ELEPHANT RAGE

Cuban Blogger Gets Pummeled by Government Thugs after Winning Prize

One of my idols, the author of Generation Y that gets a million hits a month, recently received a prestigious international award for her poignant blog that features abuses and hardships in Cuba.  Rather than be proud of the success of one of their own, the Cuban government forbade Yoani Sanchez from traveling outside Cuba to accept the award, and only days later, government thugs accosted her on a sidewalk and beat her to the point that she must walk with crutches while she heals. 

Certainly, this episode has given her some AWESOME fuel for her blog -- probably the opposite effect of what the Communist military regime had hoped to achieve.  In fact, while beating her, the men made it clear that she was going too far in her blog, and saying too much, and she basically needed to keep quiet.  Guess what?  Now a million readers around the world have learned about the true nature of censorship in Cuba, as she has blogged on every minute detail of the ordeal, right down to mentioning how she grabbed one of the men's testes during the altercation.

I can only hope that President Obama and other liberals who want to increase ties with Cuba and disregard sanctions have read Generation Y.  There is nothing pretty about censorship and an oppressive government. 

Meanwhile, I hope everyone out there who is as sensitive to insults as the Cuban government also takes note.  Whenever someone makes an uproar over the spoken or written word of someone else because they find it offensive, they are in some way diminishing freedom of speech. 

Think of the politician who was recently blasted for complimenting Jews for being frugal.  Turns out the Jews didn't consider that so much of a compliment as a stereotype, and Jim Ulmer was forced to make a huge apology.  To read the vicious comments online in response to his well-intended remark, you could almost picture such angry and insulted people wanting to pummel him the way the Cuban government put the blogger in her place.  

Consider the ridiculous Halloween scandal over the costume of an illegal alien, with the Latino community protesting.  Their feelings were hurt.  Seems whenever there is the most truth about a statement, there is the most backlash, with protests that presumably could turn violent under the right circumstances.  

Why such sensitivity?  Why don't people value freedom of speech and expression over protecting their own image?  After all, interest groups in the United States seem as eager as the Cuban government to censor not just the media and bloggers, but everyone who speaks.  Reminds me of the old childhood rhyme, "Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me."  Of course, that was always said at the very moment when someone's words DID hurt, and badly. 

No matter the pain of hearing the truth, or a partial truth, or an unpopular stereotype or caricature, that is far preferable to not hearing it!  Much better that we allow freedom of expression, and deal with our own feelings, than that we suppress all types of communication to try not to offend. 

One of my favorite sections of the bookstore is always where the political humor is located.  How great that we can allow such ridicule and mockery of our own presidents!  And live another day without fear of reprisal.  If the president must put up with it, then so must we all, and be grateful that we live in a place where we can openly state what is on our minds.

We must use our freedom of expression to speak out on behalf of people who are not so lucky, and call for our government to keep pressure on countries like Cuba until they change their barbaric ways. 

Forgetting Tiananmen Square

A 15-year-old girl from China has shared my home for the past ten months, and she knows nothing about the Tiananmen Square incident that occurred 20 years ago today.  She attends school back home until 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and half a day Saturdays; she's already had three years of physics; and in general she's educated way beyond the typical American of the same age.  Yet she knows nothing of Tiananmen Square.  Those words don't ring the same bells for her as they do for the entire Western world.

What is going on in China?  They have a remarkable system of censorship, cover-up and brainwashing, as I've discovered the past ten months.  When our exchange student first arrived, she still got her news from Chinese sources online, and I quickly learned she was not getting the same news as I was. 

For example, when it came out that the little girl was lip-syncing in the Beijing Olympics opening ceremonies, this detail was missing from the official Chinese news.  My exchange student didn't believe me when I told her!  Same thing when it came out that the Chinese government was squashing inquiries after the earthquake.  You wouldn't find that in Chinese news sources, either.

As for the touchy subjects, she had an official party line response.  Take Falun Gong, for instance.  When I said the members were harmless and being sent off to labor camps in China, she didn't believe me.  She said they were dangerous, that all they wanted to do was publicly kill themselves, and that they didn't exist anymore!  I said they exist right here in the United States, and also in China, and she couldn't believe it.  Never even heard of labor camps.  Do labor camps really exist? her quizzical expression seemed to ask.

As for the Dalai Lama and Tibet, don't even mention it.  That topic gets a very sharp response from a Chinese person indoctrinated in the party line, and coming from a proud Communist family.

