Laser Pointer Laws

By Neil Rosacker

 Laser Pointers: Presentation Tool or National Security Threat?

            The United States has long imposed Federal restrictions and punishments regarding aircraft operations. Over the past decade, a sharp rise in laser pointer attacks against aircraft has called for new aviation law reform. Since 2005, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has tracked a more than 1,000 percent increase in number of laser strikes (2). The FAA reported 3,960 laser strikes on aircraft in 2013, the highest annual number to date (1). The general public is ill-informed of the dangers of laser pointers and a majority of these incidents are a product of misinformation and boredom rather than malicious intent.

            This essay will begin with an examination of the dangers of laser pointers, followed by the initial reform by the federal government and the naivety of the general public, and conclude with what the subsequent steps have been and should be to stem the growth of laser pointer attacks.

            The laser pointers used in these incidents are typically inexpensive hand-held devices designed for college professors and corporate presenters, leading to a misunderstanding of their harmful potential. “People still don’t understand how potentially dangerous this is,” remarks Vice President of the Air Line Pilots Association, Sean Cassidy (1). Although the beam appears as only a dot of light on the ground, it spreads out and can become six feet wide at long distances, illuminating an entire cockpit (7). Commercial pilot Robert Hamilton of the Air Line Pilots Association said in an interview with NBC New York that, “The feeling is you have a burning sensation in your eyes. It [the beam] hits the windshield and just explodes.” (5) The beam can disorient and temporarily blind pilots, “the equivalent of a camera flash going off in a pitch black car at night,” impairing their ability to properly fly the aircraft. (7)

            Although no fatal accidents have occurred, victims have reported serious eye injuries and jail time is common for perpetrators (7). In 2012, the federal government passed the first explicit provision to punish laser pointer offenses. President Barack Obama signed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, which, in Title 18, United States Code, Section 39, established a new criminal offense for aiming a laser beam at an aircraft or its flight path. The crime is punishable by a fine of a maximum $250,000 and five years of imprisonment. With this act, the government set a precedent that it would, as stated by United States Attorney David Hickton, “…rigorously investigate and prosecute” laser attacks on aircraft.(4)

            Notwithstanding this new legal precedent, the number of attacks continued to rise in 2013. With thousands of commercial flight incidents still unsolved, the difficulty still lies in finding and convicting perpetrators. The majority of these attacks come from minors or younger men who do not understand the dangers of the laser beam and the federal consequences that follow.

            In 2010, 24-year-old Justin Strouder was arrested after pointing a laser at a police helicopter more than a mile away. In a statement he said, “I had no idea it illuminated the entire cockpit and blinded everybody inside” (7). In California, 26-year-old Brett Lee Scott was arrested in 2013 for pointing a laser at a Kern County Sheriff’s Office helicopter and cited his reasoning as “boredom.” Deemed senseless crimes, these are just two of many incidents which show a pattern of ignorance towards the new federal laws. (6)

            On February 11, 2014, the FBI, in collaboration with the Air Line Pilots Association International and the FAA, announced the Laser Threat Awareness program aimed to educate the public on laser issues and deter future attacks. A step in the right direction, this campaign targets the root of the problem, a lack of awareness. Beginning as a 60-day trial in 12 cities, the program offered rewards up to $10,000 for information leading to the arrest of any individual who was in violation of the laser aviation laws. (2)

           

            As Federal air marshal and liaison officer with the FBI, George Johnson stated, “We hope that more public awareness about this issue will lower the instances of laser strikes.” (2) After a successful trial, the FBI expanded the campaign nationwide to all 50 states in June of 2014. Since the original initiative, there has been a 19 percent decrease in the number of reported incidents in the 12 metropolitan areas. Through August 14, 2013, there were 2,481 strikes reported; this year, there were only 2,163. Although only 162 people have been arrested and 86 convicted since 2005 for laser strikes, the FBI and federal government have taken the right steps this year to reduce the threat to aircraft. (1)

            As the campaign to promote laser strike awareness grows, the rate of attacks will likely reduce. Additionally, as the FBI continues to offer rewards for information and hand down strict punishments, such as jail time, so potential offenders will be deterred. Laser pointer technology presents a unique challenge to the FBI and lawmakers. Albeit daunting, the correct initial steps have been taken to address the issue on all fronts.

