The Purdue Excrement

Well, I got this from the from the Purdue Exponent:

Mr. DeBoer: 

It has come to my attention that your blog entry:http://congressshallmakenolaw.blogspot.com/2012/03/not-all-stories-have-two-sides.html
uses a copyrighted photo lifted from the Exponent website.
You did not receive permission from us to use that photo. Accordingly, you are hereby notified to remove it from your blog immediately because it is copyrighted material.
Thank you for your consideration.

Pat Kuhnle, publisher and general manager The Purdue ExponentPO Box 2506 West Lafayette, IN 47996-2506

My use of the imagine is for non-profit, critical work, which is factual, published, the Imagine has not been manipulated and most importantly there is no monetary gain to be had. I have just spent an hour reading case law and other materials on internet images and fair use claims. I see nothing that would negate my claim, and if the law were clearer in terms of my monitory liability I would stand my ground. That, and I highly doubt the Purdue Exponent has the legal resources to send its censors at every critical blog.

So, with all that being said, I think will replace the imagine with a dude holding up a picture of the actual paper.

May I note the irony of a blog lampooning congressional authority to regulate speech being hit this sort of clearly speech regulating notification.

Not All Stories Have Two Sides

The Purdue Exponent fell into a classic media trap today where they pretended all stories have two sides. In a story printed today about a rally held at Purdue in support of the slain teenager in Florida, Trayvon Martin, they printed this ridiculous passage:  

“It’s about unity,” Whittaker said. “We’re all Boilermakers. It’s about making a statement that this is our house and it’s safe for everybody.”  

That sense of unity was not felt by four students standing across the street holding “ 

I will stand my ground” signs.J. David Held II, a freshman in the College of Liberal Arts, said the Stand Your Ground law is in place to protect people from assault.“ 

People are upset that the law is protecting (Zimmerman,) who was trying to defend himself,” Held said. 

Although he thought the death of Martin was terrible, Held does not think it was racially motivated, unlike the many participants who think the shooting happened because Martin was black. 

“I don’t think (race) has anything to do with it,” Held said. “It’s literally two racial minorities that’s in conflict.”Some in the national media have suggested that, other than Martin’s ethnicity, his clothing contributed to his death. Martin was wearing a hoodie at the time of the altercation, something some have said made Martin look suspicious.

To be clear, this is horribel journalism. This is a story about students rallying in support of student safety, the inherent racial injustices which plague our entire law enforcement and judicial systems, and a slain teenager in a racially motivated execution. 

Then they decide its about the insane stand your ground legislation trumpeted by the National Rifle Association because Democrats gave up on gun control at the beginning of the oughts, so the NRA had to stay relevant by inventing new issues. Which it turns out promotes vigilantism and street executions, but whatever. 

This story was about a united rally until the paper gave a voice to ignorant students who held a position that on its face is factually wrong, and printed it as though it was the 'other side' of the story. Instead it simply elevated the ignorance and provided them a platform to decry a rally that was nothing but well intentioned. This is bad journalism. These are stupid people.

By the way, this is a fucking gem, isn't it? 

“I don’t think (race) has anything to do with it,” Held said. “It’s literally two racial minorities that’s in conflict.”

As if racial minorities can't either be racist, or racist against each other. Way to quote this idiot.

Children and the American Prison Industrial Complex

I caught notice today that the Supreme Court heard arguments last week in the case of Miller v. Alabama, concerning whether it violates the 8th Amendments prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment to sentence a child to life in prison without the possibility of parole. To the credit of Anthony Kennedy and the Courts liberal bloc, the Supreme Court has considerably narrowed the use of the death penalty and life imprisonment over the past decade. It is now unconstitutional for the state to execute children, and its now unconstitutional to sentence a child to life imprisonment for anything other than homicide.

And now, this week, the Court will review whether homicide can result in a punishment of life in prison without the possibility of parole. It is being argued on 8th Amendment grounds again, and after a string of victories using that clause, it makes sense. However I think it largely misses a point worthy of consideration, trying anyone under the age of 18 as an adult is depriving them of due process under the law.

Permitting the State to try children as adults while simultaneously denying them the right to engage in participatory democracy denies them due process of law, protected under the 14th Amendment. These individuals lack the ability to change their government and to submit them to the whims of legislators who would throw them in jail for the rest of their lives, without parole, can be nothing but a violation of due process. No one under the age of eighteen should be subject to the adult criminal justice system, no matter how heinous the crime, unless we grant them suffrage.

I think a better solution would simply be to lower the voting age to sixteen. Sixteen-year-olds have more and better education than most voters at the turn of the 20th century, they are active participants in our economy, they are permitted to drive and own automobiles, and can be charged as adults. Permit them the vote, and I see no problem in judging their actions as those of adults.

A Little About This Blog

Its been a few years since I have actively written about the Supreme Court, but at the encouragement of a friend who found my twitter activities inadequate from time to time, I have decided to relaunch this. If I have more to say about an activity at the Court, or public policy I feel knowledgeable enough to write about, I will do it here.

I am a Free Speech absolutist. I read the constitution quite literally, and I attribute my intellectual heritage to Justice Hugo Black and a lesser extent Justice Douglas. This, more often then I would certainly like, leaves me holding more conservative legal opinions than my preferred public policy outcome. I am, above all else, a civil libertarian, and a liberal second. I truly think the Constitution often times dictates outcomes which expand individual liberty. This is all to say that when the First Amendment restrains the legislature by commanding that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," it quite literally mean that Congress lacks the authority to legislate under any of those domains. Not sometimes, not when necessary for some noble cause, not rarely, or maybe-just-this-once. And that is why this blog is dedicated to that simple command that has all too often been broken in our nations short history.

I left the former Congress Shall Make No Law to die, and this may very well be destine to share the same fate. We shall see.