ACLU: Loosen Restrictions On Library PCs

Sacramento Public Library Authority Considers Changing Policy
March 27, 2008

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- The American Civil Liberties Union is pushing the Sacramento Public Library Authority to loosen its Internet restrictions.
The first issue being considered involves Internet filters. Adults can turn off the filters, but teenagers and children cannot. The filters sometimes block sites that have information about medications.
The second issue is a "shoulder-tap" policy that would allow library staff to ask people to stop looking at a Web page that might be offensive to others.
The policy is censorship, the ACLU said, and it needs to be changed.
"It's a bad thing. Under our First Amendment and under our constitutional system, the government should not be telling us what to read or what to look at any more than the government should be telling us what to think," the ACLU's Michael Risher said.
"This is something that is an excuse to open up the floodgates for people to be able to view what we consider inappropriate, and to use our public funds for doing it and it’s wrong," parent Jayme DuFort said.
The board did not come to a decision on the policy Thursday evening. It plans to bring up the policy again next month.

Click HERE to see the Article

Johns Creek Citizen says, "No reason for adult store to close"

"I live a bit over one mile from the Love Shack in Johns Creek. I've seen the area where it is located languish for more than five years. [Starting out with] a single large "beverage" warehouse, the area expanded to several other warehouse-style buildings and a couple of fast-food restaurants, off of main thoroughfares, nondescript in appearance.

A few years ago, a small apartment complex was dropped into an undeveloped piece of land, and today another warehouse building is being built next door to that complex. For anyone to suggest that the Love Shack has come in and detracted from the "neighborhood" is ridiculous.

While I live close to the Johns Creek Love Shack, by definition I am only a few miles from the Norcross store as well. I've asked several public officials and several contributors to the AJC to publish details on the crime rate both before and since these two stores opened. I'm pretty sure there hasn't been a major crime wave ignited by the presence of these businesses. Yet no one has taken the trouble to gather and publish the data.

I believe our elected mayor has taken the wrong side of this issue and cannot go back, unfair as it is to the business involved. It seems more of a personal conflict between [Mayor Mike] Bodker and [store owner John] Cornetta. Fortunately for the mayor, his pen writes the rules, so he has been able to define the competition to his advantage. I'd like to see a vote on the subject, and encourage anyone who has not driven past this business to do so before taking a position.

Lastly, I have not spent a single dollar at this new store, don't know anyone involved in the business, and have nothing to benefit from taking my position other than to see the Johns Creek tax base expanded."

SCOTT MADIGAN, Johns Creek

First Amendment of the Bill of Rights

CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, OR OF THE PRESS; OR THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE PEACEABLY TO ASSEMBLE, AND TO PETITION THE GOVERNMENT FOR A REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.

The Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was ratified on December 15, 1791

“Censorship reflects a society’s lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime . . . .” — Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, dissenting Ginzberg v. United States, 383 U.S. 463 (1966)

“The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.” — Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943)

“First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought.”—Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, Ashcroft V. Free Speech Coalition

“Men feared witches and burnt women. It is the function of speech to free men from the bondage of irrational fears.” — U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis (1856–1941), Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357 (1927)

Assaults on the First and Second Amendments

This impacts everyone, not just journalists. Knoxville's Russ McBee captures it better than I could:

A federal judge in DC is holding a reporter for USA Today in contempt of court for refusing to divulge her sources for a series of stories she wrote on the unsolved 2001 anthrax attacks. Toni Locy wrote a series of articles for her paper that were skeptical of the government's whisper campaign that Dr. Stephen Hatfill was somehow involved in the attacks.

Hatfill is now suing the federal government for defamation, and Locy is one of the witnesses in the case. She contends that much of the information she reported was provided by Hatfill's own attorneys and was merely confirmed by ten or twelve government sources she consulted for the 2003 stories.

The judge in the case, Reggie B. Walton, is holding her in contempt of court for refusing to name those officials, and he is fining her $5,000 per day until she complies. To add outrage to injury, he's also prohibiting her employer from paying the fines on her behalf......

Perhaps I'm too simple minded but it seems to me if you don't have the First Amendment, you don't have the Second Amendment. And if you don't have the Second Amendment, you don't have the First Amendment. Any assault on one is an assault on the other. Likewise, any assault on either is an assault on all the Amendments.

Passing Sexually-Oriented Business Regulations in Your Community

Many cities and counties in America have never considered that sexually-oriented businesses (SOBs) could target their communities, but if they haven't put in place tough, constitutionally sound regulations they may be vulnerable. Once such businesses set up shop, it is much more difficult to remove them than to pass good ordinances in the first place.....

Video store owner demands license!

CLICK HERE to see the LETTER to the Jasper County Commission


Attorney: 'If we've got to go to court, we'll go to court'

The attorney representing the owner of a proposed adult video store said his client is prepared to go to court if Jasper County officials continue to delay approving his business license.

"They send people out to inspect and they say it's fine, then somebody else comes out and says it's not fine," said Joplin attorney William Fleishaker, who represents Ernie Doyon, owner of the proposed Vegas Video store at 1-44 and County Road 100.

“They came out Friday morning and told my guy's clerk that everything was fine and ready to go. Then someone shows up Friday afternoon and says here's this state statute that says you've got to take the doors off the viewing booths. What they're doing is anticipating.....


*Click on the title of the story to see the rest of the article*

Sexually Oriented Business Held in Contempt of Court

A Georgia judge ruled last week that the sexually oriented Love Shack is in contempt for continuing to operate after a permanent injunction was issued against it.

Judge Ural Glanville issued a $500 fine to the Johns Creek business for criminal contempt and ordered a $3,000-per-day fine if the business remains open. Owner John Cornetta could face jail time.

Glanville ordered the injunction because the Love Shack is violating city ordinances by operating in an area not zoned for sexually oriented businesses.

“The message in this story is that it pays to be prepared,” said Pat Trueman, special counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund. “The city, not the strip club, is in the driver’s seat because it had the foresight to pass a sexually oriented business ordinance.”

Vanunu`s Freedom of Speech Appeal Resumes March 23, 2008: Easter Sunday

After a year and a half long FREEDOM of Speech trial in Jerusalem, on July 2, 2007, an Israeli court sentenced the whistle blower of Israel's WMD program, Mordechai Vanunu, to six more months in jail for violating a ban imposed on him in 2004. Since his release from Ashkelon Prison on April 21, 2004, Israel has denied him the right to leave the state and has forbidden him to speak to foreigners. Two days before President Bush's first trip to Israel Palestine and a day before Vanunu's appeal was to begin, Israel sentenced him to community service instead....

Court upholds ban on Minnesota video game law

The video game industry and free-speech proponents landed yet another legal victory on Monday, when a federal appeals court affirmed a 2006 rejection of a Minnesota law restricting minors' access to violent titles.

The Minnesota law would have imposed up to a $25 fine on minors younger than 17 caught buying or renting video games rated "M" for mature or "AO" for adults-only, under the video game industry's rating system.

But a U.S. district judge blocked the new policy the day before it was scheduled to take effect. The judge cited constitutional concerns and "a paucity of evidence linking the availability of video games with any harm to Minnesota's children at all."

The state appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, where a three-judge panel unanimously upheld the lower court's findings in an eight-page opinion (PDF) released Monday.....

The appeals court ultimately ruled that the state "failed to come forth with incontrovertible proof of a causal relationship between the exposure to such violence and subsequent psychological dysfunction," and it disagreed with its constitutional interpretation.

Court kills law banning sales of violent video games to minors

By Dan Browning | McClatchy-Tribune
10:42 PM CDT, March 17, 2008

Chief U.S. District Judge James Rosenbaum ruled in July 2006 that violent video games were protected speech, even for children. He found the state failed to prove its claim that playing violent video games caused lasting harm to the psychological well-being of minors.

MINNEAPOLIS - Thirteen-year-old Jack Yongquist says he has no desire to play ultraviolent video games like "Grand Theft Auto." But the Roseville, Minn., teenager says he's glad that a federal appeals court ruled Monday that Minnesota can't enforce a law that prohibits the sale or rental of such games to minors.

