The Cool Justice Report exposes wrongdoing in the politically-charged worlds of cops and courts. It runs compelling stories of general interest and boxing, literary and political items, as well as selected poems and pieces of fiction. email: tntcomm82@cs.com -- http://twitter.com/cooljustice --
Many columns written after publication of Law & Justice In Everyday Life [2002] are posted @ http://www.andythibault.com/ That site last updated around 2006.
Cool Justice is the column popularized by the book, Law & Justice In Everyday Life. A 2nd set of columns is @ www.andythibault.com. The column was inspired by "justice stories" in The NY Daily News and the work of writers including Breslin, Buchanan, Ellroy, Hammett, Zinn and Chandler. Thibault, semi-retired, is a cancer survivor. He served as a writing professor and a mentor in the MFA program at Western CT State University and also taught at Northwestern CT Community College and the University of Hartford. He works occasionally as a private investigator and writes a feature story or column now and then. Thibault delivered the 2004 Pew Memorial Lecture In Journalism at Widener University, Chester, Pa. He chaired a fund that has awarded more than $200k to young writers, the CT Young Writers Trust. Thibault also worked as a pro boxing judge and as a consulting editor for the literary journal CT Review. He served as a communications consultant for the 2010 congressional campaign of Green Party candidate Ken Krayeske in CT's 1st District. In 2011 he taught a 5-session seminar on state & federal FOI laws for the RCNewsroomCafe.
Students' online free speech would be protected by Connecticut bill
January 30, 11:58 AM by J.D. Tuccille Civil Liberties Examiner
Across the country, students in public high schools have discovered, to their dismay, that the First Amendment that's supposed to restrict government action apparently doesn't protect comments they make on the Internet while at home from punishment by school officials. Suspended, detained, or otherwise punished, students say their right to free speech beyond school officials' jurisdiction is being violated. A Connecticut legislator agrees and wants to ensure that students' right to speak their minds online is protected.
Avery Doninger, a high school student in Burlington, Connecticut, was barred from serving on the student council after referring to school administrators as "douchebags" on her personal blog. Robert Afnani, of Langley High School, in Virginia, was told to shut down his home-based proxy server or face suspension (public pressure forced school officials to back off). Justin Layshock, a Pennsylvania high school student, was suspended and transferred to an alternative education program for parodying a school official on Myspace. Wesley Juhl, a Nevada high school student, was suspended for making blog comments about a classmate and a teacher from his home computer. At least one school district, Libertyville-Vernon Hills Area High School District 128 in northern Illinois, has formally adopted a policy threatening students with consequences for material they post on the Internet during their own time.
Punishment of students for material they post online on their own time, off school grounds, is so common that the Electronic Frontier Foundation maintains a section of its Website devoted to the problem. The Student Press Law Center has also addressed the issue.
J.D. Tuccille, a graduate of Greenwich High School and Clark University, writes from Arizona about civil liberties including free speech, privacy, drug prohibition and the right to bear arms.
Support The Free Speech Bill Before The CT Legislature
FREE SPEECH FOR STUDENTS
School administrators are not free to try to run the kids' lives elsewhere, and they deserve no more protection against criticism than anyone else in a democracy -- which is none at all.
By CHRIS POWELL Jan. 31, 2009
If a federal court decision involving a case from Mills High School in Burlington is allowed to stand, school administrators in Connecticut will have the power to punish students for criticizing them outside school. If, instead, Connecticut enacts legislation proposed by state Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, D-East Hartford, a retired teacher, students will regain freedom of speech outside school.
The case is that of Avery Doninger, who two years ago, as a junior at Mills High, complained in a posting on the Internet about the school administration's cancellation of a school event. In the process she called administrators a name. They retaliated by knocking her off the ballot in the election for class secretary and then refusing to let her serve even when she was elected by write-in votes. (The administration tried to conceal her election, and throughout the controversy has withheld information and dissembled, as school administrations usually do when challenged.)
The administration complained that Doninger had disrupted and disgraced the school, but the only disruption was the inconvenience endured by the administration when it had to answer complaints Doninger's Internet posting had encouraged about the cancellation of the school event. Such complaints were the result of political agitation, exactly what the First Amendment means to protect. As for the supposed disgrace, Doninger's name calling, rude as it may have been, was mild, did not approach obscenity, was apologized for, disrupted nothing, and took place outside school.
LeBeau's bill would forbid schools from punishing students for electronic correspondence transmitted outside school unless it contained threats. The bill should be expanded to protect all student expression outside school. The criminal law already provides all the protection schools need against threats and disruption.
School administrators can lord it over the kids on school grounds, and many become petty tyrants about whom feckless school boards do nothing. But school administrators are not free to try to run the kids' lives elsewhere, and they deserve no more protection against criticism than anyone else in a democracy -- which is none at all.
Chris Powell is managing editor of the Journal Inquirer in Manchester, Conn.
Citizens Know The Score Even As Courts Shield The Government Class
Various Web Postings Proliferate
-- It takes an affirmative action on the part of the person receiving the speech in order to make it on campus action. The speaker does not make it become on-campus, the listener does, whether by accessing the page pro-actively, or subscribing to it
-- This is a public institution, funded by taxpayers, not a fiefdom for these administrators to run capriciously as they see fit! They need to grow a fucking thick skin and realize that they aren't despots, they can't unilaterally make decisions for such ridiculous reasons.
They should not have the right to punish her for something written and published outside of school just because administrators made the effort to read the comments on campus. The comments weren't magically published on campus, the readers brought them there, not the writer.
-- For all such douchebags out there: this is a public school. They do not have an arbitrary right to censor their students. Internet postings are not "on campus speech." If the school principal listens to his student who called in to Howard Stern or Love Line, does that make the student's call "on campus speech?" This argument suggests that anything that can easily make it onto campus via network, phone, radio, TV, or any other medium automatically qualifies as "on-campus speech." If they don't want that to happen they can prevent unrestricted internet use on-campus.
How exactly did the livejournal posting get to the school? Answer: it probably didn't. These douchebags probably read it at home. And if they did read it on campus, then these douchebags were either on break, or wasting tax-payer dollars reading livejournal.com! So why, exactly, should we give them the benefit of the doubt that they were policing "on campus speech" when it required them to go to a third-party time-wasting blog in order to even be aware of it?
