Confused Cops Swarm Woman After Birth

KETTERING, Ohio - A woman rushing to a hospital to give birth hit a few stops along the way ? first at a gas station where she delivered the baby herself, then when confused police ordered her out of the car at gunpoint.

Debbie Coleman, whose 3- and 4-year-old daughters were asleep in the back seat, pulled over at a gas station just after midnight Tuesday.

"I asked if she needed help, and she just leaned back in the seat, hollered a little, and I looked down and there was the baby's head," said station co-owner Lloyd Goff, who was alerted to the emergency at pump No. 7 by a customer.

Goff said Coleman "threw her leg over the steering wheel, groaned once, and the rest of the baby came out.

"She caught that baby, put it to her chest, gave me a look, like, 'I gotta go,' closed the door, put the van in gear and away she went."

A customer at the gas station in suburban Dayton tried to give police a heads-up about Coleman's situation, but a mix-up involving the license plate number had them thinking the van was stolen.

As officers went looking for her, Coleman headed for the hospital, naked below the waist and with the baby boy in her arm. His umbilical cord was still attached.

"I kept pulling over, making sure (the baby) was all right, breathing," she said.

Meanwhile, police had straightened out the license plate issue. But another caller mistakenly reported someone trying to throw a baby from a van.

Coleman said she noticed several cruisers following her before one cut her off. With guns drawn, officers ordered her out of the van with her hands up.

"I opened the door and said, 'I just had a baby' and just let them see everything," she said.

Officers sent Coleman on and let the hospital know she was coming.

Coleman was discharged Wednesday. Her 6-pound, 8-ounce son, Richard Lee Coleman Jr., remained in intensive care.

< First of all, a "mix-up" doesn't begin to describe it. When someone tells you a woman's having a baby in a van, and the only part you get right is "van", you're fucking stupid. Then someone calls up who has no fucking idea what they saw, but say it's something bad (if they had any idea whatsoever they'd know that she was trying to SAVE the baby, but again, some ignorant nosey asshole gets it not just wrong but backwards), and they go from looking for a car theif to looking for a maniac. This all can't be excused, but then they draw their guns. With no actual evidence that anything was wrong (even if the information they had was right, they didn't try to verify it in any way), they put an unknown person in an unknown situation in mortal danger. Mixups happen, mixups mixed with police's assumption of righteousness when they have exactly the opposite, which happens consistantly and regularly, make for really fucked up situations happening to people when they need precisely the opposite. >

Cat Trapped in House Fed Via Letter Box

LONDON (Reuters) - The owners of a cat trapped for a week in the home of a vacationing neighbor have been pushing ice cubes and cat food through the letter box to keep their pet -- named Lucky -- alive.

The Daily Express newspaper Monday said the black-and-white cat was spotted fast asleep in the neighbor's house after she went missing from her home near Bristol, southwest England.

"I just hope our neighbor has gone away for a week and not for months," owner Tracey Venables, 31, told the newspaper.

Venables said it was likely Lucky had slipped into the neighbor's house unnoticed before the man headed off on holiday ahead of the Easter weekend.

Police have told Venables they are powerless to release her errant cat.

"It's absolutely infuriating because she is so close but we cannot get to her," said the mother-of-two, who added she would break in should Lucky show any signs of ill health.

"I don't care if I get arrested."

Lawyer Convicted of Helping Terrorists

NEW YORK - A veteran civil rights lawyer was convicted Thursday of crossing the line by smuggling messages of violence from one of her jailed clients ? a radical Egyptian sheik ? to his terrorist disciples on the outside.

The jury had deliberated 13 days over the past month before convicting Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene.

Stewart faces up to 20 years in prison on charges that include conspiracy, giving material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government.

Minutes before the verdict was read, Stewart said she felt "nervous. I'm scared, worried." When she heard the pronouncement, Stewart began shaking her head and wiping her eyes. The courtroom was filled with her supporters, who gasped. She will remain free on bail, but must stay in New York, until her July 15 sentencing.

The trial focused attention on the line between zealous advocacy and criminal behavior by a lawyer. Some defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases.

The jury also convicted a U.S. postal worker, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of plotting to "kill and kidnap persons in a foreign country" by publishing an edict urging the killing of Jews and their supporters. A third defendant, Arabic interpreter Mohamed Yousry, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists. Sattar could face life in prison and Yousry up to 20 years.

Stewart was the lawyer for Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites) and destroy several New York landmarks, including the U.N. building and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels. Stewart's co-defendants also had close ties to Abdel-Rahman.

Prosecutors said Stewart and the others carried messages between the sheik and senior members of a Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's venomous call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

At the time, the sheik was in solitary confinement in Minnesota under special prison rules to keep him from communicating with anyone except his wife and his lawyers.

Prosecutor Andrew Dember argued that Stewart and her co-defendants essentially "broke Abdel-Rahman out of jail, made him available to the worst kind of criminal we find in this world ? terrorists."

Stewart, who once represented Weather Underground radicals and mob turncoat Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, repeatedly declared her innocence, maintaining she was unfairly targeted by overzealous prosecutors.

But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."

A major part of the prosecution's case was Stewart's 2000 release of a statement withdrawing the sheik's support for a cease-fire in Egypt by his militant followers. Prosecutors, though, could point to no violence that resulted from the statement.

Videotape of prison conversations between Stewart and the sheik also were played for jurors ? recordings the defense denounced as an intrusion into attorney-client privilege.

< First of all, attorney-client privilege is very important. With it infringed there will no longer be any possibility of justice except by luck. The real issue here is that someone who had specific legal priviledge did something that they had no reason to believe was illegal (nor should it be, or can we hold the Post Office lible for letter bombs?) and is faced with 20 years in prison for it. Let's take the layered approach... First of all, noones supposed to know what goes on between lawyer and client, secondly she had no reason to believe there was any particular kind of content, now that's all someone alreadt phyically seperate from any possible illegal act. Now then, the person writing had every right to privacy. The contents of that letter should only have ever been seen by the intended recipient. If this person wrote to encourage violence, that too is a matter of his freedom, not someone elses POTENTIAL safety. There is also the possibility that he was not serious in how it was written. Finally, Even beyond all of that, the violent act to be committed may very well have been justified. In no way is it remotely possible for this woman to be justly held libel for any wrongdoing. >

Lawyer Convicted of Helping Terrorists

NEW YORK - A veteran civil rights lawyer was convicted Thursday of crossing the line by smuggling messages of violence from one of her jailed clients ? a radical Egyptian sheik ? to his terrorist disciples on the outside.

The jury had deliberated 13 days over the past month before convicting Lynne Stewart, 65, a firebrand, left-wing activist known for representing radicals and revolutionaries in her 30 years on the New York legal scene.

Stewart faces up to 20 years in prison on charges that include conspiracy, giving material support to terrorists and defrauding the U.S. government.

Minutes before the verdict was read, Stewart said she felt "nervous. I'm scared, worried." When she heard the pronouncement, Stewart began shaking her head and wiping her eyes. The courtroom was filled with her supporters, who gasped. She will remain free on bail, but must stay in New York, until her July 15 sentencing.

The trial focused attention on the line between zealous advocacy and criminal behavior by a lawyer. Some defense lawyers saw the case as a government warning to attorneys to tread carefully in terrorism cases.

The jury also convicted a U.S. postal worker, Ahmed Abdel Sattar, of plotting to "kill and kidnap persons in a foreign country" by publishing an edict urging the killing of Jews and their supporters. A third defendant, Arabic interpreter Mohamed Yousry, was convicted of providing material support to terrorists. Sattar could face life in prison and Yousry up to 20 years.

Stewart was the lawyer for Omar Abdel-Rahman, a blind sheik sentenced to life in prison in 1996 for conspiring to assassinate Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak (news - web sites) and destroy several New York landmarks, including the U.N. building and the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels. Stewart's co-defendants also had close ties to Abdel-Rahman.

Prosecutors said Stewart and the others carried messages between the sheik and senior members of a Egyptian-based terrorist organization, helping spread Abdel-Rahman's venomous call to kill those who did not subscribe to his extremist interpretation of Islamic law.

At the time, the sheik was in solitary confinement in Minnesota under special prison rules to keep him from communicating with anyone except his wife and his lawyers.

Prosecutor Andrew Dember argued that Stewart and her co-defendants essentially "broke Abdel-Rahman out of jail, made him available to the worst kind of criminal we find in this world ? terrorists."

Stewart, who once represented Weather Underground radicals and mob turncoat Sammy "The Bull" Gravano, repeatedly declared her innocence, maintaining she was unfairly targeted by overzealous prosecutors.

But she also testified that she believed violence was sometimes necessary to achieve justice: "To rid ourselves of the entrenched, voracious type of capitalism that is in this country that perpetuates sexism and racism, I don't think that can come nonviolently."

A major part of the prosecution's case was Stewart's 2000 release of a statement withdrawing the sheik's support for a cease-fire in Egypt by his militant followers. Prosecutors, though, could point to no violence that resulted from the statement.

Videotape of prison conversations between Stewart and the sheik also were played for jurors ? recordings the defense denounced as an intrusion into attorney-client privilege.