"I think they should be able to —if their parents say it's OK. It's their choice," Jack said while shopping after school at Game Crazy on Snelling Avenue.

Jack initially said he'd never played any such games, but he had to backpedal when a store clerk mentioned that "Halo" is "technically rated mature."........

Free Speech In The Presidential Campaign And The Blogosphere

I'm tired of the demands for apologies, the constant denouncing and rejecting, and the endless stream of campaign purges. It's time for the candidates to define themselves by what they think, and it's time for the inept media to return to real journalism and stop asking candidates about an endless stream of supporters they disagree with. Will McCain renounce Hagee, Parsley, and Oliver North? Will Obama renounce Samantha Powers, William Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, and Rev. Wright? Will Clinton renounce Geraldine Ferraro, or remarks by Bill Shaheen or her husband? This game of six degrees of separation from offensiveness is not only a distraction, but it also has a devastating impact on free speech.

20/20, Age of Consent—and Me

Last night, 20/20 did an hour on various aspects of Age of Consent laws. I’m pleased to say they really got it right.

I was on screen for almost a minute (that’s a year in TV time), pointing out how fear of sexuality is driving public policy about teens—who society trusts to drive and to work, but not to have sex. 20/20 showed the cover of my current book, with a voiceover describing the War On Sex. Very cool.

The program interviewed a number of teens who were arrested for having consenting sex with “underage” partners—that is, other teens who can’t legally consent to sex. The boys’ punishments ranged from probation to jail to lifetime registration as sex offenders.

Host John Stossel was appropriately indignant about this horrible injustice. The show gave airtime to lawmakers, the fathers of teen girls whose boyfriends had been arrested, and even vigilantes devoted to publicizing the home addresses of people busted for consenting sex with teens.

Peter Sprigg of the Family Research Council said the solution to teen sex was for people to not have sex before they marry. It’s an idea rejected by virtually all Americans (who now typically marry for the first time at 25), but various policy-makers on the show said that criminalizing sex that isn’t wise may deter a few young people from making mistakes. As for the boyfriends and fiancés who can’t get jobs or housing because they’ve been busted for sleeping with their girlfriends, one state lawmaker described that as “a necessary evil.”

That’s probably not the phrase he would use if it were his son whose life was destroyed for having sex with the girl who loved him.

ABC’s article about this is pretty thoughtful, and even quotes me with facts about how rates of rape and teen pregnancy are declining—contrary to the predictions of those terrified or enraged by the increasing sexualization of our culture.

Some say you can judge a society by how it treats animals. Maybe we should also judge a society by how it treats human beings with adult bodies acting on adult feelings in private—who happen to be under 18.

Porn vs. Prostitution

Why is it legal to pay someone for sex on camera?
By Michelle Tsai
Posted Friday, March 14, 2008, at 5:13 PM ET


Every time a politician is caught with an expensive prostitute or just with his legs in a wide stance, Explainer readers have asked why laws don't treat pornography and prostitution the same way. Having sex on camera for an adult film generally won't get Jenna Jameson in trouble, but doing it with a john is illegal everywhere except in parts of Nevada. What's the difference between porn and prostitution?

Porn stars are paid to act (really); prostitutes are paid for sex. Performers may engage in sex as part of their roles—they presumably follow a script—but that doesn't count as sex for hire. Sex in the course of creating a movie or a photo is just plain old expression, protected under the First Amendment. (Click here for an excellent review of this distinction by Sherry F. Colb.) Free-speech advocates argue that this ought to hold true for "gonzo" films, in which the person behind the camera also joins in on the action; no significant cases have gone to court, however. Compared with sexually explicit media, though, live sex shows have received less protection. But the Supreme Court in Oregon did overturn two state laws concerning sex shows, on free speech and expression grounds, in 2005.

The porn-or-prostitution issue came up in the 1980s, when California prosecutors argued that an adult film producer named Harold Freeman was guilty of pimping because he had hired five women to perform sex acts for a movie called Caught From Behind II. The state's highest court ruled that anti-pandering, or anti-pimping, laws weren't intended to apply to porn films and that Freeman's acting fees weren't paid "for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification, his own or the actors'." (The sexual gratification of people who watched the movie was irrelevant.) The court also said that even if the actors had engaged in prostitution, applying the anti-pandering laws to skin flicks would impinge on the First Amendment.

Pornography has enjoyed First Amendment protection since the 1950s. In the early 20th century, pornography was considered obscene, yet it was also relatively rare. It wasn't until adult movies became more widespread that authorities paid more attention. In a 1957 Supreme Court case, Roth v. United States, Justice William Brennan not only wrote that obscenity wasn't protected by the First Amendment, but also narrowed the definition of obscenity, effectively legitimizing most pornography.

So, what's obscene pornography? The standards changed with different court cases through the years. The test established by the Roth case asked whether the material as a whole appealed to an average person's prurient interests. A Massachusetts case involving the book John Cleland's Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure resulted in a three-pronged test: A work was obscene if it appealed to prurient interests, offended community standards, and had no social value. Prosecutors realized, however, that everything could be construed to have some social value. Thus the current standard, called the Miller test, now specifically singles out work that lacks any serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Since California v. Freeman, prosecutors in other states have largely avoided challenging the distinction between prostitution and pornography. The legal buffer afforded by that ruling allowed the adult-film industry to proliferate in the Golden State. If a similar decision were handed down in another state, it might attract unwanted business from the porn industry. (The prostitution-vs.-porn question will go to trial this spring in a pending Florida case, however.)

Got a question about today's news? Ask the Explainer.

Explainer thanks David Hudson of Vanderbilt University Law School, Donald Marks of Marks & Brooklier, Louis Sirkin of Sirkin Pinales & Schwartz, and Larry Walters of Weston, Garrou, Walters & Mooney.

Cyberheat Discusses FTC Spam Settlement

TUCSON, Ariz. - After being ordered to pay a $413,000 civil penalty under a settlement with the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice, Cyberheat released its first statement Friday exclusively to AVN Online.

The settlement, announced Tuesday, also requires Cyberheat to closely monitor its affiliates to ensure that they are complying with the law and bars the company from future violations of the CAN-SPAM Act and the Adult Labeling Rule.

Cyberheat's statement reads as follows:

"A company sued in 2005 by the Department of Justice (DOJ).......

A New Legal Reality Emerges in Bush's Last Year

A New Legal Reality Emerges in Bush's Last Year

Many are wondering if the days of governmental harassment and politically motivated prosecutions of the industry are finally over.

Adam & Eve plans several more Mass stores

Adam & Eve Franchising, the retail division of adult products chain Adam & Eve, said several new franchise agreements have been signed for stores in Massachusetts.

The chain currently has three stores in the Bay State.

A development agreement has been signed by Ozzie and Sondra Figueroa for two stores that will be located in central/eastern Mass., according to a statement. Exact locations for the stores have not been determined yet, Adam & Eve officials said. The business owners already operate an Adam & Eve franchise store in Auburn, Mass.

An additional agreement has been signed for a store in the Quincy, Mass.-area, according to company officials. Franchisee Natale Frontino has signed a long-term area development agreement for eight additional stores to be developed in the south Boston shores area over the next 5 years. Numerous areas are being investigated, but no specific locations have yet been determined, Adam & Eve said.

Johns Creek v. Love Shack: Appeals Expected

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN TO THE BROADCAST

ATLANTA, GA (2008-03-11) The battle between the city of Johns Creek and the Love Shack continues. Yesterday a judge reaffirmed his prior ruling that the store is operating illegally, and should be fined $3000 dollars a day if it stays open.

In the prior ruling, the store was told to change its merchandise so as not to qualify as an adult-business, move to a zone where adult businesses are allowed, or to close. Mayor Michael Bodker says as recently as March 9th, the store was open, and code inspectors found it was still sexually-oriented:

BODKER: We're not trying to ban the business, we are simply asking that the business either operate truly as a non-adult business or move to a location where it can operate as one.

