ACLU In The News

[Soldier4Christ]

9th Circuit Court: First Amendment Doesn’t Apply To Anti-Gay Message In Schools


Hat tip: Volokh Conspiracy

    Tyler Harper wore an anti-homosexuality T-shirt to school, apparently responding to a pro-gay-rights event put on at the school by the Gay-Straight Alliance at the school. On the front, the T-shirt said, “Be Ashamed, Our School Embraced What God Has Condemned,” and on the back, it said “Homosexuality is Shameful.” The principal insisted that Harper take off the T-shirt. Harper sued, claiming this violated his First Amendment rights.

    Harper’s speech is constitutionally unprotected, the Ninth Circuit just ruled today, in an opinion written by Judge Reinhardt and joined by Judge Thomas; Judge Kozinski dissented. According to the majority, “derogatory and injurious remarks directed at students’ minority status such as race, religion, and sexual orientation” — which essentially means expressions of viewpoints that are hostile to certain races, religions, and sexual orientations — are simply unprotected by the First Amendment in K-12 schools. Such speech, Judge Reinhardt said, violates “the rights of other students” by constituting a “verbal assault[] that may destroy the self-esteem of our most vulnerable teenagers and interfere with their educational development.”

So, according to 9th Circuit “logic” the Gay Straight Alliance, supported by the ACLU, are apparantly Constitutionally protected to encourage indoctrinating second graders with gay “tolerance”, any view expressed by a student from K to 12 does not have that same Constitutional protection. This is very disturbing and chilling.

Eugene Volokh agrees.

    The Gay-Straight Alliance has a constitutional right to argue that homosexuality is quite proper, that same-sex marriages should be recognized, that discrimination based on sexual orientation should be banned, and that antigay bigotry is an abomination. But when the other side of this debate “about controversial issues” wants to express its views, which will often have to rest on the theory that homosexuality is wrong, sorry, apparently it’s not important to preserve student speech that expresses that view.

    “[T]here is an equality of status in the field of ideas,” the Supreme Court has said. “Under the First Amendment there is no such thing as a false idea.” “The government must abstain from regulating speech when the specific motivating ideology or the opinion or perspective of the speaker is the rationale for the restriction.” And yet according to Judge Reinhardt, the First Amendment itself discriminates against viewpoints that express hostility to minority races, religions, and sexual orientations.

Sister Toldjah:

    Three things we ‘learn’ here from the 9th Circus ruling: 1) there is a “right” to learn in this country, 2) you have a “right” to be free from “psychological attacks” and 3) if you argue successfully that you felt psychologically and physically threatened by someone expressing an opposing opinion to yours, you can successfully convince a US court to infringe on that person’s freedom of speech rights while being perfectly free to exercise your own.

The Alliance Defense Fund are stepping up to the plate.

    Attorneys with the Alliance Defense Fund say they plan to appeal today’s ruling by two judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit who upheld a high school’s decision to prohibit a student from expressing his views regarding homosexual behavior on a T-shirt.

    “Students do not give up their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door,” said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Kevin Theriot. “This panel has upheld school censorship of student expression if it is the Christian view of homosexual behavior. They have essentially determined that student quotation of Scripture can be prohibited. This case will proceed at the district court level, but we intend to appeal today’s extremely poor ruling to the full 9th Circuit.”

    ADF attorneys represent Poway High School student Chase Harper, who was forbidden by school officials from wearing a T-shirt expressing his religious point of view on homosexual behavior. A school administrator told Harper to “leave his faith in the car” when his faith might offend others (www.telladf.org/news/story.aspx?cid=2746).

    The decision today by the two-judge majority of a three-judge 9th Circuit panel upholds a lower court’s denial of a motion by ADF attorneys that asked for Poway High School’s policy regarding the T-shirt to be immediately halted while the case moves forward.

    The third judge, Circuit Judge Alex Kozinski, vigorously dissented: “I have considerable difficulty with giving school authorities the power to decide that only one side of a controversial topic may be discussed in the school environment because the opposing point of view is too extreme or demeaning…. The fundamental problem with the majority’s approach is that it has no anchor anywhere in the record or in the law. It is entirely a judicial creation, hatched to deal with the situation before us, but likely to cause innumerable problems in the future.”

    The two-judge majority criticized Kozinski, suggesting that the majority could rely upon the motion pictures Brokeback Mountain or The Matthew Shepard Story “as evidence of the harmful effects of anti-gay harassment….”

    “The majority implied that Brokeback Mountain is in, and the Bible is out. What’s really broken here is the majority’s approach to the First Amendment,” Theriot observed.

    “The court has manufactured new law in the area of student speech in saying students cannot say anything that school officials deem ‘demeaning’ to another,” Theriot explained. “This is the same court that ruled that parental rights stop at the schoolhouse gate and that ‘God’ should be removed from the Pledge of Allegiance. This case is not over.”

[Soldier4Christ]

Protect The Pedophiles Or The Children?


According to the news coming out of Vermont, see here and here, the ACLU is claiming that online sex offender registries lead to vigilantism.

Recently two registered sex offenders living in Maine were killed at their homes and police believe the killer may have gotten the addressess from the registry.

As usual the ACLU extrapolates conclusions from data that is almost impossible to substantiate. It does, however, make for good moonbat rhetoric. Example: “This is a stark reminder that there’s no evidence that online sex offender registries increase public safety,” said Allen Gilbert, executive director of the Vermont office of the ACLU. “In fact, they might just do the opposite.”
And: “these things never work. If doing something doesn’t add to public safety and, in fact, can lead to tragedies like we’ve just seen in Maine, I think it really doesn’t make sense to have an online registry.”

