Freedom of speech: only if your opinion is pro-Bush

According to the following stories http://www.timesargus.com/Story/64998.html and http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=15872

A police officer, IN UNIFORM, entered a school at 1:30 AM, coerced a custodian to unlock the door to a contraversial teacher’s classroom and took photographs of student art work. That teacher, Tom Treece, holds an opinion contrary to Officer John Mott’s opinion. Treece is more liberal and is anti-war in Iraq, while Mott is more conservative and is pro-war in Iraq.

The contraversy has bloomed into an all out vocal war that has divided the people. It seems that the majority of Treece’s detractors do not have first hand knowledge of what goes on in his classroom, and his supporters are students and people who have first hand knowledge of what goes on in there. The kids say that contrary to what is perceived by the detractors, Treece teaches all sides to an issue - not just his own, so he is not indoctrinating the students in anti-war sentiment.

Mott has been hailed a hero by Rush Limbaugh, who has posted the children’s art work on his web site, much to the anger of the parents of the children who constructed the contraversial artwork for an assignment where the students were asked to 1) participate in a debate on whether to invade Iraq, 2) write a paper defending your perspective, and 3) develop art work that defends your point of view. Six students designed a poster with a picture of George W Bush with duct tape over his mouth and the words: “Put your duct tape to good use. Shut your mouth.”

I feel that Officer Mott was totally out of line when he entered that school and took the pictures. In my opinion, I think he violated those kids’ rights to free speech by taking the picture to try to squelch how they felt. I also think that he may have violated the children’s copyright; by taking the picture, he has taken away their control of their own work. Certainly by providing Rush Limbaugh with the photos, he has allowed this man to use the children’s rights to control their art work to defame the children and the teacher. At the very least, Mr. Limbaugh should be directed to take down the pictures and cease and desist in defaming the children for expressing THEIR OWN OPINIONs, as you are allowed to do in the US (well, WERE allowed to do… if this is an example of how we teach children about their rights, then something is very wrong here.)

What are we teaching these kids? That if they do express their own opinion, some nitwit in a cop suit may come and make a big issue of it, blaming their teacher, who only taught them that it’s ok to express their own opinion. That if they express their opinion, that if it’s not within the framework of popular belief, then it will be held up to ridicule and possibly cost someone a job?

I don’t think that is a good message to give these children. They are old enough to be able to think for themselves. Can’t those adults give them credit for that?

Should Mott be disciplined? Should Treece be disciplined? What do you think the school board and the parents should do? And what about Rush who has jumped into the embers and is stirring it to a full fledged inferno?
In my opinion, Mott should be fired and charged with breaking and entering. The photos should be given to the school board to destroy. Treece should be given a public formal apology for the way he has been treated. The people who stuck their noses in when they didn’t know the story, and when they didn’t have a child in the classes should be told to shut up about the subject as it doesn’t concern them.

I think Rush should be told to stop fanning the flames and take those photos off his site because he is violating the children’s rights by displaying them.

We have spent all this time and energy to get these kids to form an opinion, when they usually don’t give a damn, and then when their opinion is different from some adults who can’t keep their noses out of other people’s businesses, they are told they can’t have that opinion by the actions of these people.

What do you think?

I don’t think taking a picture of something violates either free speech or copyright law (given that it’s unlikely the art was copyrighted). Using a uniform to help break into a school on something that is not even remotely police business is a disagrace, however.

At 1:30 in the morning?

Seems to me the police officer was illegally operating under the color of law and without the knowledge of his superiors.

Illegal search. The teacher appears to have the potential for a civil case against the officer (if not the school board), and quite possibly a criminal case as well.

Unfortunately the cat is out of the bag with the photographs, emotions and biases running high. Whatever happens, damage has been done. That the average person is unable to understand the concept of the fruits of the poisonous tree adds to the issue.

The Constitution was torn a little more that morning.

The pictures are certainly copyrighted, since any copyrightable work that you fix in a permanent form is copyrighted. Copyright registration hasn’t been required for decades, IIRC.

Taking a picture of the artwork probably isn’t a copyright violation, but Rush is definitely violating copyright by posting the pics on his web site.

How does taking pictures amount to stifling free speech? The kids’ picture is still there, right? And they can still use it for their assignment, right?

This I’ll agree with. He didn’t have permission to use their work, and unless they were doing something unlawful, he had no business collecting it as “evidence”.

paranoia, the destroyer!

where can I check out these kids art ?

There are two pictures here :

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_050603/content/truth_detector.guest.html

Copyright registration is most definitely required if you want to seek damages against an infringer. All that “automatic” copyright does is allow one to have a judge order the infringer to stop redistributing the work.

UnuMondo

I stand corrected. However, it’s still correct to say that Rush Limbaugh is violating the children’s copyright, even if their only legal recourse is to make him remove the pictures from his web site.

How is this breaking copyright law? The pictures or articles do not try to take credit for the work themselves, they don’t try making money from them.

If I take a picture of a book I read, and post it on a web page, say with a review of the book, I am not breaking copyright law, because I am not distrubiting the book or selling it. Or better yet, if I have pictures of a famous art work on a web page I am not breaking copyright law either. So how can this be breaking it?

You’re right it’s a disgrace. However, on the copyright, you’re wrong. When something like artwork or music, or written word is created an implied copyright goes into effect to protect the creator of the work. If you took a picture, and someone copied the picture on a scanner or other reproduction, and then started passing it out to people or even gave it to one person to post on a website, you lost control of the rights to use that photograph. It is within your rights to sue to get it back or to contact the copyright agent of the web site and have it removed. It works too, with the reproduction of said creation.

The fact that Rush is using it to further, in my opinion, a criminal - btw, he’s unrepentant. he doesn’t think he did anything wrong - and to defame the creator and the mentor of the creator, in my opinion is against the copyright laws, and the intent of copyright laws.

