment publisher dies

NEW YORK (AP) — Barney Rosset was a publisher, not an author, and struggled for decades to write the story of his brave and wild life. But few over the past 60 years had so profound an impact on the way we read today.

The fiery and publisher Rosset, who introduced the country to countless political and avant-garde writers and risked prison and financial ruin to release such underground classics as “Tropic of Cancer” and “Lady Chatterley's Lover,” has died. He was 89.

Rosset died at a Manhattan hospital Tuesday night, said Kelly Bowen, publicity manager for Algonquin Books, which is to publish Rosset's autobiography. Rosset had recently had heart surgery.

“Barney was a great, great American publisher,” said Morgan Entrekin, publisher of Grove/Atlantic Books, who called Rosset an inspiration and a publisher powerfully motivated by his feelings of social responsibility. “He was extraordinary. I would say that if there's a Publishing Hall of Fame, he definitely is going in it.”

As publisher of Grove Press, Rosset was a First Amendment crusader who helped overthrow 20th century censorship laws in the United States and profoundly expanded the American reading experience. Rosset had an FBI file that lasted for decades and he would seek out fellow rebels for much of his life.

Between Grove and the magazine Evergreen Review, which lasted from 1957 to 1973, Rosset published Samuel Beckett, Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Jean-Paul Sartre, Allen Ginsberg, Henry Miller, D.H. Lawrence and William Burroughs. He was equally daring as a film distributor, his credits including the groundbreaking erotic film “I Am Curious (Yellow),” and art-house releases by Jean-Luc Godard, Marguerite Duras and others.

Rosset himself was the subject of a movie, “Obscene,” a 2008 documentary that included commentary from John Waters, Gore Vidal and Amiri Baraka. The same year, he received honorary citations from the National Coalition Against Censorship and from the National Book Foundation, which sponsors the National Book Awards.

His autobiography was tentatively titled “The Subject Was Left-Handed” and Algonquin's Publisher Elisabeth Scharlatt said she hopes to release it within the year.

“While working on this book, Barney took great pleasure in digging up his rebellious ancestors and his rebellious roots, from a bad-boy great-grandfather to his very progressive elementary school that he was sent to in Chicago,” she said in an interview. “I think that in looking at how he got where he got with his own rebellious attitudes, he could see that he was maybe even pre-ordained in some way.”

A bon vivant who enjoyed long lunches and strong martinis, Rosset was a slightly built man with a brisk, peppery voice; and a breathless laugh, often at his own expense. His longtime editor in chief at Grove, Richard Seaver, would remember him as “often irascible, a control freak, prone to panic attacks,” with a “sadistic element” that shadowed his “innate generosity.” Rosset, interviewed by The Associated Press in 1998, called himself an “amoeba with a brain,” ever slipping into enemy territory.

“I'm half-Jewish and half-Irish, and my mother and grandfather spoke Gaelic,” he explained. “From an early age my feelings made the IRA look pretty conservative. I grew up hating fascism, hating racism.”

A Chicago native, he was the only child of a banker, a rich kid with a passion for the arts and a rage to make trouble. His hero was John Dillinger, the nation's foremost bank robber. By eighth grade he was printing a newspaper called Anti-Everything and he had joined the left-wing American Student Union.

“By the time I was a sophomore in college, second year at UCLA, I had reports that government agents had entered my apartment and took books and that they followed my mail and who I sent things to,” he said.

“At the time it was not fashionable to be against Hitler. It was called 'premature anti-fascism.' Then I volunteered in the infantry and that confused them.”

Rosset's first interest was film. Cinematographer Haskell Wexler was a childhood friend and during World War II Rosset met the directors John Huston and Frank Capra while attending the Signal Corps photographic school. After leaving the service, he moved to Manhattan and produced “Strange Victory,” a docudrama about racism in the post-war United States.

A minor investment changed his life, and changed the world. In 1951, he paid $3,000 for Grove Press, a publishing house with only three titles to its credit. Rosset put the books in a suitcase, carried them to his apartment and opened shop. The story of Grove soon became one of turning the obscure and the forbidden into the best-selling and the essential, from Burroughs' “Naked Lunch” to Beckett's “Waiting for Godot.”

Rosset waged long and costly war on behalf of free expression. When he started Grove, his wish list included two erotic books, both decades old, that had never been distributed unexpurgated in the United States: Lawrence's “Lady Chatterley's Lover” and Miller's “Tropic of Cancer.”

In 1954 a copy of “Chatterley” was mailed from Paris to New York. Officials seized it and charged Rosset with promoting “indecent and lascivious thoughts,” a policy that dated back to obscenity legislation passed in the 1870s. Rosset sued the U.S. Post Office in 1959 and his attorney, Charles Rembar, crafted a defense based on a Supreme Court decision written two years earlier by Justice William Brennan that “all ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance — unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion — have the full protection of the guarantees.”

A federal judge, Frederick van Pelt Bryan, ruled in Rosset's favor. An appeals court upheld Judge Bryan and the government declined to take the case to the Supreme Court. The Post Office's ability to declare a work obscene had effectively been ended.

In 1961, over a game of Ping-Pong, Rosset and Miller agreed to let Grove Press distribute “Tropic of Cancer.” The book sold a million copies in its first year, but led to dozens of court cases; Rosset himself was arrested, fingerprinted and taken before a Brooklyn grand jury.

“The district attorney said, 'Do you realize that members of the grand jury have children who are buying that book at newsstands right near their school?'” Rosset recalled.

“And I looked at him and said, 'If that's true and they buy it and read it all the way through, you as parents are to be commended.'”

The jury refused to indict and in 1964 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Grove.

“It's hard to remember how puritanical America is and was,” Martin Garbus, a First Amendment lawyer and friend of Rosset's, told the AP in 1998. “Barney was the guy who fundamentally broke down censorship barriers in this country. He put up the money. There's a very famous picture of him in the Saturday Evening Post: Barney coming out of the sewer, lifting up the lid — the whole idea of him as this purveyor of filth.”

Grove was equally busy defending its film releases. It was sued in the 1960s by the State of Massachusetts for releasing “Titicut Follies,” Frederick Wiseman's horrifying documentary about the abuse of patients at Bridgewater State Hospital. The film was kept out of circulation until the 1990s. In 1968, Rosset attempted to distribute the erotic Swedish film “I Am Curious (Yellow).” The movie was seized by the U.S. Customs Office, screened in some communities and banned in others. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 4-4 on this case, with Justice William O. Douglas recusing himself because one of his books had been excerpted in Evergreen Review.

An appeals court later ruled the film could not be banned.

Other Grove books included “The Autobiography of Malcolm X,” the anonymous erotic classic “The Story of O” and Che Guevara's “The Bolivian Diary.” Rosset also attempted an ambitious union of film and avant-garde literature, short works written by Beckett, Eugene Ionesco and Harold Pinter. The trilogy was never completed, but the project did lead to one of the movies' most unusual collaborations, “Film,” released in 1965 with a script by Beckett and a cast featuring Buster Keaton, just a year before his death.

