Twitter has announced they will begin deleting tweets at the request of certain countries.  This has caused an uproar from free speech advocates.  In reality, it simply brings Twitter in line with other major social media sites whose content interacts with the borders and laws of other countries who may not view free expression the same way we do here in the United States.

Note that in my title I used the phrase, “Free Expression” instead of “free speech” or “freedom of speech.”  I did this because there is a major difference in application.  Whether Twitter does or does not censor content in this country is  not a First Amendment  issue.  The First Amendment only applies to goverment restrictions on speech. Twitter is a private company and can restrict speech in any way it sees fit.   It is frankly surprising that Twitter has taken so long to recognize that speech does not occur in social media in a “free expression vacuum”

Prior to this announcement and after, Twitter will continue to be the most liberal platform in terms of free expression. It has virtually no restrictions on speech in it’s Terms of Service. Users are  allowed to be as racist, hateful and to a degree threatening as they like as long as the tweet does not constitute a “true threat” as defined by Twitter.

Conspicuously missing are the rules against certain types of “hate speech” that you see on Facebook, YouTube and other major sites even under the most vague definition of such content.  This has lead to a wild west atmosphere of ethnic, racial and pretty much any type of vile speech that can be imagined allowable as long as no U.S. laws are being broken and no true threat is made.  The problem Twitter  faces is that what is legal and allowable here may not be allowable if the tweet originated from another country that has hate speech laws in effect.  The must now strike a balance between growth in these countries and free expression. This is not a new dilemma.

eBay and Yahoo banned the buying and selling of Nazi memorabilia world wide even though it is not illegal in the United States but illegal in several countries in Europe.   For the last few years Facebook has blocked Holocaust Denial and other content in countries which such expression is illegal even though it is not illegal in this country under First Amendment principles

This was not a morality move nor a judgment on the nature of hate speech or other expression that may be illegal in other countries.  Twitter did not care about that before the decision and does not care now.  Twitter  simply wants worldwide growth and for it’s executives to stay out of foreign courts.   In order to accomplish that they have to take world wide morality and legal standards into account.  This move was inevitable and necessary to achieve that.  Welcome to the “Free Expression Establishment.”

Anyone who lives in the North Texas area is aware of the tragic loss of life that took place in Grapevine, Texas on Christmas day.  Azizolah “Bob” Yazdanpanah, who is reportedly Muslim,  dressed as Santa Claus,  fatally shot six family members on Christmas Day before killing himself.  A terrible tragedy.  My heart goes out to the Yazdanpanah family and all affected by this senseless act of violence.

Upon opening up my Facebook news-feed yesterday, there were numerous references to the shooting.  One of the story-lines that seemed to be taking on a life of it’s own were people posting that this was an “honor killing”.  I was surprised as nothing had been reported as such. The police had issued a statement that day stating that no motive had been developed.  Many of the Facebookers grabbing on to the honor killing angle also accused our local media of engaging in a “coverup” of that fact.

Where did this honor killing story come from?  How did it go from a tragic event still being investigated to a stereotyped event devoid of factual basis meant to degrade and dehumanize the family and the tragedy because they were Muslim?  It was clear from the posts that the predominate response  was catering to the stereotype with an “it figures.” type response.  “It figures” because stereotypes tell us that all Muslim husbands are abusive and when a Muslim father is unhappy with who his daughter is dating he kills her right?  So where did this “honor killing angle” come from?   The story appeared to have  originated with these  fringe”sources”:

Jihad Watch:  A far right blog that spends  much of it’s time proving that all Muslims are evil people. The blog claims to have interviews with friends/classmates of one of the victims. They talk about how strict the father was and how upset he was at his daughter’s dating situation.  The blog is  vague on whether the author did the interviews or got them from another source.  I can find no mainstream reference to any of the alleged quotes from classmates.  In fact, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the closest major newspaper vicinity wise, did in fact interview friends of the victims, one of whom stated that this was not an honor killing:

“This was not an honor killing,” Jessica Toumani, a friend of the Zarei family’s, said in a statement e-mailed to the Star-Telegram.”We are not sure of much at this point, but we are sure that is not a viable theory. Aziz was never religious, nor were any of the victims. They left Iran to escape the Islamic regime, which is why most Iranians left.”

