Tag: Free speech Page 4 of 6

The president and the Boss

On October 14, 2008

A radio station needn’t obtain advance permission before playing a particular song by a particular musician. Same with a nightclub. Under copyright law, you’re free to play copyrighted music as long as you pay a fee.

That goes for politicians, too. In today’s Washington Post, Christopher Sprigman and Siva Vaidhyanathan explain why musicians such as Ann and Nancy Wilson of Heart, the Foo Fighters and others have no legal basis in objecting to the McCain campaign’s use of their songs. The campaign, they note, has paid its licensing fees, and that should be the end of it. (Via Altercation.)

It’s a free-speech issue, and, as such, we should be just as vigilant against Jackson Browne’s attempt to censor the Republicans as we are about, say, Sarah Palin’s redefinition of freedom of the press as a “privilege.”

The man who wrote the book on how to respond to an unwanted political embrace was Bruce Springsteen. In 1984, Ronald Reagan, running for re-election, gave a shoutout to Springsteen, whose “Born in the U.S.A.” had set off a boomlet of patriotic fervor. Though in actuality it was a bitter antiwar anthem, the upbeat music had confused more than a few conservatives into thinking Bruce had cast his lot with the “Morning in America” crowd.

Shortly thereafter, Springsteen, at a concert in Pittsburgh, introduced his song “Johnny 99” — about an unemployed auto worker-turned-murderer — with this:

The president was mentioning my name the other day, and I kinda got to wondering what his favorite album musta been. I don’t think it was the ‘Nebraska’ album. I don’t think he’s been listening to this one.

And that was the end of that. (Wikipedia reference verified by my steel-trap memory.)

Update: Looks like some news organizations are pushing an overly restrictive interpretation of copyright law, too — even going so far as to demand that YouTube delete some McCain ads that use news clips.

Photo (cc) by Music Master and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved. And in case you were wondering, yes, that’s a wax figure, not the real Bruce.

Palin calls freedom of press a “privilege”

By Dan Kennedy

On October 6, 2008

In Uncategorized

All right, I am assuming far more coherence and meaning in Sarah Palin’s ramblingly incoherent interview with Fox’s Carl Cameron than is warranted. But I do want to call your attention to this amazing passage, flagged by Jake Tapper of ABC News:

As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we’ve really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance.

To which I say: “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

Thanks to Media Nation reader MTS, who found it on Daily Kos.

Exposing the T’s ludicrous photo ban

By Dan Kennedy

On October 1, 2008

In Uncategorized

Now that the MBTA has fired a trolley driver because a passenger photographed him letting two kids take the wheel, do you suppose the T will reconsider its no-longer-official prohibition on allowing people to take pictures?

Marie Szaniszlo reports in the Boston Herald today that the unidentified Green Line driver was photographed while his young son and nephew were playing with the controls. The photos were taken by Michael Critz, who posted them on Craigslist. “I don’t take any joy in the firing of the driver,” Critz is quoted as saying.

No mention in the Herald story of the photo ban, but it’s well-known to local photographers. In 2006, I gave a Boston Phoenix Muzzle Award to the T for its ridiculous policy, which is supposedly aimed at thwarting terrorists.

“The practice is inconsistently employed, does nothing to address surreptitious or long distance photographs of the same sites, and restricts the rights of law-abiding persons,” wrote John Reinstein, legal director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, and Jonathan Albano, a prominent First Amendment lawyer, in a letter to the T several years ago. Reinstein and Albano further argued that the ban violates both the federal and state constitutions.

Not only did the T not overturn its censorious policy [sort of; see below], but it continues to enforce it. Only yesterday, Adam Gaffin of Universal Hub linked to some T photos taken by Carolyn Serrano, who writes on her Flickr page:

I actually got in trouble taking this photo! I was leaning against the pole to brace myself as I took this shot (imagine, no flash in a dim setting…that’s a couple secs that I needed to stay absolutely still which is super hard for me!) and on the speakers they were making announcements about how photos were not allowed. I disregarded it, thinking no way were they talking about me. But they kept on re-iterating it and stopped only when I put my camera away!

