This begins with an article posted on line in N.Y. Times 12/20 containing an unbelievable summary of an appeals court decision. I sent an email to the public editor explaining exactly why this was so. No response. Then an email to Eugene Volohk who agreed that it as a distortion. Another email to the public editor, who sent it to the "standards editor" who sent it to the writer, who turned out to be a law professor. Both the Times editor and then writer, Adam Liptak, JD a Columbia Law Professor
affirmed his summary- now in conflict with both this layman and Law Professor with National Blog, that's Eugene Voloch Wrote about this turn of events to N.Y. Times public editor, once again, requesting correction of article - no response.
---------------------
This personal effort over many hours was prompted by my reaction after reading this section of the article:
A divided 16-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans,rejected Mr. Bell's First Amendment challenge. Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, writing for the majority, said the song was “incredibly profane and vulgar” and contained “numerous spelling and grammatical errors.”If there is to be education,” Judge Barksdale wrote, “such conduct cannot be permitted.”I said to my wife, "I can't believe it, this Southern judge wrote it's O.K. to rule against a rap song because of spelling and grammar errors!"
---------------------
To Public Editor, N.Y. Times - (expanded version of original email in addendum)
Re: Article posted 12/20/15 Hip-Hop Stars Support Mississippi Rapper in First Amendment Case
The article contains this paragraph:
A divided 16-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, rejected Mr. Bell’s First Amendment challenge. Judge
Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, writing for the majority, said the song was
“incredibly profane and vulgar” and contained “numerous spelling and
grammatical errors.” “If there is to be education,” Judge Barksdale wrote, “such conduct cannot be permitted.”
The
wording and context of the above paragraph strongly implies that both
of the two elements of the lyrics, including "numerous spelling and
grammatical errors" were aspects that were considered in deeming that
the posting was not protected speech. I was surprised and
shocked that spelling and grammatical errors could ever have limited
first amendment protections.
On pp 3 of the PDF transcript
the context was clear. Judge Barksdale stated that such errors were
not, as is customary, corrected in the transcript of the rap lyrics.
His
statement was appropriate, as the exact transcription was needed to
evaluate aspects that could impact the case. The quoted reference to
spelling and grammatical errors was in lieu of multiple uses of "sic"
legitimate -- as described in this explanation from the Columbia School of Journalism.
Either the Judge made a serious mistake if he did
consider this, or what is more likely, The New York Times has trivialized and distorted
the process of the jurists arriving at their decision. If that is the
case, the reporter who was tasked with reading the entire decision must
have done this intentionally if not grossly incompetent.
Please get back to me on this, as I presume others have contacted you on this issue.
Regards
--------------------------
Addendum:
This video has the recording and commentary of the rap song, and a version of the text that is also included in the full transcript of the appeals court case.
------------------------—
My notes on appeals decision pp 1-34 the words of Justice Barksdale,
pp 3 Use of “numerous spelling and grammar errors” as explanation of the lack of corrections for these in the transcript.
pp4
Use of “incredibly profane and vulgar” to describe the rap lyrics
(this perhaps the one of the three phrases that is arguably
inappropriate, but this was not a description to a trier of fact, but a
summary of the case.
pp 8, Bell’s
punishment, seven day suspension, not allowed to participate in
extracurricular activities for and must attend special school for nine
weeks
pp10 plaintiff’s experts agreement on possibility of language being a threat
last
par. pp11 Summary of District courts summary decision based on School
District hearing that defined the facts of the case described in
previous pages
pp14-17 History of Tinker case and others Free Speech rights of school students
pp 19 With the advent of the Internet
and in the wake of school shootings at Columbine, Santee, Newtown and
many others, school administrators face the daunting task of evaluating
potential threats of violence and keeping their students safe without
impinging on their constitutional rights.”).
Students now have the ability to disseminate instantaneously and communicate
widely from any location via the Internet.
pp23
bottom is an example when speech from outside school is protected by
Tinker, IE if the instant case had these qualities district court
decision would have been overturned.
pp33 is where the NY Times quote, “such conduct cannot be permitted”
is used, but not as implied by the context, but as a conclusion
discussion of what extensive precedent has determined transcends the
assumption of absolute freedom of speech. I
pp26-34
discussion of precedents and course of this case. Key is whether the
rap video was a “threat” thus the meaning explored in detail
----------------------------
Sent Mr. Liptak. via N.Y. Times author's page
Your summary of the Taylor Bell 5th circuit decision appears to be seriously flawed as described in link below . Perhaps since the article was not specifically on this, you may not have studied it, in which case you owe Justice Barksdale an apology, and a correction for the record
http://alrodbell.blogspot.com/2015/12/careless-or-biased-summary-of-first.html
-------------------------------------
Liptak's response:
--------------------------------
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:22 PM, <ordercs@nytimes.com> wrote:
Email: AlRodbell@gmail.com
URL:Hip Hop Stars Support......
Comments:Mr. Liptak.
Your summary of the Taylor Bell 5th circuit decision appears to be seriously flawed as described in link below . Perhaps since the article was not specifically on this, you may not have studied it, in which case you owe Justice Barksdale an apology, and a correction for the record
http://alrodbell.blogspot.com/
Your summary of the Taylor Bell 5th circuit decision appears to be seriously flawed as described in link below . Perhaps since the article was not specifically on this, you may not have studied it, in which case you owe Justice Barksdale an apology, and a correction for the record
http://alrodbell.blogspot.com/2015/12/careless-or-biased-summary-of-first.html
-------------------------------------
Liptak's response:
Dear Mr. Rodbell,
Thanks for writing and for your close reading of my article.
The quotation you discuss captures the judge's dismissive tone, which is what I tried to convey. The
opinion is, I think you will agree, shot through with that tone. There
was no risk that a reader would attribute "the numerous spelling and
grammatical errors" of a high school student to a federal appeals court
judge, but noting them certainly betrayed an attitude of superiority and
condescension.
I
didn't say the case turned on the judge's hostile tone, but I thought
it was an interesting and telling point in a column about a clash
between rap music and the legal culture.
With all good wishes for the holidays,
Adam Liptak
The New York Times
1627 I Street NW
Washington, DC 20006
Twitter: @adamliptak
On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 2:22 PM, <ordercs@nytimes.com> wrote:
Email: AlRodbell@gmail.com
URL:Hip Hop Stars Support......
Comments:Mr. Liptak.
Your summary of the Taylor Bell 5th circuit decision appears to be seriously flawed as described in link below . Perhaps since the article was not specifically on this, you may not have studied it, in which case you owe Justice Barksdale an apology, and a correction for the record
http://alrodbell.blogspot.com/
This essay begins with an article in the New York Times of December 20, 2015
based on a decision of Fifth Court of Appeals "Hip Hop Stars Support Mississippi Rapper in First Amendment Case"
The writer is Adam Liptak, a legal scholar, which makes my effort all the more challenging. He teaches at Columbia Law the term, "ipse dixit" which means "he says so, or depending on the status of source rather then evidence" so this must be transcended to evaluate this challenge by a non-lawyer.
This essay was prompted by my reaction after reading these three paragraphs of the article:
A divided 16-member panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans,rejected Mr. Bell's First Amendment challenge. Judge Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, writing for the majority, said the song was “incredibly profane and vulgar” and contained “numerous spelling and grammatical errors.”If there is to be education,” Judge Barksdale wrote, “such conduct cannot be permitted.”I said to my wife, "I can't believe it, this Southern judge wrote it's O.K. to rule against a rap song because of spelling and grammar errors!"
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comment pending approval