7-29-15 National:
Without access to the internet, convicts released from their prison sentence find it hard to integrate themselves back to a community that continued to exist without them. Their participation in the civilian community is put in jeopardy because they are made so unaware of changes in the world.
Deprived of the online world, these prisoners are held back to relatively older methods of communication, like snail mail. Out of all the states, only four allow some form of limited internet access, a striking statistic. A large number of people argue that internet access counts as a basic human necessity, much like food and water, and the denial of it is a rejection of human rights.
This argument was only made stronger when a certain prisoner named Michael Santos, who finished his 25 year prison sentence three years ago, said that individuals from the outside should have access to firsthand account of life inside prison itself. Without access to the internet, prisoners are completely shunned from the “outside world”, denying them even merely an exposure to it online. Not only does this disrupt chances for proper rehabilitation when they are released, it also silences them in any worldwide conversation that they should be part of.
Denying their voice allows the world to forget they exist. As Santos recounts his experiences in prison life, he tells of a band of prison guards who brutally abuse prisoners. Although he and many other inmates witnessed these direct denials of human rights, the issue remains under-reported. Abuse of power by prison guards themselves involves 2.2 million incarcerated persons, and even half of sexual abuse claims in these American prisons were placed against the prison guards.
It is interesting to see how the pattern of removal of access to modern technology is an act intended to abuse by dictatorship. Without the internet, the voice given by social media is disrupted, leaving no connection for countless opinions to be shared.
It is, however, a point to be discussed whether prisoners should be given the same capacity to report abuse cases as the civilian population. Although this remains a ground for debate, it is important to notice how prisoners who illegally get access to internet use this voice. As Tech Behind Bars went over hundreds of social media accounts owned by prisoners through prohibited possession of cellphones, it was found that their online activity is simply meant to reflect prison life or the prisoner themselves. Still, these cellphone bans are followed to reduce risk of sex offenders and gang activity.
Ultimately, although incarcerated, prisoners are still offered a freedom of speech. Whether the internet is a fundamental human right is a tricky ground to stand on at the moment, but the fact remains clear. Denying prisoners to even a censored version of current affairs negates their ability to survive in a world that has continued without them and disallows them to cope with life in imprisonment.
The “revolving door” aspect, where prisoners find themselves back in prison within three years after their release, is only being strengthened because of their lack of education and skills. Without the ability to handle computers and the proper understanding of the internet, they are left unemployed and more likely to find themselves back in prison. We must understand that the right to the use of the internet allows them to learn and grow. This continuing degradation of prisoners is a crisis that must be faced because it does not only hurt them, but the entire society as a whole. ..Source.. by An experienced criminal defense attorney Kenneth Padowitz, P.A.
Showing posts with label Amendment - 1St. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Amendment - 1St. Show all posts
July 29, 2015
Is There a Need for Internet Access in Prisons?
September 29, 2014
Easton settles Boobies costs for $385,000
For background and earlier articles see HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE9-29-2014 Pennsylvania:
Easton Area School District has agreed to pay $385,000 to attorneys who successfully challenged the district's policy banning breast cancer awareness bracelets with the slogan "I ♥ Boobies!"
The settlement with the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania ends nearly four years of legal action on behalf of two former middle-school students who challenged the policy after being threatened with discipline in October 2010 for wearing the popular rubber wrist bands.
Brianna Hawk and Kayla Martinez argued that the ban violated their First Amendment rights to free speech and sued the district in federal court in Philadelphia. U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin ruled in favor of the girls, and the school district appealed, saying it should have the power to regulate lewd or vulgar messages in school.
After hearing arguments in the case twice, the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals found in a 9-5 opinion that the breast cancer awareness message, "I ♥ Boobies! Keep A Breast" is protected by the First Amendment, notwithstanding its potential to offend, because it is a social or political statement.
Encouraged by the dissenting opinion that the decision "entirely eviscerates the school district's authority," Easton officials asked the U.S. Supreme Court to consider the case. The high court announced in March it would not take the appeal.
Under the federal Civil Rights Act, anyone who wins a lawsuit challenging a violation of a civil right such as freedom of expression can ask a judge to award attorney fees and court costs.
ACLU attorney Mary Catherine Roper said Monday her organization and the school district reached an agreement on attorney fees and costs through negotiations, rather than continuing to litigate over what rate and how many hours were appropriate to determine the attorney fees.
Roper said Hawk and Martinez did not seek money in their lawsuit, and that the fees paid by the school district under the settlement agreement will compensate the ACLU for its work on the case.