< First of all, attorney-client privilege is very important. With it infringed there will no longer be any possibility of justice except by luck. The real issue here is that someone who had specific legal priviledge did something that they had no reason to believe was illegal (nor should it be, or can we hold the Post Office lible for letter bombs?) and is faced with 20 years in prison for it. Let's take the layered approach... First of all, noones supposed to know what goes on between lawyer and client, secondly she had no reason to believe there was any particular kind of content, now that's all someone alreadt phyically seperate from any possible illegal act. Now then, the person writing had every right to privacy. The contents of that letter should only have ever been seen by the intended recipient. If this person wrote to encourage violence, that too is a matter of his freedom, not someone elses POTENTIAL safety. There is also the possibility that he was not serious in how it was written. Finally, Even beyond all of that, the violent act to be committed may very well have been justified. In no way is it remotely possible for this woman to be justly held libel for any wrongdoing. >

Michigan May Require Online Dating Checks

LANSING, Mich. - Sandie Cornillie did a double take when she first heard about a bill that would force online dating sites to say whether criminal background checks have been conducted on their members.

The 46-year-old divorcee from Portage prefers finding dates on the Internet over visiting the local bar or relying on a friend to play matchmaker. The Web is less intimidating, more convenient and arguably safer, she said.

"It's a very safe way of getting to know someone before we meet face to face," said Cornillie, who has tried online dating for five years. "I haven't met any rapists or any crazy people. It's kind of up to you to be careful."

Some lawmakers, though, say that as online dating becomes more popular, users need better protection from predators. Twenty-six million people visited dating sites in January, according to the Internet research firm Nielsen/NetRatings.

The Senate is considering legislation that would require an Internet dating company serving Michigan residents to disclose on its Web site whether it has conducted criminal background checks on users, based solely on the names provided.

A provider also would have to disclose the limitations of background checks and urge members to adhere to safe dating practices.

Republican Sen. Alan Cropsey of DeWitt is sponsoring the bill.

"There are inherent dangers in the whole area of the Internet," he said. "Something needs to be done."

The measure has divided the Senate, and the split is not solely along party lines. A Senate panel voted 4-3 to ship the bill to the full chamber, with one Democrat joining three Republicans in support. Two Democrats and one Republicans voted "no."

Backers say just posting the background-check disclosure would go a long way toward boosting awareness of the possible dangers of meeting people online. Learning that other users are not known criminals would provide a sense of security. They say knowing that checks have not been done would arm users with valuable information.

But critics ? including most online sites ? say any feeling of security would be deceptive because there is no way to ensure people give their real names.

Some wonder if government can effectively regulate the Internet, and some users such as Cornillie worry sites would pass on the screening costs to them. Others question whether the bill is being pushed mainly for financial gain.

The legislation is backed by True.com, the only online dating service that performs criminal screening. Similar legislation has been proposed in five other states: California, Ohio, Virginia, Florida and Texas.

True.com, a relative newcomer to the industry, cites incidents where people have been shot, stabbed or scammed by dates they met online.

Herb Vest, founder of the site, said the Michigan legislation would save lives, property and heartache.

"As an industry, we owe it to our members to inform them of the potential hazards," he said.

Detractors, however, say the measure blatantly favors True.com and argue that the free market should drive demand for background checks, not the government.

Match.com spokeswoman Kristin Kelly said the company just facilitates an age-old process ? meeting people ? with new-age technology. Users still take the same precautions as those who meet people in a bar, she said.

"Safety in dating, that's a concern for everyone," Kelly said. "You're meeting someone new for the first time. You have to be cautious. But if we get too far down the path of paranoia, we don't see what point that serves."

Residents don't want Michigan to become a "nanny" state, she said, arguing that meeting people online is no less safe than meeting in a restaurant or at a party.

Similar legislation passed the House last year before stalling in the Senate. Its chances for success this time are unclear.

In a debate on the floor last week, Democratic Sen. Mark Schauer of Battle Creek said some lawmakers are wavering because users still could hide their shady pasts by using fictitious names.

"That's a fundamental flaw with this bill," he said.

But Cropsey said the main goal is to heighten awareness about the possible dangers of meeting people online.

The Senate could vote on the bill in April.

Global Warming's Silver Lining

Earth's temperature is on the rise, researchers say, and environmental watchdogs are howling, hoping it's not too late to avert negative effects that could range from melting icecaps to mass extinctions.

Some scientists, however, now think global warming is irreversible (.pdf). In light of this sobering view, certain economists and scientists are searching for a silver lining. While the good news they find might not be global, some researchers believe the benefits of Earth's warming will help compensate for the harmful consequences.

Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist at Liverpool John Moores University, is one such academic.

"From a purely evolutionary point of view, warm periods have been exceptionally good to us. Cold periods have been the troublesome ages," Peiser said. The possible positive side effects of global warming have researchers like Peiser ready for changes to come.

Earth's temperature is expected to rise 1.4 to 5.8 degrees Celsius between 1990 and 2100, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC. One area where this warming could aid society is in terms of health.

In Britain alone, scientists estimate between 20,000 and 40,000 deaths a year are related to cold winter weather. A report (.pdf) from the United Kingdom's Faculty of Public Health found that the number of cold-weather deaths increase by approximately 8,000 for every 1 degree Celsius the temperature falls. Peiser estimates there will be only 2,000 more deaths a year due to an equal rise in temperature, because humans adapt better to hot climates and can rely on air conditioning.

"And Britain isn't even that cold of place in the world respectively," said Peiser.

Kert Davies, research director for Greenpeace, doesn't buy this argument.

"It's underestimating the illness and mortality caused by the heat," he said. He points to the European heat wave of 2003, in which an estimated 10,000 people died in France. Part of the severity and length of that heat wave is attributed to global warming.

There is also speculation that warmer weather will bring a surge of malaria or bacterial diseases to hotter areas of the world, potentially devastating human health. While Peiser admits the price of global warming will differ for every region of the world, "the benefits outweigh the costs by far," he said.

This could be especially true in regions of Russia where the harsh winters can kill hundreds in a single city.

Another area of contention is the economy. Various studies performed to evaluate the economic impact of global warming have reached different conclusions. The IPCC, for example, cites a loss of gross domestic product for developing countries due to global warming, and mixed consequences for developed nations.

But a group of 26 scientists and economists who contributed to The Impact of Climate Change on the United States Economy, a book edited by Yale University professors Robert Mendelsohn and James E. Neumann, begs to differ.

Fred Singer, president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a group that has consistently voiced doubts about the veracity of global warming projections, thinks the IPCC report (.pdf) is wrong because "it deals with only part of the problem."

Singer agrees with conclusions of The Impact of Climate Change. The book finds that a moderate warming will have a positive economic impact on the agriculture and forestry sectors. Since carbon dioxide is used by plants to capture and store energy, there may be a fertilizing effect as levels of the gas rise. This, combined with longer growing seasons, fewer frosts and more precipitation, among other factors, could benefit some economic sectors.

The book "is a very thorough study covering different economic sectors," said Singer. "It deals just with the U.S. but should apply to all areas at mid-latitudes, while Canada and Siberia would benefit greatly."

While the IPCC report agrees with some of Singer's conclusions, it disagrees that the end result will be a definite gain in U.S. GDP.

Environmentalists, meanwhile, are skeptical whether increased carbon dioxide and extreme summers will really benefit plants.

"The science has proven that plants can thrive for a bit with more CO2 but it eventually stresses them," said Greenpeace's Davies. "The net benefit in the long haul is not positive."

Another economic boost could come from the establishment of new trade routes as a direct result of global warming.

As rising temperatures melt glaciers in the Arctic and particularly in Alaska, threatening indigenous creatures like the polar bear, a new, faster trade route could open up. The Bering Strait, a legendarily difficult passage for ships, could become an oceanic highway between the hemispheres as ice sheets disappear.

While the indigenous Inuit may lose exotic animals, business investors in the Arctic region (a former oxymoron) are anticipating an influx of everything from tax revenue to tourism. The seldom-used strait is set to become the Suez Canal of the north, cutting down travel time between Europe, America and Asia by as much as one-third.

Experts predict the passage will be open for year-round travel within a decade. Less fuel will be consumed using this route, but Davies warns that increased use will foster the exploitation of Arctic mining and fisheries, further eroding the environment.

"None of the benefits that could be obtained by opening this route can be matched by losing animals like the polar bear," he said.

A final potential upside to global warming is that with every degree Celsius warmer our planet gets, we could have up to 20 percent more calamari. Phillip Lee, director of the National Resource Center for Cephalopods, points out that squid are extremely sensitive to temperature, and individual cephalopods react to warmer weather by developing a larger body mass.

Squid, which are mostly protein, can grow significantly faster than other animals. The largest squid ever captured was 16 feet long and weighed in at 330 pounds. But stories of monster squid up to 60 feet have been around since the 1800s.

Lee does think there is a downside to the extra sushi, though.

"We aren't sure what's going to happen to the actual population numbers," he said. It's possible that the increased warming could adversely affect the squid in an unpredictable way, such as limiting their food source, but Lee is confident that warmer weather will make individual cephalopods larger.

Even so, no one is casting global warming as an all-out success story. With every change in climate comes a change in the ecosystem and economic sectors. Still, while optimists know not every outcome will be positive, they believe the overall effect will make us think back to the hysteria and wonder what the fuss was about.

Others remain adamant that the overall implications of warming will be a detriment to the globe.

"If you live in a place like Ottawa you might like a longer summer, but we have to think wider about this subject and the overall consequences," said Davies.

