YouTube restores Amy Greenfield’s videos

Last week, NCAC and EFF protested YouTube’s removal of work by acclaimed video-artist Amy Greenfield. NCAC applauds YouTube for so promptly responding to our letter and restoring Amy Greenfield’s videos to its site (there are still some technical glitches but we are assured these will be taken care of soon). We are glad the company affirms that creativity and free expression are values at the very core of its mission.

But some serious concerns remain. It seems that, still, there is no viable way for individuals to appeal decisions to remove content. What one can find in abundance as a result of a search on YouTube’s help page are entries from other users who had videos taken off, tried to appeal and were angry and frustrated as could find no way to do so.

We also urge YouTube to add “art” to the community guidelines exceptions “for educational, documentary and scientific content” where nudity is concerned. That will give YouTube staffers evaluating flagged videos clearer direction.

(In)decent exposure? Nudes in art

from Brian Reed's "Through the Heart of it All" exhibit

Representations of nudes in painting, sculpture, and photography frequently become subject to controversy. The law, however, is clear: simple nudity (that is nudity outside of a sexually explicit situation) has full constitutional protection. (That does not mean that public officials are always aware of this as a current case in Temecula, CA, testifies.)

But what about a live naked person used as an element of an art installation? The NYPD is not sure. Law enforcement went into the Chair and Maiden Gallery in New York last Sunday and asked for the removal from the gallery’s streetfront window of a naked woman enveloped in a mesh made of shark eggs and teeth, beads and clay pipes. Apparently some neighbor complained about the piece. However, when the woman took up her position in the storefront again yesterday, police circled around but did not interfere.

Indeed, the state statute addressing public nudity provides an exception for “any person entertaining or performing in a play, exhibition, show or entertainment.” The statute was referred to in a case involving Spencer Tunick’s photo shoots of public nude installations. In June 2000, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the city could not stop him from staging a mass nude photo shoot below the Williamsburg Bridge. More recently, the city dropped public lewdness charges against a model, Kathleen Neill who ran naked through a gallery in the Met for the purpose of a photo shoot.

The law aside, what’s in a body? We all have them, we feed them, wash them, exercise them, and most of the time use them for purposes unrelated to sex, but, yes, bodies can also give and receive pleasure. But why all the shame and the concern that children may be around? When someone wants to censor a nude I always wonder about their own dirty thoughts and the shame and guilt that lurks in their own minds.

Bikini apps for iPhone are “overtly sexual”

Simply Beach's catalog app

We can now add swimwear catalogs to the list of controversial iPhone apps, which already includes a Kama Sutra ebook, NIN, and the dictionary.

In an effort to keep out anything “overtly sexual” from iPhone apps, Apple removed Simply Beach’s catalog (Simply Beach is an online beachwear retailer). Apparently, women in bikinis press Apple’s red-alert sexuality button (or do they?*).

Simply Group MD Gerrard Dennis says in a press release,

This has put people’s jobs at risk as we rely on all income streams … It would have been better to have had some warning or discussion before removing the app. I assume all clothing retailers that sell anything other than overcoats will now have to be removed from iTunes?

As of yesterday the app has been restored. But the issue remains: whether or not Apple, or Internet intermediaries are “fast becoming the new arbiters of morality – and setting the tone of what is acceptable and what is not,”  as NCAC’s director of programs, Svetlana Mintcheva, argues. “There is no First Amendment to protect our speech in such communities,” she says regarding a recent controversy over YouTube’s pulling videos from an internationally acclaimed video-artist, “but that is why it is much more important to get involved and express our outrage.”

*Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue for iPhone! (HT: Cult of Mac)

Universities struggle to respond to student outrage

Last week, two public universities struggled with how to respond to student outrage. Eleven students were arrested at the University of California at Irvine for disrupting the speech of Israeli ambassador Michael Oren.  Meanwhile, the University of Oregon has been exploring ways of expelling Pacifica Forum, a “hate group” (according to the Southern Law Poverty Center) that has upset many students on campus. In both situations, it is clear that the speech is only a symptom of the problem.

Responding to the incident at UC Irvine, the dean of the law school, Erwin Chemerinsky comments,

As a matter of 1st Amendment law, this is an easy case. It would be so no matter the identity or views of the speaker or of the demonstrators. Perhaps some good can come from this ugly incident if the university uses it as an occasion to help teach its students about the meaning of free speech and civil discourse.

