Sanders introduces freedom to read protec- tion act

Published by the ALA Intellectual Freedom Committee,Nancy C. Kranich, Chair

ISSN 0028-9485 May 2003 Volume LII No. 32 www.ala.org/nif

Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) introduced the “Freedom to Read Protection Act”—HR 1157—on March 6. HR 1157 would return the standards for the FBI to obtain FISA court orders and warrants to investigate library patrons and bookstore customers to those in force before passage of the PATRIOT. Under Sanders’s bill, the FBI would still have access to these records with a court-ordered search warrant, but some type of reasonable cause would be required, not the lower standard created by the USA PATRIOT Act.

HR 1157 also calls for public reporting to determine how provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act are being implemented, in order to better assess civil liberties implications.

At a March 6 press conference, Sanders said: “Under Section 215 of the USA Patriot Act, the person whose records are being searched by the FBI can be anyone. The FBI doesn’t even have to say that it believes the person is involved in criminal activity or that the person is connected to a foreign power. This is not acceptable. The legislation we are introducing today will go a long away in protecting the basic freedoms of every American.”

Three of the bill’s cosponsors also spoke at the press event. Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX) and Raul M.

Grijalva (D-AZ) each spoke about the civil liberties issues and privacy problems caused by the expanded FBI law enforcement powers created by the USA PATRIOT Act. Rep. Grijalva, whose wife is a librarian and whose daughter is a library school student, said that the chilling effect on library users and the other privacy problems raised by cer-tain provisions of the USA PATRIOT Act, shake the “soul and essence of civil liberties.” As the Newsletter went to press, fifty-eight Democrats and five Republicans—Representatives Ron Paul of Texas, C.L. Otter of Idaho, Donald Manzullo of Illinois, Jeff Flake of Arizona, and Roscoe Bartlett of Maryland—have cosponsored the bill.

Trina Magi, past president of the Vermont Library Association and an instrumental leader in getting thirteen towns in Vermont to pass civil liberties resolutions about the USA PATRIOT Act, also spoke. “These provisions…already existed prior to the [PATRIOT] Act . . . and required probable cause and judicial oversight. Now the USA

Sanders introduces freedom to read protec-tion act

(continued on page 125)

90 Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom

in this issuefreedom to read act introduced ........................................89

corporatization constricting radio ....................................91

scholars warn of threats to academic freedom ................91

editors and scientists caution on publishing ....................92

ALA Resolution on USA PATRIOT Act ..........................93

libraries warn of FBI spying ............................................93

Vatican supports Harry Potter ..........................................94

Al-Jazeera wins anti-censorship award ............................94

censorship dateline: libraries, schools, universi-ties, poetry, broadcasting, t-shirt, Internet,art, foreign ................................................................95

from the bench: U.S. Supreme Court, freedom ofassembly, church and state, Internet, newspaper, elections ..................................................................103

is it legal?: libraries, schools, universities, pressfreedom, secrecy and surveillance, child pornography ............................................................109

success stories: libraries, broadcasting, university, art, foreign..............................................117

targets of the censorbooksHarry Potter series ............................................................94Witch Baby ......................................................................117

periodicalsIdaho Statesman..............................................................108

filmsContact [Cuba] ..............................................................102Dreams for All People, Hope for All Time [Cuba] ........102The Grapes of Wrath [Cuba] ..........................................102Memoirs of a Mangy Lover [Cuba] ................................102The Shining [Cuba] ........................................................102Who Moved My Cheese? [Cuba] ....................................102

theaterParadise ............................................................................96The Vagina Monologues ................................................118

Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom is published bimonthly (Jan.,March, May, July, Sept., Nov.) by the American Library Association,50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL 60611. The newsletter is also availableonline at www.ala.org/nif. Subscriptions: $50 per year (includesannual index), back issues $10 each from SubscriptionDepartment, American Library Association. Editorial mail should beaddressed to the Office of Intellectual Freedom, 50 E. Huron St.,Chicago, Illinois 60611. Periodical postage paid at Chicago, IL atadditional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: send address changesto Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom, 50 E. Huron St., Chicago, IL60611.

Views of contributors to the Newsletter on Intellectual Freedomare not necessarily those of the editors, the Intellectual FreedomCommittee, or the American Library Association.

(ISSN 0028-9485)

corporatization constricting radio Music played a crucial role in the national debate over the

Vietnam War. By the late 1960’s, radio stations across thecountry were crackling with blatantly political songs thatbecame mainstream hits. After the National Guard killedfour antiwar demonstrators at Kent State University in Ohioin the spring of 1970, Crosby, Stills, Nash and

Young recorded a song, simply titled “Ohio,” about thehorror of the event, criticizing President Richard Nixon byname. The song was rushed onto the air while sentiment wasstill high, and became both an antiwar anthem and a hugemoneymaker.

A comparable song about George W. Bush’s rush to warin Iraq would have no chance at all today. There are plentyof angry people, many with prime music-buying demo-graphics. But independent radio stations that once wouldhave played edgy, political music have been gobbled up bycorporations that control hundreds of stations and have nowish to rock the boat. Corporate ownership has changedwhat gets played and who plays it. With a few exceptions,the disc jockeys who once existed to discover provocativenew music have long since been put out to pasture. Stationsnow operate from play lists dictated by Corporate Central—lists that some describe as “wallpaper music.”

Recording artists were seen as hysterics when they com-plained during the 1990’s that radio was killing popularmusic by playing too little of it. But musicians have turnedout to be the canaries in the coal mine—the first group to beaffected by the 1996 Telecommunications Act that allowedcorporations to gobble up hundreds of stations, limitingexpression over airwaves that are merely licensed to broad-casters but owned by the American public.

When a media giant swallows a station, it typically firesthe staff and pipes in music along with something that resem-bles news via satellite. To make the local public think thatthings have remained the same, the voice track system some-times includes references to local matters sprinkled into thebroadcast.

What William Safire has described as the “ruination ofindependent radio” started with corporatizing in the 1980’sbut took off dramatically when the 1996 law increased thenumber of stations that one entity could own in a single mar-ket and permitted companies to buy up as many stationsnationally as their deep pockets would allow.

Under the old rules, the top two owners had 115 stationsbetween them. Today, the top two own more than 1,400 sta-tions. In many major markets, a few corporations control 80percent of the listenership or more.

Liberal Democrats are horrified by the legion of conser-vative talk show hosts who dominate the airwaves. But theproblem stretches across party lines. Representative MarkFoley, Republican of Florida, was finding it difficult to reachhis constituents over the air since national radio companiesmoved in, reducing the number of local stations from five to

one. Senator Byron Dorgan, Democrat of North Dakota, hada potential disaster in his district when a freight train carry-ing anhydrous ammonia derailed, releasing a deadly cloudover the city of Minot. When the emergency alert systemfailed, the police called the town radio stations, six of whichare owned by the corporate giant Clear Channel. Accordingto news accounts, no one answered the phone at the stationsfor more than an hour and a half. Three hundred people werehospitalized, some partially blinded by the ammonia. Petsand livestock were killed.

The perils of consolidation can be seen clearly in themusic world. Different stations play formats labeled “adultcontemporary,” “active rock,” “contemporary hit radio” andso on. But studies show that the formats are often different inname only—and that as many as fifty percent of the songsplayed in one format can be found in other formats as well.The point of these sterile play lists is to continually repeatsongs that challenge nothing and no one, blending in largeblocks of commercials.

Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin has introduced abill that would require close scrutiny of mergers that couldpotentially put the majority of the country’s radio stations ina single corporation’s hands. Testimony offered in support ofthe legislation by singer and songwriter Don Henley, bestknown as a member of the Eagles, the rock band, recalled theCongressional payola hearings of 1959–60, which showedthe public how disc jockeys were accepting bribes to spinrecords on the air. Now, Henley said, record companies mustpay large sums to “independent promoters,” who intercedewith radio conglomerates to get songs on the air. Those fees,Henley said, sometimes reach $400,000. Reported in: NewYork Times, February 20. �

scholars’ group warns of increasingthreats to academic freedom

The climate for academic freedom has worsened severelysince September 11 because of a mix of new governmentpolicies and decisions by university administrators, theAmerican Studies Association said in a statement released inearly February. The group cited restrictions on scholarlyresearch and intimidation of students who protest a potentialwar in Iraq as evidence of an environment restricting freespeech on American college campuses.

Amy Kaplan, president-elect of the association and anEnglish professor at the University of Pennsylvania, said thegroup had been discussing the issue since the fall and hadreleased the statement in the hope that academics and stu-dents will “work to keep intelligent debate open and alive.”

“There’s a danger in equating the questioning of theadministration with being un-American and antipatriotic,”Kaplan said.

May 2003 91

The statement, “Intellectual Freedom in a Time of War,”warns that legislation such as the USA PATRIOT Act, whichgives law-enforcement officials more tools and authority totrack suspected terrorists, and Immigration and Naturali-zation Service rules that require colleges to track all of theirinternational students, endanger the intellectual freedominherent in a democracy. The association argues that suchlaws and federal rules impede scholarly endeavors andintimidate many international students, especially those ofMiddle Eastern descent.

“Free and frank intellectual inquiry is under assault byovert legislative acts and by a chilling effect of secrecy andintimidation in the government, media, and on college cam-puses,” the statement says. “This atmosphere hinders ourability to fulfill our role as educators: to promote publicdebate, conduct scholarly research, and most importantly,teach our students to think freely and critically and toexplore diverse perspectives.”

Glenn Ricketts of the National Association of Scholarsargued that the statement failed to cite specific instances ofideological suppression. He called the American-studiesgroup’s response to antiterror-related legislation affectingcolleges as a “kind of knee-jerk charge of McCarthyism.” Healso called on faculty members who agree with the associa-tion’s statement to engage in “rigorous debate” in their cam-pus communities instead of “name calling.”

“It seems like these people don’t like criticism,” Rickettssaid. “They respond by branding their critics as McCarthy-ites.”

The American Studies Association’s statement also criti-cizes Campus Watch, an online project sponsored by theMiddle East Forum, a pro-Israel research organization basedin Philadelphia. The association’s statement says thatCampus Watch equates “criticism of the government withbeing anti-American and anti-patriotic.” Campus Watch hasbeen accused of publishing lists of faculty members and stu-dents who are critical of U.S. foreign policy, although offi-cials of the Middle East Forum deny doing that. Reported in:Chronicle of Higher Education (online), February 7. �

editors and scientists call for caution in publishing research

Thirty-two journal editors and biologists released a state-ment February 15 that calls for greater caution in reviewingand publishing scientific results that could be misused ordangerous. The group released its statement at the annualmeeting of the American Association for the Advancementof Science.

The question of when and how to publish scholarly infor-mation that could be used by terrorists or others seeking to

do harm has intensified since the September 11 attacks andthe anthrax attacks that followed. Some government officialshave threatened to impose restrictions, and scientists andpublishers have discussed crafting their own approaches, inpart to ward off such intervention. The statement is one sucheffort. The statement says that some information is unethicalto publish, but it does not define what experiments or factswould fall into that category.

“This is a truly gray area,” said Ronald M. Atlas, whopresented the statement at the conference. Atlas is presidentof the American Society for Microbiology and a professor ofbiology and dean of the graduate school at the University ofLouisville.

“We’re not proposing something radical,” added Atlas.Instead, the editors and researchers call on journal editors toconsider how publishing can affect security, and to begineducating scientists about the potential societal impacts oftheir work. When editors conclude that papers may result ingreater harm than benefit to society, the reports of such stud-ies should be modified or not published, the statement says.

The microbiology society has already modified twopapers that caused concern during review, Atlas said. In one,editors reworded introductory statements that had calledattention to the dangers posed by the topic of the paper. Inthe other, they deleted a section that had contained whatAtlas called “cookbook detail,” giving instructions on howto make a hazardous agent more dangerous.

Some journals, including those published by the microbi-ology society, have already established procedures for find-ing problematic papers, and those procedures could serve asmodels for journals just beginning to grapple with securityissues. The microbiology society’s eleven journals ask peerreviewers to alert editors to possibly dangerous papers, andurge editors to contact the society’s publications board ifthey need further guidance.

Some journals, such as Science and the Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, have recruited securityexperts with whom they can consult, if necessary.

John D. Steinbruner, a professor of public policy at theUniversity of Maryland at College Park, called the editorsand scientists’ statement “a very, very important develop-ment,” adding that it is “the first step in trying to exerciseprudential judgment.” To ensure that publication does notendanger security, he said, a review process that looks atsocial implications of scientific work is necessary. “Thatprocess does not yet exist,” he said.

John H. Marburger, III, director of the White HouseOffice of Science and Technology Policy, expressed supportfor the editors’ efforts. In a prepared statement, he said,“This step provides assurance that the publishers are alert tothe possibility that terrorists might exploit research results,and are prepared to take action.” Reported in: Chronicle ofHigher Education (online), February 17. �


Resolution on the USA PATRIOT Actand Related Measures That Infringeon the Rights of Library Users

The following resolution was approved by the ALACouncil at its Midwinter Meeting in Philadelphia onJanuary 29.

WHEREAS, The American Library Association affirmsthe responsibility of the leaders of the United States to pro-tect and preserve the freedoms that are the foundation of ourdemocracy; and

WHEREAS, Libraries are a critical force for promotingthe free flow and unimpeded distribution of knowledge andinformation for individuals, institutions, and communities; and

WHEREAS, The American Library Association holds thatsuppression of ideas undermines a democratic society; and

WHEREAS, Privacy is essential to the exercise of freespeech, free thought, and free association; and, in a library,the subject of users’ interests should not be examined orscrutinized by others; and

WHEREAS, Certain provisions of the USA PATRIOTAct, the revised Attorney General Guidelines to the FederalBureau of Investigation, and other related measures expandthe authority of the federal government to investigate citi-zens and non-citizens, to engage in surveillance, and tothreaten civil rights and liberties guaranteed under theUnited States Constitution and Bill of Rights; and

WHEREAS, The USA PATRIOT Act and other recentlyenacted laws, regulations, and guidelines increase the likeli-hood that the activities of library users, including their use ofcomputers to browse the Web or access e-mail, may be undergovernment surveillance without their knowledge or con-sent; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That the American Library Associationopposes any use of governmental power to suppress the freeand open exchange of knowledge and information or to intim-idate individuals exercising free inquiry; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Associationencourages all librarians, library administrators, library gov-erning bodies, and library advocates to educate their users,staff, and communities about the process for compliancewith the USA PATRIOT Act and other related measures andabout the dangers to individual privacy and the confidential-ity of library records resulting from those measures; and, beit further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Associationurges librarians everywhere to defend and support user pri-vacy and free and open access to knowledge and informa-tion; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association willwork with other organizations, as appropriate, to protect therights of inquiry and free expression; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Association willtake actions as appropriate to obtain and publicize informa-tion about the surveillance of libraries and library users by

law enforcement agencies and to assess the impact on libraryusers and their communities; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Associationurges all libraries to adopt and implement patron privacy andrecord retention policies that affirm that “the collection ofpersonally identifiable information should only be a matterof routine or policy when necessary for the fulfillment of themission of the library” (ALA Privacy: An Interpretation ofthe Library Bill of Rights); and, be it further

RESOLVED, That the American Library Associationconsiders sections of the USA PATRIOT Act are a presentdanger to the constitutional rights and privacy rights oflibrary users and urges the United States Congress to: (1)provide active oversight of the implementation of the USAPATRIOT Act and other related measures, and the revisedAttorney General Guidelines to the Federal Bureau ofInvestigation; (2) hold hearings to determine the extent ofthe surveillance on library users and their communities; and(3) amend or change the sections of these laws and theguidelines that threaten or abridge the rights of inquiry andfree expression; and, be it further

RESOLVED, That this resolution be forwarded to thePresident of the United States, to the Attorney General of theUnited States, to Members of both Houses of Congress, tothe library community, and to others as appropriate. �

libraries warn of FBI spyingSeveral libraries in California have begun to warn book

lovers that the U.S. government may be monitoring theirreading habits in a sweeping effort to crack down on terror-ism. “It’s only been recently that people have become awarejust how pernicious it is,” said Anne Turner, director oflibraries in Santa Cruz, a coastal city south of San Francisco.She added: “Our board decided to take a public stand” andposted warnings at its branches as of Friday [March 7].

President Bush signed sweeping anti-terror legislation,the USA PATRIOT Act, into law in October 2001 in reactionto the September 11 attacks. Section 215 allows the FBI,with search warrants, to go into libraries and bookstores anddemand circulation records or receipts of anyone connectedto an investigation of spying or international terrorism.

Libraries and library associations across the country havecomplained about the new rules for some time and one, atleast, had started posting warnings at its branches. “Warning:Although the Santa Cruz Library makes every effort to pro-tect your privacy, under the federal USA PATRIOT Act(Public Law 107–56), records of the books and other materi-als you borrow from this library may be obtained by federalagents,” the Santa Cruz warning reads. “That federal lawprohibits library workers from informing you if federalagents have obtained records about you.”

Turner said she knew of no incidents where the FBIsought records at her ten libraries over the past year. But a

May 2003 93

recent study found that FBI agents had visited 85 academiclibraries.

The FBI measures also have spurred criticism abroad,and earlier this year, Europe’s largest security and humanrights watchdog, the OSCE, criticized the United States forspying on book buyers and library patrons.

Judith Krug, director of ALA’s Office for IntellectualFreedom, said she opposed posting signs in libraries becausesuch warnings could undermine the belief that people have aright to privacy. “My concern with posting signs is that youcan terminate the user’s expectation that what they read inlibraries is protected by statute,” she said. “I think there aremore effective ways [than signs] to raise awareness about theneed to change this particular section of the PATRIOT Actchanged.” Reported in: Reuters, March 11. �

Vatican supports Harry PotterHarry Potter gained the Vatican’s seal of approval

February 3 when an official said the books helped children“to see the difference between good and evil.”

“I don’t think there’s anyone in this room who grew upwithout fairies, magic and angels in their imaginary world,”Father Peter Fleetwood told reporters.

Some religious groups have accused the books of glam-orizing magic and the occult. Fleetwood was answeringquestions following the release of a 92-page Vatican docu-ment which examines the growing—and for the Church,troubling—appeal of New Age religions and practices.These may include strands of various religions, includingworship of nature, cosmic religiosity, pagan rituals andbeliefs, astrology, and alternative health practices.

In the unusually self-critical study, the Vatican admitsthat the “immense” popularity of the New Age movementsuggests the Catholic Church does not always provide theanswers to today’s spiritual questions. “The success of NewAge offers the Church a challenge,” the document states.“People feel the Christian religion no longer offers them—orperhaps never gave them—something they really need.”

Criticisms of New Age beliefs contained in the documentdo not, it seems, apply to the magical practices described inthe Harry Potter series of adventure stories. Magicians andwitches, Father Peter said, “are not bad or a banner for anti-Christian ideology.” He said British author J. K. Rowlingwas “Christian by conviction, is Christian in her mode of liv-ing, even in her way of writing.” Reported in: BBC News,February 3. �

Al-Jazeera wins anti-censorshipaward

Al-Jazeera, the Arab TV satellite channel whose war cov-erage has angered the U.S., has been awarded a prestigiousprize for upholding freedom of expression. The Qatar-basedchannel won the award for the best circumvention of censor-ship at Index on Censorship’s third annual Freedom ofExpression Awards March 26.

“Al-Jazeera’s apparent independence in a region wheremuch of the media is state run has transformed it into themost popular station in the Middle East,” said the panel ofjudges. “Its willingness to give opposition groups a high-profile platform has left it with a reputation for credible newsamong Arab viewers. But that same quality has enraged Arabgovernments and the U.S.—which have sought to have thestation more closely controlled.”

The executive director of al-Jazeera’s London bureau,Muftah Al Suwaidan, said the station was “proud” to receivethe award from “such a prestigious organization, which hasas its core concern the well being and the development of ourprofession, and the maintenance of professional integrity.”

“Since its inception, al-Jazeera has been at the forefrontof the struggle to maintain free, independent and balancedreporting,” said Al Suwaidan. “Different people have differ-ent views but the common denominator should alwaysremain the right of people to know and the freedom of all toexpress themselves.”

Al-Jazeera caused a furor when it broadcast shockingimages of Iraqi and American victims of the conflict, includ-ing pictures of captured U.S. soldiers and of the head of achild, aged about 12, that had been split apart, reportedly inthe U.S.-led assault on Basra in southern Iraq. However, sub-scriptions to the Arabic language channel in Europe havedoubled since the war began, indicating there is considerabledemand for an alternative to western news channels.Reported in: The Guardian, March 27. �


VISIT THE NEWSLETTER ONINTELLECTUAL FREEDOM

ONLINE AT WWW.ALA.ORG/NIF

May 2003

librariesCedarville, Arkansas

A dozen national groups and author Judy Blume asked afederal judge March 3 to return J. K. Rowling’s Harry Potterbooks to the library shelves of a western Arkansas schooldistrict. The Cedarville school board voted to remove thebooks in June.

“It is incredible that school officials have censored booksthat are exciting a whole generation of kids about reading,”said Chris Finan, president of the American BooksellersFoundation for Free Expression (ABFFE).

The Cedarville school board censored the Potter bookswhen a parent complained that they show “that there are‘good witches’ and ‘good magic.’” She also claimed that thebooks teach that “parents/teachers/rules are stupid and aresomething to be ignored.”

The books are kept on a restricted shelf. Students musthave their parents’ permission to borrow them. The schoolboard ignored the recommendation of a committee of stu-dents, parents and librarians that voted 15-0 to continue topermit unrestricted access. In July, one of the parents on thecommittee joined his wife and son in filing a lawsuit thataccused the school board of violating the First Amendmentright to free speech and to receive information. Attorneys forthe family submitted a motion for summary judgment, urg-ing the judge to make a decision based on the facts that hadbeen presented in documents submitted to the court. Thenational groups filed an amicus brief supporting the motion.The judge can either grant the request or order a hearing.

This is the first legal challenge to a restriction on the useof Harry Potter books in a public school. For the last fouryears, the Potter books have been the most frequently chal-lenged books in the country. In addition to ABFFE and JudyBlume, the amicus brief was signed by the Freedom to ReadFoundation, Americans United for Separation of Church andState, the Association of American Publishers, the Associa-tion of Booksellers for Children, the Center for FirstAmendment Rights, the Children’s Book Council, Feministsfor Free Expression, the National Coalition Against Censor-ship, Peacefire, PEN American Center, People for theAmerican Way Foundation, the Student Press Law Center,and Washington Area Lawyers for the Arts.

Topeka, KansasA proposal to require that public libraries install com-

puter filters to shield minors from Internet pornographywould be costly and ineffective, opponents told a KansasHouse committee March 11. The testimony before the state’sFederal and State Affairs Committee came one day after pro-ponents spoke for the measure. Among the supporters was aTopeka woman who said the Topeka-Shawnee CountyPublic Library was not policing its computers and their useby minors.

Robert Banks, the Topeka library’s deputy operationsdirector, denied the woman’s assertion. He said the librarystaff monitors the computer activities of children and adultsand expels those who violate a posted policy on proper use.

“We have had people arrested in the past and will do soin the future,” Banks said.

Some legislators agreed with opponents who said the billwas unnecessary. “It seems like the only problem—if thereis a problem—is in Topeka,” said Rep. Todd Novascone, R-Wichita. Novascone’s observation was based on commentsfrom representatives from Wichita, Dodge City, Alma andPottawatomie County who said their libraries already hadeither Internet filters or policies on computer use or both.

Rosanne Goble, executive director of the Kansas LibraryAssociation, said Internet filters would cost $150 per com-puter and would take time and resources away from servingthe public. Reported in: Associated Press, March 12.

schoolsDearborn, Michigan

There’s no misunderstanding 16-year-old BrettonBarber’s opinion of his nation’s chief executive. “Interna-tional Terrorist” were the words framing President Bush’spicture on a black T-shirt the Dearborn High School juniorwore to class on February 17. School officials told him totake it off, turn it inside out or go home. He went home. Thenext day he returned, with a different shirt. School officials

95


said they were worried about inflaming passions at theschool, where a majority of students are Arab-American.

“I wore the T-shirt to express my antiwar sentiment,” saidBarber, a budding political advocate who joined the ACLUlast year and had been to three antiwar demonstrations in theprevious month. “In the morning, I got a lot of complimentsand no negative feedback. But at lunch, the vice principalcame and said I had to turn it inside out or go home. When Iasked why, he said I couldn’t wear a shirt that promotes ter-rorism.”

Barber is steeped in civil liberties law, so his talk with theprincipal, Judith Coebly, revolved around the Tinker case,which dealt with students who wore black armbands toprotest the Vietnam War. In that case, the court famouslyfound that students did “not shed their constitutional rights tofreedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate,”although educators may stop expression that substantiallyinterferes with the functioning of a school.

“She immediately asked if I was familiar with theSupreme Court case, Tinker v. Des Moines,” Barber said. “Isaid I was very familiar with it. She said it happened in 1969.And I said no, it happened in 1965, but it got decided in1969. Then she quoted directly from the dissenting opinion,to say that the school has the right to control speech. I knewthat wasn’t how the case came out, but I didn’t argue withher.”

Bretton said he wanted to express his anti-war position bywearing the shirt, which he ordered on the Internet. “Bushhas already killed over 1,000 people in Afghanistan—that’sterrorism in itself,” he said. He said he wore the shirt for apresentation he made that morning in English class. Theassignment was a “compare and contrast” essay, and hechose to compare Bush with Saddam Hussein.

Dearborn Public Schools representative Dave Mustonensaid students have the right to freedom of expression, buteducators are sensitive to tensions caused by the conflictwith Iraq. “It was felt that emotions are running very high,”said Mustonen. “The shirt posed a potential disruption to thelearning environment at the school. Our No. 1 obligation isto make sure we have a safe learning environment for all ofthe students.”

About 55 percent of the district’s 17,600 students areArab-American. Imad Hamad of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said officials took the rightapproach. Hamad said he hoped they would take it one stepfurther and use the experience to educate students on how toexercise freedoms in positive ways.

“I see no winner here,” Hamad said. “The school did theright thing to defuse any potential conflict among the studentpopulation. I assume they would do the same thing if anothermessage was displayed that was offensive to a different culture.”

Lindsey Hoganson, another 16-year-old junior, said stu-dents can handle discussions about today’s political issueswithout passions rising. She disagreed with the school’sdecision to ban the shirt. “A lot of people are worried about

the war. We talk about it at school a lot,” she said. “Talkingabout it isn’t going to disturb the learning environment,because the topic’s already been brought up in school.”Reported in: freedomforum.org, February 19; New YorkTimes, February 26.

Cincinnati, OhioParadise has been fatwa’ed in Cincinnati, at least accord-

ing to the playwright Glyn O’Malley. His latest play,Paradise deals with suicide bombers and the conflictbetween Palestinians and Israelis. As a work in progress itwas “killed before it was finished,” he said.

Commissioned by the Cincinnati Playhouse in the Park,that city’s principal institutional theater, the 50-minute playwas to tour high schools beginning in March, but the tourwas canceled after a protest by local Muslims. As a result,there has been a windstorm of controversy in Cincinnati. Inresponse, the Cincinnati Playhouse scheduled a free publicreading of the play. Ed Stern, the producing artistic director,announced that teachers, principals and leaders of Jewishand Muslim groups would be invited.

The play was inspired by the story of Ayat al-Akhras, an18-year-old Palestinian suicide bomber who blew herself uplast March in Jerusalem, killing three people, including her-self and Rachel Levy, a 17-year-old Israeli. Both were highschool seniors. Bert Goldstein, a director for the Cincinnatitheater, had suggested the idea for the play to O’Malley, theauthor most recently of Mama Love, presented last year inManhattan. After he submitted several scenes fromParadise, he was awarded the $5,000 Lazarus New PlayPrize for Young Audiences.

In anticipation of possible criticism in dealing with suchan incendiary subject, Stern presented an unrehearsed read-ing of the play December 16 for an invited audience: theplaywright (who lives in New York); Stern and Goldstein,who was scheduled to direct the play; and several local peo-ple: Rabbi Robert B. Barr of Congregation Beth Adam;Elizabeth Frierson, a professor of Islamic history at theUniversity of Cincinnati; and Majed Dabdoub, a structuralengineer.

To the playwright’s surprise, he said, Dabdoub wasaccompanied by ten other Muslims, and the discussion afterthe reading was filled with rancor. “It was hardly a debate,”O’Malley said. “It was more like an attack, and I was theobject of this fire. They said the play was worse than an F16fighter-bomber in the damage that it would do and also thatit was poison. The fact that I was called anti-Islam is verydangerous. People get killed for that.”

“There was one man who said—chillingly—that suicidebombing was ‘the same as “Give me liberty or give medeath,”’” O’Malley continued. “To my mind there is nothingabout adult men strapping bombs onto kids—male andfemale—and sending them off to kill themselves and murderothers that resonates even remotely with Patrick Henry’snow axiomatic saying about the American Revolution.”

May 2003 97

Rabbi Barr said the play was called racist and “a Zionistpiece of propaganda.” In an open letter he said that he hadhis own “issues with the play and was prepared to expressthem, but I was not prepared for the barrage of criticism thatwas heaped upon the author from the members of theMuslim community.” He concluded: “Cincinnati’s reputa-tion as a community that tries to control the arts and allowsbigots to dominate the discussion is accurate. Once againCincinnati looks small, foolish and provincial.”

In 1990 Dennis Barrie, the director of the ContemporaryArts Center in Cincinnati, was charged with obscenity for anexhibition of Robert Mapplethorpe photographs. The trialended in Barrie’s acquittal, but the city gained an image as aplace that condoned censorship.

When he heard the reading of the play, Dabdoub said, itwas as if “someone was slapping me in the face.” He said theplay was “one-sided, not balanced, not adequate to go toschools.” One specific criticism was that before thePalestinian girl, named Fatima in the play, commits suicide,she put on a hijab, or headcovering. “The impression thatleaves with the children is that when they see someone witha headcovering, then she is a terrorist,” Dabdoub said. “Ihave two daughters, and they go to high school, and theywear headcoverings.”

On the broader issue, he said: “Everybody is against sui-cide bombing. I can’t imagine somebody blowing them-selves up. When I see it on TV, I turn it off. Who is interestedin seeing body parts? Why are we focusing on this? What isthe message? To promote hatred? Are we trying to scare peo-ple in this country? We need to promote peace and not topromote war.”