Police arrest Bible-toting, armed motorist

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- A man dressed like an old-time pioneer and parked along Interstate 70 puzzled deputies with his claim that he was headed to South Dakota with Bibles and "supplies" for American Indian children.

Then the deputies noticed a smell of marijuana as the man argued with them, and they searched his vehicle and found a staggering arsenal, including loaded pistols and an assault rifle with a 30-round clip and a bullet in the chamber.

A double-edged knife with an 8-inch blade was in the sun visor above the man's head, and a loaded two-shot Colt Derringer pistol was in his pocket, authorities say. Searchers also seized about 400 rounds of ammunition.

"He said it was all self-protection and that it's dangerous out west," St. Charles Sheriff's Lt. Craig McGuire said of Thursday's traffic stop that authorities said also uncovered an array of drugs. "It's kind of bizarre, but it's all also kind of sobering."

The man was shirtless with military-style boots, cargo pants and an American Indian vest. "I've heard him described as looking like a frontiersman or pioneer; that's what he was dressed as," McGuire said.

The loaded firearms were within easy reach in nearly every direction, McGuire said. "The placement indicates to us that he was well-prepared to handle any type of confrontation or opposition," he said.

John W. Hill, 46, of High View, W.Va., was charged with possession of a loaded firearm while intoxicated, plus two counts of drug possession alleging he had methamphetamines and cocaine, St. Charles County Prosecutor Jack Banas said Monday. All of the counts are felonies, with each drug charge carrying a possible seven years behind bars.

Hill was freed Friday on $20,000 bail. Banas said more charges were possible depending on reports from investigators.

< A tremendous amount of potential harm, and no actual harm. When will they get it through their thick fucking skulls that no harm means they need to shut the fuck up and go the hell away? This man's entire life is on the line and he hurt noone and nothing. >

Prankster Smuggles Art Into Top Museums

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Many a visitor to New York's Museum of Modern Art has probably thought, "I could do that."

A British graffiti artist who goes by the name "Banksy" went one step further, by smuggling in his own picture of a soup can and hanging it on a wall, where it stayed for more than three days earlier this month before anybody noticed.

The prank was part of a coordinated plan to infiltrate four of New York's top museums on a single day.

The largest piece, which he smuggled into the Brooklyn Museum, was a 2 foot by 1.5 foot (61cm by 46 cm) oil painting of a colonial-era admiral, to which the artist had added a can of spray paint in his hand and anti-war graffiti in the background.

The other two targets were the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the American Museum of Natural History, where he hung a glass-encased beetle with fighter jet wings and missiles attached to its body -- another comment on war, Banksy told Reuters on Thursday.

"It was just an outsider's view of the modern American bug, bristling with listening devices and military hardware," he said.

An art Web site called www.woostercollective.com has posted pictures of the artist -- wearing an Inspector Clouseau-style overcoat, a hat and a fake beard and nose -- hanging up his work at the four museums and describing how he did it.

Speaking by telephone from an undisclosed location in Britain, Banksy said he conducted all four operations on March 13, helped by accomplices who filmed him and provided distractions where necessary.

"They staged a gay tiff (lovers' quarrel), shouting very loudly and obnoxiously," said the artist, declining to give his real name or any personal details beyond his occupation as a professional painter and decorator.

It is not the first time he has staged such stunts. Last year he smuggled work into the Louvre in Paris and London's Tate, attracting attention in the British media.

"My sister inspired me to do it. She was throwing away loads of my pictures one day and I asked her why. She said 'It's not like they're going to be hanging in the Louvre.'"

He took that as a challenge. "I thought why wait until I'm dead," he said.

His preferred creative outlet, graffiti on trains, was growing more difficult due to greater security so he decided to branch out into infiltrating museums. "I tend to gravitate to places with less sophisticated security systems," he said.

Officials at the Natural History Museum declined to comment on security. Museum of Modern Art officials said only that the offending picture was taken down on March 17.

It was unclear what gave the game away but Banksy's version of Andy Warhol's iconic images of Campbell's Soup Cans showed a can of Tesco value tomato soup, a discounted brand sold by a British supermarket chain.

"Obviously they've got their eye a lot more on things leaving than things going in which works in my favor," Banksy said. "I imagine they'll be doing stricter bag checks now."

He said the painting in the Metropolitan Museum, a small portrait of a woman wearing a gas mask, had been discovered after one day, while the others stayed up for several days. The paintings were fixed to the wall with extra-strong glue.

Asked how he managed to escape notice while putting them up on a busy Sunday at the museums, he said: "They do get pretty full, but not if you put the pictures in the boring bits."

< There are *lots* of examples of this type of work being shown as actual art, and even getting critical acclaim. It just goes to show that the standards for what's good have gone to hell. >

A CAPPS by Any Other Name

The controversial Secure Flight passenger pre-screening system, or CAPPS III as some have dubbed it, is riddled with faults and should be shelved until it meets strict criteria laid out by Congress.

That's according to Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-California), members of the American Civil Liberties Union and computer security expert Bruce Schneier, who held a press call Thursday to bring attention to an upcoming report by the Government Accountability Office, which they hope will fault Secure Flight for failing to meet several criteria for its implementation required by Congress.

The GAO report, which was mandated by Congress last year in the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2005, is likely to be released Monday. But Sanchez and others said they were concerned that the Transportation Security Agency, which will implement Secure Flight, is trying to ignore Congress by taking steps to roll out the system on two national airlines this August, before the program can be certified by the GAO or cleared by Congress.

Sanchez also said they were speaking out now out of concern that the GAO could be pressured to certify Secure Flight before it's ready to go forward.

TSA spokeswoman Amy Von Walter would not comment on the GAO report's contents before its release, but she said the TSA had been working closely with Congress and the GAO "to ensure we are meeting their requests and requirements as we move through the testing phase" and that they would continue to do so "to ensure they're in agreement before implementing the program in August."

Although there has been some talk that the August rollout might be only a test, Von Walter confirmed that it is the first stage of officially implementing Secure Flight. The TSA had yet to determine which two airlines would participate in the rollout.

Currently, airlines screen individual passengers, rejecting or singling out some for extra screening if their name or a name similar to theirs appears on a government watch list. Under Secure Flight, that screening will now be in the hands of the TSA. Airlines will be required to provide passenger records to the TSA, which will also use third-party commercial databases to screen passengers against a unified watch list.

The use of commercial databases, like those sold by the recently beleaguered ChoicePoint, has created controversy because the data contained in such databases is often incorrect.

Von Walter said the TSA had not concluded that it would use commercial databases.

She said the TSA had recently completed testing on name records supplied by airlines from June 2004. And last Friday the agency began testing commercial data to determine if it could assist in verifying the identity of passengers. The tests are expected to be completed in late April, at which time the TSA will determine whether to use commercial data in August. The agency will release information about the tests to the public when the analysis is completed.

Tim Sparapani, legislative counsel for the ACLU, does not think the TSA will be able to meet requirements set out by Congress for Secure Flight by August.

He acknowledged that his group had no direct knowledge of what the GAO report will say or whether the GAO planned to certify Secure Flight, but he said Secure Flight had all the same problems that doomed CAPPS I and CAPPS II. By changing only the program's name, the government has done little to address the issues that drew so many previous complaints about the passenger-screening programs, he said.

"They have a lot of work to do," he said. "Even if they've made some progress, the message should be to slow down. Get this right. Do the hard work. Scrub the list so that they're really focused on terrorists and not on other junky names before you roll out."

Among the problems Sparapani cited was the system's lack of transparency. He said the TSA still had not developed a viable process whereby innocent passengers could determine how they got on a no-fly or watch list and clear their names effectively. Even in private conversations with the TSA, members of Congress still had not received sufficient answers about what criteria or formula is used for placing people on a list.

"To the extent that these watch lists are bloated (and) they're over-inclusive, it's an ineffective terrorism-protection method, which only gives us the illusion of improved security without providing any of the real benefits," he said.

Bruce Schneier, founder and CTO of Counterpane Internet Security and author of Beyond Fear: Thinking Sensibly About Security in an Uncertain World, said the system was likely to be riddled with two kinds of false positives: "the Ted Kennedy problems, (in which) I'm not on the list but my name is or a name similar to mine is," and "the Cat Stevens problem, (in which) I'm on the list, but we have no idea why."

TSA's Von Walter said the TSA had recognized that there were problems with CAPPS I and II in that those programs placed the onus for screening passengers on airlines, and she said the TSA had addressed that with Secure Flight. She also said the agency is fully committed to having redress procedures in place to help falsely targeted passengers determine how they got onto a list and how they could get off.

"The purpose of Secure Flight is to reduce the number of passengers who are unnecessarily delayed during the check-in process," she said. "And in fact we believe that the program of Secure Flight will not only reduce that number of passengers who are delayed but also will reduce the number of passengers identified for additional screening."

But Schneier said the system was also riddled with security holes that terrorists could easily exploit by flying under an assumed name or by printing a boarding pass under another name, as a recent story illustrated.

"I believe that whenever you build a security system with an easy way through and a hard way through, you invite the bad guys to take the easy way," he said.

Schneier, who serves on an advisory board for the TSA -- the Secure Flight IT/Privacy Working Group, which is looking into the privacy implications of Secure Flight -- said that although the system had improved somewhat since CAPPS I and II, ultimately any system for matching airline passengers against a watch list is an ineffective way to spend security dollars.

