more crap from the supreme court

Yesterday, the Court released its opinion in the case Garcetti v. Ceballos. Watch yer mouths, gov'mint employees - you got no right talkin' 'bout the boss, even if everything you say is true and would potentially facilitate the administration of justice. Whistleblowers - be gone! The Court states its holding as such:

"When public employees make statements pursuant to their official duties, they are not speaking as citizens for First Amendment purposes, and the Constitution does not insulate their communications from employer discipline."

Please allow me to make an obvious point: This holding does not say "may not insulate" or even "usually does not insulate." When is a public employee's right to criticize something related to the job protected by the Constitution? Never, friends, never.

Justice Souter got it right in his dissent. "This significant, albeit qualified, protection of public employees who irritate the government is understood to flow from the First Amendment, in part, because a government paycheck does nothing to eliminate the value to an individual of speaking on public matters, and there is no good reason for categorically discounting a speaker's interest in commenting on a matter of public concern just because the government employs him. Still, the First Amendment safeguard rests on something more, being the value to the public of receiving the opinions and information that a public employee may disclose. 'Government employees are often in the best position to know what ails the agencies for which they work.' Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661, 674 (1994)."

And, thus, we begin to see the new 5-4 Court.

Stuff to watch and other stuff to read.

There was an excellent special on Frontline (PBS) tonight entitled "The Age of AIDS." It chronicles many different aspects of HIV/AIDS, from scientific origins and research, to grassroots activism around the world. Tonight was part one, and the conclusion airs tomorrow night. I hugely recommend you watch it, even if you think you are already an expert. I bet you'll learn at least one new thing, and, if nothing else, you'll be moved by the stories and people in the program.

In other HIV/AIDS-related news, the Kaiser Family Foundation published a survey this month of about 2,500 Americans, asking them about their beliefs and knowledge about the virus. Lots of Americans favor increased governmental funding, both domestic and international, to help fight the epidemic. That's good.
What's not so good? "Significant percentages of Americans think HIV might be spread through kissing, sharing a drinking glass, and touching a toilet seat – 37%, 22%, and 16% respectively.
In addition, a majority does not know that a pregnant woman with HIV can take drugs to reduce the risk of her baby being infected (55%), or that having another sexually transmitted disease (STD) may increase a person’s risk of getting HIV (56%)."

Prostitution Clause in AIDS Policy Ruled Illegal

Two federal judges in the past several weeks have ruled that the U.S. government's policy of forcing health groups to denounce prostitution in order to receive funds for international AIDS work is an unconstitutional restriction of free speech.
The Justice Department originally told the U.S. Agency for International Development -- which distributes AIDS contracts -- that the policy was unconstitutional, and so the agency declined to enforce it. But Justice reversed itself, and in 2005, USAID began to require organizations to state that they oppose prostitution and sex trafficking and sign a form before receiving funds.
The most recent ruling, issued in Washington by U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, found that the regulation "casts too wide a net and is not narrowly tailored," forcing aid organizations to "parrot the government's policies" and preventing them from using even privately raised funds to assist sex workers with AIDS prevention.
Julie M. Carpenter, a lawyer at Jenner & Block LLP who litigated the Washington case, said, "The effect of the statute was to quell any dispute with the federal government. What this does is say to the government that it can't use its spending power to constrain private speech."

Alright, Supreme Court - if this issue gets in your grubby little hands, don't ruin this extraordinary bit of good news we've gotten from the federal courts. Please!

Also, you can read the District of Columbia case here - it is well reasoned, grounded in well-settled law, and reads a bit like a law school essay. Good job, law clerk!

truth from ani d.

you can talk a great philosophy
but if you can't be kind to people
every day
it doesn't mean that much to me
it's the little things you do
the little things you say
it's the love you give along the way

i couldn't say it better (which is obviously why i quote ani d., and don't try). but seriously, i am tired of people preaching all the right ideas, doing awesome work for the world and people they have never met, and then being assholes to the people in their everyday lives. i know no one is perfect, and i know it is easier to care and be compassionate in the abstract. i don't claim that i am above this. but i do expect people who outwardly preach for social change and human responsibility to one another to act out those values as much as they possibly can in their daily lives. too often, that doesn't happen. maybe i am naive to just be coming to this realization. but, it doesn't match up in my head, and it keeps me up at night. it's not fair. so stop it. please.

right wingnuts

apparently, you can't even say the word "tuesday" anymore without invoking 9/11. wtf?

check out this scene from lou dobbs' show, courtesy of crooksandliars.com. and, allow me to second stephanie miller's sentiments. go stephen!

also check out most of the rest of colbert's speech at the correspondents' dinner here.

No Habla Espanol

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush boldly spews out Spanish phrases at any opportunity where they might be relevant, but the White House acknowledged on Thursday that Bush's fluency is, well, not bueno.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan used that defense to dispute a report that Bush sang the U.S. national anthem in Spanish during the 2000 presidential campaign.
Critics have accused Bush of hypocrisy for opposing a Spanish language version of the anthem.
They pointed to a book called "American Dynasty" by Kevin Phillips, who wrote that Bush "would drop in at Hispanic festivals and parties, sometimes joining in singing 'The Star-Spangled Banner' in Spanish."
McClellan said the assertion did not ring true to him because, "The president speaks Spanish, but not that well."
"I'm saying that not only was that suggestion absurd, but that he couldn't possibly sing the national anthem in Spanish. He's not that good with his Spanish," McClellan said.
Bush, a former governor of Texas, sprinkles his speeches with Spanish phrases, as he did during both his presidential campaigns, to show kinship with Hispanics.
He was at it again on Thursday, celebrating Cinco De Mayo, the day marking the May 5, 1862, Mexican defeat of the French army at the Battle of Puebla, with a smattering of Spanish phrases and urging newly arrived immigrants to learn English.
"Bienvenidos, welcome to the White House," he said. "You may have noticed this celebration is not on the Cinco de Mayo -- it's on the Cuatro de Mayo."
For scheduling purposes, Bush marked Cinco de Mayo a day early.
"It's such an important holiday, we thought we would start early," he said to laughter.

hahaha - very clever. first mangle the language, then belittle the culture. eeexxxcellent.