...but was it a "Hate Crime"?

Few pieces of legislation are as misunderstood as the Federal Law which designates and prohibits 'Hate Crimes'. As a result, almost anytime there is a violent crime involving persons of different races, someone on one side or the other generally calls for the issue to be designated as a 'Hate Crime'. I decided to pen this column to hopefully shed a little light and provide some guidance for activists unsure of when to pursue a 'Hate Crime' designation.

The current confusion over what is or isn't a 'Hate Crime' obfuscates the real intent of the legislation. Each time a high-profile incident with a racial component is determined not to be a hate crime, it plays into the narrative that 'Hate Crime' designations are governed by a needlessly complex and somewhat arbitrary standard. Conversely, the very existence of hate crimes legislation has served to enflame some on the Right who view the designation as an attack on politically incorrect thought and free speech. Neither position is correct. The legal standard for a Hate Crime designation is neither complex nor arbitrary, and the Federal law governing Hate Crimes does not criminalize speech, thought, or membership in groups or associations organized around hate speech or ideology.

Examples of recent descriptions of Hate Crime Legislation

The real purpose of hate-crime laws is to reassure politically significant groups -- blacks, Hispanics, Jews, gays, etc. -- that someone cares about them and takes their fears seriously. That's nice. It does not change the fact, though, that what's being punished is thought or speech. – Richard Cohen, Washington Post

Wrong
~~~

The views of millions of religious Americans will be violated if this legislation passes. It punishes the thoughts of a person! – Traditional Values Coalition

Wrong Again
~~~

" Hate crimes legislation is antithetical to the First Amendment, unnecessary and will have a chilling effect on religious freedom," - Rep. Mike Pence, R-Indiana

Wrong and duplicitous
~~~

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act states that a Hate Crime has occurred when:

Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, a dangerous weapon, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person—
Or because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person—

In layman’s terms: To understand when a Hate Crime designation should be applied, you must first identify the ‘intended’ victim. It is necessary to differentiate between a victim chosen because of some real or perceived relationship with the attacker and a victim who is ‘symbolic’; chosen as a proxy because they are in someway representative of a group or class. Understood in this context, a Hate Crime is the physiognomic equivalent of terrorism.

This critical distinction between related and symbolic victimization is the reason we don’t charge terrorists with 1st or 2nd degree murder charges. A terrorist's intended target is not the person or persons they kill, rather their intent is to strike out at the group of people that the victim(s) represent. In order to cause injury or send a message to members of a nationalistic or ideological cohort, they single out and attack otherwise random citizens from those respective groups. In the same way, a Hate Crime is one where the intended victim is not necessarily the person or persons who were attacked, but rather their intent is to strike out at the group of people that the victim(s) represent. In order to cause injury or send a message to members of a social or physiological cohort (be it ethnic, religious, sexual orientation or gender-based) they single out and attack otherwise random citizens from those respective groups. And it is the essentially random nature of these attacks that elevates them to a higher degree of culpability.

The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr Hate Crimes Prevention Act does NOT criminalize hate speech, hateful expressions, or membership in groups based upon such beliefs. Those who argue to the contrary clearly have not read the Act. The act states:

Section 4710: subparagraph 4, 5, and 6

(4) FREE EXPRESSION
Nothing in this division shall be construed to allow prosecution based solely upon an individual's expression of racial, religious, political, or other beliefs or solely upon an individual's membership in a group advocating or espousing such beliefs.

(5) FIRST AMENDMENT
Nothing in this division, or an amendment made by this division, shall be construed to diminish any rights under the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

(6) CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS
Nothing in this division shall be construed to prohibit any constitutionally protected speech, expressive conduct or activities (regardless of whether compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief), including the exercise of religion protected by the first amendment to the Constitution of the United States and peaceful picketing or demonstration. The Constitution of the United States does not protect speech, conduct or activities consisting of planning for, conspiring to commit, or committing an act of violence.

Read more...

Federal appellate court limits cops' use of Tasers

Reposted from the Sacramento Bee
by Hudson Sangree and Kim Minugh

A federal appeals court on Monday issued one of the most comprehensive rulings yet limiting police use of Tasers against low-level offenders who seem to pose little threat and may be mentally ill.