"Let's say you had a list of people who are known terrorists and very dangerous.... Would you either build a passive system to wait for these people to get onto an airplane or would you hire a bunch of FBI agents to go and investigate these people?" he asked. "Building a system that only works if they happen to get on an airplane ... seems like a really bad way to spend money."

Internet Movie Download Case to Be Prosecuted

STOCKHOLM (Reuters) - A Swedish prosecutor has charged a man with making a movie available for download from his computer, the first such case in the Nordic country as it clamps down on sharing copyrighted material over the Internet.

The case follows a raid earlier this month by Swedish bailiffs and police on Internet firm Bahnhof, in search of pirated music and films, which drew applause from Hollywood but sparked fierce debate over confidentiality rights and file sharing.

The prosecutor in the town of Upplsala, 35 miles north of Stockholm, said Andreas Bawer had made the Swedish youth movie Hipp Hipp Hora accessible to the public.

"The reason for this prosecution is that (the movie) has been downloaded one time," prosecutor Chatrine Rudstrom said.

Bawer could be fined or receive a suspended prison sentence.

"It feels like they picked someone completely at random, but I don't want to talk any more about this," he told Reuters.

In Sweden it is legal to download copyrighted movie and music files, but making them available for sharing is illegal. The legal loophole, however, is about to be closed.

The Justice Ministry has just proposed a law to make both illegal, bringing Sweden into line with the rest of the EU.

Henrik Ponten, a lawyer representing the Antipirate Bureau, said the film and game industry in Sweden loses around 750 million Swedish crowns ($107 million) a year from piracy.

Pirates "are part of a hidden society," he told Reuters.

The Anitpirate Bureau, which represents the music and game industry in Sweden, lodged complaints with the police in both the Bawer and Bahnhof cases.

The raid on Bahnhof was hailed by the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), which represents Hollywood's big studios, as a major blow to European piracy of movies and music on the web.

Rudstrom said Bawer's case would set a precedent in Sweden and that she had received 10 or more similar complaints.

It was not immediately clear when the court proceedings would start.

< And why shouldn't this be the case? Providing a market for something doesn't harm, getting something in the best available way only spurs competition and quality. The actual harm in the issue comes from those who provide material someone else should be getting paid for without paying them. This seems a common sense way to try to punish the ones doing actual harm while not punishing those who happen to be part of an issue which could go either way depending on how the companies holding copyrights choose to disseminate their product. >

Utah governor signs Net-porn bill

Utah's governor signed a bill on Monday that would require Internet providers to block Web sites deemed pornographic and could also target e-mail providers and search engines.

The controversial legislation will create an official list of Web sites with publicly available material deemed "harmful to minors." Internet providers in Utah must provide their customers with a way to disable access to sites on the list or face felony charges.

Technology companies had urged Republican Gov. Jon Huntsman not to sign the bill (click for PDF), saying it was constitutionally suspect and worded so vaguely its full impact is still unclear.

The measure, SB 260, says: "Upon request by a consumer, a service provider may not transmit material from a content provider site listed on the adult content registry." A service provider is defined as any person or company who "provides an Internet access service to a consumer," which could include everything from cable companies to universities, coffeeshops, and homes with open 802.11 wireless connections.

"I am having a hard time seeing how this law will survive a constitutional challenge, given the track record of state anti-Internet porn laws--which are routinely struck down as violating the First Amendment and the dormant Commerce Clause," Eric Goldman, a professor at the Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Wis., wrote in a critique of the law.

Spokesman Tammy Kikuchi said Monday that Huntsman "doesn't have a concern about the constitutional challenge."

Supporters of the Utah bill, such as advocacy group Citizens Against Pornography, had pressed for the measure as a way to give parents more control of their home Internet connections.

Also targeted are content providers, defined as any company that "creates, collects, acquires or organizes electronic data" for profit. Any content provider that the Utah attorney general claims hosts material that's harmful to minors must rate it or face third-degree felony charges.

Lobbying group NetCoalition, whose members include Google, Yahoo and News.com publisher CNET Networks, had written a letter to the Utah Senate saying the legislation could affect search engines, e-mail providers and Web hosting companies. "A search engine that links to a Web site in Utah might be required...to 'properly rate' the Web site," the letter warned.

A federal judge struck down a similar law in Pennsylvania last year.

< Isn't it funny how there is absolutely no danger in showing someone something as natural as breathing and eating, and we're sending people to jail for it? >

Utah Internet Porn Law May Face Challenge

SALT LAKE CITY - Internet service providers that operate in Utah must offer customers a way to block porn sites under a law signed this week. ISPs complained that the law adds nothing to the fight against pornography, and said a legal challenge is likely.

"The market has already responded to this issue," said Pete Ashdown, president of Salt Lake-based XMission. "We have for many years provided an optional filter for our customers that they can turn on in Internet browsers."

The law requires ISPs to offer customers free software for blocking porn sites on a list maintained by the attorney general.

Republican state Rep. John Dougall said the measure he sponsored should help parents overwhelmed by advancing technology.

"Kids are much more savvy about what's going on than their parents," Dougall said.

An earlier version of the bill would have required ISPs to block sites based on numeric Internet addresses, but ISPs argued that approach would block benign sites as well because they often share addresses. A federal court has struck down a 2003 Pennsylvania law that took that approach.

Though the Utah law is watered down, it still "will very likely lead to a costly litigation," said the Washington D.C.-based Center for Democracy and Technology.

"We've been down this road in Pennsylvania," said Dave Baker, vice president for law and public policy at EarthLink Inc. "And if that law can be struck down on constitutional grounds, this one will almost certainly face challenges."

The Utah law also requires companies that build and maintain pornographic sites to label the content "harmful to minors." Failure to comply is punishable by one year in prison and a $2,500 fine.

IMAX theaters reject film over evolution

CHARLESTON, South Carolina (AP) -- IMAX theaters in several Southern cities have decided not to show a film on volcanoes out of concern that its references to evolution might offend those with fundamental religious beliefs.

"We've got to pick a film that's going to sell in our area. If it's not going to sell, we're not going to take it," said Lisa Buzzelli, director of an IMAX theater in Charleston that is not showing the movie. "Many people here believe in creationism, not evolution."

The film, "Volcanoes of the Deep Sea," makes a connection between human DNA and microbes inside undersea volcanoes.

Buzzelli doesn't rule out showing the movie in the future.

IMAX theaters in Texas, Georgia and the Carolinas have declined to show the film, said Pietro Serapiglia, who handles distribution for Stephen Low, the film's Montreal-based director and producer.

"I find it's only in the South," Serapiglia said.

Critics worry screening out films that mention evolution will discourage the production of others in the future.

"It's going to restrain the creative approach by directors who refer to evolution," said Joe DeAmicis, vice president for marketing at the California Science Center in Los Angeles and a former director of an IMAX theater. "References to evolution will be dropped."

?Easter Bunny? hops straight into Iowa jail

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa - The Easter Bunny in Council Bluffs, Iowa, has hopped his way to jail and is facing two counts of harassment, police said.

Authorities received a call Saturday afternoon about a man dressed as the Easter Bunny who was causing a disturbance at a local mall.

Police said the 36-year-old man told officers he was working at the mall?s picture-taking area when someone threw water at him.

Police say the man left the area, changed clothes and came back to tell a fellow employee he was leaving.

The employee said she became frightened when he started yelling at her. Police said the "bunny" also threatened another person to get out of his way.

At a Suit's Core: Are Bloggers Reporters, Too?

Not all blogs are equally influential and not all blogs even try to report, in the usual sense of cultivating sources, actively gathering information and then organizing and presenting it to the public, Mr. Balkin added. "There are millions and millions of blogs, and most of them are for gossip."

Many states have privilege statutes like the one in California, and others may consider enacting them. To determine who should be able to claim any kind of privilege against disclosing news sources, he said, courts and lawmakers should look at exactly what the would-be reporter does.

"It should be extended on a functional basis," he said. So a blogger who interviews people and spends significant amounts of time gathering and organizing information could claim the privilege; a blogger who wrote about good and bad recipes, and who one day stumbled onto a copy of the Pentagon papers and printed them, might not.

Such a functional definition could prove elastic, and an enterprising blogger would have every reason to assert any available privilege. Mr. Balkin - asked whether he would assert the privilege if a former student leaked information to him about a Supreme Court justice that then appeared on his Web site - did not hesitate to claim it for himself.

"I would be willing to claim that if you look in my blog, what I'm doing is so similar to what Lewis or Krugman or Safire do," he said, referring to Anthony Lewis, Paul Krugman and William Safire, current and former columnists for The Times, that "although it's done more informally and it's about a much narrower area, that I could claim that I was in the functional definition. That's what happens when you start taking a functional approach."

Mr. Friedman, the blogger, said that ultimately, bloggers' role as purveyors of important information that traditional news organizations might ignore made online journalists more important than before, and so more deserving of protection.

"As the mainstream media has become more and more corporate and more and more like the governmental and corporate bodies that mainstream journalists used to report on," he said, "a lot of this stuff has fallen now to the bloggers - to do what mainstream folks used to do. It's still serving the exact same purpose: keeping the bad guys honest."