After the illegal breaking and entering, to take a photo of the object and use it to defame a teacher probably is going to stop the kid from expressing his views later due to what happened. To that effect, while he hasn’t stifled THAT particular statement, future statements will be laced with the fear that the cop will do it again, whether or not the kid’s opinion is the same as the cop’s. THAT is where it stifles free speech.

The cop deserves to be thrown off the force and sued. Same with Limbaugh. Case closed. I hope they both have to cough up huge amounts of cash, especially Limbaugh, simply because he has more.

What do you mean by “coerced”? Did the police officer threaten the custodian?

This may be an understatement. I would guess that the student poster saying that Bush should be impeached is actually Treece’s POV. An opinion that Bush deserves impeachment is beyond the region of liberalism into the country of nutcase. After all, the war on Iraq was approved by Congress.

Generally speaking, a teacher should encourage students to focus on learning and disseminating the facts. It seems that Treece is teaching them how to present opinions in a dramatic fashion, even if the opinions are based on ignorance.

As long as Treece kept the contents of his course secret, his potential detractors had no idea at all of what was going on there. Thanks to Officer Mott, Rush Limbaugh, et. al., outside people have some idea of what’s going on in the class.

This is a bizaree POV, since no war critic has been silenced. Nobody has been prosecuted or had their jobs threatened

You may have a point here.

The students don’t have any rights. If Mott violated anyone’s rights, it was the Principal of the school. S/he’s the one with the discretion to allow visitors or disallow visitors.

This is the nub of the problem. I have a strong impression that the kids were encouraged to express the teacher’s opinion. I also have an impression that the teacher’s opinion is way out in left field.

Bizarre opinions will be held up to ridicule. That’s a good lesson to learn

The students were the ones expressing bizarre opinions, but their jobs aren’t in jeopardy. The teacher’s job may be threatened, not because he holds extremist opinions, but because he’s pressuring his students to adopt his extremist positions.

Maybe the message is that one must take the consequences of one’s actions.

Maybe. If he used his law enforcement powers to get into the classroom, where no crime was suspected, then Mott did something wrong.

Probably. If he was promoting weird, extremist politics then he should be stopped from doing that.

Demand an investigation. If Treece did what I suspect he did, they should see that he’s disciplined or terminated.

Rush is doing his job. AFAIK what Rush said was true and accurate. It’s the media’s job to let people know what’s going on.

were there any pictures of the “pro-war” side of things?

If there were, did Mott take any pictures of Pro-war art?

If he did, would Rush Limbaugh show them on his web site?

Even though the students themselves say that they are taught multiple viewpoints to issues?

expressing a dissenting view deserves a police officer breaking into your classroom and (possibly) selectively displaying evidence? thats hardly equivalent consequence.

[ul][li]There was no breaking and entering - the custodian let him in, probably because Mott used to be the JROTC officer for the school. Mott may have been in violation of the visitors policy at the school, but that is not the same as breaking and entering.[/li]
How serious such a violation is, I don’t know. Is there any indication as to why Mott felt it necessary to enter the school at 1:30am? Had he or others been denied the opportunity to view the art in question?
[li]What indication do you have that the photos have been used to “defame” anyone? The only thing close to defamation I can find is Treece’s reference to Bush as the “idiot boy king”, which is probably covered under the First Amendment. Also covered under the same Amendment is saying, “Treece’s opinions on Bush and Iraq are stupid, and he shouldn’t be teaching them to my kids.”[/li][li]I would be seriously concerned about trying to outlaw actions that would “probably” stop a minor from expressing his view later. The standard of proof as to what constitutes a violation of free speech needs to be much higher than that. As in, some kind of real evidence that citizens have been prevented from expressing their opinions - not “Well, it might happen somehow”.[/li][li]So far, it would seem that a number of the parents in the district disagree with the anti-Bush, anti-invasion sentiments of some of the art displayed. They feel that Treece is abusing his position, and cite as evidence the anti-Bush, anti-invasion sentiments Treece has expressed at the school. [/li][li]It does not seem to me that it has been established that Treece has been abusing his position. [/li][li]Posting the photos on a website strikes me as fair use. I don’t imagine many artists would go around suing a newspaper for publishing pictures of their latest show in an art review, even if the review were negative. In the same way, Limbaugh’s opinion that the art is inappropriate does not mean that it is a violation of copyright to use the photos as evidence for his opinion. [/li][li]IANAL, but I imagine a lawsuit for copyright violation wouldn’t get any further than did Fox News’ lawsuit against Al Franken over the use of their logo and slogan. [/ul][/li]
On preview - I agree with december. Part of the lesson the students in Treece’s class are learning is that not everybody is going to agree with you when you express an opinion. On either side.
Regards,
Shodan

What is it about conservatives and Breaking & Entering? Ever since Watergate, they just can’t seem to stop doing it…

Here we go again.

For everyone that says the Constitution was violated: what portion of the Constitution, exactly, do you believe was harmed?

Thank you.

The articles cited both say that the officer was in uniform at 1:30 AM. I didn’t see whether he was also on duty at the time. If so, accepting pay and leaving the town unprotected whilst he carried out his political activities would be grounds for discipline or dismissal. Even if the officer was off-duty, his use of the uniform in order to coerce his way into the school and further his political agenda reflects badly on the professionalism of other officers. In a similar vein, I believe most police forces have policies which preclude uniformed officers from participating in klan meetings, or anti-abortion demonstrations.

US Constitution, Amendment IV:

Did this “police officer” have a warrant for search? Was this warrant obtained as required by the Constitution.

The pictures would qualify as “papers and effects”. Did this Commie in a cop suit have a warrant?

Damned Stalinists.