In a case out of San Diego County, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals criticized an officer who, without warning, shot an emotionally troubled man with a Taser when he was unarmed, yards away, and neither fleeing nor advancing on the officer.

Sold as a nonlethal alternative to guns, Tasers deliver an electrical jolt meant to subdue a subject. The stun guns have become a common and increasingly controversial tool used by law enforcement.

There have been at least nine Taser-related fatalities in the Sacramento region, including the death earlier this month of Paul Martinez Jr., an inmate shot with a stun gun while allegedly resisting officers at the Roseville jail. As lawsuits have proliferated against police and Taser International, which manufactures the weapons, the nation's appellate courts have been trying to define what constitutes appropriate Taser use. The San Diego County case is the latest ruling to address the issue.

The court recounted the facts of the case:

In the summer of 2005, Carl Bryan, 21, was pulled over for a seat-belt violation and did not follow an officer's order to stay in the car.

Earlier, he had received a speeding ticket and had taken off his T-shirt to wipe away tears. He was wearing only the underwear he'd slept in because a woman had taken his keys, the court said without further explanation.

During his second traffic stop in Coronado, he got out of the car. He was "agitated … yelling gibberish and hitting his thighs, clad only in his boxer shorts and tennis shoes" but did not threaten the officer verbally or physically, the judges wrote.

That's when Coronado Police Officer Brian McPherson, who was standing about 20 feet away watching Bryan's "bizarre tantrum," fired his Taser, the court said.

Without a word of warning, he hit Bryan in the arm with two metal darts, delivering a 1,200-volt jolt.

Temporarily paralyzed and in intense pain, Bryan fell face-first on the pavement. The fall shattered four of his front teeth and left him with facial abrasions and swelling. Later, a doctor had to use a scalpel to remove one of the darts.

Bryan sued McPherson, the Coronado Police Department and the city of Coronado, alleging excessive force in violation of his Fourth Amendment rights.

The officer moved to have the claim dismissed, but a federal trial judge ruled in Bryan's favor.

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit affirmed the trial judge's ruling on Monday, concluding that the level of force used by the officer was excessive.

McPherson could have waited for backup or tried to talk the man down, the judges said. If Bryan was mentally ill, as the officer contended, then there was even more reason to use "less intrusive means," the judges said.

"Officer McPherson's desire to quickly and decisively end an unusual and tense situation is understandable," Judge Kim McLane Wardlaw wrote for the court. "His chosen method for doing so violated Bryan's constitutional right to be free from excessive force."

Some lawyers called it a landmark decision.

Eugene Iredale, a San Diego lawyer who argued the case, said it was one of the clearest and most complete statements yet from an appellate court about the limits of Taser use. He said after Monday's decision that courts will consider all circumstances, including whether someone poses a threat, has committed a serious crime or is mentally troubled.

"In an era where everybody understands 'don't tase me, bro,' courts are going to look more closely at the use of Tasers, and they're going to try to deter the promiscuous oversue of that tool," he said. That's especially true in the context of those who appear to be emotionally disturbed or mentally ill, said Johnny Griffin III, a Sacramento plaintiffs lawyer.

Griffin represented the family of a troubled Woodland man who died under police restraint after being struck multiple times with Tasers. In May 2008, Ricardo Abrahams walked away from a voluntary care facility and disobeyed the orders of officers called to check on his well-being. They shot him repeatedly with stun guns. The case against the city of Woodland and its officers was settled in June for $300,000. "I think it confirms what I and other lawyers in this area have been saying: You can't treat a person with mental illness the same as someone without mental illness," Griffin said.

Law enforcement authorities in Sacramento said they don't expect Monday's ruling to prompt much change.

Sacramento Police Department and Sacramento County Sheriff's Department policies permit the use of force to gain control of a suspect or prevent harm to others. "Certainly the officer should be able to articulate the reason the force (was used), and a mere resistance to comply may not be enough," said Sheriff John McGinness.

