Connecticut
Post posts about what is happening in the State of Connecticut.
The issue of context, when is a douchebag a douchebag?
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 08/22/2007 - 21:10One of the folks watching the hearings this morning remarked that this was the first time he had ever seen a United States District Judge use the word ‘douchebag’ seven times in one morning. The questioning and testimony concerning the word bordered somewhere between amusing and absurd.
The lawyer for the defense asked this morning’s witnesses, two high school students involved in the case, if they thought it was in appropriate for a member of the student government to refer to a member of the administration as a douchebag. There was some back and forth between the lawyers and the judge about the relevance of the line of questioning, and judge suggested to the defense attorney that if he really thought it was beneficial to poll the student body as to whether or not it was appropriate, then by all means, he should proceed, and proceed he did.
The attorney for the plaintiff explored a different line of questioning the meaning of the word douchebag in various contexts. I believe he established that in some contexts it might be considered highly offensive, and in others it may actually be appropriate. There was not a discussion what sort of context a post on Livejournal should be considered. Is it more like official school or legal communication, or is it more like high school kids chatting amongst themselves in a mall?
That said, with all due respect, I would like to present a fictionalized, and hopefully humorous account of how I think the testimony should have gone. Some of the ideas have been gathered from others closely following the case:
Defense Attorney: Do you think it was appropriate for a member of a student government to refer to a person representing the school as a ‘douchebag’?
Student: I don’t know. I guess sometimes it does. I guess it depends on the setting.
Defense Attorney: The blog post in question is now a part of the court record. Do you believe that using such language in court is appropriate?
Student: Um, I’m not sure.
Defense Attorney: As an example, would you and your fellow students feel it is appropriate to refer to me as a ‘douchebag’ here in court?
Student: No sir. ‘Douchebag’ connotes a jerk. Instead, we would probably refer to you as ‘shit for brains’.
<laughter>
Defense Attorney: I have no further questions.
Plaintiff Attorney: You have said that to you ‘doucebag’ connotes a jerk. Am I correct in understanding that you do not believe that Miss Doninger was referring to members of the school administration as feminine hygiene products?
Student: That is correct, sir.
Plaintiff Attorney: Do you believe that Miss Doninger was justified in asserting that the members of school administration are jerks?
Student: Yes sir.
Plaintiff Attorney: Can you explain to the court why students might consider members of the school administration jerks?
Student: Perhaps a good starting point would be to ask members of the school administration why we are in a Federal Courthouse on a fine summer day discussing when it is appropriate or not to use the word ‘douchebag’.
Plaintiff Attorney: I have no further questions.
Democracy is disruptive
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 08/22/2007 - 15:01I am no legal eagle, so my analysis of the first day of testimony at the Avery Doninger trial may be a little off base. As I understand things, a key defense that a student’s freedom of speech has not been violated is if the student’s speech was ‘disruptive’.
The defense lawyer grilled the students testifying about whether or not the students knew if the administration had been disrupted by receiving all the phone calls that they had been receiving. He seemed to be suggesting that it is a disruption for school administrators to receive phone calls from concerned parents and taxpayers.
The defense repeatedly asked students if they thought it was appropriate to for the students to send an email encouraging taxpayers to contact the school. The implication was that he believed it was not. I suspect this gets to a crucial point in the case. The view of the school administration seems to be that they can’t be bothered with what parents and taxpayers think. The implicit message is that the school administration knows best and the parents, students and taxpayers be damned.
The same issue came up with campaigning leading up to the vote. Avery and her supporters had T-shirts saying Team Avery, and something like “Support Freedom of Speech”. The school seems to suggest that this was disruptive as the reason it wasn’t allowed into the room where people were campaigning.
A key argument of the administration is that student leaders serve at the whim of the administration, and they need to act like adults to earn that privilege. Well, excuse me, but I believe that the folks who are acting like adults are the students. When you want to get a policy changed, you get people involved and urge them to contact the policy makers. That is what we adults do. We encourage friends to write to our elected officials. When we run for office, we wear T-shirts and buttons.
At the end of the day, Judge Kravitz addressed both sides talking about how cases like these are the ones that lawyers and judges love as they wind their long way to the Supreme Court. Yet he went on to talk about this from a perspective that is extremely important to me, that of the teaching opportunity. I believe that today was a valuable day for Avery and the students that got a chance to testify today. If this drags on, it can be a wonderful opportunity for students to learn more about the legal process. Yet Judge Kravitz had another suggestion. This could also be an opportunity for students to learn about finding meaningful resolutions other ways than litigation.
I hope that people listen to his remarks. Yet that may require relearning other more important and difficult lessons about humility, being able to admit one’s mistakes. Right now, it appears as if the school administration is more interested in vindictiveness and their lawyers on nitpicking than they are in serving the public interest or helping students learn.
