Mediaboss Marketing

By James S. Kor

Re:

1) Questions about legitimacy and integrity of the Court

2) Uniformity of the Courts position on debt relief

3) Honor, Fundamental Fairness, EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW

It seems obvious that most Americans dont know or have forgotten about your consistent history of favoring big business and the wealthy. But now, based on the direction some of you appear to be leaning on the issue of forgiving student loan debt, there is the opportunity to present and highlight a very telling contrast. So, with this petition, we question what seems to be your Orwellian, ANIMAL FARM-like idea of EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW; some are more equal than others?

The example that follows is merely one of many that indicate some of you are all for forgiveness and lack of accountabilityso long as it is for mega-rich corporations like Monsanto, big pharma, big oil, or corrupt prosecutors and judges who violate citizens rights in criminal cases (the root cause of the unprecedented and growing epidemic of wrongful convictions).

As a result of the EXXON VALDEZ oil tanker spill in Alaskan waters, which devastated wildlife and the environment, EXXON was appropriately saddled with billions of dollars in clean-up costs and also fines that were supposed to have served as a deterrent. Years went by without the fines being paid. Peoples memories of the disaster faded. Then, very quietly, without media fanfare and little notice to the public, YOU, the Supreme Court, acted to forgive the remainder of EXXONs debt; that of the appropriate justice of the fine. To this day it remains unclear HOW justice was supposedly served, HOW the American people were served, HOW the Constitution was served, or HOW that corporate friendly favor you did for EXXON qualifies as EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW.

We think some Americans are finally becoming vigilant enough to ask questions about your integrity and legitimacy. Such as this question: If the millions of good mainstream Americans who stand to get relief from their student loan debt were all stockholders in a big corporation, like EXXON, might your postures and questions, re the issue, be different right now? Hmm.

No obsequios overly deferential bootlicking shyster lawyer would ever dare to publicly rub the Courts nose in its own self-created, albeit obscure, shame but the litigant in California Supreme Course CASE #S275842 has no qualms about doing so:

Approximately 22 short months after you granted the debt forgiveness to EXXON and its shareholders, the world witnessed yet another catastrophic oil spill. The BP Oil platform blowout in the Gulf of Mexico was caused by the exact same thing as the EXXON VALDEZ tanker spill; the relaxing of supposedly mandatory safety rules.

Regulatory standards, guidelines and Constitutional rights are in place for good reasons. When YOU create your own new history of allowing them to be broken and violated at will, and take all the teeth out of any deterrent sanctions, remove meaningful oversight, YOU are doing two things for certain:

Now? Who had the wise, centuries-long foresight to see not only that such could happen but also HOW it would come about? It would be a filthy slur on his memory were any of you to deny or attempt to downplay the great Alexander Hamiltons original intent for the courts. Important, here, is what he warned future generations about: YOUR incestuous collusion with both the Executive and Legislative branches and overt prostitution of your rulings to corporations and an increasingly extremist religious right are proving how the courts have become dangerous to liberty and the nation.

In the eyes of those of us paying attention, there is no haven of deniability for you. We see YOUR fingerprints all over the following and more:

1) Youve made political corruption easier (bribery of politicians) via CITIZENS UNITED;

2) You are responsible for the epidemic of wrongful convictions. You are directly complicit in violating citizens rights via the Antiterrorism Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Through your supervision of the courts the most powerful and meritorious challenges to the AEDPAs habeas forms are being suffocated in their cradles by those lower courts. Why? Because you do know those reforms are unconstitutional; because you wish to maintain the tyranny wrought through them; and because you know you would be forced to strike them down were such a powerful and meritious challenge to them be allowed to land in front of youwith the public watching. We know that you, the Supreme Court, are fully aware of the following:

a) Those so-called habeas reforms had long-been a pet project of the infamous racist, segregationist, Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond;

b) They eviscerated centuries of precedent and jurisprudence pertaining to what better judges than yourselves respected and fiercely defended as The Great Writ.;

c) Most damning of all is that you know, you do see, that the AEDPAs habeas reforms are actually a diabolically camouflaged resurrection of a huge part of YOUR infamous Dred Scott v. Sandford decision. In Dred Scott YOU said that the Negro has no rights the white man is bound to respect. And now YOU know the reality is that the state court defendant/appellant/petitioner, most of whom are people of color, have no rights your white man-created system is bound to respect.

