ACLU In The News

[airIam2worship]

Brother, I am so sick of the ACLU, it makes me wonder how God feels. They will soon enough have to come to terms with the ever present truth that God is the owner of the universe and everything in it. The creator of all, He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, He even owns the next breath each and everyone one pf them will take. One day soon, as the Bible says  Ro 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
On that day they won't be careing about anyone's rights because they will be too busy trying to save their own skin. Their problem is it will be too late.

[Soldier4Christ]

Brother, I am so sick of the ACLU, it makes me wonder how God feels. They will soon enough have to come to terms with the ever present truth that God is the owner of the universe and everything in it. The creator of all, He owns the cattle on a thousand hills, He even owns the next breath each and everyone one pf them will take. One day soon, as the Bible says  Ro 14:11 For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.
On that day they won't be careing about anyone's rights because they will be too busy trying to save their own skin. Their problem is it will be too late.

Amen sister. That is the reason for this thread. To wake people up so that they will do something about them.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU trying to scam $1 million from local school district
by Jay on 04-06-06 @ 8:14 pm Filed under ACLU, Church And State, News

Hat tip: Jack Lewis Via Evolution News

    The taxpayers in Dover Pennsylvania may have been fleeced by the ACLU and Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AUSCS) for a shocking $1 million dollar bill.

    Joe Manzari and Seth Cooper’s article today in The American Enterprise Institute Online brings this dirty little secret into the public light.

    A few months ago when the ACLU announced that they “generously” would only demand $1 million in attorneys fees for the Kitzmiller case, the casual observer probably thought nothing of it.

    However, once the facts are examined, as Manzari and Cooper nicely lay out, the attorneys fees collected by the ACLU are not merely the cost of losing a lawsuit, but rather look much more like a fat taxpayer funded gift to the ACLU & AUSCS.

    Manzari & Cooper explain in detail how the newly elected Dover Area School Board, which campaigned on removing the ID policy actually chose to keep the policy during their first meeting. Why? Because the Board members understood that removing the policy could have ended the legal controversy. Without the school board deciding to keep the policy, the same policy that board publicly opposed, the ACLU & AUSCS may not have been able to claim attorneys fees.

Danny Carlton breaks it down.

    To put this in perspective, the proposed budget for Dover schools for the 2006-2007 schools year is only $8.7 million. The proposed budget for Special Education is only $1.7 million. So in essence, these ACLU thugs are trying to scam this school district out of more than half the money they have earmarked for educating their Special Education children. Why isn’t there more outrage over this? It’s one thing for the religious zealots who want to force the religion of Evolution to be the state religion and shove it down the throats of all government schools kids using taxes taken from people who oppose that religion, but to scam a school district to the point of further reducing the educational opportunities they can provide their students?!?

    Liberals are fond of tossing aside the Constitution while screaming, “IT’S FOR THE CHILDREN!!” yet here they have no problem with robbing the children of education, so their legal thugs can get more money. Obviously they care nothing at all about children, only power and money.

The story here isn’t even about the evolution debate, its about how the ACLU collects millions from taxpayers even if it takes deciet to do it.

[Soldier4Christ]

Religion in Public Schools?


Just two days after a plan passed to bring bibles to Brunswick County high schools, the topic of religion in schools is coming up in New Hanover County.

A discussion Thursday at Cape Fear Community College touched on the balance between church and state and whether religion should be taught in schools. The group stressed that although it's often a national debate, it's very much a local issue.

As for the controversy in Brunswick County, the ACLU and the Freedom from Religion Foundation continue to protest the school board's decision to allow the Gideons to pass out bibles.


________________________


With the that most public schools have gone I sure wouldn't want them teaching my kids anything.

[Soldier4Christ]

Lawsuit taxing county officialsACLU seeking to force action on jail inmate settlement Published:

GOSHEN -- Irked by a recent action from American Civil Liberties Union, one Elkhart County commissioner called the organization's lawsuit "a legalized extortion."

Three weeks ago, ACLU filed a breach-of-contract complaint on behalf of two inmates, asking an Elkhart County judge to force the county to maintain its end of the settlement agreement that ended a federal lawsuit.

