9 June 2008 @ 9:06AM >> At the art college of Cooper Union in New York City, a faculty-selected art exhibit features several controversial paintings by Felipe Baeza. One painting, called “The day I became a Catholic,” features a man with his pants down and a crucifix shoved in his posterior.

What brave, groundbreaking art!

Baeza’s not stupid. He knows what groups he can offend and still make it through the faculty selection process. He knows Catholics aren’t going to erupt in a global orgy of violence over his paintings. He knows there will be no fatwas issued or calls for jihad. And he knows he won’t be slaughtered in broad daylight like Theo van Gogh.

He’ll simply piss off enough people to cause a stir, and that will help him sell his paintings. Cha-ching!

Yep, Baeza’s gonna get famous and nobody’s going to chop his head off. That’s why it’s smart to pick on Catholics, even though two decades after “Piss Christ,” it isn’t exactly edgy.

So where were all these gutsy artists and faculty members during the Cartoon Intifada? Fear and political correctness required that they stay silent as Muslims around the world rioted and killed over cartoons that were pretty tame compared to Baeza’s work.

It’s sad that so many people whose livelihoods rely on freedom of expression refuse to stand up in defense of that freedom whenever it is threatened.

Eventually, the only groups that will be criticized are those groups whose members won’t kill you over it.

Is that really the incentive structure we want to be creating?

22 May 2008 @ 8:13AM >> The Guardian reports:

A teenager is facing prosecution for using the word “cult” to describe the Church of Scientology.

The unnamed 15-year-old was served the summons by City of London police when he took part in a peaceful demonstration opposite the London headquarters of the controversial religion.

Officers confiscated a placard with the word “cult” on it from the youth, who is under 18, and a case file has been sent to the Crown Prosecution Service.

[...]

The incident happened during a protest against the Church of Scientology on May 10. Demonstrators from the anti-Scientology group, Anonymous, who were outside the church’s lb23m headquarters near St Paul’s cathedral, were banned by police from describing Scientology as a cult by police because it was “abusive and insulting”.

Writing on an anti-Scientology website, the teenager facing court said: “I brought a sign to the May 10th protest that said: ‘Scientology is not a religion, it is a dangerous cult.’

“‘Within five minutes of arriving I was told by a member of the police that I was not allowed to use that word, and that the final decision would be made by the inspector.”

[...]

After the exchange, a policewoman handed him a court summons and removed his sign.

---

Update: Sanity prevails, belatedly:

Legal action has been dropped against a 15-year-old who faced prosecution for branding Scientology a “cult”.

[...]

Lawyers for the human rights group Liberty represented the teenager in his legal battle.

James Welch from the organisation said: “The police may have ended their inquiries into this tawdry incident but rest assured that Liberty’s inquiry will continue.

“Democracy is all about clashing ideas and the police should protect peaceful protest, not stifle it.”

---

Update 2: Canada’s National Post explains why this reversal is not a victory for free speech:

It was quickly pointed out by civil libertarians that the eventual happy outcome did nothing to reverse the consequences of the initial error. If expressive materials at a public protest can be confiscated pending two weeks of review by prosecutors, then not much is left of the right to protest, practically speaking.

[...]

It constitutes no “victory” for freedom of expression that he was let off arbitrarily just because the public took his side against a secretive and widely ridiculed religious group. On the contrary: the police succeeded in communicating their real message to those who might wish to imitate him. Watch what you say. We have enough power to give you a hard time, whether the crown backs us up in the end or not. And make damned sure your targets are relatively unpopular, or you might not find so many columnists and activists leaping to your defence.

This is what comes of attempting to legislate offensiveness of speech and thought out of existence: all of us are left at the mercy of those who do the actual policing. In this case, it was a couple of ignorant coppers who decided they didn’t like the look of the “c” word.” In Canada, it might be some dowdy, politically connected empire-builder working in the office of a human rights tribunal. (Would it be actionable to say or write that “Islam is a cult” here? Who but someone with money, free time and a law degree would dare try?)

This is why the principles of free expression have to be guarded stringently in a liberal democracy, and why they cannot safely be subjected to nudging by those who think enforced politeness comes ahead of fundamental liberty. Any law allowing for the suppression of content because it might exasperate someone is bound to be tested more and more ambitiously until its actual political limits are found. And it will go on being tested, and go on growing in scope, as political sentiments change. And any such law will always end up being a more effective suppressant through the fear of inviting expense and trouble than it is by its actual application.

7 October 2007 @ 11:32AM >> The old saying goes, when life hands you a lemon, make lemonade.

Well, sometimes, life hands you a bushel of lemons, a block of ice, a bag of sugar, a nice big pitcher, and a whole bunch of cups.

This happened to me recently, when I became the target of a lawsuit that goes to the heart of what it means to have the right to share your opinions with your fellow citizens.

For the past four years, in putting together the film Indoctrinate U, I investigated administrative abuses against free speech and free thought rights on college campuses. To me, the topic is of vital importance to our nation’s health.

If a generation of students graduates into a society riven by a worsening political divide, what would the effect on that society be if those students were never afforded the opportunity to engage in real, down-and-dirty debate in the one venue where people can pursue a life of the mind? Eventually, you end up with a society that fears free speech, because its citizens have gotten used to being protected from the uncomfortable aspects of hearing things that they vehemently oppose. By coddling students and attempting to shield them from reality by stifling certain speech, academia is directly contributing to a diminishing respect for free speech in the larger society.

