CINCINNATI (TDB) -- U.S. EPA Deputy Director Marcus Peacock says he's been encouraging other federal officials to start blogging. So far, not much luck. They are nervous about the rough-and-tumble of the 'net. Peacock says he's been called names and doesn't mind. He'll be blogging away despite the insults.
On his EPA blog, Peacock writes:
"I'm trying to get other federal officials to blog. One official fretted about being called names. They noted that another blogger had called me a 'weasel.' Big deal. Every senior EPA appointee since 1970 has taken all kinds of criticism from all corners. It's understandable. EPA's work touches deeply held convictions regarding everything from property rights to the morality of contaminating nature."
Contrast Peacock's view to that of Kentucky State Rep. Tim Couch, who has filed a bill to ban anonymous comments on blogs. Couch doesn't like the unrestrained nature of the Internet. And contrast Peacock's view to that of Cincinnati Enquirer editorial page editor David Wells, who calls those who post anonymously on blogs "cowardly blowhards." Wells says he hates -- yes, he used the word hate -- both the commenters and Couch's attempt to curb them:
"But they have an absolute First Amendment right to be cowardly blowhards if that's how they prefer to communicate with the rest of the world. Couch's objection to anonymous postings is that they often are nasty. He said he's been the subject of anonymous online nastiness himself. That's rude, but it's no reason to rewrite the First Amendment."
Peacock, at the EPA, seems to have a better handle on the debate over Internet comments. He says live with the warped views. And he added a poem:
Never tease a weasel
Not even once or twice
The weasel will not like it
And teasing isn't nice
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Speech. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Conservative Ohio Blog: Pushes Envelope, Links To Topless Cheerleader Pix
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Weapons of Mass Discussion is a Republican-leaning Ohio blog that has uncovered some salacious Internet links today. In a matter of mouse clicks, the links get to the bare-breasted photo of a 15-year-old Ohio high school cheerleader and her 19-year-old cheerleading squad coach.
[UPDATE: 6:55 pm -- Some of the links have now been pulled off the site and Matt Hurley contends they did not go to the 15-year-old girl. However, somebody might want to recover and comb through the original post to verify what Matt is saying. If there was no problem, as he insists, then why eliminate the links? Indeed, the original post said the links to the pictures were not hosted on WMD's server.]
[UPDATE 2: 7:32 pm -- "Here" and "PostChron" lead to the link that was up earlier and has now disappeared from Weapons of Mass Discussion. It clearly is a few clicks away from something the conservative blog now seems to want in the distance. Obviously, it leads to more than the WMD admits. Perhaps Matt Naugle at RightAngleBlog wants to snapshot before it vanishes again. Or maybe Jerid Kurtz at Buckeye State Blog wants to preserve the evidence.]
Both women are from Goshen, a semi-rural suburb of Cincinnati. Weapons of Mass Discussion carries a warning that the photos are racy. It explains that viewing the 15-year-old's picture might entail some legal risk -- the law limits displays of nudity involving a minor -- because the girl is clearly underage. Linking to the picture was a bold move for a political blog, and may bring flak.
The existence of the photos, and how the coach snapped them at a party, are the subject of disciplinary action by the Goshen schools and a police investigation. The events are making worldwide news. Weapons of Mass Discussion decided to give readers an opportunity to examine what the fuss was all about, an opportunity that readers of traditional news outlets haven't been allowed to have. TV and the newspapers have exercised self-censorship, an editorial restraint based on a custom of not wanting to risk offending anyone, or not wanting to burst the bounds of tastelessness and ill-manners. But the bloggers took a different tack -- let people see for themselves, the pictures are on the 'Net. Why pretend they are not there?
Weapons of Mass Discussion might be accused of pandering to its readers' basest interests by giving them a chance to see topless teens. But the blog didn't sin, at least not by the wide open standards of of free speech that prevail in the blogosphere. The sin would have been knowing there was a news story and not delivering that story, even the part that could make you squirm. And remember, nobody has to click on the links to see the pictures.
[UPDATE: 6:55 pm -- Some of the links have now been pulled off the site and Matt Hurley contends they did not go to the 15-year-old girl. However, somebody might want to recover and comb through the original post to verify what Matt is saying. If there was no problem, as he insists, then why eliminate the links? Indeed, the original post said the links to the pictures were not hosted on WMD's server.]