References

1.      Jones, Ashby. "Laser-Pointer Strikes Menace Pilots." The Wall Street Journal. August 27, 2014. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://online.wsj.com/search/term.html?KEYWORDS=laser pointer.

2.      "Protecting Aricraft from Lasers." The Federal Bureau of Investigation. February 11, 2014. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/february/protecting-aircraft-from-lasers.

3.      "Protecting Aricraft from Lasers." The Federal Bureau of Investigation. June 3, 2014. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2014/june/protecting-aircraft-from-lasers-trial-program-being-expanded-nationwide/protecting-aircraft-from-lasers-trial-program-being-expanded-nationwide.

4.      "Laser Attacks on Aircraft A New Federal Crime." The United States Attorney's Office. February 27, 2012. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.justice.gov/usao/paw/news/2012/2012_february/2012_02_27_01.html.

5.      "Airport Laser Incidents a New Epidemic." NBC New York. September 20, 2012. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/video/#!/on-air/as-seen-on/Airport-Laser-Incidents-a-New-Epidemic/170411116.

6.      Sullivan, Gail. "‘Bored’ Man Sentenced to 21 Months for Aiming Laser Pointer at Police Helicopter." The Washington Post. August 5, 2014. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/08/05/bored-man-sentenced-to-21-months-for-aiming-laser-pointer-at-police-helicopter/.

7.      "Making a Point About Lasers." The Federal Bureau of Investigation. September 26, 2011. Accessed October 30, 2014. http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2011/september/laser_092611.

            

Whistleblower Protection in the Supreme Court

By Nina Jones

       In recent years, the issue of whistleblower protection has been traversing realms of public discourse. With Bradley Manning nearing four years of incarceration, and Edward Snowden still on a temporary residency permit in Russia, the focus on their cases has died down a little bit.[1] However, on November 4, the Supreme Court will be hearing the case of Robert MacLean, an air marshal who was fired from his position in April 2006 for leaking sensitive information.

       In July 2003, MacLean and other air marshals took part in a mandatory training to prevent airline hijacking plots by al-Qaeda. Later, the TSA sent an unsecure, unclassified message to air marshals telling them that all long distance assignments that included an overnight stay were to be canceled. In response, MacLean complained to a supervisor and to the inspector general’s office at the Department of Homeland Security, and also leaked information to MSNBC. In 2005 MacLean was placed on administrative leave and in 2006, he was fired.[2]

        It was not until 2006 that the government labeled the information that MacLean had leaked as sensitive, so the question the court will be hearing is whether or not MacLean’s actions was “specifically prohibited by law.” According to DHS and the Justice Department, they were, but a bipartisan group of members of Congress say that his disclosure should have been protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-12).[3]

      Members of Congress worry that a ruling against MacLean would result in more freedom for government agencies to decide which disclosures are protected. “If agencies could decide which disclosures receive whistleblower protections, they would inevitably abuse that power,” members of Congress said in a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing in September 2014.[4]

     Unlike so many issues currently being presented before the Court, such autonomy for agencies in deciding what is and isn’t protected by the Whistleblower Protection Act has garnished a unanimous response from Republicans and Democrats alike who echo that these decisions could, and probably would, end in an abuse of power, the very result the Act was written specifically to prevent. The legal question of whether or not the TSA and the DHS can prosecute McLean over a disclosure of information that, at the time, was not secure is one that could determine how whistleblowers are treated in the future.

     So, on November 4, we will see where the Supreme Court stands on the issue and how we will proceed as a country on the issue of whistleblower protection.

---

[1] “Edward Snowden Can Stay In Russia For Three Years, Lawyer Says.” NBC News. Accessed 27 October 2014. http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/nsa-snooping/edward-snowden-can-stay-russia-three-years-lawyer-says-n174776.