Atlas Shrugged:  This lady who runs this blog,  Pamela Gellar is one of the biggest hate mongering, Islamaphobic, bigots on this planet.  I won’t give her any link love.   She grabbed onto the  Jihad Watch story and put her own Anti-Muslim spin on it.

The International Business Times:   If you read their story, they cite Jihad Watch as their source on the honor killing angle.

I confronted one Facebook poster who maintained that the tragedy was an Honor killing.  He cited the IBT story.  When I pointed out that the police had not released a motive and that the story was citing blogs and not legitimate reporting sources he then stated that he had also heard a local Dallas news station report it as an honor killing.  I contacted the reporter he named. She stated that no such report had ever been broadcast as the police had not stated a motive.  When I confronted the person with her denial, he reverted to his first source insisting that it was a legitimate original source for the story.  It of course is not but it was enough for him because it validated his fears and stereotypes well as  allowing  him to spread the canard to validate everyone else’s.

Before writing this blog, I Googled the search term “Grapevine Honor Killing” There were 118, 000 potential hits.  Of course, not all will be relevant to the story but it seems clear that as of the writing of this blog, the Honor Killing theory has spread  from three fringe sources, two of which make it their business to stir up anti-Muslim hatred to pretty much the entire far right-wing Islamaphobic Bogosphere, Facebook and Twitter.

That, my friends, is how hate goes viral.

The Confederacy is rising again in Texas.  At least in the form of specialty license plates.  The Texas division of the Sons of Confederate Veterans has filed a lawsuit in Texas federal court arguing that the Department of Motor Vehicles violated its it’s First Amendment rights  by refusing to issue a license plate featuring a Confederate flag.  As a point of clarification, vanity plates are plates in which you pick the license plate symbols.   Specialty plates are plates the state issues with various organizations.   For instance, here in Texas, we now have a Dallas Mavericks specialty plate.  The Sons Of Confederate Veterans would be a Specialty Plate.  If my license plate read “CUBES”, that would be a vanity plate.

When I think of the Confederate flag I think of rednecks, racism and NASCAR not necessarily in that order.  Before you hang me from the nearest Texas Motor Speedway light-pole,  I have admittedly not watched many NASCAR races.  In the one race I did attend at Las Vegas Motor Speedway, there were many confederate flags draped from RV’s in the parking lot with the occupants engaging in activities that would simply be drunkenly boorish in any other venue but adding in the Confederate flag screamed redneck.  I don’t think I am going out on a limb in opning that some of them would not know the Battle Of  Fort Sumter from Bunker Hill.

NASCAR aside, this is a case in which the Sons will probably prevail or the DMV will relent and issue the plate before it gets that far. Regardless of the varied meanings the flag embodies and that the state actually owns the plates, it can not engage in viewpoint discrimination.  Nine other states have approved Sons Of Confederate Veterans’ specialty plates, several only after being sued.  There are other issues that could come in to play such as the fact that the plates are actually the property of the state and therefore  constitute a non-public forum or whether the plates constitute  goverment speech as compared to private speech.  This could change the standard of review more in favor of the state.  I however, don’t see those issues affecting the constitutionality of the Sons Of Confederate Veterans plates.

As Jeff Foxworthy would say:  “You might be a redneck if…”   Having confederate flag plate would certainly make my list.  If it does not make yours and you want one in Texas you will have to wait a bit before branding yourself one to the motoring public.   Never fear however,  you will get to  do it.  It’s your constitutional right to be a redneck.

Should Penn State have declined a bowl invitation to play in the Ticket City Bowl  against the Houston Cougars  in Dallas on January 2?  The pro opinion is pretty much the same rhetoric that has been spouted since the Jerry Sandusky scandal broke.  People are rightly outraged at the failure to act by those who are accountable  and the specter of a institutional coverup. Many believe that the the declining of a bowl invitation is a “just punishment” to those who have failed to act and surely covered up these awful events. Some believe it will deter similar future conduct. There are those who  believe it is simply the “moral” thing to do.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball.  Who are we punishing and for what reason?  What future conduct are we trying to deter and for what reason? Whose  morality are we trying to satisfy?  We all agree that the conduct Sandusky is accused of is sickening and heinous.  If convicted, the legal and “moral” thing is that he live out his life behind prison walls. That’s the easy one.  The failure to act by Grahm Spanier, Joe Paterno and others is troubling.  Those who did not act have either been held or are in the process of being held accountable.  Despite the trend towards inserting our own facts to satisfy our immediate blood lust, the bottom line is that there is still many questions unanswered of who knew what and what they did with the information.  These questions will be answered as the wheels of justice slowly turn.

