by TChris

The 2004 Jefferson Muzzle awards, handed out to those who suppressed free speech during the past year, go to:

• CBS, for caving in to conservative pressure by deciding not to air a miniseries on Ronald Reagan that was, to the right wing, insufficiently reverential, and for refusing to run a Moveon.org ad during the Superbowl that was critical of the President;

• Baseball Hall of Fame President Dale Petroskey, for canceling a showing of "Bull Durham" because its stars, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins, oppose the war in Iraq;

• U.S. District Judge Miriam G. Cedarbaum, for barring reporters from jury selection in the Martha Stewart trial; and

• The Secret Service, for "investigating whether Pulitzer Prize-winning cartoonist Michael Ramirez of the Los Angeles Times could be charged with 'threatening the life' of President Bush for a cartoon depicting a man pointing a gun at Bush."

The awards are presented by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. Among last year's winners: John Ashcroft.

If you think that the prescription drugs you take are a personal, private matter between you and your doctor and maybe your insurance company, and you live in Florida, you might want to move because Jeb Bush has a different idea:

A proposal Gov. Jeb Bush is championing to create a massive electronic tracking system of who is prescribing and who is using prescription drugs is in trouble in the Florida Legislature. With three weeks left in the 2004 lawmaking session, Bush is doing high-pressure lobbying to persuade leaders of his own party about the merits of the database. It could allow doctors, designated medical assistants and pharmacists to look up online the pharmacy records of patients over the age of 17 to ensure they haven't been shopping for multiple prescriptions.

Every pharmacy record for certain classes of potentially addictive drugs, such as anxiety-fighting Xanax, mood-changing Valium and painkilling OxyContin, would be monitored.

by TChris

As TalkLeft reported yesterday, U.S. Marshals guarding Justice Scalia confronted journalists who were recording his speeches to school audiences on Wednesday. Accounts of those confontations are conflicting.

Journalists report that, at a speech Justice Scalia gave to high school students in Hattiesburg, Deputy U.S. Marshal Melanie Rube demanded that they erase their recordings.

After Associated Press reporter Denise Grones balked, the marshal took her digital recorder and erased its contents -- after Grones explained how the machine worked. The marshal also asked Hattiesburg American reporter Antoinette Konz to hand over a cassette tape and returned it, erased, after the event.

Rube won't comment, but Nehemiah Flowers, the United States marshal in Jackson, Miss., said "that Deputy Rube ... asked politely if they would erase the tape." Flowers denied that the request was "coercive." Seizing the recorder and erasing the tape despite a reporter's objection seems coercive, notwithstanding Flowers' spin.

But did Rube act on her own, or at the direction of Justice Scalia? According to Flowers, Rube was "following the court's orders." But David Turner, a spokesman for the U.S. Marshals Service, said "Justice Scalia did not instruct the deputy to take that action." Seems the Marshals are having a problem getting on the same page.

The Marshals may also have a problem explaining how their interference with a free press is justified.

"The seizure and destruction of a reporter's tape recordings is remarkable, and I think it would be difficult to find any law that would justify it," said Luther T. Munford, a First Amendment expert at Phelps Dunbar, a law firm in Jackson.

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press protested the seizure yesterday in a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft. The letter noted that the deputy's action appeared to violate a 1980 federal law prohibiting most seizures of journalists' resource materials.

New York is one of the places where a push is on to give legal immigrants who aren't citizens the right to vote.

Supporters say it is not an outlandish proposition. They point out that even without citizenship, legal immigrants pay taxes, send their children to public schools and serve in the military. Noncitizens in many states were allowed to vote in local, state and even Congressional elections as recently as the 1920's.

In the last decade, five towns in Maryland have allowed noncitizens, even illegal immigrants, to vote in local elections. Campaigns for immigrant voting rights are under way in several cities, including Hartford; Cambridge, Mass.; and Washington.

New York has one million legal immigrants who are not citizens. If they got to vote, they would make up one-fifth of New York's voting population.

The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), part of the Department of Health and Human Services, is proposing a new rule that would allow federal agencies to use sweat, saliva and hair in federal drug testing programs that now only test urine. SAMHSA's new proposed federal drug testing guidelines re: hair, saliva and sweat testing are now available online here:

“These proposed rules will largely affect federal employees and job applicants in safety and security-related positions,” SAMHSA Administrator Charles Curie explained. “Hopefully, federal employees found to be using illegal drugs will seek treatment to allow them to attain a healthy life in the community. At the same time, we believe that drug testing provides a powerful deterrent to the destructive and dangerous conditions drug use creates.”

About 400,000 federal workers in testing designated positions – those who have security clearances, carry firearms, deal with public safety or national security, or are presidential appointees – are drug tested when they apply for jobs. Some are subject to random drug testing during their employment. Other federal employees are tested only if they are involved in a workplace accident or show signs of possible drug use.

