According to an Associated Press report, the Jackson City School district has agreed to take the picture down amid first amendment concerns.

The picture was hung in Jackson Middle School in 1947. It is owned by the school’s Christian Hi-Y Club, which took the picture down on Wednesday.

The decision to take the picture down came after a student and two parents, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Ohio and the Freedom from Religion Foundation, had sued the school district. The lawsuit claimed the picture was unconstitutional, as it promoted a particular set of religious beliefs.

Superintendent Phil Howard told the AP that the decision was based on the high cost that battling the lawsuit would cost. The school board had initially voted to keep the picture up, arguing that removing it would violate the Hi-Y Club students’ free speech rights.

When she tried to access certain LGBT sites for research purposes, Fioravante was met with a filter notice that cited a “sexuality” filter as the reason for the blocking. She posted a YouTube video detailing her situation and also began a petition on change.org asking the high school to stop blocking LGBT sites. The petition has amassed over 3,300 signatures and drew the attention of the ACLU.

In their letter, the ACLU notes that this sort of filtering is considered viewpoint discrimination that was recently ruled unconstitutional in a recent court case.

They state that the “sexuality” filter seems to be only blocking LGBT-oriented sites.

But it’s not just LGBT sites that the school district’s filter (running Smoothwall software) is blocking. Apparently, the firewall is preventing access to anti-gay websites from organizations like the National Organization for Marriage and the the Family Research Council. The reason given is that these sites are blocked due to “intolerance.”

The ACLU says that this is also ill-advised, as blocking even an “intolerant” viewpoint is an independent violation of the First Amendment.

The ACLU gives the school district until March 14th to address their concerns before they proceed with legal action.

“The ACLU respectfully requests that Governor Mifflin School District immediately reconfigure its Smoothwall filtering system so that it operates in a viewpoint-neutral manner or the District should find an alternate software vendor with a product that satisfies the requirements of both the Children’s Internet Protection Act (“CIPA”) and the First Amendment. Please contact us by Thursday, March 14, to advise us whether you will make the requested changes to the filter and if so, how you intend to do so,” says the letter.

[h/t The Verge]

The law was challenged last year by the ACLU, but upheld by an Indiana Judge.

“The Court readily concedes that social networking is a prominent feature of modern-day society; however, communication does not begin with a ‘Facebook wall post’ and end with a ’140-character Tweet,’” wrote Judge Tanya Pratt in her decision.

It was the ACLU’s contention that the law was overbroad, as it prohibited people from engaging in lawful activities on the internet. To ban such a large group of people from participating in communications that are integral to functioning in a modern society was “something the First Amendment cannot tolerate,” they said.

“The statute (Indiana Code 35-42-4-12) is so broad that rather than protecting children, which existing laws already do, it had the effect of preventing people seeking jobs from posting their resumes on LinkedIn, or commenting on news sites, or following the activities of a political campaign or religious leaders such as Pope Benedict XVI,” added the ACLU.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, saying that “the goal of deterrence does not license the state to restrict far more speech than necessary to target the prospective harm.” This decision officially overturns Judge Pratt’s ruling from June of last year.

The ACLU of Indiana’s Legal Director Ken Falk rejoiced in the decision:

“There is no doubt that the State has a paramount interest in protecting children. But the Court properly recognized that the State cannot do this with a law so broad that it prevents someone convicted of an offense years, or even decades ago, from engaging in a host of innocent communications via social media. Indiana already has a law that prohibits inappropriate communication with children, and the law in this case served no purpose but to prohibit communication protected by the First Amendment.”

This is not the first time that a law of this type has been deemed unlawful. A similar law in Louisiana was deemed “unconstitutionally overbroad” by an appeals judge. In his ruling, he stated that any law banning internet communications “unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world.”

Should sex offenders have the right to use the Internet without disclosing their user names to authorities? Let us know what you think in the comments.