How does this extend to young adults who had absolutely nothing to do with the scandal?  What legal, deterrent or moral high ground is established by punishing these kids by denying them one of their dreams.   Are we deluding ourselves into thinking that this is something the alleged victims want?  That prohibiting innocent kids from playing in a bowl game will somehow alleviate their  pain to any degree?  Is the goal of punishing those who had no involvement in the scandal meant to accomplish something positive or is it simply punishment for punishments sake. Generalized hatred so intense and all consuming.  Hatred for hatred’s sake.

Let’s keep our eye on the ball.  This is not about kids and coaches having nothing to do with any of this playing in a bowl game.  Let them enjoy the moment they worked so hard for.  If you think that the alleged victims would not be in agreement with this, you are deluding yourself with your own “moral’ righteous anger.  No need to create  innocent villains and victims out of hatred.  There is enough of that in this world already.

Sandusky tells NBC’s Bob Costas, “I love to be around them, but no, I’m not sexually attracted to young boys.  I love young people.” However, Sandusky admitted that he showered with, hugged and touched the children, but in a non –sexual manner?  Costas: “Are you a pedophile?”  Sandusky: “No.  I probably shouldn’t have showered with the boys.” That seemed to be his only regret.  We’ve all heard the interview, and most likely more than one time.

It is traumatic and disturbing when sexual offenses, committed by anyone, especially those in positions of power and trust, become a part of our reality.  As a Licensed Sex Offender Treatment Provider, I work daily with sexual offenders and victims, and yet I truly grieve for the victims and families in the wake of this Penn. State scandal.  Numerous individuals were disconnected from reality in this case, and connected in a conspiracy to keep this child sex abuse scandal a secret.  I wouldn’t have believed it, but after reading the Grand Jury report, and viewing the Sandusky interview with Bob Costas, which may go down as his last recorded words, I see a disturbing story of rape and misuse of power.

The nation listened, in a collective pause, to hear anything that might be “his” truth. THE truth! We received no answer.  I heard absolute denial, no admission of guilt, no clarity of thought, no apology, and perhaps no soul.  For me, he seems to possess little understanding of anything he’s done.  I heard a feeble, dead with denial, voice. It was very unsettling and left me feeling like I was listening to John Wayne Gacey answer for his deeds, in a John Wayne body and voice.  How does this happen? A beloved, elderly coach, in the heart of middle-America, responded in an interview , and as Costas said, “If you were unfamiliar with the name Sandusky, sadly he will now be remembered as a criminal, and a monster.”  We’re not speaking of a 23 yr old, or a 43 yr old, but an older individual that through many years has perpetrated horrific acts on innocent victims; which include those that caught him, saw it happen, heard it, did report it, didn’t report it.    Who advised him to participate in this interview? Was he medicated, and is he on suicide watch?  All of these questions were all over the morning news programs; it’s the lead in every show.

Here are some major points that the general public needs to know:

Epidemiological research notes that 1% to 3% of men are sexually attracted to children.  Men who molest children rationalize their actions, often to a point of denial. We all listened to that first hand, when we as a nation held a cumulative breath, waiting for his answer, he denied it all.  Sadly, many offenders, I’ve worked with, characterized the relationship as a “mentoring” relationship: “Second Mile Gone Wild.”  If you listen to the interview, you can hear all of this in the thread of the interview.

Pedophiles do not fit neatly into “creepy” profiles.  They can fill any role in society, particularly a leadership role with children.  We have seen similar stories with the Catholic Church, The Boy Scouts of America, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Orphanage staff and the like.

Approximately 70% of the victims, in child sex abuse cases, know the offender.  Serial child molesters seek vulnerable children and employ means to cultivate relationships with them. Children usually are not picked at random. They are screened by systematic desensitization techniques (many are detailed in the Grand Jury report).  Because of Penn State’s credibility, parents were willing to allow staff to have unrestricted access to their kids.