[2] Davidson, Joe. “Supreme Court Whistleblower Case Has Broad Reach.” The Washington Post. Accessed 27 October 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2014/10/09/supreme-court-whistleblower-case-has-broad-reach/.

[3] “Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989” (PL 101-12, April 10, 1989). United States Government Printing Office (1989). Available from: Thomas (Library of Congress), http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-103/pdf/STATUTE-103-Pg16.pdf; Accessed 27 October 2014.

[4] U.S. House of Representatives. Examining The Administration’s Treatment of Whistleblowers, Hearing, September 9, 2014 (Serial No. 113-139). Washington: 2014. Web. http://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/9-9-14-TRANSCRIPT-Examining-the-Administrations-Treatment-of-Whistleblowers.pdf.

The Impact of Hazelwood in High Schools, 26 Years Later

By Jenna Spoont

         In just a week, a high school junior from Pennsylvania will share her story about the battle with her district’s school board over the use of a word that her student newspaper staff considers a “racial slur.”[i]

          Gillian McGoldrick, editor-in-chief of Neshaminy High School’s Playwickian, and the paper’s student editorial board, wrote a piece in the student newspaper back in November 2013 indicating that they were going to stop using the word “Redskins”, the school’s nickname and mascot, in their student publication. The administration disagreed with the students’ decision and a conflict regarding the school’s publications policy ensued. Recently, the school board removed McGoldrick from her position for one month, suspended the newspaper’s adviser for two days without pay, and deducted $1,200 from the student newspaper’s budget.[ii]

           The Washington Post jumped on board with the Playwickian editors’ decision and banned the “insulting” word in the Washington Post’s opinion section.[iii] Although McGoldrick’s story has reached the national spotlight, a similar tale has been told before, in the Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Supreme Court decision.

           In this case, the Court held “that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.”[iv] The school principal at Hazelwood East High School censored two pages of the six-page student paper because of the subject of the articles—pregnancy and divorce.

          According to data from the Student Press Law Center (SPLC), the organization received 12 percent more calls for help from student journalists and advisers between 1988 and 1989 than in previous years.[v] The SPLC, a non-profit organization that advocates for the First Amendment rights of student journalists, was founded in 1974. The number of calls to the Center increased over 170 percent from 1989 to 1990. The SPLC reported, “almost all student journalists and advisers said that they attributed the censorship at least in part to the Hazelwood decision.”[vi]

           In response to calls for assistance, the SPLC launched a campaign in 2012 called “Cure Hazelwood” to push for states to establish anti-Hazelwood laws that support “public forum” (non subject to censorship) student publications.[vii] California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Colorado, and Kansas passed laws that counteract the Hazelwood decision in their respective states.[viii]

         Pennsylvania established certain regulations in their educational Code of Conduct (effective in 2006) that address student censorship issues. The actions of Neshaminy School District’s board likely violates the Code, according to Robert Hankes, the president of the Pennsylvania School Press Association.[ix] Under the Pennsylvania Code, “School officials shall supervise student newspapers published with school equipment, remove obscene or libelous material and edit other material that would cause a substantial disruption or interference with school activities.”[x]

            The Pennsylvania Code adheres to the Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) Supreme Court decision that gave students the freedom of expression on school grounds as long as the expression does not involve a “substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.”[xi] In Tinker, two high school students and one junior high school student were suspended from school for wearing black armbands that signified a protest of the Vietnam War. The Court decided that armbands are a form of “pure speech” and do not disrupt conduct on school grounds.

            The 5-3 Hazelwood decision came as a shock to student journalists and First Amendment advocacy organizations. Associate Justice William J. Brennan wrote in his dissenting Hazelwood opinion that the decision “chills student speech” because school officials can censor what they consider “sensitive.” Brennan explains, “[Moreover, the] State’s prerogative to dissolve the student newspaper entirely (or to limit its subject matter) no more entitles it to dictate which viewpoints students may express on its pages, than the State’s prerogative to close down the schoolhouse entitles it to prohibit the nondisruptive expression of antiwar sentiment within its gates.”[xii]

          The Hazelwood decision also applies to other student organizations, not solely publications. Any student involved in theatre could have his or her freedom of expression taken away because the school desires “standards that may be higher than those demanded by some newspaper publishers or theatrical producers in the ‘real’ world.”[xiii]

         Student journalists and actors do participate in the “real” world—who else other than students can have the inside scoop of the hallways in their high school or perform live productions for their peers? Students make up the “real” world because clearly, as we see in the Neshaminy situation, students impact the “real” world.