Humeidan, one of the other Muslims at the reading, saidthat it was a heated discussion. “People have very emotionalties to the Middle East,” he said. “I felt that the concept ofeducating young people about the Middle East is very impor-tant. But the play had too many stereotypes and too manybiases against the Palestinians in the version that was pre-sented to us.”’

The intention, O’Malley said, was to create “fictionalcharacters driven by psychological, physical, emotional fac-tors, not by religion.” Through many drafts, he said, “I’veworked to show the hard-line point of view from both sides ofthe conflict without justifying or condoning suicide bombing.”

After the reading, Muslim representatives contacted theHuman Relations Commission of Cincinnati and asked for apublic hearing. The Muslims’ “Fact Sheet on Paradise” saidthe play was hateful, deceitful, vengeful, spineless, andopportunistic: “It is based on a snapshot of history whichdoes not tell the full story of crimes against Palestinians car-ried out by the Israeli government during the last 54 years ofbrutal occupation.” The Human Relations Commission didnot take any action and sent a message to Dabdoub saying,“We are not in the business of censorship.”

Stern, who did not stay for the discussion after the read-ing, praised the play for giving “a human face” to what could

be seen as a melodramatic situation. “People want heroesand villains,” he said in a telephone interview last week.“Glyn created a human drama, with flawed human beings.”Expressing his regret, he canceled the school tour. He said hewas planning to have the public reading of the play “on ourturf, under our control.”

“We want to take works with social consciousness andresonance to students,” he said. “I was naïve enough to thinkif we can do Fires in the Mirror [a play about Jewish-Blackrelations in Brooklyn by Anna Deveare Smit], we could do aplay about the Palestinian situation.”

In official statements, both the writers’ group PEN andthe Dramatists Guild of America deplored the cancellation ofthe play. Later, when Stern said he would give the play apublic reading at the theater, representatives of PEN sent hima letter commending his decision.

“My play is about the extreme fundamentalist justifica-tions on both sides for actions that are tearing up and killingpeople on both sides of the conflict in the Middle East,”O’Malley said. “Real death. Real blood. Real loss. Realtragedy.” In the play, the lives of the two girls (both 17 in thisfictionalized version) are made parallel. Each has a dream ofa career. Sarah, an Israeli who has spent the last three yearsin the United States, wants to be a photographer. Fatima isdrawn to writing. There are three other characters: Sarah’smother, Fatima’s cousin who wants her to join him in theUnited States and a Palestinian who helps strap the bomb onFatima. “How many can I kill?” she asks, and adds, “I wantyou to put extra nails.” She says she wants the maximumdamage, “the most they have ever seen.”

Both Dabdoub and Humeidan said they would have noobjection to the play having a public reading at the play-house, and if that were the case they would plan to see itagain. “I don’t have a problem with doing it in a theater,”Dabdoub said. “It’s a free country. The problem I have is totake it to schools. I’m not censoring anything. If I’m defend-ing the rights of my children, is that extremist?” Reported in:New York Times, February 3.

Klein, TexasLast October, Marla Dukler, a 17-year-old honor student,

and sixteen other students at Klein High School asked theprincipal for permission to form a Gay-Straight Alliance,saying it would promote tolerance. In the months since then,neither the principal nor the school district in this affluentsuburb north of Houston has given the students permission toform the club. Convinced that the school district is deliber-ately delaying a decision to prevent the club from beingformed, Dukler and the American Civil Liberties Union suedthe Klein Independent School District in Federal DistrictCourt in Houston, asking the court to order school officialsto approve the club.

The lawsuit accuses the district of violating Dukler’sFirst Amendment rights and the Equal Access Act, a federallaw that bars schools from discriminating against clubs


based on the content of their speech. The suit was filed soonafter the ACLU sued Boyd County High School inKentucky, asking it to reinstate the Gay-Straight Allianceafter the superintendent closed all clubs in the school. Hisdecision to allow the club had set off large protests.

More than 1,200 Gay-Straight Alliances operate in highschools across the nation, but in conservative Harris County,some parents say they fear that a club in Klein High wouldpromote homosexual sex. Dukler, who is on the varsity ten-nis team and on Klein High’s state championship math team,denied that the club would promote sex.

“The club will be to talk about tolerance, to teach toler-ance,” she said. “It will try to make our school a little bitsafer, try to make it bearable to walk down the hallway.”

One day in December, she said, three boys sneaked up onher. “One shoved me into a wall of lockers, and the other twocalled me a dyke and a faggot. My leg was really bruised.There’s verbal abuse everywhere.” Her father, MalcolmDukler, strongly supports her effort to start the club, saying,“The issue is the safety of our child.”

David Feldman, the school district’s lawyer, criticized theACLU for filing the suit, saying, “Klein hasn’t violated any-thing yet because no decision has been made on the club’sapplication.” Feldman said the district would announce adecision soon. He does not know, he said, whether the clubwill be approved. He said the public’s feelings would notcontrol the decision.

Lizbeth Johnson, the district’s assistant superintendentfor community relations, said many clubs, not just the Gay-Straight Alliance, were waiting for approval. “We’ve heardfrom more parents on this issue than on some other clubs,”Johnson said. “We’re getting responses both positive andnegative.”

District officials said the high school’s principal, PatHuff, would not comment, but Huff said earlier in Januarythat he gave the Gay-Straight Alliance application to thesuperintendent “because of the controversial nature of theclub” and because of the district’s conservative population.

Huff said: “We’re a little different than some of the otherhigh schools maybe in the inner city that have allowed theclub to go forward. It would be a different issue out here. Ihave to always be thinking about the people, our con-stituency.”

David George, who is Dukler’s lawyer and the presidentof the ACLU’s Houston chapter, said the school districtappeared to be trying to suppress an unpopular club. “Thelaw doesn’t say just because the average citizen of the schooldistrict is uncomfortable you get to ban it,” George said.“The Equal Access Act is clear that students are allowed tohave clubs, regardless of the viewpoint of the speech used.Klein High School is simply violating federal law.”

While waiting for the court’s decision, Dukler goes onwith her life as a high school junior, studying for exams,playing in tennis matches and looking at colleges. She said

she was heartened that 200 students had signed a petitionsupporting the club. Roughly 3,700 students attend KleinHigh. “I’ve spoken to people at other schools, and they toldme there was harassment before the G.S.A. started,” she said.“But when it got going and working, when these peoplespread the message about tolerance, a lot of the harassmentstopped.” Reported in: New York Times, February 2.

universitiesBoston, Massachusetts

The alumni association at Tufts University has rescindedits decision to give a prestigious campus honor to a seniorwho participated in a noisy protest at a speech given by for-mer President George H.W. Bush in February. The senior,Elizabeth Monnin, joined a group of students in protestingBush at the annual Fares Lecture, which attracted a crowd ofapproximately 4,800, including prominent alumni and uni-versity trustees. Large crowds of students demonstrated out-side the lecture hall, while inside, some students stood andturned their back on Bush, chanted over his words, blewwhistles, and held up banners, including an American flagemblazoned with an obscenity.

Eventually security guards escorted out many of thesestudents, including Monnin. It was at this point that wit-nesses say she flashed an obscene hand gesture at Bush.Monnin said that it was actually another student who madethe gesture.

The incident sparked a heated debate on the campusabout the appropriateness of the protest, and an open forumwas held to discuss the lecture in greater detail. Meanwhile,the Tufts University Alumni Association decided not to giveMonnin a Senior Award as planned. The award, which car-ries no monetary stipend, is given to a dozen seniors eachyear who display “academic achievement, wide participationin campus and community activities, outstanding qualities ofleadership, and potential for future alumni leadership,”according to Nancy A. Sardella, the university’s assistantdirector for alumni relations.

Monnin, who is majoring both in women’s studies andpeace and justice studies, has made a name for herself on thecampus as a political activist. She has worked with suchcampus organizations as the Tufts Feminist Alliance,Students for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and AmnestyInternational. She was chosen as an Omidyar Scholar, whichis a campus program supporting community-service work bystudents identified as leaders at the institution. She was alsoa finalist for the Wendell Phillips Award, which brings withit the honor of speaking at graduation.

According to Alan M. MacDougall, president of thealumni association, Monnin’s behavior at the Fares Lecturewas “distasteful and inappropriate.”

May 2003 99

“The award is given by the alumni association for quali-ties of leadership,” he said. “We felt strongly that one suchquality is the ability to listen to the opinions of others. As adiverse association, including four generations of peoplefrom very diverse backgrounds, we have to be careful to lis-ten to one another in order to get our work done. We felt shedidn’t measure up to that standard.”

But Monnin sees the situation as one of censorship.“People in power don’t have to get out and rally to maketheir points,” she said. “They can do things like take anaward away from a student who is making an argument theydon’t support.” Reported in: Chronicle of Higher Education(online), March 25.

poetryWashington, D.C.

The White House said January 29 that it had postponed apoetry symposium because of concerns that the event wouldbe politicized. Some poets had said they wanted to protestmilitary action against Iraq. The symposium on the poetry ofEmily Dickinson, Langston Hughes and Walt Whitman wasscheduled for February 12. No future date was announced.

“While Mrs. Bush respects the right of all Americans toexpress their opinions, she, too, has opinions and believes itwould be inappropriate to turn a literary event into a politi-cal forum.’’ Noelia Rodriguez, spokeswoman for first ladyLaura Bush, said.

Mrs. Bush, a former librarian who has made teaching andearly childhood development her signature issues, has held aseries of White House symposiums to salute America’sauthors. The gatherings are usually lively affairs with dis-cussions of literature and its societal impact. But the poetrysymposium soon inspired a nationwide protest. Sam Hamill,a poet and founder of the highly regarded Copper CanyonPress, declined the invitation and e-mailed friends asking foranti-war poems or statements. He encouraged those whoplanned to attend to bring along anti-war poems.

Hamill said he received more than 1,500 contributions,including ones from poets W. S. Merwin, Adrienne Rich, andLawrence Ferlinghetti.

“I’m putting in 18-hour days. I’m 60 and I’m tired, butit’s pretty wonderful,’’ said Hamill, based in Port Townsend,Washington, and author of such works as “Destination Zero’’and “Gratitude.’’

Marilyn Nelson, Connecticut’s poet laureate, said thatshe had accepted the White House invitation and hadplanned to wear a silk scarf with peace signs that she com-missioned. “I had decided to go because I felt my presencewould promote peace,’’ she said. Reported in: AssociatedPress, January 30.

broadcastingNew York, New York

MTV refused to accept a commercial opposing war inIraq, citing a policy against advocacy spots that it said pro-tects the channel from having to run ads from any interestgroup whose cause may be loathsome. Nonetheless, viewersin New York and Los Angeles were able to see the rejectedspot from Not in Our Name on MTV’s “Total Request Live”and “Direct Effect,” because its backers did an end-runaround the channel by buying time on local cable providers.

Commercials for and against the war, with celebrities likeSusan Sarandon, Janeane Garofalo and Fred Thompson, hadbeen rejected by networks, cable channels and affiliates,before finding safer haven on regional cable operators likeTime Warner Cable and Comcast. A commercial starringMartin Sheen, who plays the president of the United Stateson NBC’s West Wing, appeared in Washington and New Yorkvia local cable companies, without even trying any nationalbuys.

The commercial rejected by MTV was directed byBarbara Kopple, winner of two Academy Awards for herdocumentaries. In the ad, young people speak to the cameraabout their opposition to a war, with scenes from recent anti-war marches interspersed through the spot. Although MTVincluded parts of the rejected commercial in one news seg-ment on March 5, timed to coincide with youth protests, net-work executives said accepting money to show it wouldcross a line.

“The decision was made years ago that we don’t acceptadvocacy advertising because it really opens us up to accept-ing every point of view on every subject,” said GrahamJames, a spokesman at MTV in New York. (MTV also turneddown an ad from the group True Majority that featuredGarofalo.)

Most networks and cable channels share that view. Forexample, CNN, in accordance with its policy against advo-cacy ads related to regions in conflict, rejected ads from thegovernments of Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United ArabEmirates, as well as a group trying to bolster support forIsrael. But in times of crisis, when such policies block theplans of advocacy groups trying to influence events, therules become more visible and the object of intense criticism.

“It is irresponsible for news organizations not to acceptads that are controversial on serious issues, assuming theyare not scurrilous or in bad taste,” said Alex Jones, directorof the Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics andPublic Policy at Harvard. “In the world we live in, with thekind of media concentration we have, the only way thatunpopular beliefs can be aired sometimes is if the monopolyvehicle agrees to accept an ad.”

Miles Solay, a youth representative of Not in Our Name,said, “From the very beginning, the antiwar movement has


had to buy some free speech.” He added that even MTV’scoverage of antiwar sentiment had not made up for what hisgroup viewed as promotional segments on military life or anhourlong forum with Tony Blair, prime minister of Britainand President Bush’s closest ally on Iraq. For the network toreject an anti-war spot when it routinely runs recruiting com-mercials for the military is inconsistent, Solay said.

“It’s important for young people to be heard and have anoutlet,” Kopple said. She and the staff at her productioncompany, Cabin Creek Center in New York, worked free tofilm and edit the spot.

Supporters of an invasion of Iraq have seen doorsslammed on them as well. The Citizens United Foundation,a group that ran commercials in 1991 supporting the nomi-nation of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court, made itsown commercial supporting President Bush and a possiblewar in Iraq. Starring Fred Thompson, a former RepublicanSenator and an actor now appearing on Law & Order, thespot was produced to counter the celebrity factor of theSheen spot and others from the antiwar camp.

When the group tried to buy commercial time duringMeet the Press on the NBC affiliate in Washington, the affil-iate declined, saying it had refused the Sheen commercial,and needed to be fair.

“It’s wrong for them to reject Martin Sheen’s ad and theFred Thompson ad,” said David N. Bossie, president of theCitizens United Foundation in Sterling, Virginia. “Theyshould reserve their right to reject things,” he added, “butthey should not reject everything, just to protect themselvesfrom having to make hard decisions.”

Broadcast operations with blanket no-advocacy policiesinclude CBS, ABC, NBC, and Fox Broadcasting, along withcable channels like CNN and MTV, a Viacom subsidiary.The policy at CBS protects the integrity of its news depart-ment, the public discourse and local sensibilities around thecountry, said Martin Franks, executive vice president. Headded that local affiliates were free to accept such ads if theydeemed them inoffensive to the community.

“How could you take an advocacy ad and have it reflectthe values of the entire nation?” he asked. “On the CBS tel-evision network,” he added, “we think that informed discus-sion comes from our news programming.”

Fox News, a News Corporation sibling of Fox Broad-casting, said it reserved some flexibility in its decision mak-ing. “We evaluate everything on a case-by-case basis,” saidKevin Brown, vice president for Eastern sales. Controversialcommercials must be checked for accuracy and any legal lia-bility they might create for Fox, he said.

Advocacy groups, however, have discovered one benefitof having their ads blocked: they often get news coverage fortheir causes by holding news conferences to denounce therejection of their commercials. And Sen. Thompson waseven invited onto Meet the Press, where the ad was shown inits entirety and he got to argue in favor of war in Iraq.

But the flurry of free news coverage is just a consolationprize, said Jones of the Shorenstein Center. “That’s a game

of very highly diminishing returns. Maybe that happens fora couple of days, and then it goes away.” Reported in: NewYork Times, March 13.

t-shirtGuilderland, New York

A father-and-son outing to a local shopping mall March 3touched off a furor over freedom of expression stemmingfrom the father’s refusal to take off a T-shirt emblazonedwith the words “Peace on Earth.” Stephen Downs, 60, alawyer who works for the state, and his son Roger, 31, saidthey went to Crossgates Mall to pick up the custom-made T-shirts at a store. The elder Downs also had the words “GivePeace a Chance” printed on the back of his shirt. His son’sshirt read “No War with Iraq” and “Let Inspections Work.”

They said they decided to wear the T-shirts over theirturtlenecks, and headed to the food court to have dinner.Soon afterward, they said, security guards approached themwhile they were eating and requested that they take off theshirts. His son complied, but Downs did not. “I didn’t thinkI had to,” Stephen Downs said. “It seemed to me my FirstAmendment rights permitted me to wear the T-shirt.” He wasarrested by the local police and charged with trespassing.

Roger Downs said that his father, while not the type tojoin protests or demonstrations, felt strongly that individualsshould be able to express themselves. “And his message waspeace. I mean, ‘Peace on Earth,’ that’s more of a Christmascard than an anti-war slogan.”

Tim Kelley, director of operations for Pyramid MallManagement, which owns Crossgates Mall, said that secu-rity guards were responding to a complaint about Downs andhis son. “The individuals were approached by securitybecause of their actions and interference with other shop-pers,” he wrote. “Their behavior, coupled with their clothing,to express to others their personal views on world affairswere disruptive of customers.”

But Kelley did not elaborate on who made the complaint,or what the disruptive behavior was. The Guilderland policechief, James Murley, said that the mall’s management calledhim and asked if the trespassing charge could be withdrawn.He said that his officer did not want to arrest Downs andspent more than an hour trying to broker a truce between thetwo sides, even reading aloud from a section of the law ontrespassing. “We could care less about what people are wear-ing—really, it’s not our rules,” he said. “But we are sworn touphold the law.” Officers arrested Downs only because herefused to leave private property when asked, Chief Murleysaid.

Roger Downs denied that he and his father had acted in adisruptive manner, saying that they did not pass out anyfliers and spoke only to two people who approached them tocompliment them on their T-shirts. “In this time when yourvoice seems to mean very little, this is a nice, quiet, passive

May 2003 101

way of expressing yourself,” he said. News of the arrest struck a chord of outrage among anti-

war demonstrators and civil libertarians. Soon, more than150 people wearing T-shirts with antiwar slogans convergedon Crossgates Mall to show support for Downs. The organ-izers said that one man was punched by a bystander whoshouted, “Remember 9/11.” No arrests were reported.

Though shopping malls are public gathering places, fed-eral and state courts have ruled that they are privately ownedcompanies that have a legal right to remove people who aredisrupting their business. In recent years, some malls haveprohibited outside activities, ranging from political candi-dates handing out fliers to reporters interviewing customers.Crossgates Mall has come under criticism in recent monthsafter local news organizations reported that people display-ing antiwar messages on their clothing were asked to leavethe premises.

Arthur Eisenberg, the legal director of the New YorkCivil Liberties Union, called Downs’s arrest an example of ashopping mall trying to censor the free-speech rights of itspatrons. “We wonder where such censorship will end,” hesaid. “Will the mall start prohibiting customers from wearingpolitical buttons? Will it prohibit Sikhs from wearing tur-bans? The ultimate point is that we are a diverse society inwhich individuals hold diverse views.”

Downs’s arrest quickly led to hundreds of interviewrequests from the likes of Connie Chung, Bill O’Reilly, theBBC and News Australia. “I’m completely an accidentalsymbol,” said Downs, a 60-year-old father of three fromSelkirk, N.Y. “There are more committed people to the peacemovement who deserve more credit, but my thing is thateveryone has the right to speak out about it.”

“It’s funny,” he said. “No one asked my opinion aboutanything before, and now suddenly the whole world wants toknow.” He said that even the conservatives on The O’ReillyFactor on Fox, though not agreeing with his antiwar posi-tion, were sympathetic. Reported in: New York Times, March6, 7.

InternetOrlando, Florida

A Florida-based Web hosting company knocked a smallnews site off-line after it posted controversial photos of cap-tured American soldiers, stoking accusations that privatefirms are censoring free speech. For several hours on March25, www.YellowTimes.org was dark, carrying the message“Account for domain YellowTimes.org has been suspended.”Later in the day, there was sporadic access.

The move stoked fears that as more grisly images andaccounts of war surface, independent news sites trying toestablish a name for themselves will have to tone down theircoverage so as not to alienate readers and the companies that

keep their sites alive.Erich Marquadt, editor of YellowTimes, said that

Orlando-based Web hosting company Vortech, Inc. had firstgrounded the site after he posted six photos of AmericanPOWs plucked from news footage first aired by Qatar-basedAl Jazeera television. U.S. television networks had beenabiding by a U.S. Pentagon request not to show the footage.

“I think we were the first Web site to show the images,”he said. “But the site was down a few hours later, withoutany warning.” Marquadt said Vortech cited viewer com-plaints and argued the images constituted a breach of thefirm’s usage agreements. “They said we violated the adultcontent clause,” he added.

“No TV station in the U.S. is allowing any dead U.S. sol-diers or POWs to be displayed and we will not either. Weunderstand free press and all but we don’t want someone’sfamily member to see them on some site. It is disrespectful,tacky and disgusting,” read the email explanation sent toMarquadt.

Small Web-only news purveyors that promise a distinctbrand of unsanitised news reporting are encountering moreand more publishing constraints as their readership swells.Last year, the FBI asked operators of Web site Ogrish.comand its Virginia-based hosting company, Pro Hosters, toremove an unedited, four-minute video of the murder of WallStreet Journal reporter Daniel Pearl. Pro Hosters compliedwith the demand at first, but later reinstated the video, whichremains archived on its site.

In March, Israeli army censors said they were workingwith Web site publishers and the country’s ISPs to ensurethat sensitive, war-related information, including the where-abouts of potential missile landings, is not published online.

“If you’re a hosting company or an ISP and you pull stufffor editorial reasons, you are in danger of losing your legalprotections. It’s not a wise move,” said Glenn Reynolds, aUniversity of Tennessee law professor. User agreements areoften broadly written, giving a Web hosting company or anISP the recourse to remove a site that posts offensive ortasteless content on its network. Many ISPs and hostingcompanies have been loath to intervene in editorial decisionshowever, saying they do not want to play the role of judgeand jury. But with public war sentiments running high, thesefirms may feel more pressure to come off the fence, industryobservers said. Reported in: Forbes.com, March 25.

artSan Francisco, California

Staff members at the Alliance Française of San Francisco,a French language and cultural center, recently removed asculpture that poked fun at the Bush administration from thecenter’s February art exhibit. The sculpture, “The Crossing,”depicts a bewildered-looking President Bush crossing the

Delaware River surrounded by some familiar people, includ-ing Vice President Dick Cheney wearing a clown’s nose.Mounted on an orange highway cone with scurrying rubberrats on the sides, the satirical scene is topped by a Mr. PotatoHead toy.

Nadege Leflemme, who is French and oversees culturalprograms at the center, said members of the AllianceFrançaise staff feared that Americans offended by the sculp-ture might challenge the center’s nonprofit status and put itout of business. Though it receives some financing fromFrance, the center is registered in the United States.

“Our board of directors, especially right now because ofIraq, has talked about not getting involved in politics what-soever,” said Leflemme, who has lived here four years. “Ihave plenty of people calling about input on the situation inIraq, how we feel as French. We are not allowed to speak.Zip. The board said to keep a low profile and don’t makewaves.”

But the president of the board, Thomas E. Horn, a SanFrancisco lawyer, denied that it had intended to censor theart exhibit and called the removal of the sculpture “a dumbthing to do.” Horn, an American, said he was unaware of theincident until a reporter asked about it, and he suggested thatthe center’s staff had overreacted. Not long ago, he said, adirector, who is no longer at the center, “got into a little trou-ble” by writing an anti-Bush poem in the center’s newsletter,which he said was different from exhibiting the politicallycharged works of independent artists.

“I am embarrassed by this,” Horn said. “It won’t happenagain.”

Two weeks before, Leflemme asked the sculpture’s cre-ator, Nancy Worthington of Sebastopol, Calif., to substitutean apolitical piece for “The Crossing.” Worthington wasamong seventeen artists from the Alliance of Women Artists,a Bay Area group, who had been asked to participate in theexhibit, which opened February 1. Worthington, who haddevoted the last two years to social-political commentarypieces about the Bush presidency, was so offended that sherefused to exhibit another work.

Worthington said she was shocked by the reaction atAlliance Française because she had exhibited works in Parisand had found the French very responsive to her style ofwhimsy and biting commentary—something she calls “theart of dissent.”

“What I really feel is cheated,” Worthington said. “Imake these works as a way to communicate with people. Idon’t expect people to agree, but I want to awaken some-thing in them. That can’t happen when the sculpture is sittinghere instead of being shown.”

Georgette Owens, a native of France and the exhibitinggroup’s founder, said many of the artists understood whyWorthington was upset, but they also appreciated the diffi-cult situation of French people in this country. “I tried tocalm Nancy down and assure her that everybody likes herartwork, but because of the diplomatic situation taking place

right now, they are afraid of showing it,” Owens said. “Idon’t think Alliance Française was at fault; they tried to beas diplomatic as they could.”

Horn, the board president, who recently returned from ameeting in Paris of presidents from Alliance Françaisebranches around the world, said anti-American feeling inFrance was much greater than any anti-French sentiment inSan Francisco. Even if he were wrong, he said, it would notjustify removing Worthington’s sculpture.

“I am going to write a letter of apology and invite her tobring it back,” he said. “The staff were doing their best. Ihope the artist will cut them a little bit of slack.” Reported in:New York Times, February 23.

foreignHavana, Cuba

Calling it an issue of national sovereignty, the Cubangovernment has blocked a shipment of more than 5,000books sent by the U.S. government to the island’s growingnetwork of independent libraries. The shipment consists oftwenty titles, including John Steinbeck’s The Grapes ofWrath and Stephen King’s The Shining. Cuban authoritiesobjected to the books because U.S. officials wanted to givethem to dissidents, said James Cason, chief of the Americanmission in Havana. He quoted a Cuban official as saying,“It’s not the books. It’s who you’re giving them to.”

A senior Cuban official confirmed that the book shipmenthad been blocked. The books won’t be seized or destroyed,but they won’t enter the country, either, he said. Refusing theshipment “is our right as a sovereign nation,” said the offi-cial, who spoke on condition of anonymity and declined toelaborate.

The dispute highlights a broader debate over Cubans’right to read what they want. For the last several weeks, theCuban government has been selling hundreds of thousandsof books to the public at rock-bottom prices, less than $1 formost titles. But U.S. officials—and dissidents—say Cubansstill have no access to a broad range of books and literature.So the American mission decided to hand out 5,101 books.

The shipment, worth more than $68,000, also includessuch titles as Carl Sagan’s Contact, Groucho Marx’sMemoirs of a Mangy Lover, Spencer Johnson’s Who MovedMy Cheese? and Martin Luther King’s Dreams for AllPeople, Hope for All Time.

Cason said U.S. officials have passed out books beforewith no complications. Thousands of books, in fact. But thistime around, he said, Cuban officials suddenly deemed thebooks “subversive.” “They’re afraid of Groucho Marx, CarlSagan and Martin Luther King,” he said.

Dissident leaders complain that books and magazinesthat are critical of the socialist way of life are especially



U.S. Supreme CourtTwo visions of the Internet competed March 5 at the U.S.

Supreme Court in an argument on whether the governmentcan require public libraries to install filters as the price forreceiving federal financing for Internet access.

In one vision, offered by Solicitor General Theodore B.Olson in defense of the Children’s Internet Protection Act,the Internet was little different from a collection of books,although packaged and presented in a new format. “Whenlibraries block Internet pornography from computer termi-nals, they are simply refusing to put on their computerscreens the same material they do not put on their shelves,”Olson said. Librarians have “from time immemorial” exer-cised discretion in deciding what to make available to read-ers, he added.

In the competing vision, the Internet was not an elec-tronic version of an old-fashioned bookshelf, but somethingcompletely different and new, a public forum in a computerterminal, in the view of Paul M. Smith, arguing on behalf ofthe American Library Association, the American CivilLiberties Union and other groups that challenged the law onFirst Amendment grounds as soon as President Bill Clintonsigned it in 2000.

A special three-judge Federal District Court in Phila-delphia blocked the law from taking effect, declaring itunconstitutional on the ground that it induced libraries toviolate the First Amendment.

“When a library buys books,” Smith said, “it chooses thebooks one by one.” But the Internet contains “all the contentever created under the sun,” he said. To require libraries to

deny access selectively to the Internet would be “the end ofthe public forum doctrine,” he said.

Under the Supreme Court’s First Amendment precedents,the government may not restrict speech in a public forumwithout a compelling interest and a policy narrowly tailoredto serve that interest. But it was clear that these particularFirst Amendment precedents were not the only ones in play.In another line of cases, the court has also given the govern-ment considerable, although not complete, latitude in thetypes of speech it chooses to subsidize and in the strings itattaches to its largesse.

The government distributes more than $200 million ayear in grants and subsidies that give public libraries dis-counted Internet access, and Olson suggested that a librarysystem that wanted to offer unimpeded access could estab-lish a separate operation that would not accept federalmoney. At the same time, he said, a library receiving federalmoney, as nearly all do, could not designate one of ten com-puter terminals in a branch as an unsubsidized unfilteredcomputer.

“The government can decide how it wants its moneyspent,” he said.

The Children’s Internet Protection Act is the latest in aseries of efforts by Congress, dating from the mid-1990’s, toshield children from sexually explicit material on theInternet. The court struck down previous laws that had crim-inal penalties intended to punish distributors of pornography,the decisions making clear that the justices attach a highvalue to speech on the Internet. But the flavor of this argu-ment was quite different, indicating that the new law pres-ents a more elusive set of First Amendment issues when thequestion is not one of criminal law but rather of carrot-and-stick.

The law requires that libraries block access by everyone,adults as well as children, to “visual depictions”—not text—of obscenity and child pornography. Children have to beshielded from a broader category defined as “harmful tominors,” including graphic depictions that are “patentlyoffensive” while lacking literary, artistic or scientific value.Adults who find blocked material can ask for the filter to beremoved. There was debate over how specific the request hasto be, whether the staff can refuse and whether the lawinevitably imposes a stigma on requesting readers.

The record in the case, United States v. American LibraryAssociation, showed that the commercially available filterswere blunt instruments that inadvertently blocked tens ofthousands of Web pages. While Smith emphasized the exces-sive blocking, Olson emphasized how small a part that wasof the entire Internet.

“Ten thousand pages erroneously blocked out of two bil-lion is one two-hundredth of 1 percent,” he said. Some jus-tices indicated that they thought Olson was pushing his argu-ment too far. At one point, the solicitor general said that ifthe government lost the case, librarians would soon bespending their money on lawyers rather than on books,

May 2003 103

because authors would start suits to demand that their booksbe acquired.