Still, I've encouraged her to learn whatever she can about all the sensitive topics -- from the Western perspective -- while she's able to, and to also read Western news sources while she can, because she definitely won't be getting the same news when she returns to China!  So many websites are blocked, and so many stories are skewed or wiped under the rug.  Yet this also was news to her.  I pointed out all the lists of blocked websites and news stories, especially during the Olympics, and it was the first she had heard of the matter. 

So far, I haven't seen a huge change in our exchange student's opinions, except perhaps in the area of religion.  She has been involved in a local Chinese Christian church, and she plans to take back to China a collection of Chinese language Bibles and Christian literature -- for her own reading and to share with her parents.  I'm a little concerned about how this will go over, both in her home and in her community.  I'm concerned they might even confiscate her books at customs, or that she will face persecution if she gets involved in an underground church over there -- the only churches that seem vibrant, as the official churches are largely spurned.  

Back in China, however, her parents and friends have different concerns for her upcoming return trip.  "Wear a face mask on the plane," they tell her, so she won't get swine flu.  "And be prepared in case the government quarantines you for several days upon arrival."    

Congress Considers Bills that Attack Freedom of Speech, Protect Sexual Perverts, and Put Police at Risk

Three bills pending before Congress threaten your First Amendment freedoms significantly, plus threaten the ability of police to maintain law and order.

In one bill, your electronic and phone communications may constitute a federal crime if they pressure or upset someone.  In two other bills, your speech and memberships may be used to convict you of a hate crime if you harm someone with a different religion or "sexual orientation" -- even if it is an orientation toward sex with children, animals or dead people -- plus the police can be charged with a hate crime if they injure or attempt to injure a minority or Muslim during arrest.

HR 1966, known as the Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act, says your communications via "e-mail, instant messaging, blogs, websites, telephones, and text messages" may constitute a federal crime if the intent is to "coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress."  Gee, guess all those angry messages from your soon-to-be ex can qualify as a crime if this law gets passed.  Maybe even demands from a lawyer would be criminal if they "intimidate," and business negotiations if they "coerce."  In fact, just about any electronic communication under this scenario can be considered a crime, since there is no requirement that it be aimed a particular person or cause actual harm, and just about any statement, opinion or joke can be distressing to someone. 

Yes, it's sad about Megan Meier, the 13-year-old depressed girl who killed herself after some people sent her mean e-mails.  But let's face it -- the state had laws already in place for prosecution; the state can strengthen those laws if desired; the girl didn't have to read the e-mails; and we all don't go off and kill ourselves when we read something mean.  Thank God our celebrities have thicker skins, or every one of them would bump themselves off after reading the tabloids.  Oh yeah, paper communications aren't targeted here, just blogs, e-mails and website versions of publications -- which are all at risk if this bill becomes law! 

The real question isn't sympathy for Megan and her family.  The real question is do we want to make it a federal crime to use electronic means to communicate?  After all, this proposed law does not say it's a crime if you stick the same message in the mail or publish it in the local (dying) newspaper.  The target here is all of the newer technology.  Purveyors and users of this technology should take note, and fight this bill with everything they've got.  If it gets passed, people can walk up to someone and intimidate them to their face all they want, but if they put their words in electronic form, they're doomed.

SB 909, the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, is a total can of worms.  It allows your "speech, beliefs and expressive conduct" to be used to prove a hate crime against you if the victim claims to be protected by race, religion, disability, gender, gender identity, or sexual orientation of any type, even if their orientation is toward pedophilia, bestiality or necrophilia.  If the person you punch in the face happens to be a child pornographer, he can claim that you committed a hate crime against him and get the feds involved.  Or if a girl fights off a would-be kidnapper with her marching band baton (as happened recently), she may be guilty of a hate crime, especially if she belongs to a group that opposes pedophilia.

The proposed bill has other problems as well:  it allows the feds to use juvenile crime records, and it asserts as fact ridiculous things like there are still "badges, incidents and relics of slavery," and "state and local authorities...can carry out their responsibilities more effectively with greater Federal assistance" (these are opinions!).  Note that if you're a Christian or white, SB 909 does not aim to protect you, since its stated intent is only to protect religions and national origins "to the extent such religions or national origins were regarded as races at the time of the adoption of the 13th, 14th and 15th amendments to the Constitution."  Well, looking back in time over a 100 years ago, I don't believe that Christians or people of European heritage were considered a distinct "race."  You can bet that Muslims may qualify for protection, however. 