         The SPLC, Journalism Education Association, and Student Press Rights Commission sent an open letter in September encouraging the student editors of the Playwickian “to explore their legal options and urge the State of Pennsylvania to investigate whether the Neshaminy School Board members should be removed.”[xiv]

        McGoldrick will present at the 2014 Journalism Education Association/National Scholastic Press Association Fall National High School Journalism Convention in Washington, D.C., Nov. 6-9. The program offers over 250 sessions for the attendees to learn about First Amendment law, ethics, writing, editing, broadcasting, and more. Over 5,000 student journalists and advisers are expected to attend the convention.

Jenna Spoont is a writer for the GW PLSA Blog. She was a staff writer at the Student Press Law Center from May 2014 - August 2014

---

[i] Schiffbauer, Anna. "Playwickian Adviser, Student Editor Suspended for Defying Administrative Orders with Redskins Ban." Student Press Law Center. Student Press Law Center, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.splc.org/article/2014/09/playwickian-adviser-student-editor-suspended-for-redskins-ban>.

[ii] Reimold, Dan. "Redskins, Revenge, Censorship: The Ridiculous Mascot Fight at a Pennsylvania High School." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 09 Oct. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dan-reimold/redskins-revenge-censorsh_b_5958440.html>.

[iii] Editorial Board. "Washington Post Editorials Will No Longer Use 'Redskins' for the Local NFL Team." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 22 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014.

[iv] Lockhart, William B., Yale Kamisar, and Jesse H. Choper. Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, Questions. 11th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Pub., 1980. 1044. Print.

[v] "The Hazelwood Decision and Student Press | Scholastic.com." Scholastic Teachers. Student Press Law Center, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/hazelwood-decision-and-student-press>.

[vi] Ibid.

[vii] "SPLC." Cure Hazelwood. Student Press Law Center, 2012. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.splc.org/section/cure-hazelwood>.

[viii] "The Hazelwood Decision and Student Press | Scholastic.com." Scholastic Teachers. Student Press Law Center, n.d. Web. 26 Oct. 2014. <http://www.scholastic.com/teachers/article/hazelwood-decision-and-student-press>.

[ix] Spoont, Jenna. "Neshaminy School Board Passes New Policies Limiting Student Publications and School-related Social Media Rights." Student Press Law Center. Student Press Law Center, 27 June 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.splc.org/article/2014/06/neshaminy-school-board-passes-new-policies>.

[x] Students and Student Services, § 12 (2006). Print. The Pennsylvania Code

[xi] [xi] Lockhart, William B., Yale Kamisar, and Jesse H. Choper. Constitutional Law: Cases, Comments, Questions. 11th ed. St. Paul, MN: West Pub., 1980. 1039. Print.

[xii] Ibid., 1046.

[xiii] Ibid., 1044.

[xiv] "SPLC, JEA-SPRC Condemn Neshaminy School District For Punishing Newspaper Editor, Adviser in Ongoing Fight Over." "Redskins" Name. SPLC, JEA-SPRC, 17 Sept. 2014. Web. 28 Oct. 2014. <http://www.splc.org/article/2014/09/splc-jea-sprc-condemn-neshasminy-school-district>.

Constitutionality of Voter ID Laws

By Caitlin Barbas


             A recent Supreme Court decision to block the implementation of Wisconsin’s new Voter ID law has reignited debates over the constitutionality of Voter identification laws. Often seen as discriminatory and burdensome, these laws are aimed at preventing fraudulent voting activity. In order to analyze the current stance of voter ID laws as well as the legality of these laws, this paper will first examine the US Supreme Court’s decision on Wisconsin, the Federal Court overturn of the Texas Voter ID law, and the arguments in favor and against these laws. This examination will conclude with an analysis of possible the future outlooks and possible solutions for voter identification methods.