[UPDATE 2: 7:32 pm -- "Here" and "PostChron" lead to the link that was up earlier and has now disappeared from Weapons of Mass Discussion. It clearly is a few clicks away from something the conservative blog now seems to want in the distance. Obviously, it leads to more than the WMD admits. Perhaps Matt Naugle at RightAngleBlog wants to snapshot before it vanishes again. Or maybe Jerid Kurtz at Buckeye State Blog wants to preserve the evidence.]
Both women are from Goshen, a semi-rural suburb of Cincinnati. Weapons of Mass Discussion carries a warning that the photos are racy. It explains that viewing the 15-year-old's picture might entail some legal risk -- the law limits displays of nudity involving a minor -- because the girl is clearly underage. Linking to the picture was a bold move for a political blog, and may bring flak.
The existence of the photos, and how the coach snapped them at a party, are the subject of disciplinary action by the Goshen schools and a police investigation. The events are making worldwide news. Weapons of Mass Discussion decided to give readers an opportunity to examine what the fuss was all about, an opportunity that readers of traditional news outlets haven't been allowed to have. TV and the newspapers have exercised self-censorship, an editorial restraint based on a custom of not wanting to risk offending anyone, or not wanting to burst the bounds of tastelessness and ill-manners. But the bloggers took a different tack -- let people see for themselves, the pictures are on the 'Net. Why pretend they are not there?
Weapons of Mass Discussion might be accused of pandering to its readers' basest interests by giving them a chance to see topless teens. But the blog didn't sin, at least not by the wide open standards of of free speech that prevail in the blogosphere. The sin would have been knowing there was a news story and not delivering that story, even the part that could make you squirm. And remember, nobody has to click on the links to see the pictures.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Cleveland Co.'s Sexually Explicit Pix: First Amendment Covers Swinger Mags
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A federal appeals court today struck down as unconstitutional a U.S. law that required producers of "actually sexually explicit conduct" to keep records showing the images depict adults over age 18. The decision was a legal victory for Connection Distributing Co., a Cleveland firm that publishes a dozen or so magazines and an online portal aimed at swingers. Warning: There are some pretty racy photos accessible by clicking around the company's Web site. Connection challenged the law as a government attempt to censor its business.
The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said the record-keeping requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 were intended to combat child pornography. But most of the swingers in the magazines are middle-aged and not likely to be mistaken for minors. The three-judge panel declared Justice Department efforts to apply the rules to the publisher of magazines aimed at adults who were seeking partners for sex exceeded the government's authority. The court noted that Connection described swinging as a philosophy entailing "an alternative social and sexual lifestyle comprised mostly of mature adults who believe in sexual freedom and do not believe in sexual monogamy."
The magazines contain ads and messages, and the messages often are accompanied by photos of Connection subscribers. Sometimes they are undressed, and sometimes they are in street clothes. But there are times when they are engaged in sex, or showing off all the goods to attract partners.
Senior Circuit Judge Cornelia Kennedy wrote the court's decision and noted that the government's argument that it was trying to curb child abuse was unpersuasive. The case is Connection Distributing Co., et al. v. Kesler and the full-text of the 27-page decision is available here. Kennedy wrote:
"Images, including photographs, are protected by the First Amendment as speech as much as 'words in books' and 'oral utterances.' Even if the government tried to characterize the regulation as aimed at the conduct of pressing the button on a camera or other recording device to create images, that conduct would be so closely tied to the speech produced, and the government's interest here is in the speech produced, that it would be better considered to be a speech regulation. Child abuse, the actual conduct in which the government is interested, is already illegal."
She added:
"Applying the record keeping regulations to all depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct between two adults, however, is not clearly within the statute's plainly legitimate sweep. One of the reasons the government wants to know a depicted individual's age is because the government has a difficult time knowing when to prosecute as well as prosecuting successfully because it is hard to identify the image as that of a child. The government claims that such identification is made difficult because images of individuals 18 and older exist. If these images did not exist, then the only images left would be children, and therefore the proof would be easy. The solution, it is argued, is to require photographs of both adults and children to be kept track of, so that the government will know that a photo it is currently viewing is not of a child, but in fact of an 18-year-old."