In a stinging defeat for Colorado's Republican Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, the Colorado House will refuse to support her proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Colorado already has a law banning gay marriage, but the House wisely believes the Constitution should be left alone. According to Rep. Mark Lawson of Durango:

There are enough votes in the House, where Musgrave served for four years, to kill the resolution supporting the amendment....I'd like nothing more than to send a message to Congresswoman Musgrave that her own state doesn't support her effort," Larson said, pointing out that the state law already contains a ban on gay marriage.

The best line from Rep. Larson:

"The Constitution gives freedoms, it doesn't take them away."

And check out this letter to the Editor in the Rocky, via the RMPN:

Musgrave represents the small, vocal, right-wing, fundamentalist branch of Christianity. She hardly represents mainstream Christianity and doesn't represent anyone who knows that our Constitution is the basis for our rights in America and not the Bible. (Unfortunately, George W. Bush can't comprehend the principle of separation of church and state, either.)

Her personal bigotry, and that of her co-sponsors can be the only reason for her proposed amendment, as she has never given a coherent, logical explanation for it. Hopefully, the citizens of her district will replace her with a representative who will address the real issues facing Colorado and America such as jobs, the economy, health care, education, and getting us out of the mess in Iraq.

The ACLU is ready to sue the Government over its no-fly list. The class action lawsuit will involve 7 plaintiffs, among them, a minister, a college student, a member of the military. A press conference is scheduled for Tuesday.

He was 16 years old. He came to this country when he was 12 to escape a gang. He pleaded with the U.S. for asylum, saying he would be killed if returned to Guatamala. His request was denied, he was sent back. 17 days later he was shot and killed by the gang he tried to escape. World Wide Rant has more.

by TChris

An Amish Canadian who married an American citizen would like to live with his wife in the United States. His wife petitioned the government for his permanent residency, but there's a hitch: the Immigration and Naturalization Service told the couple they would have to submit their photographs to the government.

The man and his wife are Old Order Amish. They believe the Bible's prohibition of graven images applies to photographs, so they can't allow the INS to take their pictures. The INS response: no photos, no residency. The INS denied the petition. The man and his wife -- identifying themselves as John and Jane Doe -- are suing.

"Similar objections — and requests for religious exemptions — to photograph requirements routinely have been honored in the past. ... Jane Doe's petition would have been approved but for her refusal on religious grounds to submit a photograph of herself," the lawsuit alleges.

The suit asks the court to hold that the rule requiring photographs to be submitted with a residency petition is unconstitutional as applied to the Amish, and to allow John Doe to return to the United States as a permanent resident. A hearing on John Doe's removal is set for April 21, but his attorney is asking that the removal proceeding be stayed until his lawsuit is decided.

The Bush Administration has announced it will be adding 27 countries, some of which are our close allies, to the US-VISIT program that requires foreigners be fingerprinted upon entering the U.S.

The move affects citizens in 27 countries -- including Britain, Japan and Australia -- who had been allowed to travel within the United States without a visa for up to 90 days, according to the Homeland Security Department. Under changes in the US-VISIT program that will take effect by Sept. 30, they will be fingerprinted and photographed when they enter through any of 115 international airports and 14 seaports. There are no changes in unique rules covering visits by Canadians and Mexicans.

This will add 13 million visitors to the program, but the Administration says it won't cause a delay to travelers. What about the privacy intrusion? And the fact that other countries now are apt to demand Americans be fingerprinted when visiting within their borders, as Brazil has done.

The Government says that to date, 5 million visitors to the U.S. have been fingerprinted under the program, only 200 of whom have been stopped. The stops are due to the visitor having a prior criminal record or being suspected of visa violations or crime. This program strikes us as a colossal waste of money and law enforcement resources. It is bound to generate nothing but ill-will.

Update: Here's a resource page on the US-VISIT program.

by TChris

Billy Warsoldier, a Native American member of the Cahuilla tribe, doesn't want to cut his hair. Warsoldier's religious beliefs prevent him from getting a haircut until someone in his family dies. But Warsoldier is serving a 19 month sentence for drunk driving, and the California Department of Corrections has a policy that prohibits male inmates from having hair longer than three inches.

Since the policy applies only to men, it is difficult to believe that security needs justify the policy. The ACLU is helping Warsoldier challenge the policy as a violation of his right to freely exercise his religion. In the meantime, prison authorities are denying privileges to Warsoldier, including visits and vocational training, until he submits to a haircut.

by TChris

The Outlaws in Hartford, Connecticut didn't like the way the police behaved when executing a search warrant at their club's Christmas party. Some members of the motorcycle club are taking the Hartford police to court, claiming a civil rights violation.

Police were looking for a gun that they believed a member of the Outlaws possessed. They obtained a warrant to search the man's house and car, as well as the Outlaws' clubhouse. But the suit alleges that the police did more than search for the gun when they invaded the Christmas party.

According to the suit, state police officers forced people to the floor, handcuffed the revelers, searched for illegal guns, ripped open Christmas presents and photographed everyone before they left.

The Outlaws wonder whether such rude behavior would have occurred if police had executed the warrant at a Knights of Columbus party.

The suit argues that the police exceeded the scope of the warrant. Some of the members who were searched declined to join the lawsuit, saying they were "nervous that the police would seek them out afterward."