“I would think that this case is about the Internet,” JusticeJohn Paul Stevens said. “It’s not about books.”

Justice David H. Souter appeared singularly unimpressedby Olson’s insistence that filtering was no different from alibrary’s traditional discretion over what to collect. When alibrary makes its choices, “somebody along the line knowswhat they’ve decided to buy,” Justice Souter said, but whenrequired to install Internet filters, “they are forced not tostock a lot of other material and they don’t even know whatit is.”

While Smith emphasized the burden the law put on adultswho have to request unblocking, Justice Stephen G. Breyersaid: “What’s the burden in asking? I grew up in a worldwhere certain materials were kept in a special place.”Requesting unblocking disrupts research, Smith replied,prompting Justice Sandra Day O’Connor to observe,“Looking for a book that might not be there is not atypical ofwhat happens in research.” Reported in: New York Times,March 6.

On February 11, a broad coalition of organizations repre-senting publishers, booksellers, journalists, and authors, ledby the Association of American Publishers (AAP), filed afriend-of-the-court brief asking the Supreme Court to affirmthe ruling of a lower court and strike down the Children’sInternet Protection Act (CIPA) as a violation of rights guar-anteed by the First Amendment. The brief was filed in sup-port of the challenge to CIPA brought by the AmericanLibrary Association and the American Civil Liberties Union.

The brief argued that “The unavoidable suppression byfiltering software of valuable, constitutionally protectedexpression, such as that created by many of amici’s mem-bers, covering a vast range of essential subjects, from sexu-ality to politics, demonstrates that CIPA is not a narrowly tai-lored means of advancing Congress’s goal of ensuring thatlibrary computers are not used to access unprotected sexualmaterial.” Congress cannot seek to achieve this goal, thebrief states, by “using means that subvert the very purpose ofoffering Internet access to library patrons . . .”

Among the groups joining AAP on the brief were theAmerican Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression, PENAmerican Center, the American Society of Journalists andAuthors, the American Society of Newspaper Editors, theAuthors Guild, the National Writer’s Union, the MagazinePublishers Association, and the Center for Democracy andTechnology. Reported in: AAP Press Release, February 11.

In a case balancing national security with civil liberties,the Supreme Court refused to interfere March 24 with alower court ruling giving the Justice Department broad newpowers to use wiretaps to prosecute terrorists.

The justices declined without comment to review a deci-sion last November 18 in which a special federal appealscourt found that, under a law passed after the terror attacksof September 11, 2001, the Justice Department can use wire-taps installed for intelligence operations to go after terrorists.

That November decision was crucial, because for some twodecades there was presumed to be a “wall” between wiretapoperations for intelligence-gathering and wiretapping in thecourse of criminal investigations.

Obtaining permission for a wiretap to gather intelligencehas generally been easier than getting authorization for awiretap in a straightforward criminal investigation. Thus,prosecutors were admonished not to try to skirt the tougherstandards for a wiretap in a criminal investigation by claim-ing it was actually to gather intelligence. The landscapechanged with the passage of legislation, shortly after theSeptember 11 attacks, broadening government surveillancepowers. Justice Department investigators applied last Mayfor permission to wiretap an individual who was identified incourt papers only as a resident of the United States.

The department met resistance from the three-memberForeign Intelligence Surveillance Act Court, which existssolely to administer a 1978 law allowing the government toconduct intelligence wiretaps inside the United States. Thatcourt ordered the Justice Department to show that its primarypurpose in applying for the wiretap was intelligence gather-ing and not for a criminal case. Moreover, the three-membercourt decreed that prosecutors in the Justice Department’scriminal division could not take an active role in directingactivities of the department’s intelligence division.

Attorney General John Ashcroft appealed to the UnitedStates Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review,which had never met before and which exists, like the lowercourt, only to oversee the 1978 law. The court of reviewruled in November that the lower court had erred when ittried to impose restrictions on the Justice Department.Furthermore, the court of review said, there never was sup-posed to be a “wall” between intelligence gathering andcriminal investigations.

“Effective counterintelligence, as we have learned,requires the wholehearted cooperation of all the govern-ment’s personnel who can be brought to the task,” the reviewpanel wrote. “A standard which punishes such cooperationcould well be thought dangerous to national security.”

The review panel criticized the lower court, declaringthat it had improperly tried to tell the Justice Departmenthow to do its business, in violation of the Constitution’s sep-aration of powers between equal branches of government.The Court of Review is made up of Judges Ralph B. Guy ofthe United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit;Edward Leavy of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit;and Laurence H. Silberman of the Court of Appeals for theDistrict of Columbia Circuit. All were appointed to the panelby Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist of the Supreme Court.

Ashcroft praised the November decision as one that “rev-olutionizes our ability to investigate terrorists and prosecuteterrorist acts.” But the American Civil Liberties Union, theNational Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, theAmerican-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee and theArab Community Center for Economic and Social Services, aMichigan-based organization, assailed the November decision.


May 2003 105

“These fundamental issues should not be finally adjudi-cated by courts that sit in secret, do not ordinarily publishtheir decisions, and allow only the government to appearbefore them,” the groups said in asking the Supreme Courtto review it.

The ACLU and its allies had only friend-of-the-court sta-tus in the case, since technically the Justice Department wasthe only party. Thus, it was not surprising that the SupremeCourt declined to review the lower courts’ decision.Reported in: New York Times, March 24.

The U.S. Supreme Court on February 24 let stand anappeals-court ruling from last year that said a Tennesseegovernment agency could legally issue tax-exempt munici-pal bonds to help build facilities at Lipscomb University,even though the institution is “pervasively sectarian.” Thecourt’s action, which came without comment, ended a 12-year legal fight.

In 1991, Lipscomb, which is affiliated with the Church ofChrist, applied for $15-million in bonds for campus projects,including a new library and athletics facilities, from aNashville industrial-development board. The boardapproved the bond issue, prompting a lawsuit from a groupof local taxpayers who argued that the bonds violated theFirst Amendment’s prohibition of government support forreligion.

The taxpayers said the bonds had an indirect effect onhow much tax revenue the county government could collectsince bond purchasers do not have to pay taxes on the inter-est income. A federal district-court judge ruled in favor ofthe plaintiffs in October 2000, agreeing that Lipscomb’s reli-gious mission is “so intertwined” with its academic missionthat the two cannot be separated. The judge noted thatLipscomb’s students must receive daily Bible instruction andattend chapel services, and that faculty and staff membersmust be members of the Church of Christ.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit over-turned that decision last August. The court noted that thebonds are purchased by private investors and merely man-aged by a public board. Furthermore, the judges said that nostate or local government tax revenues were spent as a resultof the bonds.

The Supreme Court’s decision not to hear the case meansthat the appeals court’s ruling in favor of the university andthe industrial-development board remains in place.Lipscomb’s president, Stephen F. Flatt, said he was pleasedthat the legal battle over the bonds had ended. “It upholdsour conviction that Lipscomb University enhances the edu-cational and economic development of our community andregion, which is what the bond program is designed to pro-mote,” Flatt said. Reported in: Chronicle of HigherEducation (online), February 25.

A 1953 Supreme Court decision that is one of the corner-stones of national security secrecy policy relied on false gov-ernment information, the Court was told in a startling peti-tion filed February 26. The decision, United States v.

Reynolds, is the judicial foundation of the “state secrets priv-ilege.” It provides the precedential basis for asserting thatthere are “military matters which, in the interest of nationalsecurity, should not be divulged,” not even to a federal court.

The Reynolds case originated over fifty years ago whenthe widows of three crew members who died in a 1948 crashof a B-29 Superfortress bomber requested accident reportson the crash. The Air Force denied the request and filed affi-davits with the Supreme Court claiming that the withheldreports contained information about the aircraft’s secret mis-sion and described secret electronic equipment on board thathad to be protected from disclosure. The Court, citing thatclaim, ruled in favor of the Air Force and established thestate secrets privilege.

“But it turns out that the Air Force’s affidavits werefalse,” according to the new petition filed by the survivingwidows or their heirs. The recently declassified Air Forceaccident reports contain nothing whatsoever about a secretmission or sensitive electronic equipment. “In telling theCourt otherwise, the Air Force lied,” the Petitioners said.

The petitioners want the Court to vacate the 1953Reynolds decision. But they take no position on the body oflaw that derives from it. “Whether the legal principles estab-lished in Reynolds are right or wrong is for another day andanother case.”

“For petitioners, the only issue this Court must confronttoday is whether it will tolerate a fraud—a fraud that struckat the integrity of the Court’s decision-making process andthat cheated three struggling widows and their children outof that which was rightly theirs.” Reported in: Secrecy News,March 4.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia banned broadcastmedia from an appearance March 19 where he received anaward for supporting free speech. The Cleveland City Clubusually tapes speakers for later broadcast on public televi-sion, but Scalia insisted on banning television and radio cov-erage, the club said. Scalia was given the organization’sCitadel of Free Speech Award.

“I might wish it were otherwise, but that was one of thecriteria that he had for acceptance,” said James Foster, theclub’s executive director.

The ban on broadcast media, “begs disbelief and seems tobe in conflict with the award itself,” C-SPAN vice presidentand executive producer Terry Murphy wrote in a letter to theCity Club. “How free is speech if there are limits to its dis-tribution?”

The club previously gave its award to former U.S. Sen.John Glenn after his retirement in 1998 in recognition of hisopposition to a constitutional amendment to flag-burning.The City Club selected Scalia because he has “consistently,across the board, had opinions or led the charge in support offree speech,” Foster said. The proclamation applauds Scaliafor protecting free speech in several Supreme Court cases,including voting to strike down a Texas flag-burning ban.Reported in: Editor and Publisher, March 19.

freedom of assemblyNew York, New York

Antiwar demonstrators may not march past the UnitedNations complex or anywhere else in Manhattan, a federaljudge ruled February 10. Agreeing with the city that a large,moving rally of 100,000 people or more raised serious secu-rity risks, the judge said the organizers would have to settlefor a stationary rally five blocks north of the complex. Inrefusing to grant a parade permit, the city did not violate thedemonstrators’ First Amendment rights, the judge, BarbaraS. Jones of U.S. District Court in Manhattan, wrote in heropinion rejecting their request for a preliminary injunction.She said that their free-speech rights were adequately pro-tected by the city’s counteroffer of a rally for 10,000 peopleat Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, at 47th Street, with overflowspace as far north on First Avenue as needed.

Judge Jones said that the city had offered compelling rea-sons for not being able to guarantee the safety of marchers—or of the United Nations complex, where all demonstrationsand parades have been banned since the terrorist attack thatdestroyed the World Trade Center. The judge noted that the cityhad presented evidence about two incidents: a failed plot tobomb New York landmarks, including the United Nations, andthe case of a gunman who scaled the front fence at the UnitedNations in October and fired pistol shots through upper win-dows to protest human rights violations in North Korea.

Organizers of the umbrella group organizing the protest,United for Peace and Justice, began negotiating with thePolice Department about three weeks earlier. They called thejudge’s decision an assault on their constitutional right toexpress opposition to a possible war with Iraq. The NewYork Civil Liberties Union filed an immediate appeal withthe United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

“We know we have a right to march so we will continueto fight for that right,” said Leslie Cagan, 55, a co-chair-woman of United for Peace and Justice. Cagan said thegroup had specifically requested a march because it wasmore meaningful than a rally. Noting that Secretary of StateColin L. Powell had recently made a case for war to theUnited Nations, she said she wanted marchers to pass by thecomplex because it “is also a symbol for the possibility ofinternational cooperation, and that’s what we want to be pro-moting.”

But Judge Jones gave great weight in her opinion to tes-timony from Michael D. Esposito, an assistant police chief.He said that Cagan had not been able to give him a firm esti-mate of how many people would be attending the march, sohe feared the department could not provide sufficient secu-rity. He said a stationary rally, in contrast, could be ade-quately policed, even if crowds of 100,000 or more gathered.

Judge Jones said that she was not willing to “second-guess” the chief’s judgment, saying that “the court creditsthe city’s assessment that the N.Y.P.D. could not responsiblyplan security for a march of this magnitude with only thelimited amount of information that the organizers have

offered the N.Y.P.D. at this late point in the planningprocess.”

Jeffrey D. Friedlander, the city’s assistant corporationcounsel, said he was gratified by Judge Jones’s decision.“We will continue to work with the organizers so their voicescan be heard consistent with the First Amendment and theinterests and safety of the city,” he said.

The Police Department’s contention that it could notmaintain safety at a traditional, peaceful protest march wasrejected by a number of First Amendment experts who foundthe court’s decision a bad precedent. Victor A. Kovner, aleading First Amendment lawyer and a former corporationcounsel under Mayor David N. Dinkins, said it marked a“low moment in New York’s history.”

“Large marches are being held in cities throughout thenation and the world,” Kovner said, “and it is incomprehen-sible that the finest police department in the world cannotaccommodate a traditional peaceful protest. Given thewealth of precedents for peaceful marches, it is a highly dis-turbing precedent.”

Cagan and others who support the effort to march said thecity’s denial of a parade permit had nothing to do with safety.At a news conference, City Councilman Bill Perkins said:“This is meant to send a message beyond New York City andit is going to have a chilling effect nationally. I think theBush administration does not like political dissent and hasinfluenced the Bloomberg administration to stop it.”

Cagan said that the presence of two federal prosecutors atthe hearing was a testament to that. The prosecutors, DavidJones and Andrew O’Toole, assistant United States attorneysbased in Manhattan, appeared before Judge Jones to voicethe government’s concerns about its treaty obligations toensure access and safety at the United Nations.

“We had no idea that they were going to weigh in onthis,” Cagan said. “We think this is part of something unfold-ing nationally, a serious curtailing of civil liberties through-out this country.”

Cagan and Donna Lieberman, the executive director ofthe New York Civil Liberties Union, noted that the cityallowed cultural parades that attract just as many people asthe protest march might. They cited the St. Patrick’s DayParade, which usually draws around 100,000 spectators. ButJudge Jones found that these annual events involved monthsof planning, and that the police had substantial experiencesecuring them. Reported in: New York Times, February 11.

church and stateSacramento, California

Over the vehement objections of 9 of its 24 active judges,the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, inSan Francisco, on February 28 essentially let stand a deci-sion that the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegianceis unconstitutional.


May 2003 107

The deeply divided court declined a petition to review a2-to-1 ruling in June by a three-judge appellate panel thathad immediately prompted a huge public debate—and wasstayed almost as quickly. Under that decision, schools maynot require students to listen to the Pledge if it includes thewords “under God.”

Unless the Supreme Court takes action, that decision,amended by the original three-judge panel to specify that itapplied only to public school students, will now become thelaw in nine Western states, affecting 9.6 million students.The full appeals court’s decision not to take the case sur-prised legal experts, with some speculating that some of thevotes against rehearing the case were simply cast to hastenSupreme Court review.

In a statement, Attorney General John Ashcroft indicatedthat the Bush administration would ask the Supreme Court tohear the case. “The Justice Department will spare no effort topreserve the rights of all our citizens to pledge allegiance tothe American flag,” he said. “We will defend the ability ofAmericans to declare their patriotism through the time-hon-ored tradition of voluntarily reciting the Pledge.”

Denials of petitions for full-court rehearings are gener-ally dry, one- or two-sentence affairs. Not so here. JudgeDiarmuid F. O’Scannlain, writing for six judges who favoredfull-court review, called the panel’s decision “wrong, verywrong—wrong because reciting the Pledge of Allegiance issimply not a `religious act’ as the two-judge majority asserts,wrong as a matter of Supreme Court precedent properlyunderstood, wrong because it set up a direct conflict with thelaw of another circuit, and wrong as a matter of commonsense.”

“If reciting the Pledge is truly ‘a religious act’ in violationof the Establishment Clause,” of the First Amendment, hecontinued, “then so is the recitation of the Constitution itself,the Declaration of Independence, the Gettysburg Address,the National Motto or the singing of the National anthem.”

Judge Stephen Reinhardt, who was one of the two judgesin the original majority, was the only judge to explain hisvote against rehearing. Such explanations are uncommon,and Judge Reinhardt said he did so because he felt “com-pelled to discuss a disturbingly wrongheaded approach toconstitutional law manifested in the dissent authored byJudge O’Scannlain,” which had noted the exceptional “pub-lic and political reaction” to the original decision.

“We may not—we must not—allow public sentiment oroutcry to guide our decisions,” Judge Reinhardt wrote. “It isthe highest calling of federal judges to invoke theConstitution to repudiate unlawful majoritarian action,” hecontinued. “Any suggestion, whenever or wherever made,that federal judges should be encouraged by the approval ofthe majority or deterred by popular disfavor is fundamentallyinconsistent with the Constitution and must be firmlyrejected.”

Judge O’Scannlain responded that his opinion “has noth-ing to do with bending to the will of an outraged populace,

and everything to do with the fact that Judge Goodwin andJudge Reinhardt misinterpret the Constitution and fortyyears of Supreme Court precedent. That most people under-stand this makes the decision no less wrong.”

The case arose from a suit brought by Michael A.Newdow of Sacramento, an atheist who had challenged thePledge of Allegiance on behalf of his 8-year-old daughterover the objections of the child’s mother, Sandra Banning, ofElk Grove, who has sole legal custody and has describedherself as a Christian. Reported in: New York Times,February 28.

Westfield, MassachusettsA federal judge ruled that officials at Westfield High

School in western Massachusetts violated the free speechrights of six students by suspending them for a day after theydistributed candy canes affixed with religious notes at theschool. The students had been allowed to hand out the candy,but not the notes, which said the candy’s J shape stood forJesus. They filed suit in January. U.S District Court JudgeFrank Freedman ruled that religious speech by students isconstitutionally protected, although school-sponsored reli-gious speech is not. Reported in: New York Times, March 19.

InternetPhiladelphia, Pennsylvania

A federal appeals court has again ruled that a law meantto safeguard children against Internet pornography is riddledwith problems that make it “constitutionally infirm.” Athree-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the ThirdCircuit ruled March 6 that the Child Online Protection Act(COPA) restricted free speech by barring Web page opera-tors from posting information inappropriate for minorsunless they limited the site to adults. The ruling upheld aninjunction blocking the government from enforcing the law.

The court said that in practice, the law made it too diffi-cult for adults to view material protected by the FirstAmendment, including many non-pornographic sites. Thelaw, signed by President Clinton and endorsed by PresidentBush, has never been enforced. It is one of several relating toInternet decency that courts have struck down.

The American Civil Liberties Union, which initiated thelegal challenge, praised the ruling. “It’s clear that the lawwould make it a crime to communicate a whole range ofinformation to adults,” said ACLU associate legal directorAnn Beeson.

Previously, the Third Circuit had ruled the law unconsti-tutional on grounds that it allowed the legality of Internetcontent to be judged by “contemporary community stan-dards.” On appeal, the Supreme Court said that evaluationstandard alone did not make the law unconstitutional, andsent the case back for further evaluation.

In the March 6 opinion, the court said that in seeking todefine material harmful to minors, the law made no distinc-tion between things inappropriate for a 5-year-old and thingsharmful to someone in their early teens. The judges said thatwhile the law sought to get around free-speech arguments bymaking the restrictions apply only to Web operators whoposted material for “commercial purposes,” it didn’t addresswhat level of profitability was required. The court also saidscreening methods suggested by the government, includingrequiring Web-page viewers to give a credit card number,would unfairly require adults to identify themselves beforeviewing constitutionally protected material, such as medicalsites offering sex advice. Reported in: Washington Post,March 7.

newspaperBoise, Idaho

The Idaho Supreme Court has completely reversed itself,upholding constitutional protection from damage claims fora newspaper that published part of a forty-year-old court filethat said—perhaps inaccurately—a man had a homosexualaffair with his cousin. The high court’s February 14 decisionfor The Idaho Statesman in Boise was unanimous and erasedits unanimous June 21 decision against the newspaper tokeep Fred Uranga’s invasion-of-privacy claim alive.

Justice Daniel Eismann, writing for the court, held thatthere is no invasion of privacy by the publication of infor-mation from a court record that is open to the public, no mat-ter how old that record is. “There is no indication,” Eismannwrote, “that the First Amendment provides less protection tohistorians than to those reporting current events.”

“Uranga has not offered any standard by which to deter-mine when a court record is too old or a particular fact insuch record too insignificant for its publication to merit FirstAmendment protection,” he wrote. Eismann was joined inthe ruling by Justice Jesse Walters and Judges RogerBurdick, Gerald Weston and Randy Smith. Burdick, Westonand Smith sat in for Chief Justice Linda Copple Trout andJustices Wayne Kidwell and Gerald Schroeder.

Trout, joined by Kidwell, Walters, Eismann and Burdick,had written the June 21 opinion that supported Uranga.Schroeder did not participate in either ruling.

Uranga sued after the newspaper’s 1995 publication of astory recounting the 1955 Boys of Boise homosexualityscandal. The paper included a photograph of a handwrittenstatement by one of the men eventually convicted. MelvinDir’s statement said he had an affair with a man who laterkilled himself because of the scandal. Dir’s statement alsosaid he had an affair with his cousin. Fred Uranga was thecousin, but Uranga’s name never appeared in the story.

The district and appellate courts threw out Uranga’sclaim, citing First Amendment protections. But the original

Supreme Court decision rejected that conclusion and ordereda hearing on the legitimacy of his allegations. Trout con-cluded that the news media responsibility to make the publicaware of court activity was not compromised by denyingabsolute privilege to published material only tangentiallyrelated to a forty-year-old case.

Carolyn Washburn, the Statesman’s executive editor,called the court’s change of heart incredible. “It was com-forting to know that the media or anyone else in the publicwho uses public records can have comfort in using what is inthe public domain,” Washburn said. “The media are not theonly ones who use public records.”

The 1995 story on what the newspaper called one of thenation’s “most infamous homosexual witch hunts” was pub-lished in the midst of a statewide debate over a proposed bal-lot initiative banning state or local laws protecting homosex-uals from discrimination. The paper called the 1955 scandala cautionary tale.

Claiming the information in the statement was false andhad never been introduced in any proceeding as evidence,Uranga demanded a correction. The Statesman declined,offering instead either to publish Uranga’s rebuttal or explainhis position along with a statement that the newspaper hadno opinion on the truth of the court document. Urangadeclined both and sued.

The state high court found no distinction between theUranga case and U.S. Supreme Court cases cited by theStatesman as protecting publication of material from courtrecords open to the public. “The examination of a publiccourt record cannot be the basis of a claim for invasion ofprivacy by intrusion,” the ruling determined. Reported in:freedomforum.org, February 17.

electionsSan Francisco, California

A federal appeals court on February 6 reinstated the free-speech lawsuit by operators of vote-swapping Web sitessuing California. The Web sites appeared before the Nov. 7,2000, election as their operators in several states tried to cre-ate a system to allow users in one state to trade their vote forpresident to someone in another state. Many of the sites wereaimed at supporters of Green Party presidential candidateRalph Nader, who was seen as a threat to siphon votes fromDemocrat Al Gore in states where the race was expected tobe close.

Three sites voluntarily shut down before the electionunder potential threat of litigation from California electionofficials, who said the sites were violating state laws barring voteswapping. Officials in Oregon also issued similar warnings.

A Los Angeles federal judge had dismissed the operators’lawsuit. The suit, backed by the American Civil Liberties



newsletter on intellectual freedom

index to vol. 51, 2002

indexed by Eli and Gail Liss

Intellectual Freedom CommitteeAmerican Library Association

Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom (ISSN 0028-9485) is published bimonthly (Jan., March, May,July, Sept., Nov.) by the Intellectual Freedom Committee of the American Library Association, 50E. Huron St., Chicago, Illinois 60611.

AAbbey, Edward, 41Abbot, Jane, 274ABC, 47, 157ABC News, 23Abdalla, John M., 201ABFFE v. Dean, 67, 238Abramson, Jill, 69Acclaim Entertainment, 127AC/DC, 80Achingly Alice, 256ACLU, see American Civil Liberties Union

(ACLU)ACLU v. Napolitano, 67, 237–238Activision, 127Adams, Joe, 68Adams, Michael Henry, 199Adelman, Janet, 156Adelman, Justice Lynn, 90Advanced Techniques of Clandestine

Psychedelic and AmphetamineManufacture, 101

Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The, 252Aftergood, Steve, 20–21, 35, 39Afzal, Omar, 112Agence France-Presse, 81Ailes, Roger, 23ALA, see American Library Association (ALA)Alabama:

Auburn, 87–88Birmingham, 197–198Montgomery, 43–44, 126

Alabama Board of Education, 43Alameda Books, 28Al-Arian, Sami, 7, 17–18, 98–99, 275–276Alaska:

Anchorage, 13, 66, 88–89, 211ALA v. United States, 63, 113, 139Alberts, Bruce, 217Aldemir, Bekif Rayir, 138Aldous, Jeff, 278Al-Farooq mosque, New York, 78Alice in Lace, 256Alice series, 61, 256Al Jezeera, 23Allen (of Madison, Wisconsin), 54Al Lewis Live, 22Alliance of American Insurers, 295Al Qaeda, 23, 35, 94, 118AltaVista, 294Alter, Jonathan, 107Amar, Patric, 261Amazon.com, 92AMBO project (Albanian-Macedonian-

Bulgarian Oil), 299American Academy of Pediatricians, 72American-Arab Anti-Discrimination

Committee, 263American Association for the Advancement of

Science, 217American Association of Law Libraries, 7, 165American Association of University Professors,

53, 215, 216, 253, 275, 276American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A., 52American Booksellers Foundation for Free

Expression, 101, 124, 133, 168, 182, 240,252

American Center for Law and Justice, 163American Childhood, An, 180American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), 9,

26, 27, 29, 39–40, 45, 56, 63, 87, 93, 101,103, 106, 109, 121, 124, 131, 137, 138,139, 145, 152, 155, 162, 163, 168,172–173, 176, 177, 182, 194, 196, 201,

203, 205, 211, 214, 218–220, 263, 264,273, 281

of Alabama, 43of Alaska, 66of Boulder County, Colorado, 14of Colorado, 48, 297of Florida, 138of Indiana, 57, 117of Iowa, 45of Kansas and Western Missouri, 222of Los Angeles, 105of Louisiana, 85, 270of Massachusetts, 153of Michigan, 155, 265of Minnesota, 75, 167of Nevada, 21of New York, 55, 119, 180of Northern California, 210of Ohio, 199of Philadelphia, 169

Reproductive Freedom Project, 206, 270of Southern California, 105of Tennessee, 169–170of Texas, 252, 253of Virginia, 56, 86, 166, 172–173, 214Washington, D.C. National Office, 4of West Virginia, 170, 280–281

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)Foundation of Southern California, 128

American Coalition on Life Activists, 34American College of Trial Lawyers, 93American Council of Education, 202–203American Council of Trustees and Alumni, 8American Council on Education, 122, 165American Family Association, 274American Federation of Teachers, 98American Friends Service Committee, 297American Historical Association, 36, 37, 165American Interventionism, 81, 138American ISP Association, 46American Journalism Review, 253American Legion, 8, 9American Library Association (ALA), 7, 9, 71,

101, 105, 109, 142, 145, 165, 201Committee on Legislation, 235–236Intellectual Freedom Committee, 63–65,

81–82, 189–190, 235–237“Intellectual Freedom in Library Schools”

project, 236Intellectual Freedom Round Table, 113, 152James Madison Award, 110Library Bill of Rights, see Library Bill of

Rights, ALAOffice for Intellectual Freedom, 61, 150Outsourcing Task Force, 235Statement on Confidentiality and Privacy of

Library Records, 67–68American Library Association Council:

Government Documents Round Table(GODORT), 65

“Resolution Concerning Executive Order13,233 ‘Further Implementation of thePresidential Records Act,” 65

“Resolution Concerning GovernmentInformation and Security,” 65

“Resolution Reaffirming the Principles ofIntellectual Freedom in the Aftermath ofTerrorist Attacks,” 65, 82

American Library Association v. United States,66

excerpts from opinion, 147, 158–160American Medical Association, 34American Muslim Council, 52American Society of Newspaper Editors, 133,

260

Americans United for Separation of Churchand State, 43, 83, 85, 123, 126, 170, 271,273–274, 280-282

American Water Works Association, 103America Online, 125“America’s Most Wanted,” 273Amherst College, 8Amin Shah, Wali Khan, 40Amnesty International, 106Among Schoolteachers: Community, Autonomy,

and Ideology in Teachers’ Work, 131Amundson, Justice Robert A., 208“Anchorage Pride: Celebrating Diversity Under

the Midnight Sun,” 66Anderson, Hilari, 76Anderson, Justice Joseph F., Jr., 295, 296Anderson, Mark, 223Andrews, John, 262Angelou, Maya, 61, 258Angleton, Doris, 47, 84, 101Angleton, Robert, 47, 84, 101Annual List of Books Challenged or Banned,

236Anspach, Donald F., 262Apogee Software, 127Approaching the Qur’an: The Early

Revelations, 217, 268–269Apted, Michael, 277Aqua (band), 209Arace, Marylucia, 137Aram Publishing House, 81, 138Archer Daniels Midland, 299Arizona, 43, 67

Mesa, 223Tucson, 124

Arizona Republic, The, 71Arkansas:

Cedarville, 197Armato, Douglas, 156Armey, Richard, 46, 273Art Libraries Society of North America, 165“Art Triumphs Over Domestic Violence,”

13–14Ashcroft, John, 4, 15, 36, 40, 46, 80, 92,

93–94, 94, 101, 130, 134, 152, 161, 171,199, 210, 215, 240, 264

Ashcroft v. ACLU, 26–27, 28Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 66Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 27–28,

66–67Ashdown, Sue, 46Ashrawi, Hanan, 253, 261, 262Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum, 24Associated Faculties of the University of

Maine, 281Associated Press, 55Association for Competitive Technology, 218Association for Recorded Sound Collections,

165Association of American Publishers, 124, 133,

180, 252Association of American Universities, 275Association of American University Presses,

133Association of Research Libraries, 6–7, 71, 165Association of Schools of Journalism and Mass

Communication, 260Atari Corporation, 127Atkinson, Richard, 215–16Atkinson, Ross, 112, 113Atlas, Ronald M., 275“Attack on a Covered Wagon” (mural), 92At the Schoolhouse Gate: Lessons in