The MBTA is our property, paid for with our tax dollars and fare money. Despite no-photo policy, there are 7,391 photos on Flickr tagged with “mbta” right now. So not only is the policy a violation of the First Amendment, but it’s not working. It’s time for T general manager Dan Grabauskas repeal this misguided assault on our free-speech rights.

Update: Adam Gaffin tells Media Nation that the T actually softened its policy (PDF) more than a year ago, but that employees still haven’t gotten the message. “Naturally, nobody at the top seems to have communicated this with employees, who continue to harass people,” Gaffin says.

Photo (cc) by Brian Talbot and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

MIT gag order has been lifted

By Dan Kennedy

On August 19, 2008

In Uncategorized

Media Nation reader J.H. passes along word from the Electronic Frontier Foundation that the MIT gag order has been lifted. U.S. District Judge George O’Toole reportedly found that the MBTA is unlikely to prevail in its lawsuit against three MIT students and the university itself.

Background on the case here and here.

Although this is clearly better than not lifting the gag order, it’s also not much of a victory for the First Amendment. The fact is that the MIT students had every right to make their presentation on flaws in the MBTA’s electronic fare system, and they were not allowed to do so.

It makes a mockery of the principle that prior restraint is to be reserved only for serious issues of national security, obscenity and incitement to violence.

Anti-free speech round-up

By Dan Kennedy

On August 16, 2008

In Uncategorized

The First Amendment is front and center in this morning’s Boston Globe. Three stories for your consideration:

1. Paranoia and the MBTA. Friend of Media Nation Harvey Silverglate argues that the court-ordered censorship of three MIT students is rooted in post-9/11 paranoia about security. The law is aimed at computer hacking that could put people in danger; now it’s being applied merely to writing about hacking, and not the sort that might endanger lives but, rather, would simply cost the T money. Silverglate concludes that “with the ghosts of 9/11 and ‘national security’ hovering, the students and the First Amendment didn’t stand a chance.” (Silverglate also blogs for the Boston Phoenix.)

2. Criminalizing symbolic speech. An Associated Press news brief reports that a Louisiana teenager has been sentenced to four months in prison for hanging nooses off the back of his truck and displaying them at a civil-rights rally on behalf of the Jena Six. Recently I challenged Peter Porcupine to find an example of a hate-crime law that criminalizes speech. Sadly, I think I’ve just found one. Take a look at this ABC News report on the case against the teenager, Jeremiah Munsen. There are complicating factors, and Munsen does appear to be quite the dirtball. But essentially Munsen is going to prison for his exercise of symbolic speech. “I wish we had a charge in Louisiana for aggravated ignorance,” a police officer is quoted as saying. Apparently that’s unnecessary; the federal hate-crimes statute will do quite nicely.

3. Teaching students they have no rights. In Knoxville, Tenn., a high-school student sued for the right to wear Confederate-flag clothing to school, a violation of the dress code. His case ended in a mistrial, according to the AP. The right of school districts to impose such codes is so well-established that this is scarcely worth a mention, except as a reminder that young people are raised and educated in an environment that’s devoid of constitutional protections. We shouldn’t be surprised that a majority of them grow up to oppose the constitutional rights of others, as you will see in the second entry here.

Yesterday Media Nation commenter Leslie wrote, “For us liberals to reflexively hide behind the free speech banner is too easy.” I hope these three examples show that it’s actually hard. Speech that we like needs no defense.

If you’re going to stand up for the First Amendment, you are invariably going to find yourself standing up for kids whose actions might make it easier for people to rip off the T, or for racist teenagers from Louisiana or Tennessee. So be it.

Here you go, Your Honor

By Dan Kennedy

On August 15, 2008

In Uncategorized

U.S. District Judge George O’Toole yesterday continued the restraining order against three MIT students who had been prevented from telling what they know about security problems with the MBTA’s automated fare system.

Among other things, O’Toole demanded that the students hand over a paper they wrote for class by today at 4 p.m.

Well, I don’t know if this will expedite matters, but here’s the slideshow (PDF) they were planning to use during their presentation in Las Vegas last weekend. Does that help?

Ridiculous. And good for The Tech for putting it online.

Sorry, Charlie — no free speech for you

By Dan Kennedy

On August 11, 2008

In Uncategorized

Charles Evans Hughes forgot something when he wrote the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark Near v. Minnesota decision in 1931.