The truth is, this girl is actually a model school representative. Instead of just acting as the student rubber stamp of the administrator's policies, she tried to change things that she cared about and get students involved in these issues. And it sounds like it worked. And it sounds like the douchebags at the central office didn't like that one bit. They want their students to keep in line and not challenge their authority. Having gone to public school myself and dealt with many of these administrators, I can attest that they generally have low IQs and something to prove. A lifetime of dealing with talk-back kids makes them even more cranky and insane. And in my experience, public schools are poorly run, do a bad job of teaching students, and make seemingly arbitrary decisions about which programs to support based on who whines the loudest or who knows a guy in the central office. But heaven forbid an actual student should make the complaints!
If you can't challenge the decisions of a public school to eliminate programs that you care about, or encourage students to speak up about things they want, then where can you do it? I guess we pay our taxpayer money to these schools so they make our kids shut up and keep in line. Why shouldn't they be able to police their actions outside of school too? This result just exposes student govt. for what it is: a way for the school to pretend that students actually have a voice in how there school is run.
Does the authority of school administrators reach into the home when the administrators are not acting in locus parenti?
Columnist Don Pesci has written for publications including The National Review, Waterbury Republican-American, New London Day, Torrington Register Citizen and The Providence Journal. His blog is Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes From A Blue State.
Hartford City Councilman Pedro Segarra To Be Next Council President And Likely Next Mayor
by Ken Krayeske | January 30, 2009 12:43 PM Posted to General News | Local Politics
Assuming that Eddie Perez does not survive the remainder of his term, City Councilman Pedro Segarra will likely be the next mayor of Hartford, according to Segarra and fellow councilmen Ken Kennedy and Matt Ritter.
A resolution will likely circulate this afternoon to install Segarra as Council President, which is the position that ascends to the mayor’s seat should Perez resign, and thus remove Perez ally Calixto Torres from the council presidency, Segarra said.
"I believe that each citizen is responsible for participating in the maintenance of democracy by challenging government officials when they overreach."
This year I have come to understand why liberty and justice are symbolized with scales. There is much to be balanced and decisions can weigh heavy. Since May 2007, a series of good and bad decisions, made not only by me, but also by others, has led me on a journey filled with risk and rich in learning opportunities.
The first decision that I made reflected positively on my character. I invested myself fully in student government and worked diligently in my elected positions. Frustrated over scheduling snags and short-notice cancellation of a school event (Jamfest), I went home and posted a blog on an obscure Live Journal page. In the blog I encouraged people to petition our administration -- a good decision; it was political speech. The bad decision was the opening line, "Jamfest is cancelled due to the douchebags in central office." Not my finest moment.
Along with other student leaders I rallied community support for Jamfest and the event was rescheduled. However, my decision to use an unsavory term was still sitting out there on the scales of justice, waiting to be weighed. A month after the scheduling was resolved, an administrator stumbled across my blog. Consequently, the principal punished me. She said I had to apologize to the superintendent, tell my mother, step down from all leadership positions, and withdraw my candidacy for secretary of the Class of 2008 (I had been secretary for three years). This was when the lessons from my civics class became increasingly relevant to my life. I agreed to the principal's first two requirements, but I refused the third.
The school administrator's had their own scales of justice -- my opinion did not tip the balance, and the punishment was final. Efforts to negotiate with the administrators were refused. A write-in campaign by my peers (I won a plurality of votes) was ignored; and "Team Avery, Support LSM Freedom of Speech" t-shirts were confiscated (illegal according to Tinker). As I researched civil rights and school law, my scale tipped, and I filed a lawsuit. This was a hard decision; I've never been in trouble: I am an engaged student, yet I did use an unsavory word. My mother also put my word choice on her scale of justice. She found my comment rude, sophomoric, and below the standards she has set. My mother's verdict, as one commentator put it, "Avery, you're grounded and we're going to the Supreme Court" (Colin McEnroe, October 2, 2007, WTIC am 1080).
At age 16 I became a citizen fully engaged in the democratic process. I filed for injunctive relief: not suing for money but for justice. I testified for four hours in federal court; I have done tons of print and broadcast interviews; I have spoken to large audiences about my story and the First Amendment rights; and I was the poster child for Poets and Writers for Free Speech. I have learned the big cases decided by the Supreme Court as well as how my case is distinguished. Most important, however, are the lessons that have become apart of me.
I believe in democracy. I believe in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe that each citizen is responsible for participating in the maintenance of democracy by challenging government officials when they overreach. The principal accused me of a failing to be a good citizen. I disagree. Apathy and passivity are poor citizenship. Rallying students and the community to petition the government is good citizenship. I failed at vocabulary, not citizenship. However, the First Amendment does not limit protection to those with sophisticated vocabularies (though I will not make the error of rudeness again).
Democracy is a gift that Americans have inherited, but it requires maintenance and vigilance. Democracy needs to be retained at the lowest levels if we are to have a democracy at the highest levels. If as citizens we refuse to defend liberty in our own backyards, how do we expect to bring democracy to Iraq or Korea or any place suffering under tyranny? Civil liberties are eroded slowly when citizens don't bother to insist on challenging unconstitutional practices. Citizens, particularly students who are the next generation of leaders, must be willing to take on the responsibility of maintaining and protecting democracy while enjoying the rights democracy affords.
Eventually, the scales of justice will determine whether students have speech rights off campus in the age of the Internet and whether there is a difference between shouldn't have said and didn't have the right to say. No matter the outcome in court, I am proud that I was willing to engage in the democratic and judicial processes. I will continue to defend civil rights, to think critically, and to consider the ramifications of my word choices. While I don't plan to live my life according to bumper stickers, I am going to think globally and act locally.
-- Following is a Readers Digest version of the Doninger case:
Avery Doninger, a volunteer in the Americorps national public service program, has a civil rights trial pending in New Haven U.S. District Court. [Among her duties on the job: helping hurricane victims in Texas.]
Avery, a 2008 graduate of Lewis Mills High School in Burlington, CT, and her mother, Lauren Doninger, sued Principal Karissa Niehoff and Superintendent Paula Schwartz [now retired] after they removed Avery from the ballot for class secretary.
Avery Doninger was among a group of four students who lobbied the community for support of an annual battle of the bands sponsored by the Student Council. The student council adviser suggested the students reach out to taxpayers and the students copied the adviser an on email to the community.