Intellectual Freedom, 194Atwood, Margaret, 62

Auburn University, 87–88Austin, Sherman Martin, 96Authors Guild, 71, 133Aviation Safeguard, 42Awad, Nihad, 254Ayers, Quin, 136Ayers, William, 44–45Ayn Rand Institute, 19A-Z Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, The, 179

BBabcock, Justice Lewis, 127Bachorowski, Elisabeth, 198Baidu.com, 294Baker, Stewart, 46, 221Baker, Thomas R., 118Ball, Sarah, 74Ballesteros, Justice Ruben, 51–52Ballon, Ian, 92Baltimore Sun, 19Bamberger, Michael, 124, 175Banamex (the Bank of Mexico), 87Banks, Scot, 296Banned Books Week (BBW), 82, 236, 256Barber, Grayson, 268“Barbie Girl,” 209, 272Barlow, Don, 141Barlow, Maude, 251, 297Barnes, Randy J., 156BarnesandNoble.com, 92Barnett, Stephen R., 84–85Barrett, Bill, 21Barrett, Richard, 25“Barry Trotter Done Gone: The Perils of

Publishing Parody,” 249, 282–292Bartle, Justice Harvey, III, 63, 139, 140, 141,

178Barton, Stan, 179Basketball Diaries, The, 127Bass, Gary, 15, 20Battalion (Texas A&M University), 76Baugh, David P., 56Baxter, Michael, 76Baxter, Richard, 33, 87Bay Area Reporter, 255BBC, 24, 279BBW Resource Guide, 236Beales, Randolph A., 29, 33, 56Bean, John C., 88Beard, Richard, 276Beat Your Ticket: Go to Court Now and Win,

116Becker, Justice Edward R., 63, 109, 140, 178Becker, Marion A., 98, 99Beckerle, Robert, 43Becoming Visible: An Illustrated History of

Lesbian and Gay Life in Twentieth-Century America, 255

Beem, Kara D., 99Beeson, Ann, 26, 27, 139, 163, 178, 201Belk, Norman, 141Bell, Tom, 219Benjamin, Robert N., 84Bennet, Douglas, 8Bennett, Robert M., 180Berdahl, Robert M., 156, 173Bergen Record, 239Bergholm, Eric, 117, 118Berkeley Repertory Theatre, 79Berman, Howard L., 221, 297Berry, John M., 110, 140, 142, 145Berry, Wendell, 180Berthold, Richard, 45–46, 54, 77–78“Berthold-Pentagon Affair: Enemies Inside the

Gates, The,” 46

Bertin, Joan, 4, 105, 210Bertman, Dr. Jonatahn, 140, 141Besser, Mary Pamela, 122–123, 163Beta Theta Pi fraternity, 87–88Better Government Association, 134Beverage, Morris, 78Bhattacharyya, Rupa, 139Bhushan, Prashant, 121Bible, the, 58Biden, Joseph R., Jr., 221Biek, David, 141Biggers, Justice Neal B., Jr., 25Binford, Lloyd, 74bin Laden, Abdullah, 298bin Laden, Osama, 1, 23, 24, 92Bird, Captain Robert, 135Bird, Wayne, 44Birmingham, Mark, 221Birmingham News, 197–198Bi Sheng, 294Bisrat, Bereket, 76Bissell, Justice John, 201Black, Barry Elton, 56, 166, 203Black, Ed, 130Black, Larry D., 124Black and White (Walt Whitman High School,

Montgomery County, Maryland), 50Blackwell, Chris, 292Blair, Tony, 24Blair Witch Project, 223Blanton, Thomas S., 37Blease, Justice Coleman, 265Blood and Chocolate, 61Bloom, Jonathan, 133Blubber, 61Blume, Judy, 61, 105, 135–136, 252Blumenthal, Richard, 166Bochenek, Michael, 58Boice, Dan, 256Bond, Christopher, 204Bonnell, John C., 25–26Borman, Justice Paul D., 26Boston, G. Robert, 271Boston University Academy, 276–277Boulder County Safehouse, 13–14Bowen, Barbara, 18Bowen, Ray, 76Bowling, Brag, 183Bowser, Polly, 114Boyer, Jeff, 16Brace, Dan, 15–16Braddock, Cheryl, 75Bradshaw, Jim, 122Bradwig, Chris, 42Brattleboro Reformer, 95Bray, Jennifer, 14Brdjanin, Radoslav, 176Breiland, Ken, 75Brennan (Los Angeles Police Officer), 41Bresson, Paul, 46Brevik, Marcia, 207Breyer, Justice Stephen G., 27, 28, 162–163,

163, 202Brick, Ann, 239Bridge to Terabithia, 197, 257Brigance, Justice Bonnie, 58Brinegar, Kevin, 117Brinkman, Beth S., 164British Broadcasting Corp., 24, 279Brizendine, Elizabeth, 155Brock, Pastor Jack, 80Broida, John, 262, 281Brookings Institution, 69Brookstaver, David, 199Brown, A. J., 94–95

Brown, Cassandra, 89Brown, Christopher T., 267–268Brown, Frances, 257Brown, Justice Garrett E., Jr., 33–34, 91, 220Brown, Justice Janice Rogers, 142Brown, Justice Lawrence, 272Brown, Mark, 140, 141Brown, Widney, 58Brown University School of Medicine, 8Brucker, Hubert, 19Bruning, Kristina, 98Bryant, Daniel J., 252Bryn Mawr School, 180–181Buck, Jane, 53Buckley, Francis, 14Bulger, William M., 167Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 298Bundy, Bob, 89Bunner, Andrew, 32–33Bunting, Alison, 17Bunting, Maj. Gen. Josiah, III, 86Bureau of Reclamation, 130Bureau of Transportation Statistics, 20Burgan, Mary, 53–54, 216, 276Burk, Dan, 219Burks, John, 75Burns, Ken, 70Burt, David, 178Burton, John, 215, 216Bush, George H. W., and Bush administration,

8Bush, George W., and Bush administration, 1,

3, 8, 22, 23, 27, 36, 37, 39, 46, 80, 96,122, 129, 133–134, 148, 176–177, 201,204, 212, 214, 218, 298

Bush, Jeb, 68Business Software Alliance, 218Buvinger, Jan, 16By Any Means Necessary, 173Byers, Patsy, 127, 174Byers v. Edmondson, 193Byren, Alex, 5Byrnes, Justice John Carroll, 58Byron, Dave, 79

CCaballero, Rick, 174Calandra, John, 18California, 14

Berkeley, 19, 155–156, 173, 214–216Costa Mesa, 97–98Garden Grove, 271–272La Mirada, 104Los Angeles, 17, 40–41, 102, 163, 277–278Riverside, 155Sacramento, 77, 216, 265San Diego, 124–125San Francisco, 9, 34, 75, 78–79, 128, 129,

142, 170, 173–174, 204–205, 209, 255,271, 272

San Jose, 32–33, 89Santa Barbara, 267–268Santa Clara County, 44Sherman Oaks, 96

California Department of Transportration, 89California First Amendment Center, 41California Institute of Technology, 115California National Guard, 40, 41California State University, 216

Chico, 7Los Angeles, 14Sacramento, 77

California Victims’ Rights Law, 128Callahan, Christopher, 20Camenker, Brian, 154

Campbell, Alastair, 24Campbell, Matt, 269Campus Sex Crimes Prevention Act, 166Canada:

Montreal, 261Canadian Human Rights Act, 121Canton, Dr. Santiago, 106Cantor, Abraham, 123Capcom Entertainment, 127Cappato, Marco, 151Cappy, Justice Ralph J., 266–267Card, Andrew, 129Carleton, Kevin, 276, 277Carlin, John W., 37, 38Carlisle, Jon, 68Carnahan, Jean, 212Carnett, Jim, 98Carney, Joanne, 217Carpenter, Chris, 78, 79Carr, Michael, 120Carson, David, 221, 222Carter, Bill, 214Carter, Cris, 167Carter, Dean, 259Carter, Patricia A., 259Castaldi, Gwen, 21Castille, Justice Ronald D., 267Castillo, Mariano, 76Castle, Nancy, 40Caswell, Bob, 262, 281Catcher in the Rye, The, 61Catlett, Jason, 125–126CBS News, 23Celebrity Skin, 271Celeste, Richard F., 262Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT),

3, 120, 150, 189, 220Center for Digital Democracy, 251Center for National Security Studies, 39, 171,

263Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), 3, 208, 282Chantahnasihn, Maydom, 200Charns, Alex, 95Chavez, Luis, 274Chelton, Mary K., 141, 142Chemerinsky, Erwin, 205Chen, David, 294Chen, Xiaotian, 70Cheney, Dick, 134Cheney, Lynne, 8Chester, Jeffrey, 251Cheverton, Julie, 13Chiapas Coalition, 297Child Online Protection Act, 26–27, 162, 163Child Pornography Prevention Act of 1996, 27,

161–162Children’s Internet Protection Act (CIPA), 9,

63, 66, 67, 109, 139–142, 145, 178, 189,193, 201

Children’s Online Protection Act (COPA), 66Chile:

Santiago, 51–52China:

Beijing, 80–81, 293Gansu Province, 293–294Shanghai, 24, 55, 294–295

China Democracy Party (CDP), 80–81China Internet Network Information Center,

294China Ministry of State Security, 24Chmara, Theresa, 63, 141Choate, Justice Dennis S., 271Chocolate War, The, 49–50, 61Chomsky, Noam, 81, 121, 138Christian, Charles, 13

Christian Coalition, 43, 274Christianson, Erik, 270Chronicle of Higher Education, 18, 53,

206–207CIA, see Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)Cincinnati Enquirer, The, 71“CIPA Trial Concludes,” 109, 139–142City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, 28City University of New York, 18, 54Civil Rights Forum on Communications Policy,

148Clancy, Tom, 252Clay, Justice Eric L., 270CleanFlicks, 277, 278ClearPlay, 277Clement, Paul D., 28Clifford, Robert A., 296Clinton, Bill, 39Cloud, Dana L., 54CNN, 23Coalition of Union Employees, 17Coast Federation of Educators, 98Cobean, Teri Ford, 79Coble, Howard, 221, 297Coca-Cola, 206Cockrel, Donna, 31Cohan, Mark, 197Cohen, Barbara, 48, 297Cohen, Daniel, 116Cohen, Jeff, 107Cohen, Michele, 199Cohn, Cindy, 87Cole, R. Guy, Jr., 177Coleman, Alice, 76College of the Mainland, 137Collegian, The (Pennsylvania State University),

19Colombia, 297–298Colombo, Harry, 265Colon, Aly, 23Colorado:

Boulder, 13–14, 261–262Colorado Springs, 261–262, 274Denver, 48, 67, 101, 126–127, 167–168, 297Durango, 77Greeley, 279

Colorado College, 261, 262Color Purple, The, 62Colter, Larry W., 32Comeau, Carol, 13Commercial Appeal, The, 73Committee for Public Counsel Services, 88Common Cause, 119Communications Decency Act, 27, 67, 87, 97,

139Community College Journalism Association,

260Complete Pig, The, 255Complete Works of William Shakespeare, 80Computer & Communications Industry

Association (CCIA), 130Comstock, Barbara, 92, 264Conable, Gordon, 66–67, 193, 237–238ConAgra, 299Concerned Women of America,

164, 256Concerned Women for America’s Culture, 157Concordia University, 261Condit, Tom, 90“Confidentiality and Coping with Law

Enforcement Inquiries: Guidelines for theLibrary and Its Staff,” 242–244

Conlon, Justice Suzanne B., 260Connecticut, 165–166

Cromwell, 197, 257–258

Connors, Tom, 134Conroy, Frank, 180Conroy, Thomas P., 25Construction and Operation of Clandestine

Drug Laboratories, The, 101Consumer Federation of America, 148Consumers Union, 148Conwell, Kevin, 258Conyers, John, Jr., 177, 240, 252, 265Cook, Joe, 270Cook, Roger, 116Cooper, Dick, 71Cooper, Edward H., 295Cooper, Ginnie, 140, 178Cooper, Mark, 148Copenhaver, Justice John T., Jr., 170, 280Coppelman, Jon, 154Copps, Michael, 47Copyright Term Extension Act, 124Corallo, Mark, 177Corley, Eric, 91, 92Cormier, Robert, 49–50, 61Cornell University, 111-113Cornerstone Project, 65Cornyn, John, 134Corrigan, Robert A., 173Cosmic Entertainment, 22Cosmopolitan, 80, 271Cossett, ReLeah, 194Costa, Carol, 137Costco, 88–89Coughlin, Kerry, 292, 293Coulter, Ann, 107Council of Europe, 121, 130

“Cybercrime Convention,” 91Council on American-Islamic Relations

(CAIR), 254Council on Library and Information Resources,

165Counts, Billy Ray, 197Counts, Mary Nell, 197Court decisions:

Abortion:San Francisco, California, 34, 56

Bookstore:Denver, Colorado, 167–168

Child pornography:Worcester, Massachusetts, 88Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 209

Church and state:Montgomery, Alabama, 126San Francisco, California, 204–205Baton Rouge, Louisiana, 205–206New Orleans, Louisiana, 270New Orleans, Lousiana, 85Chester County, Pennsylvania, 169Chattanooga, Tennessee, 169–170Nashville, Tennessee, 270–271Lexington, Virginia, 85–86St. Albans, West Virginia, 170

Copyright:San Francisco, California, 209Princeton, New Jersey, 33–34

Cross burning:Richmond, Virginia, 56–57

“Disorderly conduct”:Pierre, South Dakota, 207–208

etc.:Anchorage, Alaska, 88–89San Francisco, California, 128, 142San Jose, California, 89Indianapolis, Indiana, 57Noblesville, Indiana, 57St. Mary’s County, Maryland, 89Carson City, Nevada, 296

Columbus, Ohio, 90Eugene, Oregon, 57Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 58Richmond, Virginia, 183Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 90

Film and video:Denver, Colorado, 126–127New Orleans, Louisiana, 127

Freedom of assembly:Washington, D.C., 168–169

Internet:Tucson, Arizona, 124Garden Grove, California, 271–272San Diego, California, 124–125San Francisco, California, 170San Jose, California, 32–33Fort Lauderdale, Florida, 125–126Monroe, Louisiana, 33, 87St. Paul, Minnesota, 206Emerson, New Jersey, 87Albany, New York, 87Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, 272Montpelier, Vermont, 170, 182–183Washington, D.C., 86

Library:Columbus, Ohio, 124

Parody and copyright:San Francisco, California, 272

Periodicals:San Francisco, California, 271

Prepublication review:Los Alamos, New Mexico, 208

Prisoners’ rights:McKean, Pennsylvania, 208–209

Privacy:Camden, New Jersey, 88Washington, D.C., 127–128

Schools:Sacramento, California, 265Shelbyville, Kentucky, 31New Prague, Minnesota, 166–167Cleveland, Ohio, 31Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 266–267Charleston, West Virginia, 31

Secrecy:Columbia, South Carolina, 295–296

Universities:Auburn, Alabama, 87–88Santa Barbara, California, 267–268Evansville, Indiana, 32Amherst, Massachusetts, 167Trenton, New Jersey, 268Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 268–269Miami, Ohio, 206–207Madison, Wisconsin, 269-70Milwaukee, Wisconsin, 32

Video GamesSt. Louis, Missouri, 183

War of terrorism:Detroit, Michigan, 265Washington, D.C., 263–264

Courtney, Amy, 89“Court Overturns CIPA,” 145, 178Cox, Marge, 117Craig, Bruce, 37Crampton, Steve, 217Creppy, Michael, 152Crist, Margo, 63–65, 81–82, 189–190,

235–237, 249, 282Critchet, Andrea, 90Cronin, Blaise, 141Cuba, 106Cujo, 15Culver, Mel, 136

Current Population Survey (CPS), 148Curtiss, Margery, 279Cutting, Rod, 74CyberPatrol, 139, 140, 219Cyber Security Enhancement Act, 218CyberSitter, 219Cyberspace Communications v. Engler, 67Czesak, Cindy, 239

DDaily Californian, The (University of

California, Berkeley), 19, 156Daily Courier (Oregon), 1Daily Illini (University of Illinois Urbana-

Champaign), 19Dalglish, Lucy, 84, 222Dalzell, Justice Stewart, 169Damra, Imam Fawaz, 78“Dangers of the Mail” (mural), 92Darras, Benjamin, 127, 174Daschle, Tom, 3, 204Daughtrey, Martha Craig, 177Daughtry, Les, Jr., 22Daum, Walter, 18Davidson, Alan, 120, 150, 188, 220, 228–34Davis, Chuck, 88Davis, Don, 141Davis, Gray, 216Davis, Joey, 256Davis, Meg, 293“Daydreamer,” 79Dean, Mike, 44Dean, Robert, 74Deck, Joseph C., 167DeCSS, 32–33, 90-92DeFeciani, Kelly, 154Defense Intelligence Agency, 298DeGeurin, Mike, 47, 84, 101Deida, Rosemary, 90Dejean, Betty, 35Delacorte Press, 16de Laforcade, Geoffroy, 260Dempsey, Jim, 3Denton, Otissey, 50Dershowitz, Alan, 154DeSloover, Mike, 117Detroit Free Press, The, 177Detroit News, The, 177, 265Deutsch, Sarah, 278, 296–297Deveny, Tyler, 280–281Devine, Joan, 135–136Diamondback, The (University of Maryland at

College Park), 19–20Different Seasons, 15Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 33-34, 91,

218–220, 278Dillard, Annie, 180Di Raimondo, Ausra, 15-16Directors Guild of America, 277Disney, 132Dodd, Christopher, 96Does the Digital Divide Still Exist? Bush

Administration Shrugs, But Evidence Says“Yes,” 148

Dogium, Bob, 80Dohrn, Bernardine, 44–45Dolak, Fritz, 124Dominguez, Steve, 296Doron, Gideon, 261DoubleClick, 92Downey, Margaret, 169Downie, Leonard, Jr., 24Doyle, Jesse, 172, 214Dremov, Ivan, 116–117

Drescher, Judith, 73Driving While Black: What to Do if You’re a

Victim of Racial Profiling, 116Druids, 179Drummond, Harriet, 13Dubinsky, Dennis, 174Duerring, Ron, 280–281Duke University, 115Duncan, Grant, 158Dunham, Randy, 198-199Dunn, Tom, 180Durand, Marty, 104Durham, Megan, 86DVD Copy Control Association, 33

EEagle Forum, 43Earley, Mark L., 183Edelman, Benjamin, 141–142Edgar, Justice Allan, 169Edison Schools, Inc., 299Edmondson, Sarah, 174Edwards, Justice Harry T., 168Egeland, Eric, 13Egeland, Joan, 13Egolf, Alan, 9Ehrlich, Dorothy, 210EIDOS Interactive, 127Eigner, Andrea, 197, 257–258Elder, David A., 41Eldred, Eric, 123–124Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 34, 72,

87, 91, 129, 130, 220Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC),

46, 127–128, 213, 263Eliasberg, Peter, 105Eli M. Oboler Award, 113–114El Libro Vaquero, 223Elliott, Richard J., 56, 166, 203Ellis, Lisa, 261–262“EmptyTrellis (revisited),” 80Encyclopedia of Serial Killers, The, 179End the Politics of Cruelty, 297Eng, Justice Glen, 207–208Engels, Friedrich, 73Enola Gay, 255Enron, 133Ensler, Eve, 78Enteen, Riva, 210Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 15,

20, 21, 103, 119Epic of Gilgamesh, The, 258–259Eppich, David P., 77Equifax, 3Erdmann, Edward E., 133Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, 51Esquire, 271Esser, Gloria, 136Esteban, Manuel A., 53eTesting Labs, 141Ethics in Librarianship, 149–150European Union, 151Evans, Sonia, 136Everitt, David, 179Ewich, David, 142Ewing, David, 177“Exploitation of Labor,” 199“Explore Islamic Civilization and Culture,” 254

FFactiva, 71Fagan, Stuart I., 260Falk, Kenneth, 57Falk, Suzanne, 118

Fallen Angels, 61Fallon, Helen, 99–100Falun Gong, 55, 294Falvo, Krisja, 122Falwell, Jerry, 107Families Online Week, 82Family and Freedom Foundation, 44Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act

(FERPA), 85, 122, 164, 165, 202–203,206–207

Family Institute, 157Family Policy Network, 217, 269Family Shield Technologies, 277Fand, Daria, 137FARC, 298Farnan, Bob, 114Farris, Ray S., 269Fat Girl, 81Faulkner, Larry R., 54FBI, 3, 96, see Federal Bureau of Investigation

(FBI)“FBI Begins Visiting Libraries,” 185, 239–240Fear Street series, 61Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), 3, 4, 5,

17, 35, 40-41, 46, 80, 93, 96, 99, 103,111, 118, 127–128, 171, 176, 185, 188,214–216, 228–34, 239–240, 263–264,298

Carnivore Internet surveillance system, 3, 46,127–128

Responsibilities Program, 215“Security Index,” 215

Federal Communications Commission (FCC),47, 66, 103, 178, 220, 251

Federal Depository Library Program, 115Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA), 194Federal Register, 39Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 102, 175Federation of American Scientists, 35, 39

Project on Government Secrecy, 20–21Feingold, Russell, 3, 52–53, 240Feinstein, Dianne, 214–216Felde, Marie, 156Feldmann, Dr. James, 214Felsher, William, 32Felten, Edward W., 33–34, 91, 219, 220Fernandez, Justice Ferdinand F., 205Fero, Kelly, 130Ferrara, Christopher, 170Fichthorn, Robert, 120Finan, Christopher, 72, 240, 252Finch, Warren, 134Fink, Herschel, 177Finkelstein, Norman, 261Finnell, Cory, 141“First Amendment: New Challenges for a

Changed World, The,” 65First Amendment Center, 204-205First Amendment Lawyers Association, 28First Amendment (South Lyon High School,

Michigan), 155Fisher, Marc, 50–51Fisher, Mike, 176, 272Flanagan, Bridget, 197, 257–258Flaubert, Gustave, 279Fleischer, Ari, 23, 36, 37Fleming, Mike, 73Fletcher, Justice William, 296Florida, 29, 30, 68

Brooksville, 15Deland, 79Delray Beach, 35Duval County, 83

Fort Lauderdale, 125–126Gainesville, 137–138Jacksonville, 49Lake County, 213Miami, 105–106St. Petersburg, 49–50Tampa, 17–18, 98–99, 117–118, 179,

213–214, 275–276Florida Department of Safety and Motor

Vehicles, 137–138Flynn, Sally, 169Fogel, Justice Jeremy, 91, 120–121, 271Foley, Mary Donna, 116Follett, Ken, 179Follow the River, 117Fong, Ivan, 91–92Fonshell, Chuck, 49–50Fonshell, Heather, 49-50Ford, Will, 117Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),

52, 264Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court,

263–264Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS),

1964-1968, vol. XVI: Cyprus; Greece;Turkey, 282

Forester, Justice Karl, 207Forever, 105, 135–136Forman, Roger, 31Formwalt, Lee W., 70Foster, Brian L., 46, 78Foster, Mike, 29Foundation for Individual Rights in Education,

Inc., 132, 216Fowles, Jib, 72Fox News Channel, 23Fox Television, 273France:

Paris, 120–121Francescani, Dave, 125Francke, Terry, 41Franco, Betsy, 195Frank, Helen, 16Frazier, Kenneth, 71Free Congress Foundation, 218Freedom Forum, 21, 23

First Amendment Center, 261Freedom From Religion Foundation, 44Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 15, 36,

93, 127, 128, 134, 214-215Freedom of Information Law, New York, 118Freedom to Read Foundation, 63, 66–67, 101,

124, 133, 151, 180, 193, 237–238Roll of Honor Awards, 151

“Free Expression After September 11—AnOnline Index,” 4

Freeman, Robert J., 119Free Speech Coalition, 161French Union of Jewish Students, 66Friedman, Thomas, 107Friends Comimttee on National Legislation, 52Friends of Lynn Street Park Art Tile Project,

224Fryer, John, 49Fugate, Norm, 114Fullam, Justice John P., 63, 139-140, 178Fulmer, Kathleen, 266–267Funk, David M., 181Furuhashi, Yoshie, 199Fuschino, Vincent, 154

GGalvin, William, 103Gannett Company, 71

Garcia, David, 71Garcia, David A., 51Garcia, Justice Orlando, 51Gardner, John B., 274Garfinkel, Steven, 110Garland, Peter, 100Gates of Fire, 179Gay, Peter, 255Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation,

157Gaylor, Anne E., 44Geaghen, Frank, 208Geist, Michael, 121Gelernt, Lee, 265General Accounting Office (GAO), 134General Agreement on Trade in Services

(GATS), 251General Services Administration, 92Genshaft, Judy, 17, 98, 275-276Geoffroy, Gregory, 45George Washington University, National

Security Archive, 37Georgia:

Atlanta, 177Cobb County, 273–274Houston County, 195–196Ringgold, 281–282

Gerber, Michael, 249, 282–286Germany:

Berlin, 56, 157–158Gerth, Donald, 77GetNetWise, 82Giampietro, Wayne, 83Gibbons, Dolores, 76Gibbons, Michael, 18Gilbertson, Justice David, 208Giles, Jimmy, 25Gilmore, Jim, 212Ginsburg, Justice Ruth Bader, 27, 162, 163,

202Giroux, Henry, 72Giuliani, Rudolph, 134Gladish, Christine, 14Glenberg, Rebecca K., 172Global Cable, Inc., 172Global Relief Foundation, 177, 239Glon, Ron, 116Glover, R. Joseph, 217, 269Glover, Tim, 80Glum, Duane, 9Go, Liza, 17Go Ask Alice, 61Godfrey, Neil, 41–42Godley, Rex, 94–95God of Small Things, The, 121Godwin, Mike, 131Goldberg, Brad, 73Goldberg, Diana, 73Golden, Judd, 14Goldsmith, Jack, 120Goldstein, Gerald H., 271Goldstein, Jeffrey, 72Goldstein, Matthew, 18, 54Gomez, Justice Jean-Jacques, 120, 121Gone with the Wind, 177Gonzaga University, 85, 164-165, 202–203Gonzalez, Thomas M., 98, 276Goodman, Mark, 50-51, 99, 207, 259–260Goodwin, Justice Alfred T., 204-205Google, 294Goosebumps series, 61Gordon, Anthony, 41Gordon, William C., 78Gors, Justice Max, 208

Government Printing Office, 14-15, 115Government vs. Erotica: The Siege of Adam &

Eve, The, 12Governors Program on Abstinence, Louisiana,

270Governors State University, 259–261Graber, Justice Susan P., 267–268Graham, Hugh D., 37Graham, Nicholas, 125Graham, Peter, 14–15Grants Pass Daily Courier, 22–23Graves, Jeffery L., 112Gray, Megan, 213Greece, 282Green, Richard, 122–123, 163Greene, Bette, 61Greene, Bill, 88Greene, David, 72Griffin, Patrick J., III, 89Griffin, William, 170Grooming of Alice, 256Gross, Robin, 34Guinness World Records books, 136Gusterson, Hugh, 8Guterson, David, 62Guthrie, Dan, 22–23Gutting, Tom, 22

HHabitat for Humanity, 131Hack, Elisha D., 25Hacker, Elizabeth, 177Haddad, Rabih, 177, 265Hage, Wadih, 40Hale, Matt, 211Hall, Tony, 9Halvorssen, Thor L., 216Hamdi, Tariq, 17Hamidi, Ken, 129Hamilton, Andrea D., 180–181Hamon, Peter, 140Handmaid’s Tale, The, 61–62Hansen, Chris, 139Hanson, Kari, 239Hanson, Linda, 153Hanson, Victor, III, 198Harcourt Cos., 294Hardesty, David, 132Hardy, Kenneth E., 122, 163Hargis, Jonnie, 7, 17Harithas, Jim, 80Harlem Community Justice Center, 199Harmer, C. L., 48, 297Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting

Children from Sex, 156–157Harmon, Charles, 11Haro, Mr. (of American Legion), 9Harper, Jim, 46Harrell, Will, 252-253Harrelson, Woody, 31Harrington, Art, 223Harrington, Kathryn M., 275Harris, Cara, 45Harris, Eric, 127Harris, Robie, 61, 256Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone, 56Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone, 24, 56,

80Harry Potter series, 49, 56, 61–62, 80, 116,

120, 197, 252“Harry Potter Tops Most Challenged List Third

Year in a Row,” 61–62Hart, Mark, 118Hart, Tommy, 73

Hartzell, Joanne, 294Harvard Crimson, 19Harvey, Philip D., 12Hassell, Justice Leroy, 56Hatch, Orrin, 140, 210, 212Hatred in the Hallway: Discrimination and

Violence Against Lesbian, Gay, Bisexualand Transgender Students in U.S. PublicSchools, 58

Hattaway, Dan, 50Hauptman, Robert, 149Hauser, Grady, 153Hawaii:

Honolulu, 137Hawkins, Justice Michael Daly, 271Hayduke Lives!, 41Hayduke, George Washington, III, 41Hayes, Homer M., 137Haynes, Charles, 204-205Heaphy, Janis Besler, 77Hearlson, Ken, 53, 97–98Heaton, Doug, 136Hefner, Hugh, 125Heidi Chronicles, The, 153Heifetz, Jeanne, 180Heins, Marjorie, 72, 113–114, 187, 224–228Helt, Ben, 16Henderson, Michael, 104Henske, Jason, 95Hensman, Kathleen, 35Herbert, Gregory, 50Hermsen, Wayne, 196, 256Hernandez, Christina, 117-118Hernandez, Linda, 118Hernandez, Maria, 223Herrera, Dario, 21Hershenson, Jay, 18Herskovitz, Marshall, 277-278Hester, Vivian, 172Heyward, Andrew, 23Heyworth, Scott, 88–89Hickman, Ted, 176Hill, Dennis, 118Himple, Wayne, 279Hinesley, Howard, 49Hinkle, Charles, 89Hinton, S. E., 252“Hoarding of Wealth,” 199Hoffman, Paul L., 268Hogge, Tammy, 13Holbrook, Ray, 137Hollings, Ernest F., 221Hollingsworth, Richard, 198Homebody/Kabul, 79Homestead Technologies, Inc., 33, 87Hood, John, 158Horan, Angela Lemmon, 196Hormel, James, 255Horn, Alan, 277Horn, Stephen, 37, 38Horner, Blair, 119Horowitz, Beverly, 16Horowitz, David, 19Horwitz, Robert, 72Houghton Mifflin, 177Housing America, 299Houston, Paula, 48, 103Houston Chronicle, 54Howden, Melissa, 78–79Hoyt, Clark, 24Hudson, David, 261Hufsey, L. Dean, 136Hughes, James, 154, 175Human Rights Watch, 58, 81, 293, 297–298