"We're doing everything we can," said Commissioner Phil Stiver Saturday at the joint meeting of the county council and commissioners. "How much can Elkhart County taxpayers bleed on this issue?" he said.

The government already has been using the county adjusted gross income tax and borrowing money to pay for a new $95-million jail complex.

The original federal suit was settled when the county agreed to build the new jail and abide by the 417-inmate cap until the new, 1,000-bed facility opens.

The county also agreed to no longer house inmates in the gym, and hired a coordinator to try to help move inmates through the courts.

The new jail is scheduled to open next summer.

The existing jail houses 460 inmates right now, said Brad Rogers of the sheriff's department. The county could use at least 100 jail beds in neighboring counties, he said.

But housing inmates outside the county would cost taxpayers $40 per day per inmate, he said.

County attorney Gordon Lord said aggressive prosecution, expanding population and change in demographics contributed to the increase in jail population.

"It's a big business running a jail in a county our size," he said.

[Soldier4Christ]

Commissioner Calls ACLU Lawsuit “Legalized Extortion”


The Truth Online

    Irked by a recent action from American Civil Liberties Union, one Elkhart County commissioner called the organization’s lawsuit “a legalized extortion.”

    Three weeks ago, ACLU filed a breach-of-contract complaint on behalf of two inmates, asking an Elkhart County judge to force the county to maintain its end of the settlement agreement that ended a federal lawsuit.

    “We’re doing everything we can,” said Commissioner Phil Stiver Saturday at the joint meeting of the county council and commissioners. “How much can Elkhart County taxpayers bleed on this issue?” he said.

    The government already has been using the county adjusted gross income tax and borrowing money to pay for a new $95-million jail complex.

    The original federal suit was settled when the county agreed to build the new jail and abide by the 417-inmate cap until the new, 1,000-bed facility opens.

    The county also agreed to no longer house inmates in the gym, and hired a coordinator to try to help move inmates through the courts.

    The new jail is scheduled to open next summer.

    The existing jail houses 460 inmates right now, said Brad Rogers of the sheriff’s department. The county could use at least 100 jail beds in neighboring counties, he said.

    But housing inmates outside the county would cost taxpayers $40 per day per inmate, he said.

Sounds to me like they are doing there best to accomodate the ACLU with whatever problems they might have. Maybe the ACLU should back off with their money grubbing hands and practice a little patience.

[Soldier4Christ]

Court Battle Continues Over Choose Life Specialty Plate

The American Civil Liberties Union is asking a federal appeals court to delay Tennessee's production of a "Choose Life" specialty license plate.

The ACLU wants time to seek a US Supreme Court review of a ruling upholding the plate as constitutional. Last month, a lower court's ruling that said the tag illegally promoted only one side of the debate was overturned.

The state Legislature twice rejected an amendment that would have authorized a "pro-choice" specialty plate.

[Soldier4Christ]

Marysville may test athletes
The school board will discuss the merits of mandatory drug tests for student athletes.


MARYSVILLE - The Marysville School Board will study the possibility of drug tests for student athletes.

The board last week decided to take up the issue in a future study session. No date has been set.

"Frankly I do think it will get contentious, but this is one I really believe in, so I will be pushing for it," said board member Michael Kundu, who asked for the policy discussion.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Constitution doesn't prohibit public schools from requiring students to take drug tests as a condition of playing sports.

A few districts in Washington state have required random urinalysis drug testing for athletes. Two such cases resulted in lawsuits that are pending.

A 1999 case at Wahkiakum High School in southwest Washington is scheduled for a hearing April 13.

After years of procedural questions, the merits of the case are expected to be argued this week, said Doug Honig, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union's Seattle office, which is providing legal representation.

The ACLU argues that Washington's state constitution has more protection than some other states. And, it says, random drug testing of high school athletes amounts to an unwarranted invasion of privacy that treats all student athletes as suspects.

It contends that the tests violate Article I, Section 7, of the state constitution, which says, "No person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law."

A similar lawsuit was filed last September against a policy adopted by the Cle Elum-Roslyn School District.

The Marysville School Board member is undeterred.