What might happen now?

Sandusky may be near the point of suicide. When listening to his interview, I heard “dead with denial”, possibly nothing to live for. He has legal representation, but the collective of the testimony that will mount against him will certainly render a guilty verdict at some level. I have worked with many pedophilic felons that were “executives” prior to their conviction. This group is especially prone to suicidal ideation, intent, and plan at this stage of the legal process. Sandusky may be portrayed by the media as an older, “broken down” individual.  He may play the “I was sexually abused as a child” defense which would be a useful strategy to keep punishment in a lower range.

Additionally, I wonder if there was ever any child pornography viewed on Penn State computers or any computer of Sandusky’s. Moreover, the boy that was at the Alamo Bowl, in San Antonio, might itself result in a separate criminal investigation.  Transporting a child across state lines for the purpose of sexual exploitation may be something to examine further.  These possibilities could result in a federal investigation.  A federal sex offense case almost assures a conviction and prison time.

Child Witnesses Recant?

This was brought up in the interview loosely. When there are multiple solid testimonies, it is very difficult to recant.  Unlike the McMartin Day Care case, these victims are independent cases with no other proximal ties, thus maximizing the credibility of the testimony. Again, the number of boys involved here will likely make recanting a non-issue.

Happy Valley to Neverland…

I hesitate to reference Michael Jackson’s Neverland, especially in lieu of the recent trial that’s coming to an end. The names “Neverland” and “Happy Valley” feel almost eerie to say, especially now in light of this scandal, not to mention the title of his book, “Touch”.  It is now a place where deep dark secrets are kept, where Gerald Sandusky was allowed to prey on innocent kids, at everyone’s expense. It is a place where innocent lives were tarnished and forever changed. There are no winners here.

Did you know…

Sandusky started “The Second Mile” in State College, Pennsylvania, in 1977.  It began as a group foster home for helping troubled boys.  Through “The Second Mile”, he had access to hundreds of boys, many of whom were vulnerable, due to their social situations. He took total advantage of his position, and no one cared.  Sandusky retired from “The Second Mile” in 2010.

Clinical information regarding the “mind of a perpetrator”:

Grooming:

The term is used to classify sex offending behavior that begins with flirting. Efforts, no doubt, were made to get the victim interested in Sandusky. In his case, that might’ve involved gifts, attention, followed by light touch, which progressed to more touch.  All of these elements come together to get the victim to comply, and create the perfect storm. Sadly, threats and intimidation may also be used to achieve compliance, all at the victim’s expense. The next step… the offense cycle begins: thoughts, fantasies, and all things leading to the deviant act. Needy children are the perfect target for abuse.

Clinically speaking, after acting out, the perpetrator might feel positive, happy, negative, unhappy, or some of both. Feelings and arousal can keep the offense cycle going, indefinitely. Some offenders that experience satisfaction, go right back to the acting out stage. Feeling guilty or upset could even lead to reoffending, very similar to having a hangover, but drinking more to feel better. I’ll spare you the rest of the hard-core details. It’s not an easy read, nor easy to write. It is particularly difficult to address, and sadly for that reason perhaps it wasn’t.

That’s it for now folks. We watch and we wait.

Bruce Cameron, M.S., LPC-S, LSOTP is a Licensed Professional Counselor and Licensed Sex Offender Treatment Provider in the Dallas Fort Worth area. He has worked with adult and juvenile Sexual Offenders since 1990 in a variety of state, federal and other institutional capacities. Website: www.cameronlpc.com

This is from a Penn State message board.  I usually do not just repost but this really grabbed me as a Penn State alumni. I hope Beth Painter does not mind the repost. Thank you Beth and WE ARE! PENN STATE!

“We know you don’t understand. Generally, we don’t try to explain. Unless you are a Buckeye or Fighting Irish, you probably don’t get how an institution embeds itself in a student’s life. And that is fine.

But right now, we want you to know this:
…
We are distraught and truly sickened by this horror perpetrated on young victims by one who represented the Blue and White, and perpetuated by others at the University. We aren’t blind followers who drink Blue Kool-Aid. We grieve for and with the victims and their families. We pray for them to find healing and peace and a way to live a good life.