Blogging the Avery Doninger Case
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 08/22/2007 - 13:49It is 8:38 in U. S. District Courtroom 4 in New Haven, Connecticut. Fluorescent lights overhead illumine room with its green carpet, wooden benches and leather seats. Ms. Doninger, her mother and her grandmother are all hear early. The grandmother is reading a book by David McCullough. There is a discussion amongst the lawyers and the staff about the positioning of projection devices. Systems has been called. Others appear and concern is expressed about the size of the courtroom and where people will sit.
Folks from the ACLU show up as well as friends of the Doningers. On the way in, one of the U.S. Marshals was a bit surly, asking why I was hear. I asked if this was the U.S. District court. And where Judge Kravitz’ courtroom would be. A second Marshal was much more friendly, asked if I had a cellphone and we joked around.
The guy from Systems has shown up and they talk about where to place the projector. They move things around, which places me in a better place to see. Andy Thibault shows up and I chat with him briefly.
After four hours of testimony, court is adjourned. I’ve headed up to a local café with Wifi so I can put up this post, eat some food, and then put up a summary post later.
Grow up, douchebags!
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Wed, 08/22/2007 - 07:00Blogging the Avery Doninger Case
In a couple of hours, the Avery Doninger Case will start in U.S. District Court in New Haven. Doninger is the student at Lewis Mills High School who was forbidden to run for reelection as class secretary after writing disparaging comments about the school administration in a personal blog. I’ve been blogging about this fairly regularly, as has Andy Thibault at Cool Justice.
He put up a great post last night about the CT ACLU’s Amicus Brief in support of Ms. Doninger. (See the brief here.
I am heading out the door to cover this as a blogger. I am wearing my Blogger shirt that Kim embroidered for me. I doubt the court will have issue with me wearing it, but I’m bringing another shirt just in case.
As he provides his commentary, Andy has one line that made me chuckle. His suggestion to the administration of Lewis Mills High School:
Grow up, douchebags!
The Avery Award for advancing the cause of freedom of speech in Connecticut
Submitted by Aldon Hynes on Tue, 08/21/2007 - 11:55Tomorrow, the Avery Doninger case goes before Judge Mark Kravitz in the U.S. District Court in New Haven. Ms. Doninger was class secretary and was forbidden to run for re-election because of a blog post she wrote, on her own time, on her own computer, on a public site. Her mother is suing the school administration for violating her daughter’s freedom of speech.
As I did a little digging, I was surprised to find out that there is already an Avery Award for advancing the cause of Freedom of Speech. This isn’t an award put together rapidly by bloggers concerned about school administrations attempting to limit what students can say on blogs.
The Avery Award is named after Deane C. Avery. The Connecticut website listing Freedom of Information Commissioners has this to say about Mr. Avery.
Prior to his retirement, Deane was editor and co-publisher of the New London Day. He was an early supporter of Freedom of Information legislation in Connecticut and knew a great deal about it before serving as commissioner. He took to the role of commissioner and hearing officer like a duck takes to water. His experience as a journalist and community leader led him to have the greatest respect for both government officials and unempowered, every day citizens, and this showed not only in his decisions, but in the way he dealt with the parties appearing before him at commission hearings and meetings. His wry sense of humor and self-deprecation made him a popular commission member throughout his ten year tenure, during which he was another “work horse” commissioner. Deane is a man of extraordinary integrity and solid judgment. Even in the commission’s most politically-charged case, in which he served as hearing officer and commissioner, he never for a moment wavered from what he thought was right. He served as commissioner from 1985-1995 when newly elected Governor John Rowland declined to re-nominate him.
It isn’t a surprise that The New London Day sponsors the Avery Award. From a 2001 announcement about the award, we find:
The Day of New London will make a statewide award to a person in Connecticut who advances the cause of freedom of speech. The award is named for Deane C. Avery, of Stonington, the retired editor and co-publisher of the newspaper. Mr. Avery served on the state Freedom of Information Commission. The award will be presented at the annual meeting of the Connecticut Council on Freedom of Information.
So, what does the Avery award have to do with the Avery Doninger case? Actually, so far, I’ve found two interesting connections. First, the Connecticut website listing Freedom of Information Commissioners goes on to talk about Deane Avery saying:
Andre J. Thibault succeeded Deane Avery in 1995, having been appointed by Governor Rowland. Andy came to the commission in the midst of a career as a reporter, editor and commentator. He enjoyed his work on the commission and put aside his strong opinions to become a fair and impartial decision-maker. He resigned from the commission to accept a position out of state. Andy served as a commissioner from 1995-1996.
I believe this is the same Andy Thibault who has been providing the most detailed and extensive coverage of the case, including several FOI requests at The Cool Justice Report.
Yet what I find even more interesting is that Judge Mark Kravitz received the Deane Avery Award in 1995 in part for his work as a founding director of the Connecticut Foundation for Open Government. Their mission statement says:
The Connecticut Foundation for Open Government is dedicated to promoting the open and accountable government essential in a democratic society. It seeks to achieve this by educating policymakers and citizens in general on the need for a free flow of information on all public policy matters.
This year, I would like to nominate the administration of Lewis Mills School and the lawyers for providing a poignant example of why we need the free flow of information. It is my hope that Judge Kravitz will recognize their contributions and give them their due.