And finally, the ultimate objective comes out, “They should not be making any changes to the online registry unless they can determine that, indeed, the registry increases public safety,” Gilbert said. “We think they never should have created it. They should just pull it immediately.”

I know, for a fact, that many families in the area where I live are keenly aware of local sex offenders. The online information is printed and posted at the schools and even the school bus drivers are encouraged to familiarize themselves with photos of the offenders.

It would be impossible to determine accurately how many times the dissemination of this kind of data has saved a child from a terrible tragedy. Even if the number is small it far outweighs the impact of one isolated incident by one individual. Those on the registries are there as a result of their own actions. Their illegal behavior may have caused them to be put in the position of perhaps being targets for some crazed avenger. The children, on the other hand, are totally innocent victims of uncontrolled perverts. If we are going to err, let it be on the side of the innocent.

The truth is the ACLU has never wanted these registries and is using this as another means to attack them. Back in February, I posted about the ACLU in Indiana suing to give convicted sex offenders access to parks and playgrounds. Their excuse, then, was that the offenders wouldn’t be able to see their children or grandchildren at play. Oh well, there are prices to be paid for the choices you make in life. Contrary to the ACLU, most of us prefer the cost be borne by the criminals and not the law abiding. Once again the “civil liberties” folks find themselves on the wrong side of the issue.

[Soldier4Christ]

ACLU enters Jesus picture dispute


The American Civil Liberties Union has stepped into the dispute over a picture of Jesus that has hung on a Bridgeport High School wall for 40 years.

An ACLU official said the group wants the picture taken down.

Harrison County school officials, meanwhile, have other ideas.

The high school could start an "inspirational wall" on which pictures of other influential historical figures are hung together, said schools Superintendent Carl Friebel. The Jesus picture could be relocated to that wall, he said.

Friebel said criteria would be set as to who can go up on the wall.

"It wouldn't be an arbitrary judgment," he said.

Andrew Schneider, executive director for the ACLU in West Virginia, said he'd be skeptical of such a remedy.

"Will they allow Wiccans to put up their displays?" Schneider said. "Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus? I think they would run into some problems."

Harold Sklar, a lawyer with the FBI, says he's been trying to get the picture taken down for the last decade. Harrison school officials have ignored his requests, he says.

Last month, Sklar went before the board of education and asked them to remove the picture. Board members have yet to act or take a position on the issue.

Friebel said they would wait until the ACLU responds to their suggestions for alternatives before putting something on an agenda for board vote.

The ACLU initially recruited Sklar to represent a handful of students who were opposed to the picture, a print of Warner Sallman's well-known "Head of Christ" which hangs outside the principal's office.

Sklar recently contacted Schneider about the seemingly stalled situation. The ACLU sent Harrison school officials a letter outlining case law that "had found these sorts of displays to be basically illegal."

Friebel has said the picture always had a secular purpose.

Schneider doesn't buy that and says a lawsuit could be in order.

"If the picture remained on the wall and the district was not willing to settle this dispute in a way that respected the constitution and religious freedom of the people in the school district, then, yeah, that would be our last resort," he said.

The ACLU recently won a First Amendment federal case against the city of Bridgeport's restrictions on citizens' right to display political signs.

State religious leaders are split as to whether the picture should come down.

Terry Harper, who heads the state's Convention of Southern Baptists, said the picture is nothing less than art and shouldn't be stirring controversy.

State schools Superintendent Lowell Johnson said the picture is inappropriate where it is, but the state would leave the final decision up to the Harrison school board.

The Jesus picture originally hung in a guidance counselor's office back in the days soon after the school opened, according to school officials.

When the counselor retired and left the picture behind, their replacement brought it to a former principal, who hung it across the hall from his office door.

[Soldier4Christ]

'Choose Life' plates put on hold
Delay granted while ACLU works on appeal to U.S. Supreme Court


A federal appeals court has delayed Tennessee's production of a specialty license plate reading "Choose Life" while the American Civil Liberties Union pursues a legal appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We are quite grateful that the court has decided to stop production of the plate while the case is under review," said Brigitte Amiri, a staff attorney with the ACLU Reproductive Freedom Project. "It confirms that state laws cannot promote one viewpoint while silencing another."

The legislature approved the program in 2003 on a request from New Life Resources, an anti-abortion nonprofit organization.

At the same time, it rejected an effort to create a pro-choice specialty plate.

A federal district judge ruled in favor of the ACLU's contention that the legislature's different treatment of these messages constituted a violation of the First Amendment. That ruling was then overturned last month by the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Brian Harris, president of Tennessee Right to Life, which is providing legal representation to New Life Resources, said that "Supreme Court precedent is firmly on our side" and that his group "continues to be extremely optimistic that this plate will be on Tennessee's roads."

In its appeal to the Supreme Court, the ACLU will point out that two federal appeals court decisions are in conflict with each other, Amiri said.

The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled against a South Carolina license plate program that is in most ways similar to the Tennessee program that the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has allowed.

Once the 6th Circuit decision was handed down, the ACLU had 90 days to file its Supreme Court petition.

While working on the appeal, the ACLU "wanted to ensure that the state would not produce the license plate," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the Tennessee ACLU.