In the physical world, being labeled a journalist may confer little prestige and may even evoke some contempt. But being a journalist can also confer certain privileges, like the right to keep sources confidential. And for that reason many bloggers, a scrappy legion of online commentators and pundits, would like to be considered reporters, too.

A lawsuit filed in California by Apple Computer is drawing the courts into that question: who should be considered a journalist?

The case, which involves company secrets that Apple says were disclosed on several Web sites, is being closely followed in the world of online commentators, but it could have broad implications for journalists working for traditional news organizations as well.

If the court, in Santa Clara County, rules that bloggers are journalists, the privilege of keeping news sources confidential will be applied to a large new group of people, perhaps to the point that it may be hard for courts in the future to countenance its extension to anyone.

"It's very serious stuff," said Brad Friedman, who describes himself as an investigative blogger (his site is bradblog.com). "Are they bloggers because they only publish online? I think you have to look at what folks are doing. And if they're reporting, then they're reporters."

Apple has long had a devoted following, and leaked information about new Apple products has appeared on Web sites for years. To combat this, the company filed the suit late last year against the sources of these leaks - people the company assumes are employees or contractors.

Apple has asked the court to compel the Web sites that displayed the product information to disclose their identity. Bloggers are fighting Apple's efforts, which it has focused on three Web sites - Thinksecret.com, Appleinsider.com and PowerPage.org.

The judge in the case, James Kleinberg, is required only to interpret a California statute that recognizes a privilege protecting reporters in keeping news sources confidential. A ruling could come as early as this week.

On its face, the lawsuit brought by Apple has to do with theft of trade secrets. But Susan Crawford, a law professor at Cardozo law school of Yeshiva University (and a blogger herself), says that the steps Apple has asked the court to take open a broader question.

"Under what circumstances should an online forum be forced to disclose a source behind information that they're posting?" Ms. Crawford said. "There is no principled distinction between a New York Times reporter and a blogger for these purposes. Both operate as news sources for wide swaths of the general public."

Blogs, she added, are already becoming more and more powerful, and some have readerships that exceed those of small-town newspapers. "We've seen it with Rather being brought down by bloggers," she said, referring to the CBS news anchor, who came under intense scrutiny by bloggers after a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment on President Bush's National Guard service was broadcast .

Judge Kleinberg is likely to try to decide the case on the narrowest possible grounds, perhaps reading the text of the California law at issue to cover only people who work for traditional newspapers and magazines or television news programs, and to avoid deciding if bloggers are indeed journalists, Ms. Crawford said.

Whatever the judge's decision, it is all but certain to be appealed. But the question of who is a journalist is to many a matter of deeper concern.

Some bloggers want any protection available to journalists at traditional media companies to also be available to them, and journalists at those companies want to make sure that the reporter shield privilege is preserved.

Yet if recognizing a privilege for bloggers means that everyone online can maintain that they are journalists, judges may conclude that rather than giving everyone the privilege, no one should have it. That possibility worries reporters, who could find themselves at new risk for what they write or broadcast.

Apple has not sued the Web sites for damages for publishing the trade secrets, but it could try, said Eugene Volokh, a law professor at U.C.L.A. He is considering filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on the side of the bloggers, saying that the privilege should extend to them.

"This turns out to be an unresolved question of First Amendment law," Mr. Volokh said, referring to the issue of liability for the Web sites.

Attempting to draw a distinction based on the medium used by the blogger or reporter is misguided, said Jack Balkin, a professor at Yale Law School (also a blogger). "In 15 years, there may be no clear distinction between reporters on the one hand and bloggers on the other," he said. "It won't just be an either-or, where you have a reporter for The Chicago Tribune on the one hand, and a guy sitting in his pajamas drinking beer on the other."

Firms taking action against worker blogs

NEW YORK -- Flight attendant Ellen Simonetti and former Google employee Mark Jen have more in common than their love of blogging: They both got fired over it. Though many companies have Internet guidelines that prohibit visiting porn sites or forwarding racist jokes, few of the policies directly cover blogs, or Web journals, particularly those written outside of work hours.

Simonetti had posted suggestive photographs of herself in uniform, while Jen speculated online about his employer's finances. In neither case were their bosses happy when they found out.

"There needs to be a dialogue going on between employers and employees," said Heather Armstrong, a Web designer fired for commenting on her blog about goings on at work. "There's this power of personal publishing, and there needs to be rules about what you can or cannot say about the workplace."

On blogs, which are by their very nature public forums, people often muse about their likes and dislikes -- of family, of friends, of co-workers.

Currently, some 27 percent of online U.S. adults read blogs, and 7 percent pen them, according to The Pew Internet and American Life Project.

With search engines making it easy to find virtually anything anyone says in a blog these days, companies are taking notice -- and taking action.

"Because it's less formal, you're more likely to say something that would offend your boss," said Lewis Maltby, president of the National Workrights Institute, a workers' rights group.

Armstrong, who wouldn't name the company that fired her in 2002, said some of her bosses took issue with such posts as "Comments Heard In, Around, and Consequent to the Company Christmas Party Last Evening."

Soon after she was sacked, sympathizers coined the term "dooced," meaning "to have lost one's job because of one's Web site," in her case dooce.com.

In 2003, a Microsoft Corp. contractor was fired after posting photographs of computers from rival Apple Computer Inc. at a loading dock. Because Michael Hanscom had described a building in his posting, Microsoft said he had violated security, he said.

Last fall, Simonetti posted photographs of herself posing in a Delta Air Lines uniform inside a company airplane, her bra partly revealed in one. She was fired weeks later.

And in January, Jen was fired by Google over a blog that discussed life at the company, even though he said "it's all publicly available information and my personal thoughts and experiences."

Upon reflection, Jen said, he understood Google's concerns, given readers' tendencies to read between the lines and draw conclusions based on "random comments I made."

He said he hoped his case would prompt workers to "talk to their managers at length about blogging before they begin."

Simonetti said she still doesn't know what she did wrong, saying that plenty of employee Web sites and dating profiles identify Delta and include photos in uniform.

"If there is a policy against this, why weren't all these people punished before?" she said.

Delta and Google officials would only say that Simonetti and Jen no longer worked for them.

In 1997, blogging pioneer Cameron Barrett lost a job at a small marketing firm in Michigan after co-workers stumbled upon "experimental" short stories from his creative writing class on his site. Now, he's much more cautious, and he suspended his blog while campaigning for Wesley Clark during the Democratic presidential primaries.

"I knew that everything I wrote would be scrutinized at (a) microscope level by the other campaigns and their supporters," Barrett wrote in an e-mail.

Annalee Newitz, a policy analyst at the civil liberties group Electronic Frontier Foundation, said employees often "don't realize the First Amendment doesn't protect their job."

The First Amendment only restricts government control of speech. So private employers are free to fire at will in most states, as long as it's not discriminatory or in retaliation for whistle-blowing or union organizing, labor experts say.

A few companies actually do encourage personal, unofficial blogs and have policies defining do's and don'ts for employees who post online. They recognize that there can be value in engaging customers through thoughtful blogs.

"There's always a risk, but you always have that risk anytime you put an employee on the phone," Forrester Research analyst Charlene Li said.

Sun Microsystems Inc. encourages blogging, offering server space for personal blogs but warning bloggers not to reveal secrets or make financial disclosures that might violate securities law. Sun also offers advice on how to keep blogs interesting.

Only in rare cases are employees "unofficially asked to soften some wording," said Tim Bray, the Sun policy's chief architect. Rather, he said, the policy creates a structure for discussions between employees and their managers.

Jeff Seul, general counsel at Groove Networks Inc., said the policy he wrote for his company aims to tolerate dissent but not disrespect.

Microsoft refused to comment on Hanscom's case, but pointed out that it encourages blogging and has more than 1,500 unofficial bloggers -- the bulk on Microsoft's official Web sites.

Christopher Cobey, an employment lawyer at the Littler Mendelson law firm's Silicon Valley office, said publicity over recent blog-related firings has prompted increased inquiries from companies about developing policies.

But some experts question whether a separate blogging policy is needed at all, given more general employment guidelines and common sense.

Anil Dash, vice president at blog software developer Six Apart Ltd., said publicized firings have been generally not over blogging but over other violations that happened to be done through blogging.

Mark Dichter, chairman of labor and employment at the law firm Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, said policies can tie the hands of employers.

"It requires you to anticipate and draw lines," he said, "and once you set policies then you get into litigation into which side of the line it fell."

If video games kill, what about the Bible?

Back in the early days of film, there was just no telling what damage the celluloid appearance of sulky Swede Greta Garbo might be inflicting on America's impressionable youth.

So it was that in 1931, some 40 religious and educational groups pressed Uncle Sam to regulate the film industry and thus protect minors from damage they might suffer from being exposed to "harmful" content.

Skip forward to 2005, and you can't mistake the echo of that familiar argument in the push by legislators and private interest groups to get government to do something about violent video and computer games--the only difference being the particular object of society's collective ire. Back then it was Hollywood hotties; these days it's digital psycho-droids. What exactly should be done remains as unclear and contentious as ever.

In the last century, each wave of new media technology has been met by hand-wringing and more. When television emerged as a mass medium at midcentury, some critics complained about its supposed role in the increase in juvenile delinquency rates and the vulgarization of the culture--and this was years before "Desperate Housewives!"

There's little doubt the introduction of interactivity has attached a heightened sense of urgency to the debate. However, I can't say it's generated a heightened sense of clarity. If anything, it's just the opposite.

