It seems ironic to me that your articles “Don’t Bring a Gun to a Flame War” and this one “Student Nazi at BHS” are effectively “bookends” to the question of freedom of speech and in the interests of gaining a better understanding would really appreciate your views on the following.

Your feeling of intimidation when the police chief responded to you directly regarding the proposed new badge was one reaction that some others might also take however I’m curious as to when that intimidation took hold. I note from Katie’s story that the Chief apparently identified himself as an after-thought at the end of the tweet (Sorry, its Chief del Pozo,”). No doubt the twitter handle @OneNorthAvenue would be a dead giveaway to a local yet my reading of his action in tacking on at the end who he was suggests an attempt to take the focus away from his position and instead just provide more conversational information. Guess that’s the problem with personal interpretation it doesn’t provide an iron clad right or wrong answer.

How intimidated would you feel if the message had come from a twitter handle “del Pozo”. Would you have then undertaken research to find out if this person was connected to the police? (Apols not being a local I do not know how common the surname is however since Burlington Vermont has a pop around 42,000 I am guessing a del Pozo/police association would be readily identifiable). So when can a law enforcement person comment on a private citizens public comment on his department – when are they “off duty”? You seem to suggest they can only comment indirectly via other forms of interaction which immediately means a disjointed conversation which relies on the reader viewing different sources. Clearly you yourself experienced the problems of disjointed communication when you commented “The post has been taken down, so the source of Jickling's information about it isn't clear….”

Taking a step back and looking at your latest article which includes comments “that kid” “this little Nazi” “scumbag Nazi” “sinister kid” and statement (threat?) “…pressure is going to be ratcheted up on all parties until this comes to a head.” How intimidating is that?

Apologies if you are upset at any of the above however these are genuine sentiments and I am trying to understand the irony which you appear to have presented.

Post script: When reviewing the Logun Huysman’s story I am across a tweet from swisherswett regarding it that said “Just a reminder to everyone, we were all 18 once. And we’ve all made bad decisions. Nobody’s perfect I sure as hell am not!”.

Seems an 18-year-old girl found passed out in a car with its engine still running who then abuses the helping hand offered by the police, pushes them into arresting her then claims sexual assault is deserving of forgiveness/understanding.

I wonder what swishersweet would tweet about a similarly aged kid using a nazi symbol as an avatar.

All the best.

 

Brady Toensing: Vermont's Republican provocateur
April McCullum, Free Press Staff Writer Published 6:00 a.m. ET July 10, 2017 | Updated 3:32 p.m. ET July 11, 2017

Spectators filled the Vermont Supreme Court last month as the state Attorney General's Office faced off against a familiar foe: Republican lawyer and avid public records wrangler Brady Toensing.

He wanted to see years' worth of emails from former Democratic Attorney General Bill Sorrell and his staff, including any messages involving Sen. Bernie Sanders or Jane Sanders, the Sanders presidential campaign, the Sanders office, or a lengthy list of lobbyists.

Sorrell's staff had declined to search his personal email account, citing privacy concerns. Toensing sued, with support from Vermont news media.

If the public records law does not touch personal accounts, Toensing argued with a flourish, "we should abandon any pretense of claiming to have an open government.”

Toensing, who is nationally known for demanding a federal investigation into Jane Sanders's financial dealings as president of Burlington College, has become adept at using the law to stir up Vermont politics.

The Supreme Court challenge was the latest in a string of high-profile cases involving Toensing, from public records requests about Vermont Health Connect, to corruption and campaign finance complaints against the attorney general, to a recent case involving the display of a Hindu swastika by a Burlington High School student.

 

School, student debate use of Hindu swastika
Nicole Higgins DeSmet, Free Press Staff Writer Published 6:43 p.m. ET June 30, 2017 | Updated 8:40 a.m. ET July 7, 2017

A student’s use of a Hindu swastika as his school email avatar has roiled some Burlington High School community members and prompted a prominent local lawyer to come to his defense.

"It's amazing we are still talking about this," parent Rich Nadworny said at a June 13 School Board meeting. The swastika, used by rising sophomore, Kolby LaMarche, was first mentioned in a December issue of the Burlington High School Register, the school newspaper. Nadworny said he communicated his concern to High School Principal Tracy Racicot about the image to no effect.

Brady Toensing, an attorney with offices in Charlotte and Washington, D.C., defended LaMarche in a December email to the student newspaper, according to documents obtained in a records request.

Toensing threatened litigation to student journalist Alexandre Silberman over the article that questioned LaMarche's use of the swastika.