[Soldier4Christ]

MySpace lawsuits on the rise

ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) -- The popular web site MySpace is prompting legal battles in Florida and around the country.

A Sarasota teacher is suing a high school student who posted demeaning sexual comments alongside her picture. The school suspended the boy, but the teacher said she doesn't think the punishment was harsh enough.

Internet experts say lawsuits surrounding sites like MySpace will likely continue until a federal court rules on the issue. The American Civil Liberties Union says schools have no legal authority to monitor what students do on their home computers.

But school administrators argue they have the right to take disciplinary action when blogs spillover onto school grounds.

Students across the country have been disciplined for cyber bullying, threatening a Columbine repeat or poking fun at teachers.

[Soldier4Christ]

Defining moments in ACLU history

Nedd Kareiva, the founder and director of the Stop The ACLU Coalition has written an excellent piece over at Renew America.

    Words mean things, a former boss of mine used to tell me. Or do they?

    If you’re Bill Clinton, it’s conditional. It could depend on what the meaning of the word “is” is.

    And if you’re the ACLU, words could mean anything. Read their press releases, listen to their lawyers and staff at the microphone and you would come away thinking that only they know the Constitution and good public policy for America. But you would also see how they make the evil, disgusting and gruesome to be palatable and innocuous.

    When it comes to abortion, those of us who have been fighting to see it banned in America know the terms the pro-abortion crowd and their ACLU allies concocted decades ago to take the sting and stigma out of it. “Baby” was reduced to “fetus” to “product of conception.” Killing an unborn child was reduced to “a woman’s right to choose” or “a decision to be made between a woman and her doctor” or “a woman’s right to privacy.”

    In March of 2004, lawsuits generated by the abortion industry and the ACLU in response to Congressional passage and President Bush’s signature of a ban on partial birth abortion triggered what perhaps has been to date the most brutally fought cultural battle in America’s courts. Incredibly graphic testimony erupted in New York, California and Nebraska where the cases were heard. Though this information needs to be read and digested to understand what abortion truly is, for the sake of readers perusing this piece, I will avoid the most of the gruesome details — except for the one word indelibly was placed in the minds of pro-life activists forever.

    That one word is “disarticulate.”

    Most educated people know the word “articulate” to mean speaking distinctly and intelligibly. However, some may not know that an alternate definition identifies it, per Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, “to unite by means of a joint.”

    “Disarticulate” thus means “to disjoint.” The word was used in all three court cases. The ACLU was counsel in the Nebraska case. To read more, click this link (warning: barbaric in description — and of course, the act).

    The term forever altered our cultural landscape. It is one seldom heard outside of this battle except perhaps in other medical circles. Whether the ACLU was responsible for introducing this term in the partial birth debate is open to conjecture but the fact the word was used in the testimony of Nebraska abortionists clearly ties the ACLU to it.

    Thus the word “disarticulate” was a defining moment for the ACLU.

    In debates over assisted suicide, the ACLU has innoculated the term by disguising it as “personal autonomy” and “bodily integrity”.

    The fact the ACLU “hailed” this decision which was called “sweet” by the ACLU of Oregon’s executive director is also noteworthy of its love affair with death which I wrote in an earlier piece .

    The ACLU’s terminology is similar to that of groups like the Hemlock Society which was later named Compassion in Dying and then to Compassion and Choices.

    You see, words mean things — except to groups like the ACLU.

    Perhaps this is a good time to order your book The Marketing of Evil by David Kupelian, managing editor at World Net Daily. He points out how groups like the ACLU have camouflaged evil as something to be desired and not shunned.

    OK, wait til you finish reading this piece before going ordering your copy.

    Another area where the ACLU paints smiley faces over evil is in its defense and promotion of homosexual issues, including same sex marriage and adoption. You’ll never hear the ACLU point out the dangerous practices of homosexuals of which you can read the truth on web sites like www.theroadtoemmaus.org.

    But like abortion and euthanasia, the ACLU pushes the envelope by coding terms such as “fairness” and “equality” into its promotion of homosexual rights.

    You would think the ACLU hadn’t read the Declaration of Independence in which it says “All men (and women) are created equal.” Our Founding Fathers didn’t single out homosexuals but the ACLU apparently reads into it that they did.

    The ACLU is airing their 10 part series, the Freedom Files, on satellite TV. In an episode earlier this month, according to their web page , the ACLU highlighted several couples supposedly harmed by government discrimination against them in relationship to wills and adoption.

    The facts are not in doubt here. The ACLU has chosen to go this route because it hasn’t been successful in persuading the American public to adopt same sex marriage. Though the ACLU has won a few scant cases in liberal enclaves on the East & West Coasts, they have been decisively defeated at the ballot box when the people have spoken. Therefore, the ACLU wants to paint a pretty picture of same sex couples to recreate a new moral infrastructure.

    Like the dangers of abortion and the barbaric means of effecting one, the ACLU glosses over the issue of homosexuality. They never acknowledged that those entering those relationships have chosen to do so and will never remind you that it’s all about sex. They will never tell you that those couples in the Freedom Files may have had their physical (and perhaps emotional) pains because of their unnatural relationship. They will never tell you it’s all about sex.

    But the term homosexuality is all about one’s sexual propensity for someone of the same sex.

    Executive director, Anthony Romero, a practicing homosexual himself, cloaks these families as “concerned parents and loving partners.” The abhorrent sexual practices historically classified as unnatural and which the likes of Romero perform are absent in the ACLU’s platform.