Here’s how the State of California summarizes the bill in question:

Increases prison sentences and fines for human trafficking convictions. Requires convicted human traffickers to register as sex offenders. Requires registered sex offenders to disclose Internet activities and identities. Fiscal Impact: Costs of a few million dollars annually to state and local governments for addressing human trafficking offenses. Potential increased annual fine revenue of a similar amount, dedicated primarily for human trafficking victims.

In November, the bill passed with 81% of the vote. The bill, however, was temporarily blocked as the ACLU (along with a couple of sex offenders) got involved and filed suit.

The ACLU said of the bill, “Proposition 35 increases criminal penalties for sex offenses and imposes new restrictions on registered sex offenders. For example, the measure requires that registrants provide online screen names and information about their Internet service providers to law enforcement – even if their convictions are very old and have nothing to do with the Internet or children. This provision essentially eliminates the ability of registrants to engage in anonymous online speech and imposes a substantial burden whenever a registrant wants to use a new online platform to speech, infringing on registrants’ First Amendment right to free speech.”

Similarly, Judge Henderson, who blocked the bill on Friday, said (as quoted by Wired): “The challenged provisions have some nexus with the government’s legitimate purpose of combating online sex offenses and human trafficking, but the government may not regulate expression in such a manner that a substantial portion of the burden on speech does not serve to advance its goals.”

Bloomberg quotes Henderson as saying, “The court does not lightly take the step of enjoining a state statute, even on a preliminary basis. However, just as the court is mindful that a strong majority of California voters approved Proposition 35 and that the government has a legitimate interest in protecting individuals from online sex offenses and human trafficking, it is equally mindful that anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority, and that plaintiffs enjoy no lesser right to anonymous speech simply because they are unpopular.”

According to Wired, the next phase of the legal process could be a trial on the lawsuit’s merits. Bloomberg quotes a spokesman for California Attorney General Kamala Harris, as saying, “Our office is reviewing the decision.”

Mike Masnick at TechDirt writes of Proposition 35, “There are serious issues with the bill if you don’t know the details. First, many ‘sex offenders’ aren’t what you might think of as ‘sex offenders’ — people who are arrested for things like urinating in public, or for consensual sex between minors. Beyond that, this particular bill went really, really far, requiring all such “offenders” to hand over all details of every online service they used — no matter what the purpose.”

Sex offenders’ online rights have always been a hot button issue, and have received a great deal of attention over the past year, particularly. Last year, we wrote about a wave of challenges (especially from the ACLU) to state laws banning sex offenders’ use of social media.

One such law was in Indiana, where a judge ruled that a state ban on convicted sex offenders accessing social media sites at all, is lawful. A similar case took place in Nebraska, where a law banning registered sex offenders from holding social media accounts was thrown out. In Louisiana, a sex offender Facebook ban was deemed “unconstitutionally overbroad.”

“Although the act is intended to promote the legitimate and compelling state interest of protecting minors from internet predators, the near total ban on internet access imposed by the act unreasonably restricts many ordinary activities that have become important to everyday life in today’s world,” the judge said of that case.

Still, one Louisiana lawmaker passed a law requiring all registered sex offenders to list their status and crimes on any social network in which they participate.

Clearly this issue is seeing various state responses across the nation.

Should sex offenders be able to use social media sites? Should they be required to provide authorities with their user names? Tell us what you think.

Back in 2010, the ACLU filed suit against a specific application of the Illinois Eavesdropping Act that made the audio recording or police officers a crime, punishable by a 15-year prison sentence. The lawsuit was initially rejected by the U.S. District Court who claimed that there was no First Amendement right to record on-duty police officers in public. But a May 2012 ruling by an appellate court reversed that ruling, allowing for an injunction blocking enforcement of the law.

“Even under the more lenient intermediate standard of scrutiny applicable to contentneutral burdens on speech, this application of the statute very likely flunks. The Illinois eavesdropping statute restricts far more speech than necessary to protect legitimate privacy interests; as applied to the facts alleged here, it likely violates the First Amendment’s free speech and free-press guarantees,” said the appellate court in the ruling.

But the Cook County State’s Attorney wanted the Supreme Court to review that decision. Today, the Supreme Court has officially denied that request.