HR 1913, the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, is similar to SB 909 but without so many of the obvious problems mentioned above, and it is on the verge of being passed.  Like SB 909, it protects "sexual orientation" without limit, and it allows the feds to pursue criminal charges even if the state has already tried you and sentenced you!  That is, if "the verdict or sentence obtained...left demonstrably unvindicated the Federal interest in eradicating bias-motivated violence."  Let's not overlook the fact that both bills also require large sums of money to implement at the federal level, such as new hires for the Department of Justice, and they allow localities to ask for direct grants of up to $100,000.  Politicians may support these bills solely because they expect to get money for their jurisdiction, and not because of the intrinsic value.  

One more concern:  both proposed hate crime laws put police at risk, since a person is guilty "whether or not acting under color of law" if he "willfully causes bodily injury" to a protected person, or if he "attempts to cause bodily injury" with a "firearm," "dangerous weapon," or "incendiary device."  Police carry, aim and use guns, batons and Tasers, and they must often threaten and subdue people they are arresting.  The vast majority of people they arrest are people of color.  The suspects may also, whether known to the arresting officer or not, be cross-dressers or otherwise have "gender identity" issues, or be homosexuals or pedophiles or belong to a covered religion.  With the passage of either hate crime bill, your local law enforcement agencies may be overrun with federal crime charges against police officers who "bodily harm" or even "attempt" such harm against these protected suspects, including black gang members, illegal Mexican immigrants and Muslim terrorists.

The above bills are not only abhorrent in their details, but also in the bigger picture sense, because they aim to trample on the rights of the states.  Per the Constitution, criminal laws are supposed to be left up to the states to define, unless an act involves interstate commerce.  In all three bills mentioned above, you will therefore find token references to interstate commerce as a means of trumping state laws.  The hate crime bills even say that the remainder will stand if a portion is struck out as unconstitutional -- in other words, the drafters know these proposed laws are against the Constitution, and they anticipate challenges!

To protest any of these bills, go to www.Congress.org and enter your zip code to look up all your elected officials and their contact information.  Speak your mind.  Send them an e-mail to coerce and intimidate them into voting against these bills -- you know, threaten to vote against them in the next elections.  If you don't, you may find that you are charged with a crime the next time you write such an e-mail, or that your statements against these bills are used against you in a hate crime charge one day if you ever happen to injure someone in a protected category.

IN THE NEWS: Italian Seismologist Warned of Earthquake, but Police Silenced Him

This morning's headlines are filled with the misery of deaths and injuries in central Italy from a 6.3 earthquake.  Turns out some of that misery could have been avoided.  A seismologist had predicted the earthquake weeks before it happened, but Italian police silenced him, preventing people from making appropriate preparations. 

The seismologist had done the right thing:  1)  make the prediction, and 2)  put it on the Internet for maximum exposure.  Too bad the Italian police, government and laws were not willing to accommodate and respond to such a dire warning.  Rather than thanking the man and spreading the message, they made him remove the warning from the Internet!  They considered it "spreading alarm."  Should it be a crime for a seismologist to do his job -- to make a prediction and then tell people about it?  The whole intent of the warning was indeed to spread alarm, so everyone could prepare!  Guess freedom of speech does not exist in Italy, nor concern for the welfare of the people, not to mention respect for seismologists. 

This could be seen as a case of science and technology outpacing the law -- where there is now the ability and the means to make such a prediction and spread the news, yet the laws do not yet allow for the warning.  It could also be seen as an example of the age-old scenario of the powers-that-be attacking the messenger rather than dealing with the truth that is in the message.

From a story on MSNBC.com:

Weeks before the disaster, an Italian scientist had predicted a major quake around L'Aquila, based on concentrations of radon gas around seismically active areas. 

Seismologist Gioacchino Giuliani was reported to police for "spreading alarm" and was forced to remove his findings from the Internet.

IN THE NEWS: Argentines Use Facebook, Internet to Mobilize Social Protest

In yet another example of the growing use of the Internet for social protest and human rights, thousands of Argentines responded to calls on Facebook and a specially made Web site to march and demand more anti-crime measures.  An excerpt from the CNN.com story appears below:

 

An estimated 10,000 Argentines marched on the historic Plaza de Mayo in the capital, Buenos Aires, on Wednesday to demand more anti-crime measures, reflecting a top priority among Argentines, according to recent polls. 