But Cary Wiggins, lawyer for Love Shack's owner, says the store has made changes to avoid the adult-business designation.

WIGGINS: Long story short, the store is reducing its merchandise that could be characterized as sexually-explicit.

Wiggins plans to appeal the court's ruling.

Against Sexual Scandal

Less than forty-eight hours after revelations that he had hired a prostitute emerged, New York Governor Eliot Spitzer announced his resignation. Whatever happens to him now--the ultimate force of the story is not, once again, why big men do stupid sexual things. It's not about how righteous moralists always create noise to distract us from paying attention to a dark secret they have....

Love Shack owner charged with contempt

John Cornetta was fined $500, given stern warning
By DOUG NURSE
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Published on: 03/10/08

The owner of the Love Shack has been found in contempt of court for continuing to operate the sexually oriented business in the city of Johns Creek.


Owner John Cornetta was fined $500 and issued a stern warning by the judge: If the Love Shack continues to violate city rules on the sale of adult merchandise, Cornetta could go to jail, the store could be closed and a $3,000-a-day fine could be issued

"There has been a pattern and practice of not complying with this court and other bodies," Fulton County Superior Court Judge Ural Glanville said. "If I tell them not to do it and fine them, and they still do it, then we go to the next step."

The store remained open Monday.

The ruling came Monday afternoon, after city officials claimed Cornetta was violating a court order issued Feb. 28 by Glanville. The judge's earlier written order said Cornetta couldn't operate a sexually oriented business at its Johns Creek location at Jones Bridge and State Bridge roads.

Cornetta was out of the country on vacation and couldn't be reached for comment Monday.

Cary Wiggins, Cornetta's attorney said that the store would try to comply, but said that pending litigation over the same store, filed in federal court in Fulton County, could reshape the whole case.

"We're certainly happy the court recognized what we've been saying for a long time that the Love Shack is an adult business," said Mayor Mike Bodker. "It is yet another victory in a long process." The city has been trying to close the business for about a year.

City officials have argued the site of the Love Shack is not zoned for adult businesses, and that Cornetta needed to move, change his inventory, or close.

Cornetta Found in Contempt in Love Shack Controversy

Cornetta Found in Contempt in Love Shack Controversy

Love Shack owner John Cornetta has been found in contempt of court for continuing to operate the business in Johns Creek, Ga.

Johns Creek Takes Love Shack to Court Monday

Johns Creek Takes Love Shack to Court Monday

The city of Johns Creek is asking a judge to find the owner of the Love Shack in contempt, which could lead to jail, a fine or closing the adult-themed store, or all of the above.

Sexual Intelligence Awards, 2008

Sexual Intelligence Awards, 2008 (3)
March 8, 2008
Each year, Sexual Intelligence Awards honor individuals and organizations which challenge the sexual fear, unrealistic expectations, and government hypocrisy that undermine love, sex, and relationships—and political freedom—today.

One of this year’s recipients is Sherri Williams, Sex Toy Activist. Here’s why:

For nine years the state of Alabama has insisted that Sherri Williams is a criminal. And so she has taken the state to court over and over during those nine years. She has won a handful of times, only to have the state appeal and win a subsequent round in court.

As we have documented (SI #s 9, 33, 39, 54), Alabama has criminalized the sale of sex toys. And that’s what Williams does for a living—sell objects to adults designed to enhance their sexual pleasure. “Dangerous,” “immoral,” “obscene” objects like vibrators, dildoes, anal beads.

Last fall Williams (and a dedicated team of pro bono attorneys) asked the Supreme Court to overturn a recent, final decision affirming Alabama’s right to criminalize sex toys. When the Supreme Court declined to take the case, it looked like Williams—and five million Alabamans—had reached the end of the road. But earlier this month, a Circuit Court overturned Texas’ law banning sex toys. The case had been brought by another SI Award winner, our beloved Phil Harvey (SI #s 18, 67, 76).

This leaves Alabama holding the bag (empty, as it were) on sex toys. Most observers agree that Alabama’s law will either wither or be repealed. Either way, most people will live and die without knowing about Sherri Williams’ fight. We salute her for her commitment.

Why is the fight for sex toys important? Because anti-vibrator laws are based on the belief that the state has the right—indeed, the obligation—to patrol the “morality” and “safety” of private bedroom behavior. Such beliefs have been used to criminalize contraception, homosexuality, pornography, and sadomasochism. They can be used to criminalize anything—adultery, oral sex, premarital sex.

Any of those interest you?

SXSW Interactive Plans 'Porn Police' Panel Saturday

SXSW Interactive Plans 'Porn Police' Panel Saturday

The South by Southwest Interactive Festival will hold a discussion of federal regulations governing explicit materials produced for public distribution on Saturday.

Trial Date Set in Va. Obscenity Case

Trial Date Set in Va. Obscenity Case

A June 17 trial date has been set in the case of After Hours Video owner Rick Krial and a store clerk who were indicted on multiple felony and misdemeanor counts of obscenity.

Johns Creek wants contempt citation against Love ShackAtlanta Business Chronicle

Johns Creek, Ga., filed a motion in Fulton County Superior Court on March 7 seeking a contempt citation against a sex toy and adult video store, claiming the business is operating in violation of city ordinances.

The city said Love Shack at 10590 State Bridge Rd. was slapped with a permanent injunction in February that said the store could not do business in violation of city codes, without a business license or run a sexually oriented business in parts of the city not zoned for that use. After the injunction, city code enforcement officers visited Love Shack several times and reported the store continues to meet the city's definition of a sexually oriented business due to the percentage of its products that are adult in nature.

"Today we have presented our findings to the judge for his review," said Mike Bodker, Johns Creek mayor. "If he agrees with our assessment, then we are asking that he take whatever action he deems appropriate."

The city denied Love Shack a business license in 2007. The owner reapplied for a 2008 license on Feb. 26, but the city has not yet acted on the recent application.

Protect free speech

Protect free speech
Contra Costa Times
Article Launched: 03/06/2008 03:05:06 AM PST


FREEDOM OF THE PRESS is essential to a free society. It is protected by the First Amendment and is the foundation of all journalism. Unfortunately, it appears that not all school administrators in California agree.
State Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Mateo, has documented eight recent cases in the state in which journalism advisers were dismissed or reassigned by school officials who were upset by embarrassing or critical stories in student newspapers.

Yee was understandably disturbed by school administrators who he said "want to squash free thinking, particularly free thinking they don't agree with." He added, "That's not how you educate young people who are going to be the leaders of the next generation."

To curb the suppression of students' freedom of expression, Yee introduced Senate Bill 1370 to prohibit schools and colleges from retaliating against an employee for standing up for students' free-speech rights.

Two years ago, Lee sponsored Assembly Bill 2581, which became law. It prohibits school administrators on any public campus from disciplining a student solely on the basis of speech. But that does not stop officials from cracking down on journalism advisers and teachers, or threatening to shut down publications.

Lee's SB 1370 would protect high school as well as college journalism advisers. It is unfortunate that such legislation is needed, but it is.

Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association, was concerned about the continued pressure by school officials against advisers. It often is tantamount to censorship.

When school administrators bully advisers into backing down from controversial stories or leaving, they do a grave disservice to education. Students should be encouraged to write critical and controversial pieces without being subjected to de facto censorship, especially by education officials.

Any school administrator who takes action against a teacher or adviser who helps students think and write freely is in the wrong job.

We strongly support SB 1370 and urge its quick passage and signing by the governor.

Freedom of speech-we should be proud it's ours - Opinion

Freedom of speech-we should be proud it's ours - Opinion

Teen Appealing Web Blog Free Speech Decision

A high school senior who used vulgar language in reference to her school administrators is appealing the decision of a lower federal court and fighting for her right to serve as class secretary and to speak at her graduation, in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York.

Avery Doninger, 17, was barred from running for class secretary by Lewis S. Mills High School in Burlington, Conn. because administrators said she had written in her personal blog that officials were “douchebags” because she thought they were cancelling an event she had helped plan. She also called for others to take action against Superintendent Paula Schwartz and to “piss her off more” by writing and calling Schwartz. Officials discovered the blog two weeks after she had written, and the teen was told to apologize to Schwartz, show her mother the blog, and was told she could not run again for re-election as class secretary. Doninger won the position by write-in votes, but was not permitted to serve.