Rosset only enjoyed limited profits from his legal victories. Although “I Am Curious (Yellow)” made millions and “Lady Chatterley” and other books sold well, he had to cover not only his own legal bills, but those of stores that carried his publications. Grove was also harmed by rival publishers who released cheaper editions of “Tropic of Cancer” and other works that had no copyright in the U.S.

By the late 1960s, the times were outrunning Rosset. When Grove employees attempted to unionize, he was enraged and fired the key organizers. The Grove offices were soon taken over by feminist protesters demanding that a union be permitted, among other concessions, and accusing Grove of treating women poorly. Rosset, the one-time upstart, called in the police. The occupiers left and the union was eventually voted down.

As longtime Random House editor Jason Epstein once observed, Rosset was “a gifted and courageous publisher and a terrible businessman.” Using profits from “I Am Curious (Yellow),” he had overextended Grove, moving into fancy new offices the publisher couldn't afford. In 1985, to his lasting regret, Rosset was persuaded by British publisher George Weidenfeld to sell Grove to Ann and Gordon Getty. Rosset was supposed to remain president, but a year later he was fired. Grove, now Grove Atlantic Inc., still owns the list Rosset built.

In his later years, he ran the erotic publisher Blue Moon Books, although legal troubles left him nearly penniless. He worked on a memoir, revived the Evergreen Green Review online and even started a blog. Upon receiving his honorary National Book Award, Rosset reviewed his long history of defiance and stated that the “principal that no one has the right to tell us what we can and cannot read is one that has always been dear to me.”

Rosset was married four times, including to the artist Joan Mitchell. He had three children, including a son named Beckett.

In 1988, the PEN American Center awarded him with its Publisher Citation for “distinctive and continuous service to international letters, to the freedom and dignity of writers, and to the free transmission of the printed word across the barriers of poverty, ignorance, censorship, and repression.” Last month, he was awarded the Literarian Award for outstanding service to American letters by the National Book Foundation.

___

AP Drama Writer Mark Kennedy contributed to this report.

Read the original:
First Amendment crusader Barney Rosset dies

Feb 232012

By JONAH GOLDBERG Tribune Media Services

By JONAH GOLDBERG

Updated: 2012-02-23T00:09:52Z

I’ve lost track of how many people I have heard say: “If we could just take a little bit from each of them” in the last couple months. The “each of them” refers to the final four combatants for the Republican nomination.

You could take Newt Gingrich’s verbal dexterity, encyclopedic grasp of politics and techno-optimism. Add in Rick Santorum’s authenticity and religious conviction. Combine that with the essence of Ron Paul’s principled passion for liberty and limited government. Stir vigorously and then pour into the handsome, squeaky-clean vessel of Mitt Romney (while keeping his business acumen and analytical skill). And voila, you’d have the perfect candidate.Of course, you could just as easily have a Frankenstein’s monster with Gingrich’s verbal pomposity, Santorum’s resentful and dour sanctimony, Paul’s conspiratorial nuttiness and the full suite of Romney’s Stepford Republican qualities. It calls to mind Homer Simpson’s scheme to forcibly mate his pets in a burlap sack so as to create “a miracle hybrid, with the loyalty of a cat and the cleanliness of a dog.”This is one of the amazing things about the final four. The various factions of the Republican Party and the myriad slices of the conservative mind are represented (with the one obvious missing ingredient being the lack of a Southern evangelical Christian), but none of the pieces is in the right place. It’s like playing with a Mr. Potato Head when the feet are where the ears should be and an arm stands in for a nose.Santorum is the religious conservative, but he’s a Catholic from Pennsylvania, not a Baptist from Mississippi or Texas. Romney is a devoted family man and business leader running as the authentic outsider, but he’s a Mormon from Massachusetts who seems fake enough to be made from Naugahyde. Paul is the long-overdue libertarian in the GOP field, but he’s an aging holdover from an ideological backwater of libertarianism that dabbled in bigotry and paranoia.And then there’s Gingrich. The former speaker of the House and leader of the Republican Revolution should be the elder statesman, the insider’s insider. But he’s managed to turn himself into the outsider who wants to fundamentally and profoundly change the world. He’s a Southerner who converted to Catholicism with, as National Review’s Mark Steyn writes, “twice as many ex-wives as the first 44 presidents combined.” He’s a true political chimera, a Nelson Rockefeller Republican right-wing revolutionary.This helps explain why GOP primary voters, who are staying home in droves, feel a bit like they woke up in one of those “Twilight Zone” episodes in which they’re the same but everybody else is weirdly different. Each of the candidates offers good reasons to like them, but if you just tilt your head or if the lighting changes, they look unappealing. This is why so many people have started daydreaming about sending the field to a chop shop and rebuilding from scratch.It’s also why many are talking about a brokered, contested or open convention, even those people — like GOP strategist Karl Rove and radio host Hugh Hewitt — who insist that the chances for such an outcome are, in Rove’s words, as “remote as life on Pluto.”I don’t buy it.“You can make up all kinds of scenarios,” Rove explained on “Fox News Sunday.” “But in all likelihood what happens in the dynamic of the primaries, once somebody starts to win they keep on winning.”Except, as Chris Wallace dryly noted, “Here, nobody keeps winning.” That’s because Republicans keep voting against the front-runners — because they don’t like them.The naysayers insist we’re stuck with these candidates because that’s the way things are, based on precedent and delegate math.I see it differently. The experts have been wrong about quite a lot of late — Barack Obama, the tea party, the Middle East, etc. Heck, Pluto isn’t even a planet anymore.If these four candidates are unacceptable to a majority of Republicans, they won’t be accepted — and something else will have to happen. What that “something else” will be, I don’t know. But given the state of medical technology, a wild convention seems more plausible than sewing together the good bits from the current pack.

Reach Jonah Goldberg of National Review Online at JonahsColumn@aol.com.

See more here:
Playing the Mr. GOP Potato Head game

The most notable factor in the Republican presidential race thus far is the depth of despair into which Republican voters have sunk.

They cannot find a candidate. Faced with a Democratic incumbent who appears shockingly weak to them, the Republicans have been unable to find a big nominee with a big voice to oppose him.

Continue Reading

Instead, they are finding a series of small nominees with squeaky voices. Some think the Republican Party’s problem is that its voters have failed to “coalesce” around a single candidate. That is not the problem.

The problem is that there is no candidate around whom Republicans can coalesce. The field is not just weak, it is barren.

The GOP is now the party of woulda, coulda, shoulda. If only this governor had run. If only that person had not dropped out early. If only there had not been so many debates to introduce the candidates to the American people long before the candidates were ready to be introduced.

Today, what ushers forth from the throats of loyal Republicans is not a cheer, but a sigh.

The GOP nominating race has been reduced to four men.

One, Ron Paul, is really running to explain libertarianism to the American people, make it seem more mainstream, less scary and more acceptable when it comes time for his son, Rand Paul, 49, a Republican senator from Kentucky, to run for president.

One, Newt Gingrich, has already exploded in a puff of moon dust, a victim not so much of his ideas, as of his own bitterness and lack of self-discipline.

One, Mitt Romney has burned through an incredible amount of money convincing Republicans he is not really one of them. No matter how many opponents he has plowed under — Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman — a new one has always sprung up.

