Apparently Motley Crue is accusing NBC of violating its free-speech rights with a ban the TV network imposed for Vince Neil's expletive on "The Tonight Show."

A suit filed Tuesday in federal court in Los Angeles accuses NBC of censoring the heavy metal band and harming sales of Motley Crue's new double album, "Red, White & Crue."
NBC Universal Television Group President Jeffrey Zucker barred the band after Neil used an expletive in his New Year's Eve greeting to drummer Tommy Lee on "The Tonight Show."

We meant no harm, but it feels that we're being singled out unfairly...This is a discrimination issue, pure and simple. All we've ever asked is to be treated like everybody else, which is why we're taking this action.

Thus spake Motley Crue bassist Nikki Sixx to the New York Times.

In a statement, NBC said the suit is "meritless" and it has the right to not invite guests back who violate broadcast standards.

Nikki Sixx may be right regarding the discrimination -- a right NBC retains. But NBC is right too. And although NBC's cable property MSNBC carries the Don Imus show, whose hosts repeatedly refers to "faggots;" "juiced-up dykes" and "ragheads" is showcasing their hypocrisy in this ban, there are no First Amendment violations here. Good publicity stunt though.

Despite dire warnings and insidious attempts by religious groups to penetrate schools, according to findings released this week from a survey commissioned by the Bible Literacy Project, most students in public schools don't know much about the Bible - and many teachers are hesitant to teach it.

Charles Haynes, a First Amendment Center Senior Scholar comments:

More than once, the Court has made clear that public schools may
teach students about the Bible as long as such teaching is presented
objectively as part of an academic program. And over the years, leading
educational and religious groups have developed consensus guidelines on how to teach about religion, including the Bible, in ways that are constitutionally and educationally sound. (These guides are linked at the bottom of this article.)

The best approach is the one taken by the Bible Literacy Project: Focus on the Bible as a literary text. But taking the literature approach shouldn't mean ignoring the religious implications of the Bible. The Bible is not only literature - for millions of Jews and Christians it is sacred scripture. So "Bible Literature" courses should also include discussion of how various religious traditions understand the text.

Read the full article.

A federal jury in a civil trial on Thursday ruled that Ashland Mayor Fred Schnook caused the removal of campaign signs from city property during a festival last year. But contrary to a Friday Duluth News Tribune story, the jury determined his actions in that instance did not deprive candidate Barb Linton of her First Amendment rights, according to a copy of the jury verdict.

In a second part to the verdict, however, the jury agreed with Linton. It said Schnook deprived her and her campaign treasurer of their First Amendment rights by stopping them from handing out political literature during Ashland's Bay Days last July.

See full article, Jury delivers mixed verdict in Ashland First Amendment case.

A federal judge, May 12, struck down Nebraska's constitutional marriage amendment. U.S. District Judge Joseph Bataillon ruled that the Nebraska amendment -- Section 29 in the state Constitution -- violates the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment right to petition the government and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process and equal protection clauses.

The court finds that Section 29 is directed at gay, lesbian, bisexual and transsexual people and is intended to prohibit their political ability to effectuate changes opposed by the majority.

Naturally religious groups will use this as an opportunity to push for a constitutional amendment to define marriage, forgetting that any First Amendment victory protecting a minority is in their interests, not against them.

A federal appeals court said on May 10 that Vice President Dick Cheney did not have to divulge details about how the White House's secret energy policies were shaped, ruling in a case that touched on the constitutional separation of powers. New York Times' David Stout reports:

The 8-to-0 decision, handed down months after the lawsuit became an issue in the 2004 election, was a victory for the executive branch in general and the Bush administration in particular.

The ruling, by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, upheld the administration argument that it was not obligated to disclose whom it consulted on energy matters early in President Bush's first term and what was said.

The decision could be the last word in a case that reached the Supreme Court last spring, only to be sent back to the lower courts. And it comes as Congress is weighing energy legislation that Mr. Bush says will combine efficiency with environmental protection, and that his critics say is a gift to the energy industry.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, and the ability of people to access the machinery of democracy are what make America great. That the people we elect to serve us are not accountable to us is a depressing, huge and ugly blow to America's democracy.

What’s a pregnant gal to do?

In a disgraceful bow to political correctness and chilling slap across the face of free speech, the 11-member San Francisco Board of Supervisors today passed a unanimous resolution condemning “discriminatory comments,” and reaffirming its “commitment to eradicating discrimination and intolerance in all its forms pursuant to the policy of City and County of San Francisco.”

The resolution sponsored by President Aaron Peskin resulted from an April 4 Building Inspection Commission hearing in which Joe O'Donoghue, the head of the Residential Builders Association questioned whether Amy Lee, acting director of the Department of Building Inspection, was fit to run a department.

