"I (heart) boobies:" will SCOTUS take the case?

Is it sad or awesome that it took a federal ruling to uphold a high school student's right to wear an awareness-generating bracelet that uses the word "boobies?"

Breast cancer fundraising bracelets that proclaim "I (heart) boobies!" are not lewd or vulgar and can't be banned by public school officials who find them offensive, a federal judge in Pennsylvania said Tuesday in a preliminary ruling.

The ruling is a victory for two Easton girls suspended for defying a ban on their middle school's Breast Cancer Awareness Day.

"The bracelets ... can reasonably be viewed as speech designed to raise awareness of breast cancer and to reduce stigma associated with openly discussing breast health," U.S. Judge Mary McLaughlin wrote in a 40-page ruling issued Tuesday. She added that the school district had not shown the bracelets would be disruptive in school.

Since it's just an appellate decision, and students' free speech rights have been curtailed in other jurisdictions, one wonders how long it takes "I heart boobies" to become the "Bong hits 4 Jesus" of the 2010s.

Take the case, SCOTUS. This time, though, get the right result.


Update: The district that lost will appeal, making SCOTUS involvement a live, if distant, possibility.

handsome in pink

Everybody knows that baby boys wear pink and baby girls wear blue.

Right?








[via Maggie Koerth-Baker]

half-formed thoughts on cyberbullying

A work in progress. Your comments and suggestions are appreciated.

Sticks and stones
May break my bones
But words will never hurt me.


I'm made of rubber,
You're made of glue.
Everything you say
Bounces off me
And sticks to you.

--children's sayings

Recently a reader sent this email:

I'm a long-time reader of your blog. I was hoping that you would blog about cyberbullying laws sometime since they have been a matter of controversy for a while now. Thanks!

I was somewhat stumped. As a teacher who uses the Internet all throughout the curriculum, and for someone who has established a persistent online presence for seven years, I'm ashamed to admit that my perspective on cyberbullying is, at best, half-formed and ad hoc.

Which it shouldn't be, as cyberbullying challenges traditional notions of education, juvenile law, and parenting.

My thoughts were expanded when another reader, Kevin, sent along one an otherwise unrelated email titled "German Civil Rights Fail." (Any insertions or edits are his.)

"Article Five: Freedom of Expression.

(1) Every person shall have the right freely to express and disseminate his opinions in speech, writing, and pictures and to inform himself without hindrance from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of repor...ting by means of broadcasts and films shall be guaranteed. **There shall be no censorship.** [Sweet! Censorship = un-Constitutional in Germany.]

(2) **These rights shall find their limits** [Wait a minute! You just promised us CONSTITUTIONALLY that censorship will not happen! What happened?] in the provisions of general laws, in provisions for the protection of young persons, and in the right to **personal honor** [What does this even mean?! It's a violation of civil rights to insult somebody?!]."

GERMAN CIVIL RIGHTS?

FAIL

At first I didn't notice the connection, but there it is: the language of the German constitution provides a perfect framework for understanding the current controversy over cyberbullying. After all, it is a form of speech that threatens the mental and emotional wellbeing of young persons, and is an affront to their personal honor.

But should it be a crime? And, if so, what about free speech?

In one sense, the German constitution is superior to its U.S. counterpart; at least it explicitly notes the limitations on free speech, while in the U.S., we have to rely solely on decades of muddled juriprudence to determine where the boundaries of infringement lie. (Eugene Volokh, discussing a related issue, notes that even the word "infringement" isn't simple.  See also his critique of a new cyberbullying statute.  Legislators definitely run the risk of too broadly defining what constitutes cyberbullying.)

Here in the U.S., as the children's sayings imply, we certainly value personal honor and the sensibilities of the young. We don't want a nation of wimps.  A societally coordinated and aggressive approach to bullying, though, is a fairly recent invention. We leave personal honor to the person, creating a razor-thin line between encouraging mental toughness and blaming the victim--because sometimes words will hurt, and arguing otherwise is a form of denial. (If you disagree, imagine what a bully thinks when told that "words will never hurt.")