As a recent Daily Kos blog post neatly summed it up: “Mitt Romney spent $33 million [in January] destroying Newt Gingrich and all he got was Rick Santorum in return.”

Which leaves the Republicans with Rick Santorum atop the polls. And while this has gladdened the hearts of some “true” conservatives, others in the party look at the fall matchup — Rick Santorum vs. Barack Obama — and see a boy going up against a man.

In a long, balanced and very good analysis of Santorum in Sunday’s Washington Post, Dan Balz reports: “Privately, strategists in both parties predict huge problems for Santorum. A GOP strategist, who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to be candid, predicted that Santorum would be ‘eviscerated’ by the Democrats in a general election.”

Oh, is that all?

There are the fantasists who think that somebody — Sarah Palin, Chris Christie, Mitch Daniels, Jeb Bush — can ride into the Republican National Convention in Tampa in late August and ride out with the nomination. But that’s not going to happen.

See original here:
Republicans are sighing, not cheering

Feb 232012

By Timothy Stanley, Special to CNN

updated 7:40 AM EST, Wed February 22, 2012

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign stop at Eagle Manufacturing Corporation Tuesday in Shelby Township, Michigan.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Timothy Stanley: The Wednesday evening presidential debate comes at a critical time He says Santorum is threatening to displace Romney as the front-runner in the race He says while Santorum is liked by GOP voters, many of them have doubts about Romney Stanley: Look for Romney to try to adopt a folksy, populist tone

Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of the new book “The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan.”

(CNN) — Wednesday night's CNN debate lands at a critical moment in the Republican race.

This season, each debate has set the tone for the primary to follow. Newt Gingrich's savaging of the media helped propel him to victory in South Carolina. Mitt Romney's savaging of Gingrich helped him to clinch Florida. The current uncertainty about the race, and the extraordinary elasticity in the polls, is partly due to the fact that we haven't had a debate for a whole month.

It's important, then, for each of the candidates to make a powerful impression in this last confrontation before Arizona and Michigan vote on February 28. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will compete over who is the most conservative, and Ron Paul will push his unique brand of libertarianism. Same old, same old. But we might see something new from Mitt Romney: a glimmer of humanity.

The latest CNN/Time/ORC International Poll shows that Santorum is closing the gap on Romney in Arizona, but it's probably in Michigan that he stands the best chance of scoring an upset. A week ago, polls put Santorum as much as 10 points ahead in the Great Lakes State. But now they call it a statistical dead heat between him and Romney.

So it would serve Santorum well to hit Mitt hard in the debate. This is Rick's natural style — he gets a thrill out of counting the flaws of his opponents. But Santorum also probably recognizes that the only way he'll win Michigan is by reminding voters of the doubts that they have about Romney's conservatism. That's what he's been doing in the western part of the state all this week, where he has hit out repeatedly at Romney's “well-oiled weathervane” stance on issues like abortion and Iran.

One thing Santorum doesn't particularly need to do in the debate is make voters like him: They already do. According to Public Policy Polling, he has a favorability rating among Michiganders of 67%.

Santorum's enduring popularity is partly thanks to the fact that Romney hasn't been spending his money on an excessive number of attack ads, as he did in Florida. Instead, Romney has been working hard on his own favorability rating in Michigan, which has crept up from 49% to 55%.

Hitherto, Mitt has suffered from the “weirdo factor” — the sense that he's not quite like you and me. The press has given a lot of coverage to the Mormon practice of giving “proxy baptisms” to deceased nonbelievers, something that Romney admits he has done, but not “recently.” This has been compounded by the strange tale of Romney's dog, Seamus, who Mitt once drove to Canada strapped to the roof of his car. Poor Seamus apparently lost bowel control en route and ran away on arrival. Googlers have tried to turn “Romney” into a verb that means “to soil oneself with fear.” Here's an example of it used in a sentence: “Every time I think of Newt Gingrich being elected president, I Romney uncontrollably.”

But Mitt has been countering the “weirdo factor” with a series of ads and personal appearances in Michigan that emphasize his local roots and his concern for the auto industry in a state beset by tragic levels of unemployment. This is the strategy that we can expect him to take in Wednesday's debate: folksy and populist. There will be a lot about how great American cars are, Mitt's experience as a businessman, Obama's relative incompetence and Romney's Michigan childhood.

Whether it will work is a matter of judgment. On the campaign trail, Romney's idea of soaring rhetoric usually involves singing highlights from “America the Beautiful.” Efforts to appear humble are frequently undermined by an ironic statement (remember the $10,000 bet?), and intimate stories about his father are so formulaic they sound as if he learned them by rote. The only way Romney could break the spell of his own emptiness would be to crash sobbing into the arms of Ellen DeGeneres.

But if Romney's reinvention as a human being does pay off, it will be because Republicans desperately want it to work. Republicans still tell pollsters that they think Mitt is the most electable candidate. If they could only be convinced that he is as conservative as they — or at least as human — they would probably fall in behind him. A bit of passion and compassion in Wednesday's debate could be all the excuse wavering Republicans need to back a winner.

Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter

Join the conversation on Facebook

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Stanley

Read the original:
Opinion: A new Romney in debate?

Feb 232012

By Timothy Stanley, Special to CNN

updated 7:40 AM EST, Wed February 22, 2012

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign stop at Eagle Manufacturing Corporation Tuesday in Shelby Township, Michigan.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Timothy Stanley: The Wednesday evening presidential debate comes at a critical time He says Santorum is threatening to displace Romney as the front-runner in the race He says while Santorum is liked by GOP voters, many of them have doubts about Romney Stanley: Look for Romney to try to adopt a folksy, populist tone

Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of the new book “The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan.”

(CNN) — Wednesday night's CNN debate lands at a critical moment in the Republican race.

This season, each debate has set the tone for the primary to follow. Newt Gingrich's savaging of the media helped propel him to victory in South Carolina. Mitt Romney's savaging of Gingrich helped him to clinch Florida. The current uncertainty about the race, and the extraordinary elasticity in the polls, is partly due to the fact that we haven't had a debate for a whole month.

It's important, then, for each of the candidates to make a powerful impression in this last confrontation before Arizona and Michigan vote on February 28. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will compete over who is the most conservative, and Ron Paul will push his unique brand of libertarianism. Same old, same old. But we might see something new from Mitt Romney: a glimmer of humanity.

The latest CNN/Time/ORC International Poll shows that Santorum is closing the gap on Romney in Arizona, but it's probably in Michigan that he stands the best chance of scoring an upset. A week ago, polls put Santorum as much as 10 points ahead in the Great Lakes State. But now they call it a statistical dead heat between him and Romney.

So it would serve Santorum well to hit Mitt hard in the debate. This is Rick's natural style — he gets a thrill out of counting the flaws of his opponents. But Santorum also probably recognizes that the only way he'll win Michigan is by reminding voters of the doubts that they have about Romney's conservatism. That's what he's been doing in the western part of the state all this week, where he has hit out repeatedly at Romney's “well-oiled weathervane” stance on issues like abortion and Iran.

One thing Santorum doesn't particularly need to do in the debate is make voters like him: They already do. According to Public Policy Polling, he has a favorability rating among Michiganders of 67%.