Sgt. Norm Leong, spokesman for the Police Department, said his agency's policy on the use of stun guns mainly covers safety considerations. It doesn't list behaviors or situations that warrant using the devices, he said. "Ideally, in every circumstance, we try to gain compliance verbally, and force is the last option we ever want to use," he said.

Read more...

No child left behind... well, except for those over there

I've never been a big fan of the No Child Left Behind Act. The goal of holding schools and districts accountable for teaching all of their students, is wonderful. But the method; namely tying school funding to the outcome of high stakes tests, is sorely lacking. For starters, high stakes testing is no substitute for educational reform. Trying to close the Achievement Gap with high stakes testing is like trying to cure a fever with a thermometer. But more significantly, we've argued consistently here on the blog that the high stakes testing model is fraught with unintended consequences. Foremost among these being #1. that lower performing Title I schools 'protect' themselves against economic sanctions through the implementation of adapted curriculums (more block hours on NCLB testable disciplines to the exclusion of civics, the humanities, and some science courses). #2 lower performing title I schools tend towards an increased focus on basic proficiency and a decreased focus on high achievement. And #3 - that the cumulative effect of both #1 and #2 is that we would actually see a 'hardening' of the achievement gap even in schools that met their goals for AYP (Annual Yearly Progress).

Well...

Last week, the Journal of Blacks in Higher Education reported that the Racial scoring gap on SAT II subject tests has Widened significantly! They report:

On the 11 most popular SAT II tests listed in the accompanying table, the racial scoring gap has increased over the past decade. In most cases the scoring gap has significantly increased unfavorably for African Americans. The only exception is the physics test, where the racial gap over the past 10 years has increased by only two points.

The largest increase in the racial scoring gap has been on the Spanish SAT II subject test. On this test in 1999 the racial gap was 47 points. It has now opened up to 83 points. The scoring gap has increased by a large margin on tests for French, chemistry, biology, Latin, mathematics, and American history.

Educational Activists around the country need to hold Secretary of Education Arne Duncan and President Obama's feet to the fire to implement the educational reforms we heard so much about during the campaign. Between the myopic push to eliminate deseg programs and return to neighborhood schools, the failure to seriously explore the charter school concept as an incubator for educational reform, and the woefully inadequate NCLB act, we are losing ground with regard to the academic achievement gap. The gap that began to narrow in the 70's and 80's as schools around the country even half-heartedly desegregated is now widening once more...

If you'd like to read more on the subject... HERE is an interesting report on the discrepancies between the high stakes NCLB reported test scores and the independent NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) test scores.

Read more...

We've reached a milestone; Post Number 500

It's hard to believe but this is my 500th post... We started this blog in 2007 to provide a means of communicating issues and items of interest to our local community. Since then, it has grown considerably, winning two National NAACP Awards and finding readership all around the world. The blog has been quoted or republished in numerous newspapers and magazines around the country, and we have standing syndication agreements in Florida, Michigan, and Kansas.

Thank you to all of you who stop by check on us. We hope that we have been informative, thorough, and timely with the information we have presented. And we will continue to bring you information and insights on issues facing our community from a grass roots activist perspective...

Read more...

Illinois State Police exhonerate Officers in the killing of Mark Barmore - NAACP Calls for DOJ Investigation

The following statement was released yesterday by the NAACP in the case of Mark Anthony Barmore, an unarmed African American man fatally shot by two white Rockford, IL police officers in a church day care center.

“The NAACP is shocked and outraged by the Illinois State Police finding that the Rockford Police acted properly in shooting and killing Mark Barmore, who was unarmed” said Norma Joseph, President of the Rockford Branch NAACP.

The Rockford, Illinois branch of NAACP, along with community leaders, faith leaders and concerned citizens in the State of Illinois, have formed a coalition which is calling for an independent investigation by the US Department of Justice through the US Attorney General for the Northern District of Illinois into the incident. The community-based coalition has also called for the establishment of a citizen’s police review board with subpoena and disciplinary power.