There were other anti-crime marches throughout Argentina on Wednesday night, as well...

Organizers used the Internet to mobilize people, setting up a Web page asking Congress to declare a national security emergency, and creating a Facebook page for the march. More than 106,000 people signed up as "friends."

Those gathered in the Plaza de Mayo -- many carrying photos of their dead loved ones -- asked their leaders to act against rising crime.

"We need to scream loud, so our president can hear us. All social classes are being affected by this crime wave. There needs to be sanctions for those responsible for this insecurity," said Graciela Lopez, 43, whose 16-year-old son was killed by a drunk driver in 2007.

A small-business owner who was robbed in November echoed Lopez's sentiments:

"The police patrol cars hardly ever pass by. We are surrounded by delinquents. Our kids can't even take the bus to school without being worried about being assaulted. We are here to ask the government to get aware of what is happening to us, and that our president finds an answer for this insecurity," said Liliana Peyrera, 41, who owns an ice cream shop in the Buenos Aires suburb of La Tablada.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has been criticized for not focusing enough on crime.

Australian Internet Censorship May Block YOUR Political Views

Australians are in an outrage this week over the continued debate over whether the government should be allowed to prevent access to certain websites, including at least one American anti-abortion website that shows photos of abortions and explains the aftermarket for aborted fetuses to be sold to pharmaceutical companies and universities for research.  If a website in Australia links to such a banned site, then there may be fines of up to $11,000 a day!  That's the current state of affairs.  If the Aussie government has its way, soon prohibited sites will be blocked altogether through technological means, the way China prevents access to certain websites.

Other countries that have blocked websites include Denmark, Finland and Thailand.  In the case of Thailand, it has been found that more than a thousand of the websites were banned because of criticism of the royal family -- i.e., for political reasons.  The original logic and argument for the censorship is to weed out pornography, especially child pornography.  That's a great motive.  The reality is that once a "secret" blacklist of prohibited sites is in place, it is remarkably easy for mistaken websites to appear there, or for political websites to make their way onto the list.  Do you want YOUR political views blocked?  Or do you want people fined for linking to them?

The question of how to get control over the Internet will not go away.  It has been discussed even in the United States, where concerns have been voiced over government "eavesdropping," and disputes have occurred with the FBI and Internet carriers for access to information.  Here the situation has involved getting the identity of the people creating and visiting child pornographic sites, to pursue them for criminal charges.  In other words, it's a different approach of let the crime happen, then prosecute it.  Other countries have been trying to prevent the crime itself through coerced or enforced censorship.  The problem with the list of censored websites is the secrecy.  Who has access to such a list and who controls what goes on it -- that soon becomes a political game, subject to bribery or personal ambition.  Also, new sites can be created so easily, so there can be a huge time lag before censorship could ever take place.

In the U.S., with its sunshine laws, it's questionable if such a list of prohibited websites could exist without a legal challenge.  In fact, it has already been demonstrated in other countries that "secret" lists do not remain so for long regardless of the laws, as some person along the chain will eventually "leak" the list.  For example, the entire list of more than 3,000 websites banned by Denmark has been leaked and published by an Australian website, which of course makes it accessible everywhere outside Denmark.  I personally scanned the list, and all the links appeared to be pornographic based on the website names.  However, even that list inadvertently contained a Dutch business that had nothing to do with children or sex.  In this age of international transport, where a Danish person can simply hop on a plane to another country and then view everything the government has banned, it seems ludicrous to even attempt such censorship.  It starts to seem too much like a communist attempt to keep citizens in the dark, as is done with the Great Firewall of China.

I sure don't want to be kept in the dark, or have the free expression of political views and information blocked.  And while I love international travel, I don't want to have to do so just to access a website about abortion or a royal party or the Dalai Lama or all the other websites that some country or other has censored.  In other words, government censorship starts out perhaps innocent but soon becomes absurd.  It may be that voluntary self-censorship -- like parental controls on website access as is popular in the United States -- plus vigorous prosecution of sex offenders is the way to go.  That's got my vote. 