We know that while many people had responsibility, the most visible one almost always goes down first. We are not disputing the need for this to happen.

We are not “defending” anything. We are simply crushed and heartbroken. This is not the Penn State we love, the Penn State that is part of our being.

What you know of Joe Paterno probably comes from television or magazine articles.

We know the man who has lived in the same McKee St house for decades. We have chatted with him as he walked to practice. We have eaten ice cream with him at the Creamery. We have studied in the new library wing his money helped build. We have visited the sports museum and spiritual center he also helped build. We have seen him cheering on other Penn State athletes. We know he loves Penn State as much as we do.

Some of our friends, brothers, husbands, sons have been privileged to put on the Blue and White uniform and listen to 100,000 fans in Beaver Stadium. We know how hard they have worked, how much time they have devoted, how many of them have been part of an excellent scholar/athlete legacy…and how much they love this man and this program.

We aren’t stupid or naive. We know Joe Paterno has culpability. We know he could have made different choices – he admitted that. We don’t think he is God or always perfect or saintly. But he is the greatest college football coach ever, and he is PSU family, and we don’t want his exit to be like this.

WE ARE…not closing our eyes, ignoring reports, pretending this isn’t a wretched occurrence.
WE ARE…angry that innocents would be violated under our care.
WE ARE…in support of appropriate punishment for every person involved.
WE ARE…demanding change to a system that would allow this.
WE ARE…not concerned if you do not understand our love and devotion.
WE ARE…PENN STATE proud and we will rise again.

~Beth Painter

As a human being, my heart goes out to all the boys and families involved in the Jerry Sandusky scandal.  As a 1983 Penn State alumni, I am currently ashamed and embarrassed to call myself such.  Not because of the despicable acts Sandusky is accused of.  There are evil people everywhere.   I am ashamed at the failure of those in a special position of trust and responsibility to our children to ignore that responsibility almost to the point of willful blindness, allowing Sandusky’s predatory behavior to continue for years.

Everyone in the reporting chain right up to President Graham Spanier had the opportunity to put at stop to Sandusky early on and chose to look the other way.  The buck stopped with them and they turned and ran.  Legal responsibility is for the situation. Moral responsibility is for life.   Athletic Director Tim Curley, Joe Paterno and President Graham Spanier might feel good standing behind legal responsibility but there is no question they ignored their moral responsibility letting down every student, teacher and parent at Penn State.  They have breached a trust that leaves us all feeling vulnerable wondering whether our children are really safe. They have disgraced my home state of The Commonwealth Of Pennsylvania.   Penn State is a state related school.  It gets yearly appropriations. As as university it is answerable. Tim Curley is answerable.  Joe Paterno is answerable. Graham Spanier is answerable.  They all must step down to restore the faith of parents and everyone in the Penn State community that Penn State can keep our children safe. We must restore credibility and accountability in those who are entrusted to keep them safe.  I for one will never give the school I love and cheer for every Saturday another dime until that happens.  If you are an alumni I urge you to consider doing likewise.

As for Jerry Sandusky, let there be no mistake.  While he is entitled to the presumption of innocence in court, he get’s no such benefit in the court of public opinion. That’s whey they are called opinions. My opinion is that he is a sexual predator who will hopefully never see the light of day outside of  prison walls when the courtroom jury comes back.  My hope is that these boys take Penn State to the cleaners to punish this egregious breach of the public trust from the top down.  My hope is that one day, I can once again call myself a proud Penn State alumni.

I saw something today on twitter that made me sick to my stomach.  It came from a Dallas, Texas plaintiff’s firm that started following me.  I am simply going to post the tweets. They speak for themselves. I will let others chime in on whether any advertising or state bar ethics rules of been violated.  The tweets are attributed to the Twitter account of Frenkel & Frenkel otherwise known as @dallaslaw. They are  apparently targeting/spamming people who tweet about their accidents.   This is the majority of their stream.  Some “Follow Fridays” and a few news articles are throw in now and then.  They make no pretense of what they are using twitter for.   Of course the “tips’ link back to “blog.    Here is a sample:

Hey @_anicole so sorry to hear about your accident–here are some legal tips that might be helpful!: http://ow.ly/5yQ78

I don’t know if a full day of showers will cleanse the stink I feel from the legal profession at this moment.

