Middle School Boobies

Once again, America's finest school administrators have decided to attack student speech by banning the wearing of pink bracelets to promote breast cancer awareness that are emblazoned with the phrase "I [heart] Boobies." And once again, these people seem to be concentrated in the great state of Pennsylvania.



In the first case to challenge such a ban, two girls attending an Easton, Pennsylvania, middle school contend they have the right to engage in silent speech about breast cancer in a way that will be relevant and engaging to their peers.


According to the Legal Intelligencer:

the bracelets are distributed by the Keep A Breast Foundation, a six-year-old nonprofit organization whose mission is to help eradicate breast cancer by educating young people on methods of prevention and early detection.


The lawsuit says the campaign, which has spread nationally, "is designed to reach young people in a language that they will find more fun and less threatening than other discussions about breast cancer."


When the Easton plaintiffs defied the ban and refused to remove the bracelets, they were hit with in-school suspensions.


School district officials at first defended the ban by contending that the bracelets were causing a disruption at school. But in court papers, the district's lawyers have now made clear that they intend to argue that the ban was proper because the message printed on the bracelets is "lewd."

The school district claims it was acting within the purview of its authority in banning lewd language. The ban was proper "due to the inherent vulgarity of the phrase itself in the public middle school context." The message printed on the bracelets "has an inherent double entendre of both caring for women and sexual attraction to breasts, particularly due to its slang expression." As a result the message "is vulgar and breeds further vulgarity."


According to the school district's brief, the reactions of other students to the bracelets included "sexual comments made by middle school boys to middle school girls pertaining to the girls' breasts."


The girls claim that speech is lewd or vulgar only if it "glorifies sexuality, contains elaborate sexual metaphor, or includes expletives." The terms "boob" and "boobies" are not vulgar or profane citing dictionary references that label the terms as slang, but not as profane or indecent.


Both terms regularly appear in major mainstream media outlets, the plaintiffs note, including "The New York Times which has used the term "boob" to refer to breasts 30 times since January 2007."


The girls also argue that context is important because the bracelets also include the phrase "keep a breast," and therefore convey "a serious message of survival, not a sexual one."


Finally, if male students respond by harassing those who wore the bracelets the school should "punish those few male students for their inappropriate behavior, not punish the female students exercising their constitutional right of expression about a serious health subject."


Yesterday, federal district judge Mary A. McLaughlin heard arguments concerning a temporary injunction of the school district's ban.


Thirteen year old plaintiff Brianna Hawk testified in favor of the injunction stating simply, "I think the school took the meaning of the bracelets out of context."


McLaughlin told the lawyers at the close of yesterday's hearing to file briefs by the end of the year that include proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. She said the case will be scheduled for a final oral argument in February.


Poor William Penn. The original "Famework of Government" for his commonwealth was a constitution which would accommodate dissent and new ideas and also allow meaningful societal change without resorting to violent uprisings or revolution. Perhaps today's Pennsylvania citizenry will heed Penn's call and make their state one of tolerance and understanding.


While banning boobie bracelets might not result in a riot, silencing middle school students on matters of health and education should inspire a re-dedication to the importance of "dissent" and "new ideas" as cornerstones of a democratic public education system.

---

ACLU webpage on the lawsuit, including a copy of the complaint.

The Keep a Breast Foundation

The Legal Intelligencer: Students Star in Challenge to Ban on Breast Cancer Wristbands

Tolerating Consensual Incest

No death penalty here folks. Last week, Columbia University professor and Huffington Post blogger David Epstein was charged with having a sexual relationship with his 24-year-old daughter.


Joining such notable perverts as pedophile photographer Matthew Mancuso and child rapist Patrick Kennedy, Epstein was described by one of his students as a "very nice guy" who was recently placed on administrative leave. According to the New York Daily News, Epstein and his child had a three-year sexual relationship and often exchanged "twisted text messages."


Too bad Epstein didn't commit his crime in Florida where Masha Allen's father, Matthew Mancuso, was allowed to plead down from a death penalty to attempted sexual battery (attempted incest?). Instead, New York is charging him with one count of third-degree incest which could land him in prison for three to four years.


Now Epstein's lawyer, Matthew Galluzzo, is rallying to his defense questioning why an allegedly consensual sexual relationship with an adult child should be illegal at all. According to the Huffington Post:

"Academically, we are obviously all morally opposed to incest and rightfully so," Galluzzo said. "At the same time, there is an argument to be made in the Swiss case to let go what goes on privately in bedrooms."


