News & Features Feedback
New This WeekAround TownMusicFilmArtTheaterNews & FeaturesFood & DrinkAstrology

  E-Mail This Article to a Friend
The fifth annual Muzzle Awards
Ten who undermined freedom of speech and personal liberties

Dishonorable mentions

THE DISHONORABLE MENTIONS, unfortunately, are back. Last year, we offered a list of free-speech violations that didn’t quite warrant a Muzzle Award, but that were significant enough to be noticed. We hoped it would be a first — and a last.

No such luck. Once again, there was such a plethora of nominees from which to choose that we offer our second annual list of runners-up — with every expectation that this has now become a permanent part of the Muzzle Awards.

• In 1999 Franklin Superior Court judge Bertha Josephson found John Bean, a 40-year-old photography student from Southbridge, guilty of child pornography and sentenced him to six months’ probation. His crime: taking a picture of a 15-year-old girl with one breast exposed. It could have been worse. According to the Associated Press, he could have gotten up to 10 years in prison. Still, Josephson’s findings were ludicrous given that Bean had permission from the girl, her mother, and her 17-year-old boyfriend, who tagged along for the shoot. Finally, in January of this year, the state’s Supreme Judicial Court agreed, overturning the sentence and ruling that Bean lacked "lascivious intent."

• After leftist historian Howard Zinn criticized the United States in post–September 11 remarks at Newton North High School, the Boston Herald reported that angry parents demanded to know why school officials had let their children be exposed to such "unbelievable" and "horrifying" statements. Sadly, Beverly High School principal Bill Foye learned the wrong lesson from those events: students couldn’t attend Zinn’s speech at BHS this past February unless they presented signed parental permission slips, according to the Salem Evening News. Hey, kids: the Beverly Public Library has about a dozen copies of Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States on its shelves. It would make a great summer book report.

• The military’s "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy is surely one of the more foolish examples of homophobia in action. In the war against terrorism, we could use a few good men and women, regardless of whom they like to have sex with. But should a university, with its alleged devotion to freedom of expression, prevent the military from even making its presence known? Officials at Harvard University think so. Last October, a Marine Corps office named Dan Sullivan wrote a guest column for Newsweek observing that Harvard bans military recruiters from its hallowed yard because of the armed forces’ anti-gay policies. Sullivan added: "The alma mater of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes even prohibits fliers — one of the most basic forms of free speech — promoting military service from being posted on campus."

• Last winter, Holliston High School interim principal Carol Sager expelled two boys for a violent ruckus at a basketball game. So far, so good. Then, at a school talent show, three girls held up signs protesting the expulsions — and were suspended. Not so good. Two of the three girls sued, and one of them — Amanda Melanson — kept pushing until she won: she agreed to write an apology to anyone whom she may have offended, while the school system’s insurer agreed to donate an unspecified sum to the ACLU. Sager, meanwhile, clearly has a problem with the First Amendment: she also reportedly tossed ACLU speaker Nancy Murray out of an assembly on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and canceled a second assembly because she didn’t like Murray’s views. Fortunately for the First Amendment, Sager’s stint as interim principal ended on June 30.

• At worst, 11-year Green Mountain Union High School teacher Jay Van Stechelman needed a more open relationship with his principal. Instead, he’s out of a job. Last fall, Van Stechelman showed his students two R-rated movies, The Blair Witch Project and American History X, the latter of which reportedly includes nudity and simulated sex. Van Stechelman allegedly told his students that he knew principal Carol Gilbert wouldn’t approve. But superintendent of schools Ed Brown overreacted in November when he fired Van Stechelman for showing the movies and for describing the design of Christian churches as "phallic." High-school senior James Cole told the Rutland Herald: "He was the only one who really let us think, he made us think. It’s horrible that he’s gone, because the only things I really looked forward to were discussions in his class."

• Biddeford was not the only New England community that attempted to strangle public-access cable TV. In Western Massachusetts, Athol/Orange Community Television suspended Patricia Demarest, the co-producer of a program called Think Tank 2000, after she broadcast a grilling she had administered to an Athol town official over an alleged conflict of interest. The cable company’s board, as it turns out, is appointed by town officials. This past March, federal district judge Michael Ponsor ruled in Demarest’s favor in a suit brought by the ACLU, the Associated Press reported. The judge found that volunteer journalists enjoy the same protections as professionals. And he threw out two onerous rules the cable company had attempted to impose: to require written permission from a person before putting him or her on the air, and to refrain from broadcasting illegal acts — a category that could include, Ponsor noted, "some of the most important moments in American history."

— Dan Kennedy

TO UPDATE THAT bogus old Ronald Reagan commercial, it’s mourning in America. We are at war, and in times of national crisis, too many of us find it too easy to dismiss freedom of speech as a superfluous luxury. Thus the fifth annual Muzzle Awards, which single out 10 enemies of free speech and personal liberties in New England, come at a troubled moment.

On June 16, the Washington Post published an astounding commentary by Dennis Pluchinsky, a counterterrorism expert for the State Department. It began, "I accuse the media in the United States of treason." Why? Because the media have been doing what they’re supposed to do: aggressively reporting on security risks in the aftermath of September 11.

"In a war situation, it is not business as usual," Pluchinsky wrote. "Use some common sense. Certainly, if a reporter or academician believes that he or she has discovered a vulnerability or flaw in one of our sectors or systems, it is important to let others know. It seems reasonable to me that a process should be established where such articles are filtered through a government agency such as the proposed Department of Homeland Security. A skeptic would call this censorship; a patriot would call it cooperation."