    So when the likes of the ACLU say it’s not about sex but about loving relationsihps being denied, the reality is that it’s all about sex.

    You see, words mean something.

    And there are other cases of the ACLU cloaking evil into good (or at least legit) such as making pornography, even child porn, all about the 1st Amendment, freedom of speech and free from censure. But there is one area the ACLU boldly yet absurdly believes is true and does not obfuscate. And that is in the area of sex education in schools.

    Ah, another defining moment in ACLU history.

[Soldier4Christ]

A recent decision by the Rhode Island Dept. of Education to halt a program from a group known as the Heritage of Rhode Island was as a result of the ACLU opposition to abstinence education in the public schools http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/sexed/24721prs20060322.html.

The word "harmful" to describe sexual abstinence outside of marriage, as noted in the title at the top of the web page, plus the word "unsafe" near the bottom of the page has to leave one's head scratching.

The ACLU has also termed abstinence as dangerous as noted in the title of this web page http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/20117prs20050921.html. The director of the ACLU's Reproductive Freedom Project (again, the cloaking of abortion as reproductive freedom), Louise Melling, says the teaching of abstinence puts the health and safety of students at risk. She also states http://www.aclu.org/reproductiverights/gen/12740prs20041201.html when government abstinence programs do not teach on contraceptives, condoms and abortion, they are "censoring life saving information."

How come the ACLU can't camouflage the abstinence issue the way they do abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and pornography? At least they tell us the truth of what they believe but is there anything more absurd than saying that abstinence is dangerous and teaching on condoms and contraceptives is life saving?

Someone needs to give Ms. Melling the smelling salts. Or could they be the Melling Salts?

To any ACLU backers reading this article, I ask you this question: is this organization worthy of your support? Even if you support abortion on demand, homosexual marriage and euthanasia, I'm sure you would agree that, as Rush Limbaugh terms it, "abstinence works every time it's tried." Does an organization calling abstinence harmful deserve your money? An adolescent going thru puberty can figure this one out better than the ACLU.

The ACLU claims religion is part of abstinence teaching in public schools and must be banned. Well heck, atheist parents could send their children to a public school and urge abstinence be taught to their daughters to keep them from getting pregnant. You don't need to teach about God and the Bible to know the facts about the birds and the bees — unless you believe the ACLU is wiser and the rest of us are lamebrains.

"Disarticulate" and "harmful and dangerous" abstinence programs, two of the more defining moments in ACLU history. And now it's time consign the ACLU to history.

Readers, you are dismissed. Now go order the aforementioned book, undoubtedly harmful and dangerous to your health.

Nedd Kareiva is the founder and director of the Stop the ACLU Coalition. He is a 45 year old man from Chicago who began the Stop the ACLU web site in August of 2004. His background is varied, which includes a degree in Biblical studies. He once served as the associate director of the Christian Broadcasting Network's Chicago counseling center when such centers were operating in major cities across America. He spent 7+ years in real estate and mortgages and worked for the city of Chicago for 3 1/2 years. He served as the singles director in the 1990s for a church in southwest Chicago. He has a 9 year old son with Asperger's Syndrome.

Nedd is a professional Scrabble player who played in many tournaments (and won a few) from across the Midwest for approximately 13 years, between 1992 & 2005 and was once in the top 150 players in North America, according to the National Scrabble Association.

Nedd got involved in political issues back in the early 90s when his mother and late stepdad took an active position in the pro-life movement. They were pro-life activists and even went to jail for their stances. Thanks to them and a church willing to deal with issues, his political involvement began to set in motion.

[Soldier4Christ]

Yale Looking For Face-Saving Way to Oust Talibani Student


Evidently Yale doesn’t like the negative publicity it’s received since welcoming Sayed Rahmatullah Hashemi, the unreconstructed Taliban knuckle-dragger admitted under their non-traditional student program. Writing in the WSJ Opinion Journal, John Fund reports that Yale plans to toughen up admission standards for non-traditional degree students, which currently accept three quarters of applicants (compared to the 10% of applying high school students).

This will allow Yale to reject Hashemi’s application to a degree program without admitting that they were utterly stupid and morally bankrupt for admitting him in the first place. Or maybe they’re just afraid they’ll be beheaded.

Cross-posted at The Dread Pundit Bluto, Vince Aut Morire, and The Jawa Report.

[Soldier4Christ]

ABC’s Contribution to McCarthy Whitewash


As Kim Priestap, writing for Wizbang! notes, the American mainstream media are regaining their footing and circling the wagons to rally to the defense of Mary McCarthy, the CIA analyst fired for leaking information to the press.

ABC News is answering the partisan call. In a Saturday story on their website ABC manages to put together a remarkably dishonest piece of “journalism” predicting the fall of the Republic if leaking classified information remains a crime.

Not only did ABC fail to mention McCarthy’s political leanings (she contributed $2000 to John Kerry’s unsuccessful 2004 bid for the Presidency), there is also this:

    “This a matter of principle,” said Ray McGovern, a former fellow CIA analyst, “where she said my oath, my promise not to reveal secrets is superceded by my oath to defend the constitution of the U.S.”

ABC leaves out the inconvenient, but telling, fact that Ray McGovern is one of the lunatic fringe who now makes his living calling for the impeachment of President Bush.