Hunter, Christopher, 140Hurd, Dr. Richard, 49Hurd, William, 203Hussong, Carissa, 73Hustler, 271Hypervine (Internet service provider), 22

IIdaho, 103–104Id Software, 127IFLA/FAIFE World Report: Libraries and

Intellectual Freedom, 11–12IHT.com, 24IIT Research Institute, 128I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, 61, 258Illinois, 43

Chicago, 44–45, 83Deerfield, 153Elgin, 105, 135–136Naperville, 15–16University Park, 259–261

Illinois College Press Association, 260Immigration and Naturalization Service, 93,

176India:

New Delhi, 121Indiana, 123

Evansville, 32Indianapolis, 29, 57, 116–117Noblesville, 57, 117South Bend, 115–116

Infogames, 127Infopop, 22Information Center for Human Rights and

Democracy, 80–81, 293Information Technology Association of

American, 218Information Technology Industry Council, 218Ingles, Mary, 117Innovator, The (Governors State University),

259–261Insatiable Appetite: The Government’s Demand

for New and Unnecessary Powers AfterSeptember 11, 152

Intel, 129“Intellectual Freedom after September 11,” 1–2Intellectual Freedom Manual, 11, 236Interactive Digital Software Association, 183Inter-American Commission on Human Rights,

106Internal Revenue Service (IRS), 14International Federation of Library

Associations, 106Internet Manifesto, 190, 192

International Federation of LibraryAssociations and Institutions:

Committee on Free Access to Informationand Freedom of Expression(IFLA/FAIFE), 5, 11

International Herald Tribune, 24, 55International League Against Racism and Anti-

Semitism (Licra), 120International PEN, 106“Internet Filter Farce, The,” 140Interplay Productions, 127In These Times, 299Iowa, 104

Des Moines, 45Dyersville, 196, 255–256Iowa City, 118

Iowa State University, 45Iraq, 298IRA Radio, 22Irenas, Joseph, 88

Isaacson, Walter, 23, 107Islamic Committee for Palestine, 276Islamic Jihad, 17, 78, 99Islamic Society of North America, 52Island Pictures, 127Ismail, Eyad, 40Israel Action Committee, 156Italy:

Rome, 200ITN, 24It’s Perfectly Normal, 13, 61, 256–257Ivory, Rev. Elenora Gidding, 52

JJackson, Kenneth T., 74Jackson, Justice Robert, 9Jacques, Cheryl, 276Jaffe, Geraldine, 98James, Beverly, 141James, Fob, 43James, Justice Robert G., 87Janes, Dr. Joseph, 140Jansen, Brad, 218Jaschik, Scott, 207Jefferson Community College, 122–123, 163Jehovah’s Witnesses, 30–31, 123, 201–202Jenkins, Henry, 72Jenner & Block, 5, 63Jensen, Robert, 54Jesus Party, 24Jiang Zemin, 24, 55, 81Jinbo, Wang, 81John Paul II, Pope, 200John Philip Immroth Memorial Award for

Intellectual Freedom, 152Johns Hopkins University Press, 180-181Johnson, Cynthia Wolf, 217Johnson, Ellen, 138Johnson, Justice Ernest, 221Johnson, Nancy, 174Johnson, Wade, 43Johnston, Joseph H., 271Jomax Technologies, 21Jones, Barbara C., 132–133Jones, Bruce, 101Jones, C. Paul, 167Jones, E. Stewart, 154Jones, Jerrauld C., 183Jones, Sarah, 103Jordan, Jim, 181Jordan, Justice Servando, 51Josephs, Babette, 9Josephson, Justice Bertha, 88Joynes, Charles, 172Jubilee, James, 203Junkbusters, 125Justice Department, see U.S. Justice

Department

KKagarlitsky, Boris, 239Kalb, Marvin, 69Kallstrom, James K., 118–120Kansas, 43

Kansas City, 221–222Kansas Board of Education, 43Karfunkle, David, 199Karkazis, Harry, 153Karp, Angela, 41Katz, Stanley N., 70, 71Kazaa, 297KBOO-FM (Portland, Oregon), 103Keane, Kevin, 100Keehn, Benjamin, 88

Keenan, Barry, 128Keep, Justice Judith, 125Keith, Justice, 265Keller, Bruce P., 70Kempthorne, Dirk, 103Kendall, David E., 34Kennedy, Alexis, 260Kennedy, Justice Anthony M., 28, 122, 161,

162, 163, 165, 213Kennedy, David M., 70Kentucky:

Russell Springs, 116Shelbyville, 31

Kerr, Clark, 214, 215Kessler, Gladys, 263Ketterling, Nomie, 279Keys, Bill, 55Khan, Ayesha, 43, 85, 170, 280-281Khayat, Robert C., 25Kilgore, Jerry W., 86, 166, 183, 203Killam, Jim, 260-261Kinchen, James, 195Kindle, Wayne, 207–208King, Rachel, 194, 210King, Stephen, 15, 252Kirk, Justice James, 33Kirtley, Jane, 40-41Kiser, Justice Jackson L., 183Klause, Annette Curtis, 61Klebold, Dylan, 127Kleinfeld, Justice Andrew, 34Klinker, Dany, 176Klostermann, Lisa, 256Klug, Scott, 55Knick, Paul S., 86Knight, Jonathan, 253Knight, Robert, 157Knight, Terry, 41Knight Ridder, 24Koehler, Wallace, 149–150Koerner, Brendan, 251Kohut, Andrew, 69Kong Quan, 294Koopman, Doris, 196Koppel, Ted, 24Kozinski, Justice Alex, 34, 209, 272Kraeger, Joyce E., 295-296Kram, Lorraine, 17Kramer, Jody, 33Kramer, Lance, 50, 51Kramer, Mary, 104Krause, Ronald, 120Kreisher, Tina, 20Krider, Pam, 103Krug, Judith F., 12, 35, 61, 109, 113, 139-141,

145, 150, 239Krull, John, 117Kuchinsky, Maxim, 238–239Kucinich, Dennis, 218Ku Klux Klan, 56, 203Kunkel, Thomas G., 19-20Kurtenbach, Dick, 222Kushner, Tony, 79Kutler, Stanley I., 37

LLakeland Community College, 78Lakner, Ed, 239Lamberth, Justice Royce C., 86, 130, 264Lambrecht, Russell, 32Lance, Al, 103–104Landau, Richard, 172Landers, Peggy, 49Landrieu, Mary, 204–205

Lane, Dorrie, 78-79Lane, Monte, 257Laos:

National Internet Committee, 200Vientiane, 200

LaPierre, Diane, 172Larson, Susan, 140Laskey, Fred, 103“Last of the Believers,” 137Latham, Jim, 175Laushey, Clyde, 112Lavin, Austin, 50–51Lavin, Carl, 50-51Lawrence, D. H., 209League, Roberta S., 85, 203Leahy, Patrick J., 21, 264, 273Lederman, Robert, 168Lee, Barbara, 1Lee, Daniel, 57Lee, Harper, 50, 252Lee, Seneca, 212Lee, Sheila Jackson, 101Leggett, Doak, 101Leggett, Vanessa, 47, 84, 101–102Lehman, Joseph, 102Lehman, Lynn, 117Lemmons, Chris, 141Lemons, Justice Donald W., 56Leno, Mark, 9Leon, Rachel, 119Lesoine, Kathryn, 209Lessig, Lawrence, 124Letts, Billie, 223Leventhal, George L., 275Levine, Joseph, 199Levine, Judith, 156–157Levine, Mark, 255Levy, Harold, 55Levy, Paul, 126Lewis, Al, 22Li Dawei, 254, 293-294Liberty Counsel, 90, 212“Libraries and the USA PATRIOT Act,” 5Library Bill of Rights, ALA, 59, 245

“Privacy: An Interpretation of the LibraryBill of Rights,” 64, 191, 222

“Library Community Statement on ProposedAnti-Terrorism Measures,” 6–7

Library Principles for the Networked World, 64Library Services Technology Act, 139, 178Libro negro de la justicia chilena, El (The

Black Book of Chilean Justice), 51–52Lichtenstein, Allen, 21Lieberman, Donna, 55, 119Lightbourn, George, 44Ligue Contre Le Racisme et L’Antisemitisme,

La, 66Limbaugh, Justice Stephen N., 183Lin, Herbert, 150–151Lincoln Laboratory, 216Lindorff, David, 273Lindsey, Bruce R., 39Lions Gate/Cowboy Picture, 81Lipow, Anne, 142Lipscomb University, 270Liss-Riordan, Shannon, 135List, Jo, 106Lloyd, Mark, 148Llywelyn, Morgan, 179Lobe, Jim, 298Locke, Gary, 103Locker, Sari, 196, 256Loeffel, Marilyn, 73–74Lohrey, Curt, 154

London Guardian, 251Long, Christina, 174Los Alamos National Laboratory, 208Los Angeles Police Department, 40-41Los Angeles Times, 39, 298Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 67Loscocco, Paul, 68Louisiana, 29

Baton Rouge, 174, 205–206Monroe, 33, 87New Orleans, 85, 127, 270

Lourie, Kevin, 8Love and Other Four Letter Words, 15–16Lowenstein, Doug, 183Lowy, Frederick, 261Luttig, Justice J. Michael, 89Lu Xinhua, 80–81Lynn, Rev. Barry W., 43, 83–85, 123, 126, 170,

273–274Lyons, Duane, 258

MMacaluso, Ron, 174Macedonia, 299MacFadden, Frederick, 58MacFadden, Jean, 58Mach, Daniel, 63Mack, Dennis, 23Mackler, Carolyn, 15–16MacLachlan, Rachel, 255MacLean, Bradley A., 271Macomb Community College, 25–26MacPhail, Lori, 265Madame Bovary, 279Maddox, Melinda, 43Madsen, Mary, 32Magazine Publishers of America, 124Mahaffey, Greg, 172Mahaffey, Joshua, 171–172Mahaffey, Kari, 172Maher, Bill, 1, 4Mahoney, Kori, 196, 256Maier, Janet, 136Maine:

Lewiston, 24Portland, 79–80, 262, 281

“Majesty of Justice” (statue), 92Malach, Michele, 77Males, Michael, 72Mallam, Chad, 76Malling, Greg, 50Mancinas, Maria, 223Mancuso, Thomas, 136Mandler, Tom, 153Marbley, Justice Algernon L., 124Marinovich, Carol, 221–222Markels, Gail, 183Marks, Benjamin, 133Martin, Kate, 39, 171Martinez, Rosalie, 279Marx, Karl, 73Maryland:

Baltimore, 58, 180–181College Park, 19–20Montgomery County, 50–51St. Mary’s County, 89

Maryland Media, Inc., 19–20Mason, James, 255Massachusetts, 68, 103

Amherst, 167Boston, 276–277Cambridge, 216–217Holliston, 153–154Marlborough, 135

Worcester, 88Massachusetts Bay Transportation Area, 68Massachusetts Highway Department, 68Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 8,

216–217Massachusetts Newspaper Publishers, 68Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, 68,

103Mathis, Bob, 50Mattauch, Robert, 112Mattel, Inc., 209, 272Mattina, Celeste, 131Mature Nympho, 271Matus, Alejandra, 51–52Matz, Laura, 154Maxwell, Mark, 175Mayoral, Rey, 74MCA Records, 209, 272McCain, John, 139McCallum, Robert, 263McCandless, Pat, 240McClure, Polley Ann, 111McCollough, David, 70-71McCone, John, 215McConnell, Kim, 172McConnell, Sam, 16McCranie, Sally, 114McCurry, Mike, 69McDaniel, Nylajean, 31McDermott, Jim, 1McDermott, Patrice, 115McDonagh, John, 22McDonald, Steven J., 112McDonald’s, 206McDowell, Marylou, 259McIntosh, Steve, 90McKee, Robert, 275McKenzie-Wilson, Ray, 223McKrakoff, Jere, 208McLaughlin, Matthew, 96McLaughlin, Justice Sean J., 209McLean, Hilary, 216McMasters, Paul K., 7, 21, 23McMichael, Lori, 74McMillon, Bill, 281McNamara, Jean, 135Meadors, Brian, 197Mechau, Frank Albert, 92Medem, Julio, 292–293Media Coalition, 124Media File, 251Medical Library Association, 165Medsger, Betty, 75Meegan, Mr., 154Meese, Edwin, III, 216Megan’s Law, 165–166Meikle, Eric, 43Mellen, Neil J., 86Meloy, Frank, 131Member, a.k.a. Schlong Journey, 79Menarchek, Doug, 134Menninger, Carl, 153Meow Media, 127Meskis, Joyce, 101, 151, 152, 168, 238Metcalfe, Jake, 13Metro Times, 265Meyer, Fred, 88Meyer, Thomas R., 90Miami-Dade Community College, 105Michael, Justice, 33Michaelson, Martin, 85Michelson, Peter M., 167Michigan,

Detroit, 176–177, 265

Grandville, 280South Lyon, 155Waterford Township, 171–172

Microsoft, 91Midsummer Night’s Dream, A, 252Midway Home Entertainment, 127Midwest Archives Conference, 165Migneault, Joanne, 46Migneault, Robert L., 46Miles, Steven, 138Military Honor and Decency Act, 271Miller, Arthur, 295Miller, Jack, 133Miller, Jeff, 218Miller, Mary-Anne, 21Miller, Nicole, 44Mills, Richard P., 180Mincberg, Elliot M., 33Miner, Barbara, 299Minneapolis Star Tribune, 71Minnesota, 8-9

Minneapolis, 156–157Ogilvie, 75–76St. Paul, 179–180, 206

Minnesota Association of Secondary SchoolPrincipals, 54

Mishkoff, Henry, 126Missouri:

St. Louis, 16–17, 183Webb City, 256

Mitchell, Margaret, 177Mitrano, Tracy B., 111Moeser, James, 217, 269Moldow, Steven, 87Monroe Correctional Complex, 102Montana:

Hamilton, 258Montgomery, Justice Ann, 166-167, 206Moon, Justice Norman K., 86Mooney, Eugene, 31Moore, Karen Nelson, 177Moore, Michael, 22Moore, Milanda, 255Moore, Nathan, 132Moore, Pastor Richard, 114Moore, Justice Roy, 43, 126Morales, Rachel, 281More, Miriam, 97Morehouse College, 177Morello, Tom, 22Morgan, Candace, 139–140, 151, 238Morris, Randy, 280Morrison, Justice Bob, 127, 174Morrison, Sam, 239Moss, Kary, 155, 265Mother Jones, 251Motion Picture Association of America, 221Moua, Mee, 179Mousel, Frank, 196Moussaoui, Zacarias, 263–264Mouw, Tom, 280MovieMask, 277-278Moxley, Susan, 213MSNBC, 23MSNBC.com, 55Mueller, Robert, 94, 214-215Multinational Monitor, 299Murad, Abdul Hakim, 40Murphy, Cheryl, 213Murphy, Dick, 196Murphy, James A., III, 154Murphy, Laura, 4, 39–40, 152Murphy, Tom, 197Murray, Chris, 148

Murray, Nancy, 153–154Murtha, Justice Garvan, 170Music Library Association, 165Muslim Council, 254Myers, Walter Dean, 61“My Father,” 79Myhra, Kasey, 102–103

NN2H2, 139, 178, 219NAACP (National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People), 213Nadler, Jerry, 213NAFTA, 299Nagy, Thomas J., 298Napoli, Donald, 116Napster, 92Naratil, Stephen, 255Narconews.com, 87Nathan, Andy, 101National Academy of Sciences, 217, 273National ACLU Immigrants Rights Project,

265National Archives and Records Administration,

37, 133National Association of Broadcasters, 251National Association of Criminal Defense

Lawyers, 39National Association of Recording

Merchandisers, 124National Center of Science Education, 43National Coalition Against Censorship

(NCAC), 4, 105, 106, 180, 210National Coalition for Sexual Freedom, 97National Coordinating Committee for the

Promotion of History, 37National Council of the Arts, 79National Council of Churches, 52National Council on Public History, 165National Endowment for the Arts, 79–80National Endowment of the Humanities, 8National Geographic Society, 71National Guard, 42National Infrastructure Protection Center, 218National Institutes of Health (NIH), 100, 275National Labor Relations Board, 131National Law Center for Children and

Families, 150National Lawyers Guild, 210National Organization for Women, 164National Park Service, 86, 130National Research Council, 150National School Boards Association, 122National Security Act, 3National Writers Union, 71Natural Born Killers, 127, 174Naughty Neighbors, 271Naylor, Phyllis Reynolds, 61, 256NBC News, 23Neal, Anne, 8Neal, James G., 71Nebraska, 43Neighborhood Children’s Internet Protection

Act (NCIPA), 66, 109Neinast, Robert, 124Nelson, Anna, 37-38Nelson, Scott L., 36-37Nelson, Justice Thomas, 125Netanyahu, Benjamin, 261Nethersole, Rita, 167Netvision Audiotext, 125Network Authentication Systems, 127Nevada:Carson City, 296

Las Vegas, 21Newcomb, James, 134Newdow, Michael, 205“New FBI Guidelines and Other Anti-

Terrorism Efforts: What Every LibrarianShould Know,” 188, 228–34

New Jersey:Camden, 88Emerson, 87Princeton, 33–34Trenton, 21, 268

New Jersey Department of EnvironmentalProtection, 21

New Line Cinema, 127Newman, Jeffrey A., 295Newman, Justice Jon O., 91New Mexico, 43

Alamagordo, 80Albuquerque, 45–46, 77–78Los Alamos, 208

New Republic, The, 107News Corp., 47Newsweek, 107Newton, Michael, 179New York:

Albany, 87, 118–120, 180Clifton Park, 154New York City, 18, 22, 23, 55, 97, 103, 131,

199New York Observer, 221-222New York Post, 18New York Public Service Commission, 119New York State Department of Education, 180New York State Office of Court

Administration, 199New York Times Co., The, 55New York Times, 19, 24, 50, 55, 71, 107, 133New York University, 131New Zealand:

Auckland, 158New Zealand Association of University Staff,

158Nicely, Steve, 221Nickels, Greg, 224“Nightline,” 24Nigro, Justice Russell M., 267Nintendo of America, 127Nisbet, Miriam M., 71, 112–113Nitke, Barbara, 97Nojeim, Gregory T., 264Noonan, Justice John T., Jr., 209North Carolina:

Chapel Hill, 217, 268–269Durham, 94–95Hendersonville, 223

Northwestern University, 44–45, 115Not in Front of the Children, 187Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), 298Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 15, 20, 21Nunberg, Dr. Geoffrey, 140Nystroem, Lene, 209

OO’Brien, Ron, 175O’Connor, Justice Sandra Day, 123, 161,

162–163, 165Odeh, Mohammed Saddiq, 40O’Donnell, Loretta, 21Of Mice and Men, 61, 280Ohio:

Cincinnati, 126Cleveland, 26, 31, 78Columbus, 90, 124, 175, 198–199Miami, 206–207

Stratton, 30, 201–202Westerville, 141

Ohio Newspaper Association, 175Ohio State University, 112, 198–199Oklahoma:

Muskogee, 50Owasso, 122

Oklahoma State Textbook Committee, 43–44Oliveira, Sue, 256Olsen, Theodore, 124Olson, Theodore B., 27, 201O’Mara, Jonathan, 56, 166, 203OMB Watch, 15, 20Once and Again, 157O’Neal, Shaquille, 84O’Neil, Robert M., 253O’Neill, Eugene, 135Ontario:

Toronto, 81Ontario Film Review Board, 81Operation Rescue, 164Operation Rescue v. National Organization for

Women, 164Operation TIPS, 194, 210, 273Orange Coast College, California, 53, 97–98Oregon:

Eugene, 57Grants Pass, 22–23Salem, 74, 258–259

Oregon Intellectual Freedom Clearinghouse,10–11

O’Reilly, Bill, 18, 98–99, 275–276O’Reilly Factor, The, 17, 98–99, 275Organization of American Historians, 36-37,

70, 133Orr, Jimmy, 129Osborne, Frankie, 258Ose, Doug, 38O’Shea, Sean, 45Osservatore Romano, L’, 200Ossiander, Debbie, 13Our Americas, 22Outsiders, The, 50Owens, Bill, 262Owhali, Mohamed Rashed Daoud, 40Oxley, Michael G., 163

PPainter, Christopher, 112Palast, Greg, 298Palestinian Initiative for the Promotion of

Global Dialogue and Democracy, 262Palmer, William C., 92Palmisano, Gina, 136Palm Pictures, 127Panama City News Herald, 107Pappas, Louis, 76-77Parents Against Bad Books in Schools (PAB-

BIS), 179Parents’ Rights Coalition, Waltham, 154Parlin, Ruth, 115Paster, Ru, 85, 164Pataki, George, administration of, 118–120Paterson, Katherine, 197, 257Patten, Phyllis, 213Paul, Ron, 218Pauley, Edwin, 215Pauley, Corporal Jim, 42Paulsen, Marijane A., 274Paveza, Gregory J., 98Pawlenty, Tim, 156–157Pawlisz, Tony, 179Pearl, Daniel, 176Pechman, Justice Marsha, 279

Peikoff, Leonard, 19Pelosi, Nancy, 215PEN American Center, 133, 180, 252Pennsylvania, 8–9

Altoona, 131Bethlehem, 266–267Chester County, 169Harrisburg, 58, 99–100, 176, 272McKean, 208–209Penryn, 120Philadelphia, 41–42, 209Pittsburgh, 274York, 211

Pennsylvania School Press Association, 99Pennsylvania State Board of Education, 100Pennsylvania State Troopers, 42Pennsylvania State University, 19Penthouse, 271People for the American Way, 33, 109, 139,

263People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals,

164Pep O’Plant (Plant High School, Tampa),

117–118PepsiCo, 206Periodical and Book Association of America,

124Perkyns, John, 255Pesce, Mark, 42Petersen, David, 223Petersen, Paul, 279Peterson, Bart, 57Petitt, Aaron, 31Pew Research Center, 69Peyton, Brette, 76Peyton, Joseph, 41Pfeiffer, Justice Richard C., Jr., 90PFLAG et al v. the Municipality of Anchorage,

66Phi Delta Theta, 118Philadelphia Daily News, The, 71Philadelphia Inquirer, The, 71Philaosuk, Phonesavanh, 200Phillips, Carol Kolb, 194Phillips, Justice J. Stephens, 168Phillips, John, 15Phillips, Peter, 251Phillips, Justice Stephen, 101Pichelmann, Mary, 32Pikes Peak Community College, 274Pillars of the Earth, 179Pinochet, Augusto, 51Pipkin, Gloria, 194Planned Parenthood of Louisiana, 206Planned Parenthood v. American Coalition of

Life Activists, 56Plante, William L., Jr., 68Platt, Judith, 252Playboy, 271Playboy Enterprises, 124–125Playgirl, 271Pledge of Allegiance, 8–9, 54–55, 179,

204–205Pletneva, Tamara, 200Plosker, George, 71–72Poe, Matthew, 132Point Lookout Confederate Cemetery, 89Polidoro, Paul, 30-31Polygram, 127Pope, William L., 79–80Pope L., 79Poplau, Frankie, 167Porcelli, Natalia, 133Porteous, Justice G. Thomas, 205–206

Posner, Justice Richard, 29, 83, 183Potter, Dewey, 224Poujade, Ellie, 258–259Poujade, Marijo, 258Powell, Colin, 130Powell, Michael, 47, 148, 251Powers, Edward H., Jr., 221–222Prange, Phillip, 55Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), 52Presidential Records Act of 1978, 36–37, 133,

134Presser, Stefan, 169, 211Pressfield, Steven, 179Preston, Jim, 80Price, Ray, 293Princeton University, 33Prison Legal News, 102–103“Privacy: An Interpretation of the Library Bill

of Rights,” 191, 222Pro, Justice Philip, 296Pro Hosters, 176Project Censored, 251, 297–299ProtectTV, 172PSINet v. Chapman, 67Public Citizen, 36-37, 126, 134, 299

Litigation Group, 87Public Information Act, Texas, 133Public Interest Research Group, New York, 119Public Knowledge, 221Publishers Marketing Association, 124, 133P.U.-lizter Prize, 107Purdy, William S., Sr., 206Puryear, Marty, 172Putin, Vladimir, 200Putter, David, 182

QQuandt, C. E., 116-117Quirmbach, Herman, 45Qutami, Leila, 173–174

RRacial Profiling on Highways, Shopping Malls,

Taxicabs and Sidewalks, 116Racketeer Influenced Concept Organizations

Act, 164Rage Against the Machine, 22Raging.com, 294Rahman, Omar Abdul, 40Rainbow Protectors, 238Raines, Howell, 24Rakove, Jack N., 71Ramirez (Los Angeles Police Officer), 41Randa, Justice Rudolph, 32Randal, Jonathan, 176Randall, Alice, 177Randolph, Lynn, 80Ranney, Melora, 12Raskin, Jamin, 33Ratcliffe, Debbie Graves, 253Ratcliffe, Susan, 13Rather, Dan, 24, 176Reagan, Ronald, 36-38, 214-216Reben, Howard, 281Recht, Dan, 101Recording Industry Association of America, 34,

102, 124, 278, 296–297Redman, Julie, 206Reed, Ann, 77Reed, Charles B., 216Reed, Sally, 140Reeves, Richard, 133Regalado, Tomas, 105–106Rehnquist, Justice William H., 123, 161-163,

201–202Reilly, Thom, 21Reinhardt, Justice Stephen, 170, 205, 268Reiter, Mady, 180REN Laboratories of Florida, Inc., 30Rennell, Corey, 13Reno, Janet, 162Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press,

37, 84, 203, 222, 263Reporters Without Borders, 254Republican Party of Texas, 130Reuters, 24, 55Rezmierski, Virginia E., 111Reznik, Boris, 200Rhodes, Richard, 72Riccoboni, Gene, 46Rice, Breck, 277-278Rice, Condoleezza, 1, 23Rich, R. Bruce, 133, 249, 282, 289–292Ridge, Tom, 275Rifkin, Jeremy, 251Right to Read Coalition, 179Risher, Carolyn, 114“Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption,”

15Robert B. Downs Intellectual Freedom Award,

72Roberts, Cokie, 107Roberts, Estella, 197Roberts, John G., Jr., 123, 163Robertson, Geoffrey, 176Robertson, Justice James, 127Robertson, Pat, 107Robinson, Mendy, 49Rocky Mountain News, 262Roderick, Stephen A., 77Rohde, Stephen, 142Roler, Dennis, 23Romero, Anthony D., 4Rood, Emmalyn, 140–141Rooker, LeRoy S., 207Roots, Garrison, 73Rosati, Mark S., 45Rosen, Hilary, 102Rosen, Jay, 54Rosenfeld, Katie, 75Rosen Jeffrey, 113Roth, Jay D., 277Rowan, Bob, 13–14Rowley, Steve, 75Rowling, J. K., 56, 61, 80, 116, 197Roy, Arundhati, 121Rozell, Mark J., 37Rucker, Nancy, 44Rudd, Peggy D., 134Rumsfeld, Donald, 69Rushton, Russ, 50Russello, Justice Marc, 87Russia:

Moscow, 200, 238–239Rutgers Magazine (Rutgers University), 268Rutgers University, 268Rutherford, Justice Ann H., 265Rutherford Institute, 30, 183, 194, 210Ruzicka, Gayle, 48Ryan, James E., 259Ryan, Marty, 104Ryan, Dr. Michael, 140Ryan D., 265Rymer, Justice Pamela Ann, 170

SSacramento Bee, 77Sacramento News & Review, 40

Saderup, Gary, 84Sadler, Justice Alan, 257Safranek, Stephen, 56Saint Olaf College, 53Sakolsky, Carol, 138Salac, Arlene, 42Salinger, J. D., 61Salon.com, 273Samuelson, Charles, 75–76, 167Samuelson, Pamela, 91Sanchez, Robert, 138Sandars, N. K., 258Sanders, Dave, 127Sanders, Justice Eric, 88San Francisco Chronicle, 39, 214–216San Francisco Lesbian and Gay Pride Parade,

78San Francisco Public Library, 9San Francisco State University, 75, 173–174,

216, 253Sargus, Justice Edmund A., Jr., 270Sari Says: The Real Dirt on Everything from

Sex to School, 196, 256Saul, Terry, 50Scalia, Justice Antonin, 27, 28, 83, 123, 161-

163, 166, 202Scaritt, Tom, 198Schaefer, Carol, 179Schaefer, Dan, 155Schakowsky, Janice, 37Schechter, Harold, 179Scheide, R. V., 40–41Scheidler, Joseph, 164Scheidler v. National Organization for Women,

164Schell, William, 211Scherrman, Betty Anne, 196, 256Schewe, Bruce, 206Schmidt, Bob, 54Schmidt, Phyllis, 74Schneider, Marcia, 9School Library Journal, 257Schröder, Gerhard, 158Schuler, Jonathan K., 20Schumer, Charles, 34Schwartz, Ari, 129–130Schwartz, Irwin, 39Schwartz, Stephen, 298–299Schwarzer, Justice William, 34Scotland, Justice Arthur, 265Scott, David R., 268Scott, Rick, 297Scott, Robert, 174–175, 212-213Scott, Romaine, 88Seattle Post-Intelligencer, 262, 292–293Seattle Times, 262, 292–293Seattle Times Co., 262, 292–293Secret Service, 22, 80, 94–95“Secret Wars,” 80Secure Digital Music Initiative Foundation, 34Sega of America, 127Seiler, Denise, 280Selanders, Tracy, 279Sells, Michael, 217, 268Sensenbrenner, F. James, 240, 252Seomin, Scott, 157“September 11: One Year Later, Responding to

Global Challenges,” 261“Sex & Lucia,” 292–293Sexual Health Network, Inc., Shelton,

Connecticut, 182Shabaz, Justice John, 44, 269Shakespeare, William, 252Shallah, Ramadan Abdulah, 17, 99Shane, Peter M., 37

Shapiro, David, 132Shapiro, Neal, 23Shapiro, Steven, 4, 93, 162, 203Shaw, Randy, 299Shawshank Redemption, The, 15Shein, Oleg, 238Sheketoff, Emily, 9, 201, 239Shelby, Richard, 36, 96–97Shelley, Stan, 223Shellnutt, Denese, 195–196Sherman, Andrew M., 115Sherman, Cary, 278, 296Sherman, Rob, 138Shimkus, John, 175Shingavi, Snehal A., 156, 173Shurtleff, Mark, 48Siems, Larry, 252Sierra, Katie, 31Silber, John R., 276Silberman, Justice Laurence H., 168Siler, Justice Eugene, Jr., 31Silverstein, Mark, 48, 297Simon, Howard, 106, 138Simpson, Joe, 174Sims, Charles S., 91Sims, Justice Richard, 265Sinatra, Frank, Jr., 128Singer, Isaac Bashevis, 180Singleton, Justice James, 66Sirkin, H. Louis, 28Sivitz, Susan, 75S.J.N-K., 207–208Skeens, Donna, 117Skilton, Lynn, 16Sky (British network), 24Slater, G. Bryan, 212Slepian, Dr. Barnett, 56Slocum, R. C., 76Smallen, David, 20Smart Filter, 139Smith, Clint, 218Smith, David Michael, 137Smith, Gene, 21Smith, Justice George C., 207Smith, Kevin, 125Smith, Lamar, 212, 218Smith, Paul, 63, 142Smolla, Rodney A., 166, 203–204Snare, Jonathan, 130Snider, Mark, 103Snow Falling on Cedars, 62Sobchack, Vivian, 72Sobel, David, 128, 263Society for American Music, 165Society of American Archivists, 37, 134, 165Society of Professional Journalists, 133Sogaard, Dan, 256Sohn, Gigi, 221Solomon, Norman, 107Sonkowsky, Rocky, 167Sonkowsky, Roy, 167Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of

1998, 123, 165Sonoma State University, 251Sons of Confederate Veterans, 183Sontag, Susan, 1Sony Computer Entertainment America, 127Sophie’s Choice, 105“Source-Area Characteristics of Large Public

Surface-Water Supplies in theConternminous United States: AnInformation Resource for Source-WaterAssessment,” 115

Souter, Justice David H., 162, 163South Carolina:

Charleston, 16Columbia, 295–296Greenville, 141

South China Morning Post, The, 55South Dakota:

Pierre, 207–208Southern Christian Leadership Conference,

29–30, 164Southwest Airlines, 40–41Southwest Louisiana Area Health Education

Center, 206Speare, Elizabeth George, 197, 257Special Library Association, 165Specter, Richard, 142Spielberg, Steven, 278Spingola, Charles, 90“Spirit of Justice” (statue), 92Spradley, Lola, 262Spriggs, William T., 58Springer, Charles, 13Square Soft, 127Squiers, Mary, 295Stafford, Debbie, 262Stanford University, 115Stanley, Elaine, 15Stanley, Lissette, 118Starr, Kevin, 216State University of New York at Buffalo, 115Staver, Mathew D., 212Steele, Andrea, 13Steele, Rick, 13Steinbach, Sheldon E., 122, 202Steinbeck, John, 61, 280Steinem, Gloria, 32Steinhardt, Barry, 90–91, 121Steinhäuser, Robert, 158Stern, Marc, 30Stetson, Frank, 50Stevens, Justice John Paul, 26, 28, 162, 163,

201–202Stillman, Danny, 208Stine, R. L., 61Stockley, Paige, 224Stockley, Peggy, 224Stockley, Tom, 224Stohr, Kathy, 179Stone, David, 198Stone, Oliver, 127, 174Stout, David H., 57Strothman, Wendy, 249, 282, 286–289Stucky, Justice James, 31Student Press Law Center, 50, 51, 99, 207, 259,

260Students for Justice in Palestine, 156, 173Sturdevant, Katherine S., 274Sturtevant, Justice Wayne, 57Styron, William, 105Sudduth, David, 141Sullivan, Andrew, 107Sullivan, Justice Emmet, 208Summer of My German Soldier, 61Sunday Times of London, 107Sunstein, Cass, 91Supreme Court, see U.S. Supreme Court; U.S.