Here’s the statement from the ACLU, who clearly believes that a rebuke of the Illinois law could have far-reaching effects for similar laws throughout the United States:

We are pleased that the Supreme Court has refused to take this appeal. Now, we can focus on the on-going proceedings in the federal district court. We now hope to obtain a permanent injunction in this case, so that the ACLU’s program of monitoring police activity in public can move forward in the future without any threat of prosecution. The ACLU of Illinois continues to believe that in order to make the rights of free expression and petition effective, individuals and organizations must be able to freely gather and record information about the conduct of government and their agents – especially the police. The advent and widespread accessibility of new technologies make the recording and dissemination of pictures and sound inexpensive, efficient and easy to accomplish.

While a final ruling in this case will only address the work of the ACLU of Illinois to monitor police activity, we believe that it will have a ripple effect throughout the entire state. We are hopeful that we are moving closer to a day when no one in Illinois will risk prosecution when they audio record public officials performing their duties. Empowering individuals and organizations in this fashion will ensure additional transparency and oversight of public officials across the State.

The Illinois law, while on the books, had been notoriously hard to draw a conviction from. Back in 2011, a jury acquitted a woman who had been charged with recording Chicago police.

San Antonio school district Northside ISD is implementing new technology called “Smart” Student ID Cards. What’s so smart about them? Well, they contain RFID chips. And those RFID chips can transmit location information to the school administrators, meaning that they will know the exact whereabouts of every student, all the time.

I’m sure you’re sensing an impending controversy. One student and her father have been protesting the new program. ““It makes me uncomfortable. It’s an invasion of my privacy,” said Andrea Hernandez.

“With a smart phone you can use the option to use your locator, but this I can’t turn it off.”

She’s right. The RFID chip will be planted inside the student ID card, which students will be required to wear around their necks with a lanyard. The rules stipulate that students must wear the ID at all times while at school, and they are forced to pay a $15 fee for a replacement ID, if for any reason they “misplace” it.

In a letter from administrators at one of the participating schools, parents were told that they “expect school staff to always know where [thier] children are during the day,” and this new Smart ID helps with that.

“We want to assure you that the “smart” ID cards store no personal information, and the “smart” ID card does not work outside of the school,” said the letter.

“To ensure 100 percent implementation of the new student locator system, we are asking that you talk to your children and impress upon them the importance of this project. Please encourage your students to wear their “smart” IDs all day, every day at school, and discourage students from leaving, forgetting or exchanging tags.”

Are parents cooperating with the initiative? By and large, absolutely according to Northside ISD spokesperson Pascual Gonzalez. He told Fox News that most parents have been “supportive” of the program. Speaking of Mr. Hernandez:

“He is the lone protester. For us, this technology represents an efficient way to locate a student and to always know where our students are in our care.”

The two schools participating in the program, Jay High School and Jones Middle School, have a combined enrollment of around 4,200 students. It’s a little hard to believe that there would be only one protesting student/parent within that group.

“We have seen attemtps to use RFID’s in schools before and have opposed such efforts, not only because we don’t want to see this kind of intrusive surveillance infrastructure gain inroads into our culture, and because we should not be teaching our children to accept such an intrusive surveillance technology, but also because RFIDs are a generally insecure technology not appropriate for use with children,” says Jay Stanley, Senior Policy Analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union.

“[T]his story in Texas is a reminder that despite the technology’s lack of security, chipping identity documents and using RFID’s to track people remains an attractive idea to those in authority. And of course, many technologies of control are imposed on prisoners, immigrants and children before anyone else.”

What do you think? Smart plan to keep kids safe and in class? Or terribly invasion of privacy?

According to the court documents, Staley claims that on July 20th, he saw a Metropolitan Police Department cruiser hit a man on a motorbike. As the man lay on the ground, the officers reportedly starting punching the injured biker. Soon after, our two defendants, officer James O’Bannon and officer Kenneth Dean, arrived in plain clothes, announced that they were indeed MPD, and began “aggressively demanding the bystanders leave the scene, including making physical contact.”