d) You know it is a fact that the AEDPA has facilitated the epidemic of wrongful convictions of disproportionate numbers of people of color thus qualifying as institutionalized racism;

e) And now you have at least some idea that HISTORY IS GOING TO SHOW the AEDPAs habeas reforms to have been a racist hate crime masquerading as civilized American law. You already know that good judges have long been saying the reforms are unconstitutional; i.e. the late Justice Stanley Mosk of the California Supreme Court and the NINTH CIRCUITs dissenting judges in Crater v. Galaza et al,

NOTE: See CASE NO.S275842 in the California Supreme Court for the example of a powerful,

meritorious challenge to the ongoing institutionalized racism being perpetrated through the AEDPA, WITH THE SUPREME COURTS COMPLICITY. This is also a case that shows Supreme Court approval of a forced abortion. And for true enlightenment, get and read: The Complicity of Judges in Wrongful Convictions, by Hans Sherrer.

3) YOU, the Supreme Court, are also responsible for the gutting of both the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT and the VOTING RIGHTS ACT, as part of a racist agenda.

4) As to your recent Dobbs v Jackson Womens Health Organization, YOU have preemptively sentenced countless unwanted children to miserable lives and to becoming the MOST LIKELY victims of YOUR clearly established Dred Scott EQUAL (?) JUSTICE UNDER LAW. Roe v. Wade was not merely a precedent; it was a superprecedent (see Blacks Law Dictionary) and that 1973 decision brought about the greatest drop in crime in recorded history. (see FREAKONOMICS by Levitt and Dubner) Fortunately, you have not yet felt the full wrath of 70% of women in America who feel that your Dobbs decision was/is a slap in their faces. Racist? Sexist? Preemptively crippling unborn children? Honorable? Hmmm.

Will this institution survive the stench that this creates in the public perception that the Constitution and its reading are just political acts? I dont see how it is possible.

-Associate Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor

5) The epidemic of mass shootings (44 in the first month of 2023) and WHY, out of all supposedly-civilized nations, the U.S. stands uniquely alone with so much violence an entire society has become numb to it. How are you to blame? First of all, you conduct your charade of justice in a building that advertises THE very biggest lie ever told in all the world: EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW. The brand of soap that washes out your collective mouths from that lie is called REALITY:

A just system of human government is stable. But violence resonates in the unjust system.

Who in this nation doesnt know that youre corrupt; that you lie; that you facilitate wrong being done on the biggest of all scales? Who does not know that judges in America, judges you supposedly-supervise, disregard both the facts and the law when either or both conflict with outcomes they have preemptively decided? Going to the 2+2=4 basics, YOU have too many people in this country becoming aware of these ugly realities, simultaneously. And, on the fringes of these vast numbers of people, there are those who are ACTING on what theyve construed as an invitation to get satisfact- ion, ANY WAY THEY CAN. (citing the great Justice Brandeis dissent in Olmstead).

Too many people are seeing the reality YOU have created where FORCE and MONEY win the day, not rule of law, not fundamental fairness, not justice. For decades, YOU have led the way. You have given tacit approval, implied consent for lying, cheating, violating Constitutional rights and committing criminal offenses in the justice(?) system. YOU have given this power of tyranny to the lower courts, prosecutors, and police and look at what YOUR cowardly gift has wrought, as well as what it has made inevitable; on the immediate horizon. Watch! The chickens are coming home to roost (consequences).

How many times has this entire society been witness to people being WRONGFULLY CONVICTED, BEATEN, or SHOT DEAD by police? Through the decades, how many times has this society borne witness to YOU JUDGES making up some sort of excuse for why wrong done by law enforcement was acceptable? Countless times. 13 shots! 19 shots! 23 shots! 31 shots! 42 shots! 50+! 60+! 70+! 100+ shots fired! WHO started this? Cops.

YOU are the guiltiest of all because the buck was/is supposed to have stopped in your forum. In plain language, you gave prosecutors, cops, and lower courts an inch and theyve taken a mile, and then some. It did not start with the trend of many shots being fired but with the little things you have trivialized and whitewashed thus building this momentum of far more serious injustices being inflicted. People are witness to this momentum of wrongdoing and virtual non-accountability YOU have set in motion through your expert excuse-making and acquiescence. There is no running from the responsibility; out of sheer cowardice YOU have refused to stand by the Constitution which, in reality, was originally intended to make FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS the law of the land.