The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati said the record-keeping requirements of the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 were intended to combat child pornography. But most of the swingers in the magazines are middle-aged and not likely to be mistaken for minors. The three-judge panel declared Justice Department efforts to apply the rules to the publisher of magazines aimed at adults who were seeking partners for sex exceeded the government's authority. The court noted that Connection described swinging as a philosophy entailing "an alternative social and sexual lifestyle comprised mostly of mature adults who believe in sexual freedom and do not believe in sexual monogamy."
The magazines contain ads and messages, and the messages often are accompanied by photos of Connection subscribers. Sometimes they are undressed, and sometimes they are in street clothes. But there are times when they are engaged in sex, or showing off all the goods to attract partners.
Senior Circuit Judge Cornelia Kennedy wrote the court's decision and noted that the government's argument that it was trying to curb child abuse was unpersuasive. The case is Connection Distributing Co., et al. v. Kesler and the full-text of the 27-page decision is available here. Kennedy wrote:
"Images, including photographs, are protected by the First Amendment as speech as much as 'words in books' and 'oral utterances.' Even if the government tried to characterize the regulation as aimed at the conduct of pressing the button on a camera or other recording device to create images, that conduct would be so closely tied to the speech produced, and the government's interest here is in the speech produced, that it would be better considered to be a speech regulation. Child abuse, the actual conduct in which the government is interested, is already illegal."
She added:
"Applying the record keeping regulations to all depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct between two adults, however, is not clearly within the statute's plainly legitimate sweep. One of the reasons the government wants to know a depicted individual's age is because the government has a difficult time knowing when to prosecute as well as prosecuting successfully because it is hard to identify the image as that of a child. The government claims that such identification is made difficult because images of individuals 18 and older exist. If these images did not exist, then the only images left would be children, and therefore the proof would be easy. The solution, it is argued, is to require photographs of both adults and children to be kept track of, so that the government will know that a photo it is currently viewing is not of a child, but in fact of an 18-year-old."
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
Bizzyblog's Tom Blumer: Swings At MoveOn But Missed Ohio GOP Censorship Bid
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Bizzyblogger Tom Blumer says today that he couldn't help but notice MoveOn had sent trademark cease-and-desist notices to a satirist who tried to market t-shirts mocking MoveOn. Blumer saw the action as evidence of the Democratic left organization's "radical" nature.
"I am told from time to time that MoveOn is not really a radical organization. Wrong. MoveOn is run by people whose first, second, and third instincts, if given any opening, are to silence opponents. They are petty tyrants in training."
Strong language.
He didn't mention -- or maybe he doesn't know -- that the Republican Party went even farther to silence a critic in Ohio. The GOP took legal action against Michael Dalton, a Democrat who lives in a Cincinnati suburb. Dalton's offense was to set up a Web site in 2005 called "hamiltoncountyrepublicanparty.com." that mocked Republicans. He was sued by the Hamilton County Republican Party for trademark infringement. The GOP sought a temporary restraining order and injunction to shut Dalton down.
A key legal filing in the case is still available online. Ralph Nader's organization filed the brief contending the Republicans were out to suppress free speech. Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Ted Winker -- a Republican, by the way -- declined to grant the order sought by his own political party.
At most, the incident smacked of hardball politics. Radical? Or tyranny? Hardly.
Bizzyblog wanted to take a swat at MoveOn -- and many people would agree that the Dem-leaning organization needs a spanking over the Petraeus/Betray Us ad it sponsored last week. But a flap over t-shirts can't be elevated to burning the Reichstag, or an October revolution in Moscow, or Mugabe's assault on democracy in Africa, or Myanmar's junta. Or even an Ohio Republican party's trademark lawsuit against an Internet critic.
Bizzyblog is one of the very best of Ohio's bloggers, talented and a lifetime .300 hitter. This time, he went with his heart instead of his intellect. By the way, the Web site that stirred up the GOP is still around. Wonder if Bizzyblog's Mr. Blumer thinks those radical (just kidding) Republicans were really right to try to shut it down?
"I am told from time to time that MoveOn is not really a radical organization. Wrong. MoveOn is run by people whose first, second, and third instincts, if given any opening, are to silence opponents. They are petty tyrants in training."
Strong language.
