Professor Bert Chapman, a Government Information and Political Science Librarian, maintains a blog at Townhall.com titled Conservative Librarian. On October 27, he posted “An Economic Case Against Homosexuality”

“As a Christian, I agree with the biblical condemnation of the homosexual lifestyle. However, we are living in a nation and world that increasingly rejects biblical norms. To defend traditional sexual morality against the encroaching threat of homosexuality and other aberrant forms of sexual expression, we need to be able to do more than cite Bible verses. Fortunately, there are plenty of economic reasons for being against this lifestyle and I think as conservatives we need to be able to articulate why our nation cannot afford the extremely high financial costs of this lifestyle at a time when we are confronting dangerously high budget deficits, national debt, and personal debt.”

In the post, Professor Chapman has articulated his views on homosexuality-using economic data.A number of students and various student groups are not happy about the post, some even questioning whether the Professor should lose his job.

At Queerty, a blog focused on Gay, Lesbian and Transgendered rights, a blogger asks “Should Purdue Students Be Forced to Pay the Salary of a Bigoted Professor?”

“As these students point out, Chapman and his sympathizers will claim free speech, which the man is certainly entitled to. And college campuses should, absolutely, be filled with a wide variety of voices and opinions to encourage dialogue and free thought. That, we're on board with. But we certainly understand the frustration of students who see their tuition dollars paying the salary of a bigot, who abuses his university business cards to perpetrate misinformation and outright lies. Sure, depending on how Purdue slices it, some of Chapman's salary might come from grants or donors, not students' tuition. But it doesn't change the situation: By keeping Chapman on campus, the university implicitly endorses his homophobia. Would they keep a racist on their faculty?”

But not everyone who is criticizing Professor Chapman's post wants him to lose his job.Alex Blaze at Bilerico says

“Going for his job is a bad tactic. I understand that there are many students who wouldn't want to be taught by this person, especially the queer students, but if he's not discriminating against students in class or harassing them while on the job (which is entirely possible considering how bonkers his townhall.com rant is, so I suggest students who have this professor pay attention and remain vocal), part of going to college is learning how to put up with these sorts of situations and people.

Several students have written to the school paper asking for the him to resign, but several others are taking the more appropriate “give Chapman shit” route:”

Purdue University spokespersonJeanne Norberg has stated that Professor Chapman's blog is protected speech under First Amendment

“Norberg said Chapman acted within university policy by including a disclaimer on his blog that his viewpoints do not necessarily reflect those of the institution.

“There are many things on the Internet that would be offensive to many but that are protected by the First Amendment,” Norberg said. “The best response is to speak up, which is exactly what our students and some faculty are doing.”

The University's student newspaper The Exponent has received lot of letters regarding the issue, from both sides. Kevin Casimer,senior in the College of Liberal Arts, in his guest commentary for Exponent says that Professor Chapman has right to express his opinion but his position is detrimental to Purdue as a University

“In the case of Chapman, he was hired and given tenure with the expectation that he would contribute positively to the reputation of Purdue. If his colleagues and employers believe he is instead having a detrimental effect, they have every right to say so.

The people who are speaking out publicly against Chapman, for the most part, are not asking that his comments be taken down or that he apologize for them; they are not trying to stop him from exercising his freedom of speech.”

Paul Deignan,Senior in the College of Engineering, says that attacks against Professor Chapman “is seed of censorship”

“I am unable to understand why they think it’s appropriate to call for the dismissal of Prof. Chapman for his own opinions, when they have no evidence whatsoever that he acts on them at all, that he even believes them, that he’s done anything more than post speculations. For all they know, he could even be playing devil’s advocate. Whether or not their own opinions are correct (which they may very well be), their behavior is the very seed of censorship and the very antithesis of freedom of speech and free inquiry.”

Indiana Daily Student says

“He (Zimmerman) was critical of Butler and two administrators: Peter Alexander, dean of Butler’s College of Fine Arts, and Jamie Comstock, Butler’s provost.

He wrote things like “Peter Alexander … is power-hungry and afraid of his own shadow. … He drives away talented administrators. He frustrates students within the departments. He hurts the ability of the school to recruit talented students and faculty members. He announces to the campus that the Butler Way, the ideals for which the school and everyone at it stands, mean nothing.”

The university has deemed statements like this to be libelous and in January filed a libel and defamation lawsuit against “Soodo Nym,” the pseudonym used by Zimmerman on the anonymous blog.”