With the supposedly solemn responsibility of supervision you are fully complicit in every single wrong done by prosecutors and judges in all criminal cases. If they did/do wrong, YOU did/do wrong. Thats the way leadership with integrity and honor works. And good judges from our countrys past, who were raised by good mothers and fathers, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT WE SUFFER TODAY, would agree. Where is our modern-day John Marshall? Benjamin Cardozo? Oliver Wendell Holmes? Or a counterpart for this great judge:

Our government is the potent omnipresent teacher. For good or ill it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker it breeds contempt for the law, it invites every man to become a law unto himself, it invites anarchy.

-Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting in Olmstead v United States (1928) 277 U.S. 438

What about right now? What about fundamental fairness for the millions deserving relief, including those who owe on their student loan debts? Chief Justice Roberts? You said the case presents extraordinarily serious important issues about the role of Con- gressWe take very seriously the idea of separation of powers and that power should be divided to prevent its abuse Yet that purported concern is proven completely absent with respect to Congress unconstitutional encroachment into the province of the federal judiciary via the AEDPAs purported habeas reforms. The great man whose portrait YOU have in your antechamber, Chief Justice John Marshall, agrees via his opinion in Marbury v. Madison. (as cited and argued in CASE NO. S275842 Calif. Supreme Court) EQUAL JUSTICE UNDER LAW doesnt have a soundtrack of cowardly deafening silence now: To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men!-Abraham Lincoln Who can protest an injustice but does not is an accomplice to the act -The Talmud

Read the rest here:
VANGUARD INCARCERATED PRESS: First Amendment Petition ... - The Peoples Vanguard of Davis

An AI researcher developed a free speech alternative to ChatGPT and argued that the mainstream model has a liberal bias that prevents it from answering certain questions.

"ChatGPT has political motivations, and it's seen through the product," said Arvin Bhangu, who founded the AI model Superintelligence. "There's a lot of political biases. We've seen where you can ask it give me 10 things Joe Biden has done well and give me 10 things Donald Trump has done well and it refuses to give quality answers for Donald Trump."

"Superintelligence is much more in line with the freedom to ask any type of question, so it's much more in line with the First Amendment than ChatGPT," Bhangu said. "No biases, no guardrails, no censorship."

WATCH MORE FOX NEWS DIGITAL ORIGINALS HERE

ChatGPT, an AI chatbot that can write essays, code and more, has been criticized for having politically biased responses. There's been numerous instances of the model refusing to provide answers even fake ones that could put a positive spin on conservatives, but would follow suit if the same prompt were submitted about a liberal.

"Unfortunately, it is very hard to deal with this from a coding standpoint," Flavio Villanustre, the global chief information security officer for LexisNexis Risk Solutions, told Fox News in February. "It is very hard to prevent bias from happening."

But the full potential of AI will only be realized when the models can provide unbiased, authentic answers, according to Bhangu.

"Presenting an answer to the user and letting them determine what is right and wrong is a much better approach than trying to filter and trying to police the internet," he told Fox News.

Elon Musk has been open about the dangers of AI, saying it could cause civilizational threats if left unregulated. (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)

AI CHATBOT 'HALLUCINATIONS' PERPETUATE POLITICAL FALSEHOODS, BIASES THAT HAVE REWRITTEN AMERICAN HISTORY

OpenAI, the company that developed ChatGPT, is "training the AI to lie," Elon Musk told Fox News last month. He also hinted in a tweet that he might sue OpenAI, seeming to agree that the company defrauded him.

Additionally, George Washington University Professor Jonathan Turley said ChatGPT fabricated sexual harassment claims against him and even cited a fake news article.

ChatGPT also wouldn't generate an article in the style of the New York Post, but it did write an article modeled after CNN, bringing further criticisms of the platform showing bias.

Bhangu said ChatGPT's biases hurt AI industry's credibility.

Bhangu searches "why is it important to have a competitor to ChatGPT," on his AI model Superintelligence. (Fox News Digital/Jon Michael Raasch)

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

"ChatGPT's biases can have a detrimental effect on the credibility of the AI industry," he said. "This could have far-reaching negative implications for certain communities or individuals who rely heavily on AI models for important decisions."

OpenAI did not respond to a request for comment.

To watch the full interview with Bhangu, click here.