He didn't mention -- or maybe he doesn't know -- that the Republican Party went even farther to silence a critic in Ohio. The GOP took legal action against Michael Dalton, a Democrat who lives in a Cincinnati suburb. Dalton's offense was to set up a Web site in 2005 called "hamiltoncountyrepublicanparty.com." that mocked Republicans. He was sued by the Hamilton County Republican Party for trademark infringement. The GOP sought a temporary restraining order and injunction to shut Dalton down.
A key legal filing in the case is still available online. Ralph Nader's organization filed the brief contending the Republicans were out to suppress free speech. Hamilton County Common Pleas Judge Ted Winker -- a Republican, by the way -- declined to grant the order sought by his own political party.
At most, the incident smacked of hardball politics. Radical? Or tyranny? Hardly.
Bizzyblog wanted to take a swat at MoveOn -- and many people would agree that the Dem-leaning organization needs a spanking over the Petraeus/Betray Us ad it sponsored last week. But a flap over t-shirts can't be elevated to burning the Reichstag, or an October revolution in Moscow, or Mugabe's assault on democracy in Africa, or Myanmar's junta. Or even an Ohio Republican party's trademark lawsuit against an Internet critic.
Bizzyblog is one of the very best of Ohio's bloggers, talented and a lifetime .300 hitter. This time, he went with his heart instead of his intellect. By the way, the Web site that stirred up the GOP is still around. Wonder if Bizzyblog's Mr. Blumer thinks those radical (just kidding) Republicans were really right to try to shut it down?
Monday, August 13, 2007
Ohio's Tectonic Shift: Reports From 'Liberal' North Sound Like 'Conservative' SW
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Any minute I expect to pick up a map saying Cleveland and Toledo are on the Ohio River and Cincinnati is built upon the shores of Lake Erie. Because something is plumb topsy-turvy about the state. Its north shore -- the liberal Democratic heartland -- seems aflame with reports of Free Speech oppression.
Tom Suddes, my old colleague from the newspaper business, always contended the "mouthbreathers," his word for the crowd most uncomfortable with people who liked to exercise their constitutional rights, infested downstate Ohio. They were generally Republicans who had gun racks in every pick up truck spotted south of Interstate 80.
Could be he was wrong. Could be that NEO is now SWOhio. Could be the heat. Something is out of sort with Ohio's political map because anti-taxers managed to collect enough signatures in Hamilton County (ground zero of Suddes' mouthbreathers) for a ballot measure aimed at repealing a proposed sales tax hike for a new jail -- and NOBODY was arrested or pushed around by the authorities who imposed the tax. Contrast that to what's happened in the liberal Up North these past few days.
The anti-tax crowd is being hassled when they try to circulate petitions against a sales tax increase in Cuyahoga County. This follows a Kent anti-war protester being ticketed for sticking an "Impeach Bush" sign in a public garden last month. And it fits right alongside Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's Aug. 12, 2007 order that closed a public park so anti-Nazi protesters from the University of Toledo could not raise cane about the fascists in our midst.
There's more. Gloria Ferris had a difficult time trying to collect names on anti-tax petitions near Jacobs Field, where a cop and security guard tried to keep her at bay. Gloria said:
"We weren't there ten minutes when we were told that we would have to move along by a security guard. I asked where we could stand, and he said I will get my supervisor if yo want. I said no don't bother I will ask that Cleveland Policeman over there. The security guard very politely kept insisting I should speak to the head of security at Jacobs Field. Probably because the police officer said he didn't know what was public or private.
"By that time, someone else in our group had talked to the head security guy who told him that three feed from the street was public . . . Of course, the cop told us that the three foot stretch would be too dangerous for people so our best bet would to be on the other side of the street. These locations were simply feeds into the main area and were not efficient for gaining large amounts of signatures."
And this is what the Toledo Blade reported today about the decision to close the park to the University of Toledo students who wanted to express concern about the Iraq War and supporters of Hitlerism. Sadly, they were prohibited.
By comparison, the land of the mouthbreathers has been pretty tame. People can complain about taxes, abortion (Cincinnati-based judges have been dismissing cases against abortion protesters) and, one supposes, even Nazis. Nobody in power seems to get their nose out of joint. Of course, they don't breath through their nostrils.
Tom Suddes, my old colleague from the newspaper business, always contended the "mouthbreathers," his word for the crowd most uncomfortable with people who liked to exercise their constitutional rights, infested downstate Ohio. They were generally Republicans who had gun racks in every pick up truck spotted south of Interstate 80.