“We are seeking accountability for the law enforcement officer’s actions,” explained Attorney Don Jackson, President of the Illinois State NAACP. “In only five years of service, one of the officers has been involved in four shootings, two of which resulted in fatalities.”

“It is a sad day in this country when two police officers with guns drawn can charge into a church day care center, terrorize children and staff and fatally shoot an unarmed man in the back with impunity,” stated Benjamin Todd Jealous, NAACP President and CEO.

The NAACP has requested the US Department of Justice to launch a full “pattern and practice” investigation into the Rockford police department in addition to criminal and civil rights investigations into the actions of the police officers. The Rockford police force has experienced a rash of police shootings in the past 10 years. The Coalition is also asking the City of Rockford to provide psychiatric counseling to the pre-school children and adult daycare workers who witnessed the shooting, many of whom are already exhibiting signs of post traumatic stress disorder.

“The lack of supervision by Rockford of its officers threatens the safety of all Rockford residents and mars the integrity of its police department,” stated Jealous. “Lack of accountability will tear the fabric of trust between law enforcement officials and the communities they serve, making it more difficult to solve or prevent crimes. In some cities where police misconduct is prevalent, the unsolved homicide rates are as high as 80 percent. Without trust, witnesses will not come forward and crimes will remain unsolved,” Jealous concluded.

The NAACP has called for Congress to enact legislation to mandate national standards for training and use of force for all law enforcement.

Read more...

The 2010 Gates Millennium Scholarship Program has launched; application deadline is January 11th!

This program, funded by a grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, was established to provide outstanding low income minority students with an opportunity to complete an undergraduate college education in any discipline area of interest.

Continuing scholars may request funding for a graduate degree program in one of the following discipline areas: education, engineering, library science, mathematics, public health or science.

In addition to increasing access to higher education for these underrepresented groups, GMS also provides leadership training. Through participation in a comprehensive leadership development program, Scholars enhance academic and leadership skills, which prepare them to assume important roles in their professions and in their communities.

Students are eligible to be considered for a GMS scholarship if they:

• Are African American, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian and Pacific Islander American, or Hispanic American;
• Are a citizen/legal permanent resident or nationals of the United States;
• Have attained a cumulative GPA of 3.3 on a 4.0 scale (un-weighted);
• Will be enrolling for the first-time at a U.S. accredited* college or university as a full-time, degree-seeking, first-year student in the fall of 2010; or GED
• Have demonstrated leadership abilities through participation in community service, extracurricular or other activities;
• Meet the Federal Pell Grant* eligibility criteria; and
• Have all three forms (Nominee Personal Information Form completed by the student, Nominator Form completed by an educator familiar with the student’s academic record and a Recommender Form completed by a person familiar with the student’s leadership and community service) submitted by the deadline

In order to be eligible to be considered for the GMS scholarship, all three forms must be submitted by the deadline.

1. Nominee Form (student application)
2. Nominator Form
3. Recommender Form

CLICK HERE to access the GMS Scholarship Application

CLICK HERE for more information about the Gates Millenium Scholars Program

Read more...

The Wichita Branch NAACP 2009 Year-End report is now available

The 2009 Year End report for the Wichita Branch NAACP, detailing branch activities in the areas of Education, Civil Rights Enforcement, Legislative Advocacy, Youth Development, Legal Redress, Health, Branch Administration, and Advocacy Training, is now available to the public.

CLICK HERE for a copy of the report

Read more...

Video: A curious examination of race in America

Please watch both videos. They are a 2 part series from 20/20 which examined racial attitudes in America

Leave a comment; share your thoughts...

Read more...

Wichita NAACP to begin a Debate Program within the Judge Riddel Boys Ranch Juvenile Corrections facility

On January 23rd, the Wichita Branch NAACP will start a first-of-it's kind debate program at the Judge Riddel Boys Ranch (JRBR).