**UPDATE  – I received the below email from Mark Frenkel once again illustrating that law firms who know nothing about social media and outsource their ethics with shitty social media companies do so at their own peril. Click on the email to enlarge it.

I have seen and heard a lot of  Holocaust Denial.  I am not sure why I am shocked every time I am hit with it.  Many times people do not realize that I am Jewish and they simply blurt it out.  Other times, they are proud of the fact that have a different “spin” to history much in the way deniers idolize the likes of their “Denial Guru” David Irving.

I recently posted an article on my Google+ page about Germany’s renewed effort to pursue Nazi War criminals.  A person by the name of Jerri Cook commented as follows:

Fair comment.  Whether I agree or disagree,  there are many who agree with her.  It is certainly a debatable issue.  A gentlemen chimed in with a contrary view.  I chimed in actually defending Jerri’s right to express her view.  Then Jerri let us know what it was really about with this comment:

In denying that the Holocaust was a genocide, Jerri has engaged in a form of  Holocaust Denial.  The denial is ironic in the face of history. The term “genocide” did not even exist until 1944 when it was coined specifically to describe the Nazi policies of systematic murder.  I am not sure what “I don’t believe the spin” means but it certainly implies the questioning aspects of the Holocaust.  What is the definition of genocide?  It means:

“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Who is Jerri? Why do I even care?  I had never heard of her or had any social media contact  prior to her comment.  Jerri’s LinkedIn profile lists her as a “Experienced Editor, Writer, Blogger, Social Media Specialist, Digital Media Specialist, Online Crisis Manager “  She is the editor of Countryside Publications.  She also lists herself as a law student at “Concord Law School” which is an online only law school.

Why am I being the “big bad bully” and calling out little Jerri?  It’s not like I am going to bring down the world of  the ignorant and angry.  Unfortunately, there are far too many.  I am doing it because to battle Holocaust Denial and eventually defeat it as a virulent form of antisemitism, it must be brought out of the dark, seamy corners of the internet.  I doubt Jerri  is sharing her views on the Holocaust at mainstream functions and the company Christmas party.  Now, to the extent I can play a part in the process, she will have to.  To the extent that my little blog has any voice, Jerri can no longer hide her dirty little secret.  She is a Holocaust Denier.  She is not alone. Who’s next.

Troy Davis has been executed amid much protest and controversy.  As the memory fades and people turn to other causes it is important to note that he is not the 1st person to be executed whose factual guilt was in question and unfortunately  through sheer probability wont be the last without major reform to the death penalty system.  The saga will play on indefinitely until we as a nation including the Supreme Court realize that no number of the legally guilty executed justifies executing one factually innocent person. Finality in the system is not a valid excuse for killing when we as human beings apart from the system, are unsure of guilt.

Jonathan Bruce Reed is on trial in Dallas County for the alleged murder of 26-year-old Wanda Jean Wadle in November 1978.  He is facing the death penalty. This is Reed’s third trial.  His previous two convictions and death sentences were overturned (the jurors will not know this).  The prosecution’s case rests on the testimony of one eyewitness, the roommate,  Kimberly Pursley, who was also attacked when she came home. Pursley survived by feigning unconsciousness. She was unflappable in her testimony that Reed is the guy.  Another witness, Mickey Green, testified that Reed knocked on her door at the same apartment complex, posing as a maintenance man just before Wadle was attacked. While the defense has done the usual cross exam to poke holes in the identifications, unlike Troy Davis, no witness has recanted.  There is even DNA in this case.  The catch is that it is not Reed’s DNA. The defense presented evidence that the DNA found on Wadle came from two unidentified men, but not Reed arguing that one of those men is the real killer.  The prosecution has countered that as Wadle was not raped, this could not be the case and was probably consensual sex.

Another twist to the case was the overturning of a ruling by Dallas County Criminal District Court No. 4 Judge John Creuzo precluding the state from seeking the death penalty.  Creuzo had granted a motion by Reed who argued that the 30+ year delay in his case caused by the state’s alleged misconduct had made a constitutionally adequate sentencing investigation impossible with regards to mitigation. Key records are no longer available. Mr. Reed’s father and his stepmothers who raised him are deceased, as well as other critical witnesses, including teachers, childhood physicians and mental health workers.