"There is no reason for us to shy away from this," Kundu said. "Drugs are definitely something we need to be talking about."

School board member Don Hatch questioned the fairness of a policy directed toward athletes and not a wider group of students.

"I think we need to take a look at the whole picture," he said. "We need to treat them all the same."

Kundu agreed, but said there is legal precedent for athletes and "it's a defensible place to start."

He said many companies mandate employee drug tests and having the requirements in high school gets students ready for the real world.

Random drug testing for athletes and cheerleaders has occurred before in Snohomish County.

The Granite Falls School District used the tests during the 1997-98 school year before abandoning the practice because of legal advice and the threat of a lawsuit. School district leaders dropped it reluctantly, believing the tests had been a deterrent to student drug use.

That year, Granite Falls gave 94 random drug tests to student athletes. Eighty-eight turned up negative, three turned up positive, and there were testing flaws with the other three.

Under the Granite Falls policy, students who tested positive were not suspended from school. They could continue to practice with their teams but were excluded from participating in athletic events for a month.

Some alternative high schools, such as Prove High School in Lake Stevens and Weston High School in Arlington, have mandatory drug tests. Unlike conventional schools, alternative programs can require blanket testing because students choose to attend.

Last year, the Lake Stevens School District looked at mandatory drug tests for students in extracurricular activities, but did not act on it.

When the Marysville School Board will begin discussing the issue is hard to say.

"We have a long list of board work study items," said Superintendent Larry Nyland.

[Soldier4Christ]

Stacking crackdown

No ethnic bias detected for Morristown landlords

We find it curious that the American Civil Liberties Union is looking into Morristown's crackdown of tenant overcrowding, or stacking, to determine whether it is ethnically driven.

There are always exceptions, but by and large, both landlords and tenants impacted by the crackdown are Latino. It would be hard to see any signs of bias in that and we don't think the ACLU will find any.

We long have supported cracking down on unscrupulous landlords who take advantage of mostly poor immigrants by "stacking"them six, seven or eight to a room. That is a definite fire hazard.

It remains puzzling that those who question such crackdowns --and by extension, support stacking --seem unaware that the town's action is meant to protect the safety of tenants. There have been fires in overcrowded Morristown apartments. So far, no one has been seriously injured, but that can't be guaranteed in the future.

There continues to be an issue as to what happens to tenants who are displaced from stacked apartments. And yes, that's something Morristown officials should address. But the answer is not to allow unsafe apartments to flourish.

• • •

In what obviously is a related issue, it is regrettable that a compromise bill in the U.S. Senate to address the estimated 11 million immigrants living illegally in the United States has failed. What's worse, the Senate now will be on vacation for two weeks. Why senators can't stay in Washington until a bill is agreed upon is beyond us.

We hope that whatever bill the Senate eventually comes up with will be preferable to a punitive bill in the House that would offer no way for those here now to become citizens.

[Soldier4Christ]

Group burns Mexican flag in front of consulate

Dozens of protestors and counter protestors showed up in front of Tucson’s Mexican Consulate as a Mexican flag was burned in a heated debate that saw tempers flare.

Border Guardians, a group formed along the Arizona border to speak out against the estimated thousands of illegal immigrants that enter the U.S. every day through the Tucson sector, led the protest.

“Flags are symbols of government, not of people," shouted Roy Warden, as a member of his group, Border Guardians, set foot to the Mexican Flag.

One woman speaking out against the Border Guardians yelled, “This is not a gesture of humanity, this is a gesture that provokes.”

As a handful of journalists, and people from both sides of the debate huddled around, members of Border Guardians set fire to Mexico’s flag.

“We have declared this our day, and our moment of expression," said Warden.

The demonstration began before the flag burning as protestors verbally sparred with ACLU members showed up to observe the event.

One man stomped, and danced on the Mexican flag. He also taunted the empty, Mexican Consulate to express the group's view:

"(This protest) is against the Mexican government and the Mexicans that are illegally present in the United States right now," says Laine Lawless, Director of Border Guardians, “I want the American people to know that we're going to stand up for them."

Roy Warden added, “You may not enter our country without our permission.”