Schwartz became very upset after taxpayers called her and she cancelled the event known as Jamfest. Doninger subsequently referred to administrators in a live journal blog as central office douche bags, and Schwartz's son found the posting while trolling the internet for his mother a couple weeks later. While Avery Doninger was banned from school office, another student who called Schwartz a dirty whore was given an award and lauded for citizenship.
School officials suppressed the write-in vote in which Doninger was elected by a plurality. Schwartz refused to accept Doninger's apology for her choice of words. During an assembly, Niehoff banned free-speech and Team Avery t-shirts and seized at least one shirt.
The Doningers have been seeking -- among other remedies -- an apology for civil rights violations and recognition of the write-in victory.
New Haven U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz denied a motion for a preliminary injunction [immediate relief] in August 2007. Based on errors in the record, Travesty Kravitz's injunction ruling was upheld by the U.S. Second Circuit in New York.
Travesty Kravitz held a hearing in November 2008 on Doninger's request for a trial. He cut off discussion about various frauds - including false testimony - upon the court and ultimately ordered a trial on Jan. 15, 2009. But, he limited the scope of the trial to the narrow issue of the suppression and seizure of free speech t-shirts.
Appeals are likely on a number of rulings narrowing the scope of the case.
On Jan. 22, 2009, Connecticut State Senator Gary LeBeau filed a landmark bill to protect student speech.
On Jan. 23, 2009, Travesty Kravitz scheduled jury selection and a trial for civil rights violations related to the suppression and seizure of free speech t-shirts.
-- hopefully that bill passes. It is absolutely ridiculous that the administrator's capricious decision was allowed to stand. Did she even name any of the said douchebags "by name"? Stupid frackin' judges!
-- "it simply noted that officials could not reasonably be held liable for their decisions given the confused state of the law"
Its not about the school officials and their confusion over the law. It probablly wouldn't matter what the law said. Their actions were to get back at someone who publically disagreed with them. It occurs in just about every school system accross the country: a bunch of overpaid empty shirts who feel the need to exert control over the students.
-- I have raised a daughter who also stands up for herself and she earned her Master's degree, makes six figures and is highly successful because she doesn't let others push her around. She was taught to respect others when they show you respect and that she has the right to speak out against adults when they don't show respect. RESEPECT IS EARNED.
-- Bravo!!! What's next... two kids standing in CVS talking about a teacher, it being overheard and then they get in trouble for it??
-- Calling the principal a douchebag is not slanderous (or libelous in print) and thus not otherwise actionable under general legal principles, so it is hard to understand why it should be a problem here. Particularly since the case deals with a public official's conduct. Kids and their parents routinely say negative and offensive things about their schools, teachers, etc. (have you ever sat around with a group of parents of school aged children?). Do we really want school officials to be able to retaliate in such circumstance?
-- Incredibly douchy douchbags. In particular the douchebag on the bench making these bizarro rulings.
-- This is not hate speech. This is not using school resources. This is a personal opinion and should be protected. This is NO different than if the student wrote this in her personal diary and showed her friends off school grounds. I hope she sues the school and shuts it down from lack of funding. Seriously.
Eff you and eff anyone who thinks that a personal opinion posted on a non-school web site should have any consequence at school at all.
For all of you who think there should be consequences: The [principal] can have a personal dislike for this student and he can voice that OPINION whenever he is asked for a PERSONAL REFERENCE, or if he choses to share that opinion outside of the school environment. I doubt that this student would WANT a douchebag like this [principal] as a personal reference, so I doubt it will even come up.
This is about CONTROL and POWER TRIPPING. I had to put up with a ton of this kind of crap in High School so I can relate to her frustration and I would have done the exact same thing.
No one should have any kind of "qualified immunity". All that means is that school officials are NOT accountable, while the students are having to deal with the most outrageous bullpucky imaginable. I was in high school over 20 years ago, was not any kind of discipline problem, and graduated with honors. If I were in high school today, I'd surely be expelled 10 times over and (without exaggeration) probably tazed or shot for standing up for my rights. I never took any crap from any of my teachers or the school officials.
-- I guess free speech is contingent on it not being convenient for others to hear what you are saying?
-- Her blog is campus territory? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. I think this girl is awesome and I hope she sues this idiotic school into the poorhouse--it will be THEIR actions that caused it, not hers.
-- The main reason to have "free speech" is to allow criticism of the government. The student was criticizing a public official's performance on the job. Do you see why it's important not to squelch that?
-- The school administrators are the employees. They are there to serve the public, not to rule over them.
-- Good for you Avery! You stand up for yourself. The reason that we are in all the messes we are in is because parents beat the idea of "respect" into their children so much that no one will stand against wrongs anymore. Ignore them and keep speaking out. You are right, and it sounds as if there area number teachers on here flooding the posts against you. Shame on all of you adults who take advantage of teens by hiding behind "respect."
-- Let's just be real and say we don't allow juveniles to speak freely because we want them to grow up as proper workers who don't talk back to their bosses and be done with it, eh? "Free speech" is a joke in this country. There's a pretty big asterisk next to it that is conveniently ignored because we wish people would just learn not to say things other people don't like...
-- Another thin skinned educrat gets his shorts in a wad over the sort of name calling that happens every day in our schools. Is it pretty? No? Does the principal need to react this way? Only if he's as petty and thin skinned as most of these folks.
-- Respect is earned. This idea that people in a position deserve respect is ridiculous. If you need help with this idea, please read anything by George Bernard Shaw or Mark Twain, they made a living pointing this out and people thought it was funny because it's true. Schools are obviously more about getting children to respect authority, and less about them growing into an understanding of the world and gaining valuable skills.
I find it odd that so many people want our next generation to be respectful, and not more driven to do things. She was trying to do something, and the take home from this is that she should just listen to the old guard and not talk back.
Via Guardian, UK History in the making in LA as online ads hit target
By Jeff Jarvis
Note well this moment in the history - and I do mean history - of newspapers: the editor of the Los Angeles Times, Russ Stanton, said the paper's online advertising revenue is now sufficient to cover the Times's entire editorial payroll, print and online. "Given where we were five years ago, I don't think anyone thought that would ever happen," he said in email. "But that day is here." The same day has arrived for at least one more major US newspaper. What this tells me is that we are on the cusp of the moment when online revenue could sustain a substantial digital journalistic enterprise without the onerous cost of printing and distribution. Hallelujah.