U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz had said that because Doninger’s blog was addressing school issues and because it was read by other students, she could be punished by the school. However, in the appeal, Doninger’s attorney argued that schools should not be able to regulate what is done on the Internet if it does not create a risk of disruption, and because it did not take place on school grounds or during a school activity.

"It's just a bigger soapbox," her attorney, Jon L. Schoenhorn, told the Hartford Courant.

According to the Hartford Courant, Thomas R. Gerarde, the school’s attorney, said that the Internet has increased the impact of their words by how many people they can reach and that if student leaders make offensive comments about the school on the Internet, the school should be able to punish them.

"We shouldn't be required to just swallow it," he said.

He also contended that the blog did cause school officials to receive numerous phone calls and emails and that some students had considered staging a sit-in.

However, the Harford Courant reported, Judge Sonia Sotomayor said that "pedagogical rights can't supersede the rights of students off campus to have First Amendment rights."

Oakes Enters City Council Race Save Email Print

Staunton, Va.
Posted: 11:00 AM Mar 4, 2008
Last Updated: 11:00 AM Mar 4, 2008
Reporter: Keith Jones
Email Address: kjones@whsv.com

After pushing for an adult store ordinance in the Queen City, Citizens Task Force member Andrea Oakes has decided to run for Staunton City Council.

The former Staunton School Board member says she'd like to attract friendly businesses to the Queen City to boost their economy.

Oakes says she did not make the decision because of her efforts against adult stores in the Valley, which she admits could either help her or hurt her chances come election day.

"One thing it did show the community is I'm a leader that's proactive rather than reactive," says Oakes. "I am a leader that has foresight and can see what's down the road and what we need to do to protect the integrity of this city."

Up to this point, Oakes is running against Russell Ashby, Bob Campbell, Ophie Kier, as well as former council members Dickie Bell and David Metz, for four seats in the chamber. The Staunton Registrar says the deadline to qualify is 7 p.m. Tuesday.

Indicted Va. Movie Gallery Store Removes Adult Videos

By Tod Hunter
Tuesday, Mar 4, 2008 Text size:
KILMARNOCK, Va. — A Movie Gallery store that had been indicted by a grand jury on public nuisance charges last November has removed adult-themed videos from its stock.
The videos were kept in a back room of the Kilmarnock store, in an area now used for new video releases.

Last August, a Lancaster County group spearheaded by local resident Fabiola Gergerich obtained 94 signatures on a petition asking the Circuit Court to declare the store's adult videos a public nuisance.

In November, a special grand jury indicted the store. Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney J.W. Harmon told reporters that the grand jury found "obscene" adult videos displayed in the back room, as well as the packaging of some videos in the store's main shopping area.

The grand jury's presentment is under seal, and a date has not been set for a trial of the grand jury's allegations.

Lancaster County Commonwealth's Attorney C. Jeffers Schmidt, Jr. told XBIZ that he did not know if the material that had been removed was the material mentioned in the grand jury's presentment, and declined to speculate on what effect Movie Gallery's actions would have on court actions.

In February, Movie Gallery announced it was closing 400 unprofitable stores, including 14 in Virginia.

First Amendment

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble. and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing to love about The Love Shack

By Jim Osterman | Monday, March 3, 2008, 08:51 AM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution

Sex had a good run last week - as a topic in the news, I mean.


A church in a Florida publicly encouraged its married members to engage on conjugal gymnastics every day for a month. It had something to do with celebrating the joys of matrimonial life — and I’m guessing a few couples may have bolted for home before the offering plate was passed.

Closer to home, one of our sister cities to the north won a round in an ongoing legal battle to chase The Love Shack, purveyor of so-called adult merchandise, out of town. I smell an appeal in the air and once again wish I’d gone to law school because the lawyers are the true winners in these things. But back to sex.

By my count we have one strip club and two adult bookstores in the confines of our little burg, and this mightily offends many of our citizens. I’m offended as well, but for a different reason than most.

It offends me that there is enough local trade for these places to be profitable enough to remain open. Want to usher businesses like this out of Sandy Springs? Don’t dump it in the city council’s lap and hope they can concoct some law. Don’t picket or circulate petitions. Don’t form a coalition of concerned clergy and feminist groups. The solution is much easier.

Starve the rascals to death.

We may be loath to admit this, if there weren’t enough of us slapping down our dollars in these stores and clubs they wouldn’t exist. And, yes, I understand that not everyone patronizing these places is a Sandy Springsteen, but guess what? They aren’t staying open because people are coming from all over the metro area to get their thrills in our city.

In case you haven’t noticed, Sandy Springs is not the only place in metro Atlanta where you can buy sexually explicit videos or watch ladies dancing naked. So if these places are showing a profit the bulk of it is coming from the locals.

And until we shut off the faucet these places will be alive and well on Roswell Road. Maybe if we learned to respect each other, and have a little more reverence for sex, it would be a good start. Maybe then these places would lose their allure.

Perhaps that Florida pastor has it right — we’d be better served if sex was taken out of the retail/entertainment arena and put it into church. I’m not sure it necessarily belongs there, but it would be a big step up from where

Permalink | Comments (67) | Post your comment | Categories: Jim Osterman

Comments
By Tom

March 3, 2008 12:16 PM | Link to this

In short…..

The complainers aren’t buying, and the buyers aren’t complaining.

If you want to drive a store selling legal adult merchandise out of business, do it the American way….

Open a competitor with better selection and prices. Duh.

*

By C

March 3, 2008 1:22 PM | Link to this

There are 3 strip clubs, and three adult bookstores in Sandy Springs. Know your town and know your porn before writing.

By TNG

March 4, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

So there are these people who buy stuff there but hate the place? That’s a brilliant deduction - you’re a freakin’ genius Jim. HAHAHA!

By Harold

March 4, 2008 11:21 AM | Link to this

Sound like somebody need some more action in they own bedroom so they stop worryin about the bedrooms of others! Mine your own business, dummy!

By Katie

March 4, 2008 11:33 AM | Link to this

Oh my god, sex is bad!! please, everyone does it. If you don’t like the love shack, don’t shop there—it really is THAT simple. All you bible thumping morons need to get over yourself.

By robo

March 4, 2008 11:38 AM | Link to this

What’s new? Sex sells. Always has and always will.

By Troy

March 4, 2008 11:39 AM | Link to this

The patrons are all of us from Cobb coming across the river to Sandy Spings!

By No Dawgs Here

March 4, 2008 11:41 AM | Link to this

OK. I got an idea. Those that oppose China, go and protest outside all the Wal-Marts.(IE; China’s #1 customer) Those that don’t believe in god, go and hold up “God is a lie” banners outside all the churches. Some people really just need to get a life. Geez… Protest this protest that. It’s a business. Not anything else. If you don’t like it, go somewhere else. I don’t like to eat at Sonny’s BBQ, does that mean I can hold up signs and try to close them down? I agree some radical “Bible thumpers” need to do less judging and let he that can only judge do the judging.

By Patrick

March 4, 2008 11:43 AM | Link to this

You forgot about Mardi Gras Gentleman’s club in Powers Ferry Landing. It’s well hidden behind some trees on a hill, but it’s in Sandy Springs as well.

By Keon

March 4, 2008 11:54 AM | Link to this

It’s ridiculous…

If they are not violating the law then I don’t see a problem. I’m sure there can be some sort of compromise. I can understand not wanting a place like this in view of children. I recall that was a problem before if I recall. Cover the windows, have the entrance facing the back etc… Tax revenue is tax revenue!

To my understanding you can’t have a business of this nature near a house of worship or a place where children congregate(school, daycare etc..) You also can’t have vulgar displays in the window. If these things are being done then what’s the problem?
I wish I could have one in my neighborhood…actually I prefer Southern Nights and Insurrections!:)

These store fulfill a need/want and attempting to say they don’t is ridiculous!