Throw this kind of thinking into a culture saturated with technology, which creates new dimensions for bullies.  What happens?

• There are new means of public or private aggression.  Blogs. Forums.  YouTube videos. Text messages.
• There seem to be no natural "times out," given the ubiquity of technology.
• The audience is potentially global, multiplying any humiliations--especially when older folks get in on the act. (Children aren't the only ones who cyberbully, as the Jessi Slaughter incident makes obvious. And if you look up Slaughter's experience, be warned: it's disturbing on multiple levels.)
• Anonymity and the removal from a personal context increase aggression.
• Thanks to Google, cyberbullying's evidence can last a lifetime.  How do you heal when the sting never stops?

Humans live out narratives, selves couched in stories and words.  As we migrate further into the digital hemisphere, words take on more and more importance. Maybe the Germans are on to something.

For further reading: Emily Bazelon's excellent series on the subject over at Slate.

the King is dead; long live the Cavs

"I PERSONALLY GUARANTEE THAT THE CLEVELAND CAVALIERS WILL WIN AN NBA CHAMPIONSHIP BEFORE THE SELF-TITLED FORMER ‘KING’ WINS ONE"

Dan Gilbert, in his open letter to Cleveland fans.



[via Slate's Twitter feed]

The Prodigal Fan

In case you doubted the inherent and insatiable sociality of the human species, or, at least, will cheer for anything: Improv Everywhere's Rob Lathan gets "lost" at a Knicks game.

the digital is the actual

I'm not sure I'm really sold on the idea that augmenting one's own reality makes one less of a machine. And I'm not sure the world needs more visual clutter as random folks project their desktops onto office windows and subway walls (tip for oblivious passersby: don't stare into the blinding beam). And don't we need a space where we can escape the noise for a time? ("Tell that idiot to quit watching YouTube on that cliff face already.")

But the idea of taking one's computation out of a plastic tower and into the wider world is otherwise pretty darn cool.

easily offended

Don't believe in God? You are not alone.

Apparently, this sentiment offends the Governor of Iowa.

Gov. Chet Culver weighed in on the controversial Des Moines bus ad that has been yanked after multiple complaints.

“I was disturbed, personally, by the advertisement and I can understand why other Iowans were also disturbed by the message that it sent,” Culver said.

The question will likely become a legal battle, Culver said. He deferred questions of whether the group deserves the same free speech rights as Christian organizations to advertise on the buses to the Iowa Attorney General.

Culver also declined to answer if he would also have gotten off the bus had he been a rider, but noted that he would have been offended by the ad’s message.

What, exactly, is Governor Culver offended by? The notion that atheists exist? The notion that atheists exist openly? The notion that atheists have free speech? The notion that some atheists feel isolated in the Corn Belt?

Even if Culver is "disturbed" by any of the above, he has to know that this is an open-and-shut matter of viewpoint discrimination prohibited under the First Amendment--never mind the Constitution of the state of Iowa. Culver, in pretending otherwise, and refusing to stand up for the rights of all Iowans, has revealed himself to not only be a bigot, but a political coward.



Update: The ads are going back on the buses. Better yet, the advertising policy is being rewritten to better reflect First Amendment rights. No thanks to Culver.

killing them softly with excerpts

Introductory phrase, followed by relevant link.

Blockquoted, thoughtfully chosen excerpt, highlighting the article's main argument, perhaps, or a good quote that would drum up a reader's interest or provoke some sort of analysis or observation on the blogger's part, in a way that respects "fair use."

Analysis, observation, ranting, raving, etc., perhaps with a call to read the whole thing, which, of course, would include a link.






P.S. When you click through, don't be surprised if you're asked to register for the right to read free content online. And you wonder what's really killing newspapers.

P.P.S. Should you refer to this blog post, I will find your attention flattering.

P.P.P.S. I learned about it on Twitter.

P.P.P.P.S. And thus I have reached the legal limit for postscripts.

marriage is a sham

At least, the marriages allegedly arranged by a Northwest restaurateur.

The owner of a chain of popular Thai restaurants in the Seattle area has been indicted on charges she paid her workers tens of thousands of dollars to enter into sham marriages with her relatives, allowing them to stay in the U.S.

