The Pulse: Speaking of free speech

You've heard of the Arab Spring. Welcome to First Amendment Summer. Overshadowed by the debt-ceiling brouhaha are a number of fascinating free-speech debates. Here are the issues and my scorecard:

Does a Bucks County father have the right to blog about

his ex-wife?

Among other things, he wrote: "Imagine, if you will, Jabba the Hut, with less personality."

Answer: Sadly, yes, given that the Supreme Court has determined that Westboro Baptist Church can disrupt military funerals. But that doesn't mean Bucks County Court Judge Diane Gibbons erred when describing the blogging father's words as "outright cruelty." How long until the couple's two sons, now 12 and 9, go online and read what Dad said about Mom? Perhaps a Google bomb will link the coverage to Joseph Welch, who famously said to Sen. Joseph McCarthy: "Have you no sense of decency, sir?"

Can a cross be displayed

at the ground zero museum?

A group called American Atheists is suing to stop the 9/11 Memorial Museum from displaying two steel beams found in the shape of a cross amid the World Trade Center wreckage. The plaintiffs lament that "no other religions or philosophies will be honored" at the memorial, scheduled to open next year.

Answer: What the plaintiffs say is true, but so is what Joe Daniels, memorial president, said: "In the historical exhibition, the cross is part of our commitment to bring back the authentic physical reminders that tell the story of 9/11 in a way nothing else can."

I have seen that cross and remember being struck by its durability amid the carnage. It's a unique physical reminder of the tragedy, and should be preserved and displayed for young Americans who cannot remember the events of that day. If it had been recovered along with artifacts reminiscent of any other religion, I'd want to keep those as well.

Like the Ten Commandments plaque posted on the Chester County Court House, the cross is now an article of historical significance, not religious consequence.

Should Holocaust deniers

be banned from Facebook?

A group of survivors affiliated with the Los Angeles-based Simon Wiesenthal Center recently demanded that Facebook ban users who deny the Holocaust or dismiss it as a hoax. "By allowing this hate propaganda on Facebook, you are exposing the public and, in particular, youth to the anti-Semitism which fueled the Holocaust," the group wrote to the social-media giant.

Facebook decided not to accommodate the request, saying in a statement: "We think that there is a meaningful difference between advocating violence against a group of people and expressing an opinion on a policy, set of beliefs, or historical event - even if that opinion is factually wrong, or is outrageous or offensive to most people."

Answer: I've walked the grounds of Auschwitz-Birkenau, toured a standing crematorium, and explored the remains of another. I've seen the hair, the suitcases, and the clothing that are testaments to the tragedy. I abhor Holocaust deniers. But ignorance and hate aren't reason enough to censor those views. Doing so might stifle legitimate debate about other historical events. (My next entry has a solution.)

Should anonymity be banned from Facebook?

Facebook's marketing director, who happens to be Mark Zuckerberg's sister, just suggested that banning online anonymity would help curb cyber-bullying and Internet harassment. Then-Google CEO Eric Schmidt made a similar observation last year, noting that "privacy is incredibly important" but "not the same thing as anonymity."

Answer: Both are correct. Bad behavior is fueled by the mob mentality - and it's taken to an even higher level when members of the "mob" can wreak havoc in footie pajamas in front of a computer in their parents' basement. There's a profound difference between the comments I receive on Facebook, which strives to ensure users post under their own name and picture, and the comments posted on philly.com directly below a column like this one. The latter requires no semblance of actual identification, so the messages tend to be more demeaning and provocative.

Should a teacher who was suspended after blogging about her students get

her job back?

On her personal blog, Central Bucks East teacher Natalie Munroe called her students "generally annoying" and fantasized about revealing her insulting impressions to their parents. She was suspended, but it now appears she's set to get her job back.

Answer: Munroe invaded the privacy of her students and proved herself unfit for the classroom. The case is the latest justification for adopting the Golden Rule 2.0: If you wouldn't write it on the blackboard, don't write it on your blog.

Should testicles be

banned from trucks?

Lug nuts may be legal, but "truck nuts" could earn you a $445 ticket and a protracted free-speech debate. A 65-year-old South Carolina woman is learning this the hard way.

Virginia Tice adorned her pickup truck with a red plastic ornament shaped like bull testicles. A man of the law asked her to remove the decoration hanging from the back of her vehicle. She didn't. He wrote her a ticket and eventually filed a suit claiming the knickknack was obscene.

Answer: She's probably got the right to display her ornament, like a bad bumper sticker. But consider this: If the story revolved around a golden vagina on the back of a Prius, would there be any debate?