IN THE NEWS: Student Speech Online Increasingly Censored

The right of students to free speech has been a concern of mine since I was an editor of my high school newspaper, and found myself attending local government meetings to battle a case of school censorship.  Now I'm even more concerned, as schools have taken it upon themselves to extend their reach of censorship outside the school walls and into cyberspace, attacking communications that students have on their own websites, on MySpace, and via every conceivable electronic means. 

Courts have held that "off-campus speech is punishable if people on campus are reasonably likely to learn about the speech" and if "the speech causes school officials to expend any substantial amount of time responding to it," according to a brief just released by the American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.  Excerpts from the brief appear below:

To a greater and greater degree, young people live their lives online -- they form and dissolve relationships, collaborate in playing games or creating works of art, and furnish the real-time minutiae of their daily lives for their friends to follow.  The Pew Internet and American Life Project reports that more than half of all teenagers have created and posted content to the internet so that they could be considered "publishers."  For this generation and those to come, to say that government can regulate their "electronic communication" is meaningless; there is no other communication... 

The creep of government regulatory authority into students' off-campus expression should concern anyone who values the free exchange of ideas on the internet...If we are not vigilant, what happens to student speech today could impact all online speech tomorrow...

As we have seen, administrators frequently invoke "disruption" as a pretext to suppress speech that is merely factual and critical.  Journalism, when practiced at its best, is meant to be provocative; that is, to cause people to talk... 

...[I]f a student's off-campus website asks community members to contact the principal's office to urge the school to recycle, it should be beyond dispute that the website is protected speech even if the principal's email box is bombarded with messages.  That we can no longer be confident of the answer exposes the fatal weakness in attempting to cram off-campus speech into an ill-fitting on-campus framework... 

Factual -- and yes, critical -- coverage of school affairs by student journalists has never been more important.  Established media companies are in financial free-fall, slashing jobs and cutting news space, with education reporting among the unavoidable casualties...If students are not free to report frankly on the goings-on in their schools, the community may never learn that "temporary" trailer classrooms have become permanent, that restrooms are dangerously unsanitary, or that campuses are prowled by gangs...

If the publication of a student's speech does not take place on school grounds, at a school function, or by means of school resources, then a school cannot punish the speaker without violating her First Amendment rights.  Censorship carries real human costs... 

A student will have a much more difficult time clearing his name and pursuing a successful future if branded guilty of disrupting classes and sent to "alternative school," as Justin Layschock [who ridiculed his principal on MySpace] originally was before his parents interceded and got his punishment reduced.  The practical difficulty of overturning a disciplinary decision -- with the principal as accuser, judge, jury and executioner -- and the lasting consequences of an unjust conviction, counsel strongly in favor of restraint... 

Unless school administrators are required to...work within narrow and specific parameters constraining their power to punish -- then valid, protected, non-disruptive speech will be lost. 

IN THE NEWS: Iran Wants Hollywood to Apologize for Insults

My last blog post on My American Rights Trump Your Muslim Honor described how Muslim men feel the need to protect their "honor," and how the simplest of things can make them feel publicly humiliated and insulted.  Case in point:  Iran now wants Hollywood to apologize for all the "insults" against Iranians from Hollywood movies over the past 30 years.

One recent movie that the Iranian president's adviser finds particularly offensive is The Wrestler, because a character has the stage name The Ayatollah.  Come on.  This is laughable.  At least, it would be laughable if these people weren't like ticking time bombs waiting to go off if their demands are not met.  So what is Mr. Ahmadinejad going to do if Hollywood does not apologize?  Blow it up?  Is this all a veiled threat?  And who does he want, exactly, to apologize on behalf of "Hollywood?"  Maybe Governor Schwarzenegger?  Hasta la vista, Baby. 

The story below is just one more example of how we in the West can never fathom the minds of the Muslims, nor can our laws and lifestyles ever be acceptable to them.  Mr. Ahmadinajad's adviser even thinks that "the aim" -- the aim! -- of our films is "insulting" Iran.  Don't they understand entertainment and profits?  How best to insult Iran never crossed their minds, otherwise the insults would hardly be so subtle as to constitute the stage name of a wrestler.  Yet Muslim men think the world revolves around them and their honor.