The JRBR serves male juvenile offenders with serious behavior problems from an urban setting, ages 13-17, that have been found guilty in juvenile court and ordered into state’s custody for placement outside their homes at a community-based residential program. Approximately 50% of the juveniles are in custody for misdemeanor offenses, after they have failed standard probation and intensive probation in the community. The other half are felony offenders, including those with convictions for person crimes such as aggravated robbery, aggravated assault and aggravated burglary. JRBR youth are typically very far behind in their education; many need outpatient substance abuse treatment, mental health care and counseling to address criminal behavior, anger management, empathy, grief and family issues.

Through our structured debate program, we will model and teach effective communication, critical thinking, rules of decorum, and conflict resolution skills, that will serve them long after they returned to their families and community. Through this program, we plan to drive down recidivism rates by working directly with juvenile offenders and at-risk youth and equipping them with the skills they need to express themselves in a positive manner, to advocate on their own behalf, to bring about change through reason, and to traverse difficult and trying situations without resorting to anger or anti-social behaviors.

Read more...

The Kansas State Disproportionality Task Force releases its report and recommendations

Longtime readers of the blog may remember that we have been working to bring real reform to the Child Welfare system since 2004, and have posted numerous articles detailing our efforts since the blogs inception back in 2007:

08/2007: The Wichita NAACP joins with Youthville in an effort to encourage more African American families to become foster parents 
05/2008: Wichita Branch NAACP Legal Redress Chair to meet with Kansas SRS Secretary Don Jordon 
09/2008: Progress report on Sedgwick County Child Welfare issues 
11/2008: Governor Sebelius agrees to examine disproportionalities in Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice systems 
12/2008: The Wichita Eagle reports on the Wichita NAACP's Child Welfare efforts 
02/2009: Current Branch Legislative and Policy Projects 
02/2009: Legislative Action Alert - CINC notification (HB2303) and Insurance Premiums and Credit Scores (SB203) need your attention 
03/2009: The Kansas Disproportionality Study Gets Underway 

As reported back in September of 2008 (see the "Progress Report" link above), a team from the Wichita Branch NAACP consisting of Mary Dean, Carolyn Wallace, and President Kevin Myles, traveled to the State Capitol to meet with the Governor's office and present the results of our multi-year internal study of Child Welfare issues. We asked at the conclusion of our presentation that the Governor would commission a more detailed and larger scaled study of disproportionalities in the Child Welfare system throughout the State. The Governor's office agreed and in November of 2008 Governor Sebelius announced that they would form a statewide taskforce to look at issues of disproportionality in both the Child Welfare and Juvenile Justice systems. In March of this year, research teams throughout the State were formally assembled. Dozens of people were brought together from Law Enforcement, Child Welfare, Foster Care and placement, Corrections Staff, Legislators, Parents, Educators, concerned citizens, and the NAACP, all looking for ways to reform the system and eliminate the disparities...

The Task force has now completed it's work - the study is finished and the recommendations will now go to the Governor's office for consideration and approval. The Wichita Branch participated as a part of the Sedgwick County team. For us, this is the culmination of almost 6 years worth of study, travel, and work. Now we will gear up to lobby the legislature for the full adoption and funding of our specific and detailed recommendations.

Click HERE to view the full Disproportionality Report and recommendations

Read more...

The NAACP LDF calls on Congress to restore American's full and unfettered access to the Courts

NAACP LDF Director of Litigation, Debo Adegbile, testified before the House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties. While John Payton, the President and Director Counsel of the NAACP LDF testified before the Senate Judiciary committee. In each presentation, the NAACP LDF called attention to the fact that the recent 5-4 Supreme Court decision in Ashcroft v. Iqbal will dramatically limit citizens access to the courts in Civil Rights cases. The Court ruled that a plaintiff must come to the court with 'plausible evidence' of a defendant's liability to prevent their case from being thrown out with a summary judgement.

This is a new legal standard...

Typically in a Civil Rights case; particularly one alleging an act of bias or discrimination, much of the evidence needed to prove culpability is with the defendant. The bulk of this evidence is only obtainable through the discovery process. However, this NEW legal standard articulated by the court says that unless the plaintiff can produce this evidence upon filing, their case may be thrown out and they may not make to the discovery phase.

CLICK HERE to read Debo Adegbile's testimony to the House Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties

CLICK HERE to read John Payton's testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee "Has the Supreme Court Limited American's access to the Courts?"