The widespread use of personal computers by minors certainly raises legitimate questions about what makes for proper content. But it's hard to escape the feeling that many politicians and advocacy groups are just grandstanding for the cameras.

Each wave of new media technology in the last century has been met by hand-wringing and more.
A recent piece on CBS' "60 Minutes" explained how the video game "Grand Theft Auto" supposedly inspired an Alabama teen to murder three police officers. Interesting hypothesis, but how about this alternative: Sometimes stupidity is the best explanation. Instead of blaming the tragedy on the video game publisher, the CBS producer might have done well to examine whether this kid was simply a sociopath in the making.

Even when lawmakers are driven by good intentions, you run into problems when they spell out the details. Consider, for example, a recent push by Washington state legislator Mary Lou Dickerson that targets manufacturers and retailers of violent video games whose products wind up in the hands of minors.

Dickerson's bill would allow for wrongful death or personal injury lawsuits if "the game was a factor in creating conditions that assisted or encouraged the person to cause injury or death to another person."

That's a mouthful, and don't you know a good defense attorney could drive a truck through the holes in that argument. For starters, how do you define "factor?" Or how does a prosecutor prove that repeated exposure to games such as "Quake" and "Doom" encourages someone with an otherwise normal (or even borderline) personality to start blasting away in a school lunchroom? Easier said than done.

Dickerson's is only one of several proposals making the rounds these days. But as long as the nation's punditry is intent on examining causes and effects that contribute to aberrant behavior, why stop with computer and video games? Page through the Bible sometime. Not only do you have your pick of X-rated segments--a parent should serve as chaperone when tender young readers get to the recounting of all that "begetting"--but the good book is also chockablock with tales of one neighbor smiting the next.

Maybe it's coincidence, but religion figured prominently in recent national news stories about shooting incidents.
Maybe it's coincidence, but religion figured prominently in recent national news stories about shooting incidents. Terry Ratzmann, the Wisconsin gunman who last month went on a shooting rampage, regularly attended services at the Living Church of God in Brookfield, Wis. "We believe that the motive has something to do with the church and the church services more so than any other possible motive," the Associated Press quoted a Brookfield police captain as saying.

And what should we make of Dennis Rader, a man who was president of his church council and described as a faithful Christian? These days he's in custody and accused of being the notorious BTK killer.

You get the point.

I'm not looking to let the cybergame industry off the hook for its sundry stupidities. (Do we really need a game re-enacting JFK's assassination?) But laying blame for the coarsening of society and the desensitizing of so many of our youth at the doorstep of the game-development community is a cop-out. It's too pat and avoids the complicated truth that the potential for good and evil coexists in everyone.

Girl, 5, Cuffed, Arrested, Thrown in Police Car

ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. ? A 5-year-old girl was arrested, cuffed and put in back of a police cruiser after an outburst at school where she threw books and boxes, kicked a teacher in the shins, smashed a candy dish, hit an assistant principal in the stomach and drew on the walls.

The students were counting jelly beans as part of a math exercise at Fairmount Park Elementary School (search) when the little girl began acting silly. That's when her teacher took away her jelly beans, outraging the child.

Minutes later, the 40-pound girl was in the back of a police cruiser, under arrest for battery. Her hands were bound with plastic ties, her ankles in handcuffs.

"I don't want to go to jail," she said moments after her arrest Monday.

No charges were filed and the girl went home with her mother.

While police say their actions were proper, school officials were not pleased with the outcome.

"We never want to have 5-year-old children arrested," said Michael Bessette, the district's Area III superintendent.

The district's campus police should have been called to help and not local police, he said.

Bessette said campus police routinely deal with children and are trained to calm them in such situations.

Under the district's code of student conduct, students are to be suspended for 10 days and recommended for expulsion for unprovoked attacks, even if they don't result in serious injury. But district spokesman Ron Stone said that rule wouldn't apply to kindergartners.

"She's been appropriately disciplined under the circumstances," he said.

The girl's mother, Inda Akins, said she is consulting an attorney.

"She's never going back to that school," Akins said. "They set my baby up."

Lawmaker Seeks to End Sexy Cheerleading

AUSTIN, Texas - The Friday night lights in Texas could soon be without bumpin' and grindin' cheerleaders. Legislation filed by Rep. Al Edwards would put an end to "sexually suggestive" performances at athletic events and other extracurricular competitions.

"It's just too sexually oriented, you know, the way they're shaking their behinds and going on, breaking it down," said Edwards, a 26-year veteran of the Texas House. "And then we say to them, 'don't get involved in sex unless it's marriage or love, it's dangerous out there' and yet the teachers and directors are helping them go through those kind of gyrations."

Under Edwards' bill, if a school district knowingly permits such a performance, funds from the state would be reduced in an amount to be determined by the education commissioner.

Edwards said he filed the bill as a result of several instances of seeing such ribald performances in his district.

J.M. Farias, owner of Austin Cheer Factory, said cheerleading aficionados would welcome the law. Cheering competitions, he said, penalize for suggestive movements or any vulgarity.

"Any coaches that are good won't put that in their routines," he said. And, most girls cheering on Friday nights were trained by professionals who know better, he said.

"I don't think this law would really shake the industry at all. In fact, it would give parents a better feeling, mostly dads and boyfriends, too," Farias said.

Although cheerleaders must meet the same no-pass, no-play academic requirements of athletes, cheerleading is not a competition sanctioned by the University Interscholastic League, the governing body of Texas high school sports.

The UIL also does not have performance regulations for squads who cheer for their teams at state championships, said Athletic Coordinator Peter Contreras.

"I think it should have been cut out a long time ago," Edwards said. "It surely needs to be toned down."

Pay up, you are being watched

Would you donate more to charity if you were being watched, even by a bug-eyed robot called Kismet? Surprisingly perhaps, Kismet's quirky visage is enough to bring out the best in us, a discovery which could help us understand human generosity's roots.

Altruisim is a puzzle for Darwinian evolution. How could we have evolved to be selfless when it is clearly a costly business? Many experimental games between volunteers who have to decide how much to donate to other players have shown that people do not behave in their immediate self-interest. We are more generous than necessary and are prepared to punish someone who offers an unfair deal, even if it costs us (New Scientist, 12 March 2005).

To some, this is evidence of "strong reciprocity", which they believe evolved in our prehistoric ancestors because kind groups did better than groups of selfish individuals. But others argue that altruism is an illusion. "It looks like the people in the experiments are trying to be nice, but the niceness is a mirage," says Terry Burnham at Harvard University, US.
Future gifts

He and Brian Hare pitted 96 volunteers against each other anonymously in games where they donate money or withhold it. Donating into a communal pot would yield the most money, but only if others donated too.

The researchers split the group into two. Half made their choices undisturbed at a computer screen, while the others were faced with a photo of Kismet - ostensibly not part of the experiment. The players who gazed at the cute robot gave 30% more to the pot than the others.

Burnham and Hare believe that at some subconscious level they were aware of being watched. Being seen to be generous might mean an increased chance of receiving gifts in future or less chance of punishment, they will report in Human Nature.
Deep-seated response

Burnham believes that even though the parts of our brain that carry out decision-making know that the robot image is just that, Kismet's eyes trigger something more deep-seated. We can manipulate altruistic behaviour with a pair of fake eyeballs because ancient parts of our brain fail to recognise them as fake, he says.

He believes that strong reciprocity is an illusion because even though volunteers are told they will never meet the other players again, our brains are not geared up for that degree of anonymity because humans evolved in small groups. Altruism expert Daniel Fessler at the University of California, Los Angeles, US, agrees. "Our mental architecture is just not used to the modern environment."

Charities and taxmen could even exploit the Kismet effect. Next time you click on a charity's gift page you may just see Kismet's dopey eyes staring back at you as you are overwhelmed by an uncontrollable urge to give.

Castle Rock v. Gonzales: Making the Court's Protection Real

On March 21, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Castle Rock, Colorado v. Gonzales, a case that will determine the accountability of local law enforcement for failing to enforce court orders that protect victims of abuse by a spouse or acquaintance.

The case stems from a lawsuit filed by Jessica Gonzales, who charged that police repeatedly failed to enforce a restraining order against her violent husband, who kidnapped and murdered their three young daughters in 1999.

The ACLU Women's Rights Project, which works regularly to protect the rights of domestic violence survivors, coordinated nine friend-of-the-court briefs on Jessica's behalf.

In 1999, a court granted Jessica Gonzales a protective order barring her estranged husband Simon from contact with her and her three daughters, ages seven, nine and ten. The court order also required the police to enforce its terms by arresting her husband if he violated the order.

Simon abducted the young girls a month after the court order, and Jessica immediately called the police. The police told Jessica there was nothing they could do, and said she should call back if the girls did not turn up. Jessica called the police six times that night, and eventually drove to the police station to plead for help in person. The police refused to take action and enforce the court order.

Later that night, Jessica's husband Simon drove up to the police station and opened fire with a gun purchased that day. He was killed in the gun battle that followed. Afterwards, police discovered the dead bodies of Jessica's three daughters in Simon's truck.

Jessica took a moment to speak with the ACLU about her story and her case.

ACLU: It has been five years since you first filed this lawsuit. This must have been a difficult process for you.