He also referred to Peskin as “an angry dwarf.” The resolution also included reference to a poem in which O'Donoghue questioned the sexual orientation of San Francisco’s mayor, Gavin Newsom.

While a resolution condemning certain speech doesn’t really accomplish anything in terms of punishment or consequence (yet), the peculiar resolution includes the love poem from O’Dongahue to Newsom and singles out individuals.

Dear Gavin, this ditty as sent to you
is out of a love that is deep and true ..
Rumors about you they rise and swell,
better you show if too shy to tell ..
The question now on everyone's lips,
From what the glass you amorously sip?
Are you or are you are you not,
And if so, for whom are you hot? ..
You like a batter who hides a bunt
Different behind from what's up front,
To every group you have sex appeal.
Toward whom now do your favors weal? ..
Spun you a folklore around your acts,
Please separate now the fiction from facts

What exactly does “discriminatory” speech entail? Peskin told the San Francisco Chronicle that “discrimination and harassment on the basis of race, religion, color, ancestry, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, weight, height or place of birth will not be tolerated in San Francisco city government."

While the resolution somehow frames O'Donoghue’s comments regarding Lee’s pregnancy within the context of the weight and misogyny provisions presumably, it is evident that his comments pertain more to potential morning sickness clouding judgment, calling her “pregnant brain”. Whether morning sickness is presumed to be a disability remains unclear by the resolution.

Michael Petrelis, a long-time activist who has had his own run-ins with the Board of Supervisors was not surprised but not pleased either. “This is protected speech. It’s not making threats on people. For the Supervisors to go to these great lengths and to single him [O'Donoghue] out in the resolution is sending a very chilling message,” said Petrelis in a phone conversation with me. “We’re going down a dangerous road. I’m concerned that this shit is going down in SF of all cities.”

Gavin Newsom’s communications chief, Peter Ragone, agreed that a balance between free speech and the condemnation of certain speech needed to be achieved, although admitted that the Mayor had not studied the specifics of the resolution itself. “We’ve made it clear that the Mayor condemns sexist and homophobic remarks,” he told me and advised me to look at the video on the web, which he thought I would find “entertaining.” (Boring perhaps, if I could find the correct one on the SFG indexed site...the April 4th video seems to have been removed. Others may have more time or luck!)

The Assembly Arts and Entertainment Committee will today review AB 450 -- a bill by Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, that would restrict minors' access to certain "ultra'' violent video games.

The bill would "prohibit the sale, rent, distribution, and exhibition of violent video games, as defined, to persons who are 16 years of age or younger. The bill would provide that a person who violates the act may be liable in an amount of up to $1,000 for each violation."

Among the definitions of "violent" (italics mine):

• A reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors.
  
• It is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors. (okay in Compton, not Beverly Hills?)
  
• Taken as a whole, the game lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. (like the legislative session hearing this )
  
• Violent video game" means a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being. (How about dealing with REAL killing, maiming etc.)
  
• Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon images of human beings or characters with substantially human characteristics in a manner which is especially heinous, cruel, or depraved in that it involves torture or serious physical abuse to the victim. (There goes the GI Joe Goes To Abu Ghraib doll set)
  

As John Hrabe points out in an editorial in the San Jose Mercury news, "Yee's bill represents the scariest approach to unwanted expression. AB 450 not only violates the First Amendment, but also dangerously conflates violence with obscenity."

One would think Mr. Yee has far more pressing issues to contend with than banning "ultra violence," although one wonders why he feels kids can have free access to the Bible if Mel Gibson's Passion of the Christ is anything to go by.

Feel free to give Leland Yee a call, and let him know how you feel about people who behave violently toward the First Amendment.

Capitol Office
Phone: (916) 319-2012
Fax: (916) 319-2112

District Office
Phone: (415) 557-2312
Fax: (415) 557-1178

Email: Assemblymember.Yee@assembly.ca.gov

Trial Delayed in Firefighter's First Amendment Suit
A federal judge has delayed the civil trial for a former Bar Nunn volunteer firefighter who claims the town violated his free speech rights.

Hawaii's Teachers May Call on First Amendment Rights in Rejecting Increased Dues
Teachers in Hawaii object to the forced payment of approximately $600 per year in union dues to support a "political and radical agenda" that goes beyond the simple act of collective bargaining. Some view this as a violation of their First Amendment Rights.

Politicians love nothing more than blaming content, be it games, movies, music etc. The latest politican to play fast and loose with the First Amendment is Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm, who says the need to ban Grand Theft Auto's latest version, San Andreas is a "no-brainer." Perhaps instead of playing video games, Ms. Granholm would be better off reading books on parenting. Isn't that a more appropriate solution.