A school-sponsored event does not offer the same protections for free speech that the school lawn does. However, a lesson in “civil discourse” will not address UC Irvine’s underlying problems. As we have said before: the criminal prosecution of students avoids the opportunity for meaningful dialogue.

Salam Al Marayati, the executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, D.C., notes the student protest at UC Irvine did not take place in a vacuum. According to Al Marayati, who has moderated several conversations between the UC Irvine Muslim students and the authorities, tensions had been building among the university’s Muslim students from the constant threat of FBI surveillance they face in Orange County and their campus community. An FBI official publicly stated that the federal agency intended to monitor Muslim students in the universities; an FBI assistant director then disavowed this agenda, however a subsequent peculiar incident casts doubt on that official statement.  According to an informant’s testimony, the FBI has also sought video footage from local gyms of certain young Muslim patrons.

NCAC calls for reinstatement of tenured U of CO professor

NCAC joined the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and American Association of University Professors (AAUP) in filing a friend of the court brief calling for the reinstatement of Ward Churchill, who was fired from his tenured position at the University of Colorado after writing a controversial essay.  The case became highly politically charged after public officials began to call for Churchill’s dismissal because of disagreement with his views.

Last year, a jury sided with Churchill, who had contested the University’s actions on First Amendment grounds. The jury found that he had been fired because of the opinions he expressed, and that he would not have been fired but for his protected speech. Nonetheless, a judge denied him reinstatement.

NCAC Executive Director Joan Bertin says,

You don’t have to agree with Churchill’s views to recognize his right to express them. In this case the university failed to uphold the most basic principles of academic freedom. Reinstatement will  restore Churchill to the position he would have been in if his First Amendment rights had not been violated. It is necessary to make it clear that public officials cannot violate the Constitution with impunity.

As the brief explains, reinstatement is the only meaningful remedy available to vindicate the constitutional rights at stake in this case.

Check out more about the issue here.

Anne Frank’s Diary will remain in school after complaint about sexual content

The Culpeper County, VA school system received national media attention three weeks ago when school officials said that The Diary of a Young Girl: The Definitive Edition by Anne Frank would no longer be taught in middle school classrooms. A parent had contacted the school board because the uncensored version of the diary, used in an eighth grade English class, contained Frank’s reflections on her sexuality, including a description of her vagina’s appearance.

According to The Washington Post, director of instruction James Allen originally said that the school pulled the diary from the curriculum immediately after the parent’s verbal complaint. In doing so, they ignored district policy, which calls for a committee to review written complaints. “The person came in, and the decision was made that day,” Allen said, “and that’s fine. We would like to have had it in writing. It just did not happen.”

School officials’ casual disregard for procedure drew widespread criticism. Soon Superintendent Bobbi Johnson clarified that the book had not actually been removed from classrooms, and that the English teachers will be meeting later in the spring to review the whole curriculum. The Diary might be taught at a different grade level, but it will not be cut from the reading list.

The school district’s original decision to censor Anne Frank’s diary was an enthusiastic act of censorship, especially considering that the parent who complained only wanted assurance that her own child would not have to read aloud from the book in class. When they review the curriculum, English teachers in Culpeper County should let this incident remind them not to censor books preemptively if they contain material to which parents might object. They should also keep the definitive edition of Frank’s diary available to younger students, many of whom have vaginas themselves.

Parents in Florida object to Judy Blume’s “Forever”

NCAC, with a little help from our friends, sent a letter urging Sugarloaf School in Summerland Key, FL, to retain Judy Blume’s Forever in the school library after the parents of one student objected to the book’s sexual content. The parents have requested its removal from the library claiming that Forever contains “a distorted view of sex, promiscuity, [and is] usurping parental control.”

Who is truly usurping control? Is it the book? Or is it the parents, whose objection imposes on another parent or child’s right to access material of their choosing?

NCAC Executive Director Joan Bertin writes,

Some parents prefer to keep their children from reading about sex; others may strongly disapprove of teen sexual activity and still not censor their children’s reading. Some parents appreciate books like Forever, because they can create opportunities for adults and teens to talk about sensitive topics. Even if the novel’s themes are too mature for some students, they will be meaningful to others. No book is right for everyone, and the role of the library is to allow students to make choices according to their own interests, experiences, and family values. No one has to read something just because it’s on the library shelf.