Read more:
Developer creates pro-First Amendment AI to counter ChatGPT's 'political motivations' - Fox News

SAN ANTONIO A Uvalde father who was banned from school property in February after voicing his concerns about an officers qualifications is prepared to sue the district.

Attorneys with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) are representing Adam Martinez.

During a board of trustees meeting on Feb. 13, Martinez approached Uvalde CISD Chief of Police Joshua Gutierrez to discuss his reservations regarding an officer who was just hired. Martinez said he had missed out on signing up for the public comment portion of the meeting.

As multiple recordings of the meeting demonstrate, their conversation remained quiet and did not disrupt the meeting. Nevertheless, in response to Mr. Martinezs calm but impassioned criticism, Chief Gutierrez told Mr. Martinez to sit down. Mr. Martinez, who wished to continue speaking with Gutierrez, refused, according to a letter authored by FIRE sent to Uvalde school officials on May 15.

Martinez said Gutierrez escorted him and his family outside the board room building and proceeded to issue a criminal trespass warning from all district properties.

After Mr. Martinez filed a grievance with the school district, UCISD has allowed him to pick up his daughter from Morales Junior High school and attend events in which she is involved, the letter said. Upon Mr. Martinezs further request, UCISD allowed him to attend his sons baseball practices.

Attorney Jeff Zeman argues the district, including Interim Superintendent Gary Patterson and Chief Gutierrez, violated Martinezs Constitutional rights.

It is his First Amendment right to speak out about his government and criticize his government, Zeman said. This ban violates the Constitution. He wants to bring matters to his local governments attention that he thinks he can make things better for his family and his community.

The FIRE-addressed letter details several precedent cases involving First Amendment issues challenged in court.

The document also noted the ban also contravenes both Texas state law and the school districts policy related to free speech and parental rights to take part in his childs education.

>READ the full letter from FIRE attorneys below

Just to me, its ridiculous, its embarrassing, Martinez said.

Uvalde CISD fired Crimson Elizondo from the district police force after learning she was among the handful of state troopers who first arrived on scene at Robb Elementary.

Body-camera video from May 24 revealed Elizondo responding to another officer about the shooting.

If my son had been in there, I would not have been outside. I promise you that, Elizondo said in the body-camera footage.

Uvalde CISDs efforts to reform the police department have been heavily scrutinized, which is a major reason why Martinez questioned another officer hire, although it led to him getting banned from school property for two years.

I felt that it was urgent for me to find out more about this hire and make sure that they knew that he was not rehireable, according to the sheriffs standards, Martinez said.

The father of two leads the organization Keep All righteous Minds Aware, or KARMA, which formed after the Robb Elementary shooting where 19 children and two teachers were killed.

Martinez recalls the frantic phone call from his wife as he was eating lunch at a restaurant in Uvalde.

She was pretty hysterical and told me there was an active shooter, Martinez said.

His son Zayon Martinez, was in second grade at the time. While not physically harmed in the shooting, Zayon carries the weight of emotional trauma like so many other survivors.

Hes doing good, he still wont sleep in his bed. He was real excited about having his own room and now he shares a room with me and my wife, Martinez said.

The FIRE letter states a lawsuit will be filed if Uvalde CISD fails to remove its ban on Martinez by May 22.

Martinez hopes for more transparency among the district for the benefit of the entire community. He also hopes the ban is lifted so he can attend his nephew's graduation on May 26 and attend future school board meetings.

If they reached out to the community members a little more, I think wed be able to come together better.

To view the full letter, go here.

>TRENDING ON KENS 5 YOUTUBE:

Originally posted here:
'It's ridiculous': Uvalde father ready to sue school district over alleged First Amendment violation - KENS5.com

Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribunes daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.

After hours of debate and multiple attempts to kill the legislation from Democrats, Texas is one step closer to banning diversity, equity and inclusion offices in public colleges and universities Friday.

In a 83 to 60 vote, the Texas House gave preliminary approval to one of Lt. Gov. Dan Patricks legislative priorities that would prohibit such offices, programs and any required diversity training.

In an attempt to stop a deluge of amendments from Democrats opposing Senate Bill 17, Republicans approved an amendment offered by the bills sponsor, Seguin Republican John Kuempel, that requires the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board to conduct an impact study into the legislation, allow universities to make reasonable efforts to re-assign employees in DEI offices to new positions with similar pay, and shifts the day the bill goes into effect back by three months to Jan. 1.