There are caveats aplenty: the LA Times newsroom got to this point because it was cut to a shell of its former self (from 1,200 staff to 660). Online advertising is often sold in packages with print (though if and when print disappears, marketers will have little choice but to shift to digital). And news organisations carry costs besides payroll, such as rent (though some papers are now making their newsrooms virtual).
Still, work with me here: imagine if the Times turned off its presses tomorrow. I've discussed that prospect before, going back to 2005, when Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger acknowledged that his new Berliner presses might be the last this paper would use. But the talk was speculative. Now it could be real: the paperless paper.
LeBeau bill would protect students’ free speech rights on Internet
By Don Michak Journal Inquirer Published: Thursday, January 29, 2009 1:36 PM EST
HARTFORD — A legislative committee chairman who for decades was a high school teacher in East Hartford is proposing to prohibit school systems in Connecticut from punishing students for their off-campus electronic correspondence.
Sen. Gary D. LeBeau, the Democrat from East Hartford who co-chairs the General Assembly’s Commerce Committee, said today that he was spurred to introduce his bill by the nationally publicized case of Avery Doninger, a former Burlington high school student disciplined for a 2007 Internet posting she wrote from her home.
“I strongly believe in the First Amendment,” the lawmaker said. “And after what school administrators did in the Doninger case, what’s needed is a bright line of where the state — since the school was acting on behalf of the state — can impinge on the rights of individuals. I think they overstepped in this case.
“As long as a message like hers is not sent directly to a school, or if she is not using school equipment, this young person and everyone else has a right to say what they think,” he added. “Unfortunately, the way she said it was pretty offensive, but that happens — and that’s sometimes the very speech that needs to be protected.”
Authentic Connecticut Republican has left a new comment on your post "CtNewsJunkie: Senator Gary LeBeau Files Landmark F...":
This entire episode has been a travesty.
Even those that don't agree that the young lady in question has been treated terribly would undoubtedly agree that an enormous amount of time and money has been spent over nothing.
There is simply no up-side to the behavior of the school administration or the court.
Lebeau's bill makes total sense.
Considering the nonsense we normal see come out of our legislature; that alone is like a breath of fresh air.
The man deserves a tip of the hat!
Posted by Authentic Connecticut Republican to The Cool Justice Report at 5:22 AM
-- I'm 47 years old now. In my youth, administrators abused their positions on a regular basis and the kids had no control. I had a daughter and when she went through school, guess what ... administrators abused their positions on a regular basis and the kids had no control. They probably were douch bags and she has a right to say so without penalty. I'm sure glad I'm not involved with any of the self-important adults who have posted on this article.... preparation for the real world..... consequences. Sad to see people preach such robotic responses.
-- I happen to agree with the senator, students do NOT check their rights at the door and too many times students are not given the respect they deserve as human beings. Students are constantly told when, where, and how they can walk, talk, eat, even use the restroom! This girl was an upstanding citizen, participating in student government and organizing fun activities for the students. She has every right to speak her mind when she feels that she has been wronged. What kind of lesson are we teaching our children - to sit back and let people walk all over them - no she had every right to speak her mind, this is the USA! If you think "douch bag" is a derogatory/ hate word... grow up this is 2009 and there are way worse things she could have called that D.B.!!
-- A man who chooses security over freedom deserves neither....The Bill of Rights protects the people from the Government...period..that is why is was written and the first amendment does not protect popular speech or polite speech it protects all speech that is not intended to threaten or cause immediate danger...A man who chooses security over freedom deserves neither....The Bill of Rights protects the people from the Government...period..that is why is was written and the first amendment does not protect popular speech or polite speech it protects all speech that is not intended to threaten or cause immediate danger...
--
WATCH FOR THE TRIAL ON CIVIL RIGHTS VIOLATIONS Related To Suppression And Seizure Of Free Speech T-Shirts
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Case Name: Doninger v. Niehoff et al Case Number: 3:07-cv-1129
Jury Selection set for 6/2/2009 09:30 AM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz
Jury Trial set for 6/4/2009
More Selected Web Postings:
-- I haven't read about anyone, including Ms. Donniger and her attorneys, advocating for speech without consequences. The penalty was absurdly harsh and justified by a disruption that never existed. The punishment was an inappropriate, vindictive payback doled out by professional administrators who should have known better.
-- good job girl -- you have the right to free speech- fight it all the way
-- to all of those individuals who think ms doninger is some punk kid, please think again. she's not. read up on this entire case. find out WHO LIED in COURT, who didn't comply with the foia, who trampled on who's rights and who in fact really ARE d****e bags (hint, it's NOT ms doninger or her parents)to all of those individuals who think ms doninger is some punk kid, please think again. she's not. read up on this entire case. find out WHO LIED in COURT, who didn't comply with the foia, who trampled on who's rights and who in fact really ARE d****e bags (hint, it's NOT ms doninger or her parents)
-- Hang in [there,] kid. You did no wrong. I will always believe that there are many more "douche bags" out there. "
-- Interplay:
...this isn't really about freedom of speech...it never was.
AND
Close your eyes, repeat that three times and click your heels. Maybe when you open your eyes again it will be true. "
-- It was too harsh
I agree with Paul Bentley when he said the punishment for Avery Doninger was "heavy handed and harsh." No other student in Lewis Mills ever received a punishment that lasts a year for saying two words ("douche bag") when I was there. No one. They said a lot worst too. The difference is, they said it to teachers and not to a superintendent. Older people don’t understand that "douche bag" means "jerk" in modern times.
A writer in Sound Off said that she found it curious that Paul Bentley "can critique a judge’s decision." Bentley is not a lawyer, she said. What does that mean? No one but a lawyer can have a legal opinion? We’re supposed to just go along with what the courts say and not question them because they’re the courts and wear a robe?
What a stupid thing to say. Wasn’t it the courts that enforced segregation in this country? Wasn’t it the courts that backed the Nazis during the Holocaust? Wasn’t it the courts that went along for years with women not being given the vote? The courts are not perfect, they are like us. And when they rubber stamp a harsh punishment like Avery Doninger got, they’re wrong.