Varee Bradford, who operates five Thai Ginger restaurants in Seattle, Redmond, Issaquah and Bellevue, was arrested Tuesday on charges of immigration fraud conspiracy and three counts of immigration document fraud. She was released on personal recognizance Tuesday afternoon after making an initial appearance in U.S. District Court.

Gerard Depardieu, what hast thou wrought?

if you're reading this, you're a socialist

At least, as Kevin Kelly defines the term.

Instead of gathering on collective farms, we gather in collective worlds. Instead of state factories, we have desktop factories connected to virtual co-ops. Instead of sharing drill bits, picks, and shovels, we share apps, scripts, and APIs. Instead of faceless politburos, we have faceless meritocracies, where the only thing that matters is getting things done. Instead of national production, we have peer production. Instead of government rations and subsidies, we have a bounty of free goods.

I recognize that the word socialism is bound to make many readers twitch. It carries tremendous cultural baggage, as do the related terms communal, communitarian, and collective. I use socialism because technically it is the best word to indicate a range of technologies that rely for their power on social interactions. Broadly, collective action is what Web sites and Net-connected apps generate when they harness input from the global audience. Of course, there's rhetorical danger in lumping so many types of organization under such an inflammatory heading. But there are no unsoiled terms available, so we might as well redeem this one.

The movement is organic rather than organized, and cooperative rather than collectivist. You're already a part of it.

But it needs a better name. "Socialism" is too fraught with connotation. "Collaborism" is a little unwieldy. "Synergism" is too corporate--and "corporate" is already taken.

There has to be a better, fresher noun.

Update: Jesse Walker for the counterpoint.

Update II: Jason Kuznicki on the closest approximation to utopia.

e-cigarettes: back to the future

Life, always a few miles per hour below the speed of parody:

Last summer, a Florida company began aggressively marketing e-cigarettes - which emit a nicotine vapor with the help of a computer chip - but the U.S. Food and Drug Administration now seems poised to pull e-cigs from the market because the agency considers them "new drugs." That means they need approval from the FDA, which requires companies to back up their claims with scientific data....

Invented in China several years ago, the e-cig not only "smokes" like a cigarette, it also looks like a cigarette, feels like a cigarette, glows like a cigarette and contains nicotine like a cigarette.

But it's not a cigarette. It's a slender stainless-steel tube.

Wonder if they drew their inspiration from the source of all foolishly great ideas: The Onion.

today's counterintuitive links

1. Investing in tourism in Afghanistan.

2. Banking on banking television... comedies.

3. Facebook might be good for you.

4. Texting might not be bad for kids.

5. Even in a recession, game consoles keep selling.

6. The Economist argues that the way to win the War on Drugs is to surrender. [via Mark Frauenfelder]

geniuses procrastinate

I'm pretty sure Leonardo would've been a blogger if he'd had the chance.



[via Arts and Letters Daily]

this poem... sucks

Elizabeth Alexander, unlike Maya Angelou, hasn't enjoyed a boost in sales from the inauguration, the news reports. Bafflingly, the article offers no real explanation, just saying that the poem lacked "spark."

There's a better explanation: Her. Delivery. Sank. The. Poem. It sounded trite, even if it might have seemed interesting on the page.

Nobody buys poetry books anymore. And even fewer want bad poetry.

reaching wikivana

The way to achieve a meaningful life is not through finding love, cultivating friendship, building a corporation, founding a nation, or creating a masterpiece.

The only way to be sure you matter(ed) is to make it onto Wikipedia.

Of course, you can't write your own entry, so you'll have to do something wiki-friendly.

Once you get on there, you can track the progress of your life--at least, your life as Wikipedia knows it--secure in the knowledge that you've at least hurdled the bar.

Oh, and the title? Wikiheaven, wikitopia, and wikihalla were all taken.

unmitigated awesomeness

Self-defense for women, jujitsu style. Watch for the...

• Dated genderisms
• Dry wit
• Butt-kicking

[More via Cory Doctorow of BoingBoing.]