By bameroni

March 4, 2008 12:02 PM | Link to this

I’m sorry; at least these places pay taxes that support “your” community and the local church and church-related organizations do not.

By Ryan Tucker

March 4, 2008 12:03 PM | Link to this

Sandy Springs happens to be in America. And in America we get to shop where we want. We also get to protest where we want. I don’t care if the bible-thumping idiots want to protest, I just hope they realize it’s a waste of time.

By Now ain't that sumthin'

March 4, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

All of this talk of the Love Shack is making me horny!

By Now ain't that sumthin'

March 4, 2008 12:07 PM | Link to this

All of this talk of the Love Shack is making me horny!

By Lost

March 4, 2008 12:15 PM | Link to this

Can some one give me directions to the Love Shack. My pastor is fresh out of lube.

By JPW

March 4, 2008 12:20 PM | Link to this

Oh my god!! What a people choose to buy to use in there own house is no concern of anyone else. If people want to buy videos, toys, joke gifts, and so on who cares.

People act as if a woman buying a vibrater is buying an M-16. Change your mindset! One kills people the other brings pleasure. Oh God she has a dildo!!! Oh God he purchased a blow-up doll and DVD’s!! Run for the hills. Get over yourselves. If a couple wants to walk into a store and buy whips, chain, and all the other interesting things that they can so be it. Are they affecting you? No!

People protest based on moral decay! Here look in the mirror you are the cause of it as much as anyone. Deal with it; this is the world we built not just me. The protesters say they sell to minors, again wrong. The Bars, Clubs, and the Stores all card and if you are 18 you are asked to leave. I have been there and been carded. Face facts most people that are protesting the Love Shack, The Pink Ponie, and all the others have never been into one. You want moral decay look at how you are raising your children to look down at others.

The sex industry whether it is prostitution or a store like the love shack is doing the world a favor, and taking a risk to do so. Rapes have gone DOWN in Las Vegas since they have legalized it. What does that say? What about the people that for whatever reason are not attractive to other people or do not have the social skills to entertain people why should they not have a place to help them create their fansty and make them feel good about themselves?

The people who waste their time protesting these businesses are just sad. If they would put as much effort in to their own families, their schools, and simply their own lives maybe just maybe some of the issues that do effect them like violence, kids shooting each other, drugs, and other issues would go down.
The short of it is this places are not doing anything harmful, people may not like them but no one is holding a gun to anyone head to go into them. People may not like the why they look in a shopping plaza, by a church, or by some other institution, and that is their opinion and opinions do not make laws. In some cases these businesses were there first before a church or a strip mall, in which cases people knew what they were building by.

In closing I just want to say that the human body is a wonderful thing a true work of art and these businesses are just celebrating this fact, why condemn them for it?

By Tertius

March 4, 2008 12:22 PM | Link to this

Good points. Sex is sinfully cheapened and degraded and perverted when it’s a commercial exploit. Churches should do more to address the proper role of sex: joyfully in the commitment of marriage. But even that message cannot be divorced from the Gospel which provides the fuller context for how people are to live before a holy God.

But yes, I stand with you that rather than moralistic legal action, churches and concerned citizens would do well to promote a positive, healthy, Christian view of joyful sex within marriage, and to with gentleness and grace address the life-destroying effects of sexual sins like pornography.

By Carol

March 4, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

I’ve got a solution to shut them down: have two people with running video cameras at all times the store is open. One filing the licence plates of the cars who come in, and go out, and one filing the patrons entering and leaving. That way, if someone is a registered sex offender and is patronizing the place, the evidence is there to send them back to jail. So really 2 problems are solved! Less sex offenders on the streets in SS, and less people who are closet sex offenders, which would entirely shut the place down!

By Carol

March 4, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

I’ve got a solution to shut them down: have two people with running video cameras at all times the store is open. One filing the licence plates of the cars who come in, and go out, and one filming the patrons entering and leaving. That way, if someone is a registered sex offender and is patronizing the place, the evidence is there to send them back to jail. So really 2 problems are solved! Less sex offenders on the streets in SS, and less people who are closet sex offenders, which would entirely shut the place down!

By MW

March 4, 2008 12:33 PM | Link to this

bameroni,

Please give me a break! Please don’t compare this trash to the local church based on sales tax revenue. Poor argument, please try again.

By RevIke

March 4, 2008 12:35 PM | Link to this

Remember, You can have sex in Sandy Springs, Just don’t use gadgets or tell your neighbors.

By Carol

March 4, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

JPW,

Because exploitation of women is not healthy sex.

If we showed men being victimized and raped, you be against it for sure…

By harold

March 4, 2008 12:37 PM | Link to this

IF THE AJC DIDNT DRUM THIS UP, THERE WOULDNT BE NO PROTESTORS. AJC IS THE GUILTY PARTY.

By curiouser and curiouser

March 4, 2008 12:39 PM | Link to this

Jim, if the citizens of Sandy Springs want to patronize these establishments, who are you to say they can’t? The entire premise of a “free” country is exactly that: “freedom”. If the establishments weren’t welcome, they WOULD die out from lack of business. Except they aren’t dying out. That tells me you’re in the minority on this one, huh, and the Sandy Springs residents do welcome these establishments.

(BTW: The correct answer is “You aren’t ANYONE to say they can’t, and so you should STFU, GBTW, and quit trying to dictate others’ actions based on moral pronouncements from your personal sky fairy.”)

By Pat

March 4, 2008 12:40 PM | Link to this

Come on, let’s focus on something that really matters. Why is the American society so afraid of sex, when everyone does it, wants to do it, and wants to watch it. These places are in business zones and not across the street from a school. I don’t see any strippers in windows - like Amsterdam - so what’s the problem. We have no compassion in this country for the exact human desire that brought us here. And sex in church, within the sanctity of marriage, who cares.

By Carol

March 4, 2008 12:47 PM | Link to this

Pat, My parents were married, not engaging in orgies, with mutilations, whips, chains and the like.

Last time I checked, I am still an American and I have a right to protest anything I like (at least until the one of the two Christian-hating Communists get elected this Fall!)…

By Steve

March 4, 2008 12:51 PM | Link to this

Only in this backwards hick state would we even be having this discussion.

Last time I checked:

a: this is a free country b: children aren’t allowed in the stores c: sex is not bad, or evil, or naughty. Honestly. d: it brings in tax income e: sex toys spice up boring married and single sex lives f: videos keep folks from looking elsewhere for sex

Get a Grip and Join the 21st Century.

By gttim

March 4, 2008 12:52 PM | Link to this

Yeah, because there are not more important issues we should be concerned about. Sandy Springs incorporated because they were tired of Fulton County spending money in ways they did not approve of and making laws they did not like. So now Sandy Springs is going to spend money on things most of it citizens do not care about and make laws that most of its citizens do not want. Nice!

BTW, you can get much better prices over the internet, but by buying in person you get to make sure everything is the correct size.

Was it Dear Abby or Ann Landers who asked a minister if it was alright to have sex before church? The minister said it was fine as long as you did not block the isle. We need more people who do not take things so seriously.

By rt

March 4, 2008 12:53 PM | Link to this

What do you want to bet that some of those same bilble thumpers are back tonight as patrons. Remember, bible thumpers, CHOIR BOYS ALL TALK SOONER OR LATER. The lube is on the left when you go in.

By get a life

March 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

The bed of the married is undefiled. Me and my husband who are both Christans were just in the Love Shack 2 weeks ago! and the night ended wonderfully!! People need to mind there business about what others choose to do or incorporate in their bedrooms. At least we can tell who’s unhappy and who’s sex life is boring. If a couple chooses to watch porn together or whatever that is their decision and no one has a right to say what or what GROWN people should or should not be doing. As for the sex offenders, would you rather then get a porn movie or go prey on some kid again? I say get a porn get yourself off and leave the babies alone!

