Dealing with gang activity is certainly a priority in areas beset by gang violence, but does that mean we throw out certain First Amendment rights? Last year, Florida passed a new anti-gang law that banned using electronic communications "for the purpose of benefiting, promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang" and that included "advertis[ing] his or her presence in the community" via an online image or video. Apparently, authorities in Florida have now arrested 15 people under this law based on their MySpace profiles, including one 14-year-old who "posted pictures of himself dressed in gang colors and displaying gang hand signals." For this, all of those arrested now face up to 5 years in prison. Some are already protesting the constitutionality of this law. It certainly seems like a limit on free expression.

Even recognizing the problems with gang violence, it seems a bit extreme to arrest people and threaten them with jailtime just for posting such photos on their profiles. Why not use that information to track and monitor certain gang members to try to stop actual illegal gang activity? Here are kids advertising to anyone (including the police) that they're in a gang, which should make it easier for the police to follow them and use that info to deal with real gang activity.

There are an awful lot of problems with red light cameras -- starting with the fact that they don't actually decrease accidents or make the roads any safer. Most evidence suggests the only thing they're really good for is increasing the revenue for a city -- which is why a bunch of cities have broken the laws over the years and shortened the length of the yellow light to "catch" more red light runners -- while also actively ignoring any actual data around the cameras. Reader Gabriel Tane points us to a newly proposed law in Florida for red light cameras that, on top of everything else, would automatically fine the owner of the car even if he or she wasn't driving. It's difficult to see how this is reasonable... unless of course this law has nothing to do with making drivers safer, and is, instead, a way to raise extra money for a city.

The Agitator points us to quite a ridiculous story coming out of Florida. An incredibly law-abiding citizen almost got seriously punished for going above and beyond to live up to the law. Apparently he bought some things for personal use at a local hardware store -- and then noticed that the store forgot to charge him sales tax on the $23 bill. It was probably because the guy also works for an organization that is tax exempt, and the store just assumed he was buying on that account. Now, most people would think "cool" and move on. But, not this guy. He felt obliged to send in $1.50 and an explanation to Florida's Dept. of Revenue.

You would think that Florida would be thrilled to find such an incredibly honest person. Instead, it sent him an angry letter fining him $50 for failing to file a business tax return. He wrote back, explaining the situation again, noting that it wasn't a business, and he was just making up for the forgotten sales tax charge. The state's response? A demand for $650 in business taxes and a threat of criminal charges. It was only after a local TV news channel contacted the state on the guy's behalf that Florida admitted its mistake. Isn't bureaucracy great?

Last year, we pointed out that teachers are increasingly complaining that students are cyberbullying not each other... but the teachers themselves. Of course, in a lot of cases these seem overblown. Yet, that hasn't stopped some teachers from arguing that cyberbullying should be a criminal offense. Yet, when teachers overreact and consider just about any criticism "cyberbullying" you're going to run into problems. Take, for example, the case of Katherine Evans. As a high school student who didn't much like her English teacher, she created a Facebook group called "Ms. Sarah Phelps is the worst teacher I've ever met!" That doesn't seem like cyberbullying. That seems like garden variety student-bitching-about-teacher. Even worse, Evans' fellow students told her it was a stupid group, and expressed support for the teacher, such that Evans decided to take down the group herself

But, the school apparently felt this was a big problem, claiming that this was cyberbullying harassment and "disruptive behavior." It suspended Evans for three days and pulled her out of various advanced placement classes. Now, Evans is suing the school for violating her free speech rights. As the Wired article notes, there have been lawsuits about free speech in school in the past, but the internet makes the issues a bit different here. Either way, it's quite difficult to see how the school can claim that such a group is actually cyberbullying, and punishing the girl for venting hardly seems like a reasonable response (especially for an issue that was dealt with by other students in a reasonable manner). What is this world coming to when people can't take the slightest criticism and insist that it's somehow "cyberbullying" that requires punishment or discipline?

Remember the election mess in Palm Beach, Florida from last month? The one where votes seemed to be randomly disappearing, and each recount came up with different results? Originally the blame was put on the fact that different scanning machines from e-voting firm Sequoia, would somehow count the votes differently. That seemed scary enough, and Sequoia protested, insisting that it was all human error. However, when human errors happen every time the machines are used, it's time to suggest that the real problem is with the machines.

Wired is running a long, and somewhat scary, report about the ongoing situation in Palm Beach, where every time the votes are counted, a different vote count comes out. A test was set up by the local newspaper to scan a sampling of ballots, and every time the results of those tests were different -- sometimes in extreme ways. Quite often, the machines seemed to count perfectly marked ballots as invalid, while at other times it accepted votes from invalid ballots. In other words, the machines basically don't work. And we're relying on them in many areas for the election coming up in a month. Isn't that comforting?