Could be he was wrong. Could be that NEO is now SWOhio. Could be the heat. Something is out of sort with Ohio's political map because anti-taxers managed to collect enough signatures in Hamilton County (ground zero of Suddes' mouthbreathers) for a ballot measure aimed at repealing a proposed sales tax hike for a new jail -- and NOBODY was arrested or pushed around by the authorities who imposed the tax. Contrast that to what's happened in the liberal Up North these past few days.
The anti-tax crowd is being hassled when they try to circulate petitions against a sales tax increase in Cuyahoga County. This follows a Kent anti-war protester being ticketed for sticking an "Impeach Bush" sign in a public garden last month. And it fits right alongside Toledo Mayor Carty Finkbeiner's Aug. 12, 2007 order that closed a public park so anti-Nazi protesters from the University of Toledo could not raise cane about the fascists in our midst.
There's more. Gloria Ferris had a difficult time trying to collect names on anti-tax petitions near Jacobs Field, where a cop and security guard tried to keep her at bay. Gloria said:
"We weren't there ten minutes when we were told that we would have to move along by a security guard. I asked where we could stand, and he said I will get my supervisor if yo want. I said no don't bother I will ask that Cleveland Policeman over there. The security guard very politely kept insisting I should speak to the head of security at Jacobs Field. Probably because the police officer said he didn't know what was public or private.
"By that time, someone else in our group had talked to the head security guy who told him that three feed from the street was public . . . Of course, the cop told us that the three foot stretch would be too dangerous for people so our best bet would to be on the other side of the street. These locations were simply feeds into the main area and were not efficient for gaining large amounts of signatures."
And this is what the Toledo Blade reported today about the decision to close the park to the University of Toledo students who wanted to express concern about the Iraq War and supporters of Hitlerism. Sadly, they were prohibited.
By comparison, the land of the mouthbreathers has been pretty tame. People can complain about taxes, abortion (Cincinnati-based judges have been dismissing cases against abortion protesters) and, one supposes, even Nazis. Nobody in power seems to get their nose out of joint. Of course, they don't breath through their nostrils.
Saturday, August 11, 2007
Ohio Peace Activist's Free Speech Fight: Cops Removed His 'Impeach Bush' Sign
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- A few years ago, a federal appeals court in Ohio ruled an anti-abortion protester's Free Speech rights were infringed when he was arrested for carrying a placard displaying a fetus while strolling during an Akron suburb's Memorial Day parade. And last month, the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Cincinnati wrongly arrested an abortion protester for trespassing near a clinic as he tried to stop a woman from entering.
Free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution saved both men from criminal prosecution. Now there is another case that will make history from Ohio -- a Kent police officer ticketed an anti-war protester last month for putting an "Impeach Bush" sign in a public garden. The case is making its journey through the legal system and the first stop is in the Portage County Municipal Court. At the heart of this matter is this question: Can signs espousing political causes be erected in public places; does their removal amount to government censorship? It is a very close call.
Protests and protest signs have been part of the landscape in Washington's LaFayette Park across from the White House for year now. They are one of the city's tourist stops.
And anti-abortion protesters, for example, have been granted latitude to display protest signs along public sidewalks near Planned Parenthood clinics. Groups rent stadiums and convention halls built with public funds all the time, then use them for rallies where they proclaim support for all kids of causes. Years ago in Cincinnati, Ronald Reagan's 1986 campaign committee was sanctioned by a court for blocking protesters who wanted to carry anti-Reagan signs to a GOP rally on Fountain Square. And Cincinnati has been prohibited from refusing to grant a permit to the KKK, which wanted to place a cross -- its symbol of racial hatred -- on the same square in the heart of downtown. There's more: The Supreme Court has ruled that newsstands can't be stopped from being placed on city streets.
Kevin Egler, who wants Bush impeached, says he has been putting anti-war messages all around Ohio and neighboring states since October. Egler told Plain Dealer reporter James Ewinger that the cop who gave him a ticket July 25 in Kent remarked: "Why don't you put the signs in your own yard?"
If Egler is ever in this neighborhood, he's weclome to drop by with one of his signs. Perhaps his call for impeaching the president is a little extreme. But the guy is right to stick up for Free Speech. If Bush had any sense he'd invite him to the White House and stick one of the signs out on the lawn. It would show the whole world what this country stands for -- that every citizen has the right to speak his mind and nobody is afraid of that.