By Carol

March 4, 2008 12:55 PM | Link to this

Steve, BS, Every sex offender has 2 things in his house (prove me wrong, and I’ll believe you): 1.Running Water 2.PORN

By Steve

March 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Carol, My parents had a codependent alcoholic marriage, so what’s your point? Who cares what your or my parents did. This is the 21st century.

Evolve.

By Carol

March 4, 2008 12:56 PM | Link to this

Steve, BS, Every sex offender has 2 things in his house (prove me wrong, and I’ll believe you): 1.Running Water 2.PORN

By Conga

March 4, 2008 12:58 PM | Link to this

Just like the Sunday liquor debate, if you don’t like naked women gyrating in front of you then don’t visit a strip club. Just like if you don’t want to drink on Sunday then you don’t have to buy alcohol-but let us who want-should be able to on Sundays, don’t tell me what I can and can’t do just because you don’t agree with the majority!

By Carol

March 4, 2008 1:00 PM | Link to this

Get a Life,

So the Ten Commandments are optional to others but not you and your husband? I don’t get it(??)

By Carol

March 4, 2008 1:01 PM | Link to this

Get a Life,

So the Ten Commandments are optional to others but not you and your husband? I don’t get it(??)

By Carol

March 4, 2008 1:03 PM | Link to this

Steve,

I don’t want to evolve back into an animal: that’s why they call us “civilized”. we can reason, we have self-control (??)…

By 1 more thing

March 4, 2008 1:05 PM | Link to this

look at some of these women in the line with the pickets. That will give you an idea of the type of woman that’s protesting this place.

Old - Angry - Fat -Hillary Clinton Supporters.

You don’t see any long legged - fantastic body - gorgeous - hot women protesting - do ya?

That’s the problem - these women gave up on sex - years ago. Would you wanna have sex with any of these women in the picture.

They let themselves go - and have no sex life! They are otta shape and disgusting.

Because their sex life stinks - they want to crawl in your bedroom window, and make sure your not having any fun either!

GET A LIFE HONEY!

GET A GYM MEMBERSHIP AND A MAKEOVER WHILE YOUR AT IT!

Victoria’s Secret does not come in XXXL

By Steve

March 4, 2008 1:07 PM | Link to this

Carol, guess what - I’m not a sex offender and I have porn and running water in my house. What is your point?

What is wrong with people in Georgia? It’s like you people don’t think.

By Concerned

March 4, 2008 1:08 PM | Link to this

Perhaps those of you who claim that the Love Shack is operating legally should do THEIR homework before saying the holy rollers should live and let live. Also they should learn of the dangerous “activities” that take place in the Love Shack locations. In reality, residents don’t want to draw sexual predators into their neighborhoods. I am not implying that all patrons are predators, but that places like this are a draw for them and fuels their fire for the perverted. I appreciate the article, but there will always be those who see no reason to resist this base type of entertainment. The best we can do is be sure they are operating legally. The Johns Creek location is still open even though they lost the court battle to remain open. I’m not sure what is up with law enforcement there, but Mr. Cornetta (Love Shack owner) has ZERO respect for the laws of the land.

By Carol

March 4, 2008 1:11 PM | Link to this

1 More Thing:

What do YOU look like?

I’m not fat…do you want me to be fat so you’re right? Most gorgeous women I know agree, but they are working. I’d be there myself, except I have to work as well. Those people have a right to protect their children, grandchildren, etc. from sex perverts.

By CommonSenseNotSoCommon

March 4, 2008 1:12 PM | Link to this

Those wonderful holy-ghost-filled-saved-&-sanctified folks in Sandy Springs aren’t buying novelty toys! They’re hitting their neigbors and paying for the real thing on Ponce-De-Leon, Metropolitan Ave (formerly Stewart Avenue), Ashby Street. They can also be found on cheating on their spouses having same sex affairs online and having rendez-vous at high end hotels. So they have no need for the novelty toys!

To all I say - Let’s go shopping in Sandy Springs! Hell - I am going to buy something for my wife today!!!

By jimmy k

March 4, 2008 1:14 PM | Link to this

These prudish fundys don’t have anything better to do than protest a legal business offering legal products to people who can choose of their own free will to enter the store or not. They are pathetic, miserable worms. Of course, when someone is convinced “God told me to do X” then no amount of logic or reason can disuade them. The protesters would be far more likely to initiate physical force against other people than the customers at Love Shack. Perhaps the FBI would do better to get the licence plates of the signholders and see if they are part of other dangerous groups such as Operation Rescue and the Christian Identity movement.

By Carol

March 4, 2008 1:15 PM | Link to this

Concerned:

VERY well put. According to Steve, you must not be from Georgia, as you can think!

“residents don’t want to draw sexual predators into their neighborhoods. I am not implying that all patrons are predators, but that places like this are a draw for them and fuels their fire for the perverted.”

By CommonSenseNotSoCommon

March 4, 2008 1:16 PM | Link to this

They can’t even find someone to have sex with them fro money. These are the very people who are in dire need of these businesses.

By Steve

March 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Last I checked, these stores weren’t in “neighborhoods” but were in business districts.

I’m beginning to realize that conservatives live in fear about EVERYTHING.

By Carol

March 4, 2008 1:19 PM | Link to this

Jimmy,

Physical force? Nope…just a nice video tape that I can turn into the FBI looking for sexual predators violating their probation terms.

By Katie

March 4, 2008 1:27 PM | Link to this

Carol, are you sure your parents don’t have any whips or chains? How do you really know? Do you watch them have sex? What people choose to do behind their closed doors is THEIR business and no one else’s, including their children. Who knows, maybe your parents do get a little freaky and you just don’t know it. Afterall, you shouldn’t watching, now should you.

By Gimme Yo Dolla

March 4, 2008 1:28 PM | Link to this

The notion that perverts are ONLY going to the Loveshack and putting their neighborhoods at risk is stupid. I would think a restaurant like McDonald’s where kids play outside would be of greater concern than some store selling adult movies

By Carol

March 4, 2008 1:33 PM | Link to this

Katie,

whatever they did was between them and fine, as long as it didn’t involve anyone else (or watching anyone else)…sex is meant to be experienced…

Are you cool with women being degraded like animals and exploited? You don’t sound like a true feminist to me.

By No ones business

March 4, 2008 1:34 PM | Link to this

Carol You said

*Because exploitation of women is not healthy sex.

If we showed men being victimized and raped, you be against it for sure…*

Are you saying there aren’t men in porns, or are you saying the women in the porn’s don’t like getting paid to ride a 10’ C**? Why do you care what people buy or do in their own homes? Take a look at the Catholics, their highest ranked leader f*** underage choirboys and you and use religion to justify your invasion of others privacy. So if we get ride of these places you think we will get rid of sex offenders? I say we get rid of religions and there would be less wars and children who get their salads tossed.

On another note, when I was younger and attended church, I was getting more than when I was in College, go figure.

By Katie

March 4, 2008 1:44 PM | Link to this

Carol, I wasn’t attacking you, just asking how you really knew what your parents do/did.
First, the people making the porn movies are paid porn actors—they do it by choice.
Second, I value most non human animals more than humans so if a human chooses to degrade themselves, once again, they do it by choice. Sex is the oldest industry in the world, sex sells. If it didn’t, people wouldn’t do it. If people didn’t want dildos, there wouldn’t be stores selling them. It’s kind of a supply/demand market, don’t you think? I don’t think it really has anything to do with feminism. Since you are obviously against the Love Shack, my advice to you would be to not shop there. By not giving them your business you are making your point. But why try to stop others from enjoying their sex life with toys, movies etc.., even if it differs from yours? Your fight against sexual predators is commendable, however, you’d have better luck finding a sexual predator at a local library or park.

By Katie

March 4, 2008 1:45 PM | Link to this

Carol, I wasn’t attacking you, just asking how you really knew what your parents do/did.
First, the people making the porn movies are paid porn actors—they do it by choice.
Second, I value most non human animals more than humans so if a human chooses to degrade themselves, once again, they do it by choice. Sex is the oldest industry in the world, sex sells. If it didn’t, people wouldn’t do it. If people didn’t want dildos, there wouldn’t be stores selling them. It’s kind of a supply/demand market, don’t you think? I don’t think it really has anything to do with feminism. Since you are obviously against the Love Shack, my advice to you would be to not shop there. By not giving them your business you are making your point. But why try to stop others from enjoying their sex life with toys, movies etc.., even if it differs from yours? Your fight against sexual predators is commendable, however, you’d have better luck finding a sexual predator at a local library or park.