The chief justice listed national security, obscenity and the imminent threat of violence as essentially the only three reasons that the courts could ever step in and order someone not to exercise his right to free speech. What he left out: information that could result in the MBTA’s losing some fare money. What a bonehead, eh?

Boston Globe reporter John Guilfoil (a former student of mine, by the way) wrote yesterday that U.S. District Judge Douglas Woodlock had granted the T’s request for an injunction preventing three MIT students from presenting their findings on security defects in the Charlie Card, the T’s electronic ticketing system. They had been scheduled to speak at the DEFCON 16 conference in Las Vegas.

For good measure, the T is suing MIT, too, for the grave offense of not teaching its students how to be good, Charlie Card-paying citizens.

In today’s Boston Herald, O’Ryan Johnson reports that one of the students is saying the trio offered to show MBTA officials their findings so they could fix their flawed system. Instead, the T decided to sue them.

For those of you with long memories, you may recall that Judge Woodlock is a piece of work. During the 2004 Democratic National Convention in Boston, Woodlock ruled that a cage set up by officials for the use of protesters was “an offense to the spirit of the First Amendment” — but then declined to do anything about it. He’s not big on newspaper boxes, either.

In 2005, Woodlock was the proud winner of a Boston Phoenix Muzzle Award for his outrages against free speech. It looks like he’s well on his way to a second statuette.

This story had gone nationwide — heck, worldwide — even before the Globe and the Herald got hold of it, as Universal Hub showed on Saturday. This will not end well for Woodlock. In the meantime, though, he’s created an unnecessary hassle for everyone concerned, and emboldened the T, which — wouldn’t you know — won a Muzzle in 2006.

Photo (cc) by David Bruce and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

Stephen Baird on Menino’s crackdown

By Dan Kennedy

On August 3, 2008

In Uncategorized

Musician Stephen Baird, the founder of Street Arts and Buskers Advocates, offers more details on Mayor Tom Menino’s crackdown at Faneuil Hall. In an e-mail to Media Nation, Baird notes that the steel fence erected by city and federal officials blocks the Freedom Trail, something the irony-deprived mayor no doubt fails to appreciate.

I reproduce Baird’s e-mail (which I have lightly edited) with his permission:

The City of Boston and National Park Service put a fence around one of the premier symbols of freedom in America — Faneuil Hall. The fence actually blocks the Freedom Trail. This was done to disenfranchise the civil rights of street artists and the general public who freely choose to peaceably assemble and support them. The fence is a blight not only on the city, but the country. The fence, similar to the old Berlin Wall, is a symbol of Mayor Thomas Menino’s and other government officials’ failure to develop intelligent and equitable public policies and regulations.

There was no warning or public process before this crackdown. Portrait artists, living statues and street performers were suddenly told they could no longer exercise their First Amendment artistic expression in this public park by the police. There are no written guidelines or laws, just the arbitrary whim of the police officers and government officials of where people can perform and audiences can gather.

These actions are all being done in direct defiance of stipulation by Boston city attorneys in the federal court case Community Arts Advocates Inc. v. City of Boston et al. (December 2004), where they stated artists would not be stopped from exercising their First Amendment expression in Sam Adams Park.

Background:

I sued the City of Boston 2004-2006 over arrests and threats of arrest in Boston Common, Downtown Crossing, Copley Square and Sam Adams Park.

The city repealed old Police Rule 75 (from 1850s) and a new law (403) that was just as bad on December 23, 2004, in front of Federal Judge Nancy Gertner. I was threatened with arrest in Sam Adams Park while conducting an interview with Boston Phoenix about this court case. See photograph and details.

I argued that the city could not allow Faneuil Hall audition artists to use Sam Adams Park and not allow other artists. And I won.

I proposed an ordinance similar to the Cambridge ordinance, but the city stated it would use other laws, including the noise ordinance, to control performances. The police have since failed to monitor sound levels with decibel meters. (Sound is also supposed to be inaudible at 100 feet, which could control bucket drummers). The city cannot control performance location issues with out doing drastic, heavy handed and unconstitutional ad hoc use of other laws. See the front page Boston Globe story by Donovan Slack on Aug. 1, 2008.