"Inaction on your part will only compound your violation of defamation law and liability," Toensing wrote in the email.

The story also quoted LaMarche's remarks at a School Board meeting where LaMarche described himself as a "harassed" Trump supporter in a liberal environment rife with "bigotry and violence."

LaMarche ended his comments at the December board meeting with a quote from George Washington in 1783 in support of a free press, "The freedom of speech may be taken away — and, dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter."

Toensing, in his email, demanded an immediate retraction and apologies from Silberman and his faculty adviser:

"The school paper and its Facebook and Twitter posts are supervised and approved by the school. This evidence suggests that the published falsehoods are being used by the school administration in retaliation for a complaint ... ,"

Silberman confirmed on Thursday that he received the retraction letter over school break and that on Dec. 22, the story was removed from news stands and online platforms.

RELATED: Local student journalists push for press freedom

Toensing, vice-chairman of the Republican Party in Vermont and former co-chair of Donald Trump’s campaign in Vermont, did not comment Wednesday on his aid to LaMarche.

Family members, who vociferously defended LaMarche in Facebook posts, did not respond to email and Facebook requests for comment.
ADVERTISING

RELATED: Sanders says Burlington College claims are "an absolute lie"

Earlier this month, Toensing, who is familiar with First Amendment cases argued before the Vermont Supreme Court for access to government employees' private emails after the Attorney General's Office declined to ask state employees if they were using personal email accounts for state business...

 

First Amendment rights also protect the use of the controversial swastika symbol unless the district can prove it is used to vandalize property or threaten a person or group, Charles C. Haynes, vice president of the Newseum Institute's Religious Freedom Center, confirmed on Friday.

"For First Amendment purposes, it does not matter what the intentions are. Nor does the student's religious affiliation matter. The only grounds for censoring the use of the symbol would be if school officials can demonstrate that it has caused or is very likely to cause substantial disruption to the school (Tinker). Absent such evidence -- and that is a high bar -- the school may not censor the use of the symbol," Haynes wrote.

He cited a case at George Washington University to show that controversies over the swastika's use are ongoing.

“The Hindu swastika is thousands of years old and continues to be a symbol of well-being and good fortune for many cultures and many millions of people," LaMarche wrote in an email to the Register in May.

Mukti Jain Campion, a BBC producer who wrote "How the World Loved the Swastika - Until Hitler Stole It," agrees with this interpretation to a point.

"It was used by the Ancient Greeks, Celts, and Anglo-Saxons and some of the oldest examples have been found in Eastern Europe, from the Baltic to the Balkans," Campion wrote in her BBC piece. But she also wrote that it's nearly impossible for someone raised in western culture to see the symbol as benign because of its use in Nazi propaganda.

A Burlington community member who said his father survived Nazi prison camps in the Soviet Union and Europe sees the symbol LaMarche is using as "evil" and believes it must be retired.

"Under the banner of the swastika he was beaten, starved and subjected to horrendous conditions," Haik Bedrosian wrote on Thursday.

Students in June petitioned the Burlington School Board's Diversity and Equity Commitee to remove the image which has been in use since at least December on grounds that it violated the Student Handbook's "cyberimage policy" which reads:

"Inappropriate postings include, but are not exclusive to: [...] malicious or inflammatory language/images meant to humiliate or intimidate a student or school employee."

Speaking at a June 13 School Board meeting parent Karen Newman expressed concern that the administration appeared to be ignoring students' and parents' objections to the symbol.

"I was distressed about the administration’s reaction to my daughter's expression of concern, but I figured this is a great opportunity for learning. It’s very relevant for what’s going on in this country right now, you know. Antisemitism happens. It’s out there," Newman said.

The Burlington School District issued the following statement regarding inquiries from the community:

"The administration is aware of these voiced concerns and has been working to address them in an appropriate manner under the dual contexts of school policy and legal parameters from the date the concerns were raised."

District spokesman Erik Wells responded to questions sent to the School Board and school councilors. Wells wrote that a panel from the Board of Restorative Justice convened a mediation between students involved.

Regional Director Anti-Defamation League of New England Robert Trestan said the league has noted an uptick in antisemitism in schools and offered the district some advice on Friday.

"What's really important in all this is context and intent," Trestan said. "When symbols or language disrupt the learning environment, that's where restrictions are needed."

The league, in addition to offering to speak in schools, offers lessons for teachers to help students understand bias and create inclusive classrooms.

The issue remains unresolved.

Contact Nicole Higgins DeSmet at ndesmet@freepressmedia.com or 802-660-1845. Follow her on Twitter @NicoleHDeSmet.