The San Francisco Bay Area Independent reports that lawyer Lynne Stewart has begun serving her sentence for aiding terrorism.  Stewart was convicted for passing a message from one of her clients to his supporters.  She claimed, unsuccessfully, that the First Amendment protected her from prosecution for conveying the message.

The Orange County Register offers coverage that draws comparisons between the recent round of protests by students at the University of California campuses with the Free Speech Movement protests of 1964.

The Wall Street Journal publishes a letter by First Amendment expert Floyd Abrams. Abrams criticizes the U.S. for supporting a U.N. resolution that urges states to take action to combat negative religious stereotyping.

The New York Times runs an op ed suggesting that Wikipedia should adopt “[a]n external international panel comprising the world’s most eminent philosophers, legal scholars, historians and others” to help it adjudicate claims that certain speech should be removed from the online encyclopedia.  The article uses as an example a recent case in which Wikipedia published the names of two Germans who were convicted of murdering an actor in Germany and, having served their sentences, were set free.  Under German law, their names should have been kept secret.  The law in the U.S., where Wikipedia is based, does not allow the state to order the names to be concealed.  The article suggests that cases such as this one are difficult in that they require free speech to be reconciled against other values and further suggests that Wikipedia needs to set up a more rigorous institutional structure to deal with them.

The Panama City News-Herald editorializes  in support of its motion to keep the courtroom open in a civil suit against Joe Francis, who founded Girls Gone Wild.  Francis is being sued by women who were under 18 when they were filmed for the video series.  The women wanted the courtroom to be closed when they testified.  The News Herald opposes closing the courtroom, arguing that it has a First Amendment right to attend and report on the testimony.

The Yankton Press & Dakotan reports that the Nebraska Supreme Court will hear a case addressing whether an individual can be fined for sending emails containing profanity, and a threat of physical violence, to a candidate for public office.  The paper reports that the Nebraska Supreme Court was prompted to hear the case by a petition from Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor.  He argues the emails are protected by the First Amendment and cannot lead to punishment by government.

Game Set Watch interviews Doug Lowenstein, former president of the Entertainment Software Association. In the interview, Lowenstein emphasizes the importance of the video game industry continuing to protect the First Amendment rights of creators of video games.

An American Muslim Journal blogs on a case in which public school students and their parents, represented by the ACLU of Florida, are suing their school for forbidding them from wearing shirts that said “Islam is of the devil.”  It provides a detailed factual background and also delves into the First Amendment issues at stake.  The blog’s view is that the school acted correctly.

The Washington Post reports that a court has given preliminary approval to the Google Books settlement.  Comments on the revised settlement are due February 4 and a hearing is scheduled for February 18.  EFF continues a multi-part series examining the settlement.

Abcnews.com reports on the popularity of the slogan “Pray for Obama:  Psalm 109:8.”  The psalm reads, “Let his days be few; and let another take his office.”  A subsequent verse reads, “Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.”  Both the ACLU and Anti-Defamation league sources quoted in the article say that this is protected speech.

The Denver WestWord blogs on the 10th Circuit argument in Weise v. Jenkins.  Diclosure:  I am counsel in this case.  In 2005, the Bush Administration ejected two individuals from one of the President’s taxpayer-funded, open-to-the-public speaking engagements because they arrived in a car with the bumper sticker “no more blood for oil.”  The individuals sued, arguing that ejecting them because of their viewpoint violated the First Amendment.  The district court rejected that argument and the individuals appealed.  The 10th Circuit must decide whether this was a constitutional violation and, if so, whether the constitutional right at issue was clearly established at the time of the incident.  The Denver WestWord provides commentary on the hearing.  The Denver Post and AP also ran stories.

The Dallas Morning News runs a story on student speech online.  The story was sparked by an incident in which middle schoolers created a Facebook page called “I hate Mrs. X” (where X is the name of a teacher) and stated “Join now and maybe we can all kill her together.”  the students were suspended. The article explores schools’ struggles to decide what is harmless if juvenile banter and what is genuinely threatening or punishable.  It also explores the extent to which schools have the authority to punish out-of-school speech.

The Wall Street Journal reports on a number of actions taken today by the Supreme Court.  In free speech news, the Supreme Court declined to  review a case in which individuals challenged a school board’s decision to remove a book from the school library.  According to the school board, the book, Vamos a Cuba, was inaccurate because it painted too favorable a picture of life in Cuba.