Supreme Court decisionsSusman, Thomas M., 35Swearingen, Lawson L., Jr., 87Swire, Peter P., 112Swygert, J. Patrick, 99Syeed, Sayyid, 52Syracuse University, 14–15

TTaccone, Tony, 79

Tacoma Public Library, 141Taft, Bob, 175Talese, Gay, 255Talking Stick (Renton High School), 76Talon (Rubidoux High School, Riverside,

California), 155Taming the Star Runner, 252Tamm, Susan, 280Tanaka, Paul, 45Tarnished Lady, The, 255Tarnow, Justice Arthur J., 67Tas, Faith, 81, 138Tatel, Justice David S., 168Tattered Cover bookstore, 101, 151, 152, 168Tattered Cover Bookstore, Inc. v. City and

County of Denver, 67, 193Taubman Co., The, 126Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity, 18–19Taylor, Brent, 73 Taylor, Bruce, 150-151Taylor, Doug, 24Taylor, George, 99Taylor, Nancy, 18Taylor, Sonia, 24Teele, Arthur, Jr., 105Teen People, 196Ten Commandments, 43, 123, 169“Ten Most Challenged Books of 2001,” 61–62Tennessee:

Chattanooga, 169–170Hamilton, County, 172Memphis, 73–74Nashville, 270–271

Tepper, Steven J., 70–71Terrorism Information and Prevention System

(Operation TIPS), 194, 210, 273Texas, 43, 252–253

Abiline, 212Austin, 130–131, 133–134Cherokee, 252Conroe, 256–257Galveston, 137Houston, 47, 76, 80, 101–102Lamar, 252San Antonio, 51Sugarland, 253Texas City, 22–23

Texas A&M University, 76African-American Student Coalition, 76George H. W. Bush presidential library at,

133–134Texas City Sun, 1, 22–23Texas Education Agency, 253Texas Library Association, 252Texas State Library and Archives, 133Thom, James Alexander, 117Thomas, Caren Cronk, 83Thomas, Justice Clarence, 162, 202Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of

Free Expression, 253Thomas v. Chicago Park District, 28Thompson, Becky, 132Thompson, Tommy G., 100Thornburgh, Richard, 150Thorne, Megan, 76“Threats of War, Challenges to Peace,” 18Three Stooges, 84–85Thurston, Tom, 199Tien, Lee, 129Tilley, Justice N. Carlton, Jr., 268Time Warner, Inc., 127Tinapple, Hillary, 198Tinder, Justice John T., 57Toal, Justice Jan, 295

Todd, Alden, 211To Kill a Mockingbird, 50, 252Tomasic, Nick, 222Toronto Film Festival, 81Torre, Michelle, 17Towle, Travis, 22Traini, Dick, 211Training Day, 279Tribe, Laurence, 204-205Tribune Co., 47Trilogy Studios, 277-278Troy, Gil, 261Trujillo, Jay, 155Tucker, Mindy, 93Tulane Environmental Law Clinic, 29Turan, Kenneth, 293Turkey:

Ankara, 81Istanbul, 121, 138

Turner, Anne M., 239Turner, Irene, 49Twain, Mark, 252Tyson, Nancy J., 99

UUlaszek, Lisel, 136Ulmer, Craig, 95Union of French Jewish Students, 120United Faculty of Florida, 275United Self Defense Forces of Colombia

(AUC), 297–298U.S. Congress, 36

House of Representatives, 217Committee on Government Reform,Subcommittee on Government Efficiency,Financial Management andIntergovernmental Relations, 37Judiciary Committee, 252

Senate, 205U.S. Department of Commerce, 148U.S. Department of Defense, 208, 271, 298U.S. Department of Health and Human

Services, 100U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development, 299U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, 89U.S. Education Department, 122, 207U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 86U.S. Geological Survey, 14, 21, 115, 130U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service,

78U.S. Interior Department, 86, 130U.S. Internet Service Providers Association,

218U.S. Justice Department, 33-34, 36, 39, 92, 93,

94, 127-128, 130, 134, 152, 163, 171,177, 194, 201, 210, 218, 252, 263, 297

U.S. Office of Management and Budget(OMB), 275

U.S. Postal Service, 210U.S. State Department, 282U.S. Supreme Court, 25–31, 66–67, 83–85,

122–124, 161–166, 201–204U.S. Supreme Court decisions, 122, 161–163,

201–203Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union,

66, 162–163, 237Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 161–162,

237Gonzaga University and Roberta S. League

v. John Doe, 202–203Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 163,

237New York Times Company v. Jonathan

Tasini, 70–72Owasso Independent School District v.

Falvo, 122Thomas v. Chicago Park District, 83Watchtower Bible & Tract Society v. Village

of Stratton, 201–202University of Auckland, 158University of California, 214–216

Berkeley, 19, 155-156, 173, 214-216at Los Angeles, 7, 17at Santa Barbara, 267–268

University of Colorado at Boulder, 261- 262University of Connecticut, Center for Survey

Research and Analysis, 253University of Evansville, 32University of Illinois, 239

at Chicago, 44-45Urbana-Champaign, 19

University of Iowa, 118University of Louisiana at Monroe (ULM), 33,

87University of Maryland at College Park, 19–20University of Minnesota, 15University of Minnesota Press, 156–157University of Mississippi, 25University of New Mexico, 7, 54, 77–78

at Albuquerque, 45–46University of North Carolina, 217

at Chapel Hill, 253, 268–269University of Southern California Law School,

205University of Southern Maine, 262, 281University of South Florida, 7, 17–18, 98–99,

275University of Texas at Austin, 112, 141University of Virginia at Charlottesville, 115University of Wisconsin, 269–270

at Milwaukee, 32at Whitewater, 18-19, 132–133

Unwanted Gaze, The, 113UrbanArt Commission, 73USA Patriot Act, 3–4, 22, 52–53, 90–91, 96,

111–113, 152, 185, 189–190, 235-237,239–240, 240–241

ALA Office of Intellectual Freedom alert toassist librarians, 5

Enhanced Surveillance Provisions AffectingLibrary Confidentiality, 241

Other Provisions of Interest That Do NotDirectly Affect Libraries, 241

USA Patriot Act and the First Amendment: AStatement from the Freedom to ReadCommittee of the Association ofAmerican Publishers, 244

“USA Patriot Act in the Library,” 240–241Usnik, Toby, 71Utah:

Salt Lake City, 47–48, 103

VVagina Monologues, The, 78–79, 197–198Vail, Eldon, 102Valenti, Jack, 221Valentine, Fern, 77Van Alstyne, William W., 276Van Zandt, David, 45Varley, Robert, 43Ventura, Jesse, 179Verance Corporation, 34Verizon Communications Corp., 278, 296–297Vermont, 67

Montpelier, 170, 182–183Vernon, 95–96

Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant, 95–96

Vicente, Jose A., 105Vickery, Hugh, 130“Victoria’s Secret Fashion Show, The,” 47VideoII, 277Video Software Dealers Association, 124, 175Vietnam:

Hanoi, 158Villeneuve, Brett, 21Vinson, James, 32Virgilio, Rosetta, 20Virgin Entertainment, 127Virginia, 29, 67, 166

Fairfax County, 179Lexington, 85–86Lynchburg, 157Norfolk, 172–173, 214Prince William County, 196–197Richmond, 33, 183, 212Stafford County, 154–155Sterling, 176

Virginia Commonwealth University, 112Virginia Military Institute, 85–86Volokh, Eugene, 26, 28, 125Volz, Paul, 16–17Vondehaar, Shirley, 196von Tagen, William, 104Vullo, Maria, 34, 56, 170

WWalczak, Witold, 131Walker, Alice, 62Walker, Susanne, 13-14Wallace, Brian, 18-19Wallace, Julia, 15Wall Street Journal, 45, 55Walsh, Mary Jane, 115Ward, Allan, 172Warner Brothers, 277Washington:

Bainbridge, 74–75Kent, 279Renton, 76–77Seattle, 22, 102–103, 223–224, 262, 292–293Tacoma, 141

Washington, D.C., 14–15, 20–21, 36–40, 46,47, 86, 93–94, 96–97, 100, 115, 127–128,129–130, 130, 133, 168–169, 171,174–175, 176, 212–213, 217–218,218–221, 263–264, 273, 274–275, 278,282, 296–297

Washington Journalism Education Association,77

Washington Post, 19, 24, 39, 176Washington Post Co., 55, 206Washingtonpost.newsweekInteractive Co., 206Washington Times, The, 107Watkins, Melvin, 76Watson, Russell, 154

Watsons Go to Birmingham—1963, The,154–155

Waxman, Henry, 37WBAI Pacifica Radio, 22Weatherford, Roy, 275Weather Underground, 44-45Weaver, Michael, 172Webb, David, 117Webb, Wellington, 297Web Sense, 139Webster, James W., 265Wegner, Mary, 35Weich, Ron, 4Weiland, Bruce, 75Weinberg, Mark D., 79Weiss, Catherine, 206, 270Weiss, Kenneth, 30Welles, Terri, 124–125Wendt, Hunter L., 26Wermiel, Stephen, 84Wesleyan University, 8West, Bob, 198Westby, Mark, 223Westfall, Julie, 19Westheimer, Joel, 131Weston, John H., 162West Virginia:

Charleston, 31Kanawha, 280–281Morgantown, 131–132St. Albans, 170

West Virginia Association of Scholars, 132West Virginia University, 131–132West Virginia University Free Speech

Consortium, 132“What to Do When Stopped by Police,” 116Whelan, M. Edward, III, 37, 38Where the Heart Is, 223Whitehead, John, 210White House Office of Science and

Technology, 275Whitman, Christine Todd, 92Whitman, Gerry, 48“Whitman Shorts,” 50Whitney Museum of American Art, 79Whyte, Justice Ronald, 89Wiesenfeld, Jeffrey, 18Wilcox, Scott, 116“William Pope.L: eRacism, 79Williams, Jerilynn, 257Williams, Kathy, 118Willis, R. Kent, 56, 86, 173, 196, 214Wilson, Deloris, 72Wind Done Gone, The, 177, 249, 282Windy City Hemp Development Board, 28, 83Wing, Jesse, 102-103Winton, Johnny, 106Wirenius, John F., 97

Wisconsin:Madison, 8, 32, 44, 54–55, 269–270Milwaukee, 32, 90Waukesha, 136Whitewater, 18–19, 132–133

Wisconsin Municipal Clerks Association, 44Witch of Blackbird Pond, The, 197, 257Withrow, James, 31Wolfe, Don L., 44Wood, Gordon S., 71Woodrow, Thomas, 107Woolsey, R. James, 215World and Islam Studies Enterprises, 17,

98–99, 276World Church of the Creator, 211WorldCom, 272World’s Most Famous Ghosts, The, 116Wray, Harmon L., 270–271Wrenn, Greg, 293Wright, George, 53Wright, Paul, 102Wright, Rollin, 102Wright, Susan, 97Wuerch, George, 66, 211Wurzburg, Jocelyn, 74Wyoming:

Natrona County, 223

XXpress magazine, 75Xu Kuangdi, 24

YYahoo!, 55, 66, 92, 120–121, 293Yahoo! v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme et

L’Antisemitisme, 66, 91, 193Yale University, 25, 115Yelich, Nolan T., 212You Hear Me?, 195Young, Terry, 116Youngblood, Nicole “Nikki,” 213–214Youngblood, Sonia, 214Young Miss, 80“Your Revolution,” 103Yousef, Ramzi, 40“Youth Pornography and the Internet,” 150

ZZaid, Mark, 208Zappala, Justice Stephen A., 267Zastera, Burt, 42Zayas, Joe, 199Zierer, Benno, 56Ziglar, James W., 176Zimmer, Richard A., 208Zinn, Howard, 154Zoloth, Laurie, 216

May 2003 109

librariesMinneapolis, Minnesota

A dozen female employees of the Minneapolis PublicLibrary filed a federal lawsuit March 24 accusing the libraryof creating a hostile work environment by allowing unfet-tered Internet access by a menacing group of downtownlibrary regulars who have threatened and harassed thewomen. The library’s policies have attracted hard-corepornography users who monopolize the library’s computersand “would react angrily and at times violently if any effortwas made to interfere (with) or halt their access to porno-graphic materials,” the women said in a lawsuit filed in U.S.District Court in Minneapolis.

Katherine “Kit” Hadley, who has been director of theMinneapolis Public Library for less than a month, said, “Ican’t comment because I’m so new. I do know the U.S.Supreme Court just heard oral arguments in a case about howthese matters are handled. I’m sure we’ll have to talk to ourattorneys to see how that case might impact this one.”

The women are seeking more than $450,000 each forhumiliation, emotional distress and anxiety resulting fromthe hostile work environment. The women have complainedabout the problem since the late 1990s, but library officialsindicated for years that security guards and staff “should notinterfere in any fashion with what patrons were viewing onthe terminals,” the suit said.

The women say that policy attracted even more people“whose one and only interest was the viewing of obscene and

pornographic images on the computers.” The regulars whomonopolized the computers to view pornography swore atthe library staff and threatened them, the suit said. Some menmasturbated while viewing the material, the suit alsocharged.

One of the women said she was followed downtown byone of the men, who also followed her home on the bus. Hewas later arrested for allegedly raping at knifepoint a girlwhom he had abducted from a bus stop on the same bus line.Some of the other women also reported being threatened andfollowed by pornography users.

After library employees filed a complaint in May 2000with the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission,the library made some changes, including setting time limitsfor the use of terminals and allowing security guards to con-front patrons viewing obscene materials. Despite thechanges, the women say they are still exposed to graphicsexual images from the Internet and to predatory behavior bya group of regular viewers. Library managers have beeninconsistent in enforcing the newer measures, the womensaid in the suit. Reported in: St. Paul Pioneer-Press, March25.

Santa Fe, New MexicoA St. John’s College Library visit by a former public

defender was abruptly interrupted February 13 when citypolice officers arrested him about 9 p.m. at the computer ter-minal he was using, handcuffed him, and brought him to theSanta Fe police station for questioning by Secret Serviceagents from Albuquerque.

Andrew J. O’Conner, 40, who was released about fivehours later, said, “I’m going to sue the Secret Service, SantaFe Police, St. John’s, and everybody involved in this wholething.”

According to O’Connor, the agents accused him of mak-ing threatening remarks about President George W. Bush inan Internet chat room. Admitting he talked politics face-to-face in the library with a woman who was wearing a “No warwith Iraq” button, O’Connor recalled saying that Bush is“out of control,” but that “I’m allowed to say all that. Thereis this thing called freedom of speech.” He also speculatedthat the FBI might have been observing him because of hisone-time involvement in a pro-Palestinian group in Boulder,Colorado.

Earlier on the same day O’Connor was questioned, offi-cials at St. John’s—as well as at the College of Santa Fe andSanta Fe Community College—issued warnings to studentsand faculty that the FBI had been alerted to the presence of“suspicious” people on campus within the past four weeks.

Concern about threats to individual privacy under theUSA Patriot Act has prompted New Mexico legislators inboth houses to propose resolutions urging state police not tohelp federal agents infringe on civil rights. The resolutionsalso encourage libraries to post prominent signage warningpatrons that their library records are subject to federal


scrutiny without their permission or knowledge. Reported in:American Libraries online, February 24.

schoolsJacksonville, Arkansas

As Thomas McLaughlin tells it, the trouble began whenhis eighth-grade science teacher overheard him refusing todeny to another boy that he was gay. It got worse that after-noon, when his guidance counselor called his mother at workto tell her he was homosexual. “The assistant principal calledme out of seventh period, asked if my parents knew I wasgay, and when I said no, she said I had till 3:40 to tell themor the school would,” said Thomas, a 14-year old student atJacksonville Junior High School in Arkansas. “I was tooupset to sit through eighth period, so I went to the guidancecounselor, and she made the call. Later, the science teacherwrote me a four-page handwritten letter about the Bible’steachings on homosexuality, telling me I would be con-demned to hell. I threw it out.”

That was a more than a year ago. Since then, theMcLaughlin family said, the school has continued to harassThomas because of his homosexuality. The teachers andadministrators who outed Thomas last year now want tosilence him, the McLaughlins say, by telling him not to dis-cuss homosexuality in school and disciplining him for doingso. They also say that a different assistant principal calledThomas to his office this year and made him read aloud aBible passage condemning homosexuality.

The McLaughlins’ account is the only one made public sofar. The school district, citing student privacy rights, has notprovided any details of its actions. The superintendent, DonHenderson, said that he could not respond to the accusationsbecause the facts had not yet been established. Jay Bequette,the lawyer for the district, said he had no comment on the case.

Earlier this month, the American Civil Liberties Union,representing the McLaughlins, wrote to Dr. Henderson,accusing the school of violating Thomas’s rights to freespeech, equal protection and privacy, and asking for assur-ances by March 21 that there would be no further violationsof Thomas’s rights.

“Students should not be punished for being honest abouttheir sexual orientation,” Leslie Cooper, a lawyer with theACLU’s Lesbian and Gay Rights Project, said. “JacksonvilleJunior High School has trampled on Thomas McLaughlin’sconstitutional rights.”

On March 21, the A.C.L.U. deadline, the district releaseda brief statement on the case, saying: “Based on the infor-mation the district has received, the district is unable to sub-stantiate, and therefore denies, the specific allegations setforth in the letter. The district denies that it intentionally vio-lated the student’s constitutional rights, and no disciplinaryaction has been taken because of the student’s sexual orien-tation.”

The statement went on to say that if school personnel had“advocated religious beliefs,” as the ACLU asserted, “suchaction was not appropriate and is not condoned by the dis-trict.” The district said it could not comment on a student’sconfidential disciplinary record without permission from thestudent and his parents, so without that permission, therewould be no further comment.

Cooper said the ACLU would take the matter to court, ifthe school did not provide further assurances about protect-ing Thomas’s rights. “Obviously, they have failed to meetour demands,” she said. “We’re pleased that they agree thatreligious preaching is not acceptable in school, but theyfailed to say that Thomas can speak about being gay.”

Thomas said the issue of his sexual orientation first arosewhen a classmate asked if he liked a certain girl, and heresponded that there was a reason he was not attracted to thatgirl or any other in the school. The other boy then asked if hewas gay. “I said, if I am, I am, and if I’m not, I’m not,”Thomas said. “The science teacher overheard us. He told meto stop talking about that stuff. The next thing I know, theassistant principal calls me out of class.”

His mother, Delia McLaughlin, said she was shocked thatafternoon to get a telephone call from the guidance counselorabout her son’s sexuality. “I remember she said he was hav-ing feelings for other males,” McLaughlin said. “Those werethe words she used. I was upset in the first place that I’mfinding out my son’s gay, but that it was a school adminis-trator who told me, that was beyond my reasoning. Thomasdidn’t tell me about the Bible preaching until recently. That’swhat made me call the ACLU. We’re Christians, but thisisn’t the school’s business. It’s something for us, the parents,to talk about.” Reported in: New York Times, March 25.

Washington, D.C.Schools that don’t allow students to pray outside the

classroom or that prohibit teachers from holding religiousmeetings among themselves could lose federal money, theEducation Department said in February. The guidancereflects the Bush administration’s push to ensure that schoolsgive teachers and students as much freedom to pray as thecourts have allowed. The department made clear that teach-ers cannot pray with students or attempt to shape their reli-gious views.

“Public schools should not be hostile to the religiousrights of their students and their families,” EducationSecretary Rod Paige said. “At the same time, school officialsmay not compel students to participate in prayer or otheractivities.”

The instructions, released by the department on February7, broadly followed the same direction given by the Clintonadministration and the courts. Prayer is generally allowed,provided it happens outside the class and is initiated by stu-dents, not by school officials. The department, however, alsooffered some significant additions, including more details onsuch contentious matters as moments of silence and prayer in

May 2003 111

student assemblies. And for the first time, federal funds aretied to compliance with the guidelines. The burden is onschools to prove compliance through a yearly report.

“Public school districts that accept billions of dollarseach year in federal education funds should be expected torespect students’ constitutional rights,” said Rep. JohnBoehner (R-OH), chair of the House Education andWorkforce Committee. “This is basic common sense.”

“Even after repeated dissemination of guidelines, far toomany school administrators still ignore their obligation toprotect the religious-liberty rights of students,” said CharlesHaynes, the First Amendment Center’s senior scholar.“Linking the guidelines to funding is a wake-up call that mayfinally push all schools to take the First Amendment seri-ously.”

Bush and Congress ordered the department to release thenew guidelines as part of an education overhaul signed intolaw last year. But one leading critic said what emerged is apartisan push for more school prayer, not an attempt at clar-ification.

“The Bush administration is clearly trying to push theenvelope on behalf of prayer in public schools,” said BarryLynn, executive director of Americans United for Separationof Church and State. “Administration lawyers have selec-tively read case law to come to the conclusions they wanted,and school administrators should be aware of that. They tookthe Clinton-era regulations, which just stated what the lawwas, and turned them into a wish list of what this adminis-tration wants them to be.”

In one significant change, teachers are permitted to meetwith each other for “prayer or Bible study” before school orafter lunch—provided they make clear they are not acting intheir “official capacities.” Also, students taking part inassemblies and graduation may not be restricted in express-ing religion as long as they were chosen as speakers through“neutral, evenhanded criteria.” To avoid controversy, schoolsmay issue disclaimers clarifying that such speech does notrepresent the school.

Such school gatherings have been at the heart of recentcourt rulings. In 2000, the Supreme Court ruled that prayersled by students at high school football games are unconstitu-tional. Yet in 2001, the Supreme Court refused to hear a caseinvolving protests over student-led graduation prayers.

“I’m very excited about the clarity, and very optimisticthat these guidelines will go a long way in solving issuesrelated to students’ religious speech,” said Mathew Staver,president of Liberty Counsel, which promotes religiousexpression. “We will use these actively in dealing withschools, and we’ll use them in cases we’re litigating aswell.”

Countered Lynn: “If some student decides to turn aschool assembly into a church service, that school will besued. This doesn’t insulate schools from lawsuits. It stretchesto the breaking point what the courts have said on the topic.”

The guidelines say students may “read their Bibles orother scriptures, say grace before meals, pray or study reli-

gious materials with fellow students during recess, the lunchhour or other non-instructional time.” Schools may imposesome rules about those activities but cannot discriminateagainst prayer or religious speech in doing so.

If schools have planned moments of silence, studentsmay pray or not pray, and teachers may not encourage or dis-courage praying, the guidelines say. Religion-themed home-work or artwork must be graded on an academic basis, notfavored or penalized because of its content.

“The guidelines do a better job of spelling out what’sallowed in many cases, but in others, they may just causemore confusion,” said Reggie Felton, lobbyist for theNational School Boards Association. Giving teachers discre-tion to openly pray during breaks may cause problems, espe-cially if it is not clear they are doing it outside their officialroles, he said.

“I’m not suggesting that these are horrible guidelines,”Felton said. “I’m just saying there are areas that will requiremore discussions with attorneys.” Reported in: freedomforum.org, February 10.

universitiesSan Luis Obispo, California

Faculty members at California Polytechnic StateUniversity at San Luis Obispo are preparing to do battle overacademic freedom and harassment as they face an engineer-ing professor’s proposal to ban the viewing of pornographyon campus computers. Linda Vanasupa, the chair of thematerials-engineering department, filed a resolution with theAcademic Senate to prohibit using the university’s comput-ers or its Internet connection for viewing pornographic mate-rial. Academics and students would need permission fromthe university president to look at pornography online.

The resolution will need a committee’s approval to reachthe Senate floor for a vote. “I think there is enough supportthat it will get to the floor,” Vanasupa said.

Unny Menon, a professor of industrial and manufacturingengineering and the chair of the Academic Senate, said thatthe First Amendment would lead many faculty members tovote against the resolution. But, he added, the resolution mayalso have a significant number of supporters.

“It is very hard to predict which way things would go,”he said. “There’s been no straw poll at all. . . . It is not asclear cut as some issues might be.”

The resolution came in the wake of several recent scan-dals at Cal Poly. Last year, Robert Heidersbach, the formerchair of the materials-engineering department andVanasupa’s former boss, left the university after he was con-victed on a misdemeanor charge for misuse of a state com-puter, to which he had downloaded thousands of porno-graphic images. And according to the local newspaper, theFBI is investigating another former faculty member whoallegedly used university computers to view child pornography.


“There is a lack of sensitivity around this issue, and to methat is a form of hostility,” Vanasupa said. “In a nutshell, I’mreally concerned about women and children and the typeworld that we are creating for them.”

The language of Vanasupa’s resolution, which would beadded to the university’s computer-use policy, states thatpeople may not engage in the “transmission” of hate litera-ture, obscenity, or sexually-explicit material. Those caughtlooking at pornography or hate literature “should be reportedto the University Police Department,” the resolution says.

The resolution makes room, albeit with conditions, foracademics or students who study such material. “Faculty andstaff who need to access hate literature, obscenity or pornog-raphy for bona fide work purposes may petition theUniversity President for a waiver. All granted petitions andwaivers will be readily available to the public and campuscommunity under the California Public Records Act.”

Paul J. Zingg, the campus’s provost, said that Vanasupa’sresolution “is fundamentally in opposition to the spirit ofinquiry that is critical to the academy. You’re basically look-ing at a judgment of prior restraint that would have a chill-ing effect on inquiry and discourse on campus,” he said.

Zingg said that computer-use policies at Cal Poly alreadyprohibit the viewing of child pornography and other legallyidentified forms of obscene material; the excessive personaluse of state equipment; and the downloading of any imagesthat could create a harassing or intimidating work environ-ment. He said that he appreciates Vanasupa’s attempt to dealwith any hostility that she perceives on the campus, but thather resolution is too strict.

“Under Linda’s additions, there’s no room for discussionof context,” he says. “There is an assumption of wrongdoingof the individual who downloaded that image.” Reported in:Chronicle of Higher Education (online), February 21.

Tampa, FloridaThe University of South Florida ended its tortuous rela-

tionship with Sami Al-Arian February 26 by firing the com-puter-engineering professor, who federal authorities allege isa terrorist leader. President Judy L. Genshaft said that Al-Arian had abused his position as a professor and misused theuniversity.

“We have determined that USF must sever all ties toSami Al-Arian once and for all,” she said in a news confer-ence held to announce the decision. “His use of this educa-tional institution for improper, non-educational purposeswill not be tolerated. No longer will he be able to hide behindthe shield of academic freedom.”