Prepare for much more dishonesty from the media, especially now that European investigators have found no trace of the CIA renditions that McCarthy whispered of to Dana Priest at the Washington Post.

[Soldier4Christ]

Rockefeller, Durbin To Take Polygraphs?


As investigations into the leaking of classified information nabbs Mary McCarthy, the far left are jumping to the leakers’ defense. Of course the NY Times wants to be included with those doing the defense. Wizbang notes how the media is circling the wagons.

Atlass Shrugs notes that:

    In what is becoming a bad trend for Mary, she is now linked with Sandy Berger and Richard Clarke. Especially this strange reference (again from the 9-11 report):

    9. See Joint Inquiry briefing by Mike, Sept. 12,2002.For briefings to the NSC,see NSC email,Clarke to Berger, “Threat Warning: Usama bin Ladin,” Mar. 7, 1998; Mary McCarthy interview (Dec. 8, 2003); CIA memos, summary of weekly Berger/Tenet meeting, May 1, 1998.

And she has some advice for the Bush’s:

    FIRE ANY ONE THAT WORKED UNDER THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION, I mean really.

The investigations are growing into big news, and the CIA is warning that this is only the beggining. This may even reach into the Senate, where a few liberal Senators may be facing polygraph tests.

    During the Bush Administration, a nexus of politicians, government workers and members of the news media have worked overtime in leaking classified information. From the secret terrorist prisons to the National Security Agency’s super-secret surveillance program, intelligence officials and the Bush Administration have had to watch their counterterrorism efforts neutralized for political reasons.

    But people such as former deputy-undersecretary of Defense Jed Babbin don’t think the Justice Department investigators and prosecutors have the guts to indict a US senator. Babbin said it would cause a battle royal on the Hill, if not a constitutional crisis.

    He did say however, that any senator or Congressional staffer that holds a security clearance can be asked at any time to take a polygraph. The individual can of course refuse to take the test, but failure to do so is reason to remove that person’s security clearance. Babbin further said that Senators Rockefeller, Durbin, and Wyden, and some on their staffs will soon be requested to take polygraphs.

    But don’t expect too much to come from these leak investigations. When the leakers are Democrats, they are called whistleblowers; when they’re Republicans they’re called leakers.

    Also, no senator has been disciplined for leaking since 1987, when Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) was forced to give up his seat on the powerful Senate Intelligence Committee. It was discovered he leaked classified information to reporters. Now he’s on the Senate Judiciary Committee which is currently investigating top secret information regarding the NSA surveillance activities.

[Soldier4Christ]

CCTV And The ACLU


We all know the ACLU is opposed to video surveillance in public places. Here are some of the reasons, as stated on their own site.

It has not proven effective

In truth, while it may not reduce crime, it certainly seems to make apprehension of the actual criminal(s) quicker and easier, thus freeing up needed resources for other duties. I have no statistics on this, but my guess would be conviction becomes easier also. That, to me, is effective.

It is susceptible to abuse.

What isn’t? Any law enforcement tool can be and probably has been abused. There are unethical people and there always will be, that is no excuse to tie the ethical hands that preserve our freedoms by their dilligence.

Lack of limits or controls on camera use.

This is a concern that can be addressed, however probably never to the satisfaction of the ACLU. Even if most Americans are content with suggested checks and balances, the ACLU will always find a reason to gainsay the arguments of rational people. That is because the ACLU’s concern is not about the security and peace of mind of the majority of the American public, but rather the ability of fringe groups to act out and disrupt.

It will have a chilling effect on public life.

This is one of those vague and nebulous statements the ACLU is so fond of throwing into the mix even though it can never be proven or disproven empirically. From personal experience, the chilling effect on public life is cast by the ACLU on the everyday lives of those who would display evidence of their mainstream religious beliefs and traditional family values.

[Soldier4Christ]

CMU makes no agreements in ACLU case
Discussions continue with police departments


While Central Michigan University has not enforced giving breathalyzer tests to underage pedestrians, the American Civil Liberties Union said no agreements have been made in their case.

The ACLU is challenging a state law giving police officers the right to request minors – who are reasonably believed to be intoxicated – take a preliminary breath test without first obtaining a search warrant. If the minor refuses, they can opt for a civil infraction – a ticket that would cost $100.

Michael J. Steinberg, legal director of the ACLU of Michigan, said there has been no agreement yet with the Central Michigan University Police and the Michigan State Police.

“It’s unclear,” he said. “We haven’t received any offers from the state police and we continue to talk to the CMU Police. But there’s no agreement yet.”

Mount Pleasant and Isabella County law enforcement officers can no longer force pedestrians who are under the age of 21 to take a breathalyzer test without a warrant.

The city and county agreed March 17 to stop requiring minor pedestrians to take breath tests without first obtaining a search warrant until U.S. District Court Judge David M. Lawson issues a ruling in the case, which, if agreed upon, may permanently stop the practice.

“We’re continuing discussions with CMU, but so far there’s been no resolutions,” Steinberg said.

He said giving warrantless breathalyzers to minors has been a practice of the CMU Police for a long time.

“The goal of the lawsuit is to put an end to this practice once and for all,” Steinberg said. “And so far CMU hasn’t agreed to put an end to the practice once and for all. We’ll have to see what we can work out.”

CMU Police Chief Stan Dinius was unavailable Friday for comment.

The ACLU contends the statute is unconstitutional, Steinberg said, calling it an unreasonable and unlawful search which is in violation of the fourth amendment.