SiliconValley.com reports on the revised Google Books settlement, filed in court last Friday.  The article discusses the terms of the new settlement agreement.

The Boulder Weekly reports on the saga of a librarian who took it upon herself to remove a book she considered inappropriate from circulation.  The book at issue is The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, Volume IV: The Black Dossier.  According to the Bolder Weekly, the librarian first challenged the inclusion of the book in the library’s collection under its acceptable use policy and, when that failed, proceeded to check it out repeatedly so that no one else could obtain it.  The librarian and a coworker who collaborated with her have both been let go.

Jurist offers continued coverage of the Third Circuit’s decision to strike down a Pittsburgh ordinance that placed restrictions on protesters outside of medical clinics that offer abortion services.

The State Bar of Wisconsin reports that the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices have imposed new rules clarifying that judges do not need to recuse themselves from the cases of litigants who donated to their campaigns.  In adopting this new rule, the Wisconsin Supreme Court accepted the proposals of the Wisconsin Realtors Association and the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Trade Group, and rejected a petition by the Leage of Women Voters that would have required recusal when a candidate received $1000 or more from a litigant in the preceding two years.  According to the article, at least one justice and some of the parties against recusal requirements cited the First Amendment and the chilling effect of such restrictions on political speech as the reason not to impose them.

Abcnews.com reports on a Third Circuit decision striking down a law restricting protest around abortion clinics.  The Pittsburgh law required demonstrators both to say 15 feet away from clinic entrances and to stay 8 feet away from individuals traveling to a clinic, so long as those individuals were within 100 feet of the clinic. The court held that although each of the restrictions might be legal on its own, when combined they restricted too much speech.

Wired.com covers yesterday’s decision by a district court judge to allow a lawsuit challenging the patent on a gene to go forward. The lawsuit advances a First Amendment claim, among others. The judge will hear argument on the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in December.

The New York Times publishes an editorial supporting the federal reporter shield law.  The paper argues that although the  shield law does not provide expansive enough protections for journalists in certain circumstances, the proposed legislation is an improvement on the current situation.

The Washington Post offers more details on the ACLU of Indiana case in which two teenage girls were punished by their school for placing sexually suggestive photos of themselves on a limited-access MySpace page.  The girls were forbidden from participating in extracurricular activities for a year.  The suit contends that school cannot punish the girls because the photographs had no connection with, or impact on, the school environment. The Indiana Law Blog has made the Complaint available.

The Spokesman-Review runs a feature on the Spokane Free Speech Fight of 1909.  One hundred years ago today, the city, alarmed by the protests organized by the labor group Industrial Workers of the World, banned speeches in the downtown area.  IWW supporters defied the ban as violative of their rights, thereby flooding the jails.  The city ultimately repealed the ordinance, but not until 500 people had been arrested and the dispute continued for months.

In his National Journal column, Stuart Taylor Jr. writes that it was “nice” to hear Secretary of State Hillary Clinton oppose a proposed U.N. resolution that would condemn “defamation of religion,” but criticizes the U.S. for going along with a different resolution that he suggests may obligate the U.S. to criminalize hate speech or racial or religious stereotyping.

The AP reports on a Fourth Circuit argument last week that addressed the validity of a Virginia law that banned advertising alcohol in college newspapers. A lower court had struck down the law.

At the Free Expression Policy Project, Marjorie Heins discusses the Referendum 71 case.  Washington State Referendum 71 would overturn a law that gives marriage-like benefits to same-sex couples. Individuals filed a public records act request for the signatures on the petition that placed referendum 71 on the ballot.  A district court judge enjoined the state from releasing the signatures, and the Ninth Circuit reversed.  Then, the Supreme Court reinstated the injunction to give itself time to consider whether it wants to hear the merits of the case.  In her article, Heins discusses the courts’ case law on the right to engage in political associations in private, but also the Court’s case law on when campaign contributions must be disclosed.  She reaches the same conclusion as most other commentators: this is a difficult and close question. Over the weekend, the New York Times also ran a background piece on the Referendum 71 petition signatures issue. And in commentary, George Will comes out against dislosing the petition signatories’ names.