As Samuel Johnson observed, "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Our society thrives on the free and open exchange of ideas. Filter investigative reporting through some Ministry of Information, and it’s no more likely to be taken seriously than any of the numerous warnings that the CIA and the FBI ignored before last September 11.

Fortunately, to date there have been more portents of oppression than actual oppression. The USA Patriot Act, a cornucopia of Johnsonian ironies, threatens to encroach on free speech and personal liberties. But according to a June 23 report in the Boston Globe, it has been used sparingly so far. The most notorious application of the Patriot Act has been in the case of Jose Padilla, the so-called dirty-bomb suspect, who has been jailed without being charged — an action of dubious constitutionality.

Two of this year’s Muzzle Award winners have a September 11 tie-in. And, in a reflection of what is occurring nationally, the relevant incidents don't signal the arrival of out-and-out authoritarianism so much as they engender a sense of foreboding.

One involved a young, turban-wearing Sikh engineer who was arrested on a train in Providence on September 12 and charged with illegally carrying a knife. It turned out to be a small, ceremonial religious dagger, yet Providence police dawdled more than a month before dropping charges.

The other was Maine governor Angus King’s decision to invite just a handful of reporters, and no members of the public, to a homeland-security conference. King eventually relented and opened it to the media, but the public — in whose name the conference was being held — was kept at bay.

This year’s Fourth of July round-up was compiled by consulting noted civil-liberties lawyer and Phoenix contributor Harvey Silverglate and the ACLU offices in Boston, Providence, and Portland, and by closely tracking freedom-of-expression stories in New England since last July Fourth. It is based mainly on stories reported by various New England news outlets, including the Phoenix.

Finally, a bow to the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression, which has been dishonoring national enemies of the First Amendment with its "Jefferson Muzzle" awards for the past 11 years. The center can be found on the Web at

Massachusetts Department of CorrectionSilencing inmates by keeping the media out

Few of us waste much time thinking about the plight of those who have been sent to prison. Most inmates, after all, are behind bars because they committed serious crimes. It’s easy to tell yourself that once they’ve been locked up, they have no right to be heard from until after they’ve done their time.

Easy, but wrong.

Depriving people of their freedom is the most awesome power exercised under state law, at least in this part of the country. (In New England, only New Hampshire and Connecticut have the death penalty. The last New England execution took place in 1960, in Connecticut.) With power must come accountability. And accountability is impossible without tough, independent scrutiny.

Apparently that’s the last thing the Massachusetts Department of Correction wants. This spring, the DOC unveiled proposed new rules that would drastically restrict journalists’ access to prison inmates. (See "Locking Up the Big House," News and Features, June 28.)

The rules appear to violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of the press, since they would deny reporters rights granted to ordinary citizens. For instance, friends and relatives may visit a prisoner who is in a segregation unit; if the DOC gets its way, however, a reporter could not. Prison officials also do not listen in on conversations between an inmate and an ordinary visitor, but media interviews would be monitored. Tape recorders and cameras would be banned, and so, reportedly, would telephone interviews.

The rules appear to be designed solely to protect prison officials from public scrutiny. Prisons, after all, are violent, brutal places, and the jail keepers don’t necessarily want us to know what we’re getting for the more than $400 million in tax money we give to them each year.

In a June 12 piece on WBUR Radio (90.9 FM), documentary filmmaker Ofra Bikel — whose work for programs such as PBS’s Frontline has resulted in freedom for 11 wrongly convicted ex-prisoners — told reporter Jason Beaubien that she never could have uncovered such injustices if she’d been subject to the proposed DOC guidelines. An ACLU official told Beaubien that, in Wisconsin, a newspaper was able to photograph and interview a mentally ill juvenile who was being held in a hellish segregation unit — a story that persuaded a judge to order reforms. If Massachusetts prison officials get their way, such enterprising journalism will not take place here. In a recent interview with the Phoenix, Beaubien said, "Officials make it incredibly difficult to cover prisons. The Boston media has been beaten down by the lack of access and the process."

The proposed rules are just the latest attempt by the Department of Correction to dehumanize its prisoners and cut them off from the outside world. In May, for instance, the Boston Globe reported that inmates at Norfolk state prison have been banned from posting newspaper and magazine clippings on their cell walls — even New Yorker cartoons — thus prompting a First Amendment lawsuit. Such petty sadism is wrongheaded. Nearly all inmates will eventually return to society. Prison officials should be preparing them for the outside world — not engaging in gratuitous psychological abuse, and then preventing them from getting word out through the media.

A recent statement by Massachusetts Correctional Legal Services, which represents prisoners, warned of the dangers of an unaccountable prison system: "If there is any one civics lesson to be gleaned from the last 40 years of American life, it is that when government agencies shut out public scrutiny of their activities, bad news about those activities inevitably follows."

The statement also voiced some well-deserved criticism of the media for their lack of interest in prison stories. That complacency will only become more pronounced if editors and news directors find that it’s just too hard to get their reporters inside prison walls.


page 1  page 2  page 3  page 4  page 5  page 6 

Issue Date: July 4 - 11, 2002
Back to the News & Features table of contents.
  E-Mail This Article to a Friend

home | feedback | about the phoenix | find the phoenix | advertising info | privacy policy | the masthead | work for us

 © 2002 Phoenix Media Communications Group