When Johnny comes marching home

Attn: Education reporters, news desks

     Military recruiters are unwelcome on many college campuses, even triggering student protests that can turn violent on occasion and are usually with the tacit approval of school administrators and faculty.

     Now, some of those same schools are outfitting themselves in new clothes, laying out the welcome mat for military servicemembers who have served in Iraq and Afghanistan. The reason for the change of heart is explained in a single word: MONEY. Each veteran is eligible for as much as $80,000 worth of education benefits under a new G.I. Bill that was signed into law by President Bush on June 30.

     Under the new law, which doesn’t take effect until next August 1st, tuition payments will be paid directly to the colleges. This revives a policy that was part of the original G.I. Bill, the one that was approved by Congress in 1944 for returning World War II veterans. Too many fraudulent tuition bills submitted by greedy colleges, though, led Congress, in a 1952 revision that extended the law’s benefits to Korean War vets, to make payments to the veterans instead.

     Anyone who was serving in the military on or after September 11, 2001–the day the Global War on Terror began with a sneak terrorist attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon–is eligible for the new law’s benefits.

     “The absolute most important part of the new G.I. Bill is that none of it takes effect until next year. No one should make any definite plans until the details are worked out,” Rita Hughson, chief of education and training at Bolling AFB in Washington, D.C., said in an Air Force press release.

     Benefits include tuition at a public or private college (the amount will be limited to the highest cost of a bachelor’s degree program at a state-supported school), housing (at the rate paid for a staff sergeant with dependents), up to $1,000 a year for books and supplies, up to $100 per month for tutoring, and up to $2,000 to pay for one license or certification test.

     California colleges, usually a hotbed of anti-military activity, are gearing up to make themselves more attractive to veterans. Admissions officers, reports the San Jose Mercury News, are promising to give extra attention to applications from veterans; and, school administrators are promising to give priority class assignments to veterans in the same way they now give preferences to campus athletes and handicapped students.

The Internet: It’s sacred ground for free speech

Attn: Editorial page editors

     A decision handed down last week by a federal appeals court in Philadelphia ought to confirm–once and for all–that the Internet is First Amendment-protected territory where everyone is entitled to the same speech and press freedoms that are the hallmark of American democracy.

     A three-judge panel in the U.S. 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals, affirming last year’s decision by U.S. District Judge Lowell A. Reed Jr., struck down the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (COPA) as an invalid government restriction of First Amendment rights (ACLU v. Mukasey).

     In his decision to strike down the law, Judge Reed wrote: “Perhaps we do the minors of this country harm if First Amendment protections, which they will with age inherit, are chipped away in the name of their protection.”

     The lawsuit was brought by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of several Internet advocacy groups and website operators who complained that the law imposed content-based restrictions on their protected speech.

     It was the second time that a congressional attempt to protect children from sexually explicit websites has failed to survive constitutional scrutiny. An earlier version, the 1996 Communications Decency Act, met the same fate in the U.S. Supreme Court (Reno v. ACLU, 1997). Importantly, the Reno court affirmed that free speech and press principles applied to the Internet. Thus, the threshold issue of the First Amendment’s application to COPA was not an arguable matter. What was arguable, though, was whether Congress’s attempt to brush aside the Reno decision by writing a second version was just as unconstitutional as the first one.

     The decision from the Philadelphia appeals court, written by Senior Judge Morton Greenberg, is a lengthy and highly detailed exposition of the “strict scrutiny” standard which courts apply to First Amendment disputes. Courts have determined that the amendment’s “Congress shall make no law” clause is not absolute, and there can be restrictions if they are narrowly tailored to meet a compelling government interest.

     Judge Greenberg agreed that the government had a valid interest; namely, the prevention of minors from being exposed to harmful material on the Web. But he concluded that the law was not narrowly tailored to achieve that purpose, particularly if there are more efficient and less intrusive methods available such as filtering devices that can block webpages from being displayed on a computer monitor.

     At the Washington-based Center for Democracy & Technology, an advocacy group that filed an amicus brief, General Counsel John Morris said in a press release: “Thoughout the history of legal challenges to COPA, we have argued that the most effective way to protect children online, and the means least restrictive of free expression, is to give families the resources to control what their children see and do online. This empowers parents, respects the First Amendment, and acknowledges the diverse sensibilities of American families.”

     As of today (July 30), there has been no announcement from the U.S. Department of Justice as to whether the appeals court decision will be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. If it does, the Bush Administration will be contesting a legal dispute that began in the Clinton Administration that won’t be finally resolved until the next administration.

–EZ