Free Speech Board at Auburn University

Following last year's enthusiasm with YAL Auburn's free speech board, the excercise of the 1st Amendment on campus was once again utilized -- albeit in an unorganized fashion.  Though not everyone's priorities included a geo-political focus or Austrian business cycle theory, a recurring theme was present on the board during the day in the form of parking complaints.  Leave it to a public institution, eh?  

Students who appreciated the right to voice their opinions and who wanted more tastes of liberty were provided a wide selection of materials to advance their knowledge.  Overall the board received a positive response from both faculty and students and resulted in new sign-ups!

David Cameron Looks to Curb Twitter to Stem off Future Unrest

It doesn't take a tech genius to know that sites like Facebook and Twitter have revolutionized the way the world interacts. Information can now spread faster than at any time before it, and large gatherings can spring up out of nowhere within hours of it reaching these widely used sites.

Unfortunately, that has become a problem in the wake of the UK riots this past week, and Prime Minister David Cameron is looking for a way to control riots by restricting social media. Mr. Cameron is expected to talk with with representatives from Facebook and Twitter in the coming days in order to find the best way of stamping out violent uprisings before they start. It is his government's belief that if the police had the ability to shut down websites, at least temporarily, during turbulent times, rioters would be less likely to take to the streets.

The proposal does have its fair share of critics, especially over the legality of shutting down social media. Facebook executives commented that during the height of the violence, they shut down any pages that tried to incite looting as soon as they were found, which is network policy. Also, Twitter, the other site that is targeted, has had people burning up the site with pleas to halt the violence, and they've outnumbered those calling for it, so the concern is that prevention of riots would be severely hindered if social media were shut down.

If a government is given the go-ahead to shut down social media during times of crisis, regardless of how well intentioned it might be, it opens up the risk of government making up crises just so it can play the media to its advantage. That creates a society where free speech is stifled, which would lead to more violent riots. Government suppression of the media is dangerous, regardless of circumstances, and allowing police to cut off social media would be the first step down a slippery slope of censorship.

Originally published at www.silverunderground.com.

Third Degree Misdeamenor for Barking at a Dog?

Dog barks at man, it's normal. Man barks at dog, man goes to jail? Apparently that was the case for Ryan Stephens of Mason, Ohio, who was arrested for drunkenly barking at a police dog.

The dog, named Timber, responded to the man's bark by barking back, as he is trained to do. The policeman who owns the dog then went after Mr. Stephens, who refused to stop despite his orders. He was charged with a third-degree misdemeanor offense for the incident, as well as public intoxication (which he obviously was). According to the sheriff who owns the dog, such an action is illegal according to city statutes because barking at a police dog is considered "malicious teasing" and could cause the dog harm. Mr. Stephens' lawyer says that the mere act of barking at a dog can't be considered abuse, and the statute preventing illegal barking is too vague to be properly carried out without violating the First Amendment right to free speech.

Granted, barking at a dog is unusual, and probably not something many people do unless they are as drunk as Mr. Stephens was, but making barking sounds is a first amendment right, and there is no real proof that barking at a dog, for whatever weird reason one would have for doing so, is in anyway abusing an animal. Insane laws like this are difficult to enforce, and are so broad that they invite a whole manner of potential abuses of power by law enforcement, and that’s enough to get anybody barking mad. Originally published at silverunderground.com.

Third Circuit Upholds Student Free Speech

The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of students' rights in two landmark cases on Monday. The cases were  Layshock v. Hermitage School District and  J.S. v. Blue Mountain School District, both of which related to students' speech rights outside of the school day and off of school property.  Interestingly enough, the cases further delve into the murky realm of cyber-law. 

Both Layshock and J.S. had relatively similar facts of the case. In both cases did studentsmake demeaning social network profiles of their principals, outside of school. In Layshock, the profile of the principal stated that he was a "big steroid freak," and in J.S., the profile stated the following of the principal: "I love children, sex (any kind), dogs, long walks on the beach, tv, being a dick head, and last but not least my darling wife [a guidance counselor at the school] who looks like a man."

Despite relatively similar facts of the cases, the decisions within the Circuit were conflicting. The Third Circuit heard the cases for this reason, to resolve this in-circuit conflict.