-- Via blog, Standing On The Shoulders Of Giant Midgets
I'm suddenly nostalgic for the days when I was young and my peers and I said all sorts of horrible and disrespectful things about teachers and faculty, sometimes on school campus and sometimes in front of the people we were talking about, and there wasn't anything they'd do about it. (I remember one incident when a girl in an English class made the teacher cry and flee the classroom; I should probably be sympathetic, but aside from the fact the teacher really was pretty awful, I also continue to believe, more than two decades later, that if you can't stand up to a fifteen-year-old you really have no business being a teacher. Sorry. Sure, noble profession, unappreciated, all that, got it, kind of agree--but come on, you let a dumb, pimply, adolescent jerk get to you? For fuck's sake, grow vertebrae.)
I have trouble imagining a generation of American youth that didn't say bitchy and terrible things about their elders, especially when real or imagined insults and injuries are concerned. That bitch gave me an F! Mr. Blank is totally retarded. Someone ought to key that asshole's car--I know where he parks! I would be utterly unfazed if some time traveler returning to the golden early days of public education didn't come across a lurking gang of kids talking with all the apparent but vacuous seriousness of youth about removing the bolts from the wheels of Miss Exes' wagon one morning, calling her a flatulent cow and doing a sadistic impersonation of her voice reciting the multiplication tables.
That's what kids do. But these days, hey, can't have bad manners and all this "cyberbullying."
So I'm rooting for Ms. Doninger. Not because she was entitled to be school secretary. Not because I think her claim is one that is likely to have a remedy. And I have to admit that when I was her age, I harbored a special contempt for popular girls who did things like run for school office. (Participating was something akin to being a collaborator--except for drama, the theater department was totally cool. Ah, the sweet smell of teenage hypocrisy!) No, I'm rooting for Ms. Doninger because we are becoming thin-skinned, easily pricked, humorless fools with an absolute lack of perspective, and the schools seem to be ground zero for the sheepifying of America. Let's not have any disrespect or disobedience in this country founded by traitors and fart-joke-purveyors! Let's not say mean things about other people ever, or expect people to show some ability to take care of their own emotional well-being.
Following is a Readers Digest version of the Doninger case:
Avery Doninger, a volunteer in the Americorps national public service program, has a civil rights trial pending in New Haven U.S. District Court. [Among her duties on the job: helping hurricane victims in Texas.]
Avery, a 2008 graduate of Lewis Mills High School in Burlington, CT, and her mother, Lauren Doninger, sued Principal Karissa Niehoff and Superintendent Paula Schwartz [now retired] after they removed Avery from the ballot for class secretary.
Avery Doninger was among a group of four students who lobbied the community for support of an annual battle of the bands sponsored by the Student Council. The student council adviser suggested the students reach out to taxpayers and the students copied the adviser an on email to the community.
Schwartz became very upset after taxpayers called her and she cancelled the event known as Jamfest. Doninger subsequently referred to administrators in a live journal blog as central office douche bags, and Schwartz's son found the posting while trolling the internet for his mother a couple weeks later. While Avery Doninger was banned from school office, another student who called Schwartz a dirty whore was given an award and lauded for citizenship.
School officials suppressed the write-in vote in which Doninger was elected by a plurality. Schwartz refused to accept Doninger's apology for her choice of words. During an assembly, Niehoff banned free-speech and Team Avery t-shirts and seized at least one shirt.
The Doningers have been seeking -- among other remedies -- an apology for civil rights violations and recognition of the write-in victory.
New Haven U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz denied a motion for a preliminary injunction [immediate relief] in August 2007. Based on errors in the record, Travesty Kravitz's injunction ruling was upheld by the U.S. Second Circuit in New York.
Travesty Kravitz held a hearing in November 2008 on Doninger's request for a trial. He cut off discussion about various frauds - including false testimony - upon the court and ultimately ordered a trial on Jan. 15, 2009. But, he limited the scope of the trial to the narrow issue of the suppression and seizure of free speech t-shirts.
On Jan. 22, 2009, Connecticut State Senator Gary LeBeau filed a landmark bill to protect student speech.
On Jan. 23, 2009, Travesty Kravitz scheduled jury selection and a trial for civil rights violations related to the suppression and seizure of free speech t-shirts.
Authentic Connecticut Republican, In Comment At CtNewsJunkie, Says: "Good bill."
The Internet Age, Free Speech, and Schools
by Christine Stuart January 28, 2009 8:31 PM Posted to Education | State Capitol
When he read the news accounts about what happened to a Burlington student who voiced her discontent with school administrators on her personal blog and was barred from serving as class secretary, Sen. Gary LeBeau, D-East Hartford, thought “what they did to that young girl was wrong.”
LeBeau, a retired public school teacher, said in a phone interview earlier this week that he has proposed a bill which he hopes will create a “bright line” when it comes to students’ free speech rights in the Internet age.
LeBeau’s bill prohibits school officials from “punishing students for the content of electronic correspondence transmitted outside of school facilities or with school equipment, provided such content is not a threat to students, personnel or the school.”
New data released by the Bureau of Labor Statistics today suggest that unions are making a comeback under very difficult circumstances.
Union membership rose from 12.1 percent to 12.4 percent last year, continuing a second year of growth. The number of all workers covered by collective bargaining agreements, including those who choose not to be union members, also grew in 2008, from 13.3% to 13.7%, bringing an additional 518,000 workers under union contracts in 2008. Economists generally consider the number of ‘covered’ workers to be more significant.
Latest Cost-cutting Measures ... Elsewhere, House Minority Leader John Boehner explained House Republicans' opposition to President Obama's economic stimulus package ...
By ANDY BOROWITZ www.borowitzreport.com
In its latest cost-cutting moves designed to improve its bottom line, Starbucks announced today that it would no longer offer coffee, cups, or stir-thingies beginning February 1.
In an official statement, company spokesman Carol Foyler said that Starbucks "wrestled long and hard" with the decision to eliminate the three items, "especially coffee."
"We are aware that many of our customers have come to Starbucks in the past looking for a cup of coffee," Ms. Foyler said. "We hope, however, that they will continue to come even though we no longer offer coffee or cups, for that matter."
She said that she did not think that Starbucks customers would be disappointed by the absence of stir-thingies, adding, "Since we're also eliminating sugar, Equal, and half-and-half, there's really nothing to stir."
When asked what Starbucks hoped would attract customers to their stores in the future, Ms. Foyler said, "We hope customers will see our stores as a place for the unemployed and/or homeless to come out of the cold and warm themselves over a scalding hot cup of water, as long as they bring the cup."