The coordinating board is the state agency that oversees higher education policy at public colleges and universities.

This amendment was also an attempt to appease Democrats concerns that eliminating diversity offices and programs would put universities at risk to lose federal grants. Rep. Nicole Collier, D-Fort Worth, said the extension will give universities time to ensure current grants can comply with any DEI requirements.

The legislation still needs final passage before it heads back to the upper chamber where the Senate could accept the changes or elect to meet in a conference committee of lawmakers to hash out the differences. If the legislation becomes law, Texas would be the second state in the nation with such a ban, following Florida.

DEI offices have become a mainstay on college and university campuses across the country for years as schools try to boost faculty diversity and help students from all backgrounds succeed.

These offices often coordinate mentorships, tutoring, programs to boost the number of underrepresented groups in fields like science and engineering, and efforts to increase diversity among faculty. They help departments cast a wide net when searching for job candidates and ensure that universities dont violate federal discrimination laws.

House Democrats lamented that the legislation rolls back progress and jeopardizes investments the state has made in its universities. Those who support such offices argue that removing them or weakening their influence will make schools less welcoming places to work and study, turn back efforts to correct past discrimination and stall progress to make public universities' student populations better reflect state demographics.

This legislation is telling us that Texans fear diversity, said Rep. Victoria Neave Criado, D-Dallas. This legislation shows us that folks are so afraid of inclusive practices at public universities that they're willing to go as far as deep funding or public universities.

But Kuempel argued that these offices are not helping to achieve the diversity everyone claims to want.

There is virtually no evidence that DEI programs have closed the gap in terms of minority student outcomes, minority recruitment and faculty hiring, Kuempel told members when he laid out his version of the Senate bill, which attempted to expand the situations in which a university could have a DEI program.

Critics also accuse DEI programs of pushing what they characterize as left-wing ideology onto students and faculty and say that these programs prioritize social justice over merit and achievement.

Texas university students have rejected that criticism.

I think they are upset with the fact that people who have historically been marginalized are getting opportunities that people who have been from majority groups have been getting forever, said Sameeha Rizvi, a student at the University of Texas at Austin who has been organizing against the legislation. So it just feels like a political attack on a very real entity that is meant to help all students.

The compromising amendment offered to end the debate late Friday was not the only change lawmakers made to the House version of the bill.

Earlier in the debate, Kuempel also successfully introduced an amendment that clarifies the legislation bans DEI offices that promote differential treatment, and ensures all hiring initiatives are color-blind and sex neutral.

Kuempels first amendment was an attempt to beat back an attempt from a fellow Republican, Rep. Matt Schaefer of Tyler, to restore language written by the Senate.

The legislation now says any DEI policies, training or programs must be approved by university lawyers or the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board and requires the state to audit the universities once every four years. If a school is found to violate the bill, they have 180 days to fix the issue or risk losing state funding. It also allows students and employees to sue a university that violates this law.

It also replaced the changes Kuempel had originally made to the Senate bill that would allow for DEI programs to comply with federal grants and accrediting agencies. Instead, it says that when applying for grants or complying with an accrediting agency, an employee can submit statements that highlight work in supporting first-generation college students, low-income students or underserved student populations.

The House approved that amendment, but Democrats continued to hammer away with additional amendments until Republicans found a way to amend the bill to their liking.

As originally introduced, the Senate version would have required universities to close their diversity offices, ban mandatory diversity training and restrict hiring departments from asking for diversity statements, essays in which job applicants talk about their commitments or efforts to build diverse campuses. When the Senate voted out its version of the bill, members added an amendment that the legislation would not affect course instruction, faculty research, student organizations, guest speakers, data collection or admissions.

Faculty have repeatedly warned lawmakers throughout the legislative session that if this bill passes, it might put state universities at risk of losing federal and private grants because they often require applicants to show how they are considering diversity and equity in their work.

On Thursday, Democrats successfully delayed the debate on the Houses version of a bill meant to change how faculty tenure works at public universities using a point of order that argued the bill analysis was misleading. The House Higher Education Committee has already voted that bill out of committee again, but it has not yet been scheduled to return to the House floor. Senate bills must receive preliminary approval from the House by Tuesday.

Disclosure: University of Texas at Austin has been a financial supporter of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune's journalism. Find a complete list of them here.

Tickets are on sale now for the 2023 Texas Tribune Festival, happening in downtown Austin on Sept. 21-23. Get your TribFest tickets by May 31 and save big!