Santorum's enduring popularity is partly thanks to the fact that Romney hasn't been spending his money on an excessive number of attack ads, as he did in Florida. Instead, Romney has been working hard on his own favorability rating in Michigan, which has crept up from 49% to 55%.

Hitherto, Mitt has suffered from the “weirdo factor” — the sense that he's not quite like you and me. The press has given a lot of coverage to the Mormon practice of giving “proxy baptisms” to deceased nonbelievers, something that Romney admits he has done, but not “recently.” This has been compounded by the strange tale of Romney's dog, Seamus, who Mitt once drove to Canada strapped to the roof of his car. Poor Seamus apparently lost bowel control en route and ran away on arrival. Googlers have tried to turn “Romney” into a verb that means “to soil oneself with fear.” Here's an example of it used in a sentence: “Every time I think of Newt Gingrich being elected president, I Romney uncontrollably.”

But Mitt has been countering the “weirdo factor” with a series of ads and personal appearances in Michigan that emphasize his local roots and his concern for the auto industry in a state beset by tragic levels of unemployment. This is the strategy that we can expect him to take in Wednesday's debate: folksy and populist. There will be a lot about how great American cars are, Mitt's experience as a businessman, Obama's relative incompetence and Romney's Michigan childhood.

Whether it will work is a matter of judgment. On the campaign trail, Romney's idea of soaring rhetoric usually involves singing highlights from “America the Beautiful.” Efforts to appear humble are frequently undermined by an ironic statement (remember the $10,000 bet?), and intimate stories about his father are so formulaic they sound as if he learned them by rote. The only way Romney could break the spell of his own emptiness would be to crash sobbing into the arms of Ellen DeGeneres.

But if Romney's reinvention as a human being does pay off, it will be because Republicans desperately want it to work. Republicans still tell pollsters that they think Mitt is the most electable candidate. If they could only be convinced that he is as conservative as they — or at least as human — they would probably fall in behind him. A bit of passion and compassion in Wednesday's debate could be all the excuse wavering Republicans need to back a winner.

Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter

Join the conversation on Facebook

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Stanley

See the article here:
Stanley: New Romney at debate?

Feb 232012

By Timothy Stanley, Special to CNN

updated 7:40 AM EST, Wed February 22, 2012

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney speaks during a campaign stop at Eagle Manufacturing Corporation Tuesday in Shelby Township, Michigan.

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

Timothy Stanley: The Wednesday evening presidential debate comes at a critical time He says Santorum is threatening to displace Romney as the front-runner in the race He says while Santorum is liked by GOP voters, many of them have doubts about Romney Stanley: Look for Romney to try to adopt a folksy, populist tone

Editor's note: Timothy Stanley is a historian at Oxford University and blogs for The Daily Telegraph. He is the author of the new book “The Crusader: The Life and Times of Pat Buchanan.”

(CNN) — Wednesday night's CNN debate lands at a critical moment in the Republican race.

This season, each debate has set the tone for the primary to follow. Newt Gingrich's savaging of the media helped propel him to victory in South Carolina. Mitt Romney's savaging of Gingrich helped him to clinch Florida. The current uncertainty about the race, and the extraordinary elasticity in the polls, is partly due to the fact that we haven't had a debate for a whole month.

It's important, then, for each of the candidates to make a powerful impression in this last confrontation before Arizona and Michigan vote on February 28. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich will compete over who is the most conservative, and Ron Paul will push his unique brand of libertarianism. Same old, same old. But we might see something new from Mitt Romney: a glimmer of humanity.

The latest CNN/Time/ORC International Poll shows that Santorum is closing the gap on Romney in Arizona, but it's probably in Michigan that he stands the best chance of scoring an upset. A week ago, polls put Santorum as much as 10 points ahead in the Great Lakes State. But now they call it a statistical dead heat between him and Romney.

So it would serve Santorum well to hit Mitt hard in the debate. This is Rick's natural style — he gets a thrill out of counting the flaws of his opponents. But Santorum also probably recognizes that the only way he'll win Michigan is by reminding voters of the doubts that they have about Romney's conservatism. That's what he's been doing in the western part of the state all this week, where he has hit out repeatedly at Romney's “well-oiled weathervane” stance on issues like abortion and Iran.

One thing Santorum doesn't particularly need to do in the debate is make voters like him: They already do. According to Public Policy Polling, he has a favorability rating among Michiganders of 67%.

Santorum's enduring popularity is partly thanks to the fact that Romney hasn't been spending his money on an excessive number of attack ads, as he did in Florida. Instead, Romney has been working hard on his own favorability rating in Michigan, which has crept up from 49% to 55%.

Hitherto, Mitt has suffered from the “weirdo factor” — the sense that he's not quite like you and me. The press has given a lot of coverage to the Mormon practice of giving “proxy baptisms” to deceased nonbelievers, something that Romney admits he has done, but not “recently.” This has been compounded by the strange tale of Romney's dog, Seamus, who Mitt once drove to Canada strapped to the roof of his car. Poor Seamus apparently lost bowel control en route and ran away on arrival. Googlers have tried to turn “Romney” into a verb that means “to soil oneself with fear.” Here's an example of it used in a sentence: “Every time I think of Newt Gingrich being elected president, I Romney uncontrollably.”

But Mitt has been countering the “weirdo factor” with a series of ads and personal appearances in Michigan that emphasize his local roots and his concern for the auto industry in a state beset by tragic levels of unemployment. This is the strategy that we can expect him to take in Wednesday's debate: folksy and populist. There will be a lot about how great American cars are, Mitt's experience as a businessman, Obama's relative incompetence and Romney's Michigan childhood.

Whether it will work is a matter of judgment. On the campaign trail, Romney's idea of soaring rhetoric usually involves singing highlights from “America the Beautiful.” Efforts to appear humble are frequently undermined by an ironic statement (remember the $10,000 bet?), and intimate stories about his father are so formulaic they sound as if he learned them by rote. The only way Romney could break the spell of his own emptiness would be to crash sobbing into the arms of Ellen DeGeneres.

But if Romney's reinvention as a human being does pay off, it will be because Republicans desperately want it to work. Republicans still tell pollsters that they think Mitt is the most electable candidate. If they could only be convinced that he is as conservative as they — or at least as human — they would probably fall in behind him. A bit of passion and compassion in Wednesday's debate could be all the excuse wavering Republicans need to back a winner.

Follow CNN Opinion on Twitter

Join the conversation on Facebook

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Timothy Stanley

Follow this link:
Will debate reveal a new Romney?

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

One in a series of articles on the First Amendment record and views of 2012 presidential candidates.

Although presidential candidate Rick Santorum has said little about many First Amendment issues, his focus on religious liberty and on shielding children from certain media and information are prominent on his record in the Senate and on the campaign trail.

In the Senate
During his 12 years in the Senate (1995-2007), Santorum introduced several pieces of legislation implicating freedom of speech and of religion.

Santorum advocated shielding children from controversial forms of media. In 1999, he introduced the Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection Act, a bill that would require public schools and libraries to install filtering software or adopt Internet-use policies to prevent students from accessing material deemed inappropriate. The bill would allow the school board or library to determine which such material was inappropriate for minors. Santorum’s bill died in committee, but much of its content was included in a House appropriations bill that became law in 2000. The bill’s Children’s Internet Protection section required schools and libraries to use Internet filtering software in order to continue receiving federal money.