Although the lawsuit has been dropped, there is widespread anger against the actions of Butler University, some accusing the school of “bullying”. At Huffington Post, Stu Kreisman-an Emmy award winning writer-producer, described the whole situation as being equivalent of censorship represented by Guantanamo prison.

“The situation is eerily similar to the Bush administration's dealings in Guantanamo Bay. If you can't convict lawfully, make it up as you go along. Look, we're dealing with a blog, which painted an unflattering picture of the administration. Is it really worth all the time, money and negative publicity just to get even with a student because you're thin skinned? We're not dealing with something as sinister as the Virginia Tech shootings here. (Which the administration has already compared the writings to in what has to be the ultimate in bad taste.)

Is a school entitled to discipline a student? Of course if a crime is committed. But let's get real here. We're talking about freedom of speech on the Internet; something I thought is looked upon favorably at universities. Silencing and punishing your critics went out with the Bushies. So Butler University is going to be the first school to censor the Internet.”

Butler's actions also raise questions about online anonymity and whether a student is in violation of rules when he/she express legitimate concerns over the internet in his/her time through private resources in an off campus setting.

findingDulcinea, a web magazine says that “Student Blogger Case Shows That Online Anonymity Isn’t Guaranteed”, adding that there is a hidden message behind Butler University dropping the lawsuit

“Butler University has dropped its libel lawsuit against a student that criticized university administration in an anonymous blog, but not before it was able to obtain the identity of the student. It will continue to pursue its own disciplinary proceedings against the student, junior Jess Zimmerman.

Dan Altman, Zimmerman’s lawyer, said that the university filed the lawsuit not because it believed that Zimmerman posted libelous information, but because it wanted to silence his criticism. He called the lawsuit an example of a strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP), lawsuits that are designed to intimidate defendants that are critical of the plaintiff.”

It remains to be seen what Butler disciplinary proceeding would bring for Zimmerman. Hopefully the university will decide to resolve matters without furthering confrontation and attacks against free speech.

Activist Elliot Madison who works with People's Law Collective, his home was raided by authorities, he and another man were accused of

” using Twitter to direct the movements of G20 protesters and update them about movements of police in Pittsburgh.”

Elieen Clancy at I-Witness Video questions the government's decision to take tweeting as a potential criminal activity, whereas the State Department supported twitter supported people's uprising in Iran

“2009 is the year when Twitter and other social networking tools have emerged to have a major impact in social movements in Burma, Moldova and Iran. It is difficult to understand the justification for the raids in Pittsburgh and Queens considering the applause in the press for Twitter's use as a tool to undermine authoritarian governments around the world. Twitter was the best source for instant news from the streets during the protests about the Iranian elections, with raw, impossible-to-verify-in-the-moment Tweets appearing on the websites of the New York Times, the Atlantic and Huffington Post.”

It is important to note here that last year Army's intelligence came out with a report which says that Twitter could be used by terrorists to communicate about attacks.Noah Shachtman wrote about the report and its findings at Wired.com.

Unfortunately the government's attitude towards potential misuse of Twitter was not analyzed in depth by the major news networks. Here is Pennsylvania ACLU’s legal director, Vic Walczak on CNN talking about the “intimidation” of those who protested G20 summit through Twitter.

Bill Quigley,Legal Director of the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York describes the suppression of G20 protests as right to dissent under siege and says that the environment surrounding protests is different compared to the days before 9/11

“There are three main reasons that protesting is more difficult since 9/11. First, there is political advantage to keep fanning the fires of fear and insecurity and suggesting to the public that violence could well be a part of protests even though over 99% of protests and protestors since 9/11 have been completely non-violent (except for the right-wing gun toting folks at the healthcare forums — can you imagine if African American protestors did that?) Second, government has poured billions into law enforcement with the result that their response to protests are in many cases no longer civil law enforcement but now quasi-military, a chance to both show off their new toys, and an opportunity for security forces to practice their mass response actions. Third, federal forces have taken over the leadership for security at any large protest so that local and state law enforcement have less and less to say in how the event is managed.”

Port criticized former model Lasuka Cohen in her blog-often using harsh words. A Manhattan Supreme Court Judge ordered Google to out the blogger after Cohen filed lawsuit against Port claiming libel.

At Examiner.com, technology blogger Tanya Gupta expresses concerns over the developments and questions weather the blogger's first amendment rights were violated.