Read more...

NAACP confronts Kansas Representative Bill Otto over his "redneck rap" and the issue of dog whistle politics

Reposted from KTKA.com

"I'm sorry that I offended you, I wish that I had made some choices of different things," says State Representative Bill Otto of LeRoy.

The NAACP has a little piece of mind after confronting Rep. Otto.

Glenda Overstreet; Vice President of the NAACP Kansas State Conference says Kansans aren't the only people who were offend by his You Tube post. She says, "people outside of the state saying you know, you have a state representative that would voice these opinions. So people clearly were offended, not only in the state of Kansas, but around the state of Kansas in the regional area."

Otto used the term redneck in his rap and wore a hat that said "Opossum the other dark meat." Choices that he would later regret. " I wish I had chosen a different hat, I wish I had called it hillbilly instead of redneck," Otto says.

Retired member of the U.S. Army Lt. Colonel William Richards felt it was important to attend the forum. He says after fighting and giving up so much for his country he wants his son and grand kids to have the same freedoms he served for.

Richards says, "the nation is going back to the fundamental principals provided by our founding fathers and this is basically what I'm concerned about. Equal opportunity, equal respect."

Otto says he's thankful for the opportunity to meet with the NAACP. "There's many issues that I have cared about and worked for that I would like this organization to continue to be with me and to continue to be supportive and try to get some common goals accomplished," he said.

Otto feels both parties have finally reached an understanding. He says he intends to leave up his You Tube post. He also feels that if he had chosen to use the word Hillbilly instead of Redneck there would have been no controversy.

This effort was led by the Topeka Branch Branch NAACP. On behalf of the Kansas State Conference of NAACP Branches, we would like to acknowledge and applaud President Ben Scott and the members of the Topeka Branch NAACP for their leadership and vigilance on this effort...

Read more...

Who cares about 'Net Neutrality'?

You should, and here’s why…

What is Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is the idea that the Internet should always remain an unrestricted information and communication portal. That like streets and highways, the internet should be open and available for anyone to use and that it should continue to provide an equal platform for all voices.

What are the challenges to Net Neutrality?
The challenge to Net Neutrality is that several major telecom companies (such as AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and Time Warner) are currently seeking to monetize the internet. Access to technologies, sites, applications, and speeds, would be limited and tiered by a fee structure with the fastest speeds and best access reserved for those companies or organizations that paid a premium rate. Akin to television, where you have public access, broadcast, basic cable, and premium cable channels, these telecom companies are seeking to divide the internet along the same basic lines. Under the structure they seek to create, these telecom companies would be able to change they way you and I access the internet; providing packages that favored their sites, products, search engines, and platforms, while at the same time slowing down or limiting access to the services, sites, and applications of their competitors.

Why should I care about Net Neutrality?
Net Neutrality is a concept that is embedded in the way we view the internet. The Internet provides everyone who owns or has access to a computer an equal opportunity to render their thoughts and opinions into the public sphere. It is the great equalizer – giving everyone the opportunity to “tell their own story”. The Internet is changing the way that we see and understand the world around us; giving us immediate access to voices, video, pictures, documents, and first-hand accounts of events. The internet does not have an editor. The internet is not concerned with market share. The internet does not use talking points. The internet does not spin. The internet is simply an open platform, where anyone who has a story can tell it, and anyone else who has an interest can listen. It is the 21st century Hyde Park speaker’s corner; a true digital soapbox…

On the internet, community organizations and ordinary citizens don’t have to worry about whether or not the local paper or television stations feel their issues are “newsworthy” or if they have sufficient appeal to the larger community: This a shared space, where we each can speak to our respective constituencies without having to meet the approval of some editorial board or telecom company, and without having to pay to speak. Our voices and our stories are posted on equal footing, using the same technologies, which are accessible at the same speeds, and available to the same audience, as those posted by national media organizations, government officials, or the Telecom companies themselves.