A Palestinian born in Kuwait, Al-Arian has lived in theUnited States since the mid-1970s and has worked at SouthFlorida since 1986. In the fall of 2001, a controversy eruptedafter he was interviewed on television about his alleged ter-rorist ties. The professor was placed on paid leave. His firingcame less than a week after police arrested the professor,charging him on February 20 with raising money to support

the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. The fifty-count indictmentalleges that Al-Arian used the university and two now-defunct entities, the World and Islam Studies Enterprises andthe Islamic Committee for Palestine, as fronts for terroristactivities.

Genshaft said the indictment was “a confirmation of thethoughts we’ve had all along,” but she emphasized that thefiring was strictly an employment dispute, not a criminalmatter. Genshaft first tried to fire Al-Arian more than a yearearlier, but faculty members and academic organizations ral-lied to his defense. She said the professor would have beendismissed even without the federal indictment.

But the timing is no coincidence, said Elizabeth Bird, aprofessor of anthropology at South Florida who has beencritical of the administration’s handling of the case. “Ofcourse they’re connected,” she said. “For many months, I’veheard informally that people thought, If only the FBI wouldcharge him it would make things easier. Without the charges,I think we’d still be in this stalemate.”

The letter of termination the university hand-delivered toAl-Arian’s lawyers cited the indictment heavily, saying thatit provides new information that confirms the university’sposition. “The university cannot decide whether you areguilty of crimes,” the letter says. “Rather, the university mustdecide whether there is just cause; namely, that it is morelikely than not that there are sufficient facts to warrant thetermination of your employment.”

Al-Arian’s case has become a battle cry for those worriedabout infringement on free speech and academic freedom.But Genshaft said he was being fired not for what he said,but for what she said he did: misuse his university positionto raise money for terrorists. “It’s using academic freedomand hiding behind that for destructive purposes,” she said.

The American Association of University Professors hassupported Al-Arian’s right to defend his job and has raisedconcerns about how the university’s procedures have threat-ened academic freedom and tenure.

“We’re recognizing that it is a tough position for theUniversity of South Florida, but we’re still disturbed. This isa person who never had a hearing on the campus about thespeech that they originally objected to,” said Ruth Flower ofthe association, which could censure the university. “It’s thedue-process issues that have always engaged our concerns.The decisions are being made by the president, not with acouncil of peers as would be normal in an academic situation.”

Flower said the association realizes that the indictmentprovides new information that may make it more difficult todefend Al-Arian’s academic-freedom rights. “Those are thetimes when those rights really matter, when things are reallytough,” she said.

In a statement read by his daughter, Al-Arian called him-self a political prisoner. “I’m crucified today because of whoI am, a stateless Palestinian, an Arab and Muslim, and out-spoken advocate for Palestinian rights,” the statement said.“I’m a prisoner because of the hysteria engulfing this coun-try in the aftermath of the 9/11 tragedy.”

May 2003 113

In addition to Al-Arian, seven other people were indictedin the case on racketeering charges. The lengthy indictmentrefers to several unindicted co-conspirators, and newsreports are contending that one of those unnamed individu-als has ties to academe. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reportedthat Fawaz Damra, the imam of the Islamic Center ofCleveland, is an unindicted co-conspirator who introducedAl-Arian at a controversial speech in 1991 and himself madeanti-Semitic slurs at the event.

Damra has taught in recent years at two institutions in theCleveland area, John Carroll and Cleveland State Univer-sities. A spokesman for the Jesuit university said that JohnCarroll officials are “concerned about reports in the mediathat identify him as a co-conspirator” in the alleged terroristactivities of Al-Arian. But he added that the reports remainjust that: unproven charges made in newspaper accounts,without confirmation by federal law-enforcement authori-ties. He said that when John Carroll hired Damra to teachthis semester, it reviewed evidence that emerged about himin the fall of 2001, when the accusations against Al-Arian re-emerged.

At that time Damra “acknowledged that he had made”inflammatory statements about Israel and Jewish people, and“also stated that they no longer represented his views.” Sincethat time, Damra had made himself an “emissary” of Islamto the students and staff of John Carroll, and to Christiansand Jews in the Cleveland area. Reported in: Chronicle ofHigher Education (online), February 27.

Philadelphia, PennsylvaniaA medical anthropologist who observed the transplant of

an artificial heart into a man who died several months lateris fighting legal efforts to force her to turn over her fieldnotes and says she will go to jail rather than comply. SheldonZink, director of the program for transplant policy and ethicsat the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Bioethics,originally faced a deadline of today to turn over her notes tolawyers in a lawsuit involving the use of the AbioCor artifi-cial heart. Although the lawyers withdrew their subpoena forthe documents they have not ruled out the possibility of rein-stating it.

Zink’s case had drawn national attention from anthropol-ogists who were concerned that it may set a precedent incompelling scholars to make confidential research notespublic. Some of her students and colleagues have started aWeb site called FreeSheldon.org to publicize her case, andfaculty members in anthropology departments at twenty uni-versities have signed petitions supporting her decision not tocomply with the subpoena. Others have written affidavits inher support.

“I understand the responsibility of just watching,” Zinksaid in an interview. “I promised my subjects that I wouldnever let anyone else read my field notes. I would not betraya trust in that way.”

Zink acted as an ethnographic researcher observing aclinical trial of the AbioCor heart starting in February 2001.

She watched as the clinical team at Hahnemann UniversityHospital was trained for transplantations, and she was in theoperating room when one of the patients—James Quinn—received an artificial heart on November 5 of that year.Quinn, who was 51 years old when he received the heart,died nine months later. His widow has sued Hahnemann, aswell as the maker of the artificial heart and the man who wasoriginally appointed to serve as Quinn’s patient advocate.

Lawyers for the former patient’s advocate, as well as thehospital, now want Zink to turn over her research notes.Thomas P. Wagner, who represents the original patient’sadvocate, said Zink had “observed Quinn’s care for a longtime and what she knows could be of great relevance to thecase.” He said he withdrew his request for Zink’s notes,however, “after we learned of her strong objections.” Headded: “We don’t want to be hostile to her. We want to workit out.” But he said if Zink won’t cooperate in some way, hehas not ruled out the possibility of reinstating the subpoena.

Zink’s role in the artificial-heart experiment did gobeyond that of anthropologist. The Quinn family asked her tobe their patient’s advocate during the last two months ofQuinn’s life. Zink said she was not paid in her role aspatient’s advocate and set aside her work as an anthropolo-gist in the clinical trial while she was serving as advocate.

As far as the subpoena for her field notes, she said shewould “fight this to the bitter end,” even though “it terrifiesme and I don’t like to imagine myself sitting in a cell.”

According to Zink, professors who head the ethics andpublic-policy committees within the American Anthropo-logical Association are drafting statements supporting her.But Bill Davis, executive director of the association, saidthat Zink is “misrepresenting the association on this.” Hesaid none of the association’s committees “has the authorityto take a position on a public matter like this one.” Ghita Levine, a spokeswoman for the association, said theorganization lacks “a process for advocating for individualmembers.”

But Davis said he did understand why anthropologistswere concerned. His association has a code of ethics, he said,that says “it is the obligation of individual anthropologists toprotect their research subjects from risk or harm that mightcome from information revealed to the anthropologist.”Reported in: Chronicle of Higher Education (online), March 5.

Dallas, TexasWhen the Latin American Studies Association held its

International Congress in Dallas March 27–28, one groupwas absent: almost all of the 103 Cuban scholars who hadregistered to attend, including 40 invited to present papers.With only three weeks to go before the once-in-18-monthsgathering, only four or five of the Cubans had received anentry visa from the United States. This contrasted with pre-vious congresses, when almost all Cuban scholars applyingfor a visa to attend the gathering received one. The group isthe largest professional association of individuals and insti-tutions engaged in the study of Latin America.

Arturo Arias, director of Latin American Studies at theUniversity of Redlands, in California, and president of theLatin American Studies Association, said that he and manycolleagues think the situation reflects a desire by the Bushadministration to prevent dialogue between Cuban andAmerican scholars. Visa denials “are being interpreted asploys to deter academic exchanges,” he wrote in an e-mailmessage.

Four of the 103 Cuban scholars planning to attend thecongress had their visa applications rejected, apparentlyunder a section of the Immigration and Nationality Act thatallows the president to ban the entry into the United States ofany foreigners whose presence “would be detrimental to theinterests of the United States.” The rest of the Cubans wereleft waiting without any response to their visa requests.Some of the Cuban scholars were required to undergo fin-gerprinting, and to pay an additional $85 fee for that pur-pose. Their American colleagues complain the fee is oner-ous, since Cuban faculty members earn, on average, theequivalent of about $200 a month.

Kelly Shannon, of the U.S. State Department’s Bureau ofConsular Affairs, denied that there was any new policyintended to keep out Cubans. The State Department will notcomment on individual cases. But Shannon said that underthe Enhanced Border Security and Visa Reform Act, whichcame into effect last summer, visa applicants from Cuba andsix other countries designated as “state sponsors of terror-ism” must undergo security checks by “federal U.S. law-enforcement and intelligence agencies and any other inter-ested agencies.” The authorities are under no obligation toeither accept or reject a visa request within any time limit,Shannon added.

The David Rockefeller Center for Latin AmericanStudies, at Harvard University, invited six Cuban scholars tovisit Harvard after attending the Latin American StudiesAssociation’s meeting. But only one of them received a visa.“It’s very difficult to organize meetings and events when wedon’t know when the scholar is coming” said LorenaBarberia, director of the Rockefeller Center’s Cuba program.“And when you make arrangements at the last moment, costsgo up.” Reported in: Chronicle of Higher Education(online), March 5.

Lubbock, TexasThe U.S. Department of Justice is examining whether a

Texas Tech University biology professor discriminatedagainst a student’s religious beliefs by refusing to write let-ters of recommendation for students who do not believe inthe theory of evolution. The professor, Michael L. Dini,maintains on his Web site a page that outlines his policies forwriting recommendations for students. On that page, hewrites that students who request a recommendation for grad-uate school will be asked, “How do you think the humanspecies originated?” “If you cannot truthfully and forth-rightly affirm a scientific answer to this question,” Dini

writes, “then you should not seek my recommendation foradmittance to further education in the biomedical sciences.”

The Department of Justice sent a letter to the universityon January 21 informing the university that it had received acomplaint against both the university and Dini and request-ing information about the university’s policies towardteacher recommendations and any previous complaintsabout Dini.

Micah Spradling, a senior at Texas Tech, contacted theDepartment of Justice to complain about Dini after enrollingin a class taught by the professor. According to KellyShackelford, chief counsel at the Liberty Legal Institute, anorganization based in Plano, Texas, that supportedSpradling’s complaint against Dini, Spradling needed a rec-ommendation from a biology professor in order to attendmedical school. Last fall, after spending a few days in a classtaught by Dini and reading his Web site, Spradling, who doesnot believe in evolution, transferred out of Texas Tech andenrolled in Lubbock Christian University. There, he com-pleted biology course work, received a recommendationfrom a professor, and re-enrolled at Texas Tech for the springsemester.

“This is such egregious conduct by a professor,” saidShackelford. “It’s religious discrimination, and it’s the veryantithesis of academic freedom.”

But Cindy Rugeley of Texas Tech said the universitystrongly supports Dini. “Professors don’t have to write rec-ommendations at all, and we certainly don’t tell them whothey have to write them for,” she said. “Furthermore, thisstudent never even asked the professor for a recommenda-tion. He never contacted a dean about this. Instead, he calledthe Justice Department.” Rugeley said there are more thanthirty other biology professors Spradling could have studiedwith and approached for a recommendation. She also main-tained that this is not an issue of religious discrimination, butof science.

“He’s not saying he wouldn’t write a letter for aChristian,” she said. “He’s saying he wouldn’t write a letterfor someone who didn’t believe in evolution.”

Dini defended his practice on his Web site, writing of stu-dents applying to medical school, “How can someone whodoes not accept the most important theory in biology expectto properly practice in a field that is so heavily based on biol-ogy?” So much physical evidence exists to support evolu-tion, Dini wrote, that “one can deny this evidence only at therisk of calling into question one’s understanding of scienceand of the method of science. Good scientists would neverthrow out data that do not conform to their expectations orbeliefs.” Reported in: Chronicle of Higher Education(online), February 3.

Blacksburg, VirginiaNine days after Virginia Tech’s governing board estab-

lished a controversial policy restricting political speech onits campus, the state attorney general’s office declared that


the new rules violated constitutional rights to free assemblyand free speech. The Board of Visitors subsequently sched-uled a meeting to discuss the policy. In the meantime, theinstitution will disregard the new policy and continue to fol-low its old one.

The board’s policy prohibited from meeting on the cam-pus anyone who had ever participated in or advocated “ille-gal acts of domestic violence and terrorism.” The policy alsorequired that all requests for campus meetings be submittedfor the president’s approval thirty days in advance.

William H. Hurd, solicitor general in the Virginia attor-ney general’s office, soundly rejected the language as well asthe spirit of the policy in a four-page letter to the president ofVirginia Tech and the head of the Board of Visitors. “Theregulation is not limited to outside speakers or even to theuse of meeting rooms,” Hurd wrote. “It also applies to fac-ulty and students and to the use of all locations on campus,including common areas where members of the universitycommunity often gather for informal discussions. This goestoo far.”

“Second,” he continued, “even if the new regulation werelimited to outside speakers, it would still be invalid. The regula-tion . . . also prohibits use of university facilities by those who ‘haveparticipated’ in such acts in the past, regardless of whether theproposed meeting is intended to condone or condemn suchactivity or to talk about some entirely different topic.”

“Third,” he wrote, “even if the new regulation were lim-ited to outside speakers wishing to advocate illegal acts ofdomestic violence or terrorism, the regulation would still runafoul of current Supreme Court jurisprudence,” which holdsthat such speech is protected unless it directly incites violence.

Finally, Hurd concluded, “a university—of all places—should be willing, in the words of Thomas Jefferson, ‘to tol-erate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it.’ Foruniversities to prohibit the use of their facilities for constitu-tionally protected speech—based on the perceived illegiti-macy or offensiveness of the viewpoint expressed—is con-trary to the role of a university as a marketplace of ideas andviolates the constitutional prohibition against viewpoint dis-crimination.”

Lawrence G. Hincker, a Virginia Tech spokesman, saidthat “many of us are pleased with this result.”

Charles W. Steger, the university’s president, also empha-sized the importance of free speech on a college campus. “Asa university, one of our primary functions is to help studentsdevelop the capacity to think critically in order to evaluatenew ideas, and we have the greatest confidence in our stu-dents’ ability to do so,” he said.

But John G. Rocovich, head of the Board of Visitors, saidthat he did not regret the board’s having approved the meas-ure and that he does not rule out the possibility of introduc-ing a similar policy at a later meeting. “The idea, as a gen-eral proposition, is still a good one,” he said. He added that

the board would seek the attorney general’s approval of sim-ilar resolutions in the future before voting on them.

The policy was approved by the Board of Visitors onMarch 10. At the same meeting, the Board of Visitors votedto change the university’s antidiscrimination clause so that itno longer prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual ori-entation. Those decisions were made at the same quarterlymeeting at which the governing board effectively ended the useof affirmative action in admissions, hiring, and financial aid.

“That meeting was an unbelievable step backward,” saidEdd Sewell, who, as president of the Faculty Senate atVirginia Tech, is a nonvoting member of the Board ofVisitors. “I have been reading a book about Germany in the1930s, and I almost feel like I’m experiencing deja vu.”Neither the resolution concerning political extremists nor theresolution about sexual orientation was listed on the agendathat was made available to board members before the meeting.

The resolution concerning political speakers on the cam-pus followed a February speech given by a member of EarthFirst, an environmental group that advocates such tactics aspreventing logging by sitting in trees or chaining oneself toa logging site. According to university spokesman Hincker,that speech raised the ire of a group of professors from thedepartment of forestry. Furthermore, the member of theBoard of Visitors who introduced the resolution, Mitchell O.Carr, is president of the Augusta Lumber Company, based inWaynesboro, Virginia, and is a former director of theNational Hardwood Lumber Association.

The resolution read in part: “Be it resolved, no person,persons, or organizations will be allowed to meet on campusor in any facility owned or leased by the university, if it canbe determined that such persons or organizations advocate orhave participated in illegal acts of domestic violence and ter-rorism.” While the resolution did not define domestic vio-lence and terrorism, the Federal Bureau of Investigation’sWeb Site includes a spectrum of political groups in itsdescription of domestic terrorism, including white-supremacy organizations and socialist organizations like theWorkers’ World Party and Carnival Against Capitalism. Italso cites the Animal Liberation Front and the EarthLiberation Front, two groups whose representatives havespoken at Virginia Tech during the past two years.

In an editorial decrying the resolution, the student news-paper, Collegiate Times, described the measure’s language as“irrefutably ambiguous,” and says it “could be applied tomany speakers and organizations that have visited Tech’scampus in recent years.”

The board also removed sexual orientation from the listof factors—including race, sex, and national origin—that theuniversity will not use to discriminate against students, fac-ulty members, and applicants. Reported in: Chronicle ofHigher Education (online), March 13, 24.

May 2003 115


press freedomWashington, D.C.

Government agencies opened a package mailed betweentwo Associated Press reporters last September and seized acopy of an eight-year-old unclassified FBI lab report withoutobtaining a warrant or notifying the news agency. The CustomsService intercepted a package sent via Federal Express fromthe Associated Press bureau in Manila to the AP office inWashington, and turned the contents over to the FBI.

FBI spokesman Doug Garrison said the document con-tained sensitive information that should not be made public.However, an AP executive said the package contained an unclas-sified 1995 FBI report that had been discussed in open court intwo legal cases. “The government had no legal right to seizethe package,” said David Tomlin, assistant to the AP president.

The package was one of several communicationsbetween Jim Gomez in Manila and John Solomon inWashington, AP reporters who were working on terrorisminvestigative stories. It was the second time that Solomon’sreporting was the subject of a government seizure. In May2001, the Justice Department subpoenaed his home phonerecords concerning stories he wrote about an investigation ofthen-Sen. Robert Torricelli.

The Customs Service said its agents opened the packagefrom Manila after selecting it for routine inspection when itarrived at a Federal Express hub in Indianapolis. Agents didnot open an identical package addressed to AP’s UnitedNations office. Both packages contained an FBI laboratoryreport on materials seized from a Filipino apartment rentedby convicted terrorist Ramzi Yousef. The reporters wereworking on a research project that resulted in stories pub-lished last month about the government’s concerns beforeApril 19, 1995, that white supremacists might bomb a fed-eral building.

“The job of Customs is to intercept smuggled contrabandand collect import duties,” said Tomlin, who is an attorney.“Customs has no authority to seize private correspondencewhere there’s no suspicion it contains contraband. There cer-tainly wasn’t any such suspicion here.”

Press freedom advocates criticized the agencies’ seizureof the document. “It was really stupid of them to keep it,”said Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee forFreedom of the Press. “What they’re trying to do is preventyou from reporting a story. That’s censorship.”

The AP inquired about the missing FedEx package lastautumn when it did not arrive in Washington, and the couriersuggested it might have fallen off a delivery van. FedEx laterreimbursed AP $100 for the loss.

FedEx spokeswoman Sally Davenport said the companywas unable to track the package after it arrived inIndianapolis and had no records showing that it was seizedby Customs. If the company knows a package has been takenby Customs, FedEx policy is to notify the customer and pro-vide a number to contact the agency, Davenport said. FedExdid send a letter of apology to the AP, she said.

In January, the AP was tipped that the package had beenintercepted and that the FBI had requested an investigationto find out who had provided the lab report to the news serv-ice. A letter from the Philippine Department of Justice to thePhilippine National Police about the document read, in part:“In view of the concerns raised by the FBI regarding thismatter, may we request your good office to conduct a thor-ough investigation on the mishandling of such sensitiveinformation?”

Customs has the legal right to examine packages sentfrom overseas at the point they arrive in the United States, inthis case Indianapolis. The Customs Service (now theBureau of Customs and Border Protection) said in a state-ment that the package addressed to Solomon was selected for“routine inspection” on September 19. Because it containedan FBI document, Customs called the FBI. Spokesman DeanBoyd said Customs routinely asks another agency about con-tents of an examined package that pertain to that agency.

“An FBI agent subsequently examined the file andrequested that it be turned over to the FBI,” the Customsstatement said. “Based upon these representations by theFBI, Customs turned the file over.” No warrant was issued,Customs and FBI both said. Customs said any notification tothe AP was the FBI’s responsibility.

Garrison, who works out of the FBI’s Indianapolisbureau, said the package was sent to the FBI in Washingtonafter an FBI agent in Indianapolis reviewed the documentand said it contained some information that should not bemade public. “From the FBI’s perspective, if the documentwas a laboratory report that contained sensitive informationthat the laboratory thought ought to be controlled, they hadan obligation to control it,” Garrison said. “Generally speak-ing, we’re more careful about the kind of information that’sout there. We don’t want criminals to get ideas as to how tocause more damage.”

The AP said the information had been previously publiclydisclosed in two court venues. The material included copiesand photos of dozens of pieces of evidence gathered in theterrorism cases of Abdul Hakim Murad and Ramzi Yousef,including batteries, explosive devices, bomb fragments, acopy of a Time magazine, cell phones and phone books.

Murad and Yousef were sentenced to life in prison in aplot to blow up twelve U.S.-bound airliners flying out ofAsia. Yousef was later convicted of masterminding the 1993World Trade Center bombing.

The earlier incident involving Solomon’s home phonerecords sparked a media outcry after Justice officials sub-poenaed Solomon’s phone records while trying to learn theidentity of law enforcement officials who told the AP abouta wiretap intercept of then-Sen. Torricelli of New Jersey.Solomon found out about the May 2001 subpoena in Augustwhen he returned from vacation and opened a notificationletter from the government. The Code of FederalRegulations says the AP should have had the opportunity tochallenge the subpoena. Reported in: Washington Post,March 13.

secrecy and surveillanceWashington, D.C.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the Justice Departmentand FBI have dramatically increased the use of two little-known powers that allow authorities to tap telephones, seizebank and telephone records, and obtain other information incounterterrorism investigations with no immediate courtoversight, according to officials and newly disclosed docu-ments.

The FBI, for example, has issued scores of “nationalsecurity letters” that require businesses to turn over elec-tronic records about finances, telephone calls, e-mail andother personal information, according to officials and docu-ments. The letters, a type of administrative subpoena, may beissued independently by FBI field offices and are not subjectto judicial review unless a case comes to court, officials said.

Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has also personallysigned more than 170 “emergency foreign intelligence war-rants,” three times the number authorized in the preceding 23years, according to recent congressional testimony. Federallaw allows the attorney general to issue unilaterally theseclassified warrants for wiretaps and physical searches of sus-pected terrorists and other national security threats undercertain circumstances. They can be enforced for 72 hoursbefore they are subject to review and approval by the ultra-secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

Government officials describeed both measures as cru-cial tools in the war on terrorism that allow authorities to actrapidly in the pursuit of potential threats without the delaysthat can result from seeking a judge’s signature. Authoritiesalso stressed that the tactics are perfectly legal.

But some civil liberties and privacy advocates said theyare troubled by the increasing use of the tactics, primarilybecause there is little or no oversight by courts or other out-side parties. In both cases, the target of the investigationnever has to be informed that the government has obtainedhis personal records or put him under surveillance.

“When this kind of power is used in the regular criminaljustice system, there are some built-in checks and balances,”said David Sobel, general counsel of the Electronic PrivacyInformation Center (EPIC), which is suing the JusticeDepartment for information about its secretive anti-terrorismstrategies. “The intelligence context provides no such pro-tection. That’s the main problem with these kinds of secre-tive procedures.”

The use of national security letters has been acceleratedin part because Congress made it easier to use and applythem. The USA PATRIOT Act, a package of sweeping anti-terrorism legislation passed after the September 11 attacks,loosened the standard for targeting individuals by nationalsecurity letters and allowed FBI field offices, rather than asenior official at headquarters, to issue them, officials said.The records that can be obtained through the letters includetelephone logs, e-mail logs, certain financial and bankrecords, and credit reports.

The PATRIOT Act also significantly increased theamount of intelligence information that can be shared withcriminal prosecutors and federal grand juries, giving author-ities new powers in the war on terrorism. National securityletters can be used as part of criminal investigations and pre-liminary inquiries involving terrorism and espionage, accord-ing to officials and internal FBI guidelines on the letters.

According to documents given to EPIC and the AmericanCivil Liberties Union as part of their lawsuit, the FBI hasissued enough national security letters since October 2001to fill more than five pages of logs. There is no way todetermine exactly how many times the documents havebeen employed because the logs were almost entirelyblacked out.

The Justice Department and FBI refused to provide sum-mary data about how often the letters were used. Severallawmakers have proposed legislation that would require thedepartment to provide that kind of data. “In our view, thepublic is entitled to these statistics,” said Jameel Jaffer, staffattorney for the ACLU’s national legal department. “Wehave no idea how those are being used.”

FBI spokesman John Iannarelli said, “It’s safe to say thatanybody who is going to conduct a terrorism investigation isprobably going to use them at some point. . . . It’s a way toexpedite information, and there’s nothing that needs expedit-ing more than a terrorism investigation.”

But a November 2001 memorandum prepared by FBIattorneys warned that the letters “must be used judiciously”to avoid angering Congress, which will reconsider Patriotprovisions in 2005. “The greater availability of NSLs doesnot mean they should be used in every case,” the memo said.

Beryl A. Howell, former general counsel to Sen. PatrickLeahy (D-VT) and a specialist in surveillance law, describednational security letters as “an unchecked, secret power thatmakes it invisible to public scrutiny and difficult even forcongressional oversight.”

Under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA),the government has the power to obtain secret warrants fortelephone wiretaps, electronic monitoring and physicalsearches in counterterrorism and espionage cases. TheJustice Department has expanded its use of such warrantssince a favorable FISA court ruling last year, which deter-mined that the Patriot Act gave federal officials broad newauthority to obtain them.

The warrants, cloaked in secrecy and largely ignored bythe public for years, have become a central issue in the ongo-ing debate over missteps before the September 11 attacks.The FBI has come under sharp criticism from lawmakerswho say FBI officials misread the FISA statute in the case ofZacarias Moussaoui, the alleged terror conspirator who wasin custody before the attacks. No warrant was sought in theMoussaoui case, and his computer and other belongingswere not searched until after the attacks.

Even less well known are provisions that allow the attor-ney general to authorize these secret warrants on his own inemergency situations. The department then has 72 hours

May 2003 117

from the time a search or wiretap is launched to obtainapproval from the FISA court, whose proceedings and find-ings are closed to the public. Officials said that Ashcroft canuse his emergency power when he believes there is no timeto wait for the FISA court to approve a warrant. There are noadditional restrictions on emergency warrants, other than therules that apply to all FISA applications, officials said.

Ashcroft told lawmakers that Justice made more than1,000 applications for warrants to the secret court in 2002,including more than 170 in the emergency category. In theprevious 23 years, only 47 emergency FISA warrants wereissued.

FBI Director Robert S. Mueller, III, in similar testimonyto the Senate Judiciary Committee, said, “We can oftenestablish electronic surveillance within hours of establishingprobable cause that an individual is an appropriate FISA sub-ject. We have made full and very productive use of the emer-gency FISA process.”

Sobel and other civil liberties advocates said they aretroubled by the aggressive use of emergency FISAs becauseit leaves the initial decision up to the attorney general andallows clandestine searches and surveillance for up to threedays before any court review. Reported in: Washington Post,March 23.

Washington, D.C.House and Senate negotiators have agreed that a

Pentagon project intended to detect terrorists by monitoringInternet e-mail and commercial databases for health, finan-cial and travel information cannot be used againstAmericans. The conferees also agreed to restrict furtherresearch on the program without extensive consultation withCongress.

House leaders agreed with Senate fears about the threat topersonal privacy in the Pentagon program, known as TotalInformation Awareness. So they accepted a Senate provisionin the omnibus spending bill passed in January, saidRepresentative Jerry Lewis, the California Republican whoheads the defense appropriations subcommittee.

Representative John P. Murtha of Pennsylvania, the sen-ior Democrat on the subcommittee, said of the program,“Jerry’s against it, and I’m against it, so we kept the Senateamendment.” Of the Pentagon, he said, “They’ve got somecrazy people over there.”

The only obstacles to the provision becoming law wouldbe the failure of the negotiators to reach an agreement on theoverall spending bill in which it is included, or a successfulveto by President Bush of the bill.

Lt. Cmdr. Donald Sewell, a Pentagon spokesman,defended the program, saying, “The Department of Defensestill feels that it’s a tool that can be used to alert us to terror-ist acts before they occur.” He said, “It’s not a program thatsnoops into American citizens’ privacy.”

One important factor in the breadth of the opposition isthe fact that the research project is headed by Adm. John M.

Poindexter. Several members of Congress have said that theadmiral was an unwelcome symbol because he had beenconvicted of lying to Congress about weapons sales to Iranand illegal aid to Nicaraguan rebels, an issue with constitu-tional ramifications, the Iran-contra affair. The fact that hisconviction was later reversed on the ground that he had beengiven immunity for the testimony in which he lied did notmitigate Congressional opinion, they said.

The negotiators’ decision was praised by Democrats andRepublicans and by outside groups on the right and the left.Senator Ron Wyden, the Oregon Democrat who sponsoredthe Senate amendment, said, “It looks like Congress is get-ting the message from the American people loud and clearand that is: Stop the trifling of the civil liberties of law-abid-ing Americans.”

Senator Charles E. Grassley, the Iowa Republican whoco-sponsored the Wyden amendment, said: “ProtectingAmericans’ civil liberties while at the same time winning thewar against terrorism has got to be top priority for the UnitedStates. Congressional oversight of this program will be amust as we proceed in the war against terror. The acceptanceof this amendment sends a signal that Congress won’t sit onits hands as the TIA program moves forward.”

Lisa Dean, director of the Center for Technology at theFree Congress Foundation, said, “I am thrilled to seeCongress taking responsibility in oversight, given the depthof the debate on this issue.”

Katie Corrigan, legislative counsel for the AmericanCivil Liberties Union, said: “This is a positive first steptoward protecting the privacy of Americans. Congress repre-sents the people’s interests and appropriately responded tobroad public concern about a program that does not reflectthe goals of making us both safe and free.”