On campus, administrators and student mobs do the dirty work of shutting down speech that falls outside what academics consider to be the realm of acceptability. Around the world, we see instances where governments, police and military forces put people to death for having the wrong thinking. These sorts of transgressions happen relatively infrequently in Western society, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a clear and present threat to free speech.

In hyper-litigious Western nations, courts are often the weapon used to shut people up. But instead of this weapon being wielded by the state, courts are used by corporations, non-profits, accused terrorists financers and even newly-invented religions to tamp down criticism of various kinds.

Out of necessity, while putting together Indoctrinate U, I immersed myself in trying to understand the legal ramifications of speech. I knew that the film would anger a lot of folks at institutions that have lawyers on retainer. I knew we could be targeted legally whether justified or not.

But it turns out, it wasn’t Indoctrinate U that got me dragged into court. It was a dispute with a dry cleaner, of all things.

Today’s New York Post, which heard about the case after the plaintiffs filed to have the case moved to New York Supreme Court, contains a short piece on the story.

I was originally sued for $20,000 for the words, “Todd Layne Cleaners sucks and is overpriced.” Admittedly, my words were juvenile and, to some, offensive. But as a statement of opinion—an opinion formed after a long string of negative experiences with this cleaner—it is quite clearly constitutionally protected speech.

But Todd Ofsink, the owner of the cleaners, sued me for expressing my well-grounded displeasure with his business. Fortunately for Ofsink, his brother Darren is an partner in the law firm of Guzov Ofsink. So he is getting an endless supply of legal work from his brother’s firm, presumably for free. Ofsink knows that I would have to pay to defend my right to criticize his business, so he figured I’d be an easy target. His attorney brother told me that if I signed a non-disparagement agreement—in effect, giving up the right to criticize his business—he would drop the lawsuit.

They were hoping that I would do what most people would do: sign the agreement, end the case, put it out of my misery, and not waste tens of thousands of dollars defending a right that’s guaranteed to me as a U.S. citizen.

I decided to try to fight the case myself, without an attorney representing me in court. I didn’t want to spend tens of thousands of dollars to defend a right that I already had, but I also thought it would be an interesting test. After all, I knew I wasn’t the only person who’s been sued for expressing displeasure with a business.

What would other people do in such a case? Would they fight it themselves? Or would they buckle under and sign away their rights to a bully? And if they decided to fight, is the legal system today even accessible to the individual, or has the law in our society become so professionalized and abstracted from daily life that individuals have no way to defend themselves?

This brings me back to the lemonade. Although this nuisance lawsuit has brought me much personal agitation, it also perfectly illustrates the troubles faced by many others. I could be a guinea pig going through this aggravating process to demonstrate whether or not the average citizen can navigate the legal process to defend the rights enumerated in constitutional law.

Morgan Spurlock subjected himself to a month of McDonald’s for Super Size Me. If I was going to be subjected months and months of a convoluted legal process, maybe some good could come out of it by incorporating the story into a film.

One of the things that inspired me when making Indoctrinate U was all the students whose academic careers were in jeopardy—simply for having the wrong views—who fought back and won. Most people end up backing down when confronted with a system aligned against them. Those were the stories we never heard, because the people involved went away quietly and defeated. But by putting some of the people who stood up and prevailed on screen, I hoped to encourage others to fight for their right to think freely. Little did I know that those same students would inspire me to defend my own rights of free speech.

Perhaps my story could serve as a lesson for others. Unfortunately, I don’t know what that lesson is, because the story isn’t over. I’m still fighting it in court, and Todd Ofsink, his attorney brother Darren, and their courtroom litigant Damien Matthew Bosco, keep trying to ratchet up the pressure.

After filing the original lawsuit against me, Ofsink found out through my court filings that I was a documentary filmmaker. He also discovered that I’m not exactly politically in tune with most of my fellow New Yorkers.

Suddenly, Ofsink filed a new motion with additional accusations that were not included in the original complaint. He claims, for example, that I “simulated masturbation in front of female employees.” But Ofsink also made the mistake of claiming to have security cameras covering the store, which allows me to make this challenge: put the security tape online. What the world will see is an angry former customer making a dismissive hand gesture after Todd Ofsink makes his initial threat to sue me.

Once he leaned about my filmmaking career, Ofsink also jacked up the amount of money he’s trying to take from me: now it’s $300,000!

I hate to tell them, but in all these years of service, I have still not received my first check from the Vast Conspiracy. Being a documentary filmmaker is not lucrative unless you can get Hollywood to distribute your films. And as I can tell you, that’s not easy for someone of my pursuasion. So if jacking up the cost of his attempt to use the legal system to extract more money from me, he won’t be too happy to hear about the state of my finances.

But I’m not convinced that their motivation is money. It seems clear to me that their maneuverings are calculated to pressure me into signing the non-disparagement agreement that they have now offered me twice. They are just trying to use the legal system to shut down legitimate criticism of their business.

Sorry, gentlemen, it’s not going to happen. I will not sign away my rights. If you insist on fighting this ludicrous case, then I will keep fighting it until I win. Your lawyers will lose to a guy representing himself with no legal degree, but who has the law on his side. In this country, I am still allowed to criticize businesses that provide lousy and rude service. I am still allowed to tell my neighbors all about it. So, you can either drop the case and save yourselves further embarrassment, or you can continue trying to put the screws to me and in the process give me a great story to tell the world.

Where will this end up? Who knows! All I know is that I wish it weren’t happening. But because it is, then maybe some other folks might benefit from watching my experience—whatever my experience ends up being.