The primary case will be resolved by the ACLU and the State of Michigan.

Other governmental entities such as Isabella County, Mount Pleasant and CMU Police departments have been added because those law enforcement agencies have enforced the state law.

Michael Cavanaugh, CMU attorney, said the CMU Police made an offer of judgment to the ACLU by willing to not enforce giving breath tests to minors and to abide to the court’s final decision.

“CMU has not been enforcing this statute for a while – since the suit was filed,” he said. “The enforcement did not stop immediately when the lawsuit was filed, but shortly after that.”

The Michigan State Police won’t make any agreements, however, they will keep their enforcement the same, Cavanaugh said.

“Most of these cases arise because a police officer sees a minor with alcohol in their possession or they come upon a minor who has been drinking,” he said.

Although no agreement has been made by the CMU Police, Cavanaugh said the only difference is Isabella County and Mount Pleasant entered a preliminary injunction in the case by agreeing they will not enforce the law while the case is pending.

[Soldier4Christ]

Debate explores intelligent design
NCSU forum analyzes alternative to evolution

When a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district in December from teaching intelligent design in biology class, it was a clear victory for those who say the idea cannot be called science.

But the ruling did little to quiet the broader debate about whether intelligent design is a legitimate competing theory to that of evolution. Supporters of intelligent design say living organisms are so complex that forces outside of natural evolution best explain unsolved biological mysteries.

That debate continued Thursday night at N.C. State University before a crowd of almost 200 people. Sponsored by the NCSU and Wake chapters of the American Civil Liberties Union, the debate featured four speakers -- one scientist and one philosopher from both sides of the issue.

Arguing in favor of intelligent design were Gerald Van Dyke, an NCSU botany professor, and Robert Hambourger, an NCSU associate professor of philosophy.

Arguing in favor of evolution were John Gray, a molecular biologist in the private sector, and Douglas Jesseph, a philosophy professor at NCSU.

They offered the following thoughts during a two-hour discussion of the topic:

Gray: "The theory of evolution has been around a long time. It wasn't even called 'evolution' when people began thinking they might have come from other organisms over time. But there was no mechanism in place to define how that happened.

"Charles Darwin in 1858 came up with the hypothesis about natural selection, but it wasn't until 1892 that the term 'evolution' was used to describe his theory. Since that time it has been tested a great deal and is now thought of as fact by most biologists.

"The basic theory has never been disproved. Some of the mechanisms people came up with have been disproved and fallen out of favor, but the facts of evolution have never fallen out of favor."

Van Dyke: "Most of the leaders in the intelligent design movement don't accept that there are adequate naturalistic explanations ... for the fine-tuning of the physical constants in nature. Intelligent design proponents think that the evidence for and against the theory of evolution should be taught in public schools and that science needs to be expanded to allow intelligent causes. Many in the ID movement believe that science is due for a revolution in its basic assumptions."

Jesseph: "You mention the fine-tuning of the universe. As far as I know, in the last year and a half, the fine-tuning argument has basically been stomped into the dirt because the currently accepted cosmological models solve the fine-tuning problems.

"If we believe that human beings are designed, it seems plausible that in addition to wondering and marveling at the design, we could also critique it. Whoever designed the human knee or the gastrointestinal tract is a very lousy designer, unlikely to get better than a C-minus in design class."

Hambourger: "The difference between the two sides ... is not whether evolution took place but something much less concrete and much harder to address by empirical research: Could evolution have taken place without planning, or could it only come about by intelligent design?

"But God, if he exists, could easily have designed the world to come about in just this way, by a long evolutionary process."

Gray: "Should intelligent design be taught in science class? I believe the answer is no, because it does not accommodate the scientific method in which an hypothesis can be developed and experiments designed for testing.

"Evolution is now considered a fact by nearly all biologists, allowing biologists to place all living creatures in a meaningful context and enabling scientists to have insights that might otherwise be unimaginable. Can we say the same about intelligent design?"

Van Dyke: "I would challenge Dr. Gray to give me any evidence of macro-evolution. I do not think, as a scientist, there is any evidence beyond micro-evolution to support [the idea] that we evolved from some other form of life."

Gray: "We are very closely related to the chimp."

Van Dyke: "Not really."

Gray: "Yes, we are. Ninety-six percent of our genome is virtually identical to the chimp. It is part of the species separation process."

Hambourger: "It just shows you how incredibly complex chimps are -- and we are."

Jesseph: "The intelligent design theory just doesn't cut it. Even with a lot of improvement, it would still be lousy science. It is not even up to the level of voodoo.

The main problem is it doesn't explain anything. To be told that fundamental elements of living things were designed by a designer about whom we know nothing other than he is intelligent and he designed is really to go nowhere. That's like explaining the inebriating properties of beer by the fact that it has a special drunk-making quality in it that is such that when you drink it you become inebriated."

Hambourger: "I think there is a serious danger that only you can know by looking into your own soul ... that secularists are motivated not by a genuine love of freedom and the Constitution but in many cases by a real dislike of religion.

"If those are your motives, I think it's important for you to realize you are in danger of two things: One is you are being extremely intolerant, and secondly, you are being a real hypocrite in trying to do so on the grounds of civil liberties."

[Soldier4Christ]

A sense of security
Cameras could make parking lots safer, but it'll come at a cost
 by Kristi Eaton  published on Monday, April 24, 2006

Business sophomore Michael Ryback received a shock when he approached his red sedan in Parking Lot 63 one Sunday night in March.