Jessica: It has been a long and difficult process. It's very hard to try and put your life back together when you're working on a legal case that stems from the most horrible thing that you - that any mother - could go through. And Castle Rock has certainly not made this easy for me. They have dragged their feet on this, taking every possible extension allowed, and waiting until the last minute before filing briefs.

ACLU: Why put yourself through it all?

Jessica: Because I want to make sure that no parent ever has to go through the pain that I went through. I want to make sure that police are ultimately accountable for doing their jobs. We rely on the courts and the police for protection against violence. A restraining order is the only legal alternative offered for protection against domestic violence. Supposedly, police function is to serve and protect. If the law's claimed purpose to protect is a fraud, we should know that. If the police will take no action to enforce an order of protection, then women need to know this before we go through the process and make our stalker or abuser even angrier.

ACLU: Do you believe that court orders of protection are a bad idea in a domestic violence situation?

Jessica: In my case, it definitely was. My daughters are dead. But I really believe that they could have been saved if the Castle Rock police actually bothered to enforce the court order. I called the police repeatedly that night. The police knew that I had a restraining order against Simon. It was their department that served him with that order. Orders of protection can only protect you if the police are trained on how to handle these calls and actually take measures to enforce the orders. That's why I filed this lawsuit.

< This is a bit pulled from an ACLU newsletter. In general, we support the ACLU as the only bastion of freedom left, particularly in this country, however, there are a few issues here with which we must take exception. First of all, they go too far with women's rights anyway. Like the reverse discrimination that has made it into our schools as the racial quota system. While diversity is a right and worthy goal of an educational institution, they get it at the expense of people who should have been getting the education not getting it, often to have it awarded to someone who is simply not worthy. In women's rights, they don't override Other People's rights, such as in abortion at the point when the fetus is obviously a person, or in child custody where the Mother's Wants are often taken over the Father's Needs.


In this particular case although they are specifically correct, they are in general wrong. Already, all a woman has to do to get a restraining order (and thereby fuck up a man's life) is say she wants one. Women almost automatically get custody in a divorce, and other injustices. Since there can be no way of knowing whether a restraining order is proper (the issue doesn't even get examined for up to months after the order is issued), there is no way to say that the police Should try to enforce it. As long as "women's rights" are supposed to take precidence over those of others, there is naught but injustice in them and they should be ignored and disallowed. Women have the same rights and protections granted to them against bodily harm, for freedom, etc, as everyone else! If a seperate type of need can be demonstrated for women (which is pretty obvious in cases like this) *AND* it can be balanced out with the needs and rights of others, THEN it is appropriate to have a seperate category legislated in. >

Creative Commons Is Rewriting Rules of Copyright

PALO ALTO, Calif. -- When Chuck D and the Fine Arts Militia released their latest single, "No Meaning No," several months ago, they didn't try to stop people from circulating free copies on the Internet. They encouraged it.

They posted the entire 3-minute, 12-second song and its various vocal, drum and guitar components online and invited everyone to view, copy, mix, remix, sample, imitate, parody and even criticize it.

The result has been the creation of a flood of derivative work ranging from classical twists on the hip-hop piece to video interpretations of the song. The musicians reveled in the instant fan base. They were so pleased that they recently decided to publish their next entire album, due later this spring, the same way, becoming the first major artists to do so.

"No Meaning No" was released under an innovative new licensing scheme called Creative Commons that some say may be better suited to the electronic age than the hands-off mind-set that has made copyright such a bad word among the digerati.

So far, more than 10 million other creations -- ranging from the movie "Outfoxed" and songs by the Beastie Boys to the British Broadcasting Corp.'s news footage and the tech support books published under the O'Reilly label -- have been distributed using these licenses. The idea has even won the support of Hilary Rosen, formerly of the Recording Industry Association of America (news - web sites), and Jack Valenti, the past head of the Motion Picture Association of America, who became known for their aggressive pursuit of people who share free, unauthorized copies via the Internet.

Interest in Creative Commons licenses comes as artists, authors and traditional media companies begin to warm to the idea of the Internet as friend instead of foe and race to capitalize on technologies such as file-sharing and digital copying.

Apple Computer Inc. gave many reason to be optimistic. Music lovers who once spent hours scouring the Internet for free, pirated copies of songs are now showing they are willing to pay for online music; the company says it is selling 1.25 million songs, at 99 cents a track, each day.

Rare is the consumer electronics company or music label that is not experimenting with something similar. Sony BMG, Universal Music Group, EMI and Warner Music Group, for instance, inked deals to distribute songs on a fee-based download service run by Wurld Media, a Saratoga Springs, N.Y., peer-to-peer software company.

At the same time, many of the innovators who touched off the file-sharing revolution are seeking to win corporate support for their work. Shawn Fanning, who as a teen developed Napster (news - web sites), is now working on software that would let copyright holders specify permissions and prices for swapping. Vivendi Universal is a backer.

Perhaps the most significant cooperative effort, however, is the set of innovative new licensing schemes under which "No Meaning No" was released.

The licenses are the brainchild of online theorist Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford University law professor.

Lessig argues that the current system of copyright laws provides little flexibility -- either you give up all permissions for use of your work or you withhold everything. He proposed a solution: a set of copyright licenses that would allow artists to choose to keep "some rights reserved" rather than "all rights reserved."

They could, for instance, choose to allow their works to be enjoyed and copied by others for any purpose, restrict such activity to non-commercial use or allow use of portions of the work rather than all of it. To that end, Lessig co-founded the nonprofit Creative Commons, whose aim, as he describes it, is to "help artists and authors give others the freedom to build upon their creativity -- without calling a lawyer first."

What began as an offbeat legal experiment is now prompting people to reconsider the notion of copyright.

"What we're doing is not only good for society but it's good for us and our business because we get our music out," said Brian Hardgroove, 40, the co-founder of Fine Arts Militia and the band's bass player.

The way Lessig sees it, art has always been about stealing, recycling and mixing: Vincent Van Gogh and Paul Gauguin were said to borrow from each other's brushwork. The 1990s hit "Clueless" with Alicia Silverstone was a modern-day adaptation of Jane Austen's "Emma."

Technology has given the world an unprecedented ability to digitize works, copy them, take them apart and put them back together again. But Lessig said he worries that the extension of copyright laws is keeping many works out of the public domain, hampering creativity. When the Constitution was written, copyrights covered 14 years, extendable to 28 years. Now, with the passage of the Sonny Bono Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, these rights last until an author's death plus 70 years.

Lessig's goal with Creative Commons was to create a body of digital work, which he calls "artifacts of culture," for the public domain, accessible to all.

In the year since the licenses were unveiled, a steady stream of works beyond popular music and videos has joined the Creative Commons public domain archive: material for more than 500 Massachusetts Institute of Technology (news - web sites) classes, audio of every U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) argument since 1950 from the Public Library of Science, the archives for Flickr's photo-sharing site, and Cory Doctorow's futuristic novel "Down and Out in the Magic Kingdom."

The book's first hardcover run was a sellout -- 10,000 copies in all -- in bookstores, but the number of free electronic copies distributed was much greater. Half a million copies of the science fiction novel were downloaded.

"There is this weird sense that the Internet is broken because it lets people make easy copies. . . . The Internet is a machine for making copies, and artists need to come to grips with that," Doctorow said.

Doctorow's experiment with his first novel went so well that he released his second one, "Eastern Standard Tribe," under a Creative Commons license and hopes to publish a third this spring the same way.

"At every turn in history we see this new model of distribution that people say is going to destroy art itself," Doctorow said. But, he said, such fears been proved wrong time and time again.

Fritz Attaway, Washington general counsel for the Motion Picture Association of America, said work licensed under Creative Commons licenses and those released under traditional copyright restrictions can coexist.

"I think it's helpful to educate consumers that there is a place like Creative Commons where one can access intellectual property that has been freely made available to the general public without compensation and that that should be distinguished from sites that are permitting access to infringing material," he said.

Still, even the most optimistic say that Creative Commons will be only part of the solution to ending the long-running battle over copyright. Attaway said he doubts the major movie studios or record labels would ever license large quantities of their work for distribution using Creative Commons licenses because they make plenty of money off the current system.

Hollywood producers Robert Greenwald and Jim Gilliam are among those challenging such assumptions. They released their movie "Outfoxed" under a Creative Commons license. Their controversial documentary accused Fox News of being a propaganda machine for the Republican Party. Just weeks after it was released in theaters, the producers posted 48 minutes of original interviews from the work online.

Gilliam credits the Internet with boosting interest in the movie because it reached a wider audience than it could in theaters alone. He said many of those who viewed parts of the work online ended up ordering a $9.95 DVD.

"This isn't necessarily just some altruistic thing," Gilliam said. "You can make money off of this, too."

It is not always easy for consumers to know when a work is protected by a Creative Commons license. If the work does not identify itself as such, online users can go to CreativeCommons.org and search its archives. In a few months, the developers behind the new Mozilla Firefox browser plan to release an update designed to allow people to search the Web for works of art licensed by Creative Commons.

John Buckman, an entrepreneur from Berkeley, Calif., has used the Creative Commons licenses as the foundation for his new online record label. All artists who sign with his company, Magnatune, must agree to allow free use of their work for non-commercial purposes. The site features 326 albums by 174 artists in six different genres, including classical and heavy metal. He said the company makes 50 percent of its money from downloads and 50 percent from licensing fees.