Elsewhere, House Minority Leader John Boehner explained House Republicans' opposition to President Obama's economic stimulus package: "We're ginormous assholes."
-- “Over our dead bodies will the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women will be cut.”
by Christine Stuart | January 28, 2009 1:00 PM Posted to State Capitol
As the existence of Permanent Commission on the Status of Women has been threatened by the state budget crisis the 16th annual “Making Women Visible” day at the state Capitol was more important this year than in years past.
Sporting a red suit jacket, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal promised to take the legislature and the governor to court to make sure the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women stays “permanent.”
“It is the permanent commission and we want to keep it that way,” Speaker of the House Chris Donovan, D-Meriden, said. He said the Democratic caucus plans to beat back the Republican proposals to consolidate all the state commissions.
“There’s not a lot of appeal on our side of the aisle,” Donovan said.
“Over our dead bodies will the Permanent Commission on the Status of Women will be cut,” Secretary of State Susan Bysiewicz said.
Via Washington Times & Politics In The Zeros Among At Least 28 Warnings
In 2000, Harry Markopoulos, a Greek-American leading expert on derivatives, wrote to the Securities and Exchange Commission's Boston office to inform the federal watchdog of markets that Bernard L. Madoff was running "the world's largest hedge fund fraud." He stipulated, "My name not be released to anyone other than the branch chief and team leader in the New York region, without my express permission."
Connecticut's Bessy Reyna, an opinion columnist with the Hartford Courant, will receive the Outstanding Latina Cultural Arts, Literary Arts and Publications Award On Saturday March 7, 2009 in San Antonio, Texas.
Reyna is being recognized for her poetry, editorial opinion pieces, essays and short stories, and for her commitment to bringing the arts to the Latino community. Reyna, who is one of the few women opinion columnists in the country, has published her work in numerous literary magazines and anthologies. Her book, “Battlefield of Your Body,” was published by the Hill-Stead Museum publications.
AAHHE is proud to be the sole organization that honors key leaders, scholars, teachers, and artists that have advocated, supported, and championed Latinos in higher education. These awards have been developed to honor individuals who, through their expertise, energy, productivity, and contributions, have improved the conditions of Latinos pursuing a college degree or a career in higher education. The awards are based on open nominations, and the winners are selected by a subcommittee of the AAHHE Board. AAHHE will recognize the winners each year at the Annual AAHHE National Conference Awards Luncheon.
The AAHHE award categories and sponsors are:
Alfredo G. de los Santos Jr. Distinguished Leadership in Higher Education (sponsored by the Hispanic Outlook in Higher Education)
Outstanding Latino/a Faculty: Research/Teaching in Higher Education, Research Institutions (sponsored by PepsiCo Inc. Foundation)
Outstanding Latino/a Faculty: Service/Teaching in Higher Education, Teaching Institutions (sponsored by NORDSTROM)
Outstanding Support of Hispanic Issues in Higher Education (sponsored by State Farm Insurance Companies)
Outstanding Latino/a Cultural Award in Fine or Performing Arts
Outstanding Latino/a Cultural Award in Literary Arts or Publications
Three days after receiving $25 billion in federal bailout funds, Bank of America Corp. hosted a conference call with conservative activists and business officials to organize opposition to the U.S. labor community's top legislative priority.
"The Maltese Falcon," the first great noir novel, was published 78 years ago this month.
For the 75th anniversary, Bruce DeSilva, known to some of his informal students as Buddha, or, O Great Saffron Robed One, wrote a tribute for The Associated Press that began this way:
NEW YORK — For lovers of the hard-boiled crime story, life began with the black bird.
It was 75 years ago this month that "The Maltese Falcon" first appeared between hard covers, just weeks after it was published as a five-part serial in the pulp magazine "Black Mask."
To today's reader, Dashiell Hammett's masterpiece can seem vaguely antique, its characters too stereotypical: the cynical detective who works both sides of the law; his spunky and loyal secretary; the trench coat-draped gunman who talks from the side of his mouth; the wily femme fatale who manipulates men with the promise of sex.
But to 1930s readers, every line was a revelation.
Poll: Obama Even More Awesome Than Originally Thought Tops Leprechauns, Unicorns, Ron Paul
Mr. Obama remains wildly popular among women, with 72% of the women polled saying that they have experienced longer, more powerful orgasms since he was sworn in as President.
[Editor's Note: Recently, The Borowitz Report has received a number of letters from readers complaining about columns that have seemed to satirize the nation's 44th president. These readers have pointed out that with all of the challenges facing President Obama, the time for such juvenile shenanigans is over. At The Borowitz Report, our response couldn't be clearer: "We hear you." In keeping with the nation's new, post-satirical spirit, we offer the following column, which represents the new and more positive direction we intend to adopt for the next four years.)
One week into his Presidency, Barack Obama gets high marks in a new poll, with a majority of Americans agreeing with the statement, "Barack Obama is even more awesome than I originally thought."
The percentage of voters who believe that Mr. Obama is awesome surged during his first week in office, with 82% thinking he is awesome now compared to 77% who deemed him awesome last week.
And in the latest measure of his popularity, Mr. Obama receives higher approval ratings in the new poll than either leprechauns or unicorns, mythical beings that almost everyone agrees are totally awesome.
In a head-to-head contest, Mr. Obama beats leprechauns and unicorns combined, garnering 64% compared to 21% for leprechauns, 14% for unicorns, and 1% for Congressman Ron Paul.
Mr. Obama remains wildly popular among women, with 72% of the women polled saying that they have experienced longer, more powerful orgasms since he was sworn in as President.
"I definitely won't have to fake them like I did for the last eight years," said housewife Tracy Klujian of Madison, Wisconsin, who reported having an four-minute climax while watching the inauguration on MSNBC. "That's change I can believe in."
"We live in an era in which there are many attempts to silence the expression of free speech and literature. This year's young writer's program, and the distinguished list of young writers and titles, are testimonies to the failure of these attempts, barbaric or otherwise."
Hubie Santos has always been good an managing a tough case in all of its manifestations. He's a great courtroom technician. In fact, one of his signature moves is the continuance. Santos can keep a case dragging for so long that most of its principals just plop to the ground like dead spiders, victims of Hubie-engineered ennui. So it's interesting to see Hubie in the paper today ...