By Casey

March 4, 2008 1:56 PM | Link to this

How many little Mom & Pop stores go out of business because there is not enough people spending money. Do the same thing, just don’t go. People will get tired of driving from other towns eventually.

By In addition.....

March 4, 2008 2:00 PM | Link to this

Pssst. You can buy all your naughty little do-dads online and have them sent directly to your home or post office box—no questions asked. You think sexual predators don’t know this?

By Mark

March 4, 2008 2:01 PM | Link to this

The people who oppose adult toy stores are the same ones who are too old to have sex. It’s simply jealousy. They’re to ignorant to realize that if it wasn’t for their parents rolling in the hay, they would just be a stain in a pair of panties.

By Steve

March 4, 2008 2:05 PM | Link to this

People are so worried about sexual predators and their children. Worry more about the guy talking on his cell phone and not paying attention to his driving - your children are at 100 times more risk of harm from bad drivers then from sexual predators.

By No ones business

March 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I intended to type “highest ranked leaders” (plural) not leader A.K.A the POPE. I would go to hell for that one.

By No ones business

March 4, 2008 2:07 PM | Link to this

Sorry, I intended to type “highest ranked leaders” (plural) not leader A.K.A the POPE. I would go to hell for that one.

By Patrick

March 4, 2008 2:08 PM | Link to this

Why are people so afraid of their own bodies? There is nothing wrong with enjoying your body. If you believe there is that is your right, but once again keep your laws off my body! Last time I checked me renting a porno or buying sex toy had ZERO affect on anyone else.

By Aceyman

March 4, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

It’s stupidity like these protests that make me ashamed to say those infamous three words: “I’m from Atlanta.”

The rest of the country thinks we’re all uneducated bumpkins thanks to people like this, so I must tip my cap and say “Thanks!” to all these ignorant fundies. I’m glad they are out there to ensure the south never becomes the cultural or intellectual equal of the rest of the country.

Pat yourself on the back people for a job well done.

By Patrick

March 4, 2008 2:09 PM | Link to this

Why are people so afraid of their own bodies? There is nothing wrong with enjoying your body. If you believe there is that is your right, but once again keep your laws off my body! Last time I checked me renting a porno or buying sex toy had ZERO affect on anyone else. As much as these bible thumpers want to try and make the case, everyone who frequents these places is not a pedophile or sexual deviant.

By Steve

March 4, 2008 2:13 PM | Link to this

I don’t get it. Sandy Springs has a PLETHORA of issues to deal with, and the last worry should be a strip join and 3 stores that sell porno movies.

What about traffic on Roswell Road? What about unchecked sprawl? What about your schools? What about section 8 housing issues and related crime?

By Singlemom

March 4, 2008 2:14 PM | Link to this

So, apparently, sex is bad…sex is gross and should be banned. Come on people…this is so stupid. I would love to go to the town hall meeting and ask the counsel and the citizens if they masterbate, fornicate or fantisize at all. There is no way you can tell me that these people who wholeheartedly believe that this place really is that bad. So what if there are fake penises and vaginas in there…or movies of people having sex….we all do it, we are all products of it…so what is wrong?? Why do these places always have to be so seedy?? Because the uptight citizens brigade has to make sex seem as if it is dirty…wrong and should be a shameful act. The only reason they are around is because of wives that won’t put out, so men have to sneak away and hide to get videos or go watch them..and the ones with video booths are so shady because the guys aren’t getting laid at home, so they have to let some strange man take care of his business….thus putting themselves at risk.

There is nothing wrong with these places, there is nothing wrong with sex….isn’t that why we are all here anyway??? Give me a break, if you notice the people that are so far against it are the uptight women who force their men to go into sexual hiding and travel across counties to go find a privately hidden adult store so that can look at something to remember what a naked body and what sex looks like. And the men who are so far against it…are just lying so that their woman wont get mad at them.

Give me a break people……if you aren’t sexually satisfied in your own relationship, then that is your problem. For those that need these kinds of places to hide from a fridged vanilla wife that won’t put out or do anything adventerous, then you have no one to blame but yourself….for those of us that are single…this is a form of safe sex. So shut your mouth people and do a little moaning of your own and maybe you won’t be so concerned with the rest of us that use these places as forms of spice in our sex life. They are not harbouring pedifiles….they are harbouring your husband who can’t get any because you won’t give it up once in a while. Maybe if you went in one then you would see that it isnt that bad.

By singlemom

March 4, 2008 2:18 PM | Link to this

…and by vanilla wife I mean a woman who is plain…wont do anything adventerous of the least bit kinky…..

By SKINFAN

March 4, 2008 2:29 PM | Link to this

Hey Jim, aer you that prudish?? Do you think that those who patronize these establishments are forced to go? No. They are independent thinking individuals who make a choice to go there. The establishments legally obtained business licenses and have set there businesses up accordingly. It’s numbed up dolts like you that make people WANT to go to these places. Relax a bit and enjoy. If you’re married, its a great place to go and spice up your marriage. If you and your siginicant other go there, its a great place to spice up your relationship. Oh and Jim there are Gays and Lesbians who go there as well….horrors!!! Let the businesses stay. If you don’t want to go there, then don’t go.

By SKINFAN

March 4, 2008 2:30 PM | Link to this

Hey Jim, aer you that prudish?? Do you think that those who patronize these establishments are forced to go? No. They are independent thinking individuals who make a choice to go there. The establishments legally obtained business licenses and have set there businesses up accordingly. It’s numbed up dolts like you that make people WANT to go to these places. Relax a bit and enjoy. If you’re married, its a great place to go and spice up your marriage. If you and your siginicant other go there, its a great place to spice up your relationship. Oh and Jim there are Gays and Lesbians who go there as well….horrors!!! Let the businesses stay. If you don’t want to go there, then don’t go.

MSU President Lou Anna K. Simon on MSU Free Speech Controversy

Monday, March 3, 2008

From the President's Desk
Monday, March 03, 2008



An Open Marketplace for the free Exchange of Ideas
I have written and spoken often over the past year about the university’s commitment to free speech and the First Amendment, most recently in response to concerns about controversial speakers and events on campus last fall. I feel compelled to write again because of the ongoing actions of groups and individuals to intimidate, threaten, and ridicule fellow members of the MSU community, all under the banner of free speech.

I am particularly concerned about the number of students who have reported recently that they feel threatened and intimidated on our campus because of their political beliefs, racial or ethnic identity, sexual orientation, or religious practices. Just last week, members of ASMSU received death threats prior to a meeting they held to discuss a bill related to free speech (reported in the State News, February 24, 2008). No matter the reason, threats of violence and attempts to silence those with whom we disagree by ridicule or humiliation are antithetical to MSU’s core values, and such threats have no place in an academic community.

I have said many times that a university should be an open marketplace for the free exchange of ideas. This in no way implies that we will not encounter ideas that make us uncomfortable or individuals whose views we find personally offensive. As I have said before, our freedom to impart our views is assured only if we recognize the equal freedom of others to impart theirs, even when—especially when—those views are at odds with our own. Attempting to suppress the free speech rights of any individual or group, especially by means that are intended to cause individuals to feel unsafe, undermines our efforts to encourage robust intellectual discourse.

We live in an increasingly violent world, as evidenced a few weeks ago in the shootings on the campus of Northern Illinois University. I’m sure none of us will forget the grief and horror we felt when hearing about this and other incidents of campus violence over the past year because it hits too close to home. A college campus should be a safe place—physically and intellectually—where learners and seekers come to expand their minds, dream big dreams, and discern and refine their beliefs about the world around them. A university is a place where all forms of diversity should be welcomed and respected and where everyone should be able to express their opinions and ideas.