More:
Texas House approves bill that would ban public universities DEI ... - The Texas Tribune

Editors Note: This is the first of a two-part report on the May 16 Board of Education meeting, focusing primarily on the actions and discussion among board members present.

The Board of Education did not successfully address challenges requesting removal of the graphic novels Flamer and Blankets during its May 16 meeting. This was due to numerous tie votes over motions and amendments offered by board members present, which for this meeting was comprised of six members.

In anticipation of a larger crowd, the meeting was held in the Newtown High School cafetorium instead of at the municipal center. That relocated meeting was preceded by a rally organized by the Newtown Democratic Town Committee.

The rally, which drew dozens of participants, was organized to show support for retaining previously challenged books that are under consideration for removal from the Newtown High School library.

Once the meeting convened, it was announced that Board Member Donald Ramsey was absent due to a serious personal issue, according to Board Member Janet Kuzma. Kuzma proposed the board postpone the vote again in light of Ramseys absence, a motion then unanimously rejected by board members.

At that point, the board resumed discussion of the books on the agenda, and the unanimous recommendation of a special review committee that unanimously endorsed keeping both books on the Newtown High School shelves.

The special review committee was by policy only able to vote yes or no The policy gives no limitations on the Board [of Educations] standard practices regarding action taken, said Board of Education Chair Deborra Zukowski, in her opening statement regarding Flamer.

Board Member Dan Cruson said one of his key takeaways from the special review committees report was neither of the challenged books would be considered legally obscene according to the Miller Test, established in the 1973 Supreme Court Case Miller v California. If a work cannot pass the Miller Test, it is not protected speech by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

We had been advised by council previously that this would be an important justification for the removal as well as defending against potential legal challenges that come if we make such a decision, said Cruson. Cruson went on to detail his analysis of how each work in question did not meet the three qualifiers of obscenity during the discussion about Flamer and the discussion about Blankets respectively.

He said if the books are removed, he assumed there will be a legal battle regarding inappropriate removal and the board will lose after spending a lot of time and money.

Kuzma then proposed to retain Flamer, with the caveat that students age 16 and under would require written consent by a parent or guardian. She said this will allow parents to be made aware of the content first.

I am not violating First Amendment rights as I am not voting to suppress ideas but rather evaluate the methods in which they are taught, said Kuzma, who added she also sought legal advice and believes the book to contain sexually explicit material.

She said she is not anti-LGBTQ, and not one public comment had objected to the LGBTQ theme.

Its time we acknowledge this is not the reason for this concern. Its why we arent seeing 23 objections, said Kuzma. She was citing the number of LGBTQ books, according to her, that one can find in the catalog at the high school.

She said she is elected to represent many voices, and asked the board to consider the implications of completely ignoring the parents on one side of this issue.

Larkin supported the amendment and agreed the books do contain sexually explicit content, and urged board members to consider a compromise.

Cruson said he appreciated the attempt at a compromise, a sentiment that would be echoed by Board Member Alison Plante. Cruson said the idea of parents to opt-in to Flamer is shaky legal ground, and when it comes to sexual education and cultural enrichment events, parents arent asked to opt-in.

Motion: Too Restrictive

Plante suggested Kuzmas motion was too restrictive, later saying she is depending on the unanimous recommendation of the special review committee and the superintendent to keep the books in the library.

Plante and Board Member John Vouros both commented on existing mechanisms that serve as parental controls to limit access to certain materials in school. Mechanisms they detailed included opting-out of library books, and requesting their child be exempt from participating in a class where they are at risk of hearing or seeing something objectionable to parents.

Let the parents decide so we can move on, said Vouros. Its all about the children, and youve heard them, youve listened to them. They know best.

I cant support thinking that anybody in this district should be making decisions for other peoples children unless parents have given you that consent to do so, said Larkin.

Kuzma said, the parents dont know these books exist, and therefore they cannot opt-in. She said her concern was that kids could thumb-through books at the library without parental knowledge. This is a concept Zukowski would later reference as Ramseys core concern one he discussed at a previous meeting.

I cannot believe that they would just walk in there, take a book off the shelf, when they have this [smartphone] which is so much more graphic than anything you have in that library, said Vouros about high schoolers.

Some parents are very strict about what they allow their kids to see on their [mobile] phones, said Kuzma in her response.