Repeatedly using vulgar and racial insults, [Connecticut] Superior Court Judge E. Curtissa Cofield argued with a police officer — addressing him as "Negro trooper" at one point — who was trying to process her on a charge of drunken driving in Glastonbury last October, a police video released Monday shows.
Cofield also is heard twice on the video using the racial term "n-----."
The state's Judicial Review Council released the video Monday after it found cause to pursue five judicial misconduct charges against her, several of them based on what was termed disparaging, demeaning or "racially inappropriate" language.
One Senator Stands Up: At least one lawmaker was swayed by the comments. State Sen. Ed Meyer, a Branford Democrat who voted against Judge Swords' confirmation, said he was ready to brush off the attorneys' comments until the head of the association swore under oath to their authenticity. "I felt that sworn testimony validated the authenticity of these letters," Meyer said.
Faceless Accusers Judges up for new terms get blog-style blowback from anonymous defense lawyers — and lawmakers throw a fit
Tuesday, January 20, 2009 By Andy Bromage
The written comments trashing Judge James P. Ginocchio are pretty harsh. They come from criminal defense lawyers who proffer first-hand accounts and hearsay as evidence that Ginocchio is widely disliked as a jurist.
And they're all anonymous.
"This guy is out of control and is a nut job," writes one nameless attorney. "I have also seen him threaten to put 19 year old kids in jail for smoking marijuana."
"I'm hearing some pretty bad things about him through the grapevine," writes another. "I have some judge friends and in confidence they have told me that he is pretty well-hated by the judges he works with in Bridgeport."
These aren't rants posted on some random lawyers' blog. They're official submissions to the state legislature from the Connecticut Criminal Defense Lawyers Association, who asked its members for feedback on state judges up for re-appointment. Judges come up for new terms every eight years and this year they're facing some blog-style blowback from defense lawyers who try cases in their courtrooms.
For the first time, the CCDLA has supplied members of the General Assembly's Judiciary Committee with anonymous comments on state judges made by dozens of criminal defense lawyers in letters, voicemail messages and a members-only listserv.
The packets arrived at the Legislative Office Building in big cardboard boxes on the opening day of the session and were distributed to lawmakers ahead of last week's confirmation hearings.
Only one lawyer personally testified about any of the 17 judges up for reappointment. In remarks widely carried in the mainstream media, Jon Schoenhorn spoke out against Superior Court Judge Patricia Swords for her merciless courtroom manner — like refusing to postpone a case even when the primary defense lawyer was hospitalized after a seizure.
Not publicized were the dozens of anonymous comments about Swords and other judges weighed by lawmakers deciding whether to remove them from the bench.
One lawyer called Swords "very harsh; a royal pain in the ;" Another likened her approach to sentencing to "a knife to the gut ... twisted, back and forth, back and forth."
Swords hung onto her job by a thread, but another batch of judges come up for confirmation hearings next month — and by the looks of the comments, a few of those should be just as controversial.
The vast majority of the comments are positive — glowing even — but lawmakers from both parties are still irate that judges would be criticized anonymously.
State Sen. John Kissel, an Enfield Republican, compared it to McCarthyism. Republican Senate Minority Leader John McKinney called the nameless defense attorneys "cowardly." Democratic Senate President Don Williams warned the practice would hasten a "slide into tyranny." --
Via CtNewsJunkie A handful of the women gathered at the Capitol last week to celebrate the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade were born years after the landmark reproductive rights case.
Momentum Builds To Hold Douche Bag School Bosses Accountable
&
Assert Free Speech Rights For All Connecticut Citizens, Including Students
United States District Court for the District of Connecticut
Case Name: Doninger v. Niehoff et al Case Number: 3:07-cv-1129
Jury Selection set for 6/2/2009 09:30 AM in Courtroom Four, 141 Church Street, New Haven, CT before Judge Mark R. Kravitz
Jury Trial set for 6/4/2009
Order Signed by Judge Mark R. Kravitz on 1/23/09 -- ALSO, Bill Introduced by CT State Sen. Gary Lebeau 1/22/2009 Referred to Joint Committee on Education aka "Avery's Law," Would Stand Up To Activist Judges & Douche Bag School Bosses
-- Following is a Readers Digest version of the Doninger case:
Avery Doninger, a volunteer in the Americorps national public service program, has a civil rights trial pending in New Haven U.S. District Court. [Among her duties on the job: helping hurricane victims in Texas.]
Avery, a 2008 graduate of Lewis Mills High School in Burlington, CT, and her mother, Lauren Doninger, sued Principal Karissa Niehoff and Superintendent Paula Schwartz [now retired] after they removed Avery from the ballot for class secretary.
Avery Doninger was among a group of four students who lobbied the community for support of an annual battle of the bands sponsored by the Student Council. The student council adviser suggested the students reach out to taxpayers and the students copied the adviser an on email to the community.
Schwartz became very upset after taxpayers called her and she cancelled the event known as Jamfest. Doninger subsequently referred to administrators in a live journal blog as central office douche bags, and Schwartz's son found the posting while trolling the internet for his mother a couple weeks later. While Avery Doninger was banned from school office, another student who called Schwartz a dirty whore was given an award and lauded for citizenship.
School officials suppressed the write-in vote in which Doninger was elected by a plurality. Schwartz refused to accept Doninger's apology for her choice of words. During an assembly, Niehoff banned free-speech and Team Avery t-shirts and seized at least one shirt.
The Doningers have been seeking -- among other remedies -- an apology for civil rights violations and recognition of the write-in victory.
New Haven U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz denied a motion for a preliminary injunction [immediate relief] in August 2007. Based on errors in the record, Travesty Kravitz's injunction ruling was upheld by the U.S. Second Circuit in New York.
Travesty Kravitz held a hearing in November 2008 on Doninger's request for a trial. He cut off discussion about various frauds - including false testimony - upon the court and ultimately ordered a trial on Jan. 15, 2009. But, he limited the scope of the trial to the narrow issue of the suppression and seizure of free speech t-shirts.
Appeals are likely on a number of rulings narrowing the scope of the case.
In a very short segment that ran a few minutes before 9 a.m., Avery Doninger noted there will be a trial on the suppression and seizure of free speech t-shirts.