"It's OK for homosexuals to do whatever they want in their own home," he said. "How is this so different? We have to figure out why some behavior is tolerated and some is not."

Galluzzo also asked why consensual incest wouldn't implicate Epstein's daughter, whom prosecutors seem to be treating as victim, but who he said could "be best described as an accomplice."


Galluzzo questioned if prosecuting incest was "intellectually consistent" with the repeal of anti-sodomy laws that resulted from Lawrence v. Texas in 2003. "What goes on between consenting adults in private should not be legislated," he said. "That is not the proper domain of our law."


Galluzzo continued: "If we assume for a moment that both parties [involved in incest] are consenting, then why are we prosecuting this?"

The Character of Facebook

I was wondering why so many cartoon characters started appearing as Facebook profile pictures during the past week or so, especially among children and teens. Here's an answer, according to FoxNews.com and other media sources:

Swirling rumors that pedophiles are behind a viral Facebook campaign are unfounded, according to a company spokesman.


The campaign, which has been actively gaining momentum in the past month, urges users to swap a cartoon character for their usual profile picture and boasts more than 150,000 "likes" among its Facebook pages. The campaign was originally thought to be the work of a children’s advocacy group, but rumors sweeping across the web suggest it's actually a front for pedophiles, said London tabloid The Daily Mail.


Kids are especially vulnerable, since Facebook users can message one another so easily, said Hemanshu Nigam, co-chairman of President Obama's Online Safety Technology Working Group and a member of the board of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.


"It would give just another interesting topic for an offender to talk to a young teenager about," he told FoxNews.com.


Whether or not the rumors prove true, an inherent security issue remains, Nigam told FoxNews.com.


"The core of the issue isn’t whether the campaign was created by pedophiles or not. None of that is as significant as the ability to directly message underage children."

I agree with Nigam. The bigger concern is Facebook's ability or willingness to monitor and investigate this kind of activity on their site. We already know there are some pretty bad people and things happening on Facebook. In fact, we've added a new section to this blog entitled Blogs to Watch (just scroll down the right-hand column) highlighting the excellent ongoing work of an amateur FB sluth named Watching Facebook.


Check it out and then re-consider your impulse to dismiss the cartoon hoax as mass hysteria. Everyone should be asking, just who IS watching Facebook??


Read more at FoxNews.com


Watching Facebook

Can Child Pornography Prevent Child Sex Abuse?

A controversial study published today in the Archives of Sexual Behavior suggests that free and legal child pornography can prevent child sex abuse. University of Hawaii professor Milton Diamond reviewed a study finding that the rate of child sex abuse fell dramatically in the Czech Republic when child pornography was legalized in 1990. Apparently researchers observed a similar phenomenon with the decriminalization of child porn in Denmark and Japan.


According to Diamond, "in those three countries where child porn is legal the sex abuse against children is very low and it has gone down compared to when it was illegal."


Diamond said child pornography gives would-be abusers a different outlet to channel their desires.


"We think the perpetrator is more likely to use pornography to masturbate and not go after kids, so we think it's better for kids," said Diamond.


As part of his research Diamond also looked at countries that have recently made child pornography illegal and said the rate of child sex abuse there is rising.


According to Salon.com:

The study certainly raises interesting philosophical questions about promoting objectionable material to prevent real-world crimes -- but it's also majorly flawed. A couple of big-time caveats: Diamond's research finds a correlation between child pornography and sex abuse, which is not the same as causation; and in the Czech case, pornography in general (including kiddie porn) was legalized, not just kiddie porn. It's also worth noting that the observed drop is in reported child sex abuse. Beyond even those concerns, there is the fact that his research doesn't explicitly study the impact of faux child porn. I find it hard to believe that those who seek out child pornography -- and who are at risk for abusing actual children -- will be satisfied by "pretend" pictures. Imitation child porn that convincingly passes for the real thing might do the trick, but then how would we tell the difference between real abuse and simulated abuse?

Future treatment for pedophiles might involve a "prescription" for child pornography. Or a therapist directed trip to the playground, day care center or swimming pool locker room. A primary goal of the pedophile movement is the normalization and decriminalization of child sex abuse images and movies. Like medical marijuana, child pornography as "treatment" is the first step to making this material more acceptable and less stigmatized. As Salon.com recognizes, however, if child pornography is the cure, how terrible must be the disease??