Santorum was also one of nine senators to sign a letter in 1999 to Seagrams/MCA, the parent company of rock band Marilyn Manson’s record label, requesting that the company stop profiting from “peddling violence to young people.” The letter, written by Sen. Sam Brownback, R-Kan., said the students involved in the Littleton, Colo., school shootings had been influenced by Manson’s songs about violence.

On the issue of campaign finance, Santorum favored leniency in contribution and advertising limits. In 1997, he sponsored the Voter Empowerment and Campaign Disclosure Act of 1997, The bill, which died in committee, would have increased individual and political action committee contribution limits while also increasing disclosure requirements. In 2002, Santorum voiced opposition to the McCain-Feingold Act, arguing that it violated the right to free speech and that the limits on political advertisements were particularly troubling.

Santorum legislated on several religious-freedom issues during his time in the Senate.

In 1999, he introduced the Women and Children’s Resources Act, designed to “establish a program of formula grants to the states for programs to provide women with alternatives to abortion.” The bill did not make it past the committee stage.

He also co-sponsored unsuccessful attempts to pass the Workplace Religious Freedom Act in 2002, 2003, and 2005. The bill would have amended the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to “establish provisions with respect to religious accommodation in employment.”

In 2002, opponents of the Ohio Board of Education’s decision to teach evolution exclusively cited an amendment proposed by Santorum to the No Child Left Behind Act. The amendment, which passed the Senate but was deleted in compromise negotiations with the House, would have required the “full range of scientific views” to be taught when biological evolution was discussed. In a letter published in The Washington Times, Santorum said that without standards that would teach alternatives to evolution, Ohio would be denying its students the most thorough education.

“Dissenting theories should not be repressed, but discussed openly. To do otherwise is to violate intellectual freedom,” he wrote.

Santorum supported patriotic efforts in the Senate, co-sponsoring resolutions that passed expressing support for the Pledge of Allegiance in 2002 and 2003. He co-sponsored unsuccessful resolutions in 1998, 1999 and 2001 prohibiting physical desecration of the American flag.

At the end of his second term, a Santorum book-signing generated controversy in 2006 when several young women were asked by a state trooper to leave a Barnes & Noble store in Wilmington, Del. The women were discussing their opposition to Santorum’s opinions in his book It Takes a Family. The ACLU filed a lawsuit against the Delaware state police officer involved and Santorum representatives present that was eventually settled. Under the settlement agreement, the Delaware State Police adopted a training program on protesters’ free-speech rights. Although the Santorum staff denied involvement with the request to leave, two of his aides were required to write apology letters to the plaintiffs and pay them a collective $2,500, the amount they received for assisting Santorum on the book tour.

Candidate Santorum
As a candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Santorum has continued to focus on religion as a First Amendment issue.

In February, he said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that President Barack Obama “tramples [the First Amendment] on a regular basis” when asked about the administration’s requirement that religious employers cover birth control in employee health-insurance plans.

“The First Amendment is sort of important in this country. And while not everybody necessarily agrees on how you exercise the First Amendment, people do believe you have the right to exercise it. And they don’t believe the government should be … forcing you to do things that you find deeply, morally wrong,” Santorum said.

At a rally preceding the Minnesota primary in February, Santorum also criticized the Obama administration when the office of the Chief Chaplains of the U.S. Army did not allow Catholic chaplains to read a letter from Timothy Broglio, archbishop for the military services. The letter encouraged Catholics to oppose the mandate requiring Catholic employers to provide contraception coverage. Secretary of the Army John McHugh later allowed the letter to be read but he told Broglio to remove the line, “We cannot — we will not — comply with this unjust law.”

“This is not just an affront to the First Amendment freedom of religion, it’s an affront to the first amendment freedom of speech,” Santorum said.

Santorum has attacked Obama’s personal worldview with suggestions that it lacks an adequate religious basis. In February, Santorum said Obama practiced “a different theology” that is “not a theology based on the Bible.” Santorum told CBS News’ “Sunday Morning” Feb. 19 that the comments were in reference to Obama’s environmental views, rather than to his faith. Santorum said that Obama had “a world view that elevates the earth above man.” However, the Associated Press reported that later that day, Santorum assailed Obama’s “theology” again, without referring to environmental policies, in a speech to more than 2,000 supporters at a megachurch in suburban Atlanta.

On his campaign website, Santorum espouses dedication to the First Amendment right to freedom of religion, highlighting his support in 2004 of a federal amendment defining marriage.

Santorum has also pledged to enforce laws against pornography if he is elected president. On his website, he criticizes the Obama administration for “turning a blind eye” and neglecting to enforce current obscenity laws that prohibit hard-core pornography from being distributed on the Internet and television or through retail stores or the mail.

“While the Obama Department of Justice seems to favor pornographers over children and families, that will change under a Santorum Administration,” he says on his website.

On the issue of protest, Santorum’s comments about the Occupy movement received attention in February.

“I think it’s really important for you to understand what this radical element represents. Because what they represent is true intolerance,” he said. The comments followed an incident in Washington where protesters shouted throughout an entire Santorum event and threw glitter on the candidate.

Santorum added that the 9th Circuit’s decision to overturn California’s same-sex marriage ban was another example of the group’s intolerance.

“What they said was that anybody who disagreed with them [was] irrational and the only reason they could possibly agree is they were a hater or a bigot,” he said. “Now I gotta tell you, I don’t agree with these people but I respect their opportunity to be able to have a different point of view and I don’t think they’re a hater or a bigot because they disagree with me.”

Tags: campaign finance, Catholic, children, children and internet, evolution, health care, Obama, presidential election, religious belief, religious freedom, Santorum

Follow this link:
Santorum stresses religious liberty, shielding children

Washington • In a college dorm room in Provo, a young woman edits a satirical video with Utah actors portraying the Republican presidential candidates.

Click on Fake Mitt Romney or Fake Rick Santorum and you are transported to the future to hear what their State of the Union address would sound like.

This isn’t a class project or some kind of prank. It’s the work of Endorse Liberty, the biggest super PAC supporting Ron Paul. Founded in late December and headquartered in Utah, this group of political novices backed by a Silicon Valley billionaire has already spent $3.5 million pushing its online ads into early primary states where they have been viewed 12 million times.

“It is safe to say Endorse Liberty is a new force on the scene,” said Michael Beckel, who tracks super PAC spending for the Center for Public Integrity.

Super political action committees have been around for only two years, created in the aftermath of a Supreme Court ruling that allowed corporations, unions and individuals to give as much money as they want to groups acting independently of the candidates.

Now at least one super PAC is supporting every major presidential candidate, and a pattern has emerged. The groups tend to be led by political insiders with close ties to a candidate, and they spend their money almost exclusively on radio and television ads attacking others in the race.

That’s not Endorse Liberty. Its four founders have never worked for Paul. They haven’t even spoken with him. The only one who has ever been in his presence is Jeffrey Harmon, who briefly brushed his hand after a rally in Idaho on Thursday, while the Texas congressman walked through a crowd to his plane.