Lest we forget

“[T]he mere fact that a child is exposed on occasion in public school to a concept offensive to a parent’s religious belief does not inhibit the parent from instructing the child differently. A parent whose ‘child is exposed to sensitive topics or information [at school] remains free to discuss these matters and to place them in the family’s moral or religious context, or to supplement the information with more appropriate materials.’” (Parker v. Hurley)

Good idea! Parents, instead of complaining about material you’d prefer were inaccessible to your children, use it as an opportunity for parenting.

UPDATE: The school’s reconsideration committee met and decided to keep Forever in its library!

Temecula City Managers Remove Nude Artwork from Visual Expression 2010 Show

"Nude 2" by Jeff Hebron

In January, artwork by Jeff Hebron, which had been selected for inclusion in a Temecula, CA juried art exhibit (Visual Expressions 2010), was removed upon the request of the City Management. The problem: the painting depicted a nude figure. The gallery where the piece was to be shown is a city-owned space, which is why there are serious First Amendment concerns. NCAC sent a letter to Temacula City Manager, Shawn Nelson,  protesting the censorship.

It is not the role of a public official to shield the eyes of the public from work because he subjectively decides it is not “family-friendly.” The arbitrary, subjective, and vague determination of what might be “appropriate” for the venue has led in this case to the impermissible imposition of an individual’s viewpoint on the whole community.

Simple nudity is not sufficient grounds for excluding artwork from public exhibition. If it were, a vast amount of great art, including masterpieces like Michelangelo’s David, would be off limits.

The nude is one of the central subjects of art. It graces city squares and other public places. The imposition of a government official’s belief that nudes are to be kept out of sight of ‘families’ not only violates free speech principles, it demonstrates disregard for the community at large, whose members should be allowed to see the full range of artistic expression.

School defends R-rated films as essential teaching tools

The school board at Council Rock School District in southeastern Pennsylvania decided last week that teachers may continue to use R-rated movies in class.  Their defense of the policy comes after an extended controversy that began last fall when parent Diana Nolan asked that all R-rated films be removed from high school curricula.  Parents were required to sign permission slips before film screenings, but Nolan felt that having to do so put her in “an awkward position” and embarrassed her son.

Other parents soon echoed her contention that all R-rated films are inappropriate for all high school students.  Students responded by crowding a school board meeting on January 21 and drawing up a petition with more than 500 signatures.  Junior Ryan Carlin strongly opposed the proposed ban:

Enough is enough.  Censorship of literature, of art and film is a true offense.  We feel these films are educationally valuable and abandoning them will open a Pandora’s box of censorship.

Nolan argued that teachers should simply use other films, ones “that are appropriate that are not R-rated. Why do we need shock factor?”  More than “shock” factors into the scenes that earn critically-acclaimed films an R-rating, officials and teachers argued.  Films such as Saving Private Ryan and Schindler’s List may be shocking, but that only testifies to their educational value as they supplement historical readings in a powerfully visual way.

Political opinions: “A good enough reason” to ban books?

In the children’s book Brown Bear, Brown Bear, What Do You See?, the title character answers the question of the title with, “I see a red bird looking at me.”

For one member of the elected Texas Board of Education, the bird’s color could have been confirmation of her suspicion that the picture book promoted Communism.  But then again, Board member Terri Leo (R-Spring) didn’t actually read the book before suggesting that its author, Bill Martin, Jr., be removed from a third grade social studies curriculum‘s list of examples of writers and artists who are significant to the cultural heritage of communities. (The list including Martin, Jr. appears as item 15(B) on p.17.)

In an e-mail to fellow board member Pat Hardy (R-Weatherford), Leo suggested that Martin be removed from the list because he had also written Ethical Marxism: The Categorical Imperative of Liberation, which its publisher describes as “a daring attempt to reinvigorate the theoretical program of the radical left, anti-imperialist movement of the twenty-first century.” Leo apparently found Ethical Marxism by searching Martin’s name at Borders.com.

“She said that that was what he wrote, and I said: ‘ … It’s a good enough reason for me to get rid of someone,’ ” Hardy told the Ft. Worth Star Telegram. Throughout the revision process, Hardy has objected to the large number of individual names that the Board has added to the curriculum standards.

At the Jan. 14 meeting of the Board of Education, Hardy moved to remove the children’s book author from the list (in this video discussion, Hardy’s motion begins during minute 27.)  “Bill Martin is an author,” Hardy said in explaining her amendment. “He wrote some children’s books: Brown Bear, Black Bear, something like that. I haven’t got it on my reading list.  But he also has written some very strong critiques of capitalism and the American system, etcetera, etcetera, as adult books.”

But the books were written by different Bill Martins.