“But the judgement by the court to require Google to reveal the IP address of the blog, in other words reveal the identity of the blogger raises some fundamental first amendment issues as it relates to the internet. The internet medium is quite different from the print medium, in that it allows more people to participate in the generation of news, and for the most part, the reading public is responsible for sorting out the chaff from the wheat, so to speak, and make its own determination of what is good and what is bad. This is unlike the print media where a certain level of quality is guaranteed. To allow the medium to work according to its nature, therefore, you have to allow all sorts of participants in the news generation process. Censorship restricts not just the evil bloggers but the medium itself.”

A blogger's right to anonymity and what is defined as “online decorum” is also a part of this debate. Chris Gaylord at the Christian Science Monitor says that the lawsuit “dispels the Web’s oldest tradition: anonymity” and that

“Disguised in comforting anonymity, bloggers and online commenters can type some pretty nasty things – accusations and language that they’d never say to people face-to-face. However, the masquerade ball may have just ended.

Ms. Cohen brought Google to court, demanding that the company reveal the identity of a blogger that she says defamed her. The NYC-gossip blogger mocked Cohen and called the model a “40-something” who “may have been hot 10 years ago.” Cohen was 36 at the time. The post, which ran on Google’s Blogger service, has since been removed.”

But Zennie Abraham who blogs at SFGate.com brings in an interesting look into this debate by mentioning a provision in the Violence Against Women Act which may put Rosemary Port's assertion that her free speech rights were violated into question.

Here is his commentary on this issue at YouTube.

According to ThinkFree

“In 2005, while a high school senior in the Hermitage School District in western Pennsylvania, 17-year-old Justin Layshock created a fake Facebook profile parodying the high school principal. He was suspended for 10 days and, with help from the American Civil Liberties Union, sued the school district.

In 2007, a federal judge sided with Layshock and ruled that school districts cannot discipline students for off-campus speech.”

But the decision of 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals does not signal a trend. President Obama's Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor (2nd Circuit Court of Appeals) sided with the majority in the decision that says

“schools had the authority to regulate off-campus online speech because that speech can disrupt the functioning of the school”

University of Nevada, Las Vegas student paper The Rebel Yell discusses the issue of student's online free speech in length, citing instances where students in various American universities have been targeted for disciplinary action for what they said online.

“In 2007, T. Hayden Barnes, a former student at Valdosta State University in Georgia, campaigned against the planned construction of two parking garages on the university’s campus.

Part of his opposition was a collage he posted on his Facebook page called the “Zaccari Memorial Parking Garage” — named after and featuring the university’s then-President Ronald Zaccari.

The school viewed it as a threat, and the student was expelled.”

After a lawsuit the university reversed its decision.

As the world of communications evolves,the debate over what is covered by First Amendment is also changing to include social networking and sites like Twitter.Speaking about twitter and online free speech, recently a Chicago woman was sued for a “tweet” she sent out which her landlords claim were defamatory.

“Horizon Group Management sued Amanda Bonnen Monday for publishing a false and defamatory tweet on Twitter May 12.
According to the suit filed Monday in Cook County Circuit Court Bonnen wrote an update that said “Who said sleeping in a moldy apartment was bad for you? Horizon realty thinks it's okay.”

PBS discusses online free speech in this video ,with regards to social networking site like Facebook and micro blogging platforms like Twitter.

LinkedIn realized its error following the publication of the piece on Advox (and subsequent pieces on Huffington Post and Foreign Policy's net.effect).  Twitter users, outraged by LinkedIn's decision to cut off Syrian users, re-tweeted links to the aforementioned articles, resulting in the issue grabbing the attention of LinkedIn staffer “kluo,” who quickly pointed out that the deletion of user accounts was a human error.

I contacted Kay as requested, and was quickly issued this statement:

“Some changes made to our site recently resulted in Syrian users being unable to access LinkedIn.  In looking into this matter, it has come to our attention that human error led to over compliance with respect to export controls.  This issue is being addressed tonight and service to our Syrian users should be restored shortly.”

Syrian LinkedIn users should soon be able to access their accounts once again.

Error message received by US soldier when trying to access ThinkProgress blog from U.S. military network in Baghdad (Photo credit: the American Progress Action Fund)

The liberal ThinkProgress blog has been banned from the U.S. military network in Baghdad. “The ban began sometime shortly after Aug. 22, when Ret. Maj. Gen. John Batiste was our guest blogger on ThinkProgress. He posted an op-ed that was strongly critical of the President’s policies and advocated a “responsible and deliberate redeployment from Iraq.” ThinkProgress said.

This came after the majority of Google shareholders voted against the anti-censorship proposal that requires the Google's management to stop censoring its search results in repressive countries.

You can listen -and download- to the interview on BBC’s 5 Live radio [the Friday 11th May, and it will be available for a week beginning today]