Free speech is at the heart of academic freedom and is something we take very seriously at Michigan State. I encourage individuals and groups to exercise their right to free speech in ways that enhance the intellectual discourse rather than using the protections of the First Amendment to attempt to silence the voices of others. Where the exchange or exploration of ideas turns into personal attacks or threats meant to intimidate or frighten others, any value gained by the discourse is lost. As we strive to educate the next generation of the world’s leaders, we must continue to keep an open dialogue about the challenges that prevent the free and safe expression of ideas on our campus and seek solutions that honor and respect the individual rights of every member of this community.

Spamming Isn’t Free Speech

03 March, 2008

David Chartier reports that Jeremy Jaynes, a resident of North Carolina, has just been sentenced to nine years for spamming—in particular, for “sending what authorities believe to be millions of messages over a two-month period in 2003.” Jaynes’s lawyers argued that spamming was free speech, which the courts correctly threw out because the spam he sent broke “the US CAN SPAM law’s condition of giving recipients a means of contacting the sender.”

If Jaynes really wanted to exercise his free speech—Hey there, is your nose big enough?—he could simply have sent those mails to himself, or put them on a blog where they wouldn’t be invasive in any way. But a person’s email account is his private property, and by invading that, Jaynes went beyond the bounds of free speech. Sure, it is evident that we can’t possibly take prior permission to email people before emailing them, which would be delightfully surreal, but when I get an unwanted email, I should have the option to tell its sender not to write to me again. If that opt-out option isn’t there, it amounts to theft, as it encroaches upon my storage space, bandwidth and time.

News executives, correspondent win open-government awards

By The Associated Press
03.03.08
WASHINGTON — Associated Press President and Chief Executive Officer Tom Curley, CBS News correspondent Bob Schieffer and NBC Universal Vice President Paula Madison will be honored this week for their roles in promoting open government and free speech.

The Radio and Television News Directors Foundation announced Feb. 28 that it had chosen the three for First Amendment awards to be presented at its annual banquet here March 6. A special award also will be presented to former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Richard Wiley.

"The work that these individuals have done to advance the First Amendment and a free electronic press is important," said Barbara Cochran, the foundation's president.

Curley was selected for his role in pushing for more openness in government and prioritizing reporting on First Amendment issues. "He's being recognized for the leadership he has shown in getting journalists to work in a coalition for press freedom," Cochran said.

Schieffer, CBS News' chief Washington correspondent, was selected as "a journalist who's known for his fairness and integrity, and he's covered every major beat in Washington," Cochran said.

Madison was chosen for her long-standing advocacy for diversity both in the newsroom and in programming, Cochran said.

Wiley, now the top attorney in Wiley Rein LLP's communications division, was chosen for his role in launching the transition to digital television as FCC chairman, Cochran said. He was also selected for his legal work on behalf of First Amendment rights.

The RTNDF is the educational division of the Radio and Television News Directors Association. Cochran is president of both organizations.

Mo. House passes bill to rein in signature-gatherers

By The Associated Press
03.03.08
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. — The people elected to make laws in Missouri are trying to make it more difficult for voters to make laws themselves.

The General Assembly’s quest to restrict ballot initiatives could cause a clash between the people’s constitutional rights and the legislature’s constitutional powers.

In addition to general free speech rights, the Missouri Constitution specifically states that people have the right to enact laws and constitutional amendments through initiatives, independent of the General Assembly.

Yet the legislature also has the power to prescribe the details of how that is done.

So on Feb. 28, the House voted 107-41 to pass legislation that would impose several new requirements on the people who gather petition signatures. The bill, H.B. 1763, would:


Require petition circulators to be Missouri residents and U.S. citizens.


Prohibit them from being paid based on the number of signatures they gather.


Bar them from simultaneously collecting signatures for more than one initiative.


Require them to register with the secretary of state’s office before they start collecting signatures rather than before the deadline to turn them in, as is currently the case.

The legislation now heads to the Senate, where a similar proposal already is pending on this week’s debate calendar.

Sponsoring Rep. Michael Parson, R-Bolivar, freely acknowledges his intent: “I think initiative petitions need to be difficult to put on the ballot.”

Parson is perturbed because the sponsors of most Missouri ballot issues use professional petition circulators — people paid by the signature who carry clipboards for multiple initiatives and go from state to state like traveling salesmen.

Right now, for example, contractors with National Ballot Access are gathering signatures for three Missouri initiatives — a pair restricting the use of eminent domain to take private property, and another limiting affirmative action programs.

Some of its signature-gatherers come from other states, and many are working on all three initiatives and are paid $1 per signature, said Edee Baggett, president of National Ballot Access.

Although it currently has no circulators on the street, National Petition Management is hoping to again pick up a Missouri client following its successful 2006 effort on behalf of a stem cell research initiative, said president Lee Albright.

The Missouri legislation would take effect Aug. 28 — too late to affect this year’s petition drives.

But in the future, “the restrictions place such a heavy burden on any entity wanting to place something on the ballot that it will be impossible, it will be cost prohibitive,” Albright said.

Residency requirements for petition circulators generally seem to have survived court challenges elsewhere, including so far in neighboring Oklahoma.

Courts have taken different positions on pay-per-signature prohibitions. They have been struck down by federal judges in Idaho, Maine, Mississippi and Washington. But federal appeals courts have upheld such restrictions for North Dakota and Oregon.

The 2001 North Dakota case is perhaps most relevant, because the state is overseen by the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis, which also has jurisdiction over Missouri.

In that ruling, a three-judge panel balanced the state’s claim that the pay-per-signature ban was necessary to ensure the integrity of the initiative process vs. the petition circulators’ claim that it burdened their legal right to collect signatures. The appeals court said there was little evidence of any burden in North Dakota.

But a U.S. District judge in Ohio later struck down that state’s prohibition on paying per signature, specifically noting the weak evidence put forward by plaintiffs in North Dakota and Oregon. To the contrary, the Ohio judge said plaintiffs there had shown it would drive up their costs if petition-gatherers were paid on an hourly basis, ultimately making it more difficult to collect signatures and more of a burden to get measures on the ballot.

The Missouri proposal to prohibit people from simultaneously gathering signatures for multiple initiatives might be unique. Baggett and Albright both said they were unaware of any other state imposing such a requirement.

If already in place, that requirement would have driven up the costs for Missouri Citizens for Property Rights. That group’s eminent domain proposals are being circulated as two separate petitions because the Missouri Constitution prohibits a single initiative from amending more than one article of the constitution.

“It’s already difficult to find petition circulators, period,” Baggett said. “Now you would have to find a double or triple pool of petition circulators.”

But Parson contends it’s not right for outsiders motivated by making a buck to be pressuring Missourians to make a constitutional change they might not fully understand.

“I think it should be something you believe in, and something you’re willing to work hard on to change,” he said.

David L. Hudson Jr.

David L. Hudson Jr. is a scholar at the First Amendment Center. Hudson writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications devoted to First Amendment issues.

Hudson is a First Amendment contributing editor for the American Bar Association's Preview of United States Supreme Court Cases. His articles have been published in The National Law Journal, the ABA Journal and the Tennessee Bar Journal. He is a member of the First Amendment Lawyers Association.

Hudson graduated from Duke University in 1990 and obtained a law degree from Vanderbilt University Law School in 1994. He has been licensed to practice law in Tennessee since 1994.

After working as a judicial law clerk, Hudson joined the First Amendment Center in 1995. He also teaches classes in constitutional law at Middle Tennessee State University and legal research and writing at Nashville School of Law.

Hudson has authored several books, including The Bill of Rights: The First Ten Amendments of the Constitution (2002), The Fourteenth Amendment: Equal Protection Under the Law (2002), The Rights of Students (2004), the First Amendment Center’s The Silencing of Student Voices: Preserving Free Speech in America’s Schools (2004) and Open Government: An American Tradition Faces National Security, Privacy and Other Challenges (2005). He also was a co-author (along with Charles Haynes, Sam Chaltain, John Ferguson and Oliver Thomas) for First Amendment Rights in Education (2003).