Juan Manuel Calderon Jaimez, the highest ranking official at the Mexican Consulate here in Tucson, was unable to comment on the groups flag-burning.

However, we did talk to some Mexican nationals here in the U.S. who witnessed the event, and their opinions varied.

“I think it's dangerous,” says Liz Moreno, a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Mexico , “and I don't think it's right, burning the flag."

Another woman present, identifying herself as a legal immigrant from Mexico, said, “It’s their right to do it, although (I don’t) support their actions.”

A half-dozen observers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) also showed up. Caroly Trowbidge, an ACLU spokesperson, said, “We are here to make sure that everybody's first amendment rights are respected."

In an effort to mock the popular chant “Si se puede”, or “Yes You Can”, used by the millions of marchers who’ve protested in support of illegal immigrants, the Border Guardians also began shouting “NO SE PUEDE, NO SE PUEDEO.”

Moreno added, “It made me angry, and it hurt me."

In response to some people calling his group racist, Warden said, “Our movement is of all colors of skin. It has nothing to do with racism."

Warden says the group's action's were not specifically targeting the people of Mexico.

“We stand for the Mexican people,” says Warden.

“I’m picking more on their government than anything else, because their government promotes their illegal status here," said Lawless.

Members of the Border Guardians tell News 4, they also plan on burning more Mexican flags at some of the mass marches planned throughout the week.

[Soldier4Christ]

Arlington police get face to face with sex offenders

ARLINGTON, Va. As part of a new program, Arlington County detectives are making regular house calls on the 100 or so convicted sex offenders living there.
It began about three months ago and officers have met with almost every offender, and seen a few more than once in their weekly rounds. Lieutenant Jim Wasem says if offenders know they're being watched, maybe they'll think twice about committing another crime.

Police say their intent is not to harass offenders but to keep an eye on them. But the American Civil Liberties Union says most of the programs being put into place are not based on research or experience and won't deter sex offenses.

[Soldier4Christ]

Sheriff plans jail lockdown amid immigration protests


Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio planned to place county jails on lockdown today and threatened to punish inmate workers who take the day off in support of the immigration reform protest march.

 Lockdown means inmates are not allowed visitation, phone calls or access to day rooms, Arpaio said. In Tent City, it means all inmates will remain in their assigned tents.

“This isn’t punishment of anyone,” Arpaio said. “This is a safety measure to guard all inmates from potential disturbances tied to the march.”

However, Arpaio said punishment will be meted out to inmates who refuse to work today as a show of support for the march. Those serving sentences in Tent City are generally allowed to reduce the length of their incarceration by working, but Arpaio said those who won’t work today will lose that privilege.

“If they wanted to march, they shouldn’t have come to jail,” he said.

About 900 Tent City inmates help with food service, laundry, custodial work and other duties needed to run the jails.

The Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union could not be reached for comment on the planned punishment Sunday.

Nearly 30 percent of all inmates in Maricopa County jails are of Hispanic origin, Arpaio said, and about 1,000 are illegal immigrants.

The lockdown began Sunday at 10:30 p.m. and should end by 6 p.m. today, he said.

The jails will have extra staffing today, including special-response teams and K-9 deputies.

[Soldier4Christ]

Technology or law? There's debate over the best way to protect kids online

Gretchen Menzies' oldest son has a fascination with poop. That's not unusual, considering he is 6.

So when the youngster typed "poops" into a Web browser on the computer one day recently, his mom didn't think twice about it.

"I was right there when he typed it in, and up came a site where you can access naked ladies," Menzies said. "I freaked out."

Even though she swiftly closed the page, and her son was exposed to the link for "about four seconds," Menzies said the experience taught her how easy it is for children to accidentally encounter pornography online.

Menzies, a former social worker who runs a Web site for parents called EssentialMom.com from her Bedford home, thought she had a handle on Internet safety before the "poops" incident.

She keeps her family's two computers in the kitchen and home office so she can easily watch over her son when he is online. She's instructed him to visit sites she approves, such as Disney.com and the reading site Starfall.com. And she's talked to him about not giving out private information.