Currently, the internet allows everyone to speak freely with no gatekeepers deciding which voices should be amplified and which others should be silenced. Money does not enhance your message, nor does the lack of money diminish it. There are no gatekeepers deciding which sites should be freely accessible, and which should have limited access. There are no gatekeepers deciding whose data and content will run fast and whose should run slowly. There are no financial limitations on speakers and content providers (ordinary people like you and I). There is no overseer to decide if you’d paid enough money to host those videos, or to post those pictures. But the plans proposed by the telecom companies would change all that. Under the guise of honoring the “free market”, the Telecom companies and their supporters seek to introduce fee structures, tiered access, and content packaging. This is why we need Net Neutrality.

What do opponents say about Net Neutrality?
The “Government Takeover” Argument: Critics argue that Net Neutrality legislation represents a ‘government takeover’ of the Internet. They claim that the Internet is now a Free Market System and should be allowed to continue in its current state without Government interference. The obvious problem with this argument is that the Telecom companies have made it clear that they do not want to see the internet continue in its current state. They are proposing a change to a tiered system as I have described above. Net Neutrality legislation would not "take over the Internet" and change it to a new system; it would simply safeguard the system we currently have. It would codify the principles of an open and free Internet into law and prevent Internet providers from blocking, speeding up or slowing down Web content based on its source, ownership or destination.

The “Corporate Welfare” Argument: Groups like Hands off the Internet and NetCompetition.org argue that Net Neutrality is akin to a corporate welfare scheme that would benefit the Silicon Valley crowd; forcing everyone to subsidize the expansion of bandwidth and capacity which in turn Silicon Valley would use sans the costs of development. They argue that speed and capacity are expensive so those who need it should pay for it. In other words, pay to play – let everyone have access to the net but scale their speed and capacity according to their ‘need’ and budget. That way the Silicon Valley crowd could have their lighting fast connection speeds because they’d be paying for them, smaller companies could purchase the speed and capacity they needed on a lesser scale, and ordinary folks could have a ‘level of access’ suitable for our need and budget. (Again, think television: Premium Channels, Basic Cable, Network Television, and Public Access). The problem with this argument is that it assumes that people are merely ‘content consumers’ and not ‘content providers’. The real power of the internet is that it allows ordinary citizens to be content providers. Its one thing to offer lower bandwidth and slower speeds for downloads and surfing, but when you think in terms of content providers (people who use blogs, social networks, web sites, you tube etc) scaling their bandwidth and speed to match their bank accounts artificially prioritizes some voices over others. Those with money would speak louder; their voices heard faster, their messages accessed easier, their messages better enabled with video and streaming content. Those without money would be relegated to the cyberspace equivalent of public television; Slow uploads, poorly enabled, with lesser capacity and lessened access.

Next Steps?
The first step is to educate yourself. You should begin by reading HR3458 – The Internet Freedom Preservation Act of 2009. Please, take the time to read the whole text, because to effectively advocate for the bill, we must fully understand it. The telecom companies have already spent millions of dollars to lobby Congress and the FCC against Net Neutrality, so it’s critical that we understand not only why the bill is important, but also why our opponents are wrong.

Second, you should contact your Representative to let them know that you support Net Neutrality and that you want them to vote in favor of HR3458.

And lastly, stay informed… Visit savetheinternet.com and sign the petition; add your voice to the 1.6 million people who have already come out in favor of Net Neutrality…

Read more...

The Right to Vote: The Core of Our Representative Democracy

Report from John Payton; President and Director-Counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund to the The United Nations Forum on Minority Issues

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund is the oldest – and has been described as the finest – human rights law firm in American history. We have been involved in virtually all of the modern efforts to effectuate effective political participation by African Americans.

For most of U.S. history Black Americans were excluded from political participation. I will describe the means by which that exclusion was achieved and the continuing efforts to counteract those measures.

But, first, I will describe the election process in the U.S. There is no national election authority or commission in the U.S. Instead, elections are run by our separate states, and, in those states the elections are run by smaller local entities, usually counties. So, there were thousands of different ballots for last November’s election, all processed in different ways.