The negotiators’ decision meant almost complete failurefor a last-minute Pentagon effort to protect the program fromthe Wyden amendment by establishing advisory committeesto oversee the program. The total information concept wouldenable a team of intelligence analysts to gather and viewinformation from databases, pursue links between individu-als and groups, respond to automatic alerts, and share infor-mation, all from their individual computers. It could linksuch different electronic sources as video feeds from airportsurveillance cameras, credit card transactions, airline reser-vations and records of telephone calls. The data would be fil-tered through software that would constantly seek suspiciouspatterns.

The Defense Department had already begun to discussthe use of the system with the F.B.I. and perhaps other agen-cies. Now, without a new law specifically authorizing its useand a new, specific appropriation to pay for it, the programcould not be used against United States citizens. But it couldbe employed in support of lawful military operations outsidethe United States and lawful foreign intelligence operationsconducted wholly against non-United States citizens.



librariesJuneau, Alaska

An ongoing controversy that erupted over a May–July2002 gay-pride exhibit at Juneau Public Libraries ended inFebruary when officials announced they were installing twonew display cases away from the lobby area in which non-profit groups could mount exhibits. The library also releaseda new policy that promises the library “will not censor orremove a nonprofit group display because some members ofthe community disagree with its content” and recommends“any local group with an opposing viewpoint may book itsown display.”

The new rules no longer designate the library as exhibitcosponsor of displays appearing in cases at the downtownlibrary entrance, as the discarded policy had. It also elimi-nates the clause bestowing “final aesthetic and content deci-sions regarding any exhibit” on library officials. Staff mem-bers had altered the gay-pride exhibit the day after it wasassembled by Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays,working with PFLAG volunteers. At the time, LibraryDirector Carol McCabe explained that workers removedimages of people such as Florence Nightingale and JohnNash—“Anyone where there was a discomfort level as towhether or not they were openly gay, we felt uncomfortableincluding.”

By November, the library was holding a public hearingon a revised display policy that barred all exhibits except forones the library assembled—a tack that Anchorage Mayor

George Wuerch had unsuccessfully tried to take last summer.From the responses came the new policy, which earmarksthe lobby display space for library use only. “We’re trying tobalance two important freedoms. One is freedom of speech,one is the freedom of choice,” McCabe said

Deemed experimental, the new policy expires May 1,2004, unless renewed in writing. Reported in: AmericanLibraries online, February 17.

Fairfax, VirginiaSome six months after a Fairfax, Virginia, couple chal-

lenged the presence of eighteen books in the libraries of theFairfax County Public Schools, the school board affirmed ina 7–1 vote March 10 that one of the contested titles, WitchBaby, by Francesca Lia Block, is suitable for elementary-and middle-school collections. The action supportedSuperintendent Daniel Domenech’s recommendation toretain the book, as well as the placement of a young-adultsticker on its spine.

Richard and Alice Ess had contended that the book,which is the sequel to Weetzie Bat, was inappropriate forschool-library collections because it contains a gay-positivesubplot. “We now know the school system does not considerplacement of fictional material advocating ‘altermative’ sex-ual orientations, even in the elementary schools, to be a mis-take on their part,” the local group Parents Against BadBooks in Schools reacted March 14. As to the addition of ayoung-adult label, the group countered, “If a book receivinga YA review is eligible for placement in the elementary andmiddle schools, there will be a flood of graphic material,bought with tax dollars, heading for pre-teen children.”

Two months earlier, the board had revisited its policy onwhat constitutes a valid materials challenge in light of theEsses’ mass complaint last October. Accordingly, boardmembers modified their guidelines January 13 to give “pri-ority” to future requests for reconsideration brought by theparent of a student who attends a particular school in whichthe challenged material is held. Reported in: AmericanLibraries online, March 17.

broadcastingPortland, Oregon

It didn’t matter if the song was supposed to empowerwomen or fight misogyny or be satirical—the raw languageused by a feminist rapper was just as indecent as the partytunes she was criticizing, the Federal CommunicationsCommission said when it fined a radio station for playing it.But the agency reversed itself in February and rescinded the$7,000 fine it imposed on KBOO-FM (90.7) in Portland,Oregon.

Broadcasters and free-speech advocates nationwide criti-cized the initial ruling, in May 2001, and accused the FCC of

May 2003 119

trying to censor “Your Revolution” by poet and rapper SarahJones, which features such lyrics as “The real revolutionain’t about bootie size, the Versaces you buys or the Lexusyou drives.” Jones said she was turning the sexual languageof hip-hop on itself, and station officials said the words hadto be considered in the context of the tune.

“It’s not a party song, it’s not pandering, it’s not gratu-itous,” said Chris Merrick, station manager at community-sponsored KBOO, after the fine was imposed. “It condemnssexuality and condemns sexism, and that’s indecent?”

After hearing arguments from Jones and KBOO, the FCCdetermined that although the language was sexual and war-ranted scrutiny, it wasn’t “patently offensive” by communitystandards. It noted that Jones had been asked to perform thesong at high school assemblies, for instance, and said “thesexual descriptions in the song are not sufficiently graphic towarrant sanction.”

Jones sued the commission with the help of the Peoplefor the American Way Foundation and KBOO-FM, arguingthat “Your Revolution” is “a feminist attack on maleattempts to equate political ‘revolution’ with promiscuoussex,” and as such, is not indecent. The FCC countered bysaying the sexual references were designed to “pander andshock and are patently offensive.”

The FCC was supposed to respond within sixty days butdid not do so. And after almost two years of silence aboutwhat the offending lyric was exactly, the FCC cited the verse“You will not be touching your lips to my triple dip of/French vanilla butter pecan chocolate deluxe/ Or havingAkinyele’s dream/ A six-foot b---job machine,” placingemphasis on the last line.

FCC Enforcement Bureau Chief David Solomon origi-nally said that “Your Revolution” described sexual activityand that the matter warranted scrutiny. Later he said,“However, based on our review of the record developed inresponse to the Notice of Apparent Liability, we now con-clude that the material is not patently offensive and [is]therefore not indecent.”

“While this is a very close case, we now conclude that thebroadcast was not indecent because, on balance and in con-text, the sexual descriptions in the song are not sufficientlygraphic to warrant sanction,” Solomon said. “For example,the most graphic phrase, ‘six foot b---job machine,’ was notrepeated.”

“They wouldn’t tell me that [that line was what the inde-cency charge was for] for a long time,” Jones said. “I thoughtmaybe it was [the lyric about a] VD shot. Or the word‘douche.’ That’s how stupid it was to us. It was like a ‘namethat indecency’ game show, trying to figure out what they’dthink was indecent.”

Jones’ case received less attention than the FCC’s deci-sion a month later to impose a fine also $7,000 on commer-cial radio station KKMG-FM in Colorado Springs,Colorado, for airing an edited version of “The Real SlimShady.” In January 2002, the FCC rescinded the fine against

the station and its parent company, Citadel BroadcastingCompany. The Portland radio station will receive a refundfor the $7,000 it paid as well. Reported in: Los AngelesTimes, February 28.

universityCincinnati, Ohio

The Vagina Monologues was performed at XavierUniversity in Cincinnati March 15–16 after the president ofthe Catholic institution gave in to faculty members and stu-dents who had vigorously protested his cancellation of theplay March 11. The Rev. Michael J. Graham, Xavier’s pres-ident, withdrew the university’s imprimatur from the pro-duction, however, and the play was performed instead underthe auspices of a course.

In a prepared statement, Father Graham said that the play,which deals with women’s sexuality, was called off becauseof “concerns about some of the language and themes” in it.“In choosing to cancel this production,” the statement read,“we believe the sensationalism surrounding the play stood inthe way of our coming together to dialogue around the issueof violence against women,” one of the themes of TheVagina Monologues.

The effort to bring the play to Xavier was spearheaded bystudents who hoped to raise money for a local women’s shel-ter, as well as to promote awareness of violence againstwomen. A rally on Xavier’s campus to protest the play’s can-cellation drew more than two hundred students, facultymembers, and supporters. Xavier’s Faculty Assembly votedto send a letter to Father Graham asking him to reaffirm theuniversity’s commitment, as expressed in its mission state-ment, to free and open inquiry.

Father Graham said in his statement that he is “fully sup-portive of the principles of academic freedom. The pointsstudents and faculty have raised over the past several days,and how they relate to Xavier’s Jesuit, Catholic, and univer-sity identity, will continue—as they always have been—tobe embraced and discussed by the entire campus commu-nity.”

The play was performed despite the president’s cancella-tion when Nancy Bertaux, a professor of economics atXavier, offered to sponsor the performances as part of acourse she is teaching. Father Graham agreed to the alterna-tive billing, calling it “a legitimate exercise of academicfreedom” that placed the play “in a suitable environment ofdebate and discussion.”

Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal NewmanSociety, a conservative Catholic organization based in FallsChurch, Virginia, told a Cincinnati reporter that FatherGraham, in his view, “has displayed a shocking level ofhypocrisy, first by banning the play and now declaring thatacademic freedom supersedes the mission of the university.”


The Newsletter on Intellectual Freedom (NIF)—the only journal that reports attempts to removematerials from school and library shelves across the country—is the source for the latest informa-

tion on intellectual freedom issues. NIF is now available both online and in print!

To celebrate the launch of the online version, for this first year only, a $50 subscription will entitlenew and renewing subscribers to both the online and print editions.

The online version is available at www.ala.org/nif/. The NIF home page contains information onaccessing the Newsletter, and links to technical support, an online subscription form, and the

Office for Intellectual Freedom.

log on to

newsletter on intellectual freedom online

www.ala.org/nifCurrent institutional and personal subscribers were sent a letter explaining how toaccess the online version. If you did not receive a letter, or if you would like more

information on how to subscribe to either the print or online version, please contactNanette Perez at 1-800-545-2433, ext. 4223, or [email protected].

In an “action alert” on the Cardinal Newman Society’sWeb site, The Vagina Monologues is condemned for its“explicit discussions of sexuality and sexual encountersincluding lesbian activity and masturbation.” “This kind ofvulgarity,” the alert states, “has no academic or social valueto students at a Catholic college, and it’s spiritually destruc-tive.” Reported in: Chronicle of Higher Education (online),March 17.

artPasco, Washington

The City of Pasco and artists Janette Hopper and SharonRupp have reached a final settlement in a lawsuit filed by theAmerican Civil Liberties Union on behalf of the artists.Under terms of the settlement, the City issued an apology tothe artists for “censoring their artwork” and further acknowl-edging it violated their First Amendment rights. The finalsettlement came after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the NinthCircuit ruled in 2001 that the City of Pasco violated therights of Hopper and Rupp when it excluded their worksfrom a program to display art at the Pasco City Hall in 1996.

“We are very pleased to get the apology that the artistshave long sought. It’s not the business of government to cen-sor art because some people may find the art controversial,”said ACLU attorney Paul Lawrence of the firm PrestonGates Ellis, who represented the artists along with attorneyDaniel Poliak.

The City of Pasco had agreed with artists Janette Hopperand Sharon Rupp to display their artwork publicly at thePasco City Hall Building. The works were to be exhibited aspart of a partnership between the City of Pasco and the Mid-Columbia Arts Council to display art works at Pasco CityHall on an ongoing basis. Hopper had been invited to exhibita series of black and white linoleum relief prints, and Rupphad been invited to display several sculptures.

Hopper delivered her prints for display on February 7,1996 but was told the next day by a representative of the ArtsCouncil that City officials had prevented the Arts Councilfrom hanging the pieces in the Pasco City Hall Gallery.Hopper’s prints depicted Adam and Eve touring Germanlandmarks and included some nudity. During ensuing con-versations and correspondence, Hopper was informed byCity officials that her art works were not shown because theywere considered “sexual” and “sensual,” and because theCity feared the works might generate complaints from alocal anti-pornography crusader.

Rupp’s sculptures were displayed at the Pasco City HallGallery from February 8-15, 1996. On February 15, PascoCity officials ordered the Arts Council to remove them.Among the works was Rupp’s satirical bronze sculpturetitled “To the Democrats, Republicans, and Bipartisans,”which showed a woman mooning her audience. During

ensuing conversations and correspondence, Rupp wasinformed by City officials that the sculptures were removedbecause of their sexual nature and because the City hadreceived complaints about the art display. Rupp wasinformed that the removal decision also was made becausedisplay of her work would make the exhibition a “political”one.

The City operated its public art program without a pre-screening process or any guidance as to what kind of workwould be considered inappropriate. The City had previouslyexhibited other works of art with nudity and had no regula-tions barring works of art such as that submitted by Hopperand Rupp.

The Ninth Circuit found that the City violated the artists’rights to freedom of expression. In its ruling, the Courtstated, “We do not endorse Pasco’s cramped view of whatconstitutes censorship, and we find none of the city’s reasonsfor excluding the art work compelling.”

“The City of Pasco had decided to open City Hall as apublic forum for art. The courts have said clearly that oncegovernment officials make such a decision, they cannotmake choices based on the content of the art—whether it’scontroversial or offends someone’s political sensibilities,”said ACLU attorney Paul Lawrence. The City is paying theACLU $75,000 for attorney fees and costs. Reported in:ACLU Press Release, March 3.

foreignCairo, Egypt

Egypt’s highest court, the Court of Cassation, on March18 acquitted a prominent Egyptian-American professor,Saad Eddin Ibrahim, of “undermining the dignity of the stateand tarnishing its reputation,” bringing to an end a three-yearlegal saga that many scholars and human-rights leaders sayexposed the fragility of academic freedom in the Arabworld’s most intellectually prominent country.

The 64-year-old Ibrahim had been a professor of politicalsociology at the American University in Cairo for a quarter-century before his arrest in June 2000. The charges againsthim were related to his work at the Ibn Khaldun Center forDevelopment Studies, which he founded, an independentresearch institute that focused on controversial political andsocial issues in an effort to promote human rights anddemocracy in Egypt. The center was shut down by theEgyptian government following Ibrahim’s arrest.

“Thank God, thank God!” Ibrahim exclaimed in a court-room that echoed in joyous pandemonium following the ver-dict. “I feel grateful, thankful, and determined to carry on myagenda,” he said later, in a telephone interview. “The acquit-tal was totally based on legal grounds—this is the highestcourt in the land, and it has a history of independent integritywith no political influence, unlike the lower State Security


May 2003 123

Courts, which are ultimately used for punishing political dis-sidents.”

Ibrahim, who is a dual Egyptian and American citizen,was convicted in July 2002, for the second time in a year anda half, by a State Security Court, which is normally reservedfor trying Islamic militants. He was sentenced to seven yearsin prison after a retrial, by order of an appellate court, whichruled that the conviction in his first trial was “politicallymotivated.” He was released from prison in December,pending the second retrial, which has now concluded.

Ibrahim’s case drew international attention to Egypt’sjudicial system from the European Union, the United States,and international human-rights groups. AmnestyInternational adopted Ibrahim as a “prisoner of conscience.”

In a statement released by the U.S. Embassy in Cairo, theU.S. ambassador to Egypt, David Welch, said, “We’re verypleased that this long ordeal is now over and Dr. Ibrahim isfree to continue his work and receive the medical attentionhe needs. Today’s decision by the Court of Cassation demon-strates why this judicial body is so respected.”

Ibrahim suffers from a neurological disorder that wasexacerbated by a series of mild strokes he suffered duringfourteen months of imprisonment. He said he plans to travelto Switzerland or the United States to seek medical treat-ment. He added that he looked forward to resuming hisresearch and teaching duties at the American University inCairo (AUC).

“I never left AUC, and AUC never left me,” he said.“AUC stood by me all the way through. They have asked meto resume teaching any time I want, and I will be teachingduring the new academic year.”

“We are absolutely delighted at the turn of events and welook forward to having him back in the classroom at AUC,”said Tim Sullivan, provost of the American University inCairo. Reported in: Chronicle of Higher Education (online),March 19.

Paris, FranceIn what might end a three-year legal fight, a Paris court

on February 11 threw out accusations by French humanrights activists who said Yahoo! Inc. should be held legallyresponsible for auctions of Nazi paraphernalia that wereonce held on its Web site. The court ruled that Yahoo! and itsformer chief executive, Tim Koogle, never sought to “justifywar crimes and crimes against humanity’’—the accusationleveled by human rights activists, including Holocaust sur-vivors and their families.

The case was initiated in 2000, when France’s Union ofJewish Students and the International Anti-Racism and Anti-Semitism League sued Yahoo! for allowing Nazi col-lectibles, including flags emblazoned with swastikas, to besold on its auction pages. The case led to a landmark rulingin France, with a court ordering Yahoo! to block Internetsurfers in France from auctions selling Nazi memorabilia.French law bars the display or sale of racist material.

Yahoo! eventually banned Nazi material as it begancharging users to make auction listings, saying it did notwant to profit from such material. The company insisted thedecision had nothing to do with the proceedings in France.The company even asked a federal judge in California toaffirm that U.S. companies could not be regulated by coun-tries that have more restrictive laws on freedom of expres-sion. The judge agreed.

Still angry at Yahoo!’s attitude, French Holocaust sur-vivors and their families launched a second attack and werejoined by a group called the Movement Against Racism andfor Friendship Between People. The parties sued for onesymbolic euro. But the Paris court said that “justifying warcrimes’’ means “glorifying, praising, or at least presentingthe crimes in question favorably.’’ Yahoo! and its auctionpages did not fit that description, the court said. Reported in:San Jose Mercury-News, February 11. �

(is it legal? . . . from page 118)

The negotiators did agree to extend from 60 to 90 daysthe time the Defense Department would have to provide adetailed report to Congress, including its costs, goals, impacton privacy and civil liberties and prospects for successesagainst terrorists. Unless that report was filed, all furtherresearch on the project would have to stop immediately. ButPresident Bush could keep the research alive by certifying toCongress that a halt “would endanger the national security ofthe United States.”

Senator Wyden’s curb on the program slid through theSenate with no overt opposition, and among the House-Senate negotiators it found no vocal opposition, either, mak-ing it an almost incidental decision in a conference fightingover billions of dollars for thousands of programs.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democraton the Judiciary Committee, said, “If there is one thing that

should unite everybody, from the very conservative memberto the very liberal member, it is a concern that our own gov-ernment should not spy on law-abiding citizens.”

Publicly, most of the criticism of Total InformationAwareness had come from Democrats. Except for SenatorGrassley, Republicans had been silent in public, unwilling toattack a project of a Republican administration. But asSenator Wyden noted, no one from either party had beenready to speak up in its favor. Reported in: New York Times,February 12.

Washington, D.C.A draft policy from the Bush administration on the

release of previously classified documents is being met withrelief by historians and proponents of a more open govern-ment.

“There was some concern, given the secretive nature ofthis administration, that they would undertake wholesalechanges to classification policy,” said Steven Aftergood,director of the program on government secrecy at theFederation of American Scientists. “That does not appear tobe the case, based on this draft.”

The draft, in fact, merely revises Executive Order 12958,which former President Bill Clinton created in 1995. Theorder has prompted the release of close to a billion pages ofhistorically valuable, previously classified documents,according to Bruce Craig, director of the National Coalitionfor History.

The revisions would preserve a process, established inthe 1995 executive order, that requires the government toautomatically make public any 25-year-old document thatwas previously classified and does not contain informationcritical to national security. However, the draft would delaythose documents scheduled to be released this spring untilthe end of 2006, Aftergood said. After that, 25-year-old doc-uments that are not specifically exempted would be auto-matically declassified.

Aftergood said that despite the overall openness of theadministration’s draft policy, it does make a number of “ges-tures” toward increased secrecy. For instance, under the draftpolicy, it would be easier for the government to reclassifyinformation that has been previously declassified but mightnot have made its way into the public domain.

The draft is circulating among government agencies butwill not be open to public comment. The full text of the draftis available online at the Web site of the Federation ofAmerican Scientists. Reported in: Chronicle of HigherEducation (online), March 18.

New York, New YorkIn a last-minute proposal to settle a dispute over spying

on terror suspects, New York city officials said in federalcourt January 29 that the police promised to adopt newguidelines to protect civil liberties if the court lifted atwenty-year-old order that limited police surveillance andundercover operations. But, in final arguments before JudgeCharles S. Haight, Jr., of United States District Court inManhattan, civil liberties lawyers rejected the offer, calling itan empty gesture.

“What they say they will do is entitled to no considera-tion in this matter,” Jethro M. Eisenstein, one of the lawyers,told the judge. The arguments came on a motion by the cityto do away with most of the provisions of a consent decreethat ended a 1971 suit over harassment of political advocacygroups by the Police Department’s “red squad,” as it wasthen known. The judge gave no timetable for his decision.

The city had asked to be relieved from the limits of thedecree, known as the Handschu agreement. The police saidit has made it impossible for them to follow terror leads,because it requires evidence of a crime to initiate spying. Thecity’s offer was made in an affidavit from David Cohen, a

former CIA official who is now the Police Department’sdeputy commissioner for intelligence. Judge Haight indi-cated interest in the promise, which Gail Donoghue, the citylawyer arguing the case, re-iterated in court.

Eisenstein said the lawyers would consider the offer aspart of a settlement, but only if it could be enforced by thecourt. The city’s corporation counsel, Michael A. Cardozo,gave no indication the city was interested in such an agreement.

Paul G. Chevigny, a law professor at New YorkUniversity who argued against the city’s motion, said, “Whatis really the difference is the question of whether theseguidelines should be enforced by a federal court or not.”Reported in: New York Times, January 30.

child pornographyWashington, D.C.

The Senate moved February 24 to crack down on childpornography with a bill drawn to strengthen bans on usingminors in obscene material while dealing with the SupremeCourt’s constitutional problems with an earlier version. Thebill, passed without dissent, was in response to a court rulinglast April that struck down a 1996 law that specifically pro-hibited virtual child pornography. The court said banningimages that only appear to depict real children engaged insex was unconstitutionally vague and far-reaching.

Sens. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and Patrick Leahy (D-VT), thechair and top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee,sponsored the new measure, which Hatch said “strikes a nec-essary balance” between protecting children and defendingFirst Amendment free speech rights. “I’ve worked very hardto digest the relevant legal issues and make the ‘Protect Act’square with the law,” he said. The bill passed 84-0.

Specifically, the bill prohibits the pandering or solicita-tion of anything represented to be obscene child pornogra-phy. Responding to the court ruling, it requires the govern-ment to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a personintended others to believe the material was obscene childpornography. The bill, which still requires House action, alsoplugs a loophole where pornographers could avoid prosecu-tion by claiming that their sexually explicit material wascomputer-generated and involved no real children. Under anaffirmative defense provision, the defendant would berequired to prove that real children were not a part of the pro-duction.

The bill narrows the definition of “sexually explicit con-duct” for prosecutions of computer-created child pornogra-phy and requires people who produce sexually explicit mate-rial to keep more extensive records so that they can provethat minors were not used in its making. It creates a newcrime—the use of child pornography by sexual predators toentice minors to engage in sexual activity or the productionof new child pornography—and increases penalties for childpornographers.


May 2003 125

Leahy said he was worried that some provisions of thebill would be challenged in court. “The last thing we want todo is to create years of legal limbo for our nation’s children,”he said. Leahy mentioned language that would allow prose-cution of anyone who “presented” a movie intended to causeanother person to believe that a minor was engaging in sex-ually explicit conduct. By that definition, he said, a movietheater presenting the movies Romeo and Juliet or AmericanBeauty would be guilty of a felony.

The Supreme Court, in its 6-3 ruling last April, said thatby expanding child pornography prohibitions, the 1996 leg-islation went too far in chipping away at First Amendmentrights. Congress had justified the wider ban by saying that,even when children were not used in simulated pornography,real children could be harmed by feeding the prurientappetites of pedophiles or child molesters.

Bill Lyon of the Free Speech Coalition, an adult enter-tainment trade group that challenged the 1996 law, said theHatch-Leahy bill appeared “much more confined to the spe-cific area of child pornography.” The original bill, he said,“went way beyond protecting kids and was really a covertattempt to destroy the entire adult entertainment industry.”Reported in: Washington Post, February 25. �

PATRIOT Act expands these powers unnecessarily, andthreatens the civil liberties of people who have committedno crimes.”

Emily Sheketoff of ALA’s Washington Office spoke onbehalf of the American Library Association and emphasizedthe chilling effect these new powers have on library users.She added: “Democratic government requires publicaccountability and Congress has the responsibility to pro-vide oversight and seek accountability about how theseextraordinary powers are being used.”

Also speaking were Linda Ramsdell, a bookseller fromHardwick, Vermont, and president of the New EnglandBooksellers Association and Chris Finan from the AmericanBooksellers Association.

“All of us are concerned about terrorism and all of us aredetermined to do all that we can to protect the American peo-ple from another terrorist attack,” Sanders added. But, thethreat of terrorism must not be used as an excuse by the gov-ernment to intrude on our basic constitutional rights. We canfight terrorism, but we can do it at the same time as we pro-tect the civil liberties that have made our country great.”Reported in: ALA Washington Office Newsline, March 7. �

(censorship dateline . . . from page 102)

scarce. “All schools in Cuba have libraries. Books are there.What isn’t there is freedom to read any book you want,” saidRicardo González, a Havana journalist who ran a librarybefore closing it to start a magazine.

Cuban President Fidel Castro disputed such criticism in1998, saying that a lack of resources—and not censorship—limited the number of books available in the country. Thatsingle statement, González said, triggered what has becomeone of the fastest-growing elements of Cuba’s civil society:Dissidents began putting small, independent libraries intheir homes. The idea was to lend books to neighbors forfree and make available a range of publications coveringeverything from Marxism 101 to theories about capitalism,democracy and open markets. The movement quicklyspread, and there are now 103 independent libraries in ten ofthe country’s fourteen provinces, said Gisela Delgado,national director of the opposition’s library project.

Nelson Valdés, a sociology professor and Latin Americaexpert at the University of New Mexico, says Cuba is moretolerant of criticism than some people realize. “Numerousanti-government books” have been sold at government bookfairs, he said. And more than two hundred nongovernmentalgroups have sprung up, all sanctioned by the government.Reported in: Dallas News, February 28. �

Union, seeks damages on allegations that California violatedtheir constitutionally protected speech. The operators alsoseek an injunction barring California from taking similaraction in the 2004 general election. A federal judge hadbarred their damages claims and refused to promptly enter-tain the operators’ bid to prevent California from blockingtheir Web-based vote-swapping plans for the 2004 election.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, how-ever, ordered the suit to go forward. The San Francisco-based appeals court ruled that failing to resolve the disputemay result in “chilling” the Web operators’ protected speechin the next election.

During the 2000 election, many of the Web sites soughtto have Nader supporters cast their votes for Gore in stateswhere the presidential race was expected to be close. Inexchange, Democrats agreed to vote for Nader in stateswhere Republican George W. Bush was expected to win.Organizers hoped the trades, not sanctioned by the cam-paigns, would help Gore in swing states and give the GreenParty the 5% of the national vote it would need to win fed-eral campaign money. Reported in: freedomforum.org,February 8. �

(from the bench . . . from page 108)

(Freedom to Read act . . . from page 89)


Library Bill of Rights

Adopted June 18, 1948.Amended February 2, 1961, and January 23, 1980,

inclusion of “age” reaffirmed January 23, 1996,by the ALA Council.

The American Library Association affirms that all libraries are forums for informationand ideas, and that the following basic policies should guide their services.

I. Books and other library resources should be provided for the interest, informa-tion, and enlightenment of all people of the community the library serves.Materials should not be excluded because of the origin, background, or viewsof those contributing to their creation.

II. Libraries should provide materials and information presenting all points ofview on current and historical issues. Materials should not be proscribed orremoved because of partisan or doctrinal disapproval.

III. Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibilityto provide information and enlightenment.

IV. Libraries should cooperate with all persons and groups concerned with resist-ing abridgment of free expression and free access to ideas.

V. A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because oforigin, age, background, or views.

VI. Libraries which make exhibit spaces and meeting rooms available to the publicthey serve should make such facilities available on an equitable basis, regard-less of the beliefs or affiliations of individuals or groups requesting their use.

May 2003 127

intellectual freedom bibliographyCompiled by Beverley C. Becker, Associate Director, Office of Intellectual Freedom.

Alterman, Eric. “Bad News, Film at 11.” The Nation, vol. 276, no. 9, March10, 2003, p. 10.

Boston, Rob. “My Big Fat GOP Wedding: Bush Administration MarriageGrants Seek To Wed Church and State in Unholy Matrimony.” Church& State, vol. 56, no. 2, February 2003, p. 8.

Bowman, Darcia Harris. “Principals Walk Fine Line on Free Speech.”Education Week, vol. 22, no. 27, March 19, 2003, p. 1.

Douglas, Susan J. “Comment: CNN—War Casualty.” The Nation, vol. 276,no. 14, April 14, 2003, p. 8.

Hentoff, Nat. “Ashcroft Out of Control.” Village Voice, vol. 48, no. 10,March 5–11, 2003, p. 29.

———.“Red Alert for Bill of Rights.” Village Voice, vol. 48, no. 11, March12–18, 2003, p. 29.

Hoberman, J. “When Doves Cry: Oscar Declares War on the War.” VillageVoice, vol. 48, no. 13, March 26-April 1, 2003, p. 43.

Index on Censorship, vol. 32, no. 1, January 2003.“Intellectual Freedom.”Alki: The Washington Library Association Journal, vol. 19, no. 1,March 2003.

Maass, Peter. “Pressed: Kuwait City Dispatch.” The New Republic, vol. 228,no. 12, March 31, 2003, p. 10.

Pollitt, Katha. “Poetry Makes Nothing Happen? Ask Laura Bush.” TheNation, vol. 276, no. 7, February 24, 2003, p. 9.

Singel, Ryan. “Candid Camera: Smile, the cops are watching.” In TheseTimes, vol. 27, no. 10, April 14, 2003, p.3.

Walsh, Mark. “Supreme Court Is Next Stop for Pledge Ban.” EducationWeek, vol. 22, no. 26, March 12, 2003, p. 3.

Williams, Patricia J. “Loose Lips and Other Slips.” The Nation, vol. 276, no.10, March 17, 2003, p. 10.

NEWSLETTER ON INTELLECTUAL FREEDOM50 East Huron Street Chicago, Illinois 60611

Sanders introduces freedom to read protec- tion act

Documents

Transcript of Sanders introduces freedom to read protec- tion act