But Menzies, who also has a 3-year-old son, said she's now considering installing software to filter out pornography on her family's two computers.

More parents are turning to software with names such as "Safe Eyes," "CYBERsitter" and "Net Nanny" to protect their children.

A survey by the Pew Internet & American Life Project released in March 2005 found that 54 percent of parents with Internet-connected children between the ages of 12 and 17 use software that filters out adult Internet sites or monitors their kids' online activities. That's a 65 percent rise from 2000.

Regulatory efforts
The increasing reliance on technology comes in the absence of enforceable laws that regulate pornography on the Web.

"The filtering companies have stepped into the breech," said Pew's Amanda Lenhart. "Technology is an appealing fix."

The lack of laws is not for lack of trying. Since the failed Communications Decency Act of 1995, lawmakers have attempted repeatedly to craft regulations that will stand up in court before judges who must also consider the First Amendment's protection of free speech.

The latest salvo is the Cyber Safety for Kids Act of 2006, a proposed law from two Democratic senators, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana, that would create a new domain for adult Web sites. Instead of .com, the porn industry would be corralled into a new .xxx domain.

The idea is that filtering software could then easily identify which sites to weed out.

Apart from whether this move will infringe on free speech, there's another problem: Creating new domains isn't the business of the U.S. Congress, but an independent international body called the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.

So far, the leaders of ICANN, as it's known, have been cool to the idea of creating a special domain to rope off pornography.

Whether this latest legislative effort will persuade ICANN or not, it's a sign of a hot debate that's been waging for more than 10 years over the best way to protect kids — public policy or technology.

That's the crux of the fight between the American Civil Liberties Union and the Justice Department over the Child Online Protection Act of 1998, which has never been enforced because of a court injunction.

The law requires sites with material "harmful" to children to ensure that visitors are 18 or older by verifying their age with a credit card or similar document.

The ACLU argues the law violates free speech because adults would be forced to reveal who they are to access legal content.

The case is expected to go to trial in the Philadelphia Circuit Court this year. A key argument in the trial will be whether filtering technology does the job well enough to obviate the need for the law.

Children in charge
While old-fashioned parenting isn't discounted amid the debate over technology and policy, some parents worry about their ability to police kids who run circles around them when it comes to Web surfing, e-mail, chat rooms, instant messaging, blogging, music swapping and other new technologies.

Cathy Parlitsis of Somers said her 16-year-old son and 13-year-old daughter are more technologically advanced than she is.

"I use a computer every day, but I couldn't hope to know 1/100th what my children know about the computer," she said.

To keep her kids safe online, Parlitsis keeps the PC in a public area of the home and maintains a log-on password that only she knows.

"We also regulate computer time. They are not allowed to use the computer during the week except for school," she said. "They think I am overprotective, which I am, but I think you have to be on top of it."

The idea of creating a .xxx domain appeals to Parlitsis, who recently had her own experience accidentally visiting a porn site while she was doing an online search.

"I don't think anyone should ever come up on a site like that by mistake," she said. "For the millisecond I came across that, it was pretty graphic. It could have been my kids, and once they see it, they can't unsee it."

Parlitsis, who doesn't use filtering software, said the parents she talks with aren't even aware of their options.

"I am pretty computer savvy, but I can tell you I don't have a clue," she said. "It assumes a lot of knowledge on the part of the parent if you are going to rely on technology."

Even parents who aren't inclined to look to the government for answers question what's the best way to protect their children in a world where the Internet can bring hard-core sexual images to the youngest eyes in just a few clicks.

"I'm really torn about it because I'm not for legislation. I'm for parents monitoring their kids, but it's dangerous. Kids can access anything they want in two seconds," Menzies said.

Pryor, in announcing the proposed .xxx law, said the number of adult-oriented Web pages has climbed from 14 million in 1998 to 400 million in 2005. Adult entertainment is a $12 billion industry, he said.

"By corralling pornography in its own domain, our bill provides parents with the ability to create a 'do not enter zone' for their kids," Pryor said.

The proposed law is opposed by the Free Speech Coalition, a trade association that represents the adult entertainment industry.