It's been quite a while since we last wrote about Jack Thompson, the rather infamous lawyer who blames all sorts of violent crimes on video games and has repeatedly sued video game makers in an effort to shift blame from actual violent criminals to the makers of the video games they play. Thompson was also a regular guest on various TV news shows talking about video games and violence, where he would insist repeatedly (against plenty of evidence to the contrary) that video games cause people to kill. He was also famous for filing bogus lawsuits against critics and has been told by judges repeatedly that he needs to actually follow the law.

Well, it appears that all that may be over, as Jack Thompson has now been disbarred, effective 30 days from today. Of course, Thompson isn't one to let a little thing like being disbarred stop him. He's responded at length and is appealing the disbarment (even though he's not actually allowed to file the appeal -- he did so anyway). Still, all this makes you wonder if the various TV news shows that always had him on as a guest will (a) report on his disbarment or (b) still use him as a guest in future stories about video games and violence.

If you follow the various RIAA lawsuits, you'll notice the pattern. The RIAA bullies and bullies and bullies people, trying to get them to settle. They almost never want to go to court -- and if someone fights back -- especially to the point of filing countersuits, the RIAA looks to get out of the case as quickly as possible. Step one, of course, is trying to get the countersuits dismissed. Apparently, it tried to do that last year when a defendant in Tampa countersued the RIAA. The judge, however, wouldn't let the RIAA off the hook and refused to dismiss most of the counterclaims. Amazingly, in a very similar case in front of the same judge, with the defendant again countersuing -- the RIAA asked the court to dismiss the countersuits, claiming the earlier decision was in error. Generally speaking, it's probably not a great idea to tell the judge that a ruling he made a few months back in a nearly identical case was a mistake. After receiving the motion to dismiss the countersuit Tuesday evening, the judge turned it down first thing Wednesday morning. The judge's order itself is short and sweet, saying that the RIAA showed no evidence as to why the original ruling was incorrect and so it sees no reason to treat this countersuit any differently than the last one. Of course, just like last time, the RIAA doesn't want this to go to court, and will likely try to settle up as quickly as possible.

It's not just with red light cameras that local authorities are squeezing extra money out of drivers, Consumerist points us to the news that a judge in Florida has tossed out thousands of bogus toll citations, slamming both the Orlando-Orange County Expressway Authority and Florida Turnpike Authority for failing to deal with the fines properly. It appears that some of the fines resulted from malfunctioning toll transponders. The judge noted that this should have been easy for the traffic authorities to correct, but instead they made it a bureaucratic nightmare for those unfairly and incorrectly accused of running tolls. The judge has even gone so far as to bar the two Authorities from issuing any new citations to drivers who have prepaid or credit-card accounts -- to the point that he's instructed the court clerks in both places to refuse to accept any new citations without affidavits swearing that the offenders have no money in their accounts.

In the ongoing saga of the lost votes of Sarasota County Florida in the 2006 election, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has now come out with a report suggesting that the e- voting machines were not to blame. This comes after another report last year also said the machines weren't to blame. However, that report came under some criticism as it only involved security folks looking at the source code, rather than actually getting to test the software on an e-voting machine itself. Similarly, this new GAO report is coming under some criticism as both David Dill and Ed Felten are questioning the methodology of the GAO's tests -- which do sound rather limited. Felten points out that ES&S (makers of the machines used in Sarasota) are likely to proclaim this a vindication. However, there are still plenty of additional questions -- and, most importantly, the very fact that it's been so difficult to verify how the voting turned out shows just how problematic these machines can be in managing a democratic election that the populace can trust to be both fair and accurate.

E-voting firms aren't having a particularly good week. Just days after research commissioned by the state of California showed vulnerabilities in many e-voting systems, a study commissioned by the state of Florida found serious security issues with Diebold's optical scan technology. While the article suggests that this is one of the first times the security has been questioned on optical scan machines (where there is still a paper trail, but these machines are used for counting the votes), there have actually been numerous studies pointing out the problems with Diebold's optical scanners, and how they can easily be hacked. Of course, what's amusing here is that some of the first tests that found the problems with Diebold's optical scanners were done two years ago by a "rogue" elections official in Florida. Of course, back then, the state of Florida didn't launch an immediate investigation. The state hung the elections official, Ion Sancho, out to dry, as the e-voting companies cracked jokes about the vulnerability and teamed up to conspire against him. So, now, years later, we find out that the security vulnerabilities he pointed out then are actually there is anyone apologizing? Doesn't sound like it. In fact, it sounds like Florida politicians are downplaying the security problems with these machines.