And instead of a traditional political ad, Endorse Liberty has specialized in satire, using cartoons and impersonators to take jabs at the other candidates. In one such spot, actor Nate Jones, who plays Fake Mitt Romney, said: “It is all about winning and electability and what makes you electable, telling people what they want to hear. I told an old fat woman I found her sexually attractive just to get her vote.”

Story continues below

Harmon, a 29-year-old Provo resident, was a Romney supporter early in the 2008 presidential race but found himself drawn by Paul’s brand of libertarianism. He donated a few hundred bucks at the time, but with the 2012 election approaching he wanted to get more involved.

Since then he helped launch a company called Orabrush and has worked to push its products with an aggressive Internet marketing campaign. And that gave him an idea.

“If I can sell a million tongue cleaners using YouTube,” Harmon said, “I can probably get a million people to vote for Ron Paul.”

He asked his colleague Abe Niederhauser to help create their own super PAC, but they knew they couldn’t do it on their own, so instead Harmon reached out to Paul’s official campaign and the pro-Paul group Revolution PAC. Neither group really caught his vision of an aggressive online presence, but one guy on those conference calls did.

Stephen Oskoui is a young online entrepreneur who left Silicon Valley to create an Internet marketing company called Smiley Media in Austin, Texas. He shared Harmon’s strategic view and, more important, he had contacts with some rich people who also want to see Paul in the White House.

What they didn’t have was a way to create a political entity, and the lawyers they reached out to said it would take at least six weeks to set up a super PAC. That was too long since by then the early primaries would be upon them.

Enter Ladd Christensen, who helped Jon Huntsman Sr. create Huntsman Chemical back in the 1970s and is now a big believer in social commerce. Christensen asked Harmon to speak at a conference last November because of his work with Orabrush, and the two started talking politics.

Christensen also was once a Romney supporter, and he has a soft spot for former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman Jr., too, but had concluded that Paul was the best candidate to fundamentally change the government.

Next Page »

Read the original here:
Utah-based super PAC supports Paul — not Romney


01-02-2012 10:46 Former-Senator Rick Santorum has the only consistently anti-libertarian platform in the race. He explicitly rejects Constitutionally limited government, an individual right to freedom, equal rights, the right to the pursuit of happiness, due process protections, a right to be free from “cruel and unusual” punishment, and is in general an open-big spending, big government conservative.

Read the original post:
Rick Santorum Hates Ron Paul’s Libertarian Ideas – Video


07-02-2012 08:00 “The new debate in the Republican party needs to be between conservatives and libertarians,” says Sen. Jim DeMint (RS.C.). “A lot of the libertarian ideas that Ron Paul is talking about…should not be alien to any Republican.” Yet right after the 2010 midterm elections, the influential Tea Party favorite proclaimed that “you can’t be a fiscal conservative and not be a social conservative,” a comment that was widely viewed as a slap at libertarians. And South Carolina’s junior senator is also a staunch pro-lifer, has favored a constitutional ban on flag burning, and is on the record saying that gays shouldn’t be allowed to teach at public schools. More recently, DeMint has been leaning libertarian. His new book, Now or Never: Saving America from Economic Collapse, is a warning to the nation that we need radical spending cuts (including putting defense spending on the table) or else face economic oblivion. And he was instrumental in getting Tea Party Republicans elected in 2010, including the most libertarian member of the caucus, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who also wrote the foreword to DeMint’s book.Reason’s Nick Gillespie and Matt Welch sat down with DeMint for a wide-ranging discussion about fiscal vs. social conservatism, cutting spending, the GOP presidential nomination, whether the Tea Party still matters, and much more. Approximately 29 minutes. Shot by Meredith Bragg and Jim Epstein; edited by Epstein. Go to Reason.tv for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason

Read the original post:
Jim DeMint: Why Republicans Must Become More Libertarian – Video

National Freedom of Information Day

Date: Friday, March 16, 2012 at 8:30 AM
Location: Knight Conference Center

WASHINGTON — The 14th annual National Freedom of Information Day Conference brings together groups concerned with freedom of information and open records, including government officials, judges, lawyers, librarians, journalists and educators.

Hosted each year by the First Amendment Center, the conference is conducted in partnership with the American Library Association, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, OMB Watch, OpenTheGovernment.org, and the National Security Archive at George Washington University. The event also is part of the annual “Sunshine Week” initiative sponsored by the American Society of News Editors.

Speakers include Robert O'Neill, former director of the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression.

The conference again includes the announcement by the American Library Association of its annual James Madison Award recipient. The ALA presents the award to individuals or groups that have championed, protected and promoted public access to government informationand the public's right to know.

This year, in afternoon sessions, OpenTheGovernment.org will present its 8th annual Sunshine Week event. Two panel programs are planned.

The National Freedom of Information Day event, held annually on the birth date of James Madison — considered the “father” of the First Amendment — also features the National Freedom of Information Act Hall of Fame, honoring those who have made significant contributions to protecting and expanding access to government information. The Hall was created in 1996 to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the federal Freedom of Information Act. Members are inducted every five years; the most recent group of honorees was named in 2011.

There is no charge to attend, but attendees are encouraged to guarantee seating in advance. To register for the 2012 conference, please contact Ashlie Hampton at ahampton@freedomforum.org, or 202-292-6288. When registering, please provide your name, title, affiliation and contact information for agenda updates and other news.

The First Amendment Center supports the First Amendment and builds understanding of its core freedoms through education, information and entertainment. The center is nonpartisan and does not lobby or litigate.For additional program details, please visit www.firstamendmentcenter.org.

Link:
Conference: National Freedom of Information Day

On Friday night’s “Real Time with Bill Maher” on HBO, former New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer broke with his allies on the left and explained why he thought the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision was the right call.

The opinion is one which Spitzer has expressed before, but in the middle of the Republican presidential nomination contest, he explained how the decision best reflects the spirit of the First Amendment of the Constitution.

“Let me make a different point, and this proves… five is most powerful number in The United States of America,” Spitzer said. “Five justices can do anything — elect a president, rewrite the Constitution.’

“Now, having said that, Bill, we rarely disagree. I am with the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] on this one. I think as a First Amendment principle, Citizens United was correct.”

Spitzer explained to Maher that there is no distinction between some of the shows on the airwaves, all owned by corporations and corporations participating in politics through paid advertising.

“Your show is owned by a corporation,” Spitzer said to Maher. “So you have a First Amendment right. And so, I don’t know how you distinguish between the New York Times editorial page, Rachel Maddow, George [Stephanopoulos]‘s show — all owned by corporation, corporations’

“The First Amendment: shall make, pass no law abridging the right of speech. Doesn’t say by anybody, it says speech. I don’t care whose speech it is. The ACLU agrees with me and Larry Lessig, great academic on this. So this is a more textured issue. It has done horrific things to politics. But as a First Amendment issue, it’s a much more complicated issue.”

Spitzer explained there could be restrictions, but ultimately he said the democracy would be better for the free speech.