          The Supreme Court’s released no explanation of their decision regarding the Wisconsin Voter ID Law, raising questions as to whether the court found the law unconstitutional or if the timing of the implementation led to the block. In the explanation of his dissenting position, Justice Alito explained the Court’s concern over absentee ballots, which had been distributed prior to the decision to implement the Identification laws, and, therefore, did not include identification requirements on the instructions for voting.[1] Furthermore, critics of the law voiced concern that the short time-span between implementation of the law and the November elections would prevent large numbers of voters from obtaining identification before voting commences.[2] This strong emphasis on timing coupled with the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold stricter laws regarding Ohio and North Carolina voter ID policies has created confusion over the reason for the block of implementation. Did the Supreme Court find the laws unconstitutional or was the decision solely based on the time constraint?

         While the Wisconsin ruling allowed for questioning of the judicial intent, the Texas Voter ID law overturn clearly demonstrated the federal judge’s intent. Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos of the Southern District Court ruled that the law creates an “unconstitutional poll tax”[3] and has an “impermissibly discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans.”[4] Texas has vowed to appeal the ruling on the grounds that the law would be considered constitutional under a Supreme Court decision in June which overturned portions of the 1965 Voting Rights Act in the case Shelby County v. Holder.[5]

            Voter ID laws are often viewed as a political issue. Typically Republicans are supportive of the establishment of a law requiring identification to be presented when voting, while democrats are opposed to it.[6] The Wisconsin and Texas cases have been applauded by critics of Voter ID laws, who argue the laws discriminate against the elderly, the poor, and minorities, groups which are often Democrat supporters.[7] The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), one of the most prominent critics, states, “Voter ID laws have the potential to deny the right to vote to thousands of registered…. Many of these Americans cannot afford to pay for the required documents needed to secure a government-issued photo ID.”[8] Proponents argue that requirements to produce government issued identification will combat voter fraud.

             As the Supreme Court and Federal Courts take action in determining the constitutionality of Voter ID laws in various states, the future of these laws becomes increasingly unclear. While protection from fraudulent activity is necessary for an authentic ballot count, the forms of identification accepted by state governments should be reformed. State governments must provide clear information as to the identification process required, both for voting at the polls and voting through absentee ballots. States should allow a wider range of identification, therefore, creating easier access for voting and minimizing the burden[9] placed upon voters. Both proponents and critics of Voter ID laws must make compromises in order to ensure the voting process is effectively functioning and fair to all voters.

References 

[1] Barnes, Robert. "Supreme Court Blocks Wisconsin Voter ID Law." The Washington Post. N.p., 9 Oct.
2014. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. < http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law/2014/10/09/e52af8fe-4ff4-11e4-8c24-487e92bc997b_story.html>.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Kendall, Brent. "Voter Identification Laws Hit Roadblock in Wisconsin and Texas." The Wall Street Journal. N.p.,
10 Oct. 2014. Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://online.wsj.com/articles/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law-for-midterm-elections-1412905573>.
[4] Whitcomb, Dan. "Federal Judge Strikes Down Texas Law Requiring Voter ID at Polls." Reuters. N.p., 9 Oct. 2014.
Web. 11 Oct. 2014. <http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/10/us-usa-texas-voterid-idUSKCN0HZ04D20141010>.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Liptak, Adam. "Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws in Wisconsin and Texas." The New York Times. N.p., 9 Oct.
2014. Web. 10 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0>
[8] "Oppose Voter ID Legislation - Fact Sheet." American Civil Liberties Union. N.p., 21 July 2011. Web. 11 Oct. 2014.
<https://www.aclu.org/voting-rights/oppose-voter-id-legislation-fact-sheet>.
[9] Liptak, Adam. "Courts Strike Down Voter ID Laws in Wisconsin and Texas." The New York Times. N.p., 9 Oct. 2014.
Web. 10 Oct. 2014. <http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/10/us/politics/supreme-court-blocks-wisconsin-voter-id-law.html?_r=0>.