Additionally, in the United States individual candidates run for individual offices. There are political parties, but there are no party lists or proportional representation. Instead, there is a geographically defined district. Some are fixed, as are state wide offices or the President. But most are drawn on a map from time to time.

Each of these points – who runs the election, who draws the district -- can be affected by discrimination.

The United States is a democracy with a written constitution, but that original Constitution condoned and accommodated racism and slavery, and, even after our civil war ended slavery and resulted in amendments to our constitution that provided for equal justice, those very same local entities – states and their subdivisions, effectively thwarted change.

There were two types of exclusionary measures. Voter registration was the first and was implemented in the South for the purpose of creating a mechanism of exclusion. Here is how it would work: in order to be registered a potential voter would have to demonstrate that he or she was literate. That requirement would be waived by the registration official for white potential voters and used to deny Black potential voters. There were innumerable variations on the ways in which this device was used to exclude Blacks.

And second, the operation of the election itself could be infused with discrimination. Where were the polling places located? Were they moved the evening before the election? Were there enough ballots? Did they open on time? There are endless variations on this as well.

These measures were used effectively and excluded Black and other minorities from participation.

The Legal Defense Fund was founded in part to attack this racist reality. We challenged each of the practices I have described – registration requirements, poll taxes, literacy tests, how elections were operated. Eventually we were joined by the Federal Justice Department in challenging these discriminatory measures. But even when we were successful, the local jurisdiction would simply move to another variation of the same scheme and achieve the same result -- via a new literacy test, or moving a polling place in the Black community just before the election. Legal remedies were not effective because a new device could be put in place as soon as an earlier one was invalidated.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 is the principal measure in combating this racial discrimination. It is the single most effective piece of civil rights legislation in the U.S. The Voting Rights Act bans discrimination in voting on the basis of race or national origin and gives the federal government wide authority to ensure non-discrimination in voting. In addition, and crucially, Section Five of the Act serves as a checkpoint by requiring jurisdictions within the U.S. that have a history of discrimination in voting to obtain approval from the federal government before enacting any changes to their voting practices or procedures, a process known as “preclearance.” Thus, Section Five acts like a national election commission in some ways. Preclearance has been an extremely effective tool in rooting out and deterring acts of discrimination in voting. Since 1982 it has prevented the enactment of over 600 documented discriminatory changes to voting laws. This critical law, the Voting Rights Act, was challenged in our Supreme Court this year, and we, the Legal Defense Fund, argued in the Supreme Court and succeeded in preventing it being declared unconstitutional.

The Census: Accurately Counting Minorities

Census data is used to determine the number of seats that each state will have in the House of Representatives, and the number of votes that each state has in the Electoral College, which is how the President of the United States is selected. Census data is also used in the drawing of election districts, and in making sure that election districts are roughly equal in size. The enforcement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which I described previously, also depends heavily on accurate Census data.

Redistricting

After the Census results are finalized, the various States throughout the country engage in the process of redistricting, or redrawing electoral districts for political offices, from school boards to city councils, state legislatures to the U.S. Congress. How and where those lines are drawn often determines whether or not members of minority groups will have the ability to participate meaningfully in the political process and elect candidates of their choice. Historically, however, the redistricting process has frequently excluded members of minority groups. Until the 1990’s, the redistricting process remained largely under the control of voting blocs and power structures that did not consider – or even purposefully undermined – the interests of racial and ethnic minorities. During redistricting, racial minorities were often spread out amongst many districts so as to dilute their voting strength, or, in other cases, packed as a supermajority into a single district so as to limit their ability to participate in and win elections in other districts.

However, thanks to vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act in the redistricting process, the number of minority representatives in the U.S. Congress has increased from 40 in 1990 to 70 today. In other words, it is no exaggeration to say that the redistricting process may be the single most important factor in determining whether racial and ethnic minorities have a meaningful opportunity to participate in the political process and elect their candidates of choice.

In sum, the right to vote is at the core of our representative democracy. It is not only a human and civil right in itself; it is the bedrock on which all other rights rest. The ability of members of racial and ethnic minority groups to meaningfully participate in the political process is a crucial measure of our nation’s commitment to democracy and equality under the law.

Read more...