According to Roper, the district must pay the fees in three installments: $150,000 in a lump sum, to be made within 30 days; $100,000 on Jan. 1; and $135,000 on July 1.
Easton schools solicitor John Freund said the settlement amount is a substantial reduction from the $499,000 the ACLU initially demanded. The entire $385,000 payment to the ACLU will be funded by taxpayers, Freund said. The school district's own legal fees totaled $110,000, and insurance covered 90 percent of that cost, he said.
The fees Easton Area School District will pay in the "Boobies" case are more substantial than in other recent Pennsylvania student-speech cases.
Pocono Mountain School District in 2013 paid $90,000 to lawyers after the 3rd Circuit ruled a fifth-grade girl's First Amendment rights were violated when school officials refused to let her hand out invitations to a church Christmas party.
A federal court in Scranton awarded $246,048 in fees and $29,403 in costs to the ACLU after the 3rd Circuit ruled in 2010 that Blue Mountain School District officials violated an eighth-grade girl's rights by suspending her after she lampooned her principal on a Myspace page she created. ..Source.. by Peter Hall
October 10, 2013
Third Circuit finds middle schoolers’ “I ♥ boobies” bracelets protected by First Amendment.
The title of this post was inspired by this Legal Intelligencer article highlighting a recent Third Circuit decision in which the court found that a school could not ban “I ♥ boobies” bracelets because they are not "plainly lewd." The Intelligencer reports:
In the case of B.H., the issue before the Third Circuit court was whether Fraser would apply to the Easton Area Middle School principal’s decision to ban purported breast cancer awareness bracelets containing the phrase “I ♥ boobies! (Keep A Breast).” Around mid-September 2010, following incidents of boys taking the “I ♥ boobies” bracelets as an entrée to discuss girls’ breasts, Easton Area Middle School principals instructed teachers that the “I ♥ boobies” bracelets violated the school district dress code, and thus must be banned.
In October 2010, the Easton Area School District celebrated a district-wide Breast Cancer Awareness Day. On that day, middle school students R.T., B.H. and K.M., in deliberate defiance of the ban, wore the “I ♥ boobies” bracelets to school. When the assistant principal asked the girls whether there was any other way they could show their support for breast cancer awareness, B.H. and K.M. refused to remove the bracelets. R.T., however, agreed to remove her bracelet and admitted that middle school boys used the bracelets as an entrée for sexual harassment.
For their defiance of the ban, B.H. and K.M. received in-school suspension and were barred from the school’s “Snowball Dance.” Their mothers filed suit against the school district. ..Continued.. by Civil Rights Law and Policy Blog
February 20, 2011
Judge hears 'I ♥ Boobies!' arguments
I think the real problem here is not free speech, it is, who on the school district only views things with a dirty intent; they need to change their stinking thinking. The school should get behind the girls and promote it in a way that misconstructions will not occur.2-20-2011 Pennsylvania:
Easton students say ban on breast cancer awareness bracelets violates rights.
PHILADELPHIA — An attorney for two Easton Area Middle School girls threatened with discipline last fall for wearing rubber bracelets with the slogan "I ♥ Boobies!" to promote breast cancer awareness argued the message wasn't intended to be sexual and didn't warrant the school's ban on the bands.
School district solicitor John Freund told U.S. District Judge Mary A. McLaughlin that the girls' intent didn't matter; it is the community's perception and context of the message that matters. He said testimony from administrators in the district's seventh- and eighth-grade middle school building clearly shows other students saw a sexual double entendre in the bracelets' message.
Brianna Hawk, 13, and Kayla Martinez, 12, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania, sued the district after being threatened with suspension for refusing to remove the bracelets. They argue the district's ban violates their First Amendment right to free speech.
Martinez and her family attended Friday's hearing.
ACLU attorney Mary Catherine Roper said the girls still face a threat of discipline if they lose their request for a preliminary injunction to lift the district's ban on the bracelets and could be barred from attending a school dance this year. Roper said she expects McLaughlin to make a decision in the case in several weeks.
In a 11/2-hour hearing, Roper and Freund delved into decades' worth of U.S. Supreme Court and circuit court decisions on student free speech and the right of school administrators to restrict it in the interest of maintaining order in the classroom.
Roper argued that the school district failed to show the ban on the "I ♥ Boobies!" bracelets was necessary and justifiable by establishing they had caused a disruption.
The principal of Easton Area Middle School testified in December that she banned the bracelets as a precaution. The district claims the bracelets led to inappropriate comments and touching, but testimony at the December hearing did not clearly link those incidents to the bracelets.