Zukowski said she agrees that Flamer is not obscene or pornographic, but said the book does include explicit sexual content. She said one scene was a full scene of masturbation, which fits the definition of sexually explicit.

She said she received a letter from a high schooler who said she goes to the library during her free periods. There is a lot of information I think would be relevant that the process does not give us access to, said Zukowski.

Zukowski said as far as she knows, the districts wifi system filters out sexual images, which was contested by multiple students and community members who said they had successfully tried searching for sexually explicit content at the meeting during the second public participation.

She returned to her concern about age-appropriateness from a prior meeting, and referenced a group she identified as the Graphic Novels and Comics Roundtable, which she said has over 1,000 members around the world and is associated with the American Libraries Association.

According to Zukowski, the roundtable group put the recommended age for Flamer at 17 and above, and cited that as a reason why she does not feel it is appropriate for young children, 13, or 14 years old. Cruson countered that there is no organization all publishers voluntarily participate in and there is no universal rating system for books and graphic novels.

Zukowski asked whether there were books that could provide comparable value that do not include sexual content, which Assistant Superintendent Anne Uberti said was a difficult question to answer, and that would take library media specialists an extensive amount of time to review.

The overriding opinion ... particularly with Flamer, was it tells a unique autobiographical story that fits the time that we live in and would be helpful to students, said Uberti.

Compromise Amendments

A motion to retain Flamer on the shelves with the 16 and under caveat failed as Kuzma, Larkin, and Zukowski voted in favor and Plante, Vouros, and Cruson were opposed. Larkin then proposed an amendment requiring written consent for students ages 15 and under.

I dont want to remove the book, but we need to come to a compromise, said Larkin, citing those who have concerns about the content of the graphic novel. I didnt hear many voices even acknowledge those concerns, she added.

As Ms Kuzma said, we do represent all of the community, and for us to be completely dismissive of the people who had concerns and not problem-solve for them is not something Im willing to do, Larkin said, adding she would like to leave with a decision and expressed that a compromise was necessary.

Vouros proposed keeping the books but forming a committee of parents and educators who are both pro and con to discuss age restrictions.

We had a committee, it gave us a decision, said Plante, who said she appreciates the spirit of compromise.

What Im uncomfortable with is the board wading into an operational area over which we dont have responsibility, said Plante, who added they have hired administrators to deal with operational matters.

Im actually really comfortable with it being 15 [years of age]; I couldnt defend 15 as a starting point Its a much easier defense at 16 as the age of consent, said Larkin.

Cruson said he is uncomfortable with an opt-in process, that age wont make a difference to him, and he agrees with Plante.

The motion to amend on the 15 and under idea failed with the same split, prompting Larkin to ask those who voted against if there was a compromise they were comfortable with, that was not part of an existing mechanism, and that acknowledges there is sexually explicit content and extreme vulgarity in Flamer.

She asked why they would make materials available to students with the vulgarity level she noted, to which an audience member said First Amendment.

There are off-ramps in the First Amendment which I think a lot of peoples legal advice didnt tell them because it didnt suit their narrative, so Im not particularly worried about the First Amendment, said Larkin, which prompted a reaction from some audience members.

Zukowski called to clear the room besides the press, then changed her mind while members of the crowd voiced they were adamant to stay. She called for the audience members to act civilly.

Larkin said, to clarify, that she does care about the First Amendment, and part of the legal advice the board received around the First Amendment did have off-ramps when sexually explicit content and extreme vulgarity were introduced.

I dont want to pull the books, I just dont think its age-appropriate at a younger age, said Larkin, who again asked for compromise from other board members, questioning if they were voting in a block.

Vouros said what he goes back to is the trust parents will know best what is right for their child and says he can work with parents if they need help as he is qualified. If it doesnt work, we can revisit, said Vouros.

I dont know if there is a compromise other than what already exists. I just havent heard one yet, said Cruson. Im not saying I am fully opposed to one, but an opt-in is not something I am comfortable with, so if it is another age opt-in, no, I would not support the motion.

Opaque Procedures

If theres a compromise that can make sure they can limit access to it for their kids while leaving open access to all of the other students, I could see my way clear to agree, said Cruson, who referenced he understood there were already procedures in place.

Zukowski said the procedures were in place somewhat opaquely.Uberti then clarified this policy.

There is an opportunity for parents to reach out to library media specialists regarding different issues with books. To be fair, that has never been something that we have used for this purpose, said Uberti.