Kat Sunlove, the group's legislative affairs director, said that though she understands the "superficial appeal" of clearly identifying adult content, the .xxx domain would discriminate against constitutionally protected speech.

[Soldier4Christ]

"Our First Amendment is not designed to protect popular speech. It's the speech at risk from the majority," she said. "I would argue that the speech we provide is not unpopular, but nonetheless from a political point of view we are a target."

Marv Johnson, legislative counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union, said the .xxx domain would almost certainly tread on free speech rights.

"We all want to protect our children. I'm not attributing bad motives to anybody who wants to do this. But in many cases legislators ask the wrong question. If you ask the question, 'How do I stop this information,' almost inevitably that will lead to an unconstitutional answer. Once you segregate information, you run afoul of the First Amendment," Johnson said.

Filtering software is the solution favored by both the ACLU and the porn industry. The technology works, Sunlove said, because adult sites tag their pages with key words that make it easy for search engines to find them. Filters use the same tags to exclude the sites.

Consumer Reports, in its June 2005 issue, reported that software can filter out most pornography, even though some useful information, on health topics for instance, was also inadvertently blocked.

The magazine rated 11 products, including filters built into online services AOL and MSN. Even the worst performer blocked 88 percent of the porn.

The top-rated software was Safe Eyes from SafeBrowse.com, which Yonkers-based Consumer Reports said offered the best combination of protection and minimum interference with searches for non-pornographic content.

Aaron Kenny, chief technology officer at SafeBrowse, said his company maintains a database of Web sites in 35 categories, from porn to sports and everything in between.

Parents can choose which categories their kids can visit.

The strategy ensures that parents who want their children to be able to access health sites that mention the word "breast," for instance, aren't blocked.

The software can also set up multiple profiles for different uses, so parents can give more access to an older teen and less to a grade-schooler.

"We put control of what is going to be blocked and not blocked into the user's hand," Kenny said. "We're really about providing the tools and allowing the parent to decide. We don't want to be anyone's conscience."

Parents can also opt for monitoring software, which doesn't block sites, but instead records what their children do on the computer.

Doug Fowler, president of SpectorSoft, which makes the eBlaster monitoring software, said the problem with filtering software is each family has its own values.

One family might want to block sites about gay rights, another might want to avoid pro-gun sites.

"Our approach is no censoring, no filtering, but we record like a surveillance camera so the parents can later review what their children are doing and then take action based on that," Fowler said.

His customers are less worried about porn and more concerned about predators who pose as teens in chat rooms or who stalk social Web sites such as Myspace.com to find victims.

"The bigger concern parents have isn't the Web sites that children are visiting, but who their children are talking to on the Web," he said.

Protecting children online, whether it's from porn or predators, starts with education, said Emily Sheketoff, executive director of the American Library Association's Washington, D.C., office.

Sheketoff takes a dim view of both public policy solutions and filtering software.

"We know that all filters over and under filter, which means they let through objectionable information and block out acceptable information," she said.

The ALA is still smarting from the passage of the Children's Internet Protection Act of 2000, a law that requires schools and libraries that receive certain types of federal funding to certify that they have installed filtering software.

"The only way to protect children is with education. You cannot depend on filtering. You can't depend on creating a .xxx. That's not going to work. You have to make sure that parents and their children really understand the Internet," Sheketoff said.

Educating parents takes money for programs, which is harder work than drafting a new law, Sheketoff said.

"Parents are very concerned about their children. They see the news stories and see that danger lurks online. They look to the government to help. The legislators, many of whom don't understand technology at all, say, 'I must respond to my constituents. Let me vote on something so I can say I've taken care of it,' " Sheketoff said.

The challenge of effectively legislating in this area is amply illustrated by the effort to create a special domain for kids.

Unlike .xxx, which would segregate porn, the idea behind .kids was to create a safe haven for children on the Web, like a virtual playground where they could freely roam without fear.

When John Shimkus, a Republican congressman from Illinois, first approached the idea of creating a .kids home on the Web, he hoped to create what's known as a top-level domain.

The top-level domains, such as .com for commercial sites, .org for nonprofits and .edu for educational institutions, are used around the world.