Alex Trebek and I

Sure, the details are a tad different, but our origins and our destinies are essentially the same.

in which Burger King saves society

Just found out from PZ that Burger King is running a beautiful promotion: drop your Facebook Friends--10 of 'em--and get a free burger.

I can't believe it took a fast food conglomerate to make people understand the moral imperative of relationship-pruning, but whatever.

Update: Good, and bad, news: the promotion was a victim of its own success.

your happiness isn't (only) up to you

Social networks can influence an individual's happiness in heretofore unimagined ways.

Christakis also found that a person's happiness is dependent not only on the happiness of an immediate friend but - to a lesser degree - on the happiness of their friend's friend, and their friend's friend's friend. Furthermore, someone's chances of being happy increase the better connected they are to happy people, and for that matter the better connected their friends and family. "Most people will not be surprised that people with more friends are happier, but what really matters is whether those friends are happy," says Christakis.

They also discovered that the effect is not the same with everyone you know. How susceptible you are to someone else's happiness depends on the nature of your relationship with them. For example, if a good friend who lives within a couple of kilometres of you suddenly becomes happy, that increases the chances of you becoming happy by more than 60 per cent. In contrast, for a next-door neighbour the figure drops to about half that, and for a nearby sibling about half again. Surprisingly, a cohabiting partner makes a difference of less than 10 per cent, which coincides with another peculiar observation about some social epidemics: that they spread far more effectively via friends of the same gender.

Data came from the Framington Heart Study, ongoing since 1948. The limit of social influence seems to be three degrees--beyond a friend of a friend, influence is minimal.

Specific behaviors are also altered by social dynamics.

"Obesity appears to spread through social ties," Christakis says. Again, how likely you are to catch it depends on who you are interacting with: after controlling for factors such as difference in socioeconomic status, the researchers found that an individual's chances of becoming obese increased by 57 per cent if one of their friends became obese, 40 per cent if a sibling did and 37 per cent if their spouse did, irrespective of age (The New England Journal of Medicine, vol 357, p 370).

However, neighbours have no influence, and how far away you live from a friend counts for little, which implies that obesity spreads via a different mechanism to happiness. Rather than behavioural mimicry, the key appears to be the adoption of social norms. In other words, as I see my friends gain weight, this changes my idea of what an acceptable weight is. One similarity with happiness is that friends and relatives have a far greater influence if they are of the same gender. While it is not evident why that should matter for emotional contagion, norms of body size are clearly gender-specific: "Women look at other women, men look at other men," says Christakis. This could also help explain the epidemics of eating disorders reported among groups of schoolgirls in recent decades.

The spread of a social norm appears to account for another of Christakis's findings: that when people stop smoking, they usually do so along with whole clusters of friends, relatives and social contacts. As more people quit, it becomes the socially acceptable thing to do, and those who choose to continue smoking are pushed to the periphery of the network. In this case, people are most strongly influenced by those closest to them - if your spouse quits, it is 67 per cent more likely that you will too.

The next question, then, is to what degree MySpace and Facebook amplify these phenomena.

Phelps and Co. join the fracas

A little while ago, I predicted more "shenanigans" in L'Affair Dome. Of course, I was right:

A Kansas-based church that has blamed deaths in Iraq on U.S. tolerance of homosexuality has asked Gov. Christine Gregoire's office to approve a "Santa Claus will take you to hell" message to display among other religious statements in the Capitol's third-floor hallway.

The Westboro Baptist Church's message would be near a Nativity set, three signs mocking atheism, and an atheists' sign that celebrates the winter solstice, while also taking a shot at religion as "myth and superstition" that enslaves minds, all in the state Capitol's third-floor hallway.

The first part of Westboro's proposed message, according to Spokesman-Review reporter Rich Roesler:

"You'd better watch out, get ready to cry, You'd better go hide, I'm telling you why 'cuz Santa Claus will take you to hell. He is your favorite idol, you worship at his feet, but when you stand before your God He won't help you take the heat. So get this fact straight: you're feeling God's hate, Santa's to blame for the economy's fate, Santa Claus will take you to hell."

It's set to "Santa Claus is Coming to Town." Everybody sing along!