They are absolutely opposed to all that we hold dear -- including our movie industry -- and we must therefore, of necessity, be opposed to them.  No apology whatsoever should be offered, ever, for exercising our rights to freedom of speech in our own country.  The Iranians can simply change the channel or not go to the cinema if they don't like our movies, or stay out of our country.  The nerve they have to demand that we edit our speech here because they find it insulting there is the same kind of audacity that we must be prepared to oppose, resist and defeat within the United Nations and at home.  From CNN.com's Iran Attacks Hollywood Over Movie "Insults":

Hollywood should apologize to Iran for "insults and accusations against the Iranian nation," a top aide to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a visiting Hollywood delegation Sunday.

"The Wrestler," starring Mickey Rourke was also attacked for being insulting towards Iran.

..."Representatives of Iran's film industry should only have an official meeting with representatives of the Academy and Hollywood if they apologize for the insults and accusations against the Iranian nation during the past 30 years," said Javad Shamghadri, Ahmadinejad's advisor on the arts, ISNA reported.

He singled out the 1991 Sally Field thriller "Not Without My Daughter," about an American woman who marries an Iranian and then tries to flee Iran with their child, and the comic-book-inspired action flick "300" as "two clear examples of total lies."

..."How can we sit and have a sincere meeting with American film makers while they humiliate and insult the Iranian people and the great revolution of this nation?" he asked, ISNA reported.

"The Iranian nation and its revolution has repeatedly and undeservedly been attacked by Hollywood movies," he said.

"The film "The Wrestler" is the latest among them," he said of the film for which Mickey Rourke received an Oscar nomination this year. "We know that even right now there are other films being made with the aim of insulting and accusing the great nation of Iran and its rich culture."

"The Wrestler" features a character known as The Ayatollah, played by Ernest Miller, who takes on Rourke's Randy 'The Ram' Robinson.

Obama's Freedom Of Choice Act Takes Away Freedom, Invalidates 550 Laws

The abortion-at-all-costs Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) that President Obama wants to get passed would more aptly be called the No Freedom of Choice Act, as it takes away the freedom of states to make and enforce their own laws, and the freedom of parents to supervise their children and look out for their welfare. 

The Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution says:  "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."  Trust me, the power to regulate abortion has NOT been delegated to the United States by the Constitution, and therefore belongs in the hands of the States and the people -- not President Obama and his yes-men.  Yet here he is, trying to get a national law on abortion passed.  FOCA is grossly unconstitutional and overreaching, and reminds one that just as President Obama failed to convince everyone that his own election was constitutional -- by never putting forth a normal-looking birth certificate or properly countering evidence of his birth in Kenya -- it is clear that he cares little whether anything he does now that he is in office is constitutional either. 

Yes, yes, President Obama is good for the environment, and he's like a god around the world -- the President of the United States of the World.  But he scares me.  Some state legislators in Georgia have proposed a resolution that resonates with my own views on FOCA.  We need every state to pass such a resolution, and tell President Obama loud and clear that the U.S. Constitution left most laws up to the states for a reason, and we don't need the President and the federal government stomping all over those laws, and the people who elected the legislators to put such laws in place. 

State of Georgia Senate Resolution 156
By:  Senators Shafer of the 48th, Smith of the 52nd, Pearson of the 51st, Unterman of the 45th, Hudgens of the 47th and others

A RESOLUTION

Opposing the federal "Freedom of Choice Act;" and for other purposes.