“We can limit contributions to candidates, and we should be able to do that. We should mandate absolute disclosure. But as a First Amendment principle, people should be able to say what they want, how they want with their own money. I don’t care if it’s [Sheldon] Adelson or somebody who is of my political views on the left. Let speech breed speech. You never defeat speech by limiting speech is the First Amendment principle by which I live. I just think we’ll be a healthier democracy for it.”

Follow Jeff on Twitter
Join the conversation on The Daily Caller

Read more stories from The Daily Caller

Eliot Spitzer bucks liberal orthodoxy: 'Citizens United was correct' [VIDEO]

Krauthammer on payroll tax holiday compromise: 'Selling crown jewels to buy crack'

Chris Matthews go to bat for Pat Buchanan after MSNBC departure [VIDEO]

“Put down the iCarly lunchbox and back away slowly!”

Santorum in 2008: Mainline Protestantism 'in shambles … gone from the world of Christianity' [AUDIO]

The rest is here:
Eliot Spitzer bucks liberal orthodoxy: ‘Citizens United was correct’ [VIDEO]

Friday, February 17, 2012

NASHVILLE, Tenn. — The team from the South Texas College of Law won the 22nd Annual National First Amendment Moot Court Competition today at the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University. Winning team members were Chris Jordan and Avi Moshenberg.

Runner-up in the two-day competition, sponsored by the First Amendment Center and Vanderbilt University Law School, was American University, Washington College of Law. Team members were Andrew Kim and Carter Meader.

The competition problem was a hypothetical case involving the display of a 9/11 memorial with a religious symbol on government property. The competitors examined the intersection between the government-speech doctrine and the establishment clause of the First Amendment. Teams of student advocates from 38 law schools argued both sides of the case.

The topic was “very complex, it was very hard to work through, but it was challenging and fun,” said Jordan from the winning South Texas team. “It’s a cutting-edge issue because government and private speech is a deep issue” in the context of religiously themed memorials.

“The hypothetical presented an intriguing issue,” added teammate Moshenberg, “that is important to our whole way of life.”

Recognized for “best brief” in the competition were Debra McElligot and Justin Roller from New York University School of Law; and for “best oralist,” Benjamin C. Galea from Case Western Reserve University School of Law.

“It was definitely a big challenge to argue both sides,” Meader of the runner-up American University team said of the hypothetical case. “We had excellent judges, great briefs, difficult questions, which is all part of the process and makes it more interesting to argue.” Her colleague, Kim, said, “This was one of the best-run competitions I’ve seen, and it’s a fantastic experience, quite exhilarating.”

Top awards were presented to:

Winning team: South Texas College of Law
Runner-up: American University, Washington College of Law
Semi-finalists: DePaul University College of Law, Loyola University New Orleans College of Law
Best brief: Debra McElligot and Justin Roller, New York University School of Law
Richard S. Arnold Best Oralist Award: Benjamin C. Galea, Case Western Reserve University School of Law

Receiving competition gavels:

Runner-up best brief: Amye Green and Peter Segrist, Loyola University School of Law
Runner-up best oralist: V.R. Bohman, Brigham Young University, J. Reuben Clark Law School

Recognized as one of the nation’s finest constitutional-law competitions, the First Amendment Moot Court Competition attracts many of the nation’s top law schools.

“The level of competition was extraordinary,” said Ken Paulson, president and CEO of the First Amendment Center, at today’s awards ceremony. “We are always gratified by the turnout from the legal community” as judges.

Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, said, “In the National First Amendment Moot Court Competition, we strive to expose significant numbers of future lawyers to vital First Amendment questions as illustrated by contemporary flashpoint issues. Our hope is that these soon-to-be attorneys will be encouraged to become advocates and defenders of the five freedoms of the First Amendment throughout their legal careers.”

Tiffany Villager, director of First Amendment research for the First Amendment Center, said, “It has been more than a decade since our competition has addressed the first ten words of the First Amendment. Arguably, the establishment clause represents the most controversial aspect of First Amendment jurisprudence. Even U.S. Supreme Court justices disagree mightily over religious displays on public property.”

“For law students, the competition offers a unique opportunity to learn the skills of appellate advocacy before distinguished federal and state jurists while deepening their understanding to the First Amendment,” said Villager, who directs the Moot Court program.

Competition began yesterday morning in rounds held both at the Vanderbilt University Law School and at the John Seigenthaler Center on the Vanderbilt campus, home to the Nashville offices of the First Amendment Center.

The best-oralist award for the highest oral-argument score in preliminary rounds comes with an engraved gavel in honor of Richard S. Arnold, formerly a judge on the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Arnold, who died in 2004, was a staunch advocate for better press-bar relations so that the public would be better informed about the activities of the federal court system.

Semi-final and final-round judges in the competition included, from the federal judiciary, Steven M. Colloton, 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Martha Craig Daughtrey, 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals; Bernice B. Donald, Western District of Tennessee; Sidney A. Fitzwater, Northern District of Texas; Julia Smith Gibbons, 6th Circuit; Marian F. Harrison, U.S. bankruptcy judge for the Middle District of Tennessee; William J. Haynes Jr., Middle District of Tennessee; James C. Mahan, District of Nevada; Gilbert S. Merritt, 6th Circuit; Jane B. Stranch, 6th Circuit; Aleta A. Trauger, Middle District of Tennessee; and Susan Webber Wright, Eastern District of Arkansas.

A two-person team from the College of William and Mary Law School won last year’s competition. The demanding competition requires students to write an appellate brief and to answer challenging legal questions from the judges. The event requires a thorough understanding of First Amendment law, poise under pressure and expertise in fielding complex legal questions.

The First Amendment Center supports the First Amendment and builds understanding of its core freedoms through education, information and entertainment. The center serves as a forum for the study and exploration of free-expression issues, including freedom of speech, of the press and of religion, the rights to assemble and to petition the government.

The First Amendment Center, with offices at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn., and in Washington, D.C., is an operating program of the Freedom Forum and is associated with the Newseum and the Diversity Institute. Its affiliation with Vanderbilt University is through the Vanderbilt Institute for Public Policy Studies. Its offices on the Vanderbilt campus are located in the John Seigenthaler Center.

# # #

Press contact:

Gene Policinski
615/727-1600
gpolicinski@fac.org

Tags: establishment clause, government speech, Moot Court, religious display, Sept. 11

Read the original:
South Texas takes home top Moot Court honors

February 18, 2012 12:58 PM

LOS ANGELES — It was another first for this Forrest Gump-like life of mine: I went to the Grammys. A college fraternity, who has won many Grammys for producing country music videos, chairedthe Board of Trustees this year.

Not bad for a graduate of an inexpensive party school that did not have tuition each semester — they just called it a cover charge. When we were at the University of Memphis, its motto would have been, Dreamers, Thinkers, Dewar’s.

Celebrities really do not have big, extravagant events to give themselves awards very often. They generally limit the awards “season” to starting in January of each year, and they try to wrap it up right before Christmas so they can go to rehab to rest for a week.

These are events where adoration-addicted performers converge to say nice things about themselves. It is always inspiring when they swoop in with their entourages in private jets, take stretch limos to the event, and then give the rest of us a talking-to because we are not doing enough to lower our carbon footprint.