He said his label's songs are attractive because cash-strapped filmmakers can use the songs as they like for free and have to pay only when they start making money. "As much as musicians are having a hard time making a living, filmmakers and other creative people are having a hard time finding music to use in their works," he said.

And the start-up is making money, he said -- possibly as much as $2 million this year.

British Firm Breaks Ground in Surveillance Science

MALVERN, England (Reuters) - The "suicide bomber" clips a shrapnel-filled belt around his waist and buttons up his jacket to conceal it.

As he turns back and forth in front of a semi-circular white panel, about the size of a shower cubicle, a computer monitor shows the metal-packed cylinders standing out clearly in white against his body.

This is no real security alarm: it's a demonstration at the British technology group QinetiQ of a scanning device that sees under people's clothes to spot not just metal but other potential threats like ceramic knives or hidden drugs.

The electromagnetic technology, known as Millimeter Wave (MMW), is just one aspect of a potential revolution in security screening being pioneered at QinetiQ, formerly part of the research arm of the British defense ministry.

"Actually, detecting a suicide bomber in the lobby of an airport is not a great thing to happen," Simon Stringer, new managing director of QinetiQ's security business, says with British understatement.

"It's slightly better than having him do it in the departure lounge or perhaps on the plane, but you're still doing to have to deal with a significant problem."

That's why, he says, the trend for the future will be to move the scanners outside the terminal building and operate them in "stand-off mode" -- checking people from a distance before they even set foot inside.

The advantage is obvious: to spot potential attackers without alerting them to the fact, and gain precious seconds for security forces to prevent an attack.

ARE YOU SWEATING TOO MUCH?

Another prospect in store for air travelers is "hyperspectral sensing" that will check for chemicals called pheromones, secreted by the human body, which may indicate agitation or stress.

"People under stress tend to exude slightly different pheromones, and you can pick this up ... There are sensing techniques we're working on," Stringer said.

The stress may have an innocent cause, such as fear of flying, but could also betray the nervousness of a potential attacker. The point is to alert security staff to something unusual that may need further investigation.

As with MMW, the technology could function at a distance and without the need for people to wait in line. By conducting such checks while people are approaching the airport and moving through it, authorities could avoid bottlenecks and queues.

SUSPICIOUS MOVEMENTS

As the passenger proceeds through the terminal, the next layer of surveillance could be carried out through "cognitive software" which monitors his or her movements and sounds a silent alarm if it picks up an unusual pattern.

"Someone who's been back in and out of the same place three times or keeps bumping into the same people might be something that's worthy of further investigation ... I think that's really the sort of capabilities we're going to be looking at," Stringer said in an interview.

While many of these technologies are still under development, others have already been rolled out to clients by QinetiQ, which made group operating profit of 28 million pounds ($53.9 million) in the six months to last September.

Millimeter wave, for example, has been tested at airports and, in a different application, is being used by British immigration authorities and Channel Tunnel operator Eurotunnel to detect illegal immigrants trying to enter the country as stowaways in the back of trucks.

Stringer says the potential market for MMW runs into the hundreds of millions of dollars and goes well beyond the transport sector.

"We're spending quite a lot of time talking to multinationals who want to establish perimeter security systems around plant, installations and buildings," he said.

QinetiQ -- owned 30 percent by private equity group Carlyle and 56 percent by the British government -- expects rapid growth for its security business as it gears up for a stock market launch.

BIG BROTHER?

But how will ordinary people embrace the prospect of surveillance technology that sees through their clothes, checks how much they're sweating and tracks their airport wanderings between the tax-free shops and the toilets?

Stringer acknowledges that some might see this as George Orwell's Big Brother come true. "There are always going to be issues of privacy here and they're not to be belittled, they're important."

But he says smarter technology will actually make the checks less intrusive than those now in standard practice, such as being searched head to foot after setting off a metal detector alarm.

"Personally I find that more irritating than the idea of someone just scanning me as I walk through," he said.

"You're under surveillance in airports anyway. What you're looking at here is just being applied more intelligently."

Sexy Moans for Mobile Phones

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Adult film company New Frontier Media has something new for cell phones: ring moans.

Wireless content company Brickhouse Mobile on Tuesday said that under an agreement with New Frontier it would begin offering ring tones for mobile phone users featuring porn stars making groaning and moaning noises from the suggestive to the positively tantalizing.

The company said it would also begin offering sexually explicit "wallpaper" for cell phone screens and adult videos for download on mobile phones under its brand The Erotic Network, the television subsidiary of New Frontier Media Inc.

Brickhouse and New Frontier signed their five-year deal in January but did not disclose full terms of the program until Tuesday. Users will be able to buy individual items or take a monthly subscription.

The two sides said they would also work together on age-verification schemes to ensure that minors were not purchasing inappropriate content. Much of the more explicit content will be available internationally at first.

Video game ban moves forward in Illinois

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich's proposal to bar stores from selling violent and sexually explicit video games to children unanimously passed a state House committee Wednesday, despite concerns that it might be unconstitutional.

Under the proposal, which now goes to the House floor, any store that violated the ban could face misdemeanor charges and fines of up to $5,000.

Blagojevich has been pushing the idea for several months, arguing in town hall meetings and national interviews that the games desensitize children to violence. He says they can lead to anti-social behavior and even obesity.

On Wednesday, he applauded the House civil law committee for approving the "sensible and necessary legislation."

But courts have struck down similar laws in Washington, Missouri and Indiana as too broad and in violation of free speech.

Even some lawmakers who voted for the bill said they were concerned it is too vague.

"This bill does not have clear standards to the people that need to know what the standards are ? the parents, the kids, the clerk, the manager at Best Buy," said Rep. Lou Lang, D-Skokie. "These are people that will not have a clear standard under this bill as to what is or is not OK."

The legislation requires stores to label violent or sexually explicit games with black-and-white stickers reading "18." Stores would have the burden of figuring out which games could legally be sold to minors and which couldn't.

David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association, said the legislation's restrictions on games depicting "human on human violence" could mean that stores can be fined for selling football games to teenagers.

He also questioned the sincerity of the bill's supporters, suggesting they fear that voting against the measure would hurt them in future elections.

"It's pandering, and it's wrong," he said.

Harvard University professor Michael Rich argued Blagojevich's position before the committee Wednesday, saying the law is necessary because kids may act out in real life the violent or sexual behaviors they practice in virtual reality.

"Children are learning from video games," Rich said. "The question is: what are they learning?"

< It's debatable whether free speech or child protection should win here, what is not debatable is that they will take this misdemeanor and turn it into a felony. Imagine getting tossed in jail for selling a video game... >

Judge Tosses Out Teen's Homework Lawsuit

CHICAGO (Reuters) - A judge has tossed out a Wisconsin high school student's lawsuit asking for summers free of homework and may order him to pay the state's costs, court officials said on Wednesday.

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Richard Sankovitz on Tuesday called 17-year-old Peer Larson's suit frivolous and said his complaint should be directed at the school board.

The Wisconsin attorney general's office may ask the judge to order Larson to pay the state's court costs.

Larson, of Hales Corners, Wisconsin, had asked that the state schools superintendent on down to his local school district and math teacher be barred from assigning homework over the summer.

Larson and his father said the problem arose when he was given three assignments just before the start of summer vacation to prepare for an advanced precalculus class that began last fall.

The younger Larson said he failed to get all the work done because he had a summer job as a camp counselor.

< Another tale of schools trying to overstep their bounds and infiltrate every part of their student's lives. Ordinarily we'd consider schools one of the less corrupt parts of government but we're beginning to reconsider. If you have a tale about how your school is corrupt, please Contact Us >

Moving to ban eyeball bling

A House committee last week approved legislation 11 to 4 that would criminalize the practice of inserting jewelry into the surface of the eyeball, according to an Associated Press report. Yup, you read that right--eyeball piercing.

The nascent procedure--which is performed with a local anesthetic--involves making a tiny slice in the mucous membrane covering the eyeball and slipping in a small, heart- or half-moon-shaped piece of metal called a JewelEye. As a result, the white of the eye assumes a new gleam.

The Illinois proposal, sponsored by Democratic state Rep. Kevin Joyce, would make performing the 15-minute eyeball procedure a felony punishable by up to three years in prison. Joyce was put off by reports of eyeball piercing in the Netherlands and wanted to prevent such body mods on his home turf. Not that the technique is sweeping the Midwest or anything (as far as we know).

"I don't think anybody should be messing with the eyeball," Joyce said.

A Google search reveals that Illinois is home to numerous venues for laser eye surgery.

Gerrit Melles, director of the Netherlands Institute for Innovative Ocular Surgery in Rotterdam, says he hasn't seen complications or side effects associated with eyeball piercing, which so far has been performed on just a handful of people. "It is a bit of a fun thing and a very personal thing for people," the physician, who helped pioneer the technique, has been quoted as saying.

Safety concerns aside, Democratic State Rep. Constance Howard, one of four lawmakers who voted against the Illinois measure, questioned whether the prohibition infringes on people's rights.

"I don't want people to get earrings on their tongues and navels and all that stuff, either," she said, "but why is it my business where they want to put jewelry?"

&lg Let's see, spending our tax dollars on time and resources (not to mention their paychecks) to ban something that is no harm to anyone, and is only done to yourself. Hmm... I'm thinking they are assholes. >