Free speech guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution saved both men from criminal prosecution. Now there is another case that will make history from Ohio -- a Kent police officer ticketed an anti-war protester last month for putting an "Impeach Bush" sign in a public garden. The case is making its journey through the legal system and the first stop is in the Portage County Municipal Court. At the heart of this matter is this question: Can signs espousing political causes be erected in public places; does their removal amount to government censorship? It is a very close call.
Protests and protest signs have been part of the landscape in Washington's LaFayette Park across from the White House for year now. They are one of the city's tourist stops.
And anti-abortion protesters, for example, have been granted latitude to display protest signs along public sidewalks near Planned Parenthood clinics. Groups rent stadiums and convention halls built with public funds all the time, then use them for rallies where they proclaim support for all kids of causes. Years ago in Cincinnati, Ronald Reagan's 1986 campaign committee was sanctioned by a court for blocking protesters who wanted to carry anti-Reagan signs to a GOP rally on Fountain Square. And Cincinnati has been prohibited from refusing to grant a permit to the KKK, which wanted to place a cross -- its symbol of racial hatred -- on the same square in the heart of downtown. There's more: The Supreme Court has ruled that newsstands can't be stopped from being placed on city streets.
Kevin Egler, who wants Bush impeached, says he has been putting anti-war messages all around Ohio and neighboring states since October. Egler told Plain Dealer reporter James Ewinger that the cop who gave him a ticket July 25 in Kent remarked: "Why don't you put the signs in your own yard?"
If Egler is ever in this neighborhood, he's weclome to drop by with one of his signs. Perhaps his call for impeaching the president is a little extreme. But the guy is right to stick up for Free Speech. If Bush had any sense he'd invite him to the White House and stick one of the signs out on the lawn. It would show the whole world what this country stands for -- that every citizen has the right to speak his mind and nobody is afraid of that.
Friday, July 06, 2007
Pro-Life Protest: Court Says Cincy Cops Wrongly Interfered
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- Joseph Michael Logsdon stages peaceful demonstrations outside abortion clinics in Southwest Ohio, and Cincinnati police violated the anti-abortion protester's rights when they arrested him in 2003 and 2004. The 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals said he was a regular presence outside the Cincinnati Women's Services clinic and was charged with criminal trespass and disorderly conduct.
In the first incident, Logsdon said he went to retrieve a sign on the clinic's grounds that was taken by a clinic official. The sign was aimed at patients and said, "God has a plan for your baby."
The second incident was in June 2004, when he went into a public park adjacent to the clinic and spoke to a patient through a chain link fence. An officer took him into custody.
A three-judge appellate panel today reinstated the lawsuit Logsdon filed against the three police officers who halted his protests. He contends his First Amendment right to free speech and Fourth Amendment right against unlawful detention were violated. The original case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel earlier this decade. In reinstating the pro-life protester's case, the 6th Circuit said:
"Reading plaintiff's complaint in the light most favorable to him, defendants failed to reasonably determine whether they had probable cause. In the course of initially assessing whether probable cause to arrest existed, defendants respectively 'turned a blind eye" to potentially exculpatory evidence when they refused to listed to witnesses at the scene.
"A prudent officer must draw reasonable conclusions from the facts and evidence known to him as supported by 'reasonably trustworthy information.' It appears that defendants deliberately excluded from a totality of known facts and circumstance information that might bear on the accuracy, reliability, or trustworthiness of the report that plaintiff has trespassed on CWS's (Cincinnati Women's Clinic) property."
In the first incident, Logsdon said he went to retrieve a sign on the clinic's grounds that was taken by a clinic official. The sign was aimed at patients and said, "God has a plan for your baby."
The second incident was in June 2004, when he went into a public park adjacent to the clinic and spoke to a patient through a chain link fence. An officer took him into custody.
A three-judge appellate panel today reinstated the lawsuit Logsdon filed against the three police officers who halted his protests. He contends his First Amendment right to free speech and Fourth Amendment right against unlawful detention were violated. The original case was dismissed by U.S. District Judge S. Arthur Spiegel earlier this decade. In reinstating the pro-life protester's case, the 6th Circuit said:
"Reading plaintiff's complaint in the light most favorable to him, defendants failed to reasonably determine whether they had probable cause. In the course of initially assessing whether probable cause to arrest existed, defendants respectively 'turned a blind eye" to potentially exculpatory evidence when they refused to listed to witnesses at the scene.