"A couple of remarks by boys about girls' boobies does not constitute a substantial and material disruption. That's a Tuesday," Roper said, adding that it was neither out of the ordinary in a middle school setting nor beyond the ability of administrators to handle with normal discipline.
Roper also argued that the district's testimony did not justify exceptions to the rule that a restriction on students' expression must serve a purpose other than suppressing a particular point of view. She pointed to the Supreme Court's 2007 decision in the so-called "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case.
Justice Samuel Alito found an Alaska high school principal was justified in disciplining a student who displayed a banner with the message "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" during the 2002 Olympic torch relay because the message could reasonably be read as promoting illegal drug use.
Roper said that while people, middle school boys in particular, could sexualize the message "I ♥ Boobies!," Hawk's and Martinez's testimony and behavior indicate they see the bracelets exclusively as a way to communicate a message about breast cancer awareness to their peers.
Freund argued that the Supreme Court has repeatedly found messages with a sexual or vulgar double entendre are inappropriate in a school setting and "I Boobies!" fits that description. He noted that some courts have allowed schools to ban clothing with a vulgar double entendre even when one meaning promotes a good cause.
He pointed to a Massachusetts case in which a school banned a T-shirt with the slogan "See Dick Drink. See Dick Drive. See Dick Die. Don't be a Dick." In that case, a federal judge found the school board and its administrators acted reasonably on behalf of the community they represent
Freund added that the Keep-a-Breast Foundation, which distributes the "I Boobies!" bracelets, admitted they appeal to a prurient interest, saying the foundation had received interest in the product from truck stops, vending machine operators and even a porn star. Freund said the Easton case had also been the subject of an article in Playboy magazine.
"It's not the word boobies that's the problem," Freund said. "It's the entire sentence that is not appropriate in a school environment." ..Source.. by Peter Hall, OF THE MORNING CALL
December 29, 2010
The "I ♥ Boobies!" Bracelets Controversy Goes to Court: Why the Students Are Right and the Schools Are Wrong
Cancer is a cause I will always support especially here, where supporting the cause is considered a bad thing to teach school folks.12-29-2010 National:
This Fall and Winter, an unusual First Amendment conflict has been playing itself out in public schools across the country -- from California, to Minnesota, to Montana, to Pennsylvania, to Utah. On one side are students who are wearing bracelets proclaiming "I (Heart) Boobies!" On the other side are school administrators who claim the bracelets' message is vulgar, disruptive, or both, and want to ban the bracelets.
In court in Philadelphia, earlier this month, testimony was heard in a First Amendment case involving the bracelets, which is being litigated on behalf of the affected students by the ACLU.
In this column, I'll explain the context surrounding the bracelets, and cover some key Supreme Court precedents that may come into play in the Philadelphia ACLU lawsuit and in any other lawsuits that the controversy over the bracelets may spawn.
If the schools do win in the end, then the interests of students like Aryn Clark -- who wears her bracelet to honor her cousin and aunt, who are both breast cancer survivors -- will wrongfully lose out. The fact that some students may be using the bracelets to send a lewd message is no excuse for a school district's drowning out the voices of students who, like Clark, are speaking sincerely.
Moreover, and more fundamentally, no matter what messages particular students mean to convey by wearing the bracelets, it is difficult to believe that mere bracelets can cause enough disruption at a given school to truly justify a ban.
The Nature of the Foundation Distributing the Bracelets, and the Bracelets' Various Purposes
The bracelets at issue are sold by the Keep a Breast Foundation, which explains on its website that its "mission is to help eradicate breast cancer by exposing young people to methods of prevention, early detection, and support," and to "increase breast cancer awareness among young people."
The site notes that there is a popular misconception that breast cancer is only a concern for those over 40. It points out that, in fact, breast cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths for women under 40 as well, and can even affect girls.
In addition, the site explains that the purpose of its "I (Heart) Boobies!" campaign is to "speak to young people in their own voice about a subject that is often scary and taboo." In addition to offering the bracelets, the foundation also distributes breast self-exam cards, and it is developing a kit for teachers who are interested in educating their students about breast cancer.
Thus, the bracelets -- if worn for their original purpose, to raise awareness of a fatal disease about which there are common misconceptions -- should not have been disruptive in the least, and should not have troubled any school official at all.
The question for the courts, then, is whether some students now mean something else when they wear the bracelets -- and if so, how that possible alternative meaning should figure into a court case.
The question becomes complicated if some students (like Aryn Clark) wear the bracelets for the original, uncontroversial purpose of awareness-raising or honoring survivors, and others wear them simply to be edgy, trendy, funny, lewd or rude. ..For the rest of the story.. by JULIE HILDEN, Findlaw.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