Thinking this was improper, Staley took out his phone and snapped a picture of Dean. Shortly after, O’Bannon approached Staley and grabbed the phone out of his hands.

Staley was told that he was breaking the law by taking the photograph and threatened arrest if he didn’t “chill out.” Staley was told that he could pick up his phone at the station later in the day.

But when he did, he found that his memory card was missing. Staley claims that the card stored irreplaceable information, such as pictures of his daughter and other family from 2008 onward.

“That memory card had a lot of my life on it,” said Mr. Staley. “I can never replace those photos of my daughter’s first years. The police had no right to steal it. They’re supposed to enforce the law, not break it.”

The ACLU has stepped in, and here’s what they have to say:

Mr. Staley’s activities on July 20, 2012, did not interfere in any way with police operations. No reasonable police officer in the position of defendant O’Bannon could have believed that he had a lawful basis to seize Mr. Staley’s phone or to threaten to arrest him.

The ACLU is suing on grounds that the officers violated Staley’s First Amendment and Fourth Amendement rights, dealing with freedom of expression and illegal search and seizure.

First, on the First Amendement front:

Defendants’ actions, described above, violated Mr. Staley’s right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution by preventing him from taking additional photographs of police activity, by intimidating him from asserting his right to recover his camera and criticize the police, and by destroying the photograph he had taken of Officer 2, as well as many other valuable photographs and expressive material,

And in terms of the Fourth Amendment:

Mr. Staley’s conduct on July 20, 2012, did not provide probable cause or reasonable suspicion to believe that he had committed, was committing, or was about to commit any crime, and did not provide defendant O’Bannon with any lawful basis on which to seize Mr. Staley’s phone or to search, destroy or dispose of Mr. Staley’s memory card. Defendant O’Bannon’s actions in seizing Mr. Staley’s phone and searching, destroying or disposing of Mr. Staley’s memory card violated Mr. Staley’s right under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to be free from unreasonable search and seizure.

The ACLU is seeking the return of Staley’s memory card, compensatory damages, and an order to D.C. Police to train all officers in the First and Fourth Amendment implications of photographing police procedures.

Strangely enough, the events in question took place just one day after the MPD issued a general order concerning the rights of the public to record police business.

“The Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) recognizes that members of the general public have a First Amendment right to video record, photograph, and/or audio record MPD members while MPD members are conducting official business or while acting in an official capacity in any public space, unless such recordings interfere with police activity,” it states.

It also says that officers “shall not…[i]n any way threaten, intimidate or otherwise discourage an individual from recording members’ enforcement activities” and calls for supervisors to be present before any device is seized.

“When a police officer sees a camera he should smile,” said Arthur B. Spitzer, Legal Director of the ACLU of the Nation’s Capital and the attorney representing Mr. Staley. “Officers must learn that people have a right to photograph them in public places, and that trying to cover up police misconduct is worse than the initial misconduct. The officer’s actions here will have consequences.”

It’s not surprising that some police would have the desire to crack down on citizens photographing or videotaping their activities. The rise of YouTube and social media has meant that actions that were once secret are seen by millions of people within a matter of minutes. American law enforcement has bad apples, there’s no getting around that.

Of course, it’s unfair and just plain wrong to suggest that a majority of police officers around the country are participating in illegal seizures and intimidation surrounding cellphone recording. But orders like the one issued by the D.C. MPD are there to protect citizen’s rights. The ACLU has made cases of illegal search and seizure one of their most important issues, and as more and more citizens gain access to tools like smartphones and wireless internet, it should be shocking if more lawsuits like this one appear on dockets around the country.

[via Wired]

[Image Courtesy vpickering, Flickr]

Well, the decision is being appealed, and now Facebook and the American Civil Liberties Union have come to the aid of the man. Facebook said in a friend-of-the-court brief, “When a Facebook User Likes a Page on Facebook, she engages in speech protected by the First Amendment.”

