Forbidden?: Photographing Farms in Florida

Sometimes Law is all about Justice (with a capital J). But sometimes Law is all about petty overreaction. Consider, the case of a new bill SB 1246 written by Sen. Jim Norman (R-Tampa). The bill would outlaw taking photographs of any farm without the express written consent of the owner. Suddenly, beautiful agricultural vistas would literally be a felony.

But there must be a really good explanation, right? One having to do with National Security that clearly justifies this incredible violation of Free Speech and Press Right. Maybe not.

Simpson, president of Simpson Farms near Dade City, said the law would prevent people from posing as farmworkers so that they can secretly film agricultural operations.

He said he could not name an instance in which that happened. But animal rights groups such as People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals and Animal Freedom display undercover videos on their web sites to make their case that livestock farming and meat consumption are cruel.

Someone please tell Senator Norman to drop this travesty of a bill now. It is a bad idea on so many levels.

Banning photographers at accidents is a mistake

In the old days, the main danger of an accident was a rubber-necker (someone slowing way down to look at an accident). These days, the cell phone sniper is a much bigger danger, as people try to use their cell phones to grab an amazingly gory or dramatic picture of an accident scene. So, it is no surprise that some lawmakers want to ban photographs at car accidents. After all, isn't that the best way to force people to do the right thing, and spare families the trauma of seeing pictures of injured loved ones?

Nope. The fact is this law will be essentially unenforceable... except for cases where law already exist - where someone endangers someone else to get the shot by driving dangerously or getting in the way of emergency responders. And if anyone tries to enforce it, they are more likely to take energy away from the wounded in favor of punishing the stupid.

Let Free Speech win in this case. Forget these well-meaning, but foolish laws.

"Right to Remain Silent" changed by Supreme Court

It is a refrain familiar to anyone who has watched a cop show - "You have the right to remain silent." The right, enshrined by the Supreme Court, is to remain silent until speaking with a lawyer. But now, the Supreme Court has changed this right slightly by ruling that not explicitly invoking that right is equivalent to waiving the right. This has the potential to put additional pressure on the less educated who are arrested.

The high court upheld the murder conviction of a man who did not verbally assert his right to remain silent during his police interrogation. In a 5-4 ruling, the court said a suspect must explicitly tell officers he or she is asserting that right, known as Miranda rights.

My father was a lawyer and he always advised me that FIRST thing to do if arrested - whether you are innocent or guilty - is to ask for a lawyer. Otherwise, you risk unwittingly saying something to get yourself in trouble.

Taliban's answer to women's education - Poison Gas

If you oppose an American military presence in Afghanistan, then you may to work harder to explain your position today after Taliban insurgents used poison gas on a school for girls. This truly exemplifies the idea of the "evil extremist".

Yaqubi said 20 girls had fallen ill in a suspected poison attack on another Kunduz school last week, although it was not until the weekend attacks that the issue caused national alarm.

In the south and east, where the Taliban control towns and villages, schools for girls remain shut, teachers have been threatened and some girls have been attacked with acid.

Despite the attacks, Sumaila said she hoped to return to school, if her father allows her.

Student sues to slam teacher on Facebook

High school is a strange time of life. You're old enough to recognize the limitations authorities place upon you, but not old enough to challenge them in the legal arena. For example, the courts have ruled that student's lockers can be searched without student consent or a warrant. But what about comments made off school grounds, on Facebook? Do teens have a right to privacy and to free speech? Or can they be punished for inappropriate comments online? The courts are about to rule, thanks to a lawsuit brought by one high school honor's student.

A South Florida teenager who sued her former principal after she was suspended for creating a Facebook page criticizing a teacher can proceed with her lawsuit, a federal judge has ruled.

The student, Katherine Evans, is seeking to have her suspension expunged from her disciplinary record. School officials suspended her for three days, saying she had been “cyberbullying” the teacher, Sarah Phelps. Ms. Evans is also seeking a “nominal fee” for what she argues was a violation of her First Amendment rights, her lawyers said, and payment of her legal fees.

What do Mod-Bloggers think? Where does the line belong in this instance?

You know that right against self incrimination? Yeah, forget about that.

One of the fundamental rights is the right against self incrimination. One of the ways that we ensure this right is by making it illegal for the government to seize your DNA without a court order - essentially a warrant. And a warrant can only be granted if there is some reasonable cause that a judge accepts as valid. The exception to this rule is if your DNA is already in a public database for any reason (for example, if offered as a condition of employment for a Federal job). Now, it appears Minnesota is ready to ensure all citizens surrender this right at birth.

According to the Citizens Council on Health care the state of Minnesota has illegally collected and claims ownership to the DNA of 780,000 children and has provided the DNA of over 42,000 children to genetic researchers without parental consent. Their report goes on to say that approximately 73,000 children are born each year in the state of Minnesota and about 4,200,000 are born in the United States of America and all of them will loose their genetic privacy and DNA ownership rights if this trend in public policy is allowed to continue.

Minnesota treats this procedure as an opt out program where parents of the newborn infant do not specifically opt out of the process, the state presumes it has informed consent and the parents have elected to allow this to happen.

This amounts to at least two seizures by the State: (1) Right against search and seizure/self incrimination by making this DNA automatically available to authorities without a warrant, and (2) Seizure of property by eminent domain since in the future, your DNA may be valuable for research or commercial use. Isn't our Constitution supposed to LIMIT government? Maybe not in the age of DNA science. Gattacca, anyone?

Be Careful Creators of Content, Copyright is NOT a Right

As a writer, I am very conscious of copyright and the protections it offers to me (even if I am still an unsold writer). Without it, there would be no way to charge for my creative efforts (stories, poems, etc.) and thus no way to compensate me for my work. And without compensation, few people can afford to keep writing, keep singing, keep drawing in a way that reaches the public. Copyright is something societies offer to keep their creative types fed, and thus to foster creativity in general.

Recently, the Computer and Communications Industry Association posted a paper that claimed "fair use" is not a right. "Fair use" is a legal doctrine in the USA that states there are reasonable times to NOT strictly enforce copyright in the interest of the public good. For example, if you purchase a book it is "fair use" to lend it to a friend or to quote a section of that book in an online review. The CCIA is against "fair use" because it offers a potential safe harbor to copyright scofflaws who steal music or fileshare movies on the internet before they have premiered. The CCIA argues "fair use" is not a right and thus can be revoked in the interest of societal good.

The problem wth this reasoning is that "copyright" itself is simply a social construct. A right is something I have inherently, which can not be taken away without force and which my government exists to protect. Copyright on the other hand exists to foster creativity, and can be easily taken away without any changes to our Constitution or even our philosophies if it becomes detrimental to the public. Unlike "Freedom of Speech" or "Freedom of the Press", Copyright could be revoked tomorrow without changing the American idea in any significant way.

Be careful, CCIA. By trying to change copyright and make it all-powerful, you could easily push legislators to a point where they questions its basic utility and consider abolishing it or critically weakening it.

Crossing the line with surveilance

This story is one which scares me quite a bit. A high school in Gig Harbor, Washington (where I attended a certain friend's wedding) has put up a full-time surveilance system. This was to fight crime and deter any would-be drug dealers. What happens next is interesting.

The dean of students said he saw two girls kissing. He checked the surveillance tape then shared what he saw with the parents of one of the girls. They then pulled her out of school, which then pulled the peninsula school district into a big controversy....“I think that that’s fine if they’re doing something they shouldn’t be doing. The surveillance is fine,” said Heidi Holmes, a Gig Harbor parent.
“We’re watching them at home, so we should be watching them at school too,” said Tim, Heidi’s husband.
The Holmes said surveillance cameras are a way of life. Helping prevent crime, identifying suspects and just giving folks a sense of security knowing the cameras are always watching.

Think about this. The students were being monitored when they engaged in an activity that broke no law, violated no school policy, and did not damage the learning process. And yet, the surveilance was used to punish the girls... and their parents are thrilled.

Freedom is not just for adults. And in this case, it was stripped away in the name of security. And what begins with our children will be visited back upon ourselves, because they will consider it the new normal.