Uberti said if a fourth grader reads too many graphic novels, a parent may ask the library media specialist to encourage them to read something else. She said a compromise may be to allow parents to provide a list of books they would like their children not to be allowed access to in the library.

It would be interesting to see how many high school parents come up with lists of books. If we have hundreds of lists of books, we have a problem. If we have two, we have hopefully satisfied those parents concerns, said Uberti.

This is a compromise at the policy level. For these two particular books, no list is necessary, said Zukowski.

What we can do is say I move to amend the motion by adding parents who wish their children not to access Flamer provide written notification to the library media specialists at the high school, Zukowski said, and Uberti asked her to specify checking it out as they cannot monitor access.

Kuzma expressed she is still uncomfortable with the amendment, and the motion to retain the book Flamer at the Newtown High School library failed along the same party line split. The same motion failed for the retention of Blankets after further discussion of that work.

Plante said she doesnt believe consensus is achievable, nor was it a priority for the Board of Education.

One groups preferences and rights cannot infringe on the rights of others, said Plante. She brought up that the books are not part of the curriculum, and that Flamer has never been checked out at the library, and Blankets hadnt been checked out for eight years.

Plante referenced some of the book challengers asserting that exposure to the books would create emotional disturbance, sexual misdemeanors, and poor coping skills in children. She said she asked a high school crisis counselor, who advised her she could not recall any instances of any student she has counseled who said they were influenced by a book and thats not how it happens.

Plante said books may actually have a protective effect for teens with suicidal ideation, compensating for a lack of social or family support if the reader can identify with the book and quoted a study from International Journal for Environmental Research and Public Health to corroborate this.

Plante cited the special review committees observations about the resiliency of the protagonist in Flamer, and agreed the books are not obscene.

These books, when taken as a whole, do have substantial literary value as evidenced by the numerous awards theyve won, she said, adding that it was the unanimous decision of the committee, making the boards decision very clear.

Our default position must be that books are good, and we should move toward more access, and not less, said Plante, who referenced different parts of the special review committees report in support of her viewpoint.

Removing books or putting them on a restricted shelf can create stigma around a topic and stifle conversations, she said.

Cruson moved that the Board of Education accept the recommendation of the special review committee, which was rejected with the same 3-3 split. According to Zukowski who said she got advice from a lawyer ties mean no action could be taken.

We will have to have another meeting where we may or may not be able to take action, said Zukowski. Melillo confirmed her assessment.

Without consensus, the books remain status quo, but we have not completed the policy as it is laid out, said Melillo, who added that legal advice was to have another board meeting to come to a consensus.

No motions were added, and the second public participation session began.

Full reporting on both sessions of public participation will appear in the May 26 print edition of The Newtown Bee, and online at newtownbee.com.

Reporter Noelle Veillette can be reached at noelle@thebee.com.

Three generations of Newtown residents including these two plucky unidentified advocates were among nearly 100 who turned out, many toting signs ahead of a Board of Education meeting May 16 at Newtown High School. The rally was organized by the local Democratic Town Committee to support a district library book review panel that unanimously recommended retaining the books Flamer and Blankets, which are under consideration for removal by the school board. Bee Photo, Glass

From left, Superintendent of Schools Chris Melillo, Board of Educations Chair Deborra Zukowski, and board members John Vouros, Dan Cruson, Janet Kuzma, Jennifer Larkin, and Alison Plante are pictured during the May 16 meeting in the Newtown High School cafetorium. Bee Photo, Veillette

James Gaston, a long-time local Democratic leader, speaks before a rally that drew about 100 supporters to Newtown High School before a May 16 Board of Education meeting during which deliberations were expected to conclude regarding the possible removal of two controversial books from the high school library. Bee Photos, Glass

Chair Deborra Zukowski and Board Member John Vouros are pictured during a discussion about the graphic novel Flamer. Bee Photo, Veillette

Former Board of Education chair and current Legislative Council member Michelle Embree Ku is pictured speaking during the May 16 rally outside Newtown High School. Former school board chair Keith Alexander also attended and spoke supporting keeping the books Flamer and Blankets on the NHS library shelves.

Daniel Grossman was among attendees at the pre-meeting rally, and then attended and spoke during the Board of Educations public participation segment.

Read this article:
BOE Ties On All Motions, Amendments Along Party Lines: Still No ... - The Newtown Bee