While it “feels” like Reed murdered Wadle, one eyewitness after 30 years with no DNA linking him to the crime  is not enough to justify sending him to his death if convicted.  With no way to mitigate after the passage of 30 years, and this being Texas, if Reed is convicted, a lethal injection is waiting.  Hopefully a higher court will take another look at this issue and side with Creuzo.  I don’t know if Jonathan Reed will generate the same outcry as Troy Davis but he should.  Not because he is innocent but because someone will be.  It is a statistical certainty. That is unacceptable.

Societe Nationale des Chemins de Fer Francais(SNCF)  is bidding to get a piece of the lucrative contracts to build the United State’s first high speed rail tracks.  Plans for high-speed rails were announced by President Barack Obama.   Nothing out of the ordinary  until you add in some creepy and disturbing historical context.

Sixty-Nine years before they made their current play to transport us at high speed around the United States, SNCF was transporting Jews at relative high speed to concentration camp gas chambers during the Holocaust. Between 1941 and 1944, 3,000 wagons — originally designed for the transportation of cattle — were used by the SNCF to transport Jews to Nazi death camps.  Holocaust survivors and others are voicing their opposition to SNCF being part of the high speed rail process.

This is not the 1st time a foreign company with Holocaust ties has caused controversy when trying to do business in this country.  In 2008,  the Germany based financial services giant(the largest in the world),  Allianz received similar treatment when they announced that they would bid for the naming rights to the NFL’s New York Jets and New York Giants new Meadowlands Stadim. Allianz  has its name on Allianz Arena in Munich, Germany.   That’s the relative present.  In the historical past, Allianz insured the building of concentration camps.  In the past Allianz  had given money owed to Jewish beneficiaries of their life insurance policies to the Nazi authorities instead.

At first,  Like Allianz,  SNCF  poured on excuse after excuse of justification and order following to minimize their historical complicity in mass murder. SNCF  argues that it had no control over railroad operations when France was under Nazi occupation from 1940 to 1944. It was simply under orders to transport Jews to death camps. The following orders” argument goes directly to the moral low ground explicitly rejected in the Nuremberg Trials  and other war crimes tribunals.  It is insultingly despicable that it would even be put forth in a  good faith attempt to deal with the facts.  In January, faced with the prospect of  the loss United States high speed rail contracts,  SNCF finally did proffer a formal apology for its role.

States are now also taking steps to ensure that any company involved in the Billion Dollar nationwide project, disclose any involvement with the Holocaust. In California, lawmakers had passed a bill to ensure this,  but it was subsequently vetoed by then Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.  The bill would have forced companies  wanting to bid on a share of  California’s $45 billion high-speed rail project to disclose whether they transported Holocaust victims.  Maryland has  passed legislation requiring  SNCF  to disclose, as a condition for receiving their rail contract, to disclose it’s role in transporting 76,000 people loaded in 76 cattle cars to their death in Nazi camps.

More recently, SNFC struck a deal with the  state of Florida to fund a Holocaust education program with an 80k donation.   Is this enough?  Many survivors do not think so calling it “tainted money”.

To a large extent time is taking care of the most vocal objections.  Within 10 years there will be few if any survivor left.   Many of us will always remember but many will forget, especially when profits make it expedient to do so. Will “Holocaust Tainted” companies care anymore then?

BART officials admitted last Friday that they shut off wireless communications for some stations in downtown San Francisco to keep a planned protest from happening. The protests were related to the   over the fatal shooting of Charles Hill, a homeless man, by officers on July 11 . BART’s justification was that July protests against BART police shootings had turned violent and they were therefore entitled to take the step of jamming cell phone service to ensure public safety.

You don’t have to be a Constitutional Law guru to know that when the government attempts to silence the speech of protesters on the assumption their words “may” incite violence without having any idea what they are going to say there are 1st Amendment issues.  What’s more, the government decided to silence not only those people but everyone who has anything to say.  It’s called prior restraint.  In this country, prior restraint is deemed one of the “the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights,”  Government attempts to engage in prior restraints of protest related “speech” have been routinely struck down throughout history ranging from the Nazis’ attempt to march in the predominantly Jewish community of  Skokie, Illinois, to the Pentagon Papers. 