ICANN, the international body that oversees top-level domains, viewed .kids as problematic because it would be hard to regulate something so subjective as a "kid-safe" domain across cultural boundaries.

Shimkus settled for the idea of creating a second-level domain under the broader .us domain. The law establishing a ".kids.us" domain was passed in 2002.

The rule for the domain specifies no chat rooms or instant messages. There's also no hyperlinks, which means no shopping.

The result: Less than 50 sites are registered. The TV network Nickelodeon, the Smithsonian Institution and PBS are among the sites listed at www.kids.us.

As a parent of a 6-year-old, Shimkus said he hoped his son would be able to visit major sports leagues and other sites of interest to children through .kids.us.

"I'm really disappointed at Corporate America, and not just Corporate America, but nonprofit America. They're not taking advantage of the .kids.us site," Shimkus said. "I'm very frustrated."

If the new effort to create a .xxx domain falls into the same trap, experts say a .xxx.us domain will be largely useless.

Tim Lordan, executive director of the Internet Education Foundation, said about 75 percent of porn comes to the United States from overseas.

This fact also means the 1998 Child Online Protection Act is faulty because it would only apply to U.S.-based porn sites.

"Parents are naturally concerned, as they should be, but it's misleading to think that there is going to be some silver bullet coming from Washington that will solve the problem," Lordan said.

While filtering is a good option for parents because it's remarkably efficient at blocking porn, Lordan said it's important to remember that children need guidance more than anything else.

"Technology without parenting is useless. You need to be able to use technology as part of a holistic approach to dealing with children online."

[Soldier4Christ]

High court rules against school fees
ACLU spurs decision on grounds of free education

In a case challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled that public schools may not impose academic fees on K-12 students anymore.

During the 2002-2003 school year, the Evansville-Vanderburgh School Corporation mandated a $20 fee for each of its students in an attempt to balance its budget -- a budget which had incurred a $2.3 million deficit in 2002.

Litigants Frank Nagy and Sonja Brackett, parents of two EVSC students, did not pay the fees for their children, claiming they were financially unable to cover those extra expenses. According to case documents, their children were eligible for the reduced or free school lunch and textbook programs.

When Nagy and Brackett failed to send the $20 fees with their children to school, EVSC mailed them notices, declaring if they did not deliver the fees to the school within a time specified, the matter would be referred to a law firm for collection. The attorney's fees of up to $100, Nagy and Brackett said, would be charged to them regardless of whether the school pursued legal action.

Brackett said she never feared legal action because she knew the fee was unconstitutional.

"I really felt strongly about what I was fighting for," Brackett said. "I spent a couple of months at least on the phone every day talking to people throughout the state about our rights. I was just going to take it as far as I could."

After researching the issue, Brackett contacted the Indiana ACLU for legal support.

She suspected the school was trying to con the parents out of more money to pay off its debt, she said.

"We were told (the $20) was for an activities fee," she said. "It was really a service fee to cover other expenses like ... counselors and librarians. That's where it really aggravated me. They were misleading us."

The court claimed that Article 8, Section 1 of the Indiana Constitution intended that "tuition shall be free without charge," making the EVSC fees unconstitutional.

"I'm thrilled -- I'm ecstatic," Brackett said. "To win something that is on such a large scale as this -- had (the school corporation) been able to get away with charging this service fee, how much would they charge next year?"

The EVSC attorney, IU Trustee Patrick A. Shoulders, was not available for comment. However, Indiana Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr. wrote a dissenting opinion in favor of the fee. In his statement, Sullivan wrote: "Because the trial court found that the things for which the fee was imposed were things that ... were 'outside of ... the legislature' as part of the constitutionally commanded uniform system of public education, I believe that even under the Court's construction of Article 8, Section 1, the fee was permissible."

Brackett said she believes this case is a victory for all parents whose children are educated in the public school system. If they had more money, they would be sending their children to private school, she said.

The ACLU chapter in Indiana also believes the outcome of the case is a victory for all.

"We are pleased the court decided the Indiana Constitution prohibits ... a fee for services that are essential to young Hoosiers' education," said ACLU attorney Jacquelyn Bowie Suess in a press release.