The City of Boston put chairs and tables in the primary performance area in Sam Adams Park, which pushed artists next to the restaurant that caused the current complaints.

The closing of Filene’s and construction of Downtown Crossing has pushed many artists to Sam Adams Park. There are many conflicts of space, sound and other issues between artists. Artists — Balloon, Living Statues, Portrait Sketch, Bucket Drums — started to set up on north side of Faneuil Hall facing Quincy Market, which has curtailed and caused major tensions with Quincy Market artists.

As long as the city fails to set up performance location guidelines, a lottery system to share the performance locations/time and enforce the noise ordinance consistently/fairly (the police and firemen union picket demonstration were 10 times louder then any performers at Sam Adams Park), then the situation will flare up with arrogant abuse of power that is both mean-spirited and unconstitutional.

I suspect the only way I will be able to bring any measure of equity to this situation is through the federal court.

Stephen H. Baird
Street Arts and Buskers Advocates
Community Arts Advocates Inc.
P.O. Box 300112
Jamaica Plain, MA 02130
E-mail: info {at} BuskersAdvocates {dot} org
Web: www.BuskersAdvocates.org

Cultivating ongoing fundamental relationships between artists and communities by celebrating self-expression as a basic human right essential for the healthy growth of youth, individuals and communities.

Menino’s last tangle with Baird resulted in His Honor’s receiving a 2005 Phoenix Muzzle Award. It looks like he’s well on his way to winning another one.

Photo courtesy of Stephen Baird.

Stop having so much fun

By Dan Kennedy

On August 1, 2008

In Uncategorized

Boston Mayor Tom Menino has really outdone himself with his edict to crack down on street performers at Faneuil Hall Marketplace. His Honor has always tended to prefer other people’s free speech in moderation, but this is ridiculous.

Adam Gaffin: “Staring down from his cave with a sour, Grinchy frown.”

The Outraged Liberal: “I didn’t realize balloon artists were so noisy, although I admit to occasionally getting chills when you twist a balloon and it makes a little squeak.”

What really gets me about Boston Globe reporter Donovan Slack’s story is that this is apparently being done, in part, for the benefit of restaurant patrons sitting outdoors on warm summer days and nights. I mean, we can’t have people who are spending money being bothered by people who aren’t, can we?

“When it’s nice, we like to open the doors,” a restaurant manager named Jennifer Achevarria told Slack. “Our biggest concern is the noise level, which directly affects our paying guests and disturbs the ambience.”

Good grief. And in the shadow of Faneuil Hall no less. Samuel Adams would be frowning on the beer named after him if Jim Koch hadn’t already shrunk his picture to near-invisibility.

Photo (cc) by Chris Kirkman and republished here under a Creative Commons license. Some rights reserved.

(Not) banned in West Roxbury

By Dan Kennedy

On January 24, 2008

In Uncategorized

Anti-gay activist Robert Joyce is trying to get my old paper, the Boston Phoenix, banned in West Roxbury, the Roslindale Transcript reports. Joyce says he doesn’t like the Phoenix’s adult-oriented classified ads, although he adds that it would be OK if escort services offered chicken dinners.

One of Joyce’s targets, liquor store owner Gary Park, says Joyce threatened him if he continued to carry the Phoenix. Jessica Smith writes:

“He [Joyce] walked in here and instead of talking like a gentleman, he started making threats and giving me ultimatums,” said Park.

The threats include promises of a protest. Joyce said that while the group has yet to apply for a permit to protest, his organization was looking for volunteers to hold signs and to organize such an event. Still, that did not sway the man who owns Gary’s Liquors.

Park said he does not intend to stop carrying the publication that he has had in his store for years and is available for free all over the commonwealth.

“Mr. Joyce has way too much time on his hands. He should be helping homeless people and the elderly. If he doesn’t like the paper, then don’t come pick it up,” said Park, who stressed that his business caters to individuals who are age 21 and older.

Someone should tell Joyce that picking up a copy of the Phoenix every week is not mandatory. Although I recommend it.

By the way, the name of Joyce’s organization is the delightfully Orwellian Support Community Decency Inc. (Via Universal Hub, which also links to this story in the West Roxbury Bulletin.)