"A prudent officer must draw reasonable conclusions from the facts and evidence known to him as supported by 'reasonably trustworthy information.' It appears that defendants deliberately excluded from a totality of known facts and circumstance information that might bear on the accuracy, reliability, or trustworthiness of the report that plaintiff has trespassed on CWS's (Cincinnati Women's Clinic) property."
Tuesday, January 09, 2007
Clear Channel Cincy: No Libel, We Have Free Speech
CINCINNATI (TDB) -- The Clear Channel radio empire contends the First Amendment protects it in a federal libel lawsuit filed by a California trucking company, Con-Way Inc. The transport firm was the subject of on-air disparagement during a 700, WLW-AM talk show last September.
The dispute involves comments made by Eric "Bubba Bo" Boulanger, who told his American Truckin' Network audience that somebody at Con-Way had cooked the books, which was an implication of financial shenanigans.
Separately, Clear Channel was the subject of a protest in Columbus Monday for dropping the progressive talk format there. The Cincinnati libel case grew out of its 50,000-watt outlet in SW Ohio, a station that has a reputation for unrestrained comment seemingly designed to stir controversy.
''There are some, shall we say, irregularities in the accounting at the company. What they call cooking the books,'' Con-Way quotes Boulanger as saying on September, 23, 2006 during his overnight talk and call-in show. There were other comments the company contends were false, malicious and reckless.
Boulanger has since left the station. In a court filing last month, Clear Channel said it is not the proper party to the lawsuit. The company also contends Free Speech guarantees under the U.S. Constitution are broad enough to make the remarks libel-proof. ''All statements complained of by Plaintiffs are privileged under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and laws of Ohio because said statements contained fair comment on matters of public concern and interest,'' Clear Channel's lawyers, D. Dave O'Guinn and Louise S. Brock of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP in Cincinnati, said in their court filing.
They also said: "Plaintiffs are public figures or limited purpose public figures and cannot recover without clear and convincing proof of actual malice." And: "A statement of opinion on matters of public concern is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of Ohio."
Clear Channel, a San Antonio company with some 700 radio stations, has been under fire for taking progressive and Democratic leaning talk shows off the air. Some view the broadcaster as being interested in Free Speech that makes money, not Free Speech for enhancing political discourse.
No trial date is set for Ohio libel case, which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott in Cincinnati. (1:06-cv-697, Southern District of Ohio).
The dispute involves comments made by Eric "Bubba Bo" Boulanger, who told his American Truckin' Network audience that somebody at Con-Way had cooked the books, which was an implication of financial shenanigans.
Separately, Clear Channel was the subject of a protest in Columbus Monday for dropping the progressive talk format there. The Cincinnati libel case grew out of its 50,000-watt outlet in SW Ohio, a station that has a reputation for unrestrained comment seemingly designed to stir controversy.
''There are some, shall we say, irregularities in the accounting at the company. What they call cooking the books,'' Con-Way quotes Boulanger as saying on September, 23, 2006 during his overnight talk and call-in show. There were other comments the company contends were false, malicious and reckless.
Boulanger has since left the station. In a court filing last month, Clear Channel said it is not the proper party to the lawsuit. The company also contends Free Speech guarantees under the U.S. Constitution are broad enough to make the remarks libel-proof. ''All statements complained of by Plaintiffs are privileged under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and laws of Ohio because said statements contained fair comment on matters of public concern and interest,'' Clear Channel's lawyers, D. Dave O'Guinn and Louise S. Brock of Dinsmore & Shohl LLP in Cincinnati, said in their court filing.
They also said: "Plaintiffs are public figures or limited purpose public figures and cannot recover without clear and convincing proof of actual malice." And: "A statement of opinion on matters of public concern is protected under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Constitution and laws of Ohio."
Clear Channel, a San Antonio company with some 700 radio stations, has been under fire for taking progressive and Democratic leaning talk shows off the air. Some view the broadcaster as being interested in Free Speech that makes money, not Free Speech for enhancing political discourse.
No trial date is set for Ohio libel case, which has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan J. Dlott in Cincinnati. (1:06-cv-697, Southern District of Ohio).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)