Ryback was planning to meet his friends for dinner and was walking to his car when he noticed something was wrong.

"When I approached the car, everything looked normal until I looked through the front driver's side window and saw broken glass all over the front passenger's seat," he said. "I remembered thinking, 'What the hell is that?'"

Ryback's sedan had been broken into and several possessions were taken, including his silver iPod mini and iPod adapter.

Before he had even arrived to find the car broken into, the ASU Department of Public Safety had noticed the car and left Ryback a note to call its office.

"I called DPS, and ended up waiting around [for] an hour for an officer to arrive," he said. "The officer was quite helpful, and I just gave him all the information for his report."

There have been no leads in the case.

Ryback's situation is not uncommon. There were 33 instances of burglary, theft or criminal damage in Lot 63, located near Cholla Apartments, alone between November 2004 and January 2006.

ASU officials say increased revenue through higher decal prices will give them the funds they need to implement methods to combat such thefts, including a planned security-camera system. However, such a system is still a long way off.

Construction comes first

During the winter break of 2004, 16 cameras were removed from lots 58 and 59, said Linda Riegel, director of Parking and Transit Services.

She said the cameras were removed for several reasons.

The first and foremost reason was because the cameras were outdated, she said.

PTS used closed circuit television, or CCTV, to survey the parking lots.

CCTV cameras can pan, tilt and zoom. They are linked together and can be monitored from a central location.

"Closed Circuit TVs of yesterday are very obsolete," she said. "It's similar to how cameras are becoming obsolete every three years."

But the cameras were not removed strictly because they were dated.

In the last few years, ASU has undergone several projects to expand the University that have required extensive construction.

As a result, the lines that transmitted the camera feed were constantly cut, causing the cameras not to work, Riegel said.

"Rather than give a false sense of security and have people lower their guards, [PTS said], 'We are going to remove them so that we are not giving a false impression to anybody,'" she added.

But even when they were supposed to be working properly, the cameras might have given a feeling of protection that wasn't really there.

In 1998, Parking and Transit Services hired the Scottsdale-based security consulting company Dunlap & Associates, Inc. to study the effectiveness of the 16 surveillance cameras in lots 58 and 59, the only lots equipped with cameras.

Dunlap used site surveys, interviews with key personnel, evaluations of the CCTV system and a review of a security survey by ASU personnel in their study.

Dunlap & Associates found that "the current CCTV system is in poor repair and that it does not meet the stated goals," the study said.

The main goal of the surveillance cameras was to provide an aid to criminal investigations, and DPS officials had also hoped it would deter criminal activity, the study said.

But tapes were only kept on file for seven days, and after that time they were reused. So if DPS officials were investigating a crime that occurred eight days prior, they could not use the tapes as evidence.

From November 2004 to January 2006, lot 58 had three incidents of burglary, theft or criminal damage. Lot 59 had 126 incidents.

Smart solution

Riegel said PTS is hoping to install new Smart cameras, a newer version of CCTV.

Images and details are much clearer on Smart cameras compared to older CCTVs, she said.

"Smart cameras can identify aggressive actions," Riegel said. "If I raise my hand or someone goes horizontal, it will show."

Steve Ossmus, investigative lieutenant for Campus Safety and Security at Johns Hopkins University, said Smart cameras are useful because they have a behavior-recognition device.  Johns Hopkins has used the cameras for a little more than a year.

The cameras recognize up to 12 different body movements and four vehicular movements, he said.

"It's state of the art," he added.

Stewart Adams, a specialist for ASU's DPS Crime Prevention Unit, said Smart cameras could alert officers of any suspicious activity.

"If you have a gathering of people rushing in or even rushing out, it could be programmed in and the camera would say 'Hey, look, this is happening,'" he said.

The person monitoring the system could then determine whether the situation merited a response from an officer, he added.

Stewart said this would help the effectiveness of officers because they would not be sent to areas that did not warrant their attention.

The Smart cameras could also help protect officers, Stewart said.

"It would help patrols so they don't enter into blind areas," he added.

Riegel said ASU hopes to eventually have a camera system similar to the advanced one at Johns Hopkins.

In March 2005, 47 Smart cameras were installed on the Johns Hopkins campus, Ossmus said.

The university plans to install 30 more by June, he added.

The cameras would add "77 new pairs of eyes" to the "most frequented parts of campus," Ossmus said.

He said the cameras were installed in parking structures, walkways and some buildings.

Ossmus declined to give the cost of the cameras, only saying it was "very expensive."

But a story in The JHU Gazette, the school newspaper, listed the cameras as part of a $2 million security-action plan implemented by JHU President William R. Brody.

The plan also included adding additional guards and off-duty police officers around the campus.

So far, the surveillance cameras have worked well, Ossmus said.

There has been a 22 percent drop in the crime rate since the 47 cameras were installed, he added.

Paying for safety

One of the main problems with installing Smart cameras at ASU is money.

A monitoring room would either have to be built or an existing space would have to be renovated.

Plus, monitors must be hired to actually watch the cameras.

Stewart said this could be the main setback to installing the new system.

"It's a big undertaking to run a monitor[ing] room," he said. "You have to have staff to run it for 24 hours [a day]."

According to a time study conducted by the U.S. Secret Service, approximately five full-time employees are required on staff to fill one 24-hour, 365-day monitoring position.

The time study takes into account 40-hour weeks, sick leave, holidays and other days off.