To be fair, celebs do buy token small electric cars so they can talk about owning one in public. They never actually drive the cars, since they are not safe and you cannot see out the back because the “Obama/Biden 2012″ bumper sticker covers the rear window.

It is mostly out of fear and the never-ending pursuit of wanting to be liked that entertainers feel compelled to echo the mindless and unworkable mantra of the left, intimating at every turn that we need more government to insure equal outcomes for all. The irony is that, when you attend the awards parties, you see an obvious stratification of people by status. They are all for equality as long as there remains in place a clear celebritycaste system of A-list thru C-list. “Change and hope” are all well and good; just do not force Madonna attend the same party as Lee Greenwood.

The other interesting dynamic at play in California is the way the leftist Hollywood/recording industry is pitted against the just-pretend-left Silicon Valley Internet concerns. The entertainment industry's lobbyists have funded the SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act). It seems Hollywood is all for “fairness” and “sharing” until someone tries to listen to one of its songs or download one of its movies without paying. Then they get the Feds involved.

It is funny how the left always views others as greedy, never itself.

If SOPA, or its clone in the Senate, PIPA, is passed, the Obama Justice Department will have the power to shut down and silence any website or blog it wants while doing littleto stop piracy of music or movies. So who do you think Eric Holder would shut down first, MoveOn.org or Teaparty.org?

The closeness of entertainers to the Democrats remains strong. Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie recently visited the Obamas for dinner at the White House. I am certain the Obamas frantically checked to make sure Sasha and Malia were still there when Brad and Angelina left.

A-list stars feel compelled to be liberal; otherwise, they would get no job offers in Hollywood. Confessing to not being liberal would provoke the same contemptuous reaction as a LaLa-land comedian telling an Obama political joke in his act: he would be silently blacklisted.

Here is the good news. On this trip to L.A., I sensed that there is a growing, but still closeted, group of entertainers who will confess to being libertarian after a drinkor two. They tell you this with faces that say, “Please, I beg of you, just don't tell Clive Davis, Harvey Weinstein or Stephen Spielberg.”

None other than Snoop Dogg, whose lyrics might expose him as a free-market capitalist, famously said that he had his “mind on my money and my money on my mind” (Ayn Randwould be proud of him). Snoop is leading the change for celebs.

Furthering the evolution of thought by Snoop Dogg, he boldly came out and said he backed libertarian Ron Paul for president. Snoop agrees with Ron Paul on a broad range of positions, from the legalization of pot to making marijuana legal. He also likes Paul’s immigration policy in that if a bail of pot washes up an U.S. shore from Mexico, it is immediately granted asylum.

It may not be raining libertarianism in the entertainment business, but thank Snoop Dogg for drizzle.

I am optimistic that reason will prevail over theater, both in Hollywood and Washington. Ralph Waldo Emerson said of a dinner guest, “The louder he talked of his honor, the faster we counted our spoons.” I submit that the modern political equivalent should be: The more a person talks of “fairness,” the quicker you should check to see if you still have your wallet.

Ron Hart grew up in Tennessee and began writing a op-ed humor column for his hometown paper in 2002. He attended The University of Memphis and the Institute for Political and Economic Systems at Georgetown University. Ron graduated Magna Cum Laude and was elected student government president. Upon getting his MBA, he went to work for Goldman Sachs. He was appointed to the Tennessee Board of Regents by then Governor Lamar Alexander and is now a private investor. He appears on CNN, Fox and has been quoted in numerous publications including the Wall Street Journal.

More:
RON HART: LA-L.A. land: Hip-hop-ocrisy at the Grammys

News The students say that their protest is protected under their first amendment rights.

Twelve U of C students arrested in connection with Occupy protests last October challenged the city’s charges of trespassing in their first hearing Wednesday afternoon.

Photo: Irami Osei Frimpong

Student Arrestees, Back Row L to R: Ali Feser (PhD Anthropology), Irami Osei-Frimpong (PhD Political Science), Rob Jennings (PhD Anthropology), Sam Brody (PhD Divinity School), Greg Goodman (PhD History), Rev. Bonnie Osei-Frimpong (MDiv '09), Front Row Jeremy Siegman (PhD Political Science/Anthropology), and Neil Landers (PhD French Language and Literature).

Photo: Irami Osei Frimpong

Student Arrestees, Back Row L to R: Ali Feser (PhD Anthropology), Irami Osei-Frimpong (PhD Political Science), Rob Jennings (PhD Anthropology), Sam Brody (PhD Divinity School), Greg Goodman (PhD History), Rev. Bonnie Osei-Frimpong (MDiv '09), Front Row Jeremy Siegman (PhD Political Science/Anthropology), and Neil Landers (PhD French Language and Literature). A total of 175 protesters were arrested in the early hours last October 16 for violating Grant Park’s 11 p.m. closing time, and around 90 protesters, including the 12 students, were charged with trespassing. The students are being represented by defense attorney and U of C graduate student–at- large Thomas Durkin and his firm, Durkin and Roberts. During the hearing, Durkin asked for the charges to be dismissed on the grounds that the students’ protest was protected by their First Amendment rights.

“The city has the discretion to enforce the ordinance. Our position is that the decision was an abuse of discretion of the police department on direct orders from the mayor’s office,” Durkin said. “There is a well-established constitutional principle that an all-night protest is a necessary form of symbolic speech, protected by First Amendment.”

Jeremy Siegman, one of the twelve students arrested, said that the charges were “a show of political power” preceding the G8 and NATO summits, which the city will host in May.

“It was selective enforcement of the ordinance to silence dissidence,” Siegman, a graduate student studying political science and anthropology, said. “But we had a right to be there. You can’t separate the message of Occupy from the activity. We have to be occupying.”

Wednesday’s hearing spanned three hours and was followed the next day by a five-minute hearing on the issuing of I-bonds, which assign a dollar amount to be paid if the defendants miss court.

While the other arrested protesters are being represented by a legal team from the National Lawyers Guild, the Durkin and Roberts law firm has exclusively defended the U of C students. The firm is working pro-bono for the students, although each paid a symbolic one dollar fee to establish a client-lawyer relationship.

Professor Bernard Harcourt, chair of the Political Science department, brought the case to Durkin’s attention after a number of Harcourt’s doctoral students were arrested.

“I feel very strongly that it is my role as their professor and, in some sense, in loco parentis, to make sure their rights are protected and their welfare assured,” Harcourt said. “I think people should be allowed to express their political opinions, especially in peaceful ways—students, grandmothers, professors, everyone.”

Though Durkin and Roberts primarily provides defense for those accused of serious crimes, Durkin, who supports the Occupy movement, said he believes the issue to be significant.

“I was incredibly impressed by the students’ determination to make a difference, which is admirable,” he said.

Read the original post:
Students arrested at Occupy seek dismissal of charges



FireFox! Start Your Own Web Hosting Company Kids Furniture
Web Hosting Advertise Here $10 a Month Affordable web-hosting
Pierre Teilhard De Chardin




Designer Children | Prometheism | Euvolution | Transhumanism

Sign up below for the Prometheism / Designer Children Discussion Forum

Subscribe to prometheism-pgroup

Powered by us.groups.yahoo.com