BART officials should be ashamed of themselves and the individual(s) who made the ingorant decision to engage in one of the most egregious stifling of 1st Amendment rights in recent history should be fired.

To quote a line  from the movie, The Social Network, “You Don’t Get To 500 million friends(now 750 million) without making a few enemies.”  Within any population sample whether it be brick and mortar or the online social sphere there will be a percentage of content that is hateful, offensive, and downright violent in nature.

A 2010 report, by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, found 14,000 hate and terrorism related web sites which constituted a a 12 percent increase from the prior year. Previous reports have targeted Facebook and YouTube as prime breeding grounds for this subculture of hate.  Now entering stage left is Google+  on pace to be the fastest growing social network ever.  It remains to be seen whether this growth can be sustained. There is however one certainty. Part of that growth will entail content that one group or another considers offensive.  Currently in the invite mode, we have yet to see much(if any) traditional hate speech content.  That is not to say that there are not racists, antisemites and homophobes among the early adopters.  Basic  demographic probabilities say there are.  They are simply not making themselves known because they currently lack a forum to have courage in numbers with the anonymity of groups pages which Google+ does not currently support.  Once the platform opens up however, it seems that features such as Circles, Huddle and Hangout with  multi-user ability will be prime to bring small minded individuals to a common place much in the same way as Facebook groups accomplish that function. Whose going to know about your “Holocaust Deniers” or “KKK member circle?  Build that circle, use Huddle and Hangout to prime the pump. You’re off and running in  much more subtle in insidious manner than traditional content postings.  How will Google monitor this?   It will obviously be(and is) a user based reporting system.  Hopefully Google+ will provide the tools, and be staffed to be more responsive and articulate than Facebook when it comes to dealing with hate speech reporting.  Google+ does have their initial “Content Policy” in place.  It is a strict and detailed one.

HATE SPEECH: “Do not distribute content that promotes hatred or violence towards groups of people based on their race or ethnic origin, religion, disability, gender, age, veteran status, or sexual orientation/gender identity”

This is a very specific and much more restrictive content policy than Facebook. It would indicate that Google will take a dim view of many types of unpopular speech that Facebook currently allows.  Facebook’s content policy with regards to hate speech reads as follows:

“You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence”

Facebook”s policy is purposely vague.  They would rather make the decision with finality in a back room on what is “hateful content” than get into thousands of disputes with users over what content violates their content policy.  They do not want to die the death of a thousand razor cuts by having to staff to deal with it. Google+ has such a specific content policy that they may very well find they are dying that very death when the platform opens up.  What we see today in terms of prohibited content may not be what we see six months or a year from now.  Facebook’s vague policy has led to some very public disputes over  content that promotes Holocaust Denial, photos of  women breastfeeding and  Klu Klux Klan pages  just to name a few.

While the 1st Amendment does not apply to private social networks, they all strive to  strike a balance between a First Amendment corollary to the  free exchange of ideas and limiting offensive speech.  Where will Google+ fall on these issues?  Their 1st attempt goes well beyond a 1st Amendment type mindset and I expect that there will be push- back as the network grows.   In the early stages of Google+ it is all kisses and kumbaya but that will change.

Was listening to Mike and Mike today on ESPN radio.   They were discussing the decision of University of  New Mexico basketball coach Steve Alford to institute a blanket ban on tweeting.  My immediate thought was that New Mexico is obviously a state school which brings the 1st Amendment into any analysis.  The 1st Amendment limits the ability of the the government to suppress speech except in very limits and defined circumstances.   A state school is “the government” and Alford is their agent hence the 1st Amendment issue.  If this was Notre Dame coach Mike Brey instituting the ban, it’s a non-issue from a 1st Amendment standpoint.  Notre Dame is a private school and the 1st Amendment is therefore not applicable with the exception of California which extends 1st Amendment protection to private colleges and universities through the Leonard Law.

The bottom line is that in my opinion, while Alford can take action against players for specific Tweets  that constitute a substantial disruption  of team activities, an across the board ban will not withstand a 1st Amendment challenge. It is in effect a prior restraint speech without even knowing what that speech will be.  While the 1st amendment is being squashed, practically it makes little difference.  Would not go over to well team chemistry wise for a player to challenge such a ban and what are the chances anyone at the ACLU is a an LOBOS fan?