But PTS believes it has come up with a way to increase revenue so security measures, such as surveillance cameras, and other parking improvements can be implemented.

[Soldier4Christ]

A task force, commissioned by PTS in October 2005, found security was a major issue for students, faculty and staff on campus, Riegel said.

"What we heard from the people attending ASU is that 'We want you to pursue this,' so we are," she said. "They are the ones paying the bills."

To pay for the improvements, the rates for parking decals will increase for the 2006-07 year. The decals will range from $150 to $540. Decals rates currently range from $75 to $240.

The rates will continue to rise for the following two years.

By the 2008-09 school year, it will cost between $210 and $780 to park on campus.

More than $4.5 million in revenue will be brought in from next year's rate increase, Riegel said.

The money would go toward a plan to improve the parking system, including installing cameras, she added.

Riegel said the improvements should cost about $4.6 million, so PTS will dip into its reserves to cover the costs next year.

PTS does not yet know how much money will go toward installing new cameras, and when or where the cameras will be installed, said Mark Krug, spokesman for PTS.

Other options

Other universities, including UA,  have decided not to install cameras.

Patrick Kass, director of Parking and Transportation Services at UA, said the university has never had surveillance cameras in the parking lots and decided to keep it that way for now.

"We have decided that we will use other active and passive means to create a safe environment within our parking garages," he said in an e-mail.

Kass said UA police and PTS employees actively patrol the parking lots.

Passive measures include white lighting, open staircases, glass-backed elevators and emergency phones at each staircase on every level, he added.

The current rates for parking decals at UA range from $115 to $450.

Campus surveillance

While the parking lots and structures might not have cameras, there are plenty of surveillance systems around campus in and outside of buildings that might make up for it.

No one knows exactly how many cameras are on campus because there are no formal procedures, departments or buildings they must go through if they want to install one.

But a report by ASU Property Control, which manages all of the University's capital assets, lists every camera on campus valued at more than $5,000.

The report, obtained through a public records request, lists more than 400 cameras on campus.

But in reality, there are a few reasons why the number could be wrong.

The list was compiled by searching for the word "camera" in the asset description of the report, Terri Shafer, a spokeswoman for ASU, said in an e-mail.

The University does not have a way of simply searching "security cameras," she added.

Consequently, many of the cameras listed could be handheld cameras or video cameras used for classes.

But there could also be surveillance camera systems not listed on the report.

Shafer said Property Control only tracks systems that cost more than $5,000, and many systems on campus are purchased at less than that.

This is not the first time the inconsistencies in the surveillance camera policy on campus have come into question.

A 2004 story in The State Press revealed there is no University-wide standardization for surveillance cameras and DPS does not enforce its own rules regarding the cameras.

Two days after the story was published, ASU police Cmdr. John Sutton said DPS would review and rewrite the policy during summer 2004.

The policy change never occurred.

In a November 2005 interview, Adams said the department needed more time to thoroughly look into the technology.

Adams said January 2006 was set as a target date for the policy review.

"We'll work to meet that deadline," he had said. "It is one of the many things we deal with."

That target date was not reached, either.

Adams had said technology might keep the Crime Prevention Unit from making a new standardized policy.

"Technology is moving so quickly it's hard for us as crime prevention people to keep up on it," he had said. "We'd have to go to conferences and trainings just like the industry does."

Instead, Adams said CPU relies on the contractors who install the cameras to keep them up-to-date on changing technology.

Contractors are not the only people the Crime Prevention Unit relies on. They also rely on other ASU departments to notify them.

Adams said someone in the purchasing and goods department of ASU must sign off on the purchase of any camera system more than $29,000.

The purchasing department usually notifies DPS when a department or building is looking to install a camera, he added.

That way, Adams said, DPS could look at the installation plan before the purchasing department signed off on it.

Systems that cost less than $29,000 do not have to go through the purchasing department, Adams said.

"But they still seem to call us quite often to say, 'Come over and look at this and give us a hand,'" he added.

Being monitored

Tim Wilson, president of ASU's chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the organization has some reservations about cameras on campus.

"What concerns our chapter is not that the cameras exist," he said. "Our concerns are in the details behind the camera. Why aren't cameras marked and why are there not signs warning people that cameras are recording?"

Surveillance cameras help keep the campus secure, but they can also invade on privacy, Wilson said.

"It's important that ASU lets people know they are keeping us safe, but it is questionable that so many cameras are hidden," he said. "The students and faculty have a right to know who is watching and where."

The DPS policy on the books now states signs should be on display when a camera is filming, and Adams said the Crime Prevention Unit would work on improving the number of cameras with signs on campus.

But it might be a difficult task, he added.

"A lot of times the campus doesn't want to put signs up," he said. "They don't want to over sign [the campus]."

For now, there's eBay

Ryback, the student whose iPod was stolen from his car in Lot 63, said cameras might have deterred someone from breaking into his car.

Or at least it could have provided a record of the event and person, he said.

"A camera could have offered a video of the person committing this crime, and that would include what the person looked like -- or just basic features like height, weight and race," he said. "Also if they were driving a vehicle, the characteristics could have been caught by the camera."

But the possibility of new Smart cameras doesn't help Ryback.

He said he doubts he'll ever find out who broke into his car.

"I figure, why would the police follow this up when there are much more important things happening?" he said. "Who knows? Maybe I will get lucky and find my iPod on eBay."