The ACLU says in its own brief:

With “one click of a button,” an Internet user can upload or view a video, donate money to a campaign, forward an email, sign a petition, send a pre-written letter to a politician, or do a myriad of other indisputably expressive activities. The ease of these actions does not negate their expressive nature. Indeed, under the district court’s reasoning, affixing a bumper sticker to your car, pinning a campaign pin to your shirt, or placing a sign on your lawn would be devoid of meaning absent further information, and therefore not entitled to constitutional protection because of the minimal effort these actions require. All of these acts are, of course, constitutionally protected…

That many people today choose to convey what they like or which political candidates they support by “Liking” a Web page rather than by writing the actual words, “I like this Web page” or “I like this candidate,” is immaterial. Whether someone presses a “Like” button to express those thoughts or presses the buttons on a keyboard to write out those words, the end result is the same: one is telling the world about one’s personal beliefs, interests, and opinions. That is exactly what the First Amendment protects, however that information is conveyed.

ACLU staff attorney Aden Fine said, “Facebook should be applauded for filing this brief to support the free speech rights of its users. The Supreme Court has made clear that the First Amendment protects everyone’s right to express their thoughts and opinions in whatever form they choose to do so. Facebook has become a means of communication for tens of millions of Americans, and if basic activity on Facebook such as “liking” were denied First Amendment protection, the free expression of ideas that the First Amendment is meant to safeguard would be severely limited.”

It will be interesting to see where the appeals court lands on the issue. It could have huge ramifications for how people engage on social networks.

The Internet Defense League is the latest group to fight for civil liberties online. They’re not as well-established as the ACLU or EFF, but their latest idea might just put them on the map. They are going to help celebrate the launch of The Dark Knight Rises by shining a “cat signal” via massive spotlights in cities around the world.

The IDL will begin shining the lights across the sky or onto buildings starting Thursday night. They currently have five cities set up to get the cat signal, but they need your help to make it a reality. They are currently holding a Kickstarter-like fundraiser on their Web site with a goal of $19,000. They are currently at $12,852 which is enough to completely fund two cat signals and prepare three more cities for the signal once they get the funds.

So what kind of goodies do you get if you donate to this wonderful project? A donation of $30 gets you a personal cat signal torch light. If you want to get your own large cat signal, you’re going to have to donate at least $350. That amount nets you an industrial-strength digital projector for one night which can project the cat signal onto buildings or low-flying clouds.

What if you want to go all out though? For $2,000, they will get you a “ridiculously powerful” spotlight to shine the cat signal wherever you want. There are only eight of these things in the United States so the money is well worth it.

If you want to take part in the cat signal Batman party on Thursday night, these are the currently confirmed cities – San Francisco, New York, Washington DC, London and Ulaar Bataar, Mongolia.

All in all, it’s a great idea that has the Batman fan in me pretty excited. I would have loved to see the real Bat signal in the sky, but a cat signal is definitely more in line with what the Internet is about. Let’s just hope the signal doesn’t attract the real Catman.

“This app provides an essential tool for police accountability,” said Deborah Jacobs, ACLU-NJ executive director. “Too often incidents of serious misconduct go unreported because citizens don’t feel that they will be believed. Here, the technology empowers citizens to place a check on police power directly.”

The Police Tape app disappears from the screen as soon as it begins recording either video or audio, making it difficult to determine that any type of recording is taking place. In addition, judging by the comments left in the Google Play store, the app makes it difficult to find and delete its recordings from the device it is used on. Users can also set the app to upload recordings to the ACLU-NJ for backup and “analysis of possible civil liberties violations.” The Know Your Rights section of the app gives some brief tips on what citizen rights are when interacting with police in various settings, such as a car or on the street.

If the ACLU-NJ is sincere about checking all of the files uploaded, I suspect that they will discover, the way Apple has, that people enjoy sending pictures of genitalia in for review. That might be especially true given the ACLU’s reputation in some parts of the U.S., not to mention the bold confrontation and questioning of authority that the Police Tape app represents.

The Police Tape app is now available for free through the Google Play store. An iOS version of the app is awaiting Apple’s approval and is expected by the ACLU-NJ to be available later this summer.

Take a look at the video the ACLU-NJ has created to demonstrate the functionality of the app below: