You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘free speech’ tag.
The court case began this morning involving Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski. Police issued a $75 citation in March for disorderly conduct after allegedly telling some neighbor kids playing in a tree to “stop playing in the tree like monkeys”. The complainant in the case, and the kids, are black and reported being “alarmed and disturbed” at the language used by Ms. Ramirez-Sliwinski; language alleged to be a racial epithet. Sliwinski and the neighbors have since reconciled the matter privately, but the citation is still being prosecuted by the Village.
Ramirez-Sliwinski has retained an attorney, Gabe Fuentes, from the Chicago law firm of Jenner & Block to represent her in the case. Fuentes informed judge Susan Clancy-Boles of his intent to file a Motion to Dismiss. The Judge set a May 28 due date for the Motion, and then the Village will have 30 days to respond.
A court date of July 23, 10am was set, and the judge will rule on the Motion at that time.
For more additional info and commentary, visit Woodstock Advocate: C’ville Monkey Case, Round 1.
Good morning, Carpentersville!
There is a Special joint meeting of the Village Board and the Planning & Zoning Commission tonight at 7pm in the Village Hall Board room. The purpose of the meeting is to conduct a Planning and Zoning Workshop.
It looks like today will be the nicest weather of the week, with temps expected to reach into the low 70s, and mostly sunny skies, until rain moves in tonight.
Since I mentioned the Courier-News not publishing various letters and speak-outs, I have been told of a dozen or more that have not been published.
Some of those same people have also said that the Daily Herald had not published some letters that were sent to them.
While the Courier-News and Daily Herald certainly do have the right to publish whatever they want in their respective papers, I believe people should know that they are not publishing the majority of items that don’t fit with their editorial agenda.
This information seems consistent with what has been observed in the last few months, since Trustee Humpfer was found guilty of domestic battery. After the conviction, I was copied on many emails from residents and others across the country. Only 1 was supportive of Paul Humpfer. (This was confirmed by at least one member of the Board.)
Since then, there have been numerous comments supportive of Paul Humpfer. However, they all come from the same small group of people. The Speak-outs likely come from those same people as well.
This is while the comments and letters of the rest of the community are ignored, inevitably serving to manipulate this situation to their advantage.
If any one else has called in a Speak-Out, or written a letter, that hasn’t been published, I would love to hear about it. Please either send me an email or leave a comment.
Related:
Supporters of Sigwalt and Co run an insignificant little website (mostly filled with full text copy and paste — usually a violation of copyright fair use — of news stories they like that appear in local newspapers from across the country). Every now and they, they post a little commentary or use it to publish police reports they get from their friends on the Board.
Two recent commentaries are really telling of both their lack of attention to detail, and their foolishness.
The first is just a post linking to a Daily Herald article questioning whether the “monkey business” with Linda Ramirez-Sliwinski was over. In that post they say “Ramirez-Sliwinski has said she was worried the children would fall out of the tree.” Below that statement are two pictures of actual monkeys sitting in trees.
Are we to assume that the pictures of the monkeys are meant to represent the two boys?! That seems pretty over-the-line to me! (I’m not sure, but I think those supporters are the same ones who are part of the Minutemen who have been categorized officially as a “hate group”).
Anyway, on to the next article/commentary.
“Richard” links to an article that appeared yesterday in the Janesville Gazette. He says that “Janesville WI, has exposed a blogger who has been critical of Janesville’s local Government stating they “just wanted to talk to him”.
But, the blogger — who writes on “Free Whitewater” — has not been “exposed”; nor was he writing about Janesville, WI. He continues to exercise his right to free and anonymous speech, critical of actions of city officials in Whitewater, WI.
Details are important, folks.
“Richard” goes on to make the recommendation that “[t]his is something Carpentersville can do.”
What? Waste more taxpayer money?
The main story reports that Whitewater police spent six months trying to determine the identity of the blogger … to no avail. And, it is admitted that he is speaking lawfully.
Anonymous political speech is protected by the First Amendment, and is at the heart of this country’s foundation.
“Richard” was critical of the 2-cent gas tax; but seems to have no problem with taxpayer dollars being spent to silence criticism that could more easily be quelled by members of the Board doing the right thing; doing what they were elected to do.
Just more of that same kind of garbage and threats to silence this blog so that Sigwalt and Co can go back to doing business behind closed doors, without accountability, or the input of all the People of Carpentersville.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society.
[Justice Stevens, providing the majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court, McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission.]
In the past few weeks, I have received numerous threats of lawsuits being filed in order to determine my off-line identity.
Why are they so bound and determined to discover my identity? For purposes of silencing criticism and potentially exacting retribution.
Some people don’t like bloggers who use pseudonyms (aliases) or those who blog anonymously (using no name at all). Regardless of what anyone thinks about anonymous or pseudonymous speech, it is protected by the First Amendment.
It has also played an important role in the history of our country. The Founding Fathers used pseudonyms for the publication of their revolutionary arguments, such as in The Federalist Papers. Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay wrote under the pseudonym, “Publius”.
In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Commission, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas offers several other examples of the role anonymous or pseudonymous speech has played in history to support the intent of the First Amendment protections of speech.
More commonly known, Samuel L. Clemens wrote under the pseudonym “Mark Twain”, challenging culture in a way that has gone well beyond his generation.
Recently, cases have been brought against anonymous bloggers and anonymous pamphleteers. In many of the cases, those who are being criticized or exposed go to great lengths to silence or discredit the source of the information. However, when those tactics fail — as those that are trying against this blog — they turn to threats of legal action, or to initiating legal action in an attempt to at least discover the identity of the person so that they may take more direct action — even when they know their case will not stand up in court.
My own experience on the receiving end of these tactics is one of the very reasons why I chose — and continue — to write under a pseudonym. What I write about is not popular with those who have had something of a stranglehold on Carpentersville for the past decade or longer. Being able to stay in power is not something that comes easily. So, if anything were to threaten that, it would likely not be taken lightly. This is the motive that compels me to write under a pseudonym.
So, will the law allow discovery of a blogger’s identity through the mere filing of a lawsuit? The short answer is no.
In the case of public figures — which those who Carpentersville Action Network addresses are — the bar for a defamation suit is high. Recent cases such as Doe v Cahill have set forth that a summary judgment standard, not a good faith standard, be applied which “appropriately balances one person’s right to speak anonymously against another person’s right to protect his reputation.”
In Doe v Cahill, the Court found that the plaintiff, Patrick Cahill, a city councilman of Smyrna, Delaware failed to meet the standards required by the First Amendment to unmask an anonymous critic. Summary judgment is a high standard, particularly in cases of anonymous speech because unmasking an anonymous critic is on par with the court finding in favor of the one seeking the person’s identity.
Just before Christmas, a New Jersey Court quashed an attempt to reveal the identity of an anonymous blogger who was critical of county officials, and whom they say libeled them.
On December 21, 2007, Superior Court Judge Terence Flynn granted EFF’s motion to quash the Township’s September 26th subpoena seeking the identity of datruthsquad and denied a motion by the township to authorize future subpoenas, finding that the subpoena amounted to “an unjust infringement on the blogger’s First Amendment rights” and that the blogger “has a right not to be drawn into the litigation.”
Bloggers do have rights to free and anonymous speech granted by the First Amendment. Of course, that does not mean that a blogger can say anything he/she wants. But, the Courts are looking seriously at the new frontier of the Internet, particularly in the case of political speech.
Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse.
Companies that provide Internet access, host blogs, etc are required by federal law to provide notice when a request is made for an individual’s data. Failure to do so could result in a suit being filed back against the ISP or other similar organization that could result in payment of damages, in addition to legal fees. So, it is in the best interest of these companies to notify subscribers or users that their data has been requested, particularly with the decisions that continue to be handed down regarding the rights of those publishing and discussing information on the Internet.
Bloggers do not have free reign, however. They must be responsible in the information that they publish (as this site has worked diligently to do — even removing a posting when additional backing information that was promised was not received) — although there is also protection from prosecution for statements made by others (see Section 230).
Quoting again from the decision of McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission …
The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse.
Carpentersville Action Network 
Recent Comments