She also pointed out that even the judge was wondering if the school administrators were telling the truth about disruption, because there was no disruption caused by her personal livejournal blog post, written at home.
Atty. Jon Schoenhorn likened Avery’s personal blog to a soapbox in a park: Those who wanted to listen had to tune in or be there.
-- Following is a Readers Digest version of the Doninger case:
Avery Doninger, a volunteer in the Americorps national public service program, has a civil rights trial pending in New Haven U.S. District Court. [Among her duties on the job: helping hurricane victims in Texas.]
Avery, a 2008 graduate of Lewis Mills High School in Burlington, CT, and her mother, Lauren Doninger, sued Principal Karissa Niehoff and Superintendent Paula Schwartz [now retired] after they removed Avery from the ballot for class secretary.
Avery Doninger was among a group of four students who lobbied the community for support of an annual battle of the bands sponsored by the Student Council. The student council adviser suggested the students reach out to taxpayers and the students copied the adviser an on email to the community.
Schwartz became very upset after taxpayers called her and she cancelled the event known as Jamfest. Doninger subsequently referred to administrators in a live journal blog as central office douche bags, and Schwartz's son found the posting while trolling the internet for his mother a couple weeks later. While Avery Doninger was banned from school office, another student who called Schwartz a dirty whore was given an award and lauded for citizenship.
School officials suppressed the write-in vote in which Doninger was elected by a plurality. Schwartz refused to accept Doninger's apology for her choice of words. During an assembly, Niehoff banned free-speech and Team Avery t-shirts and seized at least one shirt.
The Doningers have been seeking -- among other remedies -- an apology for civil rights violations and recognition of the write-in victory.
New Haven U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz denied a motion for a preliminary injunction [immediate relief] in August 2007. Based on errors in the record, Travesty Kravitz's injunction ruling was upheld by the U.S. Second Circuit in New York.
Travesty Kravitz held a hearing in November 2008 on Doninger's request for a trial. He cut off discussion about various frauds - including false testimony - upon the court and ultimately ordered a trial on Jan. 15, 2009. But, he limited the scope of the trial to the narrow issue of the suppression and seizure of free speech t-shirts.
The Significance Of The Bentley Letter Time For Other Whistleblowers To Come Forward
By ANDY THIBAULT The Cool Justice Report www.cooljustice.blogspot.com Jan. 24, 2009
EDITOR'S NOTE: This column is available for reprint courtesy of The Cool Justice Report, http://cooljustice.blogspot.com
Dateline: DOUCHEBAGVILLE, CT, aka, The Nexus of Burlington's Lewis Mills High School / U.S. District Court New Haven, Courtroom Four -
U.S. District Court Judge Mark "Travesty" Kravitz erred in granting qualified immunity to Region 10 school bosses, who demonstrated consciousness of guilt and knew they were acting illegally by violating the free speech rights of Avery Doninger.
Former Superintendent Paula Schwartz and Principal Karissa Niehoff displayed consciousness of guilt by concocting the false claim of a disruption resulting from Doninger's protected [theoretically, anyway] speech.
Travesty Kravitz admits as much in his Jan. 15, 2009 ruling:
1. - "The [court] agrees with Ms. Doninger that there is evidence in the record - particularly when viewed in the light most favorable to her - that suggests that Ms. Niehoff may have punished Ms. Doninger because the blog entry was offensive and uncivil and not because of any potential disruption at school." Page 11.
2. - "The timing of Ms. Doninger's punishment in this case, together with Ms. Niehoff's testimony, creates a disputed issue of material fact as to the [defendant's] true motivation for punishing Ms. Doninger." Page 12.
But, Travesty Kravitz continues to make excuses for the douche bag school bosses and gives them a walk whenever possible.
Qualified immunity protects public officials - even when they violate the law - if their lawyers can persuade an accommodating judge that they didn't know precisely what they were doing, as, in this case, when they stomped on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.
Now comes additional evidence of consciousness of guilt by the douche bag school bosses, from courageous teacher Paul Bentley. In his Jan. 22, 2009 letter published in the Torrington, CT Register Citizen, Bentley said: "The school never was impacted to any Richter degree despite the defendants' assertions to the contrary. I know, I was there."
This is a rare moment when rank and file teachers and staff can stand up to tell the truth, with a lessened fear of repercussions.
Whistleblowers, come forward.
The world is watching.
Meanwhile, Travesty Kravitz has some time to actually review and probe the facts in this case. Clearly, and unlike the Second Circuit, he remains confused about the difference between on-campus speech and the Internet.
-- Following is a Readers Digest version of the Doninger case:
Avery Doninger, a volunteer in the Americorps national public service program, has a civil rights trial pending in New Haven U.S. District Court. [Among her duties on the job: helping hurricane victims in Texas.]
Avery, a 2008 graduate of Lewis Mills High School in Burlington, CT, and her mother, Lauren Doninger, sued Principal Karissa Niehoff and Superintendent Paula Schwartz [now retired] after they removed Avery from the ballot for class secretary.
Avery Doninger was among a group of four students who lobbied the community for support of an annual battle of the bands sponsored by the Student Council. The student council adviser suggested the students reach out to taxpayers and the students copied the adviser an on email to the community.
Schwartz became very upset after taxpayers called her and she cancelled the event known as Jamfest. Doninger subsequently referred to administrators in a live journal blog as central office douche bags, and Schwartz's son found the posting while trolling the internet for his mother a couple weeks later. While Avery Doninger was banned from school office, another student who called Schwartz a dirty whore was given an award and lauded for citizenship.
School officials suppressed the write-in vote in which Doninger was elected by a plurality. Schwartz refused to accept Doninger's apology for her choice of words. During an assembly, Niehoff banned free-speech and Team Avery t-shirts and seized at least one shirt.
The Doningers have been seeking -- among other remedies -- an apology for civil rights violations and recognition of the write-in victory.
New Haven U.S. District Judge Mark Kravitz denied a motion for a preliminary injunction [immediate relief] in August 2007. Based on errors in the record, Travesty Kravitz's injunction ruling was upheld by the U.S. Second Circuit in New York.
Travesty Kravitz held a hearing in November 2008 on Doninger's request for a trial. He cut off discussion about various frauds - including false testimony - upon the court and ultimately ordered a trial on Jan. 15, 2009. But, he limited the scope of the trial to the narrow issue of the suppression and seizure of free speech t-shirts.