WHEREAS, Barack Obama, the President of the United States, has promised that one of the top priorities of his new administration is to sign into law the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" which promotes government subsidized abortion on demand without restriction; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would invalidate "any statute, ordinance, regulation, administrative order, decision, policy, practice, or other action" of any federal, state, or local government or governmental official or anyone acting under government authority that would "deny or interfere with a woman's right to choose" abortion or that would "discriminate against the exercise of the right...in the regulation or provisions of benefits, facilities, services, or information"; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would nullify any federal or state law "enacted, adopted, or implemented before, on, or after the date of [its] enactment" and would effectively prevent the State of Georgia from enacting similar protective measures in the future; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would invalidate more than 550 federal and state abortion related laws; laws that are supported by the majority of the American public; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would specifically invalidate the following common-sense, protective laws properly enacted by the State of Georgia:
(1)  The Woman's Right to Know Act which provides information to a woman contemplating an abortion.  Such Act contains the following key elements:
  (A)  Informed consent (Code Section 31-9A-3) which requires that the soman be informed about the risks and  benefits of the abortion as well as other essential information;
  (B)  A waiting period (code Section 31-9A-3) which includes a 24 hour reflection period;
  (C)  Ultrasound availability (Code Section 31-9A-3) which provides information about the availability of an ultrasound and the option to view the results before making a final decision about abortion;
(2)  Partial birth abortion law (Code Section 16-12-144) which places restrictions on a particular method of abortion in which the person performing the abortion partially vaginally delivers a living human fetus befroe ending the life of the fetus and completing the delivery.  Georgia's current partial birth abortion law is in weakened form after a court settlement, and the passage of the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" would not allow the state to strenghten this law;
(3)  Restrictions on taxpayer funding of abortion (Division of Medical Assistance, Georgia Department of Community Health, Plicies and Procedures for Medicaid/Peachcare for Kids) which currently only allow taxpayer funds for abortion in the case of medical necessity;
(4)  Parental notification law (Code Sections 15-11-110 through 15-11-118) which requires that at least one parent be notified before a minor undergoes an abortion;
(5)  Requirements that licensed physicians perform abortions (paragraph (2) of subsection (b) of Code Section 16-12-141);
(6)  Conscience protection for doctors and medical professionals (Code Section 16-12-142) which protects doctors and medical professionals who object to participating in abortion; and
(7)  Health and safety regulations for abortion clinics (Georgia Department of Human Resources Regulations, Chapters 290-5-32 and 290-5-33); and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" will not make abortion safe or rare but will instead actively promote and subsidize abortion with state and federal tax dollars and do nothing to ensure its safety; and

WHEREAS, the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" will proptect and promote the abortion industry, sacrifice women and their health to a radical political ideology of unregulated abortion on demand, and silence the voices of everyday Americans who want to engage in a meaningful public discussion and debate over the availability, safety, and even desirability of abortion.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE that the members of this body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" and urge the United States Congress to reject it summarily.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" because it seeks to circumvent the states' general legislative authority as guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" because it seeks to undermine the right an dresponsibility of the states and the people to debate, vote on, and determine abortion policy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of the body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" because the protection of women's health through state regulations on abortion is a compelling state interest that should not be nulllified by Congress.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the members of this body strongly oppose the federal "Freedom of Choice Act" because its enactment would nullify numerous laws in the State of Georgia; laws that the General Assembly and the people of Georgia strongly support.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Secretary of the Senate is authorized and directed to send an appropriate copy of this resolution to Governor Sonny Perdue, President Barack Obama, the President of the United States Senate, and the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives.

IN THE NEWS: Vietnam Targets Bloggers in Internet Censorship

When the Internet was first introduced, it was called the Information Highway in an attempt to describe exactly what it would accomplish.  Bloggers have become the main transporters of sensitive information on this highway, smuggling stories of government abuses and human rights violations out of countries that lack freedom of the press.  Bloggers have become so successful at posting stories which could never appear in the government controlled media, that they are now a key source of news around the world.  Oppressive governments are responding.  We all learned much about the Great Firewall of China during the Beijing Olympics.  Time.com now describes how Vietnam is taking steps to censor the Internet, with bloggers as a prime target.

The reins on the freedom of speech for Vietnam's growing political blogosphere just got tighter.  On Dec. 18, Hanoi passed a new law prohibiting bloggers from creating posts the government says incite violence or crime, undermine national security, include inaccurate information that could damage the reputation of individuals and organizations, or disclose state secrets.  It also requires global internet companies with blogging platforms operating in Vietnam to report to the Vietnamese government every six months -- and to provide information about individual bloggers if requested.

In Vietnam, a country where the communist government has controlled the media since North and South Vietnam were reunified in 1975, blogging has become a growing -- and risky -- new forum for political dissidents to spread information about social abuses and government corruption.  The new generation of blogs covers everything from criticizing top ranking officials for chartering planes to monitoring labor violations.  Before this month, no formal blogging or Internet restrictions were in place, but several cyber dissidents...have been arrested for posting anti-government propaganda online... 

Luu Vu Hai, chief of the Administration for Radio, Television and Electronics Information, defends the new regulations...It "does not mean to censor blogs, but to help and to educate the bloggers to maintain a healthy way of using Internet for their benefits."

[O]ne of the jailed blogger's...sources...believes they will carry on despite the new law.  "It's an excellent tool to let the world know and spread the news of what's going on inside Vietnam because there are no independent newspapers or news organizations in Vietnam...